= focuses on for-profit companies with a social mission 
"investments made with the intention to generate measurable social and environmental impact alongside financial return" 
"Impact investing is the practice of putting money—loans or equity—into impact-focused organizations, while expecting less than a market rate of return. 
From the Wikipedia:
"Impact investing refers to investments made based on the practice of assessing not only the financial return on investment, but also the social and environmental impacts of the investment that happen in the course of the operations of the business and the consumption of the product or service which the business creates. An impact investor seeks to enhance social structure or environmental health as well as achieve financial returns.
The investor may take an active role mentoring or leading the growth of the company,similar to the way a venture capital firm assists in the growth of an early-stage company. Impact investors follow an investment strategy in which positive social screening criteria are an integrated component of the investment process, whereas the term socially responsible investing may include negative screening criteria in the investment decision." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_investing)
Social Venture Exchange (SVX)
By Anne Field:
a Toronto-based platform aiming to launch in 2012: "It links via an online platform accredited investors with Ontario-based social enterprises of anywhere from $100,000-$25 million in revenues looking to raise $25,000-$10 million. To be included on the exchange, interested companies first have to go through an exhaustive vetting process that's largely done off-line to make sure they're not only viable enterprises, but also are the real McCoy, that is, companies with a serious social mission at their core. Then, they're listed on the platform, with the relevant information of interest to potential investors. After that, it functions much like any online dating service, according to Spence, with prospective investors reading over company profiles and then contacting them. Ultimately, transactions are conducted off-line. That's only the beginning, according to Spence. With backing from TMX Group, which runs the Toronto Stock Exchange, among others, he aims ultimately to create a fully regulated public social stock market for Ontario for retail investors that would be conducted online." (http://newsroom.cisco.com/feature-content?type=webcontent&articleId=675997)
Mission Markets, NYC
By Anne Field:
"two-year-old New York-based Mission Markets, also aims to create a larger public exchange. To boost investor interest, according to CEO Sam Salman, they're engaged in an ambitious research project to collect data that, they feel, will prove how profitable social enterprises are compared to more conventional companies. But, down the line, they envision creating something even more ambitious: an online hub connected to social stock exchanges around the world, through which investors can get information about listed companies. Actual transaction orders would be made through a broker. "This would be an alternative trading system with many exchanges connected to an online information system," says cofounder Mike Van Patten." (http://newsroom.cisco.com/feature-content?type=webcontent&articleId=675997)
By Anne Field:
"Impact Investment Exchange Asia , better known as IIX. It started about a year ago, when social entrepreneur Durreen Shahnaz launched a private online marketplace in Singapore with the intention of using it as a stepping stone to creating a public exchange. Called Impact Partners, so far it's raised $70 million of capital, listing 12 social enterprises with $5 million or under in revenues raising $1 million to $6 million , and "more than 100 in the pipeline," according to Shahnaz, and more than 120 investors. "It's allowed us to get our feet wet," she says. But later this year, she plans to launch IIX as a public exchange through which actual trading will happen online. IIX is working with an exchange partner that has an already up and running platform it can leverage. Due to regulatory restrictions in Singapore, the exchange will be open only to accredited investors initially. But, eventually, according to Shahnaz, once it's a proven concern, the platform will be opened up to the general public. Says Shahnaz: "This represents a fundamental step in a big, global movement." (http://newsroom.cisco.com/feature-content?type=webcontent&articleId=675997)
"the Rockefeller Foundation , which estimate the market could grow to as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years." 
The Trouble with Impact Investing
' On its face, impact investing seems like a great deal—organizations get cheap money (er, “patient capital”) and investors get real impact. It’s great when it works that way, but the case for impact is often dubious, and there is a lot of confusion about when impact investing works and when it doesn’t. What worries us in that not-for-profit organizations in our portfolio are under increasing pressure to take loans, and some have even lost donors to the impact investing camp.
Both philanthropy and impact investing are valid ways of doing good, but applied in the wrong way, either can do harm. For us, the right funding structure is the one that provides maximum impact for the target population. Mulago works to meet the basic needs of people in some of the poorest countries on Earth, and we’ve ended up with a portfolio that is 95 percent philanthropy. Here’s why:
1) Few solutions that meet the fundamental needs of the poor will get you your money back.
Scalable rural livelihoods, basic health care, basic education solutions, clean water—with very few exceptions, you don’t make money off this stuff, sorry. For example, the one education organization in our portfolio is Bridge International Academies, a remarkable for-profit company that provides a high-quality education to Kenyan kids for $4 a month. While they hope for market rate of return, it’s going to be a long time at best, and there are multiple levels of uncertainty. Investors are piling on, though, and why? Because there are very few deals like this out there! Fully unsubsidized clean water for really poor people? Essential services to millions of one-acre farmers? Saving lives from the most common diseases? Forging new distribution channels? Forget it—you’re not going to make any money. These represent profound market and government failures.
2) Overcoming market failure requires subsidy.
A businessman in Africa told me that Coca-Cola lost money there for 12 years. In other words, it required over a decade for one of the most competent companies on Earth to break even on the sale of a mildly addictive sugary drink that is absurdly cheap to make. Imagine what it takes when you’re focused on impact. Microcredit, the iconic impact investment of the last decade, required more than $100 million in subsidies before it became a profitable business—and the impact has been disappointing at best.
When overcoming market failure to reach the poor, it takes subsidy to do the R&D, launch the business, build the market, and sometimes even to deliver the product or service over time. Delivering at a price point the poor can afford almost always translates into very small margins. A good example is D-Rev, a small organization designing products that improve the health and incomes of poor people. They use donor subsidies to design products to the point where they are ready for manufacture and distribution at scale by for-profit companies (and sometimes not-for-profits). Because D-Rev can receive royalties via licensing agreements, funders they approach for grants often want them to take loans. Bad idea. To reach the target population, the margins—and hence the royalties—must be small. D-Rev is designing products that would never be designed otherwise: saddling them with loans simply means that they a) have to jack up prices and/or b) produce fewer designs more slowly.
3) Revenue does not equal profit.
Organizations in our portfolio that make crop loans to smallholder farmers, sell essential medicines, or market tools to improve rural incomes are often badgered to take loans and/or structure as for-profits. There seems to be this idea that if a revenue stream exists, it could be turbocharged to make a profit. That’s simply not so: the best organizations out there—the ones under the most pressure from impact investors—are already operating efficiently, squeezing out as much revenue as possible while serving the target population well. Think of them as businesses generating the most impact, while losing the least amount of money possible. Just give them the money.
4) Impact investing can drive organizations off mission.
All talk of double- and triple-bottom lines aside, there really is only one bottom line. It’s either impact or profit—and the demands of investors can pull an organization away from the target population toward those able to pay more. We’ve seen it happen, and we’ve seen more than a few organizations start in more affluent markets with the intention to move down-market to the real target population when the numbers are right (they almost never do). One thing we’ve never seen is an investor pulling a loan, because of a lack of impact or failure to reach the target population.
There’s more and more talk of blended capital, of a host of investors out there awaiting the emergence of profitable enterprises that will improve the lives of the poor in fundamental ways. The thing is that they’re mostly waiting, and waiting longer than anyone thought. In the real world of the poor, real change still means stepping up with money that you don’t expect to get back, while demanding maximum returns in the form of impact. When you find someone who can do that, just give them the money." (http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/the_trouble_with_impact_investing_part_1)