Impact investing is an emerging alternative asset class. In the last few years, the investment in impact investing has grown many folds, however the research has not kept pace with the growing practitioner interest. The lack of knowledge about the field coupled with the lack of knowledge production of field might be dangerous in the long run. This is a systematic review of impact investing. This systematic review involves study of 85 published articles and reports. This literature was collected using the harzing’s publish or perish academic search engine and cross-checked against databases such as JSTOR and Web of Science. This review has four major contributions. First, the study reveals a unique longitudinal perspective on how the field is evolving and moving from pre-paradigm stage to the stage of proper scientific inquiry. It reveals that the field is evolving, as the reviewed literatures find that a higher number of empirical works were published recently. Second, the field impact investing is unique on six characteristics namely (1) capital invested, (2) degree of engagement with the investee, (3) process of selection, (4) social and commercial outcomes, (5) reporting outcomes, and (6) government role. Third, it reveals that the scholarship in the field has been mostly exploratory. Only recently the field is engaging in confirmatory studies. The research methods have used existing databases or existing single or multiple case studies. Finally, the field has to delve deeper into concepts like selection process, stakeholder management, opportunity recognition, and performance reporting to move the field forward and generate applied knowledge.

Impact investing pursues the dual goals of creating socio-economic value for the marginalized, and ensuring net positive financial returns. Impact investing firms achieve their goals through their investments in projects and enterprises which create both social and commercial values. The primary aim of this article is to contribute to our understanding of the process of impact investing, particularly with respect to issues related to aligning impact investing and investee social enterprise goals. The research method employs case-based research methodology. The data consist of six cases of impact investing and their investee social enterprises. In addition, the data involve interviews with experts from the field of impact investing. The findings are that: (1) Social mission plays an important moderating role in the inter-organizational relationship between the impact investor and the investee social enterprise, (2) and an emphasis on due diligence, sector specialization, and communication increases the likelihood of investment while (3) social impact measurement and reporting and frequent engagement increase the likelihood of post-investment alignment. The key contribution of this article is that impact investing (unlike venture capital) is influenced by the ability of its investee to create social value, which plays an important role in the inter-organizational relationship between investor and investee. Furthermore, similar to industry specialization in the for-profit investing, social sector specialization is equally relevant for alignment and returns.

Purpose: The purpose of the present study is to contribute to the existing literature by examining the nexus and the connectedness between classes S&P Green Bond Index, S&P GSCI Crude Oil Index, S&P GSCI Gold, MSCI Emerging Markets Index, MSCI World Index and Bitcoin, during the pre-and post-Covid period beginning from August 2011 to July 2021 (10 years).Design/methodology/approach: The study employs time-varying parameter vector autoregression and Quantile regression methods to understand the impact of events on traditional and upcoming asset classes. To further understand the connectedness of assets under consideration, the study used Geo-Political Risk Index (GPR) and Global Economic Policy and Uncertainty index (GPEU).Findings: Findings show that these markets are strongly linked, which will only expand in the post-pandemic future. Before the pandemic, the MSCI World and Emerging Markets indices contributed the most shocks to the remaining market variables. Green bond index shows a greater correlation and shock transmission with gold. Bitcoin can no longer be used as a good hedging instrument, validating the fact that the 21st-century technology assets. The results further opine that under extreme economic consequences with high GPR and GPEU, even gold cannot be considered a safe investment asset.Originality/value: Financial markets and the players who administer and communicate their investment logics are heavily reliant on conventional asset classes such as oil, gas, coal, nuclear and allied groupings, but these emerging asset classes are attempting to diversify.

The Covid 19 pandemic led to major changes at the individual, organisational and institutional levels of policy, productive functions, and organising. During Covid 19 morbidity, public institutions enforced social isolation, mandatory self-isolation, quarantines, and administrative regulatory lockdowns, which led to a movement away from the physical, material world and into an all-consuming digital universe. With growing interest in work-from-home (WFH) opportunities, this article provides an integrative review of 107 papers. It comprises the bibliometric analysis and manual review of the articles, on the basis of which we present an elaborative discussion and agenda for future research. According to the analysis, WFH looks a tad of a double-edged sword in that it may have major but unintended repercussions for institutions, and organizations as well as hidden, positive as well as negative consequences for individuals/employees. One of the significant insight from our analysis was the absence of HR function's strategic or operational input or oversight during corporate WFH strategies. We suggest several theoretical frameworks for further developing, theorizing, and empirically testing various aspects of WFH. Further, we recognise that WFH is becoming increasingly visible as a result of the pandemic scenario and significant technical advancements, which must be reflected in the research. Finally, because WFH represents a significant disruption in how organizations produce work and manage it, we propose employee and managerial consequences as future research agendas.

Social entrepreneurship has emerged as a global phenomenon aimed at tackling societal grand challenges through market‐based activities. A holistic understanding of social enterprise outcomes is crucial for reflecting their effectiveness in meeting social objectives and informing internal organizational processes. This study explores the outcomes of social enterprises through a comparative qualitative analysis of 49 social ventures in Austria, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United States, spanning diverse sectors. Three key outcome dimensions are identified: individual transformation, capital provision, and societal influence. Our analysis results in a typology of seven distinct types of social enterprises, each integrating these dimensions to varying degrees. Utilizing this typology, we reveal how social enterprises navigate barriers to solving complex social and environmental problems, illustrating the dynamic interplay between outcome dimensions and the importance of multi‐objective organizing – beyond hybrid organizing – in addressing complex societal issues.