I recently sat on a panel in Bilbao with a mix of impact-investing veterans, newcomers, and some of Europe’s most influential movers and shakers. It was a reminder of how far we’ve come as an industry — and how much work still lies ahead.
When I talk about impact on a panel, I’ve learned that shifting from abstract theories to highlighting real companies that transform industries for the better does more than convince minds — it moves hearts. These stories are why we became impact investors and entrepreneurs in the first place.
But I’ve noticed something: Our stories are increasingly skewed.
The climate crisis dominates. We’re fighting to stay below 1.5 degrees, scaling carbon capture, and pouring billions into green solutions. Many now believe this has always been the core of impact investing.
But that’s not the full story.
At Ananda, we got started before “impact investing” had a name. And believe it or not, we didn’t put the planet first (is history repeating itself?). Back then, the first cleantech bubble had burst, and the sector faced serious setbacks. Instead, many of us focused on people — — turning neurodiversity into a superpower (Auticon), making childcare more affordable (Kinderzentren), and expanding access to psychotherapy (IESO Digital Health).
Fast forward 15 years, and the numbers tell a stark story:
- ClimateTech (SDG 7 & SDG 13) raised $348B from 2019 to 2024
- Good Health and Wellbeing (SDG 3) raised just $21B — 16 times less than climate
- Social Equality (SDG 1, 5 & 10) raised $12B — 29 times less than climate
- Quality Education (SDG 4) raised only $2B — 174 times less than climate
The funding gap is staggering. And it’s not because we care 16, 29, or 174 times less about these issues. It’s because many investors perceive climate as a clearer path to returns.
A False Dichotomy
Here’s my concern: We’re oversimplifying the world. Impact investing isn’t a choice between “People” and “Planet.” They are deeply interconnected.
How can we accelerate climate action without proper education? How can we fight for biodiversity without protecting the livelihoods of those who rely on it? If a company like OroraTech prevents forest fires, isn’t that helping people, not just the planet?
Yet , investors keep asking: “How much People vs. how much Planet are you investing in?”
The real question should be: What’s the impact we want to achieve, and how do we get there?
We need to break out of silos. Climate solutions cannot scale without human capital, social stability, and economic inclusion. Investing in people isn’t a distraction from planetary impact — it’s a prerequisite.
The Power of Intentionality
I’m advocating for a systemic approach.
- What’s your fund’s theory of change?
- What do you want to achieve?
- How do you plan to tackle these issues at scale?
We need more intentionality. Let’s start with the problem first and find entrepreneurs who love solving it as much as we do. If they succeed, they’ll likely build a unicorn business anyway.
I know this goes against what I’d call “impact opportunistic” investing — where if it fits the risk/return profile and can be labelled as impact, it’s in. But without intentionality, we can’t move mountains. And that intentionality is the heart of entrepreneurship.
The Case for Balance
I’m not saying saving a ton of carbon is better than creating a job for someone with autism. I’m just pointing out that we need balance.
We haven’t solved the poverty premium issue or sufficiently tackled job creation for vulnerable people in the UK and Europe. We still lack enough entrepreneurial solutions for inclusion and diversity. Where are the bold investors who will take on these challenges? Who will go the extra mile to create real breakthroughs?
Some impact funds have quietly reduced or dropped their social allocations under investor pressure. That’s troubling.
At Ananda, we’re not budging. We remain a generalist fund because we believe true impact requires balance. We invest in both systemic change and human well-being — because they are one and the same.
Impact investing was born out of a sense of inequality, unfairness, and the belief that entrepreneurship and capital could fix it. Let’s not lose sight of that.
A Call to Action
So here’s my challenge:
Raise your next fund or your next start-up funding round with investors who genuinely care about impact. Don’t follow trends. Don’t let the numbers dictate your convictions. Stay real.
Impact investing deserves nothing less.
And a huge thanks to Uli Grabenwarter for opening this debate and challenging us to think deeper. We also need bold players like Better Society Capital to step up and bring marginalised groups into the center of attention of impact investors.
Who else is ready to take on these challenges?