
The impact attribution challenge – moving beyond 100% claims
Looking at all the reported impact metrics, you might think we are solving the world’s biggest challenges overnight. But as we all know, reality tells a different story.
The vast majority of impact funds attribute 100% of a portfolio company’s impact, an approach that results in inflated impact figures and an overly optimistic view of progress toward global goals like net zero and the SDGs.
We decided we needed to be more transparent about our real attribution (attribution reflects the portion of impact linked to our role as investors) as we believe attribution can improve transparency and accountability, it validates additionality, and it guides resources toward the most impactful interventions, moreover it can foster trust through credible reporting.
So, we set ourselves the task to explore key questions: what are current methods for measuring attribution? And how do they reflect early-stage investors’ contributions?
The results can be found in this article for Impact Investor, where Christine van Tuyll (impact consultant), our Founding Partner Willemijn Verloop and Dr. Lisa Hehenberger (Professor at the Esade Centre for Social Impact & Impact Advisory Board Member since 2019 of Rubio).
Rubio has started to report on attribution- prorated on equity in our recently released Impact Report 2024. This is a practical first step, because it only shows part of our attribution, but it’s implementable today.
We believe it’s crucial to recognize this as an interim solution while the field works toward better ways to also measure and incorporate non-financial contributions. But until such methods are developed and standardized, impact investors should be transparent about both the contribution of their financial investment and their non-financial support while acknowledging the limitations of current attribution methods.
However opinions on the subject of attribution are diverging, so please let us know your thoughts on our findings via the comments!