In recent years, impact investing has emerged as a new form of investment situated between philanthropy and traditional investments. There are various definitions of impact investment, but a commonly used description is that it involves investments made with the intention of generating positive social and/or ecological impact alongside financial returns. It is often added that the aim is to create additional value for the initiatives being invested in, which should be demonstrable and measurable.2
Definition by the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) (https://thegiin.org/)
Impact investors are often high-net-worth individuals, philanthropic foundations, pension funds, insurance companies, endowed institutions, and banks who invest through intermediaries such as fund managers across a range of sectors, including renewable energy, regenerative agriculture, healthcare, education, technologies for cleaner water and air and affordable housing for lower-income groups. The global market for impact investments has grown in the past year from $1.164 trillion to $1.571 trillion, according to the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN).3
Impact investments can take various forms, such as concessionary loans (loans with, for example, low interest rates), venture capital (risk capital for startups with social impact), private equity (investments in large companies), quasi-equity (a hybrid of debt and equity financing), social impact bonds (bonds with repayment based on achieved impact targets) and recoverable grants (grants that can be repaid under certain conditions).
The most common form of impact investments involves equity investments (venture capital/private equity) through an investment company that pools capital from multiple investors to finance a diverse portfolio of social enterprises in exchange for shares in the companies. The investment company invests in the equity of social enterprises and sells the shares at a profit and/or pays dividends. The investment company acts as the general partner (GP), while the investors act as limited partners (LPs), who are the capital providers for the fund. The fund’s capital is used to purchase shares in companies. The fund manager is responsible for managing the fund and may receive a management fee for this service.
An example is the Sweden-based Norrsken VC, one of the largest impact investors in Europe, which recently raised €320 million and plans to finance 30 companies with a focus on impact in sectors such as climate technology, energy, biotechnology, AI and health technology.4 Over the past 25 years, DOEN Participaties has become the largest impact investor for sustainable and social startups in the Netherlands. Currently, its portfolio includes 50 equity stakes and convertible loans, as well as 18 fund investments.5
In the Netherlands, various definitions of the “cultural and creative sector” exist, differing significantly across government agencies, funds, academic institutions and researchers. Sometimes the sector is narrowly defined, while at other times a broader definition includes “media and entertainment” and, for example, advertising agencies. The Culture Monitor uses a culture-oriented definition, while the Creative Industry Monitor applies a broader definition focused on the creative industries.6
Culture Monitor (https://www.cultuurmonitor.nl/)
Creative Industry Monitor (https://mediaperspectives.nl/project/monitor-creatieve-industrie/)
For this feasibility study, we have based our analysis on the 10 “cultural domains” used by the Culture Monitor. As a result, we exclude creative industries such as newspapers and press, radio and television, marketing and advertising agencies from this study. Therefore, in this study, we refer to “The Cultural and Creative Sectors” rather than the “Creative Industries”.
Within the 10 cultural domains, both commercial enterprises and non-commercial institutions are active, covering popular culture, subculture, counterculture and non-commercial culture. Examples include commercial creative enterprises such as streetwear brands (design) or hip-hop labels (music), as well as non-commercial institutions such as museums (visual arts) and theatres (performing arts).
Between 2019 and 2022, the cultural and creative sector in the Netherlands grew by 2.9% annually, resulting in 390,000 jobs by 2022. For comparison, the total economy’s job growth during the same period was 1.6% per year. The job growth in the cultural and creative sector is mainly attributed to creative business services, with design standing out as a prominent subsector.7
Amsterdam has the highest concentration of cultural and creative sector jobs, with over 77,000 positions in 2022.8 However, the focus of job growth in the sector has recently shifted from Amsterdam to other regions in the Netherlands, such as Eindhoven, Rotterdam, Utrecht and The Hague.
The cultural and creative sector is relatively small in scale. The average company size, with 1.7 jobs per establishment, is significantly smaller than the average in the ICT sector (3.9 jobs) and the economy as a whole (4.7 jobs). The proportion of self-employed individuals (freelancers) in the cultural and creative sector is also exceptionally high and continues to rise. In 2022, nearly 52% of all jobs in the sector were held by self-employed workers in the Netherlands.9
Within and outside the sector, various perspectives exist on the relationship between economy and culture. Funds, policymakers and institutions often hold differing views on the current economic system and the role of culture within it.
In this feasibility study, we distinguish three perspectives on culture and economy: 1) the “creative economy” perspective, 2) the “culture as a public good” perspective and 3) the “social and solidarity economy” perspective.
In brief, the “creative economy” perspective emphasises the sector within the current economic system, while the “social and solidarity economy” perspective focuses on a systemic transition towards a “new economy”. The “culture as a public good” perspective highlights culture as a collective good that lies outside market mechanisms. Below, we briefly elaborate on these three economic perspectives.
The “creative economy” perspective emphasises the socio-economic benefits of the sector for society. It focuses on various “creative industries” and how they drive socio-economic development in a country, city or neighbourhood. Key elements include entrepreneurship, intellectual property and the commercialisation of products and services with a cultural component.
In the book The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas (2001), British professor John Howkins describes the creative economy as “a new way of thinking and acting that revitalises the industries of production, services, retail and entertainment, with a focus on individual talent or skill, and on art, culture, design and innovation”.10 Similarly, American scholar Richard Florida emphasised in The Rise of the Creative Class (2002) the importance of the creative class for economic growth and urban development, arguing that creative hubs attract innovation, talent and investments.11
Essentially, the “creative economy” perspective highlights the sector’s role as a driver of economic growth. Heritage sites, for example, can attract tourists and create positive spillover effects, while creative businesses such as design shops, fashion stores and creative hubs can contribute to urban development.12 Various (local) governments apply the “creative economy” framework to strengthen their cities or countries.
Therefore, the concept often involves the socio-economic “benefits” of arts and culture. Arts and culture can stimulate economic growth by attracting tourism, creating jobs and promoting innovation. They also contribute to social cohesion and improve both mental and physical health. Cultural amenities further enhance the quality of life in neighbourhoods.
Several organisations worldwide promote the “creative economy” perspective. The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) plays a key role in strengthening the global economic and developmental agenda of the “creative economy” and publishes the Creative Economy Outlook annually.13 The British Council also actively promotes this view of culture and the economy on an international level. The accelerator and impact investor Upstart Co-Lab similarly bases its investment strategies on the “creative economy” perspective.14
From the “culture as public good” perspective, the cultural and creative sector, unlike the “creative economy”, is distinguished from economically driven sectors such as industry and services. The focus is on artistic and cultural values, as well as social and sometimes political motivations for the sector.
In his recent book Culture is not an industry: Reclaiming art and culture for the common good (2024), Justin O’Connor argues against approaching culture purely from an economic standpoint.15 By talking about “the creative economy”, according to him, culture is poorly viewed as a market product, with the result that the way in which culture can contribute to social and political imagination is repressed. According to O’Connor, art and culture should be an essential part of democracy: a place where ideas can be freely thought about and a breeding ground for radical change. He states: “ We need to reassert public value over private profit, and to return culture to the public realm rather than leave it to market citizenship.”16
In contrast to the “creative economy” perspective, this view focuses more on the intrinsic value of the sector, such as the importance of a flourishing cultural life as a societal goal in itself. Arts and culture are seen as a “public good” that generates positive effects for society, justifying government support. The belief is that part of the cultural offering would not exist without government intervention, for instance because the market would be too small to sustain high-quality content. This is comparable to other “common goods” such as clean air and national defence, where market mechanisms fall short and the government must step in to finance them.
In 2022, 150 countries gathered at MONDIACULT, the world’s largest conference on culture, reaffirming culture as a “global public good”.17 In the Netherlands, this perspective also underpins the national subsidy system (referred to as the “BIS”), with the Dutch government emphasising the importance of making cultural offerings accessible to as many people as possible.18
IFACCA Culture as Common Good
Various funds and financiers stress the importance of culture in the “public space” and its role as a driver of societal change. For example, the Prince Claus Fund for Culture and Development supports artists and cultural organisations in countries where cultural expression is under pressure. The Netherlands-based European Cultural Foundation funds artists and cultural pioneers because they address complex issues in ways that transcend political debates. The foundation believes in the power of culture to connect, create space for dialogue and promote European public space. Stichting DOEN finances art and culture projects that use radical imagination to show that a different world is possible, creating space for diverse perspectives.
Unlike the socio-economic “benefits” such as economic growth and social cohesion central to the “creative economy”, this perspective invests in culture for the “societal change” it can generate in public space and civil society. Culture here is linked to concepts such as freedom of expression, imagination, critical voices, dialogue and democracy.
The role of the cultural and creative sector can also be examined from the perspective of the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE). This view emphasises the significant role of the sector in shaping alternative ways of living, working and developing a “new economy”.
The focus is on initiatives promoting horizontal, equitable, collective and more inclusive forms of collaboration, such as cultural cooperatives, artist collectives and community-driven initiatives. Examples include cultural free zones resisting further privatisation and gentrification of cities, as well as cooperative craft workshops, shared studios or music spaces and art collectives that organise themselves democratically. An example of this is organisations that promote “collective ownership” of cultural venues.
In addition, the "Open Movement" is a global initiative centred around the free sharing of creativity, culture and knowledge. This movement includes projects like Creative Commons, open-source software, Copyleft, platform cooperatives, online community radio and streaming and remix culture. It seeks to make access to art and culture more accessible, inclusive and flexible while encouraging reuse. The movement highlights the importance of collective creativity, imagination and knowledge exchange, aiming to remove barriers often present in traditional copyright and ownership systems.
RIPESS (https://www.ripess.org/)
There are also examples of horizontally and cooperatively organised funds demonstrating that collective investments can be achieved through democratic, inclusive decision-making processes. These initiatives resemble credit unions (cooperative banks owned by their members), which offer cultural entrepreneurs access to affordable financing based on joint decision-making. A key example is the Boston Ujima Project, a democratically member-led venture capital fund in Boston with the mission of returning wealth to communities of colour.
The Ujima Fund provides loans and equity investments in local cultural and community-based creative enterprises. It has raised $4.5 million for its investment fund.19 The initiative uses a “participatory investment process” where members can propose projects they believe will have a positive impact on the community. These proposals are often collected during neighbourhood meetings where hundreds of residents, local creative businesses and artists come together. Financial experts from the community conduct due diligence and provide recommendations before the investments are put to a vote. The Boston Ujima model is similar to the way credit unions operate.
These investment models are often described as “non-extractive” financing.20 This means that the financial structure ensures the lender’s returns never exceed the value created by the borrower with the capital provided. This can be achieved through mechanisms such as low interest rates, grace periods, zero collateral or repayment schedules with no payments of interest until after the project can cover expenses . Alternatively, interest may only be charged once the project becomes profitable. In such a model, profits generated by an initiative can flow back into a revolving fund, allowing the success to support future cultural spaces that need funding.
In the Netherlands, several funds also promote the development of a new social and solidarity economy. Examples include the Fonds Burgerbewegingen, the Stadmakers Fonds and Fonds Kwadraat, which provides non-extractive loans to artists. Stichting DOEN plays a pioneering role in this field, particularly through the Arts Collaboratory network and the Postcode Loterij Buurtfonds, which supports community-driven initiatives. On its website, Stichting DOEN emphasises its focus on “social practice” (artists involving communities and individuals in their creative processes) and cultural initiatives striving for horizontal, equitable and inclusive collaboration models.
In contrast to the “creative economy” perspective, which emphasises socio-economic “benefits”, this view describes a “systemic transition” from the current extractive economy to an alternative, values-driven “new economy”. In other words, the focus here shifts from “social change” to “systemic change”.
What is the impact of the cultural and creative sector? This question has been widely discussed and debated in recent years and significant research has been conducted on the topic.21 Such research often distinguishes between the societal and ecological impact and the “inherent value” of the sector.
Impact refers to the external societal effects of the sector, while its inherent value is expressed through concepts such as imagination, inspiration, experience, reflection and offering new perspectives. In the United Kingdom, the term “cultural value” is sometimes used to differentiate this from “socio-economic benefits”. The terms “intrinsic” and “instrumental value” are also occasionally employed to describe this distinction. In this study, we use the terms “social and ecological impact” versus “inherent value”.
In recent years, there has been increasing attention on the cultural and creative sector’s role in driving or accelerating change in areas such as the economy, society and the environment.
In this context, the sector’s impact can be described across various dimensions, including healthcare, education, climate and diversity and inclusion. Impact is often assessed based on contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which consist of seventeen global targets aimed at making the world a better place by 2030. These goals serve as a global framework for addressing challenges such as poverty, education and the climate crisis.22
There are numerous examples of how the sector contributes to the SDGs. Theatre companies offer educational programmes in schools located in disadvantaged areas, while music labels collaborate with prison systems. Interaction designers have developed tools that help blind and visually impaired individuals interpret body language through mobile apps.23 A gaming company has designed specialised games for trainee surgeons to improve motor skills in a captivating virtual environment.24 A film organisation works with asylum holders from the film industry to help them find employment in the Dutch film and television sector.25
There are varying views on what constitutes impact within the cultural and creative sector. This study will not delve further into this debate and we refer to the various initiatives in the Netherlands that are conducting deaper research into the impact of the cultural, such as the Impact Tiendaagse.26
Diverse opinions exist regarding the pressure from governments and financiers to make the societal effects of the cultural and creative sector measurable and demonstrable.
Some argue that the sector’s unique value lies precisely in its ability to transcend the dominant focus on utility and returns. There is resistance against the increasing demand for measurement, control and efficiency often imposed on cultural and creative organisations. Critics contend that the sector is one of the few domains where ambiguity and open-endedness are embraced, standing in contrast to a world increasingly dominated by functionality and utility. In short, the sector’s added value extends beyond predefined impact targets, instead creating space where the unthinkable can be explored and the unplanned can be embraced as a strategy.
Composer and musician Merlijn Twaalfhoven refers to this as the importance of “play space” in addressing societal issues.27 This concept involves allowing for non-profitable experiments, artistic research and the acceptance of failure. The undefined and unmeasurable nature of imagination is seen as crucial to the sector, distinguishing it from “social enterprises” that aim for clearly defined impacts with maximum efficiency. Twaalfhoven also speaks of the “ability to embrace uncertainty” as a core skill of artists. By adopting an artistic mindset, one becomes more comfortable with uncertainty. He even founded an Academy for Uncertainty Competency.28
The Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) has also advocated for restraint in imposing predefined impact criteria that extend beyond artistic and cultural considerations.29 It warns that the risk of market-driven thinking is that everything is subjected to the same standards, leading to the dominance of “measurable outcomes”. In the article “Measuring is Knowing, But Is It Really?”, Stichting DOEN suggests that when evaluating the impact of social arts practices, the focus should be on participants’ experiences rather than reducing everything to numerical data.30
Hans Stegeman, Chief Economist, Triodos Bank
Beyond the societal and economic benefits of the cultural and creative sector lies its inherent value. The fact that cultural initiatives contribute to a thriving cultural life holds intrinsic significance for society. This “inherent value” is frequently emphasised within the sector itself as a defining strength, setting it apart from other industries. After all, a shopping centre also provides economic value to a community, a tech incubator fosters innovation and a medical startup contributes to public health.
The inherent values of the cultural and creative sector are closely linked to 1) cultural relevance, 2) artistic strategies and 3) the cultural commons.
When considering cultural relevance, we mean the added value and necessity of an initiative within the cultural context in which it operates. Criteria such as originality, craftsmanship could be taken into account. Originality refers to the extent to which a person has created something new. Craftsmanship, for example, can be assessed through peer recognition. These aspects are not easy to assess but form a crucial foundation for the potential success and growth of a cultural organization.
Consider, for example, the critical importance of the right aesthetic and narrative choices in a video game for the company’s ultimate commercial success. Ideally, the evaluation of cultural value should be conducted by peers or professionals from the specific discipline in which the enterprise operates. For instance, assessing the originality, craftsmanship of a video game is best done by individuals with extensive knowledge of the gaming sector, as they can most accurately compare the game with others in the industry and determine how trendsetting its artistic vision and style are within that context.
The evaluation of an initiative can often be unconsciously influenced by subjective norms and personal biases. Opinions about artistic relevance are shaped by individual cultural reference points. Being aware of unconscious biases is essential for identifying blind spots when assessing artistic value. Therefore, diversity and inclusion must be seen as integral aspects of artistic evaluation. It is crucial that key figures from the cultural enterprise’s community or network are involved in the assessment process. Research has shown that a lack of representation in funding bodies and selection committees has led to limited financial support for bicultural Dutch artists and the marginalisation of certain forms of artistic expression.
The “inherent value” of art and culture is also linked to its ability to constantly produce new perspectives, or new ways of approaching or perceiving or being affected. Artistic strategies could be employed such as embodying, affecting, expressing, imagining, inspiring, caring, co-creating, empowering and subverting. More about creative strategies and ways to evaluate them can be found in The Creatures Framework.31
The inherent and unique value also relates to the cultural commons, which can be defined as societal cultural space between the state and the market. It is space for collective practices of sharing, creating, and sustaining culture as a shared resource, emphasizing collaboration, meaning-making, and resistance to commodification. It encompasses both artistic and communal actions that reclaim and govern cultural and urban as well as rural spaces collectively, fostering inclusivity and collective ownership . More about the “cultural commons” can be found in the work of Pascal Gielen, such as in his book Trust, Building on Cultural Commons (2024).
Besides that, imagination is not solely an individual expression or experience but also a collective process. Art and culture bring people together, create shared experiences and identities, strengthens civic space and promote dialogue. The UN highlights the unique nature of cultural activities and services as common goods and carriers of identities, values and meanings, as well as the importance of cultural exchange for dialogue and mutual respect.32
Florian Schneider, Professor Artistic Entrepreneurship NTNU