• Agenda
  • Initiatives
  • Reports
  • Events
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Leadership and Governance
    • Our Members and Partners
    • Communities
    • History
    • Klaus Schwab
    • Media
    • Contact Us
    • Careers
    • World Economic Forum USA
    • Privacy and Terms of Use
  • EN ES FR 日本語 中文
  • Login to TopLink

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. By using our website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Notice.

I accept
    Hamburger
  • World Economic Forum Logo
  • Agenda
  • Initiatives
  • Reports
  • Events
  • About
  • TopLink
  • Search Cancel

Report Home

<Previous Next>
  • Preface
  • 1. Introduction to the Mainstreaming Impact Investing Initiative
    • 1.1 Executive Summary
    • 1.2 Motivation
    • 1.3 Focus and Scope
  • 2. Definitional Alignment
    • 2.1 Clarifying the Taxonomy
    • 2.2 Areas of Definitional Confusion
  • 3. Impact Investment Sector Assessment
    • 3.1 Harnessing the Hype
    • 3.2 Impact Investment Ecosystem: The Landscape Today
    • 3.3 Case Studies: Examples of Mainstream Investors in Impact Investing
    • 3.4 Impact Investing Across Asset Classes
    • 3.5 Voice of the Mainstream Institutional Investor
  • 4. Challenges that Institutional Investors Face
    • 4.1 Early-stage Ecosystem
    • 4.2 Small Average Deal Size
    • 4.3 Fit within Asset Allocation Framework
    • 4.4. Double Bottom Line
  • 5. Recommendations
    • 5.1 Role of Impact Investment Funds
    • 5.2 Role of Impact Enterprises
    • 5.3 Role of Philanthropists and Foundations
    • 5.4 Role of Governments
    • 5.5 Role of Intermediaries
  • 6. Conclusion
  • Appendix: Institutional Investors Interested in Getting Started
  • References and Further Reading
  • Acknowledgements
From the Margins to the Mainstream: Assessment of the Impact Investment Sector and Opportunities to Engage Mainstream Investors Home Previous Next
  • Report Home
  • Preface
  • 1. Introduction to the Mainstreaming Impact Investing Initiative

    • 1.1 Executive Summary
    • 1.2 Motivation
    • 1.3 Focus and Scope
  • 2. Definitional Alignment
    • 2.1 Clarifying the Taxonomy
    • 2.2 Areas of Definitional Confusion
  • 3. Impact Investment Sector Assessment
    • 3.1 Harnessing the Hype
    • 3.2 Impact Investment Ecosystem: The Landscape Today
    • 3.3 Case Studies: Examples of Mainstream Investors in Impact Investing
    • 3.4 Impact Investing Across Asset Classes
    • 3.5 Voice of the Mainstream Institutional Investor
  • 4. Challenges that Institutional Investors Face
    • 4.1 Early-stage Ecosystem
    • 4.2 Small Average Deal Size
    • 4.3 Fit within Asset Allocation Framework
    • 4.4. Double Bottom Line
  • 5. Recommendations
    • 5.1 Role of Impact Investment Funds
    • 5.2 Role of Impact Enterprises
    • 5.3 Role of Philanthropists and Foundations
    • 5.4 Role of Governments
    • 5.5 Role of Intermediaries
  • 6. Conclusion
  • Appendix: Institutional Investors Interested in Getting Started
  • References and Further Reading
  • Acknowledgements

4.2 Small Average Deal Size

4.2 Small Average Deal Size

The second challenge that institutional investors face when considering allocation of capital to impact investments involves the size of the transactions. As Figure 18 illustrates, the average direct investment made by impact investment funds into impact enterprises is significantly less than the growth capital deals of traditional private equity firms in 2012.

To overcome the challenge of direct investment, institutional investors can make investments into impact investment private equity funds. However, the challenge is also acutely present for these investments. An anecdotal example helps illustrate this constraint. An impact investment fund manager described an investment meeting with a pension fund in which the investment committee explained that they would not take more than a 5% stake in a private equity fund and would not commit less than US$ 30 million; thus the impact investment fund would need to be at least US$ 600 million to even pass the pension fund’s initial screen. In reality, only 2% of impact investment funds would meet these criteria.78 This challenge is further illustrated in Figure 19, which shows the average individual allocation of capital to private equity by all major institutional investor types compared to the average investment sought by impact investment private equity funds.

Because the deal sizes are smaller, the costs of due diligence may be higher for impact investments and the deal economics may look fundamentally different. Sourcing the right deals in the pipeline can be costly, often requiring local country support, especially for deals in frontier markets. Although further work needs to be done to better understand the fundamental economics of impact investment deals, 58% of US-based pension funds surveyed said that impact investing involves a higher cost of due diligence than traditional investing. As one institutional investor explained during an interview, “The due diligence time required for a US$ 10 million investment is the same as the time required for a US$ 100 million investment; our resources are best spent on the larger deal.”

One way that institutional investors have worked around the small deals is by investing in asset classes other than private equity and direct investment. As described in Section 3.4, impact investments in real estate, infrastructure and fixed income typically involve larger deal sizes and thus may be more applicable asset classes for large-scale institutional investors. 

Figure 18: Average Direct Impact Investment Size vs Private Equity Growth Capital Deals

Source:  Preqin; GIIN, Deloitte Analysis

Figure 19: Average Range of Individual Investment Commitment into Private Equity, by Institutional Investor (Gl

Note: Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) average allocation range to Private Equity ranges from $46M to $118M; (but n = 10, so was excluded from the analysis). Analysis assumes that impact investment funds seek between 3% – 10% of fund size

Source: Preqin, Deloitte Analysis

78
78 Source: Deloitte Analysis of ImpactBase Funds.
Back to Top
Subscribe for updates
A weekly update of what’s on the Global Agenda
Follow Us
About
Our Mission
Leadership and Governance
Our Members and Partners
The Fourth Industrial Revolution
Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Communities
History
Klaus Schwab
Our Impact
Media
Pictures
A Global Platform for Geostrategic Collaboration
Careers
Open Forum
Contact Us
Mapping Global Transformations
Code of Conduct
World Economic Forum LLC
Sustainability
World Economic Forum Privacy Policy
Media
News
Accreditation
Subscribe to our news
Members & Partners
Member login to TopLink
Strategic Partners' area
Partner Institutes' area
Global sites
Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Open Forum
Global Shapers
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship
EN ES FR 日本語 中文
© 2019 World Economic Forum
Privacy Policy & Terms of Service