ANNUAL

IMPACT
INVESTOR
SURVEY
2020

THE TENTH EDITION

2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Authored by the GIIN Research Team

Dean Hand, Director
Hannah Dithrich, Senior Associate
Sophia Sunderji, Senior Associate
Noshin Nova, Associate

About the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN)

The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) is the global champion of impact investing, dedicated to increasing the
scale and effectiveness of impact investing around the world. The GIIN builds critical infrastructure and supports activities,
education, and research that help to accelerate the development of a coherent impact investing industry. For more
information, see http://www.thegiin.org/.

Acknowledgments
Research support
The Research Team would like to recognize the contributions of many members of the broader GIIN team throughout
this research process. The following staff provided valuable input in beta-testing the survey instrument and reviewing the
report: Claude Amstutz, Rachel Bass, Amit Bouri, Diari Dieye, Leticia Emme, Sean Gilbert, Lissa Glasgo, Giselle Leung,
Dana Moloney, Pete Murphy, Katrina Ngo, Benjamin Ringel, Pamela Rykowski, Sapna Shah, George Spencer, Amy Stillman,
Katharine Zafiris, and Sarah Zhukovsky.

Beta-testing
Many stakeholders beta-tested the survey instrument and provided valuable input on its development: Quyen Tran of
BlackRock, James Haworth and Yasemin Saltuk Lamy of the CDC, Christine Looney of the Ford Foundation, John Balbach
and Urmi Sengupta of the MacArthur Foundation, Mukesh Sharma of Menterra, Anjali Deshmukh and Rebecca Price of
Mission Investors Exchange, Hannah Schiff of Nuveen, Chris Jurgens and Robynn Steffen of Omidyar Network, and Mary
Robinson and Dustyn Lanz of Responsible Investment Association Canada.

Outreach support
Several networks and stakeholder groups provided valuable support by encouraging their members and networks to
participate in the survey. These outreach partners are acknowledged in Appendix 3.

This report is printed on paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

©June 2020 Global Impact Investing Network

A N N U A L I M PAC T I N V E S TO R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 I
THIS SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS THE IMPRESSIVE
DECADE OF MARKET EVOLUTION

Just 24 members responded to the

2010 report; this year, the survey
provides insights from nearly
300 of the world’s leading
impact investors.
Letter from the CEO
Dear Reader,

When the GIIN launched its first survey of impact investors in 2010, I could never have imagined where we would be – as a
market and as a world – ten years later.

We completed that original survey amid the lingering consequences of the financial crisis and the Great Recession. This year,
our team pushed forward with a survey during the global coronavirus pandemic. The virus and its ripple effects are exposing
global inequities in unsettling ways, leaving the world’s most vulnerable citizens more exposed to new harm.

Sadly, the crisis is highlighting – and even exacerbating – our most troubling global trends.

Even amidst the deadly pandemic, other existential concerns still loom. The climate crisis is growing continually more dire,
while the global ‘inequality crisis’ is threating lives in other ways. This year’s fifth anniversary of the adoptions of both the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Accord is marked by insufficient progress. And around the
world, we face a crisis of distrust in business and government – the very leaders we need guiding us toward progress.

But if crisis exacerbates our most troubling trends, I am convinced that it can also amplify our most encouraging trends, as well.

The growth and increasing sophistication I have witnessed in the impact investing
market over the previous ten years give me solid reason for that hope. Each year, we
have consistently seen impact investors doing more of what they do best: leveraging The global impact
the power of finance to tackle our biggest challenges.

This year’s survey highlights that impressive decade of market evolution. Our 2010 investing community
report relied on data from just 24 members of the GIIN’s Investors’ Council. This
year, the survey provides insights from our largest number of respondents ever: can help rebuild into a
nearly 300 of the world’s leading impact investors, who collectively manage USD
404 billion in impact investment assets. more inclusive, more
In their 2020 survey responses, we find encouraging signs of progress sprouting up
in fresh ways. The impact investing industry is diverse in geography, asset class, and resilient, and more
approach. The market is growing in both depth and sophistication: nearly seven out of
every ten respondents believe that impact investing is growing steadily. sustainable future.
The industry is also showing signs of coalescing around a consistent set of impact
measurement and management (IMM) frameworks. In 2010, most respondents
used their own proprietary systems to track impact outcomes. Now, almost all are aligning around a core group of IMM
systems, including the GIIN’s own IRIS+. And yet, respondents still see opportunity for refinement. The GIIN’s focus on
impact performance is targeted at that opportunity – raising the bar on the real results of impact investing by supporting the
comparability that will drive growth and build trust.

Perhaps most promising of all, the world’s concurrent crises are not scaring impact investors away from their important work.
The survey finds most are maintaining a positive outlook for the future, despite substantial COVID-19-related headwinds:
57% say they are unlikely to change their capital commitments because of the pandemic, and 15% say they are likely to
commit additional capital.

So, on the tenth anniversary of this survey, I am convinced that our moment of unprecedented crisis is also an unprecedented
opportunity.

The global impact investing community can help rebuild into a more inclusive, more resilient, and more sustainable future.
We can shape a recovery that improves the lot of all the world’s citizens. We can lead the way toward a transformed financial
system that honors the role of every stakeholder – from workers to the planet itself.

Amit Bouri
Co-Founder and CEO, Global Impact Investing Network
@AmitKBouri

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 III
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Methodology IX

Executive summary XIII

Sample characteristics 1
Organization type........................................................................................................................1
Headquarters location................................................................................................................ 2
Sample characteristics by subgroup......................................................................................... 2
Investors also making impact-agnostic investments............................................................... 3
Year of first impact investment.................................................................................................. 3
Target financial returns .............................................................................................................. 4
Motivations for making impact investments........................................................................... 4
Sample characteristics of repeat respondents......................................................................... 5

State of the impact investing market 7

Stages of market evolution........................................................................................................ 7
Progress over the past decade on indicators of market growth............................................ 7
Remaining challenges for the market....................................................................................... 8
Challenges facing the market over the next five years.......................................................... 9
The Roadmap for the Future of Impact Investing ................................................................ 11

Investment activity 16
Investment activity in 2019.......................................................................................................16
Planned investment activity for 2020......................................................................................17
Activity by organization type...................................................................................................18
Comparing planned with reported 2019 activity....................................................................18

The asset manager landscape 22

Investing through asset managers ......................................................................................... 22
Asset manager activity............................................................................................................. 24

Asset allocations 29
Assets under management...................................................................................................... 29
AUM by geography of investment........................................................................................ 30
AUM by sector of investment................................................................................................. 32
AUM by asset class.................................................................................................................. 35
AUM by stage of business....................................................................................................... 38

IV G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
Measuring and managing impact 44
Impact objectives .....................................................................................................................44
Impact measurement and management systems, tools, and frameworks ......................... 45
Evolution of demand for impact investments and IMM practice....................................... 47

Current market topics 50

Climate investing......................................................................................................................50
Engagement with catalytic capital ..........................................................................................51
Investors that provide catalytic capital................................................................................... 52
Investors that do not provide catalytic capital ...................................................................... 54

Investment performance and risk 58

Target financial returns............................................................................................................. 58
Performance relative to expectations..................................................................................... 59
Realized gross returns..............................................................................................................60
Portfolio risks.............................................................................................................................60

Market Developments
Where they are now..................................................................................................................14
Notable commitments over the past decade........................................................................20
A decade of impact measurement and management: From taxonomies
to core metrics and analytics...................................................................................................48
Paving the way with policy: The evolving role of government in impact investing.......... 55
The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on impact investing ...........................................64

Sizing the impact investing market 40

Size of the market.....................................................................................................................40
Database characteristics..........................................................................................................40
Range of assets managed ........................................................................................................41
Market sizing methodology..................................................................................................... 42

Appendix 1: List of survey participants 69

Appendix 2: Sources for notable commitments over the past decade 72

Appendix 3: List of definitions provided to survey respondents 74

Appendix 4: Outreach partners 76

A N N U A L I M PAC T I N V E S TO R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 V
 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
Table i: Respondent sub-groups referenced in the report.............................................................................................................X
Table ii: Types of respondent organizations referenced in the report..................................................................................... XI
Table iii: Region codes.................................................................................................................................................................................. XI
Table iv: Sector Codes.................................................................................................................................................................................. XI
Table v: Changes in geographic allocations among repeat respondents (2015 – 2019)..............................................XVI
Table vi: Changes in sector allocations among repeat respondents (2015 – 2019)....................................................... XVII
Table 1: Sub-groups in the sample............................................................................................................................................................. 2
Table 2: Greatest challenges facing the industry over the next five years, by respondent subgroup.........................10
Table 3: Investment activity, reported in 2019 and planned for 2020........................................................................................ 17
Table 4: Investment activity by organization type............................................................................................................................. 18
Table 5: Capital invested and number of investments in 2019 among repeat respondents........................................... 18
Table 6: Asset managers’ capital raised in 2019 and planned raise for 2020..........................................................................24
Table 7: Asset managers’ capital raised in 2019 and planned raise for 2020, by sub-group............................................24
Table 8: Asset managers’ sources of capital by investor type, target returns, asset class focus,
and investor size..............................................................................................................................................................................26
Table 9: Changes in asset managers’ sources of capital, among repeat respondents.......................................................28
Table 10: Geographic allocations by respondent sub-group.......................................................................................................... 31
Table 11: Changes in geographic allocation among repeat respondents (2015–2019)......................................................32
Table 12: Sector allocations by respondent sub-group.....................................................................................................................33
Table 13: Changes in sector allocations among repeat respondents (2015–2019)...............................................................35
Table 14: Asset class allocations by respondent sub-group............................................................................................................36
Table 15: Changes in asset class allocations among repeat respondents (2015–2019).......................................................37
Table 16: Allocations by stage of business among respondent sub-groups............................................................................39
Table 17: Changes in allocation by stage of business among repeat respondents (2015–2019)....................................39
Table 18: Primary impact objective, by sub-groups .......................................................................................................................... 44
Table 19: Respondents’ participation in catalytic capital structures.............................................................................................52
Table 20: Investment activity of catalytic capital providers in 2019..............................................................................................52

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure i: Stages of industry evolution..................................................................................................................................................XIV
Figure ii: Progress over the past decade on indicators of market growth..............................................................................XV
Figure iii: Average realized gross returns since inception for private markets investments...........................................XVI
Figure iv: Use of tools, frameworks, and systems, by purpose ................................................................................................XVIII
Figure 1: Organization type.............................................................................................................................................................................1
Figure 2: Organization headquarters location........................................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 3: Investment type by organization type..................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 4: Year of first impact investment...................................................................................................................................................4
Figure 5: Target financial returns primarily sought................................................................................................................................4
Figure 6: Motivations for making impact investments........................................................................................................................5
Figure 7: Organization type breakdown among repeat respondents...........................................................................................6
Figure 8: Headquarters locations of repeat respondents...................................................................................................................6
Figure 9: Stages of industry evolution........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 10: Progress over the past decade on indicators of market growth...................................................................................8
Figure 11: Remaining challenges for the market......................................................................................................................................9
Figure 12: Greatest challenges facing the market over the next five years................................................................................10
Figure 13: Anticipated direct contributions to roadmap actions over the next five years.....................................................11
Figure 14: Contributions to roadmap actions in 2018 and planned contributions over the next five years,
among repeat respondents........................................................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 15: Distribution of capital invested and number of investments in 2019.......................................................................16

VI G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
Figure 16: Capital invested and number of investments made in 2019, by asset class..........................................................16
Figure 17: Expected change in 2020 investment activity................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 18: Reported investment activity in 2015 and 2019 among repeat respondents........................................................19
Figure 19: Greatest challenges investing through asset managers................................................................................................22
Figure 20: Greatest gaps in available impact investing fund products.........................................................................................23
Figure 21: Projected versus actual capital raise in 2019.......................................................................................................................25
Figure 22: Sources of capital for impact investing asset managers................................................................................................25
Figure 23: Change in investment level over the past five years .....................................................................................................27
Figure 24: Distribution of respondent AUM...........................................................................................................................................29
Figure 25: Percent of sample AUM invested directly and indirectly............................................................................................ 30
Figure 26: Asset allocations by geography of investment................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 27: Planned geographic allocations changes for the next five years............................................................................... 31
Figure 28: Asset allocations by sector.........................................................................................................................................................33
Figure 29: Planned sector allocations changes for the next five years..........................................................................................34
Figure 30: Asset allocations by asset class................................................................................................................................................36
Figure 31: Strategies for generating impact through listed equities investments....................................................................37
Figure 32: Reasons respondents do not seek to generate impact through listed equities investments.........................38
Figure 33: Asset allocation by stage of business....................................................................................................................................38
Figure A: Organization type.........................................................................................................................................................................40
Figure B: Organizations’ headquarters location...................................................................................................................................41
Figure C: AUM by organization type........................................................................................................................................................41
Figure D: Distribution of impact investor AUM...................................................................................................................................42
Figure 34: Primary impact objectives......................................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 35: SDG-aligned impact themes targeted by impact investors....................................................................................... 45
Figure 36: Overall use of tools, frameworks, and systems................................................................................................................. 46
Figure 37: Use of tools, frameworks, and systems, by purpose....................................................................................................... 46
Figure 38: Changes in IMM practice and demand compared to when impact investors first
began making investments........................................................................................................................................................47
Figure 39: Strategies for generating impact through listed equities investments................................................................... 50
Figure 40: How respondents address climate change through their impact investments.................................................... 51
Figure 41: Approaches to address climate change............................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 42: Types of catalytic capital that organizations provide......................................................................................................53
Figure 43: Reasons that impact investors provide catalytic capital................................................................................................53
Figure 44: Reasons impact investors do not provide catalytic capital.......................................................................................... 54
Figure 45: Target financial returns principally sought.......................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 46: Target financial returns by organization type.................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 47: Performance relative to expectations................................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 48: Financial performance relative to expectations by returns philosophy, asset class focus,
and geographic focus..................................................................................................................................................................60
Figure 49: Average realized gross returns since inception for investments in private markets ....................................60
Figure 50: Contributors of financial risk to impact investment portfolios....................................................................................61
Figure 51: Contributors of impact risks to impact investment portfolios....................................................................................62
Figure 52: Changes to 2020 planned investment activity as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic............................... 64
Figure 53: Likelihood of changes to target SDG-aligned impact themes over the next 5 years,
as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic.............................................................................................................. 65
Figure 54: Likelihood of changes to geographic allocations over the next 5 years as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic ................................................................................................................................................................ 65
Figure 55: Performance against expectations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic....................................................... 66
Figure 56: Likelihood that the severity of risk to impact investing portfolios has changed as a
consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic........................................................................................................................67

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 VII
VIII G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
Methodology
This report captures data collected from 294 impact investing organizations via a survey administered between February and
April 2020. The survey included questions on respondents’ impact investing activity during 2019, investment plans for 2020,
assets under management (AUM) as of the end of 2019, and perspectives on the state of the market.

Inclusion criteria
To ensure that respondents have meaningful experience with impact investing, responding organizations either (1) manage at
least USD 10 million in impact investing assets and/or (2) have made at least five impact investments. The GIIN provided its
definition of impact investments (see Appendix 3), which respondents used to self-report their eligibility.

Sampling
The respondent sample is a non-probability purposive sample. The Research Team made efforts to generate a diverse set
of participants from which a respondent sample could be drawn. Over 1,600 impact investing organizations were invited
to participate, and the survey was also publicized via the GIIN’s online social media, network channels, and outreach
partners (listed in Appendix 4), which, in turn, invited their own networks to participate. The full list of participants is
included in Appendix 1.

Data collection, cleaning, and accuracy

The survey was administered via an online data collection tool. A handful of respondents, for technical reasons, completed
the survey manually and the GIIN Research Team entered their responses on the back end. Participants were instructed to
complete the survey only with respect to their impact investing portfolios, reminded of the inclusion criteria and the definition
of impact investments.

While this report is based on self-reported data, the GIIN Research Team collects and cleans data in a systematic way.
The Research Team checked survey responses using a data cleaning tool developed to detect potential errors and
inconsistencies. Any anomalies were addressed directly with respondents and incomplete or inaccurate data was modified
or deleted with respondents’ permission. In cases where organizations completed the survey but did not meet the inclusion
criteria, participants were removed from analysis. For survey participants that did not meet the inclusion criteria described
above, a separate set of questions was asked to ascertain what impact investment activity was underway. Due to the small
number of participants that responded to these questions, this data has not been analyzed for inclusion in this report.

Data recoding
A handful of survey questions allowed respondents to provide free-form answers in categories marked ‘other.’ To enable more
useful interpretation of responses, in some cases the GIIN Research Team recoded these free-form responses into more
uniform categories or themes.

Sample overlap with previous surveys

The sample for this report changes each year, which is important to consider when comparing this report’s findings with those
from previous years’ surveys. To understand changes and trends in investment activity over time, the Research Team examined
the responses of 79 investors that participated in both the 2016 and 2020 Annual Surveys (reporting data on assets for the years
ending 2015 and 2019). Analysis of this sub-sample, described as ‘repeat respondents,’ shows changes in activity by the same
set of respondents over five calendar years from the end of 2015 to the end of 2019 and four periods of compound change.
Such analysis is presented where appropriate. Most analyses described in the narrative are statistically significant at the 90%
confidence level; cases where trends analyses are not statistically significant are indicated.

Separately, of 294 respondents this year, 166 had also responded to the survey in 2019. Some analyses examine this sub-sample,
comparing their responses between last year and this year. These comparisons between this year and last year are indicated as
such in the report.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 IX
 Role of outlier respondents
As is often the case in research, a handful of outliers in a sample can have outsized influence on aggregate findings. Some
respondents to the Annual Survey manage comparatively large impact investing portfolios, which can skew aggregate
analysis toward their particular concentrations. Where appropriate, analysis is presented either excluding or including outlier
respondents to enable more nuanced interpretation of findings to best reflect the insights and activity of the broad sample.
Inclusion and exclusion of outliers has been indicated throughout.

Analyzing data by subgroup

Most findings in this report aggregate the responses of all 294 impact investors. The report also presents differences in
responses among subgroups of investors (for example, those with a large majority of their capital allocated to a particular
asset class or geography). The Research Team tested differences between subgroups for statistical significance where it was
appropriate to do so. Most comparisons presented in the narrative are statistically significant at the 90% confidence level. Cases
where significance testing would be inappropriate or where subgroup comparisons are not statistically significant are indicated.

Table i presents a full list of respondent subgroups. More precise subgroup analysis is also described as relevant, such as
analysis of those respondents that are focused on a given region (for a list of regions, see Table iii).

Table i: Respondent subgroups referenced in the report

Number of
Sub-group Description of the category
respondents
DM-HQ Investors Respondents headquartered in developed markets 227

EM-HQ Investors Respondents headquartered in emerging markets 61

DM-Focused
Respondents that allocate ≥ 75% of their current impact investment AUM to developed markets 140
Investors
EM-Focused
Respondents that allocate ≥ 75% of their current impact investment AUM to emerging markets 126
Investors
Private Equity–
Respondents that allocate ≥ 75% of their current impact investment AUM to private equity 83
Focused Investors
Private Debt–
Respondents that allocate ≥ 75% of their current impact investment AUM to private debt 65
Focused Investors
Market-Rate
Respondents that principally target risk-adjusted, market-rate returns 197
Investors
Below-Market Respondents that principally target below-market-rate returns, some closer to market rate and some closer
97
Investors to capital preservation
Small Investors Respondents with total impact investment AUM ≤ USD 100 million 157

Medium Investors Respondents with total impact investment AUM > USD 100 million and ≤ USD 500 million 63

Large Investors Respondents with total impact investment AUM > USD 500 million 72

Note: Some investors marked ‘no single headquarters location,’ so the sum of DM-HQ Investors and EM-HQ Investors is less than the size of the full sample.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

X G LO B A L I M PAC T I N V E S T I N G N E T WO R K
Organization types
In many sections of the report, respondents are described by their organization type. For brevity, organization types
referenced in the report have abbreviated names. Table ii includes a list of these and a description of what each includes.

Table ii: Types of respondent organizations referenced in the report

Number of
Organization type Description of the type
respondents
Asset manager:
Asset manager: for-profit (including fund managers and investment managers) 149
for-profit
Asset manager:
Asset manager: not-for-profit (including fund managers and investment managers) 40
not-for-profit
DFI Development finance institution (government-backed institution investing in the private sector) 14
Diversified financial
Diversified financial institution (including banks and credit unions) 8
institution
Family office Family office 12

Foundation Foundation 40

Insurance company Insurance company 3

Pension fund Pension fund / retirement fund 5

Other Other organization types 23

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Region and sector codes

Regions and sectors referenced in the report are given abbreviated codes as shown in Tables iii and iv. Respondents indicated their
country headquarters, and the Research Team mapped countries to their corresponding regions.1 In some cases, the Research
Team analyzed differences in investment activities and market perceptions among respondents that allocate 75% or more of
their AUM to a particular region, focusing only on those regions to which a meaningful sample has substantial allocations.
The numbers of these respondents are listed in Table iii to provide context for the regional comparisons throughout the report.

Table iii: Region codes Table iv: Sector codes

Number of respondents Code Name of sector
Code Name of region that allocate ≥ 75% of
AUM to each region Arts & culture Arts & culture
DM Developed markets Education Education
East Asia East Asia 11 Energy Energy
Oceania Oceania 4 Fin services Financial services
(excl. microfinance) (excluding microfinance)
United States
U.S. & Canada 74 Food & ag Food & agriculture
and Canada
Western, Northern, Forestry & timber Forestry & timber
WNS Europe 15
and Southern Europe
Healthcare Healthcare
EM Emerging markets
Eastern Europe, Russia, Housing Housing
EECA 1
and Central Asia Information and communication
ICT
Latin America and technologies
LAC the Caribbean 19 Infrastructure Infrastructure
(including Mexico)
Manufacturing Manufacturing
Middle East and
MENA 2
North Africa Microfinance Microfinance
SE Asia Southeast Asia 5 WASH Water, sanitation, and hygiene
South Asia South Asia 13
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa 37

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

1 Countries were mapped to their corresponding regions in accordance with the World Bank guidelines.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 XI
 The impact investing industry is
diverse in geography, asset class,
and approach. The market is also
growing in depth and sophistication:
nearly seven in ten respondents
believe the impact investing
market is growing steadily.

XII G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
Executive summary
The 10th edition of the Global Impact Investing Network’s (GIIN) Annual Impact Investor Survey reflects insights from 294
respondents that collectively manage USD 404 billion of impact investing assets. Respondents shared their investment activity for
the year ending 2019 and their plans for 2020, their reflections on developments over the past decade, and their views of future
challenges facing the market. The report also includes longitudinal analysis of 79 repeat respondents that completed both this year’s
survey and the 2016 survey (providing year-end 2015 data).

The survey data collection period (February to April 2020) coincidently took place as the novel coronavirus COVID-19
pandemic spread across the globe, the full consequences of which remain unclear. As the world wrestles with its response to
and recovery from COVID-19, significant economic implications in every geography and sector appear likely. For this reason,
following the close of data collection on April 5 2020, the GIIN additionally invited participating investors to share their
reflections on the implications of COVID-19. Among respondents, 122 shared their perspectives on how COVID-19 might
change their future allocations and risk assessments.

To place the Annual Survey’s insights in the context of the broader impact investing market, this report updates the estimate of the
size of the impact investing market, drawing on the market-sizing methodology, as part of the initial release in April 2019.2 Based on
a database of over 1,720 impact investors, this methodology estimates the size of the current market at USD 715 billion.

KEY FINDINGS
1 THE IMPACT INVESTING INDUSTRY REMAINS DIVERSE.

2 IMPACT INVESTING HAS GROWN IN DEPTH AND SOPHISTICATION OVER TIME, in terms of:
• Market evolution over the past decade;
• Indicators of market growth over the past decade;
• Motivations for making impact investments; and
• Growth of realized gross returns and assets over time.

3 IMPACT MEASUREMENT AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES HAVE MATURED, BUT OPPORTUNITIES

FOR REFINEMENT REMAIN.

4 IMPACT INVESTORS HOLD A POSITIVE OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE, DESPITE HEADWINDS.

THE IMPACT INVESTING INDUSTRY

1
REMAINS DIVERSE
The respondent sample is diverse. Hailing from 46 countries, respondents are headquartered in both developed markets (DM, 77%)
and in emerging markets (EM, 21%).3 The focus of their investment activity is more balanced regardless of headquarter location.
In terms of the geographic allocation of assets, 48% of respondents invest primarily in DMs while 43% are focused on investing
in EMs. Approximately two-thirds (65%) of respondents are asset managers (either for profit or non-profit). Sixty-one percent of
organizations in the sample are exclusively impact investors; the remainder (39%) additionally allocates a portion of their assets to
impact-agnostic investments.4

2 Abhilash Mudaliar and Hannah Dithrich, Sizing the Impact Investing Market (New York: The GIIN, 2019).
3 The remaining 2% of respondents have no single headquarter location.
4 ‘Impact-agnostic investments’ are investments that do not have an intention of a positive social or environmental impact and consequently do not seek to measure impact
performance.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 XIII
 Collectively, respondents to the survey manage USD 404 billion of impact investing assets,5 but the median investor manages USD
89 million. The large amount of assets under management (AUM) is heavily skewed by three large outliers, which account for 45% of
the sample’s AUM. In fact, small investors - or those managing less than USD 100 million in impact investing assets – comprise 53% of
the respondent sample. In terms of overall impact AUM, excluding outliers, 55% of impact investment assets are directed to developed
markets while 40% are allocated to emerging markets. Including outliers, however, most capital (59%) is allocated to emerging markets,
with sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) attracting the most assets (21%).

In another reflection of diversity, respondents allocate impact investing capital across asset classes. Excluding outliers, private debt
accounts for 21% of respondent AUM, followed by public equity at 19%. Including outliers, private debt still attracts the highest capital
allocation (34%). Although public equity attracts the second largest allocation of AUM, only 17% of the respondents in the sample
utilize this asset class in their portfolio. This reflects the larger average size of investments in public equity compared to those in private
debt and private equity.

In terms of specific investment activity for 2019, investors used the full gamut of asset classes, with private debt (37%), publicly
traded debt (24%), and private equity (16%) attracting the most capital during 2019. These asset classes were also the most
commonly used by number of transactions in 2019 – 61%, 16%, and 11% of transactions respectively, used private debt, publicly
traded debt, and private equity.

Regarding how respondents set their impact performance goals, 60% target both social and environmental impact in their investments.
There is broad use of the SDGs with 73% using this framework for at least one measurement and management purpose. Nearly three-
quarters of respondents to this year’s survey target ‘decent work and economic growth’ (SDG 8). On average, respondents target eight
different SDG-aligned impact themes, reflecting the diversity of their impact goals.

IMPACT INVESTING HAS GROWN IN DEPTH AND

2
SOPHISTICATION OVER TIME
Impact investing is growing in depth of practice and sophistication of issues that investors already have and plan to address going
forward. This is reflected in investors’ perceptions of indicators of market growth and evolution over the past decade, their motivations
to commit capital, and the nature of geographic and sector allocations over the past five years.

Market evolution over the past decade

A clear majority of respondents consider the impact investing market to be ‘growing steadily’ (69%, Figure i) with 21% describing the
market as ‘about to take off.’ Notably, no respondents see the impact investing market ‘declining.’ When asked a similar question on the
2011 survey, 75% of respondents indicated then that the market was in its very early stages.6

Figure i: Stages of industry evolution

n = 290; optional question.

In its infancy 9%
80%
About to take off 21%

Growing steadily 69%

Established/mature 2%

Saturated 0.3%

Declining 0%

Percent of respondents
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

5 Two respondents chose not to share their assets under management.

6 Yasemin Saltuk, Amit Bouri, and Giselle Leung, Insight into the Impact Investment Market (New York: J.P. Morgan and the GIIN, December 2011).

XIV G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
 Indicators of market growth over the past decade
Respondents reflected on several indicators of industry growth over the past ten years (Figure ii) citing that the greatest area
of progress was in ‘research on market activity, trends, performance, and practice’ (42% see ‘significant progress’ made over the
past decade). Additionally, many respondents believe that ‘significant progress’ has been made on the ‘sophistication of impact
measurement and management practice’ and ‘professionals with relevant skill sets’ (39% and 32%, respectively).

Figure ii: Progress over the past decade on indicators of market growth
Number of respondents shown above each indicator; some respondents chose ‘not sure / not applicable’ and are not included. Ranked by percent selecting ‘significant progress.'
n= 283 286 281 285 278 272 277 272 259 249
0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1%
3% 1% 1% 7% 8% 3%
4% 9% 10%
25% 22%
Percent of respondents

55% 59% 66% 65% 66% 69% 68%

71%
69%
58%

42% 39% 32% 29% 25% 24% 24% 18% 14% 8%

Research on Sophistication Professionals with Common Data on High-quality Innovative Appropriate Government Suitable exit
market activity, of impact relevant skill sets understanding investment investment deal/fund capital across the support for the options
trends, measurement of definition and products and opportunities structures to risk/return market
performance, and management segmentation of opportunities (fund or direct) accommodate spectrum
practice practice impact investing with track record investors’ or
market investees’ needs

Significant progress Some progress No progress Worsened

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Motivations for making impact investments

Impact investors’ motivations stand at the root of the industry’s development. Unsurprisingly, the top three reasons for making
impact investments all concern impact. Nearly all respondents (87%) consider both ‘impact being central to their mission’ and ‘their
commitment as responsible investors’ as ‘very important’ motivations. Furthermore, 81% believe that impact investing is an efficient way
to achieve impact goals.

Interestingly, 70% of investors find the financial attractiveness of impact investing relative to other investment strategies at least
somewhat important. Together with the fact that 88% of respondents report meeting or exceeding their financial expectations and
over two–thirds of respondents (67%) seek risk-adjusted, market-rate returns for their assets, this finding may imply a shift from the
increasingly outdated perception of an inherent tradeoff between impact and financial performance. The initial survey conducted a
decade ago noted investor’s expectation of a tradeoff. It also found wide variance in return expectations;7 by contrast, respondents
to this year’s survey appear to have consolidated more strongly around risk-adjusted, market-rate returns but are satisfied with
concessionary financial performance, if this is in line with what they target.

7 Nick O’Donohoe, Christina Leijonhufvud, Yasemin Saltuk, Antony Bugg-Levine, and Margot Brandenburg, Impact Investments: An Emerging Asset Class (New York: J.P.
Morgan, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the GIIN, November 2010).

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 XV
 Growth of realized gross returns and assets over time
Over time, impact investments across asset classes in private markets have generated strong realized returns.8

Figure iii: Average realized gross returns since inception for private markets investments
Number of respondents shown above each bar; year of first impact investment ranges from 1956 – 2019, with 2011 as the median year. Averages shown beside each diamond;
error bars show +/- one standard deviation.
n= 18 37 18 30 32 42 11 20 21 4
35%
30%
25%
20%
18%
15% 16%
13%
10% 10% 10% 11%
8% 8% 8%
7%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
DM EM DM EM DM EM DM EM DM EM
Market-rate Below market-rate Market-rate Below market-rate Market-rate

Private debt Private equity Real assets

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Given the volatility of private equity as an asset class, returns on this instrument naturally have the greatest variance. As expected, market-
rate investments generally performed better than their below-market-rate counterparts. Emerging market investments performed
similarly to developed market investments across asset classes and had similar ranges of returns. Notably, half of respondents began
impact investing either before or during past recessionary cycles and have retained reasonable performance. This track record may
bode well for impact investors during the potential economic downturn they currently face.

Among repeat respondents to both this year’s and the 2016 surveys (the latter reporting year-end 2015 data), aggregate impact
AUM grew from USD 52 billion to USD 98 billion, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17%.9 The fastest-growing regions
of investment were Western, Northern, and Southern Europe (WNS Europe) and East and Southeast Asia (SE Asia), which grew at
25% and 23% CAGR, respectively. Growing interest in SE Asia is also reflected in the full sample’s investment plans, as over half of
respondents (52%) plan to grow allocations to SE Asia over the next five years. The same share of respondents intends to increase
their future allocations to SSA.

Table v: Changes in geographic allocations among repeat respondents (2015 – 2019)

n = 79; figures in USD millions.

Region 2015 2019 CAGR

WNS Europe 6,365 15,318 25%
East and SE Asia 4,080 9,385 23%
LAC 6,216 13,167 21%
U.S. & Canada 10,036 20,625 20%
MENA 1,447 2,881 19%
Oceania 1,915 3,419 16%
South Asia 4,535 7,822 15%
EECA 5,997 9,264 11%
SSA 9,602 12,808 7%
Other 1,625 2,793 15%
Total 51,817 97,483 17%

Note: East and SE Asia were combined in the 2016 survey but disaggregated in the 2020 survey, so have been combined for this analysis.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

8 While respondents to the survey did share public market realized return data since inception, the sample sizes are too small to make meaningful inferences.
9 Two large outliers within the sub-sample of repeat respondents skew this growth. CAGR excluding these two outliers (n=77) is 9% per annum.

XVI G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
By sector, repeat respondents grew their capital allocation most quickly to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), at a CAGR of
33% from 2015 to 2019 and to financial services (excluding microfinance) at a CAGR of 30%. Half of respondents plan to increase the
volume of capital allocated to WASH over the next five years.

While food and agriculture accounts for a relatively small proportion of AUM (9% excluding outliers), it is the most common sector
for investment, with 57% of respondents having some allocation and the highest proportion of respondents (54%) planning to increase
their allocations over the next five years. Healthcare is another common sector; almost half of respondents have some allocation to
healthcare. Among repeat respondents, healthcare was the third-fastest-growing sector, and 51% of respondents plan to increase their
capital allocations to healthcare over the next five years.

Table vi: Changes in sector allocations among repeat respondents (2015 – 2019)
n = 79; figures in USD millions.

Sector 2015 2019 CAGR

WASH 3,083 9,735 33%
Fin services (excl. microfinance) 5,667 16,432 30%
Healthcare 2,405 5,590 23%
Food & ag 3,746 8,284 22%
Energy 9,007 19,077 21%
ICT 1,198 2,058 14%
Infrastructure 1,144 1,818 12%
Housing 4,238 6,322 11%
Microfinance 9,525 13,439 9%
Manufacturing 1,667 1,356 -5%
Education 1,695 1,257 -7%
Arts & culture 142 52 -22%
Other 8,298 12,063 10%
Total 51,817 97,483 17%

Note: The 2016 survey included a category for ‘conservation,’ which was not included in the 2020 survey, and the 2020 survey included a category for ‘forestry & timber,’ which was not available in the 2016 survey.
Both categories have been combined with ‘other’ for this analysis.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Yearly investment activity sheds light on how these overall AUM allocations translate to specific annual results. Respondents reported
both the number of deals and the amount of capital deployed. During 2019, the full sample of respondents executed 9,807 transactions
amounting to USD 47 billion in capital.10 The activities of the 79 repeat respondents illustrate growth over a longer period: the number
of impact investments made by this group grew 9% per year, from 4,885 investments made in 2015 to 7,014 in 2019, and their volume of
capital invested grew by 12% per year, from USD 14 billion invested in 2015 to USD 22.5 billion in 2019.

Since inception, 99% of investors in the full sample have met their impact performance expectations. Even more impressively, as
indicated above, 88% of respondents also met their financial return expectations.

IMPACT MEASUREMENT AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES HAVE

3 MATURED, BUT OPPORTUNITIES FOR REFINEMENT REMAIN
A cornerstone of impact investing is the ability to translate intention into impact results. Impact measurement and management (IMM)
practices have evolved over the past decade and now reflect an increasingly strategic use of tools for different purposes at different
stages of the IMM cycle. Despite their maturation, respondents still identify opportunities for greater development of these practices,
especially concerning the comparison and verification of impact results.

In the first edition of the Annual Survey, 85% of respondents used their own proprietary IMM systems.11 One decade later, 89% use
external systems, tools and frameworks for IMM. The most commonly used IMM resources are the SDGs (73%), the IRIS Catalog of
Metrics (46%), IRIS+ Core Metrics Sets (36%),12 and the Impact Management Project’s five dimensions of impact convention (32%).

10 This figure excludes six outliers. Including these outliers, total capital invested was USD 79 billion through 23,029 investments. Figures also exclude nine organizations
that did not report 2019 investment activity.
11 Nick O’Donohoe, Christina Leijonhufvud, Yasemin Saltuk, Antony Bugg-Levine, and Margot Brandenburg, Impact Investments: An Emerging Asset Class (New York: J.P.
Morgan, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the GIIN, November 2010).
12 IRIS+ Core Metrics Sets are short lists of evidence and best practice-based sets of IRIS metrics, by impact theme. About one-third of respondents indicated using both
the IRIS Catalog of Metrics and IRIS+ Core Metrics Sets. See more: https://iris.thegiin.org/

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 XVII
 Coalescence around the SDGs in particular, as well as IRIS, IRIS+, and the IMP, has meant that approaches to IMM are now becoming
more standardized. Consequently, the smallest share of respondents (20%) anticipates ‘fragmentation of IMM approaches’ to remain
among the challenges facing the market over the next five years.

Impact investors use IMM frameworks, tools, and systems for several primary purposes: to set impact objectives; measure their impact
performance; and report on their impact results. The average investor uses at least three such resources (frameworks, tools, and
systems) to fulfill these complementary purposes. The SDGs are used most across all purposes, whereas IRIS and IRIS+ are mainly
used to measure and report on impact (Figure iv).

Figure iv: Use of tools, frameworks, and systems, by purpose

n = 294; respondents could select multiple answer options for each purpose.
52%
48%

37% 36%
29%
27%
20% 21% 21%
19% 18%
16% 16% 16% 14% 13% 15% 15% 16%
13% 12% 11%
10% 10% 9% 10%
7% 8% 7% 9% 5% 5% 4%
4% 4% 3%

United Nations IRIS Catalog IRIS+ Core Impact United Nations B Analytics / Operating Global Aeris CDFI Sustainability Other We do not use
Sustainable of Metrics Metrics Sets Management Principles for GIIRS Principles for Reporting rating Accounting any external
Development Project (IMP) Responsible Impact Initiative system Standards tools or
Goals Investment (UNPRI) Management (GRI) Board (SASB) frameworks

To set impact objectives To measure impact performance To report our impact performance

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Compared to when they first started making impact investments, 88% of respondents believe they have increased the rigor of their
IMM practices. Nevertheless, impact investors describe a range of challenges they expect to face over the next five years that could be
addressed by further development of IMM practices.

Concerns about impact washing (66%) loom largest, followed less acutely by the market’s ‘inability to demonstrate impact results’
(35%) and the ‘inability to compare impact results with peers’ (34%). Notably, the GIIN’s recently published report The State of Impact
Measurement and Management Practice, also highlighted comparing and validating impact results as the most significant challenge
impact investors face.13

While 39% of respondents cited ‘sophistication of impact measurement and management practice’ as an area of ‘significant progress’
over the past decade, 48% indicated the same area as a ‘significant challenge’ for impacting investing over the next five years.

Comparability and validation of impact performance can address investor’s concerns regarding impact washing. Nearly a quarter of
respondents (23%) do not yet compare their impact performance with industry peers and 39% do not independently verify their impact
performance, compared to when they first started making impact investments. Thus, opportunities remain to refine IMM practices in
these areas, building upon the progress made to date.

Several notable initiatives are afoot to address these concerns, including the International Finance Corporation’s Operating
Principles for Impact Management which, among other principles, require verification. The GIIN’s Impact Performance Studies and
the Impact Weighted Accounts initiative out of Harvard Business School are both developing working methodologies to interpret
and compare impact results.

IMPACT INVESTORS HOLD A POSITIVE OUTLOOK FOR THE

4
FUTURE, DESPITE HEADWINDS
Investors were asked to identify financial and impact risks to their portfolios. While current risks are useful to consider, the prospect
of a changing risk profile for impact investors cannot be ignored. This report considers risks in the context of forward-looking
financial and impact performance expectations against the backdrop of a fast-changing macro environment due to the COVID-19
pandemic. Investors remain relatively positive about their prospective performance despite the effects of the pandemic, sharing
cautious optimism as they continue to forge ahead with priorities identified in the GIIN’s Roadmap for the Future of Impact Investing:
Reshaping Financial Markets.14

13 Rachel Bass, Hannah Dithrich, Sophia Sunderji, and Noshin Nova, The State of Impact Measurement and Management Practice, 2nd ed. (New York: The GIIN, January 2020).
14 Amit Bouri, Abhilash Mudaliar, Hannah Schiff, Rachel Bass, and Hannah Dithrich, Roadmap for the Future of Impact Investing: Reshaping Financial Markets (New York:
The GIIN, March 2018).

XVIII G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
In terms of financial risk, the largest share of investors stated ‘business model and execution risk’ (77%), and ‘liquidity and exit risk’
(68%) as at least moderate risks facing their portfolios. Furthermore, over a third of investors consider ‘country and currency risk’ and
‘macroeconomic risk’ to be severe.

Interestingly, 13% of investors primarily allocating capital to WNS Europe reported severe macroeconomic risk, compared to just 4% of
U.S. & Canada-focused investors. Because some respondents specifically noted COVID-19 and a general recessionary outlook, this
contrast between two major economic blocks may reflect the difference in timing of the pandemic’s full severity between Europe and
North America over the data collection period.

Investors are more relaxed about the impact risks they foresee affecting their portfolios with far fewer impact-associated risks cited as
‘severe.’ Nearly two-thirds of respondents cited at least moderate execution risk (the likelihood activities are not delivered as planned
and do not result in the target outcomes), while 61% of investors perceive at least moderate levels of external risk (the probability that
external factors disrupt an investor’s ability to deliver the expected impact).

Uncertainty is inevitable in the face of a significant global event like COVID-19; as such, respondents to an additional questionnaire
concerning plans in light of the global pandemic (n=122) reflect varying approaches. Most respondents (57%) indicated that they are
‘unlikely’ to change the volume of capital they had planned to commit to impact investments in 2020. While 20% are at least ‘somewhat
likely’ to commit less capital than they had planned, 15% say they will ‘likely’ commit more capital than planned. Sixty-three percent of
respondents who shared insights on how COVID-19 might affect their work are ‘unlikely’ to change their SDG-aligned impact themes
over the next five years.

The historically positive expectations for financial and impact performance reflected by investors’ responses for the period as of year-
end 2019 - referenced above - may not prevail given the current macro context. The follow-up survey found that as COVID-19 spread,
respondents’ perceptions of market stability and performance expectations shifted. Almost half of respondents to the COVID-19
questionnaire (46%) expect their portfolios to underperform relative to their financial expectations, while 34% expect performance in
line with expectations. By contrast, only 16% of investors expect to underperform in terms of impact, while 18% expect outperformance
relative to impact expectations.

While 41% of respondents to the COVID-19 sub-survey believe that overall risk severity has ‘very likely’ changed because of
COVID-19, just 13% believe that the severity of impact risk has ‘very likely’ changed as a consequence of the pandemic.

Respondents’ narrative comments suggest that, in general, impact investors are responding to this crisis with flexibility and resolve.
They are mitigating the potential for defaults by renegotiating loan terms, investing more funds to support their investments, and
exercising patience to still realize their performance expectations over the longer term. Some further comment that, especially at this
time, impact investors are well-placed to support the underserved, recognizing the extent to which marginalized communities are most
negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In these respects, then, impact investors hold fast to one of the industry’s core characteristics, the principle of contributing to the
development of the field. The Annual Survey asks how investors intend to contribute to the sector over the next five years in light
of the GIIN’s Roadmap for the Future of Impact Investing: Reshaping Financial Markets, which presents a vision for more inclusive and
sustainable financial markets and articulates a plan for impact investing to lead progress toward this future.15 Respondents to this survey
intend to contribute across all six action areas,16 with particular focus on ‘Identity,’ ‘Education & Training,’ and ‘Policy and Regulation.’
Specifically, most respondents plan to contribute by ‘sharing best practices for reporting and IMM’ (65%), ‘supporting the development
of businesses focused on impact’ (52%), and ‘creating an environment conducive to impact investing’ (51%).

If translated into action, investors’ plans augur well for growth and maturation of impact investing practice and activity, despite the
current headwinds.

15 Amit Bouri, Abhilash Mudaliar, Hannah Schiff, Rachel Bass, and Hannah Dithrich, Roadmap for the Future of Impact Investing: Reshaping Financial Markets
(New York: The GIIN, March 2018).
16 The six areas of action set out in the Roadmap are: (1) Strengthen the identity of impact investing by establishing clear principles and standards for practice; (2)
Change the paradigm that governs investment behavior and expectations about the responsibility of finance in society via asset owner leadership and updated finance
theory; (3) Design tools and services that support the incorporation of impact into the routine analysis, allocation, and deal-making activities of investors; (4) Develop
products suited to the needs and preferences of the full spectrum of investors, from retail to institutional and of various types of investees; (5) Increase supply of trained
investment professionals and pipeline of investment-ready enterprises through targeted professional education; and (6) Introduce policies and regulation that both
remove barriers and incentivize impact investments.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 XIX
NOTE TO READERS
Interact with the data
yourself: analyze custom
cuts of using our interactive
data feature on the
report home page.
Sample characteristics
The GIIN’s 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey incorporates data and perspectives from 294 individual impact
investing organizations. This section describes this diverse sample in terms of several characteristics to contextualize
the research findings.

Organization type
The surveyed sample includes a range of organization types. Similar to the past few years, this year’s respondents are
primarily asset managers (65%; Figure 1), with half of the whole sample comprising for-profit asset managers. Foundations
constitute another 14% of the sample, while development finance institutions (DFIs; 5%), family offices (4%), diversified
financial institutions (3%), and others account for the remaining organizations.

Figure 1: Organization type

n = 294
8%
Percent of respondents
2% 1%
51% Asset managers: for-profit 3%
4%
14% Fund managers: not-for-profit
14% Foundations 5%
5% DFIs
4% Family offices 51%
3% Diversified financial institutions
14%
2% Pension funds
1% Insurance companies
8% Others
14%
Note: ‘Other’ organizations include community development finance institutions (CDFIs), NGOs, nonprofits , permanent investment
17

companies, real estate developers, sovereign wealth funds, and independent federal government agencies.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

17 CDFIs are mission-driven financial institutions, certified by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, that cater to low-income people in the United States. This definition
comes from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Community Development Financial Institutions Fund,” https://www.cdfifund.gov.

A N N U A L I M PAC T I N V E S TO R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 1
 Headquarters location
The surveyed sample represents impact investors from 46 countries.18 Over three-quarters (77%) of the sample is
headquartered in developed markets, while another 21% is based in emerging markets. Seven percent of impact investors
are based in SSA, 6% are in LAC, and 3% are in each of SE Asia and South Asia. By country, most respondents are
headquartered in the United States, followed by Great Britain, Canada, and the Netherlands.

Figure 2: Organization headquarters location

n = 294

Percent of respondents
45% U.S. & Canada
26% WNS Europe
7% SSA
6% LAC
4% East Asia
3% Southeast Asia
3% Oceania
3% South Asia
1% MENA
2% No single headquarters location

Note: Yellow dots represent countries where respondents are headquartered.

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Sample characteristics by subgroup

Table 1 breaks down the sample by key characteristic subgroups such as geographic headquarters and focus, asset class
focus, returns philosophy, and organization size. All subgroups are defined in the Methodology section on page IX.

Table 1: Sub-groups in the sample

Sub-group Number of respondents Percent of full sample

DM-HQ Investors 227 77%

EM-HQ Investors 61 21%
DM-Focused Investors 140 48%
EM-Focused Investors 126 43%
Private Equity-Focused Investors 83 28%
Private Debt-Focused Investors 65 22%
Market-Rate Investors 197 67%
Below-Market Investors 97 33%
Small Investors 157 53%
Medium Investors 63 21%
Large Investors 72 24%

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

18 This year, respondents indicated the country of their organizations’ headquarters which were then mapped to the regional level using the World Bank guidelines.

2 G LO B A L I M PAC T I N V E S T I N G N E T WO R K
 Naturally, there is significant overlap across various subgroups. Notable relationships are outlined below:

• Ninety-three percent of Large Investors are headquartered in developed markets, and just over half are also DM-Focused
Investors. In addition, 88% of Large Investors are Market-Rate Investors, compared to 57% of Small Investors.

• Just over half of Private Debt–Focused Investors are Below-Market Investors (52%), while just over 80% of Private
Equity–Focused Investors are Market-Rate Investors. In addition, two-thirds of all Private Equity–Focused Investors in the
sample are Small Investors.19

• Seventy percent of all Below-Market Investors are Small Investors, and 35% are Private Debt–Focused Investors.

Investors also making impact-agnostic investments

Respondents indicated whether their organization exclusively makes impact investments or whether they also make impact-
agnostic investments, or those that do not intend to create a positive social or environmental impact. Sixty-one percent
make only impact investments, while 39% make both types of investments.

This percentage varies significantly by organization type and geographic focus. Just over three-quarters of all EM-Focused
Investors make only impact investments, compared to half of all DM-Focused Investors. In addition, 86% of DFIs make only
impact investments, compared to 42% of family offices and a quarter of foundations (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Investment type by organization type

n = 294
n= 14 40 149 12 40 8 5 3 23

14% 18%
29%
39%
Percent of respondents

58%
75%
86% 100% 100% 100%
83%
71%

42% 61%
25%

DFIs Asset managers: Asset managers: Family offices Foundations Diversified financial Pension funds Insurance Other
not-for-profit for-profit institutions companies

Impact-only Impact and Conventional

Note: ‘Other’ organizations include community development finance institutions (CDFIs), NGOs, nonprofits , permanent investment companies, real estate developers, sovereign wealth funds,
and independent federal government agencies.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Year of first impact investment

Just over half of all respondents began making impact investments within the last decade (52%; Figure 4), but a significant
share of participants have been active in the field for even longer; a quarter made their first impact investment more than 20
years ago.

Impact investors headquartered in developed markets comprise the vast majority of the 64 investors that began making
impact investments before 2000 (91%), while EM-HQ Investors comprise 26% of all investors that entered the market over
the past decade. Only 10% of organizations making their first investment within the past decade are Large Investors; by
contrast, 69% are Small Investors.

19 This relationship was not shown to be statistically significant.

A N N U A L I M PAC T I N V E S TO R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 3
 Figure 4: Year of first impact investment
n = 294

70 64 350
60 300

Cumulative number of organizations

50 250

making impact investments’

Number of respondents

40 200
30 150
20 20 21
20 15 16 16 14 100
11 12 13 12
9 10 9 10
10 6 5 5 50
3 3
0 0
0

9
0

3
0

9
200

201
0

200
200

201
201

201
200

201
200

201
200

201

201

201
200

200

200

201
200
-20
Pre

Number of organizations making first impact investment Cumulative number of organizations making impact investments

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

The decline in the number of respondents that entered the market in the past few years may be a reflection of this survey’s
eligibility criteria, which requires that respondents have a minimum volume of impact investing activity (see page IX for a full
description of the research inclusion criteria).

Target financial returns

While impact investors target financial returns along a spectrum ranging from capital preservation to market-rate, most
respondents in this sample target risk-adjusted, market-rate returns (67%; Figure 5).

Figure 5: Target financial returns primarily sought

n = 294
15%
Percent of respondents
67% Risk-adjusted, market-rate returns
18% Below-market-rate returns: closer to market rate
15% Below-market-rate returns: closer to capital preservation
18%

67%

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Target financial returns vary by asset class focus and organization size and type, among other characteristics. Interestingly,
just 6% of Large Investors seek below-market returns closer to capital preservation compared to 21% of Small Investors and
13% of Medium Investors.20 Furthermore, 81% of Private Equity–Focused Investors seek market-rate returns, compared to
less than half of Private Debt–Focused Investors (48%); similarly, a quarter of Private Debt–Focused Investors seek capital-
preservation strategies, compared to just 6% of Private Equity–Focused Investors.

Motivations for making impact investments

A wide variety of reasons motivate investors to make impact investments. The top three most-cited reasons all concern
impact: that investors have a mission to pursue impact through their investments (87%; Figure 6), that impact investing
is central to their commitment as responsible investors (87%), and that impact investing is an efficient way to achieve
their impact goals (81%). However, 70% of respondents noted that financial attractiveness relative to other investment
opportunities is at least ‘somewhat important.’ Furthermore, 85% make impact investments in response to client demand.

20 Please see page X for a detailed description of various subgroups in the sample, including investor size.

4 G LO B A L I M PAC T I N V E S T I N G N E T WO R K
Impact investors’ motivations also tend to vary by geographic focus and returns philosophy. Just over half of DM-Focused
Investors see contribution to a global agenda, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals or the Paris
Climate Accord, as at least a somewhat important reason to make impact investments, compared to 70% of EM-Focused
Investors. In addition, 40% of Market-Rate Investors cite increased exposure to growing sectors and geographies as a ‘very
important’ motivation for making impact investments; the corresponding figure is just 17% for Below-Market Investors.

Figure 6: Motivations for making impact investments

Number of respondents shown beside each bar; some respondents chose ‘not sure / not applicable’ and are not included. n=

It is central to our mission to intentionally pursue Percent of respondents

impact through our investments. 87% 10% 2% 287

They are part of our commitment as a responsible

investor. 87% 11% 2% 288

They are an efficient way to meet our impact goals. 81% 15% 4% 274

They contribute to a global agenda, such as the UN

62% 30% 9% 280
Sustainable Development Goals or the Paris Climate Accord

We are responding to client demand. 47% 38% 15% 233

They are financially attractive relative to other 30% 40% 30% 250
investment opportunities.
They provide an opportunity to gain exposure to
28% 44% 28% 256
growing sectors and geographies.

They offer diversification to our broader portfolio. 24% 33% 43% 198

We are responding to employee demand. 19% 50% 31% 208

We do so to meet regulatory demands. 9% 20% 71% 163

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Sample characteristics of repeat respondents

Throughout this report, trends are presented for a subset of 79 organizations that participated in both the 2016 and 2020
Annual Impact Investor Surveys (reflecting 2015 and 2019 data), described as ‘repeat respondents.’21 Using data submitted
in 2020, this section describes the characteristics of that sub-sample to contextualize analyses of these trends, even though
some characteristics of this sub-sample may have been different in 2016.

21 Analysis of this sample, shows changes across four calendar years: from the end of 2015 to the end of 2019.

A N N U A L I M PAC T I N V E S TO R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 5
 Organization type
The repeat respondent sub-samples are primarily asset managers, with 49% of the full sample being for-profit and 14%
not-for-profit (Figure 7). Foundations comprise 13% of repeat respondents, followed by diversified financial institutions (5%),
family offices (4%), and DFIs (3%).

Figure 7: Organization type breakdown among repeat respondents

n = 79
11%
Percent of respondents
1%
49% Asset managers: for-profit 3%

14% Asset managers: not-for-profit 4%

13% Foundations 5%
5% Diversified financial institutions
4% Family offices
3% DFIs 13%
1% Pension funds 49%
11% Other
14%
Note: ‘Other’ organizations include community development finance institutions (CDFIs), cooperative organizations, nonprofits,
permanent investment vehicles, social impact investment wholesalers, and nonprofit carbon offset developers.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Headquarters location
Repeat respondents are headquartered in 22 countries, with most headquartered in the United States (42%), followed by
Great Britain (9%), the Netherlands (9%), and France (6%).22 A clear majority of this sub-sample is headquartered in developed
markets, while 13% are headquartered in emerging markets (5% in SSA and 4% in LAC; Figure 8).

Figure 8: Headquarters location of repeat respondents

n = 79
3% 1% 4%
Percent of respondents 4%
4%
46% U.S. & Canada
34% WNS Europe 5%
5% SSA
4% LAC
4% Oceania
3% South Asia
1% MENA 46%
4% No single headquarters location 34%
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Other characteristics of repeat respondents

Like the full sample, about two-thirds of all repeat respondents target market-rate returns (65%), while 19% target below-
market returns closer to capital preservation. The rest target below-market returns closer to market rate.

More than two-thirds of all repeat respondents make only impact investments; 32% make both impact and impact-agnostic
investments.

22 This year, respondents indicated the country of their organizations’ headquarters, which was then mapped to the regional level following World Bank guidelines.

6 G LO B A L I M PAC T I N V E S T I N G N E T WO R K
State of the impact investing market
This tenth annual edition of the impact investor survey provides a unique opportunity to take stock of the evolution of the
impact investing market over the past decade. Respondents shared their views on indicators of market development, as well
as their perceptions on remaining challenges for the industry.

Stages of market evolution

Respondents shared their beliefs of where the impact investing market is in the various stages of evolution. The clear majority
of respondents view the impact investing market as ‘growing steadily’ (69%, Figure 9). Just over one-fifth described the
market as ‘about to take off,’ and 9% described the market as ‘in its infancy.’ Notably, no respondents see the impact investing
market as ‘declining,’ and very few see the market as ‘mature’ or ‘saturated.’

Figure 9: Stages of industry evolution

n = 290; optional question.

In its infancy 9%
80%
About to take off 21%

Growing steadily 69%

Established/mature 2%

Saturated 0.3%

Declining 0%

Percent of respondents
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

By headquarters location, a greater share of EM-HQ Investors described the market as ‘in its infancy’ (16%, compared to 7%
of DM-HQ Investors), while a greater share of DM-HQ Investors described the market as ‘growing steadily’ (71%, compared
to 63% of EM-HQ Investors).

This question was also asked in the 2011 Annual Survey (although the answer options were different in 2011).23 Most
respondents in 2011 viewed the market as in its very early stages: three quarters viewed it as ‘in its infancy and growing,’ 19%
described it as ‘about to take off,’ and 6% described it as ‘a lot of talk, not much action.’ No respondents selected the other
answer options, which included that the market was ‘in its prime,’ ‘a potential bubble,’ or ‘slowing down.’

Progress over the past decade on indicators of market growth

Respondents shared their opinions on indicators of market development, reflecting on progress made over the past
ten years.

The greatest area of progress involves ‘research on market activity, trends, performance, and practice,’ with 42% noting
‘significant progress’ had been made over the past ten years (Figure 10). The second-greatest area of progress concerns the
‘sophistication of impact measurement and management practice’ (with 39% noting ‘significant progress’). Some respondents
noted no progress in ‘suitable exit options’ (22%) and ‘government support for the market’ (25%), yet 77% and 72% of
respondents noted at least some progress on each of these respective indicators of market growth, respectively.

23 Yasemin Saltuk, Amit Bouri, and Giselle Leung, Insight into the Impact Investing Market. (New York: The GIIN, December 2011).

A N N U A L I M PAC T I N V E S TO R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 7
 Figure 10: Progress over the past decade on indicators of market growth
Number of respondents shown above each indicator; some respondents chose ‘not sure / not applicable’ and are not included. Ranked by percent selecting ‘significant progress.'
n= 283 286 281 285 278 272 277 272 259 249
0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1%
3% 1% 1% 7% 8% 3%
4% 9% 10%
25% 22%
Percent of respondents

55% 59% 66% 65% 66% 69% 68%

71%
69%
58%

42% 39% 32% 29% 25% 24% 24% 18% 14% 8%

Research on Sophistication Professionals with Common Data on High-quality Innovative Appropriate Government Suitable exit
market activity, of impact relevant skill sets understanding investment investment deal/fund capital across the support for the options
trends, measurement of definition and products and opportunities structures to risk/return market
performance and management segmentation of opportunities (fund or direct) accommodate spectrum
practice practice impact investing with track record investors’ or
market investees’ needs

Significant progress Some progress No progress Worsened

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

In some cases, different segments of respondents perceived different levels of progress. For instance, a greater share of DM-
HQ Investors noted ‘significant progress’ in ‘research on market activity, trends, performance, and practice’ compared to EM-
HQ Investors (47% versus 16%). Additionally, a greater share of DM-HQ Investors saw ‘significant progress’ in ‘government
support for the market’ (15% versus 5% of EM-HQ Investors).

Market-Rate Investors reported greater progress in the ‘sophistication of impact measurement and management practice’
(43% reporting ‘significant progress’) compared to Below-Market Investors (32%). Interestingly, more Below-Market Investors
noted seeing ‘significant progress’ over the last ten years in ‘government support for the market’ than did Market-Rate
Investors (19% versus 11%).

Remaining challenges for the market

Respondents also shared their perspectives on the greatest remaining challenges for the impact investing industry. The top
challenge is the lack of ‘appropriate capital across the risk/return spectrum,’ (56% describing this as a ‘significant challenge’
(Figure 11). Interestingly, ‘sophistication of impact measurement and management practice,’ reported as the second-greatest
area of significant progress, was also the second-greatest remaining challenge. Respondents also noted the third-greatest
challenge, ‘suitable exit options,’ as an area of lower progress (although most respondents nevertheless noted some progress
there). In this vein, one respondent emphasized the importance of increasing the sophistication of impact measurement and
management (IMM) practice still further, explaining that despite “great progress in the sophistication and standardization of
impact measurement,” IMM practice remains “insufficient… to measure outcomes.”

On the other hand, less than one in five respondents noted ‘research on market activity, trends, performance and practice’ as
a significant challenge.

8 G LO B A L I M PAC T I N V E S T I N G N E T WO R K
 Figure 11: Remaining challenges for the market
Number of respondents shown above each indicator; some respondents chose ‘not sure / not applicable’ and are not included. Ranked by percent selecting ‘significant challenge.'
n= 272 284 249 273 257 266 284 274 279 279

4% 1% 4% 4% 5%
8% 6% 7% 13% 8%
8% 13% 12%
11% 16% 15% 20% 20%
29%
32% 27%
Percent of respondents

38% 37%
40% 41% 43%
46% 46%
37% 46%
56% 48% 47% 42% 37% 36%
29% 29% 23% 17%

Appropriate capital Sophistication Suitable exit High-quality Government Innovative Common Data on Professionals Research on
across the of impact options investment support for the deal/fund understanding of investment with relevant market
risk/return measurement opportunities market structures to definition and products and skill sets activity,
spectrum management (fund or direct) accommodate segmentation of opportunities trends,
practice with track record investors’ or impact investing performance
investees’ needs market and practice

Significant challenge Moderate challenge Slight challenge Not a challenge

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Some respondent subgroups perceive different levels and types of challenges. EM-Focused Investors reported greater
challenges in accessing ‘appropriate capital across the risk/return spectrum’ and ‘suitable exit options’ compared to DM-
Focused Investors (60% versus 51% and 60% versus 34%, respectively). EM-HQ Investors also reported greater challenges
in accessing ‘appropriate capital across the risk/return spectrum’ (66%, compared to 52% of DM-HQ Investors) in addition
to ‘government support for the market’ (57% versus 32%). Below-Market Investors noted ‘appropriate capital across the risk/
return spectrum’ as a greater challenge (69% reporting ‘significant’) compared to Market-Rate Investors (49%), which may
be expected, given each group’s financial returns focus. Interestingly, a greater share of Below-Market Investors identified
‘suitable exit options’ as a significant challenge (66%, compared to 38% of Market Rate Investors). A greater share of Below-
Market Investors also note ‘high-quality investment opportunities (fund or direct) with track record’ as a significant challenge
(52%, compared to 37% of Market-Rate Investors).

Challenges facing the market over the next five years

Respondents indicated their expectations for the greatest challenges likely to face the impact investing market over the
next five years. Each respondent selected three challenges. By far, the greatest proportion of respondents (66%) see
‘impact washing’ as an important challenge (Figure 12). The second- and third- most noted challenges also concern
impact performance: the ‘inability to demonstrate impact results’ (35%) and the ‘inability to compare impact results with
peers’ (34%). This identified a need to advance IMM practices, in particular through the collection of transparent and
comparable data, echoes findings in the GIIN’s second edition of The State of Impact Measurement and Management
Practice.24 Interestingly, the smallest share of respondents expect ‘inability to demonstrate financial performance’ (23%) and
‘fragmentation of impact measurement and management approaches’ (20%) to be among the market’s greatest challenges
for the next five years.

24 Rachel Bass, Hannah Dithrich, Sophia Sunderji, and Noshin Nova, The State of Impact Measurement and Management Practice, 2nd ed.
(New York: The GIIN, January 2020).

A N N U A L I M PAC T I N V E S TO R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 9
 Figure 12: Greatest challenges facing the market over the next five years
n = 294
66%
Percent of respondents

35% 34% 33% 32% 30% 27%

23% 20%

Impact washing Inability to Inability to Lack of a Risk that the Inability to Increased Inability to Fragmentation
demonstrate compare impact common industry does not integrate impact competition for demonstrate of impact
impact results results with peers language to make progress management and suitable, financial measurement
describe impact against social or financial high-quality results and
performance environmental management deals management
challenges decisions approaches
Note: Each respondent selected three challenges. Indicators are ranked in order of the number of respondents that selected each as a challenge.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Respondent subgroups noted several interesting differences in their perception of expected challenges (Table 2). Compared
to EM-HQ Investors, a greater share of DM-HQ Investors noted ‘impact washing’ as a top challenge (55% versus 70%).
Comparatively more Market-Rate Investors expect ‘lack of a common language to describe impact performance’ to be a top
challenge (39%, compared to 22% of Below-Market Investors), as do Large Investors (47%) compared to Small (32%) and
Medium (21%) Investors. A higher proportion of DM-Focused Investors (38%) expect the ‘risk that the industry does not
make progress against social or environmental challenges’ to be a challenge, compared to EM-Focused Investors (26%).

A greater share of EM-HQ Investors expects the ‘inability to integrate impact management and financial management
decisions’ to be a challenge compared to DM-HQ Investors (43% versus 26%). Finally, more EM-Focused Investors see the
‘inability to demonstrate financial results’ as a top challenge compared to DM-Focused Investors (29% versus 19%), as do
Private Equity–Focused Investors (31%, compared to 14% of Private Debt–Focused Investors).

Table 2: Greatest challenges facing the industry over the next five years, by respondent subgroup
n Impact Inability to Inability to Lack of a Risk that the Inability to Increased Inability to Fragmentation
washing demonstrate compare common industry does integrate competition demonstrate of IMM
impact results impact results language not make impact for suitable, financial approaches
with peers to describe progress management high-quality results
impact against and financial deals
performance social or management
environmental decisions
challenges
Full sample 294 66% 35% 34% 33% 32% 30% 27% 23% 20%
DM-HQ Investors 227 70% 33% 34% 34% 33% 26% 28% 22% 19%
EM-HQ Investors 51 55% 37% 27% 29% 27% 43% 25% 31% 24%
DM-Focused
140 66% 35% 34% 39% 38% 29% 22% 19% 19%
Investors
EM-Focused Investors 126 65% 40% 31% 28% 26% 29% 31% 29% 21%
Private Equity-
83 59% 36% 30% 29% 31% 33% 31% 31% 19%
Focused Investors
Private Debt-Focused
65 71% 42% 28% 29% 37% 29% 34% 14% 17%
Investors
Market-Rate Investors 197 63% 37% 35% 39% 29% 27% 25% 23% 20%
Below-Market
97 72% 32% 31% 22% 36% 34% 30% 23% 21%
Investors
Small Investors 159 64% 35% 31% 32% 36% 33% 27% 23% 22%
Medium Investors 63 70% 38% 37% 21% 30% 30% 24% 22% 18%
Large Investors 72 69% 35% 36% 47% 24% 22% 29% 22% 19%

Source: GIIN, Annual Impact Investor Survey 2020

10 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
Some respondents also expect other challenges, such as the need for increased engagement from investment consultants
and wealth managers, which can often act as a ‘gateway’ between capital and impact investment opportunities. One
insurance company noted the importance of “increased participations by wealth management platforms,” and another asset
manager indicated that “the investment consultant industry is the single largest barrier to increasing the scale of impact
capital available in the market.”

However, reflecting on market progress, one asset manager noted that “the market has developed significantly in the last ten
years, in terms of a common understanding[...] as to what impact investing really means, the availability of market data and
trends, and the sophistication of impact measurement and management mechanisms. Entities have been bringing innovative
investment methods to the table (blended finance, social impact/green bonds, open-ended funds), creating a dynamic
sector which can cater to different types of investors[...] Impact measurement and management may help investors to
identify quality investments that will truly have a positive social/environmental impact, separating the wheat from the chaff.”

Lastly, one DFI reflecting on the market’s evolution over the past decade and on what is needed going forward, noted that
“the industry has grown in number of investors, understanding of the landscape and increasing sophistication in the set of
investable opportunities. There was an initial burst of activity that ranged in quality—this has now consolidated, and high-
quality investors and investments are building track records for the next decade.”

The Roadmap for the Future of Impact Investing

In the Roadmap for the Future of Impact Investing, the GIIN offers a vision for the future of the impact investing industry,
outlining six categories of action to help grow the industry and transform financial markets.25 Published in March 2018,
the vision was developed in consultation with a broad array of industry stakeholders. To achieve this ambitious vision in
which financial markets ultimately drive social and environmental change, fundamental shifts in behavior are needed in the
investment community.

Respondents to this survey were asked to share the areas in which they anticipate contributing directly to roadmap action
areas over the next five years. Respondents evidently intend to contribute across all six areas, with a particular focus on
three: Identity, Education & Training, and Policy & Regulation. In terms of shaping the market’s identity, almost two-thirds
of respondents plan to contribute by ‘sharing best practices for reporting and IMM’ (65%; Figure 13). Just over half of all
respondents anticipate ‘supporting the development of businesses focused on impact’ (52%) and ‘creating an environment
conducive to impact investing’ (51%).

Figure 13: Anticipated direct contributions to roadmap actions over the next five years
n = 276; optional question. Respondents could select multiple answer options.

1. IDENTITY 4. TOOLS & SERVICES

1a. Establish principles for impact investing (43%) 4a. Develop ratings for impact (23%)
1b. Share best practices for IMM and reporting (65%) 4b. Build analysis and allocation tools that
POLICY AND 1c. Clarify the roles of various types of capital (36%) incorporate risk, return, and impact (37%)
IDENTITY
REGULATION 4c. Expand impact investment banks (5%)
2. BEHAVIOR & EXPECTATIONS
2a. Align incentives with impact (39%) 5. EDUCATION & TRAINING
EDUCATION BEHAVIOR AND 2b. Launch a campaign to change mindsets about 5a. Train finance professionals (37%)
AND TRAINING EXPECTATIONS the role of capital (22%) 5b. Support the development of businesses
2c. Update fundamental investment theory (14%) focused on impact (52%)

TOOLS AND 3. PRODUCTS 6. POLICY & REGULATION

PRODUCTS
SERVICES 3a. Develop retail products (21%) 6a. Clarify fiduciary duty (10%)
3b. Expand institutional-quality products (35%) 6b. Establish tax incentives for impact
3c. Commit capital to emerging fund managers (23%) investments (5%)
3d. Advance blended-finance vehicles (37%) 6c. Create an environment conducive to impact
investing (51%)

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

25 Amit Bouri, Abhilash Mudaliar, Hannah Schiff, Rachel Bass, and Hannah Dithrich, Roadmap for the Future of Impact Investing: Reshaping Financial Markets (New York: The
GIIN, March 2018).

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 11
 While this year’s respondents shared insights on their anticipated contributions to the roadmap, last year’s respondents (to
the GIIN’s 2019 Annual Impact Investor Survey) shared their contributions during 2018 toward each of the roadmap actions.26
Among those repeat respondents who shared insights on both last year’s survey and this year’s, under half (47%) contributed
to ‘sharing best practices for IMM and reporting’ in 2018, and over half (56%) plan to contribute to this action over the next
five years (Figure 14). Interestingly, while 27% of respondents contributed to ‘creating an environment conducive to impact
investing’ in 2018, 47% of the repeat sub-sample plan to do so in the future.27

Figure 14: Contributions to roadmap actions in 2018 and planned contributions over the next five year, among repeat respondents
Number of respondents shown beside each action; respondents could select multiple answer options. This chart shows the top 12 roadmap areas.
n=
Percent of respondents 47% 55
(1b) Sharing best practices for IMM and reporting
56% 66

45% 53
(5b) Support the development of businesses focused on impact
47% 55

39% 46
(1a) Establishing principles for impact investing 46
39%

37% 44
(5a) Train finance professionals 39
33%
36% 43
(3b) Expand institutional-quality products 40
34%
35% 41
(1c) Clarifying the roles of various types of capital 41
35%
34% 40
(2a) Aligning incentives with impact 42
36%

33% 39
(4b) Build analysis and allocation tools that incorporate risk, return, and impact 42
36%

31% 37
(3d) Advance blended finance vehicles 43
36%
27% 32
(6c) Create an environment conducive to impact investing 56
47%
22% 26
(4a) Develop ratings for impact 20
17%
16% 19
(2c) Updating fundamental investment theory
12% 14

Roadmap contributions in 2019 Planned roadmap contributions over next 5 years

Note: This question was required in 2019 and optional in 2020. This sub-sample compares 118 repeat respondents who provided responses to the roadmap
contributions question both last year and this year.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

26 Abhilash Mudaliar, Rachel Bass, Hannah Dithrich, and Noshin Nova, 2019 Annual Impact Investor Survey (New York: The GIIN, June 2019).
27 For the remaining roadmap areas, the number of respondents was too small to enable meaningful analysis.

12 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
Several respondents this year offered additional insight into their contributions.
A common thread was to contribute to the identity of impact investing through
“We strive to develop markets
dialogue with likeminded stakeholders to share best practices and help advance
through collaboration,
the industry. Of 23 respondents that shared additional insights, several noted that
innovation, and pioneering
many of the Roadmap actions are already deeply integrated into their organization’s
solutions. We recognize we
business operations and strategies.
can’t do it alone.”
As further examples of how they have helped advance these Roadmap actions, a – For-profit asset manager
few respondents offered color on funds they have launched, such as funds focused
on gender-lens investing, using various blended finance structures, and offering
technical assistance. Several respondents emphasized that the use of data, tools,
training, and expertise is critical to achieve the industry’s vision to build more inclusive and sustainable financial markets.
One for-profit asset manager in particular underscored the importance of collaboration, stating: “We strive to develop
markets through collaboration, innovation, and pioneering solutions. We recognize we can’t do it alone.”

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 13
 WHERE THEY ARE NOW
MARKET DEVELOPMENT

In 2010, 24 investors, all members of the GIIN’s Investor Council,28 participated in the initial industry research on the state of
the market.29 For the first time, this publication produced insights on the potential of impact investing, including the size of the
market and expectations for its growth and financial returns.

At the time, impact investing was a nascent practice; the term ‘impact investing’ was coined in 2007 and the GIIN itself was
subsequently established in 2009. The inaugural survey, one year later, arrived at an opportune time for the industry’s growth.
Where this legion of early proponents would be today—ten years later—could never have been predicted.

Early adopters of impact investing as a strategy were considered outliers prepared to invest in services and products that best
served vulnerable beneficiaries at the base of the economic pyramid. These initial advocates have demonstrated their longevity
and contribution to the field. Today, many continue to harness the business value of impact investments, remain actors in the
sector, and have paved the way for others to follow.

Four of these early actors shared with the GIIN perspectives on their impact investing journey and key lessons they have
learned. Each responded to both the initial survey in 2010 and this year’s tenth anniversary edition.

Before the term ‘impact investing’ was coined, Prudential Financial, a U.S.-based financial institution and global investment
manager, established a business unit in 1976 to consider market inefficiencies that would offer a good return on investment while
also driving social change. This initiative was born from Prudential’s deep understanding that financial markets can be a force for
good. Indeed, Prudential were instrumental in helping farmers and homeowners avoid foreclosure during the Great Depression
and after the Second World War, fueling economic recovery by intentionally providing much-needed loans on favorable terms
to small businesses with the potential for growth.

Since 1976, Prudential have invested more than USD 2 billion in impact investments, including more than USD 1 billion over
the past decade. The company have invested across a range of asset classes, including private debt and equity, real estate
equity and mortgages, asset-backed securities, and real assets specifically focused on the area around their Newark, New
Jersey headquarters.

Ommeed Sathe, Vice President of Impact and Responsible Investing at Prudential Financial, shared the view that when
Prudential first started their impact investing strategy, returns were “innately concessionary.” In later, more recent decades,
Prudential have used the power of their balance sheet to demonstrate the possibility of catalyzing capital flows into non-
traditional opportunities. Lessons from their early years helped Prudential to understand that they needed to do more internally
to support risky investments and work collaboratively with other early advocates of social finance. Ommeed feels that their
experience has led Prudential to have a stronger impact investing practice today. He believes that the “world needs people who
run to a fire rather than run away from it” to effectively encourage mainstream capital to reach markets and initiatives in which it
would not usually invest.

JP Morgan, the GIIN’s original partner on the initial 2010 survey, shared similar sentiments to Prudential. As a traditional
financial services provider offering comprehensive banking, structuring, and investment solutions to governments, corporates,
and institutions around the world, they have recognized the power of using their products to demonstrate the potential of
impact investing.

Erin Robert, Head of Impact Finance, explained that while their initial foray into impact investing was a corporate initiative,
it effectively proved the concept. From this seed, JP Morgan scaled the idea. The company have aimed to create impact
investing structures and products that are familiar to mainstream investors. Jessica Matthews, Head of Sustainable Investing
in JP Morgan’s wealth management business, explains that by using existing financial mechanisms, re-purposed, they have
fostered adoption of impact investing strategies across various product offerings.

28 The GIIN’s Investors’ Council is where leading impact investors gather. Comprising asset owners and asset managers with diverse interests across sectors and geographies,
the Investors’ Council provides a forum for experienced impact investors to strengthen the practice of impact investing. For more, see https://thegiin.org/investors-council.
29 Nick O’Donohoe, Christina Leijonhufvud, Yasemin Saltuk, Antony Bugg-Levine, and Margot Brandenburg, Impact Investments: An Emerging Asset Class (New York: J.P.
Morgan, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the GIIN, November 2010).

14 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
JP Morgan is aware of market dynamics in their wealth portfolio that they believe are driving client demand for impact
investing. Specifically, they anticipate USD 58.7 trillion of wealth will transfer to mainly female millennials over the next 35
years; at the same time, 90% of women believe it is important to make a positive impact on society, and close to half of wealthy
millennials take social responsibility into account when making investment decisions. Matthews explains that developing
scalable, replicable structures can make mainstream impact investing solutions more attractive, thus meeting the demand by
private bank clients to make a meaningful difference with their capital.

In using impact data from the JP Morgan Chase Foundation to inform many of their investment choices, Robert suggests that
“one plus one does equal three—it is possible to match what our clients want [in terms of impact] and at the same time increase
(grow) their funds.”

The United Kingdom–based Bridges Asset Management exclusively specializes in sustainable and impact investments
focused on long-term challenges in four key themes, from healthy lifestyles to green solutions. Michele Giddens, co-CEO
and Founder, explains that they launched their first fund in 2002 as a single fund strategy to benefit the most vulnerable local
communities.

More than a decade later, Bridges has learned that a range of returns for limited partners can be derived from a variety of asset
classes and impact expectations. This insight led them to launch a multi-fund strategy focusing on several distinct themes. Since
that first fund, which raised GBP 40 million (worth at that time about USD 60 million), Bridges have raised more than GBP 1
billion (over USD 1.2 billion) across their portfolio and extended their single-strategy approach to multiple strategies involving a
suite of funds.

At the heart of Bridges’ mission is the belief that impact investing ideals can be achieved through several different tools.
Giddens explains that while Bridges is a commercially oriented investor dedicated to impact, their roles as thought leader and
field builder are equally important to their mission. Through the development of nonprofit initiatives, such as Bridges Insights,
the Impact Management Project, and their involvement in the GIIN, they have contributed to the field’s overall growth.
Reflecting on the past decade, Giddens expresses satisfaction that “mission is no longer a niche strategy. … consideration of
impact in every investment decision is key to building an inclusive and sustainable economy.”

At the other end of the commercial scale is the Annie E Casey Foundation, a philanthropic foundation based in Baltimore,
Maryland, United States. Their mission is to develop solutions that enable American children from vulnerable communities to
have stronger futures. Alongside their annual grant commitment to various initiatives, the Foundation invests USD 117 million
of their endowment in impact investments that focus on affordable housing and community and economic development. Their
investments especially focus on entrepreneurs from minority groups.

Tracy Kartye, Director of Social Investments, and James Wahls, Portfolio Manager at the Foundation, explain that the basis of
their impact investing strategy is to ensure that their assets are aligned with their mission. Reflecting on the past decade, what
stands out for Kartye is how far the Foundation has advanced on their impact investing journey. Their “impact investing strategy
did not happen overnight;” as Wahls explains, maintaining stakeholder support for the strategy requires constant reinforcement
of its importance at the board level.

Through its programmatic work, the Annie E Casey Foundation has developed internal expertise in the systemic problems that
exclude people from opportunity, and they believe that children need strong families, communities, and access to economic
opportunity to flourish. Raising awareness of these systemic failures has, Kartye reports, provided impact investing opportunities
for their endowment. Wahls adds that because, as a foundation, they can venture into impact investing opportunities that other,
more commercial investors might not be able to pursue, they can demonstrate the viability of those opportunities. Once they
have demonstrated success, Wahls believes, other investors “are more likely to listen.”

These pioneers of impact investing have all demonstrated what is possible across diverse experiences in the industry. Besides
developing the feasibility of impact investing in line with their business objectives, they also influence the broader movement. Whether
leveraging mainstream capital, responding to consumer demand for more impact products, building the field, or laying the groundwork
for other investors to follow, these investors in the first survey cohort represent the contributions of many early practitioners.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 15
 Investment activity
Regarding annual investment activity, respondents shared information on their impact investments in 2019 and on their
planned impact investment activity for 2020. This section details those figures.

Investment activity in 2019

Collectively, 279 impact investors invested USD 47 billion in 9,807 impact investments during 2019.30 The median respondent
invested USD 16 million into six investments over the course of the year, with the presence of larger investors in the sample
driving a significant difference between the median and average respondent (Figure 15).
Figure 15: Distribution of capital invested and number of investments in 2019
n = 279; capital invested figures in USD millions. Figures shown from 5th percentile through 95th percentile.

Volume of capital invested (Total = USD 47 billion) Number of investments (Total = 9,807)
USD millions

78 168

0 200 400 1,000 1,200 1,400 0 20 40 140 160 180 200

5TH Percentile 25TH Percentile Median (50TH Percentile) 75TH Percentile 95TH Percentile Mean
Note: Excludes six outliers, as well as nine respondents that did not report 2019 investment activity.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Over one-third of that capital (37%) was invested through private debt, which also accounted for well over half (61%) of the
number of investments made (Figure 16). Publicly traded debt accounted for nearly a quarter of the total volume of capital
invested (and 16% of transactions), and private equity comprised 16% of capital invested (and 11% of investments).

Among respondents that shared data on their investment activity for 2019, the overall average deal size was USD 5 million
across all asset classes (Figure 16).31 By asset class, the average deal size was largest among investments in real assets (USD 28
million), followed by public equity (USD 22 million), private equity (USD 7 million), and publicly traded debt (USD 7 million).
Figure 16: Capital invested and number of investments made in 2019, by asset class
n = 279; capital invested = USD 47 billion and number of investments = 9,807. Graph shows sample excluding outliers; percentages of full sample shown alongside each bar.

Avg Deal
Percent of investments made (excluding outliers) Size Percent of capital invested (excluding outliers)
70% 61% Private debt 3 37% 57%

7% 16% Publicly traded debt 7 24% 26%

6% 11% Private equity 7 16% 15%

Percent of full sample

Percent of full sample

1% 2% Public equity 22 10% 8%

1% 2% Real assets 28 10% 7%

1% 3% Equity-like debt 2 2% 3%

12% 1% Deposits & cash equivalents 4 1% 1%

2% 4% Other 1 1% 10%

Note: Excludes six outliers and nine respondents that did not report 2019 investment activity. ‘Other’ includes guarantees, alternatives, mezzanine, New Market Tax Credits,
and revenue-based financing.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

30 This figure excludes six outliers. Including these outliers, total capital invested was USD 79 billion through 23,029 investments. Figures also exclude nine organizations
that did not report 2019 investment activity.
31 This figure excludes six outlier respondents.

16 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
Investors exclusively making impact investments had an average private equity deal size of USD 2.8 million in 2019
compared to USD 28 million for respondents that also make impact-agnostic investments. Average deal size also varied by
regional focus; investors allocating greater than 75% of their portfolio to WNS Europe had the largest deal size (USD 4.5
million), followed by those focused on the U.S. & Canada or SSA (both USD 1.9 million).32

Planned investment activity for 2020

Collectively, respondents plan to allocate USD 48 billion to 12,534 investments in 2020, an increase over 2019 of 2% in terms
of capital invested and 28% in terms of number of investments (Table 3).33

EM-Focused Investors plan a 44% increase in their 2020 activity, compared to a planned decrease of 36% for DM-Focused
Investors. Meanwhile, Private Debt–Focused Investors expect to invest 18% more capital in 2020, and Private Equity–
Focused Investors plan to decrease their investment by 2%.

Table 3: Investment activity, reported in 2019 and planned for 2020

n = 279

Capital invested (USD millions) Number of investments

2019 reported 2020 planned 2019 reported 2020 planned

Mean 128 146 52 59
Median 18 20 6 8
Sum 46,875 47,967 9,807 12,534
Aggregate % growth (projected) - 2% - 28%

Note: Note: Excludes nine respondents that did not share data on investment activity for 2019, 2020, or both.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Nearly two-thirds of respondents (64%) plan to increase the volume of capital they invest by more than 5% during 2020
(Figure 17), and over half (54%) plan to increase the number of investments they make.34 At the time of data collection, just
over a quarter of investors planned to decrease their impact investing activity in 2020.

Figure 17: Expected change in 2020 investment activity

n = 285

64%
54%

28% 28% Decrease by >5%%

18%
Maintain within ±5%
8%
Increase by >5%
Capital invested Number of investments
Note: Note: Excludes nine respondents that did not share data on investment activity for 2019, 2020, or both.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

32 This relationship was not shown to be statistically significant.

33 Most respondents reported their plans in early 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic. To consider how the COVID-19 pandemic might impact respondents’
investment plans, the Research Team administered a short survey in April 2020 in which respondents indicated whether they expected their investment activity plans for
2020 to change materially because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, respondents did not expect material changes to their 2020 investment plans, as described in
further detail on page 61.
34 These figures exclude nine respondents that did not share data on investment activity for either or both years.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 17
 Activity by organization type
Among the organization types, DFIs reported the highest median amount of capital invested in 2019 (USD 273 million),
followed by pension funds, insurance companies, and diversified financial institutions (USD 241 million, USD 220 million,
and USD 153 million, respectively; Table 4). DFIs also reported the highest median number of investments made, followed
by not-for-profit asset managers. Foundations and family offices expect some of the highest rates of growth in capital
invested; the median foundation expects to grow its volume of capital invested by 26%, while the median family office plans
to increase its capital invested by 14%.35

Table 4: Investment activity by organization type

Volume of capital invested (USD millions) Number of investments

Total planned Total in Total planned

n Median 2019 Total in 2019 Median 2019
for 2020 2019 for 2020
Asset managers: for-profit 142 19 23,710 20,780 6 4,822 6,434
Asset managers: not-for-profit 40 12 1,768 2,281 11 1,619 1,793
DFIs 11 273 11,076 19,847 21 373 730
Diversified financial institutions 5 153 798 853 2 25 25
Family offices 11 5.7 110 198 5 85 128
Foundations 40 12 931 889 5 1,471 1,837
Pension funds 4 241 2,433 847 9 35 40
Insurance companies 3 220 4,811 1,050 220 133 180
Other 23 6 1,328 1,223 12 1,244 1,367
Total 279 - 46,875 47,967 - 9,807 12,534

Note: Excludes six outliers and nine organizations that did not report 2019 activity. ‘Other’ organizations include community development finance institutions (CDFIs), NGOs, nonprofits, permanent
investment companies, real estate developers, sovereign wealth funds, and independent federal government agencies. Across various organization types, the changes between 2019 reported and 2020
planned activities may have been driven by outliers, which have been included in analyses to present an aggregated view.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Comparing planned with reported 2019 activity

A total of 166 respondents completed the survey in both 2019 and 2020; among these, 155 respondents described their
investment activity for both years. Table 5 compares the planned figures reported by these investors last year with their actual
figures reported this year. Over half exceeded their target volume of capital invested by more than 5%, while just over one-
third fell short by over 5%. Collectively, both the volume of capital invested and the number of investments made in 2019 fell
short of plans by 15% and 13%, respectively.

Table 5: Capital invested and number of investments in 2019 among repeat respondents
n = 155

Percent of
Percent of
respondents that Percent of
2019 2019 respondents that
Difference met within within respondents that
Planned Reported exceeded plans
+/- 5% of target fell short by >5%
by >5%
of target

Capital invested (USD millions) 58,531 49,821 -15% 54% 11% 35%
Number of deals 12,620 11,010 -13% 45% 13% 42%

Note: Two organizations account for the bulk of the difference between 2019 planned and reported capital invested, and another organization is primarily responsible for the difference between the
number of investments planned and reported. These three organizations were not removed from this analysis in order to represent aggregate changes.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

35 These findings related to foundations and family offices were not shown to be statistically significant.

18 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
 TRENDS ANALYSIS
Respondents who completed the survey in both 2016 and 2020 (reporting on their 2015 and 2019 activity) grew their
volume of capital invested by 12% per annum, from USD 14 billion invested in 2015 to USD 22.5 billion invested in
2019 (Figure 18).36 In addition, the number of impact investments made by this group grew 9% per year, from 4,885
investments made in 2015 to 7,014 in 2019. Average deal size grew by 2% per year, from USD 2.9 million in 2015 to
USD 3.2 million in 2019.37
Figure 18: Reported investment activity in 2015 and 2019 among repeat respondents
n = 78; capital invested in USD millions.

22,578

14,246

7,014
4,885 Capital invested (USD millions)

Number of deals
2015 2019
Note: Note: Excludes one outlier for 2019 investment activity.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

36 The CAGR for capital invested is 14%, if one large investor is removed from analysis.
37 The increase in volume of capital invested was shown to be statistically significant, while changes in the number of deals and average deal size were not.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 19
 NOTABLE COMMITMENTS OVER
MARKET DEVELOPMENT
THE PAST DECADE
Over the past ten years, both asset owners, private and institutional alike, and asset managers have made substantial commitments
to divest from harmful investments, deepen their impact, and tackle social and environmental issues. This timeline portrays a
handful of the many notable commitments made by impact investors over the past decade, along with the progress they have
achieved to date (subject to publicly available information). Naturally, this reflects merely a small snapshot of the diverse activities
and impacts associated with many impact investors over the last decade, and just a few among many to celebrate.*

In September 2014, the Rockefeller

Brothers Fund (RBF) pledged to divest
In April 2012, the Heron Foundation from investments in fossil fuels, with an
announced a shift toward impact in In January 2013, Bank of America began immediate focus on eliminating the Fund’s
its investment strategy with a plan working on a goal they had set just a exposure to coal and tar sands, two of the
to invest 100% of its endowment, few months prior: their Environmental most intensive sources of carbon emissions.
along with other forms of capital, Business Initiative to invest USD 50 billion In April 2014, RBF’s exposure to coal and tar
in mission-related investments. The over 10 years to help address climate sands was 1.6% of its total portfolio, which
In August 2016, the California Public
Foundation pledged to move its entire change. Areas of focus included energy it had reduced to less than 0.05% as of June
Employees’ Retirement System
USD 270 million endowment into efficiency, renewable energy and energy 2019. In addition, the Fund reduced its total
(CalPERS), one of the largest public
impact investments by fiscal year 2017. infrastructure, low-carbon transportation, fossil fuel exposure from 6.6% in April 2014
pension funds in the United States
In December 2016, one year ahead and water and waste recycling. Their target to an estimated 1.0% today.
and which manages more than USD
of schedule, the Heron Foundation was subsequently increased to USD 125
RBF also increased its fund target for impact 300 billion, adopted an ESG Five-Year
ASSET OWNERS

achieved its goal. billion in 2015. At the end of 2019, the bank
investments as a share of its total assets Strategic Plan. The plan identifies
reached this milestone, six years ahead of
In meeting this goal, the Foundation under management. Notably, between strategic initiatives to direct the
schedule.
recognized that “the urgency and size 2014 and 2016, the Fund’s target for impact investment team’s work: increased
of the problems we face require In April 2019, Bank of America announced a investments increased from 10% to 20% of its transparency, diversity and inclusion,
that [the Heron Foundation] work new goal of the initiative: to “mobilize” USD total endowment, which reportedly totaled investor engagement, and sustainable
differently.” 300 billion in capital by 2030. USD 1.26 billion as of the end of 2019. investment research, among others.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

In 2011, Vital Capital launched its USD In April 2014, Cheyne Capital In February 2015, BlackRock announced In June 2015, DBL Partners closed their
ASSET MANAGERS

350 million investment fund, Vital Capital launched the Social Property Impact the creation of BlackRock Impact to deploy USD 400 million impact fund, DBL Partners
Fund, focusing on high-demand sectors Fund to help tackle the shortage of both equity and debt into investments II, one of the largest venture capital
including affordable housing, healthcare, affordable housing for disadvantaged around the world that produce measurable impact funds. The fund primarily invests
and agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. groups in the UK, including the social and environmental outcomes. The in clean energy, health care, sustainable
homeless and the elderly. The fund unit manages more than USD 225 billion of products and services, and information
Over the last decade, Vital’s investments
raised GBP 100 million (more than USD the firm’s value-aligned investments. technology in the Western United
have proven the private equity fund’s
120 million) from various institutional States. As of December 2019, 61% of the
‘no-tradeoff approach’ between a Additionally, in January 2020, BlackRock
investors, including pension funds Fund’s portfolio companies are either
project’s social/environmental impact announced that climate will be central to
and foundations, as well as from headquartered in or have facilities located
and its financial return. Since its launch, its investment strategy. In his 2020 letter to
funds of funds and HNWIs. It has in low- or moderate-income areas or
the fund has provided essential products CEOs, Larry Fink—CEO of Blackrock—wrote
since provided over 1,000 units of Enterprise Zones.
or services to over 5.4 million individuals that given evolving awareness around
affordable housing.
in the form of water, quality foods, climate change, “we are on the edge of
healthcare, energy and housing, and a fundamental reshaping of finance” and
made over USD 78 million in payments a significant reallocation of capital due
to smallholder farmers. to climate risk. The firm hopes to take
concrete actions to put sustainability at the
center of its investment approach, by, for
example, pushing companies to disclose
their plans to align operations with the
goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and
by revisiting its product offerings and
underlying investments.

*See Appendix 2: Sources for Notable Commitments over the Past Decade

20 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
 In July 2017, the world’s largest pension In March 2018, the Nathan Cummings In June 2019, the Government Pension
fund – Japan’s Government Pension Fund Foundation (NCF) announced a goal of 100% Fund of Norway – the world’s largest
(GPIF), which has USD 1.3 trillion under alignment of their nearly USD 500 million sovereign wealth fund, with USD 1 trillion
management – announced plans to raise endowment with the foundation’s mission. Since in AUM – divested more than USD 13 billion
its allocation to ESG investments over time that time, the foundation has aligned 90% of its from oil, gas, and coal-extracting companies.
from its then-current 3% to 10%. endowment with its mission, divesting USD 100 The Fund was also given a legal mandate
million from non-mission-aligned investments to invest up to USD 20 billion directly into
and committing or deploying USD 180 million in renewable energy companies. The Fund
In April 2017, Ford Foundation announced
impact investments. plans to divest from any company that
the largest commitment to date by a
either generates more than 10 gigawatts of
private foundation to Mission-Related “Philanthropy works best when it focuses its
electricity from coal or mines more than 20
Investments (MRI), committing USD 1 gaze on solving systemic problems. Our view is
million tons of thermal coal each year.
billion of its USD 12 billion endowment that we must maximize all of our resources to
over the following decade to “reduce achieve this goal. Impact investing is a powerful
poverty and injustice.” Its two initial tool to engage the private sector and to push for
areas of focus are affordable housing in markets that produce more just and sustainable
the United States and financial inclusion returns for society.” – Rey Ramsey, Independent
in emerging markets. Since then, the Trustee & Interim CEO of NCF
Foundation has committed USD 174
million to 12 fund managers under its
four private-market MRI strategies of In November 2017, Zurich Insurance Group In November 2019, the European
affordable housing, financial inclusion, announced plans to double its impact Investment Bank (EIB) – the world’s
quality jobs, and diverse managers. investment portfolio to USD 5 billion, paired largest multilateral financial institution –
Its affordable housing portfolio has alongside the introduction of portfolio- pledged to end its financing of oil, gas,
preserved more than 16,000 units of level impact targets such as the avoidance In September 2018, on the closing day of and coal projects after 2021. This policy
affordable housing in the United States, of five million metric tons of CO2- the Global Climate Action Summit (GCAS) will make the EIB the first multilateral
with managers providing residents with equivalent emissions. This commitment in San Francisco, a group of 29 U.S.-based lender to eliminate financing for
dedicated social services. came soon after Zurich announced it had foundations pledged USD 4 billion over the energy projects that contribute to the
ASSET OWNERS

achieved its multi-year investment goal of next five years to tackle climate change. climate crisis.
“We need to expand our imaginations
USD 2 billion in green bonds.
and our tools if we want to tackle the Funders include Bloomberg Philanthropies, “We will stop financing fossil fuels and
large-scale problems facing the world As of December 2019, Zurich’s impact the IKEA Foundation, Kresge Foundation, launch the most ambitious climate
today. We can’t neglect the tremendous investments collectively contributed to the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, investment strategy of any public
power of markets to contribute.” – Darren the avoidance of 2.8 million tons of CO2- and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, among financial institution anywhere.” –
Walker, President of the Ford Foundation. equivalent emissions. others. Werner Hoyer, EIB President

2017 2018 2019 2020

In July 2017, Bain Capital closed its impact In October 2017, TPG Rise Fund met its In April 2018, KKR & Co. launched KKR In May 2019, LeapFrog Investments
ASSET MANAGERS

investment fund, the Bain Capital Double USD 2 billion fundraising goal, making it Global Impact, the firm’s impact investing closed its third fund, at that time one of
Impact Fund, with a final raise of USD one of the world’s largest private equity business aligned to the UN Sustainable the largest private equity funds raised by
390 million. The fund’s investors include impact funds. The fund’s investors include Development Goals. The business unit an impact-only fund manager. With USD
public pensions, family offices, and HNWIs. HNWIs, foundations, and diversified made private equity investments in 700 million under management, the fund
The Bain Capital Double Impact Fund financial institutions. As of 2020, the smaller and medium-sized companies targets low-income consumers in Asia
invests in for-profit, lower-middle-market Fund manages more than USD 4 billion in in renewable energy and environmental and Africa and aims to reach 70 million
companies in North America, with a focus impact investing assets, with investments management. consumers with investee products and
on sustainability, health and wellness, and focused on education, financial inclusion, services.
KKR closed its first global impact fund
education and workforce development. healthcare, and clean energy, among
in February 2020, raising USD 1.3 billion. Previously, LeapFrog had closed its first
According to Bain Capital’s 2019 impact others. Investments are made around
The fund is set to focus on several impact fund of USD 135 million in 2009 and its
report, the fund’s portfolio companies the world, primarily in the United States,
themes, including climate change, water second fund in 2019 at USD 400 million.
employed 4,342 people and reduced carbon East Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Since
and sanitation, workforce development, Over the last decade, LeapFrog has
emissions equal to taking 6,900 cars off the inception, the fund has deployed more than
and infrastructure, among others. reached 189 million people across its funds’
road for a year. USD 1.7 billion in capital across the globe
investments and provided 128,000 jobs in
and has become one of the world’s largest
35 emerging markets.
investors in education technology, career
learning tools, and quality education for “It is time for a better kind of capitalism.
underserved students. LeapFrog was founded on a philosophy of
Profit with Purpose, rejecting conventional
trade-off thinking in financial markets.
That has proved a winning strategy, driving
strong growth and returns while changing
tens of millions of lives.” – Dr. Andrew
Kuper, Founder and CEO of LeapFrog
Investments

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 21
 The asset manager landscape
In the impact investing ecosystem, asset managers bridge sources of capital and on-the-ground investment opportunities.
This critical role enables asset owners to deploy capital toward today’s social and environmental challenges more efficiently
and effectively than they could otherwise. In this year’s sample, 37% of respondents invest through asset managers, and 65%
of respondents are themselves asset managers. This section explores the perspectives of these respondents.

Investing through asset managers

This year, 37% of respondents reported investing through asset managers, including fund or investment managers.38
Respondents who invest indirectly allocate a median of 58% of their impact investing assets into funds or other investment
intermediaries. Twenty-nine percent of those investing through asset managers are foundations, followed by for-profit asset
managers (26%) and DFIs (12%). The vast majority are headquartered in developed markets (89% versus 10% in emerging
markets). Just over half are DM-Focused Investors (51%) and just under a third are EM-Focused investors (31%). Less than a
fifth of respondents that invest through asset managers focus on private equity (18%); 17% focus on private debt.

Greatest challenges when investing through impact investing asset managers

Respondents shared their perspectives on the greatest challenges their organizations face when investing through impact
investing asset managers. More than one-quarter (29%) indicated ‘lack of track record’ as a significant challenge, while 26%
of respondents cited ‘few accessible impact investing fund products’ as a significant challenge (Figure 19). Interestingly, most
respondents do not perceive logistical considerations as particularly challenging when investing through asset managers,
such as working across geographies or the need for in-house expertise to understand funds’ strategies.

Figure 19: Greatest challenges investing through asset managers

Number of respondents shown beside each bar; some respondents chose ‘not sure / not applicable’ and are not included. Ranked by percent selecting 'significant challenge.' n=

Lack of track record Percent of respondents 29% 52% 18% 103

Few accessible impact investing fund products 26% 41% 34% 101

Lack of asset manager impact reporting

18% 57% 25% 93
systems in place

High transaction costs 18% 43% 38% 99

Long time period to complete a fund transaction 14% 49% 37% 100

Difficulties working with asset managers

operating in other geographies 9% 29% 63% 91

Lack of in-house expertise to understand 4% 23% 73% 100

funds’ strategies

Other 38% 23% 38% 26

Significant challenge Moderate challenge Not a challenge

Note: ‘Other’ challenges include insufficient in-house capacity to provide impact assessments, lack of independent impact measurement and reporting systems, inconsistencies in reporting
methodologies being used, alignment to impact goals and priorities, and the need to provide more hands-on support for asset managers, especially first-time impact fund managers.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Closing transactions can be particularly challenging when investing in emerging markets and seeking below-market rate
returns. One EM-Focused family office noted that the asset managers with which they work “don’t have the in-house
capacity for impact assessments.” A greater proportion of those seeking below-market rate returns perceive high transaction
costs to be a significant challenge compared to those focused on market-rate returns (28% versus 12%). A larger share of
Below-Market Investors also highlighted the ‘long time period to complete a fund transaction’ as a significant challenge
(21% versus 10% of Market-Rate Investors).

38 Of 109 respondents that typically invest through asset managers, 13 reported they did not, at the end of 2019, have impact investments allocated through asset managers.

22 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
Greatest gaps in available fund products
One of the most significant challenges respondents cited was ‘few accessible impact investing fund products.’ Respondents
then offered additional detail on gaps they perceive in the fund marketplace. The top two most significant gaps concerned
strong financial and impact track records (42% each; Figure 20). A quarter of respondents cited the inability of funds to take
on small ticket sizes as a significant gap. Interestingly, less than a quarter cited financial returns as a significant gap in available
fund products.

Figure 20: Greatest gaps in available impact investing fund products

Number of respondents shown beside each bar; some respondents chose ‘not sure / not applicable’ and are not included. Ranked by percent selecting 'significant gap.' n=

A strong financial track record Percent of respondents 42% 49% 9% 102

A strong impact track record 42% 50% 8% 106

Ability to take on small ticket sizes 25% 28% 46% 95

Ability to achieve our target financial returns 23% 50% 27% 102

Appropriate focus on impact performance

management 22% 50% 28% 103

The right level of liquidity 22% 51% 27% 95

Alignment with our impact objectives 14% 47% 39% 106

Ability to take on large ticket sizes 14% 40% 46% 92

Sector or geographic specialization 13% 38% 49% 94

Other 13% 38% 50% 16

Significant gap Moderate gap No gap

Note: ‘Other’ gaps in available fund products include the lack of independent impact measurement standards and the talent pool for first-time fund managers.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Investors focused on emerging markets and below-market-rate returns identified track record and impact alignment
as particularly pronounced gaps. Among EM-Focused Investors, 57% identified strong financial records as a significant
gap, compared to just 27% of DM-Focused Investors. And investors seeking below-market rate returns identified impact
objective alignment as an especially acute gap, with 28% of Below-Market Investors noting impact objective alignment as a
significant gap, compared to just 6% of Market-Rate Investors.

Interestingly, nearly half of respondents perceive no gap in fund products based on ticket size, whether small or large (46%
each). However, investors with differing return philosophies identified different mismatches in ticket size as particularly
challenging. In particular, Below-Market Investors over Market-Rate Investors cited the inability of funds to take on small
ticket sizes as a significant gap (35% compared to 19% of Market-Rate Investors). This suggests that the size of tickets
investors seek in impact investing fund products may change with their target return philosophy.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 23
 Asset manager activity
This year’s report included 189 asset managers, representing 65% of all respondents in the sample and accounting for
31% of total AUM.39 Of these asset managers, 79% identified as for-profit; the remaining 21% identified as not-for-
profit asset managers.

Capital raising
Asset managers collectively raised nearly USD 18 billion in 2019 and plan to raise USD 22 billion in 2020, excluding one
outlier (Table 6).40 The median asset manager raised USD 31 million in 2019 and plans to raise USD 51 million in 2020.

Table 6: Asset managers’ capital raised in 2019 and planned raise for 2020
Figures in USD millions.

All asset managers Asset managers: for-profit Asset managers: not-for-profit

2019 2020 projected 2019 2020 projected 2019 2020 projected

n 139 154 110 120 29 34
Mean 128 142 139 159 85 80
Median 31 51 35 75 18 15
Sum 17,792 21,869 15,316 19,133 2,476 2,737

Note: Excludes one outlier. Respondents that did not report raising capital in 2019 have been excluded from 2019 capital raise data. Respondents that did not share projections for 2020 have been excluded
from planned raise for 2020 data. The decline in mean between capital raised in 2019 and planned to raise for 2020 in not-for-profit asset managers is primarily due to a shift by one organization that
raised capital in 2019 and does not plan to raise in 2020.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

The amount of capital raised and projected by asset managers varies by investor subgroup (Table 7). Although Private
Equity-focused and Private Debt-focused Investors both raised similar amounts of capital in 2019, the median capital raise
for those investing in private debt was significantly higher—USD 44 million—than the USD 28 million median among asset
managers investing primarily in private equity. At the same time, Private Equity-focused Investors plan in 2020 to nearly
double their capital raised in 2019, while Private Debt-focused Investors plan a smaller increase.

Table 7: Asset managers’ capital raised in 2019 and planned raise for 2020, by sub group
Figures in USD millions.

Headquarters locations Geographic focus Asset class focus Target returns

Private
Private
DM-HQ EM-HQ EM-focused DM-focused Equity- Market-Rate Below-Market
Debt-focused
Investors Investors Investors Investors focused Investors Investors
Investors
Investors
2019 2020P 2019 2020P 2019 2020P 2019 2020P 2019 2020P 2019 2020P 2019 2020P 2019 2020P
n 107 112 29 38 67 78 64 65 36 49 39 39 108 118 31 36
Mean 157 170 32 69 63 119 176 149 94 124 89 113 153 174 42 37
Median 39 58 10 50 21 50 50 53 28 65 44 53 41 87 6 12
Sum 16,806 19,004 927 2,614 4,250 9,255 11,245 9,694 3,389 6,072 3,488 4,418 16,490 20,531 1,301 1,338

Note: Excludes one outlier. Respondents that did not report raising capital in 2019 have been excluded from 2019 data. Respondents that did not share projections for 2020 have been excluded from
projected 2020 data.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

In total, 80 asset managers reported capital raise projections in last year’s survey and reported raising capital in this year’s,
allowing the Research Team to compare their projected capital raises for 2019 with their actual capital raises in 2019.
Almost a third of asset managers surpassed their capital raise plans by more than 5%, and nearly two-thirds fell short of their
projections by more than 5%; just 4% raised within 5% of their projections (Figure 21). Respondents that fell short collectively

39 Of 189 asset managers in the total sample, three did not provide responses to these questions specifically for asset managers.
40 In total, 140 organizations reported raising capital 2019 (note that not all asset managers raise capital each year), and 155 reported that they plan to raise capital in 2020.
One outlier is excluded from the analyses of both capital raised and capital raise projections. Including this outlier, the full sample raised nearly USD 27 billion in 2019 and
plans to raise just under USD 32 billion in 2020.

24 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
 raised USD 6 billion, about half of their planned capital raise. Respondents that exceeded their projections did so sharply,
raising well over double their planned capital (USD 2.8 billion capital planned compared to USD 6.9 billion capital raised).

Figure 21: Projected versus actual capital raise in 2019

n = 80; this includes repeat respondents who both projected raising capital last year and raised capital this year.
65%
Percent of respondents

31%

4%

Fell short of Raised within ±5% Exceeded

projections by >5% of projections projections by >5%

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Asset managers’ sources of capital

The 186 asset managers that reported on their activity collectively managed USD 125 billion in impact investing assets as
of the end of 2019.41 Most are Small Investors (53%) that tend to invest directly (88%) and target market-rate returns (76%).
More than a third invest primarily through private equity, just under a quarter invest primarily through private debt, and a
clear majority are headquartered in developed markets (72%).

On average, asset managers in the sample oversee USD 673 million, with the median asset manager overseeing just under
USD 89 million. Excluding two outlier respondents, 184 asset managers sourced USD 94 billion from a variety of investor
types (Figure 22). Nearly six in ten asset managers manage capital from foundations, with most also receiving capital from
high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs; 56%) and family offices (51%). Perhaps unsurprisingly, pensions funds/retirement funds
account for 18% of all asset manager AUM, while religious institutions constitute just 1%.

Figure 22: Sources of capital for impact investing asset managers

Left side – Percent of AUM: n = 184; AUM = USD 94 billion. Excludes two outliers.
Right side – Percent of respondents managing capital from each investor type; n = 186

18% Percent of AUM Pensions funds Percent of respondents 38%

16% Retail investors 18%

15% Diversified financial institutions 40%

8% Insurance companies 25%

8% DFIs 35%

6% HNWIs 56%

6% Family offices 51%

5% Foundations 60%

3% Fund of funds 25%

3% Sovereign wealth funds 10%

2% Endowments 17%

1% Religious institutions 14%

10% Other 38%

Note: ‘Other’ sources of capital include government funding, corporations, other institutional investors, labor funds, investment consultancies, universities, and non-profit organizations.
Several respondents were unable to provide a break-down that aligns with these sources of capital; these responses have also been captured in ‘other.’
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

41 These analyses exclude three asset managers that did not complete the questions specific to asset managers.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 25
 Sources of capital vary among different subgroups of asset manager (Table 8).42 Not-for-profit asset managers sourced
nearly 40% of their capital from diversified financial institutions, while only 13% of for-profit asset managers’ capital came
from such institutions. A similar pattern emerges between Market-Rate and Below-Market Investors; Below-Market Investors
sourced one-third of their capital from diversified financial institutions, which provided just 13% of the capital Market-Rate
Investors manage. HNWIs disbursed 18% of the capital Small and Medium Investors manage but only 4% of that managed
by Large Investors.

Table 8: Asset managers’ sources of capital by investor type, target returns, asset class focus, and investor size
Investor type Target returns Asset class focus Investor size

Asset Asset Private Private

All asset managers: managers: Market-Rate Below-Market Equity-focused Debt-focused Small Medium Large
managers for-profit not-for-profit Investors Investors Investors Investors Investors Investors Investors

Pensions funds 18% 20% 4% 20% 3% 20% 7% 7% 12% 20%

Retail investors 16% 17% 2% 16% 6% 1% 13% 2% 3% 18%
Diversified Financial Institutions 15% 13% 38% 13% 33% 13% 29% 9% 13% 15%
Insurance companies 8% 8% 2% 8% 4% 5% 3% 2% 4% 9%
DFIs 8% 8% 6% 7% 22% 19% 18% 20% 18% 6%
HNWIs 6% 6% 7% 6% 5% 11% 2% 18% 18% 4%
Family offices 6% 6% 1% 6% 1% 8% 3% 15% 6% 5%
Foundations 5% 4% 9% 5% 7% 5% 5% 15% 8% 4%
Fund of funds 3% 3% 1% 3% 2% 6% 1% 2% 5% 3%
Sovereign wealth funds 3% 3% 1% 3% 0% 3% 3% 1% 1% 3%
Endowments 2% 1% 6% 2% 1% 4% 1% 2% 3% 1%
Religious institutions 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1%
Other 10% 9% 24% 10% 16% 4% 15% 6% 8% 11%

n 184 147 37 139 45 63 43 99 39 46

AUM (USD millions) 94,300 86,684 7,616 87,248 7,052 16,882 19,9 67 3,041 10,359 80,899

Note: Capital sources are weighted by asset manager AUM. Excludes two outliers. ‘Other’ sources of capital include government funding, corporations, other institutional investors, labor
funds, investment consultancies, universities, non-profit organizations, and General Partners. Several respondents were unable to provide a break-down that aligns with these sources of
capital; these responses have also been captured in ‘other.’
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Evolution in investor types over the past five years

Asset managers shared their views on how investors have changed their level of investment in impact investing funds
over the past five years. As the industry has grown, two-thirds of asset managers note significantly increased investment
into impact funds by HNWIs (Figure 23), and 59% and 55% note significantly increased investment by family offices and
foundations, respectively. One-third perceive a significant increase in investment by insurance companies into impact
investing funds. While this evolution reflects respondents’ perceptions, the survey’s repeat respondents did indeed
experience increased investment that mirrors these perceptions, with the largest increase in capital from foundations, family
offices, and HNWIs, as described on page 28.

42 These differences were not tested for statistical significance.

26 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
Figure 23: Change in investment level over the past five years
Some respondents chose ‘not sure / not applicable’ and are not included. Optional question. n=

HNWIs Percent of respondents 66% 34% 0% 148

Family offices 59% 41% 0% 147

Foundations 55% 43% 1% 145

Retail investors 54% 46% 0% 100

Pensions funds / retirement funds 49% 50% 1% 115

Diversified financial institutions 48% 52% 1% 122

Religious institutions 41% 58% 1% 92

Fund of funds 41% 54% 4% 114

DFIs 39% 58% 3% 120

Endowments 36% 62% 2% 108

Sovereign wealth funds 33% 65% 2% 66

Insurance companies 33% 66% 1% 92

Other 62% 38% 0% 21

Increased significantly Stayed relatively consistent Decreased significantly

Note: Respondents active in impact investing for fewer than five years commented on changes in the level of investment since their organization’s inception.
‘Other’ includes government funds, charities, and corporations.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

By subgroup, a greater share of DM-HQ Investors perceived a significant increase in investment by diversified financial
institutions (53%), compared to just 29% of EM-HQ Investors. Also, 35% of DM-HQ Investors reported a significant increase
by insurance companies, compared to just 12% of EM-HQ Investors.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 27
 TRENDS ANALYSIS
To understand the changing asset manager landscape over time, the Research Team analyzed the 39 asset
managers that responded to the survey both this year and in 2016. AUM for this sub-sample of repeat respondents
grew by a CAGR of 13% over the period (Table 9).43

Asset managers increased their sourcing of capital from every type of investor, aligning with respondents’
perceptions of growing levels of investment from many types of investors, as illustrated on page 26. In fact, the
largest increase in capital by source was from foundations, growing at a rate of 25% CAGR.

Table 9: Changes in asset managers’ sources of capital, among repeat respondents

n = 38; figures in USD millions.

Source of capital 2015 2019 CAGR

Foundations 670 1,642 25%

Family offices/HNWIs 1,964 3,943 19%
Diversified financial institutions 3,886 7,037 16%
Retail investors 4,012 5,534 8%
Pension funds or insurance companies 5,285 6,891 7%
Development finance institutions 2,851 3,670 7%
Fund of funds 1,186 1,490 6%
Endowments 176 195 3%
Other 636 3,169 49%
Total 20,667 33,570 13%

Note: One outlier has been excluded that drove significant changes in ‘endowment’ and ‘other.’ Both have been included in ‘other’ for this analysis. While the 2020 survey specified the inclusion of both
‘banks and credit unions’ as part of diversified financial institutions, the 2016 survey only specified the inclusion of ‘banks.’ Several respondents were unable to provide a break-down that aligns with these
sources of capital; these responses have also been captured in ‘other.’
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

43 Excluding one large outlier.

28 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
 Asset allocations
Assets under management
The respondent sample reported USD 404 billion in impact investing
assets under management (AUM) as of the end of 2019.44 On average,
respondents managed USD 1.4 billion and USD 89 million at the NOTE TO READERS
median (Figure 24). Average and median AUM differ significantly This figure is not an estimate of the size of the full
because several respondents manage especially large amounts of impact investing market. Rather, it represents the
impact investing capital. In fact, the three largest respondents accounted assets of this sample of investors.
for 45% of this full sample’s AUM. To depict a more representative
For a description of the full market size, see page 40.
picture of the sample’s allocations, analyses in this section are presented
primarily excluding these three outlier respondents.
Figure 24: Distribution of respondent AUM (USD millions)
n = 292; total AUM = USD 404 billion. Showing 5th through 95th percentiles.
AUM (USD millions)

1,383

0 500 1,000 1,500 4,500 5,000

5TH Percentile 25TH Percentile Median (50TH Percentile) 75TH Percentile 95TH Percentile Mean
Note: Excludes two respondents that did not share AUM figures.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

TRENDS ANALYSIS
The Research Team analyzed changes in AUM among the sample of repeat respondents that participated both this
year and in the 2016 Annual Impact Investor Survey (which reported their AUM as of the end of 2015). Between
2015 and 2019, 79 organizations increased their aggregate AUM from USD 52 billion to USD 98 billion, a compound
annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17%. This growth was significantly driven by two large respondents; without them,
respondents grew their impact investing AUM at a CAGR of 9%.

The sample AUM includes both capital invested directly into companies or other projects and capital invested indirectly
via asset managers or other intermediaries. Seventy-six percent of the total sample AUM is invested directly; the remaining
24% is invested indirectly (Figure 25). Because AUM includes both direct and indirect investments, some of the total sample
AUM may be double-counted; in other words, some of the capital respondents invest indirectly could be managed by asset
managers that also responded to this survey. For an estimate of the full impact investing market size, excluding potentially
double-counted assets, refer to page 40.

44 This excludes two organizations from the full sample of 294 that did not provide AUM figures.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 29
 Figure 25: Percent of sample AUM invested directly and indirectly
n = 292; AUM = USD 404 billion.

76% Directly into companies, projects, or real assets 24%

24% Indirectly through intermediaries, including fund managers

76%

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Direct and indirect investing varies somewhat by organization type. Perhaps unsurprisingly, asset managers in the sample
have the greatest proportion of their impact investing assets invested directly (89%), followed by DFIs (76%). On the other
end of the spectrum, diversified financial institutions (including banks) have 81% of their impact investing assets invested
indirectly, and foundations have 74% of their impact investing assets invested indirectly.

AUM by geography of investment

Impact investors allocate capital around the globe. Excluding outlier respondents, 55% of AUM are allocated to developed
markets, and 40% are allocated to emerging markets.45 Again excluding outliers, respondents have the most capital allocated to
the U.S. & Canada (30% of sample AUM), followed by WNS Europe (15%; Figure 26). Including outlier respondents, however,
the majority of capital is allocated to emerging markets (59%), with the top region of investment being SSA (21%). Excluding
outliers, LAC and SSA are also top regions of investment (12% and 11% of sample AUM, respectively).

Examining the number of respondents with some allocation to each geography, the U.S. & Canada and SSA are the most
common regions of investment, with 47% of respondents having at least some allocation to the U.S. & Canada and 43%
having some allocation to SSA. Additionally, more than a third of respondents have some allocation to LAC, and over a
quarter allocate to South Asia or SE Asia.
Figure 26: Asset allocations by geography of investment
Left side—Percent of AUM excluding outliers; n = 289; AUM = USD 221 billion.
Right side – Percent of respondents with any allocation to each geography; n = 294; respondents may allocate to multiple geographies.

17% 30% Percent of AUM U.S. & Canada Percent of respondents 47%

13% 15% WNS Europe 24%

10% 12% LAC 35%

21% 11% SSA 43%

Percent of full sample AUM

7% 6% South Asia 29%

10% 6% EECA 17%

3% 5% Oceania 8%

4% 5% East Asia 21%

3% 3% SE Asia 26%

9% 2% MENA 16%

4% 5% Other 15%

Note: ‘Other’ includes investments allocated globally.

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

45 The remaining assets were allocated globally.

30 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
While these differences were not tested for statistical significance, geographic allocations differ somewhat between
respondent subgroups (Table 10).46 Excluding outlier respondents, Private Equity–Focused Investors allocate a greater share
of capital to the U.S. & Canada and to SSA compared with Private Debt–Focused Investors (30% versus 20% of AUM, and
29% versus 13% of AUM, respectively). On the other hand, Private Debt–Focused Investors allocate a greater share of AUM
to LAC (18%, compared with 7% of Private Equity–Focused Investors’ AUM). Below-Market Investors also allocate a greater
share of their AUM to the U.S. & Canada than do Market-Rate Investors (42% versus 30%), while Market-Rate Investors
allocate a greater share to LAC (12% versus 6%).

Table 10: Geographic allocations by respondent sub-group

Asset class focus Target returns

Private Private
Equity-focused Debt-focused Market-Rate Below-Market
Overall Investors Investors Investors Investors

U.S. & Canada 30% 30% 20% 30% 42%

WNS Europe 15% 1% 2% 15% 11%
LAC 12% 7% 18% 12% 6%
SSA 11% 29% 13% 11% 16%
South Asia 6% 11% 10% 6% 6%
EECA 6% 2% 19% 6% 3%
Oceania 5% 0% 1% 6% 0%
East Asia 5% 9% 5% 5% 3%
SE Asia 3% 7% 6% 3% 4%
MENA 2% 2% 4% 2% 7%
Other 5% 3% 1% 5% 3%

n 289 83 64 193 96
Total AUM (USD millions) 220,914 19,183 24,042 206,520 14,394
Note: Excludes three outliers. ‘Other’ includes global investments.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Respondents indicated plans to increase their allocations to many emerging markets over the next five years. Over half of
respondents plan to increase their allocations to SE Asia and SSA (52%, Figure 27), 44% plan to increase their allocations to
South Asia, and 41% plan to increase their allocations to LAC, reflecting a growing interest in multiple emerging markets.47

Figure 27: Planned geographic allocations changes for the next five years
Number of respondents shown beside each bar. Some respondents chose ‘not sure’ and are not included. Optional question.

Percent of respondents n=
SE Asia 2% 7% 39% 52% 122
SSA 5% 10% 33% 52% 153
South Asia 2% 11% 43% 44% 122
LAC 5% 14% 39% 41% 128
U.S. & Canada 3% 5% 53% 38% 148
WNS Europe 3% 9% 53% 34% 86
MENA 2% 15% 52% 31% 94
East Asia 1% 9% 60% 29% 95
EECA 8% 17% 56% 19% 77
Oceania 4% 13% 66% 18% 56

Decrease Begin to assess Maintain Increase

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

FOUR-YEAR TRENDS
46 Dollar-weighted allocations were not tested for statistical significance, because statistical tests on dollar-weighted figures between subgroups could yield meaningless
answers.
47 Most respondents reported their plans in early 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic. To consider how the COVID-19 pandemic might impact respondents’ planned
allocations, the Research Team administered a short survey in April 2020 in which respondents indicated whether they expected their allocations over the next five years
to change materially because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, respondents did not expect material changes to their planned geographic allocations, as described in
further detail on page 65.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 31
 TRENDS ANALYSIS
Among the sample of repeat respondents, the fastest-growing regions of investment were WNS Europe and
East and SE Asia (which were combined in the 2016 survey), which grew at 25% and 23% CAGR, respectively.48
Growing interest in SE Asia is also reflected in the full sample’s plans for the next five years, with more than half of
respondents planning to grow their allocations to SE Asia.

Table 11: Changes in geographic allocations among repeat respondents (2015 – 2019)
n = 79; figures in USD millions.

Region 2015 2019 CAGR

WNS Europe 6,365 15,318 25%

East and SE Asia 4,080 9,385 23%
LAC 6,216 13,167 21%
U.S. & Canada 10,036 20,625 20%
MENA 1,447 2,881 19%
Oceania 1,915 3,419 16%
South Asia 4,535 7,822 15%
EECA 5,997 9,264 11%
SSA 9,602 12,808 7%
Other 1,625 2,793 15%
Total 51,817 97,483 17%

Note: East and SE Asia were combined in the 2016 Survey but disaggregated in the 2020 survey, so have been combined for this analysis.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

AUM by sector of investment

Respondents allocate impact investing capital across a range of sectors, reflecting the overall diversity of the market and
a commitment to providing basic services through impact investments. Excluding outlier respondents, the largest sector
is energy, comprising 16% of sample AUM, followed by financial services (excluding microfinance), with 12% of AUM
(Figure 28). Including outliers, financial services (excluding microfinance) is the largest sector, with 20% of sample AUM,
followed by energy (17%).49

Food & agriculture, which accounts for 9% of sample AUM (excluding outliers), is the most popular sector, with 57% of
respondents having some allocation. Respondents also continue to indicate growing interest in the food & agriculture sector;
it is the top sector to which respondents plan to increase their allocation over the next five years. Healthcare is another
popular sector, with almost half of respondents having some allocation to healthcare. Healthcare was also the third-fastest-
growing sector among repeat respondents.

48 The increase to East and SE Asia was shown to be statistically significant, while the increase to WNS Europe was not.
49 Allocations to some sectors may be greater in reality than as reflected in these analyses. For example, some investors are active in arts & culture through their
investments in other sectors like housing or education. These investments may be classified here as housing or education investments, though they also have an impact
on arts & culture.

32 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
 Figure 28: Asset allocations by sector
Left side—Percent of AUM excluding outliers; n = 289; AUM = USD 221 billion.
Right side – Percent of respondents with any allocation to each sector; n = 294; respondents may allocate to multiple sectors.

17% 16% Percent of AUM Energy Percent of respondents 46%

20% 12% Fin services (excl. microfinance) 39%

6% 10% Forestry 16%

8% 9% Food & ag 57%

5% 8% Microfinance 30%
Percent of full sample AUM

5% 8% Housing 39%

5% 7% Healthcare 49%

5% 6% WASH 23%

9% 4% Infrastructure 21%

5% 3% Manufacturing 22%

3% 3% ICT 26%

2% 3% Education 41%

0% 0.1% Arts & culture 9%

10% 11% Other 49%

Note: ‘Other’ includes investments that did not align to these sector categories such as real estate, tourism, community development, retail, and sector agnostic investments.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Sector allocations differ by respondent subgroup (Table 12).50 EM-Focused Investors allocate a greater share of their capital
to energy than do DM-Focused Investors (23% of AUM versus 12%), as well as to financial services (excl. microfinance) (29%
versus 3%) and microfinance (12% versus 2%). These differences may reflect particular demand for access to basic services
(that is, energy and finance) in emerging markets. Private Debt–Focused Investors allocate a greater share of their AUM to
microfinance than do Private Equity–Focused Investors (32% versus 6%), while Private Equity–Focused Investors allocate a
greater share to healthcare (10% versus 2% of Private Debt–Focused Investors’ AUM). Market-Rate Investors, compared to
Below-Market Investors, allocate a greater share of their AUM to energy (16% versus 5%) and forestry & timber (11% versus 1%).
On the other hand, Below-Market Investors allocate a greater share of their AUM to housing and healthcare than do Market-
Rate Investors (18% versus 7% and 19% versus 6%, respectively).
Table 12: Sector allocations by respondent sub-group
Geographic focus Asset class focus Target returns

DM-focused EM-focused Private Equity- Private Debt- Market-Rate Below-Market

Overall Investors Investors focused Investors focused Investors Investors Investors
Energy 16% 12% 23% 12% 14% 16% 5%
Fin services (excl. microfinance) 12% 3% 29% 24% 17% 12% 11%
Forestry 10% 17% 1% 2% 1% 11% 1%
Food & ag 9% 10% 10% 12% 9% 9% 8%
Microfinance 8% 2% 12% 6% 32% 8% 9%
Housing 8% 11% 3% 1% 10% 7% 18%
Healthcare 7% 9% 4% 10% 2% 6% 19%
WASH 6% 10% 1% 0% 0% 6% 1%
Infrastructure 4% 4% 4% 2% 1% 4% 1%
Manufacturing 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 3% 6%
ICT 3% 3% 3% 8% 1% 3% 2%
Education 3% 4% 1% 12% 4% 2% 8%
Arts & culture 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other 11% 12% 6% 9% 7% 11% 12%

n 289 139 124 83 64 193 96

Total AUM (USD millions) 220,914 123,131 80,168 19,183 24,042 206,520 14,394

Note: Excludes three outliers. ‘Other’ includes investments that did not align to these sector categories such as real estate, tourism, community development, retail,
and sector agnostic investments.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

50 Dollar-weighted allocations were not tested for statistical significance, because statistical tests on dollar-weighted figures between subgroups could yield meaningless
answers.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 33
 Respondents indicated how they plan to change their sector allocations over the next five years. Of those respondents who
indicated plans for food & agriculture, energy, or healthcare investments (n = 181–210), more than half plan to increase their
allocations to these sectors over the next five years. This seems to demonstrate their continued commitment to providing
access to basic services through impact investments (Figure 29). WASH is another top sector for planned increases in
allocation; it was also the fastest-growing sector among four-year repeat respondents (as described on page 35). Almost half
of respondents that indicated plans for infrastructure, education, or housing investments planned to increase their allocations
to those sectors. Of those respondents sharing their plans for WASH and arts & culture, more than a fifth plan to begin
assessing those sectors over the next five years.

Figure 29: Planned sector allocations changes for the next five years
Number of respondents shown besides each bar. Some respondents chose ‘not applicable’ and are not included; optional question.

Percent of respondents n=
Food & ag 3% 8% 35% 54% 210
Energy 2% 13% 32% 53% 189
Healthcare 3% 5% 41% 51% 181
WASH 2% 21% 27% 50% 159
Infrastructure 1% 16% 35% 48% 127
Education 2% 9% 41% 48% 182
Housing 4% 7% 41% 48% 157
Fin services (excl. microfinance) 3% 9% 49% 39% 165
Forestry 5% 16% 44% 36% 108
Microfinance 6% 9% 56% 30% 127
ICT 3% 14% 54% 29% 130
Manufacturing 4% 15% 57% 24% 116
Arts & culture 5% 22% 61% 13% 64

Decrease Begin to assess Maintain Increase

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

34 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
 TRENDS ANALYSIS
Repeat respondents have grown their allocations to most sectors since 2015. WASH was the fastest-growing
sector, with allocations growing at 33% CAGR from 2015 to 2019 (Table 13).51 Next, financial services (excluding
microfinance) grew at 30% CAGR; financial services is also the second-largest sector in terms of the full sample’s
asset allocations as of the end of 2019.

Table 13: Changes in sector allocations among repeat respondents (2015 – 2019)
n = 79; figures in USD millions.

Sector 2015 2019 CAGR

WASH 3,083 9,735 33%

Fin services (excl. microfinance) 5,667 16,432 30%
Healthcare 2,405 5,590 23%
Food & ag 3,746 8,284 22%
Energy 9,007 19,077 21%
ICT 1,198 2,058 14%
Infrastructure 1,144 1,818 12%
Housing 4,238 6,322 11%
Microfinance 9,525 13,439 9%
Manufacturing 1,667 1,356 -5%
Education 1,695 1,257 -7%
Arts & culture 142 52 -22%
Other 8,298 12,063 10%
Total 51,817 97,483 17%

Note: The 2016 Survey included a category for ‘conservation,’ which was not included in the 2020 survey, and the 2020 survey included a category for ‘forestry & timber,’ which was not available in the 2016
Survey. Both categories have been combined with ‘other’ for this analysis.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

AUM by asset class

Respondents allocate impact investing capital across asset classes, another reflection of the diversity of the impact investing
landscape. Private debt, public equity, and private equity have attracted the most capital. Excluding outlier respondents,
private debt accounts for 21% of respondent AUM, while public equity accounts for 19% (Figure 39). Including outlier
respondents, private debt comprises 34% of the full sample AUM, while public equity accounts for 11%.

Private equity is the most common asset class, with 70% of respondents having at least some allocation, while 58% of
respondents are active in private debt. By contrast, a much smaller proportion of respondents (17%) have some allocation to
public equity, even though it is the second-largest by AUM, excluding outliers. This reflects the larger average deal sizes in
public equity compared to private debt and private equity (see page 16 for average deal sizes across asset classes).

51 This increase was not shown to be statistically significant.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 35
 Figure 30: Asset allocations by asset class
Left side—Percent of AUM excluding outliers; n = 289; AUM = USD 221 billion.
Right side – Percent of respondents with any allocation to each asset class; n = 294; respondents may allocate to multiple asset classes.

34% 21% Percent of AUM Private debt Percent of respondents 58%

11% 19% Public equity 17%

Percent of full sample AUM

16% 17% Private equity 70%

9% 17% Real assets 17%

10% 17% Publicly traded debt 15%

1% 1% Equity-like debt 21%

0% 1% Deposits & cash equivalents 14%

18% 8% Other 15%

Note: ‘Other’ includes guarantees, mezzanine financing, and social outcomes contracts.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Asset class allocations differed among respondent subgroups in several ways. A greater share of capital managed by EM-
Focused Investors (compared to that managed by DM-Focused Investors) is allocated to private debt (36% versus 9%) and
private equity (25% versus 13%; Table 14). By contrast, DM-Focused Investors allocate a greater proportion of their assets
to public equity (27% versus 3%) and real assets; while DM-Focused Investors have 30% of their capital in real assets, EM-
Focused Investors allocate none of their capital to this asset class. Below-Market Investors allocated a greater share of their
assets to private equity (27% compared to 16% for Market-Rate Investors) and private debt (45% compared to 19%). On the
other hand, Market-Rate Investors allocate a greater share to public markets, including 20% to public equity (compared to
4% of Below-Market Investor AUM) and 18% to publicly traded debt; Below-Market Investors have no allocation to publicly
traded debt.
Table 14: Asset class allocations by respondent sub-group
Geographic focus Target returns

Overall DM-focused Investors EM-focused Investors Market-Rate Investors Below-Market Investors

Private debt 21% 9% 36% 19% 45%

Public equity 19% 27% 3% 20% 4%
Private equity 17% 13% 25% 16% 27%
Real assets 17% 30% 0% 18% 8%
Publicly traded debt 17% 15% 22% 18% 0%
Equity-like debt 1% 0% 2% 1% 5%
Deposits & cash equivalents 1% 1% 0% 1% 2%
Other 8% 5% 12% 8% 9%

n 289 139 124 193 96

Total AUM (USD millions) 220,914 123,131 80,168 206,520 14,394

Note: Excludes three outliers. ‘Other’ includes guarantees, mezzanine financing, and social outcomes contracts.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

36 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
 TRENDS ANALYSIS
Among repeat respondents, the highest growth since 2015 occurred in public equity, which grew at 33% CAGR
(Table 15), followed by real assets (21%).52

Table 15: Changes in asset class allocations among repeat respondents (2015 – 2019)
n = 78. Figures in USD millions.

Asset class 2015 2019 CAGR

Public equity 6,420 19,968 33%

Real assets 4,532 9,762 21%
Publicly traded debt 2,513 4,476 16%
Private debt 18,851 27,600 10%
Private equity 9,938 13,831 9%
Deposits & cash equivalents 1,204 1,148 -1%
Equity-like debt 4,355 1,294 -26%
Other 137 1,884 93%
Total 47,948 79,963 14%

Note: Excludes one large outlier that significantly grew allocations to publicly traded debt (including this respondent, allocations to publicly traded debt increased by 72% CAGR). The 2016 Survey included a
category for ‘pay-for-performance instruments,’ which have been included in ‘other’ for this analysis.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Impact investing in listed equities

This year’s survey included several questions on impact investing in listed (or public) equities. Twenty-one percent of
respondents seek to generate impact through listed equity investments. Fifteen percent do not currently do so but plan to in
the future, and 64% of respondents do not and do not plan to do so in the future.

A greater proportion of Market-Rate Investors seek to generate impact through investments in listed equities (26%,
compared to 11% of Below-Market Investors). DM-Focused Investors are also more likely to invest in listed equities (28%
compared to 11% of EM-Focused Investors), as are Large Investors (32% compared to 17% of Small Investors). These
differences may reflect the higher average transaction sizes for impact investments in listed equities (see page 16).

Of those respondents seeking to generate impact through investments in listed equities, the most common approaches for
doing so are through directing capital to companies that have positive impact through their products or services (89% of
respondents) or through their operations (84%; Figure 31). Other strategies included engaging as a shareholder to generate
impact by improving investee companies’ operational impact (66%), instilling ‘a social and/or environmental lens’ (61%), or
‘improving the product or service impact of investee companies’ (57%).

Figure 31: Strategies for generating impact through listed equities investments
n = 61; optional question. Includes respondents that currently seek to generate impact through listed equities.
89%
84%
Percent of respondents

66%
61%
57%

To direct capital to companies that To direct capital to companies To improve the operational impact To instill a social and/or environmental To improve the product or service
have positive impact through that have positive impact of investee companies through lens at investee companies through impact of investee companies
their products orservices. through their operations. shareholder engagement. shareholder engagement. through shareholder engagement.

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

52 The increase to public equity was shown to be statistically significant, while the increase to real assets was not.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 37
 Respondents that do not seek to generate impact through investments in listed equities shared why they do not or would not do
so. The vast majority (80%) noted that listed equities are simply not an asset class through which they invest (Figure 32). Others
indicated reasons related to generating impact via listed equities investments.; 12% have not found that publicly listed companies
enable the type of impact they seek. A somewhat smaller share (7%) do not ‘think it’s possible to generate impact through
listed equities investments unless one has a sizeable enough share to influence management,’ lack ‘the capacity or resources to
engage with the company’s management’ (9%), or both, while 7% ‘do not have sufficient impact data from listed companies to
assess or report on impact.’ Eight percent ‘do not see sufficient client demand for this type of strategy’ to pursue it.

Figure 32: Reasons respondents do not seek to generate impact through listed equities investments
n = 205; optional question.

Listed equities is not an asset class through which we invest. Percent of respondents 80%

We haven’t found any publicly listed companies that enable the type of impact we 12%
want to generate.

We don’t have the capacity or resources to engage with the company's management. 9%

We don’t see sufficient client demand for this type of strategy. 8%

We don’t think it’s possible to generate impact through listed equities investments unless
one has a sizeable enough share to influence management. 7%

We don’t have sufficient impact data from listed companies to assess or report on impact. 7%

There is not enough diversity in our local equities market to support the impact we seek. 6%

We don’t think it’s possible to generate impact through listed equities investments
for other reasons. 6%

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

AUM by stage of business

Although not all respondents invest in companies (some invest in real assets, for example), those that do indicated how
they allocate capital by stage of business. Excluding outliers, respondents allocate the greatest share of capital to mature
companies (31% to mature, publicly traded companies, and 34% to mature, private companies; Figure 33). Growth-stage
companies account for over a quarter of respondent’s AUM (28%); growth-stage businesses also represent the most
common stage at which respondents invest (76% with some allocation).

Although just 6% of sample AUM is allocated to venture-stage companies, respondents are active in venture-stage
investing; 63% have some allocation to venture-stage companies. This reflects the fact that venture-stage businesses often
require smaller amounts of capital. Similarly, more than one third of respondents have some allocation to seed- or startup-
stage companies, even though this accounts for just 1% of their overall AUM.

Figure 33: Asset allocations by stage of business

Left side—Percent of AUM excluding outliers; n = 232; AUM = USD 105 billion. Optional question.
Right side – Percent of respondents with any allocation to each stage of business; n = 233; respondents may allocate to stages of business.
Percent of AUM Percent of respondents
31% Mature, publicly traded companies 15%

34% Mature, private companies 38%

28% Growth stage 76%

6% Venture stage 63%

1% Seed/Start-up stage 36%

Note: Excludes allocations that respondents were not able to classify to one of these stages of business.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

38 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
Below-Market Investors allocate more capital to early- and mid-stage businesses, with 20% of their AUM allocated to
venture-stage businesses (compared with 5% of Market-Rate Investors’ AUM) and 47% of capital allocated to growth-stage
businesses (compared with 27% of Market-Rate Investors’ AUM; Table 16). Market-Rate Investors allocate a greater share
of their capital to mature, publicly traded companies (32% versus 10% of Below-Market Investors’ capital). EM-Focused
Investors also allocate a greater share of capital to growth-stage businesses (55%, compared to only 17% of DM-Focused
Investors’ capital). By contrast, DM-Focused Investors allocate 42% of their capital to mature, publicly traded companies,
while EM-Focused Investors allocate just 8% of their capital to this stage of business.

Table 16: Allocations by stage of business, among respondent sub-groups

Geographic focus Target returns

Overall DM-focused Investors EM-focused Investors Market-Rate Investors Below-Market Investors

Mature, publicly traded companies 31% 42% 8% 32% 10%

Mature, private companies 34% 37% 26% 35% 21%
Growth stage 28% 17% 55% 27% 47%
Venture stage 6% 4% 9% 5% 20%
Seed/Start-up stage 1% 0% 2% 1% 4%
n 232 139 124 193 96
Total AUM (USD millions) 105,110 72,002 26,046 99,406 5,704

Note: Excludes outliers and allocations that respondents were not able to classify to one of these stages of business.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

TRENDS ANALYSIS
Among repeat respondents, the greatest growth since 2015 occurred in allocations to mature, publicly traded
companies (37% CAGR; Table 17). Repeat respondents also grew their allocations to venture stage companies at
22% CAGR. Interestingly, the sample of repeat respondents decreased their allocations to seed- and startup-stage
businesses by 14% CAGR over the period.

Table 17: Changes in allocations by stage of business, among repeat respondents (2015 – 2019)
n = 53; optional question. Figures in USD millions.

Stage of business 2015 2019 CAGR

Mature, publicly traded companies 5,993 21,278 37%

Venture stage 940 2,095 22%
Mature, private companies 7,142 11,914 14%
Growth stage 6,234 10,374 14%
Seed/Start-up stage 691 380 -14%
Total 21,001 46,040 22%

Note: Excludes allocations that respondents were not able to classify to one of these stages of business.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 39
 SIZING THE IMPACT INVESTING MARKET
A key reference point for impact investors is the supply of capital allocated to impact investments.
This data assists practitioners in understanding the supply of capital relative to the social and The full impact investing
environmental demand for it, how the impact investing market compares to analogous markets, market size is estimated
and finally, the potential for growth of the impact investing market. at USD 715 billion: the
Last year, for the first time, the GIIN developed a rigorous methodology to estimate the total impact investing assets under
size of the market.53 Since this inaugural market sizing effort, the GIIN has strengthened its management of over 1,720
database and methodology to continually improve its approach. Through continuous research, organizations as of the
the initial database of impact investing organizations has grown substantially. At the same time, end of 2019.
additional rigor has been applied to strengthen methodological assumptions, triangulate third-
party databases, and methodically extract redundant organizations. See the full methodology
on the following page. While an advantage of market sizing is to compare the market to itself over time, it is possible that the
differences between last year’s estimated size and this year’s figure are a consequence of a combination of growth in the market
and also a stronger, richer data set.

To avoid confusion, it is important to note that the 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey only describes the assets of a
respondent sample of 294 investors and therefore does not represent the full market size. Drawing on a separate, more inclusive
database of impact investing organizations, this market sizing analysis goes beyond the Annual Survey sample to estimate top-
line data on the full industry.

SIZE OF THE MARKET

This analysis examines the supply of capital allocated to impact investing as of the end of 2019, using impact investing AUM as
the indicator of market size.

The GIIN estimates that over 1,720 organizations manage USD 715 billion in impact investing AUM as of the end of 2019. The
market comprises a range of investor types, in terms of characteristics like organization type, headquarters location, and investor size.

DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
The market size database captures many types of organizations, across both asset managers and asset owners. The majority
(70%) are asset managers, while 17% are foundations. Others include diversified financial institutions, banks, DFIs, family offices
and institutional asset owners such as pension funds and insurance companies (Figure A).

Figure A: Organization type

n = 1,728 4%
2% 1%
3%
Percent of respondents 3%
70% Asset managers
17% Foundations
17%
3% Diversified financial institutions
3% DFIs
2% Family offices
1% Pension funds and insurance companies 70%
4% Others

Note: Includes only organizations represented in the database (n = 1,728). ‘Other’ includes corporations,
community development finance institutions (CDFIs), and non-governmental organizations.
Source: GIIN

53 Abhilash Mudaliar and Hannah Dithrich, Sizing the Impact Investing Market (New York: The GIIN, April 2019).

40 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
The database also includes a global group of investors. Half are based in the U.S. and Canada (50%) and 29% are based in
Western, Northern & Southern Europe (Figure B). It also includes investors based in regions like Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin
America & the Caribbean, Asia, and the Middle East & North Africa.
Figure B: Organizations’ headquarters location
n = 1,419; excludes organizations for which headquarters location was unknown.
Percent of respondents 0.5% 1%
50% U.S. & Canada 3% 2% 1%
3%
29% Western, Northern, & Southern Europe 3%
5% Sub-Saharan Africa 4%
4% Latin America & Caribbean (including Mexico) 5%
3% Southeast Asia
3% East Asia
50%
3% South Asia
2% Oceania
1% Middle East & North Africa
0.5% Eastern Europe & Central Asia 29%

1% No single headquarters location

Source: GIIN

RANGE OF ASSETS MANAGED

Within the estimated market size AUM of USD 715 billion, there is a wide range in the amount of impact investing capital
that organizations manage.

The database includes capital allocated across asset classes, both in private and public markets. The GIIN did not determine
which asset classes to include or exclude but rather included those that investors classified as impact investments.

Over 1,200 asset managers account for just over half (54%) of industry assets under management, while 50 development
finance institutions (DFIs) manage over a third (36%) of total industry assets (Figure C). Pension funds and insurance
companies manage 3% of total directly invested AUM, as do diversified financial institutions. Foundations and family offices
account for smaller proportions of total AUM.

Figure C: AUM by organization type

n = 1,728. Figures represent direct investments only, as of the end of 2019.
Percent of respondents 1% 0.3%

3% 3%
54% Asset managers 3%
36% DFIs
3% Pension funds and insurance companies
3% Diversified financial institutions
1% Foundations
0.3% Family offices
36% 54%
3% Others

Note: Total AUM represented is USD 621 billion, which is based on the database AUM before estimating for
organizations not included in the database. (See the methodology on the following page for details).
‘Other’ includes corporations, community development finance institutions (CDFIs), and
non-governmental organizations.
Source: GIIN

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 41
 The median organization manages USD 37 million, while the average manages USD 542 million (Figure D).

Figure D: Distribution of impact investor AUM

n = 865 organizations with known AUM data. Includes directly invested capital only, as of the end of 2019. Showing 5TH through 95TH percentiles. Figures in USD millions.
Organization AUM (USD millions)

542

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800

5TH Percentile 25TH Percentile Median (50TH Percentile) 75TH Percentile 95TH Percentile Mean
USD 7 million USD 37 million USD 179 million USD 542 million
Note: Represents organizations with known AUM data (n = 865). For the remaining organizations (n = 863), AUM figures were estimated using assumptions (see step 4 of Methodology).
Source: GIIN

MARKET SIZING METHODOLOGY

To calculate the impact investing market size, the following method was deployed.

1. Compiled a database of impact investing organizations

The Research Team initially compiled a database of impact investing organizations (not individual investors or specific
funds). This database contains 1,728 organizations and was initially built by drawing from a variety of sources, including the
GIIN’s own data assets from past research studies54 and reputable third-party impact investor networks.

The database was compiled using the GIIN’s definition of impact investing, which indicates that investors must intend to create
a positive, measurable social and environmental impact alongside a financial return.55 The Research Team distinguished between
impact investors and those that only employ analogous practices such as negative screening or ESG strategies. To do this,
the team drew data from past GIIN research studies (for which organizations had self-identified as impact investors) or from
networks and databases recognized to focus specifically on impact investors. The team triangulated its database against other
third-party databases like the 2020 ImpactAssets,56 the Global Impact Platform managed by Phenix Capital57 and the 2020 list
of signatories to the International Finance Corporation’s Operating Principles for Impact Management.58

In addition, the Research Team also identified a subset of the database where AUM was either unknown or not updated
since 2015. From this subset, a random sample of 684 organizations was drawn.59 In each instance, the organization’s public
web profile was accessed and a ‘key word analysis’ was conducted.60 After concluding this exercise, 107 organizations were

54 The GIIN’s data assets include: Annual Impact Investor Surveys conducted over the past ten years, The State of Impact Measurement & Management Practice surveys
conducted in 2017 and 2019, the GIIN regional landscaping studies, and its membership base.
55 The GIIN defines impact investments as investments made with the intention to generate positive, measurable social and environmental impact alongside a financial return.
They can be across asset classes, in both emerging and developed markets, and target a range of returns from below-market to market-rate, depending on the investors’
strategic goals.
56 ImpactAssets, “ImpactAssets 50,” https://www.impactassets.org/ia50_new/?filters=
57 Phenix Capital, “Global Impact Platform,” https://globalimpactplatform.com/
58 Impact Principles, “Operating Principles for Impact Investing,” https://www.impactprinciples.org/
59 Using a 95% confidence level and a confidence interval of 1.76.
60 Key words included: ‘social,’ ‘environmental,’ ‘social/environmental outcomes,’ ‘social/environmental measurement,’ ‘sustainability,’ ‘communities,’ ‘Opportunity Zones,’
‘underserved,’ ‘sustainable investing,’ ‘ethical investing,’ ‘economic development,’ ‘SDGs,’ and references to SDG targets. Several keywords needed to be present to
indicate that the organization’s stated intent was to follow the principles outlined in the Core Characteristics of Impact Investing. Each website was accessed between
May 25 and May 27, 2020.

42 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
removed from the database. At the same time, the Research Team used this random sample to identify any organizations
that had become inactive since the initial compilation of the database using the website as a proxy for activity. After
concluding this exercise, a further 64 organizations were removed from the database.

2. Gathered data on organizations’ impact investing AUM

The team attained impact investing AUM information for 50% of these organizations (n = 865), drawing from various
sources such as data submitted by organizations for past GIIN research studies, online public sources, and third-party
databases mentioned above. As data was compiled, it was triangulated for overlap and duplicate listings. All duplicate listings
were removed and the most recent AUM figure was used. In instances of repeat listings from the same year and where there
were differences in AUM, the most conservative figure was used.

All data is self-reported by organizations. AUM figures include only impact investing assets (in cases where organizations
make both impact investments and ‘impact-agnostic’ investments).

For 59% of organizations, data was accurate as of year-end 2019, while others were from previous years. For earlier AUM
figures, the team estimated AUM as of the end of 2019 by applying a growth rate to investor portfolios. The team drew
from analysis of 2020 Annual Survey repeat respondents (see page 29), which grew their aggregate AUM at a CAGR of
17% since 2016. However, this was largely driven by two respondents, without which repeat respondents grew their AUM at a
CAGR of 9%. To use a conservative estimate, the Research Team therefore used 9% in this market sizing analysis.

3. Counted only directly invested capital to eliminate potential double-counting

The database includes both asset managers and asset owners. It includes those that make direct investments into projects
and organizations and those that invest indirectly, through asset managers. For this reason, the AUM of some organizations
likely includes investments into asset managers in the database.61 To avoid potentially double-counting assets, the GIIN
counted only directly invested capital. To do this, the GIIN used a two-pronged approach: for organizations that had
participated in GIIN Annual Surveys, the team counted only capital invested directly, since respondents had shared these
figures. For organizations that had not participated in the Annual Surveys, the team analyzed the average proportion of
assets invested directly by each organization type, drawing on data from the 2020 Annual Survey. The team then used these
averages to count only direct investments.

4. Estimated the AUM of organizations for which AUM data was unknown
Next, the team estimated the assets managed by the remaining 863 organizations for which AUM figures were unknown.
The team identified each investor by their organization type, and then applied the average AUM of each organization type
(drawing from averages of those with known AUM and looking at only directly invested capital). To produce averages that
were realistic and not skewed by particularly large organizations, the team identified large outliers within each organization
type and excluded these organizations from average calculations. The total estimated direct AUM for all 1,728 organizations
in the database was USD 621 billion.

5. Estimated the proportion of the full universe captured

While the Research Team has built as comprehensive a database as possible, there are undoubtedly actors that have not
been captured. Drawing on its understanding of the GIIN’s knowledge of the market, the team estimated what proportion
of the universe it might not have captured in the database and from there extrapolated the overall market size. This final
extrapolation added USD 94 billion to the above AUM (roughly 13%), resulting in the final market size of USD 715 billion.

61 For instance, a family office might invest in an asset manager who invests directly into a social enterprise. If the family office and the fund manager managing the
family’s assets are included in the database, the family’s assets would be counted twice. To avoid such cases of potential double-counting, the Research Team included
only assets invested directly instead of indirectly.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 43
 Measuring and managing impact
A core characteristic of impact investing is the measurement and management of impact. This chapter explores the impact
objectives and SDG-aligned themes that impact investors target, along with some of the common tools and frameworks
they use to set objectives and to measure and report their impact performance. Impact investors also shared their
perspectives on how impact measurement and management (IMM) practice has evolved at their organizations since they
first started making impact investments, an indication of the industry’s increasing sophistication over the past decade.

Impact objectives
In this year’s survey, 60% of respondents target both social and environmental impact, while 34% target only social impact and
just 6% focus solely on environmental impact objectives (Figure 34).

Figure 34: Primary impact objectives

n = 294 6%
Percent of respondents
60% Both
34% Social
6% Environmental
34%

60%

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

• Nearly every respondent (97%) seeking below-market-rate returns targets social impact objectives, whether alongside
environmental objectives or as their sole impact objective. And over half of Below-Market Investors (54%) target only
social impact objectives, compared to just a quarter of Market-Rate Investors.

• While a larger proportion of Small and Medium Investors target only social impact objectives (40% each), just 17% of
Large Investors target only social impact. About eight in ten Large Investors focus on both social and environmental
impact, compared to somewhat more than half of Small and Medium Investors (53% and 56%, respectively).

Table 18: Primary impact objective, by sub-groups

Geographic focus Target returns Investor size

DM-focused EM-focused Market-Rate Below-Market

Investors Investors Investors Investors Small Investors Medium Investors Large Investors

Both 59% 57% 68% 43% 53% 56% 79%

Social 31% 41% 25% 54% 7% 5% 4%
Environmental 9% 2% 7% 3% 40% 40% 17%
n 140 126 197 97 159 63 72
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

With growing global consensus around the United Nations’ SDGs, impact investors target a variety of SDG-aligned impact
themes. Nearly three-quarters of respondents target ‘decent work and economic growth’ (SDG 8; Figure 35). About three-
fifths of respondents target ‘no poverty’ (62%; SDG 1) and ‘good health and well-being.’ (59%; SDG 3). Only 16% seek to
address ‘peace, justice, and strong institutions’ (SDG 16), a less common impact target in the industry.

On average, respondents target eight different SDG-aligned impact themes, with the median impact investor targeting
seven impact themes across their portfolio. A small handful of respondents indicated that they do not proactively align with
any SDG-aligned themes or that their investments are cross-cutting and cannot be categorized in this framework.

44 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
Figure 35: SDG-aligned impact themes targeted by impact investors
n = 294; respondents could select multiple answer options.

Decent work and economic growth Percent of respondents 71%

No poverty 62%

Good health and well-being 59%

Reduced inequalities 58%

Affordable and clean energy 57%

Gender equality 56%

Sustainable cities and communities 55%

Climate action 54%

Quality education 49%

Industry, innovation, and infrastructure 46%

Responsible consumption and production 45%

Clean water and sanitation 42%

Zero hunger 40%

Partnerships for sustainable development 37%

Life on land 29%

Life below water 20%

Peace, justice, and strong institutions 16%

Other 7%

Note: ‘Other’ target SDG-aligned impact themes include affordable housing, technology and innovation, small and medium-enterprise development, racial equity, and cross-cutting themes
such as job creation, focus on stakeholders with disabilities, gender equality, and environmental conservation. Some respondents also noted that they do not proactively target SDG-aligned
impact themes.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Subgroups vary in their target impact themes. A greater proportion of DM-Focused Investors, as compared to EM-Focused
Investors, target ‘sustainable cities and communities’ (SDG 11; 70% versus 38%) and ‘climate action’ (SDG 13; 62% versus 44%).
By contrast, EM-Focused Investors tend to target ‘gender equality’ (SDG 5; 71% versus 41% for DM-Focused Investors) and ‘no
poverty’ (SDG 1; 77% versus 48%), an indication that geographic focus helps to shape target impact themes.

Additionally, a greater proportion of Large Investors—nearly seven in ten—focus on ‘climate action’ (SDG 13), compared to about
half each of Small and Medium Investors (48% and 52%, respectively). Large Investors also more commonly target ‘affordable and
clean energy’ (SDG 7; 75%), with again about half of Small and Medium Investors targeting the same (51% and 54%, respectively).

Impact measurement and management systems, tools, and frameworks

In order to set impact objectives and to measure and report impact performance, impact investors use a wide variety of
industry frameworks, tools, and systems. Most commonly, respondents use the SDGs (73% reporting use for at least one
purpose), the IRIS Catalog of Metrics (46%), and IRIS+ Core Metrics Sets (36%; Figure 36).62 These findings align with
those in The State of Impact Measurement and Management Practice report, published by the GIIN in January 2020, which
similarly identified the SDGs, IRIS, IRIS+, and the Impact Management Project’s five dimensions of impact as the most
commonly used tools, systems, and frameworks.63

Most investors use a blend of these resources to help them understand, measure, and manage their impact. The vast
majority (89%) use at least one external resource in their IMM practice. The average and median impact investor both use
three tools, systems, or frameworks to measure and manage impact. The remaining 11% of respondents indicating that they
use no external resources, and some noted that they use proprietary rather than external frameworks in their IMM practice.

62 IRIS+ is the generally accepted system for measuring, managing, and optimizing impact. IRIS+ Core Metrics Sets are concise evidence-based sets of IRIS metrics,
organized by impact theme. One-third of respondents use both the IRIS Catalog of Metrics and IRIS+ Core Metrics Sets. For more, see https://iris.thegiin.org/.
63 Rachel Bass, Hannah Dithrich, Sophia Sunderji, and Noshin Nova, The State of Impact Measurement and Management Practice, 2nd ed. (New York: The GIIN, January 2020).

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 45
 Figure 36: Overall use of tools, frameworks, and systems
n = 294; respondents could select multiple answer options.

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Percent of respondents 73%

IRIS Catalog of Metrics 46%

IRIS+ Core Metrics Sets 36%

Impact Management Project (IMP) 32%

United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI) 29%

B Analytics / GIIRS 18%

Operating Principles for Impact Management 18%

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 11%

Aeris CDFI rating system 11% 25%

Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) 9%

Other 17%

We do not use any external tools or frameworks 11%

Note: ‘Other’ includes various external tools and frameworks, both broad and sector-specific, including the Impact Multiple of Money, CERISE-SPI4, SPI4-Alinus, GRESB, TruCost, HIPSO,
Lean Data’s 60 Decibels, Progress out of Poverty Index, GOGLA, IPAR, and MESIS. Some respondents also described general frameworks such as theory of change or logic frameworks as well as
various proprietary measurement and management systems.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

These tools and frameworks tend to target different purposes. Some provide guidance for setting impact objectives, others
focus on measurement, and still others offer a standard for reporting impact performance. Respondents to this survey
identified how they use each of these tools and frameworks (Figure 37). Despite the abundance of tools with varying
purposes, in general, impact investors most commonly rely on the SDGs and IRIS/IRIS+ across all three functions: setting
objectives, measurement, and reporting.

To set impact objectives: Respondents most often use the SDGs (52%), the Impact Management Project’s five dimensions of
impact convention (21%), and the IRIS Catalog of Metrics (19%).

To measure their impact performance: Well over a third of respondents turn toward the SDGs, IRIS Catalog of Metrics, (at
37% and 36%, respectively), or both, while 29% of respondents use IRIS+ Core Metrics Sets.

To report impact performance: Just under half of respondents use the SDGs (48%), while 27% use the IRIS Catalog of Metrics.
Figure 37: Use of tools, frameworks, and systems, by purpose
n = 294; respondents could select multiple answer options for each purpose.
52%
48%

37% 36%
29%
27%
20% 21% 21%
19% 18%
16% 16% 16% 14% 13% 15% 15% 16%
13% 12% 11%
10% 10% 9% 10%
7% 8% 7% 9% 5% 5% 4%
4% 4% 3%

United Nations IRIS Catalog IRIS+ Core Impact United Nations B Analytics / Operating Global Aeris CDFI Sustainability Other We do not use
Sustainable of Metrics Metrics Sets Management Principles for GIIRS Principles for Reporting rating Accounting any external
Development Project (IMP) Responsible Impact Initiative system Standards tools or
Goals Investment (UNPRI) Management (GRI) Board (SASB) frameworks

To set impact objectives To measure impact performance To report our impact performance

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Geographic focus plays a role in preferences for IMM tools, systems, and frameworks. Although nearly every respondent that
uses an external IMM system is headquartered in developed markets, some interesting trends surfaced for respondents that make
investments in emerging markets. In particular, when measuring impact performance, just under half of EM-Focused Investors use
the IRIS Catalog of Metrics (48%) versus about a quarter of those that invest primarily in developed markets (26%). And more
EM-Focused Investors (37% versus 21% of DM-Focused Investors) also use IRIS+ Core Metrics Sets to measure their impact.

46 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
By contrast, a greater proportion of DM-Focused Investors (17%) uses Aeris to report their impact performance, compared to just
1% of EM-Focused Investors. Also, a larger share of DM-Focused Investors uses the SDGs in their IMM approach, especially for
setting impact targets; 60% of EM-Focused Investors use the SDGs for settings targets (versus 42% of DM-Focused Investors).

Evolution of demand for impact investments and IMM practice

This year’s survey examined how impact investors’ perceptions of their own impact investments and IMM practices have
changed since their organizations first began to make impact investments. Quite clearly, as the market has grown and matured,
investors have strengthened their approaches to measuring and managing impact, with greater external client demand for
impact investments, greater demand for more sophisticated IMM, and growing alignment with global development agendas.

The greatest proportion of respondents agreed that their organizations have increased the rigor of their IMM practices (88%;
Figure 38). About eight in ten also indicated seeing greater demand externally from clients to make impact investments
compared to when they first started as impact investors. Just under three-quarters reported that their organizations are more
aligned with global development agendas.

Figure 38: Changes in IMM practice and demand compared to when impact investors first started making investments
Number of respondents shown beside each bar; optional question. n=

My organization has increased the rigor of its impact Percent of respondents 47% 41% 9% 3% 0% 273
measurement and management practice.
There is greater demand externally from
clients to make impact investments. 32% 48% 17% 1% 1% 269

My organization is more aligned with global

31% 42% 20% 5% 2% 272
development agendas.
We more often publicly report on the impact of
our impact investments. 27% 38% 25% 10% 1% 271

Our investment committee more often considers potential

impact performance prior to proceeding with a deal. 25% 40% 30% 4% 0% 274

There is greater demand internally from employees

or board members to make impact investments. 21% 38% 37% 3% 1% 271

Our impact performance is now independently verified. 10% 17% 34% 31% 8% 271

We more often compare our impact performance

with peers. 7% 24% 46% 20% 3% 267

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Significant areas of opportunity remain. Nearly one quarter of respondents (23%) do not compare their impact performance
with peers in the industry more often than when they first started making impact investments. The GIIN’s The State of Impact
Measurement and Management Practice report highlighted comparing impact results with market performance as the most
significant challenge impact investors face within their organizations.64 And, concerning the independent verification of impact
results, 39% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that their impact performance is now independently verified.

The industry as a whole is making progress on both of these fronts by developing infrastructure to strengthen the market’s
approach to both the impact verification and comparison of impact. For example, the Operating Principles for Impact
Management, launched by the IFC in April 2019, call for independent verification and have a total of 94 signatories as of May
2020.65 To enable comparisons on the basis of impact, the GIIN, in collaboration with the industry, has developed an approach
to rigorously aggregate, contextualize, and compare investments’ impact through its Impact Performance Studies.66

Respondents’ perceptions of organizational evolution vary with their target returns philosophy. Just over half of Market-Rate
Investors strongly agreed that their organizations had increased the rigor of their IMM practices, while a smaller proportion
(39%) of Below-Market Investors indicated the same. A greater share of Market-Rate Investors also strongly agreed that
they are now more aligned with global development agendas (34%) than those targeting below-market-rate returns (24%).
Interestingly, while 39% of those focused on emerging markets strongly believe their organizations are now more aligned with
global development agendas, less than a quarter (22%) of DM-Focused Investors reported the same.

64 Rachel Bass, Hannah Dithrich, Sophia Sunderji, and Noshin Nova, The State of Impact Measurement and Management Practice, 2nd ed. (New York: The GIIN, January 2020).
65 IFC, “Operating Principles for Impact Management,” https://www.impactprinciples.org/.
66 Rachel Bass, Noshin Nova, Sophia Sunderji, Evaluating Impact Performance (New York: The GIIN, October 2019).

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 47
 A DECADE OF IMPACT MEASUREMENT
MARKET DEVELOPMENT
AND MANAGEMENT: FROM TAXONOMIES
TO CORE METRICS AND ANALYTICS
Impact measurement and management (IMM) is, and has always been, an integral cornerstone of the
practice of impact investing. Impact management is one of the four key practices outlined in the GIIN’s Core
Characteristics of Impact Investing.67 IMM has greatly evolved over the past decade. The original Annual
Impact Investor Survey, produced 10 years ago, revealed that the overwhelming majority of impact investors
used proprietary measurement systems to measure their impact. In fact, 85% of respondents in 2010 used their
own systems, while 13% used an investee’s system and just 2% employed a third-party system.68 There was no
widespread use of any frameworks or conventions to allow impact investors to understand their impact in a
standardized way.

Now, a decade later, a dramatic shift has gained standard impact measurement systems widespread adoption
across the industry; nearly nine in ten respondents to this year’s survey use a measurement tool or system.
A variety of measurement standards, tools, and frameworks have matured alongside the industry, with the
average respondent now using three different tools to measure and manage their impact: selecting impact
targets, guiding expectations, and measuring and optimizing impact. This has allowed impact investors to
become increasingly sophisticated in their impact management approach, as the market has shifted from
seeking buy-in for impact measurement to integrating impact across all stages of the investment process.
Outlined below are the tools and frameworks impact investors use most widely, along with the role they play
in the measurement and management process.

Shaping impact targets and processes: Impact investors most commonly rely on the United Nations’
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to shape their impact targets, with 73% of respondents to
this year’s survey reporting using the SDGs. Members of the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development in 2015, a call to action to address social and environmental challenges. Its
predecessor, the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals—intended to be achieved by 2015—gained
only modest traction in the industry. The SDGs, however, have become the most widely used framework
among impact investors. In addition to target-setting, impact investors often use the SDGs to guide their
impact measurement practice by mapping investments to the SDGs, and channeling capital toward SDG-
aligned priorities. In 2019, the IFC launched its Operating Principles for Impact Management to build
consensus and discipline around the processes inherent to impact investing.69 With over 93 signatories as
of May 2020, the Principles establish nine features for effective impact management across the impact
investing process: strategic intent, origination and structuring, portfolio management, exits, and independent
verification.

Measuring and optimizing impact results: IRIS+ is the generally accepted system to measure, manage, and
optimize impact, managed as a public good by the GIIN. As one of the most widely used systems, IRIS+ is
used by 36% of respondents and IRIS by 46%. Launched in 2019, IRIS+ builds on the IRIS Catalog of Metrics,
first released in 2008. Over the last ten years, the catalog has grown in coverage and has become increasingly
aligned with other standards and metrics sets. The catalog now includes more than 600 standardized metrics

67 The GIIN, “Core Characteristics of Impact Investing,” https://thegiin.org/characteristics.

68 Nick O’Donohoe, Christina Leijonhufvud, Yasemin Saltuk, Antony Bugg-Levine, and Margot Brandenburg, Impact Investments: An Emerging Asset Class
(New York: J.P. Morgan, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the GIIN, November 2010).
69 Impact Principles, “Operating Principles for Impact Investing,” https://www.impactprinciples.org/.

48 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
for measuring impact. From 2018 to 2019, the GIIN led a broad and global consultation process through which more
than 1,000 stakeholders informed the evolution of IRIS to IRIS+. The resulting IRIS+ system helps impact investing
stakeholders translate their impact intentions into results by helping them to frame their impact goals in a common
way (using the SDGs or common impact categories), providing a built-in evidence base to inform theories of change,
offering Core Metrics Sets (short lists of key metrics to assess progress towards impact goals) in addition to the full
IRIS catalog of metrics, and offering third-party resources and guidance on how to advance IMM practice. IRIS+
has over 9,000 registered users as of April 2020 and is aligned with more than 50 other standards, metrics sets, and
conventions, including the SDGs, the five dimensions of impact, and HIPSO.

Guiding impact expectations: To help define impact in a common way, the Impact Management Project (IMP)
launched a global consultation approach with the IMP’s Practitioner Community of over 2,000 enterprises and
investors that culminated in the “five dimensions of impact.” This convention identifies five key dimensions that
help stakeholders understand their effects on people and the planet in a common way: who, what, how much, risk,
and contribution.70 As of 2020, the IMP serves as a forum for building consensus on how to measure, manage, and
report on impact. It manages the IMP Structured Network, a collaborative, coordinated effort of standard-setting
organizations to provide complete standards for impact measurement, management, and reporting.

Interpreting and comparing impact results: The industry’s next milestone is to interpret impact results and
integrate impact into all investment decisions. Standardized, contextualized impact results, along with targets for
impact and financial performance, will enable the industry to design analytical tools for impact investors. Using these
tools, impact investors can make more efficient investment decisions, inform their management of investments, and
allocate capital to investments with greater impact. The industry is already progressing towards this milestone. In
2019, the GIIN launched the Impact Performance Studies, the industry’s first cross-portfolio effort to aggregate and
compare impact performance within a sector.71 In seeking to rigorously and transparently contextualize and compare
investments’ impact, these studies represent an important step toward differentiating and benchmarking investments
based on their impact performance. Harvard Business School has also developed an approach to incorporate monetary
valuations of impact into accounting statements through the Impact-Weighted Accounts Project.72 This research
effort, which forms part of the Global Steering Group and the IMP’s broader Impact Weighted Accounts Initiative,
seeks to include line items in financial statements to reflect a company’s positive and negative impacts on employees,
customers, the environment, and society as a whole. This integrated view of performance is meant to capture impact
within accounting statements and drive informed decision-making. The Impact Frontiers Collaboration, an initiative
of the IMP, also developed four steps to enable the integration of impact and financial analysis for investor decision-
making.73 This is the first output of this consensus building group in an effort to pioneer new ways of integrating impact
and financial management.

Each of these resources plays a complementary role in strengthening investors’ IMM practice, helping investors to
set impact targets, select impact metrics, and measure, understand, and report their impact performance. Ultimately,
coalescing around more standardized approaches can facilitate the analysis of impact performance and lead to smarter
investment decisions.

70 Impact Management Project, “Impact Management Norms,” https://impactmanagementproject.com/impact-management/impact-management-norms/.

71 Rachel Bass, Noshin Nova, Sophia Sunderji, Evaluating Impact Performance (New York: The GIIN, October 2019). https://thegiin.org/research/publication/evaluating-
impact-performance
72 https://www.hbs.edu/impact-weighted-accounts/Pages/default.aspx
73 Stanford Social Innovation Review, “How Investors Can Integrate Social Impact With Financial Performance to Improve Both”, Impact Frontiers Collaboration, May 15,
2020, https://ssir.org/articles/entry/how_investors_can_integrate_social_impact_with_financial_performance_to_improve_both.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 49
 Current market topics
Each year, the Research Team gathers practitioners’ perspectives on key topics within the industry. This year, respondents
shared insights on their engagement with climate investing and catalytic capital.

Climate investing
Impact investors increasingly recognize that substantial capital flows are needed to address the climate crisis. Over two-thirds
of respondents (68%) address climate change through their impact investments. Of that sub-sample, 76% target market-rate
returns, and 76% make primarily direct investments. The vast majority (80%) are headquartered in developed markets and
target environmental impact objectives either as their sole objective (8%) or alongside social objectives (84%).

Most respondents addressing climate change through their impact investments (83%) do so in order to ‘address an urgent,
significant global challenge.’ More than two-thirds seek to ‘mitigate against the physical risks caused by climate change’
(Figure 39), such as droughts, storms, and floods, among other natural disasters resulting from increased temperatures, rising
sea levels, and changes in weather patterns. By contrast, only 54% address climate change through impact investments in
order to mitigate against the transition risks caused by climate change—that is, unplanned or abrupt changes to businesses
or assets that may occur after an investment transaction—such as changes in policies, shifts to low-carbon technologies, or
other liabilities.74 More than one-third of respondents address climate change in response to client interest, while just 15% do
so in response to regulations.

Figure 39: Reasons for addressing climate change through impact investments
Number of respondents beside to each bar. Respondents could select multiple reasons.
n=
To address an urgent, significant global challenge Percent of respondents 83% 166

To mitigate against the physical risks caused by climate change 68% 135

To advance a global development agenda, such as the SDGs or Paris Climate Accord 62% 123

To mitigate against the transition risks caused by climate change 54% 108

To respond to client interest 37% 73

To respond to regulations 15% 29

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

By subgroup, a greater proportion of certain investor types address climate change to mitigate transition risks: more Market-
Rate than Below-Market Investors (62% versus 29%), more DM-Focused than EM-Focused Investors (63% versus 43%), and
more Large than Small Investors (75% versus 44%).

Additionally, several respondents described the disproportionate effects of climate change on economically vulnerable
communities. As a U.S.-based respondent described, those most likely to face adverse impacts from the consequences of
climate change also “pay the highest costs for mitigating that negative impact.” This reflects the inherent link between social
and environmental impact, another motivation several respondents cited for making investments to address climate change.

Respondents take various approaches to address climate change through their investments. Most commonly, impact
investors seek investments that mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (84%; Figure 40). Meanwhile,
close to the same proportion of respondents (82%) seek investments that prevent future greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps
unsurprisingly, 78% of those that seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also seek to prevent future emissions.

74 Definitions for ‘physical risk’ and ‘transition risk’ are adapted from the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).

50 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
Figure 40: How respondents address climate change through impact investments
Number of respondents shown beside each bar. Respondents could select multiple answer options
n=
We seek investments that mitigate climate change through a reduction in greenhouse Percent of respondents
gas emissions. 84% 168

We seek investments that mitigate climate change through prevention of future greenhouse
gas emissions. 82% 164

We seek investments that support climate change adaptation. 69% 138

We seek investments that mitigate climate change through sequestration of

51% 102
greenhouse gasaes.

Other 11% 22

Note: ‘Other’ includes irrigation and responsible cultivation, circular economy projects, roof-top and community solar, behavioral change of consumptive patterns and usage of natural
resources, weather insurance, and the creation of carbon credits. Some respondents also indicated they only invest in climate change when there is a social benefit to communities.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Impact investors may seek investments to mitigate climate change at different levels of operation (Figure 41), whether
through an investee companies’ products or services, an investee companies’ operations, or an investee projects’ assets.
Respondents most commonly address climate change through their investee companies’ products or services.

Figure 41: Approaches to address climate change

Respondents could select multiple answer options.
n = 138 101 80 128 96 75 73 47 53 107 77 62
69%
64%
54%
51%
48%
40% 39%
38% 37% 31%
24% 27%

We seek investments that mitigate We seek investments that mitigate We seek investments that mitigate We seek investments that support
climate change through a reduction climate change through prevention climate change through climate change adaptation.
in greenhouse gas emissions. of future greenhouse gas emissions. sequestration of greenhouse gases.

Through investee companies’ products or services Through investee companies’ operations Through investee projects’ assets

Note: While sub-group differences mentioned in the narrative are statistically significant, not all comparisons in the table were found to be statistically significant.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Engagement with catalytic capital

Impact investors engage with catalytic capital as a way to NOTE TO READERS
generate positive impact and may play different roles in “Catalytic capital structures are investments that
catalytic capital structures. Overall, 78% of respondents accept disproportionate risk and/or concessionary returns
have either engaged in catalytic capital structures or plan relative to conventional investment in order to generate
to do so in the future. More than two-thirds of the total positive impact and enable third-party investment that
sample currently engage in catalytic capital, whether by otherwise would not be possible. This can include debt,
providing catalytic capital, participating in a transaction equity, and guarantees along with investment instruments.”
involving catalytic capital, or raising catalytic capital
from investors (Table 19).75 A greater proportion of – John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Below-Market Investors have provided catalytic capital Catalytic capital is deployed for many reasons, most
compared to Market-Rate Investors (73% versus 37%). commonly to enable innovation and prove a novel business
A larger share of Private Debt–Focused Investors than model, financing structure, or target market; support early-
Private Equity–Focused Investors have raised catalytic stage businesses; and reach underserved populations, as
capital from investors (60% versus 24%). described on page 53.

75 While subgroup analysis mentioned in the narrative is statistically significant, not all comparisons in the table were found to be statistically significant.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 51
 Table 19: Respondents’ participation in catalytic capital structures

Market-Rate Below-Market DM-HQ EM-HQ Private Equity- Private Debt-

All Investors Investors Investors Investors focused Investors focused Investors

We have provided catalytic capital. 49% 37% 73% 52% 39% 27% 58%

We have participated in a transactionin 34% 32% 39% 37% 23% 22% 51%
which catalytic capital was provided by
another organization.
We have raised catalytic capital from 32% 27% 43% 31% 33% 24% 60%
our investors.
We have not engaged with catalytic 22% 29% 9% 22% 25% 34% 11%
capital and do not plan to in the future.
We have not engaged with catalytic 11% 13% 6% 8% 20% 16% 8%
capital but plan to in the future.
n 294 197 97 227 61 83 65
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

In terms of instrument, those engaging in a catalytic role—whether by providing, participating in, or raising catalytic capital—
do so most frequently through debt with flexible terms (62%), grants (47%), and equity in an “all catalytical capital” structure
(46%). Junior equity is the least commonly used instrument, with only 14% of respondents using this type of instrument to
engage with catalytic capital.

Investors that provide catalytic capital

In total, 144 respondents have provided catalytic capital, constituting a diverse array of organization types. These
respondents are primarily for-profit asset managers (27% of those that provide catalytic capital), foundations (22%), and
not-for-profit asset managers (20%). Investors deployed a total of USD 3.5 billion in catalytic capital in 2019, with the average
and median investor deploying nearly USD 34 million and USD 5 million, respectively (Table 20).

Table 20: Investment activity of catalytic capital providers in 2019

n Total Median Average

Amount of capital deployed (in USD millions) 103 3,487 5 34

Number of transactions 99 2,707 6 27

Note: In total, 144 respondents in the sample reported providing catalytic capital. Of these, 103 reported deployed catalytic capital in 2019 and 99 provided data for the number of transactions.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

52 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
Respondents that provide catalytic capital most commonly do so through debt with flexible terms (72% of providers; Figure 42).
Just under half provide grant capital (49%), equity in an “all catalytic capital” structure (49%), and subordinated debt (46%).

Figure 42: Types of catalytic capital that organizations provide

Number of respondents beside each bar; respondents could select multiple types of catalytic capital.
n=

Debt with flexible terms (e.g. below-market returns, longer tenor) Percent of respondents 72% 103

A grant (to be used as first-loss capital or via a recoverable grant) 49% 71

Equity in an “all catalytic capital” structure (e.g. one which invests in fragile states or
49% 70
untested business models, thus qualifying entirely as catalytic

Subordinated debt 46% 66

A guarantee (funded or un-funded) 38% 54

Pay-for-success financing (e.g. a social impact bond or a development impact bond) 24% 35

Junior equity 12% 17

Other 8% 11

Note: ‘Other’ types of catalytic capital noted by respondents include technical assistance facilities, public debt, pay-for-success financing indirectly through an intermediary,
capacity-building grants, and business development support for investees.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Investors provide catalytic capital for diverse reasons related to supporting (1) innovation, (2) early-stage investments, (3)
particular populations, (4) specific business models, and (5) underserved places. Most respondents identified each of these
five factors as a reason why they provide catalytic capital. Catalytic capital is most commonly provided because the business
model, financing model, or target market is novel, as 69% of respondents indicated (Figure 43). Sixty-nine percent of
respondents also reported that they provide catalytic capital to build a meaningful track record and/or adequate scale at the
investee level.

Figure 43: Reasons that impact investors provide catalytic capital

Number of respondents beside each bar. Respondents could select multiple reasons; optional question.
n=
Innovation: Catalytic capital is needed due to the novelty of the business model, financing Percent of respondents
model, or target market. 69% 100

Early-stage (including sub-scale): Catalytic capital is needed to build a meaningful track

record and / or adequate scale at the investee level. 69% 100

Population: Catalytic capital is needed to reach underserved stakeholders. 63% 91

Business Model: Catalytic capital is needed to address small transaction sizes, and / or high transaction
62% 89
costs, and / or other economic issues related to the type of product or service offered (e.g., capital intensity).

Place: Catalytic capital is needed to access hard to reach places (e.g., where political, economic, 53% 77
and / or infrastructure factors create significant added costs or risks).

Other 11% 16

Note: ‘Other’ includes to attract commercial capital, meet a specific risk profile, facilitate investments from large institutional investors and increase the scale of impact investing,
fill capital gaps, and address the needs of minority and/or vulnerable populations.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Motivations for providing catalytic capital vary among those active in particular asset classes. More than nine in ten Private
Equity–Focused Investors that provide catalytic capital do so to support innovation, compared to two-thirds of Private
Debt–Focused Investors. On the other hand, Private Debt-focused Investors more often provide catalytic capital to reach
underserved stakeholders (71% versus 55% of Private Equity–focused Investors).

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 53
 Investors that do not provide catalytic capital
Although many respondents are providing catalytic capital, just over half (51%) have not. While some of these respondents
do engage with catalytic capital by raising catalytic capital or participating in catalytic transactions, more than one-third of the
sample has not engaged with catalytic capital at all.

Investors choose not to provide catalytic capital for many reasons. As respondents reported, most commonly this is because
catalytic capital does not fit within their investment models (55%; Figure 44). A small handful reported other reasons, such as
logistical challenges related to appropriate skillsets, deal selection, the availability of co-investors, or ability to generate impact.

Figure 44: Reasons impact investors do not provide catalytic capital

Number of respondents beside each bar. Respondents could select multiple reasons; optional question.
n=

Catalytic capital does not fit within our investment model. Percent of respondents 55% 82

The deals would not yield our desired financial return. 25% 37

We face mandate limitations. 23% 34

We face regulatory barriers (e.g. fiduciary duty). 12% 18

Other 27% 41

Note: ‘Other’ includes lack of skills needed to execute deals efficiently, inability to find the right deals or co-investors, deals would not yield desire impact, transaction costs, lack of
alignment with organizational strategy and to avoid market distortions. Some respondents also indicated that other functions within their organizational structure focus on providing
catalytic capital, while their entity does not .
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

54 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
PAVING THE WAY WITH POLICY: THE EVOLVING

MARKET DEVELOPMENT
ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN IMPACT INVESTING
Over the past decade, governments have increasingly facilitated ecosystems to unlock the full potential of
impact investing in their own countries. From developing policies and frameworks to creating oversight agencies
and making impact investments directly, governments around the world have led in roles across the industry.76
While not itself impact investing, policy that facilitates the practices of Environmental, Social, and Governance
(ESG), responsible, and sustainable investing can also create pathways to impact investing. Supportive regulatory
environments have propelled the market forward, setting precedents for other policymakers to catalyze the growth
of the industry in their own communities. Highlighted here are several noteworthy evolutions taken from the past
decade in government policy to create a supportive environment for impact investing.

Canada: Canada has implemented both federal and provincial legislation over the past decade to support
impact investing. Not long after the term ‘impact investing’ was first coined, the Canadian Task Force on Social
Finance was established in 2010 to help advance the impact investing movement. With the release of its report,
Mobilizing Private Capital for Public Good, many foundations committed to investing at least 10% of their capital
into mission-related investments by 2020.77 In 2012, Nova Scotia passed the Community Interest Companies
Act, while British Columbia enacted a new corporate structure, the Community Contribution Company.78 Both
policies provide a governance framework for social enterprises driven by both profit and social purpose, making
it easier for investors to identify investment opportunities. Most recently, in 2019, Manitoba announced its
Social Impact Bond project, committing to raise CAD 3 million from private investors to provide resources and
parenting support for up to 200 Indigenous mothers who are at risk of having their newborns placed in the child
welfare system.79 At the national level, the Government of Canada developed a Social Innovation and Social
Finance Strategy in 2018 to support innovative approaches to combating social and environmental challenges.
The Strategy includes the nation’s first Social Finance Fund, a commitment of CAD 805 million over 10 years to
channel financing toward innovative ideas targeting social impact objectives.80

Japan: The Japan Social Impact Investment Taskforce along with the start of Japan’s involvement in Social Impact
Bonds (SIBs) began in 2014. Japan funded a five-year project at Meiji University to pilot four social impact–driven
projects in 2015 and 2016 focused on education, employment, and human development primarily for children and
young people. Japan’s SIB market has since grown, with the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare expanding
on the pilot SIB program by launching a grant program for research and development of Japanese SIBs.81 To
encourage sustainable investing and industry growth among institutional investors, Japan established its first
Stewardship Code in 2014, the Principles for Responsible Institutional Investors, and released a revised version

76 While DFIs and government donors also play a critical role in supporting impact investing ecosystems, this market spotlight focuses primarily on policy
developments.
77 MaRS Discovery District, “Canadian Task Force on Social Finance Celebrates a Year of Momentum,” news release, December 13, 2011, https://www.marsdd.com/
news/canadian-task-force-on-social-finance-celebrates-a-year-of-momentum/.
78 Community Interest Companies Act, S.N.S. 2012, c. 38, https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/laws/stat/sns-2012-c-38/latest/part-1/sns-2012-c-38-part-1.pdf; Tamara G. Wong,
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, “Community Contribution Companies: A New Corporate Structure for Social Enterprise,” Lexology, June 5, 2013, https://www.lexology.
com/library/detail.aspx?g=adc4dcad-d276-4887-95b8-11b437e23400.
79 Province of Manitoba, “Manitoba Announces First Social Impact Bond: Doula Project Aims to Strengthen Bonds Between Indigenous Mothers
and Infants and Reduce the Number of Days Infants Spend in Care: Stefanson,” news release, January 7, 2019, https://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.
html?item=44895&posted=2019-01-07.
80 Government of Canada, “Social Innovation and Social Finance Strategy,” updated February 5, 2020, https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/
programs/social-innovation-social-finance/strategy.html.
81 Ken Ito, “The Rise of Social Impact Bonds in Japan,” Japan Times, January 20, 2019, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/esg-consortium/2019/01/20/esg-consortium/rise-
social-impact-bonds-japan/#.Xr1OG2hKg2x.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 1 9 55
 in 2017. The Code has since been signed by 281 institutional investors in Japan (as of April 2020), including the
MARKET DEVELOPMENT
Japanese Government’s Pension Investment Fund and Pension Fund Association.82 In 2017, Japan enacted legislation
to facilitate the transfer of funds from dormant bank accounts to a social investment bank in an arrangement similar
to Big Society Capital in the United Kingdom (see below).83 This new bank will provide funding to alleviate poverty
and revitalize rural areas, targeting children and young people.

Netherlands: In 2008, the Netherlands developed its Dutch Corporate Governance Code, providing best practices
to regulate the governance of companies listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange.84 The government subsequently
revised this Code in 2016, emphasizing the role of long-term sustainable value creation and ‘culture’ as components
of effective corporate governance. In 2014, the Dutch government launched the Dutch Good Growth Fund to
provide financial assistance to Dutch and local SMEs that operate in emerging markets with funding streams
managed by both government and private companies.85 Two year later in 2016, the Dutch Central Bank (DNB)
launched a Sustainable Finance Platform to promote and encourage sustainable investment. In 2019, Dutch pension
funds, the Federation of the Dutch pension funds, non-governmental organizations, trade unions, and the Dutch
government signed the Responsible Business Conduct Agreement, a multi-stakeholder initiative on responsible
investments by pension funds.86 This agreement intends to tackle the negative consequences of pension fund
investments, serving as a ‘minimum’ for ESG practice, in particular for human rights violations and the environment.
In 2019, the government issued its inaugural green bond, a triple-A rated sovereign bond.87 The Dutch Ministry
of Foreign Affairs also backed AGRI3 in January 2020, a blended finance vehicle created by the United Nations
Environmental Programme (UNEP) and Rabobank, an effort to scale up private sector investments in the SDGs.
Notably, the DNB was the first central bank to sign the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) in 2019 and
integrate the six ESG principles into its investment practice.88

South Africa: South Africa has implemented substantial enabling policies over the past decade. For instance, the Code for
Responsible Investing in South Africa (CRISA), launched in 2011, provides guidance to institutional investors on executing
investment analysis and activities in a way that encourages effective governance.89 The South African government also
amended its Pension Fund Regulation 28 in 2011 to facilitate greater consideration of ESG factors in investment selection.90
As of 2019, South Africa has issued guidance notes to pension funds on incorporating and reporting on ESG factors. In
2009, South Africa set up a Venture Capital Company (VCC) tax regime to encourage domestic investment by allowing
companies and trusts that invest in VCCs to reduce their income taxes.91 This tax regime has seen varying degrees of

82 Financial Services Agency of the Japanese Government, “The Council of Experts on the Stewardship Code,” https://www.fsa.go.jp/en/refer/councils/
stewardship/index.html.
83 The Investment Integration Project, Sustainable Investing in Japan.
84 Monitoring Commissie Corporate Governance Code, Ministerie van Economische Zaken, “The Dutch Corporate Governance Code 2008,” https://www.mccg.nl/dutch-
corporate-governance-code.
85 Dutch Good Growth Fund, “About DGGF”, https://english.dggf.nl/about-dggf.
86 https://www.imvoconvenanten.nl/en/pension-funds
87 Vibeka Mair, “ESG Country Profile: The Netherlands,” Responsible Investor, November 28, 2019, https://www.responsible-investor.com/articles/esg-country-profile-the-
netherlands.
88 De Nederlandsche Bank, “DNB First Central Bank to Sign the Principles for Responsible Investment,” news release, March 20, 2019, https://www.dnb.nl/en/news/news-
and-archive/Persberichten2019/dnb382879.jsp.
89 Institute of Directors South Africa, Code for Responsible Investing in SA (Gauteng, Institute of Directors South Africa, 2011).
90 Government Notice No. 34070, National Treasury, No. R. 183, March 4, 2011, “Pension Funds Act, 1956: Amendment of Regulation 28 of the Regulations Made under
Section 36,” https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/34070rg9485gon183.pdf.
91 Income Tax Act No 58 of 1962 (as amended); South African Revenue Service, “Venture Capital Companies,” https://www.sars.gov.za/ClientSegments/Businesses/Pages/
Venture-Capital-Companies.aspx

56 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
success; based on current provisions, these deductions will no longer be permitted after June 2021.92 As of 2018, more than
100 registered VCCs have raised over USD 240 million for South African small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).93 In
2019, the South African government launched the SA SME Fund, which has a target size of USD 100 million and seeks to
allocate funding to incubation programs, growth-stage investments, and impact investments.94

Thailand: In 2010, the government introduced the Thai Social Enterprise Office (TSEO) to stimulate the growth
of social enterprises in the country.95 That year, Thailand also released guidelines for sustainable reporting, and the
Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) has regularly published a list of Thai companies with strong ESG performance.96
In 2016, the government passed the Royal Decree on Tax Exemption, providing tax benefits to both social enterprises
and investors in these enterprises.97 As of 2017, three million micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises are
registered in Thailand and 120,000 organizations operate with a social mission. Such policies supporting the growth
of social enterprises may support and further enable investment opportunities in Thailand. The government has also
focused on incorporating ESG factors into investment processes. In 2019, Thailand’s Government Pension Fund, the
country’s largest institutional investor, released new guidelines implementing ESG criteria across all its investments,
including the use of an ESG scoring tool to evaluate each investment opportunity in stocks and bonds.98

United Kingdom: In 2012, Big Society Capital was founded by the UK government as an independent institution
to grow the social investment market, receiving funding from both dormant English bank accounts and four of the
UK’s largest banks. Since its founding, Big Society Capital has evolved into a financial institution that supports
social sector organizations by deploying capital to fund managers, with USD 2.3 billion in assets currently under
management and made available to social enterprises and charities.99 Two years later, in 2014, the government
introduced the Social Investment Tax Relief program, offering a tax break of 20% of the value of investments
made into organizations with a social purpose.100 The UK has also evolved its pension fund policies. In 2016, the
government published a new code of practice stating that trustees, as part of their fiduciary duty, should consider
ESG factors in pension fund investments when financially significant.101 Subsequently, in 2019, the UK government
mandated pension funds take explicit responsibility to integrate financially material ESG considerations into their
investment approach.102

These policy developments represent some of the many strides governments have made globally in demonstrating
their commitment to impact investing.

92 KPMG, “Section 12J Investments – Is it still a worthwhile investment opportunity?” September 2019, https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/us/pdf/2019/09/tnf-south-
africa-sep27-2019.pdf.
93 Ford Foundation and Dalberg, Impact Investors Foundation Study, December 2019, https://thegiin.org/assets/IIF%20Study%20on%20Impact%20Investing%20Full%20
Report.pdf.
94 South Africa SME Fund, “About the SA SME Fund”, 2019, https://sasmefund.co.za/.
95 Bob Doherty and Ada Chirapaisarnkul, “Social Enterprise Is Set to Take Off in Thailand,” British Council (News and Events), https://www.britishcouncil.org/society/social-
enterprise/news-events/news-social-enterprise-set-to-take-off-in-thailand.
96 Stock Exchange of Thailand, “Thailand Sustainability Investment,” https://www.set.or.th/sustainable_dev/en/sr/sri/tsi_p1.html.
97 Mukund Prasad, Stefanie Bauer, Amar Gokhale, Shreejit Borthakur, and Harish Reddy, The Landscape for Impact Investing in Southeast Asia (New York: The GIIN and
Intellecap, August 2018).
98 Asia Assets Management, “Thailand pension fund to integrate ESG criteria into equity investments in 2020,” news release, November 5, 2019, https://www.asiaasset.
com/post/22858-thaigpfesg1101-gte-1104.
99 Big Society Capital, https://bigsocietycapital.com/.
100 United Kingdom HM Treasury, July 2014, “Social Investment Tax Relief,” https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/329284/Consultation_Social_investment_tax_relief.pdf.
101 Share Action, “New UK Pensions Regulator code of practice: a step forward for responsible investment,” September 2016, https://shareaction.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/09/DCCodeOfPractice-PolicyBriefing.pdf.
102 UN Principles for Responsible Investment, “UK’s new ESG pension rules: four measures to ensure their success,” https://www.unpri.org/pri/pri-blog/uks-new-esg-
pension-rules-four-measures-to-ensure-their-success.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 57
 Investment performance and risk
Target financial returns
The pursuit of financial returns is a hallmark characteristic of impact investing, and these can widely vary from deeply
concessionary to competitively market-rate. This year, just over two-thirds of respondents principally target risk-adjusted,
market-rate returns, while the remaining third are split closely between below-market-rate: closer to market-rate (18%), and
below-market-rate: closer to capital preservation (15%; Figure 45).

Figure 45: Target financial returns principally sought

n = 294
15%
Percent of respondents
67% Risk-adjusted, market-rate returns
18% Below-market-rate returns: closer to market rate
15% Below-market-rate returns: closer to capital preservation

18%

67%

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Target returns vary by organization size and type, reflecting investors’ organizational structures, investment strategies, and
impact objectives. Nearly 90% of Large Investors target market-rate returns, compared to just over 55% of Small Investors.103
In addition, most for-profit asset managers, DFIs, and diversified financial institutions target market-rate returns, while most
family offices and foundations target returns closer to capital preservation (Figure 46).

Figure 46: Target financial returns by organization type

Number of respondents shown above each bar.

n= 5 3 149 8 14 12 40 40 23
0% 0%
5% 4%
9% 13% 21% 28%
13% 42% 40%
7% 39%
Percent of respondents

100% 100% 35%

17% 28%
85%
75% 71%
57%
42% 38%
33%

Pension funds Insurance Asset managers: Diversified financial DFIs Family offices Asset managers: Foundations Other
companies for-profit institutions not-for-profit

Risk-adjusted, market-rate returns Below-market-rate returns: closer to market rate Below-market-rate returns: closer to capital preservation

Note: ‘Other’ organizations include community development finance institutions (CDFIs), NGOs, nonprofits, permanent investment companies, real estate developers, sovereign wealth funds,
and independent federal government agencies.
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

103 Please see page X for a detailed breakdown of the sample by various subgroups, including investor size.

58 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
 Performance relative to expectations
An overwhelming majority of respondents reported meeting or exceeding both their impact expectations and their
financial expectations (99% and 88%, respectively; Figure 47). Respondents were also asked to share what benchmarks
they use to determine their performance relative to expectations by asset class. Just under 20% of investors responded
to that question; financial benchmarks include but are not limited to the MSCI All Country World Index (for global
equities investments), the MSCI World SMID Cap Index, the Barclays Global Aggregate Bond Index (for global fixed-
income investments), the FTSE EPRA/Nareit Developed Index and Bloomberg Commodity Index (for real assets), the
Corporate Emerging Markets Bond Index (CEMBI, for private debt), Cambridge Associates benchmarks (for private
equity), and the Symbiotics Microfinance Index, as well as traditional internal financial reporting indicators. Tools and
systems used to track impact performance include the UN SDGs, the GIIN’s IRIS Catalog of Metrics, B Analytics, and
the performance of investees relative to their targets; most respondents to this question, however, did not align with any
impact benchmarks.

Figure 47: Performance relative to expectations

Number of respondents shown above each bar; some respondents chose ‘not sure’ and are not included.

n= 282 274
1%
12%
Percent of respondents

78%
68%

20% 21%

Financial expectations Impact expectations

Outperforming In line Underperforming

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Performance relative to expectations, and especially reported financial performance, varied by investor subgroup. Just
8% of Market-Rate Investors reported underperforming their financial performance expectations, compared to 20% of
Below-Market Investors (Figure 48). In addition, nearly 20% of EM-Focused Investors reported underperforming financially,
compared to just 7% of DM-Focused Investors. Interestingly, financial performance relative to expectations did not vary
greatly between Private Debt- and Private Equity-focused Investors.

Several additional differences by subgroups were notable but not statistically significant (except where mentioned).
Ninety-two percent of investors focusing more than 75% of their portfolio in the U.S. & Canada reported meeting or
exceeding their financial expectations, and 94% reported the same for their impact expectations. For investors focused
in WNS Europe, 80% reported meeting or exceeding their financial expectations, and 87% met or exceeded their
impact expectations. An impressive 40% of LAC-focused investors and 30% of SSA-focused investors outperformed
their impact expectations; 16% in both groups exceeded their financial expectations. Meanwhile, in two findings which
were statistically significant, just over two-thirds of LAC-focused investors and 54% of SSA-focused investors met
their financial expectations. Investors focused in South Asia also reported strong performance, with 92% meeting or
exceeding their financial performance benchmarks and 100% meeting their impact performance benchmarks. Data
were not sufficient to evaluate investors focused on other regions.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 59
 Figure 48: Financial performance relative to expectations by returns philosophy, asset class focus, and geographic focus
Number of respondents shown beside each bar; some respondents chose ‘not sure’ and are not included. Respondents that selected ‘in-line with expectations’ are not shown in this chart.
n=
8% Underperforming Market-Rate Investors Outperforming 24% 192

20% Below-Market Investors 11% 90

Percent of respondents

16% Private Equity-focused Investors 14% 76

11% Private Debt-focused Investors 18% 65

7% DM-focused Investors 25% 132

18% EM-focused Investors 15% 124

12% Overall 20% 282

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Realized gross returns

To better contextualize their financial performance, respondents shared their realized gross returns since inception of their
impact investing activity. Unsurprisingly, equity investments generated higher returns on average than investments through
debt or real assets. Subgroups display some variation in average realized gross returns (Figure 49).

Figure 49: Average realized gross returns since inception for private markets investments
Number of respondents shown above each bar; year of first impact investment ranges from 1956 – 2019, with 2011 as the median year. Averages shown beside each diamond;
error bars show +/- one standard deviation.
n= 18 37 18 30 32 42 11 20 21 4
35%
30%
25%
20%
18%
15% 16%
13%
10% 10% 10% 11%
8% 8% 8%
7%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
DM EM DM EM DM EM DM EM DM EM
Market-rate Below market-rate Market-rate Below market-rate Market-rate

Private debt Private equity Real assets

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Naturally, private equity investments saw the greatest variance. In general, market-rate investments performed better
than their below-market-rate counterparts, while emerging-market investments, across the board, performed similarly to
developed-market investments with similar ranges of return.

Portfolio risks
This year, respondents were asked to evaluate both the financial and impact risks to their portfolios. In terms of financial risk,
as in years past, the largest share of investors (77%) stated that business model and execution risk is at least a moderate risk
facing their portfolios, while a smaller share (68%) identified liquidity and exit risk at the same level (Figure 50).104 Over a third
of investors considered risks such as country and currency risk and macroeconomic risk to be severe; of course, perceptions
varied widely by geographic region. A significant share of DM-Focused Investors did not perceive any country and currency
risk (41%), while 82% of EM-Focused Investors perceived it to be at least a moderate risk. In addition, 35% of SSA-focused

104 Please refer to Appendix 3 on page 74 for full definitions of the various portfolio and impact risks respondents were asked to assess.

60 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
 investors and just over a quarter of LAC-focused investors cited country and currency risk as severe; respondents investing
in SSA were also most likely to cite macroeconomic risk as severe. Thirteen percent of investors focused in WNS Europe
reported severe macroeconomic risk, compared to 4% of U.S. & Canada–focused investors.

Investors across various segments also perceived different risks. Fewer Private Debt–Focused Investors (51%) cited at least
moderate liquidity and exit risk compared to Private Equity–Focused Investors (82%). Furthermore, 36% of Private Equity–
Focused Investors perceive severe business model and execution risk, compared to 17% of Private Debt–Focused Investors.

Figure 50: Contributors of financial risks to impact investment portfolios

Number of respondents shown above each bar. Some respondents chose ‘not sure’ and are not included. Year of first impact investment ranges from 1949 – 2019,
with 2011 as the median year. Ranked by percent that selected ‘severe risk.'

n= 291 287 285 287 286 287 284 278

4% 7%
10% 10% 11%
20% 24% 19%
30%
22% 27%
31%
Percent of respondents

19% 36%

44%
54% 38%
46%
49%
40% 46%
44%
30%
28%
23% 22% 18% 17% 13% 9% 7% 3%
Business model Liquidity & exit risk Country & currency Macroeconomic risk Financing risk Market demand & Perception & ESG risk
execution & risks competition risk reputational risk
management risk
Severe risk Moderate risk Slight risk Not a risk
Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

In terms of impact risks—the various risks associated with ‘the likelihood that impact will be different than expected, and that
the difference will be material from the perspective of people or the planet who experience impact—a small share of
investors perceive ‘severe’ risk.’ 105 Nearly two-thirds cited at least moderate execution risk (the likelihood activities are not
delivered as planned and do not result in the target outcomes), while 61% of investors perceive at least moderate levels of
external risk (Figure 51).106 Forty percent reported seeing no contribution risk—the risk that an investor’s contribution leads to
a worse or the same effect compared to what would otherwise have occurred—and just 2% perceive this risk as severe.

More than two-thirds of EM-Focused Investors cited at least moderate execution risk, higher than the just under half of
DM-Focused Investors citing the same (68% and 49%, respectively). Similarly, around 40% of EM-Focused Investors assess
stakeholder participation risk as moderate, compared to a quarter of DM-Focused Investors. In addition, 17% of Private
Equity–Focused investors perceive severe execution risk, considerably higher than the 3% of Private Debt–Focused Investors
assessing the same.

105 Impact Management Project, “Risk,” https://impactmanagementproject.com/impact-management/impact-management-norms/risk/.

106 Please refer to Appendix 3 on page 74 for full definitions of the various portfolio and impact risks respondents were asked to assess.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 61
 Figure 51: Contributors of impact risks to impact investment portfolios
Number of respondents shown above each bar. Some respondents chose ‘not sure’ and are not included. Year of first impact investment ranges from 1949 – 2019,
with 2011 as the median year. Ranked by percent that selected ‘severe risk.'

n= 252 250 240 241 242 250 247 248

4% 4%
11% 17% 13% 13% 20%
32% 35% 40%
Percent of respondents

46%
51% 44% 50%
43%
49%
47% 44%

31% 33% 33% 38% 34%

15% 15%
14% 7% 6% 4% 4% 3% 2%
Execution risk External risk Unexpected impact Stakeholder Efficiency risk Drop-off risk Evidence risk Contribution risk
risk participation risk

Severe risk Moderate risk Slight risk Not a risk

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Respondents described several specific causes of these risk events, including the following examples:

• Macroeconomic developments such as the COVID-19 outbreak, general country-level recessions, and political instability
(specifically in SSA)

• Changes in regulation in the microfinance sector, such as unsustainable interest rate caps and loan waivers

• Extreme weather events

• Unclear attribution (specifically among listed equities)

• Efficiency risks due to hedging against foreign exchange risk

62 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
A CONTINUED NEED FOR IMPACT
INVESTMENT CAPITAL

15% of respondents are

likely to commit more capital to
impact investments in 2020 as
a result of COVID-19.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 63
 THE EFFECTS OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
MARKET DEVELOPMENT
ON IMPACT INVESTING
The COVID-19 pandemic is perhaps the most defining global event of 2020, and unquestionably so in terms of the breadth
of its global effects. Because the bulk of the Annual Impact Investor Survey was conducted during February and March 2020,
many respondents shared their perspectives before the pandemic unfolded across the world. Given that the wide-reaching
health and economic issues caused by COVID-19 seem likely to alter investors’ investment plans, the GIIN Research Team
invited respondents to share how they expect the pandemic to influence their activity or change any of the perspectives they
shared.107 These responses help illuminate how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting the impact investing market.

PLANNED INVESTMENT ACTIVITY IN 2020

Most respondents indicated that they are unlikely to change the amount of capital they had planned to commit to impact
investments in 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (57%, Figure 52). However, 20% are at least somewhat likely to
commit less capital than they had planned; 15% are likely to commit more.

Figure 52: Changes to planned investment activity for 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic
n = 121; optional question.
Percent of respondents

36%

10%
7% 21%
8% 10% 7%
Increase Maintain Decrease Uncertain

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey Very likely Likely

Several investors reported providing more funding to their current projects, especially to investments that are contributing
solutions to the effects of the pandemic. Impact investments in this vein include telemedicine enterprises, online learning
providers, and, as one respondent noted, “issuers and businesses offering solutions for preventing, testing, treating COVID-19
or supporting recovery from the economic crisis that has resulted from the pandemic.”

However, one asset manager noted that new fundraises could be delayed, possibly halting or slowing the deployment of new
capital. Another reported that due to cash pressures on existing clients, “available capital might be prioritized to support existing
clients rather than new investments.”

Several respondents also mentioned tactical challenges in the due diligence process that may hinder new investments, such as
travel restrictions and social distancing that prevent site visits and direct engagement with prospective portfolio companies.

A higher proportion of EM-focused Investors reported plans to decrease capital commitments - 28%, compared with 14%
of DM-focused Investors, although a slightly higher proportion also noted plans to increase (18% versus 12% of DM-focused
Investors). A greater proportion of DM-focused Investors reported plans to maintain their capital commitments (68%
compared to 48% of EM-focused Investors).108

107 The Research Team conducted a short survey during April 2020; the sample included 122 respondents to the Annual Survey.
108 These differences were not tested for statistical significance due to smaller sample sizes.

64 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
 CHANGES TO SDG-ALIGNED IMPACT THEMES
Most respondents do not expect to change their targeted SDG-aligned impact themes over the next five years as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Sixty-three percent are either unlikely or very unlikely to change their targeted impact themes; 21% are at least
somewhat likely to change their target impact themes, and 17% are uncertain (Figure 53).

Figure 53: Likelihood of changes to target SDG-aligned impact themes over the next 5 years, as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic
n = 121; optional question.
39%
Percent of respondents

24%

16% 17%

5%

Very likely Likely Uncertain Unlikely Very unlikely

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Many noted that the impact themes they already target are only exacerbated by the current pandemic, reinforcing the need for the
solutions they already support. One asset manager reported that they “are already targeting themes in public health and education
(including e-learning), so the pandemic only strengthens the need for more investments in these areas.” Another explained,
“fundamentally, the pandemic is just revealing social problems we already targeted, like poverty, inequality, and lack of access to basic
services, including healthcare.”

CHANGES TO TARGET GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS

Overall, respondents do not expect to change their geographic portfolio allocations over the next five years as a result of the
pandemic. Sixty-four percent are either unlikely or very unlikely to change their target geographies, while 13% are at least somewhat
likely to change, and almost a quarter are uncertain (23%; Figure 54). Many respondents noted that their target geographies are
mandated by their objectives and theories of change and, as a result, are unlikely to change significantly.

Figure 54: Likelihood of changes to geographic allocations over the next 5 years, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic
n = 122; optional question.
34%
30%
Percent of respondents

23%

10%
3%

Very likely Likely Uncertain Unlikely Very unlikely

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 65
 PERFORMANCE AGAINST EXPECTATIONS
MARKET DEVELOPMENT
In the full Annual Impact Investor Survey, respondents indicated how their portfolios are performing against their
expectations (page 59).109 They then shared, on the GIIN’s follow-up questionnaire, how they expect their performance
might change as a result of the pandemic.110 In terms of financial performance, almost half (46%) expect their portfolios
to underperform their expectations, although more than a third (34%) still expect their performance to meet their
expectations. Interestingly, a much lower proportion expect to underperform on impact—just 16%—while almost half expect
performance to meet their expectations and a notable 18% expect their portfolios to outperform their expectations for
impact.

Interestingly, more Below-Market Investors expect underperformance on financial expectations as well as on impact (79%
expect financial underperformance compared to 28% of Market-Rate Investors, and 26% expect impact underperformance,
versus 11% of Market-Rate Investors).111

Figure 55: Performance against expectations, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic

n = 122; optional question.

15% 19%

16%
Percent of respondents

46%

46%

34%

18%
5%
Financial performance Impact performance

Outperform In line Underperform Not sure

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Not sure Underperform In line Outperform

Several respondents described near-term risks from the economic impact of lockdowns and mandated closures of
offices, manufacturing, and other company sites, noting that delays in portfolio companies’ business activities will
affect both financial and impact performance in the short-term. One respondent noted, however, that “in the long
run we expect to perform well through a recession, but patience is required.” Another explained, “we are long-term
investors, and our financial and impact expectations are closely intertwined. While we expect near-term headwinds,
we remain committed to our investment strategy and the social and environmental results on which it depends.”

Some respondents active in private debt noted that they are working with investees to restructure loans or expect that their
investees might need to temporarily defer loan payments. While this heightened risk of loan default may lead to short-term
financial risk or underperformance, respondents explained that these effects would not be material in the long-term.

On the other hand, some respondents focused on private equity mentioned that their portfolios are currently performing
better than peers because of their focus on unlisted and less volatile investments.

109 In the full sample analysis, a handful of respondents noting ‘not sure’ were removed, though analysis for this follow-on questionnaire includes ‘not sure’ responses, since
a significant proportion noted ‘not sure.’
110 As noted above, the follow-up questionnaire was administered in April 2020 and offered to all Annual Survey respondents.
111 These differences were not tested for statistical significance due to smaller sample sizes.

66 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
 Several respondents also noted that investors across all asset classes and strategies may experience increased volatility and potential
price corrections; in this regard, they do not expect impact investors to have a much different experience than ‘impact-agnostic’
investors.

INVESTMENT RISK
Respondents indicated whether the level of risk they perceive for their impact investing portfolios had changed as a result of the
pandemic. The clear majority (81%) noted that the severity of overall risk is at least somewhat likely to change. Interestingly, however,
only 43% reported the same for impact risk. More than a quarter believe that impact risk has probably remained unchanged,
while only 8% believe the same about overall risk. More respondents are also uncertain about whether impact risk had changed
(32%, compared to 12% for overall risk).

Figure 56: Likelihood that the severity of risk to impact investing portfolios has changed as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic  
n = 120; optional question.
0%
8% 3%

12% 23%
Percent of respondents

40% 32%

30%
41%

13%

Overall risk Impact risk

Very likely Likely Uncertain Unlikely Very unlikely

Source: GIIN, 2020 Annual Impact Investor Survey

Several respondents perceive overall risk to have dramatically increased (for example, macroeconomic, liquidity, currency, and market
demand risks). As one described, “impact is typically aligned to financial risks and will therefore be impacted as well.”

Some, meanwhile, perceive lowered impact risk. One asset manager explained, “on the impact side, we see less risk to [our] direct
impact (investor contribution or additionality)—in many cases, the additionality of our finance will be even stronger/clearer as financial
markets freeze up.”

Finally, many respondents reflected on the possibility for increased demand for impact investing capital as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic. One below market, private debt-focused respondent described that “we believe the desire for our capital will increase
exponentially. We are responding the way [we] are trained – [taking] high risk, to receive a modest financial return and a high social
impact return. In the last four weeks, we have already seen an increase in demand for loans and investments.” Several investors also
pointed out that marginalized communities, such as low-income individuals and communities of color, have been disproportionally
impacted by COVID-19, creating a continued need for impact capital. As one asset manager emphasized, “impact investing is more
critical than ever during COVID-19. We’re already supporting some of the most underserved communities, creating access to new
capital flows and opportunities.”

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 67
 Impact investors can lead the way
toward a transformed financial
system that honors the role of
every stakeholder – from workers
to the planet itself.

68 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
Appendix 1:
List of survey participants
We are grateful to the following organizations, without which this research would not have been possible.
For their participation, we thank:

4impact Venture Capital Belgravia Family Office Community Loan Fund of the
Capital Region, Inc.
Aavishkaar Capital BELLE Michigan Impact Fund
Community Vision Capital & Consulting
Access to Capital for Entrepreneurs Bestseller Foundation
CONINCO Explorers in Finance
Accial Capital Bethnal Green Ventures
Conservation International Ventures
ACTIAM Beyond Capital
Cordaid Investment Management
Active Impact Investments Big Issue Invest
Creation Investments Capital
Addenda Capital Inc. Big Society Capital
Management, LLC
African Development Bank Group Blue Haven Initiative
Credit Suisse AG
African Wildlife Foundation/Okavango Blue like an Orange Sustainable Capital
Crevisse Partners
Capital Partners
BlueHub Capital
Criterion Africa Partners
AlphaMundi
BlueOrchard Finance Ltd.
DBL Partners
American Cancer Society’s BrightEdge
BNP Paribas
Impact Fund de Pury Pictet Turrettini & Co., Ltd.
Boston Impact Initiative
Ameris Capital Deetken Impact
Bridges Fund Management
Ankur Capital Degroof Petercam
Business Oxygen Pvt. Ltd.
Annie E. Casey Foundation Development and Investment
Business Partners International Bank of Turkey
Anonymous 1
Calgary Foundation Development Bank of Austria
Anonymous 2
California Community Foundation Développement International Desjardins
Anonymous 3
Calvert Impact Capital Development Partners
Anonymous 4
International LLP
Campbell Global
Anonymous 5
DFO
Capital 4 Development Partners
Anonymous 6
Disability Opportunity Fund
Capri Global Capital Limited
Antera Gestão de Recursos
DOB Equity
Capricorn Investment Group
Anthem Asia
DOEN Participaties
CDC Group
Anthos Fund & Asset Management
DWS
Charles H. Hood Foundation
Aquila Capital
ECMC Foundation
Christian Super
Arborview Capital
Edwards Mother Earth Foundation
City Light Capital
Ascent Capital
EFM
City of London Corporation
Ashburton Investments
Ehong Capital
ClearSky
ASN Bank
Elevar Equity
Common Fund for Commodities
Avanath Capital Management
Enclude
Community Capital Management
Aventura Investment Partners
ENGIE Rassembleurs d’Energies
Community Forward Fund Assistance
AXA Investment Managers
Corp Enterprise Community Partners
B Current Impact Investment
Community Investment Management, European Bank for Reconstruction and
Baillie Gifford LLC Development

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 69
 Fahe Impact First Investments Lok Capital New Ventures / Adobe
Capital
Farmland LP Impact Foundation Low Income Investment Fund
Nexus for Development
FHI Ventures Impact Investment Group Luxembourg Microfinance
and Development Fund NN Investment Partners
Finance in Motion Impax Asset Management
MainStreet Partners Nonprofit Finance Fund
FINCA Ventures Impress Capital Limited
Maj Invest Norsad Finance
FinDev Canada Incofin Investment
Management MaRS Catalyst Fund Northern Arc Investment
Finnfund
Managers Private Limited
FMO Inerjys Ventures Inc. Mary Reynolds Babcock
Foundation Nuveen, A TIAA Company
Fondaction Injaro Investments
McConnell Foundation Obviam AG
Ford Foundation – PRI Innovation Edge
McKnight Foundation Oikocredit
Ford Foundation – MRI INOKS Capital SA
Medical Credit Fund Old Mutual Alternative
Fundo Vale Insitor Partners Investments
Mennonite Economic
Futuregrowth Asset Inspired Evolution Investment Open Road Ventures
Development Associates
Management Management
(MEDA) Overseas Private Investment
Gag Investimentos e Inspirit Foundation Corporation (OPIC) /
Menterra Venture Advisors
Participações U.S. International
International Finance Private Limited
Development Finance
Garden Impact Investemnt Corporation (IFC)
Merck Corporation (DFC)
GAWA Capital Invest in Visions
Mercy Corps Palestine Investment Fund
Generation Investment Investisseurs &
Mergence Investment Patamar Capital
Management Partenaires (I&P)
Managers
Paul Ramsay Foundation
Glenmede Irupé
Mesoamerica
Pearl Capital Partners
Global Social Impact Islamic Corporation
MetLife
for the Development PGGM
Goodwell Investments
of the Private Sector Michael & Susan Dell PGIM Real Estate
Gordon and Betty Moore (ICD) Foundation
Foundation Phatisa
iungo capital Minderoo Foundation
Grace Impact Phitrust Partenaires
Japan Social Innovation and Mitsubishi UFJ Trust &
GroFin Investment Foundation (SIIF) Banking Corporation Planet Rise

Grupo Baoba John D. and Catherine T. Mountain BizWorks Portocolom Asesores

MacArthur Foundation Portugal Inovação Social
GSSG Solar, LLC MOV Investimentos
JP Morgan Chase & Co. Positive Ventures
Habitat for Humanity National Australia Bank
International Kaizenvest Limited Praxis Mutual Funds
Hancock Natural Resource KIBOW Impact Investment National Community Prudential Impact Investments
Group (HNRG) Investment Fund
Kiva Capital Management Pure Leapfrog
HCAP Partners National Council on
Lafise Investment PureTerra Water Technology
HealthQuad Agricultural Life and Labor
Management Growth Fund
Research Fund, Inc.
Helios Investment LeapFrog Investments
NatureVest/The Nature QBE Insurance Group
Partners
Lendable Conservancy Q-Impact
HESTA
Leviticus Fund Neuberger Berman Quadia SA
Hitachi Capital CSR
Department LimeVest Partners New Forests Quona Capital
Hooge Raedt Social Venture Lion’s Head Group New Hampshire Charitable RBC Global Asset
(HRSV) Foundation Management (U.S.) Inc.
LISC
IDB Invest New Market Funds Realdania
Local Enterprise Assistance
IDP Foundation, Inc. Fund Inc. New Summit Investments Réseau d’investissement social

70 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
du Québec The Lemelson Foundation X8 Investimentos
responsAbility Investments AG The Life Initiative Yellowdog
Restone Capital The Lyme Timber Company LP Yunus Social Business
Rise Ventures The Myer Foundation Zarius Properties
Root Capital The Rise Fund (TPG) Zhejiang MiYin Investment Management
Co., Ltd.
RS Group The Rockefeller Foundation
Zurich Insurance Group
SA Capital, Ltd. The Sasakawa Peace Foundation
Sahel Capital Agribusiness Mangers TLG Credit Opportunities Fund
Save the Children Australia Tourism Conservation Fund
SEAF Treehouse Investments, LLC
Seattle Foundation TriLinc Global, LLC
Shared Interest Triodos Investment Management
Shinsei Corporate Investment, Ltd. Triple Jump
Sifem True Wealth Ventures
SilverStreet Capital LLP Turner Impact Capital
SITAWI UBERIS SA
SJF Ventures UBS Optimus Foundation
SLM Partners UNICEF USA Impact Fund for Children
Bridge Fund
SME Impact Fund
United States African Development
SME.NG
Foundation
Snowball
UOB Venture Management Pte. Ltd.
Social Ventures Australia
Upaya Social Ventures
Sonen Capital
VERGE Capital (Pillar Nonprofit
Sophia School Corporation Network)

Soros Economic Development Fund Vermont Community Loan Fund (VCLF)

Stonechair Capital Virginia Community Capital

Surdna Foundation Vital Capital

Swedfund Vodia Ventures

Sycomore Asset Management Volta Capital

Symbiotics Vox Capital

TBL Mirror Fund Wallace Global Fund

Temasek Trust Walter S. Mander Foundation

Temporis Capital WaterEquity

The California Endowment Wellington Management

The Children’s Investment Fund Wespath Benefits and Investments

Foundation (UK)
Whatcom Community Foundation
The Climate Trust
WHEB
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Working Capital for Community Needs
The Impact Fund
WWB Asset Management
The JumpFund
WYNG43
The Kresge Foundation

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 71
 Appendix 2:
Sources for notable commitments over
the past decade
ASSET OWNERS
Heron (2012): Clara Miller, The World Has Changed and So Must We: Heron’s Strategy for Capital Deployment (New York:
The F.B. Heron Foundation, April 2012).

Anne Field, “Mission Accomplished: How The Heron Foundation Went ‘All In,’” Forbes (Contributor), March 30, 2017, https://
www.forbes.com/sites/annefield/2017/03/30/mission-accomplished-how-the-heron-foundation-went-all-in/#5613b074d179.

Bank of America (2013): Bank of America, “Bank of America Announces New $50 Billion Environmental Business Initiative,”
news release, June 11, 2012, https://about.bankofamerica.com/en-us/press-releases/2012-06-11-bank-of-america-announces-
new-50-billio-detail.html#fbid=IRpBJURF1-O.

Rockefeller Brothers Fund (2014): Rockefeller Brothers Fund, “Divestment Statement,” October 2017, https://www.rbf.org/
sites/default/files/rbf-divestment_statement-2017-oct.pdf.

Rockefeller Brothers Fund, “Fossil Fuel Divestment,” https://www.rbf.org/mission-aligned-investing/divestment.

Rockefeller Brothers Fund, “Endowment Summary,” https://www.rbf.org/about/finance/endowment-summary.

Ford Foundation (2017): Ford Foundation, “Ford Foundation Commits $1 Billion from Endowment to Mission-Related
Investments,” news release, April 5, 2017, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ford-foundation-commits-1-billion-from-
endowment-to-mission-related-investments-300434895.html.

GPIF (2017): Junko Fujita and Takashi Umekawa, “Japan’s GPIF Expects to Raise ESG Allocations to 10 Percent: FTSE
Russell CEO,” Reuters, July 14, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-gpif-esg/japans-gpif-expects-to-raise-esg-
allocations-to-10-percent-ftse-russell-ceo-idUSKBN19Z11Y.

Nathan Cummings Foundation (2018): The Nathan Cummings Foundation, “Nathan Cummings Foundation Announces
Move to 100 Percent Mission-Aligned Investing,” news release, March 12, 2018, https://nathancummings.org/ncf-commits-to-
100-percent/.

NY state pension fund (2018): Kenneth Lovett, “DiNapoli Divests N.Y. Pension Funds from Private Prison Companies,”
New York Daily News, July 13, 2018, https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pol-dinapoli-private-prisons-pension-
divest-20180713-story.html.

GCAS (2018): William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, “Philanthropic Community Announces $4 Billion Commitment to
Combat Climate Change,” news release, September 14, 2018, https://hewlett.org/newsroom/philanthropic-community-
announces-4-billion-commitment-to-combat-climate-change/.

Norway (2019): Jillian Ambrose, “World’s Biggest Sovereign Wealth Fund to Ditch Fossil Fuels,” The Guardian, June 12,
2019, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/12/worlds-biggest-sovereign-wealth-fund-to-ditch-fossil-fuels.

European Investment Bank (2019): Jillian Ambrose and Jon Henley, “European Investment Bank to Phase Out Fossil
Fuel Financing,” The Guardian, November 15, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/15/european-
investment-bank-to-phase-out-fossil-fuels-financing.

CalPERS: CalPERS, “Sustainable Investments Program: About the Program,” last updated July 11, 2019, https://www.calpers.
ca.gov/page/investments/sustainable-investments-program/about-the-program.

72 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
ASSET MANAGERS
DBL Partners: DBL Partners, “Investor Reports for Limited Partners: Impact Measurement,” http://www.dblpartners.vc/
resources-reports/.

TPG Rise Fund: David Bank, “TPG Rise Fund Hits $2 Billion Target,” Impact Alpha, October 6, 2017, https://impactalpha.
com/tpg-rise-fund-hits-2-billion-target-bd5f57e18c42/; and The Rise Fund “Accelerating Impact: Five Lessons in Five Years,”
news release, January 21, 2020, https://therisefund.com/news/accelerating-impact-five-lessons-five-years.

Bain Capital: Bain Capital Double Impact, “Focus Areas,” https://www.baincapitaldoubleimpact.com/focus-areas; and Bain
Capital Double Impact, Year in Review: May 2019 (Boston: Bain Capital, May 2019).

Leapfrog Investments: LeapFrog Investments, “LeapFrog Breaks Impact Investing Record, with $700M Emerging Markets
Fund,” news release, May 10, 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-05-10/leapfrog-breaks-impact-
investing-record-with-700m-emerging-markets-fund; and LeapFrog Investments, https://leapfroginvest.com/.

KKR: KKR, “Invested in Impact,” https://kkresg.com/impact; and Emily Chasan, “KKR Amasses $1.3 Billion for Its Debut
Global Impact Fund,” Bloomberg Quint, February 13, 2020, https://www.bloombergquint.com/technology/kkr-amasses-1-3-
billion-for-its-debut-global-impact-fund.

BlackRock: Jessica Toonkel, “BlackRock to Ramp up Impact Investing,” Reuters, February 9, 2015, http://www.reuters.com/
article/us-blackrock-impact-exclusive-idUSKBN0LD18W20150209; Giulia Christianson and Ariel Pinchot, “BlackRock Is
Getting Serious about Climate Change: Is This a Turning Point for Investors?,” World Resources Institute (blog), January 27,
2020, https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/01/blackrock-getting-serious-about-climate-change-turning-point-investors; and Larry
Fink, “Letter to CEOs: A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance,” January 2020, https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-
relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter.

Vital Capital: Michael Patterson, “Vital Capital Raises $250 Million for Africa Buyout Fund,” Bloomberg, May 3, 2011,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-05-03/vital-capital-raises-250-million-for-africa-private-equity-fund
Vital Capital, “Crafting Impact: Presenting Vital Capital’s approach to Impact Investing,” 2015, https://www.vital-capital.com/
images/upload/texts/48465097050528.pdf

Cheyne Capital: Harriet Agnew, “Cheyne Capital Plans £300m Impact Property Fund,” Financial Times, April 14, 2014,
https://www.ft.com/content/73db604e-c3ef-11e3-b2c3-00144feabdc0; and Big Society Capital, “Cheyne Capital Social
Impact Fund,” https://bigsocietycapital.com/portfolio/cheyne-capital-social-impact-fund/.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 73
 Appendix 3:
List of definitions provided to survey
respondents
General
• Impact investments: Investments made with the intention to generate positive, measurable social and environmental
impact alongside a financial return. They can be across asset classes, in both emerging and developed markets, and target
a range of returns from below-market to market-rate, depending on the investors’ strategic goals.

• Climate—physical risk: Risks from increasing temperatures, rising sea levels, and changing weather patterns (e.g.,
drought, flood, storms).

• Climate—transition risk: Post-transaction risks from unplanned or abrupt changes to businesses or assets, such as
changes in policies, shifts to low-carbon technologies, or other liabilities.

• Catalytic capital: Debt, equity, guarantees, and other investments that accept disproportionate risk and/or concessionary
returns relative to conventional investments in order to generate positive impact and enable third-party investment that
otherwise would not be possible.

Asset classes
• Deposits & cash equivalents:  Cash management strategies that incorporate intent toward positive impact.

• Private debt: Bonds or loans placed with a select group of investors rather than being syndicated broadly.

• Publicly traded debt: Publicly traded bonds or loans.

• Equity-like debt: An instrument between debt and equity, such as mezzanine capital or deeply subordinated debt. Often
a debt instrument with potential profit participation, such as convertible debt, warrant, royalty, or debt with equity kicker.

• Private equity: A private investment into a company or fund in the form of an equity stake (not publicly traded stock).

• Public equity: Publicly traded stocks or shares, also described as listed equities..

• Real assets: An investment of physical or tangible assets as opposed to financial capital, such as real estate or
commodities.

Stages of growth
• Seed/Start-up: Business idea exists, but little has been established operationally; pre-revenue.

• Venture: Operations are established, and company may or may not be generating revenues but does not yet have
positive EBITDA.

• Growth: Company has positive EBITDA and is growing.

• Mature: Company has stabilized at scale and is operating profitably.

74 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
Contributors of portfolio risk
• Business model execution and management risks: Risks of a company generating lower profits than anticipated and of
ineffective and/or underperforming management.

• Country and currency risks: Political, regulatory, local economic, or currency-linked risks.

• ESG risk: Risk derived from noncompliance with environmental, social, or governance criteria.

• Financing risk: Risk of the investee not being able to raise subsequent capital necessary for its growth.

• Impact risk: The possibility that the investment does not achieve the desired social or environmental benefits.

• Liquidity and exit risk: The risk of being unable to exit the investment at the desired time.

• Macroeconomic risk: Risk that includes regional or global economic trends.

• Market demand and competition risk: Risks of low demand for the investee’s products or services or declining revenues
resulting from the actions of a competitor.

• Perception and reputational risks: Risks of loss resulting from damages to an investor’s or investee’s reputation.

Contributors of impact risk

• Evidence risk: The probability that the evidence on which the strategy is based is faulty and so the expected impact will
not occur.

• External risk: The probability that external factors disrupt the ability to deliver the expected impact.

• Execution risk: The probability that the activities are not delivered as planned and do not result in the desired outputs.

• Stakeholder participation risk: The probability that the expectations or experiences of stakeholders are misunderstood
or not taken into account, reducing their participation or uptake.

• Drop-off risk: The probability that the expected impact does not endure.

• Unexpected impact risk: The probability that significant unexpected positive and negative impact may be experienced
by people and the planet.

• Efficiency risk: The probability that the expected impact could have been achieved with fewer resources or at a lower
cost.

• Contribution risk: The risk that an investment leads to the same or worse effect compared to what would otherwise
have occurred.

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 75
 Appendix 4:
Outreach partners
The GIIN appreciates the assistance of the following organizations, which helped to encourage impact investors in their networks
to participate in the survey.

As the only comprehensive funders’ network in Asia, AVPN is a leading

ecosystem builder for the social investment sector with 590+ members
globally. AVPN’s mission is to catalyse the movement toward a more strategic,
collaborative, and outcome-focused approach to social investing, ensuring
that resources are deployed as effectively as possible to address key social
challenges facing Asia today and in the future.

www.avpn.asia/about-us

The Bertha Centre for Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship is a specialized

unit at the University of Cape Town’s Graduate School of Business (GSB).
Its mission is to build the capacity and pioneering practices in Africa—with
partners, practitioners and students—to advance the discourse and systemic
impact of social innovation. In collaboration with the GSB, the Centre has
integrated social innovation into the business school curriculum, established
a wide community of practitioners and awarded over ZAR 7 million in
scholarships to students from across Africa. It was established in 2011 in
partnership with the Bertha Foundation, a family foundation that works with
inspiring leaders who are catalysts for social and economic change and human
rights, the Centre has become a leading academic center in Africa.

www.gsb.uct.ac.za

The Catholic Impact Investing Collaborative (aka CIIC- pronounced “seek”)

works to spread the word of Impact Investing through community building,
sharing experiences, and learning from each other. Our goal is to accelerate
and expand the use of wealth in service of people and planet.

www.catholicimpact.org

China Social Enterprise and Impact Investment Forum (CSEIF) was jointly
initiated by a group of 17 Chinese top foundations and venture philanthropic
organizations in 2014. CSEIF advocates establishing a supportive ecosystem
for the social enterprise and impact investment sector in China with an open
and inclusive attitude.

www.cseif.cn/index.php

76 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
The Church Investors Group represents institutional investors from many
mainstream Church denominations and church related charities. Our aims are
to encourage the formulation of investment policies based on Christian ethical
principles, to encourage responsible business practice through engagement
with company managements and to share information and views on ethical
matters related to investment. The CIG has 70 members, predominantly
drawn from the UK and Ireland, with combined investment assets of over
£21bn.

www.churchinvestorsgroup.org.uk

The European Microfinance Platform (e-MFP) with over 130 members is

the leading network of European organisations and individuals active in the
financial inclusion sector in developing countries. e-MFP fosters activities
which increase global access to affordable, quality, sustainable and inclusive
financial services for the un(der)banked by driving knowledge-sharing,
partnership development and innovation.

www.e-mfp.eu

The Global Steering Group is an independent global steering group

catalyzing impact investment and entrepreneurship to benefit people
and the planet.

www.gsgii.org

ImpactAlpha is a digital media company redefining business journalism around

social and environmental value. ImpactAlpha’s daily newsletter, The Brief, is
read by more than 70,000 professionals and influencers globally. News and
original features are featured on ImpactAlpha.com. Our open database,
ImpactSpace, aka “CrunchBase for Impact,” includes profiles on more than
10,000 impact ventures, funds and deals.

www.impactalpha.com

The Impact Investors Foundation (IIF) engages and collaborates with key
stakeholders, active in the impact investing space, to unlock capital for social
investments in Nigeria. Our overarching goal is to promote the growth and
excellence of impact investing in Nigeria.

www.impactinvestorsfoundation.org

Intellecap is the advisory arm of The Aavishkaar Group, which works to build
businesses that can benefit the underserved segments across Asia and Africa.
All our work at Intellecap is designed to make markets equitable and inclusive.

www.intellecap.com

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 77
 The Intentional Endowments Network (IEN) supports colleges, universities,
and other mission-driven tax-exempt organizations in enhancing financial
performance by aligning their endowment investment practices with their
mission, values, and sustainability goals. It does this in a variety of ways,
including hosting in-person forums and events; facilitating peer networking;
curating useful resources on sustainable investing opportunities; and providing
educational venues for information exchange around a variety of sustainable
investing strategies, such as ESG integration, impact investing, and shareholder
engagement. In doing so, this broad-based, collaborative network contributes
to creating a healthy, just, and sustainable society. IEN is an initiative of The
Crane Institute of Sustainability, a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit.

www.intentionalendowments.org

Mission Investors Exchange is a leading network of foundations engaged

in impact investing. Its more than 200 members comprise a vibrant community
committed to tackling the world’s most intractable social and environmental
issues, from climate change and global health to education and quality jobs. 

www.missioninvestors.org

New Ventures (NV) catalyzes innovative enterprises that generate profit and
contribute to solve environmental and social problems in Latin America. As
the leading platform of the impact investing sector in the region, NV works
through four main pillars, which are acceleration, financing, promotion, and
training, to strengthen the regional social entrepreneurship ecosystem.

www.nvgroup.org

Pensions for Purpose is a collaborative initiative of impact managers,

pension funds, social enterprises and others involved or interested in impact
investment. Our aim is to promote understanding of impact investment by
effective sharing news stories, blogs, case studies, academic research and
thought leadership papers and acting as a first port of call for journalists
seeking comment on impact investment-related issues.

www.pensionsforpurpose.com

Phenix Capital is an Amsterdam-based investment consultant that catalyses

institutional capital for the SDGs. We enable institutional investors to make
impact fund investments through Global Impact Platform, institutional impact
events, and placement services.

www.phenixcapital.nl

The Responsible Investment Association (RIA) is Canada’s industry

association for responsible investment. RIA members believe that the
integration of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into the
selection and management of investments can provide superior risk adjusted
returns and positive societal impact.

www.riacanada.ca

78 G L O B A L I M P A C T I N V E S T I N G N E T W O R K
The Responsible Investment Association Australasia (RIAA) champions
responsible investing and a sustainable financial system in Australia and New
Zealand. RIAA is dedicated to ensuring capital is aligned with achieving a
healthy society, environment and economy. With over 300 members managing
more than $9 trillion in assets globally, RIAA is the largest and most active
network of people and organisations engaged in responsible, ethical and
impact investing across Australia and New Zealand. Our membership includes
super funds, fund managers, banks, consultants, researchers, brokers, impact
investors, property managers, trusts, foundations, faith-based groups, financial
advisers and individuals.

www.responsibleinvestment.org

A company specialized in conducting field research, designing business

solutions, building capabilities and launching initiatives; through the use of
analytical techniques, innovation methodologies, and designing leadership and
operational strategies; to enable individuals and institutions to grow and make
a positive impact in the societies in which they operate.

www.sabr-sp.com/ar/home

SIIF aims to catalyze a new capital flow model that transcends existing
boundaries between private, public, and civil sectors. SIIF seeks to nurture
a social impact investment ecosystem that will support Japan’s sustainable
development, making it a global forerunner in shouldering social issues unique
to developed economies. SIIF takes three approaches to achieve its mission:

(1) Fund: Provide risk capital and demonstrate a variety of models for social impact
investment in Japan.
(2) Hub: Build the cornerstone of the ecosystem and connect impact communities
into a network by providing subsidies, investments, and other financial as well
as non-financial support to intermediaries that connect business operators,
investors, and other important stakeholders.
(3) Thinktank: Co-create, circulate, and catalyze social change together with
important stakeholders. SIIF seeks to produce information and make policy
proposals necessary for the growth of a social impact investment market.
www.siif.or.jp/en

Transform Finance envisions a world where capital is a tool for the

advancement of real, transformative social change. Through thought
leadership, trainings, convenings, and the Transform Finance Investor Network,
we support all stakeholders, from community leaders and activists to investors
and entrepreneurs, who are exploring that vision.  

www.transformfinance.org

A N N U A L I M P A C T I N V E S T O R S U R V E Y 2 0 2 0 79
About the Global Impact Investing Network
This report is a publication of the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN), the leading global

around the world. The GIIN builds critical market infrastructure and supports activities, education,
and research that help accelerate the development of a coherent impact investing industry.

Research Impact Measurement and

Management (IMM)
The GIIN conducts research to provide data and
insights on the impact investing market and to The GIIN provides tools, guidance, trainings,
and resources to help investors identify metrics
thegiin.org/research and integrate impact considerations into
investment management.
thegiin.org/imm

Membership Initiative for Institutional

Impact Investment
GIIN Membership provides access to a diverse
global community of organizations interested The GIIN Initiative for Institutional Impact
in deepening their engagement with the impact Investment supports institutional asset owners
investment industry. seeking to enter, or deepen their engagement
thegiin.org/membership with, the impact investing market, by providing
educational resources, performance research,
and a vibrant community of practice.
thegiin.org/giin-initiative-for-
institutional-impact-investment

Roadmap for the Future of Impact Investing

Interested in helping to build the field of impact investing? The GIIN’s Roadmap for the Future of Impact
Investing: Reshaping Financial Markets presents a vision for more inclusive and sustainable financial
markets and articulates a plan for impact investing to lead progress toward this future. To download the
Roadmap and find more information about opportunities to get involved, visit roadmap.thegiin.org.
For more information
Please direct any comments or questions about this report to research@thegiin.org.

To download industry research by the GIIN and others, please visit https://thegiin.org/research.

Disclosures
The Global Impact Investing Network (“GIIN”) is a nonprofit 501c(3) organization dedicated to increasing the scale and
effectiveness of impact investing. The GIIN builds critical infrastructure and supports activities, education, and research that
help accelerate the development of a coherent impact investing industry.

Readers should be aware that the GIIN has had and will continue to have relationships with many of the organizations identified
in this report, through some of which the GIIN has received and will continue to receive financial and other support.

These materials do not constitute tax, legal, financial or investment advice, nor do they constitute an offer, solicitation, or
recommendation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument or security. Readers should consult with their own
investment, accounting, legal and tax advisers to evaluate independently the risks, consequences and suitability of any
investment made by them. The information contained in these materials is made available solely for general information
purposes and includes information provided by third-parties. The GIIN has collected data for this document that it believes
to be accurate and reliable, but the GIIN does not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any
reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any
reliance placed on such materials by any reader of these materials or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents.
info@thegiin.org
www.thegiin.org
@theGIIN