As we established in Part I of this series, there’s a growing global demand for education — in other words, a huge potential market that could be catalyzed by an influx of impact capital.  Add to this the fact that education is pretty much universally recognized as an effective means to break the cycle of poverty and improve lives — it may be the most powerful single tool we have — and the low level of impact involvement in the sector begins to seem surprising.

Yet that’s the reality: of $2.5 trillion is spent on education worldwide, impact capital accounts for just $3 million. In a recent survey of impact investors, only 3 percent of assets under management were in the education sector as compared to 21 percent in microfinance and 11 percent in energy. Only water and sanitation came in lower, at just 1 percent.

Small deals, few deals

A closer look at deals gives insight into what’s happened to date. According to a recent report from D. Capital and Open Society Foundations (OSF), impact investors have hardly entered the education market and when they do, deal sizes are small with direct investments typically ranging between the $.5 million and $5 million. Investment though intermediaries looks slightly more robust, with technology venture capital funds raising the stakes to $10 million, but it’s still a mere drop in the ocean.

Impact’s role in financing the education sector hasn’t only been small in size, it’s been limited in scope, largely focusing on school infrastructure programs and, to a lesser extent, people (for example teacher training schemes). Impact investors have largely ignored the potential for investment in the wider educational ecosystem and have only very limited involvement in areas such as developing new services, tools and technology. Impact investment has been sharply divided, too, between market-rate investors who target middle and upper class populations and those with an impact-first attitude who target populations at the base of the socio-economic pyramid.

What’s keeping impact investors away?

Several factors help explain this picture. First, impact is still a relatively new sector whose development has been largely uncoordinated and sometimes patchy: in other words, just because a sector is worthy of more impact capital, doesn’t mean it’s received it yet.

Impact investing is beginning to develop a track record in areas like agriculture, clean technology and finance but this is largely thanks to the determination of a few leading proponents like Acción, Root Capital and Acumen, who targeted their investments in specific areas. By contrast, few impact investors have made education their sole priority and few have developed well-defined deal sourcing strategies for education even though quite a few (21 out of the ImpactAssets 50 funds, for example) claim education as one area of focus among several others. This suggests that education is often a sideline for impact investors, with small-scale education investments tacked on to ones in more popular sectors such as finance.

Partly, this may be due to the perception that education investments have little potential to produce returns (an assumption new developments in the sector will challenge). Another reason could be that education, unlike other sectors, has traditionally been the sole preserve of governments and, to a lesser extent, international aid agencies. Until now, non-state investors have claimed a relatively small slice of the education pie with private commercial funding accounting for only $500 billion of the $2.5 trillion spending total. The state monopoly on education has created little incentive for innovation or entrepreneurial activity, with the result that there haven’t been enough education deals out there to engage the growing impact sector.

Such market issues may be contributing to the shortage of investable deals and limiting levels of investment now, but the picture looks set to change. Squeezed public budgets and a new spirit of openness on the part of the development aid community are generating more interest in market-based solutions to the education crisis. This raises the possibility of increased entrepreneurial activity in the education sector with impact investment playing a more important role in its financial profile, especially in the form of collaborative investing arrangement with governments, philanthropic bodies and other private investors. The question now is, what exactly should that role be?

Learning to do more

With opportunities at various points in the market, there’s evidence that impact capital can help education in a number of important ways. “Where government is absent,” write the authors of the D. Capital/OSF report, “impact capital can help fill a basic gap that the state cannot. Where the government provides basic services, there is also ample room to supplement public services through congruent education for at-risk children, vocational training or adult literacy services.”

Beyond this, impact investors can do their part to strengthen the sector by:

•    supporting early-stage experimentation and innovation in education
•    innovating new kinds of financial approaches that support education and the ecosystem around it
•    working in collaboration with governments and nonprofits to back socially motivated education programs with impact capital
•    investing alongside venture capitalists and venture philanthropists in scalable education businesses
•    catalyzing co-investment from other sources, such as mainstream banks, private investors and aid agencies
•    scaling approaches that show promise, adapting them and rolling them out in other contexts and other regions.

Marta Maretich, Chief Editor, MaxImpact

More than 35 CEOs and civil society leaders of the Business & Sustainable Development Commission (the Commission) today reveal that sustainable business models could open economic opportunities worth at least US$12 trillion and up to 380 million jobs a year by 2030. Putting the Sustainable Development Goals, or Global Goals, at the heart of the world’s economic strategy could unleash a step-change in growth and productivity, with an investment boom in sustainable infrastructure as a critical driver. However, this will not happen without radical change in the business and investment community. Real leadership is needed for the private sector to become a trusted partner in working with government and civil society to fix the economy.

In its flagship report Better Business, Better World, the Commission recognises that while the last few decades have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, they have also led to unequal growth, increasing job insecurity, ever more debt and ever greater environmental risks. This mix has fueled an anti-globalisation reaction in many countries, with business and financial interests seen as central to the problem, and is undermining the long-term economic growth that the world needs. The Commission has spent the last year exploring a central question, “What will it take for business to be central to building a sustainable market economy—one that can help to deliver the Global Goals?” Better Business, Better World—the release of which is timed with the World Economist Forum in Davos and the U.S. presidential inauguration—shows how.

“This report is a call to action to business leaders. We are on the edge and business as usual will drive more political opposition and land us with an economy that simply doesn’t work for enough people. We have to switch tracks to a business model that works for a new kind of inclusive growth,” said Mark Malloch-Brown, chair of the Business & Sustainable Development Commission. “Better Business, Better World shows there is a compelling incentive for why the latter isn’t just good for the environment and society; it makes good business sense.”

At the heart of the Commission’s argument are the Sustainable Development Goals (or Global Goals)—17 objectives to eliminate poverty, improve education and health outcomes, create better jobs and tackle our key environmental challenges by 2030. The Commission believes the Global Goals provide the private sector with a new growth strategy that opens valuable market opportunities while creating a world that is both sustainable and inclusive. And the potential rewards for doing so are significant.

The report reveals 60 sustainable and inclusive market “hotspots” in just four key economic areas could create at least US$12 trillion, worth over 10% of today’s GDP. The breakdown of the four areas and their potential values are: Energy US$4.3 trillion; Cities: US$3.7 trillion; Food & Agriculture US$2.3 trillion; Health & Well-being US$1.8 trillion.

“Global Goals hot spots” identified in the report have the potential to grow 2-3 times faster than average GDP over the next 10-15 years. Beyond the US$12 trillion directly estimated, conservative analysis shows potential for an additional US$8 trillion of value creation across the wider economy if companies embed the Global Goals in their strategies. The report also shows that factoring in the cost of externalities (negative impacts from business activities such as carbon emissions or pollution) increases the overall value of opportunities by almost 40%.

“At a time when our economic model is pushing the limits of our planetary boundaries and condemning many to a future without hope, the Sustainable Development Goals offer us a way out,” said Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, and a commissioner. “Many are now realizing the enormous opportunities that exist for enlightened businesses willing to stand up and address these urgent challenges. But every day that passes is another lost opportunity for action. We must react quickly, decisively and collectively to ensure a fairer and more prosperous world for all.”

While the opportunities are compelling, the Business Commission makes it clear that two critical conditions must be met to build these new markets. First, innovative financing from both private and public sources will be needed to unlock the US$2.4 trillion required annually to achieve the Global Goals.

“As stewards of long-term capital, the investment industry and its clients can support the achievement of the SDGs by creating simple, standardized sustainability metrics integral to the investment process,” said Hendrik du Toit, CEO, Investec Asset Management, and member of the Commission. “We also need new streamlined partnerships with governments and communities that can reduce risks for everyone and bring more private investment at lower cost into sustainable infrastructure development.” 

At the same time, the Commission believes a “new social contract” between business, government and society is essential to defining the role of business in a new, fairer economy. The recently released 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer reinforces this idea. It shows that while CEO credibility is sharply down, 75% of general population respondents agree that “a company can take specific actions that both increase profits and improve the economic and social conditions in the community where it operates.” And they can do so in ways that align with recommendations and actions outlined in Better Business, Better World: rebuilding trust by creating decent jobs, rewarding workers fairly, investing in the local community and paying a fair share of taxes.

“The promise of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement is a zero-carbon, zero-poverty world,” said Sharan Burrow, General Secretary, International Trade Union Confederation, and commissioner. “To achieve these Global Goals, we need to rebuild trust. A new social contract for business where people, their environment and economic development are rebalanced can ensure that everybody’s sons and daughters are respected with freedom of association, minimum living wages, collective bargaining and safe work assured. Only a new business model based on old principles of human rights and social justice will support a sustainable future.”

Throughout 2017, the Commission will focus on working with companies to strengthen corporate alignment with the Global Goals, including: mentoring the next generation of sustainable development leaders; creating sectorial roadmaps and league tables that rank corporate performance against the Global Goals; and supporting measures to unlock blended finance for sustainable infrastructure investment. “We need to show these ideas work not just in a report but on the business frontline,” said Dr. Amy Jadesimi, CEO of LADOL, a Nigerian logistics and infrastructure development company, and a member of the Commission.

“The Global Goals provide a sustainable, profitable growth model for business, and have the potential to trigger a new competitive ‘race to the top,’” said Jeremy Oppenheim, Programme Director of the Commission. “The faster CEOs and boards make the Global Goals their business goals, the better off the world and their companies will be.”

— ENDS —

The Business and Sustainable Development Commission was launched at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2016. It brings together leaders from business, finance, civil society, labour, and international organisations, with the twin aims of mapping the economic prize that could be available to companies if the Global Goals are achieved, and describing how they can contribute to achieving them. To access the report, visit report.businesscommission.org (live on 16 January 2017). Better Business, Better World launch events will be held throughout the week of 16 January, first at the Philanthropreneurship Forum in Vienna, then at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Regional events are also scheduled.

To learn more visit www.businesscommission.org.

To read the full report visit report.businesscommission.org.

Follow us at twitter.com/BizCommission

Media Contact:

Iain Patton, Global & Regional Media

i.patton@businesscommission.org  & +44 (0)7956 430543

OUR COMMISSIONERS

The Business and Sustainable Development Commission was launched in Davos in January 2016. It brings together 36 leaders from business, finance, civil society, labour, and international organisations, with the twin aims of mapping the economic prize that could be available to business if the UN Sustainable Development Goals are achieved, and describing how business can contribute to delivering these goals. The full list of our commissioners includes:

• Amr Al-Dabbagh, Chairman & CEO, The Al-Dabbagh Group

• Laura Alfaro, Professor, Harvard Business School

• Peter Bakker, President, The World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD)

• Sharan Burrow, General Secretary, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)

• Ho Ching, CEO, Temasek Holdings Private Ltd.

• Bob Collymore, CEO, Safaricom Ltd.

• John Danilovich, Secretary General, The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)

• Begümhan Do?an Faralyal?, Chairwoman, Do?an Holdings

• Hendrik du Toit, CEO, Investec Asset Management

• Richard Edelman, President & CEO, Edelman

• Hans Vestberg/Elaine Weidman Grunewald (acting), Ericsson

• John Fallon, CEO, Pearson plc

• Ken Frazier, Chairman & CEO, Merck & Co Inc. (2016)

• Mats Granryd, Director General, The GSM Association (GSMA)

• Helen Hai, CEO, The Made in Africa Initiative

• Svein-Tore Holsether, President & CEO, Yara International ASA

• Mo Ibrahim, Founder, Celtel & The Mo Ibrahim Foundation

• Mary Ellen Iskenderian, CEO, Women’s World Banking

• Dr. Amy Jadesimi, Managing Director & CEO, Lagos Deep Offshore Logistics Base (LADOL)

• Donald Kaberuka, former President, African Development Bank Group

• Lise Kingo, Executive Director of the United Nations Global Compact

• Jack Ma, Founder and Executive Chairman, The Alibaba Group

• Lord Mark Malloch Brown, former Deputy Secretary-General, United Nations (Chair)

• Andrew Michelmore, CEO, MMG Ltd.

• Sam Mostyn, President, Australian Council for International Development (ACFID)

• Arif Naqvi, Founder & Group CEO, The Abraaj Group

• Mads Nipper, Group President & CEO, The Grundfos Group

• Cherie Nursalim, Vice Chairman, GITI Group

• Ricken Patel, President & Executive Director, Avaaz

• Paul Polman, CEO, Unilever

• Vineet Rai, Co-Founder & Chairman, Aavishkaar Intellecap Group

• Grant Reid, CEO, Mars, Inc.

• Dinara Seijaparova, CFO, ‘Baiterek’

• Sunny Verghese, CEO, Olam International

• Gavin Wilson, CEO, IFC Asset Management Company LLC

• Mark Wilson, CEO, Aviva plc

It also supports the creation of a larger variety of products and services, improves the management of risks, makes payments easier and helps lenders better monitor their clients. In addition, it provides instruments, such as insurance packages, and information that help households and firms to cope with negative events, ensuring more stable consumption and investment.

Given the weakening growth outlook for the region, examining all potential sources or lubricants for growth is now of particular interest. So, in our latest Regional Economic Outlook for Sub-Saharan Africa we examine the extent to which developed, well-functioning and accessible financial institutions and markets could boost growth and what policy options would best help achieve this potential.

Good progress but significant challenges remain

To fully appreciate the potential for further financial development, take a look at the encouraging progress sub-Saharan African countries have made over the last decades.

First, the region has led the world in innovative financial services based on mobile telephones, especially in East Africa. The fast spread of systems such as M-Pesa, M-Shwari, and M-Kesho in Kenya has helped reduce transaction costs and facilitate personal transactions even in the absence of traditional financial infrastructure. Microfinance has also grown rapidly, providing services to customers at the lower end of the income distribution, and large parts of the population now have access to financial services more generally (Chart 1).

But financial inclusion, the degree to which all segments of the population can benefit from financial services, still lags well behind that of other developing regions of the world. For instance, as cellphone ownership continues to grow among the poor, the less well educated, and women, there is a large potential to fully exploit mobile payments to compensate for the shortcomings of traditional methods in providing financial services to the most underserved.

Second, the financial sector has deepened—the region’s median ratio of private sector credit to GDP has doubled from its 1995 level. However, with the exception of the region’s middle-income countries, financial market depth and institutional development are also still much lower than in other regions.

Third, we now find Pan-African banks—locally-owned banks that operate in several countries—in the vast majority of sub-Saharan African countries. Their expansion has filled gaps in services left by European and U.S. banks, promoted greater economic integration, and made the sector more competitive. But as often is the case with new and rapidly growing financial developments, Pan-African banks also bring a number of challenges, in particular the need to strengthen supervisory oversight on a consolidated and cross border basis and improve the internal controls and transparency within those institutions.

A large untapped growth potential

But how much more financial development could sub-Saharan African countries realistically achieve? Examining a combined index of the various dimensions of financial development shows there’s a substantial gap between the level of financial development at which many sub-Saharan African countries are currently operating, and what they could reach when compared to other regions with similar structural characteristics.

So, the potential for further financial development is substantial, and the impact of filling the gap is about 1½ percentage points additional annual growth for the median sub-Saharan African country, with variations across country groups (Chart 2).

In addition, we show that higher financial development can reduce the volatility of growth, especially if financial development is initially relatively low, as is the case for most countries in the region (Chart 3). Here, more financial development relaxes credit constraints and provides instruments to withstand adverse shocks. However, as the sector deepens, its contribution to reducing volatility declines because financial depth also increases the propagation and amplification of shocks.

Safeguard macro-stability and strengthen institutions stability

So, what should policymakers do to help sub-Saharan African economies reap this potential?

Our analysis shows that the region’s financial development has been largely driven by better macroeconomic fundamentals over the last decades, but hindered by weak institutions. So, providing strong legal and institutional frameworks and corporate governance in particular, are critical for creating an environment in which the financial sector can develop and thrive.

But countries also need to be vigilant about risks to the financial system and their spillovers to the economy. As regulations in many countries are not fully in line with global best practices, and their implementation remains weak, improving the regulatory framework and strengthening supervisory capacity as well as enforcement powers are essential. Among many other reforms, the harmonization of regulations and supervisory procedures to avoid regulatory arbitrage and establishing an appropriate mechanism for resolving nonviable financial institutions are high priorities.

Finally, financial supervisors should monitor carefully the risk related to mobile money transactions as they become increasingly popular in the low-income segment of the population—ensuring households’ funds are safe while allowing them to enjoy making transactions more easily, saving for worse times or taking up a loan to start a business.

By Anne-Marie Gulde-Wolf 

Join leading players to shape the industry. Click on image below to learn more

“Add Impact” is the new rallying cry of the Global Impact Investing community, which concluded a two-day plenary meeting of its Steering Group in Lisbon, Portugal on July 8. Championed by Sir Ronald Cohen, founder of Big Society Capital (BSC), which is hailed as the world’s first social investment bank, the Global Impact Investing Steering Group is the heart and mind of a growing social investment movement bent on making impact investing mainstream.

By Elizabeth Boggs Davidsen

Entrepreneurs: Submit your projects for funding. Click on image below.

A major reason for this expected growth is the impending transfer of wealth from parents to their children. Millennials and Generation Xers stand to inherit between $30 and $40 trillion dollars from the baby boomer generation. The magnitude of this wealth transfer is unmatched by previous generations. Beyond simply the size of the inheritance, Millennials have different priorities than the generations before them. Younger investors seek investments that yield a social return, as well as a financial one.

When asked about the primary purpose of business, 36% of Millennials selected “Improve Society” as their answer. Other answers included “Enable Progress,” which was chosen by 25% of participants, and “Create Wealth,” which was picked only 15% of the time (Deloitte Survey, 2014).

In the past, investments in emerging or non-traditional markets were viewed as exceedingly risky. A lack of transparency and available information discouraged investors from exploring opportunities abroad. The digital age has changed that. Enhanced connectivity now makes it possible for investors to act wisely when investing in emerging markets. Moreover, the credit ratings in many developing nations—such as Mexico and Brazil—have improved as governments exercise greater fiscal responsibility. This development creates more opportunity for impact investing.

Investing for gender equality is rapidly becoming one of the most popular forms of impact investing. The goal is to promote gender parity and personal empowerment through debt and equity investments. There are three basic types of gender equality investments: supporting female-owned enterprises, funding companies that offer products and services for women, or expanding employment opportunities for women.

Organizations like the Calvert Foundation and Root Capital have launched initiatives to promote gender-focused investments. To quote Jackie VanderBrug, a former managing director of Criterion Ventures and now SVP at U.S. Trust: “Women are key assets in combating poverty, building their communities, and creating new pathways to a more just and sustainable world. Investing in women’s education, economic welfare, health, and overall well-being produces powerful results that benefit families, communities, and entire societies. When women become economic agents and leaders, social change accelerates and returns multiply.”

Foreign investment in developing countries dropped 16% in 2014. This has resulted in a $2.5 trillion funding gap, which has made it nearly impossible for these countries to cope with lingering problems like food and water shortages, limited healthcare access, and failing infrastructure.

Similarly, the clean energy sector is experiencing a major shortfall. The International Energy Agency calculates that an additional $36 trillion will be needed over the next 35 years to curb the most extreme effects of climate change. Since philanthropic activity alone cannot bridge the gap, advisors must educate themselves and their clients on impact investing. Our globalized economy has made it possible to engender social change and produce a healthy return on investment. Whether we can find solutions to the most pressing global challenges will depend on the commitment and foresight of investors.

By Marguerita M. Cheng is the Chief Executive Officer at Blue Ocean Global Wealth and Blue Ocean Global Technology.

Join leaders and experts in the space to shape the future . Click image below

But perhaps of even more significance is the demographic transformation that Africa is experiencing, and will continue to experience over the next several decades. Now home to 1.1 billion people, by 2050 the United Nations estimates that Africa’s population will reach 2.48 billion; by 2100, 4.39 billion people, a majority of whom will be youth.

When the slow pace at which Africa is developing is combined with the demographic transformation, contrary to the sentiments of many optimists, the future does not look bright. But it can.

Disruptive Innovations Targeted at Non-Consumption

Through the course of my research with Harvard Business School Professor, Clayton Christensen, we have learned that no country has developed in sustainably without investments in disruptive innovations. There are two types of disruptive innovations, low-end disruptive innovation and new-market disruptive innovation. I write about the new-market disruptive innovations, which are targeted at non-consumption, a circumstance where a majority of people in a society are unable to afford a particular product due to cost, time, or skill constraints. These innovations transform the existing complicated and expensive products to simple to use, more affordable products, thereby making them more accessible to a larger set of people in society, such as M-PESA, the mobile money platform in Kenya. They serve as the engine of economic development in a society.

Can Africa Spur Disruptive Innovations

It is tempting to discount the possibility of executing disruptive innovations in Africa because of the many obstacles to innovation on the continent, including poor infrastructure, the difficulty of doing business, and the very low incomes on the continent. But when these obstacles are framed as opportunities, innovators can build truly disruptive companies.

In fact, it is precisely because these obstacles exist that disruptive innovations can thrive in Africa.

Nollywood and Noodles

Nollywood, Nigeria’s film industry, has taken many in the world by storm. While Hollywood’s revenues dwarf Nollywood, it is difficult to overlook Nollywood’s impact in Nigeria. The industry, according to a UN report, is now worth approximately $5 billion, employs more than one million people, and generates around $800 million annually. Nollywood has been able to thrive precisely because it is a disruptive innovation targeted at the average Nigerian citizen unable to purchase, watch, and perhaps relate to Hollywood movies. The innovators in Nollywood have keyed into the vast non-consumption of movies in Nigeria, and Africa, and have created relevant and relatable movies that have given birth to a booming industry.

When Haresh Aswani decided to start importing Indomie Noodles into Nigeria in 1988, the decks were stacked against his company, Tolaram. Nigeria was ruled by a military government, GDP per capita was only $256, and 78% of people lived on less than $2 per day. But Aswani began importing noodles into Nigeria and since then, has built 11 factories that manufacture many of the inputs for the noodles. The company directly employs approximately 10,000 people and hundreds of thousands indirectly. A packet of Indomie Noodles costs roughly 18 cents, a product affordable by the majority of Nigerians. Tolaram has begun expansion plans into other African countries. Where many see obstacles, the company sees opportunity.

The Rebirth of an Old Idea

Investing in disruptive innovations is not a new strategy for creating prosperity. The United States, many European countries, the Four Asian Tigers, and many other rich countries followed this strategy with great success. The returns from their investments were then invested in infrastructure, education, healthcare, and in building institutions. It is tempting to spend billions of dollars on infrastructure, institution building, education, healthcare, and other development indicators that are correlated with prosperity. But a closer look at rich countries today shows that investments in disruptive innovations came first. Africa should thus follow suit.

Governments should support entrepreneurs whose business models are targeted at non-consumption. By doing this, they will inevitably create jobs for many people, as was the case with Nollywood and Indomie Noodles. This, our research suggests, will ultimately lead to unfettered prosperity in Africa.

By Efosa Ojomo

Drive economic development and inclusive growth by supporting innovation and encouraging entrepreneurs. 

Entrepreneurs: Submit your projects for funding (Apply) | Investors: Find scalable projects with both financial returns and social impact. Click image.

Institutional investors face a moment of truth about their commitment to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. Many have long realized that these issues—including climate change, workplace diversity, and long-standing corporate concerns such as executive compensation—can drive risks and returns. In fact, many large institutional investors have publicly committed themselves to integrate ESG factors into their investing. The UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) have been signed by more than 1,500 investors and managers, representing nearly $60 trillion in assets under management.

Download Brochure and Learn More. Click image.

Yet look a little deeper, and it’s clear that many investors have struggled to convert their commitment into practice. For example, less than 1 percent of the total capital of the 15 largest US public pension funds is allocated to ESG-specific strategies, such as ESG-screened passive indexes, active management using ESG insights, or private-market management with a fully integrated ESG strategy. Moreover, many institutional investors continue to treat ESG as a sideshow rather than an integral part of their investing. While ESG and corporate-governance teams are commonplace, they are often held at arm’s length from core investment activities. Even the most successful funds have integrated ESG unevenly. While sustainable-equities strategies (such as low-carbon indexes) are no longer oddities, most funds haven’t expanded ESG integration to other asset classes. Members of the PRI agree that more is required. Its board is considering a change that would allow it to remove signatories that haven’t made sufficient practical progress.

This is not to say that the industry has been standing still. In fact, three big problems have recently been cracked, setting the stage for continued growth. First, investors have struggled for some time to determine which ESG concerns are relevant to particular investments. In response, some leading institutions have embraced the idea of “materiality,” derived from the concept of material information in accounting. Much as knowledge that could influence investors’ decisions is deemed material, so too are ESG factors that will have a measurable effect on an investment’s financial performance. According to a recent study using the materiality framework of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), companies that address material ESG issues and ignore immaterial ones outperform those that address both material and immaterial issues by 4 percent and outperform companies that address neither by nearly 9 percent (exhibit). Generation Investment Management, a sustainable-investing specialist founded by David Blood and Al Gore, put ESG materiality at the heart of its global equity strategy and has reportedly exceeded its benchmark by an annualized 500 basis points for over a decade.

Second, many institutions have found it hard to measure external managers’ regard for ESG issues; they need a kind of “greenwashing” detector to see through the obfuscation that plagues some managers’ activities. A number of institutions are now successfully deploying new mechanisms to increase accountability. The New York Common Retirement Fund, for example, recently developed a comprehensive scoring system based on the best available benchmarks. Managers that don’t disclose information receive poor marks, hammering home the idea that transparency is paramount when someone else’s capital is on the line.

Third, some board members and trustees of institutional investors have worried about whether, as part of meeting their fiduciary duties, they are considering ESG factors. Recently, the US Department of Labor revised its ERISA1guidance to say explicitly that consideration of ESG concerns is a part of the pension plans’ fiduciary duty. The department also specified that when a fiduciary considers two investments that are similar from a financial perspective, it should select the one that’s better from the standpoint of ESG. Such cases come up frequently. In France, the Ministry of Finance recently announced new rules that require investors to measure their portfolios’ exposure to carbon, among other ESG considerations. With the regulatory drumbeat picking up tempo, investors will probably soon adopt sound practices to determine materiality and evaluate managers.

Accelerating progress

Materiality, scorecards, and clearer definitions of fiduciary duty are only a launchpad. A commitment to ESG integration will remain merely symbolic unless institutions change their investment and capital-allocation processes in the ways required for this kind of investing to lift off. Investors should consider six steps to broaden and enhance their ESG impact.

Require uniform corporate ESG-reporting standards based on the principle of materiality

Considerations of materiality ought to be a two-way street: publicly traded companies as well as investment managers should disclose material ESG information. Some institutional investors have already been working with groups such as the Carbon Disclosure Project to push companies to report their ESG metrics (for instance, their carbon footprint or water usage), but more must be done.

Requiring companies to share all material information in a standardized, comparable way is necessary if institutional investors and their external managers are to assess the meaningful ESG-related risks and opportunities companies face. Institutional investors can work with the groups that have sprung up to advance the cause. The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, for example, has rigorously defined materiality factors at sector and industry levels and is pushing for disclosure of material ESG factors in IPO and 10-K filings. Institutional investors should also collaborate with the Financial Stability Board’s task force on climate-related financial disclosures (led by Bank of England governor Mark Carney and Michael Bloomberg) and support the efforts of the International Integrated Reporting Council to encourage more comprehensive corporate reporting, including reporting on material ESG factors. They may also wish to comment on the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s recent consultation about whether investors would like to see more formal disclosure requirements for companies’ sustainability measures.

Build a shared ESG-rating system for external managers

Institutional investors usually have a rigorous due-diligence process for evaluating their external managers, yet too many treat their assessment of the managers’ approach to ESG as merely an exercise in box ticking. Farsighted institutions are already building systems to rate external managers more thoroughly, but a shared system would multiply the benefits considerably. Rather than duplicating one another’s work, funds could both cut the effort needed to make informed decisions and hold managers to a high standard for their ESG performance across the board.

A shared rating system should consider the sources of a manager’s ESG insights and the ways it seeks to engage with the companies in which it invests. The system will need to reflect the nuances of different asset classes and investment styles; ESG factors will be less material for many hedge-fund strategies than for managers investing in real assets or global equities, for example. Over time, a shared rating system should help prime the market for ESG-informed investment strategies. Many of them have historically struggled to gain allocations because of their short investment histories or skepticism about whether the alpha they generate will endure. That’s why institutional investors should invest in building a shared, open standard that their investment professionals will understand rather than simply outsourcing this task to investment consultants.

Work together to engage with corporations

Most investors recognize that as patient capital, engagement is for them both a social responsibility and a source of long-term returns. Yet most have small corporate-engagement teams that can work with only a few companies each year. Leaders such as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, and Calpers have built relationship-investing strategies—they back engagement with dedicated capital and sometimes board seats. Large external asset managers such as BlackRock and Vanguard have strengthened their engagement teams and are working with their investors on this front.2But even these efforts have limits to what they can achieve.

Too many investors fritter away their best chance at engagement by relying blindly on third-party proxy-voting guidance. Investors have a real opportunity to move beyond ad-hoc collaboration; instead, they could agree on a specific and narrow set of principles, back these with capital, and commit their votes. From this platform, they could demand that laggards disclose material ESG factors. For example, they might join Fidelity in calling for the pay of all CEOs to be based on incentive plans that are at least five years long—or go further and call for such plans to be based on a mix of operational, free-cash-flow, and material ESG metrics.

Investors should also request better disclosure and ask companies to lay out long-term strategies showing how ESG factors may affect their ability to generate value. Businesses that depend on a “social license to operate” to maintain their pricing power or that need to invest heavily in training to expand a peer-to-peer sales force should reveal these ESG-related dependencies. Investors might slap proxy motions on companies slow to respond.

Stress-test portfolios for ESG risk factors

Since 2008, many institutional investors have strengthened their risk management—for example, by adding tools and skills needed to run scenario analyses on how their portfolios might behave in times of stress. Yet most focus narrowly on “tail” value-at-risk scenarios driven by broad macroeconomic volatility. They ought to complement this approach with considerations of unpredictable shocks, such as regional water shortages, avian-flu pandemics, and increases in (or the introduction of) externality pricing.

Other institutions are embracing risk-factor investing: they evaluate their exposure to root sources of risk, such as currencies and interest rates, and then set limits for them. In both stress-test and risk-factor investing, material ESG considerations are not always taken into account, but they should be. A risk-informed decision-making process allows institutional investors to fulfill their fiduciary duty as stewards of university and foundation assets or of the retirement savings of public-sector employees.

Public concern over climate change is a particularly acute risk factor and source of value at risk. Many institutional investors are considering whether to reduce the carbon exposure in their portfolios or even to divest out of fossil fuels entirely. We realize that some fiduciaries view this as a moral decision. Nonetheless, it is important for institutional investors to have a nuanced understanding of the actual ESG risks they are exposed to, so that they can choose whether and how to respond. Some institutional investors have decided against divestment in the short term but plan to test their portfolios continually for climate risk. They are setting clear limits that, when triggered, will require them to reduce their exposure, to encourage companies to return cash rather than invest in exploration, or ultimately to divest fully.

Use a long-term ESG outlook to unlock new investment opportunities

All investors ought to consider material ESG factors. But the long time horizons and broad market exposure of institutional investors mean that they are particularly vulnerable to the good or bad ESG decisions of the companies in which they invest. Some institutions have developed innovative investment strategies to deal with this issue. For example, several have created indexes that either screen out worst-in-class ESG companies or weight toward best-in-class companies. Since 2012, the Swedish pension plan AP4 has been running a low-carbon fund that excludes the 150 worst polluters in the S&P 500, thereby producing an index whose carbon footprint is about 50 percent lower than that of the broader index.

While differing liability profiles may make custom indexes the optimal solution for institutions, they should consider the scale benefits of collaborating with others. A good example is the $2 billion committed by six big institutions to the Long-Term Value Creation Global Index, designed for them by S&P. Investors should also think beyond passive equities and consider how they can use ESG factors to reduce risk or identify alpha across a range of asset classes. An obvious possibility is direct investments in companies and real assets where institutional investors have enough influence or control to upgrade the ESG management.

Finally, only a handful of ESG managers have ten-year track records. Institutional investors shouldn’t wait passively for such track records to turn up—they ought to use their emerging-manager programs to seed and support innovative ESG-informed strategies. Several managers are pushing the boundaries of ESG-informed investing (see sidebar, “Innovative approaches to integrating ESG”).

Confront the skepticism and misunderstanding that surround ESG head-on

Successful investment organizations have strong cultures, but strengthening a culture takes time. At many institutions, ESG investing is caught in a cultural trap. For decades, conventional wisdom has held that ESG and its forebears, such as socially responsible investing, are merely a sideline, something to be worked on separately from the true business of investing. Changing this mind-set requires concrete action.

Chief investment officers must direct a cultural change within their investment teams. For a start, they can model the right behavior by leading the integration of ESG into the investment committee’s risk/return discussions. Institutional investors should also consider whether training and certifications may advertise the value they place on ESG fluency. Just as the CFA Institute’s Claritas certificate gives investment professionals a measure of credibility after only 100 hours of study, an industry-wide ESG certification could become a signal of qualification to institutional investors as they hire and invest. Bloomberg, the CFA Institute, the SASB, and many universities already offer ESG courses, and some consolidation around a clear industry qualification would benefit everyone.

Turning a symbolic commitment to ESG into daily practice will not be easy. But faced with rising stakeholder demand for meaningful action, there is little choice. Institutions that get out in front of the growing wave will be the first to reap the benefits of sound ESG investing: better returns, lower risk, and—should these ideas be widely adopted—a more sustainable world.

Africa’s power sector needs far exceed most countries’ already stretched public finances, making it crucial for governments to attract greater levels of private investment to scale up generation capacity. To reach the scale required, governments must provide a sound investment climate and enabling environment, the report finds.

 “Independent Power Projects in Sub-Saharan Africa – Lessons from Five Key Countries” draws on case studies carried out in Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda – countries that have the most experience with IPPs in the region.

“Independent power projects now constitute the primary vehicle for private investment in the African power sector,” said Makhtar Diop, the World Bank’s Vice President for Africa. “The objective of this report is to identify key lessons that can help African countries attract more and better private investment.”

Currently, there are 126 IPPs in 18 Sub-Saharan countries, accounting for an installed capacity of 11 GW and $25.6 billion in investments. But to benefit more countries the report recommends these IPPs should be much larger and spread across the region.

Enabling factors for attracting more and better IPPs include:

1. More competitive procurement efforts from countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, which includes encouraging long-term contracts through a competitive bidding process. This can help secure reduced prices and help avert other issues, such as the possibility of a problematic contract. If direct negotiations are conducted, they should be done transparently.
2. Clear and conducive energy sector policies, structures and regulatory environment.
3. Systematic and dynamic power sector planning, including the ability to accurately project future electricity demand, determine best supply or demand management options and anticipate how long it will take to procure, finance, and build the required electricity generation capacity.
4. Financial viability of the public utilities is vital as they remain the principal off-takers of power produced by IPPs. Given the high-risk environment of most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, it will be important to provide proper mitigation through financial guarantees and security measures to attract new investors.

The report also finds that renewable energy IPPs are becoming more promising and can be viable if procured competitively.

The report concludes that all sources of investment need to be encouraged and for IPPs to flourish, countries in Sub-Saharan Africa need dynamic, least-cost planning linked to the timely, competitive procurement of new power generation capacity. This must be accompanied by effective regulations that encourage distribution utilities that purchase power to improve their performance and prospects for financial sustainability, thereby widening access to electricity.

By the World Bank

Click on image to submit your project on energy or other sectos for financing and scaling up.

The experience inspired Nyankamawu to create Volta, a company that builds solar power projects for health clinics, schools and farms across Ghana.

Volta’s customers pay for 25% of the capital costs upfront, and the rest via monthly payments over two years. None of Nyankamawu’s customers have ever missed a payment, Nyankamawu said.

“Our model works best when it’s a substitute for people who are already using diesel generators,” he added. “They’re saving up to 45% on their costs by switching to solar.”

I met Nyankamawu at the Clean Energy Ministerial in San Francisco earlier this month, an annual gathering of energy leaders from 23 countries and the European Union. The meeting marked the first time the ministers met since more than 170 countries signed the Paris climate agreement to limit the global temperature rise to under 2C, a goal that won’t be met without strong domestic policies that give the businesses incentives to invest in a low-carbon future.

I often hear criticisms that businesses, which account for most of the manmade emissions that are causing global warming, aren’t doing their part to keep the rising temperatures in check. Surveys and anecdotal evidence show that many corporate leaders don’t see their role in this global effort.

But that’s not what I have seen. A growing number of companies are turning to renewable energy to reduce their carbon footprint. I am impressed with entrepreneurs like Nyankamawu and other business leaders who work on making renewable energy affordable and accessible. And they represent progress. Putting money in renewable energy, whether through power purchase agreements with big solar and wind farms in the US, or tiny household-sized solar projects in Africa, was a rarity even just five years ago.

Many Fortune 500 companies recognize a direct connection between climate change and their financial wellbeing. Earlier this month, a half-dozen major companies, including TD Bank and Interface, joined RE100, a coalition of businesses that are switching to 100% renewable electricity. The shift has been especially strong in the US, where large corporate buyers contracted a record 3.2 gigawatts of renewable energy last year, nearly 20% of the 16.4 gigawatts of renewables added to the US electric grid overall. That means tens of thousands of workers rely on solar and wind power to do their jobs, and that number will only go up.

One of the most impressive efforts I heard at the San Francisco meeting came from Lisa Jackson, who leads Apple’s environmental and social initiatives. Jackson talked about the company’s effort to use solar and wind energy to run its own global operations and the factories in China that make its iPhones and iPads, including a plan to bring online 2,000 megawatts of green energy there. The company would work with its suppliers there to build those projects.

Some of the most compelling stories came from Africa. Home to the world’sfastest growing population, the continent is a key front in the Paris climate agreement’s quest. In Tanzania, Off-Grid Electric allows homes and small businesses to install solar systems and pay for them via mobile phone payments. Off-Grid says it’s currently installing more than 10,000 solar units every month in Tanzania and Rwanda, and recently raised $70m from San Francisco-based DBL Partners and other investors to help hire more staff and expand operations.

More businesses will switch to renewable energy if they are able to finance it. We saw a record $329bn in global clean energy investment last year, but that falls short of the estimated $1tn that will be needed every year through 2050 to help achieve the 2C goal. A major emission producing country such as India, which aims to install 175 gigawatts of wind and solar power by 2022, will need anestimated $200bn to reach that milestone. The country attracted $10.9bn in clean energy investments last year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

There is one group of investors who could help fill that gap, but they have yet to value renewable energy investments: institutional investors. They manage public pension, insurance and other funds that are worth trillions of dollars. These investors are dipping their toes in clean energy in US and Europe but remain on the sidelines in emerging markets, which they consider particularly risky.

Michael Liebreich, founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, likened the challenge of fighting climate change to climbing Mount Everest: “We’ve just reached base camp.”

No doubt, getting to the top of the mountain will require huge participation from the business community globally.

The window of time to summit is now – and they’ll need to move quickly.

By Peyton Fleming