Dialogue & Workshop on Impact Measurement and Management (IMM) and Impact Metrics with Japanese Impact Companies: Part 2

Engaging with Global Pioneers in Listed Equity Impact Investing
GSG Impact Japan held the second session of its workshop series focused on impact measurement and management (IMM) and impact metrics in March 2025. The aim was to deepen dialogue between impact investors and Japanese impact companies. The Secretariat for the workshop was the Japan Social Innovation and Investment Foundation (SIIF).

1. Overview of the Workshop

Since the formation of the Impact IPO Working Group in July 2023, GSG Impact Japan has proposed the importance of ongoing dialogue with stakeholders, culminating in a guidance document for impact companies and capital market participants in May 2024.

These workshops are designed to help impact companies engage directly with impact investors and experts, surface the real-world challenges they face before and after IPO, and use those insights to improve the guidance document over time.

Press release on Part 1 of the workshop:
https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000005.000063932.html
Press release on Part 2 of the workshop:
https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000006.000063932.html

This article summarizes the perspectives, observations, and learnings shared in the second session, including key comments from international and domestic investors, experts, and participating impact companies. International investors praised the guidance framework as highly organized and effective. Participating companies were also recognized for their thoughtful disclosure practices in line with the framework, meeting the expectations of impact-driven investors.
To provide deeper insights, SIIF will also feature an interview article with EUCALIA, a listed company seeking impact, on its official note blog. We invite you to read it alongside this report.

2. Key Themes, Challenges, and Insights from Participants

Participants' feedback was grouped into four major themes:

1. Disclosure of business performance
2. Disclosure of impact performance
3. Connection between business and impact
4. Use of non-financial capital

The following summarizes feedback and perspectives shared from the viewpoints of investors, experts, and enterprises.

(1) Disclosure of Business Performance

Due to the participation of international investors, it became clear that contextual explanations—such as Japan-specific rules and market dynamics—are important for understanding the business. Participants emphasized the need for more clarity around business models, competitive advantage, and additionality (i.e., the company’s unique contribution) through the use of personas and case studies. Even for environment-focused companies, a more comprehensive explanation that includes social dimensions can enhance investor perception.
Japanese investors and experts highlighted the value of sharing business KPIs with a "under promise, over deliver" mindset to manage expectations. They also pointed to the importance of explaining how a company's early-stage advantages (e.g., proprietary technology) will continue to drive long-term growth, indicating that effective business disclosure is a precursor to strong IMM.
International investors provided more technical feedback, including suggestions to present case studies familiar to global audiences and to use clear visual examples. They also encouraged companies to proactively define ESG risks and develop sustainability reports that reflect both positive and negative impact—without waiting for regulatory requirements.
Participating enterprises commented that the exercise of explaining their business externally helped clarify their own challenges, identify key disclosure points, and refine long-term messaging strategies.

(2) Disclosure of Impact Performance

There was extensive discussion around the balance between credibility and rigor in impact disclosure. As ambitions for greater impact increase, the explanations required become more complex. One useful recommendation was to clearly and simply define the intended impact, present quantitative estimates with reasonable assumptions, and be transparent about any limitations.
Collecting stakeholder feedback, improving clarity around the “how” and “path” of impact, and referencing outcomes in relation to revenue (rather than precise predictions) were also seen as effective strategies.
Domestic experts emphasized that not all data must be quantitative—stories and qualitative evidence like case studies and testimonials can add value. Collaborations with academics and data analysts were also suggested for robust impact management. Given the difficulty in proving broad societal contribution, it was considered more practical to focus on concrete, direct outcomes and clearly articulate the impact logic.
International investors echoed the idea of setting clear, hypothesis-based theories of change rather than overclaiming systemic influence. Presenting both qualitative and quantitative narratives, including scenario-based or market share-relative impacts, was recommended. They also suggested capturing feedback from beneficiaries (e.g., satisfaction surveys) and sharing insights from investees on both financial and non-financial results.
Enterprises noted the importance of maintaining balance and sincerity in disclosures. They learned to use storytelling, summarize logic models, and clarify key KPIs and improvement needs on the journey toward long-term goals.

(3) Linking Business and Impact

Participants agreed there was room for improvement in articulating the connection between financial performance and impact outcomes. The guidance provides a framework for doing so, and the workshop helped raise awareness of specific linkages.
Domestic experts proposed evaluating the effects of IMM on capital costs, employee turnover, and executive engagement before and after IPO—bridging IMM with financial and organizational metrics.
International investors wanted to see impact roadmaps alongside the business models necessary to realize long-term visions. They were also interested in how companies leverage for-profit models for scalability, efficiency, and outreach, as well as how their pricing compares to alternatives.
Enterprises shared that they reaffirmed the importance of aligning business and impact, and better understood investor expectations around how financials and impact should be connected.

(4) Leveraging Non-Financial Capital

There were many discussions about identifying and mobilizing non-financial capitals—such as human and intellectual capital—alongside financial capital to support business growth. The guidance introduces a “positive feedback loop” in which all six capitals work together to drive impact and financial returns.
International investors expressed interest in a company’s origin story, noting that founder history often signals long-term viability and intentionality.
Enterprises reflected on organizational aspects, such as the necessary expertise and mindset for roles like Chief Impact Officer (CIO) or Chief Sustainability Officer (CSuO). They also gained awareness of different approaches to integrating impact into organizational processes.

3. Next Steps

We will continue to hold workshops and promote practical use of the guidance by impact companies and capital market stakeholders. Based on accumulated feedback and case studies, we plan to further improve the guidance. Updates will be shared via this website.

4. For Inquiries

The collection of practical use cases will enhance both the guidance itself and the value of impact companies. If you are interested in this initiative, please contact us:
• Unlisted companies considering an Impact IPO
• Listed companies seeking better disclosure and engagement with impact investors
• Investors interested in funding pre-IPO impact companies
• Experts who wish to co-develop and disseminate IMM knowledge

Contact:
Impact IPO Working Group Secretariat
Japan Social Innovation and Investment Foundation (SIIF)
lab@siif.or.jp