Lessons Learned When looking back at what worked in the IMM process, the SIIF team identified three key areas: 35 n Government collaboration and endorsement was crucial in promoting impact investing and IMM in Japan. n Introducing global practices lent IMM credibility and practicality. n Catalyzing peer learning communities was key for continuous knowledge sharing and development. As the team reflected on their experiences, they acknowledged a critical insight: while they emphasized the importance of understanding the “why” and “what” before diving into the “how” when introducing IMM to Japanese stakeholders, the impact investing community tended to focus more on the “how.” Although investors made progress in adopting general IMM methodologies, they did not develop a deep understanding of specific social issues and the end beneficiaries. This misstep stemmed from a fundamental issue, where the focus was on “changing finance rather than financing change,” as Sugeno put it. 36 She elaborated, “To promote impact investing, SIIF focused on launching Japan’s first impact investing projects. In the early years, we set specific impact goals for our funds and direct investments but lacked organizational focus on impact areas.” 37 Sugeno pointed out that GSG Impact JAPAN and other platforms failed to sufficiently focus on areas of social need. “Without clearly defined impact areas, we didn’t engage non-profit organizations or academia—groups with deep expertise in specific social impact—on those platforms.” 38 The team also learned that simply involving end beneficiaries was not enough, stating, “We didn’t provide effective, practical examples that other investors could replicate.” 39 Finally, they recognized that conventional IMM practices, which typically focus on beneficiaries’ individual outcomes, often lack a systems lens. Without this perspective, it’s difficult to understand whether systemic change is occurring.
81
Ten Years in the Making
Powered by FlippingBook