The Jour­ney Towards Inves­ting with Posi­ti­ve Impact

At the BFF Conference on June 13th, 2025, the session “The journey Towards Investing with positive impact’ brought together three experts representing different parts of the financial ecosystem. Moderated by Hugues Pirotte, professor at the Solvay Impact Institute (ULB), the panel explored how institutional investors, private banks, and universal banks are shaping the future of sustainable finance, in the context of a changing narrative, and what barriers remain.

The discussion featured:

• Philippe Wallez, Head of ESG, Public Affairs & Senior Client Advisor at ING Belgium
• Ophélie Mortier, Chief Sustainable Investment Officer at Degroof Petercam Asset Management (DPAM)
• Joris Laenen, Chief Investment & Life Officer at Ethias

Together, they offered concrete insights into how their institutions define, implement, and address impact, while reflecting on client appetite, regulatory pressures, and the evolving geopolitical landscape.

Approaches and Definitions: Three Paths to Impact

Philippe Wallez opened the discussion by outlining the role of a universal bank in financing the transition. ING has developed a climate-driven approach to sustainability, with climate targets validated by the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Today, over 85% of new client investments are directed into Article 8 and 9 funds.

Philippe also addressed the current narrative shift: balancing sustainability with increasing demand for defense and resilience investments. The question for banks like ING is how to remain committed when political and market pressures redefine priorities. 

Ophélie Mortier described impact as a step further than ESG integration, demanding stricter sustainability criteria and a deeper commitment to generating tangible, positive environmental and social outcomes. Building on their long-standing experience in sustainable investing and in response to evolving regulations, DPAM developed a rigorous impact approach, which ensures that recognised impact themes align with the GIIN IRIS+ framework. Ophélie Mortier described their learning process, stemming from ESG and going further, first through listed equity and corporate bond strategies of impact-identified firms. Rather than referencing the Sustainable Development Goals broadly, for impact funds DPAM defines clear KPIs to measure each investment’s contribution to specific, pre-defined impact themes. Second, DPAM also extends its impact philosophy through their partnership with Incofin, which focuses on private impact investments. This complements their public markets work. Impact investing is a journey and action matters. 

Joris Laenen shared the story of a public institutional investor that created its own impact investment portfolio, alongside other impact-first initiatives. The portfolio was designed to deliver quantifiable social and environmental effects alongside financial returns, with additionality as a core requirement. Its strategy is built around two concrete objectives: supporting the transition to a sustainable and climate-resilient economy “without leaving anyone behind” (e.g. clean energy and mobility), and reducing inequalities through investments in housing, education, and digital infrastructure — directly linked to a number of SDGs.

A key takeaway was that success required clear frameworks, focus on concrete themes rather than broad ambitions, and strong governance to translate impact goals into practice.

Lessons Learned and Common Challenges

In the second part, the panel explored with Hugues what it takes to build credible impact strategies within large institutions — and the hurdles that remain.

For Philippe, the challenge lies in balancing client demand with long-term commitments. ING has shown that sustainable and Article 9 investments can attract strong inflows, yet the recent debate on defense and resilience illustrates how quickly narratives can shift.

For Ophélie, the main barrier is client perception. Even with robust impact methodologies, many retail investors remain hesitant — worried about returns or skeptical of definitions. Performance volatility in concentrated portfolios can reinforce these doubts, even though long-term results are competitive.

For Joris, internal alignment is critical. Developing an impact portfolio within a public institution required a cultural shift, guided by clear frameworks and a strong focus on measurement. Governance, internal education, and rigorous assessment tools all played a central role in this journey.

Across the panel, regulation emerged as both driver and constraint. Frameworks like SFDR enhance transparency, yet the lack of a dedicated “impact” category fuels confusion. Institutions must therefore innovate and comply at the same time — ensuring that impact strategies remain credible and trusted.

Audience Takeaway: Why Not More Appetite?

A recurring question — both from the panel and the audience — was simple: if the offering exists and impact investing is growing, why client appetite remains cautious?

According to the panelists several factors can be deemed to contribute to that cautiousness:

• Time horizon: Impact investments are inherently long-term, which can clash with the short-term reporting requirements.
• Financial performance: Retail investors may hesitate if they perceive a risk of underperformance, even if it’s only relative. As sector diversification is different with impact portfolios, performance biases can be introduced.
• Impact in private markets: Many institutional clients are well-versed in equities and bonds, but less familiar with private impact investments. Despite their low correlation with traditional assets and therefore their potential for stable, diversified returns, more education is needed to build confidence in this space.

This underscored the need for:

• transparency, as clients must clearly understand what they are investing in, and
• education, since both retail and institutional investors need better tools to grasp the long-term nature of impact.

Hugues drew an analogy with the introduction of the first portfolio risk measures in the late 1990s, such as value-at-risk. At the time, very few private bankers were willing to include these measures in their reports, largely out of fear that clients might misunderstand them. Hedging instruments were also seen as dangerous, since accounting standards did not allow strategies to be presented transparently, combining the former with the underlying positions. Over time, however, education and experience helped demystify these tools, while also providing better protection against the opacity created by complex valuations and the technical jargon that often served rogue traders more than clients and managers.

The same holds true for impact: it is a matter of time. We need education and objective, standardized valuation frameworks that are widely recognized and understood by the market, so that impact can be properly measured, acknowledged, and integrated. As a market, we should work together to develop our own clear and intelligible framework—rather than wait for one to be imposed on us.

That is why continuing this exercise is essential, always with a pragmatic goal in mind. And it is precisely what makes hearing from the panelists so valuable: their perspectives highlight diverse approaches that balance two critical objectives—concreteness and communicability.

Ultimately, impact investing is not about sacrificing returns, but about aligning capital with resilience and sustainability. It is a long-term game — and building investor confidence will take time.

Conclusion: Commitment and Credibility

The session closed with a unifying message: impact investing may face challenges, but it remains essential. Fifteen years after the financial crisis first sparked interest in sustainability, the need for credible, measurable, and accessible impact alternatives is stronger than ever. Looking ahead, the speakers agreed on the need to stay committed despite complexity.