Summary: In two sessions during the KINETIK–ANDE–ROI Investment Manager Training, Roots of Impact pushed participants to treat impact measurement as more than a reporting requirement. The message was straightforward: when incentives are built into financing terms—and measurement is credible—capital can reward real outcomes and strengthen investee strategy.

Impact investing has spent years improving how results are counted. The tougher question is what happens when results actually count—in interest rates, repayments, and follow-on capital. That was the provocation Roots of Impact brought to the training: impact measurement should not sit at the end of the process as documentation; it should sit inside the deal as a lever.

Across practical examples, candid reflections, and hands-on exercises, Bjoern Struewer, Adrija Das, and Maxime Cheng outlined how Impact-Linked Finance (ILF) is shifting the relationship between capital and outcomes—by tying financial benefits to verified impact performance.

Why impact-linked finance?

Bjoern opened with a telling disconnect: while 90% of investors say they are satisfied with their impact performance, many have not set clear impact targets. Without targets, measurement can become descriptive rather than decision-useful—good for reporting, less useful for improving outcomes.

At its core, ILF offers better financial terms for better impact, embedding incentives directly into investment structures. When designed well, ILF can:

• Align investors and investees around shared impact targets
• Reward impact outperformance (not just activity)
• Strengthen credibility through rigorous measurement and independent verification

Common ILF instruments discussed

• Impact-linked loans and revenue-share agreements (typically used by impact investors): Financing terms improve—such as reduced interest rates or lower repayment amounts—when an enterprise meets agreed impact targets.
• Social Impact Incentives (SIINC) (typically used by outcome funders): Direct incentive payments are made to enterprises in addition to commercial investment when verified social outcomes are achieved.

What ILF looks like in practice: the B-Briddhi example

Adrija brought the concepts to life through the B-Briddhi program in Bangladesh, funded by Swiss Development Corporation. The program combines technical assistance, catalytic funding, and impact-linked incentives.

One case highlighted Apon Bazar, which evolved from a traditional grocery business into a fintech platform serving blue-collar workers with remittance services. Through a SIINC contract, Apon Bazar:

• Exceeded targets on customer savings, health insurance coverage, and women’s participation
• Earned the full USD 225,000 in impact incentives
• Raised USD 1.5 million in follow-on investment

The takeaway was not that the metrics looked good in a report. It was that measurement—because it was linked to incentives—became a driver of strategy and growth rather than a compliance exercise.

Introducing SAFI: a “future impact” alternative to SAFE

The sessions also introduced Simple Agreement for Future Impact (SAFI). In contrast to a SAFE (Simple Agreement for Future Equity), the enterprise does not commit to a future equity stake. Instead, it commits to future impact.

SAFI is presented as a non-dilutive, flexible impact loan that links repayment caps to impact performance. The intent is to offer enterprises an alternative to equity financing while still rewarding verified impact delivery.

Using IMM to incentivize impact—without inviting “impact washing”

Bjoern and Maxime then shifted from deal structures to Impact Measurement and Management (IMM). Bjoern addressed persistent concerns about impact washing, stressing that vague or poorly defined metrics can erode confidence—prompting funders to pull back and weakening trust across the ecosystem.

Maxime introduced Roots of Impact’s IMM approach for ILF, which prioritizes impact additionality over simple growth in output metrics. The framework focuses on three dimensions:

• Scale: How much impact was achieved
• Inclusivity: Who benefits—especially underserved groups
• Effectiveness: What changed, and by how much

A practical advantage, he argued, is that the approach builds on data many companies already collect in day-to-day operations—reducing the burden while improving decision relevance.

Supporting impact readiness in early-stage enterprises

To help early-stage enterprises strengthen measurement and delivery capacity, Maxime also shared the Impact-Ready Matching Fund (IRMF)—a non-repayable matching grant tied to concrete milestones, such as:

• Developing a theory of change
• Verifying impact systems
• Submitting impact reports
• Presenting customer-level impact data

The sessions also surfaced real-world complexities—shifting baselines, attribution challenges, and overlapping investor roles—without losing the central point: incentives shape behavior, and measurement needs to be robust enough to support those incentives.