The webinar featured Chloé Evans (Idealist Capital), Ana Pimenta (Blink Impact), and Quentin Winisdoerffer (Action Against Hunger). Each brought a distinct view on impact investing from the GP, LP and NGO perspectives, yet all face similar pressures as expectations rise around transparency and the measurability of impact outcomes. Their experiences highlighted a shared reality: the sector is moving ahead quickly, but the tools and definitions used to report progress often lag behind – particularly across impact investing strategies.
From the outset, speakers acknowledged that the market offers no single impact investing approach that suits all needs. As moderator Corneill Spaapen noted, “More than 90% of investors struggle to work across fragmented measurement frameworks, and many still have concerns about the quality of the information they receive.” Cost and time pressures add further strain, especially where reporting expectations differ across regions, fund types, and private equity structures.
Building a framework that can adapt
Chloé outlined Idealist Capital’s experience of creating an impact method from the ground up. “We had the advantage of a clean slate, but that also meant we had to think carefully about what would be useful for founders and for our own reporting.”
Their approach focuses on flexibility and day-to-day usefulness. Avoided emissions and a carbon impact ratio play a central role, but only where they support practical decision-making and feasible impact measurement over time.
“We are a small team, so everyone is involved. The method has to make sense for investment work and for portfolio discussions,” she explained.
This emphasis on clarity is also reflected in how Idealist communicates with companies: sustainability is introduced early, built into closing conditions, and paired with clear annual expectations – a model increasingly common across ESG and impact investing strategies.
Selecting information that matters
Blink Impact, as Ana described, faces a different set of challenges. The family office invests across funds, direct projects, and grants, often in early-stage or emerging-market settings. “Our goal is to use impact information to make decisions. That means keeping it simple and choosing two or three goals that genuinely reflect change,” she said.
Ana also highlighted the value of joint planning: “We set the goals together. It helps managers focus and it gives the family clarity on what success should look like.”
For Blink, this approach strengthens partnerships and avoids collecting data that adds little insight – a reminder that impact investing solutions only work when they are decision-led rather than compliance-driven.
Accountability and the role of standards
Quentin brought the perspective of a humanitarian group working in 40 countries. “Collecting information can cost between 20 and 50 dollars per person interviewed, so we have to be careful about what we ask for,” he noted.
For Action Against Hunger, credibility depends on accepted standards rather than bespoke indicators. Academic fields define the measures; institutions apply them.
He also reframed the conversation around accountability: “Transparency is one part of accountability, but it is not the whole. Without participation, independent review, and working feedback channels, information alone cannot build trust.”
This perspective is especially relevant as social impact investing and private-market strategies face growing expectations to show how impact claims are supported, tested, and communicated.
Moving forward together
A shared theme ran across the discussion: impact information matters only when it helps investors and companies act with confidence. Perfection is unrealistic. Gaps will appear and conditions will change, but openness around limitations remains valuable. As Ana put it, “We would rather talk about a difficulty than ignore it. The aim is to learn and to help partners strengthen their own approach.”
Key takeaways
- Impact measurement works best when it is practical: teams must choose metrics they can track with the time and tools they have.
- Standards matter: the panel agreed that credible reporting depends on established methods rather than home-made indicators.
- Clarity beats volume: a handful of meaningful impact metrics can drive stronger decisions than long lists of indicators.
- Impact reporting is a shared effort: fund managers, family offices, and humanitarian groups face different constraints but are tackling the same questions across the impact investing landscape.
Watch the full webinar on demand
Complete the form to view the full conversation and see how three different fields are dealing with rising expectations around impact data, transparency, and reliable impact claims.
