二十年前，我的哈佛学生问如何进入华尔街。如今，他们问如何既赚钱又有所作为。一整个产业已围绕这一雄心勃勃的目标成长起来。全球影响力投资网络（Global Impact Investing Network）2024年估计，全球近4000家机构管理着1.57万亿美元的影响力投资。它们的承诺是：在获得财务回报的同时改善生活。至于如何衡量后者，做法差异很大。
Two decades ago, my Harvard students asked how to get to Wall Street. Today, they ask how to make money and make a difference. An entire industry has grown around that ambition. The Global Impact Investing Network in 2024 estimated that nearly 4,000 organizations managed $1.57 trillion in impact investments worldwide. Their promise is to deliver financial returns while improving lives. How they measure the second part varies considerably.
受教育学生人数、接受治疗的医疗补助患者人数或避免的碳排放量，可以告诉投资者一家公司的工作情况。但在决定再投入一百万美元能在哪里产生最大善效时，他该如何比较这些成果？
The quantity of students educated, Medicaid patients treated or carbon emissions avoided can tell an investor about a company’s work. But how should he compare those outcomes in deciding where another million dollars would do the most good?
财务回报让投资者能识别出表现优异的基金。若缺乏通用衡量标准，投资者就无法可靠地识别出每美元带来社会效益最大的基金——并以更多资本奖励它们。
Financial returns allow investors to identify outstanding funds. Without a common measure, investors can’t reliably identify the funds delivering the greatest social benefit per dollar—and reward them with more capital.
2019年，比尔·赫尔曼和我创立平等机会风投，投资于拓展经济机会的企业，正是在面对这一核算难题时。在组装好将作为办公桌的宜家餐桌后，我们的团队转向波士顿办公室的白板墙，着手开发一种通用的社会回报衡量指标。
Bill Helman and I confronted this accounting problem when we founded Equal Opportunity Ventures in 2019 to invest in businesses that expand economic opportunity. After assembling the IKEA dining tables that would serve as our desks, our team turned to the whiteboard walls in our Boston office to develop a common measure of social return.
答案分两步浮现。首先，我们确定一家公司的产品会在人们生活中产生何种差异。假设一家培训公司的毕业生年薪5万美元。若他们原本只能赚4.8万美元，该项目增加了2000美元；若原本只能赚3万美元，则增加了2万美元。相同的报告薪资掩盖了对收入影响的十倍差异。一个令人信服的研究设计必须确立若没有该项目会发生什么——即反事实。否则，我们就有可能把毕业生本就能赚到的收入归功于该公司。
The answer emerged in two steps. First, we identified what difference a company’s product would make in people’s lives. Suppose a training company’s graduates earn $50,000 a year. If they would otherwise have earned $48,000, the program added $2,000. If they would have earned $30,000, it added $20,000. The same reported salary conceals a tenfold difference in the effect on earnings. A convincing research design must establish what would have happened without the program—the counterfactual.
其次，我们计算了这一差异的价值。对于职业培训，起点是以美元计算的额外收入。然后我们减去学费、培训期间损失的收入，以及参与者承担的、未反映在收入估算中的其他成本。更好的健康、更清洁的空气和改善的基础教育需要经济研究将其收益转化为美元。
Otherwise, we risk crediting the company with income that graduates would have earned anyway. Second, we calculated what that difference is worth. For job training, the starting point is additional earnings in dollars. We then subtract tuition, income forgone during training, and other costs participants bear that aren’t reflected in the earnings estimate.
甚至死亡风险也可以用美元来衡量，尽管估算值差异很大。经济学家奥利·阿什恩费尔特和迈克尔·格林斯通研究了将农村州际公路限速从每小时55英里提高到65英里的影响。司机节省了时间，但死亡人数增加了。按平均工资计算节省的时间价值，他们估算各州接受了每增加一例死亡约300万美元的节省。在他们的模型中，这一数字设定了这些州对统计生命价值估算的上限。
Better health, cleaner air and improved primary education require economic research to translate their benefits into dollars. Even mortality risk can be valued in dollars, though the estimates vary widely. Economists Orley Ashenfelter and Michael Greenstone studied the effect of raising rural interstate speed limits from 55 to 65 miles an hour. Drivers saved time, but more people died. Valuing the time saved at the average wage, they estimated that states accepted roughly $3 million in savings per additional fatality.
相比之下，美国卫生与公众服务部将统计生命价值估算为约1350万美元。一个通用的标准应使不同的假设清晰明了，以免投资者将更慷慨的估值误认为是更大的影响。
Under their model, that figure set an upper bound on those states’ valuation of a statistical life. By comparison, the Department of Health and Human Services valued a statistical life at about $13.5 million.
考虑对一家培训公司的假设投资。一只基金投入20万美元换取20%的股份，在项目开始服务学生前，后续融资将其股份稀释至10%。假设可信证据显示，2000名参与者每人平均将获得5000美元的额外收入，按扣除参与者成本后的现值计算。总收益为1000万美元。该基金分得的份额为100万美元：每投入1美元产生5美元的社会效益。该基金无法主张拥有全部收益，正如它无法主张拥有公司的全部出售价格一样。
A common standard should make different assumptions clear, lest investors mistake more generous valuations for greater impact. Consider a hypothetical investment in a training company. A fund puts in $200,000 for a 20% stake, which subsequent financing reduces to 10% before the program begins serving students. Suppose credible evidence shows that 2,000 participants will gain an average of $5,000 each in additional earnings, measured in present value after participants’ costs. The total benefit is $10 million. The fund’s allocated share is $1 million: $5 of social benefit per dollar invested.
现在假设同一基金在一家健康企业投资 50 万美元，稀释后持股 10%。该企业覆盖 10 万人，将每个人的死亡风险降低万分之一——预计避免 10 例死亡。美国卫生与公众服务部（HHS）的基准将死亡率收益估值为 1.35 亿美元。基金分得的份额为 1350 万美元，即每投入 1 美元获得 27 美元回报，尚未计入其他收益与成本。若将估值减半，倍数降至 13.5 美元。该企业取得的成果完全相同。投资者应当知晓，报告回报中有多少取决于基金选定的估值。
The fund can’t claim the total benefits any more than it can claim the company’s entire sale price. Now suppose the same fund invests $500,000 in a health business and holds 10% after dilution. The company reaches 100,000 people and reduces each person’s risk of dying by 1 in 10,000—averting an expected 10 deaths. The HHS benchmark values the mortality benefit at $135 million. The fund’s share is $13.5 million, or $27 per dollar invested, before other benefits and costs. Halve the valuation and the multiple falls to $13.50. The company has accomplished exactly the same thing.
这些对比使投资者能够做出知情权衡。愿意接受较低财务回报的人，可以询问这种让步能带来多少额外的社会收益；寻求市场水平回报的人，则可以权衡财务前景相似但对人们生活影响不同的投资。两者都能让资金流向符合其价值观的地方。
Investors should know how much of the reported return rests on the fund’s chosen valuation. These comparisons allow investors to make informed trade-offs. A person willing to accept a lower financial return can ask how much additional social benefit that concession yields.
在我们办公室的白板上，我们将这一指标命名为“社会资金乘数”。我们以美元估算每人收益，再乘以覆盖人数。我们将未来收益折现为现值，计入不确定性，扣除成本与危害，并确保每项收益仅计算一次。要计算投资者的乘数，我们按持股比例分配收益，再除以投资金额。
Another seeking market-rate returns can weigh investments with similar financial prospects but different effects on people’s lives. Both can put their money where their values are. On our office whiteboard, we named this measure the social money multiplier. We estimate the benefit per person in dollars, then multiply by the number of people reached.
就像投资倍数一样，该结果表达的是每投入一美元所产生的价值。社会效益可以在产品改善一个人的生活时立即开始累积；无需等待投资者出售其股份。TPG的Rise Fund和Bridgespan Group开发了一种类似的基于研究的衡量标准——“资金影响力倍数”。这种方法倾向于那些更容易衡量的效益。一家素食餐厅可能是一项极佳的影响力投资，但从植物肉到薪资的路径，不如从职业培训到收入增加的路径那样直接。
We discount future benefits to present value, account for uncertainty, subtract costs and harms and count each benefit only once. To calculate an investor’s multiple, we allocate benefits according to ownership and divide by the amount invested. Like an investment multiple, the result expresses value per dollar invested. Social benefits can begin accruing as soon as a product improves a person’s life; they needn’t wait for an investor to sell his stake. TPG’s Rise Fund and the Bridgespan Group developed a similar research-based measure, the “impact multiple of money.”
顾客改变饮食了吗？他们的健康状况改善了吗？这种改善是否影响了他们的工作能力？健康和环境效益固然重要，但它们也必须被衡量并以美元估值。一个共享的证据库将有助于我们评估那些目前影响力似乎无法衡量的机会。
This approach favors benefits that are easier to measure. A vegan restaurant may be an excellent impact investment, but the path from seitan to salary is less direct than the one from job training to higher earnings. Did customers change their diets, did their health improve, and did that improvement affect their ability to work? Health and environmental benefits matter, but they too must be measured and valued in dollars. A shared body of evidence would help us evaluate opportunities whose impact today seems impossible to measure.
我和我的团队建立了一个研究数据库，用于衡量我们投资组合的社会影响力。更多的合作将让投资者能够评估其投资组合、检验其假设并估算社会资金乘数。每一项新研究——以及来自投资的证据——都能为所有人改进估算。
My team and I have assembled a research database to measure the social impact of our portfolio. Greater collaboration would let investors assess their portfolios, test their assumptions and estimate a social money multiplier. Each new study—and evidence from investments—could improve the estimates for everyone.
将1.57万亿美元引导至能产生最大社会效益的投资，将是一项伟大的成就。建立一个通用标准，可能是我们扩大经济机会所能做的最具深远影响的事情之一。更好的衡量方式还能吸引更多资本，来自那些想要改善生活、但需要证据证明其资金能真正发挥作用的投资者。
Directing $1.57 trillion toward investments that deliver the greatest social benefit would be a monumental achievement. Creating a universal standard may be among the most consequential things we can do to expand economic opportunity. Better measurement could also attract additional capital from investors who want to improve lives but need evidence that their money will do so.
我的学生们问如何既能赚钱又能有所作为。有了一个共同标准，我们就能向他们展示资本在哪里改善了生活、改善了多少，以及下一美元资金能在哪里产生最大的善果。衡量影响力，理应拥有与创造影响力同等的雄心。
My students ask how to make money and make a difference. With a common standard, we could show them where capital has improved lives, by how much and where the next dollar could do the most good. Measuring impact deserves the same ambition as making it.
Fryer先生是《华尔街日报》撰稿人，哈佛大学经济学教授，Equal Opportunity Ventures创始人，以及曼哈顿研究所高级研究员。[视频] 《华尔街日报》观点：……的经济学：收入流动性
Mr. Fryer, a Journal contributor, is a professor of economics at Harvard, a founder of Equal Opportunity Ventures and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. [video] WSJ Opinion: The Economics of … Income Mobility