Optimizing Impact Investment Portfolios with Reinforcement Learning: A Data-Driven Framework for Balancing Financial Returns and SDG Alignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impact investors face a complex multi-objective optimization challenge: balancing financial returns with sustainability outcomes, particularly alignment with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Traditional portfolio optimization methods fall short in dynamically integrating real-time sustainability metrics and adapting to changing market conditions. This paper introduces a novel reinforcement learning (RL) framework designed to optimize impact investment portfolios by simultaneously maximizing risk-adjusted financial returns and SDG alignment. We formulate the portfolio management task as a Markov decision process, incorporating both financial indicators and sustainability metrics into the state space, and propose a dual-objective reward function that allows investors to specify their preferred trade-off between financial and impact goals. Using a Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient algorithm, our RL agent learns optimal allocation strategies through interaction with a simulated market environment. Empirical results demonstrate that the proposed framework significantly outperforms traditional methods, achieving an 80.8% higher Sharpe ratio (1.32 vs. 0.73 for mean-variance optimization (MVO)), 87.1% SDG alignment, and a 34.2% reduction in maximum drawdown (–12.3% vs. –18.7% for MVO). The framework also maintains an average environmental, social, and governance score of 82.4 and reduces carbon intensity by 27.6%. The study contributes a scalable, data-driven approach to sustainable finance, enabling more responsive and responsible investment strategies without compromising financial performance. Received: 27 August 2025 | Revised: 10 October 2025 | Accepted: 3 November 2025 Conflicts of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to this work. Data Availability Statement The data that support this work are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author. Author Contribution Statement Sanjay Agal: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Krishna Raulji: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Kishori Shekokar: Writing – review & editing. Nikunj Bhavsar: Software, Validation, Resources, Data curation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".