7 Impact-Measurement Trends That Will Shape How Capital is Allocated in 2026

Impact measurement has reached an inflection point.

Across markets and asset classes, impact authenticity and performance matter more today than ever.

Allocators now have clearer expectations, better tools, and more decision-grade information. The question is no longer whether a fund measures impact, but whether its system is truly fit for the allocator’s purpose—credible, consistent, and meaningfully connected to how capital performs over time.

This shift reflects a broader maturation of the impact investing ecosystem. As expectations rise, impact is no longer treated as a parallel narrative that follows financial analysis. Instead, allocators increasingly expect impact considerations to sit alongside financial drivers, risks, and trade-offs — and to inform decisions throughout the investment lifecycle.

As we look toward 2026, a clear convergence is emerging: impact performance and financial performance are being evaluated together, not as separate or sequential streams. This does not imply simple correlations or guaranteed win-wins. It does, however, require greater clarity about how impact objectives shape investment strategy, portfolio construction, risk management, and long-term value creation.

With this convergence accelerating, we see seven key trends that will shape how impact measurement and management evolves—and how capital is allocated in the years ahead.

1. Financial and impact performance are evaluated together — not sequentially

The most important shift is that impact is no longer assessed after financial analysis. Allocators increasingly expect impact outcomes to be discussed alongside financial drivers and investment risks.

To meet this rising demand, we believe fund managers must clearly articulate:

• How impact considerations influence underwriting and portfolio construction

• Where impact considerations introduce constraints, risks, or optionality

• The implications of impact performance for durability of cash flows, regulatory exposure, or exit paths

2. Decision-grade impact information matters more than framework allegiance

Impact frameworks have meaningfully advanced the field, but allocator expectations have evolved. Most do not require strict adherence to a single methodology. Instead, they are looking for impact information that is credible, transparent, and genuinely useful in investment decisions.

While expectations may vary by a fund’s maturity or stage, allocators consistently prioritize the same qualities:

• clear logic linking capital to outcomes

• transparency around assumptions, limitations, and uncertainty

• stability and consistency of methodology over time

Frameworks increasingly serve as reference points rather than scorecards. Funds that apply tools pragmatically—and explain their choices—are often viewed more favorably than those that rigidly follow a single template without demonstrating decision-usefulness.

3. Outputs are table stakes; outcomes and contribution differentiate strategies

Reporting outputs alone no longer differentiate impact strategies. Allocators increasingly expect funds to demonstrate what actually changed for end beneficiaries, whether those changes were meaningful and durable, and how the fund’s invested capital contributed to those outcomes relative to a credible counterfactual.

This shift reflects growing fatigue with scale-only narratives and deeper scrutiny of additionality, depth, and context.

In practice, allocators are asking:

• What changed for end beneficiaries, not just how much activity occurred

• Whether outcomes are likely to persist over time

• How the fund’s capital contributed beyond what would have happened anyway

4. Impact risk is treated with the same seriousness as impact upside

Allocators are no longer satisfied with impact narratives that focus exclusively on positive outcomes. Credible impact strategies now require a clear articulation of downside scenarios, execution risks, and potential unintended consequences—and how these are monitored and managed.

In practice, impact risk analysis is beginning to mirror financial risk analysis, with explicit discussion of mitigation strategies, governance responses, and the conditions under which impact performance may fall short.

Common areas of focus include:

• Execution risk to intended outcomes

• Distributional risk, including how benefits and burdens are distributed—and who may be adversely affected

• Reputational, regulatory, or community risks tied to impact claims

5. Impact data must be usable, not just reportable

Allocators increasingly expect impact data to support real decision-making. That means information that is internally consistent, comparable year-over-year, and integrated into ongoing portfolio oversight — not data produced solely for annual reports or marketing purposes.

Sophisticated allocators recognize that impact data is rarely perfect. What matters is methodological stability, transparency around uncertainty, and the ability to analyze trends over time in ways that inform risk, performance, and conviction.

As a result, scrutiny is growing around:

• Data quality and internal consistency

• Year-over-year and cross-portfolio comparability

• How impact data is incorporated into monitoring and review processes

6. Assurance is emerging — selectively and proportionately

While full third-party assurance is not yet universal, allocators increasingly expect some level of independent review for material impact claims. The depth of assurance expected scales with how central and ambitious those claims are within the investment thesis.

Targeted verification, methodology validation, and selective third-party review are becoming common signals of credibility—particularly where impact outcomes are core to the value proposition.

In practice, expectations may include:

• Independent review of methodologies

• Validation of key assumptions or metrics

• Targeted verification of material claims

7. Impact management and measurement is judged by how it informs capital allocation decisions

Ultimately, allocators will judge impact management and measurement systems by a simple standard: do they meaningfully inform capital allocation decisions?

Strong IMM clarifies trade-offs, surfaces risks early, and sharpens conviction—or raises red flags when warranted. Weak IMM, regardless of how polished or well-branded, is increasingly discounted if it does not influence decisions around allocation, sizing, retention, or exit.

This shift aligns closely with the “whole portfolio outcomes” perspective articulated in Terry Keeley’s Investing in 3D, which argues that investors should evaluate strategies across three dimensions: risk, reward, and measurable impact. For asset owners seeking a practical approach to applying this lens, the Pensions & Investments article “How Good Is Your Portfolio?” by Jim Sorenson and Terry Keeley offers a clear framework for assessing whether capital is contributing to solutions while still meeting financial objectives.

Together, these perspectives reinforce the central trend: IMM is judged not by compliance or signaling, but by its decision-usefulness—its ability to reveal how impact and financial performance interact across the full portfolio.

—

In the years ahead, impact measurement will be judged less by adherence to any single framework and more by its usefulness in real investment decisions. Strong impact management and measurement systems help allocators understand trade-offs, test assumptions, surface risks, and build or temper conviction. They make explicit how impact objectives influence capital deployment — and how impact performance may affect financial durability over time. Weak systems, regardless of how polished or well-branded, are increasingly discounted.

For fund managers, the implication is clear: impact measurement must move beyond reporting and toward integration. For allocators, the opportunity is to identify strategies where impact outcomes are intentional, measurable, and credibly connected to how capital performs across market cycles. This is the essence of the whole portfolio outcomes approach—evaluating risk, reward, and measurable impact together.

The convergence of impact and financial performance is no longer aspirational. It is becoming a baseline expectation—and a defining feature of how capital will be allocated in the next phase of the market’s evolution.