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

The mentions of the term "impact investing” on social media are thematically consistent and unambiguous in their meaning, as is the case with traditional media. The main representation patterns are similar to those observed in traditional media.

The "responsible financing” semantic category is represented most widely on social media, with corporate social responsibility being acknowledged as the main advantage of impact investing compared to traditional investing. Additionally, impact investing is positioned as "the approach of the future.” This creates an image of impact investing as a promising and developing approach that will be an integral part of the future world of finance. The emphasis is also placed on its financial benefits. This aspect is revealed in analytical posts, expert comments, educational content, and other messages directed at potential investors, where it is important to emphasize the financial attractiveness of impact investing. Considerable attention is also given to breaking the stereotypical perception of impact investing as a compromise between profitability and social transformation, with the main message being that impact investing is not charity.

An average social media post covers 2.7 thousand users, and the overall potential coverage of all social media posts within the period under review is 10.8 million users. Facebook[2] is the main platform for discussing impact investing on social media, accounting for 45 % of all posts. Twitter covers a wide audience with a minimum number of posts due to impact investing being mentioned by major media outlets (Forbes) and large organizations (Tele2, All Russia People's Front). However, the widest coverage was received by VK posts, with impact investing being mentioned a fewer number of times than on Facebook (576 mentions compared to 1,793 mentions) but the posts being viewed by 3.1 million users. However, Facebook had the highest engagement rate with 17,365 reactions to posts, being followed by YouTube with 10,908 reactions. In terms of average engagement rate per post, YouTube takes the first place with an average of 47 reactions on a video. The maximum number of reactions was received by business accounts that post interviews (Sergey Guriev, Oskar Hartmann, Ilya Rudnev, etc.). Instagram*, with its traditionally high engagement rates, doesn't prove to be particularly effective when impact investing is concerned. The mention dynamics across all platforms correlates with the events, with the peak number of mentions being registered during the Impact Investing as the Driver of Human Capital Economy conference.

In traditional media, most news stories were positive, while on social media, most posts were neutral.

The tonality of social media mentions was slightly different from the tone of traditional media. In traditional media, most news stories were positive, and on social media, most posts were neutral. Unlike in traditional media, negative posts on impact investing were found on social media, but they accounted for only 0.3 % of the total number of mentions.

The organizations most frequently mentioned on social media were the same as in the traditional media top list. The top five were IxD Capital, the Towards Changes fund, Impact Hub Moscow, the Headliners impact club, and VEB.RF. It should be noted that the IxD Capital investment company was also in the list of the major players of the social innovation market that mentioned the term "impact,” but it was rarely mentioned in traditional media. This might be related to the number of posts published by IxD Capital themselves. During the period under review, the company received 994 social media mentions and published over a thousand posts on different platforms, which makes it a statistical leader in this section too. The second and third places were taken by the Towards Changes fund and Impact Hub Moscow respectively. Their joint program called Towards Impact Investments also received a significant number of social media mentions. This can be compared to how the same program was promoted in traditional media. The social media coverage of the program was eventful and used a specific posting scenario (announcement — coverage — results). Most posts published by event organizers listed the program's objectives and the issues it aimed to address. Many posts and comments included the participants' reviews of the program, which was supposed to increase the level of engagement. Several platforms were involved in the promotion, including new ones (for example, the program was covered on Clubhouse, which was on the peak of its popularity at that time). This promotion strategy helped to achieve a high level of engagement (4,180 reactions within the period under review) and wide coverage (109 thousand users).