Social Impact Investing
Social Impact Investing
Social Impact Investing
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Turning the Improbable<br />
Into the Exceptional!<br />
Page 2 of 140
The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.<br />
Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities<br />
Achieve Their Full Potential<br />
Since its founding in 2003, The Advocacy Foundation has become recognized as an effective<br />
provider of support to those who receive our services, having real impact within the communities<br />
we serve. We are currently engaged in community and faith-based collaborative initiatives,<br />
having the overall objective of eradicating all forms of youth violence and correcting injustices<br />
everywhere. In carrying-out these initiatives, we have adopted the evidence-based strategic<br />
framework developed and implemented by the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency<br />
Prevention (OJJDP).<br />
The stated objectives are:<br />
1. Community Mobilization;<br />
2. <strong>Social</strong> Intervention;<br />
3. Provision of Opportunities;<br />
4. Organizational Change and Development;<br />
5. Suppression [of illegal activities].<br />
Moreover, it is our most fundamental belief that in order to be effective, prevention and<br />
intervention strategies must be Community Specific, Culturally Relevant, Evidence-Based, and<br />
Collaborative. The Violence Prevention and Intervention programming we employ in<br />
implementing this community-enhancing framework include the programs further described<br />
throughout our publications, programs and special projects both domestically and<br />
internationally.<br />
www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org<br />
ISBN: ......... ../2017<br />
......... Printed in the USA<br />
Advocacy Foundation Publishers<br />
Philadlephia, PA<br />
(878) 222-0450 | Voice | Data | SMS<br />
Page 3 of 140
Page 4 of 140
Dedication<br />
______<br />
Every publication in our many series’ is dedicated to everyone, absolutely everyone, who by<br />
virtue of their calling and by Divine inspiration, direction and guidance, is on the battlefield dayafter-day<br />
striving to follow God’s will and purpose for their lives. And this is with particular affinity<br />
for those Spiritual warriors who are being transformed into excellence through daily academic,<br />
professional, familial, and other challenges.<br />
We pray that you will bear in mind:<br />
Matthew 19:26 (NIV)<br />
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible,<br />
but with God all things are possible." (Emphasis added)<br />
To all of us who daily look past our circumstances, and naysayers, to what the Lord says we will<br />
accomplish:<br />
Blessings!!<br />
- The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.<br />
Page 5 of 140
Page 6 of 140
The Transformative Justice Project<br />
Eradicating Juvenile Delinquency Requires a Multi-Disciplinary Approach<br />
The way we accomplish all this is a follows:<br />
The Juvenile Justice system is incredibly overloaded, and<br />
Solutions-Based programs are woefully underfunded. Our<br />
precious children, therefore, particularly young people of<br />
color, often get the “swift” version of justice whenever they<br />
come into contact with the law.<br />
Decisions to build prison facilities are often based on<br />
elementary school test results, and our country incarcerates<br />
more of its young than any other nation on earth. So we at<br />
The Foundation labor to pull our young people out of the<br />
“school to prison” pipeline, and we then coordinate the efforts<br />
of the legal, psychological, governmental and educational<br />
professionals needed to bring an end to delinquency.<br />
We also educate families, police, local businesses, elected<br />
officials, clergy, and schools and other stakeholders about<br />
transforming whole communities, and we labor to change<br />
their thinking about the causes of delinquency with the goal<br />
of helping them embrace the idea of restoration for the young<br />
people in our care who demonstrate repentance for their<br />
mistakes.<br />
1. We vigorously advocate for charges reductions, wherever possible, in the adjudicatory (court)<br />
process, with the ultimate goal of expungement or pardon, in order to maximize the chances for<br />
our clients to graduate high school and progress into college, military service or the workforce<br />
without the stigma of a criminal record;<br />
2. We then enroll each young person into an Evidence-Based, Data-Driven Restorative Justice<br />
program designed to facilitate their rehabilitation and subsequent reintegration back into the<br />
community;<br />
3. While those projects are operating, we conduct a wide variety of ComeUnity-ReEngineering<br />
seminars and workshops on topics ranging from Juvenile Justice to Parental Rights, to Domestic<br />
issues to Police friendly contacts, to CBO and FBO accountability and compliance;<br />
4. Throughout the process, we encourage and maintain frequent personal contact between all<br />
parties;<br />
5 Throughout the process we conduct a continuum of events and fundraisers designed to facilitate<br />
collaboration among professionals and community stakeholders; and finally<br />
Page 7 of 140
6. 1 We disseminate Quarterly publications, like our e-Advocate series Newsletter and our e-Advocate<br />
Quarterly electronic Magazine to all regular donors in order to facilitate a lifelong learning process<br />
on the ever-evolving developments in the Justice system.<br />
And in addition to the help we provide for our young clients and their families, we also facilitate<br />
Community Engagement through the Restorative Justice process, thereby balancing the interesrs<br />
of local businesses, schools, clergy, elected officials, police, and all interested stakeholders. Through<br />
these efforts, relationships are rebuilt & strengthened, local businesses and communities are enhanced &<br />
protected from victimization, young careers are developed, and our precious young people are kept out<br />
of the prison pipeline.<br />
This is a massive undertaking, and we need all the help and financial support you can give! We plan to<br />
help 75 young persons per quarter-year (aggregating to a total of 250 per year) in each jurisdiction we<br />
serve) at an average cost of under $2,500 per client, per year.*<br />
Thank you in advance for your support!<br />
* FYI:<br />
1. The national average cost to taxpayers for minimum-security youth incarceration, is around<br />
$43,000.00 per child, per year.<br />
2. The average annual cost to taxpayers for maximun-security youth incarceration is well over<br />
$148,000.00 per child, per year.<br />
- (US News and World Report, December 9, 2014);<br />
3. In every jurisdiction in the nation, the Plea Bargain rate is above 99%.<br />
The Judicial system engages in a tri-partite balancing task in every single one of these matters, seeking<br />
to balance Rehabilitative Justice with Community Protection and Judicial Economy, and, although<br />
the practitioners work very hard to achieve positive outcomes, the scales are nowhere near balanced<br />
where people of color are involved.<br />
We must reverse this trend, which is right now working very much against the best interests of our young.<br />
Our young people do not belong behind bars.<br />
- Jack Johnson<br />
1<br />
In addition to supporting our world-class programming and support services, all regular donors receive our Quarterly e-Newsletter<br />
(The e-Advocate), as well as The e-Advocate Quarterly Magazine.<br />
Page 8 of 140
Page 9 of 140
Page 10 of 140
The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.<br />
Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities<br />
Achieve Their Full Potential<br />
…a collection of works on<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong><br />
Investments in Crime Reduction<br />
“Turning the Improbable Into the Exceptional”<br />
Atlanta<br />
Philadelphia<br />
______<br />
John C Johnson III<br />
Founder & CEO<br />
(878) 222-0450<br />
Voice | Data | SMS<br />
www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org<br />
Page 11 of 140
Page 12 of 140
Biblical Authority<br />
______<br />
Proverbs 21:5 (NIV)<br />
5<br />
The plans of the diligent lead to profit<br />
as surely as haste leads to poverty<br />
Luke 14:28-30 (NIV)<br />
28<br />
“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the<br />
cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? 29 For if you lay the foundation and<br />
are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, 30 saying, ‘This person<br />
began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’<br />
The Parable of the Bags of Gold<br />
Matthew 25:14-30 (NIV)<br />
14<br />
“Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted<br />
his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to<br />
another one bag, [a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The<br />
man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and<br />
gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But<br />
the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his<br />
master’s money.<br />
19<br />
“After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with<br />
them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he<br />
said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’<br />
21<br />
“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with<br />
a few things; I will put you in charge of many things.Come and share your master’s<br />
happiness!’<br />
22<br />
“The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with<br />
two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’<br />
Page 13 of 140
23<br />
“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with<br />
a few things; I will put you in charge of many things.Come and share your master’s<br />
happiness!’<br />
24<br />
“Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that<br />
you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you<br />
have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the<br />
ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’<br />
26<br />
“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I<br />
have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should<br />
have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have<br />
received it back with interest.<br />
28<br />
“‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For<br />
whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not<br />
have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant<br />
outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’<br />
Page 14 of 140
Table of Contents<br />
…a collection of works on<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong><br />
Investments in Crime Reduction<br />
______<br />
Biblical Authority<br />
I. Introduction: <strong>Social</strong>ly Responsible <strong>Investing</strong> ………………………… 17<br />
II. <strong>Social</strong> Return on Investments…………………………………………. 33<br />
III. Corporate <strong>Social</strong> Responsibility………………………………………. 41<br />
IV. <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong>………………………………………………………… 59<br />
V. <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Assessments…………………………………………… 65<br />
VI. Economic <strong>Impact</strong> Analysis…………………………………………….. 67<br />
VII. <strong>Social</strong> Earnings Ratio…………………………………………………… 71<br />
VIII. <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bonds……………………………………………………. 77<br />
IX.<br />
The White House Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation<br />
and Civic Participation…………………………………………………. 91<br />
X. References……………………………………………………………… 105<br />
Attachments<br />
A. <strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong> Report (Case Studies)<br />
B. <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment: Building the Evidence-Base<br />
C. <strong>Impact</strong> Investments: An Emerging Asset Class<br />
Copyright © 2018 The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.<br />
Page 15 of 140
Page 16 of 140
I. Introduction<br />
<strong>Social</strong>ly responsible investing (SRI), or social investment, also known as<br />
sustainable, socially conscious, "green" or ethical investing, is any investment<br />
strategy which seeks to consider both financial return and social good to bring about a<br />
social change.<br />
Recently, it has also become known as "sustainable investing" or "responsible<br />
investing". There is also a subset of SRI known as "impact investing", devoted to the<br />
conscious creation of social impact through investment.<br />
In general, socially responsible investors encourage corporate practices that promote<br />
environmental stewardship, consumer protection, human rights, and diversity. Some<br />
avoid businesses involved in alcohol, tobacco, fast food, gambling, pornography,<br />
weapons, contraception/abortifacients/abortion, fossil fuel production or the military. [1]<br />
The areas of concern recognized by the SRI practitioners are sometimes summarized<br />
under the heading of ESG issues: environment, social justice, and corporate<br />
governance.<br />
"<strong>Social</strong>ly responsible investing" is one of several related concepts and approaches that<br />
influence and, in some cases govern, how asset managers invest portfolios. The term<br />
"socially responsible investing" sometimes narrowly refers to practices that seek to<br />
avoid harm by screening companies included in an investment portfolio. However, the<br />
term is also used more broadly to include more proactive practices such as impact<br />
investing, shareholder advocacy and community investing. According to investor Amy<br />
Page 17 of 140
Domini, shareholder advocacy and community investing are pillars of socially<br />
responsible investing, while doing only negative screening is inadequate.<br />
History<br />
The origins of socially responsible investing may date back to the Religious Society of<br />
Friends (Quakers). In 1758, the Quaker Philadelphia Yearly Meeting prohibited<br />
members from participating in the slave trade – buying or selling humans.<br />
One of the most articulate early adopters of SRI was John Wesley (1703–1791), one of<br />
the founders of Methodism. Wesley's sermon "The Use of Money" outlined his basic<br />
tenets of social investing – i.e. not to harm your neighbor through your business<br />
practices and to avoid industries like tanning and chemical production, which can harm<br />
the health of workers. Some of the best-known applications of socially responsible<br />
investing were religiously motivated. Investors would avoid “sinful” companies, such as<br />
those associated with products such as guns, liquor, and tobacco.<br />
The modern era of socially responsible investing evolved during the political climate of<br />
the 1960s. During this time, socially concerned investors increasingly sought to address<br />
equality for women, civil rights, and labor issues. Economic development projects<br />
started or managed by Dr. Martin Luther King, like the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the<br />
Operation Breadbasket Project in Chicago, established the beginning model for socially<br />
responsible investing efforts. King combined ongoing dialog with boycotts and direct<br />
action targeting specific corporations. Concerns about the Vietnam War were<br />
incorporated by some social investors. Many people living during the era remember a<br />
picture in June 1972 of a naked nine-year-old girl, Phan Thị Kim Phúc, running towards<br />
a photographer screaming, her back burning from the napalm dropped on her village.<br />
That photograph channeled outrage against Dow Chemical, the manufacturer of<br />
napalm, and prompted protests across the country against Dow Chemical and other<br />
companies profiting from the Vietnam War.<br />
During the 1950s and 1960s, trade unions deployed multi-employer pension fund<br />
monies for targeted investments. For example, the United Mine Workers fund invested<br />
in medical facilities, and the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (ILGWU) and<br />
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) financed union-built housing<br />
projects. Labor unions also sought to leverage pension stocks for shareholder activism<br />
on proxy fights and shareholder resolutions. In 1978, SRI efforts by pension funds was<br />
spurred by The North will Rise Again: Pensions, Politics, and Power in the 1980s and<br />
the subsequent organizing efforts of authors Jeremy Rifkin and Randy Barber. By 1980,<br />
presidential candidates Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown advocated<br />
some type of social orientation for pension investments.<br />
SRI had an important role in ending the apartheid government in South Africa.<br />
International opposition to apartheid strengthened after the 1960 Sharpeville massacre.<br />
In 1971, Reverend Leon Sullivan (at the time a board member for General Motors)<br />
drafted a code of conduct for practicing business in South Africa which became known<br />
Page 18 of 140
as the Sullivan Principles. However, reports documenting the application of the Sullivan<br />
Principles said that US companies were not trying to lessen discrimination in South<br />
Africa. Due to these reports and mounting political pressure, cities, states, colleges,<br />
faith-based groups and pension funds throughout the US began divesting from<br />
companies operating in South Africa. In 1976, the United Nations imposed a mandatory<br />
arms embargo against South Africa. From the 1970s to the early 1990s, large<br />
institutions avoided investment in South Africa under apartheid. The subsequent<br />
negative flow of investment eventually forced a group of businesses, representing 75%<br />
of South African employers, to draft a charter calling for an end to apartheid. While the<br />
SRI efforts alone did not bring an end to apartheid, it did focus persuasive international<br />
pressure on the South African business community.<br />
The mid and late 1990s saw the rise of<br />
SRI’s focus on a diverse range of other<br />
issues, including tobacco stocks, mutual<br />
fund proxy disclosure, and other diverse<br />
focuses.<br />
Since the late 1990s, SRI has become<br />
increasingly defined as a means to<br />
promote environmentally sustainable<br />
development. Many investors<br />
consider effects of global climate<br />
change a significant business and<br />
investment risk. CERES was<br />
founded in 1989 by Joan<br />
Bavaria and Dennis Hayes,<br />
coordinator of the first Earth<br />
Day, as a network for<br />
investors, environmental<br />
organizations, and other public interest groups interested in working with companies to<br />
address environmental concerns.<br />
Since 1989, representatives from the SRI industry have gathered at the annual SRI in<br />
the Rockies Conference to exchange ideas and gain momentum for new initiatives. This<br />
conference is produced by First Affirmative Financial Network, an investment advisory<br />
firm that specializes in sustainable and responsible investing. The conference has<br />
attracted over 550 persons annually since 2006.<br />
The first sell-side brokerage in the world to offer SRI research was the Brazilian bank<br />
Unibanco. The service was launched in January 2001 by Unibanco SRI analyst<br />
Christopher Wells from the São Paulo headquarters of the bank. It was targeted at SRI<br />
funds in Europe and the US, although it was sent to non-SRI funds both in and out of<br />
Brazil. The research was about environmental and social issues (but not governance<br />
issues) regarding companies listed in Brazil. It was sent for free to Unibanco's clients.<br />
The service lasted until mid-2002.<br />
Page 19 of 140
Two good things came out this research:<br />
1. The idea was picked up by Mike Tyrrell, who worked at Jupiter, an SRI fund<br />
manager in London, and who developed it into something much bigger and better<br />
at HSBC and then Citigroup.<br />
2. ABN AMRO's operation in Brazil used this research to create the first SRI fund in<br />
an emerging market, launched in November 2001. As of late 2008, this fund,<br />
called Fundo Ethical, was the Brazilian operation's biggest and best performing<br />
stock fund of any kind. (ABN AMRO's operation in Brazil was bought by<br />
Santander in 2007.)<br />
Drawing on the industry's experience using divestment as a tool against apartheid, the<br />
Sudan Divestment Task Force was established in 2006 in response to the genocide<br />
occurring in the Darfur region of the Sudan. Support from the US government followed<br />
with the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007.<br />
More recently, some social investors have sought to address the rights of indigenous<br />
peoples around the world who are affected by the business practices of various<br />
companies. The 2007, SRI in the Rockies Conference held a special pre-conference<br />
specifically to address the concerns of indigenous peoples. Healthy working conditions,<br />
fair wages, product safety, and equal opportunity employment also remain headline<br />
concerns for many social investors. In the mid-2010s, some funds developed gender<br />
lens investing strategies to promote workplace equity and general welfare of women<br />
and girls.<br />
Current Strategies<br />
<strong>Social</strong>ly responsible investing is a growing market in both the US and Europe. In<br />
particular, it has become an important principle guiding the investment strategies of<br />
various funds and accounts.<br />
Government-Controlled Funds<br />
Government-controlled funds such as pension funds are often very large players in the<br />
investment field, and are being pressured by the citizenry and by activist groups to<br />
adopt investment policies which encourage ethical corporate behavior, respect the<br />
rights of workers, consider environmental concerns, and avoid violations of human<br />
rights. One outstanding endorsement of such policies is The Government Pension Fund<br />
of Norway, which is mandated to avoid "investments which constitute an unacceptable<br />
risk that the Fund may contribute to unethical acts or omissions, such as violations of<br />
fundamental humanitarian principles, serious violations of human rights, gross<br />
corruption or severe environmental damages."<br />
Many pension funds are currently under pressure to disinvest from the arms company<br />
BAE Systems, partially due to a campaign run by the Campaign Against Arms Trade<br />
Page 20 of 140
(CAAT). Liverpool City Council has passed a successful resolution to disinvest from the<br />
company, but a similar attempt by the Scottish Green Party in Edinburgh City Council<br />
was blocked by the Liberal Democrats.<br />
Mutual Funds and ETFs<br />
<strong>Social</strong>ly responsible mutual funds counted by the 2014 Trends Report increased in<br />
number to 415 in 2014, up from 333 in 2012, 250 in 2010, 173 in 2005 & 2007, 189 in<br />
2003, and 167 in 2001. The overall number of mutual funds incorporating<br />
environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) has increased four-fold increase<br />
since 2012. Additionally, 20 exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that incorporate ESG criteria<br />
were identified with $3.5 billion in assets at the end of 2011, an increase from the 8<br />
ETFs with $2.25 billion in net assets identified in its 2007 report—the first Trends report<br />
to track ETFs [11]. Unlike the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974<br />
(ERISA), which severely limits the extent to which socially responsible goals can be<br />
considered in managing corporate and Taft-Hartley pension assets (due to ERISA's<br />
overriding goal of protecting employees' pensions), registered investment companies<br />
can take these factors into account so long as the disclosure and other requirements of<br />
the Investment Company Act of 1940 are met. US SIF maintains charts describing the<br />
socially responsible mutual funds offered by its member firms.<br />
Key: X = No investment; P = Positive investment; R = Restricted investment; NS = No<br />
screens.<br />
Fund<br />
Access Capital<br />
Strategies<br />
Community<br />
Investment Fund<br />
AHA Balanced Fund<br />
- Instiutional Class<br />
AHA Diversified<br />
Equity Fund -<br />
Institutional Class<br />
AHA Diversified<br />
Equity Fund - N<br />
Class<br />
AHA Full Maturity<br />
Fixed Income Fund -<br />
Institutional Class<br />
AHA Full Maturity<br />
Fixed Income Fund -<br />
N Class<br />
AHA Limited Maturity<br />
Fixed Income Fund -<br />
Institutional Class<br />
AHA Limited Maturity<br />
Fixed Income Fund -<br />
N Class<br />
AHA <strong>Social</strong>ly<br />
Responsible Equity I<br />
AHA <strong>Social</strong>ly<br />
Responsible Equity N<br />
Alcohol Tobacco Gambling<br />
Defense/<br />
Weapons<br />
Animal<br />
Testing<br />
Products/<br />
Services<br />
Environment<br />
Human<br />
Rights<br />
Labor<br />
Relations<br />
Employment/<br />
Equality<br />
Community<br />
Investment<br />
NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS P X<br />
NS X NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS V<br />
NS X NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS V<br />
NS X NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS V<br />
NS X NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS V<br />
NS X NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS V<br />
NS X NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS V<br />
NS X NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS V<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P NS V<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P NS V<br />
Appleseed Fund R R R R NS NS P P P NS P V<br />
Ariel Appreciation<br />
Fund<br />
NS X NS X NS NS NS NS NS NS NS V<br />
Ariel Focus Fund NS X NS X NS NS NS NS NS NS NS V<br />
Ariel Fund NS X NS X NS NS NS NS NS NS NS V<br />
Azzad Ethical<br />
Income Fund<br />
X X X X NS NS NS NS NS NS NS V<br />
Proxy<br />
Voting<br />
Page 21 of 140
Fund<br />
Azzad Ethical Mid<br />
Cap Fund<br />
Brighter Student<br />
Fund<br />
'Fund'<br />
Calvert Aggressive<br />
Allocation Fund<br />
Calvert Capital<br />
Accumulation A<br />
Calvert Capital<br />
Accumulation B<br />
Calvert Capital<br />
Accumulation C<br />
Calvert Conservative<br />
Allocation Fund<br />
Calvert Global<br />
Alternative Energy<br />
Fund A<br />
Calvert Global Water<br />
Fund<br />
Calvert International<br />
Opportunities Fund<br />
Calvert Large Cap<br />
Growth A<br />
Calvert Large Cap<br />
Growth B<br />
Calvert Large Cap<br />
Growth C<br />
Calvert Large Cap<br />
Growth I<br />
Calvert Mid Cap<br />
Value Fund<br />
Calvert Moderate<br />
Allocation Fund<br />
Calvert New Vision<br />
Small Cap A<br />
Calvert New Vision<br />
Small Cap B<br />
Calvert New Vision<br />
Small Cap C<br />
'Fund'<br />
Calvert Small Cap<br />
Value Fund<br />
Calvert <strong>Social</strong> Index<br />
A<br />
Calvert <strong>Social</strong> Index<br />
B<br />
Calvert <strong>Social</strong> Index<br />
C<br />
Alcohol Tobacco Gambling<br />
Defense/<br />
Weapons<br />
Animal<br />
Testing<br />
Products/<br />
Services<br />
Environment<br />
Human<br />
Rights<br />
Labor<br />
Relations<br />
Employment/<br />
Equality<br />
Community<br />
Investment<br />
X X X X NS NS NS NS NS NS NS V<br />
X X X X X X X X X P X X<br />
Alcohol Tobacco Gambling<br />
Defense/<br />
Weapons<br />
Animal<br />
Testing<br />
Products/<br />
Services<br />
Environment<br />
Human<br />
Rights<br />
Labor<br />
Relations<br />
Employment/<br />
Equality<br />
Community<br />
Investment<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
NS NS NS NS NS P P P P P NS V<br />
X NS NS X NS X NS P NS NS NS V<br />
R R NS NS NS P P P P P NS V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
Alcohol Tobacco Gambling<br />
Defense/<br />
Weapons<br />
Animal<br />
Testing<br />
Products/<br />
Services<br />
Environment<br />
Human<br />
Rights<br />
Labor<br />
Relations<br />
Employment/<br />
Equality<br />
Community<br />
Investment<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
Calvert <strong>Social</strong> Index I X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
Calvert <strong>Social</strong><br />
Investment Balanced<br />
A<br />
Calvert <strong>Social</strong><br />
Investment Balanced<br />
C<br />
Calvert <strong>Social</strong><br />
Investment Bond A<br />
Calvert <strong>Social</strong><br />
Investment<br />
Enhanced Equity A<br />
Calvert <strong>Social</strong><br />
Investment<br />
Enhanced Equity B<br />
Calvert <strong>Social</strong><br />
Investment<br />
Enhanced Equity C<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
Proxy<br />
Voting<br />
Proxy<br />
Voting<br />
Proxy<br />
Voting<br />
Page 22 of 140
Fund<br />
Calvert <strong>Social</strong><br />
Investment Equity A<br />
Calvert <strong>Social</strong><br />
Investment Equity C<br />
Calvert <strong>Social</strong><br />
Investment Equity I<br />
Calvert World Values<br />
International A<br />
Calvert World Values<br />
International C<br />
CRA Qualified<br />
Investment<br />
'Fund'<br />
Domini European<br />
PacAsia <strong>Social</strong><br />
Equity A<br />
Domini European<br />
PacAsia <strong>Social</strong><br />
Equity I<br />
Domini European<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Equity A<br />
Domini European<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Equity I<br />
Domini Institutional<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Equity<br />
Domini PacAsia<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Equity A<br />
Domini PacAsia<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Equity I<br />
Alcohol Tobacco Gambling<br />
Defense/<br />
Weapons<br />
Animal<br />
Testing<br />
Products/<br />
Services<br />
Environment<br />
Human<br />
Rights<br />
Labor<br />
Relations<br />
Employment/<br />
Equality<br />
Community<br />
Investment<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P P V<br />
X X NS R NS P P P P P P V<br />
X X NS R NS P P P P P P V<br />
NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS P X<br />
Alcohol Tobacco Gambling<br />
Defense/<br />
Weapons<br />
Animal<br />
Testing<br />
Products/<br />
Services<br />
Environment<br />
Human<br />
Rights<br />
Labor<br />
Relations<br />
Employment/<br />
Equality<br />
Community<br />
Investment<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P NS V<br />
X X X X P P P P P P NS V<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P NS V<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P NS V<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P NS V<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P NS V<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P NS V<br />
Domini <strong>Social</strong> Bond X X X X NS P P P P P P V<br />
Domini <strong>Social</strong> Equity<br />
A<br />
Domini <strong>Social</strong> Equity<br />
I<br />
Epiphany Faith and<br />
Family Values 100<br />
Fund - A Class<br />
Epiphany Faith and<br />
Family Values 100<br />
Fund - C Class<br />
Epiphany Faith and<br />
Family Values 100<br />
Fund - N Class<br />
Gabelli SRI Green<br />
Fund Inc A<br />
Gabelli SRI Green<br />
Fund Inc AAA<br />
Gabelli SRI Green<br />
Fund Inc C<br />
Gabelli SRI Green<br />
Fund Inc I<br />
Green Century<br />
Balanced<br />
Green Century<br />
Equity<br />
Integrity Growth and<br />
Income Fund<br />
'Fund'<br />
Legg Mason Prt<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Awareness<br />
Fund A<br />
Legg Mason Prt<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Awareness<br />
Fund B<br />
Legg Mason Prt<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Awareness<br />
Fund C<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P NS V<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P NS V<br />
R R R R NS NS P P P P NS V<br />
R R R R NS NS P P P P NS V<br />
R R R R NS NS P P P P NS V<br />
R R R X NS P P NS NS NS NS V<br />
R R R X NS P P NS NS NS NS V<br />
R R R X NS P P NS NS NS NS V<br />
R R R X NS P P NS NS NS NS V<br />
NS X NS R R P P NS NS NS NS V<br />
X X X R NS P P P P P NS V<br />
X X X NS R NS P R R R NS V<br />
Alcohol Tobacco Gambling<br />
Defense/<br />
Weapons<br />
Animal<br />
Testing<br />
Products/<br />
Services<br />
Environment<br />
Human<br />
Rights<br />
Labor<br />
Relations<br />
Employment/<br />
Equality<br />
Community<br />
Investment<br />
NS R NS R NS NS P P P P NS V<br />
NS R NS R NS NS P P P P NS V<br />
NS R NS R NS NS P P P P NS V<br />
Praxis Growth Index X X X X NS P P P P P P V<br />
Proxy<br />
Voting<br />
Proxy<br />
Voting<br />
Proxy<br />
Voting<br />
Page 23 of 140
Fund<br />
Fund A<br />
Praxis Growth Index<br />
Fund I<br />
Praxis <strong>Impact</strong> Bond<br />
Fund A<br />
Praxis <strong>Impact</strong> Bond<br />
Fund I<br />
Praxis International<br />
Index Fund A<br />
Praxis International<br />
Index Fund I<br />
Praxis Small Cap<br />
Index Fund A<br />
Praxis Small Cap<br />
Index Fund I<br />
Praxis Value Index<br />
Fund A<br />
Praxis Value Index<br />
Fund I<br />
Neuberger Berman<br />
<strong>Social</strong>ly Resp Inv<br />
New Alternatives<br />
Fund<br />
'Fund'<br />
Parnassus Core<br />
Equity Fund<br />
Alcohol Tobacco Gambling<br />
Defense/<br />
Weapons<br />
Animal<br />
Testing<br />
Products/<br />
Services<br />
Environment<br />
Human<br />
Rights<br />
Labor<br />
Relations<br />
Employment/<br />
Equality<br />
Community<br />
Investment<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P P V<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P P V<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P P V<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P P V<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P P V<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P P V<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P P V<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P P V<br />
X X X X NS P P P P P P V<br />
X X X X R P P P P P NS V<br />
X X X X X P P P P P P X<br />
Alcohol Tobacco Gambling<br />
Defense/<br />
Weapons<br />
Animal<br />
Testing<br />
Products/<br />
Services<br />
Environment<br />
Human<br />
Rights<br />
Labor<br />
Relations<br />
Employment/<br />
Equality<br />
Community<br />
Investment<br />
X X X X R P P P P P NS V<br />
Parnassus Fund X X X X R P X P P P P V<br />
Parnassus Income<br />
Fixed Income<br />
Parnassus Mid Cap<br />
Fund<br />
Parnassus Small<br />
Cap Fund<br />
Parnassus Endeavor<br />
Fund<br />
X X X X R P X P P P NS V<br />
X X X X R P P P P P P V<br />
X X X X R P X P P P P V<br />
X X X X R P X P P P P V<br />
Pax World Balanced R X R R R P P P P P P V<br />
Pax World Growth R X R R R P P P P P NS V<br />
Pax World High Yield R X R R R P P P P P P V<br />
Pax World Value<br />
Fund - Individual<br />
Investor<br />
Pax World Value<br />
Fund - Institutional<br />
Class<br />
Pax World Women's<br />
Equity Fund -<br />
Individual Investor<br />
Pax World Women's<br />
Equity Fund -<br />
Institutional Class<br />
NS X R X R P P P P P NS V<br />
NS X R X R P P P P P NS V<br />
NS X R X R R R NS R R NS V<br />
NS X R X R R R R R R NS V<br />
Portfolio 21 NS X R R R P P R R R P V<br />
Portfolio 21<br />
Institutional<br />
Sentinel Sustainable<br />
Core Opportunities<br />
Fund<br />
Sentinel Sustainable<br />
Emerging<br />
Companies Fund<br />
SPDR Gender<br />
Diversity Index ETF<br />
(SHE)<br />
NS X R R R P P R R R NS V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P NS V<br />
X X X R R P P P P P NS V<br />
X X X X X X X P P P NS V<br />
TIAA-CREF R R R R NS P P P P P NS V<br />
Flex Total Return<br />
Utilities Fund<br />
Vanguard FTSE<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Index Fund<br />
X X X X X P P NS P P NS V<br />
Proxy<br />
Voting<br />
Proxy<br />
Voting<br />
Page 24 of 140
Fund<br />
Walden <strong>Social</strong><br />
Balanced Fund<br />
Walden <strong>Social</strong> Equity<br />
Fund<br />
Winslow Green<br />
Growth Fund<br />
Alcohol Tobacco Gambling<br />
Defense/<br />
Weapons<br />
Animal<br />
Testing<br />
Products/<br />
Services<br />
Environment<br />
Human<br />
Rights<br />
Labor<br />
Relations<br />
Employment/<br />
Equality<br />
Community<br />
Investment<br />
X X R X R P P P P P P V<br />
X X R X R P P P R P X V<br />
R R R R R P P NS NS NS NS V<br />
xRussell 3000 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS X<br />
Proxy<br />
Voting<br />
Separately Managed Accounts<br />
According to the 2014 Report on US Sustainable, Responsible and <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong><br />
Trends, among separate account managers, 214 distinctive separate account vehicles<br />
or strategies, with $433 billion in assets, incorporated ESG factors into investment<br />
analysis. Where a separate account is subject to ERISA, there are legal limitations on<br />
the extent to which investment decisions can be based on factors other than maximizing<br />
plan participants' economic returns.<br />
Shareholder Advocacy<br />
Shareholder resolutions are filed by a wide variety of institutional investors, including<br />
public pension funds, faith-based investors, socially responsible mutual funds, and labor<br />
unions. In 2004, faith-based organizations filed 129 resolutions, while socially<br />
responsible funds filed 56 resolutions.<br />
Regulations governing shareholder resolutions vary from country to country. In the<br />
United States, they are determined primarily by the Securities and Exchange<br />
Commission, which regulates mutual funds and applies the 1940 Act and by the<br />
Department of Labor, which regulates certain plans and applies ERISA.<br />
These regulatory regimes require pension plans and mutual funds to disclose how they<br />
voted on behalf of their investors. U.S. shareholders have organized various groups to<br />
facilitate jointly filing resolutions. These include the Council of Institutional Investors, the<br />
Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, and the US SIF.<br />
From 2012 to 2014, more than 200 US institutions and investment management firms<br />
filed or co-filed proposals. These institutions and money managers collectively<br />
controlled $1.72 trillion in assets at the end of 2013. The top categories of<br />
environmental and social issues from 2012 to 2014 were political contributions and<br />
climate change and environmental issues.<br />
Community <strong>Investing</strong><br />
Community investing, a subset of socially responsible investing, allows for investment<br />
directly into community-based organizations. Community investing institutions use<br />
investor capital to finance or guarantee loans to individuals and organizations that have<br />
historically been denied access to capital by traditional financial institutions. These<br />
loans are used for housing, small business creation, and education or personal<br />
Page 25 of 140
development in the US, or are made available to local financial institutions abroad to<br />
finance international community development. The community investing institution<br />
typically provides training and other types of support and expertise to ensure the<br />
success of the loan and its returns for investors.<br />
Community investing grew almost 5% from 2012 to 2014. Assets held and invested<br />
locally by community development financial institutions (CDFIs) based in the US totaled<br />
$64.3 billion at the start of 2014, up from $61.4 billion in 2012.<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> in Capital Markets<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> Strategies<br />
<strong>Social</strong> investors use several strategies to maximize financial return and attempt to<br />
maximize social good. These strategies seek to create change by shifting the cost of<br />
capital down for sustainable firm and up for the non-sustainable ones. The proponents<br />
argue that access to capital is what drives the future direction of development.<br />
Negative Screening<br />
Negative screening excludes certain securities from investment consideration based on<br />
social or environmental criteria. For example, many socially responsible investors<br />
screen out tobacco company investments.<br />
The longest-running SRI index, the Domini 400—now the MSCI KLD 400—was started<br />
in May 1990. It has continued to perform competitively —with average annualized total<br />
returns of 9.51% through December 2009 compared with 8.66% for the S&P 500.<br />
Despite this impressive growth, it has long been commonly perceived that SRI brings<br />
smaller returns than unrestricted investing. So-called "sin stocks", including purveyors of<br />
tobacco, alcohol, gambling and defense contractors, were banned from portfolios on<br />
moral or ethical grounds. And shutting out entire industries hurts performance, the<br />
critics said. However, in a comprehensive study, financial economists Lobe, Roithmeier,<br />
and Walkshäusl taking the position of the advocatus diaboli, answer the question<br />
whether to invest in a socially responsible way – or not? They create a set of global and<br />
domestic sin indexes consisting of 755 publicly traded socially irresponsible stocks<br />
around the world belonging to the Sextet of Sin: adult entertainment, alcohol, gambling,<br />
nuclear power, tobacco, and weapons.<br />
They compare their stock market performance directly with a set of virtue comparables<br />
consisting of the most important international socially responsible investment indexes.<br />
They find no compelling evidence that ethical and unethical screens lead to a significant<br />
difference in their financial performance, which is in contrast with the results of prior<br />
studies on sinful investing.<br />
Page 26 of 140
Divestment<br />
Divesting is the act of removing stocks from a portfolio based on mainly ethical, nonfinancial<br />
objections to certain business activities of a corporation. Recently, CalSTRS<br />
(California State Teachers' Retirement System) announced the removal of more than<br />
$237 million in tobacco holdings from its investment portfolio after 6 months of financial<br />
analysis and deliberations.<br />
Shareholder Activism<br />
Shareholder activism efforts attempt to positively influence corporate behavior. These<br />
efforts include initiating conversations with corporate management on issues of<br />
Page 27 of 140
concern, and submitting and voting proxy resolutions. These activities are undertaken<br />
with the belief that social investors, working cooperatively, can steer management on a<br />
course that will improve financial performance over time and enhance the well being of<br />
the stockholders, customers, employees, vendors, and communities. Recent<br />
movements have also been reported of "investor relations activism", in which investor<br />
relations firms assist groups of shareholder activists in an organized push for change<br />
within a corporation; this is done typically by leveraging their enhanced knowledge of<br />
the corporation, its management (often via direct relationships), and the securities laws<br />
as a whole. Hedge funds are also major activist investors; while some pursue socially<br />
responsible investing goals, many simply are seeking to maximize fund returns. Pension<br />
plans subject to ERISA are somewhat more constrained in their ability to engage in<br />
shareholder activism or the use of plan assets to promote public policy positions; any<br />
expenditure of plan assets must be aimed at enhancing participants' retirement income.<br />
Shareholder Engagement<br />
A less vocal subtype of shareholder activism, shareholder engagement requires<br />
extensive monitoring of the non-financial performance of all portfolio companies. In<br />
shareholder engagement dialogues, investees receive constructive feedback on how to<br />
improve ESG issues within their sphere of influence.<br />
Positive <strong>Investing</strong><br />
Positive investing is the new generation of socially responsible investing. It involves<br />
making investments in activities and companies believed to have a positive social<br />
impact. Positive investing suggested a broad revamping of the industry's methodology<br />
for driving change through investments. This investment approach allows investors to<br />
positively express their values on corporate behavior issues such as social justice and<br />
the environment through stock selection – without sacrificing portfolio diversification or<br />
long-term performance. Positive screening pushes the idea of sustainability, not just in<br />
the narrow environmental or humanitarian sense, but also in the sense of a company's<br />
long-term potential to compete and succeed. In 2015, Morgan Stanley conducted a<br />
review of 10,000 funds and concluded "strong sustainability" investments outperformed<br />
weak sustainability investments, tackling the idea of a trade-off between positive impact<br />
and financial return. while the Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network's 2015 report on<br />
benchmarks and returns in impact investing in private equity and venture capital found<br />
market-rate or market-beating returns were common in impact investments.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong><br />
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> is the alternative investment (ie private equity) approach to Positive<br />
investing. In 2014, the UK's presidency of the G8 created a <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
Task Force which produced a series of reports that defined impact investing as "those<br />
that intentionally target specific social objectives along with a financial return and<br />
measure the achievement of both." <strong>Impact</strong> investing, capitalizes businesses that<br />
potentially provide social or environmental impact at a scale that purely philanthropic<br />
Page 28 of 140
interventions usually cannot reach. This capital may be in a range of forms including<br />
private equity, debt, working capital lines of credit, and loan guarantees. Examples in<br />
recent decades include many investments in microfinance, community development<br />
finance, and clean technology. <strong>Impact</strong>ing investing has its roots in the venture capital<br />
community, and an investor will often take active role mentoring or leading the growth of<br />
the company or start-up.<br />
Community Investment<br />
By investing directly in an institution, rather than purchasing stock, an investor is able to<br />
create a greater social impact: Money spent purchasing stock accrues to the stock's<br />
previous owner and may not generate social good, while money invested in a<br />
community institution is put to work. For example, money invested in a Community<br />
Development Financial Institution may be used by that institution to alleviate poverty or<br />
inequality, spread access to capital to under-served communities, support economic<br />
development or green business, or create other social good. In 1984, Trillium Asset<br />
Management's founder, Joan Bavaria, invited Chuck Matthei of the Institute for<br />
Community Economics (ICE), an organization that helps communities create and<br />
Page 29 of 140
sustain land trusts, to a meeting of US SIF. It is likely that this was the first time a<br />
nonprofit organization with a loan fund would meet directly with SRI managers. Trillium<br />
clients began investing in ICE later that year.<br />
Global Context<br />
<strong>Social</strong>ly responsible investing is a global phenomenon. With the international scope of<br />
business itself, social investors frequently invest in companies with international<br />
operations. As international investment products and opportunities have expanded, so<br />
have international SRI products. The ranks of social investors are growing throughout<br />
developed and developing countries. In 2006, the United Nations Environment<br />
Programme launched its Principles for Responsible Investment which provide a<br />
framework for investors to incorporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG)<br />
factors into the investment process. PRI has more than 1,500 signatories managing<br />
more than US$60 trillion of assets.<br />
Ethical Investment in the UK<br />
In 1985, Friends Provident launched the first ethically screened investment fund with<br />
criteria which excluded tobacco, arms, alcohol and oppressive regimes. Since 1985,<br />
over 90 investment funds have launched offering a wide range of investment criteria;<br />
both negatively screened and with positive investment criteria i.e. investing into<br />
companies involved in promoting sustainability.<br />
Since 1985, most of the major investment organizations have launched ethical and<br />
socially responsible funds, although this has led to a great deal of discussion and<br />
debate over the use of the term "ethical" investment. This is because each of the fund<br />
management organizations tend to apply a slightly different approach to running their<br />
funds.<br />
In recent years there has been growth in the market for high social impact investments;<br />
this is a style of investing where the businesses receiving investment have social or<br />
environmental goals as a primary purpose.<br />
UK institutions are also getting more involved in social investing through impact<br />
investing funds, with those such as Deutsche Bank and NESTA, alongside other<br />
institutions such as Big Issue Invest, which is part of The Big Issue group.<br />
As of June 2014, EIRIS estimated that there was over £13.5 billion invested in Britain’s<br />
green and ethical retail funds. This estimate is based on around 85 UK domiciled green<br />
or ethical retail funds and it seeks to not include UK money invested in ethical funds<br />
domiciled outside of the UK.<br />
Page 30 of 140
In Higher Education<br />
In 2007, the Dwight Hall organization at Yale University launched the first<br />
undergraduate-run socially responsible investment fund in the United States, known as<br />
the Dwight Hall <strong>Social</strong>ly Responsible Investment Fund.<br />
Page 31 of 140
Page 32 of 140
II. <strong>Social</strong> Return on Investment<br />
<strong>Social</strong> ROI<br />
<strong>Social</strong> return on investment (SROI) is a principles-based method for measuring extrafinancial<br />
value (i.e., environmental and social value not currently reflected in<br />
conventional financial accounts) relative to resources invested. It can be used by any<br />
entity to evaluate impact on stakeholders, identify ways to improve performance, and<br />
enhance the performance of investments.<br />
A network was formed in 2006 to facilitate the continued evolution of the method. Over<br />
700 globally are members of this network called <strong>Social</strong> Value UK (formerly the SROI<br />
Network).<br />
The SROI method as it has been standardized by the <strong>Social</strong> Value UK provides a<br />
consistent quantitative approach to understanding and managing the impacts of a<br />
project, business, organisation, fund or policy. It accounts for stakeholders' views of<br />
impact, and puts financial 'proxy' values on all those impacts identified by stakeholders<br />
which do not typically have market values. The aim is to include the values of people<br />
Page 33 of 140
that are often excluded from markets in the same terms as used in markets, that is<br />
money, in order to give people a voice in resource allocation decisions.<br />
Some SROI users employ a version of the method that does not require that all impacts<br />
be assigned a financial proxy. Instead the "numerator" includes monetized, quantitative<br />
but not monetized, qualitative, and narrative types of information about value.<br />
Development<br />
While the term SROI exists in Cost–benefit analysis, a methodology for calculating<br />
social return on investment in the context of social enterprise was first documented in<br />
2000 by REDF (formerly the Roberts Enterprise Development Fund), a San Franciscobased<br />
philanthropic fund that makes long-term grants to organizations that run<br />
businesses for social benefit. Since then the approach has evolved to take into account<br />
developments in corporate sustainability reporting as well as development in the field of<br />
accounting for social and environmental impact. Interest has been fuelled by the<br />
increasing recognition of the importance of metrics to manage impacts that are not<br />
included in traditional profit and loss accounts, and the need for these metrics to focus<br />
on outcomes over outputs. While SROI builds upon the logic of cost-benefit analysis, it<br />
is different in that it is explicitly designed to inform the practical decision-making of<br />
enterprise managers and investors focused on optimizing their social and environmental<br />
impacts. By contrast, cost-benefit analysis is a technique rooted in social science that is<br />
most often used by funders outside an organization to determine whether their<br />
investment or grant is economically efficient, although economic efficiency also<br />
encompasses social and environmental considerations.<br />
In 2002, the Hewlett Foundation's Blended was brought forward by a group of<br />
practitioners from the US, Canada, UK and Netherlands who had been implementing<br />
SROI analyses together to draft an update to the methodology. A larger group met<br />
again in 2006 to do another revision which was published in 2006 in the book <strong>Social</strong><br />
Return on Investment: a Guide to SROI. New Economics Foundation in the UK began<br />
exploring ways in which SROI could be tested and developed in a UK context,<br />
publishing a DIY Guide to <strong>Social</strong> Return on Investment in 2007.<br />
The UK government's Office of the Third Sector and the Scottish Government<br />
commissioned a project beginning in 2007 that continues to develop guidelines that<br />
allow social businesses seeking government grants to account for their impact using a<br />
consistent, verifiable method. This resulted in another formal revision to the method,<br />
produced by a consortium led by the <strong>Social</strong> Value UK, published in the 2009 Guide to<br />
SROI.<br />
Developments in the UK led to agreement between the <strong>Social</strong> Value International and<br />
the <strong>Social</strong> Value UK on core principles. As of 2009 all but one of the seven identified<br />
principles are now common to the two frameworks. These are:<br />
<br />
<br />
Involve stakeholders.<br />
Understand what changes.<br />
Page 34 of 140
Value the things that matter.<br />
Only include what is material.<br />
Do not over-claim.<br />
Be transparent.<br />
Verify the result.<br />
'Value the things that matter' includes the use of financial proxies and monetization of<br />
value and is unique to the SROI approach.<br />
Since 2008 <strong>Social</strong> E-valuator from<br />
The Netherlands have been<br />
working on solutions for impact measurement. In<br />
2013 <strong>Social</strong> E-valuator built a brand new<br />
online software platform for<br />
measuring impact and late 2014<br />
they have launched an<br />
inclusive impact<br />
measurement<br />
platform called Sinzer. This<br />
enables people to map<br />
impact, collect data in an<br />
efficient way and analyze<br />
the results. The online<br />
tool from Sinzer is<br />
created in such a way<br />
that<br />
organizations can make better<br />
decisions, improve impact<br />
and be accountable to<br />
stakeholders.<br />
More recently, <strong>Social</strong> Asset Measurements Inc., a Canadian software and consulting<br />
company, developed the <strong>Social</strong> Return Intelligence Suite, which is made up of two<br />
interlinked software products: The Ira <strong>Impact</strong> Reporting & Management Suite (IIRM) and<br />
the Sabita Indicator & Financial Proxy Database Service (SDS). Sabita was created with<br />
funding from the National Research Council of Canada and houses over 500 indicators<br />
and financial proxies, which are adjusted for inflation and graded according to the SAM<br />
Factor – a proprietary algorithm that provides a grading from 0-10 based on the quality<br />
of the sources used in creating the financial proxy. Ira allows non-SROI practitioners to<br />
report within the SROI framework, creating monetized and non-monetized impact<br />
reports, as well as outcome and output reports.<br />
In 2009–2010 proponents affiliated with the <strong>Social</strong> Value UK proposed to establish<br />
linkages between SROI analysis and IRIS, an initiative to create a common set of terms<br />
and definitions for describing the social and environmental performance of an<br />
organization. Discussions about how best to do this are ongoing.<br />
Page 35 of 140
Some organisations that have used SROI have found it to be a useful tool for<br />
organizational learning.<br />
Primary Purpose<br />
While in financial management the term ROI refers to a single ratio, unlike <strong>Social</strong><br />
Earnings Ratio (S/E Ratio), SROI analysis does not refer not to one single ratio but<br />
more to a way of reporting on value creation. It bases the assessment of value in part<br />
on the perception and experience of stakeholders, finds indicators of what has changed<br />
and tells the story of this change and, where possible, uses monetary values for these<br />
indicators. It is an emerging management discipline: a skill set for the measurement and<br />
communication of non-financial value. Therefore, the approach distinguishes between<br />
"SROI" and "SROI Analysis." The latter implies: a) a specific process by which the<br />
number was calculated, b) context information to enable accurate interpretation of the<br />
number itself, and c) additional non-monetized social value and information about the<br />
number's substance and context.<br />
The Principles<br />
There are seven principles of SROI. These are:<br />
1. Involve stakeholders (i.e. everyone who has a 'stake' or an interest in the subject of<br />
the SROI)<br />
Inform what gets measured and how this is measured and valued in an account<br />
of social value by involving stakeholders<br />
2. Understand what changes (for those stakeholders)<br />
Articulate how change is created and evaluate this through evidence gathered,<br />
recognising positive and negative changes as well as those that are intended and<br />
unintended<br />
3. Value what matters (also known as the 'monetisation principle' – see below)<br />
Making decisions about allocating resources between different options needs to<br />
recognise the values of stakeholders. Value refers to the relative importance of<br />
different outcomes. It is informed by stakeholders' preferences<br />
4. Only include what is material<br />
Determine what information and evidence must be included in the accounts to<br />
give a true and fair picture, such that stakeholders can draw reasonable<br />
conclusions about impact<br />
Page 36 of 140
5. Do not over-claim<br />
Only claim the value that activities are responsible for creating<br />
6. Be transparent<br />
Demonstrate the basis on which the analysis may be considered accurate and<br />
honest, and show that it will be reported to and discussed with stakeholders<br />
7. Verify the result<br />
Ensure appropriate independent assurance<br />
Monetisation Principle<br />
The translation of extra-financial value into monetary terms is considered an important<br />
part of SROI analysis by some practitioners, and problematic when it is made a<br />
universal requirement by others. Essentially, the monestisation principle assumes that<br />
price is a proxy for value.<br />
While prices represent exchange value – the market price at which demand equals<br />
supply – they do not completely represent all the value to either the seller or the<br />
consumer. In other words, they do not capture economic surplus (consumer or producer<br />
surplus). They also do not include the positive or negative value (i.e., externalities) for<br />
others who may be affected by an exchange. Moreover, prices will depend in part on<br />
the distribution of income and wealth: different distributions result in different prices<br />
which result in different proxies for value. Hence market prices do not always accurately<br />
reflect what people value.<br />
Proponents of SROI argue that using monetary proxies (market prices or other<br />
monetary proxies) for social, economic and environmental value offers several practical<br />
benefits:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
it makes it easier to align and integrate performance management systems with<br />
financial management systems;<br />
it aids communication with internal stakeholders, especially those responsible for<br />
finances and resource allocation, and with those who prefer quantitative to<br />
qualitative ways of learning;<br />
it induces transparency since it precipitates the clarification of which values have<br />
been included and which have not been included;<br />
it permits sensitivity analysis to show which assumptions are more important in<br />
that the result is more affected by changes in some assumptions than others;<br />
Page 37 of 140
it helps identify the critical sources of value and so streamlines performance<br />
management.<br />
Despite these benefits, on the con side there is concern that monetization lets the<br />
consumer of SROI analysis off the hook by too easily allowing comparison of the end<br />
number at the expense of understanding the actual method by which it was arrived at—<br />
a comparison which would be an apples to oranges comparison in nearly every case.<br />
The SROI methodology has been further adapted for use in planning and prioritization<br />
of climate change adaptation and development interventions. For example, the<br />
Participatory <strong>Social</strong> Return on Investment (PSROI) framework builds on the economic<br />
principles of SROI and CBA and integrates them with the theoretical and<br />
methodological foundations of Participatory Action Research (PAR), Critical systems<br />
thinking, and Resilience Theory and strength-based approaches such as Appreciative<br />
Inquiry and asset-based community development to create a framework for the planning<br />
and costing of adaptation to climate change in agricultural systems [10] PSROI thus<br />
represents the convergence of two theoretical tracks: Adaptation prioritization, planning<br />
and selection, and the economics of adaptation. The main divergence, then, between<br />
SROI and PSROI is that while SROI typically analyzes pre-defined interventions,<br />
PSROI involves a participatory intervention prioritization process that is antecedent to<br />
SROI-style economic analyses.<br />
Potential limitations<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Benefits that cannot be monetised: There will be some benefits that are<br />
important to stakeholders but which cannot be monetised. An SROI analysis<br />
should not be restricted to one number, but seen as a framework for exploring an<br />
organisation’s social impact, in which monetisation plays an important but not an<br />
exclusive role.<br />
Focus on monetisation: One of the dangers of SROI is that people may focus<br />
on monetisation without following the rest of the process, which is crucial to<br />
proving and improving. Moreover, an organisation must be clear about its<br />
mission and values and understand how its activities change the world – not only<br />
what it does but also what difference it makes. This clarity informs stakeholder<br />
engagement. Therefore, if an organisation seeks to monetise its impact without<br />
having considered its mission and stakeholders, then it risks choosing<br />
inappropriate indicators; and as a result the SROI calculations can be of limited<br />
use or even misconstrued.<br />
Needs considerable capacity: SROI is time- and resource-intensive. It is most<br />
easily used when an organisation is already measuring the direct and longerterm<br />
results of its work with people, groups, or the environment.<br />
Some outcomes not easily associated with monetary value: Some outcomes<br />
and impacts (for example, increased self-esteem, improved family relationships)<br />
cannot be easily associated with a monetary value. In order to incorporate these<br />
Page 38 of 140
enefits into the SROI ratio proxies for these values would be required. SROI<br />
analysis is a developing area and as SROI evolves it is possible that methods of<br />
monetising more outcomes will become available and that there will be<br />
increasing numbers of people using the same proxies.<br />
Page 39 of 140
Page 40 of 140
III. Corporate <strong>Social</strong> Responsibility<br />
Corporate social responsibility (CSR, also called corporate conscience, corporate<br />
citizenship or responsible business) is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated<br />
into a business model. CSR policy functions as a self-regulatory mechanism whereby a<br />
business monitors and ensures its active compliance with the spirit of the law, ethical<br />
standards and national or international norms.<br />
With some models, a firm's implementation of CSR goes beyond compliance and<br />
statutory requirements, which engages in "actions that appear to further some social<br />
good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law". The binary<br />
choice between 'complying' with the law and 'going beyond' the law must be qualified<br />
with some nuance. In many areas such as environmental or labor regulations,<br />
employers can choose to comply with the law, to go beyond the law, but they can also<br />
choose to not comply with the law, such as when they deliberately ignore gender<br />
equality or the mandate to hire disabled workers. There must be a recognition that many<br />
so-called 'hard' laws are also 'weak' laws, weak in the sense that they are poorly<br />
enforced, with no or little control or no or few sanctions in case of non-compliance.<br />
'Weak' law must not be confused with soft law. The aim is to increase long-term profits<br />
Page 41 of 140
and shareholder trust through positive public relations and high ethical standards to<br />
reduce business and legal risk by taking responsibility for corporate actions. CSR<br />
strategies encourage the company to make a positive impact on the environment and<br />
stakeholders including consumers, employees, investors, communities, and others.<br />
Proponents argue that corporations increase long-term profits by operating with a CSR<br />
perspective, while critics argue that CSR distracts from businesses' economic role. A<br />
2000 study compared existing econometric studies of the relationship between social<br />
and financial performance, concluding that the contradictory results of previous studies<br />
reporting positive, negative, and neutral financial impact, were due to flawed empirical<br />
analysis and claimed when the study is properly specified, CSR has a neutral impact on<br />
financial outcomes.<br />
Critics questioned the "lofty" and sometimes "unrealistic expectations" in CSR. or that<br />
CSR is merely window-dressing, or an attempt to pre-empt the role of governments as a<br />
watchdog over powerful multinational corporations.<br />
Political sociologists became interested in CSR in the context of theories of<br />
globalization, neoliberalism and late capitalism. Some sociologists viewed CSR as a<br />
form of capitalist legitimacy and in particular point out that what began as a social<br />
movement against uninhibited corporate power was transformed by corporations into a<br />
'business model' and a 'risk management' device, often with questionable results.<br />
CSR is titled to aid an organization's mission as well as serve as a guide to what the<br />
company represents for its consumers. Business ethics is the part of applied ethics that<br />
examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that can arise in a business<br />
environment. ISO 26000 is the recognized international standard for CSR. Public sector<br />
organizations (the United Nations for example) adhere to the triple bottom line (TBL). It<br />
is widely accepted that CSR adheres to similar principles, but with no formal act of<br />
legislation.<br />
Definition<br />
Since the 1960s, corporate social responsibility has attracted attention from businesses<br />
and stakeholders in regard to its benefits and what it is. Corporate social responsibility<br />
has been defined differently by different writers based on what they perceive about the<br />
concept. Having learnt from the devastating effects of corporate social irresponsibility,<br />
companies are focusing on the impacts of their operations not only on profits but the<br />
society and environment at large. Therefore, corporate social responsibility refers to "the<br />
ethical principle that an organization should be responsible for how its behaviour might<br />
affect society and the environment". From 1960, "corporate social responsibility" has<br />
remained a term used indiscriminately by many to cover legal and moral responsibility<br />
more narrowly construed.<br />
In response to the rising concerns on ethical issues in businesses, Carroll 1991<br />
extended corporate social responsibility from the traditional economic and legal<br />
Page 42 of 140
esponsibility to ethical and philanthropic responsibility. Carroll demonstrates that<br />
corporate social responsibility is made up of four responsibilities that are interrelated<br />
and argues that corporate social responsibility can not be achieved without meeting the<br />
four responsibilities sequentially namely economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic<br />
responsibilities. Similarly, Business Dictionary defines CSR as "A company's sense of<br />
responsibility towards the community and environment (both ecological and social) in<br />
which it operates. Companies express this citizenship (1) through their waste and<br />
pollution reduction processes, (2) by contributing educational and social programs and<br />
(3) by earning adequate returns on the employed resources."<br />
Consumer Perspectives<br />
Most consumers agree that while achieving business targets, companies should do<br />
CSR at the same time. Most consumers believe companies doing charity work will<br />
receive a positive response. Somerville also found that consumers are loyal and willing<br />
to spend more on retailers that support charity. Consumers also believe that retailers<br />
selling local products will gain loyalty. Smith (2013) shares the belief that marketing<br />
local products will gain consumer trust.<br />
However, environmental efforts are receiving negative views given the belief that this<br />
would affect customer service. Oppewal et al. (2006) found that not all CSR activities<br />
are attractive to consumers. They recommended that retailers focus on one activity.<br />
Becker-Olsen (2006) found that if the social initiative done by the company is not<br />
aligned with other company goals it will have a negative impact. Mohr et al. (2001) and<br />
Groza et al. (2011) also emphasise the importance of reaching the consumer.<br />
Page 43 of 140
Approaches<br />
Some commentators have identified a difference between the Canadian (Montreal<br />
school of CSR), the Continental European and the Anglo-Saxon approaches to CSR. It<br />
is said that for Chinese consumers, a socially responsible company makes safe, highquality<br />
products; for Germans it provides secure employment; in South Africa it makes a<br />
positive contribution to social needs such as health care and education. And even within<br />
Europe the discussion about CSR is very heterogeneous.<br />
A more common approach to CSR is corporate philanthropy. This includes monetary<br />
donations and aid given to nonprofit organizations and communities. Donations are<br />
made in areas such as the arts, education, housing, health, social welfare and the<br />
environment, among others, but excluding political contributions and commercial event<br />
sponsorship.<br />
Another approach to CSR is to incorporate the CSR strategy directly into operations.<br />
For instance, procurement of Fair Trade tea and coffee.<br />
Creating shared value or CSV is based on the idea that corporate success and social<br />
welfare are interdependent. A business needs a healthy, educated workforce,<br />
sustainable resources and adept government to compete effectively. For society to<br />
thrive, profitable and competitive businesses must be developed and supported to<br />
create income, wealth, tax revenues and philanthropy. The Harvard Business Review<br />
article Strategy & Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Responsibility provided examples of companies that have developed deep<br />
linkages between their business strategies and CSR. CSV acknowledges trade-offs<br />
between short-term profitability and social or environmental goals, but emphasizes the<br />
opportunities for competitive advantage from building a social value proposition into<br />
corporate strategy. CSV gives the impression that only two stakeholders are important -<br />
shareholders and consumers.<br />
Many companies employ benchmarking to assess their CSR policy, implementation and<br />
effectiveness. Benchmarking involves reviewing competitor initiatives, as well as<br />
measuring and evaluating the impact that those policies have on society and the<br />
environment, and how others perceive competitor CSR strategy.<br />
Cost-Benefit Analysis<br />
In competitive markets cost-benefit analysis of CSR initiatives can be examined using a<br />
resource-based view (RBV). According to Barney (1990), "formulation of the RBV,<br />
sustainable competitive advantage requires that resources be valuable (V), rare (R),<br />
inimitable (I) and non-substitutable (S)." A firm introducing a CSR-based strategy might<br />
only sustain high returns on their investment if their CSR-based strategy could not be<br />
copied (I). However, should competitors imitate such a strategy, that might increase<br />
overall social benefits. Firms that choose CSR for strategic financial gain are also acting<br />
responsibly.<br />
Page 44 of 140
RBV presumes that firms are bundles of heterogeneous resources and capabilities that<br />
are imperfectly mobile across firms. This imperfect mobility can produce competitive<br />
advantages for firms that acquire immobile resources. McWilliams and Siegel (2001)<br />
examined CSR activities and attributes as a differentiation strategy. They concluded<br />
that managers can determine the appropriate level of investment in CSR by conducting<br />
cost benefit analysis in the same way that they analyze other investments.<br />
Reinhardt (1998) found that a firm engaging in a CSR-based strategy could only sustain<br />
an abnormal return if it could prevent competitors from imitating its strategy.<br />
Scope<br />
Initially, CSR emphasized the official behaviour of individual firms. Later, it expanded to<br />
include supplier behaviour and the uses to which products were put and how they were<br />
disposed of after they lost value.<br />
Supply Chain<br />
In the 21st century, corporate social responsibility in the supply chain has attracted<br />
attention from businesses and stakeholders. Corporations' supply chain is the process<br />
by which several organizations including suppliers, customers and logistics providers<br />
work together to provide a value package of products and services to the end user, who<br />
is the customer.<br />
Corporate social irresponsibility in the supply chain has greatly affected the reputation of<br />
companies, leading to a lot of cost to solve the problems. For instance, incidents like the<br />
2013 Savar building collapse, which killed over 1000 people, pushed companies to<br />
consider the impacts of their operations on society and environment. On the other side,<br />
the horse meat scandal of 2013 in the United Kingdom affected many food retailers,<br />
including Tesco, the largest retailer in the United Kingdom, leading to the dismissal of<br />
the supplier. Corporate social irresponsibility from both the suppliers and the retailers<br />
has greatly affected the stakeholders who lost trust for the affected business entities,<br />
and despite the fact that sometimes it's not directly undertaken by the companies, they<br />
become accountable to the stakeholders. These surrounding issues have prompted<br />
supply chain management to consider the corporate social responsibility context.<br />
Page 45 of 140
Wieland and Handfield (2013) suggested that companies need to include social<br />
responsibility in their reviews of component quality. They highlighted the use of<br />
technology in improving visibility across the supply chain.<br />
Corporate <strong>Social</strong> Initiatives<br />
Corporate social responsibility includes six types of corporate social initiatives:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Corporate philanthropy: company donations to charity, including cash, goods,<br />
and services, sometimes via a corporate foundation<br />
Community volunteering: company-organized volunteer activities, sometimes<br />
while an employee receives pay for pro-bono work on behalf of a non-profit<br />
organization<br />
<strong>Social</strong>ly-responsible business practices: ethically produced products which<br />
appeal to a customer segment<br />
Cause promotions: company-funded advocacy campaigns<br />
Cause-related marketing: donations to charity based on product sales<br />
Corporate social marketing: company-funded behavior-change campaigns<br />
All six of the corporate initiatives are forms of corporate citizenship. However, only some<br />
of these CSR activities rise to the level of cause marketing, defined as "a type of<br />
corporate social responsibility (CSR) in which a company's promotional campaign has<br />
the dual purpose of increasing profitability while bettering society."<br />
Companies generally do not have a profit motive when participating in corporate<br />
philanthropy and community volunteering. On the other hand, the remaining corporate<br />
social initiatives can be examples of cause marketing, in which there is both a societal<br />
interest and profit motive.<br />
Implementation<br />
CSR may be based within the human resources, business development or public<br />
relations departments of an organisation, or may be a separate unit reporting to the<br />
CEO or the board of directors.<br />
Engagement Plan<br />
An engagement plan can assist in reaching a desired audience. A corporate social<br />
responsibility individual or team plans the goals and objectives of the organization. As<br />
with any corporate activity, a defined budget demonstrates commitment and scales the<br />
program's relative importance.<br />
Page 46 of 140
Accounting, Auditing and Reporting<br />
<strong>Social</strong> accounting is the communication of social and environmental effects of a<br />
company's economic actions to particular interest groups within society and to society at<br />
large.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> accounting emphasizes the notion of corporate accountability. Crowther defines<br />
social accounting as "an approach to reporting a firm's activities which stresses the<br />
need for the identification of socially relevant behavior, the determination of those to<br />
whom the company is accountable for its social performance and the development of<br />
appropriate measures and reporting techniques." Reporting guidelines and standards<br />
serve as frameworks for social accounting, auditing and reporting:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
AccountAbility's AA1000 standard, based on John Elkington's triple bottom line<br />
(3BL) reporting<br />
The Prince's Accounting for Sustainability Project's Connected Reporting<br />
Framework<br />
The Fair Labor Association conducts audits based on its Workplace Code of<br />
Conduct and posts audit results on the FLA website.<br />
The Fair Wear Foundation verifies labour conditions in companies' supply chains,<br />
using interdisciplinary auditing teams.<br />
Global Reporting Initiative's Sustainability Reporting Guidelines<br />
Economy for the Common Good's Common Good Balance Sheet<br />
GoodCorporation's standard developed in association with the Institute of<br />
Business Ethics<br />
Synergy Codethic 26000 <strong>Social</strong> Responsibility and Sustainability Commitment<br />
Management System (SRSCMS) Requirements—Ethical Business Best<br />
Practices of Organizations—the necessary management system elements to<br />
obtain a certifiable ethical commitment management system. The standard<br />
scheme has been build around ISO 26000 and UNCTAD Guidance on Good<br />
Practices in Corporate Governance.The standard is applicable by any type of<br />
organization.;<br />
Earthcheck Certification / Standard<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Accountability International's SA8000 standard<br />
Standard Ethics Aei guidelines<br />
The ISO 14000 environmental management standard<br />
The United Nations Global Compact requires companies to communicate on their<br />
progress [48] (or to produce a Communication on Progress, COP), and to describe<br />
the company's implementation of the Compact's ten universal principles.<br />
The United Nations Intergovernmental Working Group of Experts on International<br />
Standards of Accounting and Reporting (ISAR) provides voluntary technical<br />
guidance on eco-efficiency indicators, corporate responsibility reporting, and<br />
corporate governance disclosure.<br />
The FTSE Group publishes the FTSE4Good Index, an evaluation of CSR<br />
performance of companies.<br />
Page 47 of 140
EthicalQuote (CEQ) tracks reputation of the world's largest companies on<br />
Environmental, <strong>Social</strong>, Governance (ESG), Corporate <strong>Social</strong> Responsibility,<br />
ethics and sustainability.<br />
The Islamic Reporting Initiative (IRI) is a not-for-profit organization which leads<br />
the creation of the IRI framework; the guiding integrated CSR reporting<br />
framework based on Islamic principles and values.<br />
In nations such as France, legal requirements for social accounting, auditing and<br />
reporting exist, though international or national agreement on meaningful<br />
measurements of social and environmental performance has not been achieved. Many<br />
companies produce externally audited annual reports that cover Sustainable<br />
Development and CSR issues ("Triple Bottom Line Reports"), but the reports vary<br />
widely in format, style, and evaluation methodology (even within the same industry).<br />
Critics dismiss these reports as lip service, citing examples such as Enron's yearly<br />
"Corporate Responsibility Annual Report" and tobacco companies' social reports.<br />
In South Africa, as of June 2010, all companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock<br />
Exchange (JSE) were required to produce an integrated report in place of an annual<br />
financial report and sustainability report. An integrated report reviews environmental,<br />
social and economic performance alongside financial performance. This requirement<br />
was implemented in the absence of formal or legal standards. An Integrated Reporting<br />
Committee (IRC) was established to issue guidelines for good practice.<br />
Verification<br />
Corporate social responsibility and its resulting reports and efforts should be verified by<br />
the consumer of the goods and services. The accounting, auditing and reporting<br />
resources provide a foundation for consumers to verify that their products are socially<br />
sustainable. Due to an increased awareness of the need for CSR, many industries have<br />
their own verification resources. The include organizations like the Forest Stewardship<br />
Council (paper and forest products), International Cocoa Initiative, and Kimberly<br />
Process (diamonds). The United Nations also provides frameworks not only for<br />
verification, but for reporting of human rights violations in corporate supply chains.<br />
Ethics Training<br />
The rise of ethics training inside corporations, some of it required by government<br />
regulation, has helped CSR to spread. The aim of such training is to help employees<br />
make ethical decisions when the answers are unclear. The most direct benefit is<br />
reducing the likelihood of "dirty hands", fines and damaged reputations for breaching<br />
laws or moral norms. Organizations see increased employee loyalty and pride in the<br />
organization.<br />
Page 48 of 140
Common Actions<br />
Common CSR actions include:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Environmental sustainability: recycling, waste management, water management,<br />
renewable energy, reusable materials, 'greener' supply chains, reducing paper<br />
use and adopting Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)<br />
building standards.<br />
Community involvement: This can include raising money for local charities,<br />
providing volunteers, sponsoring local events, employing local workers,<br />
supporting local economic growth, engaging in fair trade practices, etc.<br />
Ethical marketing: Companies that ethically market to consumers are placing a<br />
higher value on their customers and respecting them as people who are ends in<br />
themselves. They do not try to manipulate or falsely advertise to potential<br />
consumers. This is important for companies that want to be viewed as ethical.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> License<br />
"<strong>Social</strong> license" refers to a local community's acceptance or approval of a company.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> license exists outside formal regulatory processes. <strong>Social</strong> license can<br />
nevertheless be acquired through timely and effective communication, meaningful<br />
dialogue and ethical and responsible behavior.<br />
Page 49 of 140
Displaying commitment to CSR is one way to achieve social license, by enhancing a<br />
company's reputation.<br />
Potential Business Benefits<br />
A large body of literature exhorts business to adopt non-financial measures of success<br />
(e.g., Deming's Fourteen Points, balanced scorecards). While CSR benefits are hard to<br />
quantify, Orlitzky, Schmidt and Rynes found a correlation between social/environmental<br />
performance and financial performance.<br />
The business case for CSR within a company employs one or more of these arguments:<br />
Triple Bottom Line<br />
"People, planet and profit", also known as the triple bottom line, form one way to<br />
evaluate CSR. "People" refers to fair labour practices, the community and region where<br />
the business operates. "Planet" refers to sustainable environmental practices. Profit is<br />
the economic value created by the organization after deducting the cost of all inputs,<br />
including the cost of the capital (unlike accounting definitions of profit).<br />
This measure was claimed to help some companies be more conscious of their social<br />
and moral responsibilities. However, critics claim that it is selective and substitutes a<br />
company's perspective for that of the community. Another criticism is about the absence<br />
of a standard auditing procedure.<br />
The term was coined by John Elkington in 1994.<br />
Human Resources<br />
A CSR program can be an aid to recruitment and retention, particularly within the<br />
competitive graduate student market. Potential recruits often consider a firm's CSR<br />
policy. CSR can also help improve the perception of a company among its staff,<br />
particularly when staff can become involved through payroll giving, fundraising activities<br />
or community volunteering. CSR has been credited with encouraging customer<br />
orientation among customer-facing employees.<br />
CSR is known for impacting employee turnover. Several executives suggest that<br />
employees are their most valuable asset and that the ability to retain them leads to<br />
organization success. <strong>Social</strong>ly responsible activities promote fairness, which in turn<br />
generate lower employee turnover. On the other hand, if an irresponsible behavior is<br />
demonstrated by a firm, employees may view this behavior as negative. Proponents<br />
argue that treating employees well with competitive pay and good benefits is seen as a<br />
socially responsible behavior and therefore reduces employee turnover. Executives<br />
have a strong desire for building a positive work context that benefits CSR and the<br />
company as a whole. This interest is driven particularly by the realization that a positive<br />
Page 50 of 140
work environment can result in desirable outcomes such as more favorable job attitudes<br />
and increased work performance.<br />
The IBM Institute for Business Value conducted a survey of 250 business leaders<br />
worldwide in 2008. The survey found out that businesses have assimilated a much<br />
more strategic view, and that 68% companies reported are utilizing CSR as an<br />
opportunity and part of a sustainable growth strategy. The authors noted that while<br />
developing and implementing a CSR strategy represents a unique opportunity to benefit<br />
the company. However, only 31% of businesses surveyed engaged their employees on<br />
the company's CSR objectives and initiatives. The survey's authors also stated that<br />
employee engagement on CSR initiatives can be a powerful recruitment and retention<br />
tool. As a result, employees tend to discard employers with a bad reputation.<br />
Risk Management<br />
Managing risk is an important executive responsibility. Reputations that take decades to<br />
build up can be ruined in hours through corruption scandals or environmental accidents.<br />
These draw unwanted attention from regulators, courts, governments and media. CSR<br />
can limit these risks.<br />
Page 51 of 140
Brand Differentiation<br />
CSR can help build customer loyalty based on distinctive ethical values. Some<br />
companies use their commitment to CSR as their primary positioning tool, e.g., The Cooperative<br />
Group, The Body Shop and American Apparel.<br />
Some companies use CSR methodologies as a strategic tactic to gain public support for<br />
their presence in global markets, helping them sustain a competitive advantage by<br />
using their social contributions as another form of advertising.<br />
Companies that operate strong CSR activities tend to drive customer's attention to buy<br />
products or services regardless of the price. As a result, this increases competition<br />
among firms since customers are aware of the company's CSR practices. These<br />
initiatives serve as a potential differentiator because they not only add value to the<br />
company, but also to the products or services. Furthermore, firms under intense<br />
competition are able to leverage CSR to increase the impact of their distribution on the<br />
firm's performance. For instance, lowering the carbon footprint of a firm's distribution<br />
network or engaging in fair trade are potential differentiators to lower costs and increase<br />
profits. In this scenario, customers can observe the company's commitment to CSR<br />
while increasing company sales.<br />
Whole Foods' marketing and promotion of organic foods have had a positive effect on<br />
the supermarket industry. Proponents assert that Whole Foods has been able to work<br />
with its suppliers to improve animal treatment and quality of meat offered in their stores.<br />
They also promote local agricultures in over 2,400 independent farms to maintain their<br />
line of sustainable organic produce. As a result, Whole Foods' high prices do not turn<br />
customers away from shopping. In fact, they are pleased buying organic products that<br />
come from sustainable practices.<br />
According to a Harvard Business Review article, there are three theaters of practice in<br />
which CSR can be divided. Theater one focuses on philanthropy, which includes<br />
donations of money or equipment to non-profit organizations, engagement with<br />
communities' initiatives and employee volunteering. This is characterized as the "soul"<br />
of a company, expressing the social and environmental priorities of the founders. The<br />
authors assert that companies engage in CSR because they are an integral part of the<br />
society. For instance, the Coca-Cola Company contributes with $88.1 million annually to<br />
a variety of environmental educational and humanitarian organization. Another example<br />
is PNC Financial Services' "Grow Up Great" childhood education program. This<br />
program provides critical school readiness resources to underserved communities<br />
where PNC operates.<br />
On the other hand, theater two focuses on improving operational effectiveness in the<br />
workplace. The researchers assert that programs in this theater strive to deliver social<br />
or environmental benefits to support a company's operation across the value chain by<br />
improving efficiency. Some of the examples mentioned include sustainability initiatives<br />
Page 52 of 140
to reduce resource use, waste, and emission that could potentially reduce costs. It also<br />
calls for investing in employee work conditions such as health care and education which<br />
may enhance productivity and retention. Unlike philanthropic giving, which is evaluated<br />
by its social and environmental return, initiatives in the second theater are predicted to<br />
improve the corporate bottom line with social value. Bimbo, the largest bakery in<br />
Mexico, is an excellent example of this theater. The company strives to meet social<br />
welfare needs. It offers free educational service to help employees complete high<br />
school. Bimbo also provides supplementary medical care and financial assistance to<br />
close gaps in the government health<br />
coverage.<br />
Moreover, the third theater<br />
program aims to transform<br />
the business<br />
model.<br />
Basically,<br />
companies<br />
create new forms of<br />
business<br />
to<br />
address<br />
social or<br />
environmental<br />
challenges<br />
that will lead to<br />
financial<br />
returns in the long run. One<br />
example can be seen in Unilever's<br />
Project Shakti in India.<br />
The authors describe<br />
that the company hires women<br />
in villages and provides them<br />
with micro-finance loans to sell soaps,oils,detergents, and other products door-to-door.<br />
This research indicates that more than 65,000 women entrepreneurs are doubling their<br />
incomes while increasing rural access and hygiene in Indian villages. Another example<br />
is IKEA's People and Planet initiative to be 100% sustainable by 2020. As a<br />
consequence, the company wants to introduce a new model to collect and recycle old<br />
furniture.<br />
Reduced Scrutiny<br />
Corporations are keen to avoid interference in their business through taxation or<br />
regulations. A CSR program can persuade governments and the public that a company<br />
Page 53 of 140
takes health and safety, diversity and the environment seriously, reducing the likelihood<br />
that company practices will be closely monitored.<br />
Supplier Relations<br />
Appropriate CSR programs can increase the attractiveness of supplier firms to potential<br />
customer corporations. E.g., a fashion merchandiser may find value in an overseas<br />
manufacturer that uses CSR to establish a positive image—and to reduce the risks of<br />
bad publicity from uncovered misbehavior.<br />
Criticisms and Concerns<br />
CSR concerns include its relationship to the purpose of business and the motives for<br />
engaging in it.<br />
Nature of Business<br />
Milton Friedman and others argued that a corporation's purpose is to maximize returns<br />
to its shareholders and that obeying the laws of the jurisdictions within which it operates<br />
constitutes socially responsible behavior.<br />
While some CSR supporters claim that companies practicing CSR, especially in<br />
developing countries, are less likely to exploit workers and communities, critics claim<br />
that CSR itself imposes outside values on local communities with unpredictable<br />
outcomes.<br />
Better governmental regulation and enforcement, rather than voluntary measures, are<br />
an alternative to CSR that moves decision-making and resource allocation from public<br />
to private bodies. However, critics claim that effective CSR must be voluntary as<br />
mandatory social responsibility programs regulated by the government interferes with<br />
people's own plans and preferences, distorts the allocation of resources, and increases<br />
the likelihood of irresponsible decisions.<br />
Motives<br />
Some critics believe that CSR programs are undertaken by companies to distract the<br />
public from ethical questions posed by their core operations. They argue that the<br />
reputational benefits that CSR companies receive (cited above as a benefit to the<br />
corporation) demonstrate the hypocrisy of the approach. Moreover, some studies find<br />
that CSR programs are motivated by corporate managers' personal interests at the cost<br />
of the shareholders so they are a type of an agency problem in corporations.<br />
Others have argued that the primary purpose of CSR is to provide legitimacy to the<br />
power of businesses. As wealth inequality is perceived to be increasing it has become<br />
increasingly necessary for businesses to justify their position of power. Bakan is one of<br />
the most prominent critics of the conflict of interest between private profit and public<br />
good, and his argument is summarised by Haynes that "a corporate calculus exists in<br />
Page 54 of 140
which costs are pushed onto both workers, consumers and the environment". CSR<br />
spending may be seen in these financial terms, whereby the higher costs of socially<br />
undesirable behaviour are offset by a CSR spending of a lower amount. Indeed, it has<br />
been argued that there is a "halo effect" in terms of CSR spending. Research has found<br />
that firms which had been convicted of bribery in the USA under the Foreign Corrupt<br />
Practices Act (FCPA) received more lenient fines if they had been seen to be actively<br />
engaging in comprehensive CSR practices. It was found that typically either a 20%<br />
increase in corporate giving or a commitment to eradicating a significant labour issue,<br />
such as child labour, was equated to a 40% lower fine in the case of bribing foreign<br />
officials.<br />
Aguinis and Glavas conducted a comprehensive review of CSR literature, covering 700<br />
academic sources from numerous fields including organizational behaviour, corporate<br />
strategy, marketing and HRM. It was found that the primary reason for firms to engage<br />
in CSR were the expected financial benefits associated with CSR, rather than being<br />
motivated a desire to be responsible to society.<br />
Ethical Ideologies<br />
CEOs' political ideologies are evident manifestations of their different personal views.<br />
Each CEO may exercise different powers according to their organizational outcomes. In<br />
fact, their political ideologies are expected to influence their preferences for the CSR<br />
outcomes. Proponents argue that politically liberal CEOs will envision the practice of<br />
CSR as beneficial and desirable to increase a firm's reputation. They tend to focus more<br />
on how the firm can meet the needs of the society. As a consequence, they will<br />
Page 55 of 140
advance with the practice of CSR while adding value to the firm. On the other hand,<br />
property rights may be more relevant to conservative CEOs. Since conservatives tend<br />
to value free markets, individualism and call for a respect of authority, they will not likely<br />
envision this practice as often as those identifying as liberals might.<br />
The financials of the company and the practice of CSR also have a positive relationship.<br />
Moreover, the performance of a company tends to influence conservatives more likely<br />
than liberals. While not seeing it from the financial performance point of view, liberals<br />
tend to hold a view that CSR adds to the business triple bottom line. For instance, when<br />
the company is performing well, they will most likely promote CSR. If the company is not<br />
performing as expected, they will rather tend to emphasize this practice because they<br />
will potentially envision it as a way to add value to the business. In contrast, politically<br />
conservative CEOs will tend to support the practice of CSR if they hold a view that it will<br />
provide a good return to the financials of the company. In other words, this type of<br />
executives tend to not see the outcome of CSR as a value to the company if it does not<br />
provide anything in exchange.<br />
Misdirection<br />
There have been unsubstantiated social efforts, ethical claims, and outright<br />
greenwashing by some companies that has resulted in increasing consumer cynicism<br />
and mistrust. Sometimes companies use CSR to direct public attention away from other,<br />
harmful business practices. For example, McDonald's Corporation positioned its<br />
association with Ronald McDonald House and other children's charities as CSR while its<br />
meals have been accused of promoting poor eating habits.<br />
Acts which may initially appear to be altruistic CSR may have ulterior motives. The<br />
funding of scientific research projects has been used as a source of misdirection by<br />
firms. Prusiner, who discovered the protein responsible of CJD and won of the 1997<br />
Nobel prize in Medicine, thanks the tobacco company RJ Reynolds for their crucial<br />
support. RJ Reynolds funded the research into CJD. Proctor states that "the tobacco<br />
industry was the leading funder of research into genetics, viruses, immunology, air<br />
pollution" anything which formed a distraction from the well-established research linking<br />
smoking and cancer.<br />
Research has also found that corporate social marketing, a form of CSR promoting<br />
societal good, is being used to direct criticism away from the damaging practices of the<br />
alcohol industry. It has been shown that adverts which supposedly encourage<br />
responsible drinking simultaneously aim to promote drinking as a social norm.<br />
Companies may engage in CSR and social marketing in this case to prevent more<br />
stringent government legislation on alcohol marketing.<br />
Controversial Industries<br />
Industries such as tobacco, alcohol or munitions firms make products that damage their<br />
consumers or the environment. Such firms may engage in the same philanthropic<br />
Page 56 of 140
activities as those in other industries. This duality complicates assessments of such<br />
firms with respect to CSR.<br />
The Kizhakkambalam Takeover<br />
Textile company Kitex has taken over the administration of an entire Indian village<br />
called Kizhakkambalam near Cochin by winning the local body elections.<br />
Environmentalists and mainstream politicians of India point out that this can lead to a<br />
dangerous precedent because the company got actively involved in CSR only after they<br />
were caught red-handed in polluting the village.<br />
Page 57 of 140
Stakeholder Influence<br />
One motivation for corporations to adopt CSR is to satisfy stakeholders.<br />
Branco and Rodrigues (2007) describe the stakeholder perspective of CSR as the set of<br />
views of corporate responsibility held by all groups or constituents with a relationship to<br />
the firm. In their normative model the company accepts these views as long as they do<br />
not hinder the organization. The stakeholder perspective fails to acknowledge the<br />
complexity of network interactions that can occur in cross-sector partnerships. It<br />
relegates communication to a maintenance function, similar to the exchange<br />
perspective.<br />
Ethical Consumerism<br />
The rise in popularity of ethical consumerism over the last two decades can be linked to<br />
the rise of CSR. Consumers are becoming more aware of the environmental and social<br />
implications of their day-to-day consumption decisions and in some cases make<br />
purchasing decisions related to their environmental and ethical concerns.<br />
One issue with the consumer's relationship with CSR is that it is much more complex<br />
than it first appears. In their paper on the consumer and CSR, Janssen and Vanhamme<br />
looked into a phenomenon that they termed the "CSR-Consumer Paradox". This<br />
describes the mismatch that occurs where consumers report that they would only buy<br />
from companies with good social responsibility. For instance, a survey by Cohn & Wolfe<br />
found that globally over 60% of consumers want to buy from responsible companies.<br />
However, Janssen and Vanhamme reported that less than 4% of average household<br />
expenditure in the UK in 2010 was ethical. This indicates that there is a clear<br />
discrepancy between consumer beliefs and intentions, and actual consumer behaviour,<br />
so that when it comes down to their actual purchase behaviour, CSR has a much lesser<br />
impact than consumers initially say it does.<br />
One theory put forward for explaining the "CSR-Consumer Paradox" is that of<br />
"bystander apathy" or the bystander effect. This theory stems from the social<br />
psychology works of Darley and Latané and states that the likelihood of an individual<br />
acting in a given situation is greatly reduced if other bystanders do nothing even if that<br />
individual strongly believes in a certain course of action. In terms of explaining the CSR-<br />
Consumer Paradox, this theory would suggest an "If they do not care then why should<br />
I?" mentality. So even if a consumer is against the use of sweatshops or wants to<br />
support green causes, they may continue to make purchases from companies that are<br />
socially irresponsible just because other consumers seem apathetic towards the issue.<br />
A second explanation issued by Janssen and Vanhamme is that of reciprocal altruism.<br />
This is a key concept in evolutionary psychology that is argued to fuel all human<br />
behaviour: people only do something if they can get something back in return. In the<br />
case of CSR and ethical consumerism, however, consumers get very little in return for<br />
their investment. Ethically sourced or manufactured products are typically higher in price<br />
Page 58 of 140
due to greater costs. However, the reward for consumers is not much different from that<br />
of a non-ethical counterpart. Therefore, evolutionary speaking making an ethical<br />
purchase is not worth the higher cost to the individual even if they believe in supporting<br />
ethically, environmentally and socially beneficial causes.<br />
<strong>Social</strong>ly Responsible <strong>Investing</strong><br />
Shareholders and investors, through socially responsible investing, are using their<br />
capital to encourage behavior they consider responsible. However, definitions of what<br />
constitutes ethical behavior vary. For example, some religious investors in the US have<br />
withdrawn investment from companies that violate their religious views, while secular<br />
investors divest from companies that they see as imposing religious views on workers<br />
or customers.<br />
Creating Shared Value<br />
With the creating shared value (CSV) model, companies use their resources and<br />
capabilities to solve specific societal problems in ways that are aligned with their<br />
corporate strategy. CSV proponents claim that the model is more community aware<br />
than CSR.<br />
Public Policies<br />
Some national governments promote socially and environmentally responsible<br />
corporate practices. The heightened role of government in CSR has facilitated the<br />
development of numerous CSR programs and policies. Various European governments<br />
have pushed companies to develop sustainable corporate practices. CSR critics such<br />
as Robert Reich argued that governments should set the agenda for social<br />
responsibility with laws and regulation that describe how to conduct business<br />
responsibly.<br />
Page 59 of 140
Regulation<br />
Fifteen European Union countries are actively engaged in CSR regulation and public<br />
policy development. CSR efforts and policies are different among countries, responding<br />
to the complexity and diversity of governmental, corporate and societal roles. Some<br />
studies have claimed that the role and effectiveness of these actors were case-specific.<br />
This variety among company approaches to CSR can complicate regulatory processes.<br />
Canada adopted CSR in 2007. Prime Minister Harper encouraged Canadian mining<br />
companies to meet Canada's newly developed CSR standards.<br />
The 'Heilbronn Declaration' is a voluntary agreement of enterprises and institutions in<br />
Germany especially of the Heilbronn-Franconia region signed the 15th of September<br />
2012. The approach of the 'Heilbronn Declaration' targets the decisive factors of<br />
success or failure, the achievements of the implementation and best practices regarding<br />
CSR. A form of responsible entrepreneurship shall be initiated to meet the requirements<br />
of stakeholders' trust in economy. It is an approach to make voluntary commitments<br />
more binding.<br />
In opposition to mandated CSR regulation, Researchers Armstrong & Green suggest<br />
that all regulation is "harmful", citing regulation as the cause for North Korea's low<br />
economic freedom and per capita GDP. They further claim without source that "There is<br />
no form of market failure, however egregious, which is not eventually made worse by<br />
the political interventions intended to fix it," and conclude "there is no need for further<br />
research on regulation in the name of social responsibility."<br />
Laws<br />
In the 1800s, the US government could take away a firm's license if it acted<br />
irresponsibly. Corporations were viewed as "creatures of the state" under the law. In<br />
1819, the United States Supreme Court in Dartmouth College vs. Woodward<br />
established a corporation as a legal person in specific contexts. This ruling allowed<br />
corporations to be protected under the Constitution and prevented states from<br />
regulating firms. Recently countries included CSR policies in government agendas.<br />
On 16 December 2008, the Danish parliament adopted a bill making it mandatory for<br />
the 1100 largest Danish companies, investors and state-owned companies to include<br />
CSR information in their financial reports. The reporting requirements became effective<br />
on 1 January 2009. The required information included:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
CSR/SRI policies<br />
How such policies are implemented in practice<br />
Results and management expectations<br />
CSR/SRI is voluntary in Denmark, but if a company has no policy on this it must state its<br />
positioning on CSR in financial reports.<br />
Page 60 of 140
In 1995, item S50K of the Income Tax Act of Mauritius mandated that companies<br />
registered in Mauritius paid 2% of their annual book profit to contribute to the social and<br />
environmental development of the country. In 2014, India also enacted a mandatory<br />
minimum CSR spending law. Under Companies Act, 2013, any company having a net<br />
worth of 500 crore or more or a turnover of 1,000 crore or a net profit of 5 crore must<br />
spend 2% of their net profits on CSR activities. The rules came into effect from 1 April<br />
2014.<br />
Crises and Their Consequences<br />
Crises have encouraged the adoption of CSR. The CERES principles were adopted<br />
following the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident. Other examples include the lead paint used<br />
by toy maker Mattel, which required the recall of millions of toys and caused the<br />
company to initiate new risk management and quality control processes. Magellan<br />
Metals was found responsible for lead contamination killing thousands of birds in<br />
Australia. The company ceased business immediately and had to work with<br />
independent regulatory bodies to execute a cleanup. Odwalla experienced a crisis with<br />
sales dropping 90% and its stock price dropping 34% due to cases of E. coli. The<br />
company recalled all apple or carrot juice products and introduced a new process called<br />
"flash pasteurization" as well as maintaining lines of communication constantly open<br />
with customers.<br />
Geography<br />
Corporations that employ CSR behaviors do not always behave consistently in all parts<br />
of the world. Conversely, a single behavior may not be considered ethical in all<br />
Page 61 of 140
jurisdictions. E.g., some jurisdictions forbid women from driving, while others require<br />
women to be treated equally in employment decisions.<br />
UK Retail Sector<br />
A 2006 study found that the UK retail sector showed the greatest rate of CSR<br />
involvement. Many of the big retail companies in the UK joined the Ethical Trading<br />
Initiative, an association established to improve working conditions and worker health.<br />
Tesco (2013) reported that their 'essentials' are 'Trading responsibility', 'Reducing our<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> on the Environment', 'Being a Great Employer' and 'Supporting Local<br />
Communities'. J Sainsbury employs the headings 'Best for food and health', 'Sourcing<br />
with integrity', 'Respect for our environment', 'Making a difference to our community',<br />
and 'A great place to work', etc. The four main issues to which UK retail these<br />
companies committed are environment, social welfare, ethical trading and becoming an<br />
attractive workplace.<br />
Top ten UK retail brands in 2013 based on Retail Week reports:<br />
Retailer<br />
Annual Sales £bn<br />
Tesco 42.8<br />
Sainsbury's 22.29<br />
Asda 21.66<br />
Morrisons 17.66<br />
Mark and Spencer 8.87<br />
Co-operative Group 8.18<br />
John Lewis Partnership 7.76<br />
Boots 6.71<br />
Home Retail Group 5.49<br />
King Fisher 4.34<br />
Anselmsson and Johansson (2007) assessed three areas of CSR performance: human<br />
responsibility, product responsibility and environmental responsibility. Martinuzzi et al.<br />
described the terms, writing that human responsibility is "the company deals with<br />
suppliers who adhere to principles of natural and good breeding and farming of animals,<br />
and also maintains fair and positive working conditions and work-place environments for<br />
their own employees. Product responsibility means that all products come with a full and<br />
complete list of content, that country of origin is stated, that the company will uphold its<br />
declarations of intent and assume liability for its products. Environmental responsibility<br />
means that a company is perceived to produce environmental-friendly, ecological, and<br />
non-harmful products". Jones et al. (2005) found that environmental issues are the most<br />
commonly reported CSR programs among top retailers.<br />
Page 62 of 140
IV. <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong><br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investing refers to investments "made into companies, organizations, and<br />
funds with the intention to generate a measurable, beneficial social or environmental<br />
impact alongside a financial return."<br />
Institutional investors, notably North American and European development finance<br />
institutions, pension funds and endowments have played a leading role in the<br />
development of impact investing holistically, across all asset classes, with an initial<br />
focus on private equity, venture capital and green infrastructure. Under Pope Francis,<br />
the Catholic Church has witnessed an increased interest in impact investing.<br />
Page 63 of 140
"<strong>Impact</strong> investments can be made in emerging and developed markets, and target a<br />
range of returns from below-market to above-market rates, depending upon the<br />
circumstances." <strong>Impact</strong> investing tends to have roots in either social issues or<br />
environmental issues, and has been contrasted with microfinance. <strong>Impact</strong> investors<br />
actively seek to place capital in businesses, nonprofits, and funds that can harness the<br />
positive power of enterprise. <strong>Impact</strong> investing occurs across asset classes; for example,<br />
private equity/venture capital, debt, and fixed income.<br />
Background<br />
Historically, regulation—and to a lesser extent, philanthropy—was an attempt to<br />
minimize the negative social consequences (unintended consequences, externalities) of<br />
business activities.[needs reference] However, a history of individual investors using<br />
socially responsible investing to express their values exists, and such investing behavior<br />
is usually defined by the avoidance of investments in specific companies or activities<br />
with negative effects. In the 1990s, Jed Emerson advocated the blended value<br />
approach; that is, for foundations' endowments to be invested in alignment with the<br />
mission of the foundation, rather than to maximize financial return, which had been the<br />
prior accepted strategy.<br />
Simultaneously, approaches such as pollution prevention, corporate social<br />
responsibility, and triple bottom line began as measurements of non-financial effects,<br />
both inside and outside of corporations. In 2000, Baruch Lev, of the NYU Stern School<br />
of Business, collated thinking about intangible assets in a book of the same name,<br />
which furthered thinking about the non-financial effects of corporate production.<br />
Finally, around 2007, the term "impact investment" emerged — an approach that<br />
deliberately builds intangible assets alongside tangible, financial ones. A commitment to<br />
measuring social and environmental performance, with the same rigor as that applied to<br />
financial performance, is considered a critical, even indispensable, component of impact<br />
investing.<br />
The Industry<br />
The number of funds engaged in impact investing grew quickly over a five-year period<br />
and a 2009 report from research firm the Monitor Group estimated that the impact<br />
investing industry could grow from around US$50 billion in assets to US$500 billion in<br />
assets within the subsequent decade. Such capital may be in a range of forms,<br />
including equity, debt, working capital lines of credit, and loan guarantees. Examples in<br />
recent decades include many investments in microfinance, community development<br />
finance, and clean technology. The growth of impact investing is partly attributed to the<br />
criticism of traditional forms of philanthropy and international development, which have<br />
been characterized as unsustainable and driven by the goals—or whims—of the<br />
corresponding donors.<br />
Page 64 of 140
Currently impact investing is still only a small market when compared to the global<br />
equity market, estimated at US$61 trillion (market capitalization of domestic listed<br />
companies) by the World Bank in 2015. In contrast, about US$15.2 billion was<br />
committed to 7,551 impact investment projects that year, according to GIIN’s 2016<br />
Annual <strong>Impact</strong> Investor Survey. The largest sectors by asset allocation were housing,<br />
microfinance and energy. For 2016 growth of about 16 percent was expected, reaching<br />
approximately US$18 billion.<br />
Many development finance institutions, such as the British Commonwealth<br />
Development Corporation or Norwegian Norfund, can also be considered impact<br />
investors, because they allocate a portion of their portfolio to investments that deliver<br />
financial as well as social or environmental benefits.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investing is distinguished from crowdfunding sites, such as Indiegogo or<br />
Kickstarter, because impact investments are typically debt or equity investments over<br />
US$1,000—with longer-than-traditional venture capital payment times—and an "exit<br />
strategy" (traditionally an initial public offering (IPO) or buyout in the for-profit startup<br />
sector) may be non-existent. Although some social enterprises are nonprofits, impact<br />
investing typically involves for-profit, social- or environmental-mission-driven<br />
businesses.<br />
Organizations receiving impact investment capital may be set up legally as a for-profit,<br />
not-for profit, B Corporation, Low-profit Limited Liability Company, Community Interest<br />
Company, or other designations that may vary by country. In much of Europe, these are<br />
known as 'social enterprises'.<br />
Institutional investors<br />
Institutional <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong><br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments occur across asset classes and investment amounts. Among the<br />
best-known mechanism is private equity or venture capital. "<strong>Social</strong> venture capital", or<br />
"patient capital", impact investments are structured similarly to those in the rest of the<br />
Page 65 of 140
venture capital community. Investors may take an active role mentoring or leading the<br />
growth of the company, similar to the way a venture capital firm assists in the growth of<br />
an early-stage company. Hedge funds and private equity funds may also pursue impact<br />
investing strategies.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investment "accelerators" also exist for seed- and growth-stage social<br />
enterprises. Similar to seed-stage accelerators for traditional startups, impact<br />
investment accelerators provide smaller amounts of capital than Series A financings or<br />
larger impact investment deals. Most <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Accelerators are nonprofits,<br />
raising grants from donors to pay for business development services; however,<br />
commercially orientated accelerators providing investment readiness and capital-raising<br />
advisory services are emerging.<br />
Large corporations are also emerging as powerful mechanisms for impact investing.<br />
Companies that seek to create shared value through developing new products/services,<br />
or positively impacting their operations, are beginning to employ impact investments<br />
through their value chain, particularly their supply chain.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investing can help organizations become self-sufficient by enabling them to carry<br />
out their projects and initiatives without having to rely heavily on donations and state<br />
subsidies.<br />
Increased Supranational and Pension Cooperation<br />
Governments and national and international public institutions including development<br />
finance institutions have sought to leverage their impact-oriented policies by<br />
encouraging pension funds and other large asset owners to co-invest with them in<br />
impact-informed assets and projects, notably in the Global South. World Pensions<br />
Council and other US and European experts have welcome this course of action,<br />
insisting nonetheless that:<br />
”Governments and international institutions need to do more if they truly seek to ‘unlock’<br />
private sector capital in a meaningful way. They have to ask themselves the following<br />
questions: what are the concrete legal, regulatory, financial and fiduciary concerns<br />
facing pension fund board members? How can we improve emerging industry standards<br />
for impact measurement and help pension trustees steer more long-term capital<br />
towards valuable economic endeavors at home and abroad, while, simultaneously,<br />
ensuring fair risk-adjusted returns for future pensioners?”<br />
Mission <strong>Investing</strong> by Foundations<br />
Mission investments are investments made by foundations and other mission-based<br />
organizations to further their philanthropic goals. They include any type of investment<br />
that is intended and designed to generate both a measurable social or environmental<br />
benefit and a financial return:<br />
Page 66 of 140
Program-related investments (PRIs) or other concessionary (below-market rate)<br />
investments are primarily made to achieve programmatic rather than financial<br />
objectives. This category includes grant support, equity (stock), subordinated<br />
loans, senior loans, below-market cash deposits and loan guarantees. For<br />
private foundations, PRIs count towards the required 5 percent annual payout.<br />
<br />
Market-rate investments (MRIs) expected to generate a market-rate financial<br />
return on investment comparable to an ordinary investment of a similar type and<br />
risk profile. They are designed to have a positive impact while contributing to the<br />
foundation’s long-term financial stability and growth. This category includes<br />
market-rate cash deposits, fixed income (bond), private equity and public equity<br />
(stocks).<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> by Individuals<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investing historically took place through mechanisms aimed at institutional<br />
investors. However, there are ways for individuals to participate in providing early stage<br />
or growth funding to such ventures.<br />
Exchange-Traded Funds<br />
Exchange-traded funds like the SPDR Gender Diversity ETF (NYSE Arca: SHE) from<br />
State Street are publicly traded and hence available to anyone with a stock brokerage<br />
account. MSCI offers 11 environmental, social and governance index ETFs, including<br />
popular low-carbon and sustainability indexes.<br />
Syndicate or Pooled <strong>Investing</strong><br />
Groups of angel investors focused on impact, where individuals invest as a syndicate<br />
also exist. Examples include Investors' Circle in the US, Clearly <strong>Social</strong> Angels in the UK<br />
and Toniic in Europe.<br />
Digital Microfinance Platforms<br />
Web-based investing platforms, which offer lower-cost investing services, also exists.<br />
As equity deals can be prohibitively expensive for small-scale transactions,<br />
microfinance loans, rather than equity investment, are prevalent in these platforms.<br />
MyC4, founded in 2006, allows retail investors to loan to small businesses in African<br />
Page 67 of 140
countries via local intermediaries. Microplace was an early United States provider of<br />
such services which ceased taking on new loans in 2014, stating that its results "haven't<br />
scaled to the widespread social impact we aspire to achieve".<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> in Asia<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> in Asia is a burgeoning sector with many funds currently in play.<br />
However, many funds suffer from finding robust levels of investment opportunities for<br />
their pipeline given their ability to hedge internal requirements and risks and a potential<br />
inability to exit the various investments that they are invested in.<br />
Page 68 of 140
V. <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Assessments<br />
<strong>Social</strong> impact assessment (SIA) is a methodology to review the social effects of infrastructure<br />
projects and other development interventions. Although SIA is usually applied to planned<br />
interventions, the same techniques can be used to evaluate the social impact of unplanned<br />
events, for example disasters, demographic change and epidemics.<br />
Definition<br />
The origins of SIA largely derive from the environmental impact assessment (EIA) model, which<br />
first emerged in the 1970s in the U.S, as a way to assess the impacts on society of certain<br />
development schemes and projects before they go ahead - for example, new roads, industrial<br />
facilities, mines, dams, ports, airports, and<br />
other infrastructure projects. In the United<br />
States under the National<br />
Environmental Policy Act, social impact<br />
assessments are federally mandated<br />
and performed<br />
in conjunction<br />
with<br />
environmental<br />
impact<br />
assessments.<br />
SIA has been incorporated into the<br />
formal planning and<br />
approval processes<br />
in several countries,<br />
in order to categorize<br />
and assess how major developments may<br />
affect populations, groups, and settlements. Though the social impact assessment has long<br />
been considered subordinate to the environmental impact assessment, new models, such as<br />
the Environmental <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Assessment (ESIA), take a more integrated approach where<br />
equal weight is given to both the social and environmental impact assessments.<br />
Contents<br />
Definitions for "social impact assessment" vary by different sectors and applications. According<br />
to the International Association for <strong>Impact</strong> Assessment, "<strong>Social</strong> impact assessment includes the<br />
processes of analyzing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social<br />
consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans,<br />
projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions. Its primary purpose<br />
is to bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment."<br />
SIA's originate from the 1970's and were originally used in Anglo-Saxon environments with<br />
indigenous peoples, like the United States, Canada and Australia. Use of SIA's, in general in<br />
combination with Environmental <strong>Impact</strong> Assessments (ESIA) has since then developed, and are<br />
legally required in many other countries, ranging from development countries like Sierra Leone<br />
and Chad, emerging markets like Chili and Philippines but also other OECD countries like<br />
Greenland and South Africa.<br />
Increased pressure on available land and increasingly educated and competent local<br />
communities can lead to high costs for public acceptance of complex projects with adverse risks<br />
and effects. SIA's are increasingly seen as an effective instrument to bring these costs down by<br />
Page 69 of 140
determining views of affected communities on risks, effects and mitigation measures based on a<br />
sound socio-economic baseline study.<br />
The IFC Performance Standards are generally seen as the benchmark for ESIA's and insert this<br />
in an overarching Envrironmental and <strong>Social</strong> Risk Management System, which is based on<br />
proven risk management techniques. The IFC Performance Standard is used by multinational<br />
companies and commercial investors. Commercial banks have united themselves under the<br />
Equator Principles with over 90 members in 37 countries.<br />
SIA overlaps with monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Evaluation is particularly important in the<br />
areas of:<br />
1. public policy,<br />
2. health and education initiatives, and<br />
3. international development projects more generally, whether conducted by governments,<br />
international donors, or NGOs.<br />
In all these sectors, there is a case for conducting SIA and evaluations at different stages.<br />
The Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol is a sector specific method for checking<br />
the quality of environmental and social assessments and management plans.<br />
Non-experts and local people should participate in the design and implementation of proposed<br />
developments or programmes. This can be achieved in the process of doing an SIA, through<br />
adopting a participatory and democratic research process. Some SIAs go further than this, to<br />
adopt an advocacy role. For example, several SIAs carried out in Queensland, Australia, have<br />
been conducted by consultants working for local Aboriginal communities who oppose new<br />
mining projects on ancestral land. A rigorous SIA report, showing real consequences of the<br />
projects and suggesting ways to mitigate these impacts, gives credibility and provides evidence<br />
to take these campaigns to the planning officers or to the courts.<br />
Page 70 of 140
VI. Economic <strong>Impact</strong> Analysis<br />
An economic impact analysis (EIA) examines the effect of an event on the economy in a<br />
specified area, ranging from a single neighborhood to the entire globe. It usually measures<br />
changes in business revenue, business profits, personal wages, and/or jobs. The economic<br />
event analyzed can include implementation of a new policy or project, or may simply be the<br />
presence of a business or organization. An economic impact analysis is commonly conducted<br />
when there is public concern about the potential impacts of a proposed project or policy.<br />
An economic impact analysis typically measures or<br />
estimates the change in economic activity between<br />
two scenarios, one assuming the economic event<br />
occurs, and one assuming it does not occur (which is<br />
referred to as the counterfactual case). This can be<br />
accomplished either before or after the event (ex ante<br />
or ex post).<br />
Overview<br />
An economic impact analysis attempts to measure or<br />
estimate the change in economic activity in a<br />
specified region, caused by a specific business,<br />
organization, policy, program, project, activity, or<br />
other economic event. The study region can be a<br />
neighborhood, town, city, county, statistical area,<br />
state, country, continent, or the entire globe.<br />
Types of Economic <strong>Impact</strong>s<br />
Economic impact analyses often estimate multiple<br />
types of impacts. An output impact is the total increase in business sales revenue. In turn, local<br />
businesses use some of this new revenue to pay for goods and services outside of the study<br />
region, so the output impact is not synonymous with local business profits. A more conservative<br />
measure of economic activity is the value added impact, which estimates the increase in the<br />
study region’s gross regional product. The gross regional product (GRP) is very similar to the<br />
nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), and represents the total size of the local economy. This<br />
impact estimates the increase in local employee wages plus local business profits (not total<br />
revenue, like the output impact). However, the value added impact may overstate local profits<br />
when they are transferred overseas (such as in the form of dividends or investments in foreign<br />
facilities).<br />
An even more conservative measure is the labor income impact, which represents the increase<br />
in total money paid to local employees in the form of salaries and wages. The increases in<br />
income may come in the form of raises and/or increased hours for existing employees, or new<br />
jobs for the unemployed. This is a measure of the economic impact on just personal incomes,<br />
not business revenues or profits. A similar measure is the employment impact, which measures<br />
the increase in the number of total employees in the local region. Instead of measuring the<br />
economic impact in terms of money, this measure presents the impact on the number of jobs in<br />
the region.<br />
Page 71 of 140
Another measure of economic impact is the property value impact, measuring the increase in<br />
total property values, and is a reflection of generated income and wealth, both personal and<br />
business.<br />
Sources of Economic <strong>Impact</strong>s<br />
In addition to the types of impacts, economic impact analyses often estimate the sources of the<br />
impacts. Each impact can be decomposed into different components, depending on the effect<br />
that caused the impact. Direct effects are the results of the money initially spent in the study<br />
region by the business or organization being studied. This includes money spent to pay for<br />
salaries, supplies, raw materials, and operating expenses.<br />
The direct effects from the initial spending creates additional activity in the local economy.<br />
Indirect effects are the results of business-to-business transactions indirectly caused by the<br />
direct effects. Businesses initially benefiting from the direct effects will subsequently increase<br />
spending at other local businesses. The indirect effect is a measure of this increase in businessto-business<br />
activity (not including the initial round of spending, which is included in the direct<br />
effects).<br />
Induced effects are the results of increased personal income caused by the direct and indirect<br />
effects. Businesses experiencing increased revenue from the direct and indirect effects will<br />
subsequently increase payroll expenditures (by hiring more employees, increasing payroll<br />
hours, raising salaries, etc.). Households will, in turn, increase spending at local businesses.<br />
The induced effect is a measure of this increase in household-to-business activity. Finally,<br />
dynamic effects are caused by geographic shifts over time in populations and businesses.<br />
Methodology<br />
Economic impact analyses usually employ one of two methods for determining impacts. The<br />
first is an input-output model (I/O model) for analyzing the regional economy. These models rely<br />
on inter-industry data to determine how effects in one industry will impact other sectors. In<br />
addition, I/O models also estimate the share of each industry's purchases that are supplied by<br />
local firms (versus those outside the study area). Based on this data, multipliers are calculated<br />
and used to estimate economic impacts. Examples of I/O models used for economic impact<br />
analyses are IMPLAN, [3] RIMS-II, and EMSI.<br />
Another method used for economic impact analyses are economic simulation models. These<br />
are more complex econometric and general equilibrium models. They account for everything the<br />
I/O model does, plus they forecast the impacts caused by future economic and demographic<br />
changes. One such is example is the REMI Model.<br />
Comparison to Other Analyses<br />
Economic impact analyses are related to but differ from other similar studies. An economic<br />
impact analysis only covers specific types of economic activity. Some social impacts that affect<br />
a region's quality of life, such as safety and pollution, may be analyzed as part of a social impact<br />
assessment, but not an economic impact analysis, even if the economic value of those factors<br />
could be quantified. An economic impact analysis may be performed as one part of a broader<br />
environmental impact assessment, which is often used to examine impacts of proposed<br />
Page 72 of 140
development projects. An economic impact analysis may also be performed to help calculate<br />
the benefits as part of a cost-benefit analysis.<br />
Applications<br />
Economic impact analyses are used frequently in transportation planning. Common tools for this<br />
application include the Transportation Economic Development <strong>Impact</strong> System (TREDIS) and<br />
TranSight. Several transportation agencies, including the Transportation Research Board and<br />
US Department of Transportation, publish guides, standards, and techniques for utilizing<br />
economic impact analyses in transportation planning projects.<br />
Economic impact analyses are often used to examine the consequences of economic<br />
development projects and efforts, such as real estate development, business openings and<br />
closures, and site selection projects. The analyses can also help increase community support<br />
for these projects, as well as help obtain grants and tax incentives.<br />
An economic impact analysis is commonly developed in conjunction with proposed legislation or<br />
regulatory changes, in order to fully understand the impact of government action on the<br />
economy. The United States Department of Energy economic impact model is one example of<br />
this type of application. Many times the economic impact analysis is developed by the party<br />
advocating for the legislative or regulatory change, to communicate the merits of the proposed<br />
action. It can be useful with lobbying, media relations, and community outreach efforts.<br />
Page 73 of 140
Page 74 of 140
VII. <strong>Social</strong> Earnings Ratio<br />
The <strong>Social</strong> Earnings Ratio, sometimes abbreviated to S/E, is a single-number<br />
metric, used to measure the social impact of various organisations. The non-financial<br />
metric is similar to the price earnings ratio, but instead focuses on valuation against<br />
social impact, rather than projected earnings.<br />
The ratio was founded in 2011 by Olinga Ta'eed and a team of financial experts, in<br />
order to find a way of measuring financial<br />
investment against real<br />
social impact. It began<br />
as a university collaboration in the<br />
United Kingdom,<br />
before becoming<br />
an<br />
internationally<br />
recognized form of<br />
when the CCEG<br />
measurement,<br />
was founded.<br />
In 2013, it was identified in a news<br />
article as "the most rapidly<br />
adopted metric in the world".<br />
History<br />
The <strong>Social</strong> Earnings Ratio (S/E) is a form of measuring sentiment and converting it into<br />
financial value. The ratio began as an idea to develop a single number metric to<br />
measure social value. In November 2011, a University collaboration was formed to<br />
manage this development. Around 18 months later, the Centre for Citizenship,<br />
Enterprise and Governance (CCEG) was formed in April 2013, to act as the standards<br />
body to curate the ratio globally. The standards body would also be run as a non-profit.<br />
Page 75 of 140
The Board for the CCEG was to include Professor Nick Petford, who was also the Vice-<br />
Chancellor at the University of Northampton.<br />
Following the establishment of the CCEG, Olinga Ta'eed was the keynote speaker at<br />
the Global Citizen Forum. In early 2015, it was announced that Seratio would be<br />
launched as a spin-off organization to control the licensing of the <strong>Social</strong> Earnings Ratio<br />
platform. Barbara Mellish would be the CEO of Seratio.<br />
By late 2015, the CCEG had over 37,500 members, including a number of key<br />
sustainability leaders. The UK Intellectual Property Office accepted the terms "<strong>Social</strong><br />
Earnings Ratio", "S/E Ratio" and "Seratio" as having "acquired a distinctive character as<br />
a result of the use made of it." Full Registration rights have been granted. This is an<br />
important milestone for the <strong>Social</strong> Earnings Ratio which will allow it to achieve parity to<br />
the Price Earnings Ratio.<br />
Serat.io was launched as a subsidiary project by the CCEG, for the measuring of<br />
personal value. Pre-launched at the Clipper Round the World Yacht Race in September<br />
2015, PV targets 1 million users. It is a campaign backed by celebrities such as the<br />
former First Lady Cherie Blair, broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby, Italian footballer<br />
Gianluigi Buffon, politician Rt Hon Peter Hain, as well as the Desmond Tutu Foundation.<br />
Personal Value was formally launched in December 2015.<br />
Algorithm<br />
Total Value = Financial Value + Non-Financial Value = p/e + s/e<br />
Interpretation<br />
S/E Ratio is a financial metric that converts sentiment into financial value, and purports<br />
to be the currency of intangible values.<br />
The S/E utilises financial value data, claimed outcomes and independent verification<br />
within a Citizenship Framework. S/E provides digital articulation of value across micro,<br />
meso and macro levels. Regardless of the organisation or market that is measured, the<br />
same algorithm is used. In a similar way to comparative currency flow, it means that<br />
both simple and sophisticated correlations can easily be compared.<br />
The ratio was developed using a University collaboration, involving over 90 Universities<br />
globally. The framework examines the influences between the value formed at citizen,<br />
family, community, team, organisation, regional, national, and global levels. A principle<br />
rule is that S/E is never applied to negative actions. An example of this would be that<br />
slavery would never be measured directly, but it would be treated as a lack of freedom.<br />
Similarly, violence and safety levels wouldn't be measured, but the level of peace and<br />
its absence could be used in the framework.<br />
Some have compared its application similar to that of a digital non-financial currency.<br />
The framework utilises deep academic analysis tools, which are commonly used for<br />
Page 76 of 140
calculating the financial value. Since the initial collaboration between the United<br />
Kingdom Universities, a number of Interdependencies have been discovered.<br />
Interdependencies<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Time dependency - Value changes over time<br />
Direction - Value changes depending on which stakeholder viewpoint is<br />
assessed<br />
The 1/r 2 rule (Distance) - Value dilutes over increasing distance<br />
Multiplier effect - Enhancing, diminishing, neutral processes<br />
Tracking Movement - Transfer between stakeholders<br />
Metrics<br />
Focus Metric Application<br />
1 Institution Organizational UK <strong>Social</strong> Value Act 2012, Corporate CSR, NGO efficiency<br />
2 Citizen Personal Value Recruitment, <strong>Social</strong> Media, Retail, Therapy<br />
3 Slavery Freedom UK Modern Slavery Act 2015<br />
4 Health Wellbeing Health, Corporate HR<br />
5 Regional Hyperlocality Regional Government, Corporate CSR<br />
6 Collaboration Team Clipper Round the World Yacht Race 2015<br />
7 Ethics Leadership Mission Performance<br />
8 Enablement Independence NHS integrated social and health care<br />
9 Inspiration Art Arts Council<br />
10 <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Sustainable investment<br />
11 Intellectual Capital Universities, Corporate UK<br />
12 Happiness City Local Government, Politics<br />
13 Violence Peace Domestic Violence<br />
14 Animal Welfare Pet industry<br />
15 Tax Avoidance Corporate evasion<br />
16 Pay Equalities Gender<br />
Page 77 of 140
17 Love Relationship Online dating<br />
Reception<br />
It is often difficult or not possible to compare <strong>Social</strong> Earnings Ratio with other forms of<br />
financial measurement. Comparing S/E to other social impact tools is something that is<br />
more common. <strong>Social</strong> Return on Investment (SROI) is one example of this and is quite<br />
a popular search on most search engines. When its results are compared to that of<br />
S/E's, its clear that SROI has a greater amount of coverage.<br />
It could be argued that the history of SROI and the fact it was released in 2002, nine<br />
years prior to S/E, could indicate why it has a greater number of search engine results.<br />
Equally, HACT claims to "have created the largest bank of methodologically consistent<br />
and robust social values ever produced." By this they are referring to a database of<br />
financial proxy data which can be used in conjunction to SROI, although in August 2015<br />
they have criticised SROI comprehensively in the "Seven Principle Problems of SROI."<br />
Continuing with the comparison, in 2014 Lord Loomba presented a report to the House<br />
of Lords, "<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Analysis", which included metrics from Business in the<br />
Community and Benefit Corporation, as well as SROI and S/E. The steep rise in S/E<br />
take-up in 2013 represents the automation of the metric and not necessarily any<br />
indication of quality. A 'big-data' approach has been provided by CSR-Hub who have<br />
harvested 417 metrics; in May 2014 they announced an MoU with CCEG to explore<br />
S/E.<br />
S/E has undergone considerable analysis and critique in recent years. Most recent<br />
comparing IIRC (International Integrated Reporting Council) to S/E, concluding<br />
"Together, the Framework and the S/E Ratio provide a powerful set of metrics and<br />
analysis for both founders and funders to evaluate value as well as strategic risk."<br />
Earlier in 2015, The Guardian wrote: "Since 2013, there has certainly been an increase<br />
in the number of online measurement tools. But the challenge of calculating social<br />
impact goes back to the early 1990s. One measure, called LM3, allows organisations to<br />
calculate the local economic impact, while another, called SROI, calculates social return<br />
on investment. But both are very complex and are based on lots of assumptions that the<br />
people who do the evaluation will have to identify, agree and sign off." Perhaps we need<br />
a simpler tool such as the social earnings ratio, which doesn’t require lots of<br />
assumptions and is based on a one-size-fits-all approach."<br />
The focus on the broad context of applications of S/E have drawn sometimes heated<br />
debate amongst the international academic and social innovation community in Italy,<br />
Romania, and Russia. Mohammad Yunus, a Nobel Prize laureate, has also spoken<br />
publicly about the framework. These discussions surrounding the concept of a 'universal<br />
metric' draw both praise and scepticism.<br />
Criticism of the timeframes to calculate the data has been made, with many wondering<br />
how accurate statistics be drawn in such a short period of time. other debates about the<br />
Page 78 of 140
usability of the framework are still forming, as S/E begins to become more prominent in<br />
the social measuring tools field. Some S/E exponents embrace the disruptive metric tag<br />
arguing it as an instrument for change, others debate the moral and potential future<br />
implications. There are a number of platforms discussing and organically developing<br />
S/E including a forum, a micro-blog, and an international journal in 8 languages, the<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Value & Intangibles Review.<br />
Application<br />
The S/E makes use of Big Data, <strong>Social</strong> Media and Sentiment Analysis to automate the<br />
algorithm on a SaaS platform, with results normally reported within 10 seconds.<br />
Organisation's whose financials are available via XBRL, allows the framework to be<br />
applied without intervention. For the measurement of individual personal values can<br />
take up to 60 seconds to input and start reporting.<br />
S/E Ratio can be applied across all organisational, institutional, and personal levels, as<br />
well as projects, processes, products in private, public, third (NGO, voluntary, civil<br />
society), and community sectors. This widespread approach is a key factor in its<br />
adoption in certain high profile applications which have gained it traction. S/E Ratio is<br />
the leading provider of metrics for delivery of public sector procurement under the UK<br />
Page 79 of 140
<strong>Social</strong> Value Act 2012 legislation. Currently some UK£3.15 billion of public sector<br />
procurement is measured through the <strong>Social</strong> Earnings Ratio. The Lord Young Review<br />
(February 2015) of the <strong>Social</strong> Value Act described S/E as "The Centre for Citizenship,<br />
Enterprise and Governance (CCEG) has developed the social earnings ratio as a quick,<br />
low cost, high volume way to assess social impact. It is calculated by dividing the social<br />
value by the money spent on it. This can be calculated using very simple information<br />
(e.g. the CSR budget, the carbon reduction, and the number of people helped), and is<br />
meant to provide a single metric that can be used as a quick benchmark".<br />
Seratio, the SaaS licensing arm of CCEG, announced that in Q1 2016 it will launch a<br />
Freedom metric to support the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015. This promotes<br />
Transparency in the Supply Chain for all companies over £36 million turnover - an<br />
estimated 12,000 companies need to comply to this new piece of legislation as from<br />
October 2015. CCEG chairs the EU Procurement <strong>Social</strong> Value & Transparency in<br />
Supply Chain Forum.<br />
Corporate <strong>Social</strong> Responsibility<br />
There is a propensity of non-financial value data covered by over 1000 different metrics<br />
and measures. There is remarkable lack of consistency between them. Due to the<br />
speed of S/E and its ability to translate empirical data from other metrics to an S/E<br />
score, it has harvested a significant database of organizational values reported. The EU<br />
SEiSMiC <strong>Social</strong> Value Group have charted growth and their 2015–16 forecasts for<br />
measured asset value (Euro € trillion) by S/E. Figures for 2015 and 2016 include other<br />
value measurements outside organizational value; the key differentiator presumably is<br />
personal value.<br />
…<br />
Page 80 of 140
VIII. <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bonds<br />
A <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond, also known as Pay for Success Financing, a Pay for<br />
Success Bond or a <strong>Social</strong> Benefit Bond or simply a <strong>Social</strong> Bond, is a contract with<br />
the public sector in which a commitment is made to pay for improved social outcomes<br />
that result in public sector savings. The term was originally coined by Geoff Mulgan,<br />
Chief Executive of the Young Foundation. The first <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond was launched by<br />
UK-based <strong>Social</strong> Finance Ltd. in September 2010.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bonds are a type of bond, but not the most common<br />
type. While they operate over a fixed period of time, they do<br />
not offer a fixed rate of return. Repayment to<br />
investors is contingent upon specified<br />
social outcomes being achieved.<br />
Therefore, in terms of investment risk,<br />
<strong>Social</strong> impact bonds are more similar to<br />
that of a structured product or an equity<br />
investment.<br />
60 <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bonds<br />
have launched in 15<br />
countries, raising more<br />
than $200m in investment<br />
to address social<br />
challenges. In July 2016<br />
the <strong>Social</strong> Finance Global<br />
Network launched a white paper on<br />
the state of the <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond<br />
market: <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bonds: The Early<br />
Years. <strong>Social</strong> Finance also released a<br />
live global database of <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Bonds. The database can be sorted by country, issue area, investor, payor and service<br />
provider, providing a comprehensive overview of <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bonds launched to date<br />
and a snapshot of the many in development.View the database at<br />
http://www.socialfinance.org.uk/database/.<br />
In developing countries, a Development impact bond (DIB) is a variation of the SIB<br />
model that would provide new sources of financing to achieve improved social<br />
outcomes in developing country contexts. As with SIBs, investors would provide<br />
external financing and only receive a return if pre-agreed outcomes are achieved.<br />
Funds to remunerate investors come from donors, the budget of the host country, or a<br />
combination of the two. Financial returns to investors are intended to be commensurate<br />
with the level of success. DIBs have the potential to improve aid efficiency and costeffectiveness<br />
by shifting the focus onto implementation quality and the delivery of<br />
successful results. In October 2013, <strong>Social</strong> Finance Ltd. and the Center for Global<br />
Page 81 of 140
Development released a report outlining the findings of a high level working group set<br />
up to explore the potential of this new mechanism.<br />
History<br />
<strong>Social</strong> impact bonds are a non-tradable variant of social policy bonds invented by<br />
Ronnie Horesh, a New Zealand economist, in 1988. The idea of the <strong>Social</strong> impact bond<br />
has been promoted and developed by a number of agencies and individuals in an<br />
attempt to address the paradox that investing in prevention of social and health<br />
problems saves the public sector money, but that it is currently difficult for public bodies<br />
to find the funds and incentives to do so.<br />
The first <strong>Social</strong> impact bond was announced in the UK on 18 March 2010 by then<br />
Justice Secretary Jack Straw, to finance a prisoner rehabilitation program. In the UK the<br />
Prime Minister’s Council on <strong>Social</strong> Action (a group of ‘innovators from every sector’<br />
brought together to ‘generate ideas and initiatives through which Government and other<br />
key stakeholders can catalyse, celebrate and develop social action’) was asked in 2007<br />
to explore alternative models for financing social action. The group began to develop<br />
the idea of a <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond, and the work is being taken forward by a number of<br />
organisations including <strong>Social</strong> Finance, an organization committed to increasing<br />
investment in the third sector, the Young Foundation, the Center for <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> in<br />
Australia, and other NGOs and private firms.<br />
The idea of a <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond has generated significant interest from across the<br />
political spectrum in multiple countries, including U.S., UK, and Australia. .<br />
<strong>Social</strong> impact bonds have also generated interest in the United States. In February<br />
2011, Barack Obama’s proposed 2012 budget stated that up to $100m would be freed<br />
up to run <strong>Social</strong> impact bond pilot schemes. In August, 2012, Massachusetts became<br />
the first state in the nation to use a competitive procurement process to secure social<br />
innovation financing for social services. The state legislature authorized spending up to<br />
$50 million on the initiatives.<br />
In Australia, the intention to trial <strong>Social</strong> impact bonds was announced in New South<br />
Wales in November 2010 by Premier Kristina Keneally of the Australian Labor Party.<br />
The policy direction was continued by the Coalition (Australia) after a change in<br />
Government in 2011.<br />
In November 2012 Essex County Council became the first local authority in the UK to<br />
commission a <strong>Social</strong> impact bond in Children’s Services, with the aim of providing<br />
therapeutic support and improving outcomes for adolescents at risk of going into care.<br />
Nick Hurd, the minister for civil society, commented: "<strong>Social</strong> impact bonds are opening<br />
up serious resources to tackle social problems in new and innovative ways. This is<br />
about communities, businesses and charities all working together to change people's<br />
lives, whilst at the same time making savings for the taxpayer."<br />
Page 82 of 140
In February 2013 Allia, a charitable social investment organisation, announced the first<br />
public opportunity in the UK to invest in a social impact bond. Although the product was<br />
later withdrawn from sale due to lack of investors, the Future for Children Bond<br />
combined a relatively low-risk ethical investment into affordable housing to provide the<br />
funds to repay capital to investors, with a higher risk investment into a social impact<br />
bond with the aim of delivering a high social impact and providing an additional variable<br />
return.<br />
It would have invested into the <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond for Essex County Council to<br />
‘improve the life outcomes’ of children aged 11–16 at risk of going into care.<br />
Definitions<br />
There are a range of interpretations of what the term ‘<strong>Social</strong> impact bond’ means.<br />
Third Sector Capital Partners describes <strong>Social</strong> impact bonds as:<br />
'A social impact bond is one potential financing option available to support Pay for<br />
Success programs. <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bonds brings together government, service providers<br />
and investors/funders to implement existing and proven programs designed to<br />
accomplish clearly defined outcomes.<br />
Investors/funders provide the initial capital support and the government agrees to make<br />
payments to the program only when outcomes are achieved. So government pays for<br />
success.'<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Finance UK describes <strong>Social</strong> impact bonds as:<br />
‘A <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond is a public-private partnership which funds effective social services<br />
through a performance-based contract.’<br />
The Young Foundation describes <strong>Social</strong> impact bonds as:<br />
‘a range of financial assets that entail raising money from third parties and making<br />
repayments according to the social impacts achieved.'<br />
The Non-Profit Finance Fund describes <strong>Social</strong> impact bonds as:<br />
PFS financing agreements, in which private investors provide upfront capital for the<br />
delivery of services and are repaid by a back-end, or outcomes payor (usually a<br />
government), if contractually agreed upon outcomes are achieved, are often referred to<br />
as "<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bonds" (illustrated and described below). <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bonds (SIBs)<br />
are a mechanism by which to shift financial risk from service providers to investors, with<br />
investors underwriting service providers’ based on their ability to deliver on positive social<br />
outcomes.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Finance therefore specifies that the investment is from non-government bodies,<br />
whereas the Young Foundation envisages that public bodies could be potential<br />
investors.<br />
Page 83 of 140
Benefits and Costs of <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bonds<br />
Advocates of these performance-based investments claim that they encourage<br />
innovation and tackle difficult social problems, asserting that new and innovative<br />
programs have potential for success, but often have trouble securing government<br />
funding because it can be hard to rigorously prove their effectiveness. This form of<br />
financing allows the government to partner with innovative and effective service<br />
providers and, if necessary, private foundations or other investors willing to cover the<br />
upfront costs and assume performance risk to expand promising programs, while<br />
assuring that taxpayers will not pay for the programs unless they demonstrate success<br />
in achieving the desired outcomes. The expected public sector savings are used as a<br />
basis for raising investment for prevention and early intervention services that improve<br />
social outcomes.<br />
In many cases, Pay for Success programs can achieve positive social outcomes, may<br />
create fiscal savings for government, but also involve changes in funding arrangements<br />
that bring risks to service agencies. The assumed benefits makes Pay for Success<br />
politically attractive to governments and businesses. For example, $250 million of<br />
investments towards preventive programs that reduce recidivism might eventually make<br />
it possible to close prisons that cost taxpayers $1 billion per year to run.<br />
The benefits of <strong>Social</strong> impact bonds depends on the definition being used, but the broad<br />
benefits (though not measured and verified yet) are that:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
More funds are available for prevention and early intervention services.<br />
The public sector only has to pay for effective services; the third party investor<br />
bears all the risk of services being potentially ineffective.<br />
Investors and servicers have an incentive to be as effective as possible, because<br />
the larger impact they have on the outcome, the larger the repayment they will<br />
receive.<br />
The <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond approach imbeds vigorous ongoing evaluation of<br />
program impacts into program operations, accelerating the rate of learning about<br />
which approaches work and which do not.<br />
Government funds “what works”; thus repositioning government spending to<br />
cost-effective preventive programs.<br />
Attract new forms of capital to the social, educational and healthcare sectors.<br />
Independent evaluation creates transparency for all parties.<br />
Critics note that because the outcomes-based payments are dependent on<br />
governmental funds which must be budgeted, <strong>Social</strong> impact bonds do not actually raise<br />
Page 84 of 140
additional capital for social programs, but instead displace funding for other programs.<br />
Given the need to budget for a return on investment, a program evaluation, middle<br />
managers, and the expenses of designing the complex financial and contractual<br />
mechanisms, social impact bonds, according to critics, may be an expensive method of<br />
operating social programs. Other criticisms include:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Criteria for success – donors will seek to fund that which can be observed and<br />
measured, the outcomes (not just the outputs). This will leave agencies<br />
addressing the huge structural problems in society unable to access these funds.<br />
This is going to be particularly true for advocacy, arts and alternative<br />
organizations. It will be difficult for social coalitions to get funding as their<br />
contributions are dispersed through member organizations and the effect they<br />
have on government policies, for example. The terms of these instruments may<br />
be set to overpay for more readily achievable goals. Doing so would increase<br />
long term government spending and divorce such spending from direct<br />
deliverables.<br />
More donor influence – donors, or now investors, will want to make sure their<br />
money is being used according to contract, and will therefore want to be more<br />
involved in the delivery of social services. They may even want to see NGOs<br />
adopt a more business style of delivery.<br />
Unfair competition – among NGOs will emerge. Agencies that secure funds will<br />
be able to operate in areas where NGOs now operate, but they will have greater<br />
resources, more narrowly defined goals (and therefore successes to publicize)<br />
and will set the standard for government funded agencies and their actions.<br />
Reduces Public responsibility – by reducing the government’s responsibilities<br />
and accountability for delivering services. Though governments may not<br />
genuinely represent their societies, they are still the best representatives of the<br />
public will and governments play an important role in maintaining a civil society<br />
sector. <strong>Social</strong> services are a part of our national social contract and the<br />
government is devolving their responsibility to businesses though encouraging<br />
such funding when other tax and program options can be made available.<br />
Ronnie Horesh has expressed his ambivalence about <strong>Social</strong> impact bonds on the<br />
basis that, because they are not tradable, they favour existing institutions, are<br />
inherently narrow and short-term in scope, and impose relatively high monitoring<br />
costs. They could, though, offer advantages over existing policy.<br />
Pilots<br />
Governments across the world are currently piloting <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond initiatives.<br />
Below are a few examples of these initiatives.<br />
Public safety and recidivism<br />
Page 85 of 140
UK<br />
On 18 March 2010, Secretary of State for Justice Jack Straw announced a six-year<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond (SIB) pilot scheme run by <strong>Social</strong> Finance that will see around 3,000<br />
short term prisoners from Peterborough prison, serving less than 12 months, receiving<br />
intensive interventions both in prison and in the community. Funding from investors<br />
outside government will be initially used to pay for the services, which will be delivered<br />
by Third Sector providers with a proven track record of working with offenders. If<br />
reoffending is not reduced by at least 7.5% the investors will receive no recompense.<br />
The <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond in Peterborough was launched by Secretary of State for Justice<br />
Kenneth Clarke MP and Prisons Minister Crispin Blunt on 10 September 2010.<br />
US<br />
New York City: On February 2012, the City of New York issued a $9.6 million social<br />
bond for prisoner rehabilitation to be run by The Osborne Association with support from<br />
Friends of Island Academy. Goldman Sachs bought the bond and will profit if recidivism<br />
decreases. [47] While the City of New York didn't actually issue bonds or put up-front<br />
capital for MDRC to run the program (this was done by Goldman Sachs directly with<br />
MDRC), the City may be liable for some amount if the program is successful,<br />
presumably to be paid with savings associated with reduced recidivism. An independent<br />
evaluation, performed by the Vera Institute of Justice, found the goal of reducing<br />
teenage recidivism by ten percent had not been met, at all, and the city paid nothing to<br />
Goldman Sachs.<br />
New York State: In mid-2012, the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) selected<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Finance US as its Intermediary partner in structuring an application for federal<br />
funding for a <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond. In 2013, New York approved $30 million in its budget<br />
to support <strong>Social</strong> impact bonds over the subsequent five years. In September 2013,<br />
New York State received a $12 million grant from the United States Department of<br />
Labor (USDOL) to fund a Pay for Success project designed to increase employment<br />
and reduce recidivism among 2,000 formerly incarcerated individuals in partnership with<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Finance US and the Center for Employment Opportunities. This was the largest<br />
grant awarded by USDOL for Pay for Success projects.<br />
Massachusetts: On August 1, 2012, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts announced<br />
that Third Sector Capital Partners will serve as lead intermediary, in partnership with<br />
New Profit Inc., for the youth recidivism initiative. Roca, United Way of Massachusetts<br />
Bay and Merrimack Valley, and Youth Options Unlimited will also participate in the<br />
youth recidivism project.The program, called <strong>Social</strong> Innovation Financing, operates on a<br />
simple “pay for success” model, in which nonprofits must demonstrate that by keeping<br />
youth from being reincarcerated. According to the state’s press release, the juvenile<br />
justice contract “will be designed with the specific goal of reducing recidivism and<br />
improving education and employment outcomes over several years for a significant<br />
segment of the more than 750 youth who exit the juvenile justice system, and the<br />
several thousand who exit the probation system annually.”<br />
Page 86 of 140
Federal: The U.S. Department of Justice gave “Priority Consideration” to Fiscal Year<br />
2012 Second Chance Act grant applications that include a Pay for Success component.<br />
The Second Chance Act (P.L. 110-199) authorizes federal grants to support services<br />
that help reduce recidivism. In 2013, the U.S. Department of Labor awarded nearly $24<br />
million in grants for Pay for Success projects that provide employment services to<br />
formerly-incarcerated individuals in order to increase employment and reduce<br />
recidivism.<br />
Australia<br />
The<br />
Government<br />
of New South<br />
Wales,<br />
Australia,<br />
announced on<br />
20 March<br />
2012 that it<br />
will develop a<br />
pilot to reduce<br />
adult<br />
recidivism with<br />
<strong>Social</strong><br />
Ventures<br />
Australia and<br />
Mission<br />
Australia..<br />
Several States<br />
in Australia<br />
have now<br />
launched<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bonds - the latest of which is Victoria which, on 21st December 2017,<br />
announced the conclusion of a SIB deal with Sacred Heart Mission. Key external<br />
advisers to Sacred Heart Mission were Latitude Network.<br />
Rough Sleeping and Chronic Homelessness<br />
UK<br />
Housing Minister Grant Shapps and London Mayor Boris Johnson announced in March<br />
2012 that a <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond would be launched to help London's persistent rough<br />
sleepers off the streets and into secure homes. The two <strong>Social</strong> impact bonds under this<br />
programme were launched in December 2012.<br />
Page 87 of 140
US<br />
Massachusetts: The second of two pilots launched by the Commonwealth of<br />
Massachusetts in 2012 addresses the issue of chronic homelessness. In this Pay for<br />
Success model, Third Sector Capital Partners will partner with the Massachusetts<br />
Housing and Shelter Alliance (MHSA), lead intermediary for a chronic homelessness<br />
project, as well as the Corporation for Supportive Housing and United Way. The<br />
Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance represents nonprofit housing organizations<br />
that provide housing and support services, such as medical care and vocational<br />
training. The consortium will try to raise the number of housing units it provides to<br />
around 600 from 220. Through the social innovation financing contract, MHSA and its<br />
partners plan to expand MHSA’s Home & Healthy for Good (HHG) low-threshold<br />
housing initiative. HHG has demonstrated that the often traumatic and undertreated<br />
health conditions which beset chronically homeless individuals are better treated after a<br />
person gains the basic level of stabilization that permanent housing provides. In addition<br />
to successfully housing those often considered the hardest to serve, HHG has<br />
demonstrated significant cost savings to the Commonwealth.<br />
Australia<br />
Australia's second <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond focused on chronic homelessness was launched<br />
on 21 December 2017 by the Victorian Minister for Housing, Disability and Ageing. The<br />
SIB will be focused on three cohorts of 60 individuals, providing rapid housing and<br />
wrap-around, individualised, case-management support for three years each. The SIB<br />
provides expansion capital for Sacred Heart Mission's 'Journey to <strong>Social</strong> Inclusion'<br />
program which had previously been through pilot testing. Lead external advisors for this<br />
SIB deal were Latitude Network.<br />
Health<br />
US<br />
Fresno, CA: In April 2013 <strong>Social</strong> Finance US and Collective Health launched an<br />
asthma management demonstration project in Fresno, California. This two-year project<br />
is designed to prove the effectiveness of up-front investment in asthma management,<br />
by focusing on solid evidence and performance measurement. Fresno is one of the<br />
nation’s asthma hot spots; around 20 percent of its children have been diagnosed with<br />
the disease, which takes an especially heavy toll among poor communities. Two service<br />
providers with proven track records, Central California Asthma Collaborative and Clinica<br />
Sierra Vista, will work with the families of 200 low-income children with asthma to<br />
provide home care, education, and support in reducing environmental triggers ranging<br />
from cigarette smoke to dust mites. <strong>Social</strong> Finance expects that the program will<br />
produce meaningful cost savings and quality of life improvement for these children, and<br />
will deploy rigorous data collection and analysis techniques to prove its effectiveness.<br />
This proof-of-concept project will build a foundation for the first health-focused <strong>Social</strong><br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Bond, and will pave the way for future SIB opportunities in the health arena.<br />
Page 88 of 140
New Zealand<br />
Four submissions were short-listed as pilot cases as the result of work undertaken<br />
under the leadership of the Ministry of Health in 2012/2013:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Reduction in youth offending areas of need<br />
Reduction in adult reoffending<br />
Management of chronic illness<br />
Support for people with mental illness to secure and sustain employment.<br />
Communities<br />
UK<br />
The chief secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, announced that <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond<br />
trials could be expanded across government departments. “The Department for<br />
Children, Schools and Families have pledged to explore the potential of SIBs to lever in<br />
additional resources to support early intervention approaches with children and young<br />
people,” he said in Parliament.“Communities and Local Government are also working<br />
with Leeds City Council and NHS Leeds to enable them to use a SIB approach to<br />
reduce health and social care costs among older people. Similarly Bradford<br />
Metropolitan District Council are considering applying this model as part of their<br />
involvement in the government’s Total Place programme.”<br />
Page 89 of 140
US<br />
Federal: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced<br />
in 2013 it will provide $5 billion in grant dollars to assist in the rebuilding and<br />
strengthening effort following Hurricane Sandy and encouraged the five states impacted<br />
by the storm to make use of evidence-based, Pay for Success strategies where<br />
appropriate. In 2013, the Department of the Treasury issued a Request for Information<br />
(RFI) that will help design a proposed $300 million Incentive Fund to further expand Pay<br />
for Success. The Fund is intended to empower cities, states and nonprofits to test new<br />
Pay for Success models. This same Fund was also part of the President’s commitment<br />
of nearly $500 million in this year’s Budget to expand Pay for Success strategies.<br />
UK<br />
Children and Families<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Finance worked with UK local authorities to assess the potential for social impact<br />
bonds to improve family support services. These studies assessed the potential of<br />
social impact bonds to fund preventive and early intervention services which improve<br />
outcomes for children and generate cost savings for Local Authorities.<br />
In March 2012 Manchester City Council announced a social impact bond to fund Multidimensional<br />
treatment foster care.<br />
Australia<br />
New South Wales: The Government of New South Wales, Australia, announced on 20<br />
March 2012 that it will develop three pilots in the area of child protection / foster care<br />
and Juvenile Justice. One of the child protection pilots is with a consortium involving the<br />
Benevolent Society, Westpac Bank and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The<br />
other child protection pilot is led by UnitingCare Burnside, a division of UnitingCare<br />
Australia. The juvenile justice pilot to be delivered by Mission Australia did not go<br />
ahead.<br />
US<br />
Utah: In August 2013, the Goldman Sachs Urban Investment Group (UIG) together with<br />
the United Way of Salt Lake and J.B. Pritzker formed a partnership to create the first<br />
ever <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond designed to finance early childhood. Goldman Sachs and<br />
Pritzker jointly committed up to $7 million to finance The Utah High Quality Preschool<br />
Program, a high impact and targeted curriculum focused on increasing school readiness<br />
and academic performance among at-risk 3 and 4 year olds in Utah. As a result of<br />
entering kindergarten better prepared, it is expected that fewer children will use special<br />
education and remedial services in kindergarten through 12th grade, which results in<br />
cost savings for school districts, the State of Utah and other government entities. The<br />
Page 90 of 140
first $1 million investment in this program will enable approximately 600 children to<br />
attend pre-school in the fall of 2013.<br />
Illinois: On May 5, 2014, the State of Illinois announced the state’s first Pay for<br />
Success (PFS) contract will increase support for at-risk youth who are involved in both<br />
the child welfare and juvenile justice systems in Illinois. The first contract awarded under<br />
this innovative initiative will go to One Hope United, in partnership with the Conscience<br />
Community Network (CCN). The program is intended to generate new private<br />
investment for support programs targeting at-risk youth, putting them on the right path<br />
by reducing their dependence on the state’s welfare and criminal justice systems, which<br />
will lead to long-term savings for taxpayers.<br />
US<br />
Early Stage Exploration<br />
States across the country are currently exploring opportunities to use <strong>Social</strong> impact<br />
bonds to achieve their social goals, including:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
California: In August 2013, Santa Barbara County released a Request for<br />
Information on <strong>Social</strong> impact bonds and approved a feasibility study to explore<br />
the potential use of pay for success financing in reducing prisoner recidivism;<br />
Additionally, Santa Clara agreed to fund a pilot project exploring SIB feasibility.<br />
Colorado: In June 2013, Colorado and Denver were selected to receive support<br />
from a Harvard Kennedy School SIB Technical Assistance Lab (SIB Lab) fellow.<br />
Both jurisdictions have released a “Request for Information” (RFI) on SIBS.<br />
Connecticut: In 2013, the Department of Children and Families released a<br />
Request for Information to explore how <strong>Social</strong> impact bonds might be used to<br />
address substance abuse among families involved in the child welfare system.<br />
Illinois: In April 2013, Governor Quinn announced that the State would pursue a<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond program with technical support from the Harvard SIB Lab. In<br />
September, Illinois issued a “Request for Proposal” (RFP), focused on youth<br />
engaged in the juvenile justice and/or foster care systems.<br />
Maryland: In 2013, <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond legislation was introduced to the<br />
Committee on Appropriations in the Maryland House of Delegates.<br />
Michigan: In September 2013, Michigan was selected to receive support from the<br />
SIB Lab to develop pay for success programs funded by social impact bonds.<br />
The state initiated an RFI to obtain initial input about potential projects.<br />
New Jersey: In December 2012, the State Assembly Commerce and Economic<br />
Development Committee approved the New Jersey <strong>Social</strong> Innovation Act, which<br />
Page 91 of 140
would establish a five-year pilot program to attract private funding to finance<br />
social services. The target areas are prevention and early intervention health<br />
care for low-income and uninsured people, in order to reduce government health<br />
care spending.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
North Carolina: In 2013, the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke<br />
University began exploratory work around using SIBS for dissemination of a<br />
universal home visiting program known as Durham Connects found to reduce<br />
emergency care in infants.<br />
Ohio: In November 2012, Cuyahoga County released an RFP on funding social<br />
service programs through pay-for-success contracts. In the summer of 2013, the<br />
state of Ohio was selected to receive assistance from the SIB Lab.<br />
Oregon: The Governor’s 2013-2015 budget proposal included $800,000 for the<br />
Early Learning Division. The funds are intended to cover start-up costs for a<br />
“Pilot Prevention Health and Wellness Demonstration Project for <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Financing.”<br />
South Carolina: In June 2013, South Carolina was selected to receive assistance<br />
from the SIB Lab and looks to use the support to develop a home-visiting<br />
program. In September 2012, the state issued an RFI related to <strong>Social</strong> impact<br />
bonds.<br />
Washington, D.C.: The District of Columbia initiated a Request for Qualifications<br />
in September 2013 for a feasibility study of DC <strong>Social</strong> impact bonds.<br />
Intermediaries and Technical Assistance Providers<br />
A list of over 20 intermediaries and providers of technical assistance in the UK is<br />
maintained as part of the Big Lottery Fund's Commissioning Better Outcomes<br />
programme.<br />
<br />
<br />
D. Capital: D. Capital is a Dalberg platform entity to catalyze finance for global<br />
development. D. Capital devises, plans, facilitates, and manages innovative<br />
finance for social good, including development impact bonds (DIBs), which are<br />
social impact bonds for international development. D. Capital is behind Africa's<br />
first, a malaria bond in Mozambique with Nando's and Anglo-American.<br />
Finance For Good: FFG is Canada's first social impact bond intermediary,<br />
founded to empower social service providers to address the root cause of social<br />
issues through the use of <strong>Social</strong> impact bonds. FFG aims to foster collaboration<br />
between all stakeholders – governments, front-line service providers, investors,<br />
and those in need.<br />
Page 92 of 140
SITAWI Finance for Good: A Civil Society Organization of Public Interest<br />
(OSCIP) which operates in Brazil since 2008, as a platform to provide innovative<br />
financial solutions for positive social and environmental impact. Within one of its<br />
programs, <strong>Social</strong> Finance, SITAWI began working in 2014 with <strong>Social</strong> Finance<br />
UK and a multilateral agency to raise awareness and build a market for <strong>Social</strong><br />
impact bonds in Brazil.<br />
Harvard Kennedy School Government Performance Lab: With start-up<br />
funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Harvard Kennedy School recently<br />
established a social impact bond technical assistance lab that provides pro bono<br />
technical assistance to state and local governments that are considering the pay<br />
for success approach.<br />
Instiglio: Instiglio is a 501(c)(3) international nonprofit that works to make social<br />
programs more effective in developing countries by tying funding to results. They<br />
provide technical assistance in designing and implementing social impact bonds<br />
(SIBs), development impact-bonds (DIBs), and performance-based contracts.<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> For Good<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>4Health, LLC: Focused on healthcare Pay for Success Initiatives that<br />
address upstream social determinants of health to address chronic conditions<br />
such as asthma and diabetes. Providing technical assistance in Alameda County,<br />
California PFS focused on reducing pediatric asthma related emergencies.<br />
Policy Innovation Lab: The Policy Innovation Lab is housed in the Sorenson<br />
Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Center at the University of Utah's David Eccles School of<br />
Business. The Lab's mission is to promote innovative and evidence-based<br />
solutions to challenges in high-need policy areas, including early childhood<br />
education, public health, recidivism, homelessness, and economic security.<br />
Private Capital for Public Good: PCPG is the first organization using the social<br />
impact bond model to address a natural resources-based problem; specifically,<br />
wildfire on public lands.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Finance Israel: <strong>Social</strong> Finance Israel (SFI) is a financial intermediary that<br />
aims to provide both social and financial returns to investors. SFI will issue<br />
social-financial products, such as <strong>Social</strong> impact bonds, in order to raise new<br />
capital for the most effective not-for-profit organizations in Israel, tackling the<br />
country’s most pressing social and economic issues, while delivering monetary<br />
returns to investors.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Finance UK: <strong>Social</strong> Finance is a not-for-profit organization set up in 2007<br />
to help build a social investment market in the UK. <strong>Social</strong> Finance provides a<br />
range of financial advisory services to help build the social investment market.<br />
Page 93 of 140
We are dedicated to finding ways to raise capital through robust investment<br />
propositions.<br />
<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Finance US: <strong>Social</strong> Finance, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<br />
dedicated to mobilizing investment capital to drive social progress. It is a market<br />
intermediary that works collaboratively with public and private partners (including<br />
governments, social service organizations, investors, and intermediaries) to<br />
develop, structure, finance and manage high-quality SIBs. Its flexible approach<br />
enables services to be tailored to match a project’s specific needs.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Investment Business Group<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Third Sector Capital Partners: Third Sector Capital Partners provides advisory<br />
services to government, human service providers, social investors and project<br />
intermediaries pursuing Pay for Success and <strong>Social</strong> Innovation Financing<br />
initiatives. We also help high performing nonprofit organizations secure the<br />
growth capital they need to advance their missions.<br />
"Bertha Centre for <strong>Social</strong> Innovation and Entrepreneurship": The Bertha Centre<br />
at the University of Cape Town's Graduate School of Business established in<br />
2011 as the first academic centre in Africa dedicated to research, teaching,<br />
dialogue and support of social innovations that positively change and challenge<br />
rules, policies, technologies, structures, beliefs and institutions.<br />
APEL Research and Project Management: Consulting firm with financial,<br />
industrial and social background, expert in social programs modeling, support<br />
and management, defining and selecting third sector organizations to implement<br />
social projects. For more than 11 years has been in charge and management of<br />
Semiarid Program with National Banks Federation and Semi-Arid Articulation<br />
(more than 700 civil society organizations facing water scarcity in 13 Brazilian<br />
states). Since 2013 is in charge and managing federal financial and technical<br />
resources to implement industries to increase value for small farmer’s production.<br />
Page 94 of 140
IX. The White House Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation<br />
and Civic Participation<br />
The Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation and Civic Participation is an office<br />
new to the Obama Administration, created within the White House, to catalyze new and<br />
innovative ways of encouraging government to do business differently. Its first director<br />
was the economist Sonal Shah. The current director is David Wilkinson.<br />
History<br />
In 2009, President Barack Obama created the White House Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation<br />
and Civic Participation (SICP) as part of his Domestic Policy Council within the<br />
Executive Office of the President, the office that coordinates White House domestic<br />
policy.<br />
The idea for a White House Office for <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship was first developed at<br />
the Center for American Progress by then-Senior Fellow and former Ashoka staffer<br />
Michele Jolin.<br />
Page 95 of 140
In the past, public monies have often been directed to social initiatives that are failing or<br />
that have only a limited impact. At the same time, non-profit organizations, even if<br />
readily able to obtain short-term startup financing, face difficulty securing capital to<br />
sustain and expand successful programs.<br />
Building on ideas of past administrations, the Obama-Biden transition plans included the<br />
creation of an agency within the Corporation for National and Community Service<br />
dedicated to building the capacity and effectiveness of the nonprofit sector. The plans<br />
highlighted the potential of this sector – as of 2012, nonprofits generated $1.5 trillion<br />
within the US economy, employed 13.5 million Americans and contributed nearly 5.5%<br />
GDP, while struggling with a scarcity of resources, given the uncertainty of donations,<br />
and their lack of access to traditional incentives to growth enjoyed by for-profit<br />
businesses. (By statute, 501(c)(3) organizations are not eligible for Small Business<br />
Authority loans, nor can they obtain many commercial debt products designed for small<br />
and medium enterprises.) The transition plans also called for using federal seed money<br />
to leverage private sector funding, so as to improve local innovation, expand successful<br />
programs, and test the impact of new ideas.<br />
Also significant as a background to the creation of the SCIP were the recent changes in<br />
the social sector, with the emergence of scalable, market-based models of social<br />
change as a driving force. Such models include social enterprises with earned income<br />
strategies; mission-driven businesses that focus on achieving a double-bottom line;<br />
impact investors that seek to earn a financial return while achieving social benefit; and<br />
multinational companies pursuing models of corporate responsibility. No administration<br />
had focused on these trends until the Obama Administration created the Office of <strong>Social</strong><br />
Innovation to build a policy agenda in this realm.<br />
Definition<br />
The term <strong>Social</strong> Innovation, as defined by Stanford <strong>Social</strong> Innovation Review (SSIR),<br />
refers to a methodology of solving societal problems through new mechanisms that<br />
harness human and financial capital, and often stand at the crossroads of non-profit,<br />
public, and private sectors. Specifically, SSIR frames social innovation as "a novel<br />
solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than<br />
existing solutions and for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a<br />
whole rather than private individuals".<br />
<strong>Social</strong> innovation refers to invention and new problem solving methods not only in nonprofits,<br />
but also more broadly in how social entrepreneurs seek to address human<br />
development challenges, how impact investors think about providing capital to<br />
organizations who maximize stakeholder value, and how mission-driven businesses and<br />
socially responsible corporations lever their comparative advantages to improve societal<br />
outcomes.<br />
Page 96 of 140
Mission<br />
The mission of the Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation and Civic Participation is to strengthen<br />
and support the social sector. This includes nonprofit organizations, foundations, and<br />
social entrepreneurs, non-governmental organizations, mission-driven business, and<br />
multinational developmental banks.<br />
Strategy<br />
The White House Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation and Civic<br />
Participation seeks to facilitate social innovation by<br />
harnessing human capital and facilitating the<br />
flow of financial capital. Based on<br />
evidence that communities with<br />
higher degrees of<br />
civic health exhibit<br />
better economic resilience, lower<br />
jobless rates, and faster<br />
returns to the workforce, the<br />
Administration<br />
believes that a<br />
strong social sector leads to<br />
better<br />
economic<br />
opportunity.<br />
Tactically, the Office of <strong>Social</strong><br />
Innovation seeks<br />
to unlock social<br />
innovation potential on two<br />
fronts: Unlocking human capital and<br />
unlocking financial capital.<br />
Policies and Programs<br />
Priorities within harnessing human capital<br />
The Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation drives federal policy regarding national service and<br />
volunteering. This is based on research that indicates that communities with higher<br />
degrees of civic health have increased economic resilience and lower rates of<br />
unemployment. Such civic health can be measured by indicators such as the rates of<br />
volunteering, voting, and the density of per capita nonprofits that provide essential local<br />
services. It is consistent with scholarship that has shown that unemployed people who<br />
volunteer have a higher likelihood of finding work than those who do not volunteer.<br />
The data also indicates that interest in volunteering has reached extraordinary levels<br />
with historic numbers of applications for public programs such as AmeriCorps and<br />
Peace Corps. The popularity of non-governmental service programs such as Code for<br />
America, DataKind, and Global Citizen Year also has grown in recent years. All seem to<br />
Page 97 of 140
indicate that more Americans want to serve – and that such talent could be put to good<br />
use to contribute to national renewal and stronger communities.<br />
National Service<br />
National service has been a part of the fabric of American society since the founding of<br />
the country. It encompasses various models of public service including military service,<br />
and civilian service, such as AmeriCorps. Typically it is characterized by dedicated<br />
service to a single year or multi-year commitment at a single nonprofit organization.<br />
Participants benefit from a stipend of some sort that is important due to the fact that<br />
national service can be a part-time or full-time commitment, but the nature of the<br />
commitment precludes the participant from other full-time work.<br />
Serve America Act<br />
In April 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America<br />
Act reauthorizing and expanding national service programs. The law added the number<br />
of AmeriCorps positions from 75,000 to 250,000 and created four new service<br />
corps. [12][13] It was the most significant piece of national service legislation since the<br />
1993 The National and Community Service Trust Act signed into law by President Bill<br />
Clinton.<br />
After laying out a plan for expanding AmeriCorps, the Administration launched FEMA<br />
Corps, a new service corps that builds upon the long-standing partnership between<br />
NCCC and Federal Emergency Management Agency through the creation of 1600 new<br />
AmeriCorps positions focused on disaster preparedness and relief activities. Enabled by<br />
new federal funding, these incremental corps members will gain hands-on experience<br />
and new skills that will improve their own professional prospects for the rest of their lives<br />
while they are increasing national resilience. Since the announcement, FEMA Corps<br />
members have been on the ground, helping with the coordinated response to disasters<br />
such as Superstorm Sandy in New York and New Jersey and the tornadoes in<br />
Oklahoma.<br />
Presidential Memorandum on National Service<br />
In July 2013, President Obama announced a Presidential Memorandum on expanding<br />
national service. The memorandum supports new partnerships between federal<br />
agencies and Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) to expand<br />
national service opportunities for Americans. The memorandum, which created a Task<br />
Force consisting of members of Cabinet, focused on expanding national service.<br />
Agencies are required to create a plan to utilize national service and volunteering. The<br />
Task Force is chaired by the CEO of CNCS and the Director of the Domestic Policy<br />
Council.<br />
Page 98 of 140
Volunteering<br />
Day of Service<br />
In 1994, Congress designated Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a federal holiday as a<br />
national day of service ] and in 2009 designated September 11 as a national day of<br />
service. Both designations are affiliated with President Obama's United We Serve<br />
campaign, a nationwide service call.<br />
Community Partnerships<br />
White House Council on Community Solutions<br />
In 2010, President Obama signed the executive order establishing White House Council<br />
for Community Solutions to engage cross sector leaders to identify initiatives that<br />
expanded civic participation, helped solve the nation's most serious problems and<br />
create new pathways for "Disconnected Youth", 16- to 24-year-olds who are out of<br />
school and work. First Lady Michelle Obama served as honorary chair of the Council.<br />
The Council was chaired on a daily basis by former Gates Foundation CEO Patty<br />
Stonesifer. Its membership included a cross-section of business, nonprofit and<br />
community leaders including rock musician Jon Bon Jovi, Starbucks executive Paula<br />
Boggs, and eBay CEO John Donahue.<br />
The Council participated in a series of town hall meetings across the country and<br />
conducted considerable research to understand the issues facing this population. The<br />
Council delivered its Final Report and Recommendations to the President in June 2012.<br />
One of its recommendations was to reposition the conversation about "Disconnected<br />
Page 99 of 140
Youth" to "Opportunity Youth" in order to more appropriate consider these young people<br />
as valuable assets who could contribute to economic growth and civic renewal. The<br />
Council also generated additional output, including the creation of toolkit for employers<br />
seeking to hire Opportunity Youth. It spawned other outcomes, including the launch of<br />
the Aspen Forum for Community Solutions headed up by former White House Domestic<br />
Policy Advisor Melody Barnes.<br />
Summer Jobs + and Youth Jobs +<br />
The Administration launched the Summer Jobs + initiative, which provided paid<br />
employment opportunities to low-income and disconnected youth and pathways to<br />
employment through resume writing workshops, mentorship programs and job shadow<br />
days. Through the initiative, over 300,000 employment opportunities were provided to<br />
youth in 2012, over 100,000 of which were paid.<br />
In April 2013, the President launched the Youth Jobs + initiative. He challenged<br />
business, non-profits and government to work together to provide employment<br />
opportunities for low-income and disconnected youth that will also aim to reduce youth<br />
violence in local communities. In September, the White House hosted a convening that<br />
focused on youth employment, especially "opportunity youth", people between 18–24<br />
years of age. The event recognized and honored employers and nonprofits for<br />
innovative work to develop the discipline and skills associated with the employment for<br />
the country's youth.<br />
Priorities within harnessing financial capital<br />
Based on the research, it is clear that the social sector lacks adequate capital to<br />
address the needs of Americans and maintain its role as a safety net and economic<br />
engine. To reverse this trend, the Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation has laid out a strategy to<br />
optimize the flow of scarce public dollars and to increase the flow of incremental private<br />
dollars. This dual track is enabled by a five-part framework:<br />
1. Better Information<br />
2. New Instruments<br />
3. Strong Intermediaries<br />
4. Institutional Capital<br />
5. <strong>Impact</strong> at Scale<br />
Harnessing better information, taking into account transparencies provided by<br />
technology, data and evidence can support what programs are working, and which are<br />
in need of iteration or reform. Better information can lead to evidence that a program is<br />
working, and can help the government better allocate grants to support successful<br />
programs. Consequently, the government can have a higher probability of "investing in<br />
what works," better optimize public spend, and serve as a more responsible fiduciary for<br />
taxpayers. New instruments can help government alloy public dollars with private<br />
dollars, leverage outside expertise for localization or diligence, and attract outside<br />
Page 100 of 140
capital to address social problems. Through the use of strong intermediaries, publicprivate<br />
partnerships can tap local knowledge, and build a sustainable ecosystem that<br />
goes beyond government. Better information, new instruments and strong<br />
intermediaries that help build sustainable ecosystems to solve hard problems can<br />
attract and unlock institutional capital, and as a consequence, programs can achieve<br />
true impact at scale.<br />
Information<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Data Initiative<br />
The Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation created the <strong>Impact</strong> Data Initiative to create more<br />
transparency regarding information related to the social sector as a strategy to increase<br />
the flow of financial capital into the field. The <strong>Impact</strong> Data Initiative has been focused on<br />
opening federal databases as well as encouraging nonprofits to provide additional<br />
information. It has been supported by nonprofit organizations such as the Aspen<br />
Institute, Charity Navigator, Guidestar, and the Urban Institute.<br />
The <strong>Impact</strong> Data Initiative has predicated on changes to the Form 990. This is an<br />
annual reporting return that certain federally tax-exempt organizations must file with the<br />
Internal Revenue Service. In 2008, the form was revised as a result of the passage of<br />
the Federal Pension Protection Act. All 501 (c) 3 private foundations regardless of<br />
Page 101 of 140
income must file a Form 990. The form provides information on the organization's<br />
mission, programs and finances. The public is guaranteed access to this information,<br />
but the IRS has not published this information in a manner consistent with trends in<br />
open data: it not very accessible nor available in a machine-readable format.<br />
President Obama has proposed to phase in a requirement that all nonprofit<br />
organizations file their annual tax returns electronically in order to facilitate improved<br />
access to this information in a manner consistent with the Open Government Initiative.<br />
In November 2013, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus released a tax<br />
reform discussion draft with a proposal to mandate all tax-exempt organizations<br />
required to file a Form 990 electronically and requiring the IRS to make the information<br />
on the forms available to the public in a machine readable format as soon as<br />
practicable.<br />
Evidence-Based Policy<br />
As part of President Obama's management agenda, the Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation has<br />
helped to lead federal agencies to increasingly focus on the use of data and modeling to<br />
inform and improve what is called evidence-based policy.<br />
Evidence Based Policy is not new, but it is an important priority of the Administration, as<br />
outlined explicitly in a Memorandum M-13-17 issued in July 2013 by the Office of<br />
Management and Budget (OMB), and signed by directors of the White House OMB,<br />
Domestic Policy Council (DPC), Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and<br />
Council of Economic Advisors (CEA). The memorandum provides guidance for fiscal<br />
year 2015 agency budget submissions, and describes plans to prioritize budget<br />
requests that strengthen the use of evidence and innovation to inform and improve<br />
decision-making.<br />
The memorandum gave explicit guidance in a number of key issues, such as:<br />
1. Harnessing data to improve agency results<br />
2. High-quality, low-cost evaluations for rapid, iterative experimentation<br />
3. Using innovative outcome-focused grant designs<br />
4. Strengthening agency capacity to use evidence<br />
And OMB, in partnership with DPC, CEA, and OSTP orchestrated workshops designed<br />
to help federal agencies interpret and apply the budget guidance, taking into account<br />
how to focus evaluation resources on the most important policy questions, how to use<br />
"administrative data sets" from multiple programs and agencies, how to conduct<br />
rigorous program evaluations and data analytics on a tight budget, how to use existing<br />
budgetary authority to turn traditional competitive grant programs into innovative,<br />
evidence-based programs, and how agencies could harness research findings from<br />
behavioral science to implement low-cost approaches to improving program efficacy.<br />
Page 102 of 140
While the Administration's focus on evidence-based policy is notable, it is not entirely<br />
unique. In 2013, Elaine Kamarck at Brookings launched the Center for Effective Public<br />
Management, the World Bank Institute promotes what it calls, "Lean" in the Public<br />
Sector, building upon the concepts of "Lean Startup" and "Lean Analytics" from Silicon<br />
Valley, the other agencies such as USAID, Education, and Labor already have<br />
competitive grant programs such as Development Innovation Ventures that take into<br />
account staged or tiered venture capital style grant making, using evidence to support<br />
scale-up grants.<br />
Programs that utilize better information to inform decision-making in grants that involve<br />
strong intermediaries and that enable greater scale and innovation by driving new<br />
private capital into the social sector are often labeled "Innovation Funds," a priority that<br />
enables human and financial capital. This work is highlighted in an April 2014 SSIR<br />
article.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Innovation Fund<br />
Instruments<br />
The <strong>Social</strong> Innovation Fund (SIF) founded in 2009 and administered by the Corporation<br />
for National and Community Service, is one of the flagship social innovation programs<br />
created by the Obama Administration.<br />
Designed by the Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation, the SIF is a public-private partnership that<br />
tests promising new approaches to major challenges, leverages private and<br />
philanthropic capital to meet these needs, and grows evidence-based programs that<br />
demonstrate measurable outcomes. SIF's unique model leverages private and local<br />
resources by investing millions of dollars in experienced grant makers or<br />
"intermediaries" that are well-positioned within communities to identify the most capable<br />
programs and guide them towards greater impact and strong evidence of success. Such<br />
intermediaries then must raise incremental funds 3:1 in order to amplify the power of the<br />
federal funds. These organizations – which include venture philanthropies, community<br />
development financial institutions (CDFIs), operating foundations and social enterprises<br />
– then invest the aggregate capital into high-impact nonprofits that are delivering<br />
evidence-based results in one of three priority issue areas: economic opportunity,<br />
healthy futures, and youth development.<br />
Page 103 of 140
In its first three years, SIF has awarded $137 million to 20 intermediary grant-makers,<br />
which have selected 221 nonprofit sub-grantees working in 37 states and the District of<br />
Columbia. Some notable SIF investments include College Advising Corps; Chrysalis;<br />
Harlem Children's Zone; and YearUp.<br />
In 2014, the Federal Budget increased SIF, raising the program from $45 million to $70<br />
million which many interpreted as a strong validation of the Administration's social<br />
innovation agenda.<br />
The SIF originally was headed up by former Bridgespan executive Paul Carttar. Its<br />
current director is Michael Smith, a former senior executive of the Case Foundation.<br />
During his tenure at Case, Smith was credited with helping to lead A Billion+ Change<br />
and the Startup America Partnership.<br />
Page 104 of 140
Pay For Success<br />
Pay for Success (PFS) is a signature strategy of social innovations. It was originally<br />
pioneered by the Ford Administration as "social impact bonds." PFS offers innovative<br />
ways for the government to build public-private partnerships can be bring capital to test<br />
promising practices and scale programs that work, significantly enhancing the return on<br />
taxpayer investments because government only pays for programs that achieve results.<br />
At the same time, PFS offers the prospect of attracting new investment capital to fund<br />
important social programs, thus potentially boosting the capital available to fund social<br />
programs while creating new return horizons for private investors.<br />
Page 105 of 140
The Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation prioritized PFS in 2011 by introduce PFS in the FY12<br />
Budget and initiating a series of events designed to educate local, county and state<br />
lawmakers about the opportunity presented by PFS. Since that time, the White House<br />
has hosted numerous workshops, panel discussions, and other events focused on PFS.<br />
The Administration also has prioritized grant programs to pilot the potential of PFS to<br />
tackle various challenges. The Department of Justice announced three awards in<br />
September 2012: an implementation award in Cuyahoga County, Ohio and a planning<br />
award in Lowell, Massachusetts under the Second Chance Act and an additional<br />
contract to develop a blueprint for governments to use Pay for Success to reduce<br />
recidivism.<br />
The Department of Labor announced two awards totaling $24 million in September<br />
2013: one to the New York Department of Labor in the amount of $12,000,000 and the<br />
other to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development in<br />
the amount of $11,670,000. These grants will support programming that aims to<br />
increase employment and reduce recidivism among formerly incarcerated individuals.<br />
One of the key proposals SICP made for FY 2014 was a new $300 million Pay for<br />
Success Incentive Fund at the Department of Treasury. The Fund is designed to help<br />
State and local governments implement Pay for Success programs with financial<br />
partners. It will provide credit enhancements for organizations that seek to introduce<br />
Pay for Success and offer direct grants to fund outcome payments for successful,<br />
money-saving services.<br />
Program Related Investments<br />
The regulations regarding Program Related Investments (PRIs) originally were drafted<br />
in 1972 as part of a broad effort on tax reform. These rules facilitate the ability of<br />
foundations to move beyond conventional grants and use other financial means to<br />
support nonprofits or businesses pursuing charitable purposes. However, PRIs have not<br />
been adopted widely by the nonprofit field because their complexity in part due to the<br />
outdated regulations created higher transactions costs for foundations who wanted to<br />
use them.<br />
In 2012, the Treasury Department updated aspects of the regulations for the first time in<br />
40 years since they were first drafted. By publishing a set of clarifying examples of how<br />
PRIs could be used, the Obama Administration tried to make it easier for foundations to<br />
see how they can adopt flexible approaches to the deployment of capital. The examples<br />
included scenarios including the use of credit enhancements, loan guarantees, lines of<br />
credit, even equity investments to achieve their philanthropic missions.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong><br />
The Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation has been responsible for elevating impact investing<br />
inside the Federal government. It has defined impact investing as "the practice of<br />
channeling capital toward businesses that intentionally generate economic return and<br />
Page 106 of 140
public benefit". Such businesses openly track and measure social, environmental, and<br />
governance (ESG) considerations alongside their financial returns.<br />
The Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation has hosted large-scale meetings, including the White<br />
House Forum on <strong>Impact</strong> Economy executed in partnership with the Aspen Institute. It<br />
launched the National <strong>Impact</strong> Initiative, a new approach to coordinate federal policy on<br />
impact investing. This encompasses the work of multiple federal agencies focused on<br />
impact investing, including programs such as the SBIC <strong>Impact</strong> Fund launched by SBA;<br />
the Freshworks Fund created by the Treasury Department and US Department of<br />
Agriculture; the Accelerating Market Partnerships program of the US State Department;<br />
and the Global Development Innovation Ventures partnership managed by USAID.<br />
The Office has coordinated the US Government's participation in the US's G8 <strong>Social</strong><br />
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Forum and the subsequent work of the <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Task<br />
Force chaired Ronald Cohen. The US representatives on the Task Force include Matt<br />
Bannick, CEO of the Omidyar Network and the Honorable Don Graves, Deputy<br />
Assistant Secretary of Treasury. The US Advisory Board to the Task Force includes a<br />
wide range of thought leaders and impact investors.<br />
Staff<br />
Special Assistant to the President and Director of SICP, Jonathan Greenblatt:<br />
Jonathan Greenblatt is Special Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Innovation and Civic Participation. Greenblatt is a serial social entrepreneur who<br />
previously co-founded Ethos Water (sold to Starbucks); founded All for Good (acquired<br />
by Points of Light) served as CEO of GOOD Worldwide; taught at the Anderson School<br />
Page 107 of 140
of Management at UCLA; and launched the <strong>Impact</strong> Economy Initiative at the Aspen<br />
Institute.<br />
Policy Assistant, Noemie Levy: Noemie Levy is the Policy Assistant in the White<br />
House Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation and Civic Participation. She supports the Office's full<br />
portfolio of initiatives, including Pay for Success, national service, and innovation funds.<br />
Senior Policy Advisor, Rafael Lopez: Rafael López is a Senior Policy Advisor at the<br />
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the White House Office of<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Innovation and Civic Participation. His work focuses on identifying areas where<br />
the innovative application of technology-based options can improve collaboration<br />
between the Executive Office of the President and federal agencies to strengthen the<br />
relationship between the Administration, nonprofit, philanthropic, and professional<br />
organizations to use advanced technologies in the development and implementation of<br />
domestic and social policies and programs.<br />
Senior Policy Advisor, David Wilkinson: Dave Wilkinson serves as Senior Policy<br />
Advisor for Financial and <strong>Social</strong> Innovation. On assignment with the Council on<br />
Environmental Quality, he closely coordinates with the Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation and<br />
Civic Participation to work on a range of projects in the Office's portfolio. In this role, Mr.<br />
Wilkinson draws from an extensive background in community finance, capital markets<br />
and financial innovation.<br />
Presidential Innovation Fellow,: Scott Hartley focused on Evidence-based Policy,<br />
data driven decision making, and competitive grant programs, helping the Office of<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Innovation, OMB, and other agencies consider Silicon Valley methodologies such<br />
as "Lean Startup" philosophy to drive staged decision making, faster or more iterative<br />
feedback loops, and risk mitigation without stifling innovation. On leave from Mohr<br />
Davidow Ventures, and on assignment from USAID's Development Innovation<br />
Ventures, he managed agency workshops related to the President's Management<br />
Agenda.<br />
Past Staff<br />
Sonal Shah: Founding director of the Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation. Shah is a fellow at the<br />
Case Foundation and a board member at <strong>Social</strong> Finance US.<br />
Michele Jolin: Senior Policy Advisor. She is a Managing Partner of America Achieves<br />
and leading its Results for America initiative.<br />
Carlos Monje: chief of staff to the Domestic Policy Council<br />
Charles D. Anderson: Policy Assistant. Anderson is an adviser at the Council on<br />
Foreign Relations.<br />
Page 108 of 140
Howard W. Buffett, senior policy advisor. He is a faculty member Columbia University's<br />
School of International and Public Affairs, the executive director of the Howard G.<br />
Buffett Foundation and the co-author of 40 Chances.<br />
Annie Donovan: Annie was a Senior Policy Advisor working collaboratively with SICP<br />
and the Council on Environmental Quality. She formerly worked as the chief operating<br />
officer at NCB Capital <strong>Impact</strong> and now serves as the CEO of Coop Metrics.<br />
Marta Urquilla: Senior Policy Advisor<br />
Other <strong>Social</strong> Innovation and Civic Participation Offices<br />
Although the Obama Administration pioneered the Office of <strong>Social</strong> Innovation, the<br />
model has been replicated by other governments in the US and around the world.<br />
US Cities:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Boston: Office of New Urban Mechanics<br />
New York City: Mayor Bloomberg's Center for Economic Opportunity<br />
Philadelphia: Philadelphia Mayor Office of New Urban Mechanics<br />
US States:<br />
<br />
Illinois: Illinois Task Force on <strong>Social</strong> Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Enterprise<br />
Countries:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Canada: British Columbia – Ministry of <strong>Social</strong> Development and <strong>Social</strong><br />
Innovation<br />
United Kingdom: Cabinet Office <strong>Social</strong> Investment and Finance Team - Centre<br />
for <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bonds<br />
Australia: Government of West Australia – <strong>Social</strong> Innovation Grants Program<br />
Page 109 of 140
Page 110 of 140
X. References<br />
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<strong>Social</strong>ly_responsible_investing<br />
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<strong>Social</strong>_return_on_investment<br />
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility<br />
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<strong>Impact</strong>_investing<br />
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<strong>Social</strong>_impact_assessment<br />
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_analysis<br />
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<strong>Social</strong>_earnings_ratio<br />
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<strong>Social</strong>_impact_bond<br />
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_<strong>Social</strong>_Innovation_and_Civic_<br />
Participation<br />
10. http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/social-impact-investment.pdf<br />
11. https://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/socialfinance/docu<br />
ment/121001_A_Portfolio_Approach_to_<strong>Impact</strong>_Investment.pdf<br />
12. http://casefoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/11/ShortGuideTo<strong>Impact</strong><strong>Investing</strong>-2014.pdf<br />
Page 111 of 140
Notes<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
Page 112 of 140
Notes<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
Page 113 of 140
Page 114 of 140
Attachment A<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong> Report<br />
(Case Studies)<br />
Page 115 of 140
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Case Studies Across<br />
Asset Classes
Bridges Ventures<br />
Bridges Ventures originated the concept of this report with the goal of contributing to the<br />
greater understanding within the investment community of the opportunities offered by <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investment and to promote the flourishing of further investments that can make a difference as<br />
well as making financial returns.<br />
Bridges Ventures is an innovative investment company based in London that invests funds<br />
delivering both financial returns and social and environmental benefits. Founded in 2002 and<br />
chaired by Sir Ronald Cohen, a founding partner and the former Chairman of Apax Partners,<br />
the company believes that market forces and entrepreneurship can be harnessed to do well by<br />
doing good. The team pride themselves on working closely with the companies they back and<br />
are committed to helping entrepreneurs achieve long-term success. Bridges Ventures currently<br />
has two venture funds under management that invest in businesses based in regeneration areas<br />
and in sustainable business sectors such as the environment, education and healthcare. They<br />
also recently launched the Bridges <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurs Fund, a quasi-equity fund for social enterprises<br />
and the Bridges Sustainable Property Fund, which invests in properties in regeneration<br />
areas and environmentally sustainable buildings.<br />
For more information, please visit www.bridgesventures.com.<br />
The Parthenon Group<br />
Parthenon has taken the lead in researching and authoring this report. The work has been done<br />
on a pro bono basis because the report has the potential to leverage more capital into investments<br />
that can produce great social and environmental benefits.<br />
The Parthenon Group is a leading advisory firm focused on strategy consulting with offices in<br />
Boston, London, Mumbai, and San Francisco. Since its inception in 1991, the firm has embraced<br />
a unique approach to strategic advisory services; long-term client relationships, a willingness to<br />
share risk with clients, an entrepreneurial spirit, and customised insights are the hallmarks for<br />
which Parthenon has become recognised in the industry. This unique approach has established<br />
the firm as the strategic advisor of choice for CEOs and leaders of Global 1000 corporations,<br />
high-potential growth companies, private equity firms, healthcare organisations, and non-profit<br />
organisations. Our Non-Profit Practice assists non-profit leaders, foundations and corporations<br />
with strategy development, corporate social responsibility, organisational alignment and other<br />
strategic issues.<br />
For more information, please contact Tracy Palandjian at tracyp@parthenon.com or visit<br />
www.parthenon.com.<br />
Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network<br />
This report has drawn upon information and case studies provided by the Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong><br />
Network (GIIN), which has been extremely open and helpful. The authors would like to<br />
thank the many members and partners of the GIIN who contributed to this work and hope that<br />
they will find that the report, in turn, contributes to their success in growing this exciting new<br />
sector. The GIIN is a newly-formed, independent, non-profit organization dedicated to building<br />
industry infrastructure, developing activities, and disseminating research and education that<br />
address systemic barriers to effective impact investing. By measuring the social and environmental<br />
performance of impact investments, the GIIN’s IRIS (<strong>Impact</strong> Reporting and Investment<br />
Standards) initiative brings transparency and credibility to the sector and enables further industry<br />
infrastructure like performance benchmarks and rating systems that help increase the scale and<br />
effectiveness of impact investing.<br />
These efforts are informed by the GIIN Investors’ Council, a membership group comprised of<br />
leading impact investors committed to developing a coherent industry that facilitates more private<br />
capital investment in businesses addressing social and environmental problems around the<br />
world. By bringing together the large-scale family offices, institutional investors, pension funds,<br />
investment banks, wealth managers, private foundations and development finance institutions<br />
whose goals lie in the territory between philanthropy and the sole focus on profit-maximisation,<br />
the GIIN seeks to drive collectively towards the maturation of a sector that is currently inhibited<br />
by fragmentation.<br />
www.globalimpactinvestingnetwork.org
Contents<br />
What is <strong>Impact</strong> Investment?.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3<br />
Executive Summary.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4<br />
The <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Sector.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6<br />
Main Findings and Conclusions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10<br />
Case Studies and the<br />
Asset Allocation Framework.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14<br />
Financial First<br />
Cash Shorebank Deposit Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17<br />
senior debt BlueOrchard .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18<br />
Mezzanine/Quasi Equity Instruments Triodos<br />
Investment Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19<br />
Public Equities Generation Investment Management . . . . . . . . . . 20<br />
Venture Capital Bridges Ventures CDV Funds.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21<br />
Private Equity ProCredit Holding.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22<br />
Real Estate JP Morgan Urban Renaissance Property Fund.. . . . . 23<br />
other real assets Lyme Northern Forest Fund.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24<br />
absolute return (hedge funds) BelAir SA Fund.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25<br />
impact first<br />
Cash Charity Bank.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26<br />
senior debt Root Capital .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27<br />
quasi-equity instruments Bridges Ventures<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurs Fund. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28<br />
Venture Capital Aavishkaar.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29<br />
Private Equity Acumen Fund.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30<br />
real estate Ignia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31<br />
other real assets Pico Bonito.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32<br />
Layered Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33<br />
International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm).. . . . . . . . . . 34<br />
The New York City Acquisition Fund.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35<br />
Acknowledgements.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36<br />
Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37<br />
1
From David Blood, Senior Partner of Generation Investment Management<br />
It has never been a more appropriate time to re-consider the role of capital markets<br />
in creating value for society. What has become exceedingly clear to us here at<br />
Generation is that sustainability and long-term value creation are inextricably linked. We hope by our participation<br />
in this study we can help demonstrate that “<strong>Impact</strong> Investment” makes sense even for mainstream<br />
investors.<br />
Generation Investment Management is proud to support this report by Bridges Ventures and Parthenon,<br />
as well as support the work of the Global <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Network (GIIN). We look forward to helping<br />
expand the community of <strong>Impact</strong> Investors, and we think now is the time for these activities to move from<br />
niche to mainstream.<br />
Today, the sustainability challenges the planet faces are extraordinary and completely unprecedented. Even<br />
beyond the bailouts and recent volatility, the challenges of the climate crisis, water scarcity, income disparity,<br />
extreme poverty and disease must command our urgent attention. Philanthropy alone cannot provide<br />
the full set of solutions needed to address these challenges. Now, more than ever, capital markets need to<br />
play a role in addressing global sustainability challenges.<br />
Whether you are a private individual, family office, investment bank, foundation endowment, or pension<br />
fund, this report should be helpful in providing a view across asset classes to highlight the variety of opportunities<br />
and ways to invest for impact. We hope you will join us on the path to create a more sustainable<br />
form of capitalism.<br />
David Blood<br />
Senior Partner of Generation Investment Management<br />
From Judith Rodin, President of Rockefeller Foundation<br />
The Rockefeller Foundation supports<br />
innovative solutions to many<br />
of the world’s most intractable<br />
challenges, affirming its mission, since 1913, to “promote<br />
the well-being” of humanity. During the last several<br />
years, <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> has clearly emerged as one such<br />
solution: an innovation that can help more people tap into<br />
expanding markets while strengthening their resilience to<br />
21st century risks.<br />
Government funding, international aid and philanthropic<br />
donations alone are insufficient to achieve the world’s<br />
development aspirations, especially against the backdrop<br />
of global recession. Private investment capital, therefore,<br />
will need to complement traditional resources or solve<br />
problems on a larger scale. Fortunately, the emerging<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> industry enables investors to direct their<br />
resources toward multiple bottom-line returns – financial<br />
and social or environmental. This means doing good with<br />
the market, not only doing well in it.<br />
The Rockefeller Foundation recently launched a major<br />
initiative on Harnessing the Power of <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong><br />
because we believe the industry could potentially become<br />
a powerful complement to our – and others’ – work.<br />
Through this initiative, we organised an inspiring group of<br />
partners — ranging from entrepreneurs starting <strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
banks and wealth management firms to leaders<br />
of major pension funds and investment banks — to help<br />
accelerate this new industry’s evolution. A mature impact<br />
investing industry will enable more investors to address a<br />
wider range of social and environmental challenges more<br />
efficiently, making our job easier in turn.<br />
This new report, <strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies<br />
Across Asset Classes, is particularly encouraging both<br />
for what it describes and for what it signals about how<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> is evolving. It provides fresh evidence<br />
of the diversity of investment opportunities now available<br />
and, importantly, the range of investors this industry now<br />
counts among its ranks. The detailed case study approach<br />
complements the Monitor Institute’s analysis, <strong>Investing</strong><br />
for <strong>Social</strong> & Environmental <strong>Impact</strong>, which was released<br />
earlier this year. Together, this seminal scholarship lays<br />
groundwork for new and clearer understandings of the<br />
industry.<br />
The process by which this report materialised is also<br />
encouraging. The 50 <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> pioneers who<br />
contributed their time – and opened their books – to the<br />
report’s authors exemplify the collaborative commitment<br />
necessary for this new industry to reach its potential.<br />
The Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network, whose founding<br />
members constitute many of the investors profiled in this<br />
document, will draw on this commitment and provide a<br />
platform for keeping these case examples “live.” We are<br />
also grateful to the Parthenon Group and Bridges Ventures<br />
for their leadership and generosity in producing this study<br />
as a pro bono contribution to the field.<br />
I hope this publication makes plain exactly why my colleagues<br />
and I are so excited about <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong>’s<br />
possibilities. We look forward to working with you to build<br />
an industry that generates many more promising case<br />
studies of high-<strong>Impact</strong> Investment.<br />
Judith Rodin<br />
President of the Rockefeller Foundation<br />
2<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
What is <strong>Impact</strong> Investment?<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment, often referred to using other terms such as social investment or<br />
sustainable investment, is defined as “actively placing capital in businesses<br />
and funds that generate social and/or environmental good and a range of<br />
returns, from principal to above market, to the investor.” 1 By leveraging<br />
the private sector, these investments can provide solutions at a scale that purely philanthropic<br />
interventions usually cannot reach. Investors in <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Funds include<br />
high-net-worth individuals, institutional investors, corporations or foundations, who<br />
invest in a wide range of asset classes. The intention of <strong>Impact</strong> Investment vehicles<br />
to make a social/environmental impact is a primary qualifying criterion; investments<br />
that unintentionally result in social good are not regarded as <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investments. <strong>Impact</strong> Investment is closely allied to but differentiated from <strong>Social</strong>ly<br />
Responsible Investment (SRI) which generally employs negative screening to avoid investing<br />
in harmful companies or shareholder activism/advocacy to encourage corporate<br />
social responsibility practices.<br />
1<br />
Adapted from the Monitor Institute: <strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Social</strong> and Environmental <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Some examples of <strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
JP Morgan Urban<br />
Renaissance<br />
Property Fund<br />
($175MM raised)<br />
••<br />
The fund targets urban development and redevelopment of affordable housing<br />
using “green” specifications from solar heating to recycled building materials<br />
••<br />
The fund is targeting market rate returns, with a projected return of ~15% net of<br />
fees<br />
••<br />
To support local communities, the fund is including cultural amenities such as<br />
partnering with after-school educational providers<br />
••<br />
Launched to support the GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation)<br />
Initiative, these bonds use the public markets to support vaccination efforts in the<br />
developing world<br />
IFFIm Bonds<br />
($1.6B raised in 2<br />
issues)<br />
••<br />
Leveraging future grants from developed countries, these bonds have been issued<br />
at market rates to both commercial and retail investors and hold a AAA/Aaa rating<br />
••<br />
The offering has allowed GAVI to frontload committed funds (that have been guaranteed<br />
over a 20 year time horizon), facilitating more lives to be saved in the near<br />
years and creating the infrastructure to more efficiently administer vaccinations<br />
across the developing world<br />
••<br />
Root Capital provides senior debt to the primarily large co-ops servicing the rural<br />
poor, the “missing middle”, too large for microfinance and too small or risky for<br />
corporate banks<br />
Root Capital<br />
($48MM AUM)<br />
••<br />
Using contracts with agricultural buyers like Starbucks to mitigate the lender’s risk,<br />
Root Capital provides access to funds and also creates sustainable partnerships<br />
between farmers and buyers<br />
••<br />
Root Capital provides below market-rate returns to investors (2.5% at present),<br />
but has been able to drive significant impact in farming communities in Tanzania,<br />
contributing to the growth of GDP in poverty-stricken rural areas<br />
More details on these examples and others are found in the Case Study section of this report.<br />
3
Executive Summary<br />
Why <strong>Impact</strong> Investments?<br />
Governments and charities do not have sufficient capital nor the complete skill<br />
set required to solve the world’s pressing challenges. At the same time, the<br />
recent economic crisis has shaken established orthodoxies about the risk and<br />
return profiles of traditional investments. The <strong>Impact</strong> Investment sector is emerging<br />
as a partial answer to the twin challenges that these two realities present:<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment unlocks substantial capital to build a more sustainable and<br />
equitable global economy while allowing for diversification across geographies<br />
and asset classes.<br />
A plethora of investments is emerging across multiple asset classes that provide<br />
investors with market-rate investments, or for more altruistic investors, substantial<br />
social impact, while still generating positive financial returns. The old binary<br />
system—the widely-held belief that for-profit investment could only maximise<br />
financial return while social purpose could only be pursued through charity—is<br />
breaking down.<br />
Who is this report for?<br />
This report is intended for the investment community and aims to help investors<br />
understand this emerging industry. Many investors have begun to explore<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments by investing in microfinance in developing countries or community<br />
development projects in the US. However, there is still a perception that<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment always entails a sub-market financial return, which this report<br />
demonstrates is far from the case. For example, Lyme Timber, a forestry fund<br />
based in Hanover, New Hampshire, has been able to utilise conservation contracts,<br />
partnerships with the Nature Conservatory, and deep industry experience<br />
to invest in sustainable forestry projects throughout the US. These projects help<br />
conserve local forests, while delivering market to above-market returns to their<br />
investors.<br />
Meanwhile, the industry is developing globally and the financial products available<br />
for investors are diversifying. Investments range from tropical rainforest<br />
preservation in South America, to finance for charities in the UK, to low-income<br />
housing development in New York City, to infectious disease prevention in Africa.<br />
4<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
A case study approach in an asset allocation framework<br />
The growth potential of impact investment<br />
The report employs a case study approach,<br />
mapping examples of <strong>Impact</strong> Investments on a<br />
traditional asset allocation framework [pg. 15].<br />
This structure illustrates readily the diversity of<br />
products that are being developed, where they reside<br />
within a traditional asset allocation framework<br />
and the types of opportunities that are available to<br />
date. From these cases the report draws a series<br />
of findings [pg. 10].<br />
This report, in conjunction with a new monograph<br />
by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Solutions<br />
for <strong>Impact</strong> Investors: From Strategy to Implementation,<br />
demonstrates how impact investing can<br />
be integrated across asset classes and equips investors<br />
with the tools to frame their investment<br />
decisions from strategy to implementation and<br />
evaluation.<br />
Compared to more traditional investments in established asset classes, <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investment is only now emerging from infancy. Some initiatives have achieved<br />
substantial scale but many others remain small. Questions include how much<br />
the sector can scale and whether achieving greater scale will result in reduction<br />
in either social / environmental impact or financial returns. However, apart from<br />
growing in its own right, the sector has fostered a high level of innovation which<br />
can potentially serve as a catalyst to influence how mainstream investments<br />
are made.<br />
The positive momentum of the <strong>Impact</strong> Investment sector continues, despite<br />
the recent turmoil in global capital markets. While the basic investment infrastructure<br />
needs to be developed, <strong>Impact</strong> Investment is becoming a stable and<br />
sustainable alternative for institutional investors and high net worth individuals.<br />
As the infrastructure builds further and more funds across asset classes achieve<br />
market-rate performance, the <strong>Impact</strong> Investment sector stands poised to become<br />
a powerful vehicle both to address significant social and environmental<br />
issues and to chart a new course for the financial services industry to reclaim its<br />
stature as an engine of social and economic upliftment.<br />
5
The <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Sector<br />
Investor motivation and returns<br />
Although investors in <strong>Impact</strong> Investments share the vision of combining financial<br />
returns with positive social/environmental impact, they can be categorised into two<br />
broad groups. The Monitor Institute, in their <strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Social</strong> and Environmental<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> report, defines them as follows:<br />
1. Financial First Investors, who seek to optimise financial returns with a<br />
floor for social/environmental impact. This group tends to consist of commercial<br />
investors who search for investment vehicles that offer market-rate returns<br />
while yielding some social/environmental good.<br />
2. <strong>Impact</strong> First Investors, who seek to optimise social or environmental<br />
returns with a financial floor. This group uses social/environmental good as a<br />
primary objective and may accept a range of returns, from return of principal to<br />
market rate. This group is willing to accept a lower than market rate of return in<br />
investments that may be perceived as higher risk in order to help reach social/<br />
environmental goals that cannot be achieved in combination with market rates<br />
of financial return.<br />
Layered Structures<br />
Sometimes Financial First and <strong>Impact</strong> First investors collaborate in what we term as<br />
layered structures (also termed “Yin-Yang” investments 2 ). These layered structures<br />
are created when the two types of investors work together, combining capital<br />
from <strong>Impact</strong> First and Financial First motivations, blending different types of<br />
capital with different requirements and motivations. In these deals, <strong>Impact</strong><br />
First investors accept a sub-market risk-adjusted rate of return enabling other<br />
tranches of the investment to become attractive to Financial First investors. This<br />
symbiotic relationship allows Financial First investors to achieve market rate returns<br />
and <strong>Impact</strong> First investors to leverage their investment capital thus achieving significantly<br />
more social impact than they would if investing on their own. It is important<br />
to note that these structures are not limited to Financial First and <strong>Impact</strong> First investors,<br />
but can include philanthropic organisations pairing grant money with Financial<br />
or <strong>Impact</strong> First investors to generate high levels of impact.<br />
This segmentation of <strong>Impact</strong> Investors, as adapted from the Monitor Institute Report,<br />
is summarised in the figure on page 7.<br />
2<br />
Adapted from the Monitor Institute: <strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Social</strong> and Environmental <strong>Impact</strong><br />
6<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
Segments of <strong>Impact</strong> Investors<br />
High<br />
Target Financial Return<br />
none<br />
none<br />
Solely Return –<br />
Maximizing<br />
<strong>Investing</strong><br />
Financial Floor<br />
(nominal principal)<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Floor<br />
Target <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Financial First<br />
Investors<br />
Optimize financial returns<br />
with an impact floor<br />
impact<br />
investment<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> First<br />
Investors<br />
Optimize social impact<br />
with a financial floor<br />
layered structures<br />
Philanthropy<br />
high<br />
Who can invest in the<br />
impact investment sector?<br />
While we have broken down our investor<br />
groups into Financial First and <strong>Impact</strong> First<br />
Investors, investors can engage in <strong>Impact</strong> Investments<br />
on either side of this spectrum.<br />
Some investors, such as Prudential’s <strong>Social</strong> Investment<br />
Arm, have internal allocations for the<br />
percentage of their total assets to be placed in<br />
Financial First investments versus <strong>Impact</strong> First<br />
investments. Investors who have the flexibility<br />
to invest in either Financial First or <strong>Impact</strong> First<br />
investments achieve different goals. Financial<br />
First investments deliver strong risk-weighted<br />
returns as well as positive social / environmental<br />
impacts, while <strong>Impact</strong> First investments<br />
can trail-blaze, to meet tougher social / environmental<br />
challenges by accepting lower<br />
returns or taking initial capital risk to allow new<br />
types of funds to develop a track record. Finally,<br />
some investors are bound by fiduciary<br />
duties either set out in their mission statement<br />
or governed by their legal status and are restricted<br />
to only Financial First Investments.<br />
7
Pension Funds and Other<br />
Institutional Investors<br />
Pension funds and other institutional investors<br />
are normally bound by strong fiduciary duties,<br />
limiting their ability to play in <strong>Impact</strong> First investments.<br />
Although generally confined to Financial<br />
First investments, these investors have a multitude<br />
of options available to them for achieving<br />
market-rate return <strong>Impact</strong> Investments. From<br />
direct investments through to investments in<br />
numerous funds, pension fund managers have<br />
the ability to put together a diversified portfolio<br />
of <strong>Impact</strong> Investments. TIAA-CREF in the<br />
United States is one example of this new opportunity<br />
for market-rate <strong>Impact</strong> Investment,<br />
having committed more than $600 million to<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments across asset classes (from<br />
cash to debt to private equity) that comply with<br />
fiduciary responsibility regulations. Layered<br />
structures also give these investors further<br />
opportunities to meet their fiduciary responsibilities<br />
while achieving various impact targets.<br />
Ultra High Net Worth Individuals<br />
Ultra high net worth individuals and family offices<br />
typically have greater flexibility in their<br />
investment mandates. Without the same level<br />
of fiduciary duty as many other types of investors,<br />
these investors can invest across different<br />
asset classes. The <strong>Impact</strong> Investment space<br />
allows these investors to pick multiple strategies<br />
for their investments. They, like pension<br />
funds, can look to maximise returns through a<br />
diversified Financial First platform. Or they can<br />
choose a particular social or environmental mission<br />
they wish to undertake, allocating a part<br />
of their investment portfolio to sub-market rate<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> First funds targeted at their preferred areas<br />
of social/environmental impact. Given their<br />
flexibility, family offices were instrumental in<br />
pioneering the early commercial investment vehicles<br />
in microfinance and are proving similarly<br />
influential in seeding the rapidly growing field of<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment funds.<br />
High net worth individuals<br />
and family offices typically<br />
have greater flexibility in their<br />
investment mandates.<br />
Pension funds and other<br />
institutional investors are<br />
normally bound by strong<br />
fiduciary duties, limiting their<br />
ability to play in <strong>Impact</strong> First<br />
investments.<br />
8<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
Foundations<br />
Like high net worth individuals, foundations often<br />
have the latitude to take a more specialised<br />
and tailored approach to <strong>Impact</strong> Investment.<br />
They can invest their endowment in Financial<br />
First investments (sometimes known as “Mission-Related<br />
Investment”) then use a portion<br />
of their grant allocations or assets to invest<br />
in <strong>Impact</strong> First Investments (often referred<br />
to as “<strong>Social</strong> Investment” and sometimes as<br />
“Programme-Related Investment” from their<br />
designation in the US tax code). Given the<br />
breadth of opportunities available in the market,<br />
many foundations have started to invest in<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> First funds. Like high net worth individuals<br />
and family offices, foundations can often<br />
achieve strong returns, while creating impact<br />
not just broadly, but in specific target missions<br />
that relate to the foundation’s own mission.<br />
Like high net worth individuals,<br />
foundations often have<br />
the latitude to take a more<br />
specialised and tailored approach<br />
to <strong>Impact</strong> Investment.<br />
Entry Points May Vary<br />
The wide range of available <strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
opportunities can be daunting for someone new<br />
to the space. According to John Goldstein of<br />
Imprint Capital, “The flexibility to invest across<br />
asset classes, impact areas, and return profiles<br />
possessed by some high net worth investors is<br />
both a blessing and a curse. This ability to play<br />
across the whole spectrum can be paralysing,<br />
leaving some thinking ‘Where do I start?’ Finding<br />
clear anchors and entry points is essential.”<br />
When the Kellogg Foundation chose to embark<br />
on this strategy, they set aside $100MM<br />
of the foundation’s endowment as a deliberate<br />
operational learning experiment in Mission<br />
Driven <strong>Investing</strong>. They saw investments as<br />
an additional tool to drive impact and used<br />
the funds to test various investment vehicles<br />
from deposits in community banks, to funds of<br />
funds, to private fixed income, to direct venture<br />
capital investment. RSF <strong>Social</strong> Finance decided<br />
to offer its clients portfolios consisting exclusively<br />
of market rate mission managers such as<br />
Beartooth Capital, a real estate investor restoring<br />
and protecting ecologically important land.<br />
The Hull Family Foundation employed an asset<br />
class approach as their core strategy, allocating<br />
100% of its corpus to fixed income impact<br />
investments, both market rate and below market<br />
rate. Each strategy fits the individual goals<br />
of the investors but demonstrates a defined,<br />
thoughtful approach and entry point.<br />
9
Main Findings and Conclusions<br />
The emergence of the <strong>Impact</strong> Investment sector is especially timely.<br />
The current economic crisis has shaken established orthodoxies<br />
about the risk and return of mainstream investments. At the same<br />
time, there has been rising interest among the investment community<br />
towards social and environmental responsibility in investment,<br />
as illustrated by the growing importance of initiatives such as the<br />
UN Principles for Responsible Investment. As Rockefeller Foundation<br />
President Judith Rodin notes in her introductory letter, charitable<br />
donations do not provide enough capital to solve our pressing social<br />
and environmental challenges at scale. The private sector/investors<br />
may be better placed to address certain social/environmental issues<br />
than charities, foundations or governments. With the global economy<br />
hobbled, mobilising all capital efficiently will be crucial if we are not to<br />
lose ground in creating a more sustainable and equitable world.<br />
Flourishing New Models of<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
Creativity in the <strong>Impact</strong> Investment sector has<br />
led to strong increases in investment activity.<br />
From its genesis in community investment<br />
and low-income housing development, cleantech<br />
and microfinance, <strong>Impact</strong> Investment is<br />
now helping to provide the scale-up finance<br />
that enables slum schools in India to expand,<br />
farmers in Africa to participate in international<br />
value chains and underprivileged Mexicans to<br />
build better homes. <strong>Impact</strong> Investors are also<br />
becoming more innovative in designing investment<br />
structures that are drawing institutional<br />
capital to new asset classes. The case studies<br />
in this report have debunked the notion that<br />
socially or environmentally beneficial projects<br />
always require charity.<br />
Creativity in the <strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
sector has led to<br />
strong increases in investment<br />
activity.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment is becoming a<br />
Global Movement<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment examples are springing<br />
up across the globe and are flourishing both<br />
10<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
in the developed and the developing worlds.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment is also getting more local,<br />
be it a Venture Capital firm investing in rural<br />
developers as Aavishkaar is doing in India, or<br />
developing new homes for the poor as Ignia<br />
is doing in Mexico. As new models are flourishing,<br />
new geographies are also coming into<br />
focus. Layered structures are also helping to<br />
drive money into new areas. For example,<br />
IFFIm bonds are currently tapping the reserves<br />
of the wealthier Western world to provide<br />
immunisation for the 70 poorest countries<br />
globally.<br />
All Asset Classes are Now Showing<br />
Development of <strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
The majority of <strong>Impact</strong> Investment is no longer<br />
composed of microfinance loans or equity<br />
Old Sector Beliefs are Breaking Down<br />
As these <strong>Impact</strong> Investments become more<br />
widespread, when faced with a choice between<br />
putting their money in traditional<br />
investments or <strong>Impact</strong> Investments, foundations,<br />
high net worth individuals and institutions<br />
are increasingly opting for the latter. The perception<br />
that <strong>Impact</strong> Investment necessitates<br />
accepting sub-market rate returns is eroding.<br />
For example, many investors choose to invest<br />
in sustainable banks like Triodos, a bank which<br />
provides financing exclusively to companies<br />
and projects that have a social or environmental<br />
impact and delivers market rate returns<br />
to its depositors. Many funds today are raising<br />
their second or third fund after delivering<br />
market-rate or above returns to their investors.<br />
Microfinance, once viewed as an investment<br />
opportunity only for the benevolent, currently<br />
has over 100 investment funds managing $6.1<br />
investments in cleantech start-ups. It is moving<br />
far beyond the quoted asset class in which<br />
<strong>Social</strong>ly Responsible Investment (SRI) has its<br />
roots. Whether through sustainable forestry<br />
or cash lending to community development<br />
banks, investors have more choice than ever<br />
to diversify their portfolios through <strong>Impact</strong> Investments.<br />
There are investments across all<br />
asset classes that provide investors with numerous<br />
options to trade off among risk, return<br />
and level of impact.<br />
billion in assets and draws money from all investor<br />
types as larger institutional investors<br />
are attracted by the diversification, returns,<br />
and social impact generated from these investments.<br />
3<br />
As Funds Mature, Some are Moving from<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> First to Financial First<br />
Many impact-oriented funds cited their beginnings<br />
as <strong>Impact</strong> First funds. Traditionally, their<br />
investor base was made up of foundations and<br />
high net worth individuals that were willing to<br />
receive below-market returns in exchange for<br />
certain levels of impact. As these funds were<br />
able to prove that they could also generate<br />
3<br />
International Association of Microfinance Investors<br />
11
market rate returns, institutional money started<br />
to flow in and these funds eventually migrated<br />
to the Financial First segment.<br />
As more impact oriented funds demonstrate<br />
market rate returns made from high-impact<br />
platforms, more institutional funds will look<br />
to invest in this sector. This will attract more<br />
funds to be raised, increasing the social impact<br />
that can be achieved. By pioneering investment<br />
in new fund managers and investment<br />
areas, investors with a risk appetite can help<br />
to accelerate this trajectory and seed the next<br />
generation of <strong>Impact</strong> Investment funds that can<br />
be accessible to Financial First investors.<br />
As more impact oriented<br />
funds demonstrate market<br />
rate returns made from highimpact<br />
platforms, more<br />
institutional funds will look to<br />
invest in this sector.<br />
Clarity is Emerging<br />
The <strong>Impact</strong> Investment sector is gaining clarity.<br />
Long seen as an investment sector only<br />
for the philanthropic investor, the solid returns<br />
the sector is producing are changing this landscape.<br />
Numerous success stories have allowed<br />
the sector to break down the stereotypes many<br />
mainstream investors had on <strong>Impact</strong> Investments.<br />
Through using the Asset Allocation Framework<br />
presented in this paper, investors can more<br />
easily navigate around the plethora of options<br />
available. Alongside research like this, developments<br />
are being made in the infrastructure<br />
of the sector. Initiatives set forth by the Rockefeller<br />
Foundation and B Labs are looking to<br />
standardise metrics for measuring the sustainability<br />
or relative impact in an attempt to give<br />
investors tools to compare and contrast their<br />
investment options. These developments in<br />
building a sustainable ecosystem for <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investments are driving the confidence many<br />
institutional investors are starting to gain in the<br />
sector.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment is Helping Answer<br />
Challenges and Change the Market<br />
By creating mechanisms through which investors<br />
can both make money and address social<br />
and/or environmental challenges, <strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
offers the potential to expand the<br />
pool of capital available to fund innovative solutions.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments often leverage<br />
grants, sometimes in mezzanine financing arrangements<br />
that create a large multiplier effect<br />
on the amount of impact generated. However,<br />
as the examples in this report show, <strong>Impact</strong> Investors<br />
are not limited to partnering with grant<br />
makers: from tropical rainforest preservation, to<br />
low-income housing development in New York<br />
City, to infectious disease prevention in Africa,<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investors are also making market-rate<br />
returns on investments that fit seamlessly into<br />
their portfolios.<br />
12<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
By creating mechanisms<br />
through which investors<br />
can both make money and<br />
address social and/or environmental<br />
challenges, <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investment offers the potential<br />
to expand the pool of<br />
capital available to fund innovative<br />
solutions.<br />
Opportunities for institutional investors are still<br />
constrained by the relatively small size of many<br />
funds in this emerging sector, but as the sector<br />
matures, larger opportunities are becoming<br />
available. However, as opportunities grow in<br />
scale and number, will the same returns exist?<br />
Will impact be compromised as the sector<br />
grows? The answers to these questions will<br />
prove critical to the future of the sector.<br />
The early pioneer investors are helping catalyse<br />
the sector by showing how profitable<br />
investment portfolios can be compounded<br />
with impact. Early investors have also helped<br />
inspire replication in other areas of impact.<br />
Having seen the success IFFIm was able to<br />
achieve through its bond offering, the Prince of<br />
Wales is currently proposing a similar structure<br />
for rainforest bonds to halt the deforestation of<br />
the world’s endangered rainforests.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment is Emerging<br />
from Infancy<br />
New capital is employed across the asset<br />
allocation spectrum. In Mexico, Ignia is developing<br />
housing communities for families who<br />
earn less than $10,000 a year while still targeting<br />
above market-rate returns. In Honduras,<br />
Pico Bonito is looking to receive a 20% IRR<br />
from the regeneration and sustainable forestry<br />
of native forests adjacent to a national park<br />
without the aid of local government subsidies.<br />
These investment vehicles are examples<br />
of how expansion into new asset classes is<br />
helping to broaden the reach of <strong>Impact</strong> Investment,<br />
while allowing investors to diversify<br />
across multiple asset classes.<br />
13
Case Studies and the<br />
Asset Allocation Framework<br />
The objective of this report is to map the <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investment market in a framework that<br />
resonates with investors. For this reason the<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment sector and case studies<br />
are mapped along the traditional asset classes,<br />
resulting in an <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Asset Allocation<br />
Framework (AAF). This Framework aims to<br />
combine the traditional asset classes with the<br />
specificities inherent in <strong>Impact</strong> Investment. The<br />
framework is thus organised along two key dimensions:<br />
investor motivation (Financial First<br />
vs. <strong>Impact</strong> First) and asset class (as per traditional<br />
asset allocation)<br />
A representation of this concept is shown<br />
on the opposite page.<br />
Understanding the Asset<br />
Allocation Framework<br />
The objective of this paper is to help potential<br />
investors understand the <strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
market better by describing concrete case<br />
studies for each cell in the AAF. The cases outlined<br />
in the following pages were chosen to<br />
show the reader the diversity of <strong>Impact</strong> Investments<br />
in the sector, especially the number of<br />
investments that aim to make returns at the<br />
market rate.<br />
••<br />
Investment funds/vehicles typically have<br />
multiple investors so motivation for the<br />
fund/vehicle is established in the<br />
following way:<br />
--<br />
If at least one of the investors of an<br />
investment vehicle/fund has fiduciary<br />
responsibilities, then the fund/vehicle is<br />
deemed Financial First because investors<br />
must have been able to satisfy<br />
themselves that a risk-adjusted marketrate<br />
return is being targeted; otherwise<br />
it is deemed <strong>Impact</strong> First.<br />
••<br />
The allocation to a specific asset class was<br />
driven by the specific instrument used<br />
in the deal profiled; in the case studies<br />
presented an effort was made to select<br />
a deal using an instrument that is representative<br />
of what is commonly used by<br />
the investment fund/vehicle (although it is<br />
worth noting that certain investment funds<br />
may use more than one asset class in their<br />
investments).<br />
The following case studies should not be used<br />
as recommendations for an <strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
portfolio, but rather serve as a guide to the<br />
breadth of opportunities that exist in the sector.<br />
The allocation of case studies to the different<br />
cells in the framework was done on the basis<br />
of the following:<br />
••<br />
The investor motivation is used to allocate<br />
case studies to the Financial First or <strong>Impact</strong><br />
First rows of the AAF.<br />
14<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
Asset Allocation Framework<br />
Asset classes<br />
Alternative Instruments<br />
Cash<br />
Senior<br />
Debt<br />
mezzanine<br />
/quasi<br />
equity<br />
Public<br />
Equity<br />
Venture<br />
Capital<br />
Private/<br />
Growth<br />
Equity<br />
Real<br />
Estate<br />
Other Real<br />
Assets<br />
Absolute<br />
Return<br />
(Hedge<br />
Funds)<br />
Financial First<br />
ShoreBank<br />
$2.1b<br />
Blue<br />
Orchard<br />
Dexia<br />
Micro-<br />
Credit Fund<br />
$2.1b<br />
Triodos<br />
Renewables<br />
Europe<br />
Fund<br />
£30m<br />
Generation<br />
Investment<br />
Management<br />
$3.5B<br />
Bridges<br />
Ventures<br />
CDV Funds<br />
£115mm<br />
ProCredit<br />
Holding<br />
JPMorgan<br />
Urban Renaissance<br />
Prop. Fund<br />
$175MM<br />
Lyme<br />
Northern<br />
Forest Fund<br />
$190MM<br />
Harcourt<br />
BelAir SA<br />
Fund<br />
$345MM<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> First<br />
Charity<br />
Bank<br />
Root<br />
Capital<br />
$48MM<br />
Bridges<br />
Ventures<br />
<strong>Social</strong><br />
Entrepreneurs<br />
Fund<br />
£8mm<br />
Aavishkaar<br />
Acumen<br />
Fund<br />
$34.1MM<br />
Ignia<br />
$60MM<br />
Bosques<br />
Pico<br />
Bonito<br />
$5MM<br />
This Framework aims to combine<br />
the traditional asset classes with<br />
the specificities inherent in <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investment. It is organized along<br />
two key dimensions: investor motivation<br />
(Financial First vs. <strong>Impact</strong><br />
First) and asset class<br />
15
Title<br />
case studies<br />
16<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
Cash<br />
Shorebank Deposit Program<br />
financial First Investor<br />
Investor<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
Profile: TIAA-CREF<br />
Cash<br />
~2.5% return<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
Vehicle<br />
Shorebank<br />
Area of <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Community Banking<br />
Geography<br />
United States<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
Shorebank’s investor group consists of a varied group including financial institutions, corporations, foundations and<br />
high net worth individuals<br />
TIAA-CREF (http://www.tiaa-cref.org)<br />
TIAA-CREF (Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association - College Retirement Equities Fund) is one of the largest<br />
financial services companies in the United States, with ~$400B in assets under management<br />
Community Bank Deposit Program<br />
••<br />
TIAA-CREF manages the largest, comprehensively screened social investment vehicle for individuals in the US<br />
with ~$9.6B of assets under management (2007), representing ~2.4% of total assets under management<br />
••<br />
This investment is part of the firm’s Community Bank Deposit Program under TIAA-CREF’s <strong>Social</strong>ly Responsible<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> initiative<br />
••<br />
The motivation for the ShoreBank investment was that returns include a premium to 1 year treasury bond while<br />
the investment simultaneously yields a social return<br />
••<br />
In addition to the investment in ShoreBank, TIAA-CREF has also invested $27MM in six other community banks in<br />
the US<br />
ShoreBank (http://www.shorebankcorp.org)<br />
••<br />
In 2007, TIAA-CREF invested $22MM into ShoreBank of Chicago and ShoreBank Pacific of Ilwave, WA<br />
••<br />
ShoreBank is considered the first and largest community development bank (CDB) in the US with $2.1B in assets<br />
--<br />
Most CDBs in the US have special designations as to the social purposes their loans will be used for with<br />
80% of the lending being done in underserved communities<br />
--<br />
Loans are made to residential real estate (e.g. affordable housing), small businesses and conservation<br />
projects<br />
--<br />
$445MM in total of mission investments were made in 2006<br />
••<br />
ShoreBank utilises CDARS (Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service) to place its funds into insured certificates<br />
of deposit issued by banks in the network, allowing investments of up to $50MM to be insured by the<br />
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), whose normal limit is $100K<br />
••<br />
TIAA-CREF is in the process of identifying additional banks through which they can expand their overall investment<br />
in this program<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
social/environmental impact<br />
••<br />
ShoreBank Corporation measures its success by the amount it invests<br />
to create economic prosperity and a healthy environment, as well as by<br />
its financial performance<br />
••<br />
Cumulatively, ShoreBank has financed over $3.7 billion in missionrelated<br />
investments, with over $371 million in new mission loans in<br />
2008. These include:<br />
--<br />
conservation loans<br />
--<br />
community development loans<br />
--<br />
loans that achieved both<br />
••<br />
Globally, ShoreBank International has provided management advisory<br />
services to the financial sector in over 60 developing countries and has<br />
lent $914 million<br />
financial impact<br />
••<br />
Financial return is that of a 1-year treasury bond plus a premium<br />
--<br />
The current rate is ~2.5% to TIAA-CREF’s CBD Program<br />
••<br />
Deposits are made for one year with the option of annual<br />
renewals<br />
••<br />
The investment horizon is much shorter and the risk level is<br />
much lower than TIAA-CREF’s typical investments<br />
17
senior debt<br />
BlueOrchard<br />
financial First Investor<br />
Investor<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
Debt<br />
Loans<br />
IMPACT INVESTMENT<br />
FUND<br />
BlueOrchard<br />
Dexia Microcredit Fund<br />
Deal<br />
ACEP Cameroun S.A.<br />
Area of <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Microfinance<br />
Geography<br />
Global<br />
6-month Libor + 100 / 200bps<br />
“We have focused on<br />
microfinance because<br />
it has proven to be an<br />
efficient mechanism<br />
of socioeconomic<br />
inclusion by enabling<br />
entrepreneurship and<br />
value creation at the<br />
grassroots level in<br />
emerging markets. We<br />
believe that establishing<br />
successful and effective<br />
relationships between<br />
investors, asset<br />
managers, MFIs and<br />
their clients is the key<br />
to directing sustainable<br />
flows of capital to this<br />
growing and immensely<br />
rewarding industry.”<br />
Jean-Pierre Klumpp<br />
CEO BlueOrchard Finance S.A.<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
60% of the investors in the BlueOrchard Dexia Micro-Credit Fund are institutional investors whereas 40% are high<br />
net worth individuals<br />
Dexia Micro-Credit Fund (DMCF) (http://www.blueorchard.com)<br />
••<br />
Invests in debt instruments of up to 3 years in maturity issued by microfinance institutions (MFI) in Africa, Asia,<br />
Eastern and Central Europe, and Latin America<br />
••<br />
Over 10 years in existence and nearly $500MM in assets under management<br />
••<br />
Lends to microfinance institutions that have a minimum 3-year track record, have their accounts externally audited<br />
and rated, possess a minimum of $1MM in assets and are operationally self-sustainable and profitable<br />
••<br />
Loan maturity ranges between 18 months and 3 years and most loans are renewed on expiration<br />
••<br />
As of May 2009 there had been no defaults on any loan made by the Fund to MFIs<br />
••<br />
The micro loans (provided by MFIs to micro-entrepreneurs) ranged from $50 to $8,000 with an average of $1,584,<br />
and only 3.2% of the loan repayments to MFI lenders were delays over 30 days as of March 31, 2009<br />
••<br />
The Fund is a Luxembourg SICAV and has a minimum investment of US $10,000, or CHF 15,000. It is now available<br />
to US accredited investors with a minimum investment of the USD equivalent of £125,000 (~$175,000)<br />
ACEP CAMEROUN S.A.<br />
••<br />
MFI that targets urban micro-entrepreneurs in 3 regions of Cameroon<br />
••<br />
Launched in 1999 as a government project and transformed into a private company in 2005<br />
••<br />
As of February 2009, ACEP had a portfolio of $12M in which<br />
--<br />
There were 7.439M clients<br />
--<br />
34% of the clients were women, who often borrow in groups of 3-5 and receive between $105 - $325<br />
6-month loans<br />
--<br />
Many of them have now “graduated” to single loans, highlighting the positive impact of the micro-loans<br />
••<br />
ACEP’s performance showed a 5.8% ROA and
Mezzanine/Quasi Equity Instruments<br />
Triodos Investment Management<br />
financial First Investor<br />
Investor<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
Mezzanine<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
FUND<br />
Triodos Renewables<br />
deal<br />
GFS Veurne<br />
area of impact<br />
Renewable Energy<br />
geography<br />
EU member state countries<br />
7% pa long term projected return<br />
“Renewable energy<br />
more than ever attracts a<br />
great deal of interest. EU<br />
legislation has defined<br />
that in 2020 the share of<br />
renewable energy needs<br />
to be increased to 20%.<br />
Triodos has been active<br />
in renewable energy<br />
investing since 1986 and<br />
via Triodos Renewables<br />
Europe Fund investors<br />
can contribute to a<br />
further increase of<br />
renewable energy supply<br />
in Europe”.<br />
- Bob Assenberg<br />
Fund Manager<br />
Triodos Renewables Europe Fund<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
••<br />
The Triodos Renewables Europe Fund is primarily funded by retail investors and a small number of institutional<br />
investors. Triodos Renewables Europe Fund is an open-ended fund, founded in June 2006 with a total committed<br />
capital of approximately £30M<br />
Triodos Renewables Europe Fund (http://www.triodos.com)<br />
••<br />
Launched in June 2006, the Triodos Renewables Europe Fund is managed by Triodos Investment Management,<br />
the 100% owned investment arm of Triodos Bank. Triodos Bank, established in 1980, finances social, environmental<br />
and cultural organisations and was named Financial Times Sustainable Bank of the Year 2009<br />
••<br />
Triodos Investment Management has been active in renewable energy investments since 1986 and was amongst<br />
the first equity investors in renewable energy projects in the Netherlands. Triodos Investment Management currently<br />
has four energy investment funds under management<br />
••<br />
The Fund generally takes significant minority stakes (equity or quasi equity) in renewable energy projects (in<br />
construction or operational) with proven technology (wind, solar, hydro, biomass)<br />
••<br />
Geographically, the primary investment focus is on countries where Triodos Bank has a presence (i.e. the<br />
Netherlands, Belgium, U.K., Germany, France and Spain). The Triodos Renewables Europe Fund is also open for<br />
investments in other EU member states<br />
••<br />
The Fund invests in small to medium sized renewable energy projects and has a minimum investment size of<br />
£1MM. The maximum amount per investment is dependent on the size of the fund and is limited to a maximum<br />
15% of the fund’s committed capital (currently maximum of £4.5MM per investment)<br />
••<br />
Instruments for investments in equity and/or quasi equity include common shares, preferred shares, convertible<br />
debt, subordinated debt, profit sharing notes<br />
••<br />
The Triodos Renewables Europe Fund is a Luxembourg SICAV II open-ended fund<br />
GFS Veurne<br />
••<br />
GFS Veurne BVBA, with a capacity of 2.7MW, is the largest solar PV project in Belgium<br />
••<br />
700 households can be serviced by this project, avoiding the production of 1,500 tonnes of CO 2<br />
, equal to 300<br />
hectares of forest<br />
••<br />
The Triodos Renewables Europe Fund has invested in the form of a subordinated loan of £1.25MM<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
social/environmental impact<br />
••<br />
Investments in small to medium sized renewable energy projects<br />
providing the vital capital required, in the form needed, to enable projects<br />
to reach completion and developers to free up funds to develop<br />
new projects. The fund thereby contributes to an increase in supply in<br />
renewable energy in Europe and a reduction of carbon emissions<br />
••<br />
All renewable energy projects are carefully screened and comply with<br />
the sustainable investment criteria as set by Triodos Bank<br />
financial impact<br />
••<br />
As per 30th of June 2009, The Triodos Renewables Europe<br />
Fund has made 15 investments in renewable energy projects.<br />
Based on the existing pipeline of approved projects, the envisaged<br />
number of investments by year end is expected to be 20<br />
with an invested capital ratio of approximately 70%<br />
••<br />
Returns performance in 2007 and 2008 were 5.9% and 2.9%<br />
respectively<br />
19
Public Equities<br />
Generation Investment Management<br />
financial First Investor<br />
Investor<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
Profile: UK Envir. Agency<br />
9-12% projected returns above<br />
benchmark over 3 years<br />
Equity<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
Fund<br />
Generation IM<br />
15+% expected returns<br />
Deal<br />
Novo Nordisk<br />
Area of <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Sustainability<br />
Geography<br />
Global<br />
“[The] appointment<br />
[of Generation IM]<br />
evidences our opinion<br />
that those fund<br />
managers who seek<br />
to take into account<br />
financially material<br />
environmental risks and<br />
opportunities such as<br />
climate change in their<br />
investment decisions<br />
will produce better<br />
financial returns for<br />
the beneficiaries of our<br />
pension fund, and this is<br />
entirely consistent with<br />
our fiduciary duty’”<br />
Howard Pearce<br />
Head of Environmental Finance<br />
and Pension Fund Management<br />
for the Environment Agency<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
••<br />
Generation IM’s investor group includes government agencies, foundations, high net worth individuals and<br />
institutional funds<br />
UK Environment Agency (http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/pensions)<br />
••<br />
In 2008, the UK Environment Agency selected Generation IM to manage £50MM of its £1.5B Active Pension<br />
Fund<br />
••<br />
Generation was awarded the investment mandate as part of the Agency’s drive to adopt the UN Principles for<br />
Responsible Investment, which urge investors to consider environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues in<br />
their investment decisions<br />
Generation Investment Management (http://www.generationim.com)<br />
••<br />
Generation manages approximately $3.5B through their Global Equity Strategy and Climate Solutions Fund<br />
••<br />
The firm takes a long-term investment view and integrating sustainability research (economic, environmental,<br />
social and governance criteria) within a rigorous fundamental equity analysis framework<br />
••<br />
As part of its long-term focus, the firm measures its performance over a 3-year time horizon<br />
••<br />
Generation’s concentrated approach allows maximum leverage of an intense research effort, and investments are<br />
made only with high levels of conviction. The research effort is characterised by fundamental, bottom-up analysis<br />
on companies based on primary and secondary financial and non-financial research<br />
••<br />
The Global Equity portfolio is comprised of 30-50 global public equities, which are selected on the basis of valuation<br />
and potential upside from a Focus List of roughly 100 public companies<br />
••<br />
The Global Equity product has a typical investment horizon of 3 years, with no restrictions on size, sector or location,<br />
with no more than 30% of their portfolio in small cap companies (defined as US $3B market cap or less)<br />
••<br />
In 2008, Generation launched the Climate Solutions Fund to complement the Global Equity product, deploying<br />
capital to solve the climate crisis. The Climate Solutions Fund invests in private equities and restricted public<br />
equities, in addition to public equity<br />
Novo Nordisk (http://www.novonordisk.com)<br />
••<br />
Generation’s view on Novo Nordisk is based on its assessment of “business quality”(BQ) and “management<br />
quality”(MQ), with sustainability issues a key component in the analysis of both these metrics<br />
••<br />
For Novo Nordisk, the company’s high BQ results from three principal factors: a market with good, long-term<br />
volume growth; strong barriers to entry in diabetes due to manufacturing capabilities, patient loyalty and patent<br />
protection; and a sustainable insulin strategy in developing markets that is built around prevention and patient<br />
needs<br />
••<br />
Novo Nordisk’s management quality is similarly high: sustainability is deeply embedded within the company’s<br />
management structure, and sustainable business practices have strong senior support (triple bottom line). The<br />
high management quality is also a result of a strong culture of innovation and low staff turnover and an impressive<br />
track record in stakeholder engagement<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
social/environmental impact<br />
••<br />
Intensive primary research is used to gather the qualitative and quantitative information needed<br />
to make judgements on the sustainability of a business<br />
••<br />
The firm’s Industry Roadmaps examine the long-term outlook of specific industries and identify<br />
the highest quality businesses and management teams and key sustainability challenges confronting<br />
companies within the given sector<br />
••<br />
Generation does not disaggregate social returns from financial returns—the firm views sustainability<br />
as material to the financial prospects of a company and sees it as critical to determining<br />
an investment’s ability to deliver long-term outperformance<br />
financial impact<br />
••<br />
Target is to outperform the market by<br />
9-12% above the benchmark MSCI<br />
World Index over 3 years (gross<br />
of fees)<br />
20<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
Venture Capital<br />
Bridges Ventures CDV Funds<br />
financial First Investor<br />
Investor<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
Equity<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
Fund<br />
Bridges Ventures<br />
CDV Funds<br />
Deal<br />
Simply Switch<br />
Area of <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Sustainability & Regeneration<br />
Geography<br />
United Kingdom<br />
15% projected IRR + 165% IRR<br />
“Bridges Ventures<br />
believes that<br />
market forces and<br />
entrepreneurship<br />
can be harnessed<br />
to create social and<br />
environmental benefits.<br />
We aim to continuously<br />
innovate to find new<br />
ways of delivering our<br />
investors with this<br />
combination.”<br />
Michele Giddens<br />
Executive Director<br />
Bridges Ventures<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
••<br />
Bridges Ventures’ investors range from institutions such as banks (HSBC, Cooperative Financial Services, Lloyds<br />
TSB, Barclays and Citigroup) and pension funds (such as Universities Superannuation Scheme and West Midlands<br />
Local Authority Pension Fund) through to wealthy individuals, families, trusts and endowments<br />
Bridges Ventures CDV Funds (http://www.bridgesventures.com)<br />
••<br />
Bridges Ventures is a private sector, mission-driven investment company that specialises in funds that can deliver<br />
financial returns and make a positive social or environmental impact<br />
••<br />
Bridges Ventures has launched two venture funds that invest in ambitious entrepreneurial businesses that have<br />
at least one of the following two characteristics:<br />
--<br />
Regeneration–businesses located in the most deprived 25% of the UK<br />
--<br />
Sustainable Business–businesses whose social/environmental impact is intrinsic to what they do<br />
••<br />
The first £40MM venture fund was raised in 2002. Based on the track record of that fund, Bridges Ventures<br />
raised a second fund of £75MM in 2007, which beat its original target of £50MM and was over-subscribed<br />
••<br />
The venture funds invest in early stage, later stage and property-backed businesses<br />
••<br />
Bridges Ventures utilises a three-stage process to target, maximise and report upon social and environmental<br />
impact<br />
--<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Screen–Setting clear social impact of location or sector, then use strictly commercial criteria to select<br />
amongst those companies that pass the social screen; looking for winners commercially that do good<br />
--<br />
Engagement–Working with the portfolio companies using Bridges <strong>Social</strong> IMPACT Scorecard to find ways to<br />
improve their community and environmental impact while increasing the value of the business<br />
--<br />
Reporting–Reporting back to investors on the social and environmental impact of the companies as well as<br />
financial and commercial performance<br />
Simply Switch (http://www.simplyswitch.com)<br />
••<br />
In late 2002, Bridges Ventures invested £125K of early-stage capital in Simply Switch, an online and telephone<br />
based provider of comparative information for utilities suppliers. Follow-on investments resulted in a total commitment<br />
of £345K<br />
••<br />
Simply Switch was sold to The Daily Mail and General Trust for £22MM in 2006, returning £7.5MM to Bridges<br />
Ventures and resulting in a money multiplier of 22x and an IRR of 165% to investors<br />
••<br />
Simply Switch located itself in a Bridges Ventures target area, creating 80 new jobs in the local economy<br />
••<br />
Simply Switch helped raise £500K for charities where it had established an affinity relationship<br />
••<br />
By being the first provider to offer its service both online and over the telephone, Simply Switch made it easier<br />
for those without resources to go online to save money on their bills<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
social/environmental impact<br />
••<br />
1,300 jobs created or sustained; 500 in target areas and 163 taken out<br />
of unemployment<br />
••<br />
Almost all investments in the most deprived 25%; 58% in the most<br />
deprived 10% of the UK<br />
••<br />
Multiplier effect of £3 of additional spending in deprived areas for each<br />
£1 invested by Bridges Ventures and £2.13 of Gross Value Added<br />
financial impact<br />
••<br />
Bridges Ventures has invested over £51MM in 37 companies<br />
••<br />
Follow-on investments have been made in over 70% of the<br />
portfolio<br />
••<br />
Exit returns to date range from 29-165% IRR and from 2x to<br />
22x money multiples<br />
21
Private Equity<br />
ProCredit Holding<br />
financial First Investor<br />
Investor<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
Profile: TIAA-CREF<br />
Private Equity<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
Vehicle<br />
ProCredit Holding<br />
Area of <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Microfinance<br />
Geography<br />
Developing Countries<br />
15% ROE Expected<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
••<br />
ProCredit’s investor group is a varied group including financial institutions such as IFC and foundations like the<br />
Doen Foundation<br />
TIAA-CREF<br />
••<br />
TIAA-CREF (Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association - College Retirement Equities Fund) is one of the largest<br />
financial services companies in the United States, with ~$400B in assets under management<br />
Global Microfinance Investment Program (http://www.tiaa-cref.org)<br />
••<br />
TIAA-CREF manages the largest, comprehensively screened social investment vehicle for individuals in the US<br />
with ~$9.6B of assets under management (2007), representing ~2.4% of total assets under management<br />
••<br />
The ProCredit investment is part of the firm’s Global Microfinance Investment Program ($100MM) under TIAA-<br />
CREF’s <strong>Social</strong>ly Responsible <strong>Investing</strong> initiative<br />
--<br />
The ProCredit investment has been larger than TIAA-CREF’s typical SRI initiatives<br />
--<br />
Whilst this is a direct investment, most other investments will be fund investments<br />
ProCredit Holding AG (http://www.procredit-holding.com)<br />
••<br />
ProCredit is a majority shareholder in 22 fast-growing banks in transition economies/developing countries<br />
••<br />
Provides credit and other banking services to very small and medium-sized enterprises and lower and middle<br />
income savers: more than 93.5% of ProCredit’s outstanding loans were for amounts of less than $12,700<br />
••<br />
TIAA-CREF made a growth investment into ProCredit to help advance economic development through the provision<br />
of transparent, stable banking services and financial awareness in developing countries<br />
••<br />
TIAA-CREF’s initial investment into ProCredit was $34M<br />
••<br />
Sample investment: Congo<br />
--<br />
Underdeveloped banking sector with 11 banks in total for Congo, which is the size of Western Europe<br />
--<br />
Most banking services focus on wealthy individuals, international corporations and the public sector, leaving<br />
the poor underserved<br />
--<br />
ProCredit launched in 2005 to serve the many small and very small enterprises and now has 3 branches in<br />
Kinshasa and holds 45% of all customer deposits in Congo<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
social/environmental impact<br />
••<br />
<strong>Social</strong> returns are not explicitly measured, however:<br />
--<br />
As of June 30, 2008, more than 1 million loans with a combined<br />
volume of $4B were outstanding<br />
--<br />
Since the group’s formation in 1998, the institution has grown<br />
rapidly, and it now operates through 704 branches with over<br />
19,350 employees globally<br />
financial impact<br />
••<br />
The investment horizon is ~8 years<br />
••<br />
Financial returns are measured by book value growth and<br />
potential multiple expansion at sale<br />
••<br />
The investment is targeting 15% return on equity<br />
22<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
Real Estate<br />
JP Morgan Urban Renaissance Property Fund<br />
financial First Investor<br />
Investor<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
Profile: Prudential<br />
Equity<br />
Equity<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investment<br />
fund<br />
JP Morgan Urban<br />
Renaissance Property Fund<br />
15% expected return >15% expected return<br />
deal<br />
Various Real Estate<br />
Transactions<br />
area of impact<br />
Urban Renewal<br />
geography<br />
United States<br />
“ The idea behind<br />
investing in the<br />
JP Morgan Urban<br />
Renaissance Fund was<br />
to earn market rate<br />
returns while supporting<br />
a project that propagates<br />
urban renewal and green<br />
development.”<br />
Preston Pinkett<br />
Head of <strong>Social</strong> Investment<br />
Prudential<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
JP Morgan set out to create the fund by drawing investments from a variety of investors<br />
Prudential Financial (http://www.prudential.com/socialinvestments)<br />
••<br />
The <strong>Social</strong> Investments group at Prudential is responsible for investing over $400MM of both the Prudential<br />
Corporation and The Prudential Foundation’s funds<br />
••<br />
The SRI group takes a 3-tier approach to investing its money: about 40% of the funds target market returns, 20%<br />
target significantly below-market returns but high impact investments and the remaining 40% target the middle<br />
of the two bookends, usually delivering strong returns, but low compared to the risk undertaken for the<br />
investment<br />
••<br />
Prudential purchased $10MM of equity in one of the Fund Investment Vehicles (FIVs) of the JP Morgan Urban<br />
Renaissance Property Fund<br />
••<br />
Prudential was attracted to the investment due to the ability to invest in both green certified development and<br />
urban renewal through commercial and residential projects<br />
JP Morgan Urban Renaissance Property Fund<br />
••<br />
The investment thesis of the fund is targeted at the development and redevelopment of real estate projects in<br />
market rate, affordable and workforce housing, retail, mixed-use development, hospitality and other real estate<br />
sectors in Urban Renaissance Markets (URMs)<br />
••<br />
The fund hopes to target the top twenty URMs in the US including: Manhattan-Bronx, San Francisco, Philadelphia,<br />
Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Newark<br />
••<br />
The Fund intends, when feasible, to invest in residential and retail properties that are subject to “green” specifications,<br />
such as geothermal, and/or solar heating and cooling system, photovoltaic glass, and recycled building<br />
materials<br />
••<br />
The Fund is also including cultural amenities and market-based after-school educational providers in its retail and<br />
mixed-use projects<br />
••<br />
The Fund has $175MM of fully subscribed capital with $75MM more in the investor pipeline<br />
••<br />
The targeted financial returns of the Fund are at market rate levels of ~15% net of fees<br />
880 Glenwood Avenue, Atlanta<br />
••<br />
The Fund made an investment in this 300K square foot luxury mid-rise apartment community in Atlanta<br />
••<br />
The apartment complex comprises 325 one and two bedroom units<br />
••<br />
The total development cost of the apartments was ~$46MM<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
social/environmental impact<br />
••<br />
The 880 Glenwood Avenue investment has won several neighbourhood<br />
green recognition awards including:<br />
--<br />
2006 Urban Land Institute Development of the Year<br />
--<br />
2005 Earthcraft House Development of the Year<br />
--<br />
2003 Charter Award from the Congress of New Urbanism<br />
••<br />
Greater environmental efficiencies will be achieved through the green<br />
building strategy<br />
financial impact<br />
••<br />
Targeted financial returns at market rate levels of ~15%, net<br />
of fees<br />
23
other real assets<br />
Lyme Northern Forest Fund<br />
financial First Investor<br />
Investor<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
Market rate return less Fund fees<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investment<br />
fund<br />
Lyme Northern Forest<br />
Fund Limited Partnership<br />
Investment in Real Estate<br />
Above market rate return<br />
deal<br />
Chateaugay Woodlands<br />
area of impact<br />
Sustainable Forestry<br />
geography<br />
United States<br />
“We seek to recover<br />
development and nonconservation<br />
values of<br />
real estate through the<br />
sale of conservation<br />
easements and other<br />
ecosystem services<br />
(e.g. wetland mitigation<br />
credits and carbon<br />
offsets). We like these<br />
sales to occur within the<br />
first two to three years of<br />
our investment. During<br />
this time and afterwards,<br />
we and future owners<br />
are obligated to manage<br />
the property sustainably.<br />
On timberland<br />
properties, our goal is<br />
to demonstrate that<br />
sustainably managed<br />
properties can generate<br />
attractive cash flows.”<br />
Jim Hourdequin<br />
Managing Director<br />
The Lyme Timber Company<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
••<br />
The Lyme Northern Forest Fund (LNFF) investors include high net worth individuals, university and college endowments,<br />
pension funds and foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation<br />
The Lyme Timber Company (http://www.lymetimber.com)<br />
••<br />
The Lyme Timber Company was formed in 1976 to invest in timberland and real estate using its own capital<br />
••<br />
In 2002, the Company created its first timberland investment fund, the Lyme Northern Forest Fund, with $65MM<br />
in capital commitments and a 3-year investment window<br />
••<br />
In 2005, the Company formed a second fund, The Lyme Forest Fund, with $190MM in capital commitments and<br />
a 3-year investment window<br />
••<br />
The Lyme Timber Company’s investment thesis is to make timberland investments in partnership with conservation<br />
agencies or government entities to mitigate risk. In many investments, Lyme will retain the rights to<br />
sustainably manage the timberland on parts or all of the purchased real estate and will sell an option to a partner<br />
organisation allowing the partner to acquire fee interest portions of the property with high conservation value and<br />
one or more ‘conservation easements’ over the remainder of the property. The conservation easements permanently<br />
restrict development and require The Lyme Timber Company and future owners to sustainably manage the<br />
property<br />
••<br />
The investments are typically exited by sale to another timberland investor; a part of the real estate is therefore<br />
perpetually conserved as managed timberland<br />
••<br />
The deal sizes range from $4MM - $80MM; the nominal return on the investments ranges from 11-25%<br />
Chateaugay Woodlands, Upstate New York<br />
••<br />
Chateaugay Woodlands is an 85,000 acre property adjoining the Adirondack Park in Northern New York<br />
••<br />
The LNFF purchased the property from Domtar, a forests product company, for $18.5MM in late 2004<br />
••<br />
The purchase was made in partnership with the Nature Conservancy, a conservation agency, which paid $600K<br />
for the option to subsequently purchase a conservation easement over the woodland property<br />
••<br />
LNFF financed half of the investment using $9MM of New Markets Tax Credit Financing at attractive rates<br />
••<br />
In late 2008, LNFF sold a conservation easement to the State of New York for $10MM<br />
••<br />
In early 2009, LNFF sold the timberlands, subject to the terms of the conservation easement, for $20 million<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
social/environmental impact<br />
••<br />
The sale of the conservation easement to the State of New York (facilitated<br />
by The Nature Conservancy) will<br />
--<br />
allow full public access to 38,400 acres of the property under a<br />
public recreation plan;<br />
--<br />
maintain private hunting club leases on the property; and<br />
--<br />
restrict all further development of the property.<br />
••<br />
The structure of the conservation easement contract requires that<br />
sustainable forestry practices continue under successive owners<br />
••<br />
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) has certified the property as<br />
adhering to its standards and criteria for forest management<br />
••<br />
The Lyme Timber Company has been recognised with multiple awards<br />
for the quality of its management of the Chateaugay lands<br />
financial impact<br />
••<br />
Taking into account operating income and losses, the sale of<br />
the conservation easement, and the sale of property subject<br />
to the conservation easement, the investment produced an<br />
equity internal rate of return of approximately 22% for the<br />
Lyme Northern Forest Fund (does not include asset management<br />
and promote fees paid to The Lyme Timber Company)<br />
24<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
absolute return (hedge funds)<br />
BelAir SA Fund<br />
financial First Investor<br />
Investor<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
Private Equity<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investment<br />
fund<br />
BelAir SA Fund<br />
deal<br />
SRI compliant hedge<br />
funds<br />
area of impact<br />
Broad SRI<br />
geography<br />
Global<br />
> Libor+300bp<br />
“SRI is important to<br />
many of our investors<br />
and they have few<br />
options available,<br />
especially in hedge fund<br />
strategies.”<br />
Erik Eidolf<br />
Executive Director Nordic<br />
Harcourt Investment Consulting AB<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
••<br />
The Harcourt BelAir Sustainable Alternatives Fund has several investors – notable lead investors and co-founders<br />
are Folksam (Swedish Insurance Group) and Storebrand (Norwegian Insurance Group)<br />
••<br />
Assets in BelAir exceed $345MM (as of March 2009)<br />
••<br />
Folksam and Storebrand have a long history of SRI investing and invested seed capital of $200MM as part of their<br />
UN PRI (Principles for Responsible Investment) strategy<br />
••<br />
The lead investors take an active role in SRI screening of investment instruments along with Harcourt, which is<br />
the fund manager and specialises in hedge fund manager selection and portfolio management<br />
••<br />
Some other well-known investors of Harcourt are Barclays UK, Sumitomo Japan, and Swisscom Pension Fund<br />
The Harcourt BelAir Sustainable Alternatives Fund (http://www.harcourt.ch)<br />
••<br />
Harcourt was the first fund-of-hedge-funds firm to sign the United Nations PRI initiative<br />
--<br />
Tracks global hedge fund data and meets over 1,000 hedge fund managers per annum<br />
--<br />
Screens the global hedge fund universe to find high quality managers that employ strategies that are<br />
suitable to implement in the internally defined SRI (<strong>Social</strong>ly Responsible <strong>Investing</strong>) Policy developed jointly<br />
with Folksam and Storebrand<br />
--<br />
Performs rigorous due-diligence of hedge funds and monitors all the invested funds for SRI compliance<br />
••<br />
Investment in hedge funds is based on<br />
--<br />
relevance and compliance to the defined SRI policy which spans 5 criteria<br />
--<br />
financial performance<br />
--<br />
quality of the manager<br />
••<br />
The BelAir “universe” of screened companies consists of 2,800 companies as of Q1 2009. All underlying hedge<br />
funds in BelAir constrain themselves to only be exposed to the SRI approved list of instruments<br />
••<br />
As of March 2009 BelAir portfolio consisted of 24 underlying hedge fund managers<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
social/environmental impact<br />
••<br />
BelAir implements a strict SRI Policy that results in an approved list of<br />
SRI compliant instruments to which the underlying hedge funds limit<br />
their exposure<br />
••<br />
As such, the investor is guaranteed not to be exposed to companies<br />
and countries that are not SRI compliant<br />
••<br />
SRI impact affects a broad number of instruments covering over 2,800<br />
companies globally<br />
••<br />
BelAir has strong <strong>Social</strong> and Environmental impacts through the SRI<br />
analysis conducted which includes engagement and dialogue with<br />
companies to improve their practices in a SRI context<br />
financial impact<br />
••<br />
Investors can gain exposure to absolute return hedge fund<br />
strategies while being able to make CSR/SRI investments<br />
••<br />
BelAir provides diversified global hedge fund exposure across<br />
asset classes, regions and hedge fund strategies<br />
••<br />
Returns: overall portfolio targets returns > Libor +300bp with<br />
limited downside<br />
••<br />
Between inception in November 2007 and February 2009,<br />
BelAir has appreciated by 1.1% compared to -55.4% MSCI<br />
World Index<br />
25
Cash<br />
Charity Bank<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> First Investor<br />
Investor<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
Cash<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
Vehicle<br />
Charity Bank<br />
area of impact<br />
Various Sectors<br />
geography<br />
Predominantly UK<br />
0.5-3% return<br />
“Perhaps now more<br />
than ever there is a<br />
need for intermediaries<br />
like Charity Bank that<br />
offer alternatives to the<br />
traditional commercial<br />
banks. People who are<br />
as concerned about the<br />
impact their money<br />
achieves as the financial<br />
return they seek can<br />
place their money with<br />
confidence in such<br />
institutions.”<br />
Julia Novy-Hildesley<br />
Executive Director<br />
Lemelson Foundation<br />
“Talking to participants<br />
of schemes enabled by<br />
Charity Bank allows me<br />
to better understand the<br />
difference that my and<br />
others investments have<br />
made to people’s lives.”<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
••<br />
Charity Bank is unusual among charities in having share capital<br />
••<br />
Shares are held by Charities Aid Foundation, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), 15 charitable<br />
trusts and foundations, and Barclays Bank (not for its own profit but in trust for charity)<br />
••<br />
Shareholder types include ordinary, non-cumulative B and C preference shareholders and holders of 10-year<br />
subordinated loan notes<br />
••<br />
Charity Bank is currently raising capital from HNWI’s and already has commitments in principle of £2MM in preference<br />
share capital. The Bank is aiming to raise up to £12MM of core capital long term<br />
••<br />
In 2007, Charity Bank received £3MM of capital investment, as including share capital from the LankellyChase<br />
Foundation, Community Foundation for Northern Ireland and DB Microcredit Development Fund<br />
Charity Bank (http://www.charitybank.org)<br />
••<br />
By saving with Charity Bank, depositors can earn a modest amount of interest to protect their capital, knowing<br />
that they can get their money back at the end of the term<br />
••<br />
Returns depend on the length of the deposit and can vary between 0.5% and 3%, some opt for zero<br />
••<br />
Deposits can be made into a variety of products, including savings accounts, Charity ISA, CITRA and<br />
Deposit Bonds<br />
••<br />
100% of personal deposits of up to £50k are protected under the financial services compensation scheme<br />
••<br />
100% of deposits are used to provide affordable loan finance and advice to enable charities, community associations,<br />
voluntary organisations, community businesses and social enterprises predominantly across the UK to grow<br />
••<br />
Loans are mostly made to organisations within the areas of social/health care, affordable housing, education,<br />
sustainable development, community transport, the arts and community regeneration<br />
--<br />
For example, Charity Bank provided a loan of £300k to a charity (CHICKS) that organises respite breaks for<br />
disadvantaged inner-city children<br />
--<br />
The loan enabled the charity to purchase a much-needed building to house its operations<br />
--<br />
CHICKS are on target to provide 1,000 breaks per year from 2010 – they currently provide 800<br />
Depositor<br />
Charity Bank<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
social/environmental impact<br />
••<br />
100% of deposits used for lending to organisations delivering solutions<br />
to social problems<br />
••<br />
Charity Bank has committed over £83.4MM to charities and other<br />
socially driven organisations since its launch in 2002 which has levered<br />
in an extra £48.2MM of funding. The bank’s borrowers work with more<br />
that 3MM people in the UK<br />
••<br />
Charity Bank is currently devising a formal reporting system to measure<br />
the impact its loans create<br />
financial impact<br />
••<br />
Returns depend on length of deposit, varying between 0.5%<br />
and 3%<br />
26<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
senior debt<br />
Root Capital<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> First Investor<br />
Investor<br />
Multiple Investors Profile:<br />
Lemelson<br />
Senior Debt<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investment<br />
fund<br />
Root Capital<br />
2.5% expected return 9% return<br />
deal<br />
Kilicafe<br />
area of impact<br />
“Missing Middle”<br />
geography<br />
Africa<br />
“Currently nearly<br />
90% of our funds are<br />
given out as grants and<br />
only 10% are spent for<br />
investments. We are<br />
however looking to<br />
increase our investments<br />
and move that ratio to<br />
70-30 or 60-40.”<br />
Julia Novy-Hildesley<br />
Executive Director<br />
Lemelson Foundation<br />
“Our first screen<br />
involves validating that<br />
there will be a net social<br />
and environmental<br />
return. We then follow<br />
that with financial due<br />
diligence including<br />
micro and macro risk<br />
assessment.”<br />
Namrita Kapur<br />
Vice President<br />
Root Capital<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
••<br />
Root Capital attracts investments from industry partners, foundations such as the Lemelson Foundation, SRI<br />
funds and high net worth individuals<br />
The Lemelson Foundation (http://www.lemelson.org)<br />
••<br />
The Lemelson Foundation focuses on investing in entrepreneurs and technology dissemination<br />
••<br />
The foundation has an asset allocation of 5% for mission related investments and is particularly keen on making<br />
cleantech investments<br />
••<br />
The foundation was impressed with Root Capital’s operating history and was keen to invest in its project of<br />
propagating water efficient technology for coffee farmers in Tanzania<br />
Root Capital (http://www.rootcapital.org)<br />
••<br />
Root Capital targets the “missing middle”, a gap existing between microfinance and corporate banking<br />
••<br />
It bridges this gap by providing capital, delivering financial education, and strengthening market connections of<br />
rural small and growing businesses<br />
••<br />
It employs a form of value chain finance where the main security is future sales contracts from buyers, primarily<br />
in North America and Europe. It provides short-term and long-term loans against factoring agreements or signed<br />
purchase orders between grassroots businesses and their buyers<br />
••<br />
It provides an average return of 2.5% to investors<br />
Kilicafe (http://www.kilicafe.com)<br />
••<br />
Kilicafe provides support services to ~100 farmer groups, representing approximately 8,000 small-scale coffee<br />
farmers in Tanzania<br />
••<br />
With loans amounting to over $1MM, Root Capital financed acquisitions of central pulperies which process raw<br />
coffee beans (2006 and 2008) and the construction of a warehouse (2007)<br />
••<br />
The pulperies use a fraction of the water required by conventional technology. This step in coffee processing is<br />
critical to managing the quality of the product<br />
••<br />
Root Capital used Starbucks purchase contracts as collateral for the loans<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
social/environmental impact<br />
••<br />
Membership in Kilicafe has grown approximately 28% from 2006<br />
to 2008<br />
••<br />
Turnover has outpaced membership growth, adding $1MM to the local<br />
rural economy<br />
••<br />
Overall income per member has increased providing easier access to<br />
education and health services<br />
••<br />
The pulperies have decreased water usage by 80%, critical to a region<br />
with scarce water resources<br />
financial impact<br />
••<br />
The loan was disbursed at an interest rate of 9% (in line with<br />
local market rates)<br />
••<br />
Kilicafe has repaid its short term loan and is on track to<br />
repay its long term loans; in general, it is a borrower in<br />
good standing<br />
27
quasi-equity instruments<br />
Bridges Ventures <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurs Fund<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> First Investor<br />
Investor<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
3-5%<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investment<br />
fund<br />
Bridges Ventures <strong>Social</strong><br />
Entrepreneurs Fund<br />
area of impact<br />
Scaling Up <strong>Social</strong> Enterprises<br />
geography<br />
United Kingdom<br />
“While Bridges<br />
Ventures’ CDV Funds<br />
aim to maximise<br />
financial returns<br />
subject to a social<br />
screen, the Bridges<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurs<br />
Fund aims to maximise<br />
social impact subject<br />
to financial criteria,<br />
including a sustainable<br />
business model.”<br />
Skye Heller<br />
Associate<br />
Bridges Ventures<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
••<br />
The Bridges <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurs Fund has raised over £8MM from leading individuals, institutions and foundations<br />
from the financial sector, government and NESTA, the National Endowment for Science, Technology and<br />
the Arts<br />
••<br />
The funds have been raised through a mixture of donations to the Bridges Charitable Trust and Investments into a<br />
Limited Partnership structure. If the fund can demonstrate a track record of returns, Bridges Ventures believes it<br />
can raise further funding from socially motivated investors rather than further philanthropy<br />
The Bridges Ventures <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurs Fund (http://www.bridgesventures.com)<br />
••<br />
<strong>Social</strong> enterprises are businesses with social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose<br />
in the business or community, rather than being driven by the need to maximise profit for shareholders and<br />
owners<br />
••<br />
Successful social enterprises deliver an important and innovative means of achieving a sustained social impact<br />
••<br />
Bridges <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurs Fund seeks to address the funding gap that exists for social enterprises that are<br />
looking to scale up but cannot generate market rate returns or offer the usual exit opportunities and therefore<br />
cannot attract commercial equity<br />
••<br />
The fund targets enterprises based in England that deliver high social impacts and that operate scalable and<br />
sustainable business models<br />
••<br />
The fund expects to make around 10-15 investments in the £500K - £1.5MM range over the next 4-5 years<br />
••<br />
The investments will be through equity or quasi-equity instruments with flexible structures, such as subordinated<br />
debt with royalty payments that rise with revenues<br />
••<br />
The fund will also play an active role in providing strategic and operational assistance to the social enterprises<br />
that it backs<br />
••<br />
The fund will maintain a balanced portfolio of early stage and growth capital investments and acquisitions;<br />
the investments will also be made in a wide variety of sectors and models<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
social/environmental impact<br />
••<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> is measured using the Bridges <strong>Social</strong> IMPACT Scorecard<br />
financial impact<br />
••<br />
The Fund aims to maximise social impact whilst seeking a<br />
positive financial return<br />
••<br />
The financial returns target for the Fund, net of fees and<br />
losses, is 3-5%<br />
28<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
Venture Capital<br />
Aavishkaar<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> First Investor<br />
Investor<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
Profile: Rockefeller Foundation<br />
Below market return<br />
less fund fees<br />
Equity<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investment<br />
fund<br />
Aavishkaar<br />
Below market return<br />
deal<br />
Servals Automation<br />
area of impact<br />
Rural Poverty<br />
geography<br />
India<br />
“At Aavishkaar we<br />
wouldn’t want to think<br />
of ourselves separating<br />
the social impact from<br />
the financial one or<br />
seeing one as distinct<br />
from the other. We see<br />
social impact as being<br />
implicit in the business<br />
model of the enterprise.<br />
The growth in the<br />
business fortunes of<br />
this company is directly<br />
linked to the social<br />
impact it makes; more<br />
products sold means<br />
higher energy efficiency<br />
to poor households and<br />
therefore improvement<br />
in their quality of life.”<br />
Pradeep Pathiyamveetil<br />
COO<br />
Aavishkaar<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
••<br />
Aavishkaar’s investor base includes foundations, high net worth individuals and other impact-oriented investors<br />
Rockefeller Foundation (http://www.rockfund.org)<br />
••<br />
Rockefeller Foundation has invested in numerous socially motivated investment vehicles through their programrelated<br />
investing (PRI) work<br />
Aavishkaar (http://www.aavishkaar.org)<br />
••<br />
Aavishkaar is a micro economic fund, targeting investments in India<br />
••<br />
Aavishkaar also runs a microfinance fund as a joint venture with Goodwell, a Netherlands-based microfinance<br />
company<br />
••<br />
Looks to invest in SMEs and very small companies engaging in entrepreneurship<br />
••<br />
Screens companies from an impact perspective first, and after convincing themselves of strong impact, looks at<br />
the financial metrics like growth and profitability<br />
••<br />
Typical investment size of INR 1MM (~$25K)<br />
••<br />
Primarily equity players, but permitted to provide debt in deals where equity is already present<br />
••<br />
Due to Indian regulations on venture capital firms, pure debt can only make up 20% of deals, so debt funding<br />
tends to be bridge loans to take care of small requirements for limited time periods<br />
Servals Automation Pvt Ltd (http://www.servalsgroup.blogspot.com/)<br />
••<br />
Servals Automation was founded by P Mukundan as a platform to launch rural innovations<br />
••<br />
Servals products include a kerosene saving stove burner targeting the rural poor and a rain gun which at half the<br />
price of imported products which uses water more efficiently at half the price of imported products<br />
••<br />
The company, headquartered in Chennai, is aligned with the Rural Innovation Network (RIN)<br />
••<br />
Servals approached Aavishkaar for an equity investment to help strengthen its assembling, marketing and distribution<br />
channels as well as to help promote its products<br />
••<br />
Aavishkaar has invested INR 1.119MM (~$25K) in the company through two rounds of equity investment.<br />
It has also extended a bridge loan to Servals in order to cover working capital gaps<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
social/environmental impact<br />
••<br />
The products sold by Servals have impacted 450,000 low income<br />
households<br />
••<br />
Average fuel savings have been around 72L of kerosene annually per<br />
household<br />
••<br />
Financial savings have been INR 3000 (~$70) annually per household<br />
••<br />
Servals currently has 60 employees, of whom 60% are women<br />
financial impact<br />
••<br />
Starting with no revenues in 2003, the company has grown to<br />
a turnover of INR 11.4 MM (~$225K) in 2008<br />
••<br />
The working capital bridge loan offered by Aavishkaar was<br />
repaid in full by the company<br />
••<br />
Aavishkaar has received strong dividend payback from the<br />
investment after revenues have started to grow<br />
••<br />
Aavishkaar looks to exit the investment close to 5 years after<br />
the initial equity round<br />
29
Private Equity<br />
Acumen Fund<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> First Investor<br />
Investor<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
Private Equity<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investment<br />
fund<br />
Acumen Fund<br />
deal<br />
Ziqitza Healthcare<br />
area of impact<br />
Health Services<br />
geography<br />
India<br />
10-15% return<br />
“We look at investments<br />
that don’t just have a<br />
social impact in them but<br />
also are breakthrough<br />
innovations or business<br />
models.”<br />
Sasha Dichter<br />
Director of Business Development<br />
Acumen Fund<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
••<br />
Acumen has a wide variety of investors who have invested between $10k and $5MM+ into the Fund<br />
••<br />
Investors include foundations, family offices and corporations<br />
Acumen Fund (http://www.acumenfund.org)<br />
••<br />
The total fund size is $34.1MM<br />
••<br />
Acumen Fund is a non-profit global venture fund that uses entrepreneurial approaches to solve the problems of<br />
global poverty<br />
--<br />
Established in 2001 with seed capital from the Rockefeller Foundation, Cisco Systems Foundation and<br />
three individual philanthropists<br />
••<br />
Invests exclusively in businesses that<br />
--<br />
directly serve the poor<br />
--<br />
have economically sustainable business models<br />
--<br />
have a significant innovation element to them<br />
••<br />
Has created portfolios in four areas: Health, Water, Energy and Housing. In each area it identifies and supports<br />
social innovators<br />
--<br />
Capital commitments range from $300,000 to $2MM in equity or debt with a payback or exit in roughly<br />
five to seven years<br />
Ziqitza Healthcare: 1298 Ambulances (http://www.1298.in)<br />
••<br />
In 2007, Acumen invested equity to help the company grow their services and fleet of ambulances<br />
••<br />
The total investment amount is ~$1.5MM, as part of the Health Portfolio<br />
••<br />
Up until recently, Mumbai lacked in any reliable ambulance or emergency medical response service<br />
••<br />
1298 provides affordable ambulance services for all by using a sliding price scale driven by the patient’s ability to<br />
pay for a certain kind of hospital<br />
--<br />
The poorest patients who are typically admitted to general wards of a government hospital, pay a reduced<br />
rate (50%) or do not have to pay<br />
--<br />
Approximately 20% of the services are offered free of charge or at subsidised rates<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
social/environmental impact<br />
••<br />
About 50,000 calls have been made in the last 3 years<br />
••<br />
Increased in ambulances from 10 (Q1 2007) to 81 (Q4 2008); another<br />
14 expected by Q1 2009<br />
••<br />
1298 plans to scale to 7 more cities in India by adding more than 400<br />
ambulances in the next 2 years<br />
••<br />
1298 has also developed training programs, certified by the American<br />
Heart Association and New York Presbyterian Hospital, to train its own<br />
emergency care doctors as well as educate the general public<br />
financial impact<br />
••<br />
The investment horizon is from five to ten years, usually with<br />
rights that allow investors to seek an exit around year 5<br />
••<br />
IPOs are preferred exit strategy although trade sales are more<br />
common<br />
••<br />
Overall portfolio of equity investments has a gross return<br />
potential of 10-15%<br />
30<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
eal estate<br />
Ignia<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> First Investor<br />
Investor<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
Profile: Omidyar<br />
Market rate return less<br />
fund/management fees<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investment<br />
fund<br />
Ignia<br />
Investment in Real Estate<br />
Market rate return<br />
deal<br />
Premin, Mexico<br />
area of impact<br />
Affordable Housing<br />
geography<br />
Latin America & Mexico<br />
“Ignia’s potential to act<br />
as a model for other VC<br />
firms looking to invest in<br />
businesses serving the<br />
low income segment in<br />
Mexico is great.”<br />
Matt Bannick<br />
Managing Partner<br />
Omidyar Network<br />
“We are big believers<br />
in finding business<br />
solutions to social<br />
problems... We found<br />
that there are many<br />
services that the poor<br />
simply do not have<br />
access to. We thought a<br />
catalyst was needed –<br />
the answer was a fund.”<br />
Alvaro Rodríguez Arregui<br />
Managing Director<br />
Ignia<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
••<br />
Ignia’s investors include institutional investors, multilateral institutions, high net worth individuals and foundations<br />
such as the Inter-American Development Bank and Omidyar Network<br />
Omidyar Network (http://www.omidyar.com)<br />
••<br />
Omidyar Network (ON) is a philanthropic investment firm that makes investments in the areas of access to capital<br />
in developing countries and media, markets and transparency in the developed world<br />
••<br />
ON’s spending is split between grants and for-profit investments; it believes that for-profit models do a better job<br />
of achieving scale and sustainability and also in staying responsive to customer needs<br />
••<br />
For all investments, the primary aim is to achieve maximum social impact. There is a simultaneous drive towards<br />
achieving market rate financial returns for the for-profit investments<br />
••<br />
The way Omidyar measures social impact depends on the investment area. The number of people impacted and<br />
depth of impact are the basic metrics<br />
••<br />
ON was impressed with Ignia’s management expertise and the fact that social impact was embedded in its<br />
business plan<br />
Ignia (http://www.ignia.com.mx)<br />
••<br />
Ignia is a Mexican Venture Capital firm that invests in businesses that provide products and services to the underserved<br />
low income population of Latin America<br />
••<br />
It aims to invest in profitable and scalable businesses that create social impact by achieving systemic change<br />
••<br />
It believes that there is a strong market for high quality products and services delivered to the poor at affordable<br />
rates<br />
••<br />
Ignia raised an initial fund of about $60MM and has completed 2 investments in the areas of affordable housing<br />
and healthcare services and it hopes to have completed 6 investments by the end of 2009<br />
Premin - Jardines del Grijalva Project<br />
••<br />
In 2008, Ignia made a $2MM investment in Premin for its Jardines del Grijalva housing project in Chiapas, Mexico<br />
••<br />
The homes are being built for families that earn less than $10,000 a year<br />
••<br />
The idea behind the investment is that small local developers of affordable housing suffer from a lack of capital<br />
and large developers seldom go into the South of Mexico or into smaller communities. As a consequence, there<br />
is a shortage of housing and families are forced to build their own homes<br />
••<br />
Ignia also identified a microfinance institution that would provide mortgages to families without access to them<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
social/environmental impact<br />
••<br />
Around 1,800 families have been provided access to affordable but<br />
quality housing<br />
••<br />
The 1,800 families were also provided with affordable mortgages<br />
••<br />
While Ignia does not capture any other specific metric for social impact,<br />
it is always conscious of the need to serve the low income segment<br />
that is underserved and of making sure that the impact is scalable<br />
financial impact<br />
••<br />
Ignia expects to earn above market rate returns on the project<br />
••<br />
Ignia believes that generating high returns is imperative in the<br />
low income segment because:<br />
--<br />
the market perceives the segment to be high risk:<br />
--<br />
the customers in this segment do not have a lot of<br />
choice and so high margins are sustainable:<br />
--<br />
it is the best way to achieve scale when creating products<br />
and services serving poor people.<br />
31
other real assets<br />
Pico Bonito<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> First Investor<br />
Investor<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
20% projected return<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investment<br />
fund<br />
Pico Bonito, LLC<br />
Investment in Operating Entity<br />
> 20% expected return<br />
deal<br />
Bosques Pico Bonito SrL<br />
area of impact<br />
Sustainable Forestry<br />
geography<br />
Honduras<br />
“We are moving down<br />
the learning curve<br />
quickly and are confident<br />
that we can do similar<br />
projects on a larger<br />
scale.”<br />
Robert Lapides<br />
Chairman and CEO<br />
Pico Bonito LLC<br />
Multiple Investors<br />
••<br />
Pico Bonito’s investors include institutions, multilateral organisations, high net worth individuals, and foundations<br />
Pico Bonito, LLC<br />
••<br />
The Pico Bonito project was founded in 2006 by the Pico Bonito National Park Foundation, an NGO based at<br />
the project site in Honduras, and the Ecologic Development Fund, a U.S. non-profit focussing on environmental<br />
stewardship with local community collaboration in Latin America<br />
••<br />
The mission of the company is to establish and manage business models that achieve triple-bottom-line results in<br />
the areas of sustainable forestry, environmental and biodiversity restoration and protection, and social equity<br />
••<br />
Future plans include establishing a portfolio of 6-12 projects in multiple Central and South American markets<br />
utilising capital in the $50-75MM range<br />
Bosques Pico Bonito SrL (http://www.bosquespicobonito.com)<br />
••<br />
The main idea behind the project was to develop a sustainable business solution to the problems plaguing the<br />
areas in and around the Pico Bonito National Park in Honduras including deforestation, endangerment of rare plant<br />
and animal species, pollution, and rural poverty that drives further environmental destruction<br />
••<br />
The company raised approximately $5MM in capital and developed a for-profit model to establish and sustainably<br />
manage native species and generate carbon offsets, while preserving the natural environment and biodiversity of<br />
the park and engaging local communities to enable them to share in the benefits achieved by the project<br />
••<br />
The company operates in and around the buffer zone of the national park by acquiring threatened or already damaged<br />
and deforested land areas and establishing sustainable forestry practices<br />
••<br />
To establish sustainable land management practices and create short term food supplies and cash crops for the<br />
local communities, the company initiated agro forestry activities which yield such crops such as coffee, corn<br />
and beans<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
social/environmental impact<br />
••<br />
The company has already planted 500K trees and aims to plant<br />
another 500K<br />
••<br />
It employs over 150 people from the local communities around the park<br />
••<br />
The company was one of the first to have its tropical forestry carbon<br />
sequestration methodology approved by the United Nations Clean Development<br />
Mechanism which has generated significant carbon offsets<br />
••<br />
Local farmers have been trained in agro-forestry techniques, soil conservation<br />
and pest management<br />
••<br />
The project has also gone a long way in protecting the water supply for<br />
the region around the park<br />
financial impact<br />
••<br />
The project has an overall expected IRR of 20% which is<br />
significantly above the risk-adjusted market rate for the<br />
timber sector<br />
••<br />
Revenue streams include carbon offsets and sales from sustainable<br />
forestry including timber, cherry, mahogany,<br />
and rosewood<br />
32<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
senior debt<br />
Root Capital<br />
Layered Structures<br />
Is it possible to structure a deal that satisfies the needs of both Financial First<br />
investors and <strong>Impact</strong> First investors? This is a common question that arises when<br />
investors contemplate <strong>Impact</strong> Investment. The AAF extends not only to singular<br />
examples that serve a specific intention and asset class, but also to cases<br />
that are layered in nature. In these deals Financial First and <strong>Impact</strong> First investors<br />
(sometimes even pure philanthropists using grants) come together to set-up deal<br />
structures that otherwise would not be possible or as effective.<br />
Below we discuss a few examples of how these layered structures can work to<br />
satisfy the motivations and objectives of different <strong>Impact</strong> Investors.<br />
Asset Allocation Framework<br />
Asset classes<br />
Alternative Instruments<br />
Cash<br />
Senior<br />
Debt<br />
mezzanine<br />
/quasi<br />
equity<br />
Public<br />
Equity<br />
Venture<br />
Capital<br />
Private/<br />
Growth<br />
Equity<br />
real<br />
estate<br />
other real<br />
assets<br />
absolute<br />
return<br />
(hedge<br />
Funds)<br />
Financial First<br />
2 Bank<br />
Consortium<br />
1 Retail<br />
& Comm.<br />
Investors<br />
(IFFIm<br />
Bonds)<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> First<br />
1 Various<br />
Countries<br />
2 City<br />
of NY +<br />
Foundations<br />
1 International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm)<br />
2 The New York City Acquisition Fund<br />
33
International Finance Facility for<br />
Immunisation (IFFIm)<br />
financial First Investor<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> First Investor<br />
Prime Rate<br />
Retail and Commercial<br />
Investors<br />
Bonds<br />
$1.6 B<br />
area of impact<br />
Vaccination<br />
geography<br />
70 Poorest Nations<br />
Grant Providers<br />
(Various Nations)<br />
20 year<br />
grants<br />
$5.3 B<br />
2006 2026<br />
“There certainly is<br />
no discount; each<br />
transaction is priced<br />
at market so someone<br />
doesn’t have to<br />
differentiate between<br />
our product and another<br />
based upon returns.<br />
When faced with a<br />
decision between<br />
buying a government<br />
bond or an IFFIm bond<br />
with a slightly higher<br />
yield and helping the<br />
immunisation effort,<br />
most people will take the<br />
second .”<br />
George Richardson<br />
World Bank<br />
International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm)<br />
(http://www.iff-immunisation.org)<br />
••<br />
IFFIm was launched in 2006 through an initiative of the United Kingdom government to support the GAVI<br />
Initiative<br />
--<br />
The GAVI Initiative was launched with a $1.5B grant from the Gates Foundation to fund immunisation<br />
in the world’s 70 poorest nations<br />
••<br />
Realising that the social impact of their committed funds will be greater immediately vs. over the 20 year<br />
commitment period, the government sponsors decided to set up IFFIm to tap the financial markets to access<br />
funds immediately<br />
••<br />
The World Bank, as IFFIm’s agent, manages IFFIm’s finances and capital markets activities. The World Bank<br />
also coordinates with IFFIm’s donors, manages their pledges and payments as well as IFFIm’s disbursements<br />
for immunisation and health programmes through the GAVI Alliance<br />
Grant Providers (Various Nations)<br />
••<br />
IFFIm was able to gather $5.3B in grants from 6 European nations (UK, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden and<br />
Norway) when IFFIm was set up, as well as South Africa who joined later<br />
••<br />
The grant money was donated over a 20 year period through legally binding payment obligations, starting in<br />
2006 and growing in aggregate amount every year until 2021 before declining through 2026<br />
••<br />
Encouraged by the large donations from the Gates Foundation, the nations wanted to provide support to the<br />
global immunisation effort underway by the GAVI Alliance partners<br />
Retail and Commercial Investors<br />
••<br />
IFFIm so far has tapped the financial markets to help raise immediate funds based on the $5.3B in<br />
committed dollars<br />
••<br />
With a AAA/Aaa rating from numerous rating agencies, they are able to offer returns at a slight premium to<br />
government bonds, offering slightly higher than market returns for their rating compared to governments<br />
with the same rating<br />
••<br />
So far IFFIm has been able to raise funds from investors in the US, Europe and Asia through its inaugural<br />
transaction in 2006 and in Japan through two issues specifically for the Japanese market. The latest offering<br />
will target both retail and commercial customers in the UK with an offering by HSBC<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
social/environmental impact<br />
••<br />
With money from IFFIm and donors such as the Gates Foundation,<br />
GAVI has been able to protect 213MM additional children with new<br />
vaccines since 2000<br />
••<br />
Due to increased vaccination, GAVI has been able to prevent more than<br />
3.4MM premature deaths<br />
••<br />
New and underused vaccine coverage has risen substantially, doubling<br />
in most areas<br />
financial impact<br />
••<br />
IFFIm has been able to raise $1.6B through three offerings to<br />
date<br />
••<br />
Due to contractual guarantees from various governments,<br />
IFFIm has been able to retain their AAA/Aaa status<br />
34<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
The New York City<br />
Acquisition Fund<br />
financial First Investor<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> First Investor<br />
Financial First<br />
Investors<br />
Prime Rate<br />
Bank Consortium<br />
Senior<br />
Debt<br />
~$160mm<br />
NYC Acquisition<br />
fund<br />
area of impact<br />
Affordable Housing<br />
geography<br />
United States<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> First<br />
Investors<br />
City of NY +<br />
Foundations<br />
Sub. Debt +<br />
Guarantees<br />
~$40mm<br />
Sub-Market Rate<br />
Investors<br />
••<br />
The New York City Acquisition Fund is an example of a layered structure where Financial First and <strong>Impact</strong> First<br />
investors invest together in a project with the former earning market rate returns and the latter earning submarket<br />
returns<br />
••<br />
The Financial First investors in the New York City Acquisition Fund are a consortium of banks including Bank of<br />
America, JP Morgan Chase and HSBC<br />
••<br />
The group of <strong>Impact</strong> First investors is led by the City of New York and includes a number of foundations including<br />
the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation<br />
The New York City Acquisition Fund (http://www.nycacquisitionfund.com)<br />
••<br />
The New York City Acquisition Fund was formed in 2006 to overcome the shortage of property available for the<br />
development of affordable housing in New York City<br />
••<br />
The fund seeks to facilitate affordable housing development by providing flexible, advantageous capital for the<br />
acquisition of property to developers of affordable housing<br />
••<br />
The fund is worth approximately $200MM with $162MM provided by the bank consortium and the balance<br />
provided by the <strong>Impact</strong> First investors led by the City of New York and allied foundations<br />
••<br />
The bank consortium provides senior debt as lending capital while the group of <strong>Impact</strong> Investors provides<br />
guarantees in the form of low-interest subordinated loans<br />
••<br />
Developers either refurbish existing affordable housing units or engage in new construction of affordable housing<br />
••<br />
The maximum loan amount is $15MM for the acquisition of existing occupied buildings and $7.5MM for the<br />
acquisition of vacant land although the Fund has the flexibility to provide exceptions to these limits<br />
••<br />
The fund lends to both for-profit and non-profit developers; for-profit developers are eligible for loans up to 95%<br />
of the lesser of appraised value or purchase price while the number goes up to 130% for non-profit developers<br />
••<br />
All borrowers must contribute 5% of the total acquisition and pre-development costs as equity<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
social/environmental impact<br />
••<br />
The fund aims to develop 30,000 units of affordable housing in a 10<br />
year time span in New York City<br />
••<br />
The success of the fund has spurred the creation of similar funds in<br />
Los Angeles, Atlanta and Louisiana<br />
financial impact<br />
••<br />
The interest rate on loans disbursed by the banks is indexed<br />
to the prime lending rate<br />
35
Acknowledgements<br />
While this report was spearheaded by Bridges Ventures and the Parthenon Group, it was very much a collective<br />
effort among many experts in the industry. Through feedback and guidance we received from many, we were<br />
able to paint a clearer picture of the history and key trends in the sector, as well as provide insights that will<br />
hopefully serve as guidance and education for those investors who are beginning to explore this sector. The<br />
thoughts and ideas presented here are the work of many great minds and no single individual or institution can<br />
claim them as their own.<br />
Tracy Palandjian, Managing Director at The Parthenon Group and Michele Giddens, Executive Director at Bridges<br />
Ventures provided leadership for the report. The case team was led by Pedro Sanches and included JJ<br />
O’Brien, Venugopal Mruthyunjaya, Lisa Heidemanns, and Srivaths Swaminathan, all of The Parthenon Group.<br />
Antony Bugg-Levine of The Rockefeller Foundation and Lila Preston of Generation Investment Management<br />
played crucial roles as key advisors to this paper and, from its inception, helped shape many of the ideas presented<br />
throughout this work.<br />
We would also like to thank those who helped shape our main theses and took time reviewing drafts of the<br />
report, including Doug Bauer, David Carrington, Katherine Collins, Jed Emerson, Jessica Freireich, Katherine<br />
Fulton, John Goldstein, Charly Kleissner, John Kingston, Andrew Robinson, Jason Scott, and Helen Wildsmith.<br />
Interviews<br />
Without the help of numerous experts in the sector, this report would never have reached fruition. We would<br />
like to thank all those listed below who spent valuable time with the team on the phone or in person, helping<br />
make this report as impactful and insightful as possible.<br />
Pradeep Pathiyamveetil, Aavishkaar<br />
Sasha Dichter, Acumen Fund<br />
Brad Presner, Acumen Fund<br />
Ben Powell, Agora Partnerships<br />
Christa Velasquez, Anne E. Casey<br />
Foundation<br />
Demmy Adesina, Aquifer<br />
Arthur Wood, Ashoka<br />
Alvaro Rodriguez Arregui, Ignia<br />
Bill Marvel, Baldwin Brothers<br />
John Campagna, Benchmark Capital<br />
Roger Frank, Benchmark Capital<br />
Lynn Martin, Blue Orchard Finance<br />
Michele Giddens, Bridges Ventures<br />
Skye Heller, Bridges <strong>Social</strong><br />
Entrepreneurs Fund<br />
Yasmin Tong, California Community<br />
Foundation<br />
Malcolm Hayday, Charity Bank (UK)<br />
Christine Eibs-Singer, E + Co<br />
Terry O’Day, Environment Now<br />
David Blood, Generation IM<br />
Lila Preston, Generation IM<br />
Amit Bouri, Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong><br />
Network<br />
Steven Godeke, Godeke Consulting<br />
Steve Hardgrave, Gray Matter<br />
Capital<br />
Raul Pomares, Guggenheim Partners<br />
Eric Eidolf, Harcourt<br />
John Goldstein, Imprint Capital<br />
Pawan Mehra, Intellecap<br />
Geoff Burnand, <strong>Investing</strong> for Good<br />
Teddy Rice, IronWood Equity<br />
Tom Reiss, Kellogg Foundation<br />
Oliver Karius, LGT Venture<br />
Philanthropy<br />
Jim Hourdequin, Lyme Timber<br />
Gavin Watson, New Energies (E + Co)<br />
Matt Banick, Omidyar Network<br />
Jim Bunch, Omidyar Network<br />
Rob Lapides, Pico Bonito<br />
Preston Pinkett, Prudential<br />
Antony Bugg-Levine, rockefeller<br />
foundation<br />
William Foote, Root Capital<br />
Namrita Kapur, Root Capital<br />
Monica Pressley, San Francisco<br />
Foundation<br />
Mark Campanale, <strong>Social</strong> Stock<br />
Exchange<br />
Dan Crisafulli, The Skoll Foundation<br />
Richard Fahey, The Skoll Foundation<br />
Scott Budde, TIAA-CREF<br />
Cherie Santos, TIAA-CREF<br />
Bob Assenberg, Triodos Bank<br />
Alex Connor, Triodos Bank<br />
Adam Ognall, UKSIF<br />
John Kingston, Venturesome<br />
Anders Ferguson, Veris<br />
Patricia Frivas, Veris<br />
David Carrington<br />
Katherine Collins<br />
36<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
Appendix<br />
Methodology<br />
The <strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes report builds on the work previously developed<br />
by the Monitor Institute and also draws on the work conducted by Rockefeller Foundation and F.B. Heron<br />
Foundation on the <strong>Impact</strong> Investment sector. The report aims to educate key stakeholders and practitioners on<br />
the opportunities they have in <strong>Impact</strong> Investment. These groups include potential investors (High Net Worth<br />
Individuals, Foundations and Institutional Investors) and investment gatekeepers (private bankers and investment<br />
advisors).<br />
The report takes an empirical approach by mapping the <strong>Impact</strong> Investment market along two key dimensions:<br />
investor motivation (Financial First vs. <strong>Impact</strong> First) and asset class (as per traditional asset allocation). The paper<br />
proposes an Asset Allocation Framework (AAF) combining the two dimensions to illustrate a comprehensive<br />
perspective of the <strong>Impact</strong> Investment market using language familiar to investors. The report provides detailed<br />
case studies in each of the “cells” in the AAF, including profiles of an investor (LP), the <strong>Impact</strong> Investment fund<br />
(GP) and an underlying investment, as well as financial return and impact to society.<br />
The report was created after an extensive review of existing literature on <strong>Impact</strong> Investment as well as a large<br />
number of original interviews with sector participants. It reflects more than 40 interviews conducted with a<br />
range of investors - including foundations, high net worth individuals, institutional investors, advisors, consultants<br />
and family office representatives - about their experiences with <strong>Impact</strong> Investment and their motivations<br />
for particular investments made across various asset classes.<br />
The interviews were subsequently translated into case studies to provide concrete examples of the <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investments that are being developed in each asset class. Cases selected were from existing funds rather than<br />
the many that are currently in the fund-raising process. In each asset class, there are other compelling case<br />
studies that have not been covered and the authors do not seek to make investment recommendations through<br />
this report; rather they wish to illustrate the range and breadth that is emerging in the sector.<br />
Further Reading<br />
Research Papers<br />
••<br />
Monitor Institute: <strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Social</strong> & Environmental <strong>Impact</strong>, 2009<br />
Examines the emergence of impact investing, exploring how it might develop and how leaders can accelerate the<br />
industry’s evolution<br />
http://www.monitorinstitute.com/impactinvesting/documents/<strong>Investing</strong>for<strong>Social</strong>andEnv<strong>Impact</strong>_FullReport_004.pdf<br />
••<br />
Good Capitalist: February Newsletter, 2009<br />
Update on social capital market including participants’ initiatives<br />
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs047/1101902708153/archive/1102453118973.html<br />
••<br />
UKSIF: Review of Activities, 2008<br />
Review of UK <strong>Social</strong> Investment Forum’s 2008 activities including useful figures on the sector<br />
http://www.uksif.org/cmsfiles/uksif/UKSIF_Review_of_Activities_2008.pdf<br />
••<br />
UKSIF: Sustainable Investment Opportunities for Pension Funds in Alternative Asset Classes, 2008<br />
Aims to increase pension funds’ awareness of sustainable investment options available across asset classes<br />
http://www.uksif.org/cmsfiles/281411/SustainableAlternatives.pdf<br />
••<br />
Boston College: Handbook on Responsible Investment Across Asset Classes, 2008<br />
Aims to help investors understand sustainable investment and identify opportunities within it across asset classes<br />
http://www.cof.org/files/images/ExecEd/bcrespinvesthndbk.pdf<br />
••<br />
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors: Solutions for <strong>Impact</strong> Investors: From Strategy to Implementation<br />
http://rockpa.org/ideas_and_perspectives/publications<br />
37
••<br />
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors: MRI - A Policy and Implementation Guide for Foundation Trustees, 2008<br />
Policy and implementation guide for foundation trustees<br />
http://www.cof.org/files/images/ExecEd/RockefellerPhilAdvisors.pdf<br />
••<br />
Stanford <strong>Social</strong> Innovation Review: The Power of Strategic Mission <strong>Investing</strong>, 2007<br />
Suggests that foundations should make strategic mission investments to complement grant making<br />
http://www.ssireview.org/images/articles/2007FA_feature_kramer_cooch.pdf<br />
••<br />
Commission of Unclaimed Assets: <strong>Social</strong> Investment Bank, 2007<br />
Overview of the Third Sector and role of a social bank within it<br />
http://www.unclaimedassets.org.uk/downloads/CUA_report_FINAL.pdf<br />
••<br />
F.B. Heron Foundation: <strong>Impact</strong> Across the Mission-Related Investment Portfolio, 2007<br />
Illustrates a spectrum of asset classes within which mission-related investment can take place<br />
http://www.fbheron.org/documents/ar.2007.mri_gatefold.pdf<br />
••<br />
Said Business School: From Fragmentation to Function, 2007<br />
Paper on the social capital’s market structure, operation and innovation<br />
http://www.universitynetwork.org/sites/universitynetwork.org/files/files/Skoll_FromFragmentationtoFunction.pdf<br />
••<br />
Jed Emerson: The Blended Value Map, 2003<br />
Snapshot of international players and institutions within the social investment sector<br />
http://www.blendedvalue.org/media/pdf-bv-map.pdf<br />
••<br />
New Economics Foundation: Mission Possible, 2008<br />
Considers how foundations use part of their endowments for mission connected investment<br />
http://www.cof.org/files/images/ExecEd/NewEconomicsFoundation08.pdf<br />
••<br />
Margaret Bolton: Foundations and social investment—making money work harder in order to achieve more,<br />
2003<br />
Providing foundations with information about social investment and its relevance to their goals and strategies<br />
http://www.esmeefairbairn.org.uk/docs/EFF_foundations_report.pdf<br />
••<br />
Venturesome: Financing Civil Society, 2008<br />
Practitioner’s view of the UK social investment market<br />
http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/Venturesome%20-%20Financing%20Civil%20Society%20-%20Sept%2008.pdf<br />
••<br />
Venturesome: The Three Models of <strong>Social</strong> Enterprises, 2008<br />
Examines how to create social impact through trading activities using three theoretical models<br />
http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/Ventursome%20-%203%20Models%20Of%20<strong>Social</strong>%20Enterprise_Part1%20-%20Jan%20<br />
08.pdf and<br />
http://www.cafonline.org/PDF/Venturesome%20-%203%20Models%20Of%20<strong>Social</strong>%20Enterprise_Part2%20-%20<br />
July%202008.pdf<br />
••<br />
FSG: Aggregating <strong>Impact</strong>: A Funder’s Guide to Mission Investment Intermediaries<br />
Guide to mission investment intermediaries that foundations or funders may employ<br />
http://www.fsg-impact.org/ideas/section/277<br />
••<br />
Antony Bugg-Levine: <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> - Harnessing Capital Markets to Drive Development at Scale<br />
Provides an overview of the proliferation of innovation occurring in the <strong>Impact</strong> Investment sector globally and addresses<br />
the structural causes and likely prospects of the sector’s growth in light of the current financial crisis<br />
http://www.rockfound.org/efforts/impact_investing/beyond_profit_bugg_levine.pdf<br />
38<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
Websites<br />
••<br />
Bridges Ventures: http://www.bridgesventures.com/<br />
••<br />
Rockefeller Foundation: http://www.rockfound.org/<br />
••<br />
Generation IM: http://www.generationim.com/<br />
••<br />
Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network: www.globalimpactinvestingnetwork.org<br />
••<br />
Skoll Foundation: http://www.skollfoundation.org/<br />
••<br />
Heron Foundation: http://www.fbheron.org/<br />
••<br />
Annie E. Casey Foundation: http://www.aecf.org/<br />
••<br />
More for Mission <strong>Investing</strong>: http://www.moreformission.org/<br />
••<br />
Working with legislators to encourage passage of L3C acts: http://www.americansforcommunitydevelopment.<br />
org/<br />
••<br />
Non-profit organisation offering interesting research perspectives: http://www.lightyearsip.net/index.shtml<br />
••<br />
UK <strong>Social</strong> Investment Forum: http://www.uksif.org/<br />
••<br />
US <strong>Social</strong> Investment Forum: http://www.socialinvest.org/<br />
••<br />
European <strong>Social</strong> Investment Forum: http://www.eurosif.org/<br />
••<br />
European Foundation Centre: http://www.efc.be/<br />
••<br />
International Association of Microfinance Investors: http://www.iamfi.com/<br />
39
Appendix: Market Benchmarking<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investors, whether they are Financial<br />
First or <strong>Impact</strong> First in their motivations, have<br />
a keen interest in measuring and reporting<br />
the financial and social returns on their investments.<br />
It is critical to benchmark these returns<br />
against commonly accepted standards as this<br />
facilitates meaningful comparisons between<br />
investments and, moreover, allows for judgement<br />
of the extent of impact or relative success<br />
of an investment.<br />
On the financial returns side, investment<br />
returns are typically measured against benchmark<br />
indices corresponding to specific asset<br />
classes. The indices are typically composites of<br />
representative investment instruments in that<br />
asset class; for example, the MSCI World Index<br />
is a market capitalisation weighted index of<br />
public equities in 23 developed countries. The<br />
year on year change of the representative index<br />
provides a measure of ‘market rate’ returns on<br />
average for that asset class; the growth in the<br />
MSCI World Index provides a measure of the<br />
average return of investing in a public equity<br />
strategy in a developed market.<br />
It is important to note that for most asset<br />
classes, the market return benchmark can vary<br />
significantly with geography and the actual sector<br />
in which the investment is made. The return<br />
rate for a real estate investment can be quite<br />
different depending on whether the investment<br />
was made in a developed or developing<br />
country and an agricultural commodity can<br />
yield significantly different returns as compared<br />
to a precious metal. There can also be cases<br />
where no meaningful benchmark exists. When<br />
Omidyar Network was considering investing<br />
in Ignia, a Mexican Venture Capital firm that<br />
makes investments in businesses that cater<br />
to the low income segment of the population,<br />
Omidyar found that there were insufficient<br />
precedents of Latin American Venture Capital<br />
firms investing in social enterprises. Says Matt<br />
Bannick, Managing Partner at Omidyar, “We<br />
found that there were no historical datasets<br />
corresponding to our investment space and as<br />
a result there was no benchmark to draw from.<br />
We built our own financial model and by testing<br />
the sensitivity of our assumptions, narrowed<br />
down to a target range for financial return.”<br />
On the social and environmental impact front,<br />
the metrics used to measure return vary quite<br />
widely. Common metrics include jobs created<br />
and extra income and carbon offsets generated.<br />
But the lack of standardisation of these<br />
metrics renders the process of benchmarking<br />
social and environmental returns difficult.<br />
However efforts such as those by the B Lab,<br />
Veris, Rockefeller Foundation, Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong><br />
Network and Acumen are underway to<br />
create standardised metrics and this will help<br />
make benchmarking social impact feasible.<br />
The following table provides the average upper<br />
and lower bounds of 5-year compounded annual<br />
growth rates of benchmark indices 4 in each<br />
asset class by decade. It must be reiterated<br />
that the market return benchmarks presented<br />
here may not be applicable across all geographies<br />
and sectors.<br />
4<br />
Benchmark Returns/Indices used:<br />
Cash: 3 month discount rate on US Treasury bills<br />
Quasi Equity, Buyout, VC: Cum. Vintage Year Return, US Private<br />
Equity Performance Index, Thomson Financial<br />
Public Equity: MSCI World Index<br />
Real Estate: Dow Jones Wilshire US REIT Index<br />
Commodities: Dow Jones AIG Commodity Index<br />
40<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes
Cash<br />
Quasi Equity<br />
Public Equity<br />
Buyout<br />
VC<br />
Real Estate<br />
Commodities<br />
1981-1990<br />
1991-2000<br />
2001-2005<br />
Average Lower<br />
Bound<br />
Average Upper<br />
Bound<br />
Average Lower<br />
Bound<br />
Average Upper<br />
Bound<br />
Average Lower<br />
Bound<br />
Average Upper<br />
Bound<br />
6% 7% 10% 16% 8% 5% N/A<br />
10% 13% 16% 22% 18% 15% N/A<br />
3% 4% 5% 8% 25% 8% 3%<br />
6% 8% 10% 14% 45% 15% 12%<br />
1% 5% 4% -10% -12% 12% 5%<br />
4% 10% 10% 2% 2% 20% 15%<br />
5<br />
Range considered was 2001-2008 for Quasi Equity, Buyout and VC<br />
All photos purchased from istockphoto.com.<br />
Photographer credits listed from top to bottom, left to right on each page.<br />
Cover: Alberto L. Pomares G., blackred, Rob Belknap, brytta<br />
Page 4: Denis Jr. Tangney, blackred, Terraxplorer, Johnny Lye<br />
Page 7: Peter Ramsey, Michael Flippo, Keith Lamond<br />
Page 8: Peter Ramsey, Michael Flippo<br />
Page 9: Keith Lamond<br />
Page 10: blackred, Greg Randles, Vikram Raghuvanshi, Keith Lamond, Mark Kuipers<br />
Page 11: King Ho Yim, Christa Brunt, blackred, Melodie Sheppard, Simon Owler<br />
Page 12: Terraxplorer<br />
Back Cover: brytta, Alberto L. Pomares G.<br />
41
<strong>Impact</strong> investing, defined as actively placing capital<br />
in businesses and funds that generate social and/<br />
or environmental good as well as financial returns,<br />
is a growing industry. <strong>Impact</strong> investment funds are<br />
attracting investors ranging from high-net-worth<br />
individuals to institutional investors, corporations<br />
and foundations. Diverse impact investments are<br />
emerging across multiple asset classes.<br />
This report is intended for the investment<br />
community. It takes a case study approach,<br />
mapping examples of <strong>Impact</strong> Investments on<br />
a traditional asset allocation framework to help<br />
investors understand this emerging industry.<br />
Bridges Ventures<br />
www.bridgesventures.com<br />
Parthenon Group<br />
www.parthenon.com<br />
Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network<br />
www.globalimpactinvestingnetwork.org<br />
Copyright Designation: This work is licensed under<br />
a Creative Commons copyright that allows the<br />
copying, distribution and display of this material if<br />
credit is given to the authors.<br />
Printed on Revive Pure Offset, a recycled grade<br />
containing 100% post consumer waste, using vegetable<br />
based inks. This document has been printed<br />
by Impress Print who are FSC certified.<br />
Design: J Sherman Studio llc
Page 116 of 140
Attachment B<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment: Building the<br />
Evidence-Base<br />
Page 117 of 140
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
FOREWORD<br />
New and innovative approaches are needed for addressing social and economic challenges. <strong>Social</strong><br />
impact investment has become increasingly relevant in today’s economic setting as social challenges have<br />
mounted while public funds in many countries are under pressure. This report provides a framework for<br />
assessing the social impact investment market and focuses on the need to build the evidence base. The<br />
report highlights the importance of further international collaborations in developing global standards on<br />
definitions, data collection, impact measurement and evaluation of policies. In a fast evolving new area,<br />
experience sharing between players in the market is also vital. International organisations, such as the<br />
OECD can play an important role in facilitating these collaborations as well as conducting further analysis<br />
and data collection.<br />
The project has been managed by Karen Wilson, consultant in the Structural Policy Division of the<br />
Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation at the OECD. The report was written by Karen<br />
Wilson, Filipe Silva, Junior Policy Analyst in the Structural Policy Division of the Directorate for Science,<br />
Technology and Innovation and Dominic Richardson, Policy Analyst, Directorate for Employment, Labour<br />
and <strong>Social</strong> Affairs.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> impact investment has become a growing area of interest within the OECD, linking to two<br />
strategic OECD initiatives, New Approaches to Economic Challenges (NAEC) and Inclusive Growth as<br />
well as ongoing work across a number of Directorates.<br />
The OECD Committee for Industry, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (CIIE) agreed to the<br />
declassification of this report in January 2015.<br />
© OECD 2015 3
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<br />
The OECD is grateful to the Department of Employment and <strong>Social</strong> Development in Canada, the<br />
U.K. Cabinet Office, and the Bertelsmann Foundation for their support of this work.<br />
In addition, the OECD would like to thank the <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce, established by the<br />
G8 during the UK Presidency, for their input throughout the process. A particular acknowledgement is<br />
extended to the Chair of the Taskforce, Sir Ronald Cohen, for his leadership, vision and drive in catalysing<br />
a global movement to build the social impact investment market.<br />
The authors would like to thank the many experts who contributed to this work including all of the<br />
members of the <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce, their colleagues and others serving on the Working<br />
Groups and National Advisory Boards.<br />
During the course of the project, the OECD held two <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Expert Group<br />
meetings and would like to thank all of those experts for their time and input. The full list of attendees is<br />
available in Annex A.<br />
The authors would also like to thank Dirk Pilat, Deputy Director of the Directorate for Science,<br />
Technology and Innovation and Nick Johnstone, Head of the Structural Policy Division in the Directorate<br />
for Science, Technology and Innovation for their support of this work and input during the process and on<br />
drafts of the report.<br />
In addition, the authors thank the Directorate for Employment, Labour and <strong>Social</strong> Affairs for their<br />
contributions to this work, particularly in Chapter 5 which uses data from the OECD <strong>Social</strong> Expenditure<br />
database and builds upon their work on social policy.<br />
The authors also thank colleagues from other OECD Directorates for their input including the Centre<br />
for Entrepreneurship, specifically Antonella Noya and the Development Centre’s Network of Foundations<br />
Working for Development. Other Directorates engaged in the work have included Development Cooperation<br />
Directorate, Statistics Directorate, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, and<br />
Directorate for Public Governance and Territorial Development.<br />
4 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 9<br />
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 10<br />
2. OVERVIEW OF SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT .............................................................................. 13<br />
2.1. The need for new approaches to address social and economic challenges ......................................... 13<br />
2.1.1. Motivation for the OECD report .................................................................................................. 14<br />
2.2. Evolution and trends in the social impact investment market ............................................................. 15<br />
2.3. Parallels to the evolution of capital markets ....................................................................................... 18<br />
References .................................................................................................................................................. 21<br />
3. THE SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK ...................................................................... 23<br />
3.1. The <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Framework ......................................................................................... 23<br />
3.2. <strong>Social</strong> needs ........................................................................................................................................ 24<br />
3.3. Demand-side ....................................................................................................................................... 24<br />
3.4. Supply-side ......................................................................................................................................... 26<br />
3.5. Intermediaries ..................................................................................................................................... 29<br />
3.5.1. <strong>Social</strong> Venture Funds ................................................................................................................... 29<br />
3.5.2. <strong>Social</strong> Stock Exchanges................................................................................................................ 30<br />
3.5.3. Building Market Infrastructure and Capacity ............................................................................... 30<br />
3.5.4. <strong>Social</strong> Investment Instruments ..................................................................................................... 32<br />
3.6. Enabling environment ......................................................................................................................... 34<br />
References .................................................................................................................................................. 37<br />
ANNEX 3.1. LIST OF SIBS ......................................................................................................................... 40<br />
4. DEFINITIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT ........................... 42<br />
4.1. Existing definitions and challenges .................................................................................................... 42<br />
4.2. Definitional Characteristics, Attributes and Eligibility ....................................................................... 43<br />
4.2.1. <strong>Social</strong> Target Areas ...................................................................................................................... 46<br />
4.2.2. Beneficiary context ...................................................................................................................... 47<br />
4.2.3. Good\Service ................................................................................................................................ 48<br />
4.2.4. Delivery organisation intent ......................................................................................................... 51<br />
4.2.5. Measurability of <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> .................................................................................................... 52<br />
4.2.6. Investor intent ............................................................................................................................... 53<br />
4.2.7. Return expectation ........................................................................................................................ 54<br />
4.3 OECD working definition of SII .......................................................................................................... 55<br />
List of characteristics, attributes and eligibility ......................................................................................... 56<br />
References .................................................................................................................................................. 57<br />
5. CONTEXT SETTING: DIFFERENCES IN SOCIAL NEEDS AND SERVICE DELIVERY ACROSS<br />
SELECTED COUNTRIES ............................................................................................................................ 58<br />
5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 58<br />
5.2 <strong>Social</strong> outcomes and social spending ................................................................................................... 58<br />
© OECD 2015 5
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
5.2.1 The need (for better) social services: trends in social outcomes ................................................... 59<br />
5.2.2 The evolving size of the public share: public social expenditure by sector .................................. 67<br />
5.3 Models of <strong>Social</strong> Service Provision: Who does what and how? .......................................................... 72<br />
5.3.1 Practices in public social service delivery ..................................................................................... 72<br />
5.3.2 The governance of public benefits and budgets ............................................................................ 73<br />
5.4 Evaluating what works in social service provision .............................................................................. 75<br />
5.4.1 Good practice in service provision ................................................................................................ 75<br />
References .................................................................................................................................................. 78<br />
6 SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT MARKET DATA: INITIAL FINDINGS ......................................... 80<br />
6.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 80<br />
6.2. Data types and data collection purposes ............................................................................................. 81<br />
6.3. Review of Existing Data Sources: Data sources by framework component ....................................... 81<br />
6.3.1. Demand- side data ........................................................................................................................ 82<br />
6.3.2. Supply-side data ........................................................................................................................... 85<br />
6.3.3. Intermediaries and transactions .................................................................................................... 89<br />
6.4. Current Approaches to Data Collection .............................................................................................. 92<br />
6.4.1. Top-down approach ...................................................................................................................... 92<br />
6.4.2. Bottom-up approach ..................................................................................................................... 93<br />
6.4.3. Surveys ......................................................................................................................................... 94<br />
6.5. Current SII data and market estimation .............................................................................................. 96<br />
6.5.1. Academic literature building on SII data...................................................................................... 97<br />
6.5.2. Industry reports ............................................................................................................................ 98<br />
6.6. Challenges in SII data collection ...................................................................................................... 100<br />
6.7. Possible Future Approaches for Data Collection .............................................................................. 101<br />
References ................................................................................................................................................ 105<br />
ANNEX 6.1. LIST OF EXISTING DATA SOURCES .............................................................................. 108<br />
ANNEX 6.2. LIST OF OECD DATA SOURCES RELEVANT TO SII ................................................... 110<br />
7. POLICY ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .......................................................................................... 112<br />
7.1. Policy Actions and Implications ....................................................................................................... 112<br />
7.2. Policy actions to date ........................................................................................................................ 112<br />
7.3. Recommended policy actions for building the evidence base .......................................................... 114<br />
7.3.1 Developing common definitions ................................................................................................. 114<br />
7.3.2 Building the necessary data infrastructure .................................................................................. 115<br />
7.3.3 Primary impact measurement ...................................................................................................... 115<br />
7.4. Evaluation of Broader <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Outcomes ............................................................ 117<br />
7.4.1 Evaluating cost effectiveness or cost-benefit ratios? ................................................................... 118<br />
7.4.2. Measuring social impact: selecting social outcome measures.................................................... 119<br />
7.4.3. Methodologies and challenges for evaluating outcomes ............................................................ 122<br />
References ................................................................................................................................................ 123<br />
ANNEX 7.1. EXAMPLES OF POLICY INSTRUMENTS IN G7 COUNTRIES AND AUSTRALIA .... 125<br />
8. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................... 127<br />
GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................ 129<br />
ANNEX A. OECD EXPERT MEETINGS: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ................................................... 135<br />
6 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Tables<br />
Table 4.1. List of attributes for <strong>Social</strong> Target Areas .................................................................................. 47<br />
Table 4.2. List of attributes for Beneficiary Context ................................................................................. 48<br />
Table 4.3. List of attributes for Good\Service Characteristics ................................................................... 49<br />
Table 4.4. <strong>Social</strong> Returns and Economic Efficiency ................................................................................. 50<br />
Table 4.5. List of attributes for Delivery Organisation Intent .................................................................... 51<br />
Table 4.6. List of attributes for Measurability of <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> ................................................................ 52<br />
Table 4.7. List of attributes for Investor Intent .......................................................................................... 54<br />
Table 4.8. List of attributes for Return Expectation .................................................................................. 55<br />
Table 5.1: Although younger and older cohorts have experienced little change in unemployment risks,<br />
more unemployed people are out of work for a year or more .................................................................... 61<br />
Table 5.2: Indicators of Policing safety and crime trending in the right directions, but still have some<br />
way to go .................................................................................................................................................... 64<br />
Table 5.3: Cross-nationally, changes in aggregate childcare enrolment do not map to female<br />
(un)employment figures ............................................................................................................................. 66<br />
Table 5.4: Old-age and Health spending dominate public social protection budgets, and have been<br />
increasing in almost all countries ............................................................................................................... 71<br />
Table 5.5 The governance of social services is complex and varied across countries ............................... 74<br />
Table 6.1. Summary of demand-side players, challenges and data sources............................................... 82<br />
Table 6.2. Summary of supply-side players, challenges and data sources ................................................ 86<br />
Table 6.3. Summary of intermediaries and transactions, challenges and data sources .............................. 90<br />
Table 6.4. Examples from academic literature .......................................................................................... 97<br />
Table 6.5. Some market estimates from industry reports .......................................................................... 99<br />
Table A.6.1. Types of NPIs ..................................................................................................................... 111<br />
Table 7.1 Examples of Types of Policy Actions taken in G7 Countries and Australia ........................... 113<br />
Figures<br />
Figure 2.1. A Spectrum of Capital ............................................................................................................. 13<br />
Figure 2.2. The <strong>Impact</strong> Continuum ............................................................................................................ 16<br />
Figure 2.3. Microfinance: clients and institutions globally, 1997-2011 .................................................... 18<br />
Figure 2.4. Financial Intermediation .......................................................................................................... 18<br />
Figure 2.5. Financial Sector Development................................................................................................. 19<br />
Figure 2.6. Life-cycle of a firm and stages of financing ............................................................................ 19<br />
Figure 3.1. <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Market Framework ........................................................................ 23<br />
Figure 3.2. The SIB model ......................................................................................................................... 33<br />
Figure 4.1. List of characteristics ............................................................................................................... 44<br />
Figure 4.2. Defining Characteristics, attributes and eligibility .................................................................. 45<br />
Figure 4.2. Defining Characteristics, attributes and eligibility .................................................................. 45<br />
Figure 4.3. <strong>Social</strong> needs and investment sectors ........................................................................................ 46<br />
Figure 4.4. Degree of Publicness ............................................................................................................... 49<br />
Figure 5.1: One in 20 over 60’s have dementia, on average one in 8 over 65’s are subject to long-term<br />
care, and in the next 30 years rates the support ratio for older people will halve ...................................... 60<br />
Figure 5.2 Australia has the most success in activating low skilled youth ................................................ 61<br />
Figure 5.3: Satisfaction with affordable housing increased in recent years, but experiences of difficulty in<br />
meeting costs also increased ...................................................................................................................... 62<br />
Figure 5.4: Prisons in France, Italy and the United Kingdom are overfull ................................................ 65<br />
© OECD 2015 7
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Figure 5.5 In countries where there is low childcare enrolment and low part-time employment, there is<br />
likely to be unmet demand for childcare .................................................................................................... 66<br />
Figure 5.6: <strong>Social</strong> protection, health, housing and education account for over 60% of total public<br />
spending ..................................................................................................................................................... 68<br />
Figure 5.7 Expenditure trends show services are taking up more of the social protection budget, in some<br />
case exceeding cash spending .................................................................................................................... 69<br />
Figure 5.8: In most countries old-age spending is growing, in Australia and Japan, services are<br />
increasingly used ........................................................................................................................................ 70<br />
Figure 5.9 How much of central government funds are devolved to local authorities for social<br />
interventions varies widely ........................................................................................................................ 75<br />
Figure 6.1. <strong>Social</strong> enterprise in UK surveys .............................................................................................. 85<br />
Figure 6.2. Financial assets of institutional investors ................................................................................ 87<br />
Figure 7.1. WGIM Guidelines for impact measurement.......................................................................... 117<br />
Boxes<br />
Box 3.1. Financing challenges for social enterprises ................................................................................. 25<br />
Box 3.2. PRI: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (US) .............................................................................. 27<br />
Box 3.3. Big Society Capital (BSC) .......................................................................................................... 31<br />
Box 3.4. Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network (GIIN) ................................................................................... 32<br />
Box 3.5. European <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship Funds ................................................................................... 35<br />
Box 6.1. <strong>Social</strong> Enterprise Sector Survey .................................................................................................. 83<br />
Box 6.2. GIIN\JP Morgan Survey .............................................................................................................. 89<br />
Box 6.3. Benchmarking SII: EngagedX..................................................................................................... 91<br />
Box 6.4. Satellite Account on Non-Profit Institutions ............................................................................... 94<br />
Box 6.5. CASEi3 work on building the evidence base .............................................................................. 95<br />
Box 6.6. Certification & labels: B-corp example ..................................................................................... 102<br />
Box 7.1. First Peterborough SIB outcome results .................................................................................... 121<br />
8 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
ABBREVIATIONS<br />
CBA<br />
CEA<br />
CIC<br />
CSR<br />
DFIs<br />
EVCA<br />
EVPA<br />
GIIN<br />
LCC<br />
MRI<br />
NAB<br />
NPI<br />
NSO<br />
NVCA<br />
PRIs<br />
SE<br />
SIFI<br />
SII<br />
SIITF<br />
SPO<br />
SRI<br />
WGAA<br />
WGIM<br />
WGMA<br />
Cost-Benefit Analysis<br />
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis<br />
Community Interest Company<br />
Corporate <strong>Social</strong> Responsibility<br />
Development Finance Institution<br />
European Venture Capital Association<br />
European Venture Philanthropy Network<br />
Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network<br />
Limited Liability Company<br />
Mission-Related <strong>Investing</strong><br />
National Advisory Board<br />
Non-Profit Institution<br />
National Statistical Office<br />
National Venture Capital Association<br />
Program Related Investments<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Enterprise<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Investment Finance Intermediary<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce established under the UK’s presidency of the G8<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Purpose Organization<br />
<strong>Social</strong>ly Responsible <strong>Investing</strong><br />
Working Group on Asset Allocation<br />
Working Group on <strong>Impact</strong> Measurement<br />
Working Group on Mission Alignment<br />
© OECD 2015 9
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<br />
<strong>Social</strong> impact investment is the provision of finance to organisations addressing social needs with the<br />
explicit expectation of a measurable social, as well as financial, return. <strong>Social</strong> impact investment has<br />
become increasingly relevant in today’s economic setting as social challenges have mounted while public<br />
funds in many countries are under pressure. New approaches are needed for addressing social and<br />
economic challenges, including new models of public and private partnership which can fund, deliver and<br />
scale innovative solutions from the ground up.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> impact investment has evolved over the past decade as the result of a number of factors,<br />
including a growing interest by individual and institutional investors in tackling social issues at the local,<br />
national or global level. The recent economic crisis has further highlighted the tremendous social and<br />
economic challenges facing countries across the globe. Governments are seeking more effective ways to<br />
address these growing challenges and recognizing that private sector models can provide new innovative<br />
approaches. Chapter 2 provides further background on the evolution of the market as well as highlights<br />
parallels to traditional capital markets.<br />
Awareness of the potential opportunities of social impact investment has grown considerably across<br />
several OECD and non-OECD countries including in the G8 and G20. In the context of the UK’s G8<br />
presidency in 2013, the UK Prime Minister hosted a G8 <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Forum in London in<br />
June 2013 and launched the <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce. As one of the outcomes of the G8 <strong>Social</strong><br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment Forum, the OECD was asked to produce a report on the social impact investment<br />
market. This report seeks to provide a framework for building the evidence base of the evolving social<br />
impact investment field. It follows an overview paper on social impact investment, published by the OECD<br />
in July 2014. 1<br />
A growing range of actors are emerging in the social impact investment market to form an ecosystem<br />
consisting of social ventures, intermediaries and investors committed to addressing social needs.<br />
Government also plays a key role in the ecosystem, in terms of setting conditions for the enabling (or<br />
hindering) environment as well as potential indirect or direct engagement in the market. Framework<br />
conditions (e.g. tax and regulation) have a significant impact on the social impact investment market.<br />
Chapter 3 provides a framework for looking at the various components of the social impact investment<br />
ecosystem and the different channels through which SII takes place.<br />
The social impact investment market is in the early stages of development. The international<br />
initiative, led by the <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce, established under the UK’s presidency of the G8,<br />
has helped in raising awareness and clarifying the broader definition of social impact investment.<br />
However, for purposes of scoping and sizing the market, it is essential to work towards a precise common<br />
understanding of what is meant by social impact investment and agree upon a working definition to clarify<br />
what is included and what is not. This is important for policy makers, researchers and practitioners as well<br />
as for the overall development of the market.<br />
Chapter 4 of this report expands on the definition with the aim of spelling out the underlying criteria<br />
for assessing a social impact investment. It also provides a framework to help in working towards a<br />
common detailed definition, which in turn will facilitate data collection and a better understanding of the<br />
market. Seven key characteristics of social impact investment are identified in the paper including the<br />
1 . Wilson, K. E. (2014), "New Investment Approaches for Addressing <strong>Social</strong> and Economic Challenges", OECD Science, Technology<br />
and Industry Policy Papers, No. 15, OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/5jz2bz8g00jj-en<br />
10 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
social target areas, the beneficiary context, the nature of good\service provided (public/private), delivery<br />
organisation social intent, measurability of social impact, investor social intent and return expectations.<br />
Within each characteristic, a further set of related attributes are highlighted and possible boundaries are<br />
suggested to help further the discussion about what should and should not be considered social impact<br />
investment.<br />
The market is evolving in various ways across OECD countries. This is influenced by the differences<br />
in the country context including history, social needs and value systems. In addition, the ways in which<br />
social and financial systems are structured will determine the role and mix of public and private capital and<br />
therefore the potential role of social impact investment. The variation in these contexts can provide<br />
indications in terms of which SII approaches may be more appropriate in some sectors than in others, and<br />
easier to implement in some countries than in others.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> needs have been increasing in many countries requiring both more efficient and more effective<br />
social service delivery. Trends in public expenditure show that services are taking up more of the social<br />
protection budget, in some cases exceeding cash spending. However, social service delivery is complex<br />
and entails a number of specificities and potential challenges for social delivery organisations as well as for<br />
social impact investment models. The extent to which any investment can make a social impact will rely<br />
on the type and extent of need – and demand for improvement – across an array of social outcomes. <strong>Social</strong><br />
outcomes are evolving in different directions, in different social sectors, for different reasons. These topics<br />
are discussed in detail in Chapter 5.<br />
A stronger evidence base is critical to increasing engagement in the social impact investment market<br />
and encouraging a global market to develop. Different players involved in the market, including<br />
policymakers, have been calling for more data as well as a better and more accurate understanding of the<br />
size, scope, evolution and potential of the market. However, the specific data requirements for each of<br />
these players can differ. It is therefore important to clarify these needs before embarking on a data<br />
collection exercise, especially given the challenges in collecting social impact investment data.<br />
Currently, available data on social impact investment is very limited. Various approaches have been<br />
used to collect data and estimate the scope of the social impact investment market, but each of these<br />
approaches requires strong assumptions or has other limitations. Being able to collect comprehensive<br />
transaction data in an efficient manner would help in building a better understanding of market activity.<br />
This would require specific common definitions of social impact investment as well as harmonisation of<br />
data collection efforts to ensure comparability across countries and regions. Various efforts are underway<br />
but the best way forward will likely involve a partnership between key players involved in data collection<br />
across countries. These approaches are outlined in Chapter 6.<br />
The public sector can play a catalytic role in the social impact investment market in terms of creating a<br />
conducive regulatory environment, encouraging greater transparency and taking concrete steps to help<br />
develop the market. Policy actions in some of these countries have addressed regulatory issues, notably in<br />
terms of setting up legal structures to accommodate SII-specific types of market actors. Also, several<br />
policy interventions have sought to enhance SII supply. Some governments have provided support through<br />
tax credits (and tax-advantaged funds), guarantees or subsidies, established and co-invested in SII funds.<br />
Other governments have focused on developing the social impact investment market infrastructure through<br />
the creation of intermediaries such as SII wholesale banks, exchanges (or trading platforms) and other<br />
channels to facilitate the links between supply and demand for SII (investors and delivery organisations).<br />
Additionally some have sought to stimulate SII demand by providing support to delivery<br />
organisations/investees through technical assistance or by encouraging procurement.<br />
© OECD 2015 11
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Depending on the type of actions taken, they might be implemented at the international, national or<br />
local level. However, actions initiated in one country or region may not be appropriate for another – policy<br />
objectives, experience and local context must be taken into account. In particular, differences in the context<br />
of developed and developing countries should be considered when applying social impact investment<br />
models. SII can also catalyse additional capital flows into developing economies, critical to the current<br />
high-level dialogue on Financing for Development and the development of the new Sustainable<br />
Development Goals.<br />
When or if policies with the objective of supporting SII, such as tax incentives, are put in place, it is<br />
important that the policy interventions are well targeted, transparent and well-coordinated with existing<br />
policies as well as with the market. Policies should also be consistent so that market players both<br />
understand the implications of the policies and have some visibility in terms of how long the policies might<br />
be in place. Evaluation of the policies is also important to make sure that they are having the intended<br />
results. Chapter 7 highlights some of the social impact investment policies currently in place in the G7<br />
countries and Australia and discusses broader policy implications in building the market.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> impact investment can potentially provide new ways to more efficiently and effectively<br />
allocate public and private capital to address social and economic challenges at the global, national and<br />
local levels. While these innovative new approaches will not replace the core role of the public sector or<br />
the need for philanthropy, they can provide models for leveraging existing capital using market-based<br />
approaches with potential to have greater impact. However, given that social impact investment is a<br />
nascent field, concrete evidence is needed in terms of its impact to date. In particular, further work is<br />
needed to demonstrate the gains from the social impact investment approach compared to existing social<br />
service delivery models.<br />
This report provides a framework for assessing the social impact investment market and focuses on<br />
the need to build the evidence base. The report highlights the importance of further international<br />
collaborations in developing global standards on definitions, data collection, impact measurement and<br />
evaluation of policies as well as experience sharing between players in the market. International<br />
organisations, such as the OECD can play an important role in facilitating these collaborations as well as<br />
conducting further analysis and data collection.<br />
12 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
2. OVERVIEW OF SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT<br />
This chapter provides an overview of social impact investment highlighting its policy<br />
relevance in today’s economic and social environment. It starts by discussing the<br />
growing need for new approaches for solving economic and social challenges and the<br />
role that social impact investment can play in that respect. It then provides an<br />
overview of current trends, opportunities and challenges in the social impact<br />
investment market. It also shows how the market is evolving and compares that to<br />
parallels in the evolution of the capital markets.<br />
2.1. The need for new approaches to address social and economic challenges<br />
2.1 <strong>Social</strong> impact investment (SII) is the provision of finance to organisations with the explicit<br />
expectation of a measurable social, as well as financial, return. <strong>Social</strong> impact investment has become<br />
increasingly relevant in today’s economic setting as social challenges have mounted while public funds in<br />
many countries are under pressure. New approaches are needed for addressing social and economic<br />
challenges, including new models of public and private partnership which can fund, deliver and scale<br />
innovative solutions from the ground up.<br />
2.2 SII involves private investment that contributes to the public benefit. Investors can range<br />
from those who are willing to provide funding for organizations that are not able to generate market returns<br />
to more traditional investors but with an interest in also having a social impact.<br />
Figure 2.1. A Spectrum of Capital<br />
Source: SIITF WGAA (2014).<br />
© OECD 2015 13
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
2.3 A growing number of high net worth individuals, family offices, foundations and institutional<br />
investors have become interested in finding investments that deliver both a social and a financial return.<br />
Financial goals can range from capital preservation to a market rate of return. <strong>Social</strong> goals can include<br />
improving socio-economic, social or environmental conditions.<br />
2.4 <strong>Social</strong> impact investment has evolved over the past decade as the result of a number of factors,<br />
including a growing interest by individual and institutional investors in tackling social issues at the local,<br />
national or global level. The recent economic crisis has further highlighted the tremendous social and<br />
economic challenges facing countries across the globe. Governments are seeking more effective ways to<br />
address these growing challenges and recognising that private sector models can provide new innovative<br />
approaches.<br />
2.5 The growth of social enterprises over the past several decades (Noya, 2009; OECD/EU 2013) has<br />
also contributed to the emergence of social impact investment. <strong>Social</strong> enterprises seek to develop<br />
innovative ways to tackle social challenges. These organisations need capital to grow but often face greater<br />
obstacles than mainstream firms (Noya, 2009). In response, a social impact investment market has grown<br />
over the past decade to address these needs as well as to develop additional approaches for financing<br />
solutions to social issues.<br />
2.6 Increasingly, experts suggest that social or environmental factors can impact a company’s<br />
bottom line and therefore are important factors in business, markets and competition (Porter and Kramer,<br />
2011). The traditional view has been that pursuing social or environmental objectives could require some<br />
financial trade-off, although not necessarily a financial loss. As experience in the market has developed, a<br />
growing number of examples demonstrated that, in certain areas, social impact investments can generate<br />
both a financial and social return. It is in these areas that social impact investors can play a role in<br />
providing private capital to address social challenges in innovative news ways.<br />
2.7 The market is evolving in various ways across OECD countries. This is influenced by the<br />
differences in the country context including history, socials needs and value systems. In addition, the ways<br />
in which social and financial systems are structured will determine the role and mix of public and private<br />
capital and therefore the potential role of social impact investment.<br />
2.1.1. Motivation for the OECD report<br />
2.8 <strong>Social</strong> impact investment has become increasingly relevant in today’s economic environment as<br />
the global financial crisis has highlighted the need for long term value creation (Addis et al, 2013). Interest<br />
in social impact investment has grown considerably across several OECD countries including the G8 and<br />
G20.<br />
2.9 In the context of the UK’s G8 presidency in 2013, the UK Prime Minister hosted a G8 <strong>Social</strong><br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment Forum in London in June 2013 (HM Government, 2013c). The Forum was attended by<br />
ministers and other policy, business and civil society leaders from across the G8 countries and provided an<br />
opportunity to launch processes and initiatives to facilitate the development of the market on a global scale.<br />
A <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce (SIITF) was established, consisting of one public and one private<br />
sector representative from each of the G7 countries and the EU. 2 The taskforce includes an observer from<br />
Australia and one from OPIC as a representative of Development Finance Institutions.<br />
2. In mid-2013, Russia had chosen not to participate as the topic was not a priority for Russia.<br />
14 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
2.10 As one of the outcomes of the G8 <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Forum 3 , the OECD was asked to<br />
produce a report on the <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment market. The work on the OECD report took place in<br />
parallel with the work of the <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce and its four Working Groups. National<br />
Advisory Boards, created in late 2013 in the G7 countries and Australia, met on a regular basis to provide<br />
input to the work of the Taskforce as well as to identify ways to develop the social impact investment<br />
market in each country. Reports from the Taskforce, its Working Groups and its National Advisory Boards<br />
were published in September 2014. 4 These reports were developed to feed into future international policy<br />
discussions, with G8 and G20 countries and beyond.<br />
2.11 This report is the result of the first phase of the OECD work in the context of this international<br />
initiative. The paper seeks to provide a framework for building the evidence base of the evolving social<br />
impact investment market. This report, which was supported by several G8 member countries, builds upon<br />
existing work at the OECD including the research on social impact investment and new investment<br />
approaches conducted with support from the Bertelsmann Foundation during 2013 (Wilson, 2014) as well<br />
as other work across the OECD.<br />
2.12 <strong>Social</strong> impact investment has become a growing area of interest within the OECD, linking to two<br />
strategic OECD initiatives, New Approaches to Economic Challenges (NAEC) and Inclusive Growth as<br />
well as ongoing work across a number of Directorates. This includes ongoing work within the Directorate<br />
for Science, Technology and Innovation on entrepreneurship financing and innovation, including inclusive<br />
innovation. It also builds upon work conducted in the Directorate for Employment, Labour and <strong>Social</strong><br />
Affairs related to social policy. In addition, the project links to work conducted over the past decade in the<br />
Centre for Entrepreneurship’s LEED programme on social enterprise, the Development Centre’s Network<br />
of Foundations Working for Development and their recent work on venture philanthropy and the<br />
Development Cooperation Directorate’s initiative on public/private financing for development. There are<br />
also further connections to ongoing work by the OECD Secretariat in the Statistics Directorate, Directorate<br />
for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, the Directorate for Public Governance and Territorial Development,<br />
and other OECD Directorates.<br />
2.13 The field of social impact investment is expanding rapidly with a growing number of players<br />
entering the market; however there is not yet enough knowledge and evidence about the market, activity<br />
and outcomes. This initiative is therefore timely and will help inform OECD member countries as well as<br />
non-OECD countries about developments in this area and the potential role of policy.<br />
2.2. Evolution and trends in the social impact investment market<br />
2.14 <strong>Social</strong> impact investment began to emerge about a decade ago, although there was significant<br />
activity prior to that (Saltuk et al, 2013). However, socially-conscious investing is not a new phenomenon<br />
and has origins dating back several centuries.<br />
2.15 A number of decades ago, <strong>Social</strong>ly Responsible <strong>Investing</strong> (SRI), a practice in which investors<br />
screen out companies with perceived negative products or practices, began to interest investors (Bridges<br />
Ventures, 2012). This later led to a broader and growing group of “responsible” investors seeking socially<br />
responsible and sustainable investments (Addis et al, 2013). Today, a growing number of companies have<br />
begun focusing on environmental and social issues or practicing corporate social responsibility (CSR).<br />
However, as noted by the SIITF, these investments have “tended to focus on the intentions and approaches<br />
3. Further information available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/social-impact-investmenttaskforce.<br />
4. The Taskforce, NAB and Working Group reports are available at: http://www.socialimpactinvestment.org/<br />
© OECD 2015 15
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
of companies rather than on the measured achievement of impact goals” as required by social impact<br />
investors (see Chapter 4 for further details on definitions of SII).<br />
2.16 Figure 2.2 below, developed by the <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce, shows the impact<br />
continuum in which social impact investment lies in between “sustainability” (specifically referring to<br />
CSR, ESG and SRI) and philanthropy but does not include either – only investments (e.g. not grants) that<br />
proactively seek a measurable social impact alongside a financial return. However, many providers of<br />
grants, such as foundations, are also social impact investors. Also, some businesses that have traditionally<br />
practiced CSR, ESG or SRI have also moved into the social impact investment space. The role of<br />
foundations and other investors is discussed further in Chapter 3.<br />
Figure 2.2. The SIITF <strong>Impact</strong> Continuum<br />
Source: SIITF (2014).<br />
2.17 <strong>Social</strong> impact investors seek market-based solutions to the world's most pressing challenges,<br />
including sustainable agriculture, affordable housing, affordable and accessible healthcare, clean<br />
technology, and financial services for the poor (GIIN, 2014). Chapter 4 discusses the areas that fall within<br />
the OECD SII definition.<br />
2.18 <strong>Social</strong> impact investments can be made across geographies, sectors, and asset classes and can<br />
have a wide range of return expectations. Often these investments are made with multiple types of<br />
investors providing different forms of capital. By combining various forms of capital with different return<br />
requirements, social challenges can be addressed in more scalable ways than possible by government alone<br />
(Rangan et al, 2011).<br />
16 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
2.19 Initiatives being led by governments, foundations, investors and others have helped accelerate the<br />
market in the past few years (Jackson and Associates, 2012). A number of OECD countries, such as the<br />
UK, US, France and Australia, have played a leading role in developing the social impact investment<br />
market. There have also been significant developments and experiments in the past several years in many<br />
other developed and developing countries which are contributing to the development of new models and<br />
approaches.<br />
2.20 Given that countries are at different stages of development, the experience sharing process of the<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce established by the G8, and the associated National Advisory Boards in<br />
the G7 and Australia, has been helpful in raising awareness about social impact investment and how<br />
countries might engage. These activities have also helped spur additional action within those and other<br />
countries and attract new players to the market.<br />
2.21 While Phase I of the international initiative focused on the social impact investment markets and<br />
policies in G7 countries and Australia, there was a Taskforce Working Group looking into the implications<br />
for international development 5 .The next phase of the initiative is planned to expand its engagement and<br />
focus to the G20 countries and beyond. There is a growing recognition that traditional sources of<br />
development financing, in particular official development assistance (ODA), are not sufficient to address<br />
the scale and complexity of today’s global development challenges. Partnerships are needed that encourage<br />
better collaboration between the public and private sectors and ways need to be found to use ODA in a<br />
smart way to facilitate these partnerships as well as mobilise additional resources.<br />
2.22 International aid agencies are searching for new tools, including results-based financing,<br />
outcomes-based approaches, market-based solutions and different forms of public-private partnerships, to<br />
increase their effectiveness and long-term development impact while working with the limitations of<br />
tighter budgets. <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> investing has the potential to catalyse new capital flows into developing<br />
economies, translating experiences, policies and approaches from developed countries into the emerging<br />
and less developed country context.<br />
2.23 While the social impact investment market has been growing significantly and has drawn<br />
increasing interest and attention, it is still in the early stages of development (Kohler et al, 2011) and is<br />
only a small share of the global capital markets today (Saltuk et al, 2014). While difficult to measure for a<br />
variety of reasons including the lack of clear definitions and the diversity of sectors and approaches across<br />
geographies, the social impact investment market potential has been estimated to be significant. This is due<br />
to growing interest among foundations and mainstream investors as well as an intergenerational transfer of<br />
wealth, estimated at USD 41 trillion that is expected to take place over the next 50 years with nearly<br />
USD 6 trillion of that expected to be directed towards social issues (Rangan et al, 2011).<br />
2.24 The microfinance industry was an early model of changing approaches to financing which also<br />
addressed social needs. The microfinance market is estimated to include over USD 50 billion of loans<br />
given to over 100 million micro-entrepreneurs, mostly in developing countries (Rangan et al, 2011). From<br />
1997-2007, microfinance grew at a rate of 38% per year in terms of the number of clients although growth<br />
has slowed in more recent years (Addis et al, 2013). The Monitor Institute and J.P. Morgan estimated<br />
similar possible annual growth rates for the social impact investing market (Freireich and Fulton, 2009;<br />
O’Donohoe et al., 2010).<br />
5. See the Working Group report for further details: <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce (2014), Subject<br />
Paper of the International Development Working Group: International Development<br />
© OECD 2015 17
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Figure 2.3. Microfinance: clients and institutions globally, 1997-2011<br />
Source: OECD based on Maes and Reed (2012).<br />
2.25 It should be noted, however, that the microfinance industry had a lot of government support, in<br />
the form of grants and low-interest loans, before it got to the more stable and self-sustaining commercial<br />
state that it has now reached.<br />
2.3. Parallels to the evolution of capital markets<br />
2.26 <strong>Social</strong> impact investment financing models are emerging at multiple levels and in parallel to<br />
traditional markets. As in capital markets, financial intermediation plays a critical role as there are<br />
information asymmetries between investors and investees. Intermediaries play a critical role in connecting<br />
demand and supply, particularly in financial markets that are less developed.<br />
Figure 2.4. Financial Intermediation<br />
Demand<br />
Intermediaries<br />
(Transactions)<br />
Supply<br />
Source: OECD.<br />
2.27 In the traditional capital markets, intermediation is focused on financial dimensions. The social<br />
impact investment market is more complex as social dimensions also need to be valued. Transaction costs<br />
in social impact investment are high due to fragmented demand and supply and the complexity of deal<br />
structuring. For these reasons, coordinating capital for social ventures is more difficult than in the venture<br />
capital industry (Kohler et al, 2011). Given the high costs and early stage of market development, there is a<br />
lack of brokers, advisors, exchanges and other market mechanisms, resulting in a market with imperfect<br />
market competition.<br />
18 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
2.28 The degree of financial sector development within a country can potentially have an influence on<br />
the development of the social impact investment. Figure 2.5 below shows the difference in financial sector<br />
development in the G7 countries and Australia according to a 2012 World Economic Forum report. It can<br />
be noted that the most active social impact investment markets are currently in the two countries with the<br />
most developed financial sectors.<br />
Figure 2.5. Financial Sector Development<br />
Scores 1 to 7, as of 2012<br />
Banking financial services Non-banking financial services Financial markets<br />
7<br />
6<br />
5<br />
4<br />
3<br />
2<br />
1<br />
0<br />
USA UK Japan Australia Canada Germany France Italy<br />
Source: OECD based on WEF (2012).<br />
2.29 The development of capital markets often leads to availability of a range of products across the<br />
risk return spectrum. Different types of financing instruments may be more appropriate for different stages<br />
of the development of a venture (Wilson and Silva, 2013). Figure 2.6 illustrates a typical life-cycle of a<br />
firm along with the various stages of financing and types of financing instruments. The figure below<br />
highlights the complexity of financing and the need for a mix of instruments to address the various growth<br />
phases of a firm.<br />
Figure 2.6. Life-cycle of a firm and stages of financing<br />
Source: OECD (2013a) based on Natusch (2003).<br />
© OECD 2015 19
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
2.30 As in the mainstream financial markets, investment evolution is not necessarily linear, although<br />
it is often assumed to follow a path from individual transactions, to boutique offerings to funds, funds of<br />
funds and ultimately fully ‘liquid’, or tradable, capital markets where investors have a range of choices to<br />
buy and sell investments (Bugg-Levine and Emerson, 2011).<br />
2.31 While the players, financing needs and mix of instruments differ from traditional finance, social<br />
impact investment instruments span asset classes and can include equity, quasi-equity, loans and bonds. A<br />
growing range of social impact investment instruments have been developed, all with a different<br />
financial/social return profile. However, given the early stage of market development, there is a lack of<br />
products across the risk/return spectrum making it more difficult to attract investors, particularly more<br />
mainstream ones.<br />
2.32 The existence of vibrant entrepreneurial finance markets can facilitate the development of the<br />
social impact investment market as experience with financial market tools can help in building the SII<br />
market. In fact, many people in SII were active in investment banking, private equity, venture capital<br />
and/or angel investing.<br />
2.33 Comparisons are sometimes made between the evolution of the social impact investment market<br />
and the venture capital industry (Cohen and Sahlman, 2013). The venture capital industry, which was first<br />
created in 1946, grew over several decades through a series of U.S. government interventions, including a<br />
legislation in the 1950s that allowed privately funded investment firms to provide capital to early-stage<br />
funds, ERISA in 1978 which enabled pension funds to invest in venture capital firms and a lowering of the<br />
capital gains tax rate (Freireich and Fulton, 2009). In the 1970’s, the industry began growing in Europe and<br />
later in other parts of the world. Pioneers in the venture capital industry included Sir Ronald Cohen, one of<br />
the leaders and key drivers of the social impact investment movement, in the U.K. and globally, and the<br />
Chairman of the <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce established by the G8 in 2013.<br />
20 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
References<br />
Addis, R., J. McLeod, and A. Raine (2013), “IMPACT Australia: Investment for <strong>Social</strong> and Economic<br />
Benefit”, Australian Government, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations,<br />
November.<br />
Bridges Ventures (2012), “Sustainable & <strong>Impact</strong> Investment - How we define the market”, London,<br />
August.<br />
Bugg-Levine, A and J. Emerson, (2011), “<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong>: Transforming how we make money while<br />
making a difference“, Wiley: Jossey-Bass, September.<br />
Cohen, Sir R. and W.A. Sahlman (2013) “<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Will Be the New Venture Capital”,<br />
HBR Blog Network, 17 January, http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/01/social-impact-investing-will-b/.<br />
O’Donohoe, N., C. Leijonhufvud and Y. Saltuk (2010), “<strong>Impact</strong> Investments: An Emerging Asset Class”,<br />
J.P. Morgan Securities plc, GIIN and Rockefeller Foundation, November.<br />
Freireich, J. and K. Fulton (2009), “<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Social</strong> and Environmental <strong>Impact</strong>: A Design for<br />
Catalyzing an Emerging Industry”, Monitor Institute, January.<br />
GIIN (2014), Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network website. Available at: www.thegiin.org/cgibin/iowa/resources/about/index.html,<br />
accessed 3 February 2014<br />
HM Government, UK (2013c), “G8 <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Forum: Outputs and Agreed Actions”, UK<br />
Cabinet Office, London, July.<br />
Jackson, E.T. & Associates (2012), “Accelerating <strong>Impact</strong>: Achievements, Challenges and What’s Next in<br />
the <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Industry”, The Rockefeller Foundation, July.<br />
Kohler, J., T. Kreiner, and J. Sawhney (2011), “Coordinating <strong>Impact</strong> Capital: A New Approach to<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> in Small and Growing Businesses: An examination of impact investors and phased<br />
investing for the launch and growth of social enterprises”, Santa Clara University and The Aspen<br />
Network of Development Entrepreneurs (ANDE), Santa Clara, California, July.<br />
Maes and Reed, State of the Microcredit Summit Campaign Report, Microcredit Summit Campaign, 2012.<br />
Natusch, Ingo (2003), “Mezzanine Method of Financing”, Round Table Talks, IKB – Deutsche<br />
Industriebank, October; Document available at:<br />
http://www.brsi.de/pdfs/Mezzanine_Finanzierungsformen_engl.pdf.<br />
Noya, A. (ed.) (2009), The Changing Boundaries of <strong>Social</strong> Enterprises, Local Economic and Employment<br />
Development (LEED), OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264055513-en<br />
OECD (2013a), “Alternative Financing Instruments for SMEs and Entrepreneurs: the Case of Mezzanine<br />
Finance”, internal working document, Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs and Local Development,<br />
CFE/SME(2012)9/FINAL.<br />
OECD/EU (2013) Policy brief on social entrepreneurship, Luxembourg Publications Office of the<br />
European Commission<br />
© OECD 2015 21
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Porter, M and M. Kramer (2011), “Creating Shared Value: How to reinvent capitalism and unleash a wave<br />
of innovation and growth”, Harvard Business Review, January – February.<br />
Rangan, K.V., S. Appleby, and L. Moon (2011), “The Promise of <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong>”, Harvard Business<br />
School, Background Note No. 512-045, Boston.<br />
Saltuk, Y, A. Bouri, A. Mudaliar and M. Pease (2013), “Perspectives on Progress: The <strong>Impact</strong> Investor<br />
Survey”, Global <strong>Social</strong> Finance, J.P. Morgan and the Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network, London,<br />
January 7.<br />
Saltuk, Y., A. Idrissi, A. Bouri, A. Mudaliar, and H. Schiff (2014), “Spotlight on the Market: The <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investor Survey”, Global <strong>Social</strong> Finance, J.P. Morgan and the Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network,<br />
London, 2 May.<br />
SIITF (2014), “<strong>Impact</strong> Investment: The Invisible Heart of the Markets”, <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
Taskforce, London, September.<br />
WEF (2012), “World Economic Forum Financial Development Report 2012”, World Economic Forum,<br />
Geneva.<br />
WGAA (2014), “Allocating for <strong>Impact</strong>”, Working Group on Asset Allocation (WGAA), <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investment Taskforce established by the G8, September.<br />
Wilson, K. E. (2014), "New Investment Approaches for Addressing <strong>Social</strong> and Economic Challenges",<br />
OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 15, OECD Publishing. DOI:<br />
10.1787/5jz2bz8g00jj-en<br />
Wilson, K. and Silva, F. (2013), Policies for Seed and Early Finance: Findings from the 2012 OECD<br />
Financing Questionnaire, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 9, OECD<br />
Publishing.<br />
22 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
3. THE SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK<br />
This chapter provides a framework for looking at the social impact investment<br />
market, starting with social needs and then looking at the demand and supply sides of<br />
the market as well as the role of intermediaries. Examples of key types of players in<br />
the market are given to provide further context. The role of the enabling environment<br />
is also discussed as a key part of the framework.<br />
3.1. The <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Framework<br />
3.1 A growing range of actors are emerging in the social impact investment market to form an<br />
ecosystem consisting of investors, social ventures and intermediaries and a comprehensive picture of the<br />
SII market requires assessing the different components of the market (Figure 3.1). The main components of<br />
the ecosystem are driven by SII demand (including social needs and social service providers), SII supply<br />
(i.e. pools of capital and investors) and the role of SII intermediation and intermediaries (including<br />
transactions and financing instruments). The enabling environment, including framework conditions (e.g.<br />
social systems, tax and regulation), also can play a critical role in the social impact investment market and<br />
must be taken into consideration when looking at the SII ecosystem.<br />
Figure 3.1. <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Market Framework<br />
Source: OECD.<br />
© OECD 2015 23
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
3.2 Progress in the social impact investment market will depend on different stakeholders working<br />
together to build critical mass by developing the market, tools and practice. Those stakeholders include<br />
investors, investees and intermediaries as well as policy makers, all with varying interests and motivations.<br />
Building trust is important, and market transparency is essential to building this trust (IIPC, 2014).<br />
3.2. <strong>Social</strong> needs<br />
3.3 <strong>Social</strong> impact investment starts with the social need being addressed. These can cover a wide<br />
range of social need areas such as ageing, disability, health, children and families, affordable housing,<br />
unemployment, etc. The types of beneficiaries of social impact investment can also vary. These issues are<br />
described in further detail in Chapter 4. In addition, the social context and social systems within a country<br />
can vary dramatically and have a huge impact on the potential opportunities for SII. This is discussed in<br />
detail in Chapter 5.<br />
3.3. Demand-side<br />
3.4 The key drivers in addressing social needs are the service delivery organisations. These<br />
organisations can include community organisations, charities or non-profit organisations, social<br />
enterprises, social businesses, and social impact-driven businesses. In some countries, only non-profit<br />
organisations are considered “social”, however rules are changing to include for-profits with a targeted<br />
social purpose.<br />
3.5 Demand-side actors seek to find new models to deliver social impact and create new markets<br />
through their social ventures (HM Government 2012). The term “social enterprise” began gaining visibility<br />
in the 1990s (OECD, 2000) as an innovative business model for meeting social and economic objectives,<br />
that embodies constraints on the distribution of profits and/or assets, however, the organisational structures<br />
and legal forms vary widely across countries (Noya, 2009).<br />
3.6 <strong>Social</strong> delivery organisations operate in a wide range of geographies and sectors and therefore<br />
have varying financing needs. The development of financial instruments across the full risk/return<br />
spectrum is needed to meet the varying needs of these enterprises. However, this requires a better<br />
understanding of which financial instrument and funding model would be most effective for social<br />
ventures at various stages of development (Evenett and Richter, 2013). In addition, some of these<br />
organizations are becoming hybrids (Glänzel et al., 2013) and therefore are pursuing a mix of funding<br />
approaches. The OECD CFE\LEED has worked extensively on social enterprises, particularly at the local<br />
level (e.g. OECD, 2013b).<br />
24 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Box 3.1. Financing challenges for social enterprises<br />
Access to capital is vital to the creation and development of social enterprises. <strong>Social</strong> enterprises are usually financed<br />
by a combination of market resources (e.g. the sale of goods and services), non-market resources (e.g. government<br />
subsidies and private donations or investments), and non-monetary resources (e.g. volunteer work).<br />
Grant financing, whether from governments, foundations or others, may be required at an early stage of development<br />
and can be reduced as social enterprises build scale and market capacity. However, in some cases, secure long-term<br />
funds may be needed, for example, in certain sectors in which social enterprises are not able to become self-financing<br />
but whose activities provide public benefits and/or reduce public costs.<br />
For social enterprises that are to obtain additional financing, a diversity of private market financial products that<br />
correspond with the life-cycle of social enterprises (from start up or even pre-start up, to consolidation and growth) is<br />
needed. One of the key financial products used by most mainstream enterprises is bank loans. However, in most<br />
OECD countries, social enterprises have difficulty obtaining access to credit. Traditional financial institutions generally<br />
refuse to lend to social enterprises because they do not meet their established client criteria and are not seen as<br />
offering sufficient guarantees. Consequently, they must seek new financial partners or reduce their development<br />
ambitions.<br />
OECD countries are seeing the emergence of a number of new financial instruments and actors to support social<br />
enterprises, together with broader investment criteria for existing financial actors and behavioural shifts among actors<br />
already engaged in supporting civil society initiatives (Noya, 2009). Interest and activity in social impact investing,<br />
which focuses on proactive investment choices aimed at supporting social enterprises that can have a strong social<br />
impact while seeking some financial return, is growing and can contribute to the scaling and growth of social<br />
enterprises.<br />
Source: OECD/EU (2013).<br />
3.7 A recent survey showed that business model execution and management is seen by investors as<br />
the highest risk to their investments in social ventures (Saltuk et al, 2014). As with traditional businesses,<br />
some new ventures will fail to achieve their goals. The reasons for failure of these ventures can vary from<br />
management, strategy or funding to regulatory and administrative barriers. However, reports have shown<br />
that social enterprises do better and fail less than for-profits because they are built on real problems and<br />
(unfortunately) the market is there and growing.<br />
3.8 <strong>Social</strong> impact investors, as well as targeted policies, can play a role in improving the<br />
effectiveness of social ventures (Jackson and Associates, 2012). <strong>Social</strong> impact investors can help social<br />
delivery organisations by providing not only financing but perhaps more importantly, support on strategy,<br />
management and growth (Bannick and Goldman, 2012). Helping social entrepreneurs grow their ventures<br />
to scale is the key to maximizing impact (Koh et al., 2012). The success of social impact investment is<br />
reliant on the long term sustainability and performance, both social and financial, of the impact<br />
organizations, for-profit and not-for-profit, in which the investments are made (Bannik and Goldman,<br />
2012).<br />
3.9 Investment readiness remains a key issue for social ventures in many countries. Enhancing the<br />
investment readiness and business capability of these organisations is important to enable them to access<br />
SII (HM Government, 2011). Creating more investable social ventures will require improving financial<br />
skills in the social sector as well as developing a better understanding of risk and how to price it (Brown<br />
and Swersky, 2012).<br />
3.10 The UK launched a GBP 10 million strategic fund, the Investment Contract and Readiness Fund,<br />
to help social enterprises secure capital. The Fund helps with investment readiness and enables social<br />
ventures to access new forms of investment and compete for public service contracts. Grants between<br />
GBP 50 000 and GBP 150 000 are available to social ventures which go on to raise at least GBP 500 000<br />
© OECD 2015 25
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
investment, or which want to bid for contracts over GBP 1 million. The Boston Consulting Group (BCG)<br />
conducted an independent interim review by in April 2014 and determined that the fund was having a<br />
“significant and positive impact” (BCG, 2014).<br />
3.11 <strong>Social</strong> ventures can also face challenges in a number of other areas including finding adequate<br />
legal forms or conforming to impact assessment standards. Transaction and reporting requirements can be<br />
high for social enterprises (OECD, 2013b). As the focus on impact measurement has increased, so have the<br />
pressures on social enterprises to comply with a varying set of standards, many of which can be time<br />
consuming and do not always feed back into the management and objective setting processes within the<br />
organisation. Efforts are being made to develop a streamlined set of reporting standards.<br />
3.12 Mission drift is another challenge for social impact investors and entrepreneurs. This can be<br />
overcome, to some degree, by incorporating social parameters (clauses in term sheets and covenants) into<br />
investment documents to make sure both the investor and investee remain aligned to the social mission. A<br />
Working Group of the SIITF was dedicated to this important topic and it is also covered further in<br />
Chapter 4.<br />
3.4. Supply-side<br />
3.13 On the supply side, capital providers are increasingly interested in social impact investment as a<br />
way to diversify their investments and pursue social, as well as financial, goals. These include foundations,<br />
high net worth individuals and philanthropists, banks and other financial services firms and intermediaries.<br />
To date, the most active social impact investors have been high net worth individuals (HNWI) and family<br />
offices, who have more flexibility and autonomy than other investors (WEF, 2013). Interested high net<br />
worth individuals may invest individually or possibly through the small but increasing number of angel<br />
investment groups focused on social impact investment (OECD, 2011).<br />
3.14 Foundations have played a critical role in the development of the social impact investment<br />
market (Koh et al., 2012). This role can range from building market infrastructure, such as Rockefeller<br />
Foundation has done in the U.S. and the Bertelsmann Foundation in Germany, to providing “catalytic”<br />
capital or actively investing, through programme related investments (PRI) programmes. Private<br />
foundations have the advantage of being independent from government and the markets and therefore are<br />
in a position to take on greater risk than other private investors and provide long-term ‘patient’ capital.<br />
This gives them the freedom to explore and create innovative ways to address social, economic and<br />
environmental challenges.<br />
3.15 Grants, both public and private, continue to play an important role by providing “first loss” or<br />
“catalytic” funding (GIIN, 2013). Grants and technical assistance are often needed before or alongside SII<br />
to help social ventures addressing social challenges develop commercially-viable solutions (Bridges<br />
Ventures, 2012). In addition to foundations, Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) have also played an<br />
important role as “catalytic” funders in the market.<br />
3.16 While grants are not considered social impact investment, foundations can and do engage in the<br />
market through market building activities as well as through mission-related or program-related<br />
investments (Rangan et al, 2011). However, in those cases, it is important for the foundations to distinguish<br />
between grants, which in reality provide a 100% “subsidy” versus investments which involve risk and<br />
therefore an expectation of returns. In essence, there are various forms of support and financing for social<br />
ventures and different types of investors will look at the spectrum of investment options with their own<br />
risk/return requirements in mind. Return expectations are discussed in further detail in Chapter 4.<br />
26 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Box 3.2. PRI: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (US)<br />
The Gates Foundation focuses on tackling poor health and extreme poverty globally, as well as education<br />
challenges in the US. The Gates Foundation has been a very active and leading player in SII, in particular through a<br />
PRI approach that was adopted in 2009. Since then, funds through PRIs, to organisations tackling social issues have<br />
risen considerably reaching an allocation of more than $1.5 billion as of 2012. PRIs allow the foundation to work in<br />
close collaboration with the private sector to align the foundation’s programmatic (social) goals with the financial<br />
objectives of other investors.<br />
The Table below provides examples of investments that while having the potential to generate financial returns,<br />
are made within the scope of the programmatic and charitable objectives of the Gates Foundation. In particular, the<br />
Africa Health Fund tackles poor health and ASA International contributes to ending extreme poverty in Africa and Asia.<br />
The investments into Aspire Public Schools, a charter school management organisation in the US, address educational<br />
challenges of low-income communities and students.<br />
Examples of Gates Foundation PRI activity<br />
PRI Name <strong>Social</strong> focus Financing Instrument Goal<br />
Africa Health Fund<br />
ASA International<br />
Aspire Public Schools<br />
Tackling poor Health<br />
Financial Services for the<br />
poor (microfinance)<br />
Education<br />
Private Equity Fund<br />
(co-investment)<br />
Low Interest Loan<br />
Partial backstop guaranty<br />
(with co-guarantors)<br />
Improve access to finance for<br />
African healthcare companies<br />
Affordable financial services to<br />
low-income individuals and<br />
small businesses in<br />
underserved markets in Africa<br />
and Asia<br />
Aspire opens and operates<br />
charter schools in low-income<br />
neighborhoods<br />
Source : Gates Foundation website: www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Program-Related-Investments/<br />
3.17 The PRI approach goes beyond grant-making models traditionally used by foundations insofar as<br />
it builds on a set of financial instruments ranging from direct debt, equity, guaranties and (debt or equity)<br />
funds. At the same time, PRIs are linked to the foundation’s grant programme themes. These financing<br />
instruments are used to further the programmatic and charitable objectives of foundations. The use of<br />
innovative funding mechanisms allows foundations to attract other (co-) investors and involve them in the<br />
social mission. In doing so, PRI is a model aiming to tackle social challenges and yield social outcomes as<br />
its primary objective. In some cases PRIs have the potential to generate financial returns (usually below<br />
market), but this is never the main purpose of the investment. These investments count towards the<br />
foundation’s charitable distribution requirement, but can be considered as assets (or liabilities) that<br />
leverage the foundation’s endowment.<br />
3.18 According to the recent J.P. Morgan and Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network (GIIN) survey,<br />
program-related investments (PRI) allow foundations to use “more appropriate tools for achieving<br />
programmatic objectives in certain instances” and “access to additional vehicles through which impact can<br />
be delivered (e.g. investment funds)” (Saltuk et al, 2014). A growing number of foundations are engaging<br />
in PRI. Box 3.2 below provides some examples from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s approach to<br />
programme related investing.<br />
3.19 Some pension funds, insurance companies and other institutional investors have also entered this<br />
market (Wood et al, 2012). However, these mainstream investors tend to focus on investments with at least<br />
a market risk adjusted financial return due to fiduciary responsibilities (WEF, 2013). At the same time,<br />
other private firms, such as investment banks, private banks and private equity funds are exploring areas in<br />
© OECD 2015 27
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
which they can provide capital to profitably grow businesses in various social sectors. A recent World<br />
Economic Forum report provides practical steps to be taken in order for mainstream investors to engage in<br />
social impact investment (WEF, 2014).<br />
3.20 Despite the increased interest among institutional investors, securing commitment from<br />
traditional investors continues to be a challenge. The approach to institutional investors needs to be<br />
structured in way that works for them and in a language they can understand. Initiatives, such as GIIN,<br />
ANDE and SOCAP, which build links between mainstream and social impact investors, can help to create<br />
awareness and increase interest. Institutional investors also have certain legal requirements which can<br />
create barriers to social investing (Wood et al, 2012). These issues are discussed further in the recent SIITF<br />
Working Group paper “Allocating for <strong>Impact</strong>”.<br />
3.21 Another challenge in engaging mainstream investors is the lack of sufficient absorptive capacity<br />
for capital (Freireich and Fulton, 2009). There is a scarcity of high quality investment opportunities into<br />
which larger amounts of capital can be deployed. More products are being developed, across the risk return<br />
spectrum, into which institutional investors can deploy social impact investment funds.<br />
3.22 Some social impact investors are finding it helpful to focus on investment within specific sectors<br />
(Bannick and Goldman, 2012). This enables a concentration on providing expertise and building the<br />
necessary links within a specific sector and thinking about social businesses in the context of the sector<br />
ecosystem.<br />
3.23 Individual citizens are also able to participate, whether through investments in the local<br />
community or through pension funds with a social return element, such as the “Solidarity Funds” in<br />
France. Solidarity funds, or “90/10” funds as they are often called, are based on employee pension plans<br />
and savings. Companies with over 50 employees can contribute and 10% of those funds must be invested<br />
in government-recognised “solidarity organisations”. These funds are regulated by Finansol and managed<br />
in partnership with banks, microfinance institutions and investment firms. Initially, only non-profit<br />
organizations could earn the “solidarity” label, but the rules have changed to now also include commercial<br />
businesses with a social mission. Solidarity finance provides a way to engage “retail” money in the social<br />
sector, however, the assumption is often made that the returns on that 10% will be low (or that returns on<br />
the other 90% will be higher).<br />
3.24 According to a recent Triodos report, “retail” or citizen participation in social impact investing is<br />
a promising development which can be vital to the long term success of the market. The report suggests the<br />
creation of social impact investment funds for retail investors, the expansion of impact-enabled employee<br />
savings and pension plans with funds dedicated to social impact investment and tax incentives for retail<br />
impact investments (Triodos, 2014).<br />
3.25 Crowdfunding platforms are also increasingly providing access for retail investors to support<br />
social enterprises. While most crowdfunding for social causes is donation-based (Wilson and Testoni,<br />
2014), increasingly, equity crowdfunding platforms are providing investment opportunities in some<br />
countries, although equity crowdfunding is still not allowed in many countries due to investor protection<br />
rules.<br />
3.26 Finally, the public sector clearly plays a central role through the commissioning of social services<br />
by national government departments, local authorities and other government agencies as well as through<br />
direct or indirect support of the SII market. These topics are discussed in further detail in Chapter 5.<br />
28 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
3.5. Intermediaries<br />
3.27 Intermediaries can play a pivotal role in developing the social impact investment ecosystem.<br />
They provide the links between investors, investees and others in the market and provide innovative new<br />
solutions to improving efficiencies in the market. They play functions such as creating liquidity in the<br />
market and facilitating payment mechanisms which can also help to lower costs and reduce risks in the<br />
market (WEF 2013). They also provide advice as well as help in structuring deals and in managing funds.<br />
3.28 The lack of efficient intermediation in the social impact investment market translates into higher<br />
transaction costs caused by fragmented demand and supply as well as complex deal structuring (Freireich<br />
and Fulton, 2009). The early stage of ecosystem infrastructure development impedes the dialogue between<br />
investors and social ventures, which makes it difficult to break down historical barriers between<br />
philanthropy and investment (Freireich and Fulton, 2009). Platforms are needed to provide accessible<br />
distribution systems and offer comparable product performance (Jackson and Associates, 2012). This will<br />
also allow better matching of investor and investee risk/return profiles.<br />
3.29 Intermediaries can include commercial banks, investment banks, independent financial advisors,<br />
brokers, dealers, and exchanges. The creation of new specialist intermediaries and the strengthening of<br />
existing ones are important for creating a well-functioning ecosystem as well as enabling deal flow<br />
(Jackson and Associates, 2012). Various types of intermediaries are needed to serve all sizes of impactdriven<br />
organisations (Addis et al, 2013) and players in the ecosystem need to be encouraged and<br />
incentivised to collaborate.<br />
3.5.1. <strong>Social</strong> Venture Funds<br />
3.30 <strong>Social</strong> venture funds started over a decade ago and are becoming more prevalent. However, most<br />
of the funds are young and small, often without a track record, making it difficult to attract institutional<br />
investors (GHK, 2013). These typically follow a venture capital type of model but can include a mix of<br />
instruments beyond equity. Like venture capital funds, social venture funds take a portfolio approach to<br />
investing to balance risks and returns (Saltuk, 2012).<br />
3.31 The number of social investment funds is increasing. Some of these funds are independent while<br />
others are affiliated with large banks or development institutions. Funds might focus on certain sectors,<br />
geographies or investment stages. They typically target market returns, investing through a mix of grants,<br />
subsidized loans and equity investments. More recently, fund-of-funds have been created to provide greater<br />
scale and diversity for institutional investors (WEF, 2013).<br />
3.32 <strong>Social</strong> investment fund managers often have a close hands-on relationship with the social purpose<br />
organisation they support, driving innovative and scalable models of social change (EVPA, 2011). Some<br />
may take board seats at these organisations, and most are more involved at the strategic and operational<br />
levels.<br />
3.33 Models for these funds can vary. For example, <strong>Social</strong> Venture Fund (headquartered in Germany<br />
but expanding to other countries as well) invests in social enterprises, which have innovative and<br />
entrepreneurial driven solutions for urgent social and environmental challenges. Bridge Ventures, a private<br />
investment firm, created in the U.K. in 2002, is dedicated to using an impact-driven investment approach<br />
to create superior returns for both investors and society at-large. Bridges Ventures began by investing in<br />
for-profit ventures in underserved communities and later created a <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurs Fund.<br />
3.34 <strong>Social</strong> venture investors face challenges in assessing the growing number of projects. It requires<br />
systems, structures and processes. Mission drift can be a danger. It is important for there to be in as much<br />
© OECD 2015 29
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
direct contact as possible between fund managers and the “front line” (i.e. to listen to people who are<br />
actually doing the work) to truly understand the operating model and key success factors.<br />
3.5.2. <strong>Social</strong> Stock Exchanges<br />
3.35 Over the past several years, social stock exchanges have been created in both OECD and non-<br />
OECD countries. These include <strong>Social</strong> Stock Exchange (SSE) in London, Nexii in South Africa, and<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment Exchange (IIX) Asia in Singapore (the latter two have since merged). These exchanges<br />
target smaller high growth enterprises in sectors such as health, education, environment, social and<br />
affordable housing, sustainable forestry and organic agriculture and other “base of the pyramid”<br />
interventions. <strong>Social</strong> stock exchanges seek to build a platform for social businesses to attract capital from<br />
individuals, private clients, family offices, foundations and institutional investors who are seeking both a<br />
social and a financial return.<br />
3.36 These markets facilitate the purchase of stocks and bonds in companies that have both economic<br />
and social returns. These could be either non-profit or for-profit companies. For-profit companies can<br />
either issue shares representing ownership in their companies or issue bonds. Not-for-profit companies can<br />
utilise the stock exchange to issue bonds. The London <strong>Social</strong> Stock Exchange was launched in 2013 with<br />
the aim to become a FSA-authorised and regulated investment exchange for trading in securities of social<br />
enterprises and other social purpose businesses (HM Government 2013a). Supported by the London Stock<br />
Exchange Group, the SSE has a number of listed member companies.<br />
3.37 The London SSE seeks to connect socially focused businesses with investors looking to generate<br />
social or environmental change as well as financial return from their investment. This is done by providing<br />
investors with information to identify and compare organisations that deliver value to society and the<br />
environment. The London SSE seeks to have a transparent, independent and rigorous admission process to<br />
ensure that the companies listed adhere to a clear set of values, standards and disclosures.<br />
3.38 In 2013, Nexii and IIX Asia agreed to collaborate to strengthen and standardise the impact<br />
investing sector and later merged. <strong>Impact</strong> Exchange aims at being a social stock exchange with significant<br />
global reach, from Africa to Asia, two regions in need of capital assistance for sustainable development.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Exchange aims at becoming a platform for the public to invest in and trade shares of social<br />
enterprises while assuring mission alignment to social and/or environmental impact.<br />
3.39 Intermediaries/advisors pay an application fee as well as an annual membership fee, which allows<br />
them to become members of the exchange. The companies or organisations don’t need to be profitable<br />
when they join as the rules allow a three year window to become profitable (but based on a clear plan to do<br />
so). They pay for advisors as well as for the application and listing fees. Rigorous reporting requirements<br />
are part of eligibility. Organizations can be delisted or suspended if they do not comply.<br />
3.5.3. Building Market Infrastructure and Capacity<br />
3.40 Creating the necessary infrastructure and building capacity is important to the development of the<br />
market and, as a result, a number of these initiatives have been led by governments, foundations and others<br />
(IIPC, 2014). To build the market, collaboration is crucial for ensuring that the roles of the various players<br />
are complementary (HM Government, 2013c). Trust and open communication is important for the process<br />
of market building. This provides the basis for the creation of new innovative models, which can be tested<br />
in a continual process of development and growth of the market.<br />
30 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Box 3.3. Big Society Capital (BSC)<br />
Big Society Capital (BSC) is an independent financial institution in the U.K. established to develop and shape a<br />
sustainable social impact investment market in which social sector organisations can access the capital they need to<br />
increase their positive impact on society. BSC was launched in April 2012 and is the first social impact investment<br />
bank in the world.<br />
BSC is a ‘social impact investment wholesaler’ which provides finance to social impact investment finance<br />
intermediaries (SIFIs). These are organisations that provide appropriate and affordable finance and support to frontline<br />
charities, social enterprises and voluntary organisations (the social sector). BSC seeks to achieve its objectives by<br />
addressing key market failures in the social impact investment market, ultimately increasing the social impact achieved<br />
by frontline social sector organisations.<br />
The five key areas of activity include supporting or providing: capitalisation and balance sheet growth; risk and<br />
working capital; sustainability and organisational growth; market mechanisms and infrastructure; advice, skills and<br />
information.<br />
BSC was funded from GBP 400 million in dormant bank accounts and with GBP 200 million from the four major<br />
banks (Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds, and Royal Bank of Scotland). Most of BSC’s GBP 600 million in capital is for<br />
investment in social finance investment intermediaries. BSC seeks to achieve financial sustainability over the long<br />
term.<br />
Source: www.bigsocietycapital.com.<br />
3.41 In the U.K., Big Society Capital (BSC) acts as a wholesale investor for social impact investment<br />
by investing in intermediaries and championing the sector to the public, stakeholders and investors<br />
(Box 3.3). BSC has also commissioned a number of research reports on the social impact investment<br />
market and created guides and standards for investors and social enterprises (Addis et al, 2013).<br />
3.42 However, in most countries, intermediaries either do not exist or are not sufficiently developed to<br />
effectively facilitate the matching of SII demand and supply. Intermediaries and advisors are hard to<br />
finance due to high operating costs. Currently, most survive through donations. Others take transaction fees<br />
or a share of equity. Policy makers, foundations and others can play a role in the early stages of building<br />
the market but need to identify ways that the intermediaries can be sustainable in their own right over time.<br />
3.43 Intermediaries, such as the Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network (GIIN), described in Box 3.4, can<br />
also play an important role in encouraging “traditional” financial players to enter the market.<br />
© OECD 2015 31
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Box 3.4. Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network (GIIN)<br />
The Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network (GIIN) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing the scale and<br />
effectiveness of impact investing. The GIIN was conceived in October 2007, when the Rockefeller Foundation<br />
gathered a small group of investors to discuss the needs of the emergent impact investing industry. In June 2008, a<br />
broader group of 40 investors from around the world met to discuss what it would take for the impact investing industry<br />
to be able to solve more social and environmental challenges with greater efficiency. Just over a year later, the GIIN<br />
was formally constituted as an independent organization.<br />
The GIIN addresses systemic barriers to effective impact investing by building critical infrastructure and<br />
developing activities, education, and research that attract more investment capital to poverty alleviation and<br />
environmental solutions. Specific initiatives include outreach, network membership, the Investors Council, <strong>Impact</strong>Base<br />
(an online global directory of impact investment vehicles) and IRIS.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Reporting and Investment Standards (IRIS) is a set of metrics that can be used to describe an<br />
organization's social, environmental, and financial performance. IRIS is designed to address a major barrier to the<br />
growth of the impact investing industry - the lack of transparency, credibility, and consistency in how organizations and<br />
investors define, measure, and track their performance.<br />
Source: www.thegiin.org.<br />
3.44 For investors to enter the SII market, the measurement of social impact is critical. Rating and<br />
certification agencies therefore play an important role in the market (WEF, 2013). The IRIS initiative,<br />
mentioned in the above box, aims to encourage the adoption of a standard format for reporting for social,<br />
environmental, and financial performance. The Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Ratings System (GIIRS) is a<br />
ratings agency and analytics platform for impact investors. GIIRS reviews, evaluates and scores the social<br />
and environmental impact of companies and funds along a number of dimensions of social and<br />
environmental impact.<br />
3.5.4. <strong>Social</strong> Investment Instruments<br />
3.45 As referenced in Chapter 2, the social investment market is developing in parallel to the current<br />
investment market in terms of products, funds and market structures. Typically, social impact investment<br />
entails the use of debt or equity instruments to deliver a social or environment “return” as well as a<br />
financial return. The balance between the two will differ depending on where the instrument lies on the<br />
spectrum as well as how well the investors and investees perform (Kramer and Cooch, 2006). New<br />
products and structures are continuing to be developed to meet the growing needs in the market (HM<br />
Government, 2013a).<br />
3.46 As in traditional finance, social investment instruments can include grants, loans, guarantees,<br />
quasi-equity, bonds and equity. However, more products, in the form of tailored financial instruments, are<br />
needed to match the various risk profiles and development stages of social ventures. Currently, there is a<br />
lack of a capital aggregation ladder (capital needed for social enterprises to grow and scale their business<br />
models) common to other asset classes.<br />
3.47 While there are differences across countries, in general there is a shortage of risk capital<br />
available, at both the early stage as well as at the growth stages. The ecosystem needs to be able to take<br />
risks and have the capital to fund innovative ventures. In some countries there are still some legal<br />
complications for social equity investment but attempts are being made to solve it with quasi-equity and<br />
other instruments.<br />
32 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
3.48 Today, most social investment is still in the form of grants, primarily from the philanthropic<br />
community, or secured loans. Venture philanthropists, who can operate across the spectrum of investment<br />
return, typically offer non-returnable grants for a purely social return while others use loan, mezzanine or<br />
quasi-equity finance for blended risk-adjusted financial and social returns (EVPA, 2011). Venture<br />
philanthropists provide substantial and sustained financial support to a limited number of organisations.<br />
Support typically lasts three to five years although it can also be longer with a goal of helping the<br />
organisation become financially self-sustaining by the end of the funding period (EVPA, 2011).<br />
Foundations have become increasingly interested in these models. A recent OECD publication highlights<br />
some foundation’s experiences to date in developing countries (OECD, 2014).<br />
3.49 There is a need for hybrid models using a combination of instruments. Increasingly, foundations<br />
are co-mingling traditional grants with social investment funds to combine their own experience and assets<br />
with those of commercial investors (HM Government, 2013a). Most deals require a mix of different types<br />
of instruments.<br />
3.50 “Pay for Success” instruments such as <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bonds (SIBs), first launched in the U.K. a<br />
few years ago, are capturing attention within the industry as well as in the broader public as an innovative<br />
new way to finance solutions to social issues. These public-private partnership models can contribute to<br />
much needed innovation in financing models as well as improvement in public service delivery. However,<br />
they can also be complex and time consuming to structure and implement (Addis et al, 2013).<br />
3.51 A SIB is a type of public-private partnership that embeds a pay-for-success scheme,<br />
commissioned by public authorities, foundation or corporations to provide social (goods and) services. SIB<br />
commissioners have clear priorities in terms of social goals that need to be achieved in a more efficient<br />
way. So, they set up predefined and measurable target social outcomes. As depicted in Figure 3.2 below,<br />
social service providers, with a track record in addressing that particular social need, are provided funding<br />
in the form of investment by private investors. The investors in the SIB are then repaid based on the<br />
achieved outcomes, defined a priori by the SIB commissioner.<br />
Figure 3.2. The SIB model<br />
Source: UK Cabinet Office, available at: https://www.gov.uk/social-impact-bonds.<br />
© OECD 2015 33
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
3.52 It is important to note that the focus on measuring outcomes (e.g. reduction of infection rates) is<br />
different from a focus on measuring outputs (e.g. number of vaccines provided). Transparency is ensured<br />
as outcomes are evaluated by an independent entity. The investors will be repaid, in tranches over time,<br />
only if the agreed upon outcomes are achieved. The payments and any positive returns on investment<br />
should reflect the innovation and more efficientsocial service provision provided by the social service<br />
delivery organisation.. For information on the evaluation of the first SIB created (in the U.K), see Chapter<br />
7.<br />
3.53 The SIB model spread quickly across the U.K. and to other countries, including the<br />
United States., Australia and other countries. These SIBs focus on a range of social issues including, for<br />
example, criminal justice, child/family support, homelessness, employment, and health. These and many<br />
other new models are currently being developed in a growing number of countries. A list of SIBs is<br />
provided in Annex 3.1.<br />
3.54 Building on the SIB model, Development <strong>Impact</strong> Bonds (DIB) are also structured as pay-forsuccess<br />
schemes but focused on developing countries. As with SIBs, investors are paid on the basis of<br />
whether the pre-defined social\development outcomes are achieved. DIBs seek to improve the<br />
effectiveness of traditional donor-funded projects by shifting the focus onto implementation quality and the<br />
delivery of successful results by introducing private sector actors who may be better-positioned than the<br />
public sector to take on risks associated with innovation. However, it should be noted that applying these<br />
models in developing countries might entail additional challenges such as the extent to which DIB<br />
contract terms can be enforced. Annex 3.1 includes a number of DIBs currently being developed in<br />
countries such as India, Mozambique or Uganda. Contrary to SIBs, the typical DIB commissioner is not<br />
local governmental authorities but rather international organisations or development agencies — e.g. the<br />
UK’s Department for International Development recently announced a DIB to invest in the prevention of<br />
deadly sleeping sickness in Uganda.<br />
3.6. Enabling environment<br />
3.55 The general framework conditions in a country can have a significant impact on the development<br />
of financial markets in general and the social impact investment market in particular. The existence of<br />
vibrant entrepreneurial finance markets can facilitate the development of the social impact investment<br />
market as experience with financial market tools can help in building the SII market (in fact, many people<br />
in SII were active in investment banking, private equity, venture capital and/or angel investing).<br />
3.56 The SII market is evolving in various ways across countries. This is influenced by the differences<br />
in the country context and, in particular, the ways in which social and financial systems are structured<br />
which determines the role and mix of public and private capital (Wilson, 2014). Chapter 5 provides further<br />
details on the social systems in the selected countries.<br />
3.57 In addition, political economy considerations also play an important role, since SII may be<br />
perceived differently across and even within countries. Indicators that might proxy social perceptions can<br />
shed some light on these aspects. Information on social perspectives is usually obtained through surveys<br />
such as the World Values Survey or the European <strong>Social</strong> Survey Additional data may also be available<br />
from the OECD (e.g. Society at a Glance; Better Life Index, Annex 6.2), World Bank indicators or the<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Progress Index. Annex 6.1 provides a list of data sources with links to where this type of data can be<br />
found.<br />
3.58 For the SII market to function well, the necessary legal frameworks and structures need to be in<br />
place for social ventures as well as streamlined regulations and requirements for investment (Thornley et<br />
al, 2011). This includes corporate structures more suitable to social ventures as existing structures (either<br />
34 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
for-profit or non-profit) may restrict the ability or flexibility of these organisations to attract investments in<br />
some countries. A number of new corporate structures are developing in various countries to meet the<br />
needs of hybrid social ventures. Hybrid corporate structures seek to blend for-profit and non-profit sources<br />
of funds to enable social organisations to pursue their mission (Rangan et al, 2011). Legal structures are<br />
discussed in further detail in Chapter 4 and also in Chapter 6.<br />
3.59 Barriers to the development of the SII market include legal and civil frameworks for the creation<br />
and regulation of social organisations, as well as the availability of finance and market information for<br />
start-ups in this field. A number of countries have established legal precedents or civil codes for social<br />
ventures which aim to facilitate new social start-ups, reduce risks for both entrepreneurs and potential<br />
investors, as well as make up part of the system of regulation and review needed to assess social impact in<br />
countries.<br />
3.60 Regulation, however, is a more complex contributor to the picture; on the one hand regulation<br />
may facilitate third party evaluation of social impacts (as with benefit corporations – see Reiser, 2013) and<br />
in turn help lower the risk for investors seeking social returns, and on the other may create additional costs<br />
for the enterprises themselves.<br />
3.61 As discussed earlier, the availability of financial capital for social enterprises is a critical factor to<br />
facilitating or restricting private partners in social sectors. These can be from public or private sources with<br />
varying conditions attached. Also, the balance between private and public ‘interest’ might signal different<br />
expectations for financial/social returns from these enterprises.<br />
3.62 Finally, the principle of a private social delivery organisation rests on having a social impact,<br />
which means the SII market in a given country is dependent on the availability of social outcome data,<br />
comparable public costs, and the present role of private finance in the delivery of social services. For a<br />
country to identify a possible ‘market space’ for SII, data is needed for assessing the business case for<br />
across multiple sectors or social target areas. Chapter 5 presents some of this ‘market space’ data for the<br />
G7 countries and Australia.<br />
3.63 There are several legal and regulatory issues that impact institutional investors including the new<br />
Solvency II (insurance companies) and Basel III (banks). In addition, the EU Structural and Investment<br />
Funds (EUSIF) initiative is meant to be helpful to the social impact investment market by creating lighter<br />
regulation but may create additional barriers as decisions on how each fund will be treated will be<br />
determined at the national or local level. The legislation came into effect in the summer of 2013 and is<br />
described in further detail in Box 3.5.<br />
3.64 Tax laws within countries have a huge impact on setting the conditions for social impact<br />
investment, primarily in terms of the rules surrounding non-profits, donations and investments. In some<br />
countries, governments have provided support to social impact investors and social sector organisations<br />
through tax credits, guarantees or subsidies. Additionally some have provided support to investees through<br />
technical assistance or procurement.<br />
3.65 In the 2014 Budget, the U.K. Government announced a new <strong>Social</strong> Investment Tax Relief<br />
which will give individuals who invest in qualifying social sector organisations a reduction of 30% of that<br />
investment in their income tax bill for that year. The government’s aim in introducing this new tax relief is<br />
to encourage private investment in social sector organisations (HM Government, 2013c). In 2002, the<br />
Community Investment Tax Relief (CITR) scheme was devised to encourage private investment into<br />
CDFIs. The U.K. has several other tax incentive schemes for investments in small and medium-sized<br />
businesses (HM Government, 2013b), including the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS), the Seed<br />
Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS) and the Venture Capital Trust (VCT).<br />
© OECD 2015 35
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
3.66 The U.S. also has some tax incentives in place. This includes the New Markets Tax Credits<br />
which provides a credit against U.S. federal income taxes to taxpayers who make qualified equity<br />
investments (investments where substantially all of the equity investment is used to provide loans to, or<br />
make investments in, low-income communities). The program was authorised by the Community Renewal<br />
Tax Relief Act, which was signed into law in December 2000. 6<br />
Box 3.5. European <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship Funds<br />
The European <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship Funds regulation (EuSEF) provides a label for investment funds that<br />
address social issues. To qualify as an EuSEF, a fund has to prove that at least 70% of the capital received from<br />
investors is invested in social businesses and that no more than 30 % of its available capital is used in the acquisition<br />
of non-qualifying assets.<br />
For investments to qualify, the investee must not be a listed company and must have a social goal, defined as<br />
“the achievement of measurable, positive social impacts as its primary objective” clearly stated in the documents<br />
establishing the business (statutes, mission, etc…). In addition, the investee must use its profits to achieve the social<br />
goal and ensure that any profit distribution does not undermine the social goal.<br />
The investee is considered a social enterprise if it i) provides services or goods to vulnerable or marginalised,<br />
disadvantaged or excluded persons; ii) uses a method of production of goods or services that embodies a social<br />
objective; or iii) provides financial support exclusively to social businesses as described in i) and ii).<br />
The EuSEF regulation foresees the following social areas for social entrepreneurship:<br />
1. Employment and labour markets;<br />
2. Standards and rights related to job quality;<br />
3. <strong>Social</strong> inclusion and protection of particular groups;<br />
4. Equal treatment, equal opportunities and non-discrimination;<br />
5. Public health and safety;<br />
6. Access to and effects on social protection and on health and educational systems.<br />
Investments can be made through a number of financing instruments such as:<br />
Equity or quasi-equity instruments;<br />
Securitised and un-securitised debt instruments;<br />
Units or shares of other eusef (with exceptions);<br />
Secured or unsecured loans granted by the eusef.<br />
<br />
A number of reporting obligations apply. In particular, EuSEFs must include in their annual report details of the<br />
social outcomes achieved with the investment policy as well as the social outcome measurement methodologies used.<br />
In addition, they must also report a number of investment-specific features, such as the:<br />
<strong>Social</strong> impact being targeted<br />
Criteria used to select the investments<br />
Risk profile<br />
Valuation and pricing methodology<br />
Methodologies used to assess social impact<br />
<br />
Source: Regulation (EU) No 346/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on European social entrepreneurship funds.<br />
6 . The Community Renewal Tax Relief Act can be found at:<br />
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=19129_actof2000.pdf<br />
36 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
References<br />
Addis, R., J. McLeod, and A. Raine (2013), “IMPACT Australia: Investment for <strong>Social</strong> and Economic<br />
Benefit”, Australian Government, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations,<br />
November.<br />
Bannick, M. and P. Goldman (2012): “Priming the Pump: The Case for a Sector Based Approach to <strong>Impact</strong><br />
<strong>Investing</strong>”, Omidyar Network, London, September.<br />
BCG (2014), “Ready, Willing and Able: An interim review of the Investment and Contract Readiness<br />
Fund”, Boston Consulting Group, London, April.<br />
Bridges Ventures (2012), “Sustainable & <strong>Impact</strong> Investment - How we define the market”, London,<br />
August.<br />
Brown, A. and Swersky, A. (2012), “The First Billion: A forecast of social investment demand”, Boston<br />
Consulting Group, London, September.<br />
DPMC (2012) Government Response to Senate Economics References Committee Report ‘<strong>Investing</strong> for<br />
good: the development of a capital market for the not-for-profit sector in Australia’, June 2012,<br />
downloaded at http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/docs/government-response-investing-forgood.pdf,<br />
August 2014.<br />
ECNL (2009) ECNL Study on Recent Public and Self-regulatory Initiatives Improving Transparency and<br />
Accountability of Non-profit Organisations in the European Union, April 2009.<br />
Evenett, R. and K. Richter (2011), “Making Good in <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment: Opportunities in an<br />
emerging asset class”, The <strong>Social</strong> Investment Business, TheCityUK, October.<br />
EVPA (2011), “European Venture Philanthropy Association: An Introduction”, European Venture<br />
Philanthropy Association, Brussels, October.<br />
Freireich, J. and K. Fulton (2009), “<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Social</strong> and Environmental <strong>Impact</strong>: A Design for<br />
Catalyzing an Emerging Industry”, Monitor Institute, January.<br />
GHK (2013), “Growing the <strong>Social</strong> Investment Market: The Landscape and Economic <strong>Impact</strong>” report<br />
prepared for the City of London, Big Lottery Fund, Big Society Capital, and Her Majesty’s<br />
Government by ICF GHK in association with BMG Research, July.<br />
GIIN (2013), “Catalytic First-loss Capital”, New York, October.<br />
Glänzel, G., Krlev, G., Schmitz, B. and G. Mildenberger (2013), “Report on the feasibility and<br />
opportunities of using various instruments for capitalising social innovators” TEPSIE, European<br />
Commission – 7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research<br />
HM Government, UK (2013a), “Achieving <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> at Scale: Case Studies of Seven Pioneering<br />
co-Mingling <strong>Social</strong> Investment Funds”, UK Cabinet Office, London, May.<br />
HM Government, UK (2013b), “Growing the <strong>Social</strong> Investment Market: 2013 Progress Update”, UK<br />
Cabinet Office, London.<br />
© OECD 2015 37
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
HM Government, UK (2013c), “G8 <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Forum: Outputs and Agreed Actions”, UK<br />
Cabinet Office, London, July.<br />
HM Government, UK (2012), “Growing the <strong>Social</strong> Investment Market: HMG social investment<br />
initiatives”, UK Cabinet Office, London.<br />
HM Government, UK (2011), “Growing the <strong>Social</strong> Investment Market: A vision and strategy”, UK<br />
Cabinet Office, London, February.<br />
IIPC (2014), “<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Policy in 2014: A snapshot of global activity”, <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Policy<br />
Collaborative, November.<br />
Jackson, E.T. & Associates (2012), “Accelerating <strong>Impact</strong>: Achievements, Challenges and What’s Next in<br />
the <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Industry”, The Rockefeller Foundation, July.<br />
Koh, H., A. Karamchandani, and R. Katz (2012) “From Blueprint to Scale: The Case for Philanthropy in<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong>”, Monitor Group and Acumen Fund, April.<br />
Kramer, M. and S. Cooch (2006) “<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Managing and Measuring Proactive <strong>Social</strong><br />
Investments”, Shell Foundation, January.<br />
Noya, A. (ed.) (2009), The Changing Boundaries of <strong>Social</strong> Enterprises, Local Economic and Employment<br />
Development (LEED), OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264055513-en.<br />
OECD (2000), <strong>Social</strong> Enterprises, OECD Publishing.<br />
DOI: 10.1787/9789264182332-en<br />
OECD (2011), Financing High-Growth Firms: The Role of Angel Investors, OECD Publishing. doi:<br />
10.1787/9789264118782-en<br />
OECD/EU (2013) Policy brief on social entrepreneurship, Luxembourg Publications Office of the<br />
European Commission<br />
OECD (2013b), “Innovative Financing and Delivery Mechanisms for Getting the Unemployed into Work”,<br />
OECD LEED Forum on Partnerships and Local Governance, Handbook #.7, Paris, March.<br />
OECD (2014), “Venture Philanthropy in Development Dynamics, Challenges and Lessons in the Search<br />
for Greater <strong>Impact</strong>”, OECD Publishing, Paris.<br />
Reiser, D. (2013) Regulating <strong>Social</strong> Enterprise, Contribution to the 2013 Columbia Law School Charities<br />
Regulation and Oversight Project Policy Conference on the “The Future of State Charities<br />
Regulation”, downloaded at http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/item/ac:168586, August 2014.<br />
Saltuk, Y., A. Idrissi, A. Bouri, A. Mudaliar, and H. Schiff (2014), “Spotlight on the Market: The <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investor Survey”, Global <strong>Social</strong> Finance, J.P. Morgan and the Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network,<br />
London, 2 May.<br />
SIITF (2014) <strong>Impact</strong> Investment: The Invisible Heart of Markets, September.<br />
Triodos (2014), “<strong>Impact</strong> investing for everyone: A blueprint for retail impact investing”, Triodos Bank,<br />
September.<br />
38 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
WEF (2013), “From the Margins to the Mainstream: Assessment of the <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Sector and<br />
Opportunities to Engage Mainstream Investors”, World Economic Forum, Geneva, September.<br />
WEF (2014), “Charting the Course: How Mainstream Investors can Design Visionary and Practical <strong>Impact</strong><br />
<strong>Investing</strong> Strategies”, World Economic Forum, Geneva, September.<br />
Wilson, K. E. (2014), “New Investment Approaches for Addressing <strong>Social</strong> and Economic Challenges”,<br />
OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 15, OECD Publishing.<br />
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jz2bz8g00jj-en.<br />
Wilson, K.E. and M. Testoni (2014), "Improving the role of equity crowdfunding in Europe's capital<br />
markets”, Bruegel Policy Contribution Issue 2014/09, August.<br />
Wood, D., Thornley, B., and Grace, K (2012): “<strong>Impact</strong> at Scale: Policy Innovation for Institutional<br />
Investment with <strong>Social</strong> and Environmental Benefit”, Pacific Community Ventures, Institute for<br />
Responsible Investment at Harvard University and Rockefeller Foundation, February.<br />
© OECD 2015 39
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
ANNEX 3.1. LIST OF SIBS<br />
Geography<br />
Operational<br />
(as of 2014)<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Need<br />
Duration<br />
(years)<br />
Outcome<br />
Payment<br />
New South Wales, Australia No Intensive Family Support Services 5 N/A 9.2<br />
New South Wales, Australia Yes New Parent and Infant Family Support 7 7+ 6.4<br />
Brussels, Belgium Yes Employment 2 N/A 0.2<br />
Nova Scotia, Canada No N/A N/A N/A N/A<br />
Saskatchewan, Canada Children at risk of care N/A N/A N/A<br />
Medellin, Colombia No Teenage Pregnancy 4-5 N/A N/A<br />
Rajasthan, India No Education N/A N/A N/A<br />
Israel No Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes N/A N/A N/A<br />
Israel<br />
No<br />
Workforce development for Arab Israeli<br />
women N/A N/A N/A<br />
Israel<br />
No<br />
Dropout rates from engineering studies<br />
in tertiary education N/A N/A N/A<br />
Israel No Recidivism N/A N/A N/A<br />
Mozambique No Malaria N/A N/A 25-30<br />
Punjab, Pakistan No Primary education N/A N/A 25<br />
Swaziland No Prevention of HIV and TB 3 N/A 10<br />
Uganda No Sleeping sickness 8 N/A 20-30<br />
Uganda No Secondary education 10 N/A 35<br />
Peterborough, UK Yes Recidivism 8 12.2 7.6<br />
Essex County, UK Yes Foster care 5 10.6 4.7<br />
Greater Merseyside, UK Yes<br />
Workforce development (Innovation<br />
Fund) 3 6.8 3<br />
Shoreditch, London, UK Yes<br />
Workforce development (Innovation<br />
Fund) 3 4.9 1.4<br />
Stratford, Canning Town,<br />
Royal Docks (Newham),<br />
Workforce development (Innovation<br />
Cathall (Waltham Forest), UK Yes<br />
Fund) 3 2.0 4.9<br />
West Midlands (Birmingham),<br />
Workforce development (Innovation<br />
UK<br />
Yes<br />
Fund) 3 5.0 N/A<br />
Workforce development (Innovation<br />
Nottingham City, UK<br />
Perthshire and Kinross,<br />
Scotland, UK<br />
West London, UK<br />
Cardiff and Newport, UK<br />
Greater Manchester, UK<br />
Thames Valley, UK<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
Fund) 3 4.4 N/A<br />
Workforce development (Innovation<br />
Fund) 3 1.8 N/A<br />
Workforce development (Innovation<br />
Fund) 3 4.6 N/A<br />
Workforce development (Innovation<br />
Fund) 3 3.0 N/A<br />
Workforce development (Innovation<br />
Fund) 3 5.0 N/A<br />
Workforce development (Innovation<br />
Fund) 3 5.6 N/A<br />
London, UK Yes Homelessness 4 7.6 8<br />
Manchester Yes Childcare N/A N/A N/A<br />
Wales, UK No Foster care N/A N/A N/A<br />
Cornwall, UK No Aging in place N/A N/A N/A<br />
Country-wide, UK Yes Adoption 10 N/A 3<br />
Illinois, US No N/A N/A N/A N/A<br />
Investment<br />
Needed\Raised<br />
40 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Massachusetts, US Yes Recidivism 7 27 18<br />
New York City, US Yes Recidivism 4 2.1 9.6<br />
Employment for formerly incarcerated<br />
New York State, US Yes<br />
individuals 5.5 21.5 13.5<br />
National, US No Workforce development N/A 20 N/A<br />
Massachusetts, US No Homelessness 3 25 N/A<br />
Salt Lake City, US Yes Early Childhood Development 1 N/A 7<br />
California, US No Asthma Management N/A N/A N/A<br />
Neonatal care (Nurse Family<br />
South Carolina, US<br />
No<br />
Partnership) N/A N/A N/A<br />
Cape Town, South Africa No Criminal justice N/A N/A N/A<br />
Note: This table lists all the existing or announced SIBs by geography and social need as of 18, July, 2014. Figures on outcome<br />
payments and investment needed are expressed in millions of USD.<br />
Source: Instiglio, available at http://www.instiglio.org/en/sibs-worldwide/, accessed on 30 August, 2014.<br />
© OECD 2015 41
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
4. DEFINITIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT<br />
This chapter discusses the challenges related to definitions in the social impact<br />
investment market and provides a working definition based on a set of criteria for<br />
determining what might or might not be included as social impact investment. This<br />
includes a discussion of the core characteristics and definitional attributes.<br />
4.1. Existing definitions and challenges<br />
4.1 While in the early stages of a market’s development, it can be difficult to have precise<br />
definitions, for purposes of scoping and sizing the market, it is essential to work towards a common<br />
understanding of what is meant by social impact investment and agree upon a working definition to clarify<br />
what is included and what is not. This is important for policy makers, researchers and practitioners as well<br />
as for the overall development of the market.<br />
4.2 The term “impact investing” was coined in 2007 through an initiative coordinated by the USA’s<br />
Rockefeller Foundation and its use has spread more widely since then. According to the Global <strong>Impact</strong><br />
<strong>Investing</strong> Network (GIIN), impact investments are defined as investments made into companies,<br />
organisations, and funds with the intention to generate social and environmental impact alongside a<br />
financial return. <strong>Impact</strong> investments can be made in both emerging and developed markets, and target a<br />
range of returns from below market to market rate, depending upon the circumstances. GIIN further<br />
defines the practice of impact investing by the following four core characteristics:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Intentionality – The intent of the investor to generate social and/or<br />
environmental impact through investments is an essential component of<br />
impact investing.<br />
Investment with return expectations – <strong>Impact</strong> investments are expected to<br />
generate a financial return on capital and, at a minimum, a return of capital.<br />
Range of return expectations and asset classes – <strong>Impact</strong> investments generate<br />
returns that range from below market (sometimes called concessionary) to<br />
risk-adjusted market rate.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> measurement – A hallmark of impact investing is the commitment of<br />
the investor to measure and report the social and environmental performance<br />
and progress of underlying investments.<br />
(GIIN, 2014)<br />
4.3 The term social investment was established in 2000 by the UK’s <strong>Social</strong> Investment Taskforce and<br />
was more traditionally used in Europe until recently. In 2013, following the G8 <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
Forum hosted by the U.K., the SIITF and others involved in the international process that followed began<br />
using the term social impact investment, defined as investments made into businesses and social sector<br />
42 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
organisations, directly or through funds, with the intention of generating a measurable, beneficial social<br />
and environmental impact alongside a financial return (SIITF, 2014a).<br />
4.4 Essentially the terms – impact investing, social investment and social impact investment – mean<br />
the same thing. For the purposes of this paper and the OECD research, which has also been part of the<br />
international social impact investment initiative, the term social impact investment is used.<br />
4.5 At this early stage of development in the market, many players prefer to keep the definitions<br />
broad, also as a way to engage more people in the market. However, for the market to progress globally, it<br />
will be important for definitions to be clarified to make sure that there is a common language and<br />
understanding of what is considered social impact investment – and what is not. This chapter therefore<br />
seeks to deepen the discussion about social impact investing to provide a framework identifying what<br />
might or might not be considered to be SII.<br />
4.2. Definitional Characteristics, Attributes and Eligibility<br />
4.6 While there is a growing consensus about the broader framing of social impact investment, there<br />
is significant debate about the definitional scope of SII. This section seeks to provide a framework for<br />
working towards a SII definition by focusing on a set of defining characteristics and attributes as well as<br />
raising questions about possible eligibility boundaries. The goal is to allow enough flexibility for the<br />
consideration of various forms of SII, while helping to clarify what might be considered to be in or out of<br />
the commonly understood meaning of SII.<br />
4.7 A number of characteristics can be used to describe a transaction and to classify it as either<br />
corresponding to SII or not. We have identified seven key characteristics (dark blue boxes in Figure 4.1<br />
below) which are described further in the subsequent subsections. 7 A chart of all attributes and possible<br />
eligibility boundaries for each characteristic is provided in each of the corresponding sections below and<br />
then consolidated at the end of this chapter.<br />
4.8 The characteristics are grouped according to the SII framework components described earlier.<br />
For example, while return expectations are identified at the investor level, the measurement of social<br />
impact is typically carried out by delivery organisations. Transactions are at the centre and are the units of<br />
assessment.<br />
7 . Other characteristics could possibly be used. However, these seven characteristics are necessary and<br />
sufficient to: i) identify the SII “space” in the economy; ii) cover all SII players (and the profiles) relevant<br />
for a definition and iii) discuss the scope for policy action.<br />
© OECD 2015 43
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Figure 4.1. List of characteristics<br />
In dark blue boxes, grouped by SII component<br />
Source: OECD.<br />
4.9 Within each characteristic, suggested boundaries could help to address the variability in the<br />
definition (which attributes are in and out). It is important to note that while some characteristics have<br />
attributes that can be quantified (e.g. return expectation), others have attributes that are discrete in nature<br />
distinguishing between different classes (e.g. different social target areas). Some fall in between the two,<br />
with different classes that can be “rank ordered” (e.g. investor intent). When attributes are quantified or can<br />
be ordered, thresholds are used to decide upon what is within the scope of SII. When no ordering is<br />
possible, deciding upon what is SII or not requires selecting the eligible attributes (or “buckets”) that fit<br />
within the criteria for SII.<br />
4.10 Figure 4.2 below provides two examples of characteristics, their attributes and the eligibility<br />
conditions. In the case of <strong>Social</strong> Target Areas, setting the eligibility boundaries means deciding which<br />
“buckets” are in (e.g. Education, in light blue) and which are out (e.g. Culture, in light red). With regards<br />
to return expectations, potential thresholds are also depicted in Figure 4.2 by black bars indicating that a<br />
transaction is only considered SII if returns are expected to be at least return of capital (black bar on the<br />
left), with an expected return that does not exceed the market rate of return (black bar on the right). Using<br />
this approach, investments can be classified as SII by comparing them against each characteristic and the<br />
related set of attributes and eligibility boundaries, based on a perspective of what should or should not be<br />
considered SII for each of the dimensions.<br />
44 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Figure 4.2. Defining Characteristics, attributes and eligibility<br />
4.2a. <strong>Social</strong> Target Areas<br />
4.2a. Return Expectation<br />
Notes: The figure depicts two defining characteristics in dark blue: <strong>Social</strong> Target Areas and Return Expectation. Attributes are in light<br />
colour. Attributes in social needs provided here are examples and not an exhaustive list of all possible social needs. While returns on<br />
investment are continuous, social needs are discrete and can be thought of in terms of “buckets”. <strong>Social</strong> Target Areas may overlap,<br />
but are considered here as discrete for the sake of simplicity.<br />
Source: OECD.<br />
4.11 While all of the characteristics are necessary, none of them are sufficient to define SII on their<br />
own. A transaction can be considered SII only if it meets the suggested eligibility boundaries for each of<br />
the seven characteristics. Accordingly, an investment can be classified as SII if, for every characteristic, it<br />
pertains to an eligible class for those characteristics which are discrete in nature, and passes the threshold<br />
for those characteristics which can be quantified or ranked.. Most importantly, these eligibility boundaries<br />
can be adjusted according to context and perspectives. For example, researchers may use a set of eligibility<br />
boundaries for data collection purposes, while a policymaker may find another set more useful for policy<br />
instrument design purposes. In addition, OECD countries may use one set of boundaries for thinking about<br />
SII while developing countries might use another. As a result, this approach allows for variation in the<br />
boundaries of SII that accommodate different purposes for defining SII. It is also important to note that<br />
some characteristics will be more relevant depending on the context and objectives of defining SII.<br />
4.12 As an example, if a country decides that it should introduce a tax break for social impact<br />
investments, the practical question is to decide who is eligible for such tax break. In the UK, with the<br />
recent introduction of the <strong>Social</strong> Investment Tax Relief, the boundaries were set by legal structure and size<br />
(based on employees and assets): “Charities, community interest companies or community benefit societies<br />
carrying out a qualifying trade, with fewer than 500 employees and gross assets of no more than<br />
GBP 15 million may be eligible” (HMT, 2014).<br />
4.13 Different views exist in terms of where the boundaries lie for SII. This approach helps to explain<br />
these differences, while operationalising definitions for practical purposes such as data collection or policy<br />
implementation. Bringing all characteristics together, it is possible to devise a framework for setting clear<br />
boundaries according to the different perspectives and definitional purposes. The following sections<br />
discuss each defining characteristic in further detail.<br />
© OECD 2015 45
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
4.2.1. <strong>Social</strong> Target Areas<br />
4.14 <strong>Social</strong> target areas include a myriad of social needs in which SII can be put to work. Depending<br />
on the context, these can range from social needs, such as disability and unemployment to more traditional<br />
sectors, which applied in a certain context (see section 4.2.2) can have a high social impact.<br />
4.15 Views on social areas to include in SII can vary according to the different perspectives of the<br />
players involved in each transaction. For example, the SIITF, which during the first year included only<br />
developed countries, focused on social issues while organisations operating in developing countries may<br />
take a broader view. GIIN is a global network seeking to attract mainstream investors to SII so for both of<br />
these reasons, they tend to categorize target areas in line with more traditional investment sectors.<br />
Figure 4.3 below provides a comparison of the social areas focused upon by the SIITF with the sectors<br />
outlined by the GIIN for global investors and intermediaries. Surprisingly, only three areas overlap (health,<br />
affordable housing and education), which illustrates how broadly perspectives can differ.<br />
Figure 4.3. <strong>Social</strong> needs and investment sectors<br />
Source: OECD based on <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Task Force established by the G8 and GIIN website, http://www.thegiin.org/,<br />
accessed 21 July, 2014.<br />
4.16 Table 4.1 below provides a range of social areas that could potentially be considered SII under<br />
various circumstances. The first three areas include Community, Culture and Arts, which have typically<br />
been covered by philanthropic grants. The last five include Agriculture, Energy/Environment, Financial<br />
Services, Water and Sanitation, and ICT, which can be considered more mainstream investment sectors.<br />
Therefore on both of these ends of the spectrum, inclusion as SII depends on the other characteristics of the<br />
transaction, which will likely vary by subsector or location of provision of the service (described further in<br />
section 4.2.2 below).<br />
4.17 Dementia is an example of a social need in which SII can play an important role — this is clear<br />
from the G8 initiative launched in this area last year by the U.K. Active Minds (UK), which provides<br />
products and activities that help people suffering from dementia, is an example of an organisation into<br />
which investment could clearly be considered. On the other hand, the Big Idea Cooperative (US) is a café<br />
and bookstore that focuses on reaching out to the community and selling books promoting “social,<br />
economic and environmental justice”. It is a certified B-corp, incorporated as a limited liability company<br />
(LCC) and running on a not-for-profit basis. However, while providing books (literature) can be<br />
considered “culture”, it is not clear that this organisation would fit within most SII definitions (including<br />
OECD) as it does not set outcome objectives and measure their achievement.<br />
46 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Table 4.1. List of attributes for <strong>Social</strong> Target Areas<br />
CHARACTERISTICS Attributes of the Characteristic Eligibility *<br />
Typically<br />
Philanthropy<br />
Community<br />
Culture<br />
Arts<br />
1. <strong>Social</strong> Target Areas<br />
Core SII<br />
areas<br />
Ageing<br />
Disability<br />
Health<br />
Children and Families<br />
Public order and Safety<br />
(Affordable) Housing<br />
Unemployment<br />
Education and Training<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
Other areas,<br />
leaning<br />
towards<br />
mainstream<br />
Agriculture<br />
Environment and Energy<br />
Water and Sanitation<br />
Financial Services (incl. Microfinance)<br />
ICT<br />
* Eligibility used in the OECD definition for the purpose of this report. The areas not clearly listed as being core SII are context<br />
dependent (see section 4.2.2).<br />
Source: OECD.<br />
4.18 It should be noted that there is often a degree of overlap between social areas. Not only can<br />
issues cut across various social areas, but actions in one area can have an impact or spillover into other<br />
areas. Chapter 5 discusses social issues and their implications in further detail and also points to examples<br />
such as the intersection between health and ageing areas.<br />
4.2.2. Beneficiary context<br />
4.19 As discussed in the section above, some investment activity might target areas that would not fit<br />
within the typical SII. However by addressing the needs of populations at risk or those living in<br />
underserved or developing areas, regions or countries, some of those transactions might be considered to<br />
be SII (Table 4.2 below). Financial services can be used as an example. In developing regions, in which<br />
access to financial services may be limited, providing financial services in economically disadvantaged<br />
areas, with eventual returns on investments would be considered SII as these investments can lead to<br />
improvements in the living conditions of the population. While some of these types of investments may be<br />
considered in the sphere of development finance, they can also be considered to be in a broader definition<br />
of SII.<br />
4.20 The same principle applies to IOT, an agriculture company whichbreeds sea cucumbers in<br />
Madagascar and one of the portfolio companies of Investisseurs and Partenaires, a SII intermediary (see<br />
WGIM, 2014). 8 While such a business would not be considered SII if operating in developed countries, the<br />
social dimension arising from the contribution to the fight against hunger and through the improvement of<br />
employment and living conditions for local populations, means it could be considered to meet SII criteria.<br />
8 . Further information can be obtained through I&P’s website, available at:<br />
http://www.ietp.com/entrepreneurs_en/#profil<br />
© OECD 2015 47
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Table 4.2. List of attributes for Beneficiary Context<br />
CHARACTERISTICS Attributes of the Characteristic Eligibility *<br />
Population<br />
at risk<br />
IN<br />
Age<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Demographics: Family type<br />
Other<br />
2. Beneficiary context<br />
Location:<br />
Underserved<br />
Developing<br />
Developed<br />
Population<br />
not at risk<br />
* Eligibility used in the OECD definition for the purpose of this report.<br />
Source: OECD.<br />
Income<br />
OUT<br />
4.21 In terms of populations at risk, family type, age (life cycle needs) and other social demographics<br />
can result in social exclusion of some people. This occurs not just because of income and wealth factors,<br />
but also due to the combination of socio-demographic risks that may result in costly social exclusion if not<br />
managed or supported properly. Therefore, identifying whether populations are at risk of social exclusion<br />
due to social demographics also helps determining whether the beneficiary context falls within the scope of<br />
SII. For the purposes of the OECD definition, SII should target populations at risk.<br />
4.22 While providing affordable housing for populations at the risk of social exclusion (or de facto<br />
socially excluded) can have a social impact (e.g., accommodation for people that live on the streets),<br />
affordable housing that targets well-off people may improve the living conditions of the beneficiaries but<br />
not necessarily address social needs such as reducing homelessness figures. In London, a social impact<br />
bond (SIB) that aims at providing accommodation for “rough sleepers” is currently in place (see Chapters<br />
3 & 7 for further detail on SIBs) and would fit within most SII definitions. 9<br />
4.2.3. Good\Service<br />
4.23 The type of the specific good or service (hereafter referred to as “good”) being provided, either<br />
pure private, pure public, or mixed, is relevant to understand whether there is a market for SII. Only the<br />
two extremes (public and private) are provided in Table 4.3 for simplification. While on one extreme, a<br />
good can be classified as “public”, on the other extreme it can be classified as a “private”. SII eligibility<br />
will apply to goods within the continuum between the two boundaries as illustrated, for example, by the<br />
dotted black lines in Figure 4.4 below.<br />
9 . Further information on the London “rough sleepers” SIB can be found at:<br />
https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/housing-land/tackling-homelessness-overcrowding/roughsleeping/social-impact-bond-for-rough-sleepers<br />
48 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Figure 4.4. Degree of Publicness<br />
Source: OECD.<br />
4.24 <strong>Social</strong> goods have different characteristics than pure private or public goods insofar as they<br />
would not completely exclude benefits accruing to non-target beneficiaries, but there are barriers which<br />
limit the opportunities for non-target beneficiaries to access the good without incurring any additional cost<br />
(important for the profit-principle). On one hand, goods and services that are excludable could more<br />
efficiently be provided under a fully private model. On the other hand, goods and services for which it is<br />
very difficult to exclude potential beneficiaries tend to be provided under a public delivery approach. In a<br />
list of SII attributes, each social good or service can be categorised according to its “degree of publicness"<br />
(see table 3).<br />
Table 4.3. List of attributes for Good\Service Characteristics<br />
CHARACTERISTICS Attributes of the Characteristic Eligibility *<br />
3. Good\Service<br />
Degree of<br />
publicness<br />
* Eligibility used in the OECD definition for the purpose of this report.<br />
Source: OECD.<br />
Public<br />
(SII)<br />
Private<br />
4.25 The practical use of this attribute for defining SII goods is to some extent limited, because it is<br />
challenging to accurately measure the “degree of publicness” of a good\service and fully identify the scope<br />
of the spillover effects of providing such good\service. However, this characteristic is crucial for devising<br />
policy because while a fully public good should be provided within a public model, private goods should<br />
be left for the private initiative, without any intervention of public sector authorities beyond acting upon<br />
the regulatory side.<br />
4.26 The hybrid nature of some social goods\services might require some forms of public-private<br />
collaboration, in which some SII-like models of provision fit. The decision of whether a good is public or<br />
private or semi-public will be left to policymakers.<br />
4.27 Table 4.4 depicts a matrix that provides a framework for further clarifying why the SII approach<br />
should be defined as between the pure public and pure private models of provision. The table builds on the<br />
expectation of SII to produce social benefits, and measures these as social outcomes (the two rows<br />
distinguish social impacts at the individual and society levels) and cost benefits, or efficiency gains (the<br />
two columns distinguish economic efficiency at the individual level from systemic/society efficiency<br />
gains). 10<br />
OUT<br />
IN<br />
OUT<br />
10 . Please note that these should not be regarded as dichotomous but rather as vectors flowing from the<br />
individual to the societal\systemic levels. There is also a parallel deliberately implied here with spillovers<br />
and externalities as well as with macro and micro impacts.<br />
© OECD 2015 49
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Table 4.4. <strong>Social</strong> Returns and Economic Efficiency<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s at the individual or societal\systemic level<br />
Degree of publicness<br />
<strong>Social</strong> impact on the<br />
individual<br />
<strong>Social</strong> impact on the<br />
society<br />
Source: OECD.<br />
Individual efficiency<br />
gains<br />
PRIVATE<br />
Possible SII<br />
Systemic efficiency<br />
gains<br />
Possible SII<br />
PUBLIC<br />
4.28 Two levels of “<strong>Social</strong>” are defined here: 1) the provision of goods that address the social needs of<br />
an individual or society to improve life outcomes (social impacts); and 2) the provision of goods that result<br />
in savings in the costs or improvements in the effectiveness of providing for social need (efficiency gains).<br />
The provision of goods that have no social impact is not discussed here, as they are screened out in the<br />
discussion of <strong>Social</strong> Target Areas.<br />
4.29 Where the consumption of a good has a social impact at the individual level only (very limited<br />
spillovers) and does not result in meaningful systemic efficiency gains these are considered ‘private’ – as<br />
the benefits/costs of the consumption is limited to the individual alone. Where the consumption of a good<br />
has both a social impact on society as a whole and result in systemic efficiency gains these are considered<br />
‘public’ – as their consumption is in the broadest social interest, as well as the potential for ‘free-riders’.<br />
4.30 Where the consumption of a good has only individual efficiency gains, but there are social<br />
returns to the society as a whole there may be space for SII; this would be the case for lowering the cost of<br />
consumption for ‘social impact’ private goods at the individual level – such as affordable housing. 11 Where<br />
the consumption of a good creates social impact primarily at the individual level but also results in<br />
systemic efficiency gains (e.g. lowering recidivism rates, to reintegrate offenders and lower costly prison<br />
budgets) there is also potential for SII.<br />
4.31 When the consumption of a good favours individual efficiency, but has broader social returns, it<br />
is important that any social impact spillovers are correctly factored in the SII instrument (e.g. through the<br />
use of SIBs). The consumption of affordable private goods with broad social impacts is clearly desirable,<br />
but nonetheless challenging for private enterprise models because the incorporation of externalities and<br />
monetisation of outcomes into businesses objective function is not always straightforward.<br />
4.32 The <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond (SIB) model is based on a “pay for success” feature that allows setting<br />
outcomes (and objectives for providers and investors) that take into account externalities. This model is<br />
described in detail in Chapters 3 and 7. As an example, the Development <strong>Impact</strong> Bond (DIB) addressing<br />
malaria in Mozambique has a clearly defined outcome measure - reducing incidence rates by at least 30%.<br />
The approach is to provide anti-mosquito nets and indoor spay to at-risk populations. By focusing on<br />
incidence rates, the DIB incorporates not outputs at the level of non-affected individuals, but also a<br />
systemic health issue.<br />
11 . In the U.K., the percentage of the population living in households where the total housing costs (net of<br />
housing allowances) represent more than 40% of disposable income (housing cost overburden rate) was<br />
almost 41%, well above the EU average of 25% (OECD, 2013c, pp. 61).<br />
50 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
4.2.4. Delivery organisation intent<br />
4.33 The intent of delivery organisations can be an important characteristic in defining SII even<br />
though it is not straightforward to operationalise due to the subjective nature of the implicit attributes. A<br />
possible approach is to build on verifiable demonstrations of social intent. The intent of delivery<br />
organisations, as well as investors (discussed in a following section) is subjective and challenging to<br />
capture.<br />
4.34 <strong>Social</strong> intent can vary from an incidental outcome (i.e. whereby a social outcome is attained<br />
despite the fact that there was no intent beforehand) to a legally binding objective (Table 4.5 below). While<br />
difficult to identify precisely, the intermediate levels in this case might be disentangled, in particular by<br />
looking at the organisation’s mission and vision. Having the intention to address social challenges might<br />
not be sufficient for a social venture to be considered to be eligible for SII. For the purposes of the OECD<br />
definition, merely having the intent stated on the mission is not enough to be considered SII as the delivery<br />
organisation must put sufficient effort into demonstrating that they are committed to the social cause. 12<br />
Table 4.5. List of attributes for Delivery Organisation Intent<br />
CHARACTERISTICS Attributes of the Characteristic Eligibility *<br />
4. Delivery organisation intent<br />
Incidental <strong>Social</strong> outcome<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Mission Intent<br />
Compulsory reporting<br />
(Seeks and obtains) External Certification or Label<br />
Legally binding constraints<br />
OUT<br />
OUT<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
* Eligibility used in the OECD definition for the purpose of this report.<br />
Source: OECD.<br />
4.35 A strong level of commitment can be demonstrated through some form of compulsory reporting<br />
of social outcomes to shareholders within the organisation’s statutes. Within the work of the SIITF, the<br />
Mission Alignment Working Group has identified different degrees of impact intent: i) simply comply with<br />
minimum legal requirements to create impact; ii) intention to create impact and iii) a primary commitment<br />
to create impact (WGMA, 2014). Only the latter is considered to be within the scope of SII (social<br />
enterprises and “profit with purpose businesses”).<br />
4.36 A number of initiatives have focused on developing metrics for impact assessment as well as<br />
assigning labels to companies (see Chapter 6). These help to identify companies within the scope of SII<br />
because they provide a good indication of commitment to social issues. However, while not all SII-related<br />
companies will be certified as so, some certified companies may not fully correspond to a certain definition<br />
of SII. For example, B-Corp certifies companies based on a number of variables, some of which may be<br />
considered to go beyond SII, under a narrower SII definition.<br />
4.37 Legally binding constraints provide the strongest indication of commitment to social goals. The<br />
Financing Agency for <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship (FASE) in Germany helps social entrepreneurs raise money<br />
and, in the financing contracts managed by FASE, clauses are included in order to prevent social mission<br />
drift (WGMA, 2014).<br />
12 . Please note that the combination of social intent expressed in the mission combined with, for example, a<br />
formal measurement and valuation of social impact should be duly considered<br />
© OECD 2015 51
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
4.38 It is also important to distinguish “intent” from actions taken by companies to limit negative<br />
externalities arising from their business activity. The later should be considered Corporate <strong>Social</strong><br />
Responsibility (CSR) and would not be included within SII.<br />
4.2.5. Measurability of <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong><br />
4.39 Just as with financial returns, SII investors require some form of measurement of social impact to<br />
factor both financial outcomes and social impact into their investment decisions (WGAA, 2014). This<br />
characteristic can range from the lack of measurement to formal evaluation with monetary valuations of<br />
social impact (see Table 4.6 below). Without having any form of social impact measurement a transaction<br />
cannot be considered SII.<br />
Table 4.6. List of attributes for Measurability of <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong><br />
CHARACTERISTICS Attributes of the Characteristic Eligibility *<br />
No measurement<br />
OUT<br />
5. Measurability of <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Informal evaluation, not valued<br />
OUT<br />
Formal evaluation but not valued<br />
IN<br />
Formal evaluation and valued<br />
IN<br />
* Eligibility used in the OECD definition for the purpose of this report.<br />
Source: OECD.<br />
4.40 <strong>Impact</strong> assessment can be carried out in a qualitative (e.g. “improved the healthcare provision”),<br />
quantitative (more robust analysis, e.g. “increased the number of patients treated that would otherwise<br />
would remain untreated”) and\or by the monetisation of outcomes (e.g. attaching a value to the benefits for<br />
each treated patient as well as to the benefit to the society). It is important to attach a measure of the<br />
benefits (e.g. tangible changes in social outcome indicators or even in pecuniary terms) to impact<br />
measurement so that it is possible to understand if the workings of the delivery organisation and the<br />
investment have a de facto social impact.<br />
4.41 The measurement of social impact is not straightforward, and difficulties associated with its<br />
elaboration resulted in the creation of a working group to focus on impact measurement within the process<br />
of the SIITF. The Working Group identified four main phases of the impact measurement process,<br />
hereafter “formal” impact evaluation process. First, planning requires agreement upon impact goals<br />
(including a priori selection of indicators) and the strategy to achieve them (see Chapter 5 for a discussion<br />
on selecting indicators). Second, building the evidence base includes collecting, storing and validating<br />
data. Third, the quality, level and efficacy of the impact are assessed based on the analysis of data<br />
gathered. Finally, the impact and the measurement process are reviewed, providing input to future<br />
improvements in impact measurement (WGIM, 2014).<br />
4.42 In addition, a working group on impact measurement for social enteprises was created in the<br />
framework of the GECES, the European Commission's Group of Experts on <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship,<br />
which released a report on “proposed approaches in European Commission legislation and in practice<br />
related to EuSEFs and the EaSI” (Clifford et al 2014).<br />
4.43 Building on the results of these working groups and expanding the analysis to the policy<br />
dimensions of social impact measurement, the OECD (forthcoming 2015) underlined the importance of<br />
encouraging experimentation and further analysis of ongoing developments in social impact measurement<br />
by social enterprises. This could help to foster a social impact measurement culture among stakeholders.<br />
The issue of proportionality of measurement is also important. Measurement should only be done if, and to<br />
52 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
the extent that it will actually influence decision-making, and the cost of measurement is not excessive<br />
compared to the significance of that decision.<br />
4.44 Evaluation processes are very challenging because ideally they require having a comparison<br />
group — i.e. what would have been the social outcomes if the delivery organisations would not exist.<br />
Given that running experiments and\or alternative empirical testing methodologies can be very resource<br />
intensive and require special skills, most intermediaries and companies do not take such an approach but<br />
rather use a mix of qualitative information with a range of quantitative indicators on social impact.<br />
4.45 As an example, Investisseurs and Partenaires have a clear strategy for measuring impact (WGIM,<br />
2014). <strong>Impact</strong> measurement does not follow an impact evaluation approach based on counterfactuals due to<br />
significant data challenges (and high costs of running experiments). Instead focus is given to impact data<br />
provided by investee companies. The impact assessment framework is nevertheless well developed<br />
(WGIM, 2014). 13<br />
4.46 Active Minds, briefly described above, reports the achieved social impacts on a yearly basis. 14<br />
This report provides an overview of data regarding business activities (e.g. number of devices sold) and<br />
features the result of a survey conducted with 7% of their customers regarding the impact that the devices<br />
have had on the quality of care (for corporates) or on the life quality of dementia-suffering family members<br />
(for individuals). Even though such an approach is far from a formal and thorough assessment of social<br />
impact, it reveals awareness for the need to provide information on social impact.<br />
4.47 The most comprehensive (but also challenging) approach to impact measurement requires a<br />
formal evaluation that also allows translating social impact into value. For example, the design of SIB<br />
contracts requires that predetermined social outcomes are attained before any payment is made by the<br />
contractor. This means that social impact needs not only to be measured but also to be valued in designing<br />
the “impact value equation” that balances the interests of outcome funders and investors (SIITF, 2014b).<br />
4.2.6. Investor intent<br />
4.48 Investors’ social impact intent is also a characteristic that features in most SII definitions (e.g.<br />
GIIN, SIITF). As discussed above, clearly identifying intent is challenging.<br />
4.49 On the one hand, investors can have a social impact even without having any social intent in the<br />
first place, if their investments happen to produce an unexpected or unintentional social outcome<br />
(incidental social outcome). For example, VantagePoint Capital Partners was awarded the 2013 financial<br />
investor in the cleantech industry. Investments in clean technologies create positive environmental impacts,<br />
but the main purpose of VantagePoint Capital Partners is to make profitable investments. Since there is no<br />
clear intent in achieving a social impact, such investments will not be considered as SII. Conversely,<br />
CANOPUS Foundation has been investing in solar power in Africa with a clear mission towards<br />
environmental sustainability. 15<br />
4.50 On the other hand, some investment contracts may formally require intentionality to achieve<br />
specified social outcomes. As an example, having a social intent may be compulsory under certain settings<br />
13. Further information about Investisseurs and Partenaires is available at http://www.ietp.com/. The impact<br />
measurement report can be found at: http://ietp.com/our-esg-impacts-annual-report-online<br />
14. The report can be retrieved from Active Minds website at: http://www.active-minds.co.uk/index.php<br />
15. Further information about VantagePoint Capital Partners can be found at: www.vpcp.com Further<br />
information about CANOPUS Foundation is available at: www.canopusfund.org<br />
© OECD 2015 53
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
— e.g. within a SIB structure, the government contractor will have specific payment terms that will depend<br />
on achieved outcomes, thus requiring a legally binding social intent. Accordingly, investor intent will<br />
range from incidental outcome (which is not included in SII) to legally binding constraints (which are<br />
included).<br />
4.51 In between these two extremes, varying levels of intent can be observed (see Table 4.7 below).<br />
For example, social intent may be expressed in a statement or other document regarding the investment<br />
made or investor profile. Citizen Capital is an investment fund that clearly states its intent to invest in<br />
social businesses and labels itself as an impact investing fund. The attainment of social goals is expressed<br />
in the vision as well as in a set of investment criteria that go beyond financial aspects (e.g., “investing in<br />
disadvantaged areas”; “addressing the needs of vulnerable populations”). 16<br />
Table 4.7. List of attributes for Investor Intent<br />
CHARACTERISTICS Attributes of the Characteristic Eligibility *<br />
Incidental <strong>Social</strong> outcome<br />
OUT<br />
6. Investor intent<br />
<strong>Social</strong> intent expressed in statement<br />
OUT<br />
Compulsory reporting<br />
IN<br />
Legally binding constraints<br />
IN<br />
* Eligibility used in the OECD definition for the purpose of this report.<br />
Source: OECD.<br />
4.52 Foundations also have a clearly defined social mission both in statutes, as well as by legal<br />
requirements related to legal status. Some foundations have increasingly focused on SII approaches as a<br />
way to tackle social issues (Rangan et al, 2011). For example, as discussed earlier, the Gates Foundation<br />
makes Program Related Investments (PRI) in a wide variety of social areas such as education (e.g. Civic<br />
Builders), health (Global Health Fund, BiologicalE Vaccines). 17 PRI investments, which can involve a mix<br />
of instruments including debt and equity, aim to tackle social issues targeted by foundations while<br />
potentially generating some financial return.<br />
4.2.7. Return expectation<br />
4.53 Return expectations for investors are an important characteristic for defining the scope of SII.<br />
This characteristic is considered in most definitions being used in the SII market. In particular, there has<br />
been considerable debate regarding the risk-return profiles of SII (see WGAA, 2014). It is still unclear<br />
where the lower and upper bound of returns should stand in terms of considering an investment as SII. The<br />
last column of Table 4.8 below depicts the OECD approach to this issue. Donations stand at one of the<br />
extremes, in the sense that there is no expectation of getting part of the money back. As noted earlier, this<br />
is philanthropy and clearly cannot be considered as “investment”.<br />
16. Information on Citizen Capital can be found at: http://www.citizencapital.fr/<br />
17 . Further information available at: www.gatesfoundation.org/how-we-work/quick-links/program-relatedinvestments.<br />
54 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Table 4.8. List of attributes for Risk Adjusted Return Expectation<br />
CHARACTERISTICS Attributes of the Characteristic Eligibility *<br />
7. Return expectation<br />
Grants<br />
Return of Capital<br />
Profit =< market RR<br />
Profit > market RR<br />
* Eligibility used in the OECD definition for the purpose of this report.<br />
Source: OECD.<br />
4.54 At the other extreme, are expectations of profits above the market risk adjusted rate of return. On<br />
the one hand, investments made with the purpose of exceeding risk adjusted market rates of return would<br />
be no different from the mainstream for-profit market, thus not considered SII for the purpose of the<br />
working definition. On the other hand, effective rates of return on SII may turn out to be as high, or in<br />
some cases, higher than market rates of return. It is important to note, however, that investors expecting a<br />
return above risk adjusted market rates indicate that they regard such an investment to be no different from<br />
a mainstream for-profit investment and therefore it should fall outside the scope of SII. As noted earlier,<br />
rates of return vary across social sectors, and would also be taken into consideration by investors. Of<br />
course, the main issue is defining the “market rate of return” for social impact investment. To some degree,<br />
this characteristic is therefore a matter of principle in terms of the intention of the investors.<br />
4.55 The profit distribution policy of companies can be a determinant of whether a certain flow can be<br />
considered as SII. The discussion of this characteristic has stirred significant debate — in particular, on the<br />
extent to which social enterprises should be defined by reinvesting their profits (e.g. Galera & Borgaza,<br />
2009). Some degree of profit distribution might be needed to guarantee that investments yield positive<br />
returns. The extent to which social businesses are able to redistribute profits is also dependent upon their<br />
legal structure. For example in Italy, the legislation on social enterprises is currently being reviewed to,<br />
amongst other aspects, allow social enterprises to distribute profits (WGMA, 2014 and NAB-ITA, 2014).<br />
4.3 OECD working definition of SII<br />
4.56 For the purposes of this report, the OECD has sought to draw some initial eligibility boundaries<br />
for each of the core characteristics of SII. A summary of these suggestions is listed in the table below and<br />
in the draft OECD working definition of SII.<br />
OECD Working Definition of SII:<br />
OUT<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
OUT<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment is a transaction between an investor and investee in a social area, targeting<br />
beneficiaries in need. Beneficiaries targeted should be at risk populations and the good provided<br />
should have a mix of public and private good characteristics. These transactions are often made using<br />
intermediaries. The investee in the transaction should, at least, inscribe a compulsory reporting clause<br />
of its social activity in the statutes, as well as provide a formal evaluation of social impact. In parallel,<br />
the investor should, at least, have a compulsory reporting clause for social impact investments and<br />
have return expectations above or equal to zero, but not above the market rate of return (actual return<br />
may be higher).<br />
4.57 As discussed earlier, while all of the characteristics listed in the chart below are necessary, none<br />
of them alone are sufficient to define SII. A transaction can be considered SII only if it meets the defined<br />
eligibility boundaries for each of the seven characteristics.<br />
© OECD 2015 55
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
List of characteristics, attributes and eligibility<br />
CHARACTERISTICS Attributes of the Characteristic Eligibility *<br />
Typically<br />
Philanthropy<br />
Community<br />
Culture<br />
Arts<br />
1. <strong>Social</strong> Target Areas<br />
Core SII areas<br />
Ageing<br />
Disability<br />
Health<br />
Children and Families<br />
Public order and Safety<br />
(Affordable) Housing<br />
Unemployment<br />
Education and Training<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
Other areas,<br />
leaning<br />
towards<br />
mainstream<br />
Population at<br />
risk<br />
Agriculture<br />
Environment and Energy<br />
Water and Sanitation<br />
Financial Services (incl. Microfinance)<br />
ICT<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Demographics:<br />
Age<br />
Family type<br />
Other<br />
IN<br />
2. Beneficiary context<br />
Location:<br />
Underserved<br />
Developing<br />
Developed<br />
Population not<br />
at risk<br />
3. Good\Service Degree of publicness<br />
Income<br />
Public<br />
(SII)<br />
OUT<br />
OUT<br />
IN<br />
Private<br />
Incidental <strong>Social</strong> outcome<br />
Clear <strong>Social</strong> Mission Intent<br />
4. Delivery organisation intent Compulsory reporting<br />
(Seeks and obtains) External Certification or Label<br />
Legally binding constraints<br />
No measurement<br />
Informal evaluation, not valued<br />
5. Measurability of <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Formal evaluation but not valued<br />
Formal evaluation and valued<br />
Incidental <strong>Social</strong> outcome<br />
<strong>Social</strong> intent expressed in statement<br />
6. Investor intent<br />
Compulsory reporting<br />
Legally binding constraints<br />
Grants<br />
Return of Capital<br />
7. Return expectation<br />
Profit =< market RR<br />
Profit > market RR<br />
* Eligibility criteria used in the OECD definition for the purpose of this report.<br />
Source: OECD.<br />
OUT<br />
OUT<br />
OUT<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
OUT<br />
OUT<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
OUT<br />
OUT<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
OUT<br />
IN<br />
IN<br />
OUT<br />
56 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
References<br />
Addis, R., J. McLeod, and A. Raine (2013), “IMPACT Australia: Investment for <strong>Social</strong> and Economic<br />
Benefit”, Australian Government, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations,<br />
November.<br />
Clifford J, Hehenberger L, and Fantini M (2014), "Proposed approaches to social impact measurement in<br />
European Commission legislation and in practice related to: EuSEFs and the EaSI"<br />
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_business/docs/expert-group/social_impact/140605-subgroup-report_en.pdf<br />
Galera, G., and C. Borzaga (2009), "<strong>Social</strong> enterprise: an international overview of its conceptual evolution<br />
and legal implementation", <strong>Social</strong> Enterprise Journal, 5(3): 210-228.<br />
GIIN (2014), Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network website. Available at: www.thegiin.org/cgibin/iowa/resources/about/index.html,<br />
accessed 15 May 2014<br />
HM Government, UK (2013c), “G8 <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Forum: Outputs and Agreed Actions”, UK<br />
Cabinet Office, London, July.<br />
HMT (2014), “<strong>Social</strong> investment tax relief guidance”, HM Treasury, London, March. Available at:<br />
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/finance-bill-2014-legislation-explanatory-notes-andguidance<br />
NAB-ITA (2014), “La finanza che include: gli investimenti ad impatto sociale per una nuova economia”,<br />
National Advisory Board Report, Italy, <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce established by the G8,<br />
September.<br />
OECD (2013c), OECD Economic Surveys: United Kingdom 2013, OECD Publishing.<br />
doi: 10.1787/eco_surveys-gbr-2013-en<br />
OECD/EU (forthcoming 2015), “Policy Brief on <strong>Social</strong> impact measurement for social enterprises EU<br />
Commission/OECD, Luxemburg”, Publication Office of the European Union.<br />
Rangan, K.V., S. Appleby, and L. Moon (2011), “The Promise of <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong>”, Harvard Business<br />
School, Background Note No. 512-045, Boston.<br />
SIITF (2014), “<strong>Impact</strong> Investment: The Invisible Heart of the Markets”, <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
Taskforce, London, September.<br />
SIITF (2014b), <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce Report, Policy levers and Objectives – Explanatory<br />
Note for Governments, London,September.<br />
Thornley, B., D. Wood, K. Grace and S. Sullivant (2011), “<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong>: A Framework for Policy<br />
Design and Analysis”, Pacific Community Ventures, Institute for Responsible Investment at Harvard<br />
University, and Rockefeller Foundation, January.<br />
WGAA (2014), “Allocating for <strong>Impact</strong>: Harnessing private capital for public good”, Working Group on<br />
Asset Allocation (WGAA), <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce established by the G8, September.<br />
WGIM (2014), “<strong>Impact</strong> Measurement: Shifting the Paradigm”, Working Group on <strong>Impact</strong> Measurement<br />
(WGIM), <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce established by the G8, September.<br />
WGMA (2014), “Profit with Purpose”, Working Group on Mission Alignment (WGMA), <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investment Taskforce established by the G8, September.<br />
© OECD 2015 57
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
5. CONTEXT SETTING: DIFFERENCES IN SOCIAL NEEDS AND SERVICE DELIVERY<br />
ACROSS SELECTED COUNTRIES<br />
This chapter looks at the context for social impact investment across the G7 and<br />
Australia. This includes looking at changes in social needs and direct public sector<br />
provision over time as well as a discussion of the different models of social service<br />
provision in each country. This chapter covers: a review of trends in social needs in<br />
key service sectors (health, employment and education, housing, criminal justice and<br />
family services); trend changes in public spending in the above areas; models of<br />
social services provision; evidence of best practice in this area; and, methods and<br />
issues for measuring social impact.<br />
5.1 Introduction<br />
5.1 The contexts in which <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment (SII) takes place, country-to-country, will have<br />
a significant bearing on the potential for SII to have a lasting and positive role in society. Key contextual<br />
factors include: the extent to which present legislation and financial regulation plays a role in facilitating<br />
social impact investment; the extent of social need by sector; the evolving size and role of public<br />
intervention, also by sector; varying models of social service provision in each country, stakeholders and<br />
their present effectiveness; and, the political economy of private intervention. 18<br />
5.2 The variation in these contexts can inform how different SII approaches may be more appropriate<br />
in some sectors than in others, and easier to implement in some countries than in others. The purpose of<br />
this chapter is to contribute to the discussion of how SII could fit in to present forms of social impact<br />
investment by mapping key social-contextual factors in the G7 and Australia.<br />
5.2 <strong>Social</strong> outcomes and social spending<br />
5.3 The space in which SII could take a positive role in social development provides further<br />
contextual information for assessing the need for SII, and its likelihood to have a meaningful and lasting<br />
effect. Understanding how different countries achieve preferred social outcomes, relative to the extent of<br />
public social interventions, is important for gauging this ‘SII market space’. Of course, the final ‘market<br />
space’ will also be determined by the extent to which SII might want to go ‘above and beyond’ the public<br />
efficiency and effectiveness, but because governments are the largest investor in social causes in every<br />
country, the specific role of public spending relative to key social outcomes is the most appropriate starting<br />
point for such an estimate.<br />
5.4 Below, two sections will discuss trends in social outcomes and public expenditure from across a<br />
range of social sectors, with a focus on what these data might mean for SII.<br />
18. Historical factors also play a role, but are beyond the scope of this paper.<br />
58 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
5.2.1 The need (for better) social services: trends in social outcomes<br />
5.5 The extent to which any investment can make a social impact will rely on the type and extent of<br />
need – and demand for improvement – across an array of social outcomes. <strong>Social</strong> outcomes are evolving in<br />
different directions, in different social sectors, for different reasons – and social services can take a<br />
supporting role in both positive and negative settings. For instance, increasing life expectancy and ageing<br />
societies increase demand for long-term care of various kinds (frailty, dementia, in-home or institutional<br />
care), whereas the increase in single-parent families or families in which both parents work will need to be<br />
facilitated by family care services in preschool and after-school.<br />
5.6 The following subsections provide some examples of evolving needs in health, employment and<br />
activity (including education), housing, public order, and family service sectors.<br />
5.2.1.1 Health and care needs of the elderly<br />
5.7 Although there are many health outcomes and services to consider across the population, the<br />
long-term health care needs of the elderly are of particular interest for the SII discussion for two reasons.<br />
First, the health of the elderly is an important social consideration as societies age, and people live and<br />
work longer. Second, because it is here where the highest voluntary private social spending occurs because<br />
of the intersection of health and old-age spending (OECD, 2014a).<br />
5.8 Figure 5.1 reports on the extent of social need for elderly care, and predictions for social need in<br />
the future. Panel A maps the rates of people aged 65 years receiving long-term care at home or in<br />
institutions (bars), and plots over these figures the prevalence of dementia among the population aged 60<br />
years and over. The demand for elderly long term care (LTC) in OECD countries is high, with 1 in 8<br />
people over 65 receiving LTC, two-thirds of whom are receiving this care at home. Long-term care needs<br />
are determined by health needs, and so by using the example of dementia – a concern for old age in<br />
particular, resulting in progressively high-intensity health and care supports – it can be estimated that at<br />
least half of LTC receivers over 60 will need some high-intensity services at some point in their lives. 19<br />
5.9 The juxtaposition of the figures in Panel A, read alongside the evidence in Panel B, gives the<br />
strongest message for the need for innovative social delivery organisations in these countries. First,<br />
although LTC provision varies widely, the demand for these provisions is likely to be very similar across<br />
countries – and so there is unmet demand. Second, as the scale of dependency increases, demand for care<br />
will increase substantially relative to the working-age population in the coming decades.<br />
19 . As noted earlier in the paper, the G8 has put a special spotlight on the issue of dementia and has been<br />
investigating the role that SII can play in helping to address this growing social concern.<br />
© OECD 2015 59
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Figure 5.1: One in 20 over 60’s have dementia, on average one in 8 over 65’s are subject to long-term care, and<br />
in the next 30 years rates the support ratio for older people will halve<br />
Panel A: Population aged 65 years and over receiving long-term<br />
care, 2011 (or nearest year) and prevalence of dementia among<br />
the population aged 60 years and over, 2009<br />
Panel B: Over 65 population as a ratio of working age population<br />
(15-64)<br />
Note: For long-term care estimates, data is missing for the United Kingdom, and is for different dates in other countries (Japan (2006),<br />
United States (2007), Canada (2009), and France (2010)). The long-term care OECD average is for 21 countries (see online data<br />
annex). For prevelance of Dementia, OECD average is for 34 countries.<br />
Source: OECD Health Statistics 2013 (OECD, 2013d), (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/health-data-en and citing Wimo et al [2012] for<br />
dementia estimates) and Society at a Glance, (OECD, 2014b).<br />
5.2.1.2 Unemployment, inactivity and school drop-outs<br />
5.10 Helping people into good quality and secure employment is critical for a range of desirable social<br />
outcomes today and in the future. Today, the private and public social gains from employment include a<br />
reduction in household poverty – and the improved quality of life this brings – increases in productivity,<br />
and reductions in benefit dependency. For tomorrow, employment is critical for building the social<br />
contributions needed to pay for a person’s own pension and elderly care, as well as for tax contributions<br />
that fund much of the present public social spending in the areas of health, education, and social protection<br />
among others. Helping youth into quality employment or stay in education settings is the foundation for<br />
success in this area, as well as a healthy economy and society.<br />
5.11 Table 5.1 presents experiences of long-term unemployment spells, unemployment rates for older<br />
workers, education drop-out rates for older youth, and rates of inactivity in youth (NEET – "not in<br />
education, employment or training") in younger and older cohorts. Percentage point movements up or<br />
down in the past five years are presented in parentheses, where available. Altogether, the data highlight<br />
need, and to a degree a lack of effective policy development, in present social ‘activation’ systems: two<br />
factors which would indicate demand for SII-type innovation in this sector.<br />
5.12 More specifically, many country systems are struggling to produce effective employment or<br />
‘activation’ outcomes in older youth cohorts, and, with the exception of Germany, people who are<br />
unemployed are facing much greater challenges in returning to work now than they did 5 years previously<br />
(Italy and Japan have notable challenges to contend with here, and across the OECD as a whole the rate of<br />
longer term unemployment has increased by 50% in 5 years).<br />
60 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Table 5.1: Although younger and older cohorts have experienced little change in unemployment risks, more<br />
unemployed people are out of work for a year or more<br />
Long-term<br />
unemployment<br />
(2013)<br />
Unemployment (55 to 64<br />
years, 2013)<br />
Dropout rates<br />
for youth aged<br />
20-24 (2011)<br />
NEET rates (2011)<br />
Male Female 15-19 20-24<br />
Australia 19.2 (4.4) 4.3 (0.6) 3.2 (0.3) 13.9 7.8 (1.4) 11.7 (1.0)<br />
Canada 12.7 (4.9) 6.9 (-1.1) 5.8 (0.1) 8.3 7.7 (0.5) 14.6 (0.9)<br />
France 40.4 (5.1) 7.5 (1.1) 6.5 (0.5) 14.5 7.1 (0.8) 20.3 (2.4)<br />
Germany 44.7 (-0.8) 6.2 (-1.8) 5.3 (-2.8) 12.1 3.5 (-0.7) 12.6 (-2.7)<br />
Italy 56.9 (12.5) 6.7 (2.9) 4.1 (1.4) 20.5 11.4 (1.2) 28.4 (5.8)<br />
Japan 41.2 (12.7) 4.4 (-1.0) 2.8 (-0.5) … 10.1 (2.5) …<br />
United Kingdom 36.3 (11.8) 5.4 (-0.5) 3.8 (0.9) 12.4 9.5 (-1.2) 19.1 (1.1)<br />
United States 25.9 (9.7) 5.6 (-1.5) 5.0 (-1.0) 9.0 7.1 (0.8) 18.5 (2.3)<br />
OECD countries 35.3 (11.6) 6.1 (-0.1) 5.0 (0.0) 15.0 8.2 (0.1) 18.5 (2.4)<br />
Note: Employment figures are rates in given years, figures in parentheses record the difference in the rates compared to 5 years<br />
previously. Dropout rates are for the share of 20-24 year-olds having left school and not holding an upper secondary degree.<br />
Source: OECD dot.stat employment and education series, 2014c, OECD 2014d.<br />
5.13 Educational dropout rates also represent a variable challenge across countries and a predictor of<br />
hard-to-place inactive youth; preventing dropouts from education is realistic and measureable intervention<br />
space for SII, with as many as 1 in 7 older youth not leaving school with only a lower-secondary.<br />
Figure 5.2 maps the NEET rates for older youth to the dropout rates, and shows that in all cases, with the<br />
exception of Australia, it is unlikely to be low education alone that inhibits the activity of youth as NEET<br />
rates outstrip drop-out rates. In Canada, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States the difference<br />
might suggest an unmet demand for services to place qualified youth into work.<br />
Figure 5.2 Australia has the most success in activating low skilled youth<br />
Note: Both series are for 2011. Data for Japan are missing. Dropout rates are for the share of 20-24 year-olds having left school and<br />
not holding an upper secondary degree.<br />
Source: OECD dot.stat education series, 2014c, OECD 2014d.<br />
5.14 In the area of employment support, a number of countries are encouraging SII through the<br />
introduction of <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bonds (SIBs), including one to reduce youth unemployment in the United<br />
Kingdom, see Chapter 5 for details.<br />
© OECD 2015 61
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
5.2.1.3 Housing affordability and quality<br />
5.15 A further sector related to important social outcomes is housing. Providing all members of<br />
society with a secure and good quality accommodation is not only a human right and an ethical priority,<br />
but stable good-quality homes provide the foundation from which stable employment is achieved, families<br />
are formed, communities are built, local environments are protected, and social cohesion can develop.<br />
5.16 Figure 5.3 presents two panels of housing data from the Gallup World poll and shows overall,<br />
that while there has been some falls in the rates of dissatisfaction with housing options over recent years,<br />
these have generally been from high levels (on average over 1 in 3 respondents in the OECD reported<br />
dissatisfaction with the level of good quality affordable housing in the city or area where they lived). At the<br />
same time, respondents also reported an increase in experiences of being unable to meet hosing costs.<br />
5.17 Across the OECD, almost one in ten people have trouble meeting housing cost at some point in<br />
the year, in Australia this is now as low as 1 in fifty, and nearer 1 in 7 in the United States (where the<br />
financial crisis would have had an effect). The message for SII is that there remains high demand for<br />
affordable housing in most countries, as well as for services to improve the quality and affordability of<br />
present housing stock (although to a lesser extent).<br />
Figure 5.3: Satisfaction with affordable housing increased in recent years, but experiences of difficulty in<br />
meeting costs also increased<br />
Panel A: dissatisfied with affordable housing 2008, 2012<br />
Panel B: recent difficulty providing adequate housing<br />
Note: The Gallup World Poll was conducted by telephone in approximately 140 countries in total, and all OECD countries, using a<br />
common questionnaire translated into the main national languages. Samples are nationally representative of the resident population<br />
aged 15 and over in the entire country, including rural areas in most cases. Sample sizes are limited to around 1 000 persons in most<br />
countries (exceptions include Iceland and Luxembourg [c. 500]; Japan and New Zealand [c. 750]). Data for Germany and Japan are<br />
the average of four quarterly samples. Observed data points on each trend line are 'filled', estimates are 'empty'. Panel A records the<br />
proportion of respondents reporting being dissatisfied with the level of good quality affordable housing in the city or area where they<br />
live'. Panel B records the proportion of respondents who answered 'Yes' to the question 'Have there been times in the past twelve<br />
months when you did not have enough money to provide adequate shelter or housing for you or your family?'.<br />
Source: Gallup World Poll, 2014.<br />
62 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
5.18 An example of how SII can meet demand for affordable housing comes from the United<br />
Kingdom’s Tesco Supermarket chain which recently responded to debates on housing needs (as well as<br />
changing demand form their customer base) by unlocking it’s land banks for housing projects (reportedly<br />
including their own GBP 1 billion house-building project [see Guardian, 2014]). Contributions to housing<br />
stock, particularly when unlocking banked land, should contribute to macro-social goals for increasing<br />
available, and in turn affordable, housing stock (for a detailed discussion of the range and definitions of<br />
what constitutes a social impact investment see Chapter 4).<br />
5.2.1.4 Policing, safety and crime<br />
5.19 Crime is a blight on societies, and depending on the severity of the crime experienced, can have<br />
severe personal and social impacts. Reducing crime and the fear of crime are major social goals, and<br />
whether present systems are coping with expectations or not will provide an insight as to whether SII has a<br />
role in this sector.<br />
5.20 Crime statistics are difficult to interpret accurately because they often rely on crimes being<br />
reported, and convicted, and this may result in important variations in different countries (and in turn<br />
national-level reporting biases). For this reason nationally-relative measures of contact with the police are<br />
report in Table 5.2, and show that although numbers are rising overall, and in France and Italy (but not for<br />
Italian juveniles), most countries report lower rates of people being in formal contact with the police since<br />
the mid-2000s.<br />
5.21 Whether increases in contact with the police are a proxy for improvement in policing, and an<br />
improvement in overall safety is generally open to debate (lower rates might equally be due to higher risks<br />
and lower policing standards), and so indicators of safety and policing are also reported in Table 5.2.<br />
Results for confidence in policing and feeling safe in your locality would suggest that increased contact<br />
with police in France does not proxy a worsening social situation. In fact, across all countries, both<br />
confidence in the police and feeling safe in the locality at night have improved (with the exception of small<br />
falls in the latter indicator in Italy and Japan). For SII, although social outcomes seem to be improving in<br />
this sector, innovation may still be required, because progress is slow in many countries, and on average 3<br />
in 10 people still report feeling unsafe outside at night or not having trust in the police.<br />
© OECD 2015 63
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Table 5.2: Indicators of Policing safety and crime trending in the right directions, but still have some way to go<br />
Confidence in local<br />
police between 2007<br />
and 2012<br />
Do you feel safe walking<br />
alone at night in the city or<br />
area where you live?<br />
Persons brought into formal<br />
contact with the police<br />
and/or criminal justice<br />
system, all crimes (Index<br />
2004=100)<br />
Prison rates<br />
of over 18s<br />
per 100,000<br />
Prison<br />
occupancy<br />
rates<br />
2007 2012 All Juveniles 2007 2012 2011 c.2013<br />
Australia 78 80 … … 77.2 84.3 167.1 96.0%<br />
Canada 88 87 97 89 77.5 82.6 96.4%<br />
France 73 74 112 134 66.6 78.2 131.4 116.8%<br />
Germany 76 82 … … 64 76.1 82.4%<br />
Italy 74 76 118 93 75.3 74.8 132.5 128.8%<br />
Japan 70 74 83 67 72.5 72.3 65.8 77.2%<br />
United Kingdom 69 76 … … 63.1 68 111.2%<br />
United States 78 78 89 73 57.9 67.9 939.5 99.0%<br />
OECD 70 72 106 105 68.3 72.2 193.8 …<br />
Note: For crime rate changes OECD average is an average of data for 23 countries. For prison rates (“Prisons, Penal Institutions or<br />
Correctional Institutions” means all public and privately financed institutions where persons are deprived of their liberty. The<br />
institutions may include, but are not limited to, penal, correctional, and psychiatric facilities under the prison administration. “Persons<br />
Held” should exclude non-criminal prisoners held for administrative purposes, including persons held pending investigation into their<br />
immigration status and foreign citizens without a legal right to stay held prior to removal) Canadian data is for 2010. Prison occupancy<br />
rates United Kingdom data is for England and Wales only, data for Australia, England & Wales, France, Germany, and Italy are from<br />
2013; 2012 in Japan and the United States, and 2009 in Canada.<br />
Source: Society at a Glance (OECD, 2014b); citation of sources: Gallup world Poll, 2014 and United Nations Office on Drugs and<br />
Crimes (UNDOC - www.unodc.org/). For prison occupancy rates author’s calculations of national informant data (available on<br />
request).<br />
5.22 Finally, prison rates and prison occupancy rates are interesting indicators of social outcomes for<br />
the SII discussion because recidivism was the first social outcome to be linked to a social impact bond<br />
(recidivism data is not available due to problems with comparability across countries – see Richardson,<br />
2009). The standout case in this picture is the United States, where prison rates are 5 times higher than the<br />
OECD average. Providing for prisoners is a costly process, and so innovation in crime / recidivism<br />
prevention services will be in general demand, which may create a space for SII products. Moreover, when<br />
prisons are over their capacity (above 100% occupancy rates – see Figure 5.4) this signals a pressing unmet<br />
demand for these services, or even alternative services to incarceration.<br />
64 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Figure 5.4: Prisons in France, Italy and the United Kingdom are overfull<br />
Note: Prison occupancy rates United Kingdom data is for England and Wales only, data for Australia, England & Wales, France,<br />
Germany, and Italy are from 2013; 2012 in Japan and the United States, and 2009 in Canada.<br />
Source: Author’s calculations of national informant data (available on request).<br />
5.2.1.5 Family care and the employment of women<br />
5.23 The social value of childcare for child development, family formation and female employment<br />
has been recognised for many years (OECD, 2011a), and has been supported by increases in public<br />
investment in this area in many OECD countries before the crisis (ibid) and one area of family policy that<br />
has seen expansions during the crisis period (OECD, 2014a). Childcare is also seen as an important<br />
contributor to the efficiency of social systems, preparing children for later schooling, increasing<br />
productivity in adulthood and reducing the likelihood of anti-social outcomes (see for instance Heckman<br />
and Masterov, 2007). Related to the provision of childcare, and important for achieving important gender<br />
equity goals for societies, is helping women access good quality secure employment.<br />
5.24 Table 5.3 presents data on recent developments in childcare enrolment and prime-age female<br />
unemployment and part-time employment (Figure 5.5 maps female part-time employment to preschool<br />
enrolment). Together these data point towards changing demand for childcare services, as well as changes<br />
to childcare take-up, yet a general message is hard to interpret because the expected finding of an increase<br />
in childcare for both age groups is not reflected in positive changes to broad employment patterns for<br />
women of prime working age. Nonetheless, some country-specific findings can inform the SII discussion,<br />
including: a suggestion of a need for innovation in non-childcare support for unemployed Italian women,<br />
and an expansion in the provision of childcare in the United States, where there is likely to be unmet need<br />
in the pre-school years (3-5) in particular (see Figure 5.5).<br />
© OECD 2015 65
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Figure 5.5 In countries where there is low childcare enrolment and low part-time employment, there is likely to<br />
be unmet demand for childcare<br />
Source: OECD dot.stat, education and employment series, the OECD Family database (both 2014e), and the Health Behaviour in<br />
School-aged Children Study (2010).<br />
Table 5.3: Cross-nationally, changes in aggregate childcare enrolment do not map to female (un)employment<br />
figures<br />
Pre-school<br />
enrolment rate<br />
children aged 3-5<br />
years<br />
% children < 3 in<br />
formal childcare and<br />
pre-school<br />
Women - Part-time<br />
employment<br />
Women –<br />
Unemp. rate<br />
Children 11-15 in<br />
foster or child<br />
homes (per<br />
thousand)<br />
2007 2011 2006 2010 2009 2013 2009 2013 2010<br />
Australia 54.9 59.1 33.2 33.9 32.8 4.6 4.7<br />
Canada 46.7 19.8 19.1 6.1 5.6 11.4<br />
France 100 99.2 42.4 48 21.2 20.7 8.2 8.7 14.1<br />
Germany 91.2 94.2 13.6 23.1 39.1 37.6 6.9 4.6 4.4<br />
Italy 98.3 95.3 28.6 24.2 30.2 32.5 8.5 12.4 17.4<br />
Japan 88.7 88.8 22.5 25.9 30.5 32.1 4.9 3.9<br />
United Kingdom 89.8 94.1 39.7 42 35.1 35.1 5.2 5.6 5.7<br />
United States 59.1 70.3 43.2 13.6 11.7 7.2 6.3 3.5<br />
OECD - Average 77.4 80.9 28.8 32.6 22.7 22.8 7 7.5 7.4<br />
Source: OECD dot.stat, education and employment series, the OECD Family database (both 2014e), and the Health Behaviour in<br />
School-aged Children Study (2010).<br />
5.25 Another ‘family’ social need of interest for SII is children in out-of-home care. Supporting these<br />
children has the potential for large social impacts in terms of providing secure, supportive, and long-term<br />
home environments that maximise the child’s development opportunities and also reducing costs<br />
associated to institutional care (public and private). Table 5.3 presents rates of "looked after" children per<br />
1 000 children aged 11 to 15 and shows that Italy and France have almost twice as many children in foster<br />
or child homes than the OECD average. Examples of SIBs already at work in this area, in the case of<br />
adoption in the United Kingdom and support for "looked after" children in Australia, however it must be<br />
stressed that care for the most vulnerable children should prioritise quality of placement over quantity of<br />
placements, and be carefully monitored for children’s living standards following placement.<br />
66 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
5.2.2 The evolving size of the public share: public social expenditure by sector<br />
5.26 There are a number of important reasons to introduce the size and type of public expenditure on<br />
social interventions for the SII discussion. First, how much public bodies in different countries presently<br />
spend on social interventions can be considered an indication of the revealed willingness to invest in social<br />
impact measures. Second, comparing spending amounts by sector can be used as a proxy for assessing the<br />
size and priority of different social impact investment ‘markets’ (prior to factoring-in the ambitions of SII).<br />
Third, comparing social spending across countries alongside social need can be used to highlight cost<br />
efficiency issues in the public sector, leading to an indication of the extent of need for innovation and new<br />
approaches, such as SII.<br />
5.27 A number of dichotomies are important for understanding how SII, in its different forms, might<br />
fit into public service management: large companies and SMEs, cash and service benefits, and national and<br />
local markets and governance. Across these dichotomies there are links; with larger companies more likely<br />
to be involved in cash investments or financial services (insurance, micro-finance) rather than services<br />
which are more often managed at the local government level and within the potential remit of small to<br />
medium sized enterprise.<br />
5.2.2.1 Government spending: where the money goes<br />
5.28 Figure 5.6 maps government expenditure in the areas of social protection, education, health<br />
housing and public order (each linked to a social outcome area measured above) and clearly shows that<br />
human and social services account for the majority of government expenditure across OECD countries.<br />
The different ways in which public sector services are financed will inevitably result in different challenges<br />
for reform. For instance, where public benefits are financed though social contribution payments,<br />
recipients are likely to expect predefined conditions of delivery to be met (rates of payments, services<br />
standards, or services providers themselves) years into the future. Compared to services financed through<br />
general taxation, the contribution conditions are more likely to challenges to innovation.<br />
5.29 <strong>Social</strong> protection alone makes up one third of total government expenditure on average, and is<br />
over 40% of total government expenditure in France, Germany Italy and Japan. <strong>Social</strong> expenditure<br />
includes old-age care and pensions, as well as payment to families for childcare (family allowances and<br />
childcare, but not education), and unemployment and social assistance payments. Education and health<br />
also make up a large part of government spending, with around 1 in every 4 dollars going to these services<br />
across the OECD. In countries where social protection spending is relatively low, like Australia and the<br />
United States, education and health spending is higher. Over the three sectors of social protection, heath,<br />
and education each country spends around 60% to 70% of its budget.<br />
5.30 Small but socially-relevant interventions of ‘housing and community amenities’ and ‘public order<br />
and safety’ top up the expenditure on social interventions by around 5-8% of total. France stands out as a<br />
country with relatively high housing expenditure, whereas the Anglophone countries are spending more of<br />
total on public order and safety.<br />
5.31 Other research has mapped the trends in government expenditure, and shows that across the<br />
OECD as a whole, the biggest falls over the last decade came in the areas of general public services and to<br />
a lesser extent defence. Health, social protection, and economic affairs show the biggest relative increases<br />
(OECD, 2011b).<br />
© OECD 2015 67
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Figure 5.6: <strong>Social</strong> protection, health, housing and education account for over 60% of total public spending<br />
Structure of general government expenditures by function (2011)<br />
Note: ‘General public services’ includes general services, and spending on defence, economic affairs, environmental protection, and<br />
recreation, culture and religion. Canada is missing due to incomplete expenditure data. OECD average is for 30 countries (Chile,<br />
Mexico and New Zealand also missing).<br />
Source: Government at a Glance, 2013e analysis of OECD National Accounts Statistics (database). Data for Australia are based on<br />
Government Finance Statistics provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.<br />
5.32 An idea of the ‘openness’ of public services by sector to third party interventions can be gleaned<br />
from available estimates of the extent to which the public sector is co-producing 20 in these sectors. An<br />
OECD survey of 26 countries in 2011 (OECD 2011b – Brazil, Egypt, Russia and the Ukraine plus<br />
22 OECD countries) mapped ‘significant’ civil society involvement in the delivery of public series and<br />
showed that of 58 examples of co-production, 19% were in social protection, 16% were in housing and<br />
community amenities, and 10% were in each of the areas of environmental affairs, economic services,<br />
education and health. In each sector, co-production in service delivery was found at all levels of<br />
governance (local, state and federal or national levels - ibid: 23).<br />
5.2.2.2 Trends in social protection spending in cash and in-kind<br />
5.33 The following section explores the evolving market space for SII by breaking down available<br />
government expenditure trends in total social protection, housing and health spending in terms of service<br />
provision and cash spending. The purpose here is to get a better idea of changing demand for social<br />
services, as it is in this area that SII might be possible for entrepreneurs from small, medium and large<br />
enterprises alike. 21<br />
5.34 Figure 5.7 maps the trends in cash spending and service expenditures in each of the G7 countries<br />
and Australia between 1996 and 2011. Across all OECD countries, on average, cash spending was falling<br />
20 . The OECD report defines co-producing as “a way of planning, designing, delivering and evaluating public<br />
services which draw on direct input from citizens, service users and civil society organisations” (OECD,<br />
2011b). This definition differentiates between voluntary involvement citizens and services users and civil<br />
society organisations (including via contractual and semi-contractual obligations) and formal contracting or<br />
outsourcing, services to the private sector (which are not included here).<br />
21 . Although there may be a role for SII in the provision of cash transfers (pensions, social insurance<br />
[maternity pay or hospital costs for childbirth] or micro-credit) these are high-risk large-scale areas more<br />
suitable for larger social enterprises.<br />
68 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
pre-crisis only to pick-up again with increasing demand for low-income cash benefits following 2009. In<br />
contrast, service spending has been steadily increasing.<br />
5.35 Not all countries follow the OECD trend however. Australia, Canada and Germany (the latter<br />
being a traditionally high cash spender) have all seen rates of cash spending fall over the period, whereas<br />
Italy and Japan have seen marked increases in cash spending. In regards to services, all countries with the<br />
exception of France and Germany have seen increases in expenditure of at least 1-2% of GDP or more.<br />
Service spending has increased by close to one-third in Australia and the United States, and almost doubled<br />
in total in Japan.<br />
5.36 Although there is not much difference in service expenditure across the countries, three broad<br />
expenditure groupings are clearly shown here. The European countries of France, Germany and Italy are<br />
high spending countries, favouring cash expenditures. The Anglophones are lower-spenders but are more<br />
balanced by type, to the point where in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, expenditure<br />
levels are now favouring services. Finally, Japan is reporting stable upward trends across both spending<br />
types.<br />
Figure 5.7 Expenditure trends show services are taking up more of the social protection budget, in some case<br />
exceeding cash spending<br />
Note: Data report aggregate public social protection spending by type and do not include private social expenditure or education<br />
expenditure (public or private), but do include housing and health spending. Data for 2011 are provisional. Service spending reflects<br />
running costs of public services, cash spending reflects the value of cash transfers without administrative costs. OECD average is for<br />
34 countries.<br />
Source: OECD <strong>Social</strong> Expenditure Database, 2014a.<br />
5.37 A limitation with Figure 5.7 is that it does not break down the social expenditure by sector, which<br />
is an important task for the SII discussion because of the different sector-specific challenges to this type of<br />
social entrepreneurship. For instance, one driver of the shift to greater service delivery overall is likely to<br />
be demographic change. In the area of social protection there are generally high rates of service<br />
intervention for the preschool years and end of life care, compared to higher rates of cash intervention<br />
© OECD 2015 69
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
across childhood as a whole, and into employment and living supports in adulthood (tax credits, minimum<br />
income guarantees and so on).<br />
5.38 Figure 5.8 and Table 5.4 below introduce the breakdowns of spending types by sector, as well as<br />
trends of these breakdowns, for the G7 and Australia (covering old-age spending, health, housing, family<br />
and (un)employment). Results clearly show that increases OECD-wide in old-age, health, and family, and<br />
no consistent reductions elsewhere across all countries (a small drop in overall unemployment spending).<br />
In old-age, all countries with the exception of the Germany and the United States have seen both increases<br />
in overall spending and service spending, although in some cases this is small. The change in old age<br />
spending is likely to reflect the increasing need for elderly long-term care (personal and household<br />
services) as populations’ age.<br />
Figure 5.8: In most countries old-age spending is growing, in Australia and Japan, services are increasingly<br />
used<br />
Notes and Source: Left-hand axis is for % of GDP, right-hand axis is for in-kind spending as a percentage of total spending. See<br />
table 5.4.<br />
5.39 The OECD’s social expenditure database also maps private (or non-government) social<br />
expenditures – where finances are managed by private bodies (Adema et al, 2011) – and shows that<br />
aggregate mandatory private and voluntary private spending by sector are highest for old age and health.<br />
Mandatory private spending refers to ‘social support stipulated by legislation but operated through the<br />
private sector, e.g., direct sickness payments by employers to their absent employees…’ whereas voluntary<br />
private spending refers to monies managed through ‘privately operated programmes that involve the<br />
redistribution of resources across households’ via collective support arrangements (see Adema et al, 2011c,<br />
93:94 for more details).<br />
70 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Table 5.4: Old-age and Health spending dominate public social protection budgets, and have been increasing<br />
in almost all countries<br />
Australia Canada France Germany Italy Japan<br />
United United<br />
Kingdom States<br />
OECD-30<br />
Old age<br />
1996<br />
3.9 4.2 10.8 8.0 11.0 5.4 5.4 5.1 6.5<br />
14.1% n.d. 2.0% 0.2% 0.6% 4.2% 8.5% 0.8% 7.3%<br />
2011<br />
5.0 4.0 12.5 8.6 13.4 10.4 6.0 6.0 7.4<br />
33.6% n.d. 3.3% 0.2% 0.9% 15.7% 8.7% 0.5% 7.9%<br />
Health<br />
1996<br />
4.6 5.8 8.0 7.8 5.1 5.3 5.3 5.8 4.9<br />
… … … … … … … … …<br />
2011<br />
5.8 7.2 8.6 8.0 7.0 8.2 7.7 8.0 6.2<br />
… … … … … … … … …<br />
Family<br />
1996<br />
2.8 0.8 2.7 2.0 0.7 0.5 2.3 0.5 1.8<br />
21.2% 13.8% 42.1% 37.8% 35.3% 62.4% 20.8% 52.9% 27.8%<br />
2011<br />
2.8 1.2 2.9 2.2 1.5 1.4 4.0 0.7 2.2<br />
31.3% 17.9% 57.7% 44.6% 50.2% 34.8% 34.6% 87.3% 43.1%<br />
(Un)employment<br />
1996<br />
1.7 1.6 2.9 2.9 1.0 0.8 1.1 0.5 1.9<br />
31.3% 28.4% 41.9% 44.1% 34.9% 38.8% 34.8% 32.3% 32.2%<br />
2011<br />
0.8 0.9 2.5 2.0 1.2 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.6<br />
35.9% 25.6% 37.2% 40.1% 33.9% 47.2% 51% 13.8% 35.8%<br />
Housing<br />
1996<br />
0.2 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.7 n.d. 0.4<br />
… … … … … … … n.d. …<br />
2011<br />
0.3 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.1 1.5 n.d. 0.4<br />
… … … … … … … n.d. …<br />
Note: Cells in white report the total public spending by year on each sector as a proportion of GDP, shaded cells report the proportion<br />
of this spending delivered in services with the exception of (un)employment where shaded cells represent the proportion of total<br />
spending on active labour market policies. “n.d.” is for no data, and “…” replaces 100% for health and housing services where total<br />
spending matches total service spending. 2011 data is provisional.<br />
Source: Author’s calculations of OECD <strong>Social</strong> Expenditure data, 2014a.<br />
5.40 Perhaps surprisingly, voluntary private spending outstrips mandatory spending in all countries<br />
(with the exception of Italy – total voluntary spending is almost 4 times as high at 2.3% of GDP on average<br />
in 2011) and Old Age interventions (via pension contributions, at 1.3% of GDP on average) generally<br />
receive more voluntary private investment than health (with the exception of France, Germany and the<br />
United States via health insurance and pharmaceutical purchases). Notably for social enterprises,<br />
particularly in what might be small to medium sized enterprises, service interventions play a very small<br />
role in private social expenditure.<br />
5.41 Across the OECD as a whole, total education expenditures from public and private sources are<br />
also rising (as well as in all of the G7 countries and Australia, with the exception of France and Germany –<br />
see online data annex, and Education at a Glance [OECD, 2013c]). On average in 2010, total public<br />
education spending in the OECD countries stood at 6.3% of GDP compared to 5.4% of GDP in 1995. It is<br />
important to note however, for interpreting where space may exist for SII, these education figures do not<br />
disentangle private spending – whether promoted through mandatory systems, paid by families, or paid by<br />
local voluntary or professional services – from public spending. In most countries private spending is small<br />
relative to public and will more likely go to fees and variable costs associated with education provision<br />
(educational items, books and so on), and not fixed capital costs (buildings and their up-keep and wages)<br />
that public funds cover. SII may look very different in education space depending on which type of<br />
education service is being provided, and which market will provide the custom (private or public). Further<br />
breakdowns might be made in future research, and some countries will be more affected by this than<br />
others, including Japan where private education spending is higher-than-average.<br />
© OECD 2015 71
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
5.2.2.3 Limitations of the data and appropriate interpretation of the data by sector<br />
5.42 <strong>Social</strong> expenditure figures are taken from the OECD <strong>Social</strong> Expenditure Database (SOCX),<br />
education spending figures are taken from OECD Education Database. In theory all government<br />
expenditure should be in the <strong>Social</strong> Expenditure Database; however it is easier to collect federal spending<br />
than regional or local spending because state governments or devolved authorities do not always report to<br />
national governments how the money they managed is being spent (that which is raised, or devolved<br />
through block grants or other mechanisms). In practise this may mean social expenditure data may not<br />
fully represent all spending in countries where money is managed independently at local or regional levels.<br />
5.43 Correct interpretation of the spending figures is important for accurate estimation of the need,<br />
and the potential boundaries, for SII – and so some caution is required. In some cases, missing spending is<br />
more likely to be found in some benefit types and sectors rather than others. For instance the Swiss and<br />
U.S federal systems allow for parental and maternity leave benefits to be provided by cantons or states, and<br />
as such are examples of where family spending can be missed, and cash-based interventions under stated.<br />
Yet, issues to do with missing expenditure are not restricted to federal countries or cash benefits. In the<br />
Netherlands for example, block grant expenditure from central to local government can hide additional<br />
spending on children as municipalities provide the childcare support, and they may finance this service out<br />
of the general block-grant made to municipalities.<br />
5.44 Finally, social expenditure figures do not cover administrative costs (particularly in cash) or<br />
spread the value of large one-off costs (buildings for instance), which in both cases mean that annual<br />
estimates represent an underestimation of the total public cash or service intervention.<br />
5.3 Models of <strong>Social</strong> Service Provision: Who does what and how?<br />
5.45 Having looked at the broadly at the potential market space for SII, this section looks in more<br />
detail at how governments are presently meeting the demand for social services.<br />
5.3.1 Practices in public social service delivery<br />
5.46 In practice, the process of public social service delivery is not too different from providing<br />
services in the private sector. Simply put, the delivery cycle of a social service includes a planning stage,<br />
delivery process and review. In more detail: planning covers when service decisions are made (the ‘gap in<br />
the market’ or ‘social need’ is indicated), and the services are planned and designed; the delivery process<br />
involves commissioning services or service delivery by public employees; and, the review process involves<br />
service evaluation and service re-design (OECD, 2011b).<br />
5.47 In the majority of cases the process of delivery is a cycle; unless a new need is identified or<br />
system innovation is undertaken (this can be driven by effectiveness or efficiency reasons). Recently, two<br />
factors have driven the need for innovation in social services delivery, the first being increased demand for<br />
multiple services in the most vulnerable populations, and the second being reductions in available<br />
resources driven following the onset of the financial crisis and global recession (OECD, 2014f).<br />
5.48 Innovation in social services, increases in demand, and pressures to lower public budgets all point<br />
towards a potential role for new models in delivering social services, including a potential role for social<br />
enterprises. However, the nature of public service delivery can create specific challenges to social<br />
enterprise involvement, and so are salient to the SII discussion, such as:<br />
72 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Governance: whether services are managed and financed at the central, regional or local level, or<br />
even a combination can mean many actors, with different political and financial pressures,<br />
influencing the service delivery methods and desired social impacts. Complex forms of governance<br />
can create different challenges for private social service delivery organisations joining the social<br />
market space particularly in the case of integrated social services, discussed below.<br />
System planning: Public interventions are designed to fit into systems, meaning complementary<br />
public services are considered in the design. SII will exist in a system of complementary public<br />
services which may be relied upon to regulate demand for an SII service, or facilitate outflow from<br />
a service (e.g. social protection will limit/regulate the inflow of homeless people into an SII<br />
homeless service, and homeless treated with SII may benefit from public employment services on<br />
exit). These complementary services will inevitably impact on the achievability of social impact<br />
goals set for an SII, and may create sustainability risks.<br />
‘Cross-sectoral’ returns and ‘wrong’ pockets: Related to system planning are the possibilities<br />
for cross-sector returns, which for SII may mean returns ending up in the ‘wrong pockets’ (see<br />
OECD, 2014f). Where public finances control multiple sectors, systems planning can allow for<br />
returns to accrue in sector A from interventions undertaken in sector B. Moreover, not all returns<br />
will need to be tracked or monetised, in the public system, or achieved within a pre-determined<br />
timeframe – in each case an important challenge for SII reporting.<br />
Fixed capital and human capital: At present, in many countries, public service systems have<br />
large banks of fixed capital and many employees. These bring hidden costs to social service<br />
spending (rates in Figure 5.5 report running costs), but can also represent additional policy options<br />
(with social outcomes) for governments if the location of the service and the employment<br />
conditions therein are part of national plans for employment creation, retention and safe<br />
employment. Both costs and purposes can result in a small market space and lower liquidity of<br />
public funds for private social delivery organisations.<br />
Borrowing, funding streams, and sustainability: Public services are backed by nations and<br />
traditionally have had access to borrowing or funding streams to allow for the treatment of social<br />
need even in the most difficult economic circumstances. They do not have a profit principle,<br />
meaning they can trade-off low cost cases with cases business might see as too costly to work<br />
with. Critiques of SII highlight the profit-principle which may ‘trump’ social efforts at the<br />
individual or community level if the business model becomes unsustainable (Yunus cited in<br />
Esposito, 2013).<br />
5.49 Meeting these challenges effectively is essential for the general SII business case, as well as for<br />
the SII business case by sector (where these issues can be more or less important). The following sections<br />
address both the governance issues and issues with gaps in public service, data, evaluations and measuring<br />
social impact. For the other points there is no further discussion, but this should not detract from their<br />
importance, or the need for effective solutions.<br />
5.3.2 The governance of public benefits and budgets<br />
5.50 Table 5.5 records the level of governance involved in the delivery of services in the sectors of<br />
social protection, employment services, housing, health, education, and public order. Where data is<br />
available, each country row records the level of governance at which social services are managed by sector.<br />
5.51 At first glance this table highlights the complexity of social service delivery across the G7<br />
countries and Australia, with all countries involving different government levels across the sectors,<br />
© OECD 2015 73
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
sometimes mixing government stakeholders within sectors, and involving multiple stakeholders in a single<br />
service area in just over one-third of cases (40 out of 112 examples, sometimes including private<br />
providers). Australia, France, Japan and the United Kingdom have the most centrally-managed services,<br />
Australia and Canada have many regionally-managed services (state or provincial level), and local<br />
government is involved in 7 settings out of 12 in Germany. The United States has by far the most tiered<br />
settings, with no area involving fewer than two government partners.<br />
Table 5.5 The governance of social services is complex and varied across countries<br />
Note: C/F is central or federal, R is regional (referring to states, provinces or counties), L is local (municipalities, local governments,<br />
city governments), Pr. denotes private provider involvement. Data is provisional.<br />
Source: OECD, correspondence with national-expert reviewers.<br />
5.52 A number of issues for the SII discussion can be derived from the above. First, SII by sector will<br />
involve different business models by country, designed to ‘fit’ into pre-existing public models, and so<br />
transferability of good SII practice will therefore need to be assessed accordingly. Second, the complexity<br />
of systems and number of stakeholders in public settings is likely to limit the size of social enterprise startups<br />
generally, as the potential of co-production to scale will be limited or otherwise transaction costs may<br />
be high. Third, where sector investment and sector impact are not aligned in terms of management<br />
(primary health services improving school attendance in the United Kingdom for instance) additional<br />
challenges to measuring assessing the value an impact, and delivering reimbursements, will be additionally<br />
complex creating further transaction costs. Fourth, private enterprise is already a notable co-producer in the<br />
United Kingdom and the United States (cases are highlighted in bold in Table 5.5), the examples of which<br />
can inform practices in other countries. Finally, in some cases, the management and the resources by sector<br />
will not be aligned, for instance when central government block grants pay for local level service delivery<br />
(including outsourcing), which can create uncertainty and risk in regards to sustainability of SII funding<br />
sources, complementary public services, and the expectations for the social impact made by any given SII.<br />
5.53 Evidence on how public resources are shared between levels of governance is shown in<br />
Figure 5.9. Using the example of Canada, on the top right-hand side of the figure, shows that sub-centrally<br />
derived revenues (y-axis), at below 60%, are lower than the proportion of total government expenditure<br />
undertaken at the sub-central level (x-axis) at over 60%. This means that some central government funding<br />
74 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
is being devolved to the sub-central level for administration (around 10% of total). All countries under the<br />
45 degree line receive devolved funds to some degree. Notably, in Australia and the United States<br />
sub-central governments only administer their own revenues; in Japan, some sub-central revenues are<br />
administered at the central level.<br />
5.54 For SII, as noted above, not only will this shift of funds create levels of uncertainty about streams<br />
of revenue etc. to social enterprise where it exists, but the information on the share of revenue administered<br />
at different levels highlights the potential for SII to function differently in different countries (nationally<br />
administered services will have different ‘business’ plans compared to locally administered services, for<br />
example in the areas of fixed capital and employee ‘banks’, economies of scale, underlying legislation and<br />
reporting/auditing mechanisms).<br />
Figure 5.9 How much of central government funds are devolved to local authorities for social interventions<br />
varies widely<br />
Note: G7 countries and Australia are highlighted.<br />
Source: OECD (2013b).<br />
5.4 Evaluating what works in social service provision<br />
5.55 The evidence on social outcomes and social spending shown sections 5.2 and 5.3 can be used to<br />
highlight challenges and opportunities for SII. However, together these only highlight the space into which<br />
SII might move, and they do not provide any clear messages as to how to implement processes that might<br />
‘fill these social outcome gaps’.<br />
5.56 This section reviews briefly the mix of evidence on good practice in public service provision in<br />
the area of elderly care and childcare, highlighting potential opportunities for SII. What is most evident is<br />
that better data and evaluations are needed. Chapter 7 discusses briefly ways to address this gap, and<br />
provides a point of departure for meaningful outcome measurement for impact evaluation in this area.<br />
5.4.1 Good practice in service provision<br />
5.57 Reading the data on social outcomes above alongside the data on public interventions clearly<br />
shows continued and sometimes expanding social need in the context of increases of public spending in<br />
most social sectors. In particular, the areas of elderly care and childcare stand out as priorities. For SII to<br />
© OECD 2015 75
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
make a meaningful contribution to these areas it is important to have an understanding of what makes for<br />
good practice in these areas.<br />
5.4.1.1 Services supporting long-term elderly care: what works?<br />
5.58 Increasing demand for long-term care of the elderly in many OECD countries is putting<br />
increasing pressures on many public budgets through increasing health costs (and creating social care<br />
service and pension needs) and this is projected to almost double in most countries over the next 3 decades.<br />
For these reasons integrated care services for the frail elderly have received much attention from<br />
policymakers in recent years. Below are some examples of integrated care practices and their social<br />
outcomes evaluations (focussing on reduction in hospital care) for the frail elderly: 22<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A longstanding integrated care service for the over 75’s in Canada (the Programme of Research<br />
to Integrate the Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy or PRISMA) coordinates integrated<br />
care provision through a joint governing board, and in some cases, pooled funds. A Randomized<br />
Controlled Trial (RCT) evaluation of PRISMA found reduced functional decline of programme<br />
participants, more satisfaction with their care, and reduced likelihood to re-use emergency<br />
department services 10 days after discharge (Hebert et al., 2005).<br />
Two small integrated care pilot programmes, Rovereto and Vittorio Veneto, were undertaken in in<br />
two provinces in Italy in the 1990s and provided integrated community-based medical and social<br />
services to the elderly. Evaluations of both programmes showed reductions in acute hospital<br />
admissions, and positive health outcomes amongst programme participants (MacAdam, 2008).<br />
In Victoria, Australia, the Hospital Risk Admission Programme (HARP) pilot provided services<br />
to elderly people who regularly attended hospital emergency departments. Through engagement<br />
with the elderly person’s carer, case management, multi-disciplinary teams, and outreach, the<br />
service achieved a reduction in emergency department admissions (of 20.8%), inpatient care (of<br />
27.9%) and number of bed days for inpatient care (of 19.2%) (Bird et al., 2007).<br />
In England, in 2008, the Integrated Care Pilots programme (ICPs) involved number of<br />
organisations integrating the care of older people with long-term conditions (via case<br />
management or care planning) for the purpose of lowering the risk of hospital admission. The<br />
evaluation of these two-year pilots showed decreases in planned admissions, outpatient service<br />
use and process improvements (e.g. use of care plans, professional training – without associated<br />
measurable social outcomes), but no increase in patient satisfaction was recorded, and there was<br />
no reduction in emergency department admissions (RAND, 2012).<br />
5.59 Services delivery practices that were successful at reducing high cost emergency services use and<br />
hospital care included involving the elderly person’s carer (HARP), case management of individuals,<br />
service planning and single point of entry to multiple service providers (all examples with the exception of<br />
ICPs), multi-disciplinary teams (HARP and Rovereto / Vittorio Veneto), screenings or assessments<br />
(PRISMA, Rovereto / Vittorio Veneto), outreach (HARP), service coordination boards (PRISMA).<br />
5.60 Integration practices are gathering momentum in OECD countries as political interest in cost<br />
effectiveness grows – meaning SII and private social delivery organisations can embrace these approaches,<br />
and find solutions to the specific challenges of working in complex governance settings.<br />
22 . The following evidence is summarised from OECD 2014f, Chapter 3, section 3.5.<br />
76 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
5.4.1.2 Services supporting families with young children: what works?<br />
5.61 Services to support families represent a different type of ‘investment’ expenditure and clear links<br />
with later life outcomes (in some cases creating returns decades after an intervention). Relative to the<br />
‘treatment’ of frailty in old-age, family supports are an investment designed to ‘prevent’ children from<br />
being unprepared for school, the economy and society. Moreover, there is evidence of unmet demand for<br />
childcare in different countries of the OECD, as well as evidence of increasing public commitment to<br />
family services in every country in relative terms (the exception is Japan, where overall family spending<br />
has tripled, and although absolute level of family service spending has increased, this is relatively lower<br />
than cash spending).<br />
5.62 Service interventions for families and children in France, the United Kingdom and the United<br />
States that have been subject to RCTs, show that: 23<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Nurse-family partnerships and home health visits providing pre- and post-natal care for low<br />
income mothers and their infants in their own homes in New York, Memphis, and Washington<br />
produced positive gains in intended child well-being (including educational outcomes) and<br />
parenting outcomes including parenting practices (Greenberg and Shroder, 2004).<br />
Integrated childcare interventions in the United States (North Carolina’s Abecedarian programme<br />
and Michigan’s Perry Preschool), although relatively small (109 and 123 participants, respectively)<br />
produced large, long-term gains in education and health. These results have persisted over several<br />
decades, and in the case of the Perry Preschool service, early childcare also produced benefits in<br />
adult income and employment (Schweinhart and Weikart, 1993; Schweinhart, 2003).<br />
Evaluations of general family supports had mixed outcomes, with positive outcomes from the<br />
French intervention in Créteil that actively engaged parents and school to remedy truancy and<br />
disciplinary issues, and the Carrera programme in the United States which offered integrated<br />
support services to teenagers to improve educational engagement. Among the other family support<br />
interventions aimed at providing services for parent and child well-being, there were few benefits.<br />
Practices here included: case management and integrated service delivery (U.S. Comprehensive<br />
Child Development Programme), home visits by “supportive listeners” or community groups<br />
(British <strong>Social</strong> Support and Family Health Programme), and case management to teen mothers (the<br />
Young Families Can, Phoenix, United States) (OECD, 2014f).<br />
5.63 Mobile home health units, and delivery of services in the home were successful in producing the<br />
desired social outcomes due to benefit of home service that reduce service take-up barriers (affordability,<br />
motivation etc.) and the chance it provides to professionals to gauge the full extent of the family living<br />
conditions and needs (McKeown, 2000). Childcare practices were successful where multiple integrated<br />
services (e.g. education, nutrition, health) are provided in childcare settings for the most at-risk children<br />
and less successful where fewer at-risk families took up the service (see OECD, 2104f). Finally, for more<br />
general family service interventions, successful interventions included engaging with parents in the school<br />
(for truancy and discipline), and less successful interventions included comprehensive support (parent and<br />
child well-being), case working (teen pregnancy) and supportive listening (maternal and child health – see<br />
OECD, forthcoming 2014).<br />
5.64 Some key messages for SII here include: the highest social returns are found in the most<br />
vulnerable groups, although these groups will often require more intensive services; returns on social<br />
interventions in childhood may take many decades to come to fruition; and, providing services in people’s<br />
homes, and to family units, creates unique opportunities for tailoring care to specific needs.<br />
23 . The following evidence is summarised from OECD 2014g, Chapter 3, section 3.4.<br />
© OECD 2015 77
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
References<br />
Adema, W., P. Fron and M. Ladaique (2011), “Is the European Welfare State Really More Expensive?:<br />
Indicators on <strong>Social</strong> Spending, 1980-2012; and a Manual to the OECD <strong>Social</strong> Expenditure<br />
Database (SOCX)”, OECD <strong>Social</strong>, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 124, OECD<br />
Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg2d2d4pbf0-en<br />
Bird, S., Kurowski, W., Dickman, G K, Kronborg, I. (2007) “Integrated care facilitation for older patients<br />
with complex health care needs reduced hospital demand” Australian Health Review August 2007<br />
Vol 31 No 3.<br />
DPMC (2012) Government Response to Senate Economics References Committee Report ‘<strong>Investing</strong> for<br />
good: the development of a capital market for the not-for-profit sector in Australia’, June 2012,<br />
downloaded at http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/docs/government-response-investing-forgood.pdf,<br />
August 2014.<br />
ECNL (2009) ECNL Study on Recent Public and Self-regulatory Initiatives Improving Transparency and<br />
Accountability of Non-profit Organisations in the European Union, April 2009.<br />
Esposito, R. (2013) The <strong>Social</strong> Enterprise Revolution in Corporate Law: A Primer on Emerging Corporate<br />
Entities in Europe and the United States and the Case for the Benefit Corporation. William and Mary<br />
Business Law Review, Vol.4, Issue 2, Article 7.<br />
Gallup World (2014) Gallup World Poll, www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/en-us/worldpoll.aspx.<br />
Greenberg, D. and M. Shroder (2004), The Digest of <strong>Social</strong> Experiments: Third Edition.” The Urban<br />
Institute Press, Washington, DC.<br />
Guardian (2014) Tesco Unlocks its Landbank to Build 4,000 New Homes: downloaded here, August 2014.<br />
HBSC (2010) Health Behaviour in School-aged Children Study. See HBSC.org.<br />
Heckman, J. J., and Masterov, D. (2007) The Productivity Argument for <strong>Investing</strong> in Young Children,<br />
NBER Working Paper. No. 13016, Cambridge.<br />
MacAdam, M. (2008) “Frameworks of Integrated Care for the Elderly: A Systematic Review” CPRN<br />
Research Report, April 2008.<br />
OECD (2011a) Doing Better for Families, OECD Publishing, Paris.<br />
OECD (2011b) Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with citizens and civil society, OECD<br />
Publishing, Paris.<br />
OECD (2013d) OECD Health Statistics 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/health-data-en<br />
OECD (2013e) Government at a Glance, OECD Publishing, Paris.<br />
OECD (2013c), Education at a Glance 2013 – OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris,<br />
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2013-en.<br />
78 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
OECD (2014a) <strong>Social</strong> Expenditure database, OECD Publishing, Paris.<br />
OECD (2014b) Society at a Glance, OECD Publishing, Paris.<br />
OECD (2014c) OECD dot.stat: employment series, OECD Publishing, Paris.<br />
OECD (2014d) <strong>Investing</strong> in Youth: Brazil. OECD Publishing, Paris.<br />
OECD (2014e) OECD Family database. OECD Publishing, Paris.<br />
OECD (2014f), Integrated Service Delivery for Vulnerable Groups, forthcoming.<br />
RAND (2012) "National Evaluation of the Department of Health’s Integrated Care Pilots: Final Report"<br />
RAND Europe, Ernst & Young LLP, prepared for the Department of Health, March 2012.<br />
Reiser, D. (2013) Regulating <strong>Social</strong> Enterprise, Contribution to the 2013 Columbia Law School Charities<br />
Regulation and Oversight Project Policy Conference on the “The Future of State Charities<br />
Regulation”, downloaded at http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/item/ac:168586, August 2014.<br />
Richardson, D. (2009) Extreme Poverty and Vulnerability on OECD Countries: A Scoping Paper. OECD<br />
DELSA-ELSA-WP1 (2009)6.<br />
Schweinhart, Lawrence (2003), "Benefits, Costs, and Explanation of the High Scope Perry Preschool<br />
Program." Paper presented at the Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,<br />
Tampa, Florida.<br />
Schweinhart, L. And D. Weikart. (1993), “Success by Empowerment: the High Scope/Perry Preschool<br />
Study through Age 27.” Young Children.<br />
SII Taskforce (forthcoming) <strong>Impact</strong> Investment: The Invisible Heart of Markets, September 2014.<br />
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes UNDOC (2011) Crime Series: www.unodc.org. in OECD<br />
(2014) Society at a Glance, OECD Publishing, Paris.<br />
© OECD 2015 79
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
6. SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT MARKET DATA: INITIAL FINDINGS<br />
This chapter summarizes the initial work on data collection, focusing on the G7<br />
countries and Australia. It reviews the available data and current data collection<br />
processes and highlights some of the data challenges, including in terms of pulling<br />
together reliable and internationally comparable data. It also provides<br />
recommendations for moving forward.<br />
6.1. Introduction<br />
6.1 As seen in the development of other parts of capital markets (venture capital, angel investment,<br />
etc.) data on activity and performance can play an important role in helping to grow the market. Even at<br />
this early stage of development of the social impact investment market, a stronger evidence base would<br />
help in encouraging a global market to develop (HM Government, 2013c). Different players involved in<br />
the market, including policymakers, have been calling for more data on SII as well as a better and more<br />
accurate understanding of the size, scope, evolution and potential of the market.<br />
6.2 The OECD has sought to gather information on SII data sources and data collection processes.<br />
The research process included reviewing the academic literature that focuses on SII-related data, industry<br />
reports that bring together information on the size and scope of SII in the different countries and<br />
information from other data sources. The OECD conducted further research to provide an overview of<br />
existing SII data sources and data collection approaches, pinpointing main data-related challenges.<br />
6.3 As an integral part of this process, the OECD worked together with SII data experts and<br />
academics to identify major data gaps and challenges, as well as to discuss ideas for better data collection<br />
in the future. The OECD organised two SII Expert Meetings in the first half of 2014. The first meeting<br />
took place on the 21 st March, 2014 at the OECD headquarters in Paris. The second meeting was held on the<br />
18 th June, 2014 at the U.K. Cabinet Office, London. The OECD thanks the UK Cabinet Office for hosting<br />
the meeting as well as all participants in both workshops for their input into the process. The list of<br />
participants in both workshops can be found in Annex A.<br />
6.4 A number of data challenges are common to all the parts of the SII framework. First, data needs<br />
to be collected in a more comparable way across countries. Harmonised definitions of social enterprises,<br />
social impact investors and social impact investment transactions are needed to facilitate cross country data<br />
collection efforts. Second, with unclear definitional boundaries, deciding what exactly is being measured<br />
(target population) is a major challenge and limits the scope for any sampling exercise. Third, and also as a<br />
result of definitional challenges, measurement errors are common, either overstating or understating the<br />
target population. Finally, it is unclear how detailed the data breakdown should be. Higher levels of<br />
granularity are more informative, but require data collection efforts that are more resource intensive and<br />
involve further related challenges in terms of deciding what should or should not be included as SII.<br />
Overcoming such barriers can help unlocking data that is not yet accessible.<br />
6.5 This section discusses different data types, reviews which data are currently available, what types<br />
of data collection processes are currently in place and what other data is needed.<br />
80 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
6.2. Data types and data collection purposes<br />
6.6 Before engaging in data collection it is important to clarify the goal of collecting the data.<br />
Policymakers might be interested in collecting data to monitor market developments, forecast future<br />
developments or evaluate policy interventions. Such data will necessarily need to include information on<br />
social needs and social outcomes. These objectives are different from those of other market participants<br />
that might want to collect data, for example, to inform investors of investment opportunities. In this case,<br />
relevant data will include current risk-return profiles, benchmarking, and forecasting potential market (and<br />
segment) growth, inter alia. Some players (mostly intermediaries) collect data as part of their business<br />
model, as it will be discussed later.<br />
6.7 Different data types serve these different purposes. For example, while monitoring the market<br />
essentially requires data on SII transactions (deals and volumes), forecasting will need a good<br />
understanding of potential demand and supply. In doing so, we make a clear distinction between potential<br />
demand and supply on the one hand, and effective demand and supply and transactions (i.e. satisfied<br />
demand) on the other hand.<br />
6.8 For example, looking at the demand-side for SII ( a parallel can be drawn to the supply-side),<br />
potential demand for SII originates from unmet social needs (discussed in Chapter 5) and is translated into<br />
the SII market through delivery organisations that require funding to address such needs. Most currently<br />
available data on SII demand concerns potential demand (see Section 6.3). In other words, it measures a<br />
population of social delivery organisations that could potentially be SII investees. However, it is important<br />
to note that not all social delivery organisations will become investees. This will depend on their financing<br />
needs and funding preferences as discussed in Chapter 3. Legal structures are also important as they may<br />
inhibit some SII-type of funding (e.g. NPIs). Therefore, only a fraction of the social enterprise sector, for<br />
example, will be SII investees.<br />
6.9 Second, it should be clear that identifying the potential demand for SII is different from<br />
measuring effective demand for SII. Some reports (e.g. NAB reports; Brown and Swersky, 2012) focus on<br />
identifying the scope for future SII demand, which contrasts for example with the information coming<br />
from surveys that aims at identifying financing needs within delivery organisations (see Section 6.3).<br />
6.10 Third, satisfied demand is the effective demand that is matched by capital providers\investors<br />
(possibly through intermediaries) and results in SII transactions, including deals and flows. 24 The nature<br />
and sources of data that allow identifying the scope of potential and\or effective demand\supply, as well as<br />
transactions is likely to be different. For example, while transaction data will mainly come from<br />
intermediaries, estimating potential demand will require, inter alia, a combination of governmental data<br />
and detailed financial information on delivery organisations. Therefore, it is very important to decide a<br />
priori what type of data is needed to serve the purpose of a specific data collection effort.<br />
6.3. Review of Existing Data Sources: Data sources by framework component<br />
6.11 Overall, current data availability on SII is very limited. A comprehensive picture of the SII<br />
market requires sizing the different components as discussed in Chapter 3: i) SII demand (including social<br />
needs and social service providers); ii) SII supply (i.e. pools of capital and investors); iii) SII<br />
intermediaries and financing instruments.<br />
6.12 Annex 6.1 provides a list of SII data sources for G7 countries and Australia. The UK is the<br />
country in which most data is available, as a result of 10 year track record of SII market building, as well<br />
24 . Returns and other relevant data associated with SII flows is considered here to be part of transactions.<br />
© OECD 2015 81
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
as a series of commissioned surveys and research papers. The list contains information gathered through<br />
desk research and further information received from participants in the <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Expert<br />
meetings. The data sources are organised in accordance to the SII framework. Three main data categories<br />
are identified and correspond to information on the demand (SII investees), supply (SI investors) and<br />
transactions (SII intermediaries). For each category, examples and some of the specific data challenges are<br />
described below.<br />
6.3.1. Demand- side data<br />
6.13 Demand-side data for SII includes information — both demographics and financial information<br />
— about a number of different market players that deliver social services or goods and are potential (or<br />
effective) investees. Table 6.1 below summarises the key demand-side players, data-related challenges as<br />
well as some examples of data sources. Demand side data can be obtained from different types of data<br />
sources.<br />
Table 6.1. Summary of type of demand-side players, challenges and data sources<br />
Organisation Type Definition & Data<br />
Challenges<br />
<strong>Social</strong> entrepreneurs (SE)<br />
Charities<br />
Non-profits institutions (NPIs)<br />
<strong>Social</strong> purpose organisations (SPOs)<br />
Cooperatives<br />
Development trusts<br />
Mutuals<br />
No consensus on the type of<br />
organisation to be considered<br />
within the scope of SII<br />
Taxonomy is country-specific<br />
“Solidarity” companies, FRA<br />
Notes: Some examples are provided in italic below each point.<br />
Source: OECD, based on desk research.<br />
Legal form of companies varies by<br />
country<br />
No match between legal form and<br />
the SI investee<br />
Types of Data Sources<br />
Business Registers \ Statistical<br />
Offices (legal structure)<br />
Community interest Companies<br />
(CIC), UK<br />
Surveys<br />
SESS, CAN; ICSI2007, ITA<br />
Certification Organisations<br />
B-Corporation; IRIS; GIIRS<br />
Associations<br />
Cooperative Association, GER<br />
Directories<br />
Groupe SOS, FRA; Non-Profit<br />
Finance Fund, US;<br />
6.14 Some SII demand-side organisations have a specific legal structure or a generally accepted<br />
classification (e.g. community interest companies in the U.K, "entreprise solidaire" in France). It is<br />
possible to collect SII demand data, based on aggregation of data from organisations with specific legal<br />
form(s). The underlying information can be obtained from National Statistical Offices (NSOs) or other<br />
agencies that compile business register data. However, social enterprises and other social providers are<br />
defined by their objective of providing social outcomes, thus organized in many different legal forms<br />
(GHK, 2013). By providing incentives for social enterprises to report information (e.g. certification,<br />
visibility and investor networks), some organisations have been able to collect information on SII demand<br />
(e.g. B-Corporation, GIIRS).<br />
6.15 Legal structures and certification do not always allow a precise mapping of SII demand-side<br />
organisations, nor do they necessarily provide financial data (important to understand financing needs).<br />
Creating a common and well defined legal type category for social businesses can help in identifying social<br />
companies and sizing the market as well as targeting policy. While in some countries, legal mechanisms<br />
82 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
that recognise some form of SII-related business structures are already in place, further efforts to create the<br />
appropriate formal enterprise structures are needed (WGMA, 2014).<br />
6.16 An alternative to drawing upon legal form is to conduct demand side surveys, specially designed<br />
to identify the scope for SII demand. Surveys are the most common form of obtaining SII data and are<br />
discussed at length later in the chapter. The Non-profit Finance Fund survey in the United States is an<br />
example of a demand-side survey specifically aimed at understanding the financing needs of social<br />
enterprises. This was also the approach followed by the provincial-level <strong>Social</strong> Enterprise Sector Surveys<br />
initiative (SESS) in Canada described below in Box 6.1. Close collaboration with local institutions and<br />
organisations was important to ensure a good coverage of the survey. The major drawback is that mapping<br />
SII using this approach can be extremely time consuming and resource intensive.<br />
Purpose<br />
Box 6.1. <strong>Social</strong> Enterprise Sector Survey<br />
The <strong>Social</strong> Enterprise Sector Surveys (SESSs) are conducted within a project that aims at highlighting “the size,<br />
scope and impact of social enterprises at a provincial level”. Identifying the demand for SII is not the original purpose of<br />
these surveys. However, by mapping the social enterprise sector along with the financial performance of identified<br />
social enterprises, SESSs can provide an indication of the scope for SII in the surveyed Canadian provinces. The first<br />
surveys were launched in 2010 (British Columbia and Alberta) and by the end of 2014, most Canadian provinces will<br />
have been covered at least by one survey wave. A total of 15 SESSs have either been completed or are currently<br />
being carried out.<br />
Definition of social enterprise and survey approach<br />
In order to conduct the surveys, a social enterprise (SE) were defined as follows:<br />
In terms of function, the enterprise should “provide goods and services in the marketplace, motivated by<br />
a clear social, cultural, environmental or employment mission”.<br />
In terms of legal structure, the enterprise should i) be incorporated as a NPI or ii) be a private company<br />
100% owned by a NPI.<br />
This definition excludes a number of important organisations active in the SII market such as co-operatives,<br />
voluntary associations and, most importantly, social purpose business ventures and other forms of social business<br />
activity by the private sector. Therefore, this approach results in conservative estimates of the scope of the SE sector.<br />
The objective is to survey the population of social enterprises in each Province, using the following steps:<br />
Identify potential social enterprises through a close collaboration with local institutions and<br />
organisations, knowledgeable about the potential scope of the SE sector in each province;<br />
Contact potential social enterprises to screen out those that would not be considered as SE according<br />
to the working definition;<br />
Send the questionnaire to identified SE<br />
Sampling challenges remain, in particular since it is not fully clear what is the representativeness of the sample.<br />
In addition, of those organisations identified as social enterprises, the response rate has, so far, been around 30-40%<br />
and obtaining further information on non-respondents still remains a challenge. Nevertheless, the strength of this<br />
approach is to focus on the local level and engaging with local organisations and institutions involved in the social<br />
enterprise sector, which allows for a better understanding of the potential scope of the sector in each region.<br />
Resulting indicators<br />
Indicators developed include business demographics, sales and revenue, expenditures, employment and<br />
volunteer engagement. These provide a broad overview of the scope of the SE sector as well as key characteristics of<br />
social enterprises across the different Provinces. More importantly, they contain information on the financial<br />
performance of social enterprises.<br />
© OECD 2015 83
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
In addition to objective information on financial performance from expenditures and sales (and other forms of<br />
revenues), the new wave of surveys launched in 2014 also includes a number of questions regarding social<br />
enterprises’ access to finance. As an example, the 2014 SESS for Alberta explicitly asks whether access to loans,<br />
access to grants or cash-flow management were a significant challenge for social enterprises. Together with objective<br />
financial information, survey results can provide a baseline estimate for the scope for SII in each Province.<br />
Source : Elson and Hall (2013); http://www.sess.ca/english/<br />
6.17 In addition, some types of social ventures belong to various associations and networks. This is,<br />
for example, the case of the Cooperative Association in Germany. The existence of such associations can<br />
help with sampling. Moreover, associations of specific types of delivery organisations (e.g. cooperatives)<br />
may also collect data on members. It is often in the interest of associations to disclose some information<br />
about their members for promotion purposes. Some organisations involved in SII activity also maintain<br />
directories of delivery organisations. This is, for example, the case of some NPIs active in SII such as the<br />
Groupe SOS in France, or financial intermediaries that share a list of its portfolio companies (e.g.<br />
Oltreventure; ClearlySo). 25 These associations and networks can be a key interlocutor in future data<br />
collection efforts.<br />
6.18 Analysing the demand side of the SII framework involves a number of challenges. First, it is not<br />
yet clear what type of organisation should be considered within the scope of SII. For example the<br />
discussions are still evolving in terms of what exactly can be considered a social enterprise. Literature<br />
shows that social enterprise definitions have changed across time and geographies (Kerlin, 2010), and is<br />
strongly influenced by differences in social context. As an example, in the analysis of the 2013 Alberta<br />
SESS above, Elson et al. (2013) note that the definition of social enterprises “excludes social purpose<br />
business ventures and other forms of socially responsible business activity by the private sector, as well as<br />
enterprising activities by all orders of government”. Changing definitions over time result in challenges for<br />
data interpretation. Focusing on the social intent of organisations, as described in Section 4, could help in<br />
identifying the demand side of the SII framework. However, collecting data based on social intent would<br />
require an objective and consensual measurement of intent.<br />
6.19 Teasdale et al (2013) show how different criteria to identify social enterprises in the UK, used in<br />
surveys over time, has resulted in biased estimates of the growth of the social enterprise sector<br />
(Figure 6.1). While for example initial surveys such as the ECOTEC, 2003 could understate the full extent<br />
of the social enterprise population (Type I error), the ASBS dataset compiled in 2007 might have included<br />
companies that are beyond the scope of the social enterprise concept (Type II error) — Type I and Type II<br />
errors are discussed at length in Section 6.4. Therefore, any interpretation of the increase from around<br />
5 300 social enterprises in 2003 to around 60 000 in 2007 must take into account changing criteria over<br />
time.<br />
6.20 Second, legal forms do not match what could be understood as an SII investee. Even if they did,<br />
these would not necessarily be comparable across countries. Due to the different systems, taxonomy varies<br />
from country to country. As an example, “solidarity” companies in France are not directly comparable to<br />
social cooperatives in Italy or community interest companies in the UK. In mapping the social enterprise<br />
sector across EU countries, Wilkinson et al. (2014) finds a wide range of legal forms and classifications in<br />
different countries.<br />
25 . Oltreventure’s directory can be found at http://www.oltreventure.com/index.php/investimenti/riepilogo.<br />
ClearlySo provides a directory of social enterprises around the world, available at<br />
http://www.clearlyso.com/directory.html.<br />
84 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Figure 6.1. <strong>Social</strong> enterprise in UK surveys<br />
Note: DTI stands for Department for Trade and Industry. In 2002 DTI defined social enterprise as “a business with primarily social<br />
objectives, whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than being driven<br />
by the need to maximise profit for shareholders and owners” (DTI, 2002). ASBS stands for the Annual Small Business Surveys where<br />
questions were added by DTI in order to assess the percentage of social enterprises in mainstream businesses. NSTSO is the<br />
National Survey of Third Sector Organisations. Please also refer to ECOTEC (2003) and ITF (2005).<br />
Source: Teasdale et al. (2013). © 2013 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis is licensed under<br />
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.<br />
6.21 Third, most of the information available on the demand side provides general demographic<br />
information on organisations that may require SII funding, but information on actual financing needs is<br />
scarce. <strong>Social</strong> enterprises do not necessarily disclose the relevant financial information needed to<br />
understand whether pressing financing needs exist. Therefore, information available is usually limited to a<br />
sample of firms for which financial information is available (e.g. Unicredit Foundation, 2012) or based on<br />
surveys that specifically ask for financing needs. In order to derive effective SII demand, it is necessary to<br />
look at how much financing delivery organisations need. Further efforts to collect data on financing<br />
constraints of social enterprises or information that allows for the estimation of the underlying financing<br />
needs (e.g. detailed financial information on social enterprises) are still needed.<br />
6.3.2. Supply-side data<br />
6.22 While not much data is available on effective supply of SII financing, except that obtained from<br />
surveys, investor platforms and transaction data sources, different data sources exist that provide<br />
information on potential pools of capital that could be deployed — Section 6.2 discusses the distinction<br />
between data on potential and effective SII activity. Also, SII supply forecasting exercises are increasingly<br />
common, but require strong assumptions such as the percentage of assets that may be committed to SII. As<br />
mentioned before, sources of data that allow measuring effective supply are likely to be different from<br />
those used for potential supply and forecasting.<br />
© OECD 2015 85
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
6.23 Some data sources provide information on social impact investors and, more broadly,<br />
organisations providing finance to social ventures. As discussed earlier, the supply of SII can include a<br />
wide variety of players from foundations and venture philanthropy funds to institutional investors and high<br />
net worth individuals (HNWI). Governments also play an important role. Traditionally, they have been the<br />
largest providers of funding to address social issues, either through cash transfers or direct provision of<br />
social goods or services (see Chapter 5).<br />
6.24 Table 6.2 below summarises the key supply-side players, data-related challenges as well as some<br />
examples of data sources. Supply-side data can be obtained from different types of data sources. Data<br />
related to the role of the government as a social impact investor can be obtained from NSOs. However,<br />
different levels of administration (central; regional; local) can entail measurement challenges. In countries<br />
in which some tax breaks may apply, for example in the UK, National Tax Offices will store information<br />
about eligible companies. 26 Also, in the US, the IRS discloses a list of all organisations eligible to obtain<br />
tax-deductible charitable contributions. 27 Other institutions in the public sphere, such as central banks,<br />
financial market regulators and other financial supervisory bodies, monitor and compile information on<br />
investment activity and capital pools. The information is usually too aggregate, but can still be useful to<br />
estimate the potential capital that could be deployed into SII on the basis of a top-down approach due to<br />
difficulties in tracing-down actual SII amounts (Addis et al., 2013).<br />
Table 6.2. Summary of type of supply-side players, challenges and data sources<br />
Organisation Type Definition & Data<br />
Challenges<br />
Types of Data Sources<br />
Government (National and local)<br />
Foundations<br />
<strong>Social</strong> venture funds<br />
Venture philanthropy funds<br />
Institutional investors<br />
Corporations<br />
High Net Worth Individuals (HNWI)<br />
Mass retail (crowdfunding)<br />
Untapped pools of capital<br />
(dormant funds)<br />
Most information is on potential<br />
assets to be deployed<br />
The actual amount of SII is hard to<br />
trace.<br />
Sizing and assessing potential<br />
entails significant assumptions.<br />
Confidentiality issues<br />
National Statistical Offices<br />
<strong>Social</strong> expenditures, National<br />
Accounts<br />
Networks\Associations<br />
Japan Foundation Center; EVPA,<br />
Europe<br />
Surveys<br />
JP Morgan\GIIN;<br />
National Tax Offices<br />
Tax breaks<br />
Financial system<br />
Financial Market Authorities;<br />
Central Banks<br />
Notes: Some examples are provided in italic below each point.<br />
Source: OECD, based on desk research<br />
26 . Information on the UK’s <strong>Social</strong> investment tax relief is available at<br />
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-investment-tax-relief-factsheet/social-investment-taxrelief.<br />
27 . Available at: http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/forwardToPub78Download.do.<br />
86 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
6.25 Associations and networks also track some data on investors. Examples of these include the<br />
Japan Foundation Centre for foundations; ACRI for bank foundations in Italy or EVPA for venture<br />
philanthropists across Europe. However, they typically only provide information on specific types of<br />
investors and coverage is limited to membership and to certain categories of data that fall short of what is<br />
needed for an effective mapping of SII.<br />
6.26 Information about institutional investors sourced from the financial system (central banks and<br />
financial market authorities) as well as international organisations (e.g. OECD, IMF) and associations can<br />
also provide an indication of the size of assets that could potentially be deployed into SII, assuming a small<br />
percentage of those investors might be interested in SII. That interest would be conditional on a number of<br />
factors such as monetising social returns and the creation of adequate financial vehicles to attract<br />
investments from these investor types. A report by the World Economic Forum notes that these<br />
mainstream investors require at least a market risk adjusted financial return due to fiduciary responsibilities<br />
(WEF, 2013). The Asset Allocation Working Group report (WGAA, 2014) analyses how the fiduciary duty<br />
perception that SII cannot deliver required financial returns (amongst other challenges) has been limiting<br />
the allocation of funds to SII financial instruments. It also discusses how this challenge can be tackled and<br />
SII integrated into portfolio structures of mainstream investors in the future, increasing the opportunity for<br />
portfolio diversification.<br />
6.27 Figure 6.2 below overviews financial assets held by major types of institutional investors for G7<br />
and Australia. In comparison to GDP, these institutional investors hold large sums of money, even though<br />
investments may often take place overseas. In some cases representing more than 90% of GDP (e.g.<br />
pension funds in UK and insurance companies in France), institutional investors can steer the SII market<br />
even if committing extremely small shares of their total portfolios into SII.<br />
Figure 6.2. Financial assets of institutional investors<br />
As a percentage of GDP, 2011<br />
Source: OECD (2013f).<br />
© OECD 2015 87
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
6.28 As in other areas, surveys have been the main tool to profile social impact investors and quantify<br />
available capital. For example, in the JP Morgan\GIIN <strong>Impact</strong> Investor Survey series (Box 6.2 below) the<br />
survey sample has been increasing. This imposes some limits to a longitudinal analysis — in the last<br />
survey a subsample of respondents overlapping with the previous edition (67 out of 125) was used to make<br />
a comparative statics analysis. The most important is to guarantee that the sample provides a good idea<br />
about the effective distribution of characteristics across different investors.<br />
6.29 The GIIN\JP Morgan survey is particularly interesting because it combines quantitative<br />
information (e.g. investments; assets under management; returns) with qualitative information (e.g. growth<br />
perspectives; return expectations). If efforts are made to obtain a representative sample with longitudinal<br />
data, it is possible to track if investors’ expectations regarding the SII market are actually being met (e.g.<br />
Saltuk et al., 2014).<br />
88 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Box 6.2. GIIN\JP Morgan Survey<br />
J.P. Morgan and the GIIN have been collecting data on impact investors through surveys since 2011. The joint<br />
surveys target investing organizations such as foundations, funds or financial institutions and apply a broad definition<br />
of impact investment, as described in Chapter 4. Individual investors are however excluded from the analysis. Also,<br />
only investors with assets under management above USD 10 million are included. As a consequence, the resulting<br />
sample is not representative of the whole SII market. Nevertheless, it is amongst the most comprehensive sets of<br />
information on the supply side of the SII market.<br />
So far, three different survey waves have been carried out (2011, 2012 and 2013) and the sample of investors<br />
has been increasing (52, 99 and 125, respectively). Also, respondents do not necessarily overlap which means that<br />
caution is needed when interpreting trends along the different survey waves —The table below provides a comparison<br />
of targeted SII (amounts that investors are willing to invest) and the actual investment volumes in 2011, 2012 and 2013<br />
survey waves. It is possible to see significant investment leaps between the survey waves. These cannot be regarded<br />
as market growth but rather sampling changes. Saltuk et al. (2014) make a comparative analysis that carefully focuses<br />
on the 67 survey respondents that had participated the year before (Saltuk, 2013). Tracking the exact same individuals<br />
would allow comparing a priori targeted investments for a given year with the subsequent volume of investments in that<br />
year.<br />
2011 survey 2012 survey 2013 survey<br />
n=52; n=88 n=87 (2013) n=125 n=124 (2014)<br />
Targeted<br />
2012<br />
Transactions<br />
(volume)<br />
2012<br />
8,0<br />
investments<br />
Targeted<br />
2013<br />
Transactions<br />
(volume)<br />
2013<br />
10.6<br />
investments<br />
Targeted<br />
2014<br />
3.8<br />
9,1<br />
investments<br />
investments<br />
Note: in billion USD. Information on survey response rates is not available<br />
12.7<br />
investments<br />
The survey results convey information on a number of different investor characteristics, including investor size<br />
(AUM), investor type (e.g. family office, fund manager, foundations, etc…), headquarters and geographical focus,<br />
sector focus, asset class focus, investment stage focus, return expectations, sources of capital (for intermediaries).<br />
In addition, information is also gathered with respect to investors’ perspectives, in particular regarding: i)<br />
Adequate risk and return profiles; ii) Motivations for impact investments; iii) Evolution of the SII market (e.g. usage of<br />
standards, investment opportunities, availability of capital for SII); iv) Major challenges for impact investing; v) Role of<br />
policy; vi) Planned investments in the near future (1 year); vii) Importance of metrics to evaluate performance.<br />
Source: Saltuk et al. (2011; 2013; 2014)<br />
6.30 An important challenge in collecting supply-side data relates to confidentiality requirements. This<br />
is also an issue for data collection in the venture capital and angel investment markets, in which supply<br />
side data is collected by survey from investors. For example, while most information from financial system<br />
regulators is not disclosed, data originating from survey exercises often needs to be anonymised (e.g. if it<br />
requires the disclosure proprietary or other types of sensitive data). For example, confidentiality issues can<br />
be particularly relevant for high net-worth individual.<br />
6.3.3. Intermediaries and transactions<br />
6.31 In terms of sizing the SII market, obtaining transaction data is crucial. However, this type of data<br />
is very hard to access, perhaps due to the fact that the market is still in embryonic phase in most countries<br />
and the necessary data collection processes have not been put in place. Currently the data remains in small<br />
pockets, used only by those directly involved in the transactions.<br />
© OECD 2015 89
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
6.32 Table 6.3 below summarises the key intermediaries, data-related challenges, as well as some<br />
examples of data sources. Data on intermediaries and transactions can be obtained from different types of<br />
data sources. Transaction data is collected by social banks and wholesale banks such as Big Society Capital<br />
in the UK. <strong>Social</strong> exchanges have recently been established in some G7 countries such as the UK (<strong>Social</strong><br />
Stock Exchange) and Canada (SVX) although the earliest exchanges were developed in other countries.<br />
With increasing deal activity, these exchanges can become an important source of SII transaction data in<br />
the near future. Nevertheless, transactions through social stock exchanges will likely only account for a<br />
small share of total SII activity.<br />
Table 6.3. Summary of types of intermediaries, challenges and data sources<br />
Organisation Type Definition & Data<br />
Challenges<br />
Types of Data Sources<br />
<strong>Social</strong> banks<br />
<strong>Social</strong> investment wholesale banks<br />
Community Development Finance<br />
Institutions (CDFIs)<br />
Fund managers & Tax advantage<br />
funds<br />
<strong>Social</strong> exchanges<br />
Crowdfunding platforms<br />
SII Networks/platforms<br />
DFIs and development banks<br />
Several organisations collecting<br />
data but different types and in<br />
various ways.<br />
Data usually collected to address<br />
investor needs.<br />
Market still in embryonic phase in<br />
most countries.<br />
Identifying the set of<br />
intermediaries can be helpful to<br />
identify all potential players<br />
collecting transaction data<br />
Banks/Wholesale banks<br />
BSC, UK; Bpifrance, France<br />
Funds<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Assets; NCIF, US;<br />
<strong>Social</strong> exchanges<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Stock Exchange, UK; SVX, CAN<br />
Investor platforms<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Base, GIIN; Maximpact;<br />
Engaged Investment, UK<br />
Crowdfunding platforms<br />
Masssolution, US<br />
Networks\Associations<br />
Finansol, FRA; CFDA, UK<br />
Notes: Some examples are provided in italic below each point.<br />
Source: OECD, based on desk research.<br />
6.33 In parallel, the number of SII investor platforms has been increasing in recent years. These<br />
platforms provide a useful tool for investors interested in investing with a social impact. In addition, they<br />
gather information on investees, investors and, in some cases, transactions. <strong>Impact</strong> Base from GIIN or<br />
Maximpact (yet to become operational) are examples of platforms from which transaction data can be<br />
obtained. Some platforms, such as Engaged Investment in the UK, are not only collecting raw SII<br />
transaction data, but also developing taxonomy with the objective of constructing SII market indexes (see<br />
Box 6.3). In addition, there are specific types of platforms, such as Massolution in the US, that gather<br />
information on certain types of transactions (in this example, crowdfunding), some of which might be<br />
classified as SII.<br />
6.34 Tax can play an important role in the SII market (City of London, 2013). Information on special<br />
tax regimes exists for example in the UK for social impact investment (<strong>Social</strong> investment tax relief). Tax<br />
offices would, in theory, be able to gather and aggregate such information, based on any tax credits and tax<br />
rebates that may apply. This approach could potentially provide a more comprehensive overview of both<br />
the number and volume of SII deals. However, accessing such administrative data is not always possible<br />
and requires overcoming confidentiality issues.<br />
90 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Box 6.3. Benchmarking SII: EngagedX<br />
EngagedX collects SII transaction data with the objective of aggregating it into time-series market data that can<br />
be used to benchmark the performance of individual investments, funds or capital managers. Anonymised transaction<br />
data is being shared by leading SII intermediaries and fund managers in the UK, with plans to scale globally.<br />
EngagedX has been commissioned by the <strong>Social</strong> Investment Research Council (comprising Big Lottery Fund, Big<br />
Society Capital, the Cabinet Office, Citi and The City of London Corporation) to assemble a dataset of historic<br />
performance of the UK market. This dataset will bring together comparative data about outturn risk and returns of<br />
investments in relation to capital pricing.<br />
Data is collected and normalised according to a reporting framework developed collaboratively by EngagedX and<br />
industry practitioners. This helps categorise and compare transactions according to a number of characteristics,<br />
including product type, risk banding, sectors, investor and investee characteristics as well as the nature of social<br />
outcomes. The figure below depicts the high level architecture of the EngagedX data model.<br />
Source: EngagedX Investment STandards (EXIST), Version 2.2.2 (5 June 2014)<br />
The resulting information will help showcase the risk-return profiles of SII in relation to mainstream capital<br />
markets. It will also identify the different drivers of social and financial performance in SII as well as how risk-return<br />
benchmarks vary across different social areas, geography or other relevant market segmentation.<br />
Source : http://www.engagedinvestment.com, accessed on July 18, 2014<br />
6.35 Surveys have also been used to gather information on intermediaries. An example can be found<br />
in the <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> 2.0 initiative (see Box 6.5), in which 30 out of 350 funds analysed met the criteria<br />
to be considered social impact investment, and 12 were selected for in-depth analysis. The samples are<br />
small and not necessarily representative of the market, but these efforts are useful in helping to build the<br />
evidence base.<br />
6.36 As noted earlier, associations and sector networks can play an important role as data providers.<br />
Establishing the parallel to the venture capital market discussed earlier in this paper, most of the current<br />
transaction data sources are venture capital associations (e.g. EVCA in Europe or NVCA in the US). These<br />
© OECD 2015 91
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
associations collect data directly from the venture capital firms. Some national angel investment<br />
associations also play a data collection role.<br />
6.37 Even though data from some of these venture capital associations or angel investor networks can<br />
be fairly comprehensive, usually it only covers information obtained from members or associates. This<br />
caveat is even more important in areas where the association\network might only represent a small share of<br />
the market players. This is, for example, the case of business angel associations and networks. The case<br />
with SII is even more challenging given the varying views on definitions and the potential incentives for<br />
investors to classify themselves as social impact investors when they might not qualify. Rapidly growing<br />
SII-related associations such as Venture Philanthropy Associations (e.g. EVPA in Europe or AVPN in<br />
Asia) will certainly be important in future data collection efforts.<br />
6.38 The main challenge in sourcing data from intermediaries is that it is usually collected to address<br />
investor needs. Data disaggregation, in terms of social areas, relevant to a policymaker might be very<br />
different from the breakout and labels that would be appealing to an investor. It is important to distinguish<br />
the data requirements of investors, researchers and policymakers as outlined in Section 6.2. For example,<br />
while data collected for investors should reflect mostly financial characteristics (e.g. risk-return profiles,<br />
investor perspectives and investor practices, track record), data for policymakers should make the link with<br />
social outcomes and collected in such a way to provide the basis for informed policy action. Further work<br />
is needed to obtain data in a way that can provide insights for policy guidance.<br />
6.4. Current Approaches to Data Collection<br />
6.39 Various approaches might be used to collect SII information depending on which parts of the<br />
market are being assessed. However, none of the currently available approaches are optimal. The first is a<br />
top-down approach where key national aggregates are identified that allow the estimation of the SII market<br />
conditional on (strong) assumptions. The second is to compile information from players that have a<br />
common legal form directly linked to SII. The third is to collect data via surveys from market actors. Data<br />
requirements can also vary depending on who is seeking the data (market players, academics, policy<br />
makers). The details, advantages and disadvantages of each approach are described below.<br />
6.4.1. Top-down approach<br />
6.40 Some of the components of the SII framework can be estimated using a top-down approach.<br />
Within this approach, the first step is to obtain data on national aggregates. Since this data are highly<br />
aggregated, it combines a myriad of different information sets that go beyond SII. Therefore, the key is to<br />
single out the SII components. For this exercise a number of (rather strong) assumptions are required. First,<br />
it requires that some (rough) idea of the shares of the SII component, which needs to be based either on<br />
perceptions or historical information.<br />
6.41 While using shares based on perceptions can be misleading, depending on historical data assumes<br />
that it is: i) representative of the SII market; and, ii) there are no structural shifts, and thus percentages<br />
remain the same. On one hand, significant challenges still remain in terms of sizing the market. On the<br />
other hand, the SII market is evolving and growing rapidly, which means that assuming stable shares of the<br />
SII component might be unrealistic. In addition, it is important to note that even if shares provide a good<br />
representation of reality in one country, it will likely not be the case in different countries with different<br />
social systems. As a result, this approach has significant limitations. Although it can be useful to provide<br />
rough estimates of the market and foresights of demand and supply in the coming years, it does not allow<br />
effective measurement of SII demand or supply, nor is it able to provide insights into SII deal flows.<br />
92 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
6.42 Examples of the use of this approach can be found in measurement exercises focusing on<br />
potential funding from institutional investors or funding from governments. As an example, work being<br />
carried out by NABs has provided information on the scope of public expenditures and public procurement<br />
based on National Accounts aggregates. The potential SII demand was identified by narrowing down to<br />
social service delivery funded by government. Another potential use of this approach is the measurement<br />
of potential investments by institutional investors as described in section 6.3.2.<br />
6.4.2. Bottom-up approach<br />
6.43 A different approach to sizing SII components is to focus on individual units (e.g. social<br />
enterprises, specific types of investors or intermediaries). This approach requires that sufficiently detailed<br />
information is available at a high level of disaggregation that allows identifying individual units within SII.<br />
Information to identify SII delivery organisations would include sector of economic activity, legal form,<br />
business description\mission, inter alia. This information could either come from NSO micro databases or<br />
from commercial data providers. As a second step, it is then essential to understand whether the individual<br />
units gathered represent the population or a subset of it. In the most likely case that it only represents a<br />
subset of the population, it is important to ensure that the sample is representative (e.g. through observing<br />
characteristics contained in the data). Finally, based on the information gathered, the SII component can be<br />
measured either through aggregation (if the population is observed) or by inference (if using a subset of the<br />
population).<br />
6.44 The key challenge of using this approach is ensuring that either the whole population is observed<br />
or the sample is representative. Section 6.6 discusses sampling challenges at length. The emphasis given to<br />
NSOs derives from the fact that they usually provide information on a population set or at least on a<br />
representative sample. In addition NSOs have expertise in collection of high quality data in a consistent,<br />
cross country comparable way. The United Nations Handbook on Non-Profit Institutions in the System of<br />
National Accounts (UN, 2003) provides guidance for NSOs to identify and collect data on NPIs. An<br />
interesting feature is the practical solution to the measurement approach to non-market output (i.e. social<br />
impact). As a long term goal, it would be important to consider agreement on definitions and legal<br />
structures in such a way that (demand) data can be collected in a systematic and internationally comparable<br />
way by NSOs.<br />
6.45 Examples of this approach can be found in efforts to size the demand side of the SII framework<br />
(specifically measuring the social enterprise sector). In a study of the Italian social enterprise sector, Fedele<br />
and Miniaci (2010) use commercial data sources (Amadeus database from Bureau van Dijk) to distinguish<br />
the capital structure of cooperatives (proxy for social companies) vis a vis for profit enterprises.<br />
© OECD 2015 93
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Box 6.4. Satellite Account on Non-Profit Institutions<br />
The Satellite Account on Non-Profit Institutions (NPIs) was introduced to respond to a growing non-profit sector<br />
that was not taken into account in the agreed System of National Accounts (SNA 1993). The Handbook (UN, 2003)<br />
provides guidance regarding the identification of all NPIs, in particular through a clear definition of NPI, the valuation of<br />
volunteer work and by introducing a classification system for NPIs based on their function. The need for improved data<br />
coverage — insofar as there were no incentives for NSOs to collect data on NPIs — and the increased policy<br />
relevance, were also key motives for developing this system.<br />
There are a number of distinctive characteristics in NPIs that required a specific statistical approach, different<br />
than the applied to corporations and governmental units. Some of these characteristics, such as the revenue structure,<br />
capital sources or tax treatment, can also be found in SII. By classifying NPIs into 12 group types (see Table A.6.1,<br />
Annex) and providing a system for categorising revenues and expenses as well as volunteer work, donations, as well<br />
as non-market output, the Satellite Account for NPIs provides a harmonised framework for mapping the NPI sector.<br />
Also, it provides data on the extent to which foundations fund other parts of the non-profit sector such as health or<br />
research<br />
For the case of SII, it would be important to highlight the measurement of non-market output. While the traditional<br />
SNA measures output through sales revenue. For the case of some NPIs and SII, part of the output will not be<br />
measured this way and output will be undervalued. This is particularly the case if an organisation has a significant<br />
portion of its revenue coming from donations and other non-sales types of revenue. The measurement approach does<br />
not attempt to value non-market output. Instead, the valuation of non-market output is based on the difference between<br />
costs and sales. If negative the non-market output will be zero, if positive it will be equal to the difference between<br />
sales and costs. Even though this approach is not optimal, it provides a practical solution to the measurement issue.<br />
Source: UN (2003).<br />
6.4.3. Surveys<br />
6.46 The most direct source of data is to conduct surveys of key actors in the market. Surveys can be<br />
very resource-intensive, but provide extremely rich information if well designed and implemented. The<br />
first step in a survey process is to identify key SII players — social enterprises, investors or intermediaries,<br />
depending on the SII component under analysis. This is challenging, since depending on the type of survey<br />
respondent, greater detail and data granularity can be achieved.<br />
6.47 Recently, the OECD carried out a survey of <strong>Social</strong> Economy Organisations (SEOs), understood<br />
as organisations with non-profit objectives, operating in 14 different regions, corresponding to 8 countries<br />
(OECD 2013g). The geographical scope was limited, but the results insightful. The survey was answered<br />
by 655 SEOs and revealed that, on average, SEOs finance themselves mostly through internal resources —<br />
i.e. their “profit”\cash generating ability — (31.8%) and subsidies (30.6%). In addition, as the level of<br />
detail increases, so do survey costs. 28<br />
6.48 Second, survey design is crucial for efficiently and effectively achieving the objectives of the<br />
analysis. In designing surveys, it is important to reach the right balance between the amount of information<br />
requested and simplicity — i.e. respondents may feel less encouraged to complete the survey if it becomes<br />
too complex and time consuming. Also it is important to consider sampling frames to be able to know what<br />
part of the population is being surveyed (ensure representativeness). To date, most surveys on SII have<br />
focused on selected networks of key market players in certain geographies and therefore it is not clear<br />
whether the data is representative of the population.<br />
28 . Sample size varied by region (between 16 and 145 SEOs). Response rates where unknown in many regions<br />
due to lack of information on the number of surveys distributed. Where available, response rates varied<br />
between 6.4% and 17.7%.<br />
94 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
6.49 Survey response rates are often lower than initially expected. It is important to understand why<br />
there are non-respondents. Designing the appropriate incentives for reporting good quality data is essential.<br />
Moral hazard issues in previous data collection efforts were identified during the OECD SII Expert<br />
Meeting in Paris. Incentives should ensure that, for example, portfolio losses are reported in a rigorous<br />
way. In addition, it is important to note that incentives should be tailored to the type of SII player being<br />
surveyed. For example, showing respondents part of the survey outcomes could provide a good incentive<br />
to some types of respondents such as fund managers.<br />
6.50 Third, data control and verification mechanisms are crucial to ensure high data quality standards.<br />
In some surveys carried thus far, data was checked through registration documents (e.g. Saltuk et al., 2011,<br />
2013, 2014). Finally, building upon the sample collected while ensuring its representativeness, it is<br />
possible to draw broader conclusions about SII activity (inference making).<br />
6.51 The CASE initiative on impact investing (CASE i3) provides good examples of surveys aimed at<br />
building the SII evidence base. Launched in 2010 it partners with different market players (social<br />
entrepreneurs, investors, academics and policymakers) in order to provide build the SII evidence base<br />
(Box 6.5). An interesting feature of this initiative is the simultaneous focus on the demand and supply sides<br />
of SII.<br />
Box 6.5. CASEi3 work on building the evidence base<br />
Case is a recent initiative launched in 2010 by the Center for the Advancement of <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship<br />
(CASE), based at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business, US.<br />
Within CASE i3, a number of surveys have been carried out, either focusing on social entrepreneurs or on<br />
investors. The surveys are done in partnership with B Lab (focusing on social entrepreneurship) and with GIIRS (aimed<br />
at impact investment funds). Two separate datasets on companies and impact funds are maintained by CASEi3. As of<br />
March 2013, the company dataset covered over 8000 for-profit impact entrepreneurs. In terms of the funds database, it<br />
covers a total of over $4.5Bn in AUM.<br />
CASE i3 also runs a MBA on <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong>. This is an interesting approach that accrues benefits in terms of<br />
increased research capacity, since students are involved in consultancy and research work, while engaging with<br />
academics and practitioners in the field of <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong>.<br />
Case i3 also has the capacity to commission research to outside academics and consultants which further<br />
enriches the contribution of the initiative to advancing the knowledge about the SII empirical base. In particular, it<br />
commissioned research in 2012 to work with the data collected on social entrepreneurs with the objectives of i) making<br />
comparative analysis of the effects of being a B-corporation and ii) improving the data collection mechanism (including<br />
streamlining the survey). A new call for research proposals is expected for September 2014 and will focus on analyzing<br />
the supply side data. A sample of the survey can be found online.<br />
The data on funds has been used for a report (Clark et al., 2013), where 12 out of 12 major funds selected<br />
between 30 very successful <strong>Impact</strong> funds (out of initial list of 350 potential impact funds). These accounted for $1.3bn<br />
total assets.<br />
Data collected includes proprietary information so it is only disclosed to the greater public at aggregated levels<br />
through a series of reports and working papers. Nevertheless B-corp profile information is made available and includes<br />
company general information and<br />
Source : CASE i3 website at http://sites.duke.edu/casei3/<br />
6.52 Since the beginning, CASE i3 has been collecting data via surveys on social entrepreneurs and<br />
impact funds, in collaboration with B-Corporation and GIIRS, respectively. The survey of demand side<br />
organisations is used to label companies as a B-corp (Box 6.6). Therefore, there is a high incentive for<br />
companies to report the data because they can benefit from the label. The survey has been being improved<br />
© OECD 2015 95
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
over time (will soon be in its third version) and efforts have been made to reduce the number of questions<br />
(above 100). Since the main goal is to profile companies, financial information is very scarce (only<br />
includes one variable on total revenue), which would be important for the purposes of estimating SII<br />
demand. Also, the focus is on for-profit organisations, so, again, it might not fully cover what is<br />
understood as SII (e.g. including NPIs; Cooperatives). CASE i3 has also commissioned research in 2012 to<br />
investigate the benefits of being labelled as a B-corp (this research is still ongoing). With this respect, the<br />
challenge is to have an unbiased and representative sample of B-corps and non-B-corps so that robust<br />
comparisons can be made.<br />
6.53 The survey on the supply side provides information on fund performance that can then be linked<br />
to portfolio company data. The objective is to provide input for the GIIRS rating system that rates both<br />
funds and portfolio companies. The ratings do not result from financial performance but rather focus on the<br />
(potential) for social\environmental impact. The underlying survey and quality check procedures used in<br />
GIIRS follow the same structure as those used for B-corp but the survey questions and type of information<br />
requested is adapted to serve the rating purposes. The data reporting burden is shared between the fund and<br />
portfolio companies as both benefit from being rated.<br />
6.54 Surveys are extremely resource intensive and entail significant challenges in terms of identifying<br />
appropriate samples. Population and sampling issues are discussed at length in Section 6.6. Developing a<br />
resource-efficient way to exhaustively map the SII market remains a challenge.<br />
6.55 Scoping exercises and pilot surveys can provide valuable input to improving SII survey design.<br />
However, new survey initiatives should be made in collaboration with existing efforts, to build upon<br />
existing experience as well as avoid survey fatigue. This is particularly relevant at early stages of market<br />
development, when different organisations may end up collecting data simultaneously. To collect globally,<br />
cross-country comparable data, new survey instruments may be needed, but should be implemented in<br />
partnership with existing initiatives and provide a broader coverage of SII activity across countries.<br />
6.56 Different data approaches might be more appropriate to size different parts of the SII market<br />
given its current embryonic state. For the demand side, bottom-up approaches that rely on some form of<br />
SII-related legal form or classification might be preferable; however, for investors a top-down approach<br />
could be sufficiently informative. However, surveys appear to be the best overall option at the moment —<br />
despite high costs, sampling issues and survey fatigue risks — since not much information on SII is<br />
available.<br />
6.5. Current SII data and market estimation<br />
6.57 The SII market and concepts are new in most countries, thus the evidence base is very scarce.<br />
Market estimates mainly come from industry reports, while some academics have focused on measuring<br />
the scope of SII activity. This process has been facilitated by the work of the National Advisory Boards set<br />
up by the <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce established by the G8 and new initiatives such as Expert<br />
Group on <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship in EU or the CASE i3 in the US have helped building the evidence base<br />
and pushing forward the data discussion. 29<br />
29. Information on the Expert Group on <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship can be found at:<br />
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_business/expert-group/index_en.htm<br />
96 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
6.5.1. Academic literature building on SII data<br />
6.58 Even though academic literature on social enterprises is large, academic literature on SII is<br />
relatively scarce. In particular, academic papers that attempt to measure the scope of SII are rare. Table 6.4<br />
below provides examples of the academic literature that focus on gathering and analysis SII-related data.<br />
6.59 In terms of market components, most of the advances in data analysis have been on the demand<br />
side. The academic literature on social enterprises is extensive. For example, international research<br />
networks specifically devoted to social enterprises (e.g. EMES; TEPSIE) have been established and<br />
contributed to advances in the understanding of the social enterprise sector. 30 Mapping of social enterprises<br />
(lactu sensu) exist for a number of countries. Smith and Rothbaum (2013) provide an overview of business<br />
demographics trends related co-operatives across several countries, including Canada, France, Germany,<br />
Italy, UK and US.<br />
Table 6.4. Examples from academic literature<br />
Article Country Data Source<br />
Alcock et al (2012) UK Case study (SEIF) Survey covering 1653 companies<br />
(285treated+1368non-treated)<br />
Lyon et al (2010) UK Case study (SEIF) Survey –See Alcock et al (2012)<br />
Nicholls (2010b) UK Rough UK Landscape Different reports<br />
Nicholls (2010a)<br />
Global Broad mapping N\A<br />
(focus UK)<br />
Anttonen and Haikio<br />
(2011)<br />
Finland Demand indicators in<br />
elderly-care sector<br />
Documents provided by Min.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Affairs and Health<br />
Hazenberg (2011) UK 15 SIFIs (out of 22 Interviews w\ fund managers<br />
identified)<br />
Florek (2013) UK Community interest<br />
companies<br />
National Survey of Third Sector<br />
Organisations<br />
Mendel and Barbosa Global Exchange platforms Exchange platforms websites<br />
(2013)<br />
Blazy (2011) FRA; USA Sizing social sector. SII<br />
in USA<br />
Government sources for FRA<br />
(e.g. DARES). Reports and Gvt<br />
Wells (2012) UK Case study<br />
(Futurebuilders)<br />
Borzaga et al (2010-WP) ITA sample of 320 Italian<br />
social cooperatives<br />
Fedele and Miniaci (2010- ITA 2007 balance sheet data<br />
WP)<br />
for 504 companies, of<br />
which 226 are<br />
cooperatives (proxy for<br />
Smith and Rothbaum<br />
(2013)<br />
Source: OECD, based on desk research.<br />
sources for US (e.g. CDFI Fund)<br />
FBE Annual Review Data<br />
ICSI2007 database; see also<br />
Scalvini et al (2007)<br />
Bureau van Dijk – Amadeus.<br />
social companies)<br />
Global Cooperatives Canada: Rural and Co-Operatives<br />
Secretariat;<br />
France: Les Scop and INSEE<br />
Germany: DGRV;<br />
Geschäftbericht<br />
Italy: Census on Cooperatives<br />
UK: Co-operatives UK;<br />
US: University of Wisconsin<br />
Center for Cooperatives<br />
30 . Information on the EMES network can be found at http://www.emes.net/. Information from the European<br />
project TEPSIE is available at http://www.tepsie.eu/.<br />
© OECD 2015 97
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
6.60 The academic literature is not very prolific in terms of studies analysing and mapping investors<br />
and intermediaries. While some papers go into detail on a specific market component (e.g. Mendel and<br />
Barbosa, 2013 overview existing exchange platforms), others focus on case studies of specific instruments<br />
(e.g. Alcock et al., 2012 evaluate the impact of the SEIF in the UK). Therefore, the mapping of SII is<br />
always very incomplete. Recent research initiatives such as the CASE i3, described before in Box 6.5, are<br />
aiming at providing robust evidence on the SII market as a whole.<br />
6.5.2. Industry reports<br />
6.61 While there are few academic papers, an increasing number of industry reports have attempted to<br />
size the SII market. These reports look at the market from different angles and often use different<br />
definitions that may include different things. Many of these reports focus on certain countries, geographies<br />
or sectors providing a window into parts of the SII market but a fragmented and sometimes contradictory<br />
view on the overall market. Without a comprehensive picture — either in terms of market potential,<br />
effective demand\supply or actual transactions —, data collection efforts can result in significant biases.<br />
6.62 A number of these reports build on the same few data sources and on limited evidence from case<br />
studies (and many of the same cases are used repeatedly). To date, most SII data obtained comes from<br />
surveys (e.g. Saltuk et al, 2011, 2013, 2014) and interviews that have been conducted by SII<br />
intermediaries, government agencies and/or consulting firms. Even though the information collected in<br />
these reports is a big step forward towards a better understanding of SII, sample sizes are often limited and<br />
estimates of the SII market often require strong assumptions.<br />
6.63 A number of industry reports have provided some estimates on the actual (or potential) size of the<br />
SII market. Table 6.5 below provides examples of SII market estimates as well as a brief explanation of the<br />
approached followed. Few reports focus on actual transactions, rather measuring effective demand and<br />
(quite often) estimating the market potential and forecasting future market growth. These numbers should<br />
be regarded with caution since they rely on rather strong assumptions and the underlying market estimation<br />
effort entails a non-negligible number of challenges. The estimates presented in the table are just<br />
illustrative since the underlying data and methodologies are very different due to data availability in each<br />
country. Therefore, any comparison of estimates across reports should be avoided.<br />
6.64 The strategies to collect data previously described can broadly be found in the existing industry<br />
estimates of the SII market. As an example, Weber and Scheck (2012) take a bottom-up approach to size<br />
the German SII market, by compiling information on a number of major SII investors. Specifically, they<br />
sum up the assets, investments and funding from BonVenture, the <strong>Social</strong> Venture Fund, Auridis gGmbH<br />
and the KfW funding. Therefore the estimates might be downward biased since not all SII players are<br />
included due to data collection challenges.<br />
6.65 As discussed before, estimating the actual size of the market requires a different approach, as<br />
well as different data and respective sources. The strategy followed by Brown and Swersky (2012) to<br />
forecast future SII investment demand was the following. First, a number of key SII sectors were identified<br />
and further disaggregated into 26 subsectors. Second, the share of economic activity performed by social<br />
organisations was calculated for each subsector. Third, the capital requirements of social organisations<br />
were calculated by sector. Finally, by comparing present with future capital requirement (based on sector<br />
growth and capital depreciation assumptions), it is possible to calculate the investment needs and thus<br />
forecast future SII demand. The underlying raw data is obtained through a combination of a survey to<br />
40 SII market players, interviews and publicly available data sources, in a mixed bottom-up (sector level)<br />
and survey approach.<br />
98 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Report<br />
Brown and Norman<br />
(2011)<br />
Brown and Swersky<br />
(2012)<br />
Table 6.5. Some market estimates from industry reports<br />
Country Estimate \<br />
Estimate<br />
Type<br />
Approach<br />
\Region MKT potential<br />
year<br />
England £165 million Potential Survey (78 SIFIs) 2010/11<br />
England £750 million potential<br />
demand (£1bn in 2016)<br />
Potential<br />
Mixed, but essentially 2015<br />
Bottom-up (starting from<br />
sector level demand)<br />
Survey (125 investors) 2013<br />
Saltuk et al (2014) Global USD 10.6bn<br />
commitments<br />
Effective and<br />
Transactions<br />
Addis et al.(2013) AUS A$ 300m investment, Potential Top-down 2012<br />
A$2 billion AUM<br />
Harji et al. (2014) CAN >CAN$1.6bn in AUM Effective and Survey & interviews 2013<br />
Transactions<br />
Chua et al. (2011) Asia USD 44-74bn potential Potential Bottom-up (starting from 2020<br />
AUM<br />
sector level demand)<br />
La Croix (2014) FRA EUR 6.02bn Solidaritybased<br />
Effective and Member reporting 2012<br />
AUM<br />
Transactions<br />
Clark et al. (2013) Global USD 1.3bn total assets Effective Survey 2013<br />
(12 funds)<br />
Weber and Scheck GER EUR 24m market Effective Bottom up (Sum of key SII 2012<br />
(2012)<br />
volume<br />
investors)<br />
Hope Consulting USA USD 120bn (willingness Potential Survey (5,227 individuals; 2010<br />
(2011)<br />
to invest in high<br />
873 investment advisors;<br />
performing non-profits)<br />
727 foundations)<br />
Freireich and Fulton US USD 26bn community Transactions N\A 2007<br />
(2009)<br />
investing<br />
Notes: Estimate year refers to the date to which the estimate corresponds to (usually different from publication date). AUM stands for<br />
assets under management.<br />
Source: OECD, based on desk research.<br />
6.66 The pure survey approach is followed by Saltuk et al. (2014) and is described in Box 6.2. As<br />
previously discussed, the key for successfully estimating the SII market is to guarantee that the sample is<br />
representative of the target population and that selection biases are mitigated. These remain key challenges<br />
in nearly all SII surveys because the boundaries of the target population (and definition) are still blurry.<br />
6.67 A common caveat found in most industry reports relates to the strategies employed to estimate<br />
the current (or potential) market. Strong assumptions, such as constant shares (across time and geography)<br />
for the SII component of more aggregate measures can induce significant biases. Also, it is sometimes<br />
assumed a nexus\relationship between SII demand and supply that is not self-evident. For example, Chua<br />
et al. (2011) first calculate a sector-level SII demand projection assuming that 5% to 15% of total demand<br />
in each sector is satisfied through SII. Second, building on the demand estimate, the SII total invested<br />
capital is calculated through a formula based on estimated profit margins (by sector), return on equity and<br />
average cost of capital.<br />
6.68 An additional caveat found in some industry reports is an emphasis on case studies and\or a<br />
selection of very successful SII transactions, investors or social enterprises (e.g. Clark et al., 2013). In<br />
particular if such small (and biased) samples are built upon to draw conclusions on the evolution of the SII<br />
market. It should be noted however, that such reports do not claim to size the whole SII market, but rather<br />
provide a kick-start to the discussion on building the evidence base. Avoiding selection biases is crucial<br />
and to do so, it is crucial to include in the samples not only the best and the good, but also the not so well<br />
performing cases (Bloom and Clark, 2011). The right incentives need to be devised in order to ensure the<br />
survey participation of, at least a representative sample of the target population. Providing feedback on<br />
interim survey results can be a good incentive to increase survey participation (Bloom and Clark, 2011).<br />
© OECD 2015 99
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
6.6. Challenges in SII data collection<br />
6.69 Scoping and sizing the global SII market is an enormous challenge. There is no consensual<br />
definition across different geographies and, above all, market players and researchers involved in SII. This<br />
implies that most market estimates are not directly comparable. Data is not being collected in a<br />
standardised and systematic way.<br />
6.70 Most importantly, the lack of a consensual definition creates enormous challenges in identifying<br />
the target population — i.e. what exactly is being measured. For example, the scope of SII demand cannot<br />
possibly be identified as long as the boundaries of SII delivery organisations are blurry. Sampling schemes<br />
avoid the need to capture information about the whole population by focusing on a representative subset.<br />
However, sampling requires a clear definition of the population along with a number of key observable<br />
characteristics. So, in the case of SII, even if a sampling frame is properly devised and a robust sampling<br />
methodology is used, it results in biased estimates because it is unclear what the population of interest<br />
should be in the first place. In other words, it is not possible to find a subset of the populations that,<br />
according to some observable characteristics, is representative of the population. Therefore, estimates of<br />
SII scoping exercises are usually biased towards certain sectors, instruments or investor types.<br />
Accordingly, extrapolating total market sizes based on limited and unrepresentative samples should be<br />
regarded with caution. Chapter 4 of this report provides a structure that helps defining SII, the basis for<br />
engaging in data collection efforts.<br />
6.71 In most measurement exercises, a common error is to exclude data that could be relevant (Type I<br />
error). In the case of SII, focusing on a narrower scope can result in significantly incorrect measurements.<br />
For example in Clark et al. (2013) only a selected number of intermediaries were analysed. The coverage<br />
in the series of GIIN\JP Morgan investor surveys (Saltuk et al., 2011; 2013; 2014) has been increasing,<br />
which reveals that some important investors might be (or have been) left out.<br />
6.72 However, the early stage of SII market development can potentiate another type of measurement<br />
errors: including data that is not relevant for SII (Type II error). For example, applying the working<br />
definition described in Chapter 4, some delivery organisations can be wrongly included as SII investees.<br />
As discussed in that section of the paper, some certified B-corps may not be included in the potential<br />
demand for SII, because some of the certified companies would not meet the other necessary eligibility<br />
criteria for SII. Another example can be found in the ASSB dataset in the UK, which samples social<br />
enterprises from all existing firms with less than 250 employees (see Section 6.3).<br />
6.73 The lack of a statistical definition of SII means that data is embedded in other broader data<br />
categories. Disentangling what is the subset of information that corresponds to SII can be extremely<br />
challenging. For example, in top-down approaches very strong assumptions are usually required, as<br />
discussed earlier in this section. In addition there are several SII data layers (e.g. social need granularity)<br />
which add substantial complexity to the analysis. A more granular approach may require data collection<br />
efforts that are more resource intensive and might entail additional confidentiality issues. The trade-off<br />
between level of detail and comprehensiveness of the information should be taken into account when<br />
deciding to collect data. As an example, for the purpose of analysing SII transactions, survey respondents<br />
might include investor platforms or the investors themselves. While focusing on investors provides a<br />
greater level of detail, it multiplies the number of respondents, thus increasing data treatment and survey<br />
management needs.<br />
6.74 Finally, a common challenge in data collection is clarifying why, what and for whom data should<br />
be collected. This is particularly important because different goals require different data types (and data<br />
sources). Having a clear goal for data collection and well-defined data requirements is crucial. Two types<br />
of measurement objectives were identified in the OECD SII Expert Meeting in London. On the one hand, it<br />
100 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
is important to further understand the evolution and behaviour of the SII market to inform policymakers of<br />
any regulatory adjustments that might be needed. On the other hand, data collection efforts should also<br />
serve to inform investors about SII market potentiality.<br />
6.75 Priority should be given to capturing objective data before stepping into areas where definitions<br />
are not yet established and data is deemed subjective. This may apply to either demand, supply or<br />
transaction data. However, given that transaction data usually entails some information on both demand<br />
and supply, a thorough collection of this type of data can be a valuable starting point. In early stages of<br />
market development surveys can be a valuable tool. However, these are resource intensive and entail<br />
significant challenges in terms on ensuring representativeness. In the long run, data collection needs to be<br />
based on standardised reporting because, as the market grows, surveys will become increasingly expensive.<br />
6.7. Possible Future Approaches for Data Collection<br />
6.76 Different players are engaged in collecting data on SII components from different angles, with<br />
different approaches and using different definitions. The plethora of new initiatives and reports attempting<br />
to size the SII market is a positive trend and suggests growing interest in understanding SII. However it<br />
makes it harder to identify key sources of data and compare and consolidate estimates. In addition, effort<br />
duplication and data overlapping is a serious risk. Collaboration between those players currently involved<br />
in data collection efforts is key. Some steps in this direction are already being taken. For example, the<br />
“<strong>Social</strong> Investment Research Council” was recently created in the UK to consolidate research efforts and<br />
avoid duplication. 31 Also, efforts to increase data comparability across countries are being made through<br />
initiatives such as the GIIN or the work of the SIITF.<br />
6.77 To ensure comparability across data collection efforts taking place in different geographies,<br />
metadata is crucial as it helps understanding what exactly is available and how detailed are currently<br />
available data. This is particularly relevant when SII definitions are not yet established. Moreover,<br />
transparency requirements can help moving towards common standards. Such transparency requirements<br />
might be burdensome on the different players involved in the market, but they necessarily come with a<br />
standardisation exercise, whose benefits can outweigh the costs. It is however important to note that<br />
standards might limit the scope for innovation. The right balance should be found so that the<br />
standardisation procedure does not gridlock the SII market and prevents it from further innovating and<br />
growing.<br />
6.78 A system based on automatic reporting would bring some advantages in terms of coverage and<br />
quality of the data. Such data can then be complemented with further information collected via surveys for<br />
specific purposes. Data reporting can be very costly for companies (especially for small social businesses),<br />
investors, intermediaries, while a significant part of the data obtained might end up not being used. It is<br />
important to note that the direct benefits SII players accrue from reporting are relatively small, so the<br />
adequate incentive mechanism needs to be put in place.<br />
6.79 Requiring certification is an approach that can work as an incentive for companies to make the<br />
effort to report. By being certified (see Box 6.6 for the case of B-corp certification procedure), social<br />
enterprises gain more visibility as was as it sends a positive signal to potential investors. The certification<br />
procedure by B-corp is burdensome as it involves a survey, an interview, request for documentation and<br />
random checks, but it guarantees high data quality standards.<br />
31. The <strong>Social</strong> Investment Research Council is a joint venture between Big Society Capital, Big Lottery Fund,<br />
City of London, Citi and the Cabinet Office.<br />
© OECD 2015 101
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
6.80 Certification can also have positive effects in terms of more formalised outcome measurement<br />
practices that support the development of the SII market. However, from the viewpoint of businesses,<br />
certification can significantly increase reporting costs, thus the benefits of a move towards more stringent<br />
certification procedures should also be balanced against the increased regulatory burden. The certification<br />
requirements necessarily need to be mandated by public authorities in each country and possibly<br />
coordinated internationally. Public authorities can also play a role though regulation because it necessarily<br />
implies a standardisation exercise. Since SII is a new concept, data collection agencies, regulators and<br />
authorities have not yet developed standardised and internationally comparable definitions and<br />
classifications that would allow a systematic collection of data.<br />
Box 6.6. Certification & labels: B-corp example<br />
B-Corporation is a NPI that certifies for-profit companies according to their practices in terms of achieving social<br />
impact. The certification is based on a set of company information obtained through an online survey (done in<br />
collaboration with CASE i3, Box 6.5). Scores are attributed to companies according to a previously set methodology<br />
that values survey answers (thus company characteristics) differently through a weighting procedure.<br />
For example a question on the commitment to achieve social impact embedded in the company’s mission is<br />
given a higher weight than a different question regarding stakeholder engagement. Other characteristics include<br />
different indicators on transparency, reporting, treatment of employees, work environment, the type of impact, targeted<br />
populations, community involvement and impact, inter alia. In total, around 130 company characteristics are surveyed<br />
through an equal number of questions.<br />
Base on the set of predetermined scores, companies are profiled and evaluated across the different set of<br />
characteristics, after which they are given a final overall score that will be the basis for the eligibility to become a<br />
B-corp (above a certain global score threshold. To become a B-corp, companies are also required to make<br />
amendments to the articles of incorporation, explicitly recognising the importance of other stakeholders beyond<br />
shareholders. A snapshot of the profile information is provided in the table below. After a there is a clarification<br />
procedure through which B-corp reviews the data provided together with the company. This and further quality checks<br />
(e.g. requests for official documents) are time and resource consuming, but help ensuring that the data is accurate.<br />
Table. Snapshot of the B-corp profile information<br />
Name City State Industry Overall<br />
Score<br />
Accountability Beneficial Method Local Community<br />
*** San Francisco CA NULL 137.4 16.8 NULL NULL<br />
*** Poulsboro WA Consumer Products & Services: Housewares NULL NULL NULL NULL<br />
*** Richmond BC NULL NULL NULL 29.7 2.1<br />
*** Vancouver BC Technology: Information Technology Serv. NULL NULL NULL NULL<br />
*** Belvedere CA NULL NULL NULL 50.7 5.2<br />
*** Philadelphia PA NULL 83.5 8 27.2 6.1<br />
*** Fremont CA NULL 145.2 23.6 NULL NULL<br />
*** Haleiwa HI NULL 88.1 7.5 NULL NULL<br />
Note: Only four variables out of 133 are shown here. The variable Overall Score is an aggregation of the 133 scores. The names of<br />
the companies are omitted here for anonymity purposes. The maximum score is 200 and only companies over the 80 points threshold<br />
can be considered a B-corp.<br />
Source: B-Corp Profile information available at: http://sites.duke.edu/casei3/files/2013/03/B-Corp-Profile-Information.xlsx<br />
Source: B-Corporation website, available at : http://www.bcorporation.net/<br />
102 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
6.81 Certification may also evolve to a rating system. GIIRS is a recent initiative that aims at working<br />
as a rating organisation specialised in SII (see Section 6.4.3 for details on GIIRS data collection). 32 Such an<br />
approach is very important because it allows increasing informational efficiency, insofar as the creation of<br />
an additional layer of information asymmetry is avoided.<br />
6.82 Benchmarking is regarded to be one important but challenging aspect for investors in SII (Saltuk<br />
et al., 2011). Currently, it is very difficult to assess the risk-return profile of a social impact investment. For<br />
investments in mainstream capital markets, several indexes exist, against which asset performance can be<br />
benchmarked. However, in SII performance measures go beyond the common valuation of expected<br />
returns and foreseeable risks. <strong>Social</strong> outcomes create a wedge between the private pecuniary outcome and<br />
the benefits that accrue the larger society.<br />
6.83 It is important to allow investors to factor social impact into investment decisions, while rating<br />
systems should help clarifying and tracking impact risk (WGAA, 2014). Both social impact and impact<br />
risk should feature in a benchmark for SII. A number of initiatives such as GIIRS or Engaged X have been<br />
working towards creating benchmarks for the SII market that incorporate metrics for social impacts and<br />
access risks.<br />
6.84 Further work to develop robust and comparable impact measurement practices (in delivery<br />
organisations and for investors) can also help building the evidence base. The <strong>Impact</strong> Measurement<br />
working group set a number of principles required to work towards an “impact measurement convention”<br />
in the future. This would ensure a standardised approach for impact measurement and envisage a reporting<br />
system that ensures the availability of quality impact data (WGIM). The governance model of such process<br />
is however not yet clear. This would in principle entail a commitment from governments and industry to<br />
set up a working group with representatives from governments and industry and a steering committee that<br />
would agree upon the common impact measurement language, guidelines, and data infrastructure.<br />
International organisations could provide the appropriate forum for such discussion.<br />
6.85 As the SII market continues to grow in the future, commercial data providers that provide<br />
information for investors might be increasingly interested in compiling SII information if selling SII data<br />
becomes a viable business. Some of these commercial data providers have already seen value in gathering<br />
information on certain SII-related components. For example, Factset compiles information on the NPI<br />
sector, despite there is a very strong geographical bias towards the United States. 33 Given the embryonic<br />
state of the SII market, the policy relevance of SII models and the role that Governments might play in<br />
these initial stages, it would be important that efforts are made to collect (and share) systematic data within<br />
an open-data approach.<br />
6.86 Alternative strategies to gathering SII data were also discussed at the OECD SII expert meetings.<br />
These included polls, community feedback mechanisms and tapping into big data. Even though these<br />
approaches can provide rich and extensive information, data quality control and verification is extremely<br />
challenging.<br />
32. Information available at http://giirs.org/<br />
33. A dataset obtained from Factset comprises 14 363 NPIs of which 97% are based in the United States. Over<br />
89% are owned by another NPI, around 9% by foundations and the remaining 2% by other types of<br />
companies (notoriously business ventures in the private sphere). Even for the United States, this dataset<br />
only represents about 2% of the total number of Organizations Eligible to Receive Tax - Deductible<br />
Charitable Contributions (IRS, available at: http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/forwardToPub78Download.do).<br />
© OECD 2015 103
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
6.87 Collecting data is costly and its value is often not fully appreciated by the industry and\or<br />
policymakers. While costs should be minimised and data collection efficiency strived for, it is clear that<br />
further resources should be deployed into gathering the evidence base. For example, small grants or<br />
lottery-type prizes can be provided as an additional incentive for organisations to report data (Bloom and<br />
Clark, 2011). The efforts need to be made jointly between all SII market actors. Better data would be<br />
important for delivery organisations that would get more visibility, investors that would know better where<br />
to allocate their money, intermediaries that would be able to provide a better offer of investment products,<br />
as well as policymakers to fully understand whether the SII model is superior and should be further<br />
supported and incentivised.<br />
6.88 Providing comprehensive information can be a significant burden for delivery organisations.<br />
However, requiring specific information (e.g. impact measurement) for funding purposes is a key incentive<br />
for investee reporting that can be aligned with investor interests. Further efforts are needed to embed a data<br />
reporting culture in delivery organisations – and also in supply side organisations and intermediaries.<br />
Incentives for investor reporting, likely via intermediaries or investors networks, can include disclosure of<br />
part of the available data or even granting access to a dataset on potential SII investment. Also, ensuring<br />
that investors report actual (instead of potential) returns is essential to guaranteed data reliability.<br />
Incentives based on data exchange arrangements can also be important to bring SII intermediaries together<br />
in a platform or a network for data exchange.<br />
6.89 Data collection also requires technological infrastructure. It is important to have a simple<br />
infrastructure where all data can be put in. A possible way to further advance on data collection and<br />
comparability in the long run could be to work towards creating a platform in which players currently<br />
engaged in data collection (from the different parts of the SII framework) could come together and share<br />
information.<br />
6.90 At a first stage, increased collaboration among a few key players through meetings to share<br />
experience and data can contribute to further advancing the understanding about the SII market. At the<br />
OECD SII Expert Meetings it was noted that the group of experts could be drawn upon to help move<br />
beyond proprietary data, generate consensus and have a “clear” model for data collection. It would be<br />
important that data shared in such platform is made freely available on an open-source basis, keeping in<br />
mind that organisations collecting data also have to appropriate some value from their efforts.<br />
6.91 Optimal data on SII is currently not feasible to obtain, but it is important to push the discussion<br />
forward. It is however important to bear in mind that data collection should not become an end in itself and<br />
the purposes for data collection need to be a priori clear. The bulk of systematic evidence on SII will likely<br />
come from private data sources in earlier stages of market development. Fostering the collaboration<br />
between the different organisations collecting SII data through in surveys, polls and other approaches is<br />
key. While reaching a common understanding about definitions is vital, agreeing on a methodology to<br />
collect comparable cross-country data could provide the evidence base for a better understanding of the SII<br />
market. It can also help in the analysis of the role that policymaking can play in this area. Drawing upon<br />
private and other types of finance to meet public objectives is an opportunity, but one which requires a<br />
good understanding of the incentives of the different players involved.<br />
104 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
References<br />
Addis, R., J. McLeod, and A. Raine (2013), “IMPACT Australia: Investment for <strong>Social</strong> and Economic<br />
Benefit”, Australian Government, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations,<br />
November.<br />
Alcock, P., R., Millar, K., Hall, F., Lyon, A., Nicholls, and M., Gabriel (2012), “Start-up and Growth:<br />
National Evaluation of the <strong>Social</strong> Enterprise Investment Fund (SEIF)”, London: Department of<br />
Health Policy Research Programme (PRP). forthcoming.<br />
Anttonen, A., and L. Häikiö (2011), “Care ‘going market’: Finnish elderly-care policies in transition”,<br />
Nordic Journal of <strong>Social</strong> Research, 2.<br />
Blazy, C. (2011), “Le financement des entreprises sociales-une comparaison France-Californie: Accès aux<br />
fonds propres et aux financements moyen terme”, MPRA paper No. 33220, Munich, Germany.<br />
Bloom, P. and C. Clark (2011), “The Challenges of Creating Databases To Support Rigorous Research in<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship” Center for the Advancement of <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship, Fuqua School of<br />
Business Duke University Durham, NC, November.<br />
Borzaga, C., Depedri, S. and E. Tortia (2010), “Testing the distributive effects of social enterprises: the<br />
case of Italy”, <strong>Social</strong> capital, Corporate social responsibility, Economic Behaviour and<br />
Performance, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan,<br />
Brown, A. and Swersky, A. (2012), “The First Billion: A forecast of social investment demand”, Boston<br />
Consulting Group, London, September.<br />
Brown, A. and W. Norman (2011), “Lighting the touchpaper: Growing the Market for <strong>Social</strong> Investment in<br />
England”, Boston Consulting Group and Young Foundation, London, November.<br />
City of London (2013), “The role of tax incentives in encouraging social investment”, Report prepared for<br />
the City of London and Big society Capital by Worthstone assisted by Wragge & Co LLP, March.<br />
Chua, C., A. Gupta, V. Hsu, J. Jimenez and Y. Li (2011), “Beyond the Margin: Redirecting Asia’s<br />
Capitalism”, Advantage Ventures, August.<br />
Clark, C., J. Emerson and B. Thornley (2013), “<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> 2.0: The Way Forward – Insight from<br />
12 Outstanding Funds”, Pacific Community Ventures, Inc., <strong>Impact</strong>Assets, and Duke University’s<br />
Fuqua School of Business, November.<br />
DTI (2002), “<strong>Social</strong> enterprise: a strategy for success”, London: Department for Trade and Industry.<br />
ECOTEC (2003), “Guidance on mapping social enterprise”, London: Department for Trade and Industry.<br />
Elson, P. and P. Hall (2013), “Ploughing the fields: Provincial surveys of social enterprises in Canada”,<br />
4 th EMES International Research Conference on <strong>Social</strong> Enterprise, Liège, Belgium, July.<br />
Fedele, A and R. Miniaci (2010). Do social enterprises finance their investments differently from for-profit<br />
firms? The case of social residential services in Italy. Journal of <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship, 1(2),<br />
174-189.<br />
© OECD 2015 105
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Florek, N. (2013), "Enabling social enterprise through regulatory innovation: a case study from the United<br />
Kingdom." Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 3(2): 155-175.<br />
Freireich, J. and K. Fulton (2009), “<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Social</strong> and Environmental <strong>Impact</strong>: A Design for<br />
Catalyzing an Emerging Industry”, Monitor Institute, January.<br />
GHK (2013), “Growing the <strong>Social</strong> Investment Market: The Landscape and Economic <strong>Impact</strong>” report<br />
prepared for the City of London, Big Lottery Fund, Big Society Capital, and Her Majesty’s<br />
Government by ICF GHK in association with BMG Research, July.<br />
GIIN (2014), Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network website. Available at: www.thegiin.org/cgibin/iowa/resources/about/index.html,<br />
accessed 15 May 2014<br />
Glänzel, G., Krlev, G., Schmitz, B. and G. Mildenberger (2013), “Report on the feasibility and<br />
opportunities of using various instruments for capitalising social innovators” TEPSIE, European<br />
Commission – 7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research<br />
Harji, K. J. Reynolds, H. Best and M. Jeyaloganathan (2014), “State of the Nation: <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> in<br />
Canada”, MaRS Centre for <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> and Purpose Capital, March. Available at:<br />
http://www.marsdd.com/mars-library/impact-investing-in-canada-state-of-the-nation/<br />
Hazenberg, R., F., Seddon, A. and S. Denny (2013), “Intermediary perceptions of investment readiness in<br />
the social investment market”, Seventeenth Annual Conference of the International Research Society<br />
for Public Management,Prague,CzechRepublic,10-12April<br />
HM Government, UK (2013), “G8 <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Forum: Outputs and Agreed Actions”, UK<br />
Cabinet Office, London, July.<br />
Hope Consulting (2010), “Money for good: the US market for impact investments and charitable gifts from<br />
individual donors and investors”, July.<br />
IFF Research (2005), “A survey of social enterprises across the UK”, London: Small Business Service.<br />
Kerlin, J. (2010), "A comparative analysis of the global emergence of social enterprise", VOLUNTAS:<br />
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 21, no. 2 (2010): 162-179.<br />
La Croix (2014), “Baromètre de la finance solidaire”, Finansol and La Croix, May.<br />
Lyon, F. and L. Sepulveda (2009), “Mapping social enterprises: past approaches, challenges and future<br />
directions”, <strong>Social</strong> Enterprise Journal, 5(1), 83-94.<br />
Lyon, F., M., Gabriel, and R. Millar (2010), “<strong>Social</strong> Enterprise Investment Fund Evaluation-Phase one:<br />
scoping, review and methodology development”, Working Paper. TSRC and Health Services<br />
Management Centre at the University of Birmingham, Birmingham.<br />
Mendell, M. and E. Barbosa (2013), “<strong>Impact</strong> investing: a preliminary analysis of emergent primary and<br />
secondary exchange platforms”, Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 3(2):111-23<br />
Nicholls, A. (2010a), “The institutionalization of social investment: The interplay of investment logics and<br />
investor rationalities”, Journal of social entrepreneurship, 1(1), 70-100.<br />
106 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Nicholls (2010b), “The landscape of social investment in the UK”, Working Paper. TSRC and Health<br />
Services Management Centre at the University of Birmingham, Birmingham.<br />
Noya, A.(ed.) (2009),The Changing Boundaries of <strong>Social</strong> Enterprises, Local Economic and Employment<br />
Development (LEED), OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/9789264055513-en.<br />
OECD (2013f), "Institutional investors indicators", OECD Institutional Investors Statistics (database).<br />
doi: 10.1787/data-00679-en (Accessed on 07 August 2014).<br />
OECD (2013g) “Job Creation through the <strong>Social</strong> Economy and <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship”, OECD LEED<br />
Programme (Local Economic and Employment Development).<br />
Saltuk, Y., A. Idrissi, A. Bouri, A. Mudaliar, and H. Schiff (2014), “Spotlight on the Market: The <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investor Survey”, Global <strong>Social</strong> Finance, J.P. Morgan and the Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network,<br />
London, 2 May.<br />
Saltuk, Y, A. Bouri, A. Mudaliar and M. Pease (2013), “Perspectives on Progress: The <strong>Impact</strong> Investor<br />
Survey”, Global <strong>Social</strong> Finance, J.P. Morgan and the Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network, London,<br />
January 7.<br />
Saltuk, Y., A. Bouri, and G. Leung (2011), “Insight into the <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Market: An in-depth<br />
analysis of investor perspectives and over 2,200 transactions”, JP Morgan and the Global <strong>Impact</strong><br />
<strong>Investing</strong> Network, New York, December.<br />
Smith, S. and J., Rothbaum (2013), “Cooperatives in a Global Economy: Key Economic Issues, Recent<br />
Trends, and Potential for Development”, IZA Policy Paper No. 68.<br />
Teasdale, S., Lyon, F. and R. Baldock (2013), “Playing with numbers: a methodological critique of the<br />
social enterprise growth myth”, Journal of <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 113-131.<br />
UN (2003), “Handbook on Non-profit institutions in the system of National Accounts”. United Nations.<br />
Statistical Division, United Nations Publications.<br />
Unicredit Foundation (2012) “Ricerca sul valore economic del Terzo Settore in Italia”, Unicredit<br />
Foundation, April 2012. Available at:<br />
http://www.forumterzosettore.it/multimedia/allegati/Ricerca.pdf<br />
Weber, M. and B. Scheck (2012), “<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> in Deutschland: Bestandsaufnahme und<br />
Handlungsanweisungen zur Weiterentwicklung”, <strong>Impact</strong> in Motion and Bertelsmann Foundation,<br />
December. Available at www.impactinmotion.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/<strong>Impact</strong>-<br />
<strong>Investing</strong>-in-Detschland_08052013.pdf<br />
Wells, P. (2012) “Understanding social investment policy: evidence from the evaluation of Futurebuilders<br />
in England”, Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2), 157-177.<br />
Wilkinson, C. (2014), “A map of social enterprises and their eco-systems in Europe”, ICF International,<br />
Forthcoming.<br />
Wilson, K. E. (2014), "New Investment Approaches for Addressing <strong>Social</strong> and Economic Challenges",<br />
OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 15, OECD Publishing.<br />
doi: 10.1787/5jz2bz8g00jj-en.<br />
© OECD 2015 107
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
ANNEX 6.1. LIST OF EXISTING DATA SOURCES<br />
This list of data sources only includes organisations that currently provide raw data on SII. Therefore, only<br />
organisations that actually provide either raw data or data in reports were included on the list. Organisations that<br />
may have important links to SII market players and could potentially serve as partners in future data collection<br />
efforts are not necessarily included on the list, insofar as they do not currently provide data.<br />
In addition, some of the data sources described as currently providing raw data do not necessarily publicly disclose<br />
the information. Nevertheless, they feature on the list because information could, in principle, be shared under<br />
certain conditions. Some organisations have been collecting data, but have not yet disclosed any data-related<br />
information (e.g. Maximpact). In such cases a decision to include them on the list was based on the fact they have<br />
data and will potentially be disclosing it in the near future.<br />
Governmental sources, information from NSOs and sources available from financial system supervisory and<br />
regulatory bodies were not included here to avoid multiple entries (one per country for each type of organisation).<br />
The list focuses on data that are, in general, more challenging to obtain and that require further discussion and<br />
contribution from SII data experts. Nevertheless, the potential of data collection from some of the sources omitted in<br />
the list is also discussed in this note.<br />
Provider<br />
Type of data<br />
(ecosystem)<br />
Geography<br />
Link<br />
SESS Demand CAN - local http://www.sess.ca/english/report/<br />
TEPSIE Demand Europe http://www.tepsie.eu/<br />
Cooperative Association Germany Demand GER http://www.dgrv.de/en/home.html<br />
ClearlySo Demand Global http://www.clearlyso.com/about/our-publications.html<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Progress Imperative Demand Global http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/<br />
IRIS Demand Global - focus US; UK http://iris.thegiin.org/<br />
B-Corporation Demand Global- focus USA http://www.bcorporation.net/what-are-b-corps/why-b-corps-matter<br />
Unicredit Demand ITA http://www.forumterzosettore.it/multimedia/allegati/Ricerca.pdf<br />
IRIS (Italian) Demand ITA http://www.irisnetwork.it/download/<br />
CIC regulator Demand UK http://www.bis.gov.uk/CICREGULATOR<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Enterprise UK Demand UK http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/policy-campaigns/policy/research<br />
CASE at Duke University Demand USA<br />
Nonprofit Finance Fund Demand USA http://nonprofitfinancefund.org/tools-resources<br />
Comparative non-profit sector project Demand Global http://ccss.jhu.edu/research-projects/comparative-nonprofit-sector<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Enterprise Alliance (SEA) Demand USA https://www.se-alliance.org/<br />
Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits<br />
Commission (ACNC)<br />
Demand AUS http://www.acnc.gov.au/<br />
GIIRS Demand & Supply Global<br />
Caisse des Depots Intermediaries\Transactions FRA<br />
Finansol Intermediaries\Transactions FRA<br />
http://giirs.org/for-investors/company-directory<br />
http://giirs.org/for-investors/fund-directory<br />
http://sites.duke.edu/casei3/case-i3-basics/case-i3-research/case-i3-b-lab-andgiirs-research-project/<br />
http://www.caissedesdepots.fr/activite/domaines-daction/investissementsdavenir/financement-de-leconomie-sociale-et-solidaire.html<br />
http://www.finansol.org/fr/nos-publications/article/le-barometre-de-la-financesolidaire.html<br />
Bpifrance Intermediaries\Transactions FRA http://www.bpifrance.fr/<br />
NExT SSE Intermediaries\Transactions GER http://www.nextsse.com/home/news-events/<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Assets Intermediaries\Transactions Global http://www.impactassets.org/<br />
Monitor institute Intermediaries\Transactions Global http://monitorinstitute.com/what-we-think/#<br />
Omydiar Network Intermediaries\Transactions Global http://www.omidyar.com/<br />
108 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
GIIN/<strong>Impact</strong> Base Intermediaries\Transactions Global http://www.impactbase.org/<br />
JP Morgan\GIIN Intermediaries\Transactions Global<br />
Maximpact Intermediaries\Transactions Global http://www.maximpact.com/<br />
Engaged investment Intermediaries\Transactions Global http://www.engagedinvestment.com/<br />
Toniic Intermediaries\Transactions Global http://www.toniic.com/<br />
TRIODOS Bank Intermediaries\Transactions Global- focus Europe http://www.triodos.com/en/about-triodos-bank/<br />
Oltreventure Intermediaries\Transactions ITA http://www.oltreventure.com/index.php/investimenti/riepilogo<br />
BSC- Big Society Capital Intermediaries\Transactions UK http://www.bigsocietycapital.com/<br />
Comunity Development Finance<br />
Association (CDFA)<br />
Intermediaries\Transactions UK http://www.cdfa.org.uk/<br />
CDFI FUND Intermediaries\Transactions USA http://www.cdfifund.gov/<br />
Massolution Intermediaries\Transactions USA http://www.massolution.com/<br />
National Community Investment Fund<br />
Intermediaries\Transactions USA http://www.ncif.org/<br />
(NCIF)<br />
Instiglio Intermediaries\Transactions http://www.instiglio.org/en/sibs-worldwide/<br />
EVPA Intermediaries\Transactions Europe http://evpa.eu.com/knowledge-centre/<br />
AVPN Intermediaries\Transactions Asia www.avpn.asia<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> in Motion<br />
Suppy &<br />
GER<br />
http://impactinmotion.com/en/<br />
Intermediaries\Transactions<br />
Philantropy Australia Supply AUS http://www.philanthropy.org.au/tools-resources/publications/<br />
Productivity Comission Supply AUS<br />
European Foundation Centre Supply Europe<br />
Fondation de France Supply FRA<br />
Centre Francais de Fonds et Fondations Supply FRA<br />
http://www.thegiin.org/cgibin/iowa/download?row=334&field=gated_download_1;<br />
http://www.pc.gov.au/publications/publications?queries_by_type_query=Publi<br />
cation<br />
http://www.efc.be/programmes_services/resources/Pages/Foundations-in-<br />
Europe.aspx<br />
Association of German Foundations Supply GER http://www.stiftungen.org/en/association-of-german-foundations.html<br />
ACRI Supply ITA http://www.acri.it/3_fond/3_fond0010.asp<br />
The Japan Foundation Center Supply JAP http://www.jfc.or.jp/eibun/e_index.html<br />
GOV_UK Supply UK http://data.gov.uk/dataset/social-investment-and-foundations<br />
Association of charitable foundations Supply UK http://www.acf.org.uk/<br />
Foundation Center Supply USA http://fconline.foundationcenter.org/<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Australia Overall AUS http://impactinvestingaustralia.com/resources/<br />
Purpose Capital Overall CAN http://purposecap.com/<br />
MaRS Centre for <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Overall Global http://impactinvesting.marsdd.com/<br />
IIPC Overall Global http://iipcollaborative.org/about-iipc/iipc-research-awards/<br />
Pacific Community Ventures Overall Global http://www.pacificcommunityventures.org/uploads/reports-and-publications/<br />
Stanford <strong>Social</strong> Innovation Review Overall Global http://www.ssireview.org/topics/category/impact_investing<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Analysts Association Overall Global- focus EU; CAN http://www.siaassociation.org/<br />
BCG Overall Global- focus UK<br />
http://www.fondationdefrance.org/Outils/Mediatheque/Etudes-de-l-<br />
Observatoire<br />
http://www.centre-francais-fondations.org/ressources-pratiques/gerer-ou-fairevivre-un-fonds-ou-une-fondation/gestion-patrimoniale/gestion-financiere/versde-nouveaux-modes-de-selection-des-placements/impact-investing<br />
http://www.bcg.com/expertise_impact/PublicationDetails.aspx?id=tcm:12-<br />
115600&mid<br />
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/supporting-localcommunities/Pages/supporting-social-enterprise.aspx<br />
The City of London Overall UK<br />
OECD<br />
Demand, Supply &<br />
Enabling environment<br />
Global- focus OECD<br />
http://stats.oecd.org/<br />
IMF Supply Global http://www.imf.org/external/data.htm<br />
World Bank<br />
Demand, Supply &<br />
Enabling environment<br />
Global<br />
http://data.worldbank.org/<br />
World Values Survey Enabling environment Global http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp<br />
European <strong>Social</strong> Survey Enabling environment Europe http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/<br />
Eurofund Enabling environment Europe http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef1361.htm<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Progress Imperative Enabling environment Global www.socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi<br />
Source: OECD, based on desk research.<br />
© OECD 2015 109
DSTI/IND(2014)11<br />
ANNEX 6.2. LIST OF OECD DATA SOURCES RELEVANT TO SII<br />
Database Type Examples Link<br />
<strong>Social</strong> expenditure Spending Public\Private expenditure<br />
www.oecd.org/els/social/expenditure<br />
Cash\Kind expenditures<br />
Breakdown by social area<br />
Institutional investor statistics Supply Financial assets http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=7IA#<br />
How’s Life Indicators Needs Quality of support network; Homicide rate http://stats.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetad<br />
ata.ashx?Dataset=BLI&ShowOnWeb=true&Lang=en<br />
Tax/Benefits Spending <strong>Social</strong> contributions; Housing benefits http://stats.oecd.org/BrandedView.aspx?oecd_bv_id=t<br />
ax-data-en&doi=data-00201-en<br />
<strong>Social</strong> indicators Needs Old age support rate; Prison population http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/societyataglance.htm<br />
National Accounts Spending NPIs serving households http://www.oecd.org/std/na/<br />
Health Indicators Spending +<br />
Needs<br />
Financing health expenditure<br />
Life expectancy; Infant health<br />
http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH<br />
_STAT<br />
Education Indicators Spending +<br />
Needs<br />
Expenditure by funding source<br />
Literacy scores<br />
Education expenditure<br />
http://stats.oecd.org/BrandedView.aspx?oecd_bv_id=e<br />
du-data-en&doi=edu-db-data-en ; and<br />
http://gpseducation.oecd.org/IndicatorExplorer<br />
Product Market Regulation Regulation Scope of Government in specific sectors<br />
Specific barriers to entrepreneurship<br />
http://www.oecd.org/economy/growth/indicatorsofpr<br />
oductmarketregulationhomepage.htm<br />
Entrepreneurship Indicators Demand Entrepreneurial culture http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/industry-and-<br />
services/entrepreneurship-at-a-glance-<br />
2013_entrepreneur_aag-2013-en<br />
Structural Indicators<br />
Supply<br />
Demand<br />
Financial sector (C65T74)<br />
Community, social and personal services (C75T99)<br />
http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/stanstructuralanalysisdat<br />
abase.htm<br />
Financing Scoreboard Supply Trends in SME loans<br />
Government Guarantees<br />
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/industry-andservices/financing-smes-and-entrepreneurs_23065265<br />
Development co-operation Supply Flows: Project-type interventions http://dotstat.oecd.org/inventory.aspx?datasetcode=T<br />
ABLE1<br />
Development aid Supply Aid http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/<br />
Network of Foundations Supply Foundations http://www.oecd.org/site/netfwd/<br />
Source: OECD.<br />
110
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Table A.6.1. Types of Non-Profit Institutions<br />
1. Culture and recreation 1 100 Culture and arts<br />
1 200 Sports<br />
1 300 Other recreation and social clubs<br />
2. Education and research 2 100 Primary and secondary education<br />
2 200 Higher education<br />
2 300 Other education<br />
2 400 Research<br />
3. Health 3 100 Hospitals and rehabilitation<br />
3 200 Nursing homes<br />
3 300 Mental health and crisis intervention<br />
3 400 Other health services<br />
4. <strong>Social</strong> services 4 100 <strong>Social</strong> services<br />
4 200 Emergency and relief<br />
4 300 Income support and maintenance<br />
5. Environment 5 100 Environment<br />
5 200 Animal protection<br />
6 Development and housing 6 100 Economic, social and community development<br />
6 200 Housing<br />
6 300 Employment and training<br />
7. Law, advocacy and politics 7 100 Civic and advocacy organizations<br />
7 200 Law and legal services<br />
7 300 Political organizations<br />
8. Philanthropic intermediaries and voluntarism promotion 8 100 Grant-making Foundations<br />
8 200 Other philanthropic intermediaries and voluntarism promotion<br />
9. International 9 100 International activities<br />
10. Religion 10 100 Religious congregations and associations<br />
11. Business and professional associations, unions 11 100 Business associations<br />
11 200 Professional associations<br />
11 300 Labour unions<br />
12. Not elsewhere classified 12 100 Not elsewhere classified<br />
Source: UN (2003).<br />
© OECD 2015 111
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
7. POLICY ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS<br />
This chapter provides an overview of different types of policy actions to support the<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment market taken to date. It reviews the challenges for<br />
policymakers planning to take actions to support this nascent field and makes<br />
recommendations focusing on the steps required to build the evidence base. These<br />
including developing common definitions, building the necessary data infrastructure<br />
and primary impact measurement as well as evaluation of broader social outcomes.<br />
7.1. Policy Actions and Implications<br />
7.1 There are a number of market failures in social impact investment. The most fundamental failure<br />
relates to the very nature of social impact investment. The social returns generated from social impact<br />
investments are primarily external to both the investor and the investee, with the primary beneficiaries<br />
being those groups whose needs are being targeted, or accrue to society as a whole. Given market<br />
inefficiencies, these externalities are not priced into social impact investment transactions (HM<br />
Government, 2011).<br />
7.2 However, in addition to this there are failures which relate to the functioning of the market itself.<br />
As in the mainstream financial markets, there are information asymmetries between investors and<br />
investees. These asymmetries are further compounded by the lack of commonly accepted standards for<br />
measuring social impact investment, confusion of terminology and lack of information about both existing<br />
investment provision as well as related government policy (HM Government, 2011). There is also<br />
imperfect competition in the market due to high transaction costs as well as the lack of intermediaries in<br />
the form of brokers, advisors, exchanges and other market mechanisms.<br />
7.3 The public sector can play a catalytic role in the social impact investment market in terms of<br />
creating a conducive regulatory environment, encouraging greater transparency and taking concrete steps<br />
to help develop the market. Actions can be taken at the international, national or local level. However,<br />
actions initiated in one country or region may not be appropriate for another – policy objectives,<br />
experience and local context must be taken into account.<br />
7.4 New and\or inefficient markets may benefit from government involvement. Certainly, the social<br />
impact investment market is in its early days and needs to find scalable models. As policy makers seek to<br />
facilitate the development of the market, they should keep in mind that public support should be a catalyst<br />
and avoid “crowding out” of the private sector in order to ensure the creation of a sustainable market.<br />
Government intervention, while well-meaning, can have unintended consequences.<br />
7.2. Policy actions to date<br />
7.5 There are various actions that governments could take to support SII, ranging from indirect to<br />
direct. Indirect actions can include ensuring that the necessary legal frameworks and structures are in place<br />
including the streamlining of regulations and requirements for investment (Thornley et al, 2011). Direct<br />
actions can include various forms of support to social ventures and facilitating the developement of<br />
112 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
intermediaries. It should also be noted that, the absence of any action can also have implications for the<br />
market.<br />
7.6 The <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Policy Collaborative (IIPC) has developed a framework which aims to<br />
create a guide for policy makers seeking to build the social impact investment market in their countries or<br />
communities. This includes looking at the government’s role as a market builder, participant and steward.<br />
The framework builds upon earlier work by the World Economic Forum (WEF, 2012) as well as upon The<br />
London Principles 34 , a set of guidelines intended to assist governments considering impact investing as a<br />
tool to address social objectives, developed by the IIPC in collaboration with policymakers, researchers<br />
and other stakeholders in July 2013.<br />
7.7 The recent <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce and National Advisory Board reports highlighted<br />
actions that have been taken to date in the G7 countries and Australia. 35 Annex 7.1 summarises some of<br />
these policy actions. Table 7.1 below attempts to provide a summary of the longer list of policy actions<br />
outlined in Annex 7.1 within the framework of the social impact investment ecosystem discussed in<br />
Chapter 3 (demand, supply, intermediaries and regulatory/enabling environment).<br />
Table 7.1 Examples of Types of Policy Actions taken in G7 Countries and Australia<br />
Supply<br />
Demand<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
Intermediaries<br />
Other<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Enterprise<br />
Development and<br />
Investment Funds<br />
(Australia)<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Innovation<br />
Forum<br />
(Japan)<br />
Loi n° 2014-856 :<br />
Économie <strong>Social</strong>e<br />
et Solidaire<br />
(France)<br />
SVX trading<br />
platform<br />
(Ontario, Canada)<br />
Unit Cost<br />
Database<br />
(UK)<br />
Small Business<br />
Investment<br />
Company <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investment Fund<br />
(US)<br />
Investment and<br />
Contract<br />
Readiness Fund<br />
(UK)<br />
Legge delega di<br />
riforma del Terzo<br />
Settore<br />
(Italy)<br />
Big Society Capital<br />
(UK)<br />
Community<br />
Reinvestment Act<br />
(US)<br />
Source: OECD, based on National Advisory Board (NAB) reports — NAB_AUS (2014), NAB_CAN (2014), NAB_GER (2014),<br />
NAB_FRA (2014), NAB_ITA (2014), NAB_JAP (2014), NAB_UK (2014), NAB_US (2014).<br />
7.8 Policy actions in some of these countries have addressed regulatory issues, notably in terms of<br />
setting up legal structures to accommodate SII-specific types of market actors. Also, several policy<br />
interventions have sought to enhance SII supply. Some governments have provided support through tax<br />
credits (and tax-advantaged funds), guarantees or subsidies, established and co-invested in SII funds. Other<br />
governments have focused on developing the social impact investment market infrastructure through the<br />
creation of intermediaries such as SII wholesale banks, exchanges (or trading platforms) and other<br />
channels to facilitate the links between supply and demand for SII (investors and delivery organisations).<br />
Additionally some have sought to stimulate SII demand by providing support to delivery<br />
organisations/investees through technical assistance or by encouraging procurement.<br />
34. http://iipcollaborative.org/london-principles/<br />
35. For further details on these policy actions see: http://www.socialimpactinvestment.org/<br />
© OECD 2015 113
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
7.9 While there have been an increasing set of policy actions in the social impact investment market,<br />
to date, there have only been a few evaluations, including the ICRF evaluation referenced in Chapter 3 and<br />
the SIB evaluation described later in this chapter. This is also due to the fact that many of these policy<br />
actions are relatively new. The <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce and the NABs have helped to highlight<br />
the set of existing policy actions which has facilitated discussions about how these and other policies are<br />
working.<br />
7.10 There are also several policy instruments that, while affecting SII, do not necessarily target the<br />
SII ecosystem (e.g. seed funds; regulations on institutional investors’ asset allocation and risk). When<br />
devising broader policy instruments, it is important that governments take into consideration potential<br />
favouring or hindering effects upon the SII market and balance them against expected outcomes in other<br />
areas of the economy.<br />
7.11 Patience and long-term support is needed to develop a market. Creating and investing in new<br />
innovative social ventures and building supporting ecosystem takes time and results might only be seen<br />
after 10 years or more (HM Government, 2013c). Policy is long-term but politics can be short-term so<br />
there is a danger that the increased level of government interest and involvement in this topic might decline<br />
in the shorter term if the necessary results are not forthcoming.<br />
7.12 Given the plethora of recent reports outlining a broad set of policy recommendations (SIITF,<br />
Working Groups, NABs, IIPC, etc.), the recommendations below address how to build the evidence base,<br />
which is the overall focus of this report.<br />
7.3. Recommended policy actions for building the evidence base<br />
7.13 As social challenges mount and existing approaches are unable to keep up amidst continued<br />
pressure on government budgets, social impact investment provides an opportunity to develop new<br />
approaches to address social and economic challenges. However, given that SII is a nascent field, concrete<br />
evidence is needed in terms of its impact to date. In particular, further work is needed to demonstrate the<br />
gains from the SII approach, compared to existing social service delivery models. Therefore our<br />
recommendations focus on building the evidence base, including developing a common agreement on<br />
definitions, committing to building the necessary infrastructure for coordinated data collection processes,<br />
furthering efforts on the measurement of social outcomes and evaluation of policy.<br />
7.14 Given that additional, and more effective, funding is needed to address the increasing social<br />
challenges facing society, governments in a number of countries are demonstrating interest in exploring the<br />
opportunities that SII could also provide in terms of improved social service delivery. In fact, as described<br />
in Section 7.2, some countries have already set up policies to facilitate the development of SII markets. As<br />
there is limited evidence to date in terms of what works and what doesn’t, this section outlines some<br />
recommendations in terms of building the evidence base and suggestions regarding key points for policy<br />
makers to keep in mind, particularly in terms of outcome measures and evaluation of policies. Further<br />
analysis is needed in terms of specific approaches to SII, looking at a variety of instruments and sectorspecific<br />
developments. This would help develop a better understanding of which approaches seem to be<br />
working and help build and share experiences which could later lead to the scaling up of successful cases.<br />
7.3.1 Developing common definitions<br />
7.15 A stronger evidence base, both in terms of the level of market activity as well as the impact of<br />
SII, is critical to increasing engagement in the market and encouraging a global market to develop (HM<br />
Government, 2013c). This includes a better and more accurate understanding of the size, scope and<br />
114 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
potential of the market. To develop a clearer view on the market, common definitions, language and<br />
frameworks are necessary.<br />
7.16 As outlined in Chapter 4, there is broad agreement in the market regarding the core<br />
characteristics of SII, however, less agreement on the next level of detail, the key attributes of each of the<br />
characteristics. More importantly, there has been little discussion to date of where to “draw the line” on SII<br />
in terms of thresholds or eligibility of the various attributes. Chapter 4 of this paper makes some<br />
recommendations but further discussion is needed, on an international level, to develop a common<br />
agreement. To that end, international organisations, such as the OECD, can provide a continued forum for<br />
debate.<br />
7.3.2 Building the necessary data infrastructure<br />
7.17 Policy makers can help in raising awareness and understanding about social impact investment<br />
by supporting systematic research and data collection. However, while a growing number of industry<br />
reports have been supported, not enough attention has been paid to date on supporting the necessary data<br />
infrastructure needed to develop standardized data reporting and collection processes. These are critical for<br />
building the evidence base for SII and the groundwork needs to be laid for this as early as possible.<br />
7.18 More and coordinated data collection is needed to more effectively monitor developments in the<br />
market. Data collection processes which allow for wider comparability, including across countries, would<br />
also be useful (Addis et al, 2013). There are data collection efforts within individual organizations and<br />
some broader pilot efforts but to date there has not been a forum for discussing how to standardize data<br />
collection globally. The OECD expert meetings, which took place during 2014, were a start in this<br />
direction as the meetings brought together people involved in data collection efforts from a number of<br />
countries and focused on how to move the agenda forward in a coordinate manner.<br />
7.19 As noted in the section above, consensus is first needed on definitions to enable the building of<br />
an agreement on a common framework for data collection. A commitment of resources is then needed to<br />
invest in the necessary infrastructure to collect transaction level data. Trusted intermediaries will play a<br />
critical role in facilitating that data collection. The questions revolve around who should fund and also who<br />
should manage that data infrastructure. Finally, models and systems will be needed to analyse the data to<br />
provide the necessary evidence on what works.<br />
7.20 It is however important to bear in mind that data collection should not become an end in itself<br />
and the purposes for data collection need to be a priori clear. The bulk of systematic evidence on SII will<br />
likely come from private data sources in earlier stages of market development. Fostering the collaboration<br />
between the different organisations collecting SII data through in surveys, polls and other approaches is<br />
important. While reaching a common understanding about definitions is vital, agreeing on a methodology<br />
to collect comparable cross-country data could provide the evidence base for a better understanding of the<br />
SII market. It can also help in the analysis of the role that policymaking can play in this area.<br />
7.3.3 Primary impact measurement<br />
7.21 SII targets the delivery of social outcomes at the same time as targeting financial returns (at least<br />
a return on capital): one without the other does not qualify as SII. Therefore the need for effective, robust<br />
and repeatable measurement of social outcomes is critical for social enterprises and investors. However<br />
developing effective, robust and repeatable measurement of social outcomes is easier said than done, and is<br />
certainly not as simple as calculating annual profits, especially when targets are part of the process (as in<br />
the case of SIBs). The social outcomes selected, measured and evaluated affect how attractive the<br />
enterprises is to financers, the business model used, how its practices encouraged or discouraged, internal<br />
© OECD 2015 115
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
decision-making, its level of cost effectiveness, and all together, the value of and regulation of SII practices<br />
as a whole. In short, getting it right is critical.<br />
7.22 Particularly as global interest and activity in social impact investment is growing rapidly, better<br />
metrics for measuring at least primary (or “predetermined”) social impact is needed. However, social<br />
benefits are difficult to value, measure and compare. In addition, the process of tracking and measuring<br />
these returns can be costly in terms time and resources.<br />
7.23 The objectives behind measurement can differ for various stakeholders. Currently, SII<br />
measurement is focused on the achievements of the social delivery organisations. This information is<br />
helpful in evaluating the progress of the social ventures and can be useful in adjusting course as needed.<br />
However, it may not provide all of the necessary information investors are seeking regarding their future<br />
prospects (Rangan et al, 2013).<br />
7.24 Investors need a set of tools for assessing social impact measurement. Further work will need to<br />
be done, likely by intermediaries, to strengthen investor understanding of the variety of impact metrics<br />
currently available (Jackson and Associates, 2012). The development of standard measurement systems<br />
will be an important step in further engaging mainstream investors (HM Government, 2013c). At the same<br />
time, it is critical to help social ventures, across different sectors, build greater capacity to measure social<br />
outcomes (Addis et al, 2013).<br />
7.25 Currently many investors use proprietary measurement systems to determine social and<br />
environmental performance, if they are measuring impact in any systematic way at all (Rangan et al, 2011).<br />
Many investors rely on anecdotal evidence rather than real evidence (O’Donohoe et al., 2010). While a<br />
number of initiatives such as IRIS, SROI and CARS are working to develop standard measures and<br />
methodologies, further work in this area is needed (HM Government, 2013c). The European Commission<br />
has been working on this issue and one of the working groups of the international <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investment Taskforce has recently published a set of guidelines (WGIM, 2014), including an “impact value<br />
chain”(see figure 7.1 below).<br />
116 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Figure 7.1. WGIM Guidelines for impact measurement<br />
Source: WGIM (2014)<br />
7.26 The measurement of primary social impact is important for the market functioning (so demand<br />
and supply can more effectively communicate about return expectation and results) and has been the focus<br />
on impact measurement efforts to date. However, a better understanding of the broader or “secondary”<br />
social outcomes (spillover effects and positive externalities) and how social goods are delivered is also<br />
needed to fully determine the impact of social impact investment and assist policy decision making. As<br />
highlighted in Chapter 3, social outcomes can range from an individual to a society level. Also, the<br />
efficiency of interventions can either be at the individual level or more systemic. In addition, as discussed<br />
in Chapter 5, actions in one social area can have positive or negative spillovers in others and therefore need<br />
to be taken into account in a systemic approach. The next section addresses this broader approach.<br />
7.4. Evaluation of Broader <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Outcomes<br />
7.27 The need for better evaluations of social impact investment outcomes for informing decisions in<br />
the area of SII, and its regulation, cannot be understated. What works can have long lasting effects on<br />
people’s lives, and is part of the picture that determines the need for costly future social interventions. Yet,<br />
there are too few good quality evaluations suitable for informing market participants and policy makers<br />
about ‘what works’, and most importantly ‘how’ new policies and social innovations might be<br />
implemented.<br />
7.28 While the context in each country is different and therefore the approaches will vary, we have<br />
outlined three key areas which might both make the market function more efficiently and help to evaluate<br />
© OECD 2015 117
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
the role of SII in meeting social needs, and thus the extent to which it should be supported through policy<br />
incentives. The first area is the development of relevant social outcome measures, that capture quality of<br />
life measures and their changes in both in the population (to identify need), and amongst recipients of the<br />
social intervention (to identify effectiveness). Second, contextual data, including general socio-economic<br />
conditions in households and communities and the levels and nature of general and specific social<br />
interventions, is required to develop appropriate controls for evaluation models. Third, robust and timesensitive<br />
evaluations of policies, and/or aspects of policy innovation to more broadly inform<br />
implementation decisions, are needed (OECD, 2014f).<br />
7.29 Some suggested steps to build this evidence base include:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Broader social outcomes of each intervention should be defined, including expected spill-over<br />
effects.<br />
These social outcomes should be measurable independently of the policies’ target measures, and<br />
include at least one distributional measure to retain a check on the ‘inclusivity’ of the intervention<br />
effect (see 7.4.2).<br />
Compulsory evaluations should be incorporated into the publicly funded interventions, publically<br />
incentivised forms of SII, or as part of formal regulation practices; and encouraged in independent<br />
forms of SII (this may require the development of a business case).<br />
o<br />
o<br />
Evaluations need to be methodologically rigorous, and so support with the implementation<br />
of or methods for evaluations should be available as part of the development of a SII<br />
market, by sponsored independent researchers, or a formal regulatory body.<br />
Timing of all social intervention evaluations should be predetermined and based on when<br />
social returns to interventions can be expected. More than one evaluation might be needed,<br />
as the same intervention may contribute to more than one outcome over time (see 7.4.3).<br />
<br />
Data techniques, such as data matching to administrative sources and national surveys, could be<br />
facilitated by governments and independent groups to provide access to contextual data in order to<br />
and improve the quality and efficiency of evaluation processes.<br />
7.30 It is worth noting at this stage, that there is a trade-off between the need for timely policy<br />
interventions and the weight of - and wait for - the most rigorous evidence. Because it is important to act<br />
on social need in a timely way, there should be an expectation for ‘learning on the job’. Risks associated<br />
with such an expectation can be limited first and foremost by piloting social interventions, by undertaking<br />
independent evaluations on untested aspects of the intervention, and preparing a recipient-focussed (pilot)<br />
‘exit plan’ with appropriate funding in place (OECD, 2014f).<br />
7.4.1 Evaluating cost effectiveness or cost-benefit ratios?<br />
7.31 Many governments may not have capacity and systems in place to measure cost-effectiveness of<br />
public service delivery, however, social impact investment can present a strategic opportunity for initiating<br />
the collection of such data. Clearly, these types of approaches would need to build over time with a balance<br />
being found between effective measurement and effective market development.7.32 Two types of<br />
evaluation methods are potentially relevant for assessing SII interventions: cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and<br />
cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) (see OECD 2014f for a more detailed discussion of these methods).<br />
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) enables evaluators to compare the costs of a policy or intervention with its<br />
118 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
benefits measured in monetary terms (even if the benefits themselves are not pecuniary). Cost effectiveness<br />
analysis (CEA) compares the costs of meeting a given policy objective by alternative means.<br />
7.33 The distinction is important. In the case of CBA, accurate information on the costs of meeting the<br />
objective must be available. Secondly, and most importantly, the program benefits must be valued even if<br />
they are not market goods (i.e. do not have a price). By expressing costs and benefits in the same units,<br />
CBA is used to indicate whether a given policy objective is desirable When used on its’ own CEA cannot<br />
help the policymaker decide what the policy objective should be since the benefits and costs are not<br />
expressed in the same units. This also means that it is impossible to compare across different policy<br />
domains. As such it cannot be used to determine whether the policy is welfare-improving in the strict<br />
sense. Rather CEA is used to determine the costs of meeting a given objective, and to compare between the<br />
costs of meeting that given objective through alternative means.<br />
7.34 In the context of policy discussions related to SII the role of CBA is limited for a number of<br />
reasons. First, social impact investors and investees may have objectives related to social needs which are<br />
distinct from (and in many cases be more ambitious than) stated policy objectives. Second, the investor and<br />
the investee derive a value from the investment which may or nor may not be identical to that which is<br />
appropriate for the evaluation of public policy. 36<br />
7.35 The role of CEA in policy discussions about SII is more obvious. For instance, CEA can be<br />
applied to evaluate healthcare policies, for which it can be difficult to assess the monetary benefits but it is<br />
relatively straightforward to determine the desired outcome (e.g. “number of lives saved” or “DALYs”<br />
[EuropeAid, 2005]). CEA measures costs in monetary terms and compares them with the outcomes,<br />
expressed in terms of relevant units which related to the social need in question. The ratio of costs to<br />
effectiveness is computed in order to determine the cost per unit of effectiveness; the most effective<br />
projects will have lower cost-effectiveness ratios than alternatives.<br />
7.36 This methodology is directly relevant for the case of SII. Firstly, investors and investees may<br />
well be interested in knowing whether or not their investments are meeting their objectives in terms of<br />
social needs at least cost. Secondly, policymakers would be interested in knowing whether different policy<br />
measures which incentivise the development of SII may be a more efficient way to meet their policy<br />
objective than more traditional state-managed forms of service delivery.<br />
7.37 The evaluation should be as comprehensive as possible in the determination of costs and benefits,<br />
accounting for indirect and long-term effects of the program and reflecting the interests of all stakeholders<br />
involved (Better Evaluation, 2014a and 2014b). Interventions with social savings expectations and social<br />
outcomes expectation can undertake both forms of evaluations.<br />
7.4.2. Measuring social impact: selecting social outcome measures<br />
7.38 Any type of social intervention is designed to achieve a social goal, SII is not different. The<br />
importance of measuring social outcomes was highlighted by the SIITF as well as by the Working Group<br />
on <strong>Impact</strong> Measurement (WGIM, 2014). The social outcomes defined by a social intervention should meet<br />
some standards, including: being predefined, measureable, valid, repeatable, and independent (not<br />
distortable). <strong>Social</strong> outcome monitoring may also include the addition of spillover measures, or timesensitive<br />
changes to the social outcomes desired.<br />
36 . For example in the case of CBA it is important to draw a distinction between paternalistic and<br />
non-paternalistic altruism, and it is only the former which is relevant when ascertaining whether or not a<br />
policy intervention is welfare-improving. See Johansson (1992) for a discussion.<br />
© OECD 2015 119
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Predefined: <strong>Social</strong> impact investment should predefine its purpose, this allows for the intervention<br />
to be assessed on a common goal for all aspects of process and implementation. It allows other<br />
social impact investments to run complementary to it, and set expectations for social impact<br />
investors in the case of SII.<br />
Measurable: Alone, whether an outcome is measurable is not enough to justify its selection, it also<br />
needs to accurately operationalise the predicted social outcome (see below). However, this is<br />
important because some aspects of a social intervention might be hard to measure (e.g. the<br />
preferences for care for dementia sufferers, or early year’s children in childcare) and selecting<br />
unmeasurable outcomes will ultimately devalue future evaluations and bring into question the real<br />
impact. Whether monetised, (as may be required for SIBs), quality of life based (reduction in<br />
poverty) risk reducing (reduction in criminality) or efficiency enhancing (reductions in emergency<br />
service use) outcomes indicators should be – proxies or otherwise – the predefined outcome should<br />
be measureable.<br />
Valid: A valid outcome measure accurately represents the desired outcomes, and is particularly<br />
important in the case of proxy measures for hard-to-measure outcomes. Inappropriate responses to<br />
social needs could occur if social enterprises focus their efforts on invalid representations of<br />
desired outcomes. Depending on the population being evaluated, and the type of outcomes being<br />
measures (particularly survey responses) outcomes measures may need to be validated during<br />
pilots to ensure they are not biased by gender, age or culture of the recipients – or generate biased<br />
non-response to evaluation requests.<br />
Repeatable: In the case of multiple evaluations on the same measure, to determine outcomes or<br />
cost-effectiveness relative to a time frame, outcome measures need to be repeatable – insofar as<br />
they should be measured accurately more than once over a period of time (ensuring previous<br />
surveys or evaluations do not affect future measurement). For external validation of an<br />
intervention or its methods, or the transferability of an intervention, the measurement of the social<br />
outcome of interest should be repeatable in other settings.<br />
Independent: Target setting may create incentives for selecting in easy-to-treat individuals into a<br />
social service, achieving measureable change but unequally. This can restrictive the inclusivity of<br />
social impact investment, and create further social problems down the line. Any outcome measure<br />
linked to payment-related targets should be measurable independently of the policies’ target<br />
measures in order to assess ‘real change’, and include at least one distributional measure to retain a<br />
check on the ‘inclusivity’ of the intervention effect.<br />
7.39 In some policy settings, an intervention may be expected to have spillover effects in other<br />
sectors, both positive and negative. Additional indicators may be needed to monitor these spillover effects<br />
for the purposes of addressing the ‘wrong pockets’ problem (when returns to investment are found in other<br />
sectors), or adjusting a social impact score for SII based on negative externalities.<br />
7.40 Finally, social impact investors and social delivery organisations should be prepared to adjust the<br />
outcome measures used to evaluate an intervention based on the time since the intervention occurred –<br />
these might be termed ‘accumulated outcomes’ and valued accordingly. The Perry Preschool intervention,<br />
mentioned in Chapter 5, is a working example of this, where early years’ interventions were still having<br />
positive social impacts decades later, but in the labour market and educational outcomes, as oppose to early<br />
years’ outcomes of child health and parenting skills development. Equally, spillover outcomes may also be<br />
subject to this principal.<br />
7.41 Another example is the recent evaluation of the first <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond (SIB) that launched in<br />
2010 as a new approach to address recidivism in the UK (see Chapter 3 for further background). The<br />
Peterborough SIB, developed and launched by <strong>Social</strong> Finance (SIB intermediary), provides pre- and post-<br />
120 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
release help to around 2000 short-term prisoners aiming to reduce re-offending rates (by at least 7.5%) by<br />
the end of the pilot scheme. If the pilots are successful, outcome payments can reach USD 12.2 million<br />
from a total USD 7.6 investment. If social outcome thresholds are not met, investors will lose their cash.<br />
The initial results of the evaluation of the Peterborough SIB have recently been released and are described<br />
in Box 7.1 below.<br />
Box 7.1. First Peterborough SIB outcome results<br />
On August, 2014 the U.K. Ministry of Justice (MoJ) released the first results of the Peterborough SIB programme.<br />
This evaluation focuses on the outcome results of the SIB designed to meet pre-determined targets in terms of reconviction<br />
rates.<br />
The Government alongside the Big Lottery Fund (SIB commissioners) agreed to pay investors back their capital<br />
plus a return on their investment if there was an improvement of re-offending rates. These payments may reflect a<br />
proportion of the savings to the Government and wider benefits to the society that result from interventions by nongovernment<br />
delivery organisations and investors.<br />
The measurement of the Peterborough SIB outcomes is designed around two cohorts of adult male offenders<br />
discharged from Peterborough prison. The first cohort includes individuals released between 9 September 2010 and<br />
1 July 2012 after serving sentences of less than one year. The second cohort opened in July 2012<br />
The Peterborough SIB foresees that investors receive an outcome-based payment if one of the following<br />
scenarios materializes:<br />
1) A reduction of 10% in the frequency of re-conviction events in each cohort of around 1 000 prisoners (from<br />
the baseline generated by a matched comparison group);<br />
2) A reduction in re-conviction events of 7.5% or more detected across all 2 000 offenders in both cohorts,<br />
when measured against a matched comparison group.<br />
The 10% and 7.5% thresholds were calculated, based on sample sizes and historical data, to ensure that any<br />
observed differences in re-offending rates between matched samples would be statistically significant. A statistically<br />
significant difference implies that outcomes payments are made for changes as a result of the SIB intervention and not<br />
due to unrelated factors.<br />
The results of the first Peterborough cohort show a 8.4% reduction in terms of frequency of re-conviction events.<br />
This is below the required 10% reduction under condition 1) above, thus no payment is made to investors. However,<br />
the outcome result is above the 7.5% threshold under condition 2) above. Therefore, should the second cohort yield<br />
similar results, investors will be paid an agreed fixed sum per reduced re-conviction event.<br />
Propensity Score Matching was used to calculate the percentage reduction in reoffending rates resulting from the<br />
Peterborough SIB approach. The cohort of 936 discharged offenders from Peterborough was matched against a<br />
national control group control group of 9 360 matched re-offenders discharged from other 34 male local prisons during<br />
the same period. The pre-matching samples included 31 207 observations from other prisons and 945 for<br />
Peterborough. The matching was done based 36 out of 38 demographic and criminal history variables such as<br />
offender age, ethnicity, nationality, number of past convictions or type of offence. The analysis was done based on<br />
detailed individual data provided by the MoJ and further information made available by <strong>Social</strong> Finance (the<br />
Peterborough SIB intermediary). Jolliffe and Hedderman (2014) provide further details on the data and methodological<br />
approach used.<br />
Source: MoJ (2014) and Jolliffe and Hedderman (2014).<br />
© OECD 2015 121
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
7.42 The preliminary results of the SIB model show that it has been successful thus far, both in terms<br />
of attracting funding to address social needs, as well as in effectively tackling social issues. However, there<br />
are a number of challenges and risks that should be taken into consideration when designing and<br />
implementing a SIB or other SII models including incentives and risks of unintended consequences,<br />
spillovers and cross-sector gains, and measurement risks.<br />
7.43 In areas that involve complex and expensive social issues, no single SIB commissioner can<br />
justify making all of the outcomes payments. In the UK, the <strong>Social</strong> Outcomes Fund was created to address<br />
challenges related to spillovers and cross-sector gains — i.e. the returns on the provision of social services<br />
can accrue in distinct social areas. This fund leverages the contribution of outcomes-based commissions<br />
such as SIBs.<br />
7.4.3. Methodologies and challenges for evaluating outcomes<br />
7.44 Once an outcome, or set of outcomes, has been identified as a desirable result of social impact<br />
investment the next challenge for assessing impact of an SII-backed intervention is designing an<br />
appropriate evaluation.<br />
7.45 Below is a checklist of questions to take into consideration:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
What aspects to evaluate: Clarify whether the intervention as a whole or aspects of the<br />
intervention are to be evaluated. Adjust or developing appropriate outcome indicators and<br />
controls accordingly.<br />
Who to evaluate: Recipients of the interventions, control groups, and extended populations (e.g.<br />
families of recidivists, communities, the general population) depending on the nature of the target<br />
population and expected spillovers.<br />
When to evaluate: Depending on the intervention (childcare vs. elderly care for instance), the<br />
expected outcome (e.g. long-term life outcomes for childcare, shorter periods for service take-up<br />
goals?), and should be timetabled in advance of the intervention (as part of the SII business plan).<br />
How to evaluate: consider piloting in the first instance, and identifying suitable control groups<br />
for control trials (for details of this method see chapter 3 of OECD, 2014g), in absence of this<br />
tailored survey data pre, during and post interventions, or pre-existing surveys might allow for<br />
difference-in-difference tests. For expectation of long-term returns, longitudinal cohort data may<br />
be useful. Cost benefit analysis should be included as standard, as should contextual description<br />
of governance and implementation practice for the purposes of transferability.<br />
122 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
References<br />
Addis, R., J. McLeod, and A. Raine (2013), “IMPACT Australia: Investment for <strong>Social</strong> and Economic<br />
Benefit”, Australian Government, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations,<br />
November.<br />
Better Evaluation (2014a) “Cost Benefit Analysis”. Accessed at the Better Evaluation website<br />
16 April 2014 http://www.betterevaluation.org.<br />
Better Evaluation (2014b) “Cost Effectiveness Analysis”. Accessed at the Better Evaluation website<br />
16 April 2014 http://www.betterevaluation.org.<br />
O’Donohoe, N., C. Leijonhufvud and Y. Saltuk (2010), “<strong>Impact</strong> Investments: An Emerging Asset Class”,<br />
J.P. Morgan Securities plc, GIIN and Rockefeller Foundation, November.<br />
EuropeAid (2005) “Cost Effectiveness analysis”. Accessed at the EuropeAid website 16 April 2014<br />
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/index_en.htm.<br />
HM Government, UK (2013c), “G8 <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Forum: Outputs and Agreed Actions”, UK<br />
Cabinet Office, London, July.<br />
HM Government, UK (2011), “Growing the <strong>Social</strong> Investment Market: A vision and strategy”, UK<br />
Cabinet Office, London, February.<br />
IIPC (2014), “<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Policy in 2014: A snapshot of global activity”, <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Policy<br />
Collaborative, November.<br />
Jackson, E.T. & Associates (2012), “Accelerating <strong>Impact</strong>: Achievements, Challenges and What’s Next in<br />
the <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Industry”, The Rockefeller Foundation, July.<br />
Johansson, P. (1992), “Altruism in Cost-Benefit Analysis” in Environmental and Resource Economics,<br />
6(2): 605-13.<br />
Jolliffe, D. and C. Hedderman (2014) “Peterborough <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond: Final Report on Cohort 1<br />
Analysis”. Available at:<br />
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/341684/peterborough<br />
-social-impact-bond-report.pdf<br />
MoJ (2014) “Peterborough <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond; HMP Doncaster; Payment by Results pilots: Final<br />
re-conviction results for cohorts 1” Statistics Bulletin, Ministry of Justice, London, August.<br />
NAB-AUS (2014), “Delivering on <strong>Impact</strong>”, National Advisory Board Report, Australia, <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investment Taskforce established by the G8, September.<br />
NAB-CAN (2014), “Mobilizing Private Capital for Public Good: Priorities for Canada”, National Advisory<br />
Board Report, Canada, <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce established by the G8, September.<br />
NAB-GER (2014), “Wirkungsorientiertes Investierenn: Neue Finanzierungsquellen zur Lösung<br />
gesellschaftlicher Herausforderungen”, National Advisory Board Report, Germany, <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investment Taskforce established by the G8, September.<br />
© OECD 2015 123
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
NAB-FRA (2014), “Comment et pourquoi favoriser des investissements à impact social ? Innover<br />
financièrement pour innover socialement”, National Advisory Board Report, France, <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investment Taskforce established by the G8, September.<br />
NAB-ITA (2014), “La finanza che include: gli investimenti ad impatto sociale per una nuova economia”,<br />
National Advisory Board Report, Italy, <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce established by the G8,<br />
September.<br />
NAB-JAP (2014), “The <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Landscape in Japan”, National Advisory Board Report,<br />
Japan, <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce established by the G8, September.<br />
NAB-UK (2014), “Building a social impact investment market: The UK experience”, National Advisory<br />
Board Report, United Kingdom, <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce established by the G8,<br />
September.<br />
NAB-US (2014), “Private Capital Public Good: How Smart Federal Policy Can Galvanize <strong>Impact</strong><br />
<strong>Investing</strong> — and Why It’s Urgent”, National Advisory Board Report, United States, <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investment Taskforce established by the G8, June.<br />
OECD (2014f), Integrated Service Delivery for Vulnerable Groups, forthcoming.<br />
OECD (2014g), Cash or Services: What Works Best for Families?, forthcoming.<br />
Rangan, K.V., S. Appleby, and L. Moon (2011), “The Promise of <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong>”, Harvard Business<br />
School, Background Note No. 512-045, Boston.<br />
Thornley, B., D. Wood, K. Grace and S. Sullivant (2011), “<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong>: A Framework for Policy<br />
Design and Analysis”, Pacific Community Ventures, Institute for Responsible Investment at Harvard<br />
University, and Rockefeller Foundation, January.<br />
WEF (2012), “Breaking the Binary: A Policy Guide to Scaling <strong>Social</strong> Innovation”, World Economic<br />
Forum, New York.<br />
WGIM (2014), “<strong>Impact</strong> Measurement: Shifting the Paradigm”, Working Group on <strong>Impact</strong> Measurement<br />
(WGIM), <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce established by the G8, September.<br />
124 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
ANNEX 7.1. EXAMPLES OF POLICY INSTRUMENTS IN G7 COUNTRIES AND AUSTRALIA<br />
Country Name Type Link<br />
AUS<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Enterprise Development and<br />
Investment Funds (SEDIF)<br />
Supply<br />
CAN RISQ Fund (Quebec) Supply http://www.fonds-risq.qc.ca/<br />
CAN<br />
Fiducie du Chantier de l'économie sociale<br />
(Quebec)<br />
Supply http://fiducieduchantier.qc.ca/?lang=eng<br />
CAN SVX trading platform (Ontario) Intermediaries http://www.svx.ca/<br />
CAN<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Enterprise Demonstration Fund<br />
(Ontario)<br />
Supply<br />
CAN Toronto’s Centre for <strong>Social</strong> Innovation Demand http://socialinnovation.ca/<br />
CAN<br />
CAN<br />
Community Contribution Companies (C3,<br />
British Columbia)<br />
Community Interest Companies (CIC ,<br />
Nova Scotia)<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
CAN <strong>Social</strong> Innovation Fund (Alberta) Supply<br />
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/prs/ccc/<br />
CAN Immigrant Access Fund Supply http://www.iafcanada.org/<br />
Europe EUSEF<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
See Box 3.5<br />
Europe <strong>Social</strong> impact accelerator Supply http://www.eif.org/what_we_do/equity/sia/index.htm<br />
FRA<br />
LOI n° 2014-856 : Économie <strong>Social</strong>e et<br />
Solidaire<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
FRA BPI France planning to provide funding Supply<br />
ITA<br />
ITA<br />
ITA<br />
ITA<br />
Legge delega di riforma del Terzo Settore<br />
Specific social cooperatives legislation<br />
Bank foundation legislation<br />
Normativa sul Microcredito<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
(in certain regions only)<br />
http://microcreditoitalia.org/index.php?option=com_<br />
content&view=article&id=335&Itemid=353&lang=it<br />
ITA L’Ente Nazionale per il Microcredito Other http://microcreditoitalia.org/index.php?lang=it<br />
ITA Titoli di Solidarietà (D.Lgs n. 460/1997)<br />
JAP<br />
Legal amendment to the corporate law<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
http://employment.gov.au/social-enterprisedevelopment-and-investment-funds<br />
https://www.ontario.ca/business-andeconomy/social-enterprise-demonstration-fund<br />
http://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/61st_4th/1st_read/b1<br />
53.htm<br />
http://humanservices.alberta.ca/social-innovationfund.html<br />
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTex<br />
te=JORFTEXT000029313296&categorieLien=id<br />
www.bpifrance.fr/Vivez-<br />
Bpifrance/Actualites/Economie-sociale-et-solidairedecouvrez-le-rapport-d-etape-de-Bpifrance-sur-lefinancement-de-l-ESS<br />
http://www.governo.it/Governo/ConsiglioMinistri/de<br />
ttaglio.asp?d=76205<br />
http://www.normattiva.it/urires/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:1997;460<br />
JAP New Public Commons Other http://www5.cao.go.jp/npc/index-e/index-e.html<br />
JAP <strong>Social</strong> Innovation Forum Demand http://japan-social-innovation-forum.net/<br />
JAP<br />
Osaka Prefectural Government’s <strong>Social</strong><br />
Entrepreneur Support Project<br />
Supply<br />
http://www.pref.osaka.lg.jp/chiikifukushi/kigyouka/s<br />
yakaikigyoukafand.html<br />
UK Community Investment Tax Relief Tax & http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/specialist/citc_guidance.ht<br />
© OECD 2015 125
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Regulation m<br />
UK Futurebuilders Supply http://www.futurebuilders-england.org.uk/<br />
UK<br />
UK<br />
Community Interest Company (CIC)<br />
Dormant Bank and Building Society<br />
Account Act<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
US<br />
US<br />
Small Business Investment Company<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investment Fund<br />
Program-Related Investments<br />
Supply<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
US Community Reinvestment Act Other<br />
US<br />
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
US National Housing Trust Fund Supply http://nlihc.org/issues/nhtf<br />
US<br />
US<br />
US<br />
Riegle Community Development and<br />
Regulatory Improvement Act<br />
Community Development Financial<br />
Institutions Fund<br />
New Markets Tax Credit<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
Supply \<br />
Demand<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office<br />
-of-the-regulator-of-community-interest-companies<br />
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review<br />
-of-the-dormant-bank-and-building-society-accountsact-2008<br />
UK<br />
Investment and Contract Readiness Fund<br />
(ICRF)<br />
Demand http://www.beinvestmentready.org.uk/about/<br />
UK Big Society Capital (BSC) Intermediaries http://www.bigsocietycapital.com/<br />
UK <strong>Social</strong> Outcomes Fund Supply<br />
http://blogs.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/socialimpactbonds/<br />
outcomes-fund/<br />
UK Commissioning Academy Supply<br />
https://www.gov.uk/the-commissioning-academyinformation<br />
UK <strong>Social</strong> Value Act Other<br />
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/publicservices-social-value-act-2012-1-year-on<br />
UK Unit Cost Database Other http://data.gov.uk/sib_knowledge_box/toolkit<br />
UK <strong>Social</strong> Investment Tax Relief (SITR)<br />
Tax &<br />
Regulation<br />
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/sitr/<br />
http://www.sba.gov/category/lender-navigation/sbaloan-programs/sbic-program/generalinformation/impact-investment-sbic<br />
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Private-<br />
Foundations/Program-Related-Investments<br />
http://www.federalreserve.gov/communitydev/cra_ab<br />
out.htm<br />
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_<br />
offices/comm_planning/affordablehousing/training/w<br />
eb/lihtc/basics<br />
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr3474<br />
http://www.cdfifund.gov/<br />
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/atgnmtc.pdf<br />
Note: Information on Germany is available (NAB_GER, 2014) but not yet in English and will be added once available. SIBs are<br />
considered as policy instruments but are not included in this table because they are exhaustively covered in Annex 3.1, Chapter 3.<br />
This table excludes policy instruments targeting areas or activity that does not fit within the OECD working definition presented in<br />
Chapter 4. The table only provides information on SII-specific policy instruments. Therefore, policy instruments that affect SII but do<br />
not necessarily target the SII ecosystem (e.g. seed funds; regulations on institutional investors asset allocation and risk) are excluded.<br />
Source: OECD, based on National Advisory Board (NAB) reports — NAB_AUS (2014), NAB_CAN (2014), NAB_GER (2014),<br />
NAB_FRA (2014), NAB_ITA (2014), NAB_JAP (2014), NAB_UK (2014), NAB_US (2014).<br />
126 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
8. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS<br />
8.1 As social needs continue to grow, social impact investment can open the door to greater<br />
innovation in the way that social issues are tackled and potentially provide new ways to more efficiently<br />
and effectively allocate public and private capital to address social and economic challenges at the global,<br />
national and local levels. While these innovative new approaches will not replace the core role of the<br />
public sector or the need for philanthropy, they can provide models for leveraging existing capital using<br />
market-based approaches with potential to have greater impact.<br />
8.2 Interest and activity in social impact investment continues to develop around the world. There is<br />
a greater recognition of the need for effective solutions to social challenges drawing a growing and broader<br />
range of capital providers. Private sector investors, such as foundations, high net worth individuals and<br />
institutional investors are increasingly interested in making investments that can have both a social and a<br />
financial impact, which has implications for developed and developing countries.<br />
8.3 The social impact investment market is at an important inflection point. Awareness, interest and<br />
activity have increased, in particular due to the international initiative launched under the U.K. G8<br />
Presidency in 2013 and the subsequent work of the <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce and the National<br />
Advisory Boards. These initiatives are now moving into a new phase which will include expanding to the<br />
G20 countries and beyond.<br />
8.4 This paper has attempted to provide frameworks and approaches for thinking definitions and data<br />
in the social impact investment market, highlighting the implications for policy. The paper seeks to deepen<br />
the discussions about the definitions of social impact investment to enable clearer comparisons within and<br />
across countries.<br />
8.5 The social impact investment ecosystem framework outlined in the paper highlights the<br />
importance of starting with the social needs and beneficiaries, not with the financial instruments being<br />
applied. A mix of financing instruments can then be tailored to those particular needs and beneficiaries. As<br />
discussed in Chapter 5, the context within each county is a critical determinant for the possible<br />
opportunities for social impact investment.<br />
8.6 Given the growing level of activity in the social impact investment market around the world, it is<br />
crucial to build the evidence base to understand what works and ensure that capital is put to work on<br />
interventions that achieve the intended impact. This includes systematically collecting data and being able<br />
to use the data in a cross-country comparable way to better track the development of the market.<br />
8.7 In particular, further work is needed to assess the role of SII in developing countries. This report<br />
has focused on the G7 and Australia. Further work could expand the scope to the G20 countries and<br />
beyond. Changes in the development finance landscape will require new measures to capture the full<br />
spectrum of financial instruments and facilitate the analysis of funding from all sources. The shift in<br />
sources of financial flows will also require further analysis of the trade-offs in terms of various types of<br />
financing, including SII, as well as a scoping in terms of which market settings are more appropriate for<br />
various types of financing. This could build upon current OECD work on financing for development.<br />
© OECD 2015 127
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
8.8 There also needs to be deeper knowledge sharing about social impact investment practices.<br />
Currently there is a lot of show casing but not enough learning about what is working and what is not,<br />
including about the true costs, efficiencies and outcomes of particular practices. More detailed case studies<br />
which outline the roles of various actors and the processes involved in structuring social impact investment<br />
products would be useful along with more formal evaluations of these practices.<br />
8.9 <strong>Social</strong> impact investment touches many different fields of analysis. To minimise the challenges<br />
of building a robust evidence base for the whole SII market, detailed analysis could initially focus on<br />
certain cases and\or social need areas. This more focused approach is important as there are bound to be<br />
variations in appropriate policies within and across sectors. As part of the next phase of the work on social<br />
impact investment, the OECD could, for example, focus on a particular area and work on building the<br />
evidence base across difference countries and cases.<br />
8.10 At this stage of development of the SII market, an international organisation, such as the OECD,<br />
could potentially play a useful role in facilitating shared definitions, common data collection processes,<br />
development of indicators and evaluation of policies, in addition to providing a platform for the review and<br />
sharing of information about policies and practices.<br />
8.11 The social impact investment market remains small relative to traditional markets, however, it is<br />
growing in visibility and importance. Further and sustainable growth would require a commitment to<br />
building the evidence base in terms of practices and outcomes.<br />
128 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
GLOSSARY<br />
Angel Investors<br />
An angel investor is an individual investor (qualified as defined by some national regulations) that<br />
invests directly (or through their personal holding) their own money predominantly in seed or start-up<br />
companies with no family relationships. Angel investors make their own (final) investment decisions and<br />
are financially independent, i.e. a possible total loss of their investments will not significantly change the<br />
economic situation of their assets. Angel investors invest with a medium to long term set time-frame and<br />
are ready to provide, on top of their individual investment, follow-up strategic support to entrepreneurs<br />
from investment to exit. (OECD, 2012)<br />
Asset Lock<br />
The Asset Lock is a restriction on the transfer of assets. Asset Lock is designed to ensure that the<br />
assets of companies (including any profits or other surpluses generated by its activities) are used for<br />
the benefit of the community. (adapted from BIS, 2013)<br />
Catalytic (first-loss) capital<br />
Catalytic (first-loss) capital (CFLC) entails a capital provider that will bear first losses (the amount of<br />
loss covered is typically set and agreed upon upfront). By improving the recipient’s risk-return profile,<br />
CFLC catalyses the participation of investors that otherwise would not have participated. CFLC aims to<br />
channel commercial capital towards the achievement of certain social and/or environmental outcomes. In<br />
addition, the purpose can also be to demonstrate the commercial viability of investing into a new market.<br />
CFLC is a tool that can be incorporated into a capital structure via a range of financial instruments.<br />
(authors based on GIIN, 2013)<br />
Community investing<br />
Community investing refers to the provision of financial services to underserved communities and<br />
includes banks, credit unions, loan funds, and venture capital funds. (Freireich and Fulton 2009)<br />
Corporate <strong>Social</strong> Responsibility (CSR)<br />
CSR is defined as the integration of business operations and values, where the interests of all<br />
stakeholders—including investors, customers, employees, the community, and the environment—are<br />
reflected in the company’s policies and actions. Special attention is given to corporate practices as they<br />
relate to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance. (Source: Adapted from Freireich and<br />
Fulton, 2009)<br />
Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)<br />
Cost-benefit analysis is a technique used to compare the total costs of a programme/project with its<br />
benefits, using a common metric (most commonly monetary units). This enables the calculation of the net<br />
cost or benefit associated with the programme. (Better Evaluation, 2014a)<br />
© OECD 2015 129
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Cost-Efficiency Analysis (CEA)<br />
Cost-effectiveness analysis is an alternative to cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The technique compares<br />
the relative costs to the outcomes (effects) of two or more courses of action. (Better Evaluation, 2014b)<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong><br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments are investments made into companies, organizations, and funds with the intention<br />
to generate social and environmental impact alongside a financial return. <strong>Impact</strong> investments can be made<br />
in both emerging and developed markets, and target a range of returns from below market to market rate,<br />
depending upon the circumstances. The practice of impact investing is further defined by the following<br />
four core characteristics: i) Intentionality; ii) Investment with return expectations; iii) Range of return<br />
expectations and asset classes; and iv) <strong>Impact</strong> measurement. (Source: GIIN website)<br />
Market failure<br />
Market failure is a general term describing situations in which market outcomes are not Pareto<br />
efficient. Market failures provide a rationale for government intervention. (OECD Glossary of Statistical<br />
Terms)<br />
Mission-Driven <strong>Investing</strong> (MRI)<br />
MRI is a term used to describe mission-related investments that are market-rate investments of<br />
endowment funds that align with the social or environmental mission of a foundation. MRI can include the<br />
use of social investing tools and sometimes including shareholder advocacy and positive and negative<br />
screening. (Source: Rangan et al., 2011)<br />
Non-profit institutions (NPI)<br />
Non-profit institutions are legal or social entities created for the purpose of producing goods and<br />
services whose status does not permit them to be a source of income, profit, or other financial gain for the<br />
units that establish, control or finance them. In practice their productive activities are bound to generate<br />
either surpluses or deficits but any surpluses they happen to make cannot be appropriated by other<br />
institutional units. (UN, 1993)<br />
Program Related Investments (PRIs)<br />
Investments, which often take the form of loans, loan guarantees, or equity investments that are<br />
derived from a foundation’s assets but count toward its charitable distribution requirement. Generally,<br />
these investments yield below-market-rate returns for the foundation. (Source: INSEAD based on<br />
Lawrence and Mukai, 2011)<br />
Sample size<br />
The number of sampling units which are to be included in the sample. In the case of a multi-stage<br />
sample this number refers to the number of units at the final stage in the sampling. (OECD Glossary of<br />
Statistical Terms)<br />
Sample survey<br />
A sample survey is a survey which is carried out using a sampling method, i.e. in which a portion<br />
only, and not the whole population is surveyed. (OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms)<br />
130 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Services, social<br />
<strong>Social</strong> (and collective) services provide final consumption for households and are distinctive for their<br />
non-market character in most OECD countries. Collective consumption decisions and public financing are<br />
common, as is production by governments, non-profit organisations and subsidised private organisations.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> services comprise the following International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) Rev. 3 subgroups:<br />
- government proper (civil or military);<br />
- health services;<br />
- educational services;<br />
- miscellaneous social services.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> benefits<br />
(OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms)<br />
<strong>Social</strong> benefits are current transfers received by households intended to provide for the needs that<br />
arise from certain events or circumstances, for example, sickness, unemployment, retirement, housing,<br />
education or family circumstances. (OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms)<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Business<br />
A non-loss, non-dividend company designed to address a societal problem through a market-based<br />
business model. It is distinct from a non-profit because the business should seek to generate a modest profit<br />
which will be used to expand the company’s reach, improve the product or service or in other ways<br />
subsidise the social mission. (Source: INSEAD adapted from Yunus, 2009).<br />
<strong>Social</strong> context<br />
<strong>Social</strong> context refers to variables that, while not usually the direct target of policy, are crucial for<br />
understanding the context within which social policy is developed. (OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms)<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Enterprise<br />
Any private activity conducted in the public interest, organised with an entrepreneurial strategy but<br />
whose main purpose is not the maximisation of profit but the attainment of certain economic and social<br />
goals, and which has a capacity of bringing innovative solutions to the problems of social exclusion and<br />
unemployment. (Source: OECD, 2000)<br />
<strong>Social</strong> expenditure<br />
<strong>Social</strong> expenditure is the provision by public (and private) institutions of benefits to, and financial<br />
contributions targeted at, households and individuals in order to provide support during circumstances<br />
which adversely affect their welfare, provided that the provision of the benefits and financial contributions<br />
constitutes neither a direct payment for a particular good or service nor an individual contract or transfer.<br />
Such benefits can be cash transfers, or can be the direct (“in-kind”) provision of goods and services.<br />
(OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms)<br />
© OECD 2015 131
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond (SIB)<br />
A <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond is a financial mechanism in which investors pay for a set of interventions to<br />
improve a social outcome that is of social and/or financial interest to a government commissioner. If the<br />
social outcome improves, the government commissioner repays the investors for their initial investment<br />
plus a return for the financial risks they took. If the social outcomes are not achieved, the investors stand to<br />
lose their investment. (<strong>Social</strong> Finance website) 37<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment (SII)<br />
Investments made into businesses and social sector organisations, directly or through funds, with the<br />
intention of generating a measurable, beneficial social and environmental impact alongside a financial<br />
return. (SIITF, 2014a)<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment is a transaction between an investor and investee in a social area, targeting<br />
beneficiaries in need. Beneficiaries targeted should be at risk populations and the good provided should<br />
have a mix of public and private good characteristics. These transactions are often made using<br />
intermediaries. The investee in the transaction should, at least, inscribe a compulsory reporting clause of<br />
its social activity in the statutes, as well as provide a formal evaluation of social impact. In parallel, the<br />
investor should, at least, have a compulsory reporting clause for social impact investments and have<br />
return expectations above or equal to zero, but not above the market rate of return (actual return may be<br />
higher). (OECD working definition, 2014)<br />
<strong>Social</strong> investment<br />
<strong>Social</strong> investment is the provision and use of capital with the aim of generating social as well as<br />
financial returns. <strong>Social</strong> investment carries an expectation of repayment of some or all of the finance. It can<br />
cover loans, equity, bonds, and is sometimes used alongside other instruments, such as guarantees or<br />
underwriting. As with any other investments, where the investee business performs well, returns generated<br />
may be principally reinvested in the business, as well as offered to investors. Investors in social outcomes<br />
weigh up the balance between the social and financial returns which they expect from an investment,<br />
according to their own priorities. They will often accept lower financial returns in order to generate greater<br />
social impact. (Source: City of London, 2012)<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Purpose Organization (SPO)<br />
An SPO, whether nonprofit, for-profit, or hybrid, seeks to create positive social impact for human<br />
society, animals, or the natural environment in the form of social value that is not limited to economic<br />
wealth for owners or consumption benefits for customers. (Source: Clark et al., 2012).<br />
<strong>Social</strong>ly Responsible <strong>Investing</strong> (SRI)<br />
SRI is an investment approach that generally employs negative screening to avoid investing in<br />
harmful companies which are creating negative spillovers in society through their activities (e.g. Tobacco<br />
companies, weapon manufacturers). Today large amounts are invested under an SRI approach which has<br />
implications for shareholder activism/advocacy to be able to encourage corporate social responsibility<br />
practices. (Source: INSEAD adapted from Palandjian, 2010)<br />
37. Available at: http://www.socialfinance.org.uk/services/social-impact-bonds/.<br />
132 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Target Population<br />
The set of elements about which information is wanted and estimates are required. Practical<br />
considerations may dictate that some units are excluded (e.g., institutionalized individuals, the homeless, or<br />
those that are not possible to access without incurring excessive cost). (OECD Glossary of Statistical<br />
Terms)<br />
Venture Philanthropy<br />
Venture Philanthropy is an approach to build stronger investee organisations with a societal purpose<br />
by providing them with both financial and nonfinancial support in order to increase their societal impact.<br />
The venture philanthropy approach includes the use of the entire spectrum of financing instruments (grants,<br />
equity, debt, etc.) and pays particular attention to the ultimate objective of achieving societal impact. The<br />
approach includes both social investment and high engagement grant making. (Source: EVPA website).<br />
© OECD 2015 133
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
REFERENCES<br />
BIS (2013) “Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies: information and guidance notes”,<br />
Department for Businesses, Innovation and Skills, London, March.<br />
City of London (2012), “A Brief Handbook on <strong>Social</strong> Investment”, City of London Corporation, London,<br />
February. Source: GIIN website<br />
Clark, C., J. Emerson, and B. Thornley (2012), “A Market Emerges: The Six Dynamics of <strong>Impact</strong><br />
<strong>Investing</strong>”, Pacific Community Ventures, <strong>Impact</strong>Assets and CASE at Duke University’s Fuqua<br />
School of Business, October.<br />
GIIN (2013), “Catalytic First-loss Capital”, New York, October.<br />
INSEAD (nd), “Glossary of Terms for <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship and <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong>”. webpage,<br />
http://www.globalimpactforum.com/program/insead/glossary/index (accessed 11 September 2013).<br />
OECD (2000), <strong>Social</strong> Enterprises, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264182332-en<br />
OECD (2008), OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms, OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/9789264055087-en<br />
OECD (2012), “Preliminary Results of the OECD Seed and Early Stage Financing Questionnaire”, internal<br />
working document, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, DSTI/IND(2012)24<br />
Palandjian, T. (2010), “<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies across Asset Classes”, Bridges Ventures,<br />
Parthenon Group and GIIN, London, January.<br />
UN (1993), System of National Accounts, United Nations, New York<br />
Yunus, M. (2009), “Creating a World Without Poverty: <strong>Social</strong> Business and the Future of Capitalism”,<br />
PublicAffairs.<br />
134 © OECD 2015
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
ANNEX A. OECD EXPERT MEETINGS: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS<br />
Paris 21 March 2014 and London 18 June 2014<br />
Ms. Rosemary ADDIS<br />
Mr. Jake BENFORD<br />
Ms Sandy BLACKBURN-<br />
WRIGHT<br />
Mr. Amit BOURI<br />
Mr. Kieron BOYLE<br />
Dr. Stephen BRIEN<br />
Mr. Adrian BROWN<br />
Professor Mario CALDERINI<br />
Ms. Radana CRHOVA<br />
Ms. Aimie COLE<br />
Ms. Carolien DE BRUIN<br />
Mr. François DE WITT<br />
Ms. Sarah DOYLE<br />
Mr. Guilhem DUPUY<br />
Dr. Danilo Giovanni FESTA<br />
Ms. Stephanie GIAMPORCARO<br />
Mr. Gunnar GLÄNZEL<br />
Ms. Paula GOLDMAN<br />
Dr. Riccardo GRAZIANO<br />
Dr. Siobhan HARTY<br />
Dr. Lisa HEHENBERGER<br />
Executive Director <strong>Impact</strong> Strategist<br />
Co-founder<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong><br />
Senior Project Manager<br />
Bertelsmann Foundation<br />
Executive Director <strong>Impact</strong> Strategist<br />
Co-founder<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Australia<br />
Managing Director<br />
Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network<br />
Head of <strong>Social</strong> Investment and Finance<br />
UK Cabinet Office<br />
Chair’s Executive Team<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce<br />
Principal<br />
Boston Consulting Group<br />
Department of Management, Economics and<br />
Industrial Engineering<br />
Politecnico di Milano<br />
Senior Economist<br />
Office for Civil Society, Government Innovation<br />
Group<br />
UK Cabinet Office<br />
Chair’s Executive Team<br />
<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Investment Taskforce<br />
Specialist Leader<br />
Monitor Institute<br />
President<br />
FINANSOL<br />
Senior Policy Advisor<br />
MaRS Centre for <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong><br />
Attaché de Direction Générale<br />
ECOFI Investissements<br />
General Director<br />
Ministry of Labour and <strong>Social</strong> Policy<br />
Senior Lecturer<br />
Bertha Centre for <strong>Social</strong> Innovation and<br />
Entrepreneurship, Graduate School of Business<br />
University of Cape Town<br />
Senior Researcher<br />
Centre for <strong>Social</strong> Investment, Heidelberg<br />
University<br />
Senior Director, Knowledge & Advocacy<br />
Omidyar Network<br />
Director General<br />
National Microcredit Agency<br />
Director General, <strong>Social</strong> Policy<br />
Employment and <strong>Social</strong> Development Canada<br />
Research Director<br />
European Venture Philanthropy Association<br />
Australia<br />
Germany<br />
Australia<br />
United States<br />
United Kingdom<br />
United Kingdom<br />
United Kingdom<br />
Italy<br />
United Kingdom<br />
United Kingdom<br />
United States<br />
France<br />
Canada<br />
France<br />
Italy<br />
South Africa<br />
Germany<br />
United States<br />
Italy<br />
Canada<br />
EU<br />
© OECD 2015 135
SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />
Ms. Diana HOLLMANN<br />
Mr. Richard JOHNSON<br />
Mr. Nigel KERSHAW<br />
Professor Mario LA TORRE<br />
Ms. Alexandra MEAGHER<br />
Ms. Jane NEWMAN<br />
Professor Alex NICHOLLS<br />
Mr. Nick O’DONOHOE<br />
Ms. Stephanie PETRICK<br />
Mr. Karl RICHTER<br />
Mr. Matt ROBINSON<br />
Ms. Yasemin SALTUK<br />
M. Hugues SIBILLE<br />
Ms. Julie SUNDERLAND<br />
Ms. Louise SWISTEK<br />
Dr. Volker THEN<br />
Ms. Marilou VAN GOLSTEIN<br />
BROUWERS<br />
Mme Nadia VOISIN<br />
Mr. Arthur WOOD<br />
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale<br />
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH<br />
Chairman, BIAC Technology Committee<br />
CEO Global Helix LLC<br />
CEO<br />
Chairman, The Big Issue Ltd<br />
Big Issue Invest<br />
Professor of Banking and Finance<br />
Department of Management - Banking and<br />
Finance<br />
University of Rome " La Sapienza"<br />
Policy Advisor<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Investment and Finance team<br />
UK Cabinet Office<br />
International Director<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Finance UK<br />
Professor of <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship<br />
Said Business School, Oxford University<br />
Chief Executive Officer<br />
Big Society Capital<br />
Director<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Investment<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> in Motion<br />
CEO and Co-founder<br />
Engaged Investment - EngagedX<br />
Director of Strategy & Market Development<br />
Big Society Capital<br />
Executive Director of Research<br />
J P Morgan<br />
Vice-Président<br />
Présidence<br />
Groupe Crédit Coopératif<br />
PRI Program Director<br />
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation<br />
Investment Manager<br />
Le Comptoir de l’Innovation<br />
Managing Director<br />
Centre for <strong>Social</strong> Investment<br />
University of Heidelberg<br />
Managing Director<br />
Triodos Investment Management BV<br />
Conseillère soutien au secteur privé dans les pays<br />
en développement<br />
Direction Générale de la Mondialisation et des<br />
Partenariats<br />
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères<br />
Sous-Direction de la Sécurité Alimentaire et du<br />
Développement humain<br />
Founding Partner<br />
Total <strong>Impact</strong> Advisors<br />
Germany<br />
United States<br />
United Kingdom<br />
Italy<br />
United Kingdom<br />
United Kingdom<br />
United Kingdom<br />
United Kingdom<br />
Germany<br />
United Kingdom<br />
United Kingdom<br />
United Kingdom<br />
France<br />
United States<br />
France<br />
Germany<br />
Netherlands<br />
France<br />
Switzerland<br />
136 © OECD 2015
Page 118 of 140
Attachment C<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An Emerging Asset Class<br />
Page 119 of 140
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
J.P. Morgan Global Research<br />
Nick O’Donohoe<br />
Global Head of Research<br />
(44-20) 7325-0831<br />
nick.odonohoe@jpmorgan.com<br />
Christina Leijonhufvud<br />
(1-212) 622-8022<br />
christina.e.leijonhufvud@jpmchase.com<br />
Yasemin Saltuk<br />
(44 20) 7742-6426<br />
yasemin.x.saltuk@jpmorgan.com<br />
Rockefeller Foundation<br />
Antony Bugg-Levine<br />
Margot Brandenburg
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
2
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Acknowledgements<br />
This report was made possible thanks to the contributions of many individuals and<br />
organizations. However, one partner stands out for its dedication to this project. The<br />
Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network (the “GIIN”) collected a previously unseen set of<br />
data on impact investments from its Investors’ Council. The work involved designing<br />
and drafting the survey, choosing the respondents, and following up individually to<br />
ensure data collection met with the tight timeline for this analysis. The team’s<br />
rigorous work made possible one of the most exciting conclusions of this report – the<br />
analysis of impact investors’ return expectations. For this significant contribution, we<br />
extend our sincerest gratitude to Amit Bouri, Giselle Leung, Melody Meyer, Jacob<br />
Samuelson and Camilla Seth. We would also like to acknowledge and thank<br />
members of the GIIN Investors’ Council and the other survey participants for<br />
participating in the impact investing survey and contributing valuable data to this<br />
research. The full list of survey participants can be found in Appendix IV.<br />
Several other organizations and individuals offered their time to provide ideas,<br />
background and data, particularly in our sector sizing analysis. We thank the<br />
following organizations for generously sharing their knowledge to inform this report:<br />
B Lab, Calvert Foundation, Charity Bank, Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Rating System,<br />
Consultative Group to Assist the Poor, Gray Ghost Ventures, <strong>Impact</strong> Investment<br />
Exchange, <strong>Impact</strong> Reporting and Investment Standards, International Finance<br />
Corporation, Microfinance Information eXchange, MicroVest Capital Management,<br />
LLC, Monitor Inclusive Markets, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, The<br />
Prudential Insurance Company of America, Root Capital, <strong>Social</strong> Finance, TIAA-<br />
CREF, WaterHealth International, and World Resources Institute.<br />
Our colleagues at J.P. Morgan and the Rockefeller Foundation also contributed their<br />
time and energy. We thank in particular Renee Parker, Amy Bell, Mia Feldman, John<br />
Buley, Fred De Mariz, Debbie Bobovnikova, Eduardo Lecubarri, Marco Dion,<br />
Terence Strong, Brinda Ganguly and Justina Lai for their invaluable knowledge and<br />
contributions toward our analysis. Jed Emerson of Blended Value Group and John<br />
Goldstein of Imprint Capital have also been instrumental in helping us to develop our<br />
understandings of the impact investing field, many of which build on Jed’s<br />
pioneering work in this area.<br />
J.P. Morgan and its analysts are solely responsible for the investment opinions and<br />
recommendations, if any, contained in this report. Any errors or omissions are<br />
J.P. Morgan’s, and the Rockefeller Foundation and GIIN expressly disclaim any<br />
responsibility in the use of this report, including its potential distribution with any<br />
other materials, for investment purposes or otherwise.<br />
3
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Table of Contents<br />
Acknowledgements..................................................................3<br />
Introduction ..............................................................................5<br />
Executive Summary .................................................................7<br />
1. The current market landscape...........................................13<br />
Identifying impact investments..................................................................................14<br />
Investors: Market participants and infrastructure.......................................................15<br />
Investments: Business sectors, impact objectives, investment structures and<br />
geography ..................................................................................................................18<br />
Approaches to impact investing: Financial vs. social investment thesis...................21<br />
2. <strong>Impact</strong> investments: An emerging asset class................24<br />
What makes impact investments an asset class..........................................................25<br />
3. Financial return expectations............................................30<br />
Analyzing a sample of impact investments................................................................30<br />
Beyond returns: Characteristics of surveyed investments..........................................34<br />
4. The potential BoP market opportunity .............................39<br />
Why the opportunity exists in BoP markets...............................................................40<br />
A framework for sizing the market opportunity.........................................................42<br />
Sector by sector analysis: Non-financial services......................................................44<br />
Sector by sector analysis: Financial services .............................................................60<br />
Segments we haven’t measured .................................................................................63<br />
Appendices<br />
Appendix I: Managing impact investments..........................66<br />
Appendix II: Glossary and acronyms ...................................78<br />
Appendix III: CDFIs.................................................................80<br />
Appendix IV: GIIN Survey participants .................................82<br />
Appendix V: Additional returns data ....................................83<br />
Appendix VI: Notes on market sizing ...................................87<br />
Appendix VII: Further reading ...............................................91<br />
4
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Introduction<br />
Throughout, we use the term<br />
“social” to include social and<br />
environmental.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments: An emerging asset class<br />
In a world where government resources and charitable donations are insufficient to<br />
address the world’s social problems, impact investing offers a new alternative for<br />
channeling large-scale private capital for social benefit. With increasing numbers of<br />
investors rejecting the notion that they face a binary choice between investing for<br />
maximum risk-adjusted returns or donating for social purpose, the impact investment<br />
market is now at a significant turning point as it enters the mainstream. In this work,<br />
we argue that impact investments are emerging as an alternative asset class. As such,<br />
we analyze the questions one would ask when adding impact investments to an<br />
investment portfolio. Specifically, we consider the following:<br />
• What defines and differentiates impact investments?<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments are investments intended to create positive impact beyond<br />
financial return. As such, they require the management of social and<br />
environmental performance (for which early industry standards are gaining<br />
traction among pioneering impact investors) in addition to financial risk and<br />
return. We distinguish impact investments from the more mature field of sociallyresponsible<br />
investments (“SRI”), which generally seek to minimize negative<br />
impact rather than proactively create positive social or environmental benefit.<br />
• Who is involved in the market and how do they allocate capital?<br />
Charting the landscape of the impact investment market, investors range from<br />
philanthropic foundations to commercial financial institutions to high net worth<br />
individuals, investing across the capital structure, across regions and business<br />
sectors, and with a range of impact objectives.<br />
• What makes impact investments an emerging asset class?<br />
While certain types of impact investments can be categorized within traditional<br />
investment classes (such as debt, equity, venture capital), some features<br />
dramatically differentiate impact investments. We argue that an asset class is no<br />
longer defined simply by the nature of its underlying assets, but rather by how<br />
investment institutions organize themselves around it. Specifically we propose<br />
that an emerging asset class has the following characteristics:<br />
• Requires a unique set of investment/risk management skills<br />
• Demands organizational structures to accommodate this skillset<br />
• Serviced by industry organizations, associations and education<br />
• Encourages the development and adoption of standardized metrics,<br />
benchmarks, and/or ratings<br />
These characteristics are present for such asset classes as hedge funds or<br />
emerging markets, which channel significant capital flows as a result. With each<br />
of these indicators having materialized, we argue that impact investments should<br />
be defined as a separate asset class.<br />
5
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
• How much financial return are investors expecting and realizing?<br />
We conducted a survey of leading impact investors, which resulted in 24<br />
respondents providing data on expected returns for over 1,100 individual<br />
investments. Reported return expectations vary dramatically: while some impact<br />
investors expect to outperform traditional investments, others expect to trade-off<br />
financial returns for social impact. Increasingly, entrants to the impact<br />
investment market believe they need not sacrifice financial return in exchange for<br />
social impact. Indeed, many have a regulated, fiduciary duty to generate riskadjusted<br />
returns that compete with traditional investments.<br />
• How large is the potential opportunity for investment in this market?<br />
While we have not endeavored to measure the entire impact investment market,<br />
we present a new framework for measuring the potential scale of invested capital<br />
and profit. Applying our methodology to selected businesses within five sectors<br />
— housing, rural water delivery, maternal health, primary education and financial<br />
services — for the portion of the global population earning less than $3,000 a<br />
year, we find that even this -segment of the market offers the potential over the<br />
next 10 years for invested capital of $400bn–$1 trillion and profit of $183–<br />
$667bn.<br />
• What does risk management and social performance monitoring involve?<br />
Our analysis of impact investment risk management includes components similar<br />
to those for venture capital or high yield debt investments (with country and<br />
currency risk components for emerging market transactions), with a unique set of<br />
complexities arising from social performance measurement and reputational<br />
exposure. Measuring and monitoring social performance are essential to track<br />
progress toward the intended impact and to manage the reputational exposure, but<br />
are challenging and potentially expensive in practice. Market initiatives are in<br />
place to build third party systems to facilitate these efforts.<br />
6
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Executive Summary<br />
Investments intended to create positive impact beyond financial return<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments are investments intended to create positive impact beyond<br />
financial return. This definition captures the key themes characterizing impact<br />
investments as illustrated in Figure 1: impact investments provide capital, expecting<br />
financial returns, to businesses (fund managers or companies) designed with the<br />
intent to generate positive social and/or environmental impact.<br />
Figure 1: Defining impact investing<br />
Investments intended to create positive impact beyond financial return<br />
Provide capital<br />
• Transactions currently tend to be private debt or<br />
equity investments<br />
• We expect more publicly traded investment<br />
opportunities will emerge as the market matures<br />
Business designed with intent…<br />
• The business (fund manager or company) into which<br />
the investment is made should be designed with intent<br />
to make a positive impact<br />
• This differentiates impact investments from<br />
investments that have unintentional positive social or<br />
environmental consequences<br />
Expect financial returns<br />
• The investment should be expected to return at<br />
least nominal principal<br />
• Donations are excluded<br />
• Market-rate or market-beating returns are<br />
within scope<br />
… to generate positive social and/or<br />
environmental impact<br />
• Positive social and/or environmental impact<br />
should be part of the stated business strategy and<br />
should be measured as part of the success of the<br />
investment<br />
Source: The Rockefeller Foundation, J.P. Morgan.<br />
Investors and investments range broadly, across sectors and objectives<br />
A variety of investor types participate, including development finance institutions,<br />
foundations, private wealth managers, commercial banks, pension fund managers,<br />
boutique investment funds, companies and community development finance<br />
institutions. These investors operate across multiple business sectors, including<br />
agriculture, water, housing, education, health, energy and financial services (Figure<br />
2). Their impact objectives can range from mitigating climate change to increasing<br />
incomes and assets for poor and vulnerable people. Investments take the form of<br />
traditional financial structures, such as debt or equity, or more innovative structures,<br />
such as the <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bond issued in the UK, where returns are linked to metrics<br />
of social performance such as reduction in prisoner reoffending rates.<br />
Figure 2: Business sectors for impact investments<br />
Business sectors<br />
Business sectors<br />
Basic needs<br />
Basic services<br />
• Agriculture<br />
• Water<br />
• Housing<br />
• Education<br />
• Health<br />
• Energy<br />
• Financial services<br />
Source: IRIS, J.P. Morgan.<br />
7
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
First coined by US President<br />
Franklin Roosevelt, the phrase<br />
“bottom of the pyramid” gained<br />
its modern usage in a 2004 book<br />
by business professor C.K.<br />
Prahalad, who described the<br />
“Fortune at the Bottom of the<br />
Pyramid” available to companies<br />
that created efficient models to<br />
engage poor people as customers<br />
and suppliers. Since then, the<br />
World Resources Institute has<br />
defined the BoP as people earning<br />
less than $3000 per annum per<br />
capita (in 2002 PPP).<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments generally target the (broad) base of the economic pyramid<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments generally aim to improve the lives of poor and vulnerable people<br />
or to provide environmental benefits at large. In this report, we focus primarily on<br />
investments that target the ‘base of the pyramid’ defined by the World Resources<br />
Institute as people earning less than $3000 a year 1 . In addition to this established<br />
definition of BoP, which applies to emerging markets, there are also people living at<br />
the base of economic pyramids in developed countries who may enjoy a higher<br />
income but can still benefit from impact investments that expand their access to<br />
services and opportunities. We refer to this broader population as the “BoP+”. While<br />
many impact investments target BoP+ populations, this report focuses on impact<br />
investments benefiting the BoP sub-segment in emerging countries.<br />
Investments generate impact in a variety of ways<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments can deliver positive social outcomes by expanding access to<br />
basic services for people in need or through production processes that benefit society.<br />
Figure 3 summarizes some of the ways in which business can deliver positive<br />
outcomes for BoP+ populations through their method(s) of production such as by<br />
providing quality jobs, enhancing energy efficiency, facilitating local asset<br />
accumulation and/or purchasing inputs from local or smallholder providers. Other<br />
businesses deliver positive social outcomes by providing customers with access to<br />
needed and cost effective products or services, including agriculture, water, housing,<br />
education, health, energy or financial services.<br />
Figure 3: Ways in which businesses can deliver impact<br />
These means of impact might be part of the impact investment thesis motivating an investor<br />
Means of impact<br />
Means of impact<br />
Process<br />
Products for BoP+<br />
• Job creation<br />
• Energy efficiency<br />
• Facilitating asset accumulation<br />
• Utilizing BoP+ suppliers<br />
• Agriculture<br />
• Water<br />
• Housing<br />
• Education<br />
• Health<br />
• Energy<br />
• Financial Services<br />
Source: The Rockefeller Foundation, J.P. Morgan.<br />
Defining an emerging asset class<br />
Over the last two decades, the definition of an asset class has shifted from one based<br />
solely on the financial characteristics of a given set of assets to one based on how<br />
mainstream institutional investors organize themselves around those assets. The<br />
identifying characteristics of an asset class in today's markets include: the demand<br />
for professionals with a unique set of investment/risk management skills; structures<br />
on the buy side that organize around and allocate capital to these skilled<br />
professionals; industry organizations and networks dedicated to the investment class;<br />
and the adoption by the investment community of metrics, benchmarks and ratings<br />
that standardize performance and risk measurement.<br />
Hedge funds and emerging markets are both relatively recent examples of alternative<br />
assets where underlying investments cut across traditional debt and equity products.<br />
However, the unique characteristics of the people, processes structures and risks<br />
1 The Next 4 Billion, World Resources Institute and International Finance Corporation, 2007.<br />
8
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
involved have resulted in mainstream institutions defining both as separate asset<br />
classes within the category of alternative investments. We note that this definition<br />
was a key catalyst in driving the institutional growth of these assets over the last 20<br />
years.<br />
We recognize an alternative view that impact investors should seek to assign their<br />
investments to traditional asset classes such as equity, debt and cash. We believe,<br />
however, that this would lead to a fragmentation of impact investing skills and<br />
constrain the industry's potential growth. We argue, therefore, that defining impact<br />
investing as an asset class in its own right is consistent with recent history and<br />
current practice in the investment industry and is more likely to lead to a rapid<br />
growth of assets.<br />
Financial return expectations for a sample of impact investments exhibit high<br />
variance<br />
Before identifying the potential market opportunity for investments in businesses<br />
serving BoP customers, we analyze a sample of current impact investments across<br />
business sectors and impact objectives (i.e. no longer limited to BoP-serving<br />
businesses). As the market is primarily private, we obtained the data by surveying a<br />
market leading group of impact investors, from which 24 respondents provided data<br />
on over 1,100 investments.<br />
Return expectations vary from competitive to concessionary<br />
Reported return expectations for impact investments vary dramatically. Figure 4<br />
illustrates the range of expectations with a vertical line, and we see that some<br />
investors expect financial returns from their impact investments that would<br />
outperform traditional investments in the same category, while others expect to tradeoff<br />
financial return for social impact. Increasingly, newer entrants to the impact<br />
investment market, in particular those focused on BoP consumers in emerging<br />
markets, believe that impact investments need not sacrifice competitive financial<br />
returns in exchange for social impact. The International Finance Corporation, which<br />
makes many impact investments, recently revealed that their emerging market equity<br />
portfolio has outperformed traditional emerging market venture capital and private<br />
equity benchmarks for investment vintages from 1989 to 2006 2 .<br />
Whether or not there is a return trade-off in impact investing depends on instrument<br />
type, investor perceptions, and of course, chosen benchmarks. Developed markets<br />
(DM) debt investors appear to expect some return sacrifice. This could be explained<br />
in part by regulatory features and, in some developed markets, tax incentives that<br />
encourage investment in lower-return social ventures. Emerging markets (EM) debt<br />
on the other hand appears to target returns that are competitive with long-term<br />
realized index returns. For equity, the results are mixed. If we benchmark against the<br />
realized DM and EM index returns, impact investors’ targets appear competitive for<br />
EM but concessionary for DM. If, on the other hand, we benchmark against the 20-<br />
25% gross or 15–20% net returns that our interviews tell us managers raising money<br />
in the current environment would target, then there does appear to be a trade-off for<br />
EM.<br />
2 See Appendix V.<br />
9
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Figure 4: Average return expectations by instrument and region<br />
Horizontal bars: Average realized returns for benchmark and average expected returns for impact<br />
investments, gross annual IRR or yield, in USD. Vertical lines: Range of expected returns reported, gross<br />
annual IRR or yield, in USD.<br />
Benchmark<br />
11%<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
0-5%<br />
Benchmark<br />
9%<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
8-12%<br />
Benchmark<br />
28%<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
15-20%<br />
Benchmark<br />
10%<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
12-15%<br />
30%<br />
24%<br />
18%<br />
12%<br />
6%<br />
0%<br />
Developed market high<br />
yield corporate debt<br />
Emerging markets<br />
corporate debt<br />
Developed market<br />
venture capital<br />
Emerging market<br />
venture capital<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan. Survey participants were given a predetermined choice set of return ranges (0–4.9%; 5–7.9%; 8–11.9%;<br />
12–14.9%; 15–19.9%; 20–24.9%; 25%+) which is why the averages are presented in the form of ranges rather than single data points.<br />
Benchmark returns are average annual returns for: J.P. Morgan’s Developed Markets High Yield index and Corporate Emerging<br />
Market Bond (“CEMBI”) Index, over the period 2002 – 2010 (our full data history); and Cambridge Associates US Venture Capital Index<br />
and Emerging Markets Venture Capital and Private Equity Index, for vintage years over the period 1989 – 2006. <strong>Impact</strong> investment<br />
return expectations are calculated by taking an average of survey responses (each of which represents a range of expected returns for<br />
a given investment instrument in a specified region) across the population of reported investments. The number of investors who<br />
responded for each instrument, and the number of investments in the sample (respectively) are: Dev mkt HY debt = 9, 219; EM HY<br />
debt = 10, 411; Dev mkt venture capital = 6, 91; EM venture capital = 15, 119. Readers should note the low number of Dev mkt venture<br />
capital investors represented. Note that the range of expected returns for developed market debt excludes a single investment<br />
reported by one respondent with an expected range of returns of 20-24.9%; all other data points fall within the range shown. Both the<br />
developed market and emerging market venture capital ranges include investments with expectations of 25%+ return (the range was<br />
not specified above that level).<br />
Choice of benchmarks<br />
Benchmarking performance is challenging, and in this case even more so since we<br />
are benchmarking return expectations against realized returns. Figure 4 shows the<br />
return expectations (average and dispersion) reported for various investment types in<br />
our impact investor survey against benchmarks that we believe are appropriate given<br />
the risk of the asset class. For debt we believe the indices that best replicate the credit<br />
quality of an impact investing portfolio are our US High Yield and Corporate<br />
Emerging Market indices. For equity we recognise the early stage nature and<br />
relatively small investment sizes of impact investments and have chosen Cambridge<br />
Associates US Venture Capital Index and Emerging Markets Venture Capital and<br />
Private Equity Index 3 for vintage years 1989 through 2006. Vintage years post 2006<br />
have been excluded as there are too small a number of harvested investments to make<br />
the data meaningful.<br />
In order to make a meaningful comparison of backward looking (realized) and<br />
forward looking (expected) returns, we use a through-the-cycle approach in choosing<br />
our time period of benchmarks, which results in the data shown above. The choice of<br />
time frame results in moderate variations for the debt returns (if we focus on the past<br />
five, rather than eight-plus years, both benchmarks would drop by 200 basis points),<br />
but has a significant impact on the resultant venture capital or equity returns.<br />
Narrowing our time frame to the years post the dot-com bubble (1999 – 2006<br />
vintages) for example results in a return of only 0.2% in US venture capital against a<br />
3 Cambridge Associates US Venture Capital Index and Benchmark Statistics, and Cambridge<br />
Associates Global (Ex. U.S.) Venture Capital & Private Equity Index and Benchmark<br />
Statistics, as of June 30, 2010. Reports were provided directly to J.P. Morgan by Cambridge<br />
Associates free of charge.<br />
10
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
return of over 14% in emerging markets. Additional five- and 10-year VC returns<br />
data are shown in Table 28 in Appendix V.<br />
We also note that the average realized returns of the investment management<br />
community almost always lag the expected, forecast or projected returns when the<br />
investment is being made. We have no reason to suppose that the impact investing<br />
community will be any different. Our own anecdotal experience and interviews with<br />
fund of fund and alternative investment managers suggest that mainstream PE/VC<br />
managers in both the developed and emerging markets target net returns in the range<br />
of 15–20%, and gross returns of 20–25%.<br />
Selected data show realized returns on debt broadly reflect the range of expectations<br />
Most of the realized data we received pertain to debt investments. We caution that all<br />
of this data was provided by two respondents. The data show that EM debt provides<br />
higher yields than DM debt, as one would expect. The realized returns for EM debt<br />
are in line with expected returns while the DM debt realizations appear to outperform<br />
average expectations.<br />
In our definition of what constitutes<br />
an impact investment, we include<br />
investments that serve or employ<br />
the BoP+. In order to make this<br />
particular research work tractable,<br />
however, we have limited our<br />
scope to the impact investment<br />
opportunities within five sectors<br />
serving the WRI-defined BoP.<br />
The market opportunity for investment is vast<br />
As noted in the introduction, our estimate of market size is only partial, yet still<br />
produces compelling results. While the market of impact investments will serve the<br />
BoP+, we have attempted only to size the BoP sub-segment in emerging markets and<br />
only for selected sub-sectors where data and case studies were readily available. We<br />
further narrow our focus to companies that provide products or services to BoP<br />
customers (the right hand side of Figure 3), excluding, for example, impact<br />
investments that might finance BoP suppliers or small enterprises. In each sector, we<br />
determine the amount of invested capital that would be required to fund such<br />
businesses, and the profit that could be made, over the next ten ten years,<br />
summarized in Table 1. In aggregate, across five sub-sectors, we estimate a potential<br />
over the next ten years of profit ranging from $183bn to $667bn and invested capital<br />
ranging from $400bn to nearly $1 trillion.<br />
Our methodology begins by looking at case studies in each of our covered sectors<br />
that illustrate the use of innovative business models to address the BoP consumer<br />
base. Each case study provides an estimate of the price of providing the goods or<br />
services and we use data from the World Resources Institute to estimate the number<br />
of BoP consumers to whom that price is affordable. From this we calculate the<br />
potential revenues, and with an assumption on average operating margins in that<br />
sector we can arrive at potential profits. We then make assumptions about the<br />
required capital necessary to support a business of that size.<br />
We recognize that in sizing each sector we make several assumptions, each of which<br />
can and will be challenged. We hope, however, that the basic framework which<br />
estimates the size of the impact investing market by looking at the potential for<br />
affordable goods and services provided through innovative business models to BoP<br />
customers can serve as a useful methodology for further research and more refined<br />
estimates of the market size. We describe our market sizing framework and outcomes<br />
further in Section 4. The potential BoP market opportunity.<br />
11
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Sizing methodology, in summary<br />
The methodology we employ to<br />
produce the headline numbers in<br />
Table 1 combines the analysis of a<br />
successful impact investment<br />
business model in each sector with<br />
an analysis of the potential<br />
customer base for such a business<br />
were it to be scaled up and<br />
transferred across regions. We use<br />
the economics of our case study in<br />
each sector to ensure that the<br />
products sold are affordable to our<br />
target population (the BoP) and to<br />
ensure that the business is<br />
operationally profitable.<br />
Table 1: Potential invested capital to fund selected BoP businesses over the next 10 years<br />
$ bn<br />
Sector<br />
Potential invested capital<br />
required, USD bn<br />
Potential profit<br />
opportunity, USD bn<br />
Housing: Affordable urban housing $214–$786 $177–$648<br />
Water: Clean water for rural communities $5.4–$13 $2.9–$7<br />
Health: Maternal health $0.4–$2 $0.1–$1<br />
Education: Primary education $4.8–$10 $2.6–$11<br />
Financial Services: Microfinance $176 Not measured<br />
Source: J.P. Morgan.<br />
Why the BoP opportunity exists<br />
Markets at the base of the economic pyramid are typically under-served by<br />
traditional business, which may exclude this population from being considered part<br />
of its potential customer base. BoP populations are also often unable to access<br />
services provided by the government. Academic research has shown that the BoP<br />
population will often manage its finances to buy affordable products or services<br />
improving their productivity and reliability of income 4 . It is a market introducing<br />
operational challenges to otherwise proven business models requiring innovative<br />
approaches to accommodate what can be unreliable income streams or to deliver<br />
services to remote rural areas. While government or philanthropic solutions will<br />
sometimes provide these products or services (such as healthcare or education),<br />
impact investment can complement government and philanthropic capital to reach<br />
more people.<br />
Managing impact investments<br />
The risks for impact investments are similar to those for venture capital or high yield<br />
debt investments, with heightened reputational and legal risks, particularly in<br />
emerging markets where regulatory infrastructure can be onerous and the rule of law<br />
is less well defined. Further, critics may argue that impact investments exploit poor<br />
people for the sake of profits. Indeed, exploitation and mission drift are risks that are<br />
amplified when poor populations are concerned, but we believe the potential of<br />
impact investing to create a pathway out of poverty, combined with the emergence of<br />
systems to track and manage social performance, outweigh these risks. Investors<br />
need to be vigilant to ensure that the social impact and outcomes are delivered by<br />
monitoring social performance.<br />
In practice, measuring social performance is complicated, expensive and can be<br />
subjective, so impact investors have supported the development of standard reporting<br />
and social measurement frameworks. The <strong>Impact</strong> Reporting and Investment<br />
Standards (“IRIS”) provides a taxonomy to standardize social impact reporting and<br />
facilitate the creation of industry benchmarks. The Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Rating<br />
System (“GIIRS”) will utilize IRIS definitions and additional data to assign relative<br />
value to investments’ social performance, helping to inform investment decisions and<br />
potentially lower diligence costs by collating standardized information on<br />
investments.<br />
4 Portfolios of the Poor, D Collins et al, Princeton University Press, 2009.<br />
12
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
1. The current market landscape<br />
For several years, momentum has been building among select private investors to<br />
focus on a new type of asset: impact investments – investments intended to create<br />
positive impact beyond financial return. These “impact investors” have been<br />
motivated by the view that their invested capital can be utilized to generate positive<br />
social and/or environmental change, and until recently have mostly been operating<br />
independently from mainstream financial markets in doing so. In recent years,<br />
participants in the impact investing market have recognized the common threads<br />
across their respective activities and a larger movement has begun to emerge. As this<br />
movement gathers steam, we recognize the potential for impact investments to attract<br />
a larger portion of mainstream private capital and anticipate that more investors will<br />
seek to generate positive social and/or environmental impact when making<br />
investment decisions. In fact, we believe that impact investing will reveal itself to be<br />
one of the most powerful changes within the asset management industry in the years<br />
to come.<br />
Part of the reason that impact investing is such an innovative concept is that it defies<br />
the traditionally binary nature of capital allocation. By convention, capital has<br />
traditionally been allocated either to investments designed to optimize risk-adjusted<br />
financial return (with no deliberate consideration of social outcomes), or to donations<br />
designed to optimize social impact (with no expectation of financial return).<br />
Recognizing that charitable donations will never reach the scale needed to address<br />
the world's problems, and that business principles and practices can unleash<br />
creativity and scale in delivering basic services and addressing environmental<br />
challenges, impact investment introduces a new type of capital merging the<br />
motivations of traditional investments and donations.<br />
In this section, we provide a definition of impact investments and characterize the<br />
market participants, industry associations, and the nature of the investments<br />
themselves, including the sectors and geographies in which they are made.<br />
13
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Identifying impact investments<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments are investments intended to create positive impact beyond<br />
financial return. Figure 5 illustrates the components of this definition in summary,<br />
and we describe each aspect in more detail below.<br />
Figure 5: Defining impact investing<br />
Investments intended to create positive impact beyond financial return<br />
Provide capital<br />
• Transactions currently tend to be private debt or<br />
equity investments<br />
• We expect more publicly traded investment<br />
opportunities will emerge as the market matures<br />
Business designed with intent…<br />
• The business (fund manager or company) into which<br />
the investment is made should be designed with intent<br />
to make a positive impact<br />
• This differentiates impact investments from<br />
investments that have unintentional positive social or<br />
environmental consequences<br />
Expect financial returns<br />
• The investment should be expected to return at<br />
least nominal principal<br />
• Donations are excluded<br />
• Market-rate or market-beating returns are<br />
within scope<br />
… to generate positive social and/or<br />
environmental impact<br />
• Positive social and/or environmental impact<br />
should be part of the stated business strategy and<br />
should be measured as part of the success of the<br />
investment<br />
Source: The Rockefeller Foundation, J.P. Morgan.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments provide capital to…<br />
In the current market, many impact investments will take the form of private equity<br />
or debt investments, while other instruments can include guarantees or deposits.<br />
Publicly listed impact investments also exist, though they are a much smaller<br />
proportion of the transactions being made today. Most of the activity in public<br />
equities that includes a social or environmental motivation takes the form of socially<br />
responsible investment, in which investors seek to minimize negative impact rather<br />
than proactively create positive impact. Indeed, only one out of 1,105 investments<br />
reported in our survey was listed as a public transaction (see Section 3. Financial<br />
return expectations for more details). We do expect greater numbers of publicly<br />
listed impact investments to emerge as the market matures.<br />
…a business designed with intent to generate positive social and/or<br />
environmental impact…<br />
The model of the business (which could be a fund management firm or a company)<br />
into which the investment is made should be designed with the intent to make a<br />
positive social or environmental impact, and this should be explicitly specified in<br />
company documents. For many impact investments, the intended impact is likely to<br />
be focused on underserved populations, though environmental initiatives may be<br />
intended to impact a broader population. The impact is likely to be delivered through<br />
the business operations and processes employed, the products or services produced<br />
and/or the target population served. The business should also have a system in place<br />
to measure its impact.<br />
14
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
…and expect financial returns<br />
Key to the success of impact investments is the fact that they are investments<br />
expected to generate a financial return. This aim should co-exist with the intent<br />
toward positive impact, though one or the other may be the primary focus for a given<br />
investor. In fact, the pairing of these two motivations by investors will hopefully<br />
encourage businesses to develop in financially sustainable ways, thus facilitating the<br />
growth of the impact delivered by those businesses.<br />
Investors: Market participants and infrastructure<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investing may be new terminology, but it is not a new concept<br />
The term “impact investing” may be new, but the practice of investing in businesses<br />
that provide solutions to social challenges has been around for quite some time. The<br />
Commonwealth Development Corporation in the UK, established in 1948 5 , invests in<br />
a commercially sustainable manner in the poorer countries of the developing world<br />
and to attract other investors by demonstrating success. Similarly, the International<br />
Finance Corporation was created in 1956 to foster private sector investment in<br />
emerging nations.<br />
Private capital has also been deployed, with a focus on generating non-financial<br />
impact, for decades. The parent organization of Sarona Asset Management, for<br />
example, has been making socially- and environmentally-driven investments since<br />
1953. Prudential 6 also has a long tradition of making investments that support and<br />
improve communities, having established a formal <strong>Social</strong> Investments program in<br />
1976 and invested more than $1bn since then. While they may not have been<br />
identified historically as “impact investors”, their intent was consistent with the<br />
definition.<br />
A variety of investor types participate<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investors vary widely in character – from individuals to institutions across<br />
sectors. Some of the investors currently making impact investments include:<br />
• Development finance institutions (“DFIs”) were initially capitalized by<br />
governments to complement donor aid, and many now sustain their operations<br />
from earned income. These include the multi-lateral International Finance<br />
Corporation (“IFC”), regional banks such as the European Bank for<br />
Reconstruction and Development (“EBRD”) and investment organizations such<br />
as the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation (“OPIC”) and the<br />
Commonwealth Development Corporation (“CDC”) in the UK.<br />
• Private foundations such as Omidyar Network in the US and the Esmée<br />
Fairbairn Foundation in the UK consider impact investing as a means to deploy<br />
their endowment assets toward their social mission. A larger number of<br />
foundations makes program-related investments (PRIs) from the grantmaking<br />
(rather than endowment) side of operations.<br />
• Large-scale financial institutions such as J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, Prudential<br />
and Africa’s Standard Bank are positioning themselves to grow impact investing<br />
businesses beyond their minimal regulatory obligations.<br />
5 Established as the Colonial Development Corporation<br />
6 We reference The Prudential Insurance Company of America, not Prudential PLC.<br />
15
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
• Private wealth managers such as Capricorn Investment Group and New Island<br />
Capital in the US are integrating impact investments into their traditional asset<br />
management portfolios.<br />
• Commercial banks such as Triodos Bank in Europe and Charity Bank in the UK<br />
tap into retail customer interest in impact investment and lend to charities.<br />
• Retirement fund managers such as PGGM in Holland and TIAA-CREF in the<br />
US are responding to demand for impact investments rather than simply sociallyresponsible<br />
investments that “do no harm.”<br />
• Boutique investment funds such as responsAbility in Switzerland and Root<br />
Capital in the US are raising capital from a growing class of high-net worth<br />
individuals, family offices and private foundations seeking fund managers who<br />
can offer high-impact, low-risk investment options.<br />
• Companies such as General Mills and the Starbucks are diversifying their supply<br />
chains and expanding their fair trade operations through impact investment.<br />
French food company Danone is teaming with Grameen to address malnutrition.<br />
Others are using impact investments to identify the potential for serving new<br />
markets.<br />
• Community development finance institutions (“CDFIs”) in the U.S. such as<br />
the rural-focused Southern Bancorp and New York-based Carver Federal Savings<br />
Bank. In Appendix III:CDFIs, we present a short history of this segment of the<br />
investor base.<br />
While some of these investors are more recent entrants to the market, others have<br />
been making impact investments for some time, including DFIs, which have been<br />
operating for over sixty years. Historically, many of these investors operated<br />
independently or partnered within one geographical region. More recently, disparate<br />
sectoral or regional initiatives are coming together to build a cross-sector, global<br />
impact investing marketplace.<br />
In January 2009, the Monitor<br />
Institute published <strong>Investing</strong> for<br />
<strong>Social</strong> and Environmental<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>: A Design for Catalyzing<br />
an Emerging Industry, a report<br />
that documented the activities and<br />
challenges faced by these early<br />
impact investors. This report made<br />
recommendations for the<br />
development of critical industry<br />
infrastructure, without which impact<br />
investing would at best remain a<br />
small niche subset of private<br />
investing with disparate<br />
participants, and at worst taper out<br />
entirely in the face of the global<br />
economic downturn.<br />
Recognizing the need for a global, cross-sector impact investment infrastructure<br />
As different investors develop their impact investment portfolios, similarities emerge<br />
between their investment activities. Ten years ago the <strong>Social</strong> Investment Task Force<br />
was set up in the UK to define "how entrepreneurial practices could be applied to<br />
obtain higher social and financial returns from social investment" 7 . In October 2007,<br />
The Rockefeller Foundation hosted an international meeting of approximately 15<br />
impact investors to discuss the similar investment approaches and challenges shared<br />
by the group. A broader meeting in June 2008 brought 40 impact investors together<br />
to discuss how they could work together to accelerate the development of the impact<br />
investment industry. The investors at this meeting found that their common<br />
challenges included: deal sourcing, impact measurement, and the lack of a common<br />
language to describe their investment activities and performance targets. They also<br />
highlighted the need for an organized network to advance their shared interest in<br />
using for-profit investments to fund social solutions.<br />
In essence, these investors envisioned a well-developed impact investing marketplace<br />
that functioned like the traditional capital markets. They sought a marketplace in<br />
which investment opportunities are transparent; performance data is accessible,<br />
7 “<strong>Social</strong> Investment Ten Years On - Final Report of the <strong>Social</strong> Investment Task Force,” April<br />
2010.<br />
16
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
credible, and comparable; investors can access ratings agencies, syndicators,<br />
clearinghouses, auditors and other necessary market intermediaries; and co-investors<br />
are easily identified. Having acknowledged these needs, the group set out to seed the<br />
organizations that would accelerate the development of this newly-dubbed impact<br />
investing industry. In addition to serving their own needs, these investors also hoped<br />
that helping to build an effective impact investment infrastructure would attract new<br />
investors by reducing deal sourcing and transaction costs and providing examples of<br />
efficient impact investments.<br />
The Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network is established to build market infrastructure<br />
In September 2009, J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller Foundation, and the United States<br />
Agency for International Development (“USAID”) launched the Global <strong>Impact</strong><br />
<strong>Investing</strong> Network (“the GIIN”) to accelerate the development of an effective impact<br />
investing industry. The GIIN was tasked to develop the critical infrastructure,<br />
activities, education, and research that would increase the scale and effectiveness of<br />
impact investing. The GIIN’s work is rooted in the needs identified by early impact<br />
investors and currently consists of four main efforts that mobilize hundreds of<br />
investors and other industry participants.<br />
• Investors’ Council: The GIIN Investors’ Council is a membership group<br />
comprised of leading impact investors representing a diverse range of institutions<br />
from around the world. The Investors’ Council provides leadership in the<br />
industry, facilitates shared learning and collaboration, serves as a platform for<br />
disseminating the latest research and best practice, and supports the creation and<br />
adoption of industry infrastructure, including impact metrics.<br />
• IRIS: <strong>Impact</strong> Reporting and Investment Standards (“IRIS”) 8 is a language and<br />
framework for measuring the social performance of impact investments. IRIS<br />
addresses a major barrier to the growth of the impact investing industry—the lack<br />
of comparability and credibility regarding how funds define, track, and report on<br />
the social performance of their investments. IRIS provides a standardized<br />
approach with the aim to lower transaction costs and improve investors’ ability to<br />
understand the impact of the investments they make.<br />
• Outreach: The GIIN Outreach initiative elevates the profile of impact investing<br />
by highlighting exemplary impact investments, industry progress, and best<br />
practices. Working with partners, the GIIN also supports and disseminates<br />
research, informs conference and event programming, and promotes mainstream<br />
media coverage of impact investing.<br />
• <strong>Impact</strong>Base: <strong>Impact</strong>Base 9 is a global database of impact investment funds,<br />
searchable via an online platform. <strong>Impact</strong>Base is an online search tool, created to<br />
bring order to a fragmented and inefficient marketplace of impact investing<br />
funds. On <strong>Impact</strong>Base, fund managers can create profiles for their funds visible to<br />
a global set of mission-aligned investors. Investors and advisors can search these<br />
fund profiles to find investments that may fit with their impact investment<br />
objectives. <strong>Impact</strong>Base is currently in beta and should be fully functional by<br />
December 2010.<br />
8 http://iris.thegiin.org<br />
9 www.impactbase.org<br />
17
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Ratings system, social stock exchanges, trading platforms and advisory firms<br />
Around the same time that the GIIN was launched, the development of a rating<br />
system for impact investments called the Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Rating System<br />
(“GIIRS”) was initiated. Related industry services such as impact investment stock<br />
exchanges, online trading platforms, and advisory firms are also in early<br />
development stages. Most of this growth is possible because increased interest in the<br />
market and the developments in the broader economy have led more professionals to<br />
pursue careers in impact investing, including experienced investors and entrepreneurs<br />
starting businesses that play an important role in the impact investment ecosystem.<br />
Investment opportunities are growing<br />
One of the challenges in making impact investments is sourcing transactions. Many<br />
impact investment recipients are small companies and the majority of deal sizes we<br />
analyzed from our investor survey are less than $1m 10 . Particularly for investors<br />
based in different regions, the costs of due diligence on these investments can often<br />
challenge the economics of making such small investments. While demand has been<br />
growing from investors, there has been growth in the supply of social businesses able<br />
to receive the capital currently waiting to be allocated into impact investments.<br />
Investments: Business sectors, impact objectives,<br />
investment structures and geography<br />
An investor who begins to analyze impact investments will immediately notice that<br />
the opportunities for investment span a wide range of sectors, impact objectives and<br />
geographical regions. In order to manage the investment portfolio, some investors<br />
will limit their scope to certain sectors, objectives, structures or regions. In this<br />
section, we lay out a framework that describes how some impact investors think<br />
about constructing a portfolio of impact investments.<br />
A two-dimensional sector framework<br />
The set of impact investments is unique in that there are two dimensions that can<br />
characterize each underlying investment: each investment will operate in a certain<br />
business sector (e.g. healthcare, education, housing – see Figure 6), and it will be<br />
designed with the intent to address one or more impact objectives (e.g. mitigate<br />
climate change, improve basic welfare for people in need). In some cases, an<br />
investor’s impact objective (i.e. improving health outcomes) may be tightly<br />
correlated with the business sector (i.e. health services) where it operates. In other<br />
cases, the relationship between sector and impact objective might be more<br />
complicated. For example, an investor whose impact objective is to help BoP<br />
populations build income and assets may invest in a financial services company that<br />
allows entrepreneurs to start a business, or in a health services company that<br />
generates jobs and income in the community where it operates.<br />
This two-dimensional characterization is meant to describe the landscape of business<br />
sectors and potential impact objectives, but it is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Nor<br />
will an investment necessarily fall into only one category within the business sectors<br />
or impact objectives. The impact objectives of an investment in Selco Solar in India,<br />
which sells solar home systems to provide energy access for people without access to<br />
electrical grids, would incorporate climate change mitigation with improving basic<br />
welfare for people in need, for example.<br />
10 See Section 3. Financial return expectations for more details.<br />
18
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Figure 6: Business sectors for impact investments<br />
Business sectors<br />
Business sectors<br />
Basic needs<br />
• Agriculture<br />
• Water<br />
• Housing<br />
Basic services<br />
• Education<br />
• Health<br />
• Energy<br />
• Financial services<br />
Source: IRIS, J.P. Morgan.<br />
Investors often choose a business sector or an impact objective as primary focus<br />
An impact investor might approach investment decisions by first choosing a business<br />
sector or by first identifying an impact objective. Yara, a global fertilizer company<br />
based in Norway, invests along the agricultural value chain to leverage its existing<br />
core competency, generating impact through agricultural productivity, food security<br />
and reduced emissions from the production of fertilizers. A foundation dedicated to<br />
mitigating climate change might use this impact objective as its primary investment<br />
criterion, making cross-business sector investments in renewable energy, green real<br />
estate or sustainable agriculture. We list the full categorization of social and<br />
environmental impact objectives in Table 2, as outlined by the IRIS 11 .<br />
Table 2: Breaking out impact objectives in more detail<br />
Increase incomes and assets for the poor<br />
(from IRIS’s social impact objectives)<br />
Improve basic welfare for people in need<br />
(from IRIS’s social impact objectives)<br />
Mitigate climate change<br />
(from IRIS’s environmental impact objectives)<br />
Employment generation Conflict resolution Biodiversity conservation<br />
Access to energy Disease-specific prevention and mitigation Energy and fuel efficiency<br />
Access to financial services Access to clean water Natural resources conservation<br />
Access to education Affordable housing Pollution prevention and waste management<br />
Income/productivity growth Food security Sustainable energy<br />
Agricultural productivity Generate funds for charitable giving Sustainable land use<br />
Capacity-building Health improvement Water resources management<br />
Community development<br />
Equality and empowerment<br />
Source: IRIS. As defined at iris.thegiin.org.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> can be delivered through processes or products<br />
Businesses can pursue the objectives above by many means, and investors can<br />
reference these means of impact in designing an investment thesis. In Figure 7, we<br />
outline some examples of ways in which companies deliver social impact, which we<br />
categorize into processes or products. Within processes, for example, a company<br />
might make part of its mission hiring employees from a traditionally<br />
underrepresented group, or employing people that had previously been unemployed.<br />
Alternatively, a coffee processor might source its cocoa beans specifically from BoP<br />
suppliers, with the intent that engaging them in a production supply chain will<br />
improve their incomes (or stability of income). Within products, a company<br />
producing solar lamps, for example, might deliver its social impact by providing<br />
affordable access to light for people who currently lack access to electricity grids.<br />
Targeting BoP consumers can be considered an implicit part of the products method<br />
of impact.<br />
11 These impact objectives reference over 400 indicators of impact.<br />
19
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Figure 7: Ways in which businesses can deliver impact<br />
These means of impact might be part of the impact investment thesis motivating an investor<br />
Means of impact<br />
Means of impact<br />
Process<br />
Products for BoP+<br />
• Job creation<br />
• Energy efficiency<br />
• Facilitating asset accumulation<br />
• Utilizing BoP+ suppliers<br />
• Agriculture<br />
• Water<br />
• Housing<br />
• Education<br />
• Health<br />
• Energy<br />
• Financial Services<br />
Source: The Rockefeller Foundation, J.P. Morgan.<br />
As with the impact objectives above, the means by which a company delivers social<br />
impact can often fall into more than one category (and the categories listed are not<br />
necessarily exhaustive). There may also be categories that emerge as the industry<br />
develops. We present this framework as a classification to help investors structure<br />
their investment theses, rather than as a rigid framework that exhausts all<br />
possibilities 12 .<br />
Some sectors are more developed<br />
than others<br />
The financial services and the clean<br />
tech and energy sectors are two of<br />
the more developed impact investing<br />
sectors, with businesses across<br />
regions focusing on microfinance and<br />
renewable energy delivery. The<br />
housing sector has seen significant<br />
investment in developed markets,<br />
and the fair trade categorization has<br />
led to increased investment in<br />
agricultural BoP supply chains.<br />
Education and water are two sectors<br />
where government provision can be<br />
more extensive, leaving less of a<br />
need for impact investments. We<br />
provide a full discussion of sectors<br />
on page 18.<br />
More recent entrants often start investing in the more developed sectors<br />
While there are investors that have been making impact investments for some time, a<br />
new set of market participants has recently entered the sector, spurring growth<br />
momentum for the sector as a whole. For those investors that are just beginning to<br />
make impact investments, certain sectors of impact investing – such as microfinance<br />
– have provided a launching pad to then explore other impact investment sectors. For<br />
example, after successfully closing two microfinance funds totaling more than<br />
$300m, SNS Asset Management, a Dutch asset manager, is now raising funds to<br />
invest in agriculture in Africa. Similarly, Gray Ghost Ventures, an investment firm,<br />
began by investing in microfinance in 2003. The firm now has funds dedicated to<br />
education and technology that serve people with limited access to both.<br />
Investment structures<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments take many forms, including structures that are common in<br />
traditional financial markets. Equity and debt, guarantees and deposits are all<br />
examples of commonly used investment structures. Some more innovative<br />
investment structures have also been devised, including bonds that employ equitylike<br />
features that allow the investor to benefit from financial profits or even, in the<br />
case of the UK’s <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> Bonds 13 , from successful social impact. The <strong>Social</strong><br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Bonds, structured by the UK-based investment organization <strong>Social</strong> Finance,<br />
employ government commitments to use a portion of the savings that result from<br />
improved social outcomes to reward non-government investors that fund the<br />
intervention activities. The existence of such innovative structures allows investors<br />
with different (social and/or financial) return and risk appetites to invest via the<br />
vehicles that best align with their goals.<br />
12 For further reading on designing a social investment thesis, see Solutions for <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Investors: From Strategy to Implementation, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, February<br />
2010.<br />
13 See <strong>Social</strong> Finance website for more details: www.socialfinance.org.uk<br />
20
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Geographical distribution of impact investments<br />
Many impact investors choose to focus on either the emerging markets or the<br />
developed markets. Part of the reason for this specialization is that there are<br />
significant regional differences that require local expertise. Another driver of<br />
investors’ geographical specialization is their value set: some prefer to help the<br />
world’s poorest in emerging market economies; others prioritize their local<br />
neighbours in need. Below, we give some examples of the variety of geographies in<br />
which market participants operate.<br />
Developing world: Asia, Africa, and Latin America<br />
Within the developing world, impact investors will often focus particular efforts on<br />
particular regions and sectors. Gatsby Charitable Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates<br />
Foundation use some of their investment capital to positively impact the lives of<br />
smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Gray Ghost Ventures, Acumen Fund, and<br />
Omidyar Network all have programs that actively invest in alleviating poverty by<br />
financing innovations directed at India’s low-income populations.<br />
Developed markets: North America and Europe<br />
Within the developed markets, we see similar regional specialization. For example,<br />
W.K. Kellogg and Annie E. Casey Foundations support community development<br />
finance institutions in specific regions of the US that are important to them: W.K.<br />
Kellogg focuses on areas including Detroit, MI and Oakland, CA while the Annie E.<br />
Casey Foundation invests in Baltimore, MD and San Antonio, TX, among other<br />
communities. Among the European investors, <strong>Social</strong> Finance and Bridges Ventures<br />
target UK markets, while Triodos Bank makes investments in mission-driven<br />
businesses in several European countries.<br />
Approaches to impact investing:<br />
Financial vs. social investment thesis<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investors enter the market with a variety of priorities<br />
Because impact investing is still a relatively nascent industry and most impact<br />
investments are made in private markets, there is yet to be significant comprehensive<br />
data analysis on investment performance. As a result, investors enter this market with<br />
a wide variety of expectations. In this section, we highlight the range of expectations<br />
with which investors approach impact investments, for financial returns, social<br />
impact and risk.<br />
Financial expectations<br />
For some investors, financial returns should compete with traditional investment<br />
Some impact investors, such as pension fund managers, are constrained by a<br />
fiduciary duty to the clients whose money they manage. These investors will have to<br />
prioritize the pursuit of a competitive financial return. TIAA-CREF, a retirement<br />
fund manager, must seek to attain competitive returns and therefore make<br />
investments – such as sustainable real estate and cash deposits in CDFIs – in which<br />
they can both achieve social goals and earn risk-adjusted returns competitive with<br />
traditional investments. Foundations making impact investments from their<br />
endowments, such as the Kellogg Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation,<br />
also seek competitive risk-adjusted rates of returns.<br />
21
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Foundations’ social duty demands high social impact<br />
By contrast, many foundations, including the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, the<br />
Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, making programrelated<br />
investments (PRIs) primarily to advance a social goal. As a result of<br />
prioritizing the social impact over the financial return, these investments can<br />
acceptably deliver less competitive rates of financial return. Many private<br />
foundations in the US qualify their impact investments under the Program Related<br />
Investments section of the US tax code, which requires an investment to prioritize<br />
social impact rather than financial return.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> impact expectations<br />
Investors’ expectations are largely anecdotal<br />
By definition, impact investors finance businesses that generate positive social<br />
impact alongside financial returns; therefore, investments that simply avoid negative<br />
social consequences will not deliver sufficient impact to meet investors’<br />
expectations. Generally speaking, however, expectations of social impact are largely<br />
anecdotal. Without standards and benchmarks for non-financial performance,<br />
investors must rely on their own judgement and proprietary systems to assess<br />
whether an impact investment is making progress toward social goals. Indeed, only<br />
2% of surveyed impact investors reported using a third party impact measurement<br />
system – the rest use either their own proprietary system or the one used by the<br />
company in which they invest 14 . Similarly, without average performance<br />
benchmarks, investors are limited in their ability to understand how the social<br />
performance of their investments compares to those made by other investors.<br />
Comparable data will be available only once standard impact metrics are employed<br />
Because most impact investors use proprietary impact measurement systems, there is<br />
little consistent quantitative data about the social impact actually achieved by impact<br />
investments made to date. Many investors have recognized the limitations of so<br />
many bespoke approaches and are actively working to build and contribute data to<br />
standardized frameworks. Rigorously assessing progress toward social impact<br />
expectations will only be possible once standard social metrics are adopted.<br />
Risk appetite<br />
Given the variety of financial return and social impact expectations, it is unsurprising<br />
that risk appetite can also vary. Most impact investing is done in private markets,<br />
typically through private equity or debt instruments, and guarantees. The businesses<br />
themselves are often small-scale and may operate in emerging countries where<br />
political and country risks add to the risks of the company's standalone success.<br />
While investors must approach these investments with a commensurate risk appetite,<br />
there are opportunities to make impact investments with lower risk profiles as well.<br />
Since its inception in 2002, the UK’s Charity Bank has earned steady returns of<br />
about 6% from lending to charities and social enterprises with realized losses of only<br />
0.3% of their loan portfolio 15 . Notwithstanding recent turmoil in India’s microfinance<br />
market, empirical evidence suggests that microfinance institutions in some regions<br />
have been more resilient than other financial institutions in recessionary<br />
environments 16 . Clearly, the risk of an impact investment will be particular to the<br />
14 See Section 3. Financial return expectations for more details.<br />
15 Charity Bank 2009 Annual Report and interviews.<br />
16 Microfinance: Shedding Light on Microfinance Equity Valuation Past and Present, J.P.<br />
Morgan and CGAP, February 3, 2009.<br />
22
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
investment, including its stage, sector and geography, and any investor will need to<br />
assess these risks accordingly. We discuss the risk management of impact<br />
investments in more detail in Appendix I: Managing impact investments.<br />
Across investors and instruments, a vast range of opportunity<br />
Having characterized the current landscape of impact investments, we see that the set<br />
of impact investments spans a broad range of sectors and regions. In a later section,<br />
we focus on those investments that deliver products or services to BoP consumers to<br />
estimate the size of specific segments of the market.<br />
23
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
2. <strong>Impact</strong> investments: An emerging asset<br />
class<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments have begun to carve out a niche within the investment portfolios<br />
of a wide range of investor types, but does that make them an asset class? We believe<br />
it does based on an understanding of how the term “asset class” has come to be used.<br />
We also argue that defining impact investments as an asset class within the<br />
alternative investments space is most likely to lead to the growth of assets, as<br />
observed in the cases of hedge funds, private equity and commodities. Recognizing<br />
impact investment as an asset class will enable asset managers and investors to<br />
develop unique skills to make and manage impact investments, organize around the<br />
opportunity and develop standards and benchmarks to improve performance.<br />
What makes an asset class?<br />
CFA definition of an asset class and its limitations<br />
Before we can address whether impact investments comprise an asset class, we must<br />
define an asset class in general. The CFA Institute uses a definition that references<br />
financial characteristics for a given set of assets 17 . An asset class will typically:<br />
• Include a relatively homogeneous set of assets<br />
• Be mutually exclusive<br />
• Be diversifying<br />
• As a group, make up a preponderance of worldwide investable wealth<br />
• Have the capacity to absorb a significant fraction of an investor’s portfolio<br />
without seriously affecting the portfolio’s liquidity<br />
The CFA definition provides a good starting point for identifying why stocks and<br />
bonds can be considered separate asset classes. However, there are several groups of<br />
assets that are commonly referred to as asset classes that fail to meet the basic criteria<br />
of this definition. Hedge funds, for example, are commonly referenced as an asset<br />
class, but they constitute a group of investments that can range in character, from<br />
fixed-income arbitrage to event-driven (single-stock) strategies. As such, hedge<br />
funds are not homogeneous, nor would they be likely to exhibit low correlations to<br />
the other asset classes (given they invest in them). Even though one would hesitate to<br />
call hedge funds an asset class by the CFA definition, hedge funds are widely<br />
considered to be an asset class. The same could be said for emerging markets or<br />
commodities, both groups of assets for which the CFA definition would be difficult<br />
to apply, particularly the homogeneity criterion. In fact, in our view, the perception<br />
of being an asset class is as powerful as complying with the definition above, since<br />
this perception is sufficient to drive capital flows into the sector.<br />
Our indicators of an asset class<br />
The indicators of an asset class become particularly useful for investments that have<br />
yet to establish a significant history of financial data, such as impact investments. In<br />
our view, an asset class requires the following:<br />
17 Capital Market Expectations, Market Valuation, and Asset Allocation. CFA Program<br />
Curriculum Volume 3, Level III. W Sharpe et al., 2011.<br />
24
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
• Unique set of investment/risk management skills<br />
- A growing number of professionals will define themselves by their expertise in<br />
the sector<br />
• Organizational structures to accommodate this skillset<br />
- Sell-side experts in the sector will build space for themselves within<br />
organizational structures of their businesses<br />
- Buy-side organizations will begin to allocate capital and hire investment<br />
specialists in the sector<br />
• Industry organizations, associations and education<br />
- Networks, conferences, education and resources will be built to address the<br />
new group of experts in the field<br />
• Development of standardized metrics, benchmarks, and/or ratings<br />
- Risk and return reporting will begin to standardize<br />
- Indices will be created to monitor and benchmark the performance of the sector<br />
- Ratings may be developed to help investors find relative value between<br />
investment prospects<br />
These indicators emerged for hedge funds, emerging markets, commodities and even<br />
structured credit, all of which are groups of alternative assets that channel significant<br />
amounts of capital. <strong>Impact</strong> investments are also showing each of these signs of being<br />
a burgeoning asset class, as we evidence below.<br />
What makes impact investments an asset class<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments have begun to carve out a niche within the investment portfolios<br />
of a wide range of investor types, but does that make them an asset class? We believe<br />
it does, based on our definition above. We also argue that defining impact investing<br />
as an asset class within the alternative investments space is most likely to lead to the<br />
growth of assets, as observed in the cases of hedge funds, private equity and<br />
commodities. Below, we illustrate how each of the indicators of an asset class is<br />
visible in today’s impact investment market.<br />
Indicator #1: Require a different set of investment/risk management skills<br />
Just as impact investments combine financial and social aims, the impact investor<br />
must be skilled in both investment management and the management of<br />
socially/environmentally-driven endeavors. Initial participants in the market often<br />
came from either a financial background or a non-profit/grant-making background,<br />
and would often possess only one of the two requisite skillsets as a result. Today,<br />
however, impact investing is emerging as a unique discipline as market participants<br />
build the complementary skillsets to their existing experience. <strong>Impact</strong> investors are<br />
beginning to self-identify (including through the Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network’s<br />
Investors’ Council), and a clear understanding is emerging about the unique expertise<br />
and professional practice that impact investment involves.<br />
Beyond the financial, social and environmental skills, further skills required for<br />
making impact investments will include:<br />
Structuring complexity<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments access a diverse range of capital sources, each of which will be<br />
accompanied by relatively complex (and often obscure) portfolio targets balancing<br />
25
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
return expectations, risk appetite and impact goals. These sources can include local,<br />
regional and multilateral government-sponsored development finance institutions,<br />
institutional-scale private foundation investment programs, angel investment capital 18<br />
and impact investment funds. Successful impact investors will know how to navigate<br />
these capital sources, partnering with investors whose different risk/return appetites<br />
allow structured transactions that can incorporate mezzanine finance, concessionary<br />
capital 19 or subordination for their own investments.<br />
Political insight<br />
The best impact investors will have a deep understanding of the social and political<br />
dynamics that will influence investment outcomes, especially for investments into<br />
companies that provide basic goods and services to underserved market segments.<br />
They must manage the emotionally and politically charged dynamics of applying forprofit<br />
business models to communities in need, as some opponents will brand it:<br />
“profiting from the poor”. Mishandling these dynamics can have dire consequences,<br />
such as inhibiting exit from investments, eroding the social impact if consumers<br />
boycott the products/services sold, inducing restrictive government action, or<br />
tarnishing the reputation of the investor in the region.<br />
Collaboration<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investors draw on strong personal relationships and institutional affinity with<br />
each other in the full range of investment activity (from deal sourcing, due diligence,<br />
investment structuring, syndication and post-investment management), for several<br />
reasons that are both structural and transitional:<br />
• <strong>Impact</strong> investing is new and poised to grow substantially. For many investors,<br />
this growth is expected to more than offset any loss of market share and therefore<br />
facilitates collaboration.<br />
• Transaction costs will be high until the infrastructure that supports investors –<br />
e.g., deal clearing mechanisms, benchmarking data, and investment banking<br />
services – is built. Until then, impact investors mitigate these operating costs<br />
through formal or informal collaboration.<br />
Indicator #2: Demand organizational structures to accommodate this skillset<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investing emerged from the entrepreneurial initiatives of professionals<br />
integrating the investment discipline traditionally housed in financial services firms<br />
with the social-welfare focus traditionally housed in foundations and development<br />
agencies. While these individuals began impact investing part-time within a broader<br />
and more traditional professional practice, they are increasingly organizing into<br />
distinct structures that enable the dedicated attention to and cultivation of impact<br />
investing.<br />
New business units: Initiatives within organizations<br />
Some impact investors have created organizational structures within established<br />
institutions. Some examples of such commercial business units include J.P. Morgan<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Finance (2007) 20 , TIAA-CREF <strong>Social</strong> and Community <strong>Investing</strong> (2006) 21 , and<br />
18 Angel capital refers to financing from individuals in exchange for equity or convertible debt.<br />
Angel investors operate like a venture capital partner in the company, but typically service<br />
financing requests of a smaller size than venture capital firms tend to consider.<br />
19 Below market-rate financing.<br />
20 http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/jpmorgan/investbk/solutions/ssf<br />
26
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Citi Microfinance (2005), which initially focused on microfinance before expanding<br />
their coverage to the broader impact investing universe. Prudential <strong>Social</strong><br />
Investments began its formal program of community investing as far back as 1976 22 .<br />
Among private foundations, especially in the US, distinct units have been created to<br />
manage impact investments, typically with investment professionals reporting to a<br />
unique governance structure that combines program-focused and investment-focused<br />
management and trustees. Examples include the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s<br />
$125m allocation to impact investing out of its endowment (begun at smaller scale in<br />
2004) 23 , the Kellogg Foundation’s $100m Mission Driven Investment program<br />
(2007) 24 , and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s commitment of $400m to<br />
program-related investments and loan guarantees (2009) 25 . The Esmée Fairbairn<br />
Foundation has been a pioneer in the UK by dedicating a portion of its investment<br />
program to impact investments.<br />
New businesses: Stand-alone impact investing initiatives<br />
New enterprises focusing entirely on impact investments are increasingly common.<br />
This is noteworthy, as these organizations will be protected from the constraints that<br />
can come with operating within an organization that primarily focuses on either<br />
financial or social value creation, but not both. Early leaders have scaled their impact<br />
investing operations from a base of microfinance services, including BlueOrchard 26 ,<br />
ResponsAbility <strong>Social</strong> Investments 27 , Calvert Foundation 28 and Developing World<br />
Markets 29 . Some such as Bridges Ventures in the UK have always focused on a<br />
broader range of investments. Additionally, new impact investment advisory<br />
boutiques are bringing dedicated expertise together, including Lion’s Head Global<br />
Partners and <strong>Social</strong> Finance in the UK, Intellecap and Yes Bank in India, Bamboo<br />
Finance in Switzerland 30 and Imprint Capital in the US.<br />
Indicator #3: Be serviced by industry organizations, associations and education<br />
In response to the increasing organization of the professional discipline of impact<br />
investing, networks and conferences are emerging that support impact investors. We<br />
detail some of the leading initiatives below.<br />
Networks: GIIN, IAMFI<br />
The Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network was launched in 2009 as a non-profit<br />
organization to support the building of infrastructure that would facilitate the growth<br />
of the asset class. Its Investors’ Council provides a forum in which leading asset<br />
owners and fund managers can share learning and collaborate with 32 members,<br />
including boutique impact investors, foundations with impact investment units,<br />
family offices with substantial allocations to impact investment, impact investing<br />
units of financial services companies, and targeted impact investments funds.<br />
21 http://www.tiaa-cref.org/public/about/press/about_us/releases/pressrelease177.html<br />
22 http://www.prudential.com/view/page/public/12848<br />
23 http://www.thegiin.org/cgi-bin/iowa/investing/spotlight/87.html<br />
24 http://www.thegiin.org/cgi-bin/iowa/investing/spotlight/112.html<br />
25 See the glossary for definitions of mission-driven and program-related investment.<br />
26 www.blueorchard.com<br />
27 www.responsability.com<br />
28 www.calvertfoundation.org<br />
29 www.dwmarkets.com<br />
30 www.bamboofinance.com<br />
27
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
The theme of impact investing is also gaining increasing prominence in other<br />
networks established either in narrower sub-sectors or in peripheral areas. The<br />
International Association of Microfinance Investors (“IAMFI”) is beginning to<br />
situate its members’ interests in a broader discussion of impact investing, as is the<br />
PRI Makers Network, originally organized around the narrower interest of private<br />
foundations making tax-privileged impact investments in the US. As the asset class<br />
of impact investments gains prominence and coherence, we anticipate consolidation<br />
among these networks that are currently broadening from a distinct niche into<br />
increasingly duplicative activity.<br />
Conferences: The Clinton Global Initiative, Skoll World Forum, <strong>Social</strong> Capital<br />
Markets<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investing is becoming increasingly prominent at conferences that focus on<br />
development, sustainability, and social enterprise, amongst other topics. The Clinton<br />
Global Initiative has responded to increasing interest amongst its membership by<br />
creating an Action Network focused on impact investing. Other conferences that<br />
have featured impact investing include the Skoll World Forum in the UK, the <strong>Social</strong><br />
Capital Markets Conference in the US, the Sankalp <strong>Social</strong> Enterprise and Awards<br />
Forum in India, the Take Action Conference in the US, and the European Venture<br />
Philanthropy Association conference, which is hosted in rotating European countries.<br />
Education: <strong>Impact</strong> investing now on business school syllabi<br />
The themes of impact investing initially appeared in business school curricula<br />
through a growing set of courses focused on green/sustainable investing and<br />
microfinance. In 2002, Duke University initiated a <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship course<br />
with 421 students. The following year, Oxford University founded the Skoll Centre<br />
for <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneurship. While these courses initially focused on the business<br />
management and entrepreneurial side rather than the buy-side considerations of<br />
impact investors, in 2010, dedicated impact investing courses were taught at the<br />
Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management, University of Michigan<br />
Ross School of Business, and Stern School of Business at New York University. A<br />
working group of professors teaching impact investing courses at business schools<br />
formed in late 2010. Students in these programs, and consequently the new hires in<br />
top firms, are beginning their careers with knowledge about both the attraction and<br />
feasibility of integrating social and financial value in their professional lives. This<br />
has impacted how many approach their career, driving them to seek ways to make<br />
money and have social impact from the start rather than working to earn money first<br />
before later “giving back”. The momentum for these types of courses at business<br />
school and discussions of impact investing themes in on-the-job training will grow,<br />
and we expect impact investing training will become increasingly important in<br />
recruiting and retaining top talent to the sector.<br />
Indicator #4: Encourage the development of standardized metrics, benchmarks,<br />
and even ratings<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investment pioneers recognize the challenges of high transaction costs and<br />
inefficiency inherent in operating in an emerging asset class. As they collaborate to<br />
mitigate these costs, they are also working to build the basic infrastructure that will<br />
facilitate the flow of capital into the sector.<br />
28
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Measuring social performance: IRIS<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments are not well served by portfolio management tools that lack<br />
social performance metrics. Some investment pioneers, such as <strong>Investing</strong> for Good 31 ,<br />
have developed bespoke systems for measuring the social impact of the investments<br />
in their portfolios, but there often remains a lack of comparability across these<br />
systems. In response, investors in 2008 sponsored the development of the <strong>Impact</strong><br />
Reporting and Investment Standards (“IRIS”). IRIS seeks to create a single,<br />
consistent reporting standard for measuring and reporting the social and<br />
environmental impact of investments. Just as the standardized terms within the<br />
GAAP standards (e.g., net income, gross margin) provide investors with comparable<br />
metrics to assess the financial prospects of a business, IRIS metrics aim to allow<br />
investors to compare social and environmental activities, outputs and outcomes<br />
across investments (e.g., student to classroom ratio, number of full-time female<br />
employees ).<br />
Benchmarking and indices: IRIS data repository<br />
Working in partnership with Hitachi, the IRIS team has built a data repository that<br />
will facilitate benchmarking and provide impact investors with data on the relative<br />
performance of impact investments in delivering positive social and environmental<br />
objectives. Researchers, both academic and applied, are working to build the databased<br />
analysis that will underpin the asset class.<br />
Ratings: GIIRS<br />
Beyond benchmarking data, efforts are also under way to launch third-party rating<br />
agencies that can vet and monitor impact investments for their social and<br />
environmental outputs, not just financial risk. Built off the definitions and data of<br />
IRIS, the Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Reporting Standards (GIIRS) is field-testing its<br />
ratings methodology with 25 “pioneer funds” in anticipation of a full launch in 2011.<br />
By providing simple and comparable ratings of the social impact of an investment,<br />
GIIRS – and the competitors that will likely arise in the future – has the potential to<br />
unlock substantial new sources of capital from investors who are interested in impact<br />
investments but lack the appetite and expertise to develop their own social impact<br />
assessment methodology.<br />
A new alternative<br />
Based on the above criteria, we conclude that impact investments are an emerging<br />
asset class. We anticipate that the organizational structures will most readily form<br />
within the alternative investments bucket that commonly houses such asset classes as<br />
hedge funds and commodities, as alternative investment professionals tend to include<br />
in their offerings a new asset class gaining prominence. Further, within buy-side<br />
organizations, the unique risk/return/social value characteristics of these investments<br />
will require an alternative investment strategy. While we recognize an alternative<br />
view that impact investments should be assigned to traditional asset classes, such as<br />
equity and debt, we believe this would lead to a fragmentation of impact investing<br />
skills and that positioning impact investments as an asset class within alternative<br />
investments is most likely to catalyze a significant inflow of capital.<br />
31 http://www.investingforgood.co.uk/rating-impact<br />
29
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
3. Financial return expectations<br />
Caveat<br />
We do not present the analysis in<br />
this chapter as representative of<br />
the entire marketplace. The data<br />
set is weighted toward North<br />
American investors and reflects the<br />
population of investors that<br />
participated in the survey. While<br />
the total number of transactions in<br />
the database is significant (and<br />
indeed much higher than we<br />
anticipated given the private nature<br />
of the market), the total number of<br />
participants remains limited. All<br />
conclusions presented below are<br />
made simply based on this data<br />
set, and any extrapolation to the<br />
broader market should be made<br />
with caution.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments span instrument types, sectors, and regions: from equity to debt,<br />
microfinance to healthcare, Developed markets to Emerging markets. Given this<br />
diversity, it is natural that there should be a wide range of expectations for the<br />
financial performance of these assets. In some investors’ eyes, the coupling of the<br />
intent to create positive social impact with the pursuit of financial return is reason to<br />
expect lower returns from impact investments than from traditional investments.<br />
Others believe that financial return need not be sacrificed when social impact is<br />
being delivered and, due to the large underpenetrated market at the BoP, many<br />
impact investments should outperform traditional investments. In this section, we<br />
present some evidence on what impact investors expect of the financial performance<br />
of their assets, what has actually been realized, and how these results compare to<br />
traditional benchmarks.<br />
Analyzing a sample of impact investments<br />
As impact investments are predominantly debt or equity investments into private<br />
companies, we collected the data presented below through a survey. The survey was<br />
executed by The Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network (“GIIN”), which collected and<br />
ensured that all data was presented to J.P. Morgan with the names of respondents and<br />
investments removed. Separately, the Calvert Foundation provided a history of its<br />
mostly US-based debt investments, and the International Finance Corporation<br />
(“IFC”) revealed some performance history for its EM private equity investments<br />
which we analyze in Appendix V: Additional returns data 32 . Below we analyze the<br />
broad range of investments covered by the GIIN Survey.<br />
Characterizing the investments reported in the GIIN Survey: 24 respondents<br />
The Survey was sent primarily to the GIIN Investors’ Council, a group of principal<br />
investors and capitalized investment funds that manage impact investments and<br />
participate in industry-building activities. A few additional participants brought the<br />
total number of survey respondents to 24 33 . In Table 3 we show the distribution of<br />
reported deals across investment instrument type. Table 4 shows the sector<br />
distribution, and Table 5 shows the regional focus 34 .<br />
In each table, we show both the number of deals and the notional amount represented<br />
by each category. We find that most of the investments reported were made via<br />
private equity or debt instruments. Among the sectors, microfinance is the most<br />
frequently referenced, which is unsurprising as it is one of the most mature of the<br />
impact investment sectors and presents lower barriers to entry 35 to new investors. In<br />
terms of geographic distribution of investments, the US dominated our data set.<br />
32 Since that data set is from a single source and potentially skewed as a result, we do not mix<br />
the results of that analysis with the results of the GIIN Survey.<br />
33 For a full list of survey respondents, see page 82 in the appendix.<br />
34 While we received 984 individual data points, 7 of those data points represented regional<br />
aggregates. In our work, we have accounted for the total number of investments those<br />
aggregates represent as well.<br />
35 Over 90 dedicated microfinance investment vehicles exist and are catalogued on the MIX<br />
Market website (www.mixmarket.org).<br />
30
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Table 3: Instrument distribution<br />
# of<br />
deals<br />
Notional<br />
($ mm)<br />
Private debt 629 921<br />
Private equity 301 836<br />
Deposits 91 73<br />
Bilateral loan agreement 32 102<br />
Real Assets 29 489<br />
Equity-like debt 15 8<br />
Guarantee 7 50<br />
Public debt 1 2<br />
Public equity 0 0<br />
Total 1,105 2,481<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan.<br />
Table 4: Sector distribution<br />
# of<br />
deals<br />
Notional<br />
($ mm)<br />
Microfinance 307 661<br />
Agriculture 208 132<br />
Cross-sector 189 412<br />
Other* 136 246<br />
Housing 130 790<br />
Energy 53 94<br />
Healthcare 42 57<br />
Education 30 82<br />
Water 10 7<br />
Total 1,105 2,481<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan. *”Other” includes community<br />
development finance.<br />
Table 5: Geographic distribution<br />
# of<br />
deals<br />
Notional<br />
($ mm)<br />
US and Canada 411 1,381<br />
Latin America 268 223<br />
South and Southeast Asia 107 130<br />
Sub-Saharan Africa 99 154<br />
E. Europe, Russia & Central Asia 92 184<br />
Global 63 239<br />
Western Europe 52 129<br />
Emerging markets 7 35<br />
Middle East and North Africa 6 5<br />
Australia & New Zealand 0 0<br />
South Pacific 0 0<br />
1,105 2,481<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan.<br />
Return expectations vary substantially, from competitive to concessionary<br />
The most informative (and statistically significant) data are the return expectations<br />
reported across investment types and regions. In Figure 8 we show the distribution of<br />
respondents’ return expectations by investment type and region alongside actual<br />
historical average returns for traditional investments in each instrument type and<br />
region. (Further information on our choice of benchmarks follows). Survey<br />
participants were given a predetermined choice of return ranges (0–4.9%; 5–7.9%;<br />
8–11.9%; 12–14.9%; 15–19.9%; 20–24.9%; 25%+) which is why the averages are<br />
presented in the form of ranges rather than single data points.<br />
The data reveal that expectations for financial return vary dramatically. Some<br />
investors expect returns that compete with, and even outperform, traditional<br />
investment benchmarks, while others concede that their impact investments may<br />
deliver a lower return than that of a comparable investment that does not target social<br />
impact. <strong>Impact</strong> investors in EM venture capital expect average returns of 12–14.9%,<br />
which compares to an average realized return of 10% for traditional EM venture<br />
capital investments. For EM debt, impact investment return expectations are 8–<br />
11.9%, versus an average realized return of 9% for the chosen benchmark. In the<br />
case of developed markets (DM), impact investors expect average returns of 0–4.9%<br />
for debt and 15–19.9% for venture capital, compared to the 11% and 28% average<br />
actuals for chosen benchmarks.<br />
Analysis of whether or not there exists a return trade-off in impact investing depends<br />
on instrument type, investor perceptions, and of course, chosen benchmarks. DM<br />
debt investors on average appear to expect some return sacrifice. This could be<br />
explained in part by regulatory features and, in some developed markets, tax<br />
incentives that encourage investment in lower-return social ventures. EM debt on the<br />
other hand appears to target returns that are competitive with long-term realized<br />
index returns. For equity, the results are mixed. If we benchmark against the realized<br />
DM and EM index returns, impact investors’ targets appear competitive for EM but<br />
concessionary for DM. If, on the other hand, we benchmark against the 20–25%<br />
gross returns that we believe new managers would target, then there does appear to<br />
be a trade-off for EM.<br />
31
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Figure 8: Average return expectations by instrument and region<br />
Horizontal bars: Average realized returns for benchmark and average expected returns for impact<br />
investments, gross annual IRR or yield, in USD. Vertical lines: Range of expected returns reported, gross<br />
annual IRR or yield, in USD.<br />
Benchmark<br />
11%<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
0-5%<br />
Benchmark<br />
9%<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
8-12%<br />
Benchmark<br />
28%<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
15-20%<br />
Benchmark<br />
10%<br />
<strong>Impact</strong><br />
12-15%<br />
30%<br />
24%<br />
18%<br />
12%<br />
6%<br />
0%<br />
Developed market high<br />
yield corporate debt<br />
Emerging markets<br />
corporate debt<br />
Developed market<br />
venture capital<br />
Emerging market<br />
venture capital<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan. Survey participants were given a predetermined choice set of return ranges (0–4.9%; 5–7.9%; 8–11.9%;<br />
12–14.9%; 15–19.9%; 20–24.9%; 25%+) which is why the averages are presented in the form of ranges rather than single data points.<br />
Benchmark returns are average annual returns for: J.P. Morgan’s Developed Markets High Yield index and Corporate Emerging<br />
Market Bond (“CEMBI”) Index, over the period 2002 – 2010 (our full data history); and Cambridge Associates US Venture Capital Index<br />
and Emerging Markets Venture Capital and Private Equity Index, for vintage years over the period 1989 – 2006. <strong>Impact</strong> investment<br />
return expectations are calculated by taking an average of survey responses (each of which represents a range of expected returns for<br />
a given investment instrument in a specified region) across the population of reported investments. The number of investors who<br />
responded for each instrument, and the number of investments in the sample (respectively) are: Dev mkt HY debt = 9, 219; EM HY<br />
debt = 10, 411; Dev mkt venture capital = 6, 91; EM venture capital = 15, 119. Readers should note the low number of Dev mkt venture<br />
capital investors represented. Note that the range of expected returns for developed market debt excludes a single investment<br />
reported by one respondent with an expected range of returns of 20-24.9%; all other data points fall within the range shown. Both the<br />
developed market and emerging market venture capital ranges include investments with expectations of 25%+ return (the range was<br />
not specified above that level).<br />
Choice of benchmarks<br />
Benchmarking performance is challenging, and in this case even more so since we<br />
are benchmarking return expectations rather than realized returns. Figure 8 shows the<br />
return expectations (average and dispersion) reported for various investment types in<br />
our impact investor survey against benchmarks that we believe are appropriate given<br />
the risk of the asset class. For debt we believe the indices that best replicate the credit<br />
quality of an impact investing portfolio are our US High Yield and Corporate<br />
Emerging Market indices. For equity we recognize the early stage and relatively<br />
small investment sizes and have chosen Cambridge Associates US Venture Capital<br />
Index and Emerging Markets Venture Capital and Private Equity Index 36 for vintage<br />
years over the period 1989 – 2006. Vintage years post 2006 have been excluded as<br />
there are too few harvested investments for meaningful analysis.<br />
In order to make a meaningful comparison of backward looking (realized) and<br />
forward looking (expected) returns, we use a through-the-cycle approach in choosing<br />
our time period of benchmarks, which results in the data shown above. The choice of<br />
time frame results in moderate variations for the debt returns (if we focus on the past<br />
five, rather than eight-plus years, both benchmarks would drop by 200 basis points),<br />
but has a significant impact on the resultant venture capital returns. Narrowing our<br />
time frame to the years after the dot-com bubble (1999 – 2006 vintages) for example<br />
results in a return of only 0.2% in US VC/PE against a return of over 14% in<br />
36 Cambridge Associates LLC US Venture Capital Index and Benchmark Statistics, and<br />
Cambridge Associates LLC Emerging Markets Venture Capital & Private Equity Index and<br />
Benchmark Statistics, as of June 30, 2010. Reports were provided directly to J.P. Morgan by<br />
Cambridge Associates free of charge.<br />
32
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
emerging markets. Additional five- and ten-year VC returns data are shown in Table<br />
28 in Appendix V.<br />
We also note that the average realized returns of the investment management<br />
community almost always lag the expected, forecast or projected returns when the<br />
investment is being made. We have no reason to suppose that the impact investing<br />
community will be any different. Our own anecdotal experience and interviews with<br />
fund of fund and alternative investment managers suggest that VC managers in both<br />
the Developed and Emerging Markets target net returns in the range of 15–20% and<br />
gross returns of 20–25%.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investors’ return expectations show high variance<br />
Figure 9 shows the distribution of return expectations for developed market debt<br />
investments, while Figure 10 shows the same for emerging market debt investments.<br />
Figure 11 and Figure 12 illustrate the expectations for developed market and<br />
emerging market equity investments. We see a much broader distribution of<br />
expectations in equity investments than in debt investments, with some investors<br />
expecting returns of 25% or more.<br />
Figure 9: Expected returns – Developed markets debt investments<br />
Total # of investments = 219; Total size of investments = $524m<br />
Figure 10: Expected returns – Emerging markets debt investments<br />
Total # of investments = 411; Total size of investments = $488m<br />
25% +<br />
20-24.9%<br />
15-19.9%<br />
12-14.9%<br />
8-11.9%<br />
5-7.9%<br />
0-4.9%<br />
Notional, USD mm<br />
Number of deals<br />
- 50 100 150 200 250 300<br />
25% + Notional, USD mm<br />
20-24.9%<br />
Number of deals<br />
15-19.9%<br />
12-14.9%<br />
8-11.9%<br />
5-7.9%<br />
0-4.9%<br />
- 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan. Investments for which no expectation was reported are not included.<br />
Figure 11: Expected returns – Developed markets equity investments<br />
Total # of investments = 91; Total size of investments = $320m<br />
25% +<br />
20-24.9%<br />
15-19.9%<br />
12-14.9%<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan. Investments for which no expectation was reported are not included.<br />
Figure 12: Expected returns – Emerging markets equity investments<br />
Total # of investments = 119; Total size of investments = $265m<br />
25% +<br />
20-24.9%<br />
15-19.9%<br />
12-14.9%<br />
8-11.9%<br />
5-7.9%<br />
Notional, USD mm<br />
Number of deals<br />
8-11.9%<br />
5-7.9%<br />
Notional, USD mm<br />
Number of deals<br />
0-4.9%<br />
0-4.9%<br />
- 20 40 60 80 100 120<br />
- 20 40 60 80 100 120<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan. Investments for which no expectation was reported are not included.<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan. Investments for which no expectation was reported are not included.<br />
This dispersion partly reflects the rapidly evolving motivations of investors engaged<br />
in impact investing. <strong>Impact</strong> investing historically was largely capitalized by private<br />
33
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
foundations and mission driven investors willing to trade off financial return for<br />
social impact. Many newer entrants have a greater motivation, and in some cases, a<br />
fiduciary duty to balance strong financial returns with social impact.<br />
Deposits, guarantees and other investment instruments<br />
As shown in Table 3, beyond equity and debt, there are also deposits, guarantees,<br />
equity-like debt and real asset investments reported within our data sample. The<br />
$73m of reported deposits were all US-based, with return expectations (some of<br />
which were realized) in the 0–4.9% range. The $50m of guarantees were made with<br />
similar return expectations, though some were made outside the US and Canada. The<br />
survey also captured $489m of real asset investments, all of which were made in the<br />
housing sector in the US or Canada. No return expectations were reported for those<br />
investments. The equity-like debt investments totaling just $8m 37 are more globallybased<br />
and focused mostly in the microfinance sector. Return expectations for these<br />
investments range broadly, from less than 0% to as high as 15–20%.<br />
For more on developed market<br />
debt investments, see Appendix<br />
V: Additional returns data<br />
Realized debt returns broadly reflect the range of expectations: EM provides<br />
higher yields<br />
Zooming into the realized return data, we now show only the debt investments<br />
separated into the developed (Figure 13) and emerging markets (Figure 14). All of<br />
this data was provided by the same two respondents, so we caution against<br />
extrapolation, but present this data as one piece of evidence that the expectation of<br />
higher yields from emerging market debt investments is potentially justifiable.<br />
Interestingly, DM debt realizations outperform the average expectations. The amount<br />
of private equity realized return data is so small – only 20 deals amounting to $8m of<br />
notional – that it does not provide much insight. We have omitted that data for this<br />
reason.<br />
Figure 13: Realized returns – Developed market debt investments<br />
Total # of investments = 114; Total size of investments = $94m<br />
x-axis: Year of investment; y-axis: Return (gross annual yield, in USD)<br />
10.0%<br />
8.0%<br />
6.0%<br />
4.0%<br />
2.0%<br />
0.0%<br />
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan. Investments for which no return was reported are not included.<br />
Figure 14: Realized returns – Emerging market debt investments<br />
Total # of investments = 97; Total size of investments = $61m<br />
x-axis: Year of investment; y-axis: Return (gross annual yield, in USD)<br />
20.0%<br />
16.0%<br />
12.0%<br />
8.0%<br />
4.0%<br />
0.0%<br />
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan. Investments for which no return was reported are not included.<br />
Excludes five investments ($2mm notional value) with negative returns.<br />
Beyond returns: Characteristics of surveyed investments<br />
Investment sizes remain small, while costs are high…<br />
One of the characteristics of impact investments that many investors will struggle<br />
with is the small average deal size. Figure 15 illustrates the range of investment sizes<br />
37 Equity-like debt investments are defined for the purposes of our survey as: An instrument<br />
between debt and equity, typically a debt instrument with potential profit participation. E.g.<br />
Convertible debt, warrant, debt with equity kicker.<br />
34
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
in the data set we collected through our survey. Figure 16 further shows the breakout<br />
of the last bucket shown in Figure 15 — deals that are larger than $5m. We can see<br />
from these charts that the dominant portion of investments is $1m or less in notional<br />
value. Only 35 of the 1,105 deals reported were larger than $10m in notional value.<br />
Figure 15: Distribution of investment sizes across reported investments<br />
Number of deals per bucket; bucket sizes shown in USD mm.<br />
The last bucket of deals greater than $5m is broken out into more detail in Figure 16.<br />
600<br />
500<br />
400<br />
300<br />
200<br />
100<br />
Figure 16: Just the larger investments<br />
Number of deals per bucket; bucket sizes shown in USD<br />
mm, for deals of $5m +<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
0-.5 .5-1 1-1.5 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3 3-3.5 3.5-4 4-4.5 4.5-5 >5<br />
0<br />
5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan. Investment sizes reported in USD as at time of investment.<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan. Investment sizes reported in USD as at<br />
time of investment.<br />
The small average deal size for impact investment presents a challenge to investors<br />
whose due diligence costs remain more or less fixed relative to traditional<br />
investments. For investors capable of making larger investments, the cost of<br />
spending time and resources on a small impact investment deal is higher than for<br />
traditional investments. Small deal sizes are especially challenging for investors<br />
when fixed due diligence costs are high; it is particularly true for investments in<br />
remote areas of emerging countries.<br />
The relatively small average deal size could result from the over-sampling of earlystage<br />
impact investors, who have tended to target more socially-focused businesses<br />
and have been willing and able to absorb the relatively high transaction costs<br />
associated with small-scale investments. As impact investing matures and more<br />
institutional-scale investors with higher returns requirements enter the marketplace,<br />
we anticipate a proliferation of new investment funds being created, aggregating<br />
capital and increasing the size of investments that can be made. Average deal size<br />
will grow as the industry matures and fund vehicles facilitate larger deals.<br />
… but funds’ fees do not appear significantly higher than for traditional funds<br />
Similarly, impact investment fund managers will also endure the high fixed cost of<br />
investment relative to their deal sizes, and as such we anticipate that impact<br />
investment fund management fees may be slightly higher than those charged by<br />
traditional investment fund managers. Figure 17 shows the management fees<br />
reported by our survey respondents, and Figure 18 shows the carry fees charged.<br />
While the majority of management fees remain within 1–2%, we notice that there are<br />
some investments with management fees as high as 5–7%. Similarly, carry fees for<br />
most investments fall within the benchmark 20% range. This disparity may be a<br />
result of the fact that many impact investment funds include a grant-sponsored<br />
35
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
technical assistance facility, which may subsidize fund costs and allow fund<br />
managers to charge market-rate fees to investors. Maintaining fee levels in line with<br />
traditional investments will help remove one potential barrier to attracting impact<br />
investment capital in the short term. However, in the long term, some impact<br />
investment fund managers may be able to justify higher fees by providing valueadded<br />
services (such as rigorous impact investment measurement)for which investors<br />
could be willing to pay.<br />
Figure 17: Management fees<br />
Histogram of survey answers.<br />
Total # of investments = 374; Total size of investments = $582m<br />
Figure 18: Carry fees<br />
Histogram of survey answers.<br />
Total # of investments = 233; Total size of investments = $254m<br />
500<br />
400<br />
Number of deals<br />
Notional, USD mm<br />
200<br />
150<br />
Number of deals<br />
Notional, USD mm<br />
300<br />
100<br />
200<br />
50<br />
100<br />
-<br />
-<br />
0-4.9% 5-9.9% 10-<br />
15-<br />
20-<br />
25-<br />
30% +<br />
0-0.9% 1-1.9% 2-2.9% 3-3.9% 4-4.9% 5-6.9%<br />
14.9%<br />
19.9%<br />
24.9%<br />
29.9%<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan.<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan. Carry defined as % of fund's return retained by general partners.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> measurement systems are currently overwhelmingly proprietary<br />
Our survey also asked respondents to reveal what type of social impact measurement<br />
system they were using (if any). The choices were: a proprietary system, the system<br />
employed by the investee company or fund (the recipient of the investment funds), or<br />
a third party system. As Figure 19 illustrates, an overwhelming 85% of respondents<br />
are currently using a proprietary impact measurement system, and 13% use the<br />
investee’s system. Only 2% of impact investors currently employ a third-party<br />
system and very few reported using an investee’s system. We anticipate this profile<br />
to change as systems for measuring impact, such as IRIS, achieve broad adoption<br />
across impact investors 38 .<br />
38 For more on the IRIS metrics, see appendix.<br />
36
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Figure 19: Respondents’ impact measurement system<br />
Total # of investments = 889;<br />
Total size of investments = $1,144m<br />
Inv estee's sy stem<br />
13%<br />
Third party sy stem<br />
2%<br />
Proprietary sy stem<br />
85%<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan. Investments for which no system was reported are not included.<br />
Figure 20: Local currency exposure<br />
Total # of investments = 642;<br />
Total size of investments = $971m<br />
Local<br />
currency<br />
8%<br />
Figure 21: Company vs. fund investments<br />
Total # of investments = 642;<br />
Total size of investments = $971m<br />
Fund<br />
13%<br />
Hard<br />
currency<br />
92%<br />
Company<br />
87%<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan. Hard currency denotes investments<br />
specified as having been made in USD, EUR, GBP or hard currency.<br />
Investments for which no currency was reported are not included.<br />
Represents investments in emerging markets only.<br />
Source: GIIN, J.P. Morgan.<br />
Represents investments in emerging markets only.<br />
Even direct company investments are made predominantly in hard currency<br />
One of the biggest challenges arising in making debt impact investments in emerging<br />
markets is currency risk. Particularly when a country’s currency is not liquidly<br />
traded, hedging instruments may be expensive or outright unavailable 39 .<br />
Interestingly, we find that 92% of the investments made into EM were made in hard<br />
currency (USD, EUR and GBP – Figure 20), leaving the remaining 8% of<br />
investments to have been made in a local currency. We examine the nature of the<br />
recipients as well thinking that perhaps the hard currency results from investments<br />
made into funds (that are more likely to raise funds in hard currency). However, we<br />
find that only 13% of the investments were made into funds and the dominant<br />
portion were direct investments into companies (Figure 21). While this means that<br />
many investors are not taking exposure to the currency risk of their emerging market<br />
39 See page 71 for more detail on currency risk.<br />
37
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
investments, it also means that the currency risk is more likely being borne by the<br />
recipients of these investments.<br />
Microfinance trends indicate that currency risk is increasingly borne by investors<br />
While currency risk remains a concern – we address this in more detail in Appendix<br />
I: Managing impact investments– the trend toward investments in local currency that<br />
has appeared in microfinance highlights that investors are increasingly taking over<br />
the currency risk from the microfinance institutions. According to CGAP, the amount<br />
of investment into local currency debt by microfinance investment vehicles increased<br />
by 54% in 2009, and now accounts for 31% of all outstanding direct debt<br />
investments 40 . We anticipate that as the other impact investment sectors mature, a<br />
similar trend will emerge.<br />
40 Microfinance Investors Adjust Strategy in Tougher Market Conditions, Xavier Reille,<br />
CGAP 2010.<br />
38
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
4. The potential BoP market opportunity<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments can benefit different populations: the BoP in emerging countries,<br />
as defined by the World Resources Institute; the broader BoP+, including the lowincome<br />
populations in developed markets; or the broadest group, which can include<br />
those impacted by income-independent factors such as climate change.<br />
In this section, we present a new framework for measuring the potential scale of<br />
impact investments, in terms of both invested capital required and profitability. Our<br />
measures are by no means comprehensive. An attempt to size the entire impact<br />
investments market would have made the scope of this research note unmanageable.<br />
We have chosen instead to focus only on the BoP segment of the customer base for<br />
impact investments and further to analyze only selected businesses within five subsectors:<br />
urban housing, water for rural communities, maternal healthcare, primary<br />
education, and microfinance. While our measures may be incomplete, they yield<br />
impressive results: in housing alone, a total invested capital requirement ranging<br />
from $214–$786bn and a potential profit opportunity of $177–$648bn (see Table 6).<br />
Table 6: Potential invested capital to fund selected BoP businesses over the next 10 years<br />
Sector<br />
Potential invested capital<br />
required, USD bn<br />
Potential profit<br />
opportunity, USD bn<br />
Housing: Affordable urban housing $214–$786 $177–$648<br />
Water: Clean water for rural communities $5.4–$13 $2.9–$7<br />
Health: Maternal health $0.4–$2 $0.1–$1<br />
Education: Primary education $4.8–$10 $2.6–$11<br />
Financial Services: Microfinance $176 Not measured<br />
Source: J.P. Morgan.<br />
Our methodology uses a sector-specific case study approach. We start by analyzing a<br />
successful business model that we assume can be extended to satisfy the demand of a<br />
larger target customer base, determined based on pricing and affordability of the<br />
product and an assumed penetration rate that we deem realistic. To arrive at<br />
conclusions on potential profitability and invested capital requires us to make a host<br />
of other assumptions, including: the timeframe by which a target market can be<br />
reached (we assume 10 years), the operating margin for the business and the<br />
relationship between invested capital and revenues. A change in any of these<br />
assumptions could significantly affect the model outputs. We believe the publication<br />
of our prototype framework itself, more than the resulting measures, contributes to a<br />
better understanding of the opportunity this emerging asset class presents.<br />
Before delving into the details of our methodology and measurements, we discuss<br />
below the challenges and opportunities in providing business solutions to the BoP<br />
population.<br />
39
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Why the opportunity exists in BoP markets<br />
The BoP population is concentrated in emerging (and often informal) markets.<br />
Serving BoP consumers in these markets requires innovative business models that<br />
deal with challenges unique to this population. For example, cash flow constraints<br />
among the BoP customer base can demand that soap be sold in single-serve packets<br />
rather than in bottles that cost a week’s wages. The lack of skilled workers to execute<br />
vision testing in remote areas demands a business model where the diagnostic<br />
procedure can be executed through simple steps that do not require medical training,<br />
thereby enabling local diagnostics and the consequent sale of eyeglasses 41 . These<br />
unique solutions are designed to address some of the business constraints particular<br />
to the BoP markets in emerging countries, so we refrain from extrapolating these<br />
business models into the developed world.<br />
BoP as consumers: “Underaccessed" market that can use real solutions<br />
If the BoP market opportunity exists, why does it remain outstanding? We believe<br />
there are several reasons why the BoP impact investment marketplace remains<br />
underdeveloped, which we present below before turning to the potential market size.<br />
BoP markets introduce operational challenges to otherwise proven business models<br />
The typical growth trajectory for a business begins with a small endeavor, which<br />
operates locally with local funding. As it grows, it will begin to extend its reach to<br />
regional markets, eventually stretching across its original nation and finally<br />
internationally. In the early stages, business success will depend on the support<br />
mechanisms in place for entrepreneurs, such as access to finance, which historically<br />
have been stronger in developed markets. In the later stages of growth, the business<br />
will rely on the transferability of its products and/or operational processes into new<br />
markets. This can depend on cultural components, but mostly will depend on<br />
whether the cost/revenue model can be successfully applied in the new region. BoP<br />
markets often are more expensive operationally, as external requirements to run the<br />
business can be more difficult to secure, including such things as refrigerated<br />
distribution to transport milk or a consistent stream of electricity to supply hospital<br />
refrigerators. Since these challenges can significantly increase the costs of the<br />
business, it becomes difficult to easily transfer a business model from developed into<br />
BoP markets without making significant changes to the operational design.<br />
Exogenous factors, such as regulatory constraints, import duties and the provision of<br />
government services in the relevant sector can challenge the successful transferability<br />
of a business model from one region to the next. As a result of these barriers to entry,<br />
businesses have yet to build out the geographical scale to address the opportunity that<br />
remains in BoP markets.<br />
Traditional businesses do not target BoP populations as potential customers<br />
One of the reasons that traditional business may not have explored the BoP<br />
marketplace is a perception that poor people are not potential customers. Research<br />
reveals, however, that especially given the low incomes that define BoP populations,<br />
budgeting and money management decisions are critical as households work toward<br />
building better lives. This money management will allocate significant funds toward<br />
the basic needs of households, such as food. However, the research also shows that<br />
BoP households successfully save money or utilize financing to buy products or<br />
services that will facilitate the growth of future household income. In Portfolios of<br />
41 See Emerging Markets, Emerging Models, Monitor Group, March 2009, for more examples.<br />
40
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
the Poor, Collins et al show that poor households successfully build lump sums and<br />
spend them on life events (weddings/funerals), emergencies and opportunities<br />
(including investments in land and buildings) 42 .<br />
Mobile phone technology is one example of this type of purchase. Originally<br />
discounted by skeptics as unnecessary for a population struggling to meet its basic<br />
needs, it has proven one of the fastest growing businesses in BoP markets, as farmers<br />
access pricing information to make the most out of their crops or parents access<br />
mobile banking services to save money for education. With the significant success of<br />
Celtel in Africa, many in the business world were forced to acknowledge BoP clients<br />
as consumers with choice managing their money to purchase products or services and<br />
consequently improving their lives.<br />
Government or philanthropic solutions can do only so much<br />
In areas where on-grid electricity and clean water are available from government-run<br />
utilities and quality education is available in a government-run public school, the<br />
demand for impact investment in these sectors may be limited. But many BoP<br />
communities lack access to government services and often pay a “BoP penalty” 43 to<br />
procure basic services from subscale and inefficient private sector providers. <strong>Impact</strong><br />
investors can reduce this penalty by harnessing more efficient, competitive business<br />
models to deliver better, cheaper and more widely-available services to poor<br />
communities.<br />
Beyond the opportunity to intervene where government has been unable to deliver<br />
products or services, even well-functioning governments and well-resourced<br />
philanthropies will always be limited by resources and scope. <strong>Impact</strong> investment can<br />
complement government and philanthropy by providing services to poor<br />
communities, thereby allowing government and philanthropy to concentrate their<br />
limited resources on reaching the poorest of the poor who cannot participate in<br />
market-based solutions.<br />
Simple solutions can have large-scale and profitable impact<br />
While there are obstacles to scale traditional business models into the BoP sector,<br />
there are many examples of simple solutions that address the BoP-specific consumer<br />
behavior and infrastructure challenges. For one, Aravind Eye Care, which delivers<br />
free eye care (including surgery) to poor people by cross-subsidizing from paid<br />
services, has treated over 2.5 million patients and performed over 300,000 surgeries<br />
between April 2009 and March 2010. Through its fee income and despite the fact<br />
that a majority of patients does not pay for services, Aravind is financially selfsupporting<br />
44 while successfully providing access to high quality services that would<br />
otherwise be unaffordable for many of those patients. While Aravind is structured as<br />
a non-profit, impact investors could support its growth, as well as similar models,<br />
through debt investments.<br />
Reduce BoP penalties while delivering profits to investors<br />
With the right solution, businesses can deliver affordable solutions to BoP clients<br />
while delivering profits to investors. Not only is this the case where products or<br />
services are absent, but this can also occur where competing services are being<br />
42 Portfolios of the Poor, Chapter 4, D Collins et al, Princeton University Press, 2009.<br />
43 See glossary for more detail.<br />
44 The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, C.K. Prahalad, 2010.<br />
41
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
offered. Many BoP consumers suffer from a BoP penalty - paying a higher price for<br />
lower quality goods and services than consumers in wealthier markets – to procure<br />
basic services from subscale and inefficient private sector suppliers. The BoP penalty<br />
exists because of the cost of delivering services into regions where infrastructure is<br />
poor and access is expensive 45 , and sometimes because of the lack of competition to<br />
make service delivery more efficient and drive down prices. C.K. Prahalad evidences<br />
the BoP penalty by comparing prices paid in a shanty town outside Mumbai with<br />
prices paid for the same products or services in a higher income area of Mumbai. For<br />
credit, municipal grade water, diarrhea medication, rice or a phone call, the poverty<br />
premium ranges from 1.2x to as high as 53x for the residents of the shanty town 46 .<br />
Efficient business models can provide such products or services at a lower cost to the<br />
consumer while maintaining a profitable operation.<br />
A framework for sizing the market opportunity<br />
Below we present a more detailed explanation of our methodology for measuring the<br />
invested capital requirement and potential profit opportunity in selected businesses<br />
and sub-sectors within housing, water, health, education and financial services<br />
targeting BoP populations.<br />
In Table 6, we have summarized the results of our analysis. The remainder of this<br />
section is devoted to walking through the resources and assumptions used in each<br />
sector to determine the potential impact investment capital required. Our approach<br />
for the non-financial sectors varies from the approach taken for financial services, so<br />
we have divided the section accordingly. Within the non-financial sectors, we have<br />
applied a consistent methodology to each sector to determine potential invested<br />
capital required and potential profit opportunity. This methodology will be explained<br />
at length using housing as the example and then presented in summary form for the<br />
other sectors.<br />
One of the greatest challenges in characterizing the impact investments market is<br />
determining its potential size. The market spans many sectors, where business<br />
models and local management capacity may differ dramatically, but also several<br />
geographies where cost of supply (particularly distribution, infrastructure and<br />
logistics), governmental constraints, competitive landscape and hence the feasibility<br />
of a given business model, vary significantly. To overcome these difficulties, we<br />
make a number of general assumptions.<br />
General assumption #1: Business models transfer across regions<br />
In trying to estimate potential market size, we approach each sector independently,<br />
pairing an estimate of the potential size of the target customer base with the<br />
cost/revenue structure of a successful impact investment business model. One of the<br />
significant assumptions we make in this methodology is the transferability of<br />
business models across regions. Clearly, there are many reasons why a successful<br />
business in one region may fail to generate profit in another. As discussed above,<br />
many impact investments operate within constraints that vary across regions and<br />
countries such as poor infrastructure, inefficient distribution channels and supply<br />
chains, unstable access to energy sources, differences in consumer preferences, and<br />
external factors such as governmental interventions or tax regimes. The most<br />
45 The Next 4 Billion, World Resources Institute and International Finance Corporation, 2007.<br />
46 The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, C.K. Prahalad, 2010.<br />
42
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
appropriate approach to addressing certain sub-sectors, such as healthcare, education<br />
and water, in particular, is an intensely political discussion in many countries. These<br />
variations and constraints impede the transferability of business models and/or the<br />
degree to which the private sector may be able to participate in these markets.<br />
Nonetheless, we recognize that in order to arrive at a global measure, we are forced<br />
to sacrifice some of these region-specific considerations. We have made conservative<br />
assumptions where possible to compensate for the crudeness of extrapolating from a<br />
business model that has been proven in only one country or region. In extrapolating<br />
from the case studies identified, we are also forced to assume that the necessary<br />
business management capacity can be identified or developed to meet the demand of<br />
the BoP consumer base identified.<br />
General assumption #2: All potential business can be impact investments<br />
In working through each sector, we extrapolate from the economics of case studies of<br />
impact investments that conform to our definition: a business that operates with the<br />
intent to create positive impact beyond financial return. In estimating the potential<br />
market opportunity, we assume that all of the potential businesses that would address<br />
that opportunity would be impact investments as well. In reality, not every business<br />
that attempts to address these needs will be designed with intent, but we assume, for<br />
simplicity’s sake that they are and include them all within our potential market size.<br />
Additionally, we undertake our sizing methodology with significant concerns around<br />
the management capacity of companies and funds to invest prudently in these<br />
potential transactions. This current constraint is a real barrier to mobilizing capital<br />
for impact investing. We believe this constraint is surmountable over time as<br />
investors gain expertise. We instead focus on the aggregate demand over a finite<br />
period, consistent with the methodology outlined in this chapter.<br />
General assumption #3: Investment for the next ten years<br />
We incorporate a finite time frame over which these investments are meant to<br />
support these businesses, arbitrarily considering the next 10 years. In calculating<br />
revenues we modeled 10 years of revenues and profits for each business. We<br />
assumed 10% of our target market would be captured in year one and this would<br />
grow at defined rate until the entire target market was satisfied in year 10.<br />
General assumption #4: Operating margins indicate profitability<br />
When considering profitability in our case studies, we choose to use the operating<br />
margin as a measure of profitability that takes into account the cost of providing the<br />
service or product and the administrative, sales and marketing costs that might be<br />
affiliated with distribution. We are, however, excluding finance costs as interest<br />
payments are not included in this measure of profit. Part of the reason for excluding<br />
these costs is that finance costs can change dramatically from region to region<br />
(particularly in local currency, sector by sector and over time). This measure also<br />
excludes taxes, which again vary widely among different jurisdictions.<br />
General assumption #5: The relationship between invested capital and annual<br />
revenues is a constant<br />
Our methodology estimates potential revenues based on the number of BoP<br />
consumers to whom these goods and services are affordable. Determining invested<br />
capital, defined as shareholders equity plus net debt, requires us to make some<br />
assumptions on the relationship between a company's capital base and its size as<br />
measured by revenues. We have assumed that there is a constant relationship<br />
43
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
between the level of invested capital and the revenues generated by that capital. In<br />
order to confirm that hypothesis and quantify the relationship we studied 6,000<br />
publicly listed non financial companies with market caps between $100m and $1bn<br />
(excluding companies with sales less than $10m). The results are presented in<br />
Appendix V and they suggest that there is on average a one to one relationship<br />
between invested capital and the most recent full year sales number. We have<br />
therefore applied this ratio to Year 10 sales in our model to estimate invested capital.<br />
We note also that this invested capital will include retained earnings over the life of<br />
the company. The amount of retained earnings in each case study can be estimated<br />
by subtracting finance costs and taxes from the accumulated profits, less an assumed<br />
payout ratio.<br />
Case study<br />
Indian affordable housing projects<br />
analyzed by Monitor Inclusive<br />
Markets, a consultancy working to<br />
develop market-based solutions for<br />
social challenges<br />
Sector by sector analysis: Non-financial services<br />
Starting with an example: Sizing affordable urban housing demand<br />
Using the housing sector as an example, we now present our market sizing<br />
methodology in some detail, walking step by step through the calculations in Table 7<br />
below. The consequent sectors will follow the same methodology and will be<br />
presented in summary form as a result. Further specific notes on the methodology<br />
can be found in Appendix VI on page 86.<br />
Potential size of investment: $214–$786bn; estimated profit opportunity: $177–<br />
$648bn<br />
In the following pages, we will elaborate on the resources used and assumptions<br />
made to estimate the potential size of the impact investment market in housing. First,<br />
however, we will note the results of the analysis, which are summarized in Table 7<br />
below. Based on the information available, we concluded the potential impact<br />
investment capital required for the housing sector to be $214–$786bn, which will<br />
result in a potential profit of $177–$648bn.<br />
Table 7: Sizing template, using housing as an example<br />
Data point Source Housing example<br />
Annual household income of target market Case study Brackets A–E, Urban<br />
Target market (# of households, mm) N4B 393<br />
Anticipated penetration rate Case study 50.0%<br />
Anticipated customer base (# of households, mm) 196<br />
Average price of unit Case study $6,000–$22,000<br />
Aggregate revenues over 10 years, bn $1,179–$4,323<br />
Estimated operating margin Case study 15.0%<br />
Estimated profit opportunity, bn $177–$648<br />
Total invested capital, bn $214–$786<br />
Source: J.P. Morgan. Case study indicates the particular case study used for each sector. "N4B” indicates The Next 4 Billion, 2007,<br />
WRI.<br />
Customer base:<br />
Focus on BoP, specifically<br />
targeting a population that can<br />
afford the price of the<br />
product/service delivered.<br />
Sizing the potential customer base: Not all the BoP will be served<br />
In each sector sizing exercise, we begin by determining the potential size of the<br />
customer base. In the case of housing we ask: how many people in the BoP<br />
population can afford to buy a house from our case-study business model? The<br />
World Resources Institute provides data on the BoP population size by income<br />
brackets of $500 (2002 and 2005 PPP international dollars ) 47 . The bracketing is<br />
47 International dollars calculated by World Resources Institute using 2002 purchasing power<br />
parity (PPP) exchange rates. See glossary for more on international dollars.<br />
44
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
shown in Table 8.<br />
Table 8: BoP per capita income brackets and population<br />
Income<br />
brackets<br />
2002 PPP<br />
Income<br />
brackets<br />
2005 PPP<br />
(upper bound)<br />
Africa<br />
mm<br />
Asia<br />
mm<br />
Eastern<br />
Europe<br />
mm<br />
Latin<br />
America<br />
mm<br />
Total<br />
Population<br />
mm<br />
A 2,500–3,000 3,260 7 80 41 39 167<br />
B 2,000–2,500 2,717 12 167 51 50 279<br />
C 1,500–2,000 2,173 23 358 52 68 501<br />
D 1,000–1,500 1,630 55 781 48 81 964<br />
E 500–1,000 1,087 162 1,220 45 87 1,513<br />
F 0–500 543 228 293 18 37 575<br />
Total 486 2,900 254 360 4,000<br />
Source: World Resources Institute.<br />
Focusing on the BoP population restricts us to the population earning an annual<br />
income of $3,000 per capita or less. For each sector we then identify the income<br />
brackets that can afford the product or service in question, following the steps below<br />
to identify the size of our target market.<br />
1. Remove the lowest income segment: Those earning less than $1 a day will be<br />
unlikely customers<br />
We must acknowledge that there is a portion of the population at the lowest<br />
income level that remain reliant largely on aid 48 . According to Monitor Inclusive<br />
Markets, it would be reasonable to exclude the population earning less than $1 a<br />
day from the potential customer base for an impact investment business model.<br />
Constraints such as severely irregular cash-flows and the cost of distribution to<br />
these typically more remote populations will limit the ability of a profit-making<br />
business to deliver solutions to this sub-population. Therefore, we exclude from<br />
all sectors the bottom segment of the population as bracketed by WRI – those<br />
earning less than $500 per annum per capita (2002 PPP), in income bracket F of<br />
Table 8.<br />
48 C.K. Prahalad, author of The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, advocates that “our goal<br />
should be to build capacity for people to escape poverty and deprivation through selfsustaining<br />
market-based systems” even at the very base of the economic pyramid. While we<br />
would like to cover businesses that can serve the very lowest-income households, we focus for<br />
now on the business models that have been proven and hope to include the lowest income<br />
bracket in future work as this sector develops solutions for the lowest part of the pyramid.<br />
45
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Table 9: Household income brackets – India<br />
Average number of people per household = 5.3<br />
India Economic Activity Rate = 69%<br />
Average number of earners per household = 3.7<br />
2005 PPP<br />
(upper bound)<br />
A 11,923<br />
B 9,936<br />
C 7,949<br />
D 5,962<br />
E 3,974<br />
F 1,987<br />
Source: World Resources Institute, UN Statistics Division.<br />
2. Select a case study and determine the income bracket of the target customer base<br />
In choosing a case study, we focus on finding a business model that makes<br />
products or services affordable to some segment of the BoP market. For the<br />
housing sector, we identified a feasibility-tested business model for affordable<br />
housing in India analyzed by Monitor Inclusive Markets. One of the projects they<br />
analyzed builds buildings with, for example, 5% commercial space and 95%<br />
residential space split into 1,883 flats in urban India. Including commercial space<br />
increases rental income, partially subsidizing the residential space. Since homes<br />
are purchased by households rather than individuals, in Table 9 we translate the<br />
WRI per capita income brackets into per household income brackets 49 , using the<br />
Economic Activity Rate 50 and the average number of people per household. Then<br />
in Table 10 we consider the affordability of the residential flats to the households<br />
in those income segments. Flats in this type of project have been priced as low as<br />
INR 280,000 51 ($6,000), which translates into a required annual household<br />
income of $3,211 52 (2005 PPP). As such, the flats in this price range are<br />
affordable by all but the bottom income segment of our population, so we include<br />
income brackets A through E in our estimation.<br />
Table 10: Affordability testing<br />
Case study: Building Houses, Financing Homes, Monitor Inclusive Markets, July 2010<br />
Line Data type Unit Min Max Calculations Notes<br />
1 Price Rs 280,000 1,000,000<br />
2 Pricing date 2010 2010<br />
3 Avg inflation rate 10% 10% From 2005 — pricing date<br />
4 Price 2005 Rs 171,236 611,558 Line 1/[(1+line 3)^(line 2 – 2005)]<br />
5 Annual interest @ 12% 2005 Rs 20,548 73,387 Line 4 × 12%<br />
6 Annual income required 2005 Rs 51,371 183,467 Line 5 / 40% Assume max payment/income ratio = 40%<br />
7 Annual income required 2005 PPP 3,211 11,467 Line 6 / 16 2005 conversion rate: 16 Rs per int'l dollar<br />
8 Price Current USD 6,000 22,000 Line 1 / 46.5 2010 conversion rate: 46.5 Rs per USD<br />
Source: J.P. Morgan. Minimum price from Monitor Group, referencing Foliage developers.<br />
3. Cut off the top: We are sizing only the BoP market<br />
Since we are focused on only the BoP segment of the population, we consider the<br />
case study pricing that will be affordable to our target population. As such, we<br />
limit our pricing estimates (Line 1 in Table 10) to the maximum amount<br />
affordable by the top of our population bracket. Working backward through our<br />
Affordability Test, we calculate the maximum price affordable by households in<br />
this population – INR 1,000,000. At current exchange rates, our price range is<br />
then $6,000 – $22,000.<br />
4. Limit to urban or rural population, if applicable<br />
As the housing case study is one that applies only to urban customers where<br />
apartment blocks are more suitable, we restrict our target customer base<br />
accordingly. Some sectors will better address rural populations while others will<br />
successfully cater to both rural and urban populations. The restriction to urban or<br />
rural will be applied only where needed. In India, the average percentage of our<br />
46<br />
49 We translate the per capita income brackets into per household income brackets by<br />
multiplying the income by the number of earners per household as implied by the UN<br />
Statistics Division’s Economic Activity Rate – 69% in the case of India.<br />
50 As defined by the UN Statistics Division, Economic Activity Rate refers to the percentage<br />
of the population aged 15 and over which is economically active.<br />
51 Building Houses, Financing Homes, Monitor Inclusive Markets, July 2010.<br />
52 In the table, we assume a maximum payment/income ratio of 40% as per Monitor’s<br />
guidance.
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
target BoP population that lives in urban areas is 37%. Across our measured<br />
countries, it is 58%. Since we have the percent of urban population by income<br />
bracket and by country, we incorporate this data on a granular basis.<br />
At this stage, we have determined the parameters of the population we will target<br />
with our housing product: the Annual Household Income (line 1 in Table 7: Income<br />
brackets A – E in Table 8 and Table 9), and only the urban population. Next, we<br />
broaden our focus globally and count the number of people or households that fall<br />
within those parameters.<br />
5. Using the WRI data, identify population or number of households in each income<br />
bracket<br />
The WRI data provides the number of people per income bracket. Since housing<br />
is a product sold to a household rather than an individual, we count the number of<br />
households that would fall within our target income bracket. For the 36 countries<br />
represented in the WRI data set, the populations given in each income bracket<br />
count the people earning the relative incomes but exclude non-earning members<br />
of the household. In order to determine the number of households, we first take<br />
the size of the earning population (the WRI number), and divide by the Economic<br />
Activity Rate to find the total population size (earning and non-earning). Then for<br />
each country we divide by the average number of people per household to obtain<br />
the total number of households 53 .<br />
6. Factor in population growth<br />
From the WRI database EarthTrends, we find the growth rates for urban<br />
populations in each country measured from 2005–2010. Since the population data<br />
we have is from 2005, we apply these growth rates – 1.06% on average – to each<br />
country’s number of households. Similarly, we apply the rural population growth<br />
rates when relevant. We do not consider urbanization rates, which could be<br />
expected to change over time.<br />
7. Extrapolate to the rest of the region<br />
Finally, we extrapolate from the 36 countries to the broader regions, just as WRI<br />
has done in The Next 4 Billion. We calculate the ratio of measured to extrapolated<br />
population and apply the same ratio to the number of households in our target<br />
income bracket. Table 11 shows the countries included in the measured work, and<br />
the regions to which we then extrapolate.<br />
Table 11: Countries included in WRI data<br />
Africa Asia Eastern Europe Latin America and Caribbean<br />
Burkina Faso Bangladesh Belarus Bolivia<br />
Burundi Cambodia Kazakhstan Brazil<br />
Cameroon India Macedonia, FYR Colombia<br />
Cote D'Ivoire Indonesia Russian Federation Guatemala<br />
Djibouti Nepal Ukraine Honduras<br />
Gabon Pakistan Uzbekistan Jamaica<br />
Malawi Tajikistan Mexico<br />
Nigeria Sri Lanka Paraguay<br />
Rwanda Thailand Peru<br />
Sierra Leone<br />
Uganda<br />
South Africa<br />
Source: World Resources Institute<br />
53 Also based on WRI data.<br />
47
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
This brings us to the Target Market (line 2 in Table 7) — the number of households<br />
that could afford the type of housing in our case study, which is 393 million. Next,<br />
we consider the number of households that we expect will choose this type of<br />
housing – i.e. the anticipated penetration rate – and the price they can afford.<br />
Sizing the revenue opportunity<br />
Once we have our target customer base, we turn to our selected case study to identify<br />
some of the microeconomics of the business.<br />
1. Identify an anticipated penetration rate and an anticipated customer base<br />
Above, we quantified a target market, but the total number of households in our<br />
target market may not be consumers of our product or service. In the case of<br />
housing, for instance, some households may decide the assumed pricing is too<br />
expensive, may already own their own home or may be unable to access the<br />
required financing, or they would prefer not to lock up cash in mortgage<br />
payments. Regardless of the reason, there will be a penetration rate of less than<br />
100% for any business. While Monitor believes that a penetration rate of 80% is<br />
feasible 54 , we apply a haircut to this rate given our assumption that this business<br />
model will successfully transfer to other geographical and regulatory regimes,<br />
and our assumption that these projects are to be delivered in the next ten years.<br />
We assume a more conservative 50% penetration rate (line 3 of Table 7). Then,<br />
multiplying our anticipated penetration rate by our target market gives our<br />
anticipated customer base of 196 million households (line 4 of Table 7).<br />
2. Identify the average price per unit<br />
Next, we use our case study to give us a feasible price estimate for the given<br />
product or service. In our affordability test in Table 10 above, we have already<br />
calculated the price range that will be affordable: $6,000–$22,000 (line 5 of Table<br />
7).<br />
3. Estimate the growth in customers<br />
We do not believe it is reasonable to assume that the estimated penetration rate<br />
can be achieved in the first year of our 10 year period. Instead, we assume that<br />
the number of customers starts at a low penetration in year 1 and then grows to<br />
reach the target market penetration, such that each subsequent year represents the<br />
same multiple of the first year (e.g. the number of customers in year 2 is two<br />
times the number of customers in year 1, and the number of customers in year 3<br />
is three times the number of customers in year 1). In the case of housing, the<br />
aggregate number of customers over the 10 year period equals the target market<br />
penetration, as we assume housing represents a one-time purchase for each<br />
customer. In the analysis for other sectors where purchases are recurring, the<br />
customer base in year 10 equals the target market penetration.<br />
4. Estimate the revenue opportunity: Anticipated customer base × price per unit<br />
Now that we have the number of customers we can reasonably expect to<br />
participate in our business in each year of our model, we can multiply the number<br />
of customers by the average price per unit to obtain the revenue opportunity over<br />
the 10 year period: $1,179–$4,323bn (line 6 of Table 7).<br />
54 Monitor Inclusive Markets, based on interviews with potential homeowners.<br />
48
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Potential profit opportunity<br />
We also calculate the potential profit opportunity over the 10 year period, which is<br />
simply the revenue opportunity multiplied by the operating margin. In the case of<br />
housing, Monitor estimates a margin of 22% on the housing project they present; to<br />
be more conservative, we round this down to 15%. This results in a potential profit<br />
opportunity of $177–$648bn (line 8 of Table 7). Again, these profitability figures<br />
will not take into account the cost of capital or expenditure toward assets, such as the<br />
building in which a hospital might be located, and an investor would need to consider<br />
these further financial constraints when analyzing a potential investment.<br />
Sizing the capital required to generate that revenue<br />
Finally, we use the revenues generated by the case study business model to identify<br />
the amount of capital that would be required to realize that revenue potential. In each<br />
case, we assume that the year 10 revenues generated in the sector represent an<br />
adequate proxy for the total invested capital that would be required for the 10 year<br />
period we are evaluating. In the case of housing, this results in required invested<br />
capital of $214–$786bn over the 10-year period (line 9 of Table 7).<br />
Nature of invested capital required<br />
One further question will be to determine what kind of capital will be needed for<br />
each sector: Will the business be funded mostly by equity or debt? While this is a<br />
relevant question in helping investors identify where they should focus their capital<br />
from a risk/return standpoint, we believe that both the debt and equity portions of<br />
business financing will be impact investment.<br />
Further considerations on our methodology<br />
We have already mentioned the difficulty in our ambitious method of extrapolating<br />
around the globe based on the success of one case study. In addition, a few other<br />
methodological considerations arise that we wish to highlight.<br />
The growth of financial access alongside the market will be crucial<br />
Housing in particular is an industry that cannot grow alone. Without access to<br />
finance, many of the households we have counted amongst our customers will not be<br />
able to take advantage of even the lowest-price house. When CEMEX, a cement<br />
company in Mexico, decided to stabilize its cyclicality by increasing its focus on the<br />
more stable revenue streams that came from the low-income population, it realized<br />
that financing was the most difficult hurdle for these customers to overcome 55 .<br />
Our methodology has assumed that external support mechanisms such as financing<br />
will grow alongside the business within some reasonable timeframe. In India, for<br />
example, as a result of the National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy of 2007, the<br />
National Housing Bank has established financing toward slum redevelopment<br />
projects and upgrades/additions to existing dwellings 56 . With respect to our specific<br />
housing case study – based on the work by Monitor – there is reference to tie-ups<br />
with Bank of Baroda, DHFL, MAS, HDFC and MHFC (a selection of housing<br />
finance corporations in India) 57 for the provision of financing. For BoP populations<br />
without this access, incremental building models, such as Patrimonio Hoy<br />
(CEMEX’s project) may be a more feasible starting point. In that Mexican business<br />
55 The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, C.K. Prahalad, 2010.<br />
56 http://www.nhb.org.in/Financial/Refinance_of_construction.PHP<br />
57 Building Houses, Financing Homes, Monitor Inclusive Markets, July 2010.<br />
49
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
case, end users contribute monthly in a pay-over-time scheme toward the purchase of<br />
building materials to build one room at a time. This model might be more accessible<br />
where access to finance is a challenge.<br />
While finance is clearly necessary to provide access to housing – one of the most<br />
expensive things for most households around the world – the BoP household might<br />
also need to use finance to buy other things that require a large cash outlay. Broadly<br />
speaking, if impact investments are to succeed at delivering products and services to<br />
BoP populations, the customers’ access to finance will be a critical component of<br />
growing the market across all sectors.<br />
Having walked through the housing sector study in detail, we will review the same<br />
approach in less detail taken in the other sectors. The first sector we examine is the<br />
water sector.<br />
Case studies:<br />
Byrraju Foundation<br />
Water Health International<br />
Water: Clean Water units for rural areas<br />
Case study: Community filtration units<br />
There are a few different business models aimed at providing water to BoP<br />
populations, from point-of-consumption filtration systems to community filtration<br />
plants. In choosing our case study, we again reference the work of Monitor Inclusive<br />
Markets. Monitor studied the market in India in particular, and found that point-ofconsumption<br />
carbon water filtration units can often be too expensive for BoP<br />
populations in India. There are also concerns that point-of-consumption filtration<br />
units are less effective over time, since the user may not change filters as frequently<br />
as required, for example.<br />
The business model on which Monitor focused its analysis is the community water<br />
system, where a centralized filtration unit provides water for the community and is<br />
operated by trained staff. This business model is illustrated by India’s Byrraju<br />
Foundation and by Water Health International (“Water Health”), which operates in<br />
India, Ghana and the Philippines 58 . According to Monitor, the community filtration<br />
business model provides access to purified water at about half the price of individual<br />
activated carbon water filters and about a third of the cost of boiled water. It has<br />
disadvantages as well, such as leaving the buyer to transport the water back to the<br />
home for use 59 . Nonetheless, this has been a successful business model employed by<br />
the two case studies, and the affordability leads us to choose the community filtration<br />
model over the point-of-consumption model for our analysis.<br />
Potential size of investment: $5–$13bn; estimated profit opportunity: $2.9–$7bn<br />
Using the economics of these community filtration units, we conclude that the<br />
potential size of investment in this market over the next 10 years could be $5–$13bn,<br />
with an estimated profit opportunity of $2.9–$7bn. Table 12 highlights the key<br />
assumptions going into this conclusion, and we explain them in more detail below.<br />
58 See Emerging Markets, Emerging Models, Monitor Group, March 2009 for more examples.<br />
59 Both Byrraju and Water Health International have offered delivery services, though many<br />
Byrraju customers have stopped using this service citing price.<br />
50
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Table 12: Water market sizing<br />
Data point Source Water example<br />
Annual household income of target market Case study Brackets A–E, Rural<br />
Target market (# of households, mm) N4B 683<br />
Anticipated penetration rate Case study 40.0%<br />
Anticipated customer base (# of households, mm) 273<br />
Average price of unit Case study $20–$47<br />
Aggregate revenues over 10 years, bn $29–$71<br />
Estimated operating margin Case study 10.0%<br />
Estimated profit opportunity, bn $2.9–$7<br />
Total invested capital, bn $5–$13<br />
Source: J.P. Morgan. Case study indicates the particular case study used for each sector. "N4B” indicates The Next 4 Billion, 2007,<br />
WRI.<br />
Table 13: Household income brackets – India<br />
Average number of people per household = 5.3<br />
India Economic Activity Rate = 69%<br />
Average number of earners per household = 3.7<br />
2005 PPP<br />
(upper bound)<br />
A 11,923<br />
B 9,936<br />
C 7,949<br />
D 5,962<br />
E 3,974<br />
F 1,987<br />
Source: World Resources Institute, UN Statistics Division<br />
Affordability: Income brackets A–E, rural<br />
In testing the affordability of the water produced by these business models, we<br />
reference the price of a 20 liter bottle of water, which should meet the daily needs of<br />
a household 60 . According to surveys conducted by Monitor, over fifty percent of the<br />
Byrraju customers have household incomes less than INR 2,000 a month ($1,000 in<br />
2005PPP, annualized), putting them in the lowest income bracket F. The price that<br />
Water Health charges in Ghana is lower than in India (about $0.07 in Ghana vs.<br />
about $0.11 in India 61 ), so we consider the water to be affordable to the same<br />
population brackets there as well.<br />
To check that this pricing is not far from the current expenditures by BoP households<br />
on water, we contrast this pricing with the expenditures measured by the WRI in The<br />
Next 4 Billion. There, we find that the population in the measured countries spends<br />
an average of 1% of their household income on water 62 . In Table 14 we show how<br />
we calculate which income brackets will fall within our target market based on our<br />
affordability test.<br />
Table 14: Affordability test<br />
Min Max Units/Notes<br />
Daily cost 2.5 6.0 2010 Rs<br />
Annual cost 913 2,190 2010 Rs<br />
Inflation (2005 – 2010) 10% 10%<br />
Annual cost, 2005 558 1,339 2005 Rs<br />
Annual cost, 2005 35 84 2005 PPP<br />
If annual salary = 1,000 1,000 Equiv to INR 2,000 a month in 2010<br />
Then percentage of annual salary = 3.5% 8.4%<br />
If annual salary = 1,987 1,987 Bottom of income bracket E<br />
Then percentage of annual salary = 1.8% 4.2%<br />
If annual salary = 3,974 3,974 Bottom of income bracket D<br />
Then percentage of annual salary = 0.9% 2.1%<br />
Source: Monitor Inclusive Markets, J.P. Morgan. All annual salary figures in bottom half of table are in 2005 PPP.<br />
For the poorest households, those in the middle of bracket F, the pricing range<br />
provided by our case studies of INR 2.5-6 per 20 liters ($0.05–$0.13) would amount<br />
60 While the United Nations considers 20-30 litres per capita per day to be enough to meet<br />
basic human needs (http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/factsheet.html), Monitor Inclusive<br />
Markets has interviewed kiosk attendants and 75 customers to determine how much water they<br />
would buy for the household per day.<br />
61 We can draw the same conclusion if we measure in PPP terms as well as USD.<br />
62 If weighted by population, this expenditure drops to 0.3%.<br />
51
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
to 3–8% of household expenditure. This expenditure drops below 1% for households<br />
in income bracket D. In an attempt to balance the findings from Monitor with the<br />
findings from the The Next 4 Billion, we include bracket E and will leave bracket F<br />
out, to be more conservative 63 .<br />
Table 15: Target population<br />
Brackets A–E, Rural, mm<br />
Population<br />
Africa 49<br />
Asia 579<br />
Eastern Europe 32<br />
Latin America 23<br />
Total 683<br />
Source: WRI<br />
Focus on rural populations, and haircut the penetration rate to target larger villages<br />
Having identified income brackets A – E as our target market, we focus on rural<br />
populations where access to clean water is less readily available (and the business is<br />
more likely to attract customers as a result): This brings us to a target market of 683<br />
million households globally, which is broken down by region in Table 15. As with<br />
many businesses operating in these markets, though, the profitability of these<br />
filtration units will depend on high volume, which can require that they be located in<br />
larger villages 64 . Figure 22 shows Monitor’s analysis of Byrraju's penetration rates by<br />
village size. They note that while smaller villages sustain higher penetration rates<br />
(perhaps due to necessity), a higher proportion of the larger villages are profitable.<br />
As such, we haircut our anticipated penetration rate to accommodate the fact that our<br />
rural population will include smaller villages that may not sustain a profitable<br />
filtration unit. Byrraju has obtained penetration rates of 40–50% in average-size<br />
villages and Water Health is targeting 60%, so we will employ an anticipated<br />
penetration rate of 40% (the lower end of the range) to be conservative. As a result,<br />
our anticipated customer base is 273 million households.<br />
Revenues, margins, capital and profit<br />
As noted in Table 12, reaching 273 million households over the next ten years results<br />
in potential revenues of $29–$71bn. Applying an operating margin of 10% suggests<br />
profit potential of $2.9–$7bn and applying our one-to-one assumption of invested<br />
capital to year 10 revenues suggests required capital of $5–$13bn.<br />
Figure 22: Penetration rates by village size<br />
x-axis: Number of people in the village; y-axis: Penetration rate<br />
120<br />
Small hamlets Av erage v illage Large v illage<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000<br />
Source: Monitor Inclusive Markets<br />
63 Monitor confirmed that a significant portion of Byrraju customers earn less than INR 2,000<br />
per month (equivalent to $1,000 in 2005 PPP), putting them in bracket F. If we include bracket<br />
F, we add 150 million households to the target population, and about $20–30bn to the capital<br />
required.<br />
64 With populations between 5,000 and 10,000 according to Water Health<br />
52
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Complementing government service provision<br />
Access to water has recently been deemed a basic human right by the United<br />
Nations 65 , and in many countries, access to water is provided by governments. The<br />
same is true in the BoP markets we analyze, though in many cases the businesses are<br />
successful because of the lack of government provision (particularly in rural areas).<br />
For example, according to Water Health, consumption at their water purification<br />
plants in Ghana is about 3–4x that of a typical site in India, mainly because of the<br />
lack of alternative sources for water in Ghana. In India, by contrast, many<br />
communities still have access to water through the Rural Water Supply Programme 66 ,<br />
even though this water is not what Water Health would consider safe for drinking.<br />
Not only will this variation in government provision across regions affect the success<br />
of businesses as they start up in different geographies, but it can also be a factor that<br />
changes over time, affecting the competitive landscape and long-term prospects of a<br />
business operating in this sector.<br />
Case studies<br />
LifeSpring Maternity Hospital<br />
(India)<br />
R-Jolad (Nigeria)<br />
Health: Maternal care in urban areas<br />
Case studies: Maternal care in India and Nigeria<br />
Within the health sector, there are many potential businesses we could use for a case<br />
study, from pharmaceutical providers to specialist surgical hospitals. We have chosen<br />
a maternity hospital chain in India – LifeSpring Maternity Hospital. We complement<br />
the analysis of LifeSpring’s business with an analysis of R-Jolad, a hospital based in<br />
Lagos, Nigeria that also delivers antenatal care (although its services are broader).<br />
These two hospitals are both designed to operate as high volume, low cost businesses<br />
and target high occupancy, utilization and turnover rates in order to ensure<br />
profitability. LifeSpring, founded in 2005 and currently operating as a for-profit<br />
chain of six 20-bed hospitals, broke even after only 18 months operating as a private<br />
company 67 . R-Jolad delivers high single figure net margins 68 , having grown from a<br />
single-physician clinic in 1982 to a 150 bed, 250 out-patients per day hospital.<br />
Sizing summary: $0.4–$2.5bn of potential invested capital; $0.1–$1.4bn potential<br />
profit opportunity<br />
Given the case studies we reference, there is potential for $0.4–$2.5bn of invested<br />
capital to fund hospitals that, like LifeSpring, specialize in maternal health services.<br />
Sizing the entire market for healthcare provision is too broad a task for this research<br />
piece. Instead, we have identified the capital that could fund maternal health<br />
provision, particularly the attendance of births by a skilled professional when<br />
otherwise a professional would not have been present. This of course is only one<br />
segment of healthcare services that could be provided by impact investment, and<br />
given that maternal health has been estimated to account for only 2% of total<br />
healthcare expenditures on average in the developing world 69 we can estimate that<br />
the total health market for impact investment could be as large as $18–$123bn.<br />
65 General Assembly declares access to clean water and sanitation is a human right, UN News<br />
Centre, July 28, 2010.<br />
66 http://www.india.gov.in/sectors/rural/rural_water.php<br />
67 LifeSpring Hospitals, Gita Johar, Columbia CaseWorks, April 26, 2010.<br />
68 The Business of Health in Africa, Annex I, IFC, Dec 2007.<br />
69 Estimate provided by Marty Makinen, Results for Development Institute<br />
53
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Table 16: Health market sizing<br />
Data point Source Healthcare example<br />
Annual household income of target market Case study Brackets A–E, Urban, Unattended births<br />
Target market (# of unattended births, mm) N4B 113<br />
Anticipated penetration rate Case study 40.0%<br />
Anticipated customer base (# of unattended births, mm) 45<br />
Average price of unit Case study $43–$301<br />
Aggregate revenues over 10 years, bn $2–$14<br />
Estimated operating margin Case study 5.0%–10.0%<br />
Estimated profit opportunity, bn $0.1–$1<br />
Total invested capital, bn $0.4–$2<br />
Source: J.P. Morgan. Case study indicates the particular case study used for each sector. "N4B” indicates The Next 4 Billion, 2007,<br />
WRI.<br />
Table 17: Income brackets<br />
INDIA, calculated as in Table 9<br />
NIGERIA<br />
Average number of people per household = 4.75<br />
India Economic Activity Rate = 57%<br />
Average number of earners per household = 2.7<br />
India<br />
Household<br />
income<br />
2005 PPP<br />
(upper bound)<br />
Nigeria<br />
Household<br />
income<br />
2005 PPP<br />
(upper bound)<br />
A 11,923 8,835<br />
B 9,936 7,363<br />
C 7,949 5,890<br />
D 5,962 4,418<br />
E 3,974 2,945<br />
F 1,987 1,473<br />
Source: World Resources Institute, UN Statistics Division<br />
Affordability: Income brackets A – E<br />
In measuring affordability in this sector, we are able to reference the customer base<br />
that both LifeSpring and R-Jolad are targeting, summarized in Table 18 and<br />
referencing the income brackets in Table 17. LifeSpring is targeting customers with<br />
daily household incomes of $2–$5, which translates into an annual household income<br />
of $720–$1,800. This means that its business aims to serve those in income bracket<br />
F, in particular. However, R-Jolad has customers from a wider income base, as<br />
illustrated in Figure 23. From this data, we see that over 50% of R-Jolad’s customers<br />
earn less than $1000 per annum. Especially since the R-Jolad data does not<br />
specifically reference that these are household incomes, we will again apply the<br />
conservative assumption that the bottom income bracket may not be able to afford<br />
these health services. As such, we retain brackets A–E in our target market. In<br />
practice, the roll-out or expansion of demand-side financing reforms (i.e. health<br />
insurance) is likely to have a large influence on which customers will be able to<br />
access maternal as well as overall healthcare services delivered through the private<br />
market. Additionally, the design of demand-side financing reforms is likely to have a<br />
major impact on private sector providers – if national/state health insurance programs<br />
only reimburse for public services, or reimburse differentially, this will have a major<br />
impact on the size of the market.<br />
Table 18: Affordability test<br />
India<br />
Daily household income<br />
of target customers $2–$5*<br />
Annual household<br />
income of target<br />
$720–<br />
customers<br />
So, comparing to Table<br />
17 we target:<br />
$1,800<br />
Brackets<br />
A – F<br />
Nigeria<br />
< $930 for more than<br />
50% of patients**<br />
Brackets<br />
A – E<br />
Source: J.P. Morgan. * LifeSpring corporate brochure available on website.<br />
** The Business of Health in Africa, Annex I, IFC, Dec 2007.<br />
Figure 23: R-Jolad patients by income<br />
level<br />
pa = per annum<br />
> $930 pa<br />
39%<br />
< $930 pa<br />
61%<br />
Source: The Business of Health in Africa, Annex I,<br />
IFC, Dec 2007.<br />
54
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Urban locations are more likely to be profitable<br />
As in some of our other case studies, the success of these hospitals will depend on<br />
their ability to maintain high bed occupancy and turnover rates, as well as high<br />
outpatient visits to optimally utilize doctors’ time. Figure 24 and Figure 25 highlight<br />
the high resource utilization rates that LifeSpring delivers relative to comparable<br />
private clinics. In order to achieve these utilization rates, the hospitals must be<br />
located within reach of enough potential patients – the majority of their patients<br />
come from within a 5km radius 70 . LifeSpring’s hospitals are located in peri-urban<br />
areas, and R-Jolad is located in Lagos, the capital of Nigeria, so in choosing the<br />
target market we will consider the urban population.<br />
Figure 24: Average # of deliveries per month<br />
Figure 25: Cost of doctor per patient (USD)<br />
120 Lifespring Priv ate clinic<br />
100<br />
100 - 110<br />
1.4<br />
1.2<br />
Lifespring<br />
1.2 - 1.8<br />
Priv ate clinic<br />
80<br />
1<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
15 - 20<br />
0.8<br />
0.6<br />
0.4<br />
0.2<br />
0.3 - 0.5<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Source: Monitor Group. Private clinic refers to small 20–30 bed<br />
nursing house, usually run by a family.<br />
Source: Monitor Group. Private clinic refers to small 20–30 bed<br />
nursing house, usually run by a family.<br />
Target market: Unattended births expected in the next 10 years<br />
Similar to water, the health sector is one where governments typically provide some<br />
degree of service. In considering the potential customers of a private hospital, we<br />
target those that are not currently accessing those government services. Some<br />
mothers will avoid government hospitals because of cost (subsidies do not<br />
necessarily cover the full cost of treatment 71 ), while others may not utilize them<br />
because of quality of service or lack of access to or knowledge about them. While<br />
LifeSpring costs more than the government service, customers who do not utilize the<br />
government services might choose LifeSpring for some of the other reasons. The<br />
hospital aims to deliver-high quality service by retaining talented doctors with nonmonetary<br />
incentives, such as fewer administrative duties 72 . LifeSpring also dedicates<br />
time and money to marketing its services through outreach, education and<br />
advertising. Where costs are concerned, the hospital does compete with other private<br />
clinics by cross-subsidizing lower-cost delivery rooms with higher-cost private<br />
delivery rooms.<br />
70 Low cost service delivery in health & education, Monitor Inclusive Markets, 2008.<br />
71 LifeSpring Hospitals, Gita Johar, Columbia CaseWorks, April 26, 2010.<br />
72 Other private clinics often pay doctors based on consultations, forcing them to spend time<br />
soliciting new patients into the clinic.<br />
55
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Table 19: Target population<br />
Brackets A–E, Urban, Unattended<br />
births in next 10 years, mm<br />
Population<br />
Africa 18<br />
Asia 68<br />
Eastern Europe 7<br />
Latin America 20<br />
Total 113<br />
Source: WRI<br />
Considering the landscape of healthcare provision, we focus on the population that is<br />
not currently utilizing healthcare services (whether provided by government or<br />
private sector). According to the World Health Organization, which publishes data<br />
tracking countries’ progress on the Millennium Development Goals, only 43% of<br />
births in low-income households are attended by skilled health personnel 73 . Given<br />
this data, we have chosen to calculate the size of our target market by considering the<br />
births that will occur within the next 10 years 74 and be unattended by a skilled<br />
professional. Across regions, this gives us 113 million births over the next 10 years,<br />
broken down by region as shown in Table 19. Applying the penetration rate –<br />
LifeSpring has obtained a 43% market share, which we haircut to 40% for the<br />
transferability assumption described above – the target market is then 45 million<br />
births. Our haircut is less dramatic in this sector since we’ve already limited our<br />
target population to those who will not be expected to employ government services.<br />
In practice, the private sector hospitals may attract some customers that could<br />
otherwise have used government services.<br />
Revenues, margins, capital and profit<br />
Now that we have identified our target market, we can estimate revenues by applying<br />
the costs of each of those deliveries. The price ranges from INR 2,000 (about $40)<br />
for a normal delivery in a general ward to INR 14,000 (about $300) for a Caesarian<br />
delivery in a private room. Multiplying these prices by the number of deliveries over<br />
the 10 year period gives us an estimated revenue opportunity of $2–$14bn. Factoring<br />
in a profit margin between 5% and 10% 75 we calculate a potential profit opportunity<br />
of $0.1–$1.4bn. Based on revenues in year 10, we conclude that potentially $0.4–<br />
$2.5bn of impact investment capital could be allocated to fund hospitals that deliver<br />
maternal health care over the next 10 years.<br />
Case studies<br />
Gyan Shala (India)<br />
Analysis of Private Budget Schools<br />
in Hyderabad City, India<br />
by S Joshi, Gray Matters Capital<br />
Ancillary model:<br />
Indian School Finance Company,<br />
(established by Gray Ghost<br />
Ventures)<br />
Education<br />
As young children grow to school-age, they ideally are able to access quality schools<br />
close to home, an opportunity we explore in this section. While the UN Millennium<br />
Development Goal of universal primary education has spurred government activity in<br />
extending primary education to all income levels, there remain areas in which<br />
affordable private schools are supplying services that meet with high demand from<br />
parents who are willing to pay. In the Dominican Republic, research concludes that<br />
parents’ demand for private education is driven by lack of access to public<br />
(government) schools and by a preference for private schooling when the public<br />
education is perceived to be low quality 76 . In India, one study finds that 73% of<br />
families in slum areas send their children to private school, and that many parents<br />
believe the quality of these affordable private schools is higher than that provided by<br />
the government (if any local alternative is provided) 77 . Similarly, urban schools in<br />
73 Where low income is as defined by the World Bank: 2009 GNI per capita of $995 or less.<br />
The percentage of births attended by skilled health personnel is calculated as a fraction of the<br />
total number of live births in the defined population.<br />
74 Using current crude birth rates from the CIA World FactBook (country by country).<br />
75 We do not have explicit profit margin data from LifeSpring, though we know it is profitable<br />
(i.e. more than breaking even). R-Jolad, which operates a similar high volume hospital model,<br />
delivers high single-figure net margins, according to the IFC report.<br />
76 The Private and Public School, G Murray cited in Affordable Private School Initiative<br />
Research in Latin America, I Faulhaber, Gray Matters Capital Foundation, 2008.<br />
77 Private Schools for the Poor: Development, Provision, and Choice in India, R Baird, May<br />
2009.<br />
56
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Kenyan slums cater to over 500,000 students a year, offering lower student/teacher<br />
ratios and better facilities when compared to public schools 78 .<br />
Case study: Gyan Shala (India), Indian School Finance Company (India)<br />
There are two types of business models that stand out in the education sector, and we<br />
analyze both in our market sizing work. The first business, Gyan Shala, runs over<br />
350 one-room schools in the urban slums of Ahmedabad, India. They have<br />
successfully delivered education at scale by creating highly standardized materials<br />
that teachers with less specialized training can implement without sacrificing the<br />
quality of the education provided. Part of that quality derives from the materials, and<br />
part is derived from teachers’ local ties and their “appropriate attitude” toward<br />
teaching (which are part of the criteria for employment). Essentially, Gyan Shala has<br />
employed the “no frills” model in the education sector and done so successfully.<br />
Gyan Shala currently operates as a not-for profit organization, but parents in Income<br />
Bracket F (the bottom bracket) confirmed a strong willingness to pay school fees at a<br />
level that would sustain the business model commercially 79 . In order to complement<br />
this case study with profitable schools, we reference a study from Gray Matters<br />
Capital of private budget schools in Hyderabad City. The study surveyed private,<br />
unaided (by governmental or donated funds), budget schools located in and around<br />
old Hyderabad City in India. Tying together the economics of these surveyed<br />
affordable private schools with those of the Gyan Shala project allows us to estimate<br />
the cost/revenue structure of a feasible business model.<br />
Potential size of investment: $5–$10bn; estimated profit opportunity: $2.6–$11bn<br />
Based on the above case studies, we conclude that the potential required impact<br />
investment capital in this market over the next 10 years could be about $5–$10bn.<br />
The sector could also provide an estimated profit opportunity of $2.6–$11bn. Table<br />
21 and the following text detail the key assumptions going into this conclusion.<br />
Table 20: Household income brackets<br />
INDIA, calculated as in Table 9<br />
India<br />
2005 PPP<br />
(upper bound)<br />
A 11,923<br />
B 9,936<br />
C 7,949<br />
D 5,962<br />
E 3,974<br />
F 1,987<br />
Source: World Resources Institute, UN Statistics Division<br />
Table 21: Education market sizing<br />
Data point Source Education example<br />
Annual household income of target market Case study Brackets A–E, Urban, primary school age<br />
children<br />
Target market (# of children, mm) N4B 238<br />
Anticipated penetration rate Case study 40.0%<br />
Anticipated customer base (# of children ,mm) 95<br />
Average price of unit Case study $50–$103<br />
Aggregate revenues over 10 years, bn $26–$54<br />
Estimated operating margin Case study 10.0%–20.0%<br />
Estimated profit opportunity, bn $2.6–$11<br />
Total invested capital, bn $5–$10<br />
Source: J.P. Morgan. Case study indicates the particular case study used for each sector. "N4B” indicates The Next 4 Billion, 2007,<br />
WRI.<br />
Affordability: Brackets A–E, urban<br />
Both Gyan Shala and the affordable private schools in Gray Matters Capital’s study<br />
cite that their students come from households in Brackets C–F. Again, we exclude<br />
Bracket F from the potential customer base, and we also include the higher income<br />
78 Understanding the Kenya Independent Schools Sector, Y Musani, Gray Matters Capital,<br />
June 2008.<br />
79 Emerging Markets, Emerging Models, Monitor Group, March 2009.<br />
57
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
brackets within the BoP since these schools will be affordable to them 80 . This leaves<br />
us with Brackets A – E. We then narrow our focus to urban areas as the starting point<br />
for our target population, since the success of the school is dependent on its<br />
proximity to a significant student population. Gyan Shala, for example, had opened<br />
two rural clusters with donor support. Although they delivered similar education<br />
results to the urban program, they were shut down due to resource constraints 81 .<br />
UNESCO also cites that urban for-profit education provision cannot be extrapolated<br />
to rural areas with more dispersed and often much poorer populations 82 . So we<br />
restrict our target market to the urban population.<br />
Table 22: Target population<br />
Brackets A–E, Urban,mm<br />
Population<br />
Africa 31<br />
Asia 148<br />
Eastern Europe 15<br />
Latin America 45<br />
Total 238<br />
Source: WRI<br />
Target market: Primary school age children, ages 5–14 yrs<br />
Within the urban income brackets A – E, we then concentrate on the primary school<br />
age population– the percentage of the population aged 5–14 in 2010, as estimated by<br />
the United Nations Population Division 83 . Applying these percentages to the<br />
population in our urban income brackets brings us to the target market of 238 million<br />
primary school age children, broken out in regions in Table 22.<br />
Penetration rates are high in some regions, but lower elsewhere: We assume 40%<br />
In India, studies have found that up to 80% of urban children aged 5 – 14 attend<br />
private school, including children from low-income families 84 . More broadly,<br />
surveys across cities in the developing world conclude that as many as 75% of<br />
students attend private schools paying fees of less than $10 a month 85 . By contrast, in<br />
the urban areas around Lima, Peru only 38.2% of children attend private schools,<br />
although the numbers have been increasing 86 . Given this range of penetration rates,<br />
and our assumption that we will include income brackets A and B, we assume a<br />
penetration rate at the low end of the range: 40%. This brings our Anticipated<br />
Customer Base to 95 million children.<br />
Revenues, margins, capital and profits<br />
Using the pricing from our case studies, we obtain a price range of $50–$103 for one<br />
year of primary school. We then multiply this price range by the 10-year time frame<br />
we consider and the size of our anticipated customer base over that period, which<br />
gives us a revenue opportunity of $26–$54bn.<br />
In order to estimate the types of profit margins that could be realized from these<br />
kinds of schools, we compare the pricing used by the schools studied by Gray<br />
Matters Capital with the costs analyzed by Monitor in their work on Gyan Shala. The<br />
Hyderabad schools charge between $50 and $103 per student per annum, while the<br />
80 We include them in the Target Market, though we will haircut the penetration rate to<br />
account for the fact that they may not choose to use these kinds of schools.<br />
81 http://www.gyanshala.org/Introduction.html.<br />
82 Education for All, Global Monitoring Report, UNESCO, 2009.<br />
83 http://esa.un.org/UNPP/<br />
84 India: Development and Participation, J Dreze, A Sen, (2nd ed.) New Delhi/Oxford: Oxford<br />
University Press as cited in The Relative quality and cost-effectiveness of private and public<br />
schools for low-income families: a case study in a developing country, , J Tooley, P Dixon, Y<br />
Shamsan, I Schagen, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, September 2009.<br />
85 Private Education for Low-Income Families, J Tooley, P Dixon as cited in Private Schools<br />
for the Poor: Development, Provision and Choice in India, R Baird, Gray Matters Capital,<br />
May 2009.<br />
86 Affordable Private School Initiative Research in Latin America, A Faulhaber, Gray Matters<br />
Capital, 2008.<br />
58
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
annual cost of providing that education is about $30–$65 per student per annum<br />
(based on Gyan Shala’s ultra-low-cost model and the cost structures of alternative<br />
affordable private schools analyzed by Monitor 87 ). These figures imply operating<br />
profit margins of about 35%. Making a more conservative assumption (particularly<br />
given we are comparing fees charged by schools that are different from the ones for<br />
whom we consider the operating cost), we will assume profit margins between 10%<br />
and 20%, which gives us an estimate of the potential profit opportunity of $2.6–<br />
$11bn. In our analysis, year 10 revenues provide the estimate for required funding of<br />
$5–$10bn.<br />
Challenges for affordable private schools: Late fee payment and high competition<br />
One of the challenges with providing services for BoP populations is managing the<br />
volatility of income cashflows that the customers experience. Within the education<br />
sector, this has been recorded by Gray Matters Capital’s research to the degree that<br />
71% of surveyed schools had 25–50% of fees pending. The research also cites such<br />
high competition in Hyderabad City that 93% of schools give concessions of some<br />
kind – such as free uniforms or textbooks – to attract students. Schools may be able<br />
to cope with the competitive landscape by operating in less penetrated cities and<br />
delivering high quality education (as quality is one of the main reasons parents<br />
choose to pay). The late fee payment question may be more difficult to manage but<br />
some schools mitigate this risk by retaining one month of recurring expenses as a<br />
reserve or by collecting portions of the fees throughout the month rather than in one<br />
lump sum 88 .<br />
Complementing government service provision<br />
As with water, education is a service often provided by the government. Several<br />
studies cite that the success of the affordable private schools relies on the quality of<br />
service (that they are deemed to be higher quality than government schools). One<br />
study has actually identified several relationships to give evidence to this otherwise<br />
anecdotal conclusion. In Private Schools for the Poor 89 , R Baird finds an inverse<br />
relationship between government education spending and private school enrollment,<br />
such that higher government spending corresponds to lower private school<br />
enrollment. Further findings include that high teacher absence in government schools<br />
also has a major statistical link with private school enrollment.<br />
Clearly, the absence of high quality government-provided alternatives can encourage<br />
parents to pay for their children’s education. However, should government spending<br />
(and consequently the quality of government schools) increase, private schools may<br />
naturally lose student enrollment.<br />
Further opportunities within the Education sector: Gray Ghost Ventures and<br />
education finance<br />
An ancillary model that has been successful within the education sector is one that<br />
provides financing for education. The Indian School Finance Company, for<br />
example, extends medium-term loans at market rates to affordable private schools<br />
in India. While the schools are mostly operationally profitable, many struggle to<br />
87 Introduction to the Gyan Shala Model, Monitor Inclusive Markets, September 2009.<br />
88 Private Budget Schools in Hyderabad City, India, S Joshi, Gray Matters Capital, 2008.<br />
89 Private Schools for the Poor: Development, Provision, and Choice in India, R Baird, May<br />
2009.<br />
59
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
invest in furniture, infrastructure or construction to grow their product offering.<br />
Also, many of the schools’ financing needs fall outside the reach of both<br />
microfinance providers (for which school financing requirements are too large)<br />
and typical SME finance providers (for which the financing requirements are too<br />
small). Gray Ghost Ventures specified that they pursued the finance avenue rather<br />
than actually building and running schools because their market research found<br />
local entrepreneurs were successfully delivering affordable education (across<br />
regions, including in Kenya, Ghana, Dominican Republic, Peru, China and India).<br />
Rather than competing with these local entrepreneurs, they sought to encourage<br />
their success, applied their experience in the microfinance sector and entered the<br />
education sector with a financial services model.<br />
Based on conversations with Gray Ghost Ventures, the economics of the business<br />
model sound attractive. While the interest rates are similar to microfinance (20–<br />
24% on a declining balance), the operational costs per loan are lower given the<br />
loan sizes are larger (minimum loan size is INR 500,000, or about $10,000). The<br />
Indian School Finance Company is targeting a return on equity of 20% once the<br />
business has reached scale (it is currently in its second year of operation).<br />
Sector by sector analysis: Financial services<br />
Given that the microfinance sector serving BoP customers is a more mature industry<br />
with more widely available data, we take a different approach, extrapolating from the<br />
available data on current market size. Modern microfinance emerged as a tool<br />
intended to create a vehicle for improving the access of poor people to affordable<br />
finance that could grow without reliance exclusively on donor capital. As such it was<br />
a quintessential impact investment intended to create social benefit along with<br />
financial return. While the microfinance industry continues to be a hallmark of<br />
impact investing, the recent flurry of commercial activity in microfinance does call<br />
into question whether all microfinance institutions will continue to constitute impact<br />
investments. For the purposes of this analysis, we consider the potential market size<br />
for microfinance that could be served by impact investors, but, as we have with the<br />
other sub-sectors, recognize that not all the businesses that seize this market<br />
opportunity will in fact have social purpose as an intent.<br />
60
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
MFIs vs. MIVs<br />
Investment flows into microfinance<br />
primarily through:<br />
- Microfinance institutions (MFIs)<br />
that provide microfinance loans to<br />
end clients<br />
- Microfinance investment vehicles<br />
(MIVs) that collect funding from<br />
investors and invest into MFIs<br />
While some of the data we use in<br />
this exercise references MIVs<br />
rather than MFIs (which we use as<br />
proxies), we focus in this section<br />
on sizing the potential capital that<br />
could be deployed to finance the<br />
MFI market.<br />
Focus on microfinance<br />
The microfinance sector is one of the most developed of the impact investment<br />
sectors notwithstanding recent problems related to excessive growth. The modern<br />
microfinance industry launched in the early 1970’s with separate initiatives in<br />
Bangladesh and India 90 , and has benefited from the development of infrastructure<br />
and data histories that have yet to be as well established in many of the other impact<br />
investment sectors. The Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (“CGAP”) has<br />
produced extensive market research, and the Microfinance Information eXchange<br />
(“MIX”) has collected a significant data set that they believe captures 80% of<br />
microfinance institutions globally.<br />
Microfinance sizing methodology<br />
In order to make use of the extensive data collected on the sector, we built a<br />
methodology that extrapolates from the current market size. We start with a list of<br />
country-by-country data from MIX, including total assets, total deposits, and<br />
penetration rates 91 . Using this data, we follow the calculation shown in Equation 1.<br />
Equation 1: Calculating potential invested capital<br />
⎛ Current invested capital<br />
⎞<br />
Potential invested capital = ⎜<br />
× Target penetration rate⎟<br />
- Current invested capital<br />
⎝ Current penetration rate<br />
⎠<br />
where<br />
Current invested capital = Total assets - Total deposits<br />
Source: J.P. Morgan.<br />
Our starting point is the current invested capital, which we define as total assets<br />
minus total deposits, since we assume the deposits are sourced locally rather than<br />
from impact investment. Then, in the bracketed part of the equation, we scale up the<br />
current invested capital to the amount it would be in case penetration rates hit 100%.<br />
However, given we think a 100% penetration rate is neither attainable nor healthy,<br />
we set a target penetration rate of less than 100% and scale down by this amount. We<br />
have also assumed a simplified set of two funding sources: invested capital and<br />
deposits. As the market matures, the MFIs will grow to access more diversified<br />
funding sources. In the future (and for some, currently) there may be access to<br />
interbank lending, repurchase or “repo” transactions, or even central bank funding.<br />
For the time being, we assume that these funding sources are not being accessed.<br />
90 In Bangladesh, BRAC was founded in 1972 and Grameen a year later while SEWA also<br />
began microfinance programs in India at the same time.<br />
91 See Appendix VI: Notes on market sizing for full data set.<br />
61
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Table 23: Microfinance penetration<br />
rates currently above 20%<br />
Penetration rate = # of borrowers/# of<br />
poor adults<br />
Country<br />
Penetration<br />
rate<br />
Bosnia and<br />
Herzegovina 60%<br />
Mongolia 42%<br />
Montenegro 29%<br />
Vietnam 28%<br />
Bangladesh 28%<br />
Paraguay 24%<br />
Mexico 24%<br />
Sri Lanka 22%<br />
Morocco 21%<br />
Cambodia 21%<br />
Source: MIX Market, J.P. Morgan.<br />
Choosing Target penetration rates: 20% over 10 years<br />
In choosing the target penetration rate we aim to capture a healthy potential rate of<br />
growth over the next 10 years. Anecdotally, some of the markets with penetration<br />
rates higher than 20% (Table 23) are exhibiting symptoms of multiple lending and<br />
significant over-indebtedness. Since high growth can result from lending more to the<br />
same population rather than increasing the penetration into new markets, we prefer to<br />
target a more conservative growth estimate. Targeting a lower penetration rate than<br />
might be achievable over the coming years can allow the companies to tackle the<br />
costs of accessing new customers in new regions, increasing their market penetration<br />
in a more gradual way.<br />
Sizing the market: $176bn could capitalize the market over 10 years<br />
Once we have identified the target penetration rate, we can apply the calculations in<br />
Table 24. We start with the calculation from Equation 1 for each country’s<br />
microfinance sector (using the MIX data set, which represents about 80% of the<br />
market) and determine the potential investment capital for each country (excluding<br />
any countries for which the penetration rate is already higher than 20%). Adding<br />
these up gives the $150bn of potential invested capital for the MIX data set (line 1) 92 .<br />
Table 24: Microfinance market sizing<br />
USD bn Calculations Assumptions<br />
1 Potential invested capital for MIX data set 150 Sum of country data using Equation 1 as at 2008, using 20% target penetration rate<br />
2 Potential invested capital for global MFIs 187 Line 1 / 80% as at 2008, MIX data represents 80% of global MFIs<br />
3 Potential invested capital for global MFIs 269 Line 2 ( (1+20%)^2 as at 2010, applying global growth rate of 20%<br />
4 Percentage currently funded by the private sector 66% From the CGAP 2010 MIV Market survey<br />
5 Private sector investment opportunity 176 Line 3 ( Line 4)<br />
Source: J.P. Morgan. We omit any countries where current penetration rates are higher than 20%. Private sector market opportunity is the sum of the sum of investments from private individuals,<br />
private institutions and fund-of-fund MIVs. The investments surveyed by CGAP reference in Line 4 are MIV investments, which we take as a proxy for MFI funding sources.<br />
Then, we scale line 1 by 80% to capture the part of the market not represented by the<br />
MIX data (line 2), and we grow that amount by 20% annually 93 to bring the potential<br />
invested capital for global MFIs to a 2010 number: $269bn (line 3). Finally, we<br />
apply the percentage of investment that comes from private sector investors (66% as<br />
determined by CGAP 94 , line 4) to find that the potential private sector investment<br />
opportunity in microfinance is $176bn. As with the other sectors, we take this to be a<br />
number representative of the currently unfunded market opportunity over the next 10<br />
years.<br />
We note at this point that we have aimed to size the potential opportunity for<br />
microfinance such that the market does not fall down the path of indebtedness and<br />
multiple borrowing that we have recently seen in markets that have undergone very<br />
rapid growth. The potential market could clearly be bigger than our estimate, but we<br />
hope that growth in this sector will remain driven by the social mission and avoid<br />
putting borrowers into challenging debt situations. Indeed, the recent problems in<br />
India highlight the critical need for strengthened credit risk management and<br />
regulatory frameworks.<br />
92 How many borrowers and MFIs exist, A Gonzalez, MIX, December 2008.<br />
93 According to CGAP, growth in microfinance investment vehicles (MIVs) slowed in 2009 to<br />
25% from 34% in 2008. Since we are analyzing microfinance institutions (MFIs) and not the<br />
vehicles that invest in them, we will be slightly more conservative and use the lower 2009<br />
growth rate as our proxy for the MFIs.<br />
94 CGAP 2010 MIV Survey.<br />
62
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Putting the size in context: Potential market is almost 5x the current market<br />
The current invested capital (total assets minus total deposits) in the microfinance<br />
market is about $37bn 95 . This means that our estimate will allow for the market to<br />
grow by just over five times in the next 10 years. We recognize that some of this<br />
capital may come from increased deposits rather than impact investment as MFIs<br />
encourage their customers to save as well as borrow with them. Our analysis does not<br />
take this potential increase in deposits into account. While there has been significant<br />
growth already, and growth rates are slowing down from 34% in 2008 to 25% in<br />
2009, our analysis reveals that there remains room for impact investment capital in<br />
this market.<br />
Segments we haven’t measured<br />
As stated earlier the above framework has been applied only to some sub-segments<br />
of the impact investment market and leaves significant scope for further research and<br />
refinement. We expect a full and complete sizing effort would produce invested<br />
capital and profit numbers many multiples of those we’ve presented above. In<br />
addition to the fact that we only tackled sub-segments of the five sectors we<br />
analyzed, the following significant segments of the market were left out due to<br />
limitation in data availability, methodological challenges, and/or simply to keep<br />
manageable the scope of analytical work for this particular report.<br />
Agriculture<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investments in agriculture can span businesses providing food to BoP<br />
customers, BoP suppliers of food or other agricultural inputs, businesses providing<br />
logistical support such as storage and distribution, and businesses that organize or<br />
aggregate smallholder farmers’ products to capture higher value in domestic or<br />
export markets. Due to the challenges in finding a representative case study, we<br />
leave an analysis of this sector for future research.<br />
Energy<br />
We did not attempt to size the market for clean energy products, given the wide array<br />
of product and business types, and often the significant regulatory hurdles for<br />
scalable business solutions. Clean energy services and products include solar home<br />
systems, solar lanterns, energy efficient cook stoves, and hydro- or waste-biomass<br />
generated electricity. The potential for clean energy solutions for the BoP market is<br />
huge – a recent study 96 conducted by IFMR Research-Centre for Development<br />
Finance and the World Resource Institute estimated that the consumer market in<br />
India alone is $2.1bn per year.<br />
Small and Medium Enterprise (“SME”) finance<br />
We have not attempted to separately size the SME finance market due to both the<br />
significant overlap between the SME market and the various sectors (education,<br />
housing, etc.) that we have measured, where many impact investments would be<br />
defined as SME, and the difficulty in determining what subset of the SME market<br />
serving or employing the BoP+ populations can be considered to represent an impact<br />
investment (i.e. operating with social intent).<br />
95 About $30bn is measured by taking the total assets minus total deposits across the MIX data<br />
set. We then scale by the 80% representative factor to arrive at $37bn.<br />
96 Power to the People: <strong>Investing</strong> in Clean Energy for the Base of the Pyramid in India, IFMR<br />
Research-Centre for Development Finance and the World Resource Institute, October 2010<br />
63
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Technology<br />
Many experts focus on the potential to spur development through the adoption of<br />
technology, especially technology that promotes information and communication<br />
(“ICT”). This interest has accelerated recently with the explosive spread of mobile<br />
phones across the developing world. Entrepreneurs are developing business models<br />
that use this new mobile phone infrastructure to deliver basic services such as<br />
healthcare, education, agricultural information and, most successfully, the basic<br />
banking service of money transfer. For the purposes of our analysis, we do not<br />
consider technology as a basic service that constitutes a discrete sub-sector of impact<br />
investing. Instead, technology will play an increasingly important role as an input to<br />
business models that seek to reduce costs in serving dispersed populations of poor<br />
customers (and will therefore be incorporated in comprehensive analyses of these<br />
sub-sectors). Future research could determine what components of technology<br />
investment are most socially beneficial and suitable for impact investment capital.<br />
Investments in infrastructure<br />
According to the World Bank, emerging countries need 7 to 9 percent of their GDP<br />
per annum, or approximately US$400bn, to address their core needs in building<br />
infrastructure. Historically, though, less than half of this amount has been invested in<br />
infrastructure development and maintenance, leaving a financing gap of 3.5 to 4.5<br />
percent. 97 Further, according to the World Economic Forum, this underestimates the<br />
true need as it excludes electricity transmission, waste-water treatment, urban<br />
transport, ports, airports, and oil and gas. Including these sectors would bring the<br />
annual investment need to more than US$900bn or close to 20 percent of the GDP of<br />
emerging countries. In total then, the investment need could be as high as US$3<br />
trillion per annum globally (or close to 5 percent of current global GDP), of which<br />
approximately US$1 trillion per annum needs to be spent in emerging countries. 98 .<br />
We presented the opportunity for investment into water service for the BoP above,<br />
but broader opportunities exist within infrastructure. Ports, roads, on-grid power<br />
generation, and large-scale water delivery are all examples of products or services<br />
that could greatly improve the lives of BoP+ populations. Poor roads for example<br />
contribute to post-harvest food losses that can range from 15% to as high as 50% of<br />
what is produced.<br />
Demographic changes over time<br />
are also ignored in our analysis.<br />
Economic growth in emerging<br />
markets can propel some of the<br />
BoP populations into higher income<br />
categories, outside of our target<br />
markets. On the other hand, fiscal<br />
crises and financial shocks can<br />
have the reverse effect. Rather<br />
than take a view on how these<br />
demographic changes will<br />
materialize, we assume current<br />
dynamics will remain as they are.<br />
“Plus populations” (those that make up the BoP+ category but are not BoP)<br />
As we have explained earlier, impact investments do include businesses that serve or<br />
employ poor people that earn more than the strict WRI definition of $3,000 per<br />
annum. However, we have not endeavored in this report to define which segment of<br />
the more developed countries’ populations would be considered in the BoP+<br />
classification and leave that for future research.<br />
Investments that generate impact through their business processes<br />
Our market sizing work has focused on business models that deliver affordable<br />
products or services to BoP populations, which is one segment of the “means of<br />
impact” characterization we presented in Figure 7. The other segment includes<br />
businesses that employ BoP (or BoP+) people. Root Capital, for example, engages<br />
97 Paving the Way: Maximizing the Value of Private Finance in Infrastructure, World<br />
Economic Forum, August 2010.<br />
98 Paving the Way: Maximizing the Value of Private Finance in Infrastructure, World<br />
Economic Forum, August 2010.<br />
64
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
BoP suppliers of food products for export. The typical impact thesis for investments<br />
such as these is that connecting BoP suppliers more effectively with the markets will<br />
increase the reliability and amount of income those suppliers can generate from their<br />
produce. We fully acknowledge the financial and social value of investing in BoP<br />
supply chains, but refrained from sizing this portion of the market.<br />
65
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Appendix I: Managing impact investments<br />
One of the most challenging aspects of participating in impact investments is<br />
managing the risk. It is an asset class where we find peculiar financial behavior – as<br />
evidenced by the flat yield curve from the Calvert Foundation database as analysed<br />
in Appendix V: Additional Returns data – and many investments will be made in<br />
countries where even hedging currency moves can be a challenge. Still, the risk<br />
management is not unlike that required for venture capital or high yield debt<br />
investments, particularly in emerging markets.<br />
The risks for impact investments are similar to those for venture capital or high<br />
yield debt investments, with heightened reputational risk<br />
A venture capital or high yield debt investment can be characterized by the earlystage<br />
nature of the business in which the investment is made. Many impact<br />
investments are similarly early-stage private companies that often operate on small<br />
scales. These kinds of investments involve several different types of risk typical in<br />
traditional investments, including: company risk, country risk, and currency risk.<br />
Further, and particular to impact investments, are certain legal and reputational risks<br />
that arise especially when operating in emerging markets and with vulnerable<br />
populations. We start by discussing these impact investment-specific risks, and then<br />
return to the more general financial risks that investors will need to understand.<br />
Legal and reputational risks<br />
When setting up a new business, there are always legal and regulatory hurdles that<br />
will take some resources and time to accommodate. This can be amplified for impact<br />
investments, particularly when operating in emerging markets. We will focus on<br />
those cases in this section, and acknowledge that some of the same will be true in<br />
developed markets, but (hopefully) to a lesser extent.<br />
Legal and regulatory infrastructure in local markets can be onerous<br />
In his book The Mystery of Capital, Hernando de Soto puts forward the theory of<br />
“dead capital”: That in too many countries the barriers to legal ownership result in<br />
informal ownership that then inhibits the owner from later being able to realize the<br />
value of assets. De Soto points out that many transactions in emerging markets are<br />
not legally enforceable transactions. The "obstacles to legality" include the sheer wall<br />
of bureaucracy that can face business or asset owners, and the cost of legal<br />
registration. For example, in Peru, he cites that it took his team 289 days of working<br />
six days a week to fully register a garment workshop, which then cost them $1,231 –<br />
31x the minimum wage. According to de Soto, 4.7 million people in Egypt chose to<br />
build their dwellings illegally rather than face the 77 bureaucratic procedures that<br />
could take anywhere from five to 14 years 99 . Particularly if the scale of the business<br />
is small, the time and resources required to obtain approvals and secure legitimacy<br />
for the business can be very onerous. Water Health International, a business that sells<br />
purified water to BoP customers cites the ability to get all the necessary paperwork<br />
completed as one of the main hurdles to successfully building scale in their business.<br />
In addition to legal and regulatory challenges upon inception of the business, there<br />
may also be changes to legal and regulatory regimes over time, or challenges to<br />
99 The Mystery of Capital, Hernando de Soto, 2000<br />
66
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
transitioning the business as it grows or changes ownership. For many impact<br />
investors, the path to exiting a private equity investment in an emerging market can<br />
be less clear than say for a venture capitalist operating in developed markets. While<br />
these risks will introduce challenges to the growth of impact investments, they will<br />
hopefully be manageable with local management teams who can more easily<br />
maneuver within the local regimes. This again points out the value of having a local<br />
team that is fluent in the legal framework (and the politics that might change that<br />
framework) within which the business will be operating.<br />
Reputational risks: Profiting from the poor?<br />
While the impact investment marketplace is growing mostly out of a combined value<br />
set of financial gain and positive social impact, there will be those that identify<br />
impact investors as profiteering from the poor. The recent global financial crisis will<br />
no doubt provide further evidence to support the claims of skeptics that capitalism<br />
left unchecked can be more destructive than constructive toward economic growth.<br />
An impact investment must constantly balance the dual imperative of generating<br />
positive social impact and profit. Some impact investment business models,<br />
especially those employing high-volume, low-cost approaches are able to drive<br />
financial return and social impact together with impact and profit correlated as the<br />
business expands. But it would be naïve to believe that these two imperatives are<br />
never in tension. In pursuit of more profit, a business may be inclined to target<br />
relatively better-off customers, raise prices to take advantage of the lack of<br />
competition often encountered in underserved markets, or take cash out of the<br />
business rather than reinvest in innovation to enable even broader customer reach.<br />
Indeed, within the microfinance sector, some concerns about mission drift are<br />
already beginning to appear. As purely commercial investors (that may not be<br />
committed to “double bottom line” business) take stakes in impact investments,<br />
observers fear that the companies may succumb to pressure to prioritize financial<br />
returns over social impact. When Banco Compartamos SA, Mexico’s largest<br />
microfinance institution, went public in 2007, many market participants expected the<br />
social mission to become a secondary priority for the new set of shareholders, and<br />
consequently for the management. Similar questions arose when Sequoia Capital, a<br />
traditional private equity investor, took a stake in India’s SKS Microfinance Ltd., and<br />
when the company went public in July 2010.<br />
The proliferation of microfinance has also resulted in increased rates of<br />
overindebtedness in some countries. Referencing this and the high interest rates that<br />
some microfinance institutions charge, some observers will claim that these finance<br />
institutions pursue growth at the expense of the financial health of their customer<br />
base.<br />
Beyond microfinance, many impact investments that seek to deliver basic services<br />
such as clean water, healthcare or electricity to poor populations will encounter<br />
opposition from those who believe that access to these services are human rights that<br />
government, and not private markets, are obliged to provide. These rights-based<br />
principals have been enshrined in numerous international covenants; most recently<br />
the UN Declaration in July 2010 that access to water and sanitation is a human<br />
67
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
right 100 . In practice, many poor people are still unable to freely access these “human<br />
rights” and acquire these services from private markets (often incurring the “bottom<br />
of the pyramid penalty” with higher prices than their middle-class compatriots).<br />
Despite this reality, skeptics will maintain that private sector solutions for these kinds<br />
of services are exploiting their consumers by charging for what should be free of<br />
cost. <strong>Impact</strong> investors will need to recognize that when their business seeks to<br />
provide basic services they are operating in a complex social and political context. In<br />
some cases they will also be competing directly with government agencies tasked<br />
with providing the same service to the same population but failing to do so in a way<br />
that satisfies demand from poor customers. This creates an especially complicated<br />
operating context that can easily flare up as evidenced in the 2010 controversy over<br />
microfinance in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh that resulted in strong<br />
government action to curtail for-profit microfinance institutions.<br />
Mission drift and exploitation are risks that are amplified when BoP are affected<br />
We believe that mission drift (or even false claims of an impact mission) and<br />
exploitation are legitimate concerns and impact investors should ensure the right<br />
metrics are in place to monitor their portfolio companies. These are concerns that one<br />
should apply when making any investment, where due diligence processes assess<br />
management values and growth targets. In the case of impact investments, however,<br />
the consequences of a business exploiting its customers can be particularly<br />
devastating, given how little they have.. It is crucial, for these reasons, that impact<br />
investors demand transparency and measure for themselves whether their<br />
investments uphold their initial claims of producing positive social impact.<br />
The philosophy: Economic engagement of BoP+ can build a path out of poverty<br />
The question of whether it is right to make money from the poor is philosophical. In<br />
our experience, impact investors have resolved this question in several ways:<br />
1. <strong>Impact</strong> investments can reduce the BoP Penalty<br />
Poor people already pay for goods and services, often with unreliable quality and<br />
at higher prices than their middle class compatriots (the BoP penalty).<br />
Introducing more efficient and lower cost means of supplying products and<br />
services can improve quality and reduce the cost to the end user, while still<br />
generating enough profit to make the service provider financially sustainable.<br />
This results in a better situation for the clients, freeing them from relying on other<br />
providers that would charge more or from the reliance on philanthropic or<br />
government aid money, which can be redirected to other purposes in the future.<br />
2. Philanthropic or government money will be limited<br />
Across sectors, for-profit business channels can deliver services to more people<br />
sooner than would be reached by government and donors alone and can leave a<br />
smaller burden for government and philanthropy to address. For example, the UN<br />
states that almost 900 million people worldwide do not have access to clean<br />
water 101 , despite annual global expenditures estimated at $485bn 102 in 2005.<br />
While philanthropic initiatives and government subsidy will always be needed to<br />
100 General Assembly declares access to clean water and sanitation is a human right, UN<br />
News Centre, 28 July 2010.<br />
101 General Assembly declares access to clean water and sanitation is a human right, UN<br />
News Centre, July 28, 2010.<br />
102 Charting our Water Future, The Water Resources Group (available on the website of<br />
McKinsey & Company), citing Global Water Markets 2008, Global Water Intelligence.<br />
68
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
provide water to those below a given income level (our income bracket F from<br />
Section 4. The potential BoP market opportunity), affordable business solutions<br />
can be designed to reach some portion of that 900 million. Similar analysis shows<br />
the opportunity for business to reduce the basic service gaps in education,<br />
healthcare provision, and the other impact investment sectors.<br />
3. <strong>Impact</strong> investments can spur economic growth, promoting a path out of poverty<br />
The real goal for many in targeting impact investments toward the BoP+<br />
population (BoP plus the underserved populations in developed markets), is to<br />
promote a path out of poverty. While the literature remains inconclusive about<br />
the poverty-alleviating power of economic growth alone, sustained economic<br />
growth that ensures a reasonable distribution of surplus between poor customers,<br />
suppliers and employees is a powerful anti-poverty engine. The development of<br />
financially-sustainable businesses that provide affordable services and<br />
employment is a critical component.<br />
Rounding out our thoughts on this question is a concept inherent in our original<br />
definition: The intent with which the business is designed. After all, if the business is<br />
intended to help people while maintaining financial sustainability, we should hope<br />
that the best efforts will be made to introduce cost-lowering solutions, increase<br />
efficiency and charge reasonable (and not exorbitant) prices, sufficient to ensure the<br />
financial sustainability of the business.<br />
Despite these best efforts, impact investors will need to manage carefully the<br />
political and social risks inherent in selling life-sustaining services to poor and<br />
vulnerable communities. Having seen the risks that are more specific to impact<br />
investments, we now return to the financial risks that are common to both impact and<br />
traditional investments.<br />
69
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Financial risk: Company, country and currency<br />
Company risk<br />
Company risk is the risk affiliated with the particular entity in which the investment<br />
is made. As impact investments are often private companies, due diligence is key in<br />
ensuring that the company applies sufficient rigor in its accounts and operations. In<br />
this respect, impact investment is not unlike traditional venture capital where a<br />
premium must be placed on understanding and vetting the character and capabilities<br />
of the management team. For impact investors buying directly into a company,<br />
visiting the premises of the company and getting to know the management can<br />
provide some insight as to the policies and procedures by which the company abides.<br />
For fund investors, visiting the fund headquarters as well as some of the portfolio<br />
companies will similarly provide comfort in the management practices. Many of<br />
these companies and funds will also be first-time operators, so investors should<br />
expect some degree of learning from mistakes as processes are refined.<br />
However, there will be several risks that can arise even for a diligent management<br />
team. Fraud can be just as common in these investments as it is in other companies.<br />
Political challenges can also crop up if the company is disrespectful of community<br />
culture or it is seen to be competing with initiatives already attempting to deliver the<br />
same product or service. For example, in 2008, local politicians in Pakistan were<br />
encouraging borrowers to withhold repayments on their microfinance loans, feeding<br />
into a more general “borrowers’ revolt” in that region 103 . A similar problem arose in<br />
Nicaragua when a group of politically influential borrowers in one northern region<br />
decided to forgo their payment obligations 104 . Given the sensitive nature of the<br />
services provided, in many impact investments, businesses must recognize that they<br />
are dealing not just with customers but with citizens who can mobilize political<br />
opposition to collateral collection or debt payments. If the company fails to manage<br />
these kinds of risks, the financial performance of the company and the investment<br />
will suffer.<br />
Hedging company risk is most commonly done with credit default swaps for larger<br />
companies. For impact investments, it is unlikely that there will be liquidly traded<br />
credit default swaps, and shorting bonds or equity is unlikely to be possible. The best<br />
protection against credit risk is likely to be a thorough due diligence process both at<br />
the time of investment and throughout the investment holding period.<br />
Country risk<br />
The political risks that we mentioned on a community basis can challenge an impact<br />
investment when they occur on a national scale. Country risk is common to<br />
investments made in emerging markets, whether impact investments or traditional.<br />
The recent financial crisis has shown, though, that country risk can significantly<br />
affect investments made in the developed world as well. Sovereign stress can come<br />
in the form of heightened financial risk pushing funding costs higher, and in extreme<br />
cases can even result in a sovereign default. If a sovereign reveals financial data that<br />
brings investors to question its solvency, it will be faced with higher funding costs.<br />
Its limited access to financial markets could lead to a liquidity crisis forcing<br />
emergency fiscal consolidation that would impact the companies operating in that<br />
country.<br />
103 Unraveling the delinquency problem (2008/2009) in Punjab – Pakistan, H Burki, October<br />
2009.<br />
104 Growth and Vulnerabilities in Microfinance, G Chen, S Rasmussen, X Raille, CGAP,<br />
February 2010<br />
70
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Furthermore, if the fiscal consolidation (emergency or not) is unsuccessful, the<br />
sovereign may be left with no choice but to restructure its debt. This could impact the<br />
companies within that country in a few possible ways.<br />
1. If the companies hold government debt, losses from the debt restructuring can<br />
significantly affect their financial health. Financial institutions in particular tend<br />
to hold government debt, so the financial services sectors – microfinance and<br />
SME finance – of the impact investment universe could be especially at risk<br />
should the sovereign restructure its debt. Even if the particular impact investment<br />
does not own government debt, it will likely be affected indirectly by the increase<br />
in bond yields of the sector in which they operate.<br />
2. If the government debt is not held by the local companies, then there may be less<br />
of a direct impact on their financial health. However, the indirect impact of higher<br />
funding costs is likely to remain in place as many of these companies will be<br />
borrowing from financial institutions that may be holders of the government debt.<br />
With losses on the books, lending standards would be likely to tighten and<br />
borrowing costs could increase to compensate for those losses as well.<br />
Furthermore, foreign investors will also be likely to price in sovereign risk to the<br />
company itself, particularly as there will likely be further uncertainty as to<br />
sovereign policies going forward.<br />
Hedging country risk is also possible through sovereign credit default swaps, though<br />
liquidity will be challenging in many of the BoP markets we analyze and the required<br />
trade size may also be too large to make sense for most impact investments. Should<br />
the size and relevant country be accessible, the cost of hedging may be too high for<br />
debt investments, but may make sense for equity investments where higher returns<br />
are expected.<br />
Currency risk<br />
Currency risk will likely coincide with sovereign stress and uncertainty. As such, it<br />
will be driven by investor perception of the solvency of the country, but can also be<br />
impacted by technicals in the market. For example, Hungarian Forint, Mexican Peso<br />
and Turkish Lira are popular currencies from which to earn carry for many investors.<br />
The concentration of positions held by foreign investors and fears of contagion<br />
across the emerging markets can exacerbate volatility in times of general market<br />
stress, even if there is no particular country-specific news.<br />
Hedging currency risk depends on whether there is liquidity available in the<br />
currency. The most common hedging instrument is the non-deliverable forward,<br />
which allows investors to lock in a forward exchange rate at a given time in the<br />
future. In A Primer on Currency Risk Management for Microfinance Institutions 105 ,<br />
we present currency hedging considerations in more detail. The document is written<br />
with microfinance institutions in mind, but is generally applicable for hedging impact<br />
investments more broadly.<br />
Having seen the legal, reputational and financial risks with which an impact investor<br />
will be faced, we can now turn to the question of measuring the social impact of<br />
investments. After all, alongside the financial return and the financial risk, the social<br />
impact is equally critical to the success of the impact investment. The next section<br />
105 Published by J.P. Morgan <strong>Social</strong> Finance, 2010.<br />
71
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
explores how social impact is currently measured and what initiatives are in place to<br />
standardize this measurement across sectors and investors.<br />
Throughout, we use the term<br />
“social” to include social and<br />
environmental.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> impact risk: Metrics, standards and ratings<br />
We have defined impact investments as investments intended to create positive<br />
impact beyond financial return, which allows us to identify impact investments at the<br />
time of investment. But we cannot assess whether one of these investments has been<br />
successful without measuring the financial returns and the social impact. The<br />
financial performance measurement is arguably simpler (we’ve done this in Section<br />
3. Financial return expectations), as metrics are more readily transferred from the<br />
traditional investment world to impact investments 106 . Measuring social impact,<br />
however, remains a work-in-progress for many market participants, and in this<br />
section we explore the tools that are currently under development.<br />
Defining our terminology: Outcomes vs. output<br />
Before we can speak of impact measurement, we should define just what we are looking to measure. This section discusses the<br />
measurement of ‘impact’ because that is the term used by most market participants. However, in social science, ‘impact’ has a specific<br />
definition: it describes outcome(s) that can be attributed to a particular intervention, as depicted in Figure 26. An academic impact<br />
evaluation of a bednet manufacturer, for example, might entail a multi-year study on the incidence of malaria among target customers,<br />
with a control group to understand what would have happened to those customers if the company had not sold them bednets. This type<br />
of evaluation would provide the greatest possible certainty that the bednet company had delivered the social impact intended by its<br />
management.<br />
Figure 26: <strong>Impact</strong> Value Chain<br />
INPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS OUTCOMES<br />
GOAL<br />
ALIGNMENT<br />
What is put into<br />
the venture<br />
Venture’s<br />
primary<br />
actions<br />
Results that can<br />
be measured<br />
Changes to social<br />
systems<br />
Activity and goal<br />
adjustment<br />
WHAT WOULD<br />
HAVE HAPPENED<br />
ANYWAY<br />
LEADING INDICATORS<br />
= IMPACT<br />
Source: The Rockefeller Foundation, J.P. Morgan.<br />
Rigorous impact evaluation, including Randomized Control Trial (“RCT”), is powerful, but onerous and expensive in practice.<br />
Many impact investors therefore settle for measuring ‘activities’ or ‘outputs’ (such as number of bednets sold) rather than running<br />
control groups to measure the ‘impact’ 107 . Investors balance the need for rigorous impact evaluation against the need for simple,<br />
cost effective ways of measuring this impact. We believe the tools being developed to balance these needs should build on<br />
knowledge generated by the existing body of academic literature, while acknowledging the need for systems that add value and are<br />
pragmatic for investment activity.<br />
72<br />
106 While there is room for debate around the financial metrics of impact investments (such as<br />
‘risk-adjusted’ return), we leave the more detailed exploration of that topic for future research.<br />
107 There could also be ethical questions about running control groups if it meant denying the<br />
product or service to a part of the population that should have equal access.
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Investors measure impact for many reasons, and in many ways<br />
Participants in the impact investing industry are motivated, at least in part, by the<br />
desire to create positive impact. Entrepreneurs, fund managers, Limited Partner<br />
investors, service providers and other stakeholders may vary in the theories of social<br />
change with which they approach their investments, in the relative importance they<br />
place on impact or profitability, or in their requirements for impact measurement<br />
systems. Nonetheless, each will need some degree of information about the social<br />
performance of their investments. Even some traditional investors have begun to<br />
track the social performance of their portfolios in order to understand the impact they<br />
are having and the relationship between these metrics and financial return.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> impact can inform investment covenants, performance targets or certifications<br />
Beyond their own understanding of their impact, entrepreneurs and fund managers<br />
are also asked to provide social performance data to their investors. In some cases,<br />
the data is requested for initial due diligence or on an ongoing basis as a condition of<br />
investment. In other cases, they influence the way an investment is structured,<br />
informing covenants or performance targets the company is expected to meet over<br />
time. In addition, metrics may also be used for certification (e.g. fair trade labeling),<br />
compliance with regulatory requirements (e.g. Community Reinvestment Act<br />
investments in the US) or to access public loan guarantees or preferential tax<br />
treatment (as is the case with the GroenFunds scheme in the Netherlands). At an<br />
industry-wide level, social impact measurement will also ensure that the industry can<br />
demonstrate its ability to deliver multiple bottom line performance.<br />
<strong>Social</strong> impact performance data allows for comparisons across investments<br />
In addition to having different reasons for measuring impact, participants in the<br />
impact investing industry will use the measured data in different ways. Companies<br />
want to understand, track and report their social performance, and compare their<br />
performance with that of their peers. Fund managers also need a system for<br />
managing the variety of social performance information they receive from their<br />
portfolio companies. Limited partner investors often invest across different<br />
geographies, sectors and asset classes, with investments directly into companies as<br />
well as funds. They require an overarching framework to facilitate comparisons<br />
across these varied investments.<br />
Measuring impact is complicated, expensive and subjective<br />
Some investors seek a credible agency to whom they can effectively outsource their<br />
social due diligence; others want to perform this function in-house, but need a set of<br />
analytical tools to use. Almost all industry participants seek a set of industry<br />
benchmarks that can provide a standard framework for understanding the social<br />
performance of a company or fund, but there are significant challenges to designing<br />
the right system:<br />
1. Data collection can be resource intensive, expensive and difficult to execute<br />
In order to measure social impact, one needs data about a company’s practices,<br />
suppliers and clients. This data typically must be collected and reported by the<br />
company itself. Since many impact investments are small companies located in<br />
countries with limited infrastructure, the data can be difficult and costly to<br />
collect. As a result, company management may consider data collection as a<br />
distraction from business priorities, particularly in cases where investors’ impact<br />
goals are more expansive than those the company sets for itself.<br />
73
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
2. The tension between feasibility, credibility and cost<br />
In order to be certain of the relationship between a company’s activities and the<br />
desired social impact, an investor must know what would have happened absent<br />
that company’s activities. Furthermore, he must know what would have happened<br />
to the company were it not for his investment. As we described above,<br />
measurement against a control group is often considered the best way to answer<br />
these questions, but is often prohibitively expensive (or impossible) in practice.<br />
Investors can also be more confident in social performance data when it has been<br />
audited, ideally with third-party verification. Self-reported social performance<br />
data, much like financial data, are susceptible to error and deliberate<br />
misrepresentation. An assurance process, however, introduces significant costs,<br />
and it remains unclear how much investors will pay to enhance the credibility of<br />
social performance data.<br />
3. <strong>Impact</strong> investments exist within a complex system of impacts<br />
<strong>Social</strong> impact is difficult to parse out and attribute to a specific intervention. The<br />
extent of social impact of a water delivery business for example will result from a<br />
complex interplay of forces in a community including education levels, public<br />
health campaigns, or potential new job opportunities. Assessing social impact<br />
requires an understanding of the system in which a business operates that cannot<br />
be developed from company-level data alone.<br />
4. Diversified investors need to balance custom metrics and universal frameworks<br />
Investors that concentrate their impact investments in a single sector, such as<br />
microfinance or green real estate, may find that a single set of metrics is sufficient<br />
for assessing the social performance of their entire portfolio. For investors that<br />
invest across sectors and geographies, however, relying on a customized set of<br />
metrics for each business model or sector may make it difficult to understand the<br />
impact they are having across their portfolio or to compare potential investments.<br />
Diversified investors will seek out a common framework for understanding<br />
impact, which requires a less specific set (and weighting of metrics) that are<br />
comparable across investment types.<br />
5. Different people have different opinions about what matters<br />
There is no single metric for assessing the impact of an investment because<br />
people value things differently. Some investors, for example, place a high<br />
premium on environmental performance; others may consider poverty alleviation<br />
a much more important goal. Investors in a bednet manufacturer in India may<br />
differ in their views on whether the company creates more value by creating local<br />
jobs or by maximizing bednet production. Others will debate the importance of<br />
the bednet itself compared to clean water or education.<br />
6. Even if we agree on what matters, different metrics will give different conclusions<br />
In Does Microfinance Really Help Poor People (R Rosenberg, CGAP 2010),<br />
CGAP argues against two studies that found no evidence that microcredit loans<br />
improve household income or consumption over a 12- to 18-month period. CGAP<br />
proposes that those studies are measuring the wrong thing: that the impact of<br />
microfinance is best reflected by the increase in reliable access to financial<br />
instruments rather than in a change in household financial status, since many<br />
borrowers will already have had access to financial instruments via informal (but<br />
unreliable) providers. Further, they argue that while it seems unlikely that a year<br />
of microlending helps poor people as much as a year of primary education, the<br />
fact that the same level of government subsidy can support many more people to<br />
74
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
access financial services than to access education should be considered when<br />
weighing these alternative uses of capital.<br />
The values attached to social impact are by nature subjective and often driven by<br />
emotion (just as people tend to donate to charities with which they feel some<br />
connection). As a result, it is difficult to be objective when constructing an impact<br />
measurement system and when comparing investments on the basis of their impact.<br />
Investors often implicitly assign value to certain types of impact over others when<br />
deciding where and on what terms to allocate their capital. By instituting standard<br />
approaches to impact measurement, the industry can become more objective and<br />
transparent around the drivers of investment decisions.<br />
Reporting standards need to grow from the right definitions<br />
To date, most impact investors have created their own systems for tracking and<br />
measuring impact, which is inefficient for the market as a whole and limits<br />
comparability across investments. Indeed, among our survey respondents only 2%<br />
currently employ a third-party impact measurement system. As the market has<br />
grown, participants have identified that standardized, well-defined social<br />
performance metrics will ensure that impact investments can be assessed against a set<br />
of rigorous social impact criteria and compared more broadly.<br />
In defining measures of social impact, these standards must find the line between a<br />
level of detail that is too onerous to collect and one that is too superficial to be useful.<br />
For example, when asking businesses to collect data on the jobs they create, it may<br />
be reasonable to expect them to report the wages they paid, any benefits they offer<br />
and the skill level of the worker prior to employment. These are data that good<br />
management will know about their employees. But to rigorously assess the social<br />
impact of these jobs would also require additional data such as their prior income<br />
level and job history, and the alternative job opportunities in the community. It is<br />
unlikely that all businesses in an impact investing portfolio would be able to record<br />
all these data in a cost-effective and comparable manner (particularly without<br />
consistent definitions and data measurement standards).<br />
A common language for social performance metrics will encourage transparency,<br />
credibility and comparability, just as the International Financial Reporting Standards<br />
(IFRS) provide transparency and comparability across financial performance reports.<br />
A common taxonomy prevents the (false) side-by-side comparison of companies and<br />
funds on the basis of social metrics that may share the same name but have different<br />
underlying meanings, such as ‘jobs created’ and ‘number of poor consumers served’.<br />
Common reporting standards will also streamline and simplify the reporting<br />
requirements of entrepreneurs and fund managers, who sometimes face inconsistent<br />
requests for information from investors.<br />
IRIS is building the taxonomy to standardize social impact reporting<br />
If it is to be successful, this common language should function as a non-proprietary<br />
public good 108 . The <strong>Impact</strong> Reporting and Investment Standards (IRIS) initiative was<br />
launched in 2009 as a project of the Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network to develop this<br />
taxonomy and provide a reporting framework that is applicable across a range of<br />
108 It would not serve the interests of the industry, for example, to have multiple competing<br />
definitions of basic social metrics. Common reporting standards will also enable a variety of<br />
industry infrastructure to emerge, many of which may be private or proprietary in nature.<br />
75
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
sectors and geographies. The standards include metrics related to the social aspects<br />
of a business’ operational practices as well as of its products and services.<br />
The standards are overseen by an independent governance body that provides<br />
guidance toward the ongoing advancement of the framework and ensures its<br />
alignment with existing best practices. Furthermore, the standards are updated<br />
through an iterative review process that involves broad participation and objective<br />
consideration of comments provided by various industry stakeholders.<br />
With standard metrics in place, benchmarks can be developed<br />
Among other things, a set of standard definitions enables the production of industry<br />
benchmarks, and the IRIS initiative maintains a repository of IRIS-compatible<br />
performance data generated from across the impact investing field. These data are<br />
kept anonymously and, once sufficient data is collected, will be used to produce<br />
industry benchmarks and other aggregate analyses.<br />
Investors need to adopt this taxonomy to provide industry-wide comparability<br />
Common reporting standards will only improve investment efficiency and market<br />
intelligence with widespread adoption. The success of the IRIS reporting standards<br />
relies on broad participation by organizations that are committed both to assessing<br />
their social impact and to understanding the industry’s impact more broadly.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> rating systems will help inform investment decisions (and lower costs)<br />
With the IRIS reporting standards in place, a wider set of specialized information<br />
services, such as impact ratings, can reference that framework. Just as in financial<br />
risk measurement, a third-party rating system can reduce investors’ due diligence<br />
costs and enable performance benchmarking over the life of an investment 109 .<br />
Ratings can also improve the social impact of an investment by creating clear<br />
guidelines about what generates impact and enforcing accountability for impact<br />
across the sector as it grows. Specialized ratings have been developed in<br />
microfinance and US community development finance, which are among the most<br />
mature sectors of impact investing. The recent proliferation of investment<br />
opportunities across a variety of sectors, as well as countries, requires impact rating<br />
systems with equally broad reach.<br />
GIIRS will assign relative value to investments’ social impact<br />
The Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Rating System (GIIRS) was launched in 2010 in<br />
response to this need for a broader impact rating system. GIIRS, which is being<br />
incubated by the independent non-profit organization B Lab, will assess the social<br />
impact of companies and funds using a ratings approach analogous to S&P credit risk<br />
ratings. The GIIRS methodology utilizes IRIS reporting standards wherever<br />
applicable, and provides an overall company rating that is based on sub-ratings<br />
across five stakeholder categories and multiple sub-categories.<br />
GIIRS will provide company and fund ratings in both developed and emerging<br />
markets, and supplement individual ratings with tailored key performance indicators<br />
as well as benchmark and trend analysis. It is well suited for a number of impact<br />
109 We caution investors against relying solely on third-party ratings as nothing should<br />
substitute due diligence; rather they should be taken in conjunction with due diligence and can<br />
provide a standardized source for much of the information that currently is predominantly<br />
obtained through interviews that can be time consuming for both the investor and the investee.<br />
76
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
investors because it provides comparable ratings across diverse portfolios of<br />
investments, and investors have access to an aggregate rating, sub-ratings and<br />
individual underlying data points. A robust assurance process, which is being<br />
developed in coordination with the sustainability team at Deloitte, is intended to<br />
provide a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of data reported for investors.<br />
The current plan is to develop new versions of the rating methodology every two<br />
years under the oversight of an independent standards board. This dynamism is<br />
designed to enable the rating methodology to keep pace with developments in<br />
academic impact evaluation, evolution in business models and the experience of<br />
company and fund managers in collecting and reporting data related to social<br />
performance.<br />
77
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Appendix II: Glossary and acronyms<br />
• Angel investor: An affluent individual who provides capital for a start-up<br />
enterprise, usually in exchange for some stake in ownership equity.<br />
• BoP: The “Base of the pyramid” describes groups of people in emerging markets<br />
who earn less than $3,000 a year (2002 PPP) (World Resource institute.).<br />
• BoP+: Population with incomes exceeding BoP definition, but who can still<br />
benefit from impact investments that expand their access to services and<br />
opportunities.<br />
• BoP Penalty: The BoP often pay higher prices for basic goods and services than<br />
do wealthier consumers, either in financial or transaction cost, and often receive<br />
lower quality (World Resource Institute.).<br />
• Development finance institution (“DFI”): DFIs are government-controlled<br />
institutions that invest in private sector projects with a double bottom line<br />
objective of spurring development in emerging countries while remaining<br />
financially viable institutions.<br />
• Community development finance institution (“CDFI”): CDFIs are financial<br />
institutions created to reduce poverty in economically depressed areas, typically<br />
through providing credit, financial and other services to underserved markets or<br />
populations, mainly in the U.S. and U.K.<br />
• Double (or triple) bottom line: The simultaneous pursuit of a social enterprise<br />
or business to achieve financial, social and/or environmental returns on<br />
investment.<br />
• Invested capital: For non financial companies the sum of total shareholders<br />
equity and net debt. For microfinance total assets minus total deposits.<br />
• Mission-related investment (“MRI”): An investment capitalized with assets<br />
from the endowment of a foundation that seeks to create social impact as well as<br />
typically market-rate, risk-adjusted financial returns.<br />
• Plus Population: The population of people that are included in the BoP+<br />
classification but not in the BoP.<br />
• Program-related investment (“PRI”): An investment made by a US-based<br />
foundation that qualifies as a charitable expense under the tax code, allowing the<br />
foundation to include the investment as part of the 5% of assets it must distribute<br />
philanthropically each year.<br />
• Small and Medium Enterprises (“SME”): Many institutions and countries<br />
define SME differently, but often the size of an enterprise is determined by the<br />
number of employees or the annual sales generated by the business. The World<br />
Bank defines enterprises meeting two out of the following three criteria -:<br />
minimum 50 employees, under $3m in each assets and sales – as SMEs.<br />
• <strong>Social</strong> Entrepreneur/Enterprise: An entrepreneur or organization that pursues a<br />
double or triple bottom line business model, either alone (as a social sector<br />
business) or as part of a mixed revenue stream that includes charitable<br />
contributions and public sector subsidies.<br />
78
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
• <strong>Social</strong> performance vs. <strong>Social</strong> impact: <strong>Social</strong> performance refers to<br />
organizations’ direct inputs, outputs, and business activities that are designed to<br />
have a positive social or environmental effect. For example, a business providing<br />
affordable healthy school lunches to inner-city students may measure its social<br />
performance, in part, by recording and tracking the quantity of ingredients<br />
sourced from local organic farms (inputs), the number of lunches served<br />
(outputs), and the percentage of student customers whose families live below the<br />
poverty line (business activity). <strong>Social</strong> impact refers to a broader set of outcomes,<br />
such as increased income and assets for the poor, improved basic welfare for<br />
people in need, and mitigation of climate change. The desired social impact in the<br />
example of a business providing healthy school lunches might range from a<br />
reduction in childhood obesity to long-term poverty alleviation achieved through<br />
improved academic performance. Because social outcomes are more likely to be<br />
influenced by external factors, it is often difficult to attribute specific impact to a<br />
particular organization’s activities.<br />
• <strong>Social</strong> Return on Investment (“SROI”): SROI is an approach to understanding<br />
and managing the social impacts of a project, organization or policy. SROI seeks<br />
to provide a fuller picture of how value is created or destroyed through<br />
incorporating social, environmental and economic costs and benefits into the<br />
decision making process.<br />
• <strong>Social</strong>ly Responsible <strong>Investing</strong> (“SRI”) vs. <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong>: SRI historically<br />
described investing in companies, typically through publicly-traded securities,<br />
that favor strong environmental and social governance (“ESG”) policies and<br />
avoid investment in businesses involved in industries such as alcohol, tobacco,<br />
gambling, weapons and others. While socially responsible investors continue to<br />
rely primarily on public equities “screening” some also take active positions in<br />
voting proxies and engaged management to promote social causes. Alternatively,<br />
impact investing describes making investments that proactively intend to create<br />
positive impact beyond financial return, in addition to upholding strict ESG<br />
policies.<br />
• Underserved: Substantial markets of potential consumers, particularly within the<br />
BoP, remain underserved by commercial suppliers, thereby limiting or preventing<br />
these consumers from gaining access to quality, affordable basic goods and<br />
services.<br />
• Venture philanthropy: This style of philanthropy applies concepts and<br />
techniques from venture capital finance to achieve philanthropic goals and create<br />
social return.<br />
79
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Appendix III: CDFIs<br />
In depth: Community Development Finance Institutions in the US<br />
In the US, community development finance institutions (“CDFIs”) were some of the<br />
earliest impact investors. As non-profit companies created to reduce poverty in<br />
economically depressed areas, CDFIs evolved from depository institutions that<br />
emerged in the early 1900s to serve economically disadvantaged communities by<br />
lending capital from collected savings. Credit unions and banks dominated the<br />
industry until the 1960s and 1970s, when community development corporations and<br />
community development loan funds emerged to finance small business and<br />
affordable housing developers.<br />
As part of President Bill Clinton’s urban development agenda, a 1994 law formalized<br />
the legal concept of a CDFI and established a government-funded CDFI Fund to<br />
provide risk capital to spur investment in CDFIs. Since its inception, the CDFI Fund<br />
has awarded more than $1bn in funding and has granted allocations of New Market<br />
Tax Credits 110 that have attracted more than $26bn in private investment 111 .<br />
There are over 1,295 CDFIs currently functioning in the US, including more than<br />
400 community development loan funds, 80 venture capital funds, 290 credit unions<br />
and 350 community development banks. In the 2008 CDFI Data Project, a<br />
collaborative of the leading CDFI trade associations, 495 CDFIs were surveyed and<br />
sampled in industry landscaping research. The sample managed over $29bn in assets,<br />
with the average total asset size for each CDFI, being $59,408,271. They invested<br />
over $5.5bn in 2008. 40% of their investments were in housing, 37% in business, 8%<br />
in consumer finance, 4% in community services, 1% in micro-enterprise and 11% in<br />
other. Those investments created 35,524 jobs, financed 60,205 affordable housing<br />
units and provided 116,405 responsible mortgages for new home buyers 112 .<br />
During the last five years, the total assets for CDFIs in the Data Project grew by 10%<br />
per year. At this growth rate, the assets in this sample would grow to over $76bn in<br />
10 years. However, when compared to the $13.8 trillion under management by US<br />
banking institutions, CDFIs are a small subset of mainstream finance, and will need<br />
government support to reach scale. We expect that this support will mainly be given<br />
by the CDFI Fund. The CDFI Fund is the government’s most effective tool for<br />
increasing the asset size of CDFIs. The CDFI Fund estimates that for every dollar<br />
that they give in financial assistance, they leverage $20 in private and non-CDFI<br />
public capital 113 . This is a highly promising statistic for the CDFI industry, given that<br />
the Obama administration has increased the CDFI financial assistance appropriations<br />
to a record $245m in FY 2010 and $250m in FY2011, up substantially from the<br />
$54m in appropriations in 2007 and $107m in FY 2009. The new appropriations<br />
budget is projected to leverage an additional $2.7bn in private financing.<br />
110 The New Markets Tax Credits program is a program administered by the U.S. Department<br />
of Treasury and the CDFI Fund to encourage economic development in low income<br />
communities.<br />
111 The CDFI Fund, http://www.cdfifund.gov/who_we_are/about_us.asp<br />
112 FY 2008 CDFI Data Project Report, CDP Publication Committee. 8th ed. Philadelphia:<br />
Opportunity Finance Network, 2010.<br />
113 http://www.community-wealth.org/_pdfs/featured/bang-for-buck.pdf<br />
80
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> investors have found various avenues to invest in CDFIs. They can invest<br />
into community development venture and loan funds or direct capital into a CDFI<br />
bank. To invest in a public CDFI bank, investors can buy stock, negotiate a PIPE<br />
transaction (Private Investment in Public Equity) or enter into a preferred stock<br />
transaction with a warrant. In both private and public CDFI banks, investors can<br />
purchase trust-preferred securities 114 or make linked deposits, which reduce the<br />
interest rate to a particular borrower or act as a guarantee for borrowers who would<br />
not be able to access capital independently. Lastly, impact investors who wish to<br />
support community development credit unions (that cannot take on equity due to<br />
their non-profit status), can support them through a deposit or through “secondary<br />
capital” subordinated debt that strengthens the existing capital of the credit union.<br />
114 Trust preferred securities are long-term debt instruments with qualities of preferred equity.<br />
81
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Appendix IV: GIIN Survey participants<br />
• Acumen Fund<br />
• Anne E. Casey Foundation<br />
• Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation<br />
• Bridges Ventures<br />
• Calvert Foundation<br />
• DOEN Foundation<br />
• E+Co<br />
• EcoEnterprises Fund<br />
• Equilibrium Capital Group<br />
• Gatsby Charitable Foundation<br />
• Gray Ghost Ventures<br />
• IGNIA<br />
• J.P. Morgan<br />
• LeapFrog Investments<br />
• Lundin for Africa<br />
• Omidyar Network<br />
• Prudential<br />
• The Rockefeller Foundation<br />
• Root Capital<br />
• Sarona Asset Management<br />
• SNS Asset Management<br />
• TIAA-CREF<br />
• W.K. Kellogg Foundation<br />
• Wolfensohn Fund Management L.P.<br />
82
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Appendix V: Additional returns data<br />
Figure 27: Sector distribution of notional<br />
MF<br />
11%<br />
EI<br />
12%<br />
SE<br />
5%<br />
FT<br />
1%<br />
AH<br />
28%<br />
CDFI<br />
43%<br />
Source: Calvert Foundation, J.P. Morgan.<br />
CDFI = Community development finance institution;<br />
AH = Affordable housing; MF = Microfinance;<br />
EI = Environmental initiative; SE = <strong>Social</strong> enterprise;<br />
FT = Fair trade<br />
In depth: US-based fixed income reveal a flat (but disperse) range of yields<br />
Characteristics of the data set: Instruments, sectors, geographies<br />
While the GIIN survey represents a broad spectrum of impact investments across<br />
sector and instrument type, we have also been granted access to a set of data on fixed<br />
income investments that spans a longer history. The data set, provided by Calvert<br />
Foundation 115 , covers 1,587 predominantly fixed-rate debt investments going back as<br />
far as 1990 and totaling $1.385bn in notional. There are three instrument types with<br />
enough data to explore, and the distribution of deals and notionals across instrument<br />
type is shown in Table 25. The investments themselves span sectors including<br />
community development finance initiatives (“CDFIs”), affordable housing,<br />
environmental initiatives, fair trade, microfinance, and social enterprise. Figure 27<br />
shows the distribution of sectors across the data set, and Table 26 shows the data in<br />
terms of number of deals as well as notional.<br />
The geographic distribution of this data set is heavily focused on investments in the<br />
US, representing 91% of the deals and 94% of the notional in the database. The<br />
investments in the US tend to target companies in poor communities that either<br />
provide basic services such as housing to low-income families or hire underemployed<br />
people in these communities. Table 27 shows the number of deals and<br />
notional invested in the most commonly referenced countries in the database. After<br />
the US, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Azerbaijan and Bolivia are most frequently represented,<br />
albeit only by 1% of the total notional each. The remaining deals were done in 26<br />
other countries.<br />
Table 25: Instrument distribution<br />
# of<br />
deals<br />
Notional<br />
(USD mm)<br />
Debt — Fixed Rate 1,492 1,228<br />
Debt — Variable Rate 63 86<br />
Debt — LOC 32 55<br />
Total 1,587 1,369<br />
Source: Calvert Foundation, J.P. Morgan.<br />
Table 26: Sector distribution<br />
# of<br />
deals<br />
Notional<br />
(USD mm)<br />
CDFI 870 588<br />
Affordable Housing 225 386<br />
Microfinance 195 146<br />
Environment 165 161<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Enterprise 80 72<br />
Fair Trade 52 15<br />
Total 1,587 1,369<br />
Source: Calvert Foundation, J.P. Morgan.<br />
Table 27: Geographic distribution<br />
# of<br />
deals<br />
Notional<br />
(USD mm)<br />
United States 1,437 1,294<br />
Nicaragua 29 11<br />
Ecuador 27 19<br />
Azerbaijan 20 9<br />
Bolivia 11 10<br />
Other 63 28<br />
Total 1,587 1,369<br />
Source: Calvert Foundation, J.P. Morgan.<br />
Illustrating the yield curves<br />
Based on our characterization above, we can see that this data set is a subset of the<br />
impact investment space focused on US-based fixed income investments. Given this<br />
context, we can now look at the financial information revealed by the data set. The<br />
most interesting characteristics are the interest rates charged across tenors for the<br />
various instruments. Essentially, by plotting the interest rates against tenor for the<br />
data sets by instruments in Figure 28, Figure 29, and Figure 30, we look to see<br />
whether an impact investment yield curve emerges. Interestingly, there is not much<br />
of a yield curve at all, but rather a fairly disperse range of interest rates. This<br />
115 This is a set of transactions that borrowers from the Calvert Foundation have engaged in.<br />
83
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
dispersion indicates that there can be room for investors with a range of return<br />
requirements, particularly those with a higher cost of capital 116 .<br />
Figure 28: Fixed rate debt<br />
x-axis: Tenor (years); y-axis: Interest rate<br />
Figure 29: Variable rate debt<br />
x-axis: Tenor (years); y-axis: Spread above<br />
benchmark (basis points)<br />
Figure 30: Line of Credit<br />
x-axis: Tenor (years); y-axis: Interest rate<br />
20%<br />
15%<br />
10%<br />
5%<br />
0%<br />
0 10 20 30<br />
500<br />
400<br />
300<br />
200<br />
100<br />
0<br />
-100<br />
-200<br />
-300<br />
0 10 20 30<br />
10%<br />
8%<br />
6%<br />
4%<br />
2%<br />
0%<br />
0 10 20 30<br />
Source: Calvert Foundation, J.P. Morgan<br />
Source: Calvert Foundation, J.P. Morgan.<br />
Note: These spreads reference different benchmarks, including<br />
US Prime, LIBOR and Euribor.<br />
Source: Calvert Foundation, J.P. Morgan<br />
Focusing in on the fixed-rate transactions where we have the most data, we illustrate<br />
the average rates just for the sake of further information. Figure 31 shows the<br />
average rate per tenor (blue line) and the number of transactions that inform that<br />
average. Clearly, there is more data in the shorter tenors, and also at the 10-year<br />
point. Nonetheless, we caution much interpretation of this chart since, as we saw<br />
above, there is a wide dispersion around these averages. So rather than focusing too<br />
much on the slightly downward sloping nature of the curve shown in Figure 31, we<br />
conclude from the scatter plots above that there is a fairly flat range of yields across<br />
tenors. We do note that the data is more heavily weighted toward recent deals.<br />
Figure 31: Fixed-rate yield curve<br />
Blue line shows the average yield for a given tenor (left-hand axis); Grey columns show the number of deals<br />
contributing to each tenor’s data set (right-hand axis).<br />
6%<br />
5%<br />
4%<br />
3%<br />
2%<br />
1%<br />
0%<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10<br />
300<br />
250<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
0<br />
Source: Calvert Foundation, J.P. Morgan.<br />
116 Anecdotally we believe that historical data oversamples investors that are more<br />
concessionary on returns (as is considered to be the case with Calvert Foundation).<br />
84
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
There are a few marketplace dynamics we can consider to potentially explain the<br />
lack of a traditional upward slope to the yield curve, as well as the high level of<br />
dispersion across realized rates:<br />
1. Debt impact investments can be compared to high yield credit investing, where<br />
yield curves can often be downward sloping to reflect the near term risk of<br />
smaller companies in growth phases 117 .<br />
2. Foundations and/or government programs may be more comfortable lending at<br />
subsidized rates. This could keep longer-term yields artificially low.<br />
In any case, we find it intriguing that there have been transactions made at such a<br />
range of interest rates, since this reveals that there can be a place in the market for<br />
investors that might demand a range of return expectations. We also would have<br />
liked to analyze risk data on this portfolio, but the database was compiled at the time<br />
of investment without tracking defaults or payments in arrears over time. We<br />
anticipate that future data sets will begin to incorporate more of these kinds of risk<br />
metrics, and future analysis will then be possible on the risk profiles as well.<br />
IFC’s sample of private equity returns<br />
While our survey did not produce enough realized return data on private equity<br />
impact investments to analyze in a significant way, we did receive the<br />
performance history of one long-term private equity investor in the international<br />
development arena. The IFC has been investing to encourage private sector<br />
development in EM for over twenty years. While some part of IFC’s investment<br />
portfolio may not meet our definition of impact investments, we believe it is a<br />
representative sample of how a portfolio of EM equity investments can perform.<br />
The data is shown in Figure 32, where we can see that the IFC portfolio has<br />
outperformed the Cambridge Associates Emerging Market Venture Capital and<br />
Private Equity Index over much of the past twenty years.<br />
Figure 32: Private equity portfolio returns for IFC against benchmark<br />
IRR by vintage year<br />
35%<br />
30%<br />
25%<br />
20%<br />
15%<br />
10%<br />
5%<br />
0%<br />
Net IRR IFC ALAC (simulated)<br />
Pooled Mean – EM Benchmark<br />
intrapolation<br />
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005<br />
Source: IFC, Cambridge Associates. To simulate performance for comparison, each vintage year represents start of a notional fund<br />
with 5-year investment period that includes every IFC equity investment in that time period. Investments held until exit or June 30,<br />
2010. Performance simulated on 5-year rolling-basis, i.e. each investment considered in several vintage years. Cambridge Associates<br />
Emerging Markets Venture Capital and Private Equity Index (March 2010).<br />
117 The concept is that the highest risk lies in the near term, as the company establishes itself.<br />
If it overcomes the initial hurdles to financial sustainability, the risk is expected to subside.<br />
Yields for longer tenors can be lower to reflect this expectation.<br />
85
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Table 28: Venture Capital annualized returns in developed and emerging markets<br />
(% to June 30, 2010)<br />
US Venture Capital Emerging Markets Private Equity and Venture Capital<br />
Last 5 years 4.27 13.7<br />
Last 10 years -4.15 7.7<br />
Source: Cambridge Associates<br />
86
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Appendix VI: Notes on market sizing<br />
Population data from the World Resources Institute<br />
The work done by the WRI in The Next 4 Billion has proven invaluable to us in<br />
identifying target markets for our business case studies. By having divided the BoP<br />
population into income brackets of $500, the WRI study allows us to count how<br />
many people or households fall within the population that can afford our case study’s<br />
product or service.<br />
Per capita income brackets and affordability<br />
The starting points are the per capita income brackets defined by the WRI in $500<br />
increments of 2002 international dollars (PPP). The 2002 numbers are used for ease<br />
of reference as they are nicely rounded figures; in our work, we use the 2005 figures<br />
also provided to avoid having to deflate our financials by too many years (since the<br />
more we do that, the more we assume a constant state of nature outside inflation).<br />
The affordability test is then also applied in 2005 PPP terms, for comparability.<br />
However, when it comes to calculating the actual business financials – e.g. potential<br />
revenues and profits – the current USD equivalent is presented, since this is an actual<br />
figure that can exist in the marketplace as opposed to the more theoretical PPP<br />
numbers.<br />
The per capita income data is referenced by the WRI to be calculated using the<br />
methodology presented in Worlds Apart: Measuring Global and International<br />
Inequality, by Branko Milanovic 118 , Lead Economist in the World Bank research<br />
group. The methodology constructs an income distribution for each country, which<br />
then gives the income distribution for the BoP segment of the population. This gives<br />
the number of people in each income bracket, which we use in some of our sector<br />
analysis. Other sector analyses, though, require the per household income brackets,<br />
for which we explain the calculation next.<br />
Translating from per capita to household income brackets<br />
One of the sectors where we consider the household income is the housing sector,<br />
since a home is a purchase made by the earning members of the household together.<br />
In the case of housing, we had used a case study based in India, so we illustrate the<br />
calculation made using India as an example in Table 29 and Table 30. First, in Table<br />
29, we calculate an average number of people per household – 5.3, from the WRI<br />
data – and multiply that number by the economic activity rate for India, which is<br />
69% according to the UN Statistics Division, giving an average number of earners<br />
per household of 3.7 people. Then, in Table 30 we translate the per capita income<br />
brackets by multiplying the incomes by the number of earners per household.<br />
118 Worlds Apart: Measuring Global and International Inequality, B Milanovic, Princeton<br />
University Press, 2005.<br />
87
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Table 29: India population data<br />
Divide the total population by the number of households to obtain an average<br />
household size. Then multiply by the economic activity rate to obtain average<br />
number of earners per household.<br />
India<br />
Total Population 973<br />
Households 183.3<br />
People per household 5.3<br />
Economic activity rate 69%<br />
Earners per household 3.7<br />
Source: WRI, UN Statistics Division. Note that the average number of people per household is<br />
calculated based on population and household numbers for the entire population, not just the<br />
BoP.<br />
Table 30: Indian household income bracket conversion<br />
Multiplying the per capita income by the number of earners gives a household<br />
income bracket.<br />
Per capita income bracket India household<br />
income brackets<br />
2002 PPP 2005 PPP 2005 PPP<br />
A 3,000 3,260 11,923<br />
B 2,500 2,717 9,936<br />
C 2,000 2,173 7,949<br />
D 1,500 1,630 5,962<br />
E 1,000 1,087 3,974<br />
F 500 543 1,987<br />
Source: WRI.<br />
Calculating the number of households<br />
Having translated the per capita income brackets into per household income brackets,<br />
we can then reference the population data provided by WRI again to see how many<br />
people fall within the brackets that will afford our products or services. But again, in<br />
the case of housing, it is most relevant to have the number of households (rather than<br />
number of people), so we need to translate the population data. Table 31 shows the<br />
steps to the calculation. We start with the number of people in each income bracket,<br />
and then focus in on the urban population (since our housing case study was for<br />
urban populations). Once we have the number of urban people in 2005, we can grow<br />
that number using the WRI’s urban Indian population growth rate, which is 0.9%<br />
over the period from 2005 – 2010. Finally, we scale the number of urban people in<br />
each bracket by the economic activity rate from Table 29 to get the total number of<br />
people (earners and non-earners), and then divide by the average number of people<br />
per household.<br />
Table 31: The number of households in India's BoP income brackets<br />
To grow the population from 2005 to 2010, apply India’s 0.9% urban population growth rate for 5 yrs.<br />
India<br />
Household<br />
Income<br />
brackets<br />
Number of<br />
people<br />
% Urban Number of<br />
urban people<br />
Number of<br />
urban people<br />
Number of<br />
households<br />
2005 PPP 2005 2005 2005 2010 2010<br />
A 11,923 31.5 68% 21.3 22.3 6.1<br />
B 9,936 68.3 53% 36.5 38.1 10.4<br />
C 7,949 147 37% 55.0 57.5 15.7<br />
D 5,962 309 20% 61.2 64.0 17.5<br />
E 3,974 349 8% 28.6 29.9 8.2<br />
F 1,987 19.3 6% 1.1 1.1 0.3<br />
Source: WRI. 0.9% growth rate is the urban population growth rate for India over the period from 2005 – 2010 according to the WRI<br />
database.<br />
Relationship between revenues and invested capital<br />
Shifting from the income statement to the balance sheet: Assume a ratio of<br />
expenses to total invested capital = 1 to 1<br />
Our analysis estimates the potential market for selected goods and services to BoP<br />
consumers. We present the revenue opportunities, assume an operating margin and<br />
hence arrive at estimates of expenses and profit.<br />
In order to move from the income statement to the balance sheet and calculate<br />
required capital it is necessary to make an assumption regarding the relationship<br />
between Invested Capital and the revenue base of the company. This relationship is<br />
88
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
not something that financial analysts are called upon to estimate and there is no<br />
established methodology or rules for doing so. In order to make a reasonable estimate<br />
we took a sample of global small cap equities. Our sample consisted of almost 6,000<br />
non financial companies with Market Caps between $100m and $1bn. We also<br />
excluded any companies with sales of less than $10m. The results are shown by<br />
region in Table 32. While there is obviously dispersion and the ratio is driven by,<br />
among other factors, the capital intensity of the business we found the average Sales<br />
to Invested Capital ratio to be 99.7% and hence have used a 1 to 1 ratio in all our<br />
sizing studies.<br />
Table 32: Small caps by region (market cap $100m–1bn)<br />
Region<br />
Sales/Invested Capital<br />
Europe 95.7%<br />
US 114.8%<br />
Asia (ex Japan) 86.9%<br />
Japan 157.6%<br />
LatAm 77.9%<br />
Global 99.7%<br />
Source: J.P. Morgan<br />
89
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Microfinance<br />
The underlying data used in our microfinance market sizing is presented in Table 33.<br />
Table 33: Country data on microfinance institutions<br />
Total assets, deposits and market opportunity shown in USD mm; Penetration rates are calculated as # of borrowers divided by # of adults.<br />
Total<br />
Assets Deposits Penetration<br />
Market<br />
Opportunity<br />
Total<br />
Assets Deposits Penetration<br />
Market<br />
Opportunity<br />
Country USD mm USD mm USD mm Country USD mm USD mm USD mm<br />
Afghanistan 255 67 2% 652Madagascar 58 19 0% 656<br />
Albania 500 290 11% 285Malawi 53 26 2% 74<br />
Angola 10 2 0% 837Malaysia 232 38 7% 1,879<br />
Argentina 30 0 0% 2,214Mali 175 75 3% 175<br />
Armenia 676 150 17% -Mexico 3,098 1,333 24% 988<br />
Azerbaijan 1,036 284 8% 535Moldova 124 14 1% 1,247<br />
Bangladesh 3,020 1,443 28% -Mongolia 832 599 42% -<br />
Benin 176 89 5% 196Montenegro 230 126 29% 6<br />
Bolivia 2,011 1,204 13% -Morocco 845 - 21% 565<br />
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1,159 238 60% -Mozambique 64 50 1% 225<br />
Brazil 680 173 2% 7,548Nepal 154 39 7% 212<br />
Bulgaria 798 505 7% 1,827Nicaragua 677 119 18% -<br />
Burkina Faso 156 107 2% 215Niger 21 5 1% 97<br />
Burundi 3 1 0% 59Nigeria 104 38 1% 1,494<br />
Cambodia 1,023 493 21% -Pakistan 338 53 2% 2,137<br />
Cameroon 360 287 3% 321Palestine 157 72 2% 548<br />
Central African Republic 9 8 0% 67Panama 20 4 1% 282<br />
Chad 10 5 0% 133Papua New Guinea 31 23 0% 339<br />
Chile 911 315 7% 2,972Paraguay 449 315 24% 34<br />
China 33 2 0% 64,018Peru 4,948 2,748 18% -<br />
Colombia 4,166 2,636 7% 721Philippines 766 388 11% 515<br />
Congo, DR 9 8 0% 54Poland 58 - 0% 9,746<br />
Congo 123 51 0% 3,412Romania 520 210 1% 7,840<br />
Costa Rica 69 0 2% 903Russian Federation 2,750 1,357 1% 62,874<br />
Cote D'Ivoire 177 164 1% 309Rwanda 25 8 1% 148<br />
Dominican R. 239 85 4% 364Samoa 1 0 7% 1<br />
East Timor 4 1 3% 10Senegal 378 200 5% 357<br />
Ecuador 1,511 671 11% 176Serbia 1,211 534 9% 1,415<br />
Egypt 275 1 7% 1,346Sierra Leone 14 4 1% 100<br />
El Salvador 469 211 8% 215South Africa 515 155 5% 1,211<br />
Ethiopia 535 173 5% 457Sri Lanka 381 259 22% 50<br />
Gambia, The 7 5 2% 6Sudan 11 0 0% 1,151<br />
Georgia 524 192 6% 403Swaziland 34 - 1% 358<br />
Ghana 210 127 5% 226Syria 18 0 0% 1,289<br />
Guatemala 187 2 4% 329Tajikistan 429 179 3% 488<br />
Guinea 22 8 2% 71Tanzania 1,166 963 2% 1,464<br />
Haiti 71 13 2% 225Thailand 1 - 0% 1,096<br />
Honduras 285 46 5% 291Togo 123 95 3% 84<br />
India 2,684 92 5% 8,707Trinidad and Tobago 5 - 0% 358<br />
Indonesia 110 47 13% 140Tunisia 37 - 12% 245<br />
Jordan 136 0 17% 231Turkey 5 0 0% 1,465<br />
Kazakhstan 179 - 3% 2,948Uganda 325 207 3% 443<br />
Kenya 1,512 880 6% 574Ukraine 418 175 1% 14,736<br />
Kosovo 1,020 796 19% -Uruguay 3 - 0% 923<br />
Kyrgyzstan 383 112 11% 95Uzbekistan 194 56 1% 3,655<br />
Laos 15 2 0% 939Venezuela 174 102 0% 2,364<br />
Lebanon 25 - 3% 274Vietnam 3,187 1,015 28% -<br />
Liberia 1 0 1% 15Yemen 4 0 0% 182<br />
Macedonia, FYR 324 193 11% 243Zambia 8 1 0% 206<br />
Source: MIX Market, J.P. Morgan. Penetration rates are calculated by MIX who cite that the number of poor people is determined using national poverty rates.<br />
90
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Appendix VII: Further reading<br />
The Mystery of Capital, Hernando de Soto<br />
Presents the concept of “dead capital” in many emerging markets: Due to extensive<br />
bureaucracy and high registration costs, assets are owned informally (outside the<br />
legal infrastructure), which then limits the owner’s ability to realize the value of<br />
those assets in future transactions.<br />
The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, C.K. Prahalad<br />
The original thesis that profitable business models can serve to improve the lives of<br />
poor people. The latest edition (2010 at time of publishing) includes case studies of<br />
some of the most prominent examples of impact investments.<br />
The Next 4 Billion, World Resources Institute<br />
A survey of the population that comprises the base of the economic pyramid,<br />
globally. The work includes analysis of income and expenditure data for poor<br />
households across sectors including Healthcare, Food, Water, Housing, Energy,<br />
Transportation, Information and Communication Technology.<br />
New Frontiers of Philanthropy: A Guide to the New Actors and New Tools that<br />
Are Reshaping Global Philanthropy and <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Investing</strong>, edited by Lester M.<br />
Salamon<br />
Provides an overview and roadmap of the significant proliferation of new actors and<br />
tools that have emerged in the philanthropic and social investing arena. (Forthcoming<br />
Spring 2011.)<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Social</strong> and Environmental <strong>Impact</strong>: A Design for Catalyzing an<br />
Emerging Industry, The Monitor Institute<br />
An outline of the developments that would facilitate the growth of the impact<br />
investing industry.<br />
<strong>Investing</strong> for <strong>Impact</strong>: Case Studies Across Asset Classes, Bridges Ventures and<br />
The Parthenon Group<br />
An introduction to impacting investing and a showcase of current examples of impact<br />
investments across the impact- and financial-first spectrum.<br />
Emerging Markets, Emerging Models, Monitor Group<br />
Analyses the behaviors, economics and social outcomes of different types of social<br />
enterprise business models in India.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong>: A Framework for Policy Design and Analysis, Ben Thornley,<br />
David Wood, Katie Grace, and Sarah Sullivan<br />
Describes the role of government in impact investing markets and is a resource for<br />
designing policy with the objective of catalyzing private capital. Includes sixteen<br />
detailed case studies of policies from around the world. (Forthcoming December<br />
2010.)<br />
Financing Change: <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> for Blended Value, Antony Bugg-Levine<br />
and Jed Emerson –<br />
An overview of the emergence of the global impact investing industry and<br />
description of the opportunities and challenges it creates for how we invest, address<br />
social challenges, regulate investment and philanthropy, and develop leadership.<br />
(Forthcoming 2011.)<br />
91
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Table of Figures<br />
Figure 1: Defining impact investing ............................................................................7<br />
Figure 2: Business sectors for impact investments ......................................................7<br />
Figure 3: Ways in which businesses can deliver impact..............................................8<br />
Figure 4: Average return expectations by instrument and region ..............................10<br />
Figure 5: Defining impact investing ..........................................................................14<br />
Figure 6: Business sectors for impact investments ....................................................19<br />
Figure 7: Ways in which businesses can deliver impact............................................20<br />
Figure 8: Average return expectations by instrument and region ..............................32<br />
Figure 9: Expected returns – Developed markets debt investments...........................33<br />
Figure 10: Expected returns – Emerging markets debt investments ..........................33<br />
Figure 11: Expected returns – Developed markets equity investments .....................33<br />
Figure 12: Expected returns – Emerging markets equity investments.......................33<br />
Figure 13: Realized returns – Developed market debt investments...........................34<br />
Figure 14: Realized returns – Emerging market debt investments.............................34<br />
Figure 15: Distribution of investment sizes across reported investments ..................35<br />
Figure 16: Just the larger investments........................................................................35<br />
Figure 17: Management fees......................................................................................36<br />
Figure 18: Carry fees .................................................................................................36<br />
Figure 19: Respondents’ impact measurement system ..............................................37<br />
Figure 20: Local currency exposure...........................................................................37<br />
Figure 21: Company vs. fund investments.................................................................37<br />
Figure 22: Penetration rates by village size ...............................................................52<br />
Figure 23: R-Jolad patients by income level..............................................................54<br />
Figure 24: Average # of deliveries per month............................................................55<br />
Figure 25: Cost of doctor per patient (USD)..............................................................55<br />
Figure 26: <strong>Impact</strong> Value Chain..................................................................................72<br />
Figure 27: Sector distribution of notional ..................................................................83<br />
Figure 28: Fixed rate debt..........................................................................................84<br />
Figure 29: Variable rate debt .....................................................................................84<br />
Figure 30: Line of Credit ...........................................................................................84<br />
Figure 31: Fixed-rate yield curve...............................................................................84<br />
Figure 32: Private equity portfolio returns for IFC against benchmark .....................85<br />
92
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Table of Tables<br />
Table 1: Potential invested capital to fund selected BoP businesses over the next 10<br />
years .................................................................................................................12<br />
Table 2: Breaking out impact objectives in more detail.............................................19<br />
Table 3: Instrument distribution.................................................................................31<br />
Table 4: Sector distribution........................................................................................31<br />
Table 5: Geographic distribution ...............................................................................31<br />
Table 6: Potential invested capital to fund selected BoP businesses over the next 10<br />
years .................................................................................................................39<br />
Table 7: Sizing template, using housing as an example.............................................44<br />
Table 8: BoP per capita income brackets and population ..........................................45<br />
Table 9: Household income brackets – India.............................................................46<br />
Table 10: Affordability testing...................................................................................46<br />
Table 11: Countries included in WRI data.................................................................47<br />
Table 12: Water market sizing...................................................................................51<br />
Table 13: Household income brackets – India...........................................................51<br />
Table 14: Affordability test........................................................................................51<br />
Table 15: Target population.......................................................................................52<br />
Table 16: Health market sizing ..................................................................................54<br />
Table 17: Income brackets.........................................................................................54<br />
Table 18: Affordability test........................................................................................54<br />
Table 19: Target population.......................................................................................56<br />
Table 20: Household income brackets .......................................................................57<br />
Table 21: Education market sizing.............................................................................57<br />
Table 22: Target population.......................................................................................58<br />
Table 23: Microfinance penetration rates currently above 20% ................................62<br />
Table 24: Microfinance market sizing .......................................................................62<br />
Table 25: Instrument distribution...............................................................................83<br />
Table 26: Sector distribution......................................................................................83<br />
Table 27: Geographic distribution .............................................................................83<br />
Table 28: Venture Capital annualized returns in developed and emerging markets ..86<br />
Table 29: India population data .................................................................................88<br />
Table 30: Indian household income bracket conversion............................................88<br />
Table 31: The number of households in India's BoP income brackets.......................88<br />
Table 32: Small caps by region (market cap $100m–1bn).........................................89<br />
Table 33: Country data on microfinance institutions.................................................90<br />
93
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
94
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
Disclosures<br />
J.P. Morgan (“JPM”) is the global brand name for J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (“JPMS”) and its affiliates worldwide. J.P. Morgan Cazenove is a<br />
marketing name for the U.K. investment banking businesses and EMEA cash equities and equity research businesses of JPMorgan Chase & Co.<br />
and its subsidiaries.<br />
The Rockefeller Foundation’s Harnessing the Power of <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> initiative aims to support the development of leadership platforms,<br />
infrastructure, and intermediation capabilities that can efficiently place for-profit impact investments to improve a wide range of social and/or<br />
environmental conditions. The Initiative also seeks to contribute to fundamental research about impact investing so that its promise and challenges<br />
are widely understood. The Rockefeller Foundation has partnered with JPMorgan and the Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network to produce this<br />
research report as a publicly-available resource for all stakeholders interested in supporting the development of a vibrant impact investing<br />
industry. Readers should be aware that the Rockefeller Foundation has had and will continue to have relationships with many of the organizations<br />
identified in this report, including through the provision of grant funding and Program Related Investments.<br />
Readers should be aware that the GIIN has had and will continue to have relationships with many of the organizations identified in this report,<br />
through some of which the GIIN has received and will continue to receive financial and other support.<br />
J.P. Morgan is an inaugural sponsor of the GIIN and a founding member of its Investors’ Council.<br />
Legal Entities Disclosures<br />
U.S.: JPMS is a member of NYSE, FINRA and SIPC. J.P. Morgan Futures Inc. is a member of the NFA. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a<br />
member of FDIC and is authorized and regulated in the UK by the Financial Services Authority. U.K.: J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. (JPMSL) is a<br />
member of the London Stock Exchange and is authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in England & Wales No.<br />
2711006. Registered Office 125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AJ. South Africa: J.P. Morgan Equities Limited is a member of the Johannesburg<br />
Securities Exchange and is regulated by the FSB. Hong Kong: J.P. Morgan Securities (Asia Pacific) Limited (CE number AAJ321) is regulated<br />
by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong. Korea: J.P. Morgan Securities (Far East) Ltd,<br />
Seoul Branch, is regulated by the Korea Financial Supervisory Service. Australia: J.P. Morgan Australia Limited (ABN 52 002 888 011/AFS<br />
Licence No: 238188) is regulated by ASIC and J.P. Morgan Securities Australia Limited (ABN 61 003 245 234/AFS Licence No: 238066) is a<br />
Market Participant with the ASX and regulated by ASIC. Taiwan: J.P.Morgan Securities (Taiwan) Limited is a participant of the Taiwan Stock<br />
Exchange (company-type) and regulated by the Taiwan Securities and Futures Bureau. India: J.P. Morgan India Private Limited is a member of<br />
the National Stock Exchange of India Limited and Bombay Stock Exchange Limited and is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Board of<br />
India. Thailand: JPMorgan Securities (Thailand) Limited is a member of the Stock Exchange of Thailand and is regulated by the Ministry of<br />
Finance and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Indonesia: PT J.P. Morgan Securities Indonesia is a member of the Indonesia Stock<br />
Exchange and is regulated by the BAPEPAM LK. Philippines: J.P. Morgan Securities Philippines Inc. is a member of the Philippine Stock<br />
Exchange and is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Brazil: Banco J.P. Morgan S.A. is regulated by the Comissao de Valores<br />
Mobiliarios (CVM) and by the Central Bank of Brazil. Mexico: J.P. Morgan Casa de Bolsa, S.A. de C.V., J.P. Morgan Grupo Financiero is a<br />
member of the Mexican Stock Exchange and authorized to act as a broker dealer by the National Banking and Securities Exchange Commission.<br />
Singapore: This material is issued and distributed in Singapore by J.P. Morgan Securities Singapore Private Limited (JPMSS) [MICA (P)<br />
020/01/2010 and Co. Reg. No.: 199405335R] which is a member of the Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited and is regulated by the<br />
Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and/or JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Singapore branch (JPMCB Singapore) which is regulated by the<br />
MAS. Malaysia: This material is issued and distributed in Malaysia by JPMorgan Securities (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (18146-X) which is a<br />
Participating Organization of Bursa Malaysia Berhad and a holder of Capital Markets Services License issued by the Securities Commission in<br />
Malaysia. Pakistan: J. P. Morgan Pakistan Broking (Pvt.) Ltd is a member of the Karachi Stock Exchange and regulated by the Securities and<br />
Exchange Commission of Pakistan. Saudi Arabia: J.P. Morgan Saudi Arabia Ltd. is authorized by the Capital Market Authority of the Kingdom<br />
of Saudi Arabia (CMA) to carry out dealing as an agent, arranging, advising and custody, with respect to securities business under licence number<br />
35-07079 and its registered address is at 8th Floor, Al-Faisaliyah Tower, King Fahad Road, P.O. Box 51907, Riyadh 11553, Kingdom of Saudi<br />
Arabia. Dubai: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Dubai Branch is regulated by the Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) and its registered<br />
address is Dubai International Financial Centre - Building 3, Level 7, PO Box 506551, Dubai, UAE.<br />
Country and Region Specific Disclosures<br />
U.K. and European Economic Area (EEA): Unless specified to the contrary, issued and approved for distribution in the U.K. and the EEA by<br />
JPMSL. Investment research issued by JPMSL has been prepared in accordance with JPMSL’s policies for managing conflicts of interest arising<br />
as a result of publication and distribution of investment research. Many European regulators require a firm to establish, implement and maintain<br />
such a policy. This report has been issued in the U.K. only to persons of a kind described in Article 19 (5), 38, 47 and 49 of the Financial Services<br />
and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 (all such persons being referred to as “relevant persons”). This document must not be<br />
acted on or relied on by persons who are not relevant persons. Any investment or investment activity to which this document relates is only<br />
available to relevant persons and will be engaged in only with relevant persons. In other EEA countries, the report has been issued to persons<br />
regarded as professional investors (or equivalent) in their home jurisdiction. Australia: This material is issued and distributed by JPMSAL in<br />
Australia to “wholesale clients” only. JPMSAL does not issue or distribute this material to “retail clients.” The recipient of this material must not<br />
distribute it to any third party or outside Australia without the prior written consent of JPMSAL. For the purposes of this paragraph the terms<br />
“wholesale client” and “retail client” have the meanings given to them in section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. Germany: This material is<br />
distributed in Germany by J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd., Frankfurt Branch and J.P.Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Frankfurt Branch which are<br />
regulated by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht. Hong Kong: The 1% ownership disclosure as of the previous month end<br />
95
<strong>Impact</strong> Investments:<br />
An emerging asset class<br />
Global Research<br />
29 November 2010<br />
satisfies the requirements under Paragraph 16.5(a) of the Hong Kong Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the Securities<br />
and Futures Commission. (For research published within the first ten days of the month, the disclosure may be based on the month end data from<br />
two months’ prior.) J.P. Morgan Broking (Hong Kong) Limited is the liquidity provider for derivative warrants issued by J.P. Morgan Structured<br />
Products B.V. and listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited. An updated list can be found on HKEx website:<br />
http://www.hkex.com.hk/prod/dw/Lp.htm. Japan: There is a risk that a loss may occur due to a change in the price of the shares in the case of<br />
share trading, and that a loss may occur due to the exchange rate in the case of foreign share trading. In the case of share trading, JPMorgan<br />
Securities Japan Co., Ltd., will be receiving a brokerage fee and consumption tax (shouhizei) calculated by multiplying the executed price by the<br />
commission rate which was individually agreed between JPMorgan Securities Japan Co., Ltd., and the customer in advance. Financial Instruments<br />
Firms: JPMorgan Securities Japan Co., Ltd., Kanto Local Finance Bureau (kinsho) No. 82 Participating Association / Japan Securities Dealers<br />
Association, The Financial Futures Association of Japan. Korea: This report may have been edited or contributed to from time to time by<br />
affiliates of J.P. Morgan Securities (Far East) Ltd, Seoul Branch. Singapore: JPMSS and/or its affiliates may have a holding in any of the<br />
securities discussed in this report; for securities where the holding is 1% or greater, the specific holding is disclosed in the Important Disclosures<br />
section above. India: For private circulation only, not for sale. Pakistan: For private circulation only, not for sale. New Zealand: This<br />
material is issued and distributed by JPMSAL in New Zealand only to persons whose principal business is the investment of money or who, in the<br />
course of and for the purposes of their business, habitually invest money. JPMSAL does not issue or distribute this material to members of “the<br />
public” as determined in accordance with section 3 of the Securities Act 1978. The recipient of this material must not distribute it to any third<br />
party or outside New Zealand without the prior written consent of JPMSAL. Canada: The information contained herein is not, and under no<br />
circumstances is to be construed as, a prospectus, an advertisement, a public offering, an offer to sell securities described herein, or solicitation of<br />
an offer to buy securities described herein, in Canada or any province or territory thereof. Any offer or sale of the securities described herein in<br />
Canada will be made only under an exemption from the requirements to file a prospectus with the relevant Canadian securities regulators and only<br />
by a dealer properly registered under applicable securities laws or, alternatively, pursuant to an exemption from the dealer registration requirement<br />
in the relevant province or territory of Canada in which such offer or sale is made. The information contained herein is under no circumstances to<br />
be construed as investment advice in any province or territory of Canada and is not tailored to the needs of the recipient. To the extent that the<br />
information contained herein references securities of an issuer incorporated, formed or created under the laws of Canada or a province or territory<br />
of Canada, any trades in such securities must be conducted through a dealer registered in Canada. No securities commission or similar regulatory<br />
authority in Canada has reviewed or in any way passed judgment upon these materials, the information contained herein or the merits of the<br />
securities described herein, and any representation to the contrary is an offence. Dubai: This report has been issued to persons regarded as<br />
professional clients as defined under the DFSA rules.<br />
General: Additional information is available upon request. Information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but JPMorgan<br />
Chase & Co. or its affiliates and/or subsidiaries (collectively J.P. Morgan) do not warrant its completeness or accuracy except with respect to any<br />
disclosures relative to JPMS and/or its affiliates and the analyst’s involvement with the issuer that is the subject of the research. All pricing is as<br />
of the close of market for the securities discussed, unless otherwise stated. Opinions and estimates constitute our judgment as of the date of this<br />
material and are subject to change without notice. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This material is not intended as an offer or<br />
solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. The opinions and recommendations herein do not take into account individual<br />
client circumstances, objectives, or needs and are not intended as recommendations of particular securities, financial instruments or strategies to<br />
particular clients. The recipient of this report must make its own independent decisions regarding any securities or financial instruments<br />
mentioned herein. JPMS distributes in the U.S. research published by non-U.S. affiliates and accepts responsibility for its contents. Periodic<br />
updates may be provided on companies/industries based on company specific developments or announcements, market conditions or any other<br />
publicly available information. Clients should contact analysts and execute transactions through a J.P. Morgan subsidiary or affiliate in their home<br />
jurisdiction unless governing law permits otherwise.<br />
Copyright 2010 JPMorgan Chase & Co., The Rockefeller Foundation and Global <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Investing</strong> Network, Inc.<br />
96
Page 120 of 140
Advocacy Foundation Publishers<br />
Page 121 of 140
Advocacy Foundation Publishers<br />
The e-Advocate Quarterly<br />
Page 122 of 140
Issue Title Quarterly<br />
Vol. I 2015 The Fundamentals<br />
I<br />
The ComeUnity ReEngineering<br />
Project Initiative<br />
Q-1 2015<br />
II The Adolescent Law Group Q-2 2015<br />
III<br />
Landmark Cases in US<br />
Juvenile Justice (PA)<br />
Q-3 2015<br />
IV The First Amendment Project Q-4 2015<br />
Vol. II 2016 Strategic Development<br />
V The Fourth Amendment Project Q-1 2016<br />
VI<br />
Landmark Cases in US<br />
Juvenile Justice (NJ)<br />
Q-2 2016<br />
VII Youth Court Q-3 2016<br />
VIII<br />
The Economic Consequences of Legal<br />
Decision-Making<br />
Q-4 2016<br />
Vol. III 2017 Sustainability<br />
IX The Sixth Amendment Project Q-1 2017<br />
X<br />
The Theological Foundations of<br />
US Law & Government<br />
Q-2 2017<br />
XI The Eighth Amendment Project Q-3 2017<br />
XII<br />
The EB-5 Investor<br />
Immigration Project*<br />
Q-4 2017<br />
Vol. IV 2018 Collaboration<br />
XIII Strategic Planning Q-1 2018<br />
XIV<br />
The Juvenile Justice<br />
Legislative Reform Initiative<br />
Q-2 2018<br />
XV The Advocacy Foundation Coalition Q-3 2018<br />
Page 123 of 140
XVI<br />
for Drug-Free Communities<br />
Landmark Cases in US<br />
Juvenile Justice (GA)<br />
Q-4 2018<br />
Page 124 of 140
Issue Title Quarterly<br />
Vol. V 2019 Organizational Development<br />
XVII The Board of Directors Q-1 2019<br />
XVIII The Inner Circle Q-2 2019<br />
XIX Staff & Management Q-3 2019<br />
XX Succession Planning Q-4 2019<br />
XXI The Budget* Bonus #1<br />
XXII Data-Driven Resource Allocation* Bonus #2<br />
Vol. VI 2020 Missions<br />
XXIII Critical Thinking Q-1 2020<br />
XXIV<br />
The Advocacy Foundation<br />
Endowments Initiative Project<br />
Q-2 2020<br />
XXV International Labor Relations Q-3 2020<br />
XXVI Immigration Q-4 2020<br />
Vol. VII 2021 Community Engagement<br />
XXVII<br />
The 21 st Century Charter Schools<br />
Initiative<br />
Q-1 2021<br />
XXVIII The All-Sports Ministry @ ... Q-2 2021<br />
XXIX Lobbying for Nonprofits Q-3 2021<br />
XXX<br />
XXXI<br />
Advocacy Foundation Missions -<br />
Domestic<br />
Advocacy Foundation Missions -<br />
International<br />
Q-4 2021<br />
Bonus<br />
Page 125 of 140
Vol. VIII<br />
2022 ComeUnity ReEngineering<br />
XXXII<br />
The Creative & Fine Arts Ministry<br />
@ The Foundation<br />
Q-1 2022<br />
XXXIII The Advisory Council & Committees Q-2 2022<br />
XXXIV<br />
The Theological Origins<br />
of Contemporary Judicial Process<br />
Q-3 2022<br />
XXXV The Second Chance Ministry @ ... Q-4 2022<br />
Vol. IX 2023 Legal Reformation<br />
XXXVI The Fifth Amendment Project Q-1 2023<br />
XXXVII The Judicial Re-Engineering Initiative Q-2 2023<br />
XXXVIII<br />
The Inner-Cities Strategic<br />
Revitalization Initiative<br />
Q-3 2023<br />
XXXVIX Habeas Corpus Q-4 2023<br />
Vol. X 2024 ComeUnity Development<br />
XXXVX<br />
The Inner-City Strategic<br />
Revitalization Plan<br />
Q-1 2024<br />
XXXVXI The Mentoring Initiative Q-2 2024<br />
XXXVXII The Violence Prevention Framework Q-3 2024<br />
XXXVXIII The Fatherhood Initiative Q-4 2024<br />
Vol. XI 2025 Public Interest<br />
XXXVXIV Public Interest Law Q-1 2025<br />
L (50) Spiritual Resource Development Q-2 2025<br />
Page 126 of 140
LI<br />
Nonprofit Confidentiality<br />
In The Age of Big Data<br />
Q-3 2025<br />
LII Interpreting The Facts Q-4 2025<br />
Vol. XII 2026 Poverty In America<br />
LIII<br />
American Poverty<br />
In The New Millennium<br />
Q-1 2026<br />
LIV Outcome-Based Thinking Q-2 2026<br />
LV Transformational <strong>Social</strong> Leadership Q-3 2026<br />
LVI The Cycle of Poverty Q-4 2026<br />
Vol. XIII 2027 Raising Awareness<br />
LVII ReEngineering Juvenile Justice Q-1 2027<br />
LVIII Corporations Q-2 2027<br />
LVIX The Prison Industrial Complex Q-3 2027<br />
LX Restoration of Rights Q-4 2027<br />
Vol. XIV 2028 Culturally Relevant Programming<br />
LXI Community Culture Q-1 2028<br />
LXII Corporate Culture Q-2 2028<br />
LXIII Strategic Cultural Planning Q-3 2028<br />
LXIV<br />
The Cross-Sector/ Coordinated<br />
Service Approach to Delinquency<br />
Prevention<br />
Q-4 2028<br />
Page 127 of 140
Vol. XV 2029 Inner-Cities Revitalization<br />
LXIV<br />
LXV<br />
LXVI<br />
Part I – Strategic Housing<br />
Revitalization<br />
(The Twenty Percent Profit Margin)<br />
Part II – Jobs Training, Educational<br />
Redevelopment<br />
and Economic Empowerment<br />
Part III - Financial Literacy<br />
and Sustainability<br />
Q-1 2029<br />
Q-2 2029<br />
Q-3 2029<br />
LXVII Part IV – Solutions for Homelessness Q-4 2029<br />
LXVIII<br />
The Strategic Home Mortgage<br />
Initiative<br />
Bonus<br />
Vol. XVI 2030 Sustainability<br />
LXVIII <strong>Social</strong> Program Sustainability Q-1 2030<br />
LXIX<br />
The Advocacy Foundation<br />
Endowments Initiative<br />
Q-2 2030<br />
LXX Capital Gains Q-3 2030<br />
LXXI Sustainability Investments Q-4 2030<br />
Vol. XVII 2031 The Justice Series<br />
LXXII Distributive Justice Q-1 2031<br />
LXXIII Retributive Justice Q-2 2031<br />
LXXIV Procedural Justice Q-3 2031<br />
LXXV (75) Restorative Justice Q-4 2031<br />
LXXVI Unjust Legal Reasoning Bonus<br />
Page 128 of 140
Vol. XVIII 2032 Public Policy<br />
LXXVII Public Interest Law Q-1 2032<br />
LXXVIII Reforming Public Policy Q-2 2032<br />
LXXVIX ... Q-3 2032<br />
LXXVX ... Q-4 2032<br />
Page 129 of 140
The e-Advocate Journal<br />
of Theological Jurisprudence<br />
Vol. I - 2017<br />
The Theological Origins of Contemporary Judicial Process<br />
Scriptural Application to The Model Criminal Code<br />
Scriptural Application for Tort Reform<br />
Scriptural Application to Juvenile Justice Reformation<br />
Vol. II - 2018<br />
Scriptural Application for The Canons of Ethics<br />
Scriptural Application to Contracts Reform<br />
& The Uniform Commercial Code<br />
Scriptural Application to The Law of Property<br />
Scriptural Application to The Law of Evidence<br />
Page 130 of 140
Legal Missions International<br />
Page 131 of 140
Issue Title Quarterly<br />
Vol. I 2015<br />
I<br />
II<br />
God’s Will and The 21 st Century<br />
Democratic Process<br />
The Community<br />
Engagement Strategy<br />
Q-1 2015<br />
Q-2 2015<br />
III Foreign Policy Q-3 2015<br />
IV<br />
Public Interest Law<br />
in The New Millennium<br />
Q-4 2015<br />
Vol. II 2016<br />
V Ethiopia Q-1 2016<br />
VI Zimbabwe Q-2 2016<br />
VII Jamaica Q-3 2016<br />
VIII Brazil Q-4 2016<br />
Vol. III 2017<br />
IX India Q-1 2017<br />
X Suriname Q-2 2017<br />
XI The Caribbean Q-3 2017<br />
XII United States/ Estados Unidos Q-4 2017<br />
Vol. IV 2018<br />
XIII Cuba Q-1 2018<br />
XIV Guinea Q-2 2018<br />
XV Indonesia Q-3 2018<br />
XVI Sri Lanka Q-4 2018<br />
Vol. V 2019<br />
Page 132 of 140
XVII Russia Q-1 2019<br />
XVIII Australia Q-2 2019<br />
XIV South Korea Q-3 2019<br />
XV Puerto Rico Q-4 2019<br />
Issue Title Quarterly<br />
Vol. VI 2020<br />
XVI Trinidad & Tobago Q-1 2020<br />
XVII Egypt Q-2 2020<br />
XVIII Sierra Leone Q-3 2020<br />
XIX South Africa Q-4 2020<br />
XX Israel Bonus<br />
Vol. VII 2021<br />
XXI Haiti Q-1 2021<br />
XXII Peru Q-2 2021<br />
XXIII Costa Rica Q-3 2021<br />
XXIV China Q-4 2021<br />
XXV Japan Bonus<br />
Vol VIII 2022<br />
XXVI Chile Q-1 2022<br />
Page 133 of 140
The e-Advocate Juvenile Justice Report<br />
______<br />
Vol. I – Juvenile Delinquency in The US<br />
Vol. II. – The Prison Industrial Complex<br />
Vol. III – Restorative/ Transformative Justice<br />
Vol. IV – The Sixth Amendment Right to The Effective Assistance of Counsel<br />
Vol. V – The Theological Foundations of Juvenile Justice<br />
Vol. VI – Collaborating to Eradicate Juvenile Delinquency<br />
Page 134 of 140
The e-Advocate Newsletter<br />
Genesis of The Problem<br />
Family Structure<br />
Societal Influences<br />
Evidence-Based Programming<br />
Strengthening Assets v. Eliminating Deficits<br />
2012 - Juvenile Delinquency in The US<br />
Introduction/Ideology/Key Values<br />
Philosophy/Application & Practice<br />
Expungement & Pardons<br />
Pardons & Clemency<br />
Examples/Best Practices<br />
2013 - Restorative Justice in The US<br />
2014 - The Prison Industrial Complex<br />
25% of the World's Inmates Are In the US<br />
The Economics of Prison Enterprise<br />
The Federal Bureau of Prisons<br />
The After-Effects of Incarceration/Individual/Societal<br />
The Fourth Amendment Project<br />
The Sixth Amendment Project<br />
The Eighth Amendment Project<br />
The Adolescent Law Group<br />
2015 - US Constitutional Issues In The New Millennium<br />
Page 135 of 140
2018 - The Theological Law Firm Academy<br />
The Theological Foundations of US Law & Government<br />
The Economic Consequences of Legal Decision-Making<br />
The Juvenile Justice Legislative Reform Initiative<br />
The EB-5 International Investors Initiative<br />
2017 - Organizational Development<br />
The Board of Directors<br />
The Inner Circle<br />
Staff & Management<br />
Succession Planning<br />
Bonus #1 The Budget<br />
Bonus #2 Data-Driven Resource Allocation<br />
2018 - Sustainability<br />
The Data-Driven Resource Allocation Process<br />
The Quality Assurance Initiative<br />
The Advocacy Foundation Endowments Initiative<br />
The Community Engagement Strategy<br />
2019 - Collaboration<br />
Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice<br />
International Labor Relations<br />
Immigration<br />
God's Will & The 21st Century Democratic Process<br />
The Community Engagement Strategy<br />
The 21st Century Charter Schools Initiative<br />
2020 - Community Engagement<br />
Page 136 of 140
Extras<br />
The Nonprofit Advisors Group Newsletters<br />
The 501(c)(3) Acquisition Process<br />
The Board of Directors<br />
The Gladiator Mentality<br />
Strategic Planning<br />
Fundraising<br />
501(c)(3) Reinstatements<br />
The Collaborative US/ International Newsletters<br />
How You Think Is Everything<br />
The Reciprocal Nature of Business Relationships<br />
Accelerate Your Professional Development<br />
The Competitive Nature of Grant Writing<br />
Assessing The Risks<br />
Page 137 of 140
About The Author<br />
John C (Jack) Johnson III<br />
Founder & CEO<br />
Jack was educated at Temple University, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Rutgers<br />
Law School, in Camden, New Jersey. In 1999, he moved to Atlanta, Georgia to pursue<br />
greater opportunities to provide Advocacy and Preventive Programmatic services for atrisk/<br />
at-promise young persons, their families, and Justice Professionals embedded in the<br />
Juvenile Justice process in order to help facilitate its transcendence into the 21 st Century.<br />
There, along with a small group of community and faith-based professionals, “The Advocacy Foundation, Inc." was conceived<br />
and developed over roughly a thirteen year period, originally chartered as a Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Educational<br />
Support Services organization consisting of Mentoring, Tutoring, Counseling, Character Development, Community Change<br />
Management, Practitioner Re-Education & Training, and a host of related components.<br />
The Foundation’s Overarching Mission is “To help Individuals, Organizations, & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential”, by<br />
implementing a wide array of evidence-based proactive multi-disciplinary "Restorative & Transformative Justice" programs &<br />
projects currently throughout the northeast, southeast, and western international-waters regions, providing prevention and support<br />
services to at-risk/ at-promise youth, to young adults, to their families, and to <strong>Social</strong> Service, Justice and Mental<br />
Health professionals” everywhere. The Foundation has since relocated its headquarters to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and been<br />
expanded to include a three-tier mission.<br />
In addition to his work with the Foundation, Jack also served as an Adjunct Professor of Law & Business at National-Louis<br />
University of Atlanta (where he taught Political Science, Business & Legal Ethics, Labor & Employment Relations, and Critical<br />
Thinking courses to undergraduate and graduate level students). Jack has also served as Board President for a host of wellestablished<br />
and up & coming nonprofit organizations throughout the region, including “Visions Unlimited Community<br />
Development Systems, Inc.”, a multi-million dollar, award-winning, Violence Prevention and Gang Intervention <strong>Social</strong> Service<br />
organization in Atlanta, as well as Vice-Chair of the Georgia/ Metropolitan Atlanta Violence Prevention Partnership, a state-wide<br />
300 organizational member, violence prevention group led by the Morehouse School of Medicine, Emory University and The<br />
Original, Atlanta-Based, Martin Luther King Center.<br />
Attorney Johnson’s prior accomplishments include a wide-array of Professional Legal practice areas, including Private Firm,<br />
Corporate and Government postings, just about all of which yielded significant professional awards & accolades, the history and<br />
chronology of which are available for review online. Throughout his career, Jack has served a wide variety of for-profit<br />
corporations, law firms, and nonprofit organizations as Board Chairman, Secretary, Associate, and General Counsel since 1990.<br />
www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org<br />
Clayton County Youth Services Partnership, Inc. – Chair; Georgia Violence Prevention Partnership, Inc – Vice Chair; Fayette<br />
County NAACP - Legal Redress Committee Chairman; Clayton County Fatherhood Initiative Partnership – Principal<br />
Investigator; Morehouse School of Medicine School of Community Health Feasibility Study - Steering Committee; Atlanta<br />
Violence Prevention Capacity Building Project – Project Partner; Clayton County Minister’s Conference, President 2006-2007;<br />
Liberty In Life Ministries, Inc. – Board Secretary; Young Adults Talk, Inc. – Board of Directors; ROYAL, Inc - Board of<br />
Directors; Temple University Alumni Association; Rutgers Law School Alumni Association; Sertoma International; Our<br />
Common Welfare Board of Directors – President)2003-2005; River’s Edge Elementary School PTA (Co-President); Summerhill<br />
Community Ministries; Outstanding Young Men of America; Employee of the Year; Academic All-American - Basketball;<br />
Church Trustee.<br />
Page 138 of 140
www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org<br />
Page 139 of 140
Page 140 of 140