2025 Symposium Program
The 2025 Symposium on Legal Issues in Social Entrepreneurship, Impact Investing, and Sustainable Development took place in Greenberg Lounge, Vanderbilt Hall, NYU School of Law on Tuesday, October 7.
The full symposium program is listed below.
Want to learn more about the people behind the presentations? See the full list of presenters and commentators, including their bios and headshots, here.
- 10:00 – 10:15 a.m. - Opening Remarks
Opening Remarks from Dean Troy McKenzie, the Grunin Center, and the Journal of Law & Business
- 10:15 – 11:10 a.m. - The Impact Observer by Anat Alon-Beck and Nizan Geslevich Packin with commentator Rosemary Addis
The Impact Observer
Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) pressures are colliding with entrenched doctrines of shareholder primacy. Accordingly, a structural gap has opened in corporate governance: who ensures that companies pursuing a social mission stay true to it? Traditional boards are built to maximize profits, not to safeguard purpose. This Article introduces a practical innovation—the impact observer—a boardroom participant who holds no fiduciary power but plays a critical role in tracking whether mission and business remain aligned.
The impact observer is not a decision-maker, but a sentinel. Appointed by contract rather than shareholder vote, observers sit inside the boardroom to identify mission drift, highlight long-term risks, and surface early warning signs of ethical or strategic deviation. Drawing from new empirical data—including surveys of venture capital lawyers, impact investors, and startup founders—we show how observers are already widely used in high-growth companies, but rarely analyzed through the lens of governance design. Our findings reveal a growing demand for observer roles that offer fresh perspectives without triggering legal duties or conflicts of interest.
To systematize this emerging practice, we propose a four-part Impact Governance Stack: (1) legal recognition of observers in corporate statutes and contracts; (2) alignment with institutional investor policies and ESG stewardship codes; (3) standardized reporting tied to global disclosure frameworks like the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) and the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD); and (4) the creation of a professional certification pipeline to train observers in ethical, impact-aware oversight.
In a year marked by sweeping sustainability regulations—from Europe’s CSRD rollout to new supply-chain laws in the UK and climate legislation in the UAE—the impact observer offers a timely, scalable solution. It bridges the divide between compliance and conscience—providing a new governance tool for companies serious about purpose in practice, not just on paper.
Presenters
Anat Alon-Beck, Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Nizan Geslevich Packin, Professor of Law, Baruch College
Commentator
Rosemary Addis, Enterprise Professor in Impact, Sustainability, and Innovation, University of Melbourne
- 11:10 - 11:20 a.m. - Break
Attendees are welcome to use this time for a brief break and networking.
- 11:20 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. - Beyond the Box: Reimagining Legal Agreements for Resilience, Alignment, and Emotional Intelligence in Social Enterprise by J. Kim Wright and Kara Perry with commentator Naveen Thomas
Beyond the Box: Reimagining Legal Agreements for Resilience, Alignment, and Emotional Intelligence in Social Enterprise
In times of rapid disruption and change, social entrepreneurs and impact investors are being called to navigate increasing complexity while remaining anchored in purpose. And yet, amid all the innovation, a critical design opportunity often goes unnoticed: the contracting process itself. This paper explores the often-overlooked role of contract design as a source of resilience and alignment in social entrepreneurship, impact investing, and sustainable development. We argue that while attention is frequently given to product-market fit, funding structures, and social metrics, many mission-driven organizations fail to examine how their foundational agreements—their contracts—can reflect and reinforce their core values, aspirations, and relationships. In other words, impact entrepreneurs and funders may be thinking outside the box when it comes to innovation, but still operating within highly conventional boxes when it comes to legal agreements.
Presenters
Kara McCarthy Perry, Part-Time Clinical Professor, Quinnipiac University School of Law and Seton Hall School of Law
J. Kim Wright, Affiliated Law Faculty, Quinnipiac University School of Law
Commentator
Naveen Thomas, Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
- 12:15 – 12:25 p.m. - Break
A short break will be observed before the next session begins.
- 12:25 – 1:20 p.m. - From Ambiguity to Application: Anchoring Impact-First Investing via UPMIFA in the Legal Doctrine of Program-Related Investments by Leslie Cornell with commentator Jill Manny
From Ambiguity to Application: Anchoring Impact-First Investing via UPMIFA in the Legal Doctrine of Program-Related Investments
The phrase impact-first investing has emerged in the last decade as a term of art among practitioners in philanthropy, finance, and social enterprise. The practices underlying the term have emerged as one of the most important (and least understood) developments in the evolution of the impact economy. It signals a conceptual shift within the broader impact investing movement: away from the presumption that social impact and market-rate return must always coincide, and toward an acknowledgment that advancing charitable or social objectives may require investors to accept concessionary or uncertain returns.
While finance-first impact investing focuses on generating market-rate returns with secondary social benefits, impact-first investing puts social and environmental purpose at the center. Financial return is tolerated, sometimes substantial, but never the primary driver. This growing field is attracting increasing attention from philanthropists, donor-advised funds, and foundations precisely because it stretches philanthropic dollars further, enables recycling of capital, and can crowd in additional investors whose risk-return profiles differ. In times of economic, political, and social uncertainty, these features make impact-first investing a tool of resiliency and sustainability that can be deployed by the philanthropic sector for the benefit of society.
Despite its growing traction among practitioners, ‘impact-first investing’ has no statutory or regulatory definition. It remains a descriptive phrase rather than a legal category. Without clearer legal grounding, fiduciaries face uncertainty when trying to distinguish between investments that are permissible extensions of charitable purpose and those that must be justified under the ordinary prudent investor rule. This legal ambiguity risks either over-caution, leaving mission-aligned capital on the sidelines, or overreach, undermining fiduciary standards and charitable accountability.
This Article argues that two existing but underutilized doctrines: (i) Program-Related Investments (PRIs) under the Internal Revenue Code and (ii) Program-Related Assets (PRAs) under the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA), supply the missing legal framework. PRIs and PRAs together anchor impact-first investing: they formalize the idea that some assets, though structured as investments, should be treated as programmatic when their primary purpose is charitable. PRIs provide the most conservative articulation of this concept, carving out a safe harbor for private foundations. PRAs broaden the scope, exempting such assets from prudence analysis across nearly all charities governed by UPMIFA. Viewed together, they legitimize impact-first investing as a doctrinal category, not merely a practitioner’s slogan.
Situating impact-first investing within these existing doctrines can provide needed guardrails that not only protect the impact-first nature of the financings but promote the use and deployment of additional capital. Doing so addresses a pressing need for resiliency in the philanthropic and nonprofit sector. If philanthropic capital is to sustain its impact in the face of volatility, it must be deployed flexibly and creatively. PRIs and PRAs allow charities to engage in impact-first strategies responsibly: channeling capital to underfunded social enterprises, accepting lower or uncertain returns when necessary, and still complying with fiduciary and regulatory standards. By grounding the practice in law, fiduciaries gain both defensibility and confidence to act. Philanthropy gains a framework for leveraging dollars in ways that multiply their effect. And the broader impact investing ecosystem gains clarity that can draw in catalytic and blended capital.Presenter
Leslie Cornell, General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer, Social Finance
Commentator
Jill Manny, Executive Director of the National Center on Philanthropy and the Law, New York University School of Law
- 1:20 – 2:30 p.m. - Lunch
Lunch will be provided for registered guests.
- 2:30 – 3:25 p.m. - The European Green Bond Standard and the Path Forward for the U.S. Market by John P. Hunt with commentator Jesse Gero
The European Green Bond Standard and the Path Forward for the U.S. Market
The global market for green bonds has expanded in recent years, but questions remain as to how investors know that issuers actually use green-bond proceeds to promote sustainability. The EU recently adopted the “EU Green Bond standard” (EU GBS), which is designed to increase investor assurance of the “green quality” of green bonds.
This Article reviews the key components of the EU GBS – a definition of “green” activities, reporting and disclosure requirements, and requirements for external reviews of issuers’ green bond reporting. It provides a detailed comparison of the EU GBS with the prevailing standard, the International Capital Market Association Green Bond Principles, and identifies several areas in which the EU GBS are more demanding. These differences, by and large, tend to address scholarly criticisms of the green bond market.
An open question about the green bond market is whether heightened assurance of green quality would allow issuers to sell green bonds for more than comparable non-green bonds, commanding a “greenium.” Early signs are that issuers are starting to use the EU Green Bond standard, and it will serve as an experiment. If issuers find that adhering to the standard leads to a greenium, they may be induced to follow the standard, and thus enhance green bonds’ quality, without a government mandate. Such a development would be important for the future development of the U.S. market, as government action to raise green-bond quality standards seems unlikely in the near future.Presenter
John Patrick Hunt, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, University of California, Davis School of Law
Commentator
Jesse Gero, Adjunct Professor of Clinical Law, Acting Director of the International Transactions Clinic, Senior Legal Fellow of the Grunin Center for Law and Social Entrepreneurship, New York University School of Law
- 3:25 – 3:35 p.m. - Coffee Break
A short break will be observed before the next session.
- 3:35 – 4:40 p.m. - The Most Social Entrepreneur by Evan Absher with commentator Andrea Armeni
The Most Social Entrepreneur
This article begins with the question posed by the symposium call for papers: “How can we foster resilience among those engaging in social entrepreneurship, impact investing, and sustainable development in these times of change and great uncertainty?” But what if the uncertainty is good? What if today’s turbulence—policy shifts, public-private experiments, and legal disruptions—is laying the groundwork for a more robust and equitable application of social entrepreneurship’s most innovative tools? Using the Trump Administration’s heterodox policies as a case study, the article explores how cuts to traditional grants, expansion of public–private incentives, and direct federal equity stakes in firms like Intel, U.S. Steel, and MP Materials may open new pathways for mission-driven entrepreneurs. Against this backdrop, the paper introduces the “Community Carried Interest” (CCI), a legal and financial mechanism designed to reallocate a portion of residual returns to the nonprofits, community lenders, and workforce programs that make investment possible but rarely share in its upside. Drawing on corporate law, economic development policy, entrepreneurship, and the innovation of the field writ large, the CCI offers a model for embedding public value in private transactions and transforming strategic alignment into enforceable economic alignment. In this way, the article argues that current upheaval can catalyze—not cripple—a new generation of resilient, community-anchored social entrepreneurship.
Presenter
Evan Absher, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
Commentator
Andrea Armeni, Associate Clinical Professor of Social Finance and Public Service, Director of Social Impact, Innovation, and Investment Specialization, New York University Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
- 4:40 – 5:00 p.m. - Closing Remarks
Closing remarks from Deborah Burand.
- 5:00 – 6:00 p.m. - Cocktail Reception
All symposium attendees are invited to join the closing cocktail reception.