Позитивные изменения. Том 2, № 1 (2022). Positive changes. Volume 2, Issue 1 (2022)

3. The education and science sector has its own understanding of the term "impact” (briefly outlined above) not related to any particular topic and used in the coverage of random news stories.

Therefore, although the interpretation of the term "impact” varies considerably depending on the context in which it is used, the core semantic meaning of the term can be identified: effect, influence, or contribution.

THE TERM “IMPACT INVESTING” IN TRADITIONAL MEDIA

The term "impact investing” was encountered in traditional media less frequently than the word "impact.” During the period under review, it received 580 mentions ("impact” was mentioned 1,801 times). However, it should be noted that the word "impact” was often used in meanings other than "social influence.”

With impact investing, the situation is different. The term is unambiguous in its meaning, and the articles that mention it are thematically more consistent, which means that when similar meanings of the two terms are concerned, it can't be said that "impact” has significantly more mentions than "impact investing.”

Thematic consistency also manifests itself in the number of times the term "impact investing” was put in the headlines and used as the central subject of the articles: 17 % of the headlines mention impact investing while only 6 % mention impact.

Most articles on impact investing address the same subject and never mention businesses, organizations, and projects not associated with social innovations (the full list of them can be found in the research).

Thematic consistency made it possible to identify the main trends of impact investing representation in traditional media. The emphasis in the articles was usually placed on impact investing being the new economy trend. It was described as a "new direction,” "business strategy of the future.” "New mechanism,” "social revolution,” etc. Considerable attention was also paid to the fact that impact investing is a form of responsible financing. The following expressions were used: "a benefit to society,” "a contribution to the development of mankind,” "an investment in the future.” Apart from that, many articles strived to differentiate investing from charity, using the expressions like "efficiency and financial return are expected from the investments,” "impact investing has nothing in common with charity.”

The study also identified some key individuals involved in impact investing, both in the context of media articles and professionally. Among them were Ronald Cohen, the Chairman of the Global Social Impact Investment Steering Group (GSGII), Nyuta Federmesser, the founder of VERA Hospice Charity Fund, Mikhail Paley, the Co-founder and CEO of the Impact Investors Association, social entrepreneur Ruben Vardanyan, and other notable figures. The highest number of mentions was received by Ilya Zibarev, the co-founder and mentor of the Towards Impact Investments program, and Lyubov Sherysheva, the author of the program's idea.

In terms of content, the articles can be described as mainly positive (68 % of the total number of articles). The top news stories covered positive developments initiated by the people and organizations mentioned above. According to the authors of the research, the neutral articles (which constitute the remaining 32 % of the total number of articles) included formal event announcements and contextual mentions in market reviews and financial research. No negative news stories related to impact investing were published in traditional media within the period under review.

The headlines can be divided into three main groups:

• Informational headlines lack expressiveness and mainly serve for information and announcement purposes, with the emphasis generally placed on the novel nature of the industry. Events and products mentioned in this type of headlines are presented as new to the market.

• Instructional headlines are aimed at explaining the key principles and mechanics of impact investing and make up a group referred to as “How and Why.”

• Personified headlines mention key market players.

The media outlets that published articles on impact investing were also divided into several groups. 84 % of the articles were posted on online media platforms. The least number of mentions was encountered in printed media (3 %), and news agencies mentioned the term “impact investing” only slightly more frequently (13 %).

Impact investing was more frequently mentioned in federal media (53 %) than in local media outlets (47 %). In regard to the subject, most mentions were found in social and business media outlets, followed by non-profit organizations, finance, and corporate media.