Towards an Impact Performance Measurement Approach for Impact Investing: Results from a Benchmarking Study for Credit Finance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis pioneering research addresses a critical conceptual gap in impact investing: the challenge of transitioning from mere "reporting" to genuine "performance measurement." It makes a significant contribution to improving the efficiency of capital allocation toward achieving the SDGs. The proposal of five evaluation criteria and their empirical validation through a systematic benchmark of 84 indicators represent particularly important achievements that advance both theory and practice in this field.
I believe that addressing the following points will further enhance the academic rigor and practical utility of this research, resulting in a more impactful paper.
1. On the Transparency of the Evaluation Process
Regarding the evaluation methodology for the 84 indicators described around lines 412-419 in Section 2, providing additional detail would enhance the reproducibility of this study. In addition to the current description, it would be helpful if you could supplement your explanation of the assessment criteria for each of the five standards, particularly for those subject to interpretive variation such as "feasibility," by clarifying the rationale underlying your evaluation.
Furthermore, concerning the independent evaluations by the five assessors, if possible, adding an inter-rater reliability metric (such as a Kappa coefficient) would more clearly demonstrate the objectivity of the analysis.
2. Discussion of the Detrending Method
While the detrending method proposed around lines 543-549 in Section 4 represents a practical and robust approach, additional discussion regarding its scope of application would be beneficial. For instance, incorporating the authors' perspectives on its application during periods of significant economic transition (e.g., financial crises or regulatory changes) and the impact of data period selection on results would provide valuable guidance for practitioners implementing this method.
Given the inherent challenges in establishing a perfect counterfactual, further elaboration on why this approach remains practically valuable would strengthen the argument.
3. Regarding the Section Numbering
It appears that Section 2.3 is used twice on pages 6-8. I believe that renumbering the second instance, "Identifying Key Impact Metrics Used in the Credit Finance Sector," to Section 2.4 would make the structure clearer.
Author Response
Please see attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear colleagues,
The paper "Towards an Impact Performance Measurement Approach for Impact Investing: Results from a Benchmarking Study for Credit Finance" has the potential to fill in the gap in the literature on impact investing. It is an original research paper, it is logically structured and well argued, and it has several strengths. The authors should include in the final part comments on these strengths, including originality, but also limitations.
Starting from the title, I recommend using instead of "impact investing" the term "ESG investing" or "SDG investing", as "impact investing" and each of the two mentioned terms can be used interchangeably. It is necessary to develop the part regarding ESG and the need for such an analysis.
I would start from the literature on impact investment, where important papers have not been mentioned in this research:
Agrawal, A., & Hockerts, K. (2021). Impact Investing: Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 33(2), 153-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2018.1551457
Clarkin, John E. and L. Cangioni, Carole. "Impact Investing: A Primer and Review of the Literature " Entrepreneurship Research Journal, vol. 6, no. 2, 2016, pp. 135-173. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2014-0011
Second, by estimating the evolution of the impact investing market, it is useful to resort to CAGR. It is also worthwhile to show in several sentences that over the past two decades, impact investing "has evolved from a niche concept to a movement", and the term "impact investing" was formally coined in 2007 at a gathering hosted by the Rockefeller Foundation. https://caia.org/blog/2025/05/19/evolution-impact-investing-aligning-financial-returns-positive-change. In other words, the relevance of the topic should be emphasized, especially as the authors mention that "We noted that there is a scarcity of academic papers directly discussing impact metrics and indicators".
Third, instead of "parsimonious", it is better to resort to a "synthetic" impact performance measurement approach, based on availability, relevance, rigorousness, comparability, and credibility of the data and methods employed. The term parsimonious, per se is accompanied by a negative connotation (something limited). Perhaps it is more suitable to use the wording selected set of criteria (instead of parsimonious set of criteria).
2.4. instead of 2.3. Identifying Key Impact Metrics Used in the Credit Finance Sector
The section on Results is too brief.
The following enumeration should be introduced in a Box: The metrics were generated/used by the following investors/impact measurement systems: HIPSO, IRIS+, DFC, FMO, OSIRIS, Omnivore Capital Management Advisors Private Limited, Grofin, BMO, BTG Pactual, EDFI, Good Harvest Ventures Management Sarl, Blue like an Orange Capital, CAF, Calvert, AXA, Incofin. The KPIs were drawn from DFC, MIGA, IDB Invest, Brookfield, FMO, EIB, Grofin, BMO Financial, BTG Pactual, Good Harvest Ventures Management Sarl, Benham Capital, Blue Like an Orange Capital, BentallGreenOak, STOA, Prudential Financial Inc., Impact Investments Group, BlackRock, UBS, DEG, British International Investment, OeEB, Octopus, BNP, AXA, and Incofin.
The authors should explain why these investors/impact measurement systems have been employed.
Regarding Figure 1, it is necessary to set more emphasis on comparability. Why this large discrepancy (15% versus 56%)? (please explain once again clearly in this point of the analysis)
The part of the Discussion should have a red thread, the authors can resort to: First, second, third...
In my opinion, it is valuable research, having the potential to become an important reference in the literature.
Author Response
Please see attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled “Towards an Impact Performance Measurement Approach for Impact Investing: Results from a Benchmarking Study for Credit Finance” addresses a relevant topic for impact investing and proposes a measurement framework based on criteria applied in the credit finance sector. The paper is well-structured, theoretically grounded, and useful for the debate on harmonizing impact metrics.
1. Originality
The manuscript tackles a timely and relevant topic for impact investing. While it contains an original contribution, in my view this is partially overshadowed, as the proposed criteria largely derive from established approaches (GIIN, HIPSO, Compass). A clearer delineation of the element of novelty is needed.
2. Significance in the field
The article has strong potential to contribute to the debate on standardizing impact metrics and is of interest to both academics and practitioners. In my opinion, its practical relevance would increase through the clearer integration of concrete application examples.
3. Quality of Presentation
The structure is clear and well organized. However, some sections (for example, the Theory of Change) are, in my view, too detailed and could be condensed.
4. Scientific soundness
The benchmarking methodology is coherent, but I consider that its presentation is overly simplified.
5. Interest to the readers
The topic is of major interest and highlights an important gap in the literature and practice of impact investing. Nevertheless, I believe that adding case studies or practical examples would make the article more attractive and useful for its target audience.
6. Overall merit
The paper has both scientific and practical value, but requires methodological and presentational adjustments in order to reach its full potential.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear colleagues,
In my opinion, the paper “Towards an Impact Performance Measurement Approach for Impact Investing: Results from a Benchmarking Study for Credit Finance” has been improved by the authors. The manuscript has a coherent and logical structure, and the methodology is described in detail. All the recommendations have been taken into account.
However, there are still inadvertences, for instance:
In 2024, the size of the impact market reached 1.571 trillion USD [2]. Between 2015 and 2024, the impact market expanded at an extraordinary pace, rising from USD 77.4 billion to USD 1,164 billion—a total increase of about 1,404 percent over nine years. On average, this translates into a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 35 percent.
“Comparability is successful in addressing a lacuna in the literature by stipulating that all such metrics used for direct comparison fulfils (correct: fulfil) three conditions: the metric must be quantitative in character; it needs to be normalized by the size of the investment; and it must remain consistent across time”.
“As an illustration of practical application of the five-criteria approach” –> the practical application
“Individually these indicators satisfy” -> Individually,
It is necessary to carefully revise the whole manuscript to avoid any errors.
All the best.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and contributions to this article，Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn my opinion, the manuscript entitled "Towards an Impact Performance Measurement Approach for Impact Investing: Results from a Benchmarking Study for Credit Finance" has been sufficiently improved. As such, I recommend publication in present form.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and contributions to this article
