Over the last decade, conferences have played a central and very visible role in the growth of impact investing. As the field has expanded, so has the convening landscape. Today, hundreds of smaller convenings fill key niches across topics and regions; thousands of virtual convenings tackle specific strategies and frameworks; and larger, more established conferences continue to serve as cornerstone events throughout the year.
With this growth and the maturation of impact, how can convenings continue to effectively meet the needs of the field? This is the question, among others, that we at the Sorenson Impact Institute recently asked our networks of impact professionals.
Among my many roles as a Managing Director at the Institute, I lead our convening strategy and serve as President of SOCAP Global, one of the largest and longest-running impact communities in the world. To help answer this important question, we gathered and analyzed data from 275 survey respondents and dozens of interviews with impact leaders.
The results reveal a range of opinions, from those who consider convenings as crucial to those who see them as “expensive navel-gazing.” Overall, respondents overwhelmingly recognize the value of convenings. More than 75% view convenings as “somewhat or extremely helpful” in achieving their goals and nearly half attend at least one event per year, with most attending several.
Our research shows impact convenings are excelling in multiple areas, with respondents identifying three specific value adds to the field:
- Convenings build a sense of community and shared purpose.In an increasingly virtual world, in-person convenings are seen as key to building the field, with collaboration and networking ranked as the top reasons people attend. Respondents highlighted their usefulness for relationship building, eliminating silos, and serendipitous meetings.
- Convenings help amplify trends and innovations. Impact conferences provide a platform for keeping up with the latest trends, developments, and innovations in the field of impact investing. Respondents also appreciate the creativity that emerges when a cross-section of stakeholders gather to address complex problems and highlight solutions.
- Convenings educate and inspire. Respondents found value in learning from thought leaders and practitioners who present new and diverse approaches and best practices in the field that can broaden attendees’ understanding of the impact landscape.
While recognizing their value, respondents also want to see convenings evolve to better maximize their value. Specifically, respondents pointed to three areas they say need to change:
- The cost is prohibitive. Eighty-five percent cited high registration fees as the primary reason for not attending, with over half pointing to travel expenses as another barrier. This lack of accessibility often excludes smaller organizations, entrepreneurs, and grassroots groups, creating divisions between those who attend global conferences and those who do not. Some respondents expressed concern that this results in only certain voices being heard.
- Programming needs a refresh. The need for more actionable content was the most repeated critique. Respondents expressed frustration with a perceived gluttony of repetitive and generic content. They believe conferences focus too much on broad, surface-level discussions that don’t offer enough practical value, often featuring many of the same people and organizations. Respondents want new and actionable content that equips them to reach their impact goals.
- “Pay-to-play” bums people out. The pay-to-play model, where sponsors pay to speak and present, is seen as compromising the integrity of convenings. We have heard this critique at SOCAP, even as more than two-thirds of the content at SOCAP is unencumbered by sponsorship. But the perception is that large and sponsor-heavy conferences can unintentionally nudge out conversations that need to be heard. On the flip side, “sponsor fatigue” is very real. The proliferation of conferences is stretching budgets, and generous organizations are feeling barraged by never-ending pitches from convenings in need of sponsors.
I would also add my own critique: Impact convenings can sometimes become echo chambers. While collaboration among peers is critical, if the goal is to accelerate systems change and integrate impact across industries and sectors, we have work to do. Convenings have an important role to play in attracting broader participation with a balance of programming that invites new audiences (including the impact skeptical) while facilitating critical conversations and hard questions amongst experts.
So what does the ideal convening look like? Based on the interviews and survey data, the answer lies in more intentional design.
- Clarity is key. Each convening serves a different audience and purpose, offering a full spectrum with something for everybody. But that purpose isn’t always clear to the end user. Respondents want clearer messaging about why specific convenings exist and what unique value they are designed to provide so they can better navigate a crowded landscape of conferences and convenings.
- Actionable programming and workable tools are a must. As the field has matured, attendees want increasingly focused and practical content. They expect to leave events with tools, strategies, and connections to apply directly to their work. Respondents want deeper discussions on challenging topics, led by expert speakers with fresh perspectives who can inspire and equip them on multiple topics.
Specifically, respondents listed “Impact Measurement & Management,” “Economic Inclusion/Wealth Generation,” “Catalytic Philanthropy,” “New Forms of Capitalism (e.g. stakeholder capitalism),” and “Climate Action” as the top five themes they would like to see discussed more deeply at impact convenings. - Demand for measurable outcomes is increasing. Given the field’s focus on outcomes and measurement, it’s not surprising that many respondents want convenings to deliver concrete takeaways. They ask critical questions: Did capital move as a result of the event? Were meaningful partnerships formed? What are the tangible, measurable results six months after the event? Convenings should be tracking real-world impact, not just participation numbers.
- Inclusive design is critical. If convenings are to reflect the values of impact, respondents say they must be more inclusive with diverse speakers, organizations, and perspectives, especially from groups most affected by social and environmental challenges. To accomplish this, respondents want convenors to offer more affordable pricing models, scholarships, or in-kind sponsorships.
At SOCAP, for example, we provide funds for underrepresented groups and discounts for international attendees to help with travel costs. Many other conferences offer similar options. However, attendees want us to go beyond financial assistance and ensure more voices are consistently integrated into the fabric of these events.
Despite the challenges, the data shows convenings can continue to be a powerful catalyst for change. As large and small events focus their offerings, the data suggests a strategic shift in design, from improving access to creating more inclusive environments, can help build the field and expose impact to broader audiences. Purposeful programming can inspire action, spark collaboration, and influence real-world outcomes.
Respondents largely believe the transformational power of gathering is real and can be critical to a transition into the mainstream. The history of impact convenings reflects this. SOCAP is an example of a small group of impact-minded thinkers who started a movement 15 years ago. They, along with other pioneering convenings, played a key role in growing impact investing from radical ideas into mainstream discussions.
By continuing to focus on purpose and adapting to the needs of the field, we can honor that legacy and drive the next phase of growth.
Robert Munson is Managing Director at Sorenson Impact Institute.