Investing with impact in 2026: when the world ceases to be cooperative
January 20, 2026
By Ana Guzmán Quintana
For years we have lived under an implicit premise: the existence of an imperfect, yet cooperative, international order. A world in which, with varying degrees of friction, major global challenges were addressed through multilateral frameworks, regulatory consensus, and a certain alignment of interests between public and private actors.
That world no longer exists.
The scenario taking shape as we approach 2026 is radically different: geopolitical fragmentation, opposing blocs, strategic competition, and a zero-sum game, where key leaders prioritize immediate national interests over any notion of the global common good. In this context, continuing to discuss sustainability and impact using the same mental categories of the past is not only naive; it is ineffective.
Sustainability and impact investing thus enter much more uncomfortable territory, where good intentions and well-constructed theoretical frameworks are no longer enough. Context matters. And today, context is profoundly political.
1. Geopolitics: From Peripheral Risk to Dominant Framework
Geopolitics is no longer an exogenous factor “added” to risk analyses. Unfortunately, it is the structural framework within which economic, technological, and financial decisions are made. And this framework is currently, at the very least, uncertain and unstable.
Sectors such as energy, water, food, semiconductors, data, and even education are no longer analyzed solely for their economic, social, or environmental contribution and profitability potential, but also for their role in the power, security, sovereignty, and resilience of nations.
Investing with impact in 2026 will require accepting this reality and operating in an environment where ethical consistency does not always align with geopolitical considerations, and where the right decisions will, in many cases, be uncomfortable. Avoiding this tension does not make it disappear; it merely displaces it. And the premise of patient capital is more relevant than ever: investors are needed who are willing to invest with a longer time horizon, and who fully understand the concept of maximizing not only financial returns, but also social and environmental impact.
2. Technology and Artificial Intelligence: The Dilemma Between Efficiency and Humanity
Technological acceleration, with artificial intelligence as its prime example, is redefining not only economic sectors, but also power relations. The concentration of technological capabilities in a small number of actors raises questions that are not only technical, but also profoundly political and ethical.
AI can expand access to education, health, and financial services, but it can also concentrate power, intensify inequalities, increase energy consumption, reinforce dynamics of control and surveillance… and even call reality into question. The debate leading up to 2026 is not whether technology should advance, but under what conditions, in whose service, and with what limits.
We must accept that not all efficiency is desirable, nor is all innovation socially neutral. Putting technology at the true service of humanity will require governance, sound judgment, and a long-term vision that is currently lacking.
3. Climate: From Ideological Debate to Macroeconomic Variable
Climate change is no longer a matter of opinion, or even of narrative. It is a physical reality with direct economic impacts: inflation, disruptions in supply chains, forced migrations, and increased financial risk.
Climate has ceased to be the «E» of investment under social, environmental, and governance (ESG) criteria and has become a structural macroeconomic variable, comparable to population aging or public debt. Denying it doesn’t make it disappear, and ignoring it makes it more costly.
The climate transition remains necessary, but its viability depends on something key: social acceptability. Without climate resilience, and, by extension, economic resilience, and without affordable solutions in energy, housing, mobility, health, and education, there will be no possible transition. And without a just transition, social resistance will continue to grow.
4. The Void of International Aid and the New Role of Private Capital
The gradual withdrawal of international aid and the weakening of multilateral organizations leave a void that is difficult to ignore. This space is being filled, in part, by private capital, which is being forced to adopt an increasingly catalytic role to fill this gap.
This shift raises an uncomfortable question: can (and should) private capital take over historically public functions? The answer is not simple. Capital can catalyze, scale, and innovate, but it cannot replace solid institutional structures or solve structural problems single-handedly.
The challenge now is not so much to mobilize more capital, but to design it better, with robust governance structures, realistic expectations, and a clear delineation of responsibilities between the public and private sectors.
5. The Risk of Numbing the Market with Excessive Public Capital
Paradoxically, while international aid is decreasing, the presence of public and quasi-public capital is increasing in certain private market strategies. This phenomenon, although well-intentioned, carries significant risks.
Excessive concessionary capital can distort prices, reduce competitive pressure, and favor models that survive through subsidies rather than merit. Real impact requires innovation, and innovation requires challenge, not complacency.
Impact investing involves carefully distinguishing between catalytic capital (which drives solutions) and complacent capital, which perpetuates them without demanding results.
6. Local Impact Investing and Accessibility: Returning to the Territory
One of the clearest responses to this fragmented context is a return to local impact investing, that is, investing in concrete needs and solutions designed locally. Faced with grand global narratives, more modest but more effective responses are emerging, and these responses are not necessarily scalable or replicable in other territories.
Here, affordability becomes a cross-cutting theme. There is no impact if housing is inaccessible, if energy is unaffordable, or if health and education remain out of reach for the most disadvantaged segments of the population. Basic services that are unaffordable cease to be a solution and become a privilege.
The solutions that work will be those adapted to the local context, with the capacity to scale or be replicated, but without losing touch with the social reality they aim to transform.
7. Security, Social Fracture, and the Ethics of Renunciation
In this new scenario, concepts traditionally considered problematic for sustainability, such as security, defense, and sovereignty, return to the center of the debate. There can be no social well-being without stability, nor a sustainable transition without secure and resilient systems.
At the same time, social fracture emerges as one of the greatest systemic risks. Inequality is no longer just a moral issue, but a direct threat to political, economic, and institutional stability.
Impact investing in 2026 will also require reclaiming an ethic of renunciation: accepting that not everything can be financed (or at least not with our money in exchange for sacrificing our values), not everything needs to be scaled up, and not everything has an immediate solution. Deciding where not to be will be as important as deciding where to be.
Sustainability and impact are entering a more demanding, less complacent, and profoundly political phase. In a world that has ceased to be cooperative, investing with purpose will require more discernment, more consistency, and, above all, more courage.
It won’t be an easier path. But it will likely be more honest and more necessary than ever.