There is a lot of alignment in these two tables. Notably, they distinguish themselves from the broader field of “impact investing”. From the point of view of that tradition, “Systemic Investing” and “Progressive Capital might be seen as “subsets” of impact investing. However, they can also be seen as encompassing all types of financing, with the proposition that all types are necessary to realize systemic transformation (see: Three Types of Systems Change Finance). The first Table describes the type of finance by its process – systemic investing – that it theorizes will lead to transformation. The second table describes the type of investing by its outcome: transformation. The second Table also categorically brings out the issue of power, whereas it is implicit in the first Table. As well, the second table was seen as one element in defining the transformation finance approach: a second is the importance of evolution of financial ecosystems for systemic transformation (see the Core Concept: Financial Ecosystems for Systemic Transformation).

A look at “systems capital” from a design perspective described it as investments that “are focused on ways to:

1. appraise systems for their transformational potential;
2. design portfolios that harness interconnections and amplify positive value flows;
3. establish fit-for-purpose governance and sensing mechanisms;
4. and allocate and manage resources adaptively as change happens.” (iv)

Another leading work (v) identified three implications of moving from conventional to “transformative investment” approach:

1. Shift the perspective to the transformative potential of investments;
2. Identify intervention points in single and multiple systems to stretch the transformative potential of investments;
3. Collaborate to transform.

It also identified 12 Principles of a Transformative Investment Philosophy, presented below: