In our new paper, Principles of Investment Stewardship: Mission-Aligned Investing for Nonprofit Organizations, we spend time at the outset getting the terminology right — not because precision is an end in itself, but because vague language in an Investment Policy Statement (IPS) leads to vague implementation, and vague implementation makes it impossible to know whether your institution is doing what it said it would do.
Here is how we define each term:
ESG Integration is the systematic incorporation of environmental, social, and governance factors into investment analysis and portfolio management, primarily as a risk management and return-enhancement tool. ESG integration does not require a specific social or environmental outcome — it is a lens applied to conventional investment decision-making. Notably, 82.5% of higher education endowments now incorporate ESG or sustainability considerations into their IPS, a figure that reflects broad adoption of ESG as standard practice rather than a specialized commitment.
Screened or Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) refers to the exclusion of specific sectors, companies, or issuers from a portfolio based on values or mission criteria — tobacco, weapons, fossil fuels, private prisons, and similar categories. SRI is values-driven but does not typically require measurement of social or environmental outcomes. It is among the oldest and most widely practiced forms of mission-informed investing.
Impact Investing is defined by intentionality and measurement — both the pursuit of a specific social or environmental outcome and the discipline to track whether that outcome is being achieved. It requires a clearly defined Theory of Change, pre-defined outcome metrics, and ongoing reporting against those metrics. It sits at the most intentional end of the spectrum.
Mission-Aligned Investing (MAI) is the umbrella. It encompasses all of the above — ESG integration, SRI screening, impact investing, and hybrid approaches that combine elements of all three. What distinguishes MAI from conventional endowment management is not which tools are used, but whether those tools are deployed with a clear, documented rationale connecting investment decisions to institutional mission.
These approaches exist on a continuum, not in rigid categories. A single institution might apply ESG integration broadly across its public equity portfolio, use negative screening to exclude specific sectors, and allocate a dedicated portion to impact investments in private markets — all under one coherent MAI strategy governed by a single Theory of Change embedded in the IPS.
The practical implication for fiduciaries: your IPS should be explicit about which approaches you are using and why. An IPS that says "we consider ESG factors where appropriate" is not a mission-aligned investing policy — it is an aspiration. The governance frameworks in our new paper are designed to help institutions move from aspiration to commitment.