money with a mission.
get the app
Start investing in what matters. Available on iOS and Android.
$10/month. No lock-in. Cancel anytime.
The most common question about impact investing: does it cost you returns? Here is an honest answer that doesn't overclaim in either direction.
"Will I lose money by investing ethically?" It's the first thing most people want to know, and it's a fair question. You're being asked to add a constraint to your investing. Exclude these industries. Prefer these companies. The assumption is that constraints cost performance. The reality is more interesting than that.
The honest answer: it depends on the fund, the time period, and what you're comparing against. Anyone who tells you impact investing always outperforms is selling you something. Anyone who tells you it always underperforms is repeating a myth the data has largely disproven.
Over the past decade, the relationship between ethical screening and returns has been more complicated than either side admits.
When ethical funds did well: The exclusion of fossil fuels helped during energy downturns. The overweighting of technology and healthcare companies (which tend to pass ESG screens) boosted returns during tech rallies. Companies with strong governance tended to weather crises better. The RIAA Benchmark Report has consistently shown responsible investment funds matching or outperforming conventional peers over 1, 3, 5, and 10-year timeframes in Australia.
When ethical funds struggled: When oil prices surged, funds excluding energy companies missed the rally. When "value" stocks outperformed "growth" stocks, the tech-heavy tilt of many ethical funds worked against them. During commodity booms, mining exclusions cost performance.
The academic research tells a similar story. Meta-analyses of hundreds of studies generally conclude that ESGEnvironmental, Social, and Governance. A framework for evaluating a company's ethical impact and sustainability practices. integration does not systematically harm returns, but neither does it guarantee outperformance. The relationship is roughly neutral over long periods, with variation driven by sector tilts and market conditions.
Here's something most impact fund marketing won't tell you: track records are short. Most dedicated impact investing platforms in Australia launched in the last decade. Australian Ethical is a notable exception with a track record going back to 1986. Many others have 3-7 years of data.
Short track records mean performance claims are inherently limited. Three years of outperformance could be skill, or it could be market conditions that happened to favour the fund's sector tilts. You need at least 10-15 years of data to draw meaningful conclusions about a fund's strategy versus its benchmark. The ASX investor tools let you check historical index performance for comparison.
This doesn't mean newer funds are bad. It means claims about their performance should be held in proportion to the evidence available.
Most performance comparisons you see online are misleading because they ignore at least one of these factors:
| factor | what it means | common mistake |
|---|---|---|
| Right benchmark | Match the index to the fund's investment universe | Comparing a global fund to the ASX 200 |
| Time period | Returns vary dramatically by start/end date | Cherry-picked dates that make any fund look good or bad |
| Risk adjustment | Returns relative to volatility | Ignoring that lower returns with lower risk can be better |
| After-fee returns | What you actually receive | Comparing gross returns that hide the real cost |
| Survivorship bias | Closed funds disappear from the data | Only measuring surviving funds inflates average performance |
A practical example: if someone tells you "BetaShares ETHI returned 12% last year," the right follow-up questions are: what did the MSCI World Index return over the same period? What were the fees? And what was the volatility? Without those answers, the 12% number tells you almost nothing.
This is the part the benchmark debate usually misses. For most young investors, three factors affect your long-term wealth far more than whether your fund beats the ASX 200 by 0.5%:
Starting at 22 instead of 30 matters more than any fund selection decision you'll ever make. Eight extra years of compounding on even modest returns creates a gap that's almost impossible to close later. Our what I wish I knew at 22 article has the numbers.
Investing $50/month every month for 20 years beats investing $5,000 once and then forgetting about it. Recurring contributions and dollar-cost averaging smooth out the timing risk that makes people anxious about whether they're investing "at the right time."
The difference between a 0.5% fee and a 1.5% fee, compounded over 30 years, can be worth tens of thousands of dollars. That often dwarfs the performance gap between an impact fund and a conventional one. ASIC's MoneySmart fund comparison tool lets you model this. Compare fees before you compare returns.
Impact investing does not guarantee you will match the S&P 500. It also does not guarantee you will underperform. The evidence suggests that well-constructed ethical portfolios can deliver competitive risk-adjusted returns over the long term, but "competitive" is not the same as "guaranteed to beat."
What impact investing does offer is alignment. Your money supports companies working on problems you care about. For many investors, that alignment has value beyond the percentage on a performance chart. That's not a financial argument. It's a personal one. Both are valid.
If you want to see how inaam approaches the balance between financial returns and impact outcomes, our methodology page lays out exactly how we select and evaluate holdings across both dimensions.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some ethical funds have matched or outperformed benchmarks over certain periods. Others have underperformed. No fund consistently beats benchmarks every year. The RIAA benchmark report is the best Australian source for tracking this.
Not necessarily. Academic research is mixed but generally shows no systematic negative effect. The relationship depends on which sectors are excluded and what market conditions prevail during the measurement period.
Most dedicated impact platforms launched in the last decade. The movement gained mainstream traction around 2015-2020. Short track records aren't a red flag, but performance claims should be proportionate to the evidence available.
ready to put this into practice?
Impact investing for $10/month. Five themes. One app. ASIC registered.