making mistakes and rebuilding, offers an important philosophy to shape Japan’s Impact Economy and IMM (Impact Measurement and Management). Those who have taken Oxford Impact Investing executive education courses know—time is spent talking about deals gone wrong when tackling the world’s toughest challenges. Through transparency about missteps, our goal is to shift perceptions of mistakes from failure surrounded by shame and silence to a paradigm that embraces the beauty of imperfection and recognizes and celebrates the value of mistakes and proverbial breaks to support ongoing learning and iteration. This case examines areas of challenges in the current Impact Economy ecosystem. Specifically, not having a clear definition of impact and ways to measure it and not including beneficiaries and Nonprofit Organizations (NPO) in the Impact Economy decision making. Nanako Kudo, member of SIIF Executive Committee, in particular calls out these gaps and underscores the need to have NPOs involved in defining and measuring impact going forward. 2 She is not alone. Even though Japan’s Federal Service Administration (FSA) has promulgated Impact Investing guidelines for measuring impact through a theory of change and understanding negative and positive impact—virtually everyone person with whom we spoke had difficulty defining impact. This case examines several factors: n Why defining impact in Japan is difficult—including the concept of Lost in Translation. n Why, who, and how impact is defined matters: Why diverse disciplines and perspectives are important, particularly the voice of community in the impact investment process. n How Japan’s Impact Economy Ecosystem can be more inclusive. What can be learned from impact investments lead by NPOs globally?
165
Ten Years in the Making
Powered by FlippingBook