• 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

5.5 Role of Intermediaries

5.5 Role of Intermediaries

As described in Section 3.2, intermediaries104 can help bring mainstream capital into the impact investment sector; ultimately, mainstream banks and brokers are needed for capital to move at scale. Until then, both niche and mainstream intermediaries can advance key priorities including, but not limited to, those recommendations listed below.

Recommendation 1: Aggregate data on impact investment deals and publish the findings. As has been discussed in Section 4, small direct investments are costly to make because they require similar due diligence processes as those required for larger investments; as a result, they are infrequently made. Furthermore, every transaction is different and requires different documentation. As part of this initiative, certain investors described the need for a library of best practices, term sheets and shareholder agreements. An intermediary is best positioned to aggregate this type of information and provide example term sheets in an effort to reduce due diligence costs for smaller investors.105 In addition, an intermediary is well-suited to aggregate, report and segment sector information on impact deals, track records, demonstrated exits and realized returns. Multiple databases exist for traditional private equity that tracks information such as net IRR, multiples, rankings and benchmarks. Similar databases and information transparency will help institutional investors that seek to allocate capital towards impact investment private equity firms.

Recommendation 2: Promote a common platform that aligns capital and deal flow. The question regarding scarcity of capital versus scarcity of deals depends on the type of deal and its relative risk profile. Investments need to be better classified by factors such as performance, risk, expected return and exit timeline in order to better align investor preferences with deal flow. An intermediary is well-positioned to help articulate these optimal pairings through investment platforms. Currently, variants of these platforms do exist but they are early-stage and niche.106 Mainstream intermediaries will need to support a common platform in order for momentum to build and scale to be achieved.

Recommendation 3: Advocate for a baseline set of principles to define the practice of measurement. A common language around social metrics and standards (e.g. IRIS) allows stakeholders to communicate more effectively, benchmark and compare investments, and evaluate social and environmental performance. Comparable metrics allow investors to employ different strategies on the social bottom line, and thus are important for mainstreaming impact investing. Intermediaries can play a key role in advancing this common language. However, more important than standardization of metrics is a baseline set of principles to define the practice of measurement. Metrics should be driven by the demands of institutional investors; ultimately their level of interest, concern for comparability, and willingness to pay for measurement and assurance will determine what specific metrics are used. Intermediaries can thus play a key role in advocating and endorsing for baseline principles on how social and environmental metrics are measured and reported. 

104
104 As opposed to investment intermediaries, this section primarily deals with organizations building the market infrastructure.
105
105 As a starting point, the UK Cabinet Office, the World Economic Forum and the Impact Investing Policy Collaborative (IIPC) are in the initial stages of establishing the Global Learning Exchange, which will focus on sharing impact investment best practices through a network-of-networks (aggregating information from existing networks in one location).
106
106 Examples include: Gate Impact, ImpactAssets, ImpactBase and MissionMarkets.
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
© 2021 World Economic Forum
Privacy Policy & Terms of Service