Interview with Nuno Brito Jorge of Goparity
Impact investing is moving into the mainstream as more people seek transparency, accountability, and measurable social and environmental outcomes from their money.
Money can be a powerful force for positive change when people have greater visibility and control over where it flows. Nuno Brito Jorge, CEO and co-founder of Goparity, an impact finance platform focused on sustainable investments aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, argues that the future of finance lies in transparency, participation, and measurable impact. He discusses the rise of financial democracy, the evolution of impact investing, and why individuals and institutions must pay closer attention to the real-world consequences of their financial decisions.
What were some early experiences or influences in your life and career that shaped your way of thinking about money, responsibility, and the role it can play in society?
I am an environmental engineer by training, and that explains a lot. When you spend years understanding how natural systems work – how resources flow, are transformed and have consequences – you end up applying that same logic to other systems. The financial system is no exception. Money also flows, it also has consequences, and it too can destroy or regenerate.
I worked at the European Parliament as an adviser on energy and environmental policy, where I saw first-hand how decisions on public funding could accelerate or slow down an entire transition; but I also came to understand, in practice, the importance of democracy. I began with energy democracy when, in 2013, I founded Coopérnico, Portugal’s first renewable energy co-operative. That further strengthened my outlook: when people come together and have the power to decide collectively where their money and energy go, something changes in their relationship with the world. We become protagonists and decision-makers, not customers or consumers. That’s where the seed of Goparity was sown – the realisation of financial democracy.
Can you describe a moment in your journey when your perspective on money or investment began to change significantly, and what changed in the way you made decisions after that?
It is difficult to pinpoint a specific moment; it was more of a convergence of events and lessons learnt – such as my experiences with Coopérnico or the European Parliament, which I mentioned – that I had been processing throughout my personal and professional journey. Even so, a decisive moment came when I realised that, on returning to Portugal after years in Brussels and Spain, I did not have access to an ethical banking option like the one I had already encountered there. It frustrated me to see that not only could I not find out where my savings were going, let alone decide where they should go.
Our mission is to make the impact of money visible. Although we are not the only ones demonstrating this, there are more and more studies and reports, from a wide variety of organisations, documenting the real footprint of capital.
There was also a question that kept niggling at me: if the technical solutions for the energy transition already existed, why was progress so slow? Perhaps part of the answer lay in the financing. And if that was the case, perhaps it was worth exploring whether things could be done differently – in a more transparent, more participatory way, closer to the people. The crowdfunding model seemed an interesting avenue to explore.
From that point on, I began to view investment in a different light, and that was essentially what we set out to build with Goparity. A model that, over time, has increasingly proven to be necessary and relevant. Our mission is to make the impact of money visible. Although we are not the only ones demonstrating this, there are more and more studies and reports, from a wide variety of organisations, documenting the real footprint of capital: where it goes, what it finances, and what consequences it has. These kinds of conversations are becoming increasingly prominent, and I am proud that this is the case.
How have you seen the way people think about using money to generate positive social or environmental outcomes change in recent years, and what do you think is still widely misunderstood?
The change is real and sustained. According to the Global Impact Investing Network’s State of the Market 2025 report, in 2025, impact investing grew by 11% in assets under management, and over the last six years it has accumulated growth of 21%. More and more people want to know what their bank finances, what is behind their pension funds, where their money goes when they are not using it. And the biggest change is that more and more people understand that money has a real impact, whether we want it to or not. It is no longer only about what we buy or consume, but also about what our investments and savings make possible.
At Goparity we have seen how that awareness has evolved towards a more everyday form of impact finance. The ambition is not for impact investing to remain a niche for specialists, but for it to become part of people’s daily financial lives. That is why ideas such as automatic investment or recurring reinforcement strategies matter.
What is still often misunderstood is that impact investing is not the same as philanthropy. Donations are important, but investment can also be designed to generate a measurable impact, whilst maintaining financial discipline and a profit motive. The real challenge lies in balancing risk, return and impact, rather than treating the latter as something separate from finance.
When you face decisions whose outcome is unclear and in which different priorities compete, how do you usually work through those situations and decide which direction to take?
I try to start with the mission and then compare it with reality. I ask myself questions such as: Does this decision help more people to use their money to make a positive impact? Is it still transparent? Does it protect trust? Does it make sense for investors, for project promoters and for the long-term sustainability of the company?
The tricky part is that impact finance often involves trade-offs. We want to grow, but without losing sight of our focus. We want to innovate, but without causing confusion. We want to highlight projects that need capital, but we must also be clear about the risks involved. That’s why my approach is usually to frame the dilemma clearly, listen to the community and the team, and avoid presenting complex issues as simple decisions. I’ve also learnt to distinguish between reversible and irreversible decisions. With the former, I prefer to act quickly, learn and make adjustments. With the latter, I take the time I need.
Can you share a concrete example of a recent decision that was not straightforward at first and explain how you analyzed it until reaching a conclusion?
The acquisition of Bolsa Social was a process that required a great deal of thought. Not because there were any doubts about the alignment of the two companies’ missions – which had been clear from the outset – but because acquiring a company for the first time in Goparity’s history represented a significant leap in complexity. All the more so as it involved a long-standing competitor.
We had to consider the integration of teams, data and users, and how to expand our offering into equity investment without compromising the quality of the project selection process that had earned us credibility up to that point.
What helped me make the decision was the human aspect – the many conversations with José (founder of Bolsa Social), with the team and with some shareholders – which confirmed the alignment of values between the two teams and platforms.
Bolsa Social has a track record spanning more than ten years of building a community in Spain, funding impact projects and earning a reputation through hard work. It wasn’t an opportunistic acquisition; it was a natural convergence. Ultimately, the question wasn’t whether we should do it, but whether we were ready to do it properly. And we decided we were.
In your experience, what really matters when building trust between those who want to support meaningful work and those who carry it out, especially when expectations and real-world limitations do not always coincide?
Trust depends on transparency, especially when the news is not good. It is not enough simply to celebrate successful projects, impact figures or campaigns that are going well. Investors also need to understand delays, defaults, restructuring processes and the real constraints faced by project developers.
At Goparity, we have had projects that have experienced payment delays and loans that have fallen into arrears – situations that no investment platform would voluntarily publicise. We communicate these matters immediately and transparently, and yet our community has responded with a loyalty that has surprised us and taught us a great deal. The reason, I believe, is that we have always communicated these situations honestly, explaining what had happened and what we were doing about it. Often we would like to be able to communicate even more, but too much transparency can jeopardise the recovery of capital.
As your work becomes more complex and reaches more people, how do you stay anchored in your original values, and what kind of trade-offs have required the most careful judgment?
I remain committed to my original aim: to help people use their money for good in a concrete, transparent and accessible way. Growth is valuable because it can generate greater impact, fund more projects and bring more people into sustainable finance. But growth also brings complexity.
There is a very strong alignment of values between us and our users. When we cross a red line, they are the first to call us out on it.
The trade-offs that require the most care relate to our focus. There are always more opportunities than we have capacity for. Therefore, we have to decide where Goparity can make the biggest difference and where our strengths already lie. This involves prioritising sectors and regions where we have experience, working with local experts as we expand, improving debt recovery and updates to investors, and maintaining discipline regarding what we decide not to do.
There is another important aspect: there is a very strong alignment of values between us and our users. When we cross a red line, they are the first to call us out on it.
When you think about the next five to ten years, what changes do you expect in the way money is used to create positive impact, and what should leaders and individuals start paying more attention to today?
I hope people will become much more aware of the hidden impact of their financial lives. We now ask ourselves questions about what we eat, how we travel and what energy we use. The next step is to ask ourselves those same questions about our bank accounts, our savings and our investment portfolios.
I also hope that impact finance will become more diversified. Renewable energy will remain essential, but capital will also need to flow into the social economy, sustainable agriculture, the circular economy, community infrastructure and projects in places where fair access to finance remains limited.
Leaders should focus on transparency, additionality and measurement. It is no longer enough simply to label a financial product as sustainable. People want to know what impact is being made, how it is measured, what risks exist and whether their money is actually helping.
