Verification essential for more impact

The impact investing industry continues to grow, primarily driven by new fund launches, investment flows, and market demand. But a recent market breakthrough – the introduction of independent impact verification – promises to unleash a torrent of new institutional capital flows, helping mainstream the practice of impact investing while simultaneously levelling the playing field for all impact investors.

As the urgency of the world’s social and environmental challenges becomes more stark by the day, institutional investors are increasingly turning to impact verification to efficiently sort and compare impact products and to have confidence that impact claims will translate to impact outcomes. 

Trust is the main barrier to the growth of impact investing

There has been dramatic growth in the impact investing industry in just the last few years. By one measure, according to the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN), the total amount of assets under management with an impact focus is approximately $715 billion, up from $502 billion a year earlier.

By another measure, a recent report by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) estimates that impact investing in private markets could be as large as $2.1 trillion, but only about a quarter of that is consistently measured and managed for impact. An earlier IFC report suggested the potential investor appetite for impact investing across both public and private markets could be as much as $26 trillion.

Other positive signals of market growth include the growing number of large private equity firms launching impact funds (for example Apollo, Bain, Blackstone, KKR, TPG, etc.), which has helped spur more institutional investors like Prudential and the New York State Common Retirement Fund to allocate a portion of their portfolios to impact. More allocators are sure to follow, especially since investors are more influenced by peers than perhaps any other data point.

Sponsored Content

Despite this exponential growth, the impact investing market still falls far short of the scope and scale needed to address our urgent social, environmental, and economic challenges embodied in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The challenge appears even more daunting when considering that evidence is lacking as to whether those investment funds are actually contributing to the SDGs as much as they claim.  For impact investing to evolve from a niche to a mainstream practice, much more institutional capital will be needed from the pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, corporations, and foundations of the world.

However, the lack of trust in the impact label still represents a significant barrier for asset owners looking to allocate to impact. To unlock capital flows, asset owners need a way to identify best-in-class impact investors and to have confidence that impact claims will turn into impact results. In other words, the impact investing market needs a reliable tool to fight impact-washing.

Impact verification is a game-changer for the market

The solution to these market barriers is independent verification, just as it has been in just about every other commercial market. Consider that every product or service market that achieved scale – whether automobiles, organic produce, or rated bonds – has done so thanks to a set of shared standards and a mechanism for holding market participants accountable to those standards.

The impact investing market has no shortage of standards, but what’s been missing until recently is a third-party accountability mechanism. The Operating Principles for Impact Management, launched by the IFC and a group of 60 founding signatories in April 2019, represented a game-changing moment for the impact investing industry because they included a requirement for all signatories to regularly and independently verify their alignment with the principles.

BlueMark has seen first-hand how transformative verification can be for the impact investing market. We began verifying a few of our clients shortly after the impact principles were introduced, and in 2020 launched an independent impact verification business called BlueMark to meet the growing market demand for high-quality and incisive verification services. To date, the BlueMark team has completed 20 impact verifications, including 16 verifications for signatories to the operating principles, representing about 40 per cent of the verifications published to date.

We specifically designed our verification methodology to address the barriers preventing more institutional capital from flowing to impact. Instead of simply providing a ‘check-the-box’ service, we approached each verification assignment with the same level of rigor that institutional investors approach the due diligence of fund managers. We sought to strengthen trust in impact investing by bringing three specific benefits to the market:

  • Accountability – By evaluating whether impact investors’ practices and performance are aligned to accepted market standards
  • Discipline – By encouraging transparency, adoption of industry best practices, and shared learning that continuously raises the bar for performance
  • Comparability – By establishing benchmarks and ratings that allow stakeholders to compare different approaches to impact investing on a consistent basis

These benefits represent more than just a nice-to-have for impact investors; for the impact investing industry to scale with integrity, we need asset managers and asset allocators on the same page when it comes to understanding and executing on best practices.

Right now, it tends to be the allocators pushing for independent verification. Indeed, we have had multiple institutional investors come to us asking to conduct an impact verification, either to evaluate an  existing impact manager in their portfolio or as a way to diligence a prospective manager prior to making an allocation. This embrace of verification signals that institutional investors struggle to differentiate between the many different impact funds in the market, and shows the value of an authoritative third-party voice that can help streamline portfolio management and allocation decisions.

Lessons learned from impact verification

The early evidence from these impact verifications shows their transformative potential to scale the market. In April 2020, we published our initial findings based on 13 verifications in a report titled, “Making the Mark: Investor Alignment with the Operating Principles for Impact Management.” Although a small sample size, some critical trends about best practices and shared challenges came into sharper focus.

For instance, we found that impact investors generally excel at articulating their impact intentions and have made significant strides to operationalise those intentions across their investment portfolios by aligning their investments with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or other accepted market standards. However, impact investors have more work to do when it comes to engaging with investors to support the achievement of impact, including monitoring unintended impacts and aligning incentives with the achievement of impact.

The most common theme from these verifications is that impact investors are committed to continuously making improvements to their impact management practices, a process made possible through independent verification. Anecdotally, we have heard from several clients who went into the verification exercise expecting to receive high marks, only to realise how much work they still have to do to align with best practices. This self-realisation is an important part of each investor’s individual impact investment journey and the impact investing market as a whole, helping to constantly raise the bar by holding everyone to a continuously rising standard.

Some may argue that a requirement for impact verification represents an additional and unnecessary cost of entry, especially for asset managers looking to launch or market their impact funds. But we believe that for impact investing to succeed and help bring about a fundamental reshaping of our financial systems, independent impact verification is as essential as the auditing of financial performance.

The overlapping crises of the past few months – from climate change to COVID-19 to racial injustice – have taught us that our social, environmental, and economic systems are inexorably intertwined. A few more billion dollars into impact funds won’t come close to meeting the urgency of the moment. We need impact investment at scale, but impact investment that is ingrained with the kind of processes and practices necessary to scale with integrity.

The best way forward is a system-wide commitment to transparency and accountability. Impact verification is a key step in that transformation, and will help unlock not just billions of dollars, but trillions of dollars of capital.

Christina Leijonhufvud is the chief executive of BlueMark, a Tideline company that provides impact verification services for investors and companies.

 

Leave a Comment

Climate the No.1 priority for 2021

Climate the No.1 priority for 2021

Climate is by far the number one sustainability priority for investors in 2021 according to a poll of asset owners from more than 32 countries which came together for the Top1000funds.com online Sustainability event in March.

Sort content by

Behind OTPP’s net zero 2050 plan

Ontario Teachers' has launched its plan to reach net-zero portfolio emissions by 2050, the culmination of a decade of work by the fund in addressing climate change. Amanda White looks at the fund’s climate journey, which has significant lessons for other funds looking to move to net zero.

Engaging with Investors on ESG Issues

Bond issuers—including sovereigns, who represent 50 percent of the fixed income asset class—are faced with increasing scrutiny on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues from investors. Forums organized by the World Bank Treasury to promote dialogue between institutional investors and sovereign bond issuers have highlighted the challenges sovereign issuers face in engaging with investors on ESG topics and in communicating ESG-related information that investors consider financially material to their portfolios. This document provides examples, best practices, and action plans that can help debt managers enhance their capacity to engage with investors incorporating ESG information in investment decisions.

Portfolio Engineering

For decades, we have engineered scalable portfolios to help institutional investors achieve their goals. In the past, these goals have typically been financial (eg. return and risk targets), but now many investors are also seeking to achieve environmental and social impacts through their portfolios. We believe the best way to achieve both financial investment goals and these impact goals is through portfolio engineering that incorporates these objectives holistically, beginning with crisply defining an investor's goals, systematically looking across a variety of asset classes to find assets that are aligned with these goals, and then combining those assets to create a portfolio that is designed to achieve a high ratio of return to risk.

New Policy Concensus

We are now at a turning point, with Democrats controlling both legislative chambers and the presidency, and an emerging concensus among Democratic policy makers and their advisors that enables fiscal spending that is both significant in size and ambitious in scope. Later this year, we expect to see the first expansionary fiscal package centered around the pursuing long-term social, environmental, and competitiveness policy goals (following the more immediate COVID recovery package). In these Observations, we explore two key shifts in Democrats' thinking underlying these policy proposals, which we expect will be sustained well beyond this fiscal package.

Social Conditions Consideration

The ultimate goal of economic policy is simple and timeless - to ensure prosperity and maximise living standards. Broad macroeconomic measures such as GDP growth, the unemployment rate, and inflation had for decades been a good proxy of rising prosperity, so they have dominated economic policy making and are enshrined in most central bank mandates. But even before the COVID-19 crisis, it had become clear that traditional economic measures have increasingly diverged from social outcomes.

Secular Supply and Demand

Over the past two decades, China's secular rise dominated commodity markets, as its industrialization required a massive amount of raw materials to build up the country. As we consider the future, we see many reasons to be bullish on commodities tactically, but one of the most important secular factors will likely support industrial commodity demand for years to come: the shift in global economies away from fossil fuels and toward greener energy.

Previous