We developed a theoretical framework that explains why and how business-owning families (BOFs) engage in impact investing.
Despite its exponential growth, the increasing impact of investment in this field is still subject to conflicting interpretations and variable practices.
Based on the framework proposed by Nason et al. (2019b), we argued that the framework of a BOF (retrospective vs. forward and internally vs. externally oriented) constitutes a relevant heterogeneity that triggers a single driver to engage in impact investing and a distinct set of practices to do so.
Impact funds need a tool that enables them to align their objectives with impact criteria. This study was developed by applying a multi-criteria decision method
Through an ethnographic case study, we approached the understanding of social change in a South African company with a strong gender focus, detecting practices that led to the empowerment of women.
This article focused on the case of the Tunisian oasis of Jemna to analyze institutional struggles involving institutional entrepreneurs and opponents of the commons in dispute, against the historical backdrop of the Arab Spring. We identified two main strategies used by institutional entrepreneurs to frame the commons as a superior alternative: idealizing the commons and bringing the community together to harness its potential.
We also highlighted the hitherto neglected role of opponents, who concentrated on demonizing common goods to restore the competitive logic of the State or the market.
Finally, we unraveled some of the conditions that enabled the dispute to be temporarily resolved, giving rise to what we called de facto common goods.