• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

The Beacon Collaborative HomepageThe Beacon Collaborative

  • About us
    • Introduction
    • The Beacon Manifesto
    • Board of Trustees
    • Funders and partners
    • News & Views
    • Contact us
  • Better philanthropy
    • Talking about philanthropy
    • The philanthropy ecosystem
    • Donor journey
      • How do I get started?
      • Building a strategy for my donor journey
      • What is best practice in philanthropy?
      • Learning from others
      • Accountability
    • Young givers
    • Bridging diversity
    • Barriers to giving
  • Growing giving
    • Beacon Forum
    • Market measurement
    • National strategy
    • Regional philanthropy
  • Data and research
    • HNW giving
    • Reports
  • Stories
    • Philanthropy stories
    • Video interviews
    • Giving Voice to Philanthropy

Growing Giving

Crafting a meaningful experience with millennial wealth creators

June 21, 2021 by Beacon Admin

Savanta and the Beacon Collaborative carried out qualitative research with millennial wealth creators around England, Scotland and Wales who are already giving some money, but with the right motivating tools could give more now, or in the future. These are the voices of our #YoungGivers.

It’s something that just resonates with my heart.   London

Just being able to help and raise funds, and know that your money’s going to a good cause and you’re making a difference to people’s lives, makes you feel better about life and less guilty when you’re enjoying your own life.  South West

I feel as well that with small charities, the work they do tends to be a bit more targeted and it’s easier to follow up on your donation, to see exactly where it’s gone and what they are doing.  London

The overall research showed that this generation are, at heart, generous and want to do more. They understand how lucky they are to be in their situation but sometimes the other, seemingly more immediate, pressures of life have to take priority and giving takes a back seat.   However, when challenged to think about giving they are engaged and thoughtful, wanting to know more and make plans that fit into their lifestyle and longer-term family plans.

I think having to think about why you do what you do or what you get from it was quite tricky, I think we all do it to get the satisfaction that you’ve done something good but probably don’t think of it that way unless asked to look deeply.   North

So, what can be done to fit giving into the routine of busy lives, or to motivate these young wealth creators to do more?

In a world dominated by easy access information and short sound bites, charitable organisations can streamline their communications to be front and centre of a potential giver’s thoughts.

We found that charity is thought of as local and personal.  Some charitable activities, notably the arts and advocacy, are not really thought of as charitable when a young wealth creator is making a donation decision.   Sometimes it’s personal as they know someone who has been through a trauma or had a disease.  Sometimes there’s a “there but for the grace go I” empathy.  Charities not on the radar of givers need to do more to show that they are charitable and how they directly impact lives.

However, there is a sense of fatigue at the number of sponsored events that happen, especially in large workplaces and the feeling that then charity is done.  There is also a need to know where the donation will go and that it will be useful, therefore charities that appear wasteful are rejected.

The go-to charities have solid reputations and easy-to-understand messaging.  They produce images and stories that resonate on a personal level.  They show the outputs of their work in smiling faces and stories of named people.  They show the direct impact of a donation to a person or activity that the donor can visualise easily.    They provide tech enabled giving solutions that allow forgive-and-forget giving but that can be the start of regular giving over a long time period.

As yet these busy young people have not had time to fit giving decisions and planning into their lives.  They do think carefully about their environmental impact and the social justice in their surroundings, but it is not associated with “charity” but behaviour and is not part of considering a holistic lifestyle.  However, when their thoughts are provoked, they have the desire to contribute more, on their terms.

Successful interventions fit into their lifestyle and are relevant to professionals on a career path.

So how can charities engage better?

Our participants responded well to…

  • Localised stories where people were humanised, with names and faces
  • Clear objectives and the way that a donation or act creates change with suggested amounts and what that would achieve
  • Tech enabled (text message, direct debit sign up) but not complex methods to give
  • Suggested support beyond the financial – items that people really need that can be donated
  • Something that they can be proud of even if they don’t speak about it

I’m grateful that I’m not in a position that I’ll need to use any of the charities that I donate to or any of the causes.  North

When you’re under real pressure, you don’t think, ‘What I’m going to add to my really busy day is, that I need to do something for charity today.’ It’s usually when you find a gap in your schedule.   South East

I think it would be good for potentially some charities to showcase and highlight ways that people could help them as well, rather than it potentially just being all money.  Scotland

What can charities and their fundraisers do to engage?

  • Help them understand the system – what fundraising is, why capacity building is necessary, how charity structure works
  • Attributing funding to direct actions to direct impact on individuals
  • Celebrate individual contributions
  • Utilise skills and explain the value of them
  • Make it part of a greater plan, for the donor and the charity
  • Use language that is not NGO tech speak but ordinary every day terms that people understand
  • Help make it part of everyday life – fit giving in with all the other activities

I’ve always wondered how people can help a charity through connections and expertise, but the amount of time, it’s almost like another job.   Scotland

You’d feel a bit rewarded, at least you feel a little bit good.   London

At the end of the year, I tend to make a bigger contribution from my own personal money. …..We tend to get a bonus at the end of the year and I really see that as money that I wouldn’t expect to get if I worked for anyone else, so I use a proportion of that, basically, to fund a few charities of my liking.   South West

I had an example of researching a charity, and looked to see from the accounts what the director’s pay was like, and they weren’t all paying themselves a fortune…Looking to see that as much of the money as possible can go to the cause that you’re interested to support. I think it also gives you a feel of the ethos of the charity, you know, are they there for themselves?   South East

What do they want to do and hear?

Views are formed by own experience, use that to harness people’s engagement, both personal and professional: people are much more sympathetic when they see something organically by going through life and have sympathy and anger for the root causes of the issues

They are happy to talk about it if they were part of a team that helped, repeating a story they have heard but less so if they are “just” donors.  So, give them stories that they can remember and tell, and give them pride in their contributions.

Bring together peer donors who don’t know each other – mini giving circles to talk together about doing more and guide the discussion

Be honest about failures as well as successes. If there’s too much hype it becomes unbelievable

Volunteering is seen as a much bigger deal, more serious and a bigger sacrifice than giving money – more thought goes into it. Make volunteering easy, match it to a financial value, match the person to the commitment, then make sure they have stories to tell about volunteering.   Make volunteering a qualification that can be used on a CV, something that can be using professional skills, harness skills that have a value to the charity.

For the long-term future:

Established giving is not aspirational for most people, it’s “almost like another job”.

  • Help them to think of giving as an integral part of their financial planning
  • Provide online tools to calculate what can be given when
  • Make birthday and Christmas gifts more enticing to be done through charities or as donations on others’ behalf
  • Encourage intergenerational conversations about giving and charity
  • Show how much effect long term engagement/multiyear pledges can make to planning and future security

And I think it’s about having that discussion with a financial advisor to say ‘Maybe you can get a return on this, but this is done in a charitable way’, versus, ‘Why don’t you just donate this amount? And, actually, you can offset that against your tax, and this is how you would do it’. So, it’s just putting it in a bit more of a structured way.   South East

The time is now.  These young wealth earners are intelligent and thoughtful, conscious of the issues that surround them but need to be engaged more to enable wider understanding of the interplay between social issues and behaviours and the impact that can be had when acting in a holistic way.  With targeted communications now there is the potential for these young wealth earners to be engaged major donors of the future.

I thought it was a real thought provoking session…..it’s made me want to look into giving and volunteering more than I do.   Southwest

I was going to say actually after this past hour or so I don’t think I am doing enough, I think I could give more.    Scotland

Filed Under: Better Philanthropy, Growing Giving, How to do it

Top 10 needs of millennial donors (and how to meet them)

June 7, 2021 by Beacon Admin

millennial donors header

Top 10 needs of millennial donors

(…and how to meet them)

Download the guidance

Millennials are now becoming established in professional careers and beginning to earn more money. As they become wealthier, it is imperative that we expose them to charitable giving to help them embark on their philanthropic journey.

In April 2021, Beacon and Savanta published the #YoungGivers research to fill the gap in knowledge about their philanthropy. Funded by Arts Council England, the research sought to shed light on the giving habits and attitudes of wealthy young people from around the UK.

We learnt that much of what we assumed about their philanthropic activity is wrong. Instead of developing long-term strategies, they largely give in the moment; they see technology as a shortcut for ‘real’ interaction, not a replacement; they don’t use words like ‘impact’ in the same way that charities do.

We realised that charities could improve their interactions with young donors if they understood the needs of this demographic better. In this infographic, based on our insights from the #YoungGivers research, we explore the Top 10 things we learned about millennial donors and suggest how you can meet their needs.

Filed Under: Better Philanthropy, Growing Giving, How to do it

How businesses can inspire millennial philanthropy

May 21, 2021 by Beacon Admin

millennial philanthropy header

 

How businesses can inspire millennial philanthropy

A ‘cheat sheet’ showing four actionable ways businesses can stimulate charitable giving from the next generation.

Download the guidance

Research published by Beacon Collaborative and Savanta in April 2021 filled a gap in knowledge about millennial philanthropy. The report revealed insights into the ways wealthy young people give and their attitudes towards philanthropy.

One revelation was that young people – who are still overwhelmingly in the money-making phase of their careers – feel anxious about giving big amounts of money to charity. However, they do show great enthusiasm for being engaged in philanthropy in ways which are convenient and are proportionate to their wealth level. Many participants told us they would value their employer making it easier for them to give.

Initiatives such a match-funding drives, payroll giving and strong business-charity relationships were celebrated by our young givers. Based on their feedback, we have collated a one-page ‘cheat-sheet’ for businesses, explaining four implementable steps they can take to increase millennial philanthropy.

Our research suggests that following these steps will lead to happier and more engaged young employees, who feel enabled and encouraged to embark on their philanthropic journey.

Filed Under: Better Philanthropy, Growing Giving, How to do it

4 ways tech can help first-time donors

May 10, 2021 by Beacon Admin

 

4 ways tech can help first-time donors

In the past few years there’s been an evolution in the way that we make charitable donations thanks to developments in data and tech.

According to Enthuse’s quarterly research study, 67% of the public say they are likely to give in the next 12 months. With this large percentage of people making a commitment to give, it is possible that we will see more first-time donors embarking on their philanthropic journey.

Navigating philanthropy and identifying the right causes to give to can seem like a minefield when you’re first starting out. But with the explosion of data and tech-powered tools, there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. 

Here are four ways data and tech can help you to get started on your philanthropy journey.

 

1. Empowering anyone to be a donor

Philanthropy has often been considered an activity for the rich and retired, but the rise in digital giving platforms means it’s now for everyone. Platforms like Just Giving, Virgin Money Giving and Localgiving make it easier than ever to donate money digitally, while many charities also have their own online fundraising technology.

virginmoneygivingThese platforms are also responsible for a shift in the way we define philanthropy. While many of us might think of philanthropy only as donating large sums of money regularly, digital platforms are making giving more accessible to everyone – no matter their budget.

Alliance magazine reported that in 2020 giving grew by 10% in the US, thanks to an increase in small donors. Perhaps we will see the UK follow this trend. With online donation platforms philanthropy can be big or small, frequent or infrequent, and most importantly, it can reach all new demographics.

New giving platforms can allow you to dip your toe in the water by starting your giving at a lower, more manageable amount and increasing as and when you feel comfortable to do so.

 

2. Identifying the right causes to support

When you start your giving journey, it can be difficult to know what causes you should focus on. Do you support the causes closest to your heart? Or do you look at the data for funding shortfalls in specific areas?

brevioLuckily, there are now a number of platforms and services that can help you decide where to direct your focus. For example, Brevio – a grant-building platform – has a range of research tools which let philanthropists set up their own fund and gain real-time insights on where the current funding need is.

Corporate giving platforms like Benevity, Neighbourly and Semble showcase charitable projects that are looking for funding. And for comprehensive data on current funding needs, New Philanthropy Capital has developed a data dashboard that captures the locations most affected by Covid-19, as well as the level of demand for charities across the UK.

Using innovative solutions like these can show you which areas are currently underfunded and/or overwhelmed with demand for their services, ensuring you support places which will most value your contribution.

 

3. Providing better oversight & accountability

In recent years, there’s been a strong trend towards greater transparency and accountability for charities. In the US, platforms like Give Well and Charity Navigator provide detailed ratings on charities by assessing data on their programs and impact to help users find trustworthy charities to support.

charity commissionLocally, the Charity Commission’s online register provides detailed information on all charities registered in England and Wales, including financial details. You can find similar information on charities in Northern Ireland via Charity Commission NI and via OSCR for Scotland. 

If you’re thinking about supporting a particular charity, it’s always good to do your research beforehand and these digital registers make it much easier.

Feeling comfortable that charities are using your contributions responsibly is one of the biggest factors for a good giving experience. Refer to the Charity Commission’s website for clear and direct financial data about charities you wish to support.

 

4. Tracking the difference you make.

Better data is providing greater opportunity to track the impact that your funding has made. Organisations like 360 Giving are leading the way in sharing data within the third sector. Through collecting and publishing data on what was funded, 360 Giving has established the #OpenGrants movement. This helps philanthropists see where their funds are going and where funding might still be needed. 

From the charity perspective, So Give is another platform that aims to measure impact across the sector. So Give helps charities track their own impact and provides information on what impact your funding actually makes. For example, their research shows exactly how many children are able to be treated with anti-malaria medication based on the amount of money donated to the Malaria Consortium.

Ambiguity around the impact of your donation can lead to unfulfilling giving experiences. Exploring independent services like 360 Giving and So Give will allow you to draw the cause and effect line for your philanthropy.

 

What does the future hold for tech in philanthropy?

This is just the start of how tech and data can help first-time donors. The tech space is evolving and innovating at a rapid pace. The explosion of new platforms for digital fundraising, corporate giving and grant applications is helping to build an online ‘funding marketplace’.

While usually it is up to charities to search for and apply for available funding, newer approaches are emerging which will give charities the chance to showcase their projects and their funding requirements to potential funders. This inverse approach lets potential funders and first-time donors be more proactive in their giving by seeking out charities they’d like to partner with.

Perhaps in the future we will see the funding marketplace develop a ‘Netflix-style’ solution where users can browse and fund projects based on common interests and categories. With tech and data pushing the boundaries in the third sector, first time donors have an abundance of tools at their fingertips to help them get started on their philanthropic journey.

 


About Brevio

Brevio empowers the charitable sector to achieve more. We automate the initial steps in grant applications, to free up hundreds of millions of pounds every year in administration. We’re a matching platform that links funders and charities based on the impact they both want to achieve. Find out more about Brevio here and follow @hellobrevio on Twitter for updates.

brevio

Filed Under: Better Philanthropy, Growing Giving, Guest voices, How to do it

Meet the experts engaging millennials in philanthropy

April 16, 2021 by Beacon Admin

 

Meet the experts engaging young wealth holders in philanthropy.

A new generation of young wealth holders is becoming increasingly aware of the amazing role charitable giving can play in making change happen. In fact, Beacon research recently identified that the millennial age group had the highest median donation level of any demographic at the start of the UK’s first lockdown.

Despite this, most wealthy millennials are still at the start of their giving journey and many lack the experience and confidence to take their giving to the next step. With this in mind, new organisations are helping millennials to bridge the knowledge gap and develop a greater understanding of philanthropy.

We spoke to Yasmin Ahammad, Jade Brudenell and Kydd Boyle to learn about the giving barriers of young wealth holders and how these can be overcome.


Yasmine Ahammad, Climate Advocacy and Philanthropy Manager, Impatience Earth

Impatience Earth offers philanthropy advice services pro-bono to wealthy individuals and foundations who are new to funding climate causes or looking to increase their giving to the climate sector. While not explicitly targeted at the younger generation of donors, their combination of education, advice and peer-to-peer support is particularly resonant for those looking to take their first steps into giving.

How do young wealth holders engage with the course?

Like donors of any age, we encourage younger clients to spend time building up their confidence and expertise around the climate crisis so they can make informed decisions on how to channel their funding in a way that feels meaningful and impactful to them. We help them learn about the climate emergency and how their money can lead to significant positive change through workshops, meetings with experts and introductions to co-funders. Part of our approach is to help donors explore how climate change compounds existing social inequalities, and young people seem to be particularly adept at understanding this.

We have also noticed that younger donors are excited to work in peer-to-peer learning networks and to share ideas. If we can encourage them to create lasting peer networks, we think this will lead to a sustained uptick in climate philanthropy.

Are there barriers to engaging young donors in climate philanthropy?

The most common barrier is that they are initially overwhelmed by the scale of the climate crisis. When young donors see the amount of work required to mitigate the effects of climate change, they often wonder if their donation will simply be a drop in the ocean.

This concern is usually overcome when we show them the inspiring real-world impacts that even a relatively small donation can have. Once they understand this, their despair turns to optimism and a ‘roll your sleeves up’ attitude. This is why it is so essential to demonstrate impact for people early-on in their giving journey; they need to know they are making a difference in order to continue giving.

What pointers would you give to young people looking to get involved in philanthropy?

You have the opportunity to play a catalysing role in making change happen. It’s far easier to start giving than you think and you don’t have to do it alone – there is plenty of help out there, including our pro-bono support. There is the opportunity to engage with peers of your age-group who are on the same journey. 

Also, there is a misconception that you need lots of money to make a big difference – this isn’t true. Even small, regular contributions can support incredible climate-saving initiatives, especially in the Global South. And it’s better to start now and learn along the way – the biggest risk is doing nothing at all.

Visit Impatience Earth – Yasmin Ahammad on Twitter


Jade Brudenell, founder, The Conservation Collective

The Conservation Collective is a network of funds around the world which are using philanthropic donations to help protect and preserve the natural environment. They exist to enable local communities to maximise their positive environmental impact.

How do you get young wealth holders engaged in conservation?

Many young donors have never given to the environment before. If you suggest getting involved in, for example, stopping deforestation, they often think “wow, that’s huge. That’s a job for the UN, not for me.” But if you say “have you noticed a lack of insect life in your local area?” they start to become intrigued and far more receptive.

It’s the visual, small-scale initiatives that make early-stage donors want to get involved, because they can envisage that their money will have an impact. A good example is something like a seabin, which goes into a port and collects rubbish from the surface of the water. Even though its impact is nominal and its use is typically more to do with raising awareness than true conservation net gain, it’s a fantastic way to begin conversations with new donors.

We see ourselves as a gateway drug, attracting donors with ‘quick-win, small-scale’ projects and guiding them down the road to more strategic and long-term programmes designed for systemic impact.

Are young donors more hesitant around giving money?

It depends on each giver’s personal situation. That said, the younger group is definitely an interesting one. One of our funds currently under development is looking at the possibility of setting up a young donor sub-group. This is because many young donors want to get involved in causes but don’t yet feel they can give much money.

The sub-group will look at other ways they can contribute while donating a more modest amount of money. A lot of the time, young people don’t realise that abilities they have developed at university – say accountancy or law – can also hold huge value for a network like ours. The idea is to get people involved at a level they feel comfortable with, and develop long-term, highly fruitful relationships which contribute considerably to conservation efforts.

Visit Conservation Collective – Conservation Collective on Twitter


Kydd Boyle, co-founder, Horizons 

Horizons is a global network of millennial investors looking to connect, share opportunities and have impact together. With most of the community coming from wealth-owning families, many in the network want to integrate positive social impact into their own investment and leadership style. They are keen to learn from experts and from each other, as they recognise that they have outsized potential to have a positive impact on society.

In your experience, are young donors focused on a specific issue?

There are a range of different interests between our members, but the common denominator is the desire use their wealth for good. Taking a meta-view, I would say mental health, decarbonisation and diversity are the most poignant themes for our community members. 

What works to engage young wealth holders in philanthropy?

We believe in encouraging people to understand their own values and the issues that are most important to them, and then empowering them to feel like they can be a part of the solution. Too often individuals are reactive when it comes to their philanthropy not proactive, this can lead to a sentimental rather than strategic decision-making process – which ultimately limits the scale of their giving. 

What is the biggest barrier to young people giving?

Few of our network members have the autonomy to give away meaningful sums from their own pockets – it is largely money from a family fund that they are distributing. Sometimes there are competing priorities between the older generations of the family and the young donors, so that can be tricky.

There are still many young and wealthy people who are not really doing anything philanthropic at the moment. That’s not because they don’t want to, but because they don’t know the first step to take. In my mind this is a huge opportunity for the charity sector to build new and effective long-term engagement strategies for potential donors. Getting this right would bring infinite possibilities. 

What lessons should young wealth holders learn to get more involved in philanthropy?

Meeting a peer group is absolutely vital for both philanthropy and investing. If you go it alone, it can feel like you’re venturing out into the wilderness and it’s difficult to know who to trust. Becoming part of a community allows you to build relationships with people that have shared interests and circumstances. Try to lean on friendship to lean into philanthropy. This builds lasting foundations and an intent to do more – together.

A good example of this is Big Change, who we recently partnered with. Founded amidst the London riots, a group of six millennial philanthropists threw ideas at a white board for how they could genuinely help. They quickly concluded that education was the root cause of all the inequity they saw around them and began a shared mission to look at the problem differently. After false starts, pivots and lessons learned, today Big Change invests in nascent educational ideas and organisations that have the potential to change the sector. To me, this exemplifies the impact young donors can have when working together.

There is an oft-quoted proverb, “If you want to go fast, go alone, if you want to go far, go together”. My biggest piece of advice for prospective young donors is to connect with like-minded individuals and hatch plans together.

Visit Horizons – Kydd Boyle on Twitter


These examples highlight that while young wealth owners may have a strong interest in social impact, they still need support and help to realise their potential. The future of philanthropy is in their hands and meeting their needs for knowledge, peer support and tangible impact is an investment in that future.

On April 22nd, Beacon is launching brand new research into the attitudes of wealthy millennials towards philanthropy. Find out more and join the launch event here.

Filed Under: Better Philanthropy, Growing Giving, How to do it

Impact Investing and the Three Dimensions of Capital – Part 3 of 3 from the Understanding Impact Investing series

March 26, 2021 by Beacon Admin

In a series of three articles, Scott Greenhalgh*, former executive chair of Bridges Evergreen Holdings, will share his thoughts on the landscape for impact investing in the UK. In this third and final article, Scott looks in more depth at the distinction between finance-first and impact-first equity investing.

* See bottom for more on the author

Start the series here


Impact Investing and the Three Dimensions of Capital

In previous articles, we have defined impact investing as: “investments made into companies, organisations and funds with the intention to generate positive, measurable social and environmental impact alongside a financial return”1. We have also touched on the distinction between finance-first and impact-first investment strategies.

This article describes how different impact fund managers prioritise issues of impact, risk and return (the three dimensions of capital). It also explores impact-related themes a potential investor might wish to explore, with a company or impact fund manager, before deciding whether or not to invest.

The Spectrum of Capital shown below2  places all investment on a continuum between “traditional” investments at one end (those that seek to maximise risk-adjusted returns with no consideration of wider social or environmental factors) and philanthropy (that seeks only impact and no financial return). This approach positions ethical, sustainable and impact investing on that continuum and allows us to distinguish between impact investing that is finance-first, meaning it aims to deliver impact with no sacrifice of market-rate financial returns, and impact-first, where the investor accepts lower, risk-adjusted returns.

Figure 1: Impact Investing Institute’s Spectrum of Capital.

impact investing

 

Finance First

A number of venture capital and private equity funds take a finance-first approach to impact investing. Such funds invest in businesses and aim to achieve market-rate financial returns for the investor at the same time as achieving positive social and/or environmental outcomes. Examples in the UK mid-market include Palatine Impact and Bridges Sustainable Growth Funds. There are an increasing number of impact funds offered by the large investment firms such as TPG, KKR and Bain Capital. There are also a number of “tech for good” early-stage impact investors like Mustard Seed, for example. 

The alignment between commercial and impact success is often referred to as lockstep in the impact investing industry. By way of a simple example, a learning support business that provides high-quality, educational materials to schools might be considered to offer lockstep. Put simply, the more it sells to schools, the more children benefit from the materials. In this way, commercial growth is aligned with greater social benefits. The lockstep argument allows businesses to maximise profits, and investors to maximise returns, while achieving positive societal and/or environmental impact.

The finance-first approach applies mainly to profit with purpose private company investing. A 2017 Stanford paper looked at the impact/return profile of investing in social enterprises and found that high-impact social enterprises (as opposed to for-profit businesses), whether in emerging or developed markets, were unlikely to generate more than low single digit financial returns.3

The EVPA characterises finance-first investors as investing with impact. In this definition, the investor will prioritise financial return over impact at each stage of the investment cycle. Therefore, from initial screening through to decisions as to which buyer should be selected on exit, the key metric for the investor is to maximise the financial return.

To return to the school learning materials example above, a finance-first investor would favour private school customers if these paid higher prices than state school ones. If we assume more state school pupils are likely to come from less advantaged households, then the finance-first approach leads to some trade-off in the amount of impact. 

A finance-first approach can be described as “maximising” equity return, consistent with mainstream private equity and venture capital investing. In a 10-year fund structure, a five-year investment horizon is typical. Two consequences of this are worth highlighting. First, the investor will be concerned to drive fast growth from the outset of the investment and second, where possible, to use leverage in order to reach the desired financial return.

As I set out in the next section, there are increasing concerns about potential adverse consequences of this investment approach, for example in the provision of public services by the private sector.

 

Impact First

Impact-first investors focus on achieving a “sufficient” rather than a “maximised” financial return. They therefore also give equal or greater weighting to impact as to risk and return considerations.

What constitutes a sufficient return and how sufficient is defined will be subjective and will vary. For example, the fund I ran aimed for, and was achieving, a 9% net return to investors per annum. At the same time, we took the view that the level of return should not involve having to compromise on the level of positive impact. 

Let me give an example. In November 2020, the Children’s Commissioner published a report on private provision of children’s care services in England, raising concerns about the high profits and high debt levels of some private-equity owned companies providing these public services.4

By way of context, there are some 74,000 looked-after children in England, a number that has risen by over 20% in the last decade. This increase in “need” has mostly been provided by private, for-profit business and the private sector now accounts for some 35% of total provision, with local authorities and charities providing the balance. 

A number of the larger foster and residential care providers are private equity owned. Private equity funds typically target financial returns on equity above 20% per annum. Achieving these returns requires some combination of tight cost control, rapid “buy or build” growth and the use of leverage.

Using Ofsted inspection ratings as a guide, most of these providers deliver a good standard of care. To my mind however, the key question is: could these entities provide even better care (and outcomes for vulnerable children), if they were seeking profit sufficiency rather than profit maximisation? This question is, of course, contentious and loaded with value-based judgments, but I would argue it is a debate that we should have, as at its heart it is about our societal values. 

In January this year, the Secretary of State for Education announced a review into children’s care. It will be interesting to see whether or not this review engages with these issues.

I have used the children’s care sector as an example, but the issues raised apply equally to many aspects of care and other forms of public service delivery by the private sector. Part of the answer, I believe, lies in how impact is defined, measured and reported on.

 

The Impact Process and Impact Risk

The initial screening of an investment opportunity will consider the following and, in the case of impact-first investors, the investment will only proceed if the impact assessment proves acceptable across the following areas:

    • the ethos and values of the company and its mission,
    • the scale and depth of the impact and the impact score (perhaps using the IMP framework5),
    • its ambitions and plans to drive greater impact (perhaps using a Theory of Change model),
    • its willingness to measure impact and how that will be done,
    • the opportunity for the investor to enhance the impact (referred to as the investors’ additionality).  

During the investment period, the investor and the company will then continue to measure and track the change in impact.

Of note, one theme common across the impact investment sector is how few investors use independent assessments to measure impact during the investment period. Genuine independent evaluation of impact can be time-consuming and costly to procure, but arguably it should be done to avoid the risk of “marking one’s own homework”. 

At the point of exit too, life is somewhat easier for the finance-first investor. If there is genuine lockstep, then commercial and impact success are intertwined. Logically, this means that any buyer will seek to preserve that lockstep. This means the seller can sell to the highest bidder.

However, where lockstep does not exist- such as in the children’s care example above- the investor needs to consider carefully which buyer is most likely to preserve the mission of the business and the extent of any trade-offs between preservation of that mission, by selling to a like-minded buyer, and the potential to achieve a higher sale price and hence investor return by selling to a more commercially focused buyer.

Another area to consider are the incentives for the fund manager and its investment team. Carried interest or profit share is standard in private equity or venture capital funds. Management fees are also standard and paid as a percentage of assets under management. One issue for investors to consider is the extent to which these incentives are based on impact as opposed to financial performance.

 

Risk-Adjusted Returns

The Spectrum of Capital above refers to impact-first investing as accepting lower risk-adjusted returns. My view is that this is only partially correct. Some impact-first funds adopt a strategy of taking greater investment risk in return for seeking greater impact return.  Others do not. 

If we again use the children’s care example above, we can say that an impact-first investor that invests in a care provider will seek business growth at a pace that is consistent with the highest quality of care rather than one that is (at least in part) driven by financial return targets.

This allows more room to focus on the quality of care, staffing, resilience and risk management in all its forms. The lens of “sufficient” profit and financial return therefore arguably reduces operational and reputational risk. It also allows for leverage to be used less and perhaps also for the ownership of the company to be spread more widely. All of these factors should help reduce the investment’s risk profile, meaning that whilst the investor return is lower in absolute terms, it can remain attractive and even competitive on a risk-adjusted basis. 

In this article, I have outlined both the finance-first and impact-first approaches to investing and described some of the fault-lines between the two.  Each approach has its own and absolutely legitimate place on the spectrum of capital. Where lockstep exists, positive impact and profit maximisation can go hand-in-hand. In other cases, I believe an impact-first, or profit sufficiency, approach may be more appropriate and still offer attractive risk-adjusted returns to the investor.

I expect to see considerable growth in the finance-first segment of the impact investing landscape as more of the mainstream fund managers launch later-stage and buy-out style impact funds. 

As will be clear from the above, I also believe that there is a real need for the impact-first segment, both early-stage and growth capital, to flourish. To do this, there is a need both for more capital and for more support from investors who themselves have been successful entrepreneurs and wish not only to invest, but also help build exemplar socially-driven businesses.


Footnotes:

1. Global Impact Investing Network in 2009.

2. See Impact Investing Institute- www.impactinvest.org.uk.

3. “Marginalised Returns” Stanford Social Innovation Review 2017, Bolis and West.

4. Children’s Commissioner “Private provision in children’s social care” November 2020.

5. See www.impactmanagementproject.com.


About Scott Greenhalgh: After a career in private equity, Scott started working 12 years ago with a number of wonderful not-for-profit organisations that opened his eyes to the scale of social inequality and need in the UK. In 2016, he was fortunate to be able to combine these “two worlds” and lead Bridges Evergreen Holdings from inception. Evergreen is the UK’s first long-term capital investment vehicle for social impact investing. Scott is now stepping down from this role and this series of articles offer reflections on leading a pioneering impact first fund. The views in this article are the author’s own and expressed in a personal capacity.

Filed Under: Giving vehicles, Growing Giving, How to do it, Impact investing

Your philanthropic journey: what we can learn from the father of modern philanthropy.

March 15, 2021 by Beacon Admin

Your philanthropic journey:

What we can learn from the father of modern philanthropy, Andrew Carnegie.

Written by Ben Morton Wright. More about the author at bottom.


At the beginning of the year, Elon Musk made waves on Twitter when he tweeted, “Btw, critical feedback is always super appreciated, as well as ways to donate money that really make a difference (way harder than it seems).” We often think of the donor journey from the perspective of fundraising but what about the philanthropic journey? How many potential philanthropists feel like Elon Musk, that it’s harder than it seems to donate money?

Your philanthropic journey: it might not be a journey of time and space, but it can be one of the most enjoyable journeys you take. Whether you are at the start of your journey or are further down the path, there are steps which can be taken to increase the enjoyment in giving. No matter how you measure your philanthropy, the ultimate measure should be that your philanthropic giving is the best thing that you have ever done. 

 

5 lessons we have learned about the importance of philanthropy 

There has never been a better or more important time to have this discussion. This is philanthropy’s moment – and it is a needed moment – the world events of the last year have been profound and what has become very evident is why philanthropy is important. 5 lessons we learned in the last year are:

    1. We are all interdependent in a way that we hadn’t appreciated before.
    2. We have learnt how important philanthropy is and will be in our response to national and global crises.
    3. We now have much higher levels of inequality between the wealthy and poor across the world.
    4. The largest intergenerational wealth transfer ever is just about to happen.
    5. Governments across the world simply will not be able to do it all – philanthropy will have a critical role.

 

What can we learn from history’s greatest philanthropist?

Andrew Carnegie was one of the most successful businessmen and most recognised philanthropists in history. “He may be the most influential philanthropist in American history. The scale of his giving is almost without peer: adjusted for inflation, his donations exceed those of virtually everyone else in the [US] nation’s history.” (Philanthropy Roundtable)

Photo Source: The Carnegie Corporation of New York

As Carnegie put it, “It is more difficult to give money away intelligently than to earn it in the first place.” Having worked closely with philanthropists from around the world with net worths from a few million to several billion; I have observed that the best drivers for philanthropy come from within – it is not something you can rush and it takes time to get it right.

In Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth, he discusses what he sees as the increasing gap between the wealthy and the poor with the growth in industrialisation. He sees this gap as being a natural part of innovation and modernisation, however, he also believed that “surplus wealth is a sacred trust which its possessor is bound to administer in his lifetime for the good of the community.” Carnegie had the insight to see how philanthropy could help close the gap and lift-up the poor which would thus lift everyone up in society. This has similar parallels to the inequality we are seeing today, and philanthropy can have the same level of impact as in Carnegie’s time.

In my view, there are 3 critical drivers which maximise impact for the philanthropist:

    1. Be creative.
    2. Regard how you give as an investment.
    3. Giving should be the best thing you ever do.

Carnegie, who died well over 100 years ago, knew how to tap into the above internal drivers and even now we can see the impact his philanthropic contributions have made. Let’s look at these three drivers one-by-one:

 

1. Be creative with your giving strategies

Spend time to think creatively about where and how you would like to give. What personal experiences or values connect with certain areas of philanthropic need? When we look at Carnegie’s legacy, you can see his creativity in the development of libraries across America. 

“Carnegie is best known for the nearly 3,000 public libraries he helped build. As a young man in Allegheny City, Carnegie spent most of his evenings at the library of Col. James Anderson, a prosperous local businessman who gave working boys free access to his 1,500-volume library. It was clearly a formative experience, and one which [Carnegie] hoped might be of similar benefit to others.” (Philanthropy Roundtable)

 

2. Regard how you give as an investment

Philanthropy is an investment of your resources and, when done correctly, it has a positive emotional response. Consider who you want to give to and what you want to give. You then need to think about how you would like to give. You can deploy much of the same tools of investing to philanthropy in order to do it well.  If you were investing your money into a company, you might ask – 

    • Is this business sound? Is this the best organisation for my investment?
    • How can I deploy the money, so it is well spent?
    • How can I evaluate the success of my investment / gift?

When we look at Carnegie’s investment into public libraries, we see that he took the same approach as a business investment. “Starting in 1885, Carnegie began funding the construction of thousands of libraries… To ensure that communities were equally invested, he would only pay for buildings—and only after local authorities showed him credible plans for acquiring books and hiring staff.” (Philanthropy Roundtable)

You should feel good about who you give to and how your gift is used. This takes some time, research, and evaluation to figure out – just like a business investment would.

 

3. Giving should be the best thing you ever do

Your philanthropic journey should instil a sense of pride, the gifts you give should give you a sense of accomplishment and add to your happiness. Your giving strategy should not be out of a sense of guilt or because you feel pressured to give to a certain cause. In my experience, the best way to counter guilt-giving is to do a deep dive into your personal profound drivers.

Ask yourself – 

    • What am I about? 
    • What are my values? 
    • What am I passionate about?
    • What causes do I gravitate towards? Why?
    • How could I express myself philanthropically? 
      • Remember to think creatively, nothing is off limits.
    • How do I measure the impact of my giving?

This process is complex and it is at this stage where potential philanthropists may feel overwhelmed or too busy. Like Elon Musk, the frustration leads to thinking that it is harder than it seems to donate money well. This is where a philanthropy consultant can take the frustration and complexity out of developing your giving strategy. A philanthropy consultant can bring back the joy in giving to ensure that it is the best thing you ever do.

This is what made Carnegie the father of modern philanthropy, he knew the profound personal drivers behind his philanthropy, then used these to inform and develop his overarching giving strategy.  “Carnegie boldly articulated [in The Gospel of Wealth] his view of the rich as mere trustees of their wealth who should live unostentatiously, provide moderately for their families, and use their fortunes to promote the ‘general good.'” (The Carnegie Corporation of New York). Further, he believed that “just giving away money was not enough….The problem, as he saw it, was ‘indiscriminate charity’—providing help to people who were unwilling to help themselves. That sort of philanthropy only rewarded bad habits rather than encouraging good ones.” He preferred to support charities “that strengthened and refreshed individuals so they could become more independent and productive themselves.” (The Philanthropy Roundtable)

 

The key to successful philanthropy

We speak a lot about impact when it comes to philanthropy and charitable organisations. What is the impact of your gift? What is the impact of the organisation’s programmes and mission? But have you asked yourself the most important question – how good do you feel about your giving?

It should be the best thing that you have ever done. If you achieve that, you will very much enjoy both the philanthropic journey and the point of destination. That is the key to successful philanthropy.

 

“No man becomes rich without himself enriching others.” – Andrew Carnegie

 


About the Author

Ben Morton Wright founded Global Philanthropic in 2002. He has supervised the establishment of Global Philanthropic operations in the UK, Australia, Hong Kong and Canada. As Group CEO, Mr Morton Wright has gained recognition as a major gift strategist, an expert in structuring international campaigns and a specialist on higher education and Asian philanthropy.

Currently, Mr Morton Wright advises a number of private individuals and philanthropists around the world to help them develop a meaningful philanthropic journey and strategy.

 

About Global Philanthropic

Global Philanthropic has convened some the world’s leading philanthropic organisations and academic institutions for Talking Philanthropy: Asia-Pacific – Supporting a Philanthropic Ecosystem on May 14th 2021. The theme for the forum will bring together leaders in philanthropy from the region and around the world to focus on the structural issues around philanthropy in Asia-Pacific. 

Talking Philanthropy will provide a macro perspective on the key issues that need to be addressed in the Asia-Pacific region to allow philanthropy to grow and flourish. We will discuss the wealth distribution and the dramatic growth of Ultra High Net Worth Individuals (UHNWIs), the roles of development organisations, NGOs, government and policy, philanthropists, and the charity sector in nurturing the philanthropic ecosystem. 

Our event partners include the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, Centre for Strategic Philanthropy at Cambridge Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge, together with The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, United Nations Foundation, and the conservation charity, BirdLife International. BILLIONAIRE Magazine is the media partner.

At Global Philanthropic, we can facilitate a reflective discussion to connect areas of interest, value motivators, and creative ideas for your philanthropic giving. It is fascinating to see how this deeper dive into your personal motivators can drive some really creative ideas of giving and drive future giving with passion.

How might your profound personal drivers inform and develop your philanthropic journey? We have tools to help you define these principles and have experience working with philanthropists in creating a philanthropic journey that resonates with their personal profound drivers. 

Learn more at globalphilanthropic.com/talking-philanthropy and join the discussion.

Filed Under: Better Philanthropy, Growing Giving, How to do it

The UK Social Impact Investment Market – Part 2 of 3 from the Understanding Impact Investing series

March 3, 2021 by Beacon Admin

the uk social impact investment market

In a series of three articles, Scott Greenhalgh*, former executive chair of Bridges Evergreen Holdings, will share his thoughts on the landscape for impact investing in the UK. This second article looks at the UK social impact investment market and the different types of investment opportunities for investors.

* See bottom for more on the author

Missed the first article?


The UK Social Impact Investment Market

In the first article in this series, we looked at the Impact Investing Institute’s Spectrum of Capital and the ABC methodology that classifies investments as avoiding harm, benefitting stakeholders and contributing to solutions. 

To help define what we mean by social impact investment, we will use the Spectrum of Capital1 from the EVPA. A spectrum of capital offers a continuum on which to plot the purpose of an investment. At one end we have grant-making which seeks a social return and accepts the full “loss” of capital. At the other, we have traditional investment that considers only the two dimensions of risk and return, with no consideration of the social or environmental impact of the entity in which is invested. 

Between these two extremes, the spectrum depicts different investment approaches that embrace the three dimensions of risk, return and impact, with the focus on financial return increasing as we move from left to right.

This article focuses on the “UK social impact investment market”. Whilst not a perfect match, this part of the market is broadly consistent with the middle section below which the EVPA defines as Impact First Social Investment on its spectrum of capital2. This segment combines social investment (the funding of charities and not for profits) and impact first equity investing as described below.

Figure 1: Spectrum of Capital from the European Venture Philanthropy Association

Figure 2: Big Society Capital’s estimation of UK social impact investment market size

Impact first social investments include all return-seeking investment in socially driven businesses as well as lending to charities, social enterprises and socially driven businesses. It excludes at one end philanthropy, which of course makes no financial return, and at the other impact investment, that seeks a full market-rate return (known as finance first investment). 

Using a definition that is close to the EVPA one, Big Society Capital estimated the UK social impact investment market at £5 billion in 2019, having grown from £833m in 2011 and with over £1 billion of new commitments in each of the years 2017-2019. This is shown in Figure 2 (above). 

Figure 2 also highlights that the UK social impact investment market is dominated by social property investment and various forms of lending to charities and social businesses. These account for c 85% of the £5 billion total. 

Venture capital and equity investment into socially-driven businesses has grown but remains small at £473m in 2019. There are some 25 funds in this area, most are early-stage investors. The largest is Bridges Evergreen, which I ran, and which is a later stage investor with £51m of committed capital. Attracting private investors to these new funds has proved a challenge and for the sector to grow, more “enlightened” capital is needed.

There are a range of equity investment opportunities for private investors, but these are fund-based, as yet there are no impact equity angel networks. 

Outside of these statistics are a number of much larger sustainability and impact funds that seek market-rate returns. These include early stage “tech for good” investors such as Atomico, mid-market private equity style funds such as Palatine Impact and Bridges Sustainable Growth and the impact funds of major investment firms including those of Bain, TPG and KKR. The launch of more large impact funds is to be expected.

Also, outside of these statistics are ‘fund of fund’ investment opportunities such as the newly listed Schroder BSC Social Impact Trust plc that offers investors exposure to a number of the funds included in the above data, the Snowball fund of fund initiative and portfolios managed by impact focused wealth managers such as Tribe Impact and Rathbones Greenbank, where the investor can align the portfolio with their values and interests. 

As will be seen from the above, there are a range of opportunities for investors to invest into funds or entrust their investments to a small number of impact focused wealth managers or fund of funds. There are three broad areas that an investor might want to consider in more detail. 

 

Property and lending 

The segment of this market that has grown most rapidly in the past 5 years and now accounts for over 40% of the £5 billion total is property. Social property funds include listed vehicles such as Civitas Social Housing and Triple Point Social Housing REIT, off-shoots of major property firms such as CBRE and DTZ as well as social property specialists including Resonance and SASC that focus on funding property for charities. 

Social bank lending forms the second largest segment at around 35% of the total. This is provided by social purpose banks including Triodos, Charity Bank, CAF Bank and Unity Bank. Non-bank lending and the issuance of bonds by charities each account for some 6-7% of the total with much of the bond issuance undertaken via Triodos and Allia, a specialist social enterprise. 

These investments are often asset-backed and can be characterised as lower risk/lower return, with yields of between 3-5% pa. Investment liquidity is higher with the listed funds, medium based on matched bargains for many of the bond investments and low in illiquid private fund structures. 

 

Social Outcome Contracts

Social outcome contracts or SOCs are a new and innovative form of public sector contracting pioneered by Social Finance and Bridges Fund Management. The first such contract was in HMP Peterborough, a payment-by-results contract designed to reduce recidivism among those leaving Peterborough prison. 

Under a SOC, a public body- for example a local authority- issues a payment-by-results contract which, rather than specifying the service to be delivered, specifies the desired outcome. Payments are based on the extent of achievement of the specified outcomes. Investors fund the contract delivery and only if the specified outcomes are achieved, do the investors recoup their investment and achieve a financial return. In this way social impact success is linked to financial success. 

Outcome payments are set at a level that results in a net saving to the public purse; in other words, the cost of paying for outcomes is exceeded by the savings to the public purse through the intervention provided. Return targets are set at some 5-7% net for the investor and one of the attractions for investors is that these returns are dependent on contractual arrangements and therefore are not correlated with market factors.

In the UK, there have been to date some 80 SOCs, mainly investing in the themes of homelessness, vulnerable children and social prescribing (that is support to those with long-term health conditions). 

 

Venture and equity investments

This is the area of the social impact investment market where I hope to see considerable growth. Today, this segment includes some 25 small investment funds. Most are less than 8 years old and so have not been through a full fund cycle. Examples include funds from Impact Ventures UK, Nesta, Big Issue Invest and Bridges Evergreen. 

These funds invest to build Socially Driven Businesses, as depicted in the EVPA spectrum of capital. They are avowedly “impact first”, in other words while they seek an attractive financial return for the investor, they do not pursue return as a priority over the social or environmental impact of the investment. (I will focus more on the distinction between finance first and impact first investing in the third article in the series).

Most of these funds are early-stage investors. It follows that these are illiquid investments, higher risk as a result of the stage of investment and therefore attract investors willing to accept these risks in return for the potential high social impact that the funds can deliver. 

From my own experience of building a later stage impact first fund, it is possible to reduce investment risk and generate returns of around 9%+ net to the investor. It is also possible to reduce the risk profile of these later-stage investments and so offer the investor an attractive risk-adjusted return. (I will focus on how in the third article). The early-stage impact first funds could potentially generate much higher returns.

On the demand side, there are many mission-driven entrepreneurs seeking to build socially-driven businesses in the UK. These entrepreneurs will typically want to select their investment partner based on values alignment and support to be both commercially successful and deliver positive social impact, rather than on financial criteria alone. 

On the supply side, as many of the investment funds are small and lack a track record, it is hard for institutional investors to allocate meaningful capital to this sub-sector. So far, these funds have been championed by Big Society Capital and a small number of committed endowment funds and private HNW investors that want to see the impact first sector flourish. To enable this segment of the market to grow, it is imperative that the supply of capital increases, and this will most likely come from wealthy individual investors in the immediate future. We need more of them!

In the third and final article in the series, Scott looks in more depth at the distinction between finance first and impact first equity investing. 


Footnotes:

1. Source: European Venture Philanthropy Association

2. Please note this Spectrum of Capital differs from the Impact Institute one in the previous article.


About Scott Greenhalgh: After a career in private equity, Scott started working 12 years ago with a number of wonderful not-for-profit organisations that opened his eyes to the scale of social inequality and need in the UK. In 2016, he was fortunate to be able to combine these “two worlds” and lead Bridges Evergreen Holdings from inception. Evergreen is the UK’s first long-term capital investment vehicle for social impact investing. Scott is now stepping down from this role and this series of articles offer reflections on leading a pioneering impact first fund. The views in this article are the author’s own and expressed in a personal capacity.

Filed Under: Giving vehicles, Growing Giving, How to do it, Impact investing

10 questions trustees should ask to perform a charity health-check

March 1, 2021 by Beacon Admin

10 questions trustees should ask to perform a charity health-check

With many charitable organisations facing existential challenges, there is an increasing amount of guidance to help trustees navigate the decisions ahead.

health-check image 1Peter Mimpriss, a veteran trustee of 33 charities, has written ’10 questions trustees should ask to perform a charity health-check’. The guide provides an overview of the essential qualities of an effective charity board.

In this article, we look at Peter’s advice, as well as pulling together other useful resources to help trustees assess the situation their charity is in.


In the coming months, charities and trustees will experience an increasingly challenging operating environment. Indeed, many are at risk of being forced to close. To help identify challenges charities need to respond to, Peter Mimpriss has developed a simple Emergency Health Test (below).

The test sets out ten questions. If a charity can answer ‘yes’ to them all, then it is probable the charity will not be at risk of closure. If not, then it is likely that there will be a risk of closure. That risk increases depending on the number of tests that cannot be answered in the affirmative. In those circumstances, trustees need to take very urgent steps to address the problems.

 

10 questions to health-check your charity:

    1. Does the charity have a really good cash flow forecast that is updated every month?
    2. Does the charity currently satisfy the balance sheet test for solvency?
    3. Are there adequate free reserves for the charity?
    4. Do the trustees understand the difference between their restricted and unrestricted funds?
    5. Do the trustees know the approximate amount of the charity’s unrestricted funds and of its liabilities?
    6. Are the trustees satisfied that the charity has an effective and up-to-date risk review?
    7. Does the charity have a truly effective audit committee which enquires into potential financial risks for the charity?
    8. Does the charity have updated contingency plans?
    9. Do the trustees have the boldest fundraising strategy, which is supported by all the trustees and to which those trustees with the best contacts have committed to lead?
    10. Does the charity have excellent communications with present and past donors? Is this monitored by the trustees to ensure that it is as effective as possible?

 

Additional guidance for trustees

Association of Charitable Foundations

The Association of Charitable Foundations [ACF] identifies that efficient decision making frameworks, understanding of lived experience and diversity of knowledge and personality on boards will be important success factors.

ACF states that foundations and charities have to have strong objectives, but also be flexible in balancing long and short term. The report concludes with seven pillars of good foundation governance.

Read ACF’s full report on strategy and governance here

health-check image 2

Pilotlight

With fears for the wellbeing of charity leaders who are taking on huge responsibilities, Pilotlight reinforced the message that support to charities is more than money. Their key messages for trustees are:

  • Focus on mental health for resilience;
  • Don’t smother;
  • Focus on good decisions rather than perfect governance;
  • Know your role and stay informed;
  • Act immediately, but plan for an exit.

 

National Council for Voluntary Organisations

Not long after the crisis had taken hold in the UK, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations [NCVO] held a webinar on governing during a pandemic. The main points raised were:

  • Decisions must be in line with charitable objectives;
  • Severe incident reporting is not suspended: each organisation must evaluate any Covid-19 related risk;
  • Develop a cash flow forecast, seek advice early and make plans;
  • Any meetings taken online must be in line with governance documents, decisions must be circulated;
  • Delegate more authority temporarily to the charity leaders to enable them to be nimble;
  • Be open to partnerships with non-charitable organisations;
  • Do scenario planning: develop plans to handle each scenario;
  • Review and tweak plans regularly.

NCVO has also opened guidance on its website, which can be viewed here.

Listen to the NCVO webinar

 

Charity Commission

The UK Charity Commission has also issued guidance to trustees about financial decision making. The guidance recommends that charities consider what is in their best interest, leverage trustees’ skills and alter business models. They should go through a process that involves considering their existing financial situation. This includes looking at options for minimising costs, protecting and increasing income, and keeping operations and finances under regular review. It also gives legal guidance for if a charity has to be closed.

The guidance provides a framework for deciding between meeting urgent needs now or dialling down services in order to survive into the future. Finally, the guidance discusses whether formal structures such as managed insolvency, joint working or a merger with another charity could be the best way forward.

UK Charity Commission guidance


About Peter Mimpriss

Peter Mimpriss has wide experience in the charity sector, having been a trustee of twenty four national operating Charities and nine national grant making Foundations. He is also the author of The Qualities of an Effective Charity Board, which he wrote in 2016.

Filed Under: Better Philanthropy, Growing Giving, How to do it

What is Impact Investing? Part 1 of 3 from the Understanding Impact Investing series

February 23, 2021 by Beacon Admin

what is impact investing

In a series of three articles, Scott Greenhalgh, former executive chair of Bridges Evergreen Holdings, will share his thoughts on the landscape for impact investing in the UK. This first article tackles the definitional challenge for investors and philanthropists, considers the level of returns an investor can expect and places impact investing within the wider sustainable and responsible investing landscape.

– See bottom for more on the author –


What is Impact Investing?

The definitional challenge: impact investing

“Impact Investing” is a term first used by the Rockefeller Foundation in 2007. A definition from the Global Impact Investing Network in 2009 is of:

“investments made into companies, organisations and funds with the intention to generate positive, measurable social and environmental impact alongside a financial return”.

Using the GIIN definition, impact investing can be said to be:

  • Underpinned by values and the intention to have a positive effect on social and/or environmental issues;
  • Requiring the impact to be measured;
  • Capable of, indeed should, generating a financial as well as an impact return. 

A values-based approach and intentionality are therefore central to impact investing. These values and intentionality should operate at the level of the investee company and arguably also at the level of the investor or fund manager.

At the investee company level, this means that the products or services of that business not only seek to do well they also seek to do good, or in the language of the Impact Management Project (IMP)1, these businesses seek to contribute solutions to social or environmental issues.

Values and intentionality should also underpin the desire of the investor to support the investee company in this and be reflected in the way the investor conducts its own business. The implication of this for a potential investor in an impact fund is that they should ask about the impact criteria that the fund manager uses for investment selection, how the fund manager will seek to positively influence the level of impact post investment and how impact success affects the incentives for the fund management team itself including on exit.  

Implicit in intentionality is the ability to influence the actions of the investee companies and to stimulate an increase in the positive impact, over and above that which would have occurred anyway. This is often referred to as additionality.

For this reason, I define impact investing as requiring investors to take positions of influence and to actively support an increase in the positive impact, which means that I consider impact investing to be more relevant to private companies rather than publicly traded companies, where the influence of each shareholder is less. My definition is capable of embracing both material equity positions (in companies/projects) or debt positions that convey an ability to influence the impact outcomes. 

Impact investing also requires the impact to be measured and measurement operates both at the level of the investee company and also at the level of the investor. The highly regarded IMP impact management framework has sought to become an industry standard and is used by many organisations, including Bridges.  

Impact investing is expected to generate financial returns. This distinguishes it from philanthropy. I define impact investing as being investment in for-profit companies and use the term social investment to define lending (with a financial return) to charities and other not-for-profit entities.

 

The question of investor returns

But what level of financial return can be expected by an investor? And what level of risk is associated with the return opportunity? For the broader sustainability sector, a 2019 study2 by Morgan Stanley analysed 10,723 mutual funds’ performance over the period 2004-2018 and concluded that there was no trade-off in financial returns between sustainable and more traditional funds. Indeed, sustainable funds reduced downside risk and so in aggregate offered investors better risk adjusted returns. 

A 2017 Wharton study3 analysed the financial performance of 53 impact funds that invested in private companies. The analysis concluded impact funds that sought to achieve market-rate returns were largely able to do so, again suggesting there is no trade-off in returns. Against this, a Stanford study4 in the same year queried whether many of the impact funds that sought market returns, could really be classed as “impact” funds as opposed to more traditional private equity and venture capital style funds that by virtue of investing in sectors such as health and education, could label themselves as impact funds. (This is a theme I return to in a later article).

It is fair to say that the relationship between risk, return and impact is quite nuanced. It is therefore important for investors to look carefully at how each fund manager addresses each of these three dimensions and the relationship between them.

 

A framework for responsible investing 

The Impact Investing Institute’s “Spectrum of Capital”5 offers a helpful way to think about all investing as being on a continuum between traditional investing that is concerned only to maximise risk adjusted returns, with no thought for the wider societal or environmental consequences of that investment decision, and philanthropy which is motivated to deliver the greatest impact return and is accepting of the full loss of capital. 

As we journey from left to right, the impact goals of the investment increase. Using the Impact Management Project’s ABC framework, the first stage is to avoid harm or “A”. This involves negative screening. For example, investment strategies that exclude gambling, pornography and tobacco stocks or companies with poor labour or environmental practices would be avoid or “A” strategies. Many mainstream fund managers offer “ethical” equity and bond funds that follow the “A” methodology. 

The next stage is to look for investments that are deemed to benefit stakeholders or “B”. Here companies and investors need to both avoid harm and consider positive impacts on people and/or the planet. For example, a food retailer might have a clear strategy to reduce the carbon and/or plastic footprint of its business with measurable targets. The “B” methodology is generally referred to as “sustainable” investing. As with ethical funds, mainstream fund managers offer a wide range of sustainable equity and debt funds; investments focused on addressing climate change would in most cases be classified as sustainable.

At the third stage the overall impact of the investment is taken into account and is assessed as to whether it contributes (“C”) to solutions for social or environmental issues. The desire to contribute to solutions, conveys intentionality and it is this that enables “C” investments to be considered impact investments. As noted above, I consider the need for intentionality to limit “C” investing to private market funds, both private equity and private debt.

Figure 1: Impact Investing Institute’s Spectrum of Capital

 

Integrating ESG 

Another term frequently associated with impact investing is ESG, which stands for environmental, social and governance factors. ESG factors are implicit within the Spectrum of Capital. In order to analyse if a company avoids harm, benefits stakeholders or contributes solutions, relevant ESG factors need to be reviewed.

At its core, ESG requires companies to consider a range of non-financial matters that have a bearing on their brand, operations, employees, wider stakeholders and environmental footprint. ESG analysis and reporting can be seen as offering a framework for risk analysis for the companies and investors alike. For investors, ESG analysis gives a rounder picture of a company and its risk profile than financial metrics alone. The EU Sustainable Finance  Disclosure Regulation (“SFDR”) comes into force in March this year and is a first step in requiring ESG disclosure by certain investment firms. 

Finally, a note of caution. The above Spectrum of Capital is but one version that shows impact investing as distinct from other impactful investment approaches. There are other versions of the spectrum of capital that refer to these other categories also as “impact investing”6 and so define the impact investment market as much larger.

Image: Crossflow

 

Finance first and impact first

The Spectrum of Capital shows impact investing on the continuum with it sub-dividing between finance first and impact first.  Finance first returns are expected to be at the prevailing market rate, in other words investors can achieve positive impact with no sacrifice to the financial returns a non-impact investor would seek with the same investment. As noted above, the Wharton article offers a positive view and the Stanford one takes a more sceptical stance as to categorising finance first as impact investing. 

Impact first investing implies some level of financial return compromise. This compromise can arise because the investor knowingly accepts a lower than market financial return in the pursuit of greater impact and/or because the investor is prepared to take much greater risk of loss in pursuit of the impact goal, for example by funding innovative high potential impact start-ups.  

I will return to the distinction between finance and impact first in the third article and conclude this article with an example of an investment that presents a low risk of financial loss with associated low financial return but offering high impact. This would be characterised as an impact first investment. 

 

The Ethical Housing Company

At Bridges Evergreen we looked for impactful and investable solutions to issues of pressing social need. One such issue is the increasing level of housing vulnerability in the UK with growing numbers of vulnerable households unable to access social housing and therefore dependent on the private rental sector for their homes. This has contributed to more failed tenancies, poor quality housing and homelessness. 

Evergreen founded The Ethical Housing Company (‘EHC”) in Teesside in partnership with a Social Lettings Agency. The idea was to buy property, make it decent and let it at affordable rents to those in housing need. We aimed to demonstrate that supportive and intensive housing management would enable vulnerable tenants to sustain their tenancies and this positive social impact could be linked to an asset-backed investment offering financial returns of around 3% – 4% per annum to investors. This is below the 5% targeted by other market return property funds. If successful, we believed EHC could scale up in Teesside and be a model replicated by others elsewhere in the country. 

The results to date have been positive. Throughout Covid, tenant rental arrears have remained below 4% and tenancy stability has been high, which is testimony to excellent and supportive housing management. EHC has now raised external co-investment including from the Teesside local government pension fund, which will enable EHC to double in size over the next 12 months. Though still early days, EHC is seen as a pioneering model of using private impact capital to tackle a pressing societal issue. 

In his next article, Scott will consider social impact investment in the UK in more detail, looking at the opportunities for investors to lend to charities and social enterprises and make equity investments in socially-driven businesses. 


Footnotes:

1. See www.impactmanagementproject.com

2. Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing 2019; “Sustainable Reality Analysing Risk & Return for Sustainable Funds”

3. Wharton Social Impact Initiative 2017: “Great Expectations Mission Preservation and Financial Performance in Impact Investing”

4. Stanford Social Innovation review 2017; “Marginalized Returns”, Bolis and West

5. www.impactinvest.org.uk

6. See for example www.sonencapital.com


About Scott Greenhalgh: After a career in private equity, Scott started working 12 years ago with a number of wonderful not-for-profit organisations that opened his eyes to the scale of social inequality and need in the UK. In 2016, he was fortunate to be able to combine these “two worlds” and lead Bridges Evergreen Holdings from inception. Evergreen is the UK’s first long-term capital investment vehicle for social impact investing. Scott is now stepping down from this role and this series of articles offer reflections on leading a pioneering impact first fund. The views in this article are the author’s own and expressed in a personal capacity.

Filed Under: Giving vehicles, Growing Giving, How to do it, Impact investing

Funding the Future – What we’ve learnt and where we’re heading next

February 12, 2021 by Beacon Admin

Funding the Future – What we’ve learnt and where we’re heading next

Guest Blog by Geraldine Tovey, Membership, Communications and Events Manager at London Funders.

Much like the Beacon Collaborative, London Funders strives to enable our members to not just give, but to give well. In this guest blog, we’re covering how we’ve supported London’s communities during the Covid-19 crisis, what we have learnt so far, and (perhaps most excitingly) what we’re doing next.

Before we get into the details, here’s a bit more information about who we are and what we do… London Funders was established 25 years ago to bring together the capital’s many local, regional, and national charitable foundations (many of which were established by philanthropists) with other key funders such as local government, housing associations and corporate givers.

Now 170 members strong, we’re uniquely placed to enable funders from all sectors to be effective.  We’re focused on collaboration – convening funders to connect, contribute and cooperate together, to help people across London’s communities to live better lives.

Back to the current situation, like many other organisations our normal work came to a dramatic halt in March 2020, and a completely new programme was created almost overnight. Our first step was to draft a funder statement: ‘We Stand with the Sector’. Originally published on March 13th 2020, over 400 grant-makers have now committed to show an understanding that many services provided by civil society organisations will need to adapt because of the pandemic. Signatories have also promised to be financially flexible and to take a conversational approach to their relationships with grantees.

During the second national lockdown in November, a further 150 funders signed a renewed and reiterated version of the statement, which placed an emphasis on reflection and listening to civil society organisations post-crisis. Throughout 2020, we heard first hand from voluntary organisations that both ‘We Stand With the Sector’ and ‘We Still Stand With the Sector’ provided much-needed reassurance at a time of great uncertainty, and we were delighted that they were referenced in Civil Society’s charity sector highlights of 2020.

The statement was only the beginning. Over the past year we have been coordinating funders from across sectors through the London Community Response – an unprecedented funder collaboration. So far, £46m (and counting) has been given away by 67 organisations (many of whom received generous donations from high-net-worth-individuals), and funders are currently assessing applications for fifth round of funding.

Focusing initially on crisis support grants for food, protective equipment and digital resources, the most recent wave of funding aligns with the London Recovery Board’s post-Covid missions. Renewal grants are being distributed by funders to ensure that the capital’s voluntary sector is well equipped to tackle the longer term economic, social and wellbeing consequences of the pandemic.

Although the size and scope of the London Community Response is unique, our processes were heavily influenced by previous learning. In 2017 we brought together 18 different funders (including national government) and coordinated a £4.8m grants programme in North Kensington following the Grenfell Tower Fire. This is a very different crisis, but the principles of listening, proactive outreach and recognising inequality have remained the same. Our report on the North Kensington funding programmes – ‘The Possible Not the Perfect’ has been an incredibly useful re-visit and a reminder of what we can achieve together.

What have we learnt so far? To summarise in three words: data, data, data. The £46m given via the London Community Response is undeniably a large sum, but London is a city of 10 million people and has the highest poverty rate in UK. To ensure that money has been spent well, we’ve been working with our friends at DataKind UK to analyse where the funding is going in real time, and to ensure that it aligns with needs at a local level.

Plenty of our members are not involved in the London Community Response, and we’ve been making sure that they are equipped with everything that we think they need to know. Our Covid-19 Resource Hub has expanded rapidly over the months and we send a weekly policy briefing to our members – the ‘Funder Five’. In addition, we have held hundreds of (virtual) meetings, intelligence calls and events since March on Covid and non-Covid topics alike (we haven’t forgotten about Brexit…).

We’ve also been helped hugely by partners from across the sector who have far greater knowledge of their what their communities need, and who have worked tirelessly to make sure that marginalised voices are heard. It has been obvious that Covid-19 is not a leveller, and instead has shone a light on just how unequal our city (and country) is. The best early decision made by the London Community Response collaboration was to proactively fund six equity-led organisations to act as a critical friend and provide outreach to smaller, traditionally underfunded groups.

Although the crisis is ongoing, we’re mindful that eventually the pandemic will end and that the funding sector needs to have a clear vision of what the future should look like. On this note, we strongly encourage all grant givers and philanthropists to read our latest report – ‘After the Storm’.

Based on interviews with 17 of our members, the publication identifies three key challenges for funders in the medium-term. They are – the expectation of a second wave of demand as unemployment rises and recession takes hold; navigating the sector and identifying gaps, overlaps and commonalities; and the financial precariousness of the sector and what that means for maintaining social infrastructure. We hope that this publication and our upcoming briefing on ‘What London Needs’ will assist funders in navigating the difficult decisions ahead.

We are also going to host our first-ever Festival of Learning in the spring. Building on the success of our autumn Camference, we will look at how grantmakers, commissioners and philanthropists can support communities and the capital to not just survive, but to thrive in a post-Covid world. This will cover not just traditional grantmaking, but other ways of giving back too. We’ll be saying more soon, and do get in touch if you would like to join us for these lively and thought-provoking conversations. And of course we’re looking forward to hearing more insights from the Beacon Collaborative in the upcoming months.Home | London Funders

See more of London Funders at their website 

Filed Under: Better Philanthropy, Growing Giving, Guest voices, How to do it, How to grow it

2020 In Review: What can we learn from the philanthropy sector’s COVID response?

December 18, 2020 by Beacon Admin

philanthropy sector

 

2020 In Review: What can we learn from the philanthropy sector’s COVID response?

“2020 has been the most important year for philanthropy in recent times.” – Matthew Bowcock

Throughout 2020, hundreds of millions of pounds in grants have been distributed to non-profit organisations throughout the UK. The purpose, to support those that found themselves on the frontline of the country’s response. 

With the funding sector stretched to its limits, those in the philanthropy sector found new paths through collaboration.

 

The wake-up call

Shortly before COVID hit, New Philanthropy Capital surveyed over 300 charities to get their perspectives on the state of the charity sector, a follow-up to its 2017 research covering the same topic.

‘State of the Sector’ – the resulting report – served as a timely exploration of the non-profit sector’s strengths and weaknesses. NPC’s findings included:

  • Widespread agreement that public trust in the charity sector had fallen, with just 5% of leaders believing it had not.
  • Overconfidence among charities in their ability to use data to evaluate their work.
  • Concerns that there was a lack of flexible core funding for charities.

These proved to be critical weaknesses when COVID hit. The response demanded agile solutions developed through unprecedented levels of collaboration across the funding sector. 

In March, when the UK went into lockdown, a decision was taken by the members of our Organisations’ Council to increase the frequency of meetings from quarterly to monthly. This enabled the philanthropy sector keep pace with a fast-moving landscape. It provided a forum for philanthropists, funders, wealth advisers and policy makers to keep in touch on critical developments.

Through this and other fora, the philanthropy sector and national charities swiftly began to work together to share knowledge. They identified what was happening on the frontline and analysed how best to get funding where it was urgently needed.

………………

Central to the funding efforts:

  • The London Community Response launched as a joint venture between City Bridge Trust and 60 other London-based funders to support emerging needs in London. London Funders played a pivotal role in coordinating this, and helped to establish principles of collaboration which were adopted nationally and internationally.
  • Working across the UK, the National Emergencies Trust formed a partnership with UK Community Foundations and Red Cross to provide a backbone for the national response.
  • Big Society Capital launched two loan funds totalling £125 million to support charities and social enterprises.
  • DCMS’s Community Match Challenge backed 19 foundations and philanthropists with £85 million to encourage new funding for organisations most affected by COVID.

Beyond these alliances, Beacon undertook to provide weekly updates on how COVID was challenging a variety of sectors. The ‘COVID Guide’ project – spotlighting Women & Girls, Racial Justice, the Environment, Data and more – recognised the work of myriad organisations, and sought “to help donors decide on how to give most effectively” during the crisis’ early months.

 

A shift to better data

In parallel, the philanthropy sector switched gears to support donors, philanthropists and funders with better data to pinpoint emerging needs.

New Philanthropy Capital launched a project to open up government administrative data to the social sector. Assisted by Health Foundation, Turn2us and Buttle UK, NPC built an interactive data dashboard helping charities and funders identify areas at greater risk of coronavirus and assess the extent of charitable provision in those areas.

The Association of Charitable Foundations set in motion their Funders Collaborative Hub, working with Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and Lloyds Bank Foundation. Guided by principles of trust, transparency and co-creation, the Hub collated the knowledge, skills and resources of the philanthropy sector.

Philanthropy Impact kept the wealth advisory community informed and initiated a Technology and Data Standards working group to support philanthropy platform providers to meet the needs of donors, philanthropists and advisers.

 

Coordinated communications

‘A joint letter to philanthropists’, published in the Financial Times, called on philanthropists “to think broadly, be clear and straightforward in their giving, and encourage [the] charities they fund to be open about where the challenges are.”

The Institute of Fundraising, Charity Finance Group and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations worked with philanthropists and community leaders to promote the #EveryDayCounts campaign, asking for government intervention in both the charity and philanthropy sectors. The campaign received backing from over 236 MPs and Peers.

It emerged that a coherent message was needed to encourage existing and new donors to commit to giving throughout COVID. Subsequently, the Organisations’ Council set up a Strategic Communications Sub-Group – a platform to coordinate messaging and amplify each other’s work.

Led by the work undertaken by the London Community Response and Charities Aid Foundation, the philanthropy sector adopted the mantra ‘Survive, Adapt, Thrive’, describing the different phases of funding that would be needed to support charitable organisations through the pandemic and beyond. 

The message – that charities need long-term funding to recover – resonated with wealth holders looking to target their funding most effectively.

To track funding patterns among the high-net-worth community in the UK, Beacon and Savanta launched quarterly pulse surveying in June. The quarterly surveys asked a cohort of 300-500 wealthy individuals about their philanthropic activity. Comparing their planned and actual giving, we were able to see which sections of the wealthy population were responding most. Around a quarter of wealth holders have consistently donated more than planned during COVID, a net increase overall.

As the year draws to a close, the £20 million success of this year’s The Big Give’s Christmas Challenge highlights the ongoing need of charitable organisations for philanthropic champions and wider funding supporters.

 

Questions for the future

There are two questions that emerge from this crisis for 2021. First, what can we learn from 2020 that will strengthen civil society in the future? Second, how can we sustain the increased engagement from wealthy individuals and avoid funding fatigue? 

This first question is already being explored, by the Law Family Commission on Civil Society asking how to unleash the full potential of civil society in the UK. And by DCMS’s follow up to MP Danny Kruger’s report, Levelling Up Our Communities.

On the second question, we continue to see collaborative initiatives breaching new territory even 9 months after the first lockdown. Big Society Capital and Schroders, for example, teaming up this week to launch the World’s first listed social impact investment fund.

2020 put the philanthropy sector through its paces. The same effort will be required again in 2021. This time, to tackle the systemic weaknesses in civil society that the crisis laid bare. 

Yet, we now know the philanthropy sector can be stronger than the sum of its parts. New relationships have been forged through the crisis along with agile methods for effective, streamlined collaboration. This has been a critical year for philanthropy and provides a foundation for ensuring philanthropists are part of future transitions.

Filed Under: Covid, Growing Giving

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Go to Next Page »

In May 2025 The Beacon Collaborate merged with NPC. © 2025 Beacon Fellowship Charitable Trust | Registered charity, Charity No 1096423, Reg in England No 4689391 | EDI policy | Privacy policy | Website by Charity & Biscuits

  • LinkedIn