When sustainability investments have some bad site effects…

Sustainable is good. Thinking sustainably, acting sustainably. Investing sustainably and, above all, in an impactful and socially entrepreneurial manner is a big trend. But what if there are unwanted side effects?

Yesterday, I was in a children’s home in Tarikere, India. 25 girls between 11 and 17 years live there.
“There are still food supplies for two months and a little money to take care of the children and to pay the 2 social workers and the kitchen and house staff (2 people). They earn 250 and 100 EUR per month. If I can’t pay them, they will leave….”

The same thing is happening in another children’s home in Coimbatore…. “We don’t know how or whether things will continue.
There is some support from the government, but this is just good enough to buy some rice. Unfortunately, Charity is out. All sponsors, especially companies that previously supported us, now want to invest “sustainably” and more entrepreneurial. With the idea to create more impact. There are things that might pay off 10 or 15 years afterwards only. Investments in children here in the home apparently are not part of impact investments. It’s really difficult for us, and the lack of security is not good for the children either. Where will they go if we can no longer give them a home?” the home director told me.

How can that be? Are investments in children homes no longer sustainable and entrepreneurial enough?