The role of education in improving the people’s lives and encouraging economic development is widely recognized, making it a focus for national governments, philanthropic bodies and international development agencies. Increasingly, it’s viewed as an indispensible tool for easing poverty, reducing inequality and boosting economic sustainability. Research has shown that one year of education can increase wages by five to 15 percent, while each year of secondary school raises them by up to 25 percent.

What’s more, quality education for all—including marginalized groups, women and adult learners—can generate huge economic rewards for a country, increasing its gross domestic product per capita by 23 per cent over 40 years.

More investment is needed—right now

There’s little doubt about the value of education. Yet, despite making commitments to Millennium Development Goals in education, the global community has so far failed to come up with the investment needed to hit education targets. While spending on education by low-income countries has increased by an average of 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent of GDP over the last decade rich countries have not stepped up to the same degree.

In 2010 estimates showed that an additional $16 billion per year would be needed just to provide basic education for children, youths and adults by 2015. However, actual spending has hovered around the $3 billion mark annually. The result is a funding gap that has almost doubled in the intervening years. Today, estimates place the annual financing shortfall at a staggering $26 billion.

It now seems likely that the Millennium Development Goal for education will not be reached by the 2015 deadline and there are concerns on the part organizations like Education for All about what will happen to education development post-2015 and in years to come.

In a further development, low-income countries and poor populations aren’t the only ones facing an education crisis. The education systems in rich countries like the US, the UK and Australia, for instance, are also suffering from the effects of squeezed public budgets and skyrocketing costs, especially in the higher education sector. This has left educational attainment rates dropping, especially among poor people and minority groups, over a number of years.   Many would-be students are priced out of access to higher education just when the need for an educated workforce is on the rise.

Innovative finance solutions

So what can be done to help the poorest attain access to quality education and the better-off optimize their access to higher forms of learning? The key, recent research suggests, is to bring more private capital into the sector and to experiment with new kinds of investments that target specific educational problems and meet the needs of specific groups.

In many parts of the world, education has until now been the sole preserve of governments and development aid agencies, but there is evidence that this is beginning to change as new funding approaches — like impact investing— gain popularity and prove their viability. Though governments and development aid agencies will continue to play a central funding role, the education sector is now actively looking for ways to attract private capital, often in the form of impact investment, as a means to fill that yawning $26 billion funding chasm.

Though it’s early days, there’s already evidence that impact finance can be effective in education.  George Soros’ Open Society Foundations have produced some first findings on impact investing in developing countries’ education systems. The results suggest that workable models are evolving on a small scale, often in collaboration with governments, and some are already showing respectable track records of financial return and demonstrable benefit.

These indications are hopeful, yet impact investing in education is still in its infancy. Education accounted for only 3% of the investments of participants in the GIIN’s recent sector survey, a figure that suggests that impact investors have been hesitant to engage in this sector.

The OSF report confirms this image of tentative, early-stage activity in education by impact investors:  “Most deals remain small, and investments in schools currently dominate deal-making, with more innovative technology and management models just beginning to emerge. As yet, few business models deliver strong immediate financial return while reaching the most vulnerable beneficiaries.”

More worrying perhaps is the fact that impact’s involvement in education investing remains split into two camps, according to the report. On the one hand there are impact investors focused on “reaching the lowest income populations without expectation of any financial return”; on the other are investors who expect market rate returns and place capital into deals that “target middle and upper class populations.”

By now, this is a familiar situation for impact, with well-meaning investors in many sectors still struggling to find ways to engage with the middle ground and find models that meet needs while maintaining profitability. Yet, given the pressing global demand for education, there is enormous potential for innovation, both in terms of finance models and in terms of education delivery methods. With more impact engagement—and a renewed commitment by the education sector to finding new ways to finance and deliver good quality education on all levels—there is scope for significant  positive change in which impact investing can play a significant role.

By deepening its commitment to investing in education, the impact community has the opportunity to help solve one of the world’s greatest challenges.In the next blog in this series, we’ll be looking at the places where impact capital has the potential to be most effective in the education sector. As the need for education continues to grow, so will the range of methods and approaches for private capital, including public-private collaborations, an expanded role for impact intermediaries, and new technologies with the potential to deliver education to underserved communities as never before.

By Marta Maretich

However, if your focus is emerging markets enterprises that can have an impact on people living in poverty, a recent blog by Ceniarth Capital said it best: “Those of us actively allocating capital to fragile enterprises in developing markets recognize that those people who promise comfortable market rate returns while solving global poverty are the equivalent of diet gurus promising that one can lose weight while eating limitless amounts of chocolate cake.”

In a report launched by Oxfam and Sumerian Partners today, we argue that it’s time to look at impact investing differently; to start with a focus on the needs of the businesses working to make a meaningful impact on poverty reduction, rather than on the investors who stand to benefit from their work. Enterprises working in this space are in new territory – continually adapting their business models, earning low and slow returns and operating in markets that are subject to considerable exogenous shocks (e.g., economic instability, weak infrastructure, extreme weather events and poorly developed value chains). These firms will make decisions that can seem irrational if your focus is market return. They may seek out “at risk” populations, such as single moms balancing the demands of work and family, as employees. They may share ownership and decision-making with their workers. They may pay their suppliers not the price that is commonly expected in the market, but a higher price the firm sees as “fair.” The businesses themselves, and the funds that put their money into these firms, organize around the intention to generate a measurable, beneficial social or environmental impact alongside a financial return – and that prioritization is reflected in their structures, processes and activities.

However, to meet the return expectations that have been established by the sector’s push toward the larger mainstream market, we increasingly see conventional emerging markets investments being reclassified as “impact investing.” Arguably, it’s this trend that has transformed TPG’s investment in Apollo Tower, a cellphone tower company in Myanmar, from a standard emerging market foreign direct investment into an impact investment. The impact statement claimed by supporters is that cellphone access has “helped to increase transparency in a country known for tight control of its information, helping the nation take steps toward democracy.” Hmmm. Really? A cell phone company is actually a democracy and governance project in disguise? Seems a bit of a stretch.

As we write in our report, it should not be assumed that an investment in a cell tower, or a wind farm, or any other enterprise in the global south, is inherently socially positive. Rather, it should be incumbent upon the fund to demonstrate how these enterprises are intentionally structured to optimize impact and benefit poor and marginalized groups – rather than only providing implied, incidental or indirect benefits. They should be able to show what difference the fund’s provision of capital and support and engagement has made. Any self-identifying impact investor should be able to demonstrate a clear intentionality to achieve impact.

Furthermore, the research that has set the prevailing “have your cake and eat it too”-sized return expectations has its limitations. Take, for example, the very same GIIN/Cambridge associates “benchmark” report, which included no commentary on the associated impacts achieved and instead used a self-reported intention to generate social impact as the only impact-related criteria for inclusion in the benchmark. The data included a high proportion of funds focused on the theme of financial inclusion, an industry that has depended on decades of subsidies. Finally, the “benchmark” setting was drawn from a small pool of funds, all of which were targeting market rate returns.

Why does any of this matter anyway? Big tent, right? It matters because the rush to the mainstream can pull impact investing away from its original intent and undermine the meaningful role it can and should play in poverty reduction. It matters because high-profile investments such as Apollo Towers shift the goal posts for everyone. It makes philanthropists doing the critical work of providing smart subsidy to funds and enterprises operating in the toughest places ask, as they have of Root Capital, “Am I the dumbest money in the room?” – If everyone else is making tons of money, am I a sucker if I’m giving it away? And it can divert social entrepreneurs from their mission when they are challenged with the trade-off between purpose and profit. As one social entrepreneur told me recently, “Do we really need this money? Is it going to disorganize us from our original idea? The motivating factor will be to meet the profit targets, not looking at the social part. … Maybe the pressure we will feel from the investors will move us to abandon our women’s empowerment mission. We don’t want that to happen.”

We propose six recommendations that we think can provide a more balanced understanding of what is possible in impact investing, letting the sector begin to use money more creatively:

1. We call for a shift of approach in the market; from one in which we tailor funds around the needs of investors to one focused on developing products that serve the needs of enterprises seeking to combat poverty. Specifically, we need wider adoption of alternative fund structures – such as permanent capital vehicles and evergreen funds – and new financial tools that reflect the predominantly “low and slow returns” of most enterprises prioritizing social impact.
2. The sector needs greater transparency around reporting both the impact and financial returns(gross and net) achieved by impact investors.
3. Donors and philanthropists need to deploy smart subsidy and patient capital (return of capital, rather than return on capital) to support enterprises capable of making a meaningful contribution to poverty reduction, and to support hybrid financing models alongside impact investors seeking a net return on capital. Grants, philanthropy and smart subsidy should be seen as part of the impact investing continuum, not its enemy.
4. The industry needs more independent research to understand the enterprise-level experience, and to analyze which structures, approaches and incentives best help businesses to maintain an intentionality to optimize impact.
5. We call on impact investors to agree to a voluntary code of practice that enshrines the intentionality to behave and take decisions in ways that have a primary focus on achieving impact.
6. Impact investors should adopt incentives for optimizing, measuring and reporting impact as well as achieving financial return targets.

We have no problem with financial returns, but let’s not pretend that investors seeking a pure market return can tackle the most complex global challenges in high-risk markets. They cannot. Not in education. Not in health. Not in reducing child labor and forced marriage. Not in water and sanitation. Not even in banking for small enterprises, which continue to be significantly underserved today by markets everywhere, despite SMEs being the biggest generators of jobs and incomes globally. One just needs to look at the history of Silicon Valley or the microfinance industry ­– both completely commercial today – to justify smart subsidy and venture philanthropy. Our memories are simply too short. It’s not about distorting the market – often, there is not much there to distort – it is about catalyzing it.

By Mara Bolis, Oxfam

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

“A lawyer sponsored us,” Yohannes says, through a refugee resettlement program of the Third Presbyterian Church in Rochester. Yohannes’ father, whose vision is mostly impaired due to stepping on a land mine in 1978, is now a board member of the church. “Being able to come to America and start over on humble beginnings even after stepping on a land mine is one of the reasons why our founders fought bloody battles,” Johannes adds.

His father now works in a probation office, managing cases involving domestic violence. His mother recently retired from a career in nursing. Yohannes went to law school in Buffalo, and clerked for a judge in Western New York. But thanks to another fortunate connection to a mentor in Washington, D.C., he got into the world of finance. “Finance was never in my language. My DNA is fighting for those who are in need and I got that from my father,” Yohannes says. Now, he can’t imagine himself in another industry.

President Barack Obama announced a new federal $1 billion fund for impact investing in 2011, and he eventually called upon Yohannes to finalize its design and make the program permanent. “This program makes sense to me because it fits my theme in life — make a dollar as well as create positive results for our country,” says Yohannes, whom the president officially appointed to serve as senior adviser to the chief investment and innovation officer at the Small Business Administration (SBA).

The specific goal of the $1 billion is to support small business investment strategies that maximize financial return while also yielding measurable social, environmental or economic impact. The program is housed under the SBA’s Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) licensing program. Under the impact investment program, SBIC-licensed funds promise to invest in small businesses in federal priority sectors and underserved communities, while at the same time contributing to the growth and development of the impact investment industry.

One possible example: using some of that $1 billion to invest in a small real estate developer that is also utilizing new markets tax credit financing for a project to create jobs in a low-income neighborhood.

The standard SBIC license has been a sweet deal for many venture capital or private equity funds. Under the program, for every dollar in capital they raise, the SBA matches up to 2-1, up to a maximum of $150 million. Fund management firms then go out with that federally supersized pool of capital and make investments in small businesses. The fund management firm eventually pays back the SBA, with interest. SBA operations require zero taxpayer dollars, instead funding operations through interest earned on its various investments such as SBIC-licensed funds.

The SBIC licensing program was born when President Dwight Eisenhower signed the Small Business Investment Act, on August 21, 1958 — a date that many would argue is also the birth date of the modern venture capital industry. The program provided the first legal framework as well as financial incentives for people to pool money from strangers for the sole purpose of investing in other strangers — specifically, small business owners. As two legal scholars wrote, in 1959, “Congress has for some time been acutely aware of the difficulties facing small business concerns seeking adequate long term financing for modernization, growth and development. It realized that commercial banks are not able to furnish such long term financing, that public [i.e. stock market] sale of small issues of securities involved prohibitive costs, and that private placements had afforded no general solution to the problem.”

The first SBIC-licensed fund managers were essentially the first modern venture capital firms. “The iconic venture capital firms and private equity funds, generally speaking, have received SBIC dollars or have had a SBIC license,” Yohannes says. “Arguably the most iconic brands have received investments through the SBIC license.” Apple, Intel, FedEx, Costco, Staples, even Build-a-Bear are just a few of the companies over the years that got early stage investment from an SBIC license holder.

While there have been more than 300 SBIC-licensed funds at this point, today they are only a small fraction of the venture capital industry, which has grown to have several well-known shortcomings. Eighty-seven percent of venture-backed startup founders are white; 92 percent are men. More than three-quarters of venture capital ends up in just three states: California, New York and Massachusetts.

In some ways, the SBIC program has already been addressing some of that. From 2011 to 2015, SBIC-licensed funds invested $21 billion in more than 6,400 companies, 20 percent of them located in low- to moderate-income areas. A majority of SBIC-licensed capital went into states other than California, New York or Massachusetts. Part of the impetus for the $1 billion SBIC Impact Investment program is to be more intentional about driving capital to communities that have long been neglected by venture capital and other investment sources.

“Early on it appears that our funds invest more in women and minority-led companies than your standard private equity fund,” says Yohannes. “We’re gonna continue to do that, we’re gonna continue to invest money in the Mississippi Delta, we’re gonna continue to invest money in Detroit, we’re gonna continue to invest money in American small businesses where gaps are the widest.”

So far there are seven impact SBICs. One of them, Bridges Ventures, comes from the U.K. Founded in 2002, Bridges Ventures was created solely for impact investing.

“We have a pretty high bar for impact at Bridges, which is one of the reasons why we felt comfortable committing ourselves to the SBA’s impact bar,” says Brian Trelstad, global partner at Bridges Ventures.

In the U.K., the firm has been active in the pay for performance (or social impact bond) space, for example. They regularly speak about or find other ways to share their evolving approach to impact investing, how to measure it and what are some case studies.

In the U.S., Trelstad says, they are looking at businesses that are located in or serve underserved communities, in the areas of health and wellness, education and skills, or environmentally friendly living.

The SBIC license was an invaluable tool to help them raise capital for the fund. Even conventional SBIC-licensed funds automatically qualify for Community Reinvestment Act credit, providing a strong incentive for banks. “It allowed us to get about $18 million of bank capital,” says Trelstad.

The SBIC impact investment licensing process for Bridges took about a year, but didn’t slow them down from their usual process. “While we were fundraising [from investors] we were also going through the licensing process at the same time,” Trelstad says, adding that one of the advantages of the impact investing program is that they could cut the line in front of others seeking conventional SBIC licenses. The SBA evaluates all SBIC licenses on a rolling basis.

Bridges Ventures has made one investment so far out of its SBIC-licensed fund, in an education company. In addition to businesses creating social impact, they’re looking for a few years of positive cash flow, ideally with $5 million to $10 million in revenue. “We have some flexibility to go earlier, but we’re not going to do a complete startup,” says Trelstad.

While the SBIC Impact Investing program was created as a temporary policy under Obama, Johannes and his team are still working to move it into permanent status. “Our goal is before the end of this year. I can’t say exactly when,” says Yohannes.

By Oscar Perry Abello

This section profiles several sources of potential impact investments suitable for institutional investors. Similar to conventional investment management, these sources include companies (private and public), indices, ETFs, and bonds (or other fixed income instruments). For investors who seek to define what makes an “impact investment,” refer to the Appendix for an explanation of IRIS, a series of metrics that encapsulates many environmental and social themes. It should be noted that the number of new impact investment vehicles continues to grow, and this is by no means an exhaustive catalogue. Whatever the objectives or preferences are, this guide can serve as an introduction to institutional investors who are interested in a broad overview of existing impact investment tools and vehicles.

Companies

Many funds choose to invest in companies individually based on their operations or mission. Some specialized venture capital firms, for example, choose to support only clean technologies. Although this is certainly possible for an institutional investor, investments in larger publicly traded companies may be preferred. Institutional investors can choose companies that value certain ethical guidelines in their business operations or products. To determine whether a company qualifies as an “impact investment,” several frameworks can be used. One popular concept that many companies adopt is “corporate social responsibility,” which is loosely defined as compliance with ethical standards in a business model. CSR frameworks can be used to identify companies or organizations that are ethical or impactful in their business operations. Another more active approach for companies is to make social or environmental impact the core of their mission. It is up to the institutional investor to select companies that best fit their appetite for impact (i.e. in operations or in mission) and preferences (e.g. investment horizon, company performance, and company size).

By Rachel F. Wang, Fellow, Bretton Wood’s Initiative.

Download her report at: https://na-production.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Impact-Investing-for-Institutional-Investors.pdf

“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

A recent study by the EY Global Family Business Centre of Excellence that surveyed 525 family business owners and managers across 21 countries found that nearly half (44%) of those surveyed make investment decisions targeting specific social objectives along with a financial return.

The report, entitled Family business philanthropy – creating lasting impact through values and legacy, found that family businesses globally invest, on average, 3.1% of their wealth in social impact investing, with the Middle East (investing 3.5%), Europe and Asia (both investing 3.4%) leading this trend.

Meanwhile, the majority of family business owners and managers perceive governmental support for social impact investing to be better than (28%) or similar to (62%) the support for traditional philanthropy, even though in reality, only the UK has specifically legislated to accommodate and encourage it.

Survey respondents see government incentives and regulation as key enablers of family business philanthropy. In most countries, taxation seems to be viewed as a key factor for both philanthropy and social impact investing. In countries with laws that promote tax benefits for giving, family businesses are more likely to engage in philanthropy.

Mr. Englisch opines that as companies grow in size, their commitment to philanthropy rises in tandem, emphasising that it is therefore, crucial that governments “harness this desire of family businesses to give back [to society] and make a difference”.

Delegation to external managers

When it comes to organising their philanthropic activities, up to 70% of family business owners were found to be operating via a family-specific vehicle, with 40% having a family foundation or trust, and a mere 30% operating through a family office.

In terms of the success of philanthropic activities carried out, more than half (56%) of all family business owners personally oversee the progress and effectiveness of their philanthropic projects, with very small and very large family businesses tending to exert more family control over the projects compared to mid-sized family businesses.

The recently published World Wealth Report 2016 by Capgemini reported that Asia Pacific (APAC) is now home to the biggest pool of capital after overtaking North America for the first time, holding US$17.4 trillion in wealth from high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) and boasting a HNWI population of 5.1 million.

Within APAC, however, the degree of control varies according to country, which is likely to impact how family businesses manage their wealth and subsequently, their philanthropic activities. In Hong Kong and China – where the third generation is seen to be taking over the family’s inherited wealth and business – Enrico Mattoli, head of global family office, Greater China at UBS Wealth Management, observes an institutionalisation of family offices taking place, with management layers hired to manage family office affairs, governance measures implemented and traders or portfolio managers hired to focus on different specialisations.

Meanwhile, in other parts of Asia such as in Singapore where wealth is still largely concentrated in the hands of the first generation, Mandeep Nalwa, chief executive officer and founder of Singapore-based Taurus Family Office, says the delegation of investment responsibility does not come easy, which subsequently impacts the outsourcing of money management to funds.

“While the perceived value – in terms of the removal of the conflict of interest [element] – is well understood, oftentimes the firm belief by the family patriarch in his own ability to have checks and balances [in place] on private banks enables – mistakenly, in my opinion – high-net-worth families to dispense with hiring the services of a family office [manager], or a fund manager,” he explains.

By Asia Asset Management

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.