by Florian Kemmerich, MSc, Co-Founder & Managing Partner at Human Planet
For much of the past decade, impact itself was often sufficient to attract funding. If a project could demonstrate clear social or environmental outcomes, capital would usually follow. That assumption no longer holds.
In 2026, impact remains essential, but it is no longer decisive. Investors across development finance, philanthropy, family offices, and private markets are no longer asking whether a project does good. They are asking how it manages risk, how capital is structured, and whether the organization behind it is credible as a long term counterparty.
This shift is not philosophical. It is structural.
From an investor perspective, impact is not the investment thesis. It is one component of value creation. Capital is deployed when impact is embedded within a coherent proposition that addresses risk allocation, governance, incentives, and execution capacity. Projects that fail to do so struggle to mobilise capital regardless of how compelling their mission may be.
One of the most persistent misunderstandings in the social sector is the belief that capital mobilisation is an extension of fundraising. It is not. Fundraising is often relationship driven and episodic. Capital mobilisation is a discipline. It requires financial logic, operational clarity, and a clear understanding of how different types of capital behave.
Investors today expect a defined financing instrument rather than an open ended funding request. They expect clarity on how funds flow, what performance looks like, and what happens when things do not go according to plan. They expect governance structures that protect both capital and mission. Above all, they expect teams that understand capital markets as well as they understand impact.
This is where many high impact projects fall short. Not because their objectives lack merit, but because their propositions lack structure.
Structure has become one of the clearest signals of seriousness in the impact market. Blended finance mechanisms, results based approaches, guarantees, and impact linked instruments are no longer experimental tools. They are indicators that a project understands risk and alignment. They show that concessional capital is being used strategically rather than as a substitute for weak economics. They demonstrate that impact and financial performance are managed together rather than in parallel.
Well structured projects create confidence. They make it clear who absorbs which risks, how incentives are aligned, and how scale can be achieved without eroding mission. This is what allows capital to move beyond pilots and into systems level deployment.
A quiet divide is emerging across the impact ecosystem. On one side are organisations that continue to lead primarily with impact, hoping capital will adapt. On the other are those that treat capital mobilisation as a core capability, investing in financial modelling, governance, and investor readiness as deliberately as they invest in program design.
The gap between these two approaches is widening.
Those that adapt will access deeper and more diversified pools of capital. Those that do not will face increasing volatility and dependence on short term funding cycles, regardless of the strength of their impact.
None of this suggests that impact matters less. In reality, it matters more than ever. Capital markets are showing a growing appetite to engage with complex social and environmental challenges. But they are doing so on the condition that impact is delivered through credible, investable, and disciplined structures.
Good intentions may open conversations. Disciplined capital mobilisation is what turns them into lasting partnerships. “Impact lives, share profits!”
The report can be found at: https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/documents/files/document_library/Publications/Reports/2023/1061234/Rep ort%20on%20merged%20AT1%20and%20MREL.pdf. 19 Campbell (1996) characterized public planning as a conflict between economic growth, environmental protection, and social justice. For discussion of the trade-offs, synergies and contradictions related to the SDGs, see Nilsson et al. (2016), Fuso Nerini et al. (2018), and Hickel (2019). For an analysis of how conflicting goals, for example between growth and environmental protection, are handled by local authorities in practice, see Oseland and Haarstad (2022).
