The Impact Search Fund: A Regenerative Finance Approach to Transforming Community-Rooted Entrepreneurship

The Impact Search Fund: A Regenerative Finance Approach to Transforming Community-Rooted Entrepreneurship

Farhad Reyazat- PhD in Risk Management, London Institute of Banking & Finance

Citation: Reyazat, F. (2025, November 14). The Impact Search Fund: A Regenerative finance approach to transforming Community-Rooted entrepreneurship. London Institute of Banking & Finance  https://www.reyazat.com/2025/11/14/the-impact-search-fund-a-regenerative-finance-approach-to-transforming-community-rooted-entrepreneurship/

Abstract

• Regenerative SMEs in areas such as circular economy services, sustainable food systems, and local manufacturing.
• Community assets, including care facilities, educational institutions, cultural enterprises, and local service providers.
• Mission-driven service companies such as healthcare providers, early childhood education centers, workforce development firms, and digital inclusion platforms.

1. Conceptual Integration of ETA, Impact Investing, and Regenerative Economics
   The paper synthesizes theoretical domains that have traditionally been studied separately, creating a unified lens through which to analyze impact acquisitions. It integrates search fund structures with regenerative governance, mission-lock mechanisms, and blended finance principles.
2. A Framework for “Impact Search Funds”
   Building on empirical evidence from Stanford and IESE studies, and informed by impact finance literature, the paper introduces a structured model for adapting ETA to social-purpose acquisitions, including revised incentive systems, impact metrics, capital stacks, and exit pathways.
3. Operational Guidance for Entrepreneurs and Investors
   The framework offers actionable insights for searchers, operators, fund managers, and ecosystem builders, particularly those designing hybrid or impact-aligned acquisition vehicles such as those pursued within the Better World and PAM (Providence Asset Management) ecosystems.
4. Contribution to the Regenerative Finance Discourse
   By situating ETA within a broader theory of regenerative economic development, the research highlights the potential for searchers to act as stewards of community assets, transitioning businesses toward long-term resilience and stakeholder value rather than short-term extraction.

The Stanford Search Fund Primer outlines a four-stage lifecycle that defines ETA within the traditional “search fund” model:

1. Raising the search fund: Searchers secure initial capital from aligned investors to finance a 12–24 month search period.
2. Search and acquisition: Searchers source, evaluate, negotiate, and acquire a target SME.
3. Operational value creation: The searcher becomes CEO/operator, implementing growth strategies, process improvements, and organizational restructuring.
4. Exit: After a typical hold period of 5–10 years, the business is sold, recapitalized, or transitioned to new ownership, generating liquidity for investors and the entrepreneur.

• Software and tech-enabled services
• Healthcare services and clinics
• Facilities management and business services
• Education, training, and human capital services
• “Boring but profitable” SMEs—typically low-glamour, high-margin, operationally complex niches

1. Limited research on buyout-led entrepreneurship for social purpose.
   While ETA is well-studied as an entrepreneurial and financial mechanism, its application to social enterprises, regenerative SMEs, or community assets remains largely unexplored in the scholarly literature. There are no systematic studies on how acquisitions can preserve or enhance social missions.
2. No established frameworks for integrating impact metrics or regenerative governance into ETA.
   Traditional search funds optimize for financial IRR. Impact ventures require alternative capital structures, extended time horizons, and governance mechanisms that prevent mission drift—topics absent from existing ETA research.
3. Lack of theoretical integration between ETA and impact finance.
   Entrepreneurship, buyouts, and impact investing are treated as separate domains, resulting in conceptual blind spots regarding how acquisition-led entrepreneurship could drive systemic social or environmental outcomes.
4. Insufficient evidence on diversity, equity, and inclusion in impact-oriented ETA.
   Although international search fund activity is rising, participation among women, minority groups, and nontraditional entrepreneurs remains low, with no research examining barriers specific to impact-focused acquisitions.

These gaps underscore the need for a new conceptual model, one that adapts ETA frameworks for social purpose enterprises and builds a theoretical foundation for an “Impact Search Fund” capable of balancing financial, social, and regenerative returns.

3. Conceptual Framework: Search Funds for Impact

3.1 Why Search Funds Are Naturally Suited to Impact

• governance and accountability,
• labor practices and worker well-being,
• supply chain ethics,
• sustainability systems,
• data and technology infrastructure.

• mission drift,
• layoffs or restructuring,
• loss of community control,
• environmental degradation if sustainability practices are deprioritized.

Thus, while ETA offers strong operational alignment with impact goals, the financial and exit logics of traditional search funds must be restructured to avoid extractive outcomes and support long-term social value creation.

3.4 The Impact Search Fund Model (New Contribution)

To address these tensions and align ETA with impact-oriented objectives, this paper proposes a novel Impact Search Fund (ISF) architecture. The ISF adapts traditional ETA structures by integrating blended finance, mission-lock governance, multi-dimensional measurement, and regenerative operating models.

3.4.1 Capital Structure

A redesigned capital stack is crucial for aligning investor expectations with impact objectives. Key components include:

Blended finance model

• Catalytic capital: risk-tolerant, low-return capital from philanthropies, foundations, or public agencies.
• Concessionary capital: moderate-return investors aligned with social outcomes.
• Commercial tranches: market-rate investors providing scaled growth capital.

This structure lowers the weighted cost of capital and accommodates impact priorities.

Patient equity & community investment tranches

Patient investors accept longer time horizons and moderated returns, while community investment tranches (e.g., community shares, cooperative capital) foster local ownership and trust.

Evergreen or phased exit windows

Instead of forced liquidity at predetermined IRR targets, exits may include:

• steward-ownership conversions,
• ESOP transfers,
• community buyouts,
• soft exits with retained minority stakes.

• community representatives,
• sector experts (e.g., healthcare ethics, education quality),
• worker delegates,
• impact measurement specialists.

• service accessibility,
• environmental sustainability,
• job quality,
• gender and inclusion outcomes.

• employee retention, safety, and wage progression;
• carbon footprint and resource efficiency;
• community economic spillover effects.

• operational efficiency,
• worker empowerment,
• data governance and privacy,
• community connection.

Examples include ethical data platforms, worker-owned digital tools, and transparent supply chain systems.

4. Methodology

This paper adopts a conceptual synthesis methodology designed to integrate insights from multiple scholarly and practitioner-oriented domains in order to construct a novel theoretical framework, the Impact Search Fund (ISF) model. Given the interdisciplinary nature of Entrepreneurship Through Acquisition (ETA), impact investing, and regenerative economic theory, a conceptual research approach is appropriate for bridging fragmented literatures and generating new theoretical contributions (Jaakkola, 2020).

• Entrepreneurship Through Acquisition (ETA)
• Management buyouts (MBOs) and leveraged buyouts (LBOs)
• Private equity governance
• SME succession and ownership transition

• Stanford Graduate School of Business Search Fund Studies (2018–2024)
• IESE Business School International Search Fund Reports (2011–2024)
• Practitioner case notes and teaching materials (e.g., Wolfe, Stevens & Wasserstein, 2025)

These reports offer quantitative insights into returns, acquisition characteristics, operator backgrounds, geographic trends, and industry patterns. Although not peer-reviewed, they constitute the most authoritative datasets on search funds globally. Their inclusion strengthens the empirical grounding of the proposed Impact Search Fund model.

4.3 Impact Investing and Regenerative Finance Frameworks

Third, the paper draws on frameworks from impact investing and regenerative economics, such as:

• IRIS+ system (Global Impact Investing Network)
• ESG and sustainable accounting frameworks (SASB, GRI)
• Principles of systemic investing, resilience, and regenerative economics
• Literature on mission-lock governance, blended finance, and steward ownership

These frameworks provide the conceptual tools necessary to assess how traditional search funds may be reconfigured to prioritize social and environmental outcomes alongside financial performance.

4.4 Case-Based Insights from Social-Sector Acquisitions

Fourth, the methodology incorporates case evidence from acquisitions in social sectors—both within and adjacent to the search fund ecosystem. While formal case studies of impact-oriented search funds are limited, analogous cases exist in:

• Healthcare and behavioral health roll-ups
• Education and training enterprises
• Community housing and elder-care acquisitions
• Renewable energy and environmental services SMEs
• Worker-centered or cooperative platform transitions (e.g., platform cooperativism)

These examples provide practical insights into operational challenges, stakeholder governance, and value creation mechanisms in socially relevant businesses that resemble search fund targets.

4.5 Optional Alternative: PRISMA-ScR–Inspired Approach

Because the field of ETA research remains fragmented and under-theorized—particularly concerning social or impact-oriented applications—the paper also draws methodological inspiration from the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—Scoping Review) guidelines. Hoffmann et al. (2023) used PRISMA-ScR to establish the first comprehensive evidence base for ETA research.

While the present study is not a formal scoping review, it adopts elements of the PRISMA-ScR approach:

• Structured identification of relevant sources across academic and grey literature
• Inclusion/exclusion logic focusing on entrepreneurial acquisition, impact investment, and mission-driven ownership models
• Iterative thematic synthesis, whereby overlapping concepts (e.g., governance, capital structures, community impact) are aggregated into higher-order theoretical dimensions

This hybrid conceptual methodology enables the articulation of a cohesive, multi-dimensional framework for Impact Search Funds by integrating diverse evidence sources into a structured theoretical contribution.

4.6 Methodological Rationale

A conceptual research design is justified for three reasons:

1. Novelty and theoretical gap
   There is no established scholarly literature on impact-aligned ETA, making empirical or hypothesis-testing methods premature.
2. Interdisciplinarity
   ETA spans entrepreneurship, finance, private equity, social enterprise, and community economics—domains not yet integrated.
3. Practical relevance
   Conceptual frameworks are essential for practitioners designing new fund structures, governance models, and investment vehicles that align with both financial and impact outcomes.

• expand formal employment,
• improve compliance with labor protections,
• introduce digital systems,
• strengthen governance, and
• scale service quality in underserved communities.

Because many of these SMEs operate in essential-service environments, the synergy between ETA and development impact becomes especially pronounced.

International Search Funds (IESE, 2024)

IESE’s 2024 International Search Fund findings include several examples of searchers acquiring companies operating in socially relevant domains outside North America. Illustrative cases include:

• A Spanish searcher acquiring a healthcare scheduling and home-care services provider, increasing geographic access and workforce stability.
• An Italian search fund acquiring an energy-efficiency services firm, enabling municipal and corporate decarbonization.
• A Kenyan searcher acquiring an agricultural logistics SME, improving market access for rural farmers and reducing post-harvest waste.
• A Canadian–European team acquiring a behavioral education services firm and implementing data-driven educational interventions for neurodiverse children.

• An ISF acquiring a community elder-care home, implementing regenerative staffing models, trauma-informed care, and community governance through a golden-share trust.
• An ISF acquiring a solar installation SME, introducing blended finance for low-income households, and expanding inclusive clean-energy access.
• An ISF acquiring a digital literacy cooperative, embedding worker data rights and platform cooperativism principles while scaling community-based education programs.

• informal processes,
• underinvestment in technology,
• limited managerial depth, and
• inconsistent compliance frameworks.

Search fund entrepreneurs introduce:

• strategic planning,
• digitization,
• financial controls, and
• organizational restructuring.

• establishing worker advisory councils,
• enabling partial employee ownership,
• implementing ethical data policies,
• designing platform systems that reduce surveillance and exploitation.

• transparency,
• privacy,
• collective data governance, and
• equitable value sharing.

• subscription-based social services,
• community membership programs,
• government contracting for public-good services,
• long-term service agreements in renewable energy or healthcare.

These revenue streams support both economic viability and long-term impact.

• Community Interest Company (CIC) or
• Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG)

in UK jurisdictions, or equivalent mission-locked forms internationally.
These structures ensure asset locks, transparency, and constraints against mission-incoherent sales.

Steward-Owned Holding Foundation

Above the SPV, a steward-ownership foundation or trust can hold:

• a golden share ensuring mission protection,
• veto rights over changes in purpose,
• veto rights over the sale of the enterprise to extractive buyers.

This model draws on European steward-ownership structures used by companies such as Bosch and Novo Nordisk.

Regenerative Governance Layers

The ISF structure includes governance layers aligned with regenerative principles:

• stakeholder representation,
• ecological and community metrics,
• long-term value creation mandates.

These layers guard against short-termism and promote systemic resilience.

Multi-Share Class System

A multi-share class structure enables differentiated rights and responsibilities:

1. Community Shares
   • Non-transferable or capped-return shares held by community members or local organizations.
   • Provide advisory influence, legitimacy, and accountability.
2. Investor Shares
   • Carry economic rights without endangering the mission.
   • May be subject to return caps or impact-performance carry.
3. Operator Shares
   • Vest over time and based on both financial and impact KPIs.
   • Ensure the entrepreneur-operator remains aligned with mission and community outcomes.

This architecture enables alignment among investor, operator, and community interests while preserving operational agility.

6.2 Financial Structure

Impact Search Funds require a reconfiguration of the traditional search fund financial model to ensure that financial pressures do not undermine impact goals.

Layered Returns

Returns are structured using blended finance principles:

1. Catalyst Tranche (Target 5–8%)
   • Philanthropic foundations, public agencies, or catalytic impact investors accept lower returns.
   • Absorbs early-stage risk or concessionary terms to reduce the cost of capital.
2. Patient Equity (Target 12–15%)
   • Impact-oriented investors willing to prioritize mission continuity over rapid exit.
   • Encourages steady growth without pressure for hyper-scaling.
3. Commercial Tranche (Target 18–22%)
   • Market-rate investors with capped IRRs to maintain mission alignment.
   • Suitable for growth opportunities without driving extractive behaviors.

Avoiding IRR Pressures Above 25%

Traditional search fund targets of 30–35% IRR incentivize extractive cost-cutting or aggressive exits.
The ISF structure deliberately avoids IRR expectations above 25%, enabling:

• long-term investments in staff training,
• service quality improvement,
• environmental sustainability,
• community-benefit programs.

A balanced financial architecture reduces distortionary incentives and supports systemic value creation.

6.3 Impact Governance Tools

To ensure accountability and transparency, the ISF integrates governance tools specifically designed to monitor and reinforce impact outcomes.

Annual Impact Audits

Independent third-party audits assess:

• social performance,
• environmental impact,
• community value creation,
• stakeholder wellbeing.

Audits align with IRIS+, GIIN, and industry-specific standards, ensuring rigor and consistency across all relevant frameworks.

Worker and Community Advisory Councils

Advisory councils provide structured stakeholder engagement channels:

• workers contribute insights on labor practices and wellbeing;
• community representatives share local priorities and monitor alignment;
• councils may hold consultative or reserved voting rights depending on design.

This enhances transparency and fosters a shared responsibility for maintaining mission continuity.

ESG Data Integrated with Operating KPIs

Operational dashboards integrate both financial and impact metrics, such as:

• worker safety and wage progression,
• patient or student outcomes (where applicable),
• emissions and resource efficiency,
• community engagement and equity indicators.

This multi-metric approach aligns decision-making with regenerative outcomes rather than short-term financial optimization.

6.4 Exit Strategy

An impact-driven ETA structure requires exit mechanisms that safeguard mission integrity and prevent extractive transfers. The ISF proposes exit pathways that maintain operational continuity and preserve long-term impact.

Steward-Ownership Conversions

At maturity, the enterprise can transition fully into steward-ownership:

• perpetual mission-lock,
• self-governing via foundation oversight,
• reinvestment of profits into the enterprise and community.

ESOP Transitions (Employee Ownership)

A portion or the majority of ownership can be transferred to employees:

• improves worker agency and income distribution,
• increases organizational stability,
• reinforces long-termism and local accountability.

Community Buyouts

Local institutions, cooperatives, or community trusts can acquire the enterprise using:

• community share issues,
• social impact bonds,
• local blended finance.

This approach strengthens local ownership while preserving mission.

Limited Exit Liquidity to Prevent Mission Drift

To avoid opportunistic resale or extraction, exit liquidity may be structured so that:

• investors receive pre-defined capped returns;
• buy-side options are restricted to mission-aligned purchasers;
• Sales to extractive PE firms or multinational consolidators are prohibited via legal lock-ins.

These mechanisms ensure that liquidity events do not undermine the long-term social and environmental objectives that justified the acquisition.

7. Risks, Constraints, and Critiques

Although the Impact Search Fund (ISF) model provides a promising bridge between entrepreneurial acquisition and impact-driven enterprise development, it faces a range of risks, structural constraints, and theoretical critiques. These challenges emerge from both the traditional search fund literature (Stanford, IESE) and broader analyses of labor, governance, and platform economies (ILO). Understanding these risks and articulating strategies to mitigate them is crucial for ensuring the long-term viability and integrity of the mission in impact-oriented acquisitions.

7.1 ETA Risks

Search Failure (20–30% Fail to Acquire)

Data from Stanford and IESE studies indicate that 20–30% of search funds do not complete an acquisition, resulting in partial or full capital loss for investors and limited entrepreneurial upside.
For ISFs, this risk is amplified when targeting niche impact sectors that require specialized expertise, regulatory familiarity, or alignment with their mission. Limited deal flow in social or regenerative domains may increase search duration and reduce the probability of acquisition.

CEO Inexperience and Operational Execution Risk

Traditional searchers are often first-time CEOs, frequently in their early 30s, and may lack operational experience in sensitive impact sectors such as healthcare, education, or social care.
This creates potential risks related to:

• regulatory non-compliance,
• mismanagement of essential services,
• underestimation of stakeholder complexity,
• cultural misalignment with mission-driven employees.

In impact contexts, CEO missteps may have social and community-level consequences, in addition to financial ones.

Capital Scarcity in Impact-First Deals

Impact-first acquisitions may appear less attractive to traditional search fund investors due to moderated return expectations, patient exit timelines, and blended finance structures.
Consequently, ISFs risk facing:

• higher cost of capital,
• limited access to acquisition financing,
• reduced investor participation when returns are capped or subordinated to impact goals.

This limits scale and slows adoption of the ISF model.

7.2 Impact Risks

Mission Drift During Acquisition or Exit

A fundamental risk in impact acquisitions is mission drift, the gradual erosion of social purpose due to financial pressures, investor expectations, or leadership transitions.
Drift may occur:

• during due diligence and negotiation, when financial priorities overshadow social commitments,
• during the operational phase, when margin expansion conflicts with stakeholder well-being,
• at exit, if the company is sold to buyers who deprioritize impact.

Without explicit constraints, ETA’s traditional incentives may unintentionally prioritize rapid scaling and cost efficiencies over the integrity of impact.

Over-Financialization (ILO Critique of Platform Capitalism)

ILO findings on digital labor platforms warn against “over-financialization,” where capital-driven optimization suppresses worker rights, community benefits, and long-term resilience.
If ISFs adopt technological or platform models without ethical safeguards, risks include:

• algorithmic surveillance of workers,
• data extraction for commercial gain,
• reliance on precarious labor models,
• monopolistic or extractive scaling strategies.

These dynamics run counter to regenerative and solidarity-based economics.

Governance Misalignment

Impact enterprises often require participatory governance structures to reflect the interests of the community, workers, and the environment.
Risks arise when:

• investors and operators hold disproportionate power,
• decision-making structures prioritize financial KPIs over impact,
• traditional boards lack representation from key stakeholders,
• governance fails to enforce mission-lock commitments.

Without safeguards, governance misalignment can undermine both operational performance and social objectives.

7.3 Mitigation Strategies

Mission-Lock Instruments

Legal and governance structures can protect mission integrity throughout the investment lifecycle, including:

• golden shares held by foundations,
• asset locks (e.g., CIC/CLG structures),
• steward-ownership conversions,
• mission-anchored bylaws,
• restricted sale clauses to ensure mission-aligned buyers.

These mechanisms limit drift and ensure long-term adherence to impact objectives.

Impact-Focused Investor Selection

Investor curation is essential for ISFs to avoid misaligned capital pressures.
Mitigation strategies include:

• selecting investors with impact mandates or blended finance backgrounds,
• capping IRR expectations to reduce extractive behavior,
• requiring investors to sign impact covenants,
• integrating non-financial KPIs into investor reporting frameworks.

Investor alignment reduces the risk of mission-compromising decisions during operations and exit.

Blended Exit Pathways

Exit strategy design is crucial for ensuring the continuity of the mission.
Mitigation tools include:

• steward-ownership exit, transitioning ownership to a mission-protecting foundation;
• ESOP (employee ownership) transitions, distributing ownership to workers;
• community buyouts, using cooperative or municipality-involved mechanisms;
• partial liquidity with retained mission oversight, ensuring investor liquidity while maintaining governance integrity.

Blended exits prioritize long-term social value, striking a balance between liquidity needs and systemic impact objectives.

8. Discussion

The findings of this conceptual synthesis suggest that the search fund model, historically oriented toward maximizing financial return, holds significant untapped potential as an instrument for impact through acquisition. When reframed within a regenerative, mission-aligned architecture, search funds can serve as a transformative mechanism for addressing both structural economic challenges and emerging societal needs.

Search Funds as Scalable Solutions to the SME Succession Crisis

One of the most compelling applications of the search fund model is its ability to confront the global SME succession crisis. As documented by Hoffmann et al. (2023) and supported by demographic data from across Europe, North America, Latin America, and parts of Asia, millions of small and medium-sized enterprises face ownership transitions due to the aging of founders and declining familial succession. Many of these firms provide essential services such as healthcare, education, elder care, and environmental services that are foundational to community resilience and well-being. Traditional acquisition pathways, including private equity roll-ups or distressed sales, often risk destroying social value or compromising stakeholder relationships.

Search funds offer a differentiated approach. Their operator-led structure, long-term involvement, and focus on business continuity make them well-suited to preserve embedded social functions while elevating operational quality. In this context, the search fund becomes not merely a financial vehicle but a mechanism for safeguarding and regenerating community assets.

Regenerative Principles and “Impact-Through-Acquisition”

The integration of regenerative principles into the search fund architecture transforms ETA into a vehicle capable of producing systemic impact. Regenerative economics emphasizes principles of resilience, circularity, interconnectedness, and long-term value creation, aligning well with the operationally intensive, relationship-driven nature of ETA. When combined with impact-focused governance, blended finance, and mission-lock mechanisms, search funds can generate a form of acquisition-led regeneration, where social and ecological outcomes are embedded into the acquisition thesis itself.

This approach reframes the entrepreneur-operator from a traditional CEO to a regenerative steward, whose mandate extends beyond profitability to encompass community well-being, worker empowerment, climate alignment, and the ethical use of technology. The ISF thus becomes a platform for operational excellence, social innovation, and ecological responsibility—all working in tandem.

Complementing System-Level Interventions: A Bridge to Systemic Investing

Perhaps most importantly, the Impact Search Fund model complements broader systemic investing frameworks—including those articulated in your own articles on systemic investing, resilience, and regenerative fund design. Systemic investing emphasizes multi-layered interventions that address root causes of structural challenges rather than symptoms. While macro-level strategies such as policy reform, infrastructure investments, and global capital market shifts are essential, they often lack mechanisms to influence operational behavior at the firm level.

Search funds, by contrast, operate inside the enterprise, shaping culture, governance, and daily decision-making. As such, they can enact micro-level transformations that accumulate into systemic effects. This hybrid positioning between enterprise-level execution and ecosystem-level alignment makes ISFs a potent complement to system-level interventions by:

• professionalizing social SMEs;
• embedding regenerative practices in daily operations;
• enabling fair labor models, worker cooperativism, and data ethics;
• stabilizing essential community services;
• increasing resilience across local economies.

The resulting synergy is a multiscalar impact model: systemic frameworks guide strategic direction, while search funds deliver concrete transformation on the ground.

Toward a Regenerative Acquisition Ecosystem

Taken together, this discussion suggests that the integration of ETA with regenerative economics represents a promising new frontier in impact finance. The emerging architecture of Impact Search Funds provides a blueprint for investors, entrepreneurs, and policymakers seeking to advance community-based, resilient, and socially meaningful enterprises. By leveraging the strengths of the search fund model and aligning it with systemic investing principles, this hybrid approach provides a practical and scalable mechanism for building a regenerative economic future.

9. Conclusion

Search funds have traditionally been understood as a high-performing entrepreneurial finance model driven by operational excellence and strong financial returns. However, as this paper argues, their structural characteristics—long-term stewardship, direct operator involvement, and strong alignment with SME continuity—make them uniquely capable of becoming powerful tools for social good when embedded within an impact-oriented and regenerative architecture.

By enabling responsible ownership transitions, search funds can help address the global SME succession crisis, protecting essential community enterprises from closure, misaligned acquisitions, or extractive buyouts. In doing so, they strengthen local economies, preserve employment, and maintain crucial social and environmental services. Their capacity to professionalize SMEs, modernize organizational systems, and improve governance further enhances their potential to deliver both immediate and long-term social benefit.

The proposed Impact Search Fund (ISF) model presented in this paper offers a comprehensive blueprint for aligning entrepreneurial leadership with the principles of regenerative economics. Through blended finance structures, mission-lock mechanisms, stakeholder governance, and impact-integrated operating practices, ISFs demonstrate how acquisition entrepreneurship can expand beyond value extraction and become a catalyst for community resilience, worker empowerment, and ecological regeneration.

At the same time, the development of ISFs remains in its early stages. The field would benefit from:

• empirical research examining the outcomes of early-stage impact-driven acquisitions;
• pilot vehicles testing blended financial structures, steward-ownership transitions, and community governance models;
• rigorous, data-driven impact measurement frameworks capable of integrating social, environmental, and financial performance into a unified system; and
• cross-sector collaboration among entrepreneurs, investors, policymakers, and community organizations to strengthen the enabling ecosystem.

In conclusion, the integration of search funds with impact and regenerative principles represents a promising paradigm shift, one that transforms acquisition entrepreneurship into a vehicle for systemic change. As new models are piloted and evidence accumulates, Impact Search Funds may emerge as a key instrument in building more resilient, equitable, and regenerative economies.

References

Achi, A., & Farhadi, R. (2022). Latin America Search Fund Study (Free PDF Version).

Fullerton, J. (2015). Regenerative capitalism: How universal principles and patterns will shape our new economy. Capital Institute. https://capitalinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015-Regenerative-Capitalism-4-20-15-final.pdf

Grousbeck, H. I. (2015). Search fund primer. Stanford Graduate School of Business.
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/centers-initiatives/ces/research/search-funds/primer

Hoffmann, A., Kanbach, D. K., & Stubner, S. (2023). Entrepreneurship through acquisition: A scoping review. Management Review Quarterly, 74(4), 1981–2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00352-6

International Labour Organization. (2021). Platform labour in search of value: A study of worker organizing practices and business models in the digital economy.
https://centrow.org/platform-labour-in-search-of-value-a-study-of-workers-organising-practices-andbusiness-models-in-the-digital-economy/

Kelly, P., & Heston, S. (2022). 2022 search fund study: Selected observations. Stanford Graduate School of Business.  https://enterprise.press/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Standford_Search_Funds.pdf

Kelly, P., & Heston, S. (2024). 2024 search fund study: Selected observations. Stanford Graduate School of Business.  https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/case-studies/2024-search-fund-study

Bauer, D. (2025). An exploration of the search fund phenomenon. European Management Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(25)00038-6

Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing. https://www.shortform.com/summary/thinking-in-systems-summary-donella-h-meadows?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=531475979&utm_content=1354600861121382&utm_term=84662959027561&utm_creative_format=thinking%20in%20systems&utm_marketing_tactic=p&msclkid=b054b11290b51b45037dd8047a95c8e1

Meuleman, M., Wright, M., Manigart, S., & Lockett, A. (2009). Private equity syndication: Agency costs, reputation and certification. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 724–749. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5957.2009.02124.x?msockid=3f6f4496ced76edf386a54bdcf0c6f41

Pöschl, A., & Freiling, J. (2019). The way towards a new entrepreneurial balance in business succession processes: The case of management buy-ins. Journal of Organizational Change Management. Advance online publication. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336854850

Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing. https://books.google.ae/books/about/Doughnut_Economics.html?id=7A4lDgAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Reyazat, F. (2025a). Systemic investing and resilient ecosystems: A framework for sustainable growth and impact. Reyazat Institute Papers. https://www.reyazat.com/2025/09/02/systemic-investing-and-resilient-ecosystems-a-framework-for-sustainable-growth-and-impact/

Reyazat, F. (2025b). The conceptual bridge from systemic risk to systemic investing in the pursuit of resilience. Reyazat Institute Papers. https://www.reyazat.com/2025/08/20/the-conceptual-bridge-from-systemic-risk-to-systemic-investing-in-the-pursuit-of-resilience/

Reyazat, F. (2025c). The architecture of impact foundations for scaling purpose through systemic investing. Reyazat Institute Papers. https://www.reyazat.com/2025/09/24/the-architecture-of-impact-foundations-for-scaling-purpose-through-systemic-investing/

Reyazat, F. (2025d). Culture, cumulative innovation and creative destruction: Nobel lessons for a regenerative economy. Reyazat Institute Papers. https://www.reyazat.com

Rosenthal, S., & Simon, J. (2024). Search fund transformations: A path to excellence. IESE Business School. https://www.iese.edu/media/research/pdfs/ST-0659-E

Stevenson, H. H. (1983). A perspective on entrepreneurship. Harvard Business School. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=9950

Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Rand McNally. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203629130-5/social-structure-organizations-1-arthur-stinchcombe

Wasserstein, A., & Golden, J. (2020). Patterns in entrepreneurship. Yale School of Management. https://som.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2025-04/Patterns%20in%20Entrepreneurship.pdf

Wasserman, N. (2012). The founder’s dilemmas: Anticipating and avoiding the pitfalls that can sink a startup. Princeton University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvcm4hqc

Wolfe, B., Stevens, J., & Wasserstein, A. (2025). What exactly search fund investors do and do not do for entrepreneurs. Yale School of Management Case Study. https://som.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2025-04/What%20Exactly%20Search%20Fund%20Investors%20Do%E2%80%94and%20Don%E2%80%99t%20Do%E2%80%94for%20Entrepreneurs.pdf

Wright, M., Hoskisson, R. E., Busenitz, L. W., & Dial, J. (2001). Finance and management buyouts: Agency theory and corporate governance. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 530–553. https://www.jstor.org/stable/259312