money with a mission.
get the app
Start investing in what matters. Available on iOS and Android.
$10/month. No lock-in. Cancel anytime.
Most impact investing conversations focus on the environment. Social inequality gets less attention, but it is just as investable. Here is what screening for social outcomes actually looks like.
When people think "impact investing," they usually picture solar panels and recycling. Environmental impact gets most of the attention, the funding, and the headlines. But the "S" in ESG covers something equally important: social outcomes. Healthcare access. Fair labour practices. Financial inclusion. Education. Diversity. These are all investable themes, and in Australia, they're getting harder to ignore.
One in eight Australians lives below the poverty line. Indigenous Australians have a life expectancy gap of 8 years compared to non-Indigenous Australians. Regional communities have significantly worse access to healthcare and education than their capital-city counterparts. These aren't abstract statistics. They're the gaps that social impact investing is designed to address.
The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) tracks how social-focused impact capital is growing worldwide. In Australia, the challenge is that social impact is harder to measure than environmental impact. You can count tonnes of carbon avoided. Counting "inequality reduced" is less straightforward. That doesn't mean it can't be done. It means the metrics require more nuance.
Social screening in investment funds typically takes two forms:
Negative screening: excluding companies that contribute to social harm. Weapons manufacturers, companies with poor labour rights records, businesses exploiting vulnerable populations, companies involved in modern slavery supply chains. This is the baseline. If a fund doesn't at least do this, it's hard to take their social claims seriously.
Positive screening: actively selecting companies that create social value. Healthcare companies expanding access to underserved communities. Financial services companies enabling inclusion. Education technology companies reaching marginalised groups. Affordable housing developers. Companies with genuine diversity programs and fair pay structures.
Most Australian impact funds use both, but the depth varies enormously. Some apply basic exclusions (no weapons, no tobacco) and call it social screening. Others actively measure social outcomes per holding and report specific numbers.
If you're looking at social inequality through an investment lens, these are the areas where capital actually makes a difference:
| theme | what it covers | example companies | relevant SDGs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healthcare access | Affordable medicine, telehealth, diagnostics, mental health services | CSL, ResMed, Teladoc Health | SDG 3 (Good Health) |
| Financial inclusion | Banking the unbanked, microfinance, affordable insurance, financial literacy | Block (Square), PayPal, Zip Co | SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) |
| Education | Online learning platforms, vocational training, accessibility tools | Coursera, Duolingo, Pearson | SDG 4 (Quality Education) |
| Fair labour | Living wages, supply chain transparency, safe working conditions, no forced labour | Companies certified by Fair Work, B Corp certified | SDG 8 (Decent Work) |
| Affordable housing | Social housing, community housing trusts, rent-to-buy schemes | Housing associations, community development finance | SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities) |
Not every theme is equally easy to invest in through listed equities. Healthcare and financial inclusion have clear publicly-listed players. Affordable housing often operates through unlisted vehicles or government programs. Understanding which themes your chosen fund actually covers, and which it doesn't, matters.
| platform | social screening approach | key social themes | social impact reporting |
|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Ethical | Ethical Charter (positive + negative) | Labour rights, community, justice | Annual impact report |
| inaam | Curated selection across 5 pillars | Health, wellbeing, sustainable consumption | Per-holding in-app |
| Future Super | Negative screening + engagement | Human rights, labour standards | Annual + quarterly reports |
| BetaShares ETHI | Rules-based ethical screening | Human rights, labour (exclusions) | Limited social reporting |
| Vanguard VESG | ESG integration + exclusions | Broad ESG factors | Portfolio-level ESG scores |
Environmental metrics have a head start. Carbon emissions can be measured in tonnes. Energy generation in megawatt-hours. Water savings in litres. Social metrics don't have the same standardisation, and that creates a real gap between what funds claim and what they can prove.
The UN Sustainable Development Goals17 global goals adopted by the United Nations in 2015 as a blueprint for peace and prosperity. Many impact funds map their investments to specific SDGs to measure and communicate impact. provide the most widely-used framework. SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 3 (Good Health and Wellbeing), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) are the most relevant for social impact investing.
Some funds map each holding to specific SDGs. This gives you a clearer picture of what social outcomes your money is supporting. Others report at the portfolio level, which is less specific but still useful.
When evaluating a fund's social claims, ask these questions:
The old assumption was that caring about social outcomes meant accepting lower returns. That's largely been debunked for mainstream social screening. Companies that treat their workers well, operate in growing markets like healthcare and education, and maintain strong governance tend to perform well financially too.
The RIAA's benchmark report has consistently shown that Australian responsible investment funds match or outperform their conventional peers over 1, 3, 5, and 10-year timeframes. Social screening is part of that performance.
Where it gets more nuanced is at the edges. Community development finance institutions, social enterprises, and direct impact investments sometimes do trade financial returns for deeper social outcomes. If you're investing through a listed fund or ETF, you're unlikely to encounter that trade-off. If you're looking at unlisted or direct impact vehicles, ask specifically about return expectations.
If social inequality is something you want your investments to address, here's a practical starting point:
It evaluates companies on their contribution to reducing social disparities, including healthcare access, financial inclusion, education, and fair labour practices. Funds may positively screen for companies creating social value, negatively screen out companies that exploit vulnerable populations, or both.
Australian Ethical applies comprehensive social screening through their Ethical Charter. inaam includes health and wellbeing companies addressing social outcomes. Future Super screens for human rights and labour standards. Most Australian impact funds include some social criteria, but few focus exclusively on social inequality.
Social impact is harder to quantify than environmental impact. Common metrics include healthcare access numbers, jobs created in underserved communities, board diversity, wage fairness ratios, and financial inclusion metrics. The UN Sustainable Development Goals provide a widely-used framework.
Yes. Companies addressing social needs like healthcare, education, and financial services can be profitable businesses. RIAA data shows responsible funds have matched or outperformed conventional peers. Some direct social impact investments may trade returns for deeper outcomes, but mainstream funds and ETFs generally don't.
ready to put this into practice?
Impact investing for $10/month. Five themes. One app. ASIC registered.