Something uncomfortable is circulating in impact investing circles. Not a market shock. Not a scandal. Just one insider, writing plainly about what he has watched the sector become, and calling it the Impact Mafia. The reaction told its own story.

The Impact Mafia. The Article That Went Viral

A few months ago, a LinkedIn article by Robert Rubinstein, founder of TBLI and one of the oldest networks in responsible investing, generated over 1,000 reactions and 600 comments.

The title was “The Impact Mafia: how the elite invented a way to feel good while doing nothing”.

The premise was blunt: impact investing, as widely practised, is an elaborate performance of caring rather than a genuine mechanism for directing capital to where it is needed. The piece is an adaptation from his upcoming book, Radical Truth. It reads like a polemic.

There are $5,000 suits, private jets with carbon offsets that offset nothing, novelty scissors at ribbon cuttings, and a glossary of jargon Rubinstein calls “Impactese,” a dialect designed to sound impressive while meaning nothing. The tone is satirical. But satire lands when recognition lands with it. The discomfort in those six hundred comments was not the discomfort of being attacked from the outside.

It was the discomfort of recognition.

I have spent the better part of twenty years working in the humanitarian, development and impact sector. I have been in those conference rooms. I have sat on those panels. I know the jargon. Rubinstein’s critique touches a nerve.

A Tradition Worth Naming

This kind of intervention is not new, and it is not accidental.

John Perkins wrote Confessions of an Economic Hit Man from inside the development finance world, the world of structural adjustment, infrastructure lending, and sovereign debt. Hugh Sinclair wrote Confessions of a Microfinance Heretic from inside the microfinance sector, documenting how an industry built around poverty alleviation had quietly drifted toward extraction. Tariq Fancy, as I covered in an earlier piece here on SYA, walked out of BlackRock’s sustainable investing division and spent forty pages explaining why the entire ESG apparatus was a dangerous placebo.

None of these were outsiders throwing stones. All of them had spent years doing the work, believing in it, and watching something go wrong. An outsider can describe a problem. An insider can name the mechanism.

Alongside the whistleblowers, there is a related and distinct tradition: the rigorous corrective. Experts who step back from the enthusiasm of the moment and demand evidence.

Esther Duflo won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2019 for her experimental approach to alleviating global poverty. As early as 2009, in an interview with the New Yorker, she made a point that has stayed with me: development policy jumps from one fad to the next, cycling through enthusiasm, disappointment, and only later, evidence. Programmes go out of fashion before we even understand whether they worked. The result is not cumulative knowledge. It is institutional amnesia. The large dams model was one fad. The school-building model was another. Microfinance was a third. Each arrived with the certainty of a silver bullet. Each, eventually, required a reckoning with what the evidence actually showed. (The 4-minute video interview is worth it: Duflo at the New Yorker, 2009).

Impact investing is not immune to that cycle. The language changes. The certitude does not.

Rubinstein’s piece belongs in that tradition. This does not make every charge correct. But it means the charges deserve a serious answer rather than a defensive one. Sectors that cannot tolerate expert dissent from within tend to be the ones that need it most.

The Sharpest Charges Agaist Impact Mafia

Strip away the satire, and the article’s substantive claims reduce to half a dozen observations worth taking seriously.

The first is what Rubinstein calls the Mexican standoff on capital. Everyone in an impact network wants to invest after someone else goes first.

Entrepreneurs with genuine solutions do endless roadshows, pitching the same forty investors, each of whom requires prior validation from the others before committing. The result is a self-reinforcing loop where no one deploys capital and everyone blames the ecosystem for not being ready. Meanwhile, the entrepreneur has spent six months fundraising rather than building.

The second is the conference industrial complex. The sector has built more infrastructure around talking about impact investing than around actually doing it. Panels on mobilising capital. Panels on why previous panels have not led to action. The same people, saying the same things, year after year, at venues that cost more per head than most of their investees earn in a month. The content is not the point. The feeling of belonging to something important is the point.

The third is the metrics mirage. Elaborate impact reports, glossy enough to rival fashion magazines, built on numbers that count outputs rather than outcomes, assumptions stacked on assumptions, and a systematic avoidance of negative results. Impact measurement has become a tool for reassurance rather than accountability.

The fourth is pilot project purgatory. Rather than making substantive commitments to proven approaches, the sector endlessly funds small pilots, too small to test anything meaningfully, but excellent for marketing. When the pilot does not transform into a self-sustaining enterprise in six months, the investor shrugs and moves on to the next idea. The social entrepreneur becomes a professional pilot manager rather than a changemaker. I wrote about the structural character this produces in an earlier piece: the grantpreneur, an entrepreneur who becomes, consciously or not, better at navigating the funding environment than at building a viable enterprise. The conditions that produce them are designed into the system, not accidental.

The fifth is the asset owner’s quandary. The asset owners at the top of the pyramid want the social credibility of being seen as impact investors while keeping 99% of their capital in the same structures that produced the problems they claim to be solving. One per cent of the portfolio does the talking. The rest does the actual work.

The sixth, and this is the one that cuts deepest, is that the system rewards performance over substance. Good ratings attract investment. Bad results can simply go unreported. Call it survival bias: you only see what survived, never what failed quietly. The big fish story, told by the fisherman. Everyone in the funding chain benefits. The communities whose responses generated the data are not represented.

My Read, From the Field

I want to be honest about both sides of this.

Rubinstein’s critique, taken literally, leads somewhere uncomfortable. It implies that the entire apparatus of impact investing is captured by self-interest and vanity. That flattens important distinctions. The sector is not monolithic. There are practitioners, often the quieter ones, rarely on the conference stage, who spend their time in the field, who build long-term relationships with the communities they work in, and who accept returns that reflect the real cost of operating in difficult markets.

They do not tend to make good panel guests. That is partly the point.

The real structural problem is not that bad actors exist. Every sector has those. It is that the system rewards visibility over effectiveness. The fund that publishes the glossiest impact report attracts the next round of capital. The one that publishes an honest account of a failed intervention, what went wrong and what was learned, does not. There is no market for intellectual honesty in impact measurement, because the buyers of impact measurement are also the sellers of the impact story.

This is not a character problem. It is a system design problem.

The Measurement Problem, Again

Rubinstein calls it the metrics mirage. Tariq Fancy, former head of sustainable investing at BlackRock, called ESG a dangerous placebo. In my earlier article on The Impact Monitoring Dilemma, I examined a specific case: the methodology sold by 60 Decibels, a commercial impact measurement firm, and the structural conflicts built into its business model. Three angles, one dilemma.

The overlap is not coincidental. All three critiques point to the same root problem: the people commissioning impact measurement are also the people whose capital allocation depends on a positive result. They need to report good stories to shareholders, investors, or taxpayers. You do not need to assume bad faith for this to produce bad outcomes. You just need to assume that everyone responds to incentives, which happens to be the sector’s own founding assumption.

The Tariq Fancy piece is worth re-reading, or listening to here,  alongside Rubinstein’s. Fancy’s argument was specifically about ESG investing in public markets, that it functions more as a marketing category than a genuine allocation mechanism for sustainability outcomes. The overlap with impact investing in private markets is more than stylistic. Both share the same flaw: the standard of evidence required to make a claim is far lower than the confidence with which the claim is made.

Professor Aswath Damodaran, whose sceptical read on ESG I covered in A Sceptical Look at ESG Investing, put it more simply: the goodness gravy train keeps rolling because it serves too many interests for anyone to stop it.

The Structural Trap

The stakes here are higher than they might appear. In development finance, impact is not a footnote to the financial return. It is the reason the transaction exists at all. Donors accept concessional terms because the impact justifies the subsidy. Commercial investors accept below-market returns because the impact justifies the trade-off. The entire logic of blended finance rests on impact being real, measurable, and honestly reported.

If the impact measurement is not credible, both positions become indefensible. A positive financial return without demonstrated impact raises the question of why public or philanthropic money was involved in the first place. A negative financial return without demonstrated impact is simply a loss. This is not a peripheral issue. It is the load-bearing wall.

I keep coming back to a line from Peter Bernstein’s Against the Gods, because it applies here with unusual force:

“The Commanding General is well aware that the forecasts are no good. However, he needs them for planning purposes.” — Peter L. Bernstein, Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk

Everyone in the chain knows the numbers are approximate. But any number, however large, provides the appearance of accountability. It gives donors something to show funders. It gives funds something to report to investors. The demand for it persists, regardless of what it actually measures.

The result is a market for credible impact measurement that is not consistently producing credible impact measurement. Nobody upstream is strongly motivated to change that, because the current arrangement suits almost everyone except the people at the end of the chain.

What This Means If You Are Not a Family Office

Most SYA readers are not sitting in a family office deciding between catalytic capital and first-loss tranches. So what does any of this mean for someone in Oslo, Lagos, or Singapore, thinking about whether an impact product belongs in their portfolio?

A few things worth keeping in mind.

Treat impact claims the way you treat any investment claim. Ask for the evidence. Not the glossy report, the underlying data. Who collected it? Who commissioned it? What were the limitations? Did the firm publish results that reflected badly on its portfolio, or only results that helped the next fundraise? 

Be honest about the return trade-off. Some world-changing ideas will generate market-rate returns. Many will not, at least not at the stage where capital is most needed. The sector’s insistence that impact and returns are always aligned is a marketing position, not an evidence-based one. If you are putting money in with a below-market expectation because the impact matters to you, that is a legitimate and honourable choice. Call it what it is.

Pay attention to who is quietly doing the work. The loudest voices in any sector are rarely the most effective ones. The fund managers who spend their time in the field rather than on panels. The family offices are making investments in local communities without press releases. The practitioners who publish failure reports alongside success stories. Those are the signals worth tracking.

Rubinstein ends his article with a provocation: stop calling yourself an impact investor until the capital is deployed at a scale that matches the problems at hand. It is a fair challenge. The language has outrun the action by some distance.

The solution is not cynicism. The solution is rigour. Measuring impact matters. It is the only honest way to know whether the money is going where it should. The question, as I argued in the monitoring dilemma piece, is how we do it without fooling ourselves, and without selling approximations as certainties.

The sector is not beyond reform. But reform requires someone to go first. And that, as Rubinstein points out, is the problem no one has solved yet.

One last note, and a personal one. I have spoken with practitioners, some of them interviewed by journalists from publications like The Economist, reporting on funding flows in fragile regions, who were deliberately conservative in voicing criticism. Even well-founded criticism. Even privately. Not out of cowardice. Out of a genuine fear that honest dissent, however well-intentioned, could jeopardise the funding that was actually reaching beneficiaries on the ground. That is the sharpest edge of this dilemma. The people best placed to speak are sometimes the ones with the most to lose by doing so. And the people with the least to lose are rarely the ones closest to the work.

There is something worse than a sector that does not reform. It is a market panic triggered by the wrong kind of noise — criticism that is loud enough to spook funders but not precise enough to change behaviour. Capital is skittish.

When confidence collapses indiscriminately, it is rarely the bad actors who suffer first. It is the programmes actually reaching people. The dirty water and the baby go together. 

And then the industry starts looking for and producing the next fad!

Keep it real. Sweat Your Assets. — Alessandro

Thanks for reading. Browse the full article archive, catch past episodes on Spotify and Apple Podcasts, watch more on YouTube, and if you want it delivered straight to your inbox, the monthly newsletter is one click away: subscribe here.