Scholars from various fields of study have been debating the behavioral change, both from private and public entities. Often linking it back and reasoning it with the financial crisis, which sparked higher expectations from the public towards corporate behavior, and a demand for relevant public institutions to solve these issues, it is evident that there is becoming a large gap when it comes to identifying who or what is responsible where. While the increasing interest around impact investing - doing well, while doing good, gained its foothold during the financial crisis, is also leaves private corporations to get involved into areas, where governments normally are the duty-bearers. The increasing support from governments, intergovernmental organizations and so on has sparked my interest into how Danish actors mobilize the private resources into their developmental work, and to what extend these meet the communicated goals. Taking point of departure from the public Danish Investment Fund for Developing countries and the private Nordic Impact Funds. The qualitative research to this matter, has through discourse analysis found that the respective Danish financial impact institutions mobilize private sector resources thought investments in either equity or debt. This is so they can gain voting power in decision-making at the board of directors or a complete ownership. Hence, the aim is to advice or implement strategies that can generate a financial return, along with an impact in developing countries. The extend to which the IFU achieves their communicated goals, is limited – however, due to theory based on FDI, Impact Investing and the Blended Value, social and economic development can happen, however not to the full potential, possible.