EVPA Venture Philanthropy And Social Impact Investment A Practical Guide

User Manual:

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 99

March 2018

A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO

VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

AND SOCIAL IMPACT

INVESTMENT

EVPA REPORT

2A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

This report was possible thanks to the nancial support of the European Commission.

However, it reects the views only of the authors, and the European Commission cannot be

held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Please use this reference to cite this report:

EVPA Knowledge Centre (2018) A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact

Investment. 4th Edition. EVPA.

Published by the European Venture Philanthropy Association

This edition March 2018

Email: info@evpa.eu.com

Website: www.evpa.eu.com

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0. You are free to

share – to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work – under the following conditions:

• Attribution: You must attribute the work as A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO VENTURE

• Non commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

• No Derivative Works: You may not alter, transform or build upon this work.

• For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the licence terms of this work.

Authors: This edition was edited by Priscilla Boiardi and Alessia Gianoncelli, with the support

of Caroline Cornil.

The original authors of this report are: Luciano Balbo, Priscilla Boiardi, Lisa Hehenberger,

Deirdre Mortell, Pieter Oostlander and Elena Vittone

Design and typesetting: Pitch Black Graphic Design The Hague/Berlin

ISBN 9789082494044

Copyrights for photos on the

cover:

• CUIB © Mai Bine Association

• Action Tutoring © Impetus

– The Private Equity

Foundation

• Alter-Eco © Phitrust

• Centro Medico Santagostino

Printed on 100%

recycled paper

March 2018

This edition was edited by

Priscilla Boiardi and Alessia Gianoncelli,

with the support of Caroline Cornil

European Venture Philanthropy Association

March 2018

A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO

VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

AND SOCIAL IMPACT

INVESTMENT

EVPA REPORT

4A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements .......................5

Executive Summary .......................6

PART 1. Introduction ....................13

1.1. Purpose of the document ..............14

1.2. Essence and role of Venture

Philanthropy ..........................15

1.3. Grant-making vs social investment –

main approaches of VP ............... 20

PART 2. Key issues for venture philanthropy

organisations/social investors (VPO/SIs) ...21

2.1. VPO/SI’s funding model ............... 22

2.2. The VPO/SI’s organisational structure . . 23

2.3. Fundraising ......................... 29

PART 3. The investment strategy ..........35

3.1. Investment focus ..................... 39

3.2. Type of SPO ..........................41

3.3. Tailored nancing and the dierent types

of nancial instruments ............... 43

3.4. Co-investing policy ................... 46

3.5. Non-nancial support ................. 48

3.6. The exit strategy ......................51

PART 4. The investment process ..........53

4.1. Investment appraisal ................. 54

4.2. Deal screening ....................... 55

4.3. Due Diligence ........................ 58

4.4. Investment decision and

deal structuring ...................... 63

4.5. Investment management .............. 70

4.6. Exit ................................. 77

4.7. Evaluation and post-exit follow-up ..... 80

PART 5. Reections on the journey so far ...85

APPENDICES ..........................88

GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...................91

March 2018

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Acknowledgements

For this new edition, we are extremely thankful to the

practitioners and researcher who participated in the rst

three editions.

EVPA is very grateful to all those members who have

shared their insights, successes, failures and learnings

with the wider community of VP/SI practitioners, in

particular Deirdre Mortell, Pieter Oostlander and Luciano

Balbo, three practitioners who wrote the rst edition

and have been instrumental in shaping the second and

third edition of this Guide. We would also like to thank

all the people who contributed to the rst edition: Artur

Taevere as a peer reviewer, Cormac Sheridan as editor

and the project manager Ahmad Abu-el-ata. We are also

thankful to the people who peer reviewed the second

edition: DavidCarrington, InêsDeOliveira Magalhães and

NatSloane for their support, as well as Emilie Goodall

(Bridges Fund Management) and ChloéTuot (former

Phitrust) for the feedback on specic parts.

Last but not least, we would like to thank Lisa Hehenberger,

for her continuous support and feedback to EVPA’s

Knowledge Centre.

6A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

This is the fourth edition of a working paper that was

rst published in 2008. It was intended to capture and

share the learnings of a number of pioneer European

Venture Philanthropy (VP) Organisations and Social

Investors (VPO/SIs)1, which were set up in the period

2000–2004, when the VP ‘movement’ rst began in

Europe. The fourth edition of the report also incor-

porates the learnings of almost ten years of research

performed by EVPA’s Knowledge Centre on topics

such as impact measurement, tailored nancing, exit

strategies, non-nancial support and learning from

failures, and presents a snapshot of the sector based

on data from EVPA’s Industry Survey.

The goal of this practical guide is to assist start-up or

early-stage VPO/SIs in Europe by providing an insight

into ‘what works’ in a European context, keeping in

mind the diversity existing at individual country level.

At the end of the document, there is a glossary that

provides denitions of the key terms mentioned in the

report.

VP is simply one tool in the philanthropy toolkit. It

emerged in Europe in the early 2000s as a high-en-

gagement approach to grant-making and social impact

investment (debt, equity, etc.) across a range of Social

Purpose Organisations (SPOs), from charities and

non-prot organisations through to socially driven busi-

nesses. Venture philanthropy works to build stronger

SPOs by providing them with both nancial and

non-nancial support in order to increase their social

impact. The methodology is based on applying venture

capital principles, including long-term investment and

hands-on support, to certain elements of the social

economy. The key characteristics of venture philan-

thropy include:

• Tailored Financing: the process through which a

VPO/SI nds the most suitable nancial instru-

ment(s) to support a social purpose organisation

(SPO) choosing from the range of nancial instru-

ments available (grant, debt, equity, and hybrid

nancial instruments).

• Organisational Support: the provision from VPO/SIs

of added-value support services to investees (SPOs)

to strengthen the SPO’s organisational resilience

and nancial sustainability by developing skills or

improving structures and processes.

• Impact Measurement and Management: the meas-

urement and management of the process of creating

social impact in order to maximise and optimise it.

The VP industry seeks to complement existing forms

of social nance and to contribute to the develop-

ment of a more ecient capital market to support the

social sector. Although VPO/SIs initially adapted high-

level principles from investment industry players such

as venture capital funds, they have since developed

specic investment tools, processes and methodolo-

gies that have been adapted to work eectively in the

social sector. Venture philanthropists with roots in the

commercial sphere have had to learn how to operate

within the cultural and operational frameworks of the

social sector.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Throughout this report we use the term “VPO/SI” or “VP/SI organisation” to refer to both venture philanthropy organisations and

social investors. With this term we include all those organisations that support social purpose organisations (SPOs) using all range

of nancial instruments (from grants to debt, equity and hybrid nancial instruments), with the primary objectives of achieving a

sustainable social impact (and in some cases a nancial return, but secondarily and not necessarily).

March 2018

1. SETTING UP A VP/SI ORGANISATION

Before setting up a VPO/SI, consideration should

be given to the type of funding models that will be

applied. The main question to be answered is whether

the VPO/SI will act as a social investor or focus on

grant-making of target SPOs. In many European

countries, tax and legal regulations distinguish between

grant-making and nancial instruments that establish

ownership titles, and the legal structure of the VPO/SI

has to take such regulations into account.

The success of any new VPO/SI will be driven by the

founder(s), who will dene a vision and a set of objec-

tives for the organisation. Founders typically come

from either the world of private sector investment or

from the social sector. A successful VPO/SI needs to

possess skills from each of these areas in-house. The

founder, therefore, needs to attract the right start-up

management team – particularly the right CEO – to

build the organisation’s knowledge and expertise.

VPO/SI management teams are often small at start-up

– typically one to four people. Ideally, they should

comprise open-minded individuals who share the

founder’s vision and passion for social change and

who are willing to acquire new skills in what is a rapidly

evolving industry. The VPO/SI shall recruit from both the

private and the non-prot sector. Working in this sector

brings VPO/SI sta often coming from a commercial

background into close proximity with SPO sta with

non-prot experience, so openness, curiosity, patience

and humility are necessary. Remuneration levels in

the VP/SI sector are sometimes set at discount to the

private sector, accounting for the ‘social return’ enjoyed

by sta through their work and compensating through

improved working conditions. Currently, attracting and

keeping the right talent is a crucial challenge in the

industry; attracting good professionals calls for new and

improved incentive structures, capable of competing

with the commercial sector.

A VPO/SI’s board can full various roles, depending on

needs. They are likely to have external duties, such as

fundraising and public relations, as well as internal obli-

gations, such as providing expertise and support to the

management team. At start-up, a VPO/SI will typically

have a small (three-to-ve member) hands-on board,

who engage actively with the management team.

The decision-making practices have evolved in the

past years, and currently three models exist of how to

involve the investors in the investment decision through

the investment committee: (i) the management-driven

model, where the fund management team makes the

investment decision, independently from the board; (ii)

the mixed model, where subsets of the investors are

involved in the decision-making process at dierent

levels; and (iii) the investor-driven model, where the

investment committee is composed of investors.

Fundraising is a key challenge for any start-up VPO/SI.

It requires vision, clear communication, persistence,

passion and optimism. Prospective funders are likely to

fall within one of a number of categories, such as the

founder’s personal network, existing trusts and foun-

dations, high-net-worth individuals, corporates and

government agencies. It is worth taking time to under-

stand which investors will share the founder’s vision,

and approaching them accordingly. The VPO/SI should

not try to bend its investment strategy to the needs of

potential funders, but reach out to funders who have

the same vision and goals. Due to the relative imma-

turity of VP, the founder will need to communicate the

vision clearly to potential investors, the investment

model and goals. They will often need to be intro-

duced to the principles of VP and to be convinced of

VP funding’s great potential to deliver social impact.

Having a high-calibre CEO in place and identifying a

handful of initial high-quality SPO investments can

help build credibility and encourage commitment from

investors.

VPO/SIs that do not have an endowment need to raise

a follow-on fund when the rst fund has been invested.

At this time, successful VPO/SIs have the advantage

of having developed a track record of eective invest-

ment in a number of SPOs which may facilitate further

fundraising. However, in some cases, follow-on funding

may be harder to obtain since start-up funders,

especially foundations, often feel their support role

becomes less necessary for successful and estab-

lished VPO/SIs. After the rst ve years of operation,

and depending on the results it has achieved to date,

the VPO/SI may consider whether to adapt any of its

Executive Summary

8A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

2. INVESTMENT STRATEGY

The starting point for developing an investment

strategy lies in a clear articulation of the VPO/SI’s

social and nancial objectives. The rst step is to

dene the VPO/SI’s own Theory of Change, i.e. the

social problem(s) it wants to address and a strategy

of how to improve the situation through its invest-

ments. Some VPO/SIs are pure grant-makers and do

not seek a nancial return whereas others act as social

investors with dierent degrees of return expecta-

tions. The investment strategy encompasses a possible

sector and geographical focus, the preferred type(s)

and development stage(s) of SPO (i.e. start-up/

early-stage or more established organisations) and

the nancial instruments used. It also includes the

co-investment policy and key considerations around

the VPO/SI’s impact measurement and management

system, the organisational support it will provide, and

its exit strategy.

When choosing the geography and sector it wants to

be active in, the VPO/SI needs to consider that having

a narrow geographical and sectoral focus helps accu-

mulate specic knowledge through which the VPO/SI

can support the SPO more eciently and generate and

demonstrate more impact.

VP is most appropriate as a source of nance and

support to SPOs that are seeking a ‘step change’ in

their operations. For small and medium-sized SPOs,

this may mean replicating their operating model in

new or more broadly dened markets. For larger, more

established SPOs, VP funding may be appropriate in

several settings that involve managing change, such as

mergers and scaling up. VP is not necessarily appro-

priate for all SPOs.

The preferences and requirements of the fund’s

investors will determine the fund’s term. Its ‘tools of

the trade’ will also need to be dened, namely the

nancial instruments that will be used. VPO/SIs can

employ a wide range of instruments, including tradi-

tional nancial instruments (grants, debts, equity) and

hybrid nancial instruments (e.g. convertible loans,

mezzanine or quasi-equity and recoverable grants).

The sector is in continuous evolution, thus new hybrid

nancial instruments are constantly being developed.

The choice of the instrument(s) to be deployed

will depend on both on elements of the investment

strategy of the VPO/SI and on the characteristics of

the SPO, such as its business model and stage of devel-

opment2. Financial instruments that require repayment,

such as loans or quasi-equity investments, are best

suited to income-generating SPOs. Following the

three-step approach developed by EVPA in its report

“Financing for Social Impact”, when developing its

investment strategy, the VPO/SI will make a number

of decisions that will have an impact on the nancial

instruments it will be able to deploy. The main factor

that inuences the VPO/SI’s choice of which nancial

instrument to use is its risk/return/impact prole3.

2 For more detail on how VPO/SIs choose the nancial instruments to deploy, and how they match them with the needs of the

investees see: Gianoncelli, A. and Boiardi, P. (2017), “Financing for Social Impact | The Key Role of Tailored Financing and Hybrid

Finance”, EVPA.

3 See Part 2, Chapter 1 (pages 24-29) in Gianoncelli, A. and Boiardi, P. (2017), “Financing for Social Impact | The Key Role of Tailored

Financing and Hybrid Finance”, EVPA.

headline objectives (e.g. adopting a narrower sector

focus on areas that have delivered the most social

impact). Adding peripheral activities, nding ways to

recycle capital and generating economies of scale in

the management fee are dierent ways of sustaining

the structure of the VPO/SI.

March 2018

The choice of nancial instrument will also be inu-

enced by the VPO/SI’s legal structure, its investors and

funders and the decisions taken in terms of its life cycle

(e.g. a foundation with limited duration will act dier-

ently from an open-ended fund) and the duration of

commitment dened.

Co-investment should be seen as a key part of the

investment strategy. It is an excellent way of gener-

ating additional funds for SPOs and bringing varied

expertise and a larger network. Moreover, it can oer

the VPO/SI itself an easier route to obtaining nance

than direct fundraising and decrease risk across

investors. It can also help to communicate the VP

approach to the broader funding community (e.g.

through co-investment with foundations or trusts). It

is important to agree on roles, responsibilities and obli-

gations with co-investors at the outset, to avoid the

risk of misalignment of objectives among co-investors

(i.e. social impact and nancial return objectives). The

VPO/SI – which is most actively engaged with investee

SPOs – will generally act as lead investor.

As part of the investment strategy, the VPO/SI should

consider the possible forms of Non-Financial Support

(NFS) to oer to the SPOs it nances. Following the

ve-step process envisaged by EVPA4, the VPO/SI

decides what type of NFS is core or non-core to its

investment strategy, and who provides each type of

support, based on a mapping of its assets. The VPO/SI

should provide the core support through its own sta

and can oer the non-core support through external

experts working pro bono, at reduced rates (low-bono)

or on a fully commercial basis. The purpose of any

organisational support should be agreed in advance

with the SPO. The non-nancial support oered aims

at strengthening the SPO’s social impact, nancial

sustainability and organisational resilience. The VP

approach puts particular emphasis on the topic of social

impact and thus on impact measurement. Given the

centrality of impact measurement and management,

when developing its investment strategy a VPO/SI

should take into account how it will measure social

performance during each step of the social impact

investment process. However, measuring social impact

can be dicult, as it is often hard to quantify objec-

tively. EVPA in its “A practical guide to measuring and

managing impact” has devised a ve-step framework to

guide VPO/SIs in developing an impact measurement

process5. We recommend a detailed reading of that

report to fully understand how to implement impact

measurement. As part of the investment strategy, the

VPO/SI articulates its own Theory of Change, which

will guide it in the selection of the SPOs to invest in,

and identies and engages the key stakeholders, to

guarantee they understand and support the VPO/SI’s

impact objectives.

Lastly, the VPO/SI denes its exit strategy, i.e. the

action plan to end the relationship with the investee

in such a way that the social impact is maintained or

amplied, or that the loss of social impact is minimised.

As recommended by EVPA’s report “A practical guide

to planning and executing an impactful exit”6, the

VPO/SI needs to consider which elements of its invest-

ment strategy will aect all its future exits, and how.

4 Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2015), “A practical guide to adding value through non-nancial support”, EVPA.

5 Hehenberger, L., Harling, A., and Scholten, P., (2015), “A practical guide to measuring and managing impact – Second Edition”, EVPA.

6 Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2014), “A practical guide to planning and executing an impactful exit”, EVPA.

Executive Summary

10 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

3. INVESTMENT PROCESS

For each investment, the VPO/SI goes through an

investment process, as outlined below (see Figure 1).

Through the investment process, the VPO/SI maximises

its impact objectives, guaranteeing that its (scarce)

resources are invested in the most impactful way.

The investment appraisal is made up of three phases:

deal screening, due diligence and investment selection,

and deal structuring.

VPO/SIs tend to take a proactive approach to identi-

fying potential investee SPOs. It can be more focused

and ecient than accepting open applications since

VPO/SIs target a very specic type of SPOs, and does

not impose the administrative burdens associated

with the latter approach. Potential organisations can

be identied directly or via the VPO/SI’s own network

(e.g. existing portfolio SPOs, networking with interme-

diaries and other funders or co-investors) or through

conferences or business plan competitions. Leveraging

the network of established investors and co-investors

can be an excellent way of generating high-quality

deal ow. This is especially important at start-up, when

securing some early wins will be important (this may

also necessitate an initial focus on lower-risk invest-

ments). Generating good deal ow will also require

communicating the principles and benets of VP to

target SPOs, who may be unfamiliar with the concept.

The impact objectives of the VPO/SI guide it through

the deal screening phase, a knock-out screening step

for all applicants who do not meet the standard applica-

tion criteria. During the deal screening, the VPO/SI will:

• Assess whether the investment opportunity ts with

its own strategy and contributes to achieving its

own impact objectives;

• Perform a ‘light’ assessment of the needs of the

SPO, to see whether there is an initial match

between the non-nancial support the VPO/SI can

oer and the non-nancial support needed;

• Be guided by the key exit considerations, as derived

from its investment strategy.

During the deal screening phase, the VPO/SI should

also assess whether the characteristics of the target

SPO match with its own goals, as already dened

during the development of the investment strategy.

Concretely, the VPO/SI needs to make sure that its own

social impact and nancial return expectations are in

line with the nancial needs of the specic SPO.

During the due diligence phase the VPO/SI assesses

in more detail whether there is an alignment between

the VPO/SI’s and the SPO’s objectives, performs an

in-depth needs’ assessment to assess whether the

SPO’s needs in terms of non-nancial support match

what the VPO/SI can oer. At the same time the

VPO/SI needs to evaluate whether the nancial needs

of the SPO match the nancial instruments the VPO/SI

can oer7 and already starts looking into how to plan

for the exit.

7 See Part 2, Chapter 3 (pages 39-48) in Gianoncelli, A. and Boiardi, P. (2017), “Financing for Social Impact | The Key Role of Tailored

Financing and Hybrid Finance”, EVPA.

Investment

Strategy

Deal

Screening

Due

Diligence

Deal

Structuring

Investment

Management

Evaluation &

Post-exit

Follow-up

Exit

Investment Process

Investment Appraisal

Figure 1: The investment process in the VP/SI space

(Source: EVPA)

March 2018

An organisation that has passed the deal screening will

generally build a business plan, as the ‘output’ to the

detailed screening step. Typically, this includes a review

of the organisation’s market, its three- to ve-year

strategy and operational plan, its social impact targets

and impact measurement system, a nancial budget,

an outline of its governance and organisational struc-

tures and an assessment of its management and board

capability. Although the business plan should be seen

to be ‘owned’ by the SPO, a VPO/SI will often support

its development, either directly or by providing third-

party consultancy support.

The investment proposal that emerges from the

planning phase will consist of the business plan (or a

presentation of the business plan) and an accompa-

nying commentary that considers investment-related

issues, such as risk appraisal, stepped investment plans

(to limit risk and to base future funding on perfor-

mance), level of engagement during the investment

phase and exit options.

When the investment decision is taken and the deal is

structured, the VPO/SI needs to decide with the SPO:

• The non-nancial support plan, including the SPO’s

objectives in terms of social impact, nancial

sustainability and organisational resilience (each

having a baseline, a goal, a milestone and a target

outcome), what services will be provided, by whom

and when and the resources and responsibilities for

what concerns measurement;

• The exit plan, which includes the goals of the VPO/SI

and SPO, the timing and mode of exit, the resources

for the exit plan and the exit market scenarios.

In terms of funding, in the deal structuring phase the

VPO/SI structures the deployment of the nancial

instrument(s) to be used.

Once the deal has been signed the investment manage-

ment phase starts.

VPO/SIs typically have a small portfolio of investee

SPOs, reecting the high-engagement nature of

the investments. However, VPO/SIs need to have a

minimum size of portfolio to guarantee a sucient

spread of the risk and to demonstrate VP works in a

number of circumstances. The ‘right’ portfolio size will

depend mainly on the size of the VPO/SI, the average

size of a single investment and the level of non-nancial

support oered. When deciding on the portfolio size,

VPO/SIs should also consider the optimal portfolio size

required to create a network of dialogue and collabo-

ration between the SPOs, thereby creating an opportu-

nity for incremental impact.

Various portfolio management options exist, including

taking a board seat and arranging regular reports

and reviews. Where possible, the form, frequency and

purpose of engagement between VPO/SI and SPO

should be agreed and documented in an investment

agreement.

During the investment management phase, the VPO/SI

monitors the achievement of its own social impact and

nancial return goals. The VPO/SI delivers the non-

nancial support and monitors the achievement of the

goals set in the non-nancial support plan, in terms

of social impact, nancial sustainability and organisa-

tional resilience. Finally, thanks to the monitoring of the

investment plan, the VPO/SI can assess if and when

exit readiness is achieved, and take corrective actions

in case of deviations from the original plan.

In cases where investments do not succeed initially, the

VPO/SI should evaluate the reasons for failure and help

investees nd solutions to problems where possible.

Funds should avoid the temptation to simply throw

money at the problem. Often, an SPO in diculty may

require non-nancial assistance, such as sta coaching

and even moral support for its leadership team. The

most appropriate form of support will depend on the

specics of a given situation.

The ultimate goal of portfolio management is to

maximise the VPO/SI’s overall social impact. Portfolio

SPOs will inevitably compete with each other for the

limited nancial and non-nancial resources that are

available. In managing this dynamic, the VPO/SI will

have to keep sight of its strategic goals. But by investing

in complementary – rather than competing – SPOs,

VPO/SIs can at least create additional leverage and

impact by facilitating collaboration and knowledge-

sharing among investees.

Executive Summary

12 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

At the time of exit, the VPO/SI determines how to

exit (mode of exit) and whom to exit to (follow-on

investors), balancing the nancial and social return. The

nal goal of the exit is for the SPO to maintain its social

impact nature; therefore, the VPO/SI will need to make

sure the follow-on funder’s strategy matches the needs

of the SPO both in terms of nancial and non-nancial

support oered. If the SPO is self-sustaining, the

VPO/SI does not need to nd a follow-on funder, and

the investee can continue on its own.

The mode of exit will vary based on the nancial instru-

ment used (grants versus other nancial instruments),

the context and the stage of development of the SPO.

In the unfortunate case in which the investee is not

performing (and the VPO/SI does not see a future for

the investee), the VPO/SI can also decide to let go,

and the SPO may need to shut down its operations.

This shall not be considered as an exit but as a case of

failure, which the VPO/SI will need to analyse in detail

to distil the main lessons for its future investments.

Once the exit is completed the VPO/SI can engage in

post-exit activities, which include:

• Evaluation – The VPO/SI needs to perform an overall

evaluation of the investment, which includes an

assessment of the value and impact of non-nancial

support, an assessment of its own achievements

in terms of social impact and nancial return (if

foreseen) and an assessment of the overall exit.

• Post-exit activities – The VPO/SI can decide to keep

in touch with its investees after exit, by means of

networking events, oering additional non-nancial

support or by organising “Alumni” networks. All

these activities have as main objectives avoiding

mission drift and monitoring the impact achieved by

the SPO.

March 2018

PART 1.

INTRODUCTION

CUIB © Mai Bine Association

14 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT

This report provides concrete guidance to organisations

that are getting started in venture philanthropy and

social impact investment in Europe. It builds foremost

on an earlier report called “Establishing a Venture

Philanthropy Organisation in Europe”8 that was rst

published in 2008, with a second edition in 2010 and

a third edition in 2016. Therefore, it includes the expe-

rience of some of the pioneer VPO/SIs that were set

up in the period 2000–2004, when the VP ‘movement’

rst began in Europe. However, this new version also

incorporates the key learnings from EVPA’s Knowledge

Centre publications on the constituent practices of

venture philanthropy, including tailored nancing9,

impact measurement10, exit strategies11, non- nancial

support12 and the report on learning from failures13. This

new version also takes into consideration the insights

from our reports on specic target groups such as

foundations14, as well as from EVPA’s industry surveys15

that capture data once every two years on the VPO/SIs

based in Europe. Specically, for the four reports on

tailored nancing, impact measurement, exits and

non-nancial support, the main recommendations have

been integrated as part of the investment strategy and

investment process.

The VP approach includes social impact investment

and grant-making best suited to support organisations

seeking innovation and scale of impact by adopting a

long-term, strategic view of growth. VP is not suited

to a signicant portion of the social sector market, for

example, community-oriented organisations working

within relatively stable, unchanging environments.

VPO/SIs are usually interested in implementing a

change process such as geographic expansion or tran-

sition to an income-generating Social Purpose Organ-

isation (SPO), in order to achieve a strong societal

impact16. The report also documents the cases where

there are clear dierences in the VP approach between

grant-making and social impact investment – the latter

using a number of nancial instruments allowing for a

positive nancial return.

We also document further VPO/SI experience in the

spheres of managing/creating deal ow; pursuing

follow-on funding beyond the start-up phase; devel-

oping dierent vehicles (i.e. co-investing, specialist

funds, etc.) and the greater need for portfolio manage-

ment rather than just individual investee management

due to increased portfolio size.

Lastly, the nancial crisis has produced material

changes in the nancial and economic climate. Impli-

cations for VPO/SIs are reected in the incremented

challenges of attracting start-up funding; the possible

demands of new funders to the sector seeking nancial

return; the shrinking levels of public sector funding that

PART 1.

INTRODUCTION

8 Balbo, L., Hehenberger, L., Mortell, D., and Oostlander, P., (2010), “Establishing a Venture Philanthropy Organisation in Europe:

A Practical Guide”, EVPA.

9 Gianoncelli, A., and Boiardi, P. (2017), “Financing for Social Impact | The Key Role of Tailored Financing and Hybrid Finance”, EVPA.

10 Hehenberger, L., Harling, A., and Scholten, P., (2015), “A practical guide to measuring and managing impact – Second Edition”, EVPA.

11 Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2014), “A practical guide to planning and executing an impactful exit”, EVPA.

12 Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2015), “A practical guide to adding value through non-nancial support”, EVPA.

13 Hehenberger, L., and Boiardi, P., (2014), “Learning from failures in Venture Philanthropy and Social impact investment”, EVPA.

14 Metz Cummings, A., and Hehenberger, L., (2010) “Strategies for Foundations: When, why and how to use Venture Philanthropy”, EVPA.

15 Boiardi, P., and Gianoncelli, A., (2016), “The State of Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment in Europe | The EVPA Survey

2015/2016”. EVPA.

16 EVPA purposely uses the term “societal” because the impact may be social, environmental, medical or cultural. However, throughout

this report we refer to “social impact” to indicate the same concept.

March 2018

can form a part of both the VPO/SI’s funding base and

the income streams of the SPOs themselves and can

aect the risk prole that VPO/SIs accept.

The learning and recommendations set out here reect

the experiences of VP practitioners. This document is

not intended as an academic paper. Rather, it is best

considered as a milestone on a learning journey. We

expect and hope that the content will date quickly, as

the European venture philanthropy movement gains

scale and momentum, and surpasses the experience

documented here. Some of the views expressed here

are shared across VPO/SIs, others are not. Where views

diverge, we have tried to present several perspectives

and outline the circumstances in which they may apply.

In this fourth edition of the report, we have tried to

incorporate some of the comments we have received

on the previous editions. We continue to welcome

your views and perspectives to grow the body of

practice recorded here. Please email your comments to

knowledge.centre@evpa.eu.com

We wish for this report to become a point of reference

for practitioners who are exploring the possibility to

enter the Venture Philanthropy/Social Investment

(VP/SI)17 space as well as a document used to introduce

VP/SI to an increasing number of practitioners.

The document is structured as follows. Part One

denes Venture Philanthropy and outlines how the VP

approach came to being and evolved in Europe in the

past decade, highlighting the main dierence between

grant nancing and social impact investing.

Part Two then looks into the main issues to face when

setting up a VP/SI organisation, namely: the funding

model, the organisational structure and fundraising,

highlighting challenges and recommendations on how

to successfully set up and run a VPO/SI.

Part Three focuses on the investment strategy, guiding

the VPO/SI in making choices on geography and sector

of intervention, type of SPO supported, etc.

Part Four then looks at how the investment strategy

is implemented through the investment process,

focusing on best practices (also derived from seven

years of EVPA’s Knowledge Centre research on VP’s

best practices) pointing to the main issues that can

arise when making an investment.

Part Five concludes, highlighting the challenges for the

future of the VP sector.

1.2 ESSENCE AND ROLE OF VENTURE

PHILANTHROPY

Venture philanthropy (VP) provides a blend of funding

and professional services to SPOs – helping them to

expand their social impact. This is a high-engagement,

partnership approach, analogous to the practices of

venture capital in building the commercial value of

young companies. VP in its modern form developed

originally in the US in the mid-1990s, took hold in the

UK from 2002 and has since expanded into conti-

nental Europe18.

1.2.1 Denition of Venture Philanthropy

VP is a high-engagement and long-term approach to

generating social impact through three core practices:

• Tailored Financing: the process through which a

VPO/SI nds the most suitable nancial instru-

ment(s) to support a social purpose organisation

(SPO) choosing from the range of nancial instru-

ments available (grant, debt, equity, and hybrid

nancial instruments).

• Organisational Support: the provision from VPO/SIs

of added-value support services to investees (SPOs)

to strengthen the SPO’s organisational resilience

and nancial sustainability by developing skills or

improving structures and processes.

• Impact Measurement and Management: the

measurement and management of the process of

creating social impact in order to maximise and

optimise it.

17 Throughout this report we use the term Social Investment (SI) also to refer to the concept of Social Impact Investment (SII) and

Impact Investing (II).

18 John, R., (2006), “Venture Philanthropy: the evolution of high engagement philanthropy in Europe”, Skoll Centre for Social

Entrepreneurship, Said Business School, University of Oxford.

Part 1. Introduction

16 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

Figure 2: Key characteristics of Venture Philanthropy

(Source: EVPA)

Taking into account the three characteristics above, it

is possible to dene the actors who are inside or who

are outside of the Venture Philanthropy tent in Europe.

Meeting these categories is the most relevant aspect to

be considered a VP practitioner, even more important

than the nancial instruments used or the type of

organisations supported19.

Venture philanthropy works to build stronger investee

organisations by providing them with both nancial

and non-nancial support (including organisational

support and impact management) in order to increase

their social impact. The venture philanthropy approach

includes the use of the entire spectrum of nancial

instruments (i.e. grants, equity, debt and hybrid

nancial instruments), and pays particular attention to

the ultimate objective of achieving social impact. The

investee organisations may be charities, social enter-

prises or socially driven commercial businesses, with

the precise organisational form subject to country-

specic legal and cultural norms.

The Venture Philanthropy organisation/Social Investor

(VPO/SI) acts as a vehicle, channelling funding from

investors and co-investors and providing non-nan-

cial support to various investee organisations. The

non-nancial support is provided by the VP/SI organ-

isation itself, but also by external organisations and

individuals. The investee organisations in turn develop

multiple projects that may be focused on particular

sectors, such as healthcare, education, environment,

culture, medical research. The ultimate beneciaries

are usually groups in the society that are somehow

disadvantaged, such as disabled, women, children.

19 Buckland, L., Hehenberger, L., and Hay, M., (2013), “The Growth of European Venture Philanthropy”, Stanford Social

Innovation Review

Investors

VP/SI organisation

(VPO/SI) Non-ﬁnancial

support

Multiple social projects developed

Social return

(+ Financial return)

Co-investors

Investee organisations

(social purpose organisations – SPOs)

NGO

n...

Social

enterprise

Social

enterprise

Social

enterprise

n...

Financing Non-ﬁnancial support

Figure 3: The Venture Philanthropy model

(Source: EVPA)

Social

Impact

March 2018

The social impact ultimately needs to be measured

by assessing how the lives of the beneciaries are

improved thanks to the actions of the investee organ-

isations, and, going one step further, assessing the

contribution of the VPO/SI to that improvement. The

VPO/SI generates social impact by building stronger

investee organisations that can better help their target

beneciaries and achieve greater eciency and scale

with their operations. Investors in VPO/SI are usually

focused on the social return of their investment, rather

than on the nancial return.

1.2.2 Origins and European expansion

The term ‘venture philanthropy’ can be traced back as

far as the 1960s in the US, but it was only during the

1990s that the term gained popularity and stimulated a

debate on new forms of highly engaged grant-making

by foundations. An inuential Harvard Business Review

paper by Letts, Ryan and Grossman20 challenged

foundations to employ tools from venture capital to

invest in the organisational, rather than the program-

matic, needs of social purpose organisations. Porter

and Kramer21 subsequently challenged foundations to

create greater value and to act as more than a passive

conduit for transferring nance from private sources to

grantees. At the same time, existing foundations were

considering how to change some of their practices in

order to better assist the social sector and how to align

their investments with their social mission. In the UK,

considerable interest in innovations in social impact

investment, including high-engagement models, began

to develop in 2001. While there were several historical

examples of VP-like activity, it was not until 2002 that

the UK’s rst VPO/SI, Impetus Trust, was launched. In

continental Europe, there has been a slow, but steady

arousal of interest in social impact investment and

high-engagement models of philanthropy, but only

in the mid-2000s did new organisations or models

emerge and the VP ‘movement’ actually began.

In the rst phase22 of the European VP movement –

which can be dated between 2000 and 2004 – it was

mainly business entrepreneurs and professionals from

the private equity and venture capital world who set

up the rst venture philanthropy funds. An example is

BonVenture, established in 2002 in Germany by Erwin

Stahl from the nance sector and funded by a few

wealthy German families, and Oltre Venture set up in

Italy by Luciano Balbo in 2002.

It was only during the second phase between 2004

and 2008 that venture philanthropy began attracting

the attention of the existing European charitable foun-

dations, such as the King Baudouin Foundation, in

search for new ways to better assist the social sector.

Since then, foundations have been increasingly inter-

ested in the VP approach as an additional tool in their

philanthropy toolbox. Some foundations started using

selected parts of the VP approach in their everyday

activities, others set up dedicated VPO/SIs within the

foundation, and some foundations started using VP as

an alternative strategy calling for a complete turna-

round. Co-investment between a VPO/SI and a founda-

tion also emerged as an interesting strategy enabling

each party to contribute its own expertise. Founda-

tions often have extensive experience of working in

particular social sectors that can prove invaluable to a

VPO/SI that is more focused on developing processes

and building strong organisations23.

In the third phase between 2008 and 2012, European

venture philanthropists developed hybrid practices

that were a bricolage of existing practices in the nance

industry and the non-prot sector moving philanthropy

into an age where sector boundaries are blurring.

More recently, what had been called social investment

that started in the UK became rebranded as social

impact investment, and gained momentum with the

work of the Taskforce on Social Impact Investment

20 Letts, C., Ryan, W., and Grossman, A., (1997), “Virtuous Capital: What Foundations Can Learn from Venture Capitalists”, Harvard

Business Review.

21 Porter, M.E., and Kramer, M.R., (1999), “Philanthropy’s New Agenda: Creating Value”, Harvard Business Review.

22 Buckland, L., Hehenberger, L., and Hay, M., (2013), “The Growth of European Venture Philanthropy”, Stanford Social

Innovation Review.

23 Metz Cummings, A., and Hehenberger, L., (2010), “Strategies for Foundations: When, why and how to use Venture

Philanthropy”, EVPA.

Part 1. Introduction

18 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

established by the G8 under the UK presidency,

involving both sector representatives and government

ocials. The Taskforce released its reports in September

2014 with highly relevant policy recommendations to

build a stronger social impact investment market24.

In this phase, governments and large corporations

also began to experiment with venture philanthropy

practices, adding two important sectors to the mix of

actors. EVPA published a report on VP strategies for

corporates in May 2015. The report shows the immense

potential for social change there is in a strong collabo-

ration between VPO/SIs and corporations where VPO/

SIs bring their experience, knowledge, skills and risk-

taking social impact investment approach to the table,

while corporates bring signicant resources, solid

structures and scaling opportunities. This collabora-

tion is already happening with very positive results, but

much more can be done25.

Today, VP is a growing force in Europe. The amount

of money invested is increasing as is the number of

funds and organisations devoted to this approach in

dierent regions of Europe (see Box “VP/SI industry by

the numbers”).

Although there is no strong philanthropic tradition

in Central and Eastern European countries, VP is

becoming more and more important in nurturing

and nancing the growth of the non-prot sector. In

2011, the Busan Partnership for Eective Develop-

ment Cooperation specically identied philanthropic

organisations as potential signicant partners in the

development process28. These emerging economies

have faced signicant challenges in rebuilding a market

economy and a social sector simultaneously, leading to

widespread, unaddressed social needs. VP may have a

particularly valuable role in helping to build stronger

civil society institutions (see NESsT’s case study p. 19).

VP/SI INDUSTRY BY THE NUMBERS:

FROM THE EVPA SURVEY 2015/201626

Support for social purpose organisations through the

VP/SI method continues to increase with, in scal year

2015, over €6.5 billion invested since inception and

average nancial support per VPO/SI remaining stable

compared to scal year 2013 at €7.8 million.

24 For more info: http://www.socialimpactinvestment.org/

25 Varga, E., (2015), “Corporate social impact strategies – new path for collaborative growth”, EVPA.

26 Boiardi, P., and Gianoncelli, A., (2016), “The State of Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment in Europe | The EVPA Survey

2015/2016”. EVPA.

27 ibid.

28 OECD netFWD, (2014), “Venture Philanthropy in Development: Dynamics, Challenges and Lessons in the Search for Greater Impact”,

OECD Development Centre.

THE STATE OF VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT IN EUROPE |

THE EVPA SURVEY 2015/201627

For the 2015/2016 Survey, the top three respondent

countries VPO/SIs that responded to the Survey were

based in the United Kingdom (17%), the Netherlands

(13%) and Germany (10%). However, the sample was

quite representative of the geographical spread of

VP/SI activities in Europe. The total number of countries

represented increased from 18 to 21, and included seven

respondents from Central Eastern Europe, with Bosnia,

Bulgaria, Croatia and Poland being represented for the

rst time.

Figure 4: Respondents by country

(n=108)

March 2018

Its vibrant diversity and presence in so many dierent

countries is perhaps the most outstanding trait of

European venture philanthropy nowadays. The danger

with such a multiplicity of approaches is that it could

lead to fragmented initiatives with little collective

impact. But the advantages of diversity outweigh the

risks, as diversity is more likely to drive innovation.

Ever since the European Venture Philanthropy Asso-

ciation (EVPA) was set up in 2004, it has been the

primary vehicle for encouraging the development

of the VP model throughout Europe and has worked

to bring together this ‘broad church’ of actors from

diverse sectors with a common objective: to enable

social purpose organisations to generate greater

and more sustainable social impact. EVPA’s role as a

network promoting and shaping venture philanthropy

and social impact investment in Europe was recog-

nised by a four-year Partnership Agreement signed

with the European Commission in January 2014, under

the nancial Programme for Employment and Social

Innovation (EaSI).

Currently, the association has over 220 members all

over Europe30, mainly based in Europe, but also outside

Europe, showing that the sector is rapidly evolving

across borders. In 2011 a sister network of EVPA, the

Asian Venture Philanthropy Network (AVPN), has been

established replicating the EVPA model in the Asia

Pacic region.

1.2.3 Motivation for Venture Philanthropy

Venture philanthropy organisations usually position

themselves as complementary to other forms of

funding available to SPOs. However, they do view the

VP model as particularly appropriate for organisations

undergoing rapid growth and development. VPO/SIs

recognise that many SPOs lack the internal capacity,

particularly the appropriate business skills and growth

capital, to grow signicantly the scale of their social

missions, reach new markets or be competitive when

bidding for government contracts. The ‘capital market’

for social innovation is not as ecient or diverse as it is

for developing fully commercial enterprises.

VP brings diversity in funding innovative solutions to

societal challenges and so helps to make the capital

market more ecient, especially for rapidly growing

and developing organisations.

Venture philanthropy is best described not as a

blueprint, but rather as a movement that is evolving a

set of practices. However, EVPA has decided to issue

these guidelines in order to encourage the profes-

sionalisation and standardisation of the industry. The

objective of the guidelines is to manage expectations

as to the behaviour of VPO/SIs.

VP is still an emerging player in the social sector, with

the fundamental challenge of oering new solutions to

the promotion and encouragement of entrepreneur-

ship and innovation.

29 Buckland, L., Hehenberger, L., and Hay, M., (2013), “The Growth of European Venture Philanthropy”, Stanford Social Innovation Review.

30 As of December 2017. To have an overview of our current membership, see here: https://evpa.eu.com/membership/our-members.

CASE STUDY:

NESsT29

An example of this valiant eort is NESsT, one of the

pioneers of venture philanthropy in Eastern Europe.

NESsT was established in 1997 as an international

non-prot organisation that develops sustainable

social enterprises to solve critical social problems

in emerging market economies. In fteen years, it

has trained more than 3,900 social enterprises and

entrepreneurs, developed more than 120 social enter-

prises, invested more than $8 million, and wound down

24 of its investments. Because it operates in such chal-

lenging emerging markets, NESsT has developed quite

dierently from venture philanthropy organisations

in more mature countries, such as the UK’s Impetus.

NESsT focuses on earlier stage organisations, often

having to set up social enterprises to solve specic

social problems rather than, as Impetus does, helping

existing social enterprises scale up.

Part 1. Introduction

20 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

In order to achieve this, the industry must address a

number of ‘enabling’ issues, namely:

• Communicating and marketing what it does within

the social sector (to multiple audiences, including

SPOs, statutory agencies, other types of social

sector funders);

• Developing a range of nancial instruments

(including hybrid nancial instruments) and

advisory services that meet the needs of SPOs;

• Measuring the performance and social impact

of SPOs (and ultimately the performance of the

VPO/SI);

• Collaborating with and learning from complemen-

tary capital providers such as foundations, private

equity and venture capital rms, nancial insti-

tutions, corporations and public funders – and to

attract additional resources to the sector;

• Building bridges with policy makers to create

an enabling environment for VPO/SIs and their

investees.

1.3 GRANT-MAKING VS SOCIAL

INVESTMENT – MAIN APPROACHES

OF VP

Venture philanthropy includes both grant-making and

social impact investment. By grant-making, we refer

to the provision of non-repayable donations to the

social purpose organisation: an Impact Only strategy.

Social impact investment refers to funding that aims to

generate a combination of nancial and social return.

To dierentiate from more passive socially responsible

investments, social impact investments must have a

deliberate impact seeking strategy, aiming to generate

measurable social impact.

The division between the two approaches is not as

clear-cut as it may appear in this schematic overview.

There is a spectrum of increasingly sophisticated

nancial instruments included in social impact invest-

ment (see section 3.3).

Throughout this document, we will highlight when

the practices related to establishing a VPO/SI diverge

when using ‘grant-making’ as opposed to ‘social impact

investment’ as a main approach. We have identied the

following as areas of VP practice where approaches

diverge:

• Considering the funding models that will be applied

• Types of nancial instruments (section 3.3)

• Exit (section 3.6 and 4.6)

In all other sections of this document, we assume

that VP practices are largely the same for both grant-

making and social impact investment.

KEY ISSUES

AND LEARNINGS

• VP includes grant-making and social impact invest-

ment that seeks to complement other

social sector funding sources by implementing:

-A broader spectrum of eligible SPOs from

non-prot service providers to prot-distributing

socially driven businesses;

-A high-engagement partnership approach that

seeks to provide added value and capacity

building support in addition to nancial support;

-A longer term investment time horizon than other

sources of social capital.

• VP takes its cue from the private sector invest-

ment industry in terms of helping to create a more

ecient capital market in the social sector. One of

the ways in which this is done is by oering a range

of nancial instruments that can be used in dierent

situations.

• Like its for-prot sector equivalents such as venture

capital (VC), VP places an emphasis on impact

measurement and management of investee SPOs

as well as of the VPO/SI’s overall portfolio. VPO/SIs

focus on backing the whole organisation, rather than

simply funding projects, much as venture capitalists

do with their investees.

March 2018

Centro Medico Santagostino © Oltre Venture

PART 2.

KEY ISSUES FOR THE

VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

ORGANISATIONS/SOCIAL

INVESTORS (VPO/SIs)

22 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

This section addresses the following major VP-specic

issues that a VPO/SI should consider when setting up

the VPO/SI:

• VPO/SI’s funding model

• The VPO/SI’s organisational structure, including:

-The founder(s)

-The CEO and management team

-The board

• The fundraising strategy

• The investment strategy

2.1 VPO/SI’S FUNDING MODEL

Before structuring the VPO/SI, consideration should be

given to the type of funding models that will be applied.

The VP toolkit contains tailored nancing as one of

its key characteristics, and various types of nancial

instruments are available for funding, ranging from

grants to social investment (see section 3.3). The main

question to be answered is whether the VPO/SI will act

as a social impact investor or focus on grant-making

of target SPOs. In many European countries, tax and

legal regulations distinguish between grant-making

and nancial instruments that establish ownership

titles. Grant-making can usually be done from organ-

isations with a charitable status. However, other types

of funding in various countries could conict with

a charitable status despite the fact that the primary

goal for those nancial instruments, when applied by

the VPO/SI, is social as well. The choice of the nancial

instrument(s) made will in many cases impact the legal

and tax structure of the VPO/SI, and it is recommended

to seek specialist advice before incorporation.

In general, when the primary activity of the VPO/SI is

to provide grants to SPOs, ‘grant nancing’, it tends to

be set up as a foundation. If the VPO/SI mainly invests

in social enterprises, ‘social impact investment’ (using

a spectrum of nancial instruments, the primary goal

being to generate social return), it is usually set up as

a fund (or fund like).

Funds can be limited in time or evergreen, meaning

that they do not have a limited life. Some VPO/SIs have

mixed structures that include both funds and founda-

tions. Examples of mixed structures include Noaber

Foundation in the Netherlands and BonVenture in

Germany. In this document, we refer to both funds and

foundations as VPO/SIs.

PART 2.

KEY ISSUES FOR VENTURE

PHILANTHROPY ORGANISATIONS/

SOCIAL INVESTORS (VPO/SIs)

VPO: Foundation

Social purpose

organisation

VPO/SI: Fund

Social return

Grants

Non-ﬁnancial

support

Social return

Financial return recycled

or below/at market rates

Equity, loans, etc.

Non-ﬁnancial

support

External Focus

Social InvestmentGrant-making

Social purpose

organisation

Figure 5: Grant-making vs Social

Investment

(Source: EVPA)

March 2018

THE STATE OF VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT IN EUROPE |

THE EVPA SURVEY 2015/201631

Grant-making is a key practice in European VP/SI, with

grants remaining the primary nancial instrument in

terms of € spend. However, recently, more VPO/SIs are

using nancial instruments other than grants, with about

10% of the total VP/SI spend allocated through “other

instruments”, which means that VPO/SIs are not using

only the standard categories of nancial instruments.

The majority (72%) of the European VPO/SIs are struc-

tured as non-prots such as foundations (either inde-

pendent, 38% or linked to a corporation, 8%), charities

(16%) or companies with a charitable status (10%).

For-prot forms are companies (19%) and funds (7%),

with a 2% of other forms.

2.2 THE VPO/SI’S ORGANISATIONAL

STRUCTURE

The composition and capabilities of the VPO/SI’s

founder, management team and board – and their

mutual interaction – are all critical to the success of the

VPO/SI. This section discusses each in turn.

2.2.1 The founder(s)

Many of the pioneer VPO/SIs are characterised by the

presence of a founder, the organisation’s main visionary

and often a cornerstone investor. The founder often

provides a signicant nancial contribution to the

VPO/SI and often needs to nance start-up costs that

cannot easily be charged to the other investors. More

recently, VPO/SIs have emerged that were originated

by established foundations, corporations, family oces,

private banks and other larger institutions. In those

cases, funding often comes from the institution backing

the set-up of the VPO/SI. However, whichever the origin,

VPO/SIs always need one or a few champions that

promote the concept of VP within the funding institu-

tion and that lead the VPO/SI during the start-up phase.

Founders typically come from one of the following

backgrounds:

• ‘Second career’ start-up entrepreneur who can

usually put in at least some capital, e.g. Noaber

Foundation.

• Founder(s) from the private sector with a vision

and some capital (such founders will tend to recruit

a high-calibre CEO from the social sector as soon

as possible), e.g. Oltre Venture Capital or Impetus

Trust32.

31 Boiardi, P., and Gianoncelli, A., (2016), “The State of Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment in Europe | The EVPA Survey

2015/2016”. EVPA.

32 Impetus Trust is now called Impetus − The Private Equity Foundation (Impetus-PEF) after the merger between Impetus Trust and

the Private Equity Foundation in 2013.

Independent

foundation

Company

Registered charity

or not-for-proﬁt

organisation

Company with charitable

status or not-for-proﬁt

company

Corporate

foundation

Other

Fund

management

company

Grant instruments

Equity and quasi

equity instruments

Hybrid instruments

Other

Debt instruments

Figure 7: Organisational structure of VPO/SIs

(n=108)

Figure 6: Financial instruments used by VPO/SIs by € spend

in scal year 2016

(n=97)

Part 2. Key Issues for Venture Philanthropy Organisations/Social Investors (VPO/SIs)

24 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

• ‘Founder CEO’ with vision, who recruits a young

team to be trained in the skills required to execute

the vision. These founders usually bring their skills

and experience to the table rather than capital,

and so fundraising is a critical need from the start –

securing an early sponsor in these cases is ideal to

build credibility quickly, e.g. CAF Venturesome.

• ‘Co-founding’, i.e. one person from the social

sector (perhaps a social entrepreneur) and another

from the private sector (e.g. investment, strategy

consulting), e.g. One Foundation.

• Government-funded, independently managed VP/

SI-type funds, e.g. UnLtd’s endowment comes from

the Millenium Commission, and Inspiring Scotland.

• Founder within an established grant-making organ-

isation, either setting up a new division or spon-

soring a spin-out funding organisation, e.g. King

Baudouin Foundation and Fondazione CRT.

• Several foundations set up by corporations,

including the BMW Foundation and the Shell Foun-

dation, have been moving into Venture Philanthropy.

2.2.2 The CEO and management team

The CEO of a newly created VPO/SI may be a founder

or an individual recruited at an early stage by the

founder(s). The CEO, the management team and the

board must share between them a blend of skills and

knowledge that can meet a very diverse set of demands.

The composition of the management team is obviously

important, although it would be dangerous in a general

discussion such as this one to be overly prescrip-

tive. Professionalism is a necessary but not sucient

condition. Ideally, recruits should also ‘share the vision’ –

i.e. be motivated by the social objectives of the VPO/SI.

Flexibility, an ability to work outside one’s comfort zone,

the possession of strong analytical skills and excellent

people skills are all important attributes. They are often

displayed by people who have worked across cultures

and sectors or by individuals who have taken risky or

unusual life or career decisions.

A successful management team will be able to wear

two hats simultaneously during its work with SPOs. Its

members should understand the specic social issues

and needs that the SPO addresses and the latter’s

strategy for doing so. They should also maintain an

‘investor perspective’ that considers both the SPO’s

performance and its alignment with the VPO/SI’s objec-

tives and with the rest of its portfolio.

Dierent VPO/SIs have taken dierent approaches

to achieving the balance between the social sector’s

perspective and the ‘investor’s’ perspective (see box

below).

VP/SI INDUSTRY BY THE NUMBERS:

FROM THE EVPA SURVEY 2011/201233

According to the 2011/2012 EVPA Industry Survey,

the founders of VPO/SIs mainly come from the social

mission-driven sector (including foundations and

other non-prot organisations, development organi-

sations and social entrepreneurs). The nancial sector

(including private equity and venture capital, retail and

investment banking, asset management and hedge

funds) has moved to second place (32%). The private

sector in general (including publicly traded companies,

professional services and entrepreneurs) is also an

important source of VPO/SI founders (27%).

Founders

36 32

Social Mission Driven

Financial Industry

Private Sector

Public/Government

33 Hehenberger, L., and Harling, A-M., (2013), “European

Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012 – The

EVPA Survey”, EVPA.

HOW TO HIRE TO BALANCE SOCIAL AND

FINANCIAL FOCUS

• Hire both skill-sets into the managment team, i.e. hire

a very diverse team and work hard to ensure they

learn from one another – build a learning culture.

• Hire a team with backgrounds that complement

those of the founder(s).

• Hire a team with investment backgrounds and

challenge them to develop deep knowledge of the

eld at a rapid pace (you may need to develop ways

of measuring whether they have succeeded).

Figure 8: Professional background

of founders of VPO/SIs

Number in % (n=59)

March 2018

Our collective wisdom tells us that a small team,

typically one to four people, is the right number to

start with. The prole could focus on people who are

patient enough to understand how the social sector

works, but who may not necessarily be from the social

sector34. In general, there is a need for a mix between

social and private sector backgrounds. Finding people

who are open-minded and willing to learn new skills

and new perspectives from others is essential.

The CEO must be able to sell the vision to the prospec-

tive management team. Having a compelling vision

and being able to articulate it clearly and concisely are

important. Recently, business students are showing an

increasing interest in careers that integrate social and

business such as social entrepreneurship, social impact

investment and venture philanthropy.

It may be hard to attract the ideal candidate at the

start. If it is necessary to compromise, calibre and

energy are preferable to directly relevant experience.

It may be necessary to upgrade a particular post

when the hire has demonstrated success. To date,

management teams have often been sourced through

networks. Professional searches and advertising can

play a part, although the novelty of VP can make the

latter a dicult proposition.

Most successful VPO/SIs in Europe have started with

high-calibre teams that have signicant experience –

either held by the founders or gained through recruiting.

According to practitioners interviewed in EVPA’s report

“Learning from failures in Venture Philanthropy and

Social Investment”35 team members must have basic

nancial skills – it is better to hire sta with a strong

business or nancial background (including business

planning and nancial skills) who can then learn about

how to apply their skills to the social sector. The team

overall needs to comprise a number of dierent experi-

ences (from both the private and the non-prot sector)

as each background brings something that contributes

to the overall ‘roundness’ of the team.

A deep knowledge of the social sector becomes critical

quickly but is not absolutely essential at the start-up

stage. People with investment backgrounds must have

the exibility and – importantly – the humility to gain

a deep understanding of the key issues for the VPO/

SI to function eectively and maintain credibility with

social sector partners. Thus, the team’s characteristics

need to be aligned with the investee companies, so if

the VPO/SI has a large majority of social enterprises in

its portfolio the background of the team shall reect

it. Finding board members or advisors from the social

sector can enable this transition.

The solid understanding of the social market required

includes:

Working in this sector brings VPO/SI sta often

coming from a commercial background into close

proximity with SPO sta with non-prot experience.

The VPO/SI will need to pay close attention to under-

standing the aspirations, perspectives and language

of its SPO partners, and will need to invest time in

communicating its own goals and analytical processes

clearly. Openness, curiosity, patience, and humility are

valuable traits on this path.

34 We found that if the fund is focused around revenue-generating social enterprise investments, an investment perspective is critical,

and this is typically not found among people from the social sector. However, people from social sector backgrounds are more

critical among small teams investing in social-service or advocacy-type organisations, where earned revenue streams are not

typically in place.

35 Hehenberger, L. and Boiardi, P., (2014), “Learning from failures in Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment”, EVPA.

ELEMENTS PROVING A SOLID UNDER-

STANDING OF THE SOCIAL MARKET

• A clearly dened and comprehensive understanding

of the social issues or needs that the VPO/ SI seeks

to address and the actors operating in this sector

that could be targets for learning or co-investment.

• An appreciation of the extent and type of funding

supply from both the non-prot and the public

sectors.

• A clear grasp of the legal and regulatory environ-

ment.

Part 2. Key Issues for Venture Philanthropy Organisations/Social Investors (VPO/SIs)

26 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

Remuneration is another key issue to resolve when

setting up the management team. We have already iden-

tied the need for high-calibre sta and the relatively

low level of awareness of VP as a career path. In an ideal

world, therefore, a VPO/SI should oer private sector

remuneration packages to its team. However, nancial

constraints often mean this is not possible. Further-

more, it is well understood that the ‘social return’ that

sta gets from working in the area of philanthropy does

justify some level of discount from equivalent private

sector remuneration. In practice, therefore, VPO/SIs will

often set their pay scales somewhere between equiva-

lent scales in the social sector and private sector. It is

common to provide non-nancial incentives to oset

this dierential (e.g. extra leave, exible working hours).

The social impact investment funds are often run with

similar remuneration schemes as in venture capital

and private equity, i.e. with the management team

paid a management fee and an upside in the form

of a carried interest. Considering the relatively small

size of the social impact investment funds and the

high-engagement approach, requiring substantial

time investment in each investee, the nancials are

sometimes dicult to combine with salary levels in the

private sector.

36 Boiardi, P., and Gianoncelli, A., (2016), “The State of Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment in Europe | The EVPA Survey

2015/2016”. EVPA

THE STATE OF VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT IN EUROPE |

THE EVPA SURVEY 2015/201636

The EVPA research into the size of these social invest-

ment funds yielded an average size of €13.6 million

for scal year 2015, comparable to the average size in

scal year 2013 (€13.8 million). The median for scal

year 2015 was €10 million, a 33% increase compared

to scal year 2013. This result suggests that although

there are a few larger funds and the majority are much

smaller, there is a tendency towards convergence in

fund size.

Of the 24 VPO/SIs that provided evidence of their

management fees in the EVPA Survey, we see a wide

range of fee levels. However, in general these manage-

ment fees are not signicantly higher than those seen

in the venture capital or private equity world. The

average management fee charged in scal year 2015

was 3.05%, 15% less than in scal year 2013 (when it

reached 3.61%), while the median was 3.00% as in scal

year 2013.

€10 m

Median

€13.6 m

Average

Median

Average

3.05

Figure 10: Average and median management fees (for

those SI funds that charge fees) in scal year 2015

(n=24 representing 31 funds)

Figure 9: Average and median size of social investment

funds in scal year 2015

(n=32 representing 43 funds)

March 2018

More recently, social impact investment fund managers

are trying to raise larger funds, making it possible to pay

appropriate salaries to the management (while making

more investments). According to Erwin Stahl at BonVen-

ture, bigger funds are more ecient because there are

economies of scale linked to the management fee. As

he explains: “For example, with a €4m fund, you need

a 4% management fee to pay xed costs of €200,000

per year. With a €20m fund and a 2.5% management

fee, you have a budget of €500,000 per year which

allows you to pay people a decent salary”37

Another point of discussion is the carried interest, i.e.

a share of the prots of an investment or investment

fund that is paid to the investment manager in excess of

the amount that the manager contributes to the part-

nership, in essence a performance fee rewarding the

general partners for having increased the value of the

investments38. In social impact investment, a current

debate relates to the use (or not) of carried interest, and

the need to link it to social impact achievement.

The introduction of carried interest in social impact

investment has been promoted at European level

through the Social Impact Accelerator (SIA), an initia-

tive of the European Investment Fund39. SIA operates

as a fund-of-funds, investing in social impact funds

and requiring them to adopt such approach. The funds

in SIA’s portfolio distribute carried interest to the

management team based on the social impact.

2.2.3 The board and governance structure

The role of the board should be determined early on –

ideally by the founder(s) and any early board members.

It should be noted that the board’s role will evolve as

the VPO/SI moves from the start-up phase to a more

‘steady state’. At start-up, the role and composition of

the board will be heavily inuenced by the needs of the

organisation and the management team. In the longer

term, boards will take on the kind of traditional govern-

ance and oversight roles seen in mature companies or

organisations.

Some of the drivers for establishing the board’s role,

focus and composition during the start-up phase

include:

The level of engagement of the board is likely to be

high – possibly even ‘hands on’ – during the start-up

phase. Board members should be selected if they can

provide the necessary time and if they are personally

committed to the success of the organisation. Donor/

investor representatives on the VPO/SI board are likely

to represent the VPO/SI externally, including through

fundraising activities and marketing, whereas board

members that are hired to bring specic skills and expe-

rience to the table will be the ones that tend to engage

with the management team of the SPOs directly.

During the start-up phase, when the VPO/SI as a whole

is in learning mode with respect to investment deci-

sion-making, the board is likely to act as the invest-

ment committee for nal investment approval.

As an example, at the beginning of its activities Social

Innovation Fund Ireland, did not have an investment

committee and all the grant decisions were taken by

the full board of six members.40 Later, boards may feel

that adequate decision-making processes have been

established to allow the investment committee to take

charge in the investment decision process.

The question of how to involve investors (or donors)

in the decision-making process, calls for a separate

analysis.

DRIVERS FOR ESTABLISHING THE BOARD’S

ROLE FOCUS AND COMPOSITION DURING

THE START-UP PHASE

• The need to grow the VPO/SI’s network (on both

the fundraising and the investment sides).

• Public relations and building the VPO/SI’s prole.

• Fundraising.

• Providing skills, expertise and knowledge to the

management team.

37 Hehenberger, L., and Boiardi, P., (2014), “Learning from failures in Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment”, EVPA.

38 Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest

39 For more info: http://www.eif.org/what_we_do/equity/sia/index.htm

40 Deirdre Mortell, Social Innovation Fund Ireland, email, October 2015.

Part 2. Key Issues for Venture Philanthropy Organisations/Social Investors (VPO/SIs)

28 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

In practice, for European VPO/SIs, there are three

models of how to involve investors in investment

decisions through the investment committee:

• Management-driven model: In some cases, the board

adopts a pure VC model, with the fund manage-

ment team (general partners) making the invest-

ment decisions independently from the board; this

is the approach of Oltre Venture41 and Bridges Fund

Management. Bridges Fund Management has an

investment committee for each investment team

(Growth Funds, Social Sector Funds and Property

Funds) made up of Partners and, in some cases, one

or more external members. These convene for any

investment decision, additional allocation of funds

and regular portfolio reviews. Additionally, Bridges

has a board (made up of Partners and Non-Executive

members) and an advisory board made up of purely

external members42.

• Mixed model: In other cases, the VPO/SI chooses to

adopt a mixed model with investors being involved

in the investment committee at dierent levels. For

instance, the investment committee at the One Foun-

dation was a subset of the advisory board43 while

two of the six members of the investment committee

of SI2 fund are also its largest investors44. For

BonVenture’s third fund, there will be an independent

investment committee consisting of three investors,

one independent and two from the management

team. The fund will be run using a partner model

where management team members will have shares

of the management company and have a say on the

strategy45.

• Investor-driven model: Yet another model is that

of Phitrust Partenaires where the investment

committee is made up of investors in the fund that

have expressed an interest in taking an active role in

the investment. At Phitrust, a separate supervisory

board is composed of ve people, including Olivier

de Guerre (as President), and is composed of two

individuals interested in the sector but who have

no direct involvement with Phitrust, and two who

represent institutional investors in the fund46.

As the board is often involved in the decision process

at VPO/SIs, there is a need for a governance structure

that includes a balanced mix of experiences from both

the private and social sector. The EVPA publication

“Learning from failures in Venture Philanthropy and

Social Investment”47 points out that, although diversity

can bring challenges, having a rich mix of perspectives

prevents VPO/SIs from making mistakes. Members of

the board must be chosen based on their collaborative

mind-set, patience and capability to respect people

with dierent backgrounds, but most of all for their

entrepreneurial approach.

Experience also tells us that the board size should be

kept small, typically three to ve members. In cases

where a VPO/SI needs a larger board (e.g. if several

board seats are requested by the VPO/SI’s investors),

then it is recommended that the board’s active

engagement activities are assigned to a smaller sub-

committee, which can meet frequently (e.g. monthly).

Inevitably, once the VPO/SI is up and running, dier-

ences will emerge between the board and the

executive management team over various aspects of

the VPO/SI’s operations or investee SPOs, due to the

deeper knowledge gained by the management team

as they bed into their roles. The CEO, as the interface

between the board and the management team, will

play an important role in maintaining strong commu-

nications between the two groups and ensuring that

their perspectives and expectations remain aligned.

Fondazione CRT has oered each board member a

management role on the investment vehicles of its

philanthropic investment fund. Phitrust also has the

additional aspect that investment committee members

take active roles, if they choose to, in the board of

strategy committee of the investees in our portfolio,

co-jointly with someone from the Phitrust team.

41 Luciano Balbo, Oltre Venture, email, October 2015.

42 Emilie Goodall, Bridges Fund Management, email, October 2015, and http://www.bridgesfundmanagement.com/our-team/

43 Deirdre Mortell, Social Innovation Fund Ireland, email, October 2015.

44 Pieter Oostlander, SI2 fund, email, October 2015.

45 Hehenberger, L., and Boiardi, P., (2014), “Learning from failures in Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment”, EVPA.

46 Chloé Tuot, PhiTrust, email, October 2015, and http://www.phitrustactiveinvestors.com/data//Rapport_annuel_2014_version_nale.pdf

47 Hehenberger, L., and Boiardi, P., (2014), “Learning from failures in Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment”, EVPA.

March 2018

2.3 FUNDRAISING

The nature of the founder (see section 2.2.1) aects

the type of fundraising necessary. Some individual

founders and institutions have been able to fully fund

the VPO/SI without external fundraising, others engage

in formal fundraising from third parties and some use a

combination of both. When the VPO/SI is closely linked

to a larger institution, funding is often provided on a

continuous basis by budgeting a certain amount to the

VPO/SI each year.

However, in many cases, the VPO/SI needs to engage

in fundraising in order to operate and have money to

invest. The recent nancial crisis has made fundraising a

greater challenge than ever before.

Raising capital successfully from third parties requires:

VP has substantial potential, and has emerged from

a movement to an industry. However, as an industry,

VP still suers from ‘liability of newness’. Prospective

donors and investors, therefore, need clarity on the

VPO/SI’s investment model and goals. The founder(s)

needs to articulate clearly how the money will be

invested; which areas will be prioritised; what the

overall social impact will be; and how the VPO/SI will

manage to achieve its goals. The founders also need

to consider how the VPO/SI will sustain itself over

time. Founders need to be able to articulate early on

the options for driving to nancial sustainability. The

founder’s personal track record will be critical.

In the social sector, the providers of capital are driven

by a combination of heart and head. They will be

motivated to support you by heart (the vision you

create of the social good to be achieved) but also

strongly inuenced by the head – the plausibility of

your plan and whether you are likely to achieve the

agreed objectives.

This section will discuss both the sources and

methodology for obtaining capital for a VPO/SI at

dierent stages of its development

2.3.1 Start-up

Raising the initial capital is clearly dicult, since the

idea of giving philanthropic capital to an intermediary

(one of the cornerstones of venture philanthropy) is

new to many. It helps if the founder or founders can

commit some of their own resources, to cover both

capital needs and the operating costs. This not only

helps nancially, but also demonstrates their commit-

ment to the project.

The type of funds raised may inuence the type of

nancial instruments that the VPO/SI can ultimately

oer (your investors will have their own preferences).

This could mean that some potential investors may be

more or less attractive targets, depending on the vision

underlying the organisation. In the EVPA publication

“Learning from failures in Venture Philanthropy and

Social Investment”48 Olivier de Guerre from Phitrust

Partenaires explains that “there are a number of private

and institutional investors who are ready to embrace

a social impact fund because they understand that

there is higher risk and high uncertainty, but that the

social return compensates for a lower nancial return.

Therefore, it is not necessary to adjust the investment

strategy to raise additional share capital, but rather

ensure that you are targeting the right investors. If

you are in a social impact investment fund, you know

you have to look for a specic investor, not alter your

investment strategy”.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESSFULLY

RAISING CAPITAL

• A clear vision of what you intend to achieve with

the capital

• A clear structure and investment strategy.

• Credibility and ability to deliver the vision.

48 Ibid.

Part 2. Key Issues for Venture Philanthropy Organisations/Social Investors (VPO/SIs)

30 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

Potential sources of funding include:

Educating your potential supporters about both the

methods and the benets of VP investing is important.

VPO/SIs are relatively expensive to operate – in

comparison with grant giving, for example – and the

sector still needs to demonstrate how the investment

activity results in increased social impact. A rst step

in that direction is for the VPO/SI to clearly articulate

its own Theory of Change51 as an investor, i.e. the social

change it aims to achieve through its investments and

how it aims to do that (e.g. which sector(s) it will focus

on, which type of support it will provide).

Potential supporters may be wary about investing in

a blind pool – i.e. committing capital to a fund whose

investment targets have not been identied. It may be

necessary to select ve or six candidate organisations

before commencing fundraising. Finally, you may need

to demonstrate the VPO/SI’s capability by putting

in place a start-up management team before raising

funds. Clearly, this can present a chicken-and-egg

situation. In reality, it probably means that, in the

absence of a major early-stage sponsor, the organi-

sation will necessarily grow slowly, starting with just a

few people and expanding as it starts to build a track

record.

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES

• The founders’ network of contacts – friends,

family and colleagues. Boards of directors can be

a valuable source of funding, both directly and

through their individual networks. Some of this is a

matter of luck, but the prior business experience of

the founders and their track record of success are

important drivers.

• Trusts and foundations generally make smaller grants

to support projects, in comparison with VPO/SIs.

Promoting innovation can be an important moti-

vation for these organisations, and they are thus

most likely to support the rst fund in a particular

geographical area. Esmée Fairbairn Foundation

in the UK has supported many of the pioneer UK

VPO/SIs such as CAF Venturesome and Inspiring

Scotland.

• Corporate sources (usually through their foun-

dations). Often the language and thinking of

corporates and corporate foundations tend to be

well-aligned with VP. Corporate foundations such as

the Shell Foundation operate like a VPO/SI in their

own right.

• High-net-worth individuals can sometimes be

accessed through private banks. A VPO/SI might

attempt to build a long-term relationship with the

bank’s philanthropic advisors by introducing them

to the concept of VP and bringing them to an EVPA

event. Many EVPA members are private banks and

their advisory services department. Oering clients

the opportunity to invest in VP can be a value-added

service that banks oer to their clients. BBVA in

Spain invites its private banking clients to invest in

the social enterprises that are selected through their

Momentum Project.

• Government agencies will sometimes support eorts

of this nature, in order to foster new ideas and to

develop the social market. Be prepared, however, for

a very long sales process and signicant operating

restrictions. In most cases, you will also need to

bring in other investors to support the eort and to

give your plan more credibility and independence.

Recently, funds of funds that are government-

supported have emerged both at European level,

through the European Investment Fund’s Social

Impact Accelerator (EIF-SIA)49, and at country level,

through initiatives such as Big Society Capital50 in

the UK and the Portuguese Social Innovation Fund.

Such funds of funds are starting to invest in VPO/SIs

to build the societal impact ecosystem and will

be potential sources of funding for VPO/SIs in the

future.

49 For more info: https://evpa.eu.com/policy/eu-funding

50 For more info: http://www.bigsocietycapital.com/

51 See Section 3 for more detail on the Theory of Change of the VPO/SI and the investment strategy.

March 2018

In summary, the following are the key issues to consider

before attempting to raise a rst-time fund:

ISSUES TO CONSIDER BEFORE ATTEMPTING

TO RAISE A FIRST-TIME FUND

• Be clear about your objectives and try to articulate

your own Theory of Change.

• Carefully target your potential investors and

develop an understanding of why they would

want to support you – remember each potential

supporter will have dierent motivations.

• Anticipate the dicult questions and think through

how you can respond credibly.

• Find an early-stage lead sponsor – see if you can

identify a foundation, nancial institution, high-

net-worth individual or other entity with a strong

funding base. This will give you more capital and

more credibility as you develop your operations.

• Be prepared for a major eort – appreciate that

the majority of the people you speak to will say

no – learn from those rejections and adjust your

approach as necessary.

• Be optimistic and persistent.

THE STATE OF VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT IN EUROPE |

THE EVPA SURVEY 2015/201652

A comparison of the budgets allocated to VP/SI in

the past three years shows that the share of organi-

sations allocating less than €2.5m to VP/SI increased,

after a substantial decrease was registered between

scal year 2012 and scal year 2013. At the same time,

the share of organisations allocating between €5m

and €15m decreased by 11 percentage points, even if

this still represents one quarter of the VPO/SIs that

responded to the survey. These trends are completely

opposite to the ones of the previous survey, in which

the share of organisations allocating small budgets

to VP/SI had experienced a sharp decrease, while the

range €5m–€15m gained in signicance. This result

reinforces our belief that there are a number of new,

small VPO/SIs entering the market. It is also interesting

to note that the percentage of organisations with large

budgets (> €15m) increased, from 9% in scal year

2013 to 12% in scal year 2015 (with two thirds of them

having a budget of more than €20m), and that most of

them are foundations, clearly still an important actor

in the VP/SI space.

52 Boiardi, P., and Gianoncelli, A., (2016), “The State of Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment in Europe | The EVPA Survey

2015/2016”. EVPA.

< €2.5m €2.5m > €5m €5m > €10m €10m > €15m > €15m

11 14

24 20

611 411 912

Fiscal year 2015 n=97

Fiscal year 2013 n=86

Fiscal year 2012 n=71

Figure 11: Size of VP/SI budgets in scal years 2012–2015

(numbers in %)

Part 2. Key Issues for Venture Philanthropy Organisations/Social Investors (VPO/SIs)

32 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

2.3.2 Follow-on fund

Follow-on funds ideally should not be raised until

several years after start-up, so that you can point to

the results achieved with the prior fund(s). In practice,

however, you will probably have to fundraise constantly.

The pioneer VPO/SIs in Europe have been facing the

challenge of raising their second funds. The advantage

of raising the second fund is that there should be an

established team, an established portfolio of invest-

ments (typically between four and seven) and some

evidence to support the thesis that your intervention

has made a positive impact. VPO/SIs are increasingly

data-driven and able to show the impact of their work

through impact reports and nancial accounts. Clearly,

such work goes a long way in showing potential investors

the level of professionalism of the VP approach and

potential social (and nancial) returns. Without these

elements, a VPO/SI is still essentially a start-up. Once

these milestones have been achieved, the fundraising

pitch can be based around the progress that has been

attained and should facilitate the fundraising process.

However, moving from the start-up to the follow-on

phase can be dicult. Some supporters will be more

animated by the excitement of a start-up and the

opportunity of investing in a new concept. Moreover,

the founders may have exhausted the appetite of their

immediate network and have to start ‘cold-calling’.

The prole of investors second or third time round is

broadly similar to that of the funders that were targeted

initially, but, depending on the strength of the invest-

ment case, they may oer a better reception. Institu-

tional investors will be dicult to attract at start-up

stage, but may make sense to bring in for a follow-on

fund. However, as highlighted in EVPA’s research on

learning from failures53, institutional investors tend

to focus more on achieving high nancial returns,

sometimes to the detriment of social impact.

Other factors to consider:

Governments and own endowment and trust are the

main sources of VP/SI funding, representing, alone,

almost half of the total resources made available

to VPO/SIs. In scal year 2015, governments repre-

sented 24% of the total funding available, an increase

of 13 percentage points compared to scal year 2013.

The category “own endowment and trust” went from

representing 10% of the total funding available to 23%,

an increase of 13 percentage points over the two-year

period. The third most important source of funding

for VPO/SIs is recycled returns on investment, repre-

senting 19% of the total amount.

Income from own

endowment or trust

Individual donors

and/or investors

Institutional investors

Corporations

External foundations

Financial institutions

Governments

Earned income 1

Recycled returns

on investments

4443

ISSUES TO CONSIDER WHEN RAISING

FOLLOW-ON FUNDS

• It may be worth adopting a sector-specic focus on

areas that have delivered the most social impact, and

becoming known as an expert in that specic sector.

• Use case studies from the portfolio where added

value delivered and the social benet achieved can

be demonstrated clearly. Be careful that claims are

not exaggerated and that they can be substantiated.

• Rene your investor targeting strategy. Within the

general categories outlined above, there may be

subgroups that are interested either in your target

sector(s) or in the types of investments you make.

Developing relationships with these key funders early

and building trust and support should be a priority.

53 Hehenberger, L., and Boiardi, P., (2014), “Learning from

failures in Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment”, EVPA.

Figure 12: Distribution of total funding made available to

VPO/SIs by source in scal year 2015

(n=97)

March 2018

CASE STUDY:

OLTRE VENTURE54

Oltre Venture55 is one of the rst Impact Investment

fund managers in Europe, founded by Luciano Balbo

in 2006. Since its foundation, Oltre Venture has

continuously and proactively supported Italian social

enterprises and helped their strategic development.

With the experience gathered from the rst fund,

Luciano Balbo decided to launch Oltre Venture II, which

is one of the rst funds to have received an investment

commitment from EIF’s Social Impact Accelerator. The

table below provides a comparison of the two funds in

their main features:

54 Vecchi, V., Casalini, F., Cusumano, N., and Brusoni, M., (2015), “Oltre venture: the rst italian impact investment fund”, SDA Bocconi

School of Management.

55 For more info: http://www.oltreventure.com/en/

Fund Name OLTRE Fund I OLTRE Fund II

Vintage Year 2006 2014

Timeframe The fund has a duration of 10 years and an

investment period no longer than 4 years

The fund will have a duration of 10 years, extend-

ible to 13, and an investment period of 5 years.

Investors and

Commitment

€7.5 million raised from 22 investors, mainly

from high-net-worth individuals (HNWI) and

an important Bank Foundation.

Current commitment from private and institu-

tional investors is about €26 million, of which

€10million invested by EIF

Legal form Società in accomandita per azioni (SAPA)

(Limited Liability Limited Partnership – LLLP)

Currently in the process of authorisation by Bank

of Italy

Management Operational expenses covered by the

founder

Investment Target Fee OLTRE I invested in 17 social enterprises

belonging to the following sectors, micro-

nance, temporary social housing, healthcare

and job placement. Three main investments

(PerMicro spa, Ivrea24 and Società e Salute

Srl) represent 66% of the total portfolio.

Oltre Venture chose to invest in companies

characterised by highly innovative operating

models, economic and nancial sustaina-

bility and a special ability in oering high-

quality services and/or products at low fees.

However, their business models were not all

fully sustainable and replicable.

OLTRE II investments will be mainly directed

both to expansion companies with the necessity

to grow further and to start-up companies. Only

fully sustainable societal impact enterprises are

nanced.

OLTRE II investments will focus on specic social

sectors (education, healthcare, social housing,

assistance, job placement); services provided to

individuals, families, elderly and the young popu-

lation; the most vulnerable areas of the country

mainly through investments in agriculture and

tourism; any other initiative that might promote

social solutions creating a positive impact for the

community.

Oltre Venture raised its follow-on fund about eight years

after its start-up. The fund size has more than doubled

mainly thanks to the commitment of institutional

investors and of the EIF. The investors’ prole is dierent

from the ones targeted initially, who were mainly high-

net-worth individuals (HNWI). HNWI and family oces

have the advantage of higher exibility when making

investment decisions. But the investment they can

provide is smaller, while demanding at the same time

more involvement in investment decisions and manage-

ment. The approach of institutional investors is dierent

as they are able to invest larger amounts but require

precise procedures to assess and to approve invest-

ments, which makes it extremely hard to access money

from them.

Part 2. Key Issues for Venture Philanthropy Organisations/Social Investors (VPO/SIs)

34 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

2.3.3 Other methods of raising capital

The funding model can pose challenges, especially when

it comes to the nancial sustainability of those VPO/SIs

that do not have an endowment and thus have to count

on fundraising to nd enough and sustainable funding.

VP/SI needs ‘patient capital’ that is exible enough to

accommodate for unforeseen circumstances. VPO/SIs

have tried to nd complementary revenue streams as

a solution to the nancial sustainability issues. Adding

peripheral activities (such as consultancy), nding ways

to recycle capital (through debt instruments and by

reinvesting capital gains) and generating economies of

scale in the management fees (by raising larger funds)

are examples of methods to raise more resources.

For instance, to enable self-sustainability in terms of

funding, NESsT has set up its own social enterprise

that provides consulting services to organisations that

need the tools that NESsT has developed. The prot

goes back to NESsT and now constitutes 20% of the

funding. It is building a business plan for an investment

fund to enable funds to be recycled. It plans to use loans

and equity – and diversifying its own income strategy.

However, this new strategy will also be challenging

given that NESsT’s investees are mostly early-stage

enterprises that often need patient capital requiring a

longer period of repayment and lower interest rates56.

KEY ISSUES

AND LEARNINGS

• Role of the founder(s) – The founder(s) of the

VPO/SI is the key visionary of the project and must

communicate that vision to attract early interest

from others. They must also start to map out the

critical internal knowledge and expertise the VPO/SI

will need to focus eectively on specic social

sectors or issues.

• Role of the CEO, the management team and the

board – The CEO hire is the most critical move the

VPO/SI will make. The CEO must have a compel-

ling vision, be energetic and have directly relevant

experience. The make-up of the management team

and board should reect the needs of the VPO/SI

in terms of skills and knowledge. There is a delicate

balance to strike between social sector experience

and investment management skills. The board is

likely to need to take on a more hands-on approach

to supporting the management team in the start-up

phase.

• Fundraising – Successful fundraising requires the

ability on the part of the founder(s) to articulate a

compelling vision for the VPO/SI and to communi-

cate to investors the potential level of social impact

that VP can achieve. The founder’s ability to provide

some capital is often critical to success.

56 Hehenberger, L., and Boiardi, P., (2014), “Learning from failures in Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment”, EVPA.

Oltre Venture II, thanks to the bigger size, is able to

nance social enterprises at early stage, when they

mostly need capital to support a step-up in capabilities.

This contributes to bridge the nancing gap between

the start-up and scaling phase, which aects most

social businesses in their development. Oltre Venture

I, on the other hand, made small seed-stage invest-

ments. Among the Oltre Venture I portfolio, the three

main investments (PerMicro spa, Ivrea24 and Società e

Salute Srl) were considered success cases and became

the proof of the team’s ability to develop and manage

new business models to attract further investment. In

particular, Società e Salute is the fund’s star investment,

being a nancially free-standing investment and a fully

replicable business model. Its success story was used by

Mr. Balbo as a reference case for the fundraising of Oltre

Venture II, where the European Investment Fund (EIF)

invested €10 million as an anchor investor.

March 2018

PART 3.

THE INVESTMENT

STRATEGY

Alter-Eco © Phitrust

36 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

VP/SI organisations are vehicles that channel funding

from donors and investors to selected social purpose

organisations (SPOs). A VPO/SI’s investment strategy

will ow from a set of choices that determine its focus

and its objectives. The most important choices for the

VPO/SI relate to its social and nancial return goals.

First, the VPO/SI needs to dene its social objec-

tives. Many VPO/SIs have started to develop their

own ‘Theory of Change’57 to articulate how and why

it expects to achieve a change through its activities to

solve a particular social problem.

In practice, dening its Theory of Change means that

the VPO/SI needs to determine:

EVPA’s report “A practical guide to measuring and

managing impact”58 helps VPO/SIs in the process of

dening their social impact objectives, and embedding

them in the overall impact measurement system.

The impact measurement process outlined in ve

steps allows the VPO/SI to better manage the impact

generated through its investments. To manage impact,

the VPO/SI should continuously use the impact meas-

urement process to identify and dene corrective

actions if the overall results deviate from expecta-

tions. This involves revising and readjusting the steps

in the impact measurement process as lessons are

learned, additional data is collected, or the feasibility

of objectives set is questioned. It is important to see

impact measurement as a learning process. A clearly

articulated Theory of Change is necessary to be able

to choose investments in SPOs that can contribute to

solving the social issue that the VPO/SI is addressing.

The VPO/SI needs to consider this question clearly

before starting to make investments, and regularly

revise and adapt as its investment strategy develops.

For the VPO/SI, it is important to get the buy-in of

key stakeholders (donors/investors, sta/ human

resources, SPOs) to the impact objectives of the

VPO/SI so that their expectations are managed and

their contributions are aligned. Therefore, engage-

ment with a VPO/SI’s key stakeholders should happen

upfront by making sure they understand and support

the impact objectives, and any major changes in these

objectives should be properly communicated. It is

useful to regularly engage with these key stakeholders

to make sure that objectives continue being aligned,

and otherwise implement corrective measures.

PART 3.

THE INVESTMENT STRATEGY

KEY COMPONENTS OF THE THEORY OF

CHANGE OF THE VPO/SI

• The overarching social problem or issue that it aims

to alleviate – e.g. youth unemployment in Spain

(including an assessment of the magnitude of the

problem as the base case).

• The specic objective it wants to achieve – e.g.

reduce youth unemployment in Spain by investing

(nancial and non-nancial support) in social enter-

prises with innovative solutions to introduce youth

in the labour force (including an assessment of what

the greatest needs of such social enterprises are

and how the VPO/SI can help them).

• The expected outcomes – what the VPO/SI must

achieve to be considered successful (the milestones

against which the VPO/SI will be measured).

57 For more info: http://www.theoryofchange.org

58 Hehenberger, L., Harling, A., and Scholten, P., (2015), “A practical guide to measuring and managing impact - Second Edition”, EVPA.

March 2018

The VPO/SI also needs to dene its nancial objectives

(including if they are independent of or secondary to

the social objectives). The targeted nancial return

will have an inuence on the type of nancial instru-

ments used as well as on the types of organisations

targeted. As an example, if the fund targets a 5%

IRR net to investors, it means that it must achieve an

average of 5% return across its portfolio, after paying

the management fee and any other costs incurred.

Since some investments may need to be written o as

failures, the fund must generate superior returns from

a number of investments to compensate for the write-

os. Pure grant-makers expect a -100% return on their

‘investments’.

59 Boiardi, P. and Gianoncelli, A. (2016), “The State of Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment in Europe | The EVPA Survey

2015/2016”. EVPA.

THE STATE OF VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT IN EUROPE |

THE EVPA SURVEY 2015/201659

2.5

2.5 2.5

2.5 2.5 2.5

2.5

14.5

5555

0+1 +2 +2.5 +3 +3.5 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +15 +20 +33

0+2 +2.8 +8 +10 +13 +15

999999

When asked about the expected gross return on the

investment funds, VPO/SIs reported that they expect

a positive nancial return from 76% of their invest-

ment funds. The range of positive returns varies, from

a minimum of 1% to a maximum of 33%. A total of 10

funds are expected to generate only capital repayment

(24% of the sample, with a decrease of 14 percentage

points compared to scal year 2013)

The survey then asked the respondents about the

realised gross annual return of the investment funds.

Of the 11 funds represented by 9 respondents to this

question, 46% received full capital repayment, 54%

generated a positive return between 2% and 15%, and

no funds registered a loss.

Figure 13: Expected gross return on

social investment funds in scal year

2015

(n=31 representing 41 funds,

numbers in %)

Figure 14: Realised gross return on

social investment funds in scal year

2015

(n=9 representing 11 funds, numbers

in %)

Part 3. The Investment Strategy

38 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

The overarching social and nancial objectives of the

VPO/SI will determine its focus (1) in terms of sector

and geography and the preferred models of interven-

tion of the VPO/SI involve the type of SPO that will

be supported (2), in terms of type, size and stage of

development of the SPO. The choice of the type of

SPO to fund and the nancial return expectation of the

VPO/SI will determine the nancial instruments used

(3). VP nancial instruments are similar to the ones

used by venture capital, with the addition of grant

and grant-related funding. Often VPO/SIs decide to

co-invest with other funders in order to raise more

funds for VP activities, promote VP activities among

a wider audience and spread the risk (4). In addition

to nancial support, VPO/SIs provide value-added

services, such as strategic planning, marketing and

communications, executive coaching, human resources

advice, access to other networks and potential funders

and support to develop the social impact goals of the

SPO and to build an impact measurement and manage-

ment system (5). Finally, the VPO/SI considers how it

plans to exit from its investments in general (6).

In the next sections we will focus on the most important

elements of the investment strategy which constitute

key issues for the VPO/SI.

KEY COMPONENTS OF THE VPO/SI’S

INVESTMENT STRATEGY

1. Investment Focus – which includes the geographical

and social sector focus of the VPO/SI’s operations.

2. Type of SPO – in which the VPO/SI denes the size,

type and stage of development of the investee(s) it

supports.

3. The type of nancial instruments – will the VPO/SI

utilise nancial instruments other than grants? The

decision to apply social investment instruments that

establish an ownership title (like loans and equity)

will inuence the structure of the VPO/SI.

4. The co-investment policy – the VPO/SI needs to

make a decision as to whether it invests together

with other actors, or alone, weighting the pros and

cons of its decision.

5. The non-nancial support – the VPO/SI needs to

decide how much non-nancial support it provides,

what type of NFS is core or non-core to its invest-

ment strategy and who provides each type of

support. The non-nancial support oered needs to

be in line with the goals of the VPO/SI in terms of

nancial return and societal impact, as dened in its

Theory of Change.

6. The exit strategy – it is recommended that VPO/SIs

already think about how they will exit their invest-

ments as part of developing their investment

strategy, allowing them to assess variables such as

duration of the investment and potential exit routes.

The Theory of Change and the nancial return expecta-

tions are the cornerstones of the investment strategy,

and will help the VPO/SI further rene its investment

strategy.

Broadly speaking, the investment strategy of the

VPO/SI is composed of six additional main elements

(see box below).

March 2018

3.1 INVESTMENT FOCUS

The investment focus determines the sector and the

geographical areas the VPO/SI wants to invest in.

In recent years, VPO/SIs have shown signs of increased

specialisation in terms of sector and geography,

implying that each VPO/SI is focusing more and more

on a reduced number of sectors and geographies. This

development comes from a growing recognition that

VPO/SIs can support their investees more eciently

by accumulating specic knowledge, and thus facili-

tating networking and knowledge sharing within their

portfolios. More focus on a specic social sector and

geography also adds value and enables the VPO/SI to

generate and demonstrate more impact.

3.1.1 Social sector choices

Many of the pioneer VPO/SIs focused on demonstrating

the VP model rather than on targeting a particular

social sector. Having a broad-based portfolio allows a

start-up VPO/SI to appeal to a wide variety of stake-

holders. VPO/SIs operating in a small market where

the social sector is still undeveloped may not be able

to aord to focus on one sector as deal ow would

be too limited. However, as the VP industry becomes

more established, many VPO/SIs have started to focus

on one or several social sectors, recognising the impor-

tance of sector-specic knowledge to better assist their

investees and to leverage the VPO/SIs’ resources. Such

a focus makes sense because the VPO/SIs can bring

more added value in the areas where they develop a

learning curve. Measuring impact is also facilitated by a

clear investment focus on one particular social sector.

EVPA Survey 2015/2016 provides an overview of the

sectors that have received most attention by European

VPO/SIs (see Figure 15).

60 Ibid.

2224

15 14 15 14

14 13

13 13

232

Economic and social

development

Financial inclusion

Education

Environment

Health

Culture and recreation

Other

Housing

Social services

Law, advocacy and politics

Research

Philanthropic intermediaries

and voluntarism promotion

International promotion

THE STATE OF VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT IN EUROPE |

THE EVPA SURVEY 2015/201660

Fiscal year 2015 n=77

Fiscal year 2013 n=90

Fiscal year 2012 n=61

Figure 15: VPO/SIs target sectors by € spend

in scal years 2012–2015

(n=96, numbers in %)

In terms of funding in scal year 2015, economic and

social development tops the classication of recipient

sectors, receiving 24% of total investment, followed by

nancial inclusion (19%), which experienced an impres-

sive increase of 14 percentage points since scal year

2013. Education (15%), environment (14%) and health

(7%) make up the top ve recipient sectors. Inter-

estingly, the resources allocated to research sharply

decreased from scal year 2013 to scal year 2015,

falling from 13% in scal year 2013 and scal year 2012,

to a negligible percentage this year. Due to the fact

that one of the options that respondents could choose

was “not set criteria”, it is possible that part of the

amount invested or granted with no particular sector

focus was directed to research.

Part 3. The Investment Strategy

40 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

3.1.2 Geographic choices

VPO/SIs need to dene the geographical scope of

their activity. EVPA Survey 2015/2016 shows that most

European VPO/SIs operate in their own domestic

market or invest in developing countries (see Figure

16). VPO/SIs that adopt an international focus face

additional costs and management complexities in

comparison with those operating within a single

national jurisdiction. Engaged portfolio management

is more complicated if the investee organisations are

dispersed across several countries, while the develop-

ment of an overseas network is necessary to maintain

deal ow. Travel, legal advice and taxation advice will

all impose additional costs.

Questions about the social impact investment market

in the target geography need to be explored in this

context as well. Is there a sizeable societal need that

the VPO/SI can address in a meaningful way? Is there

sucient deal ow to ensure that an appropriate level

of investments will result? A market study is normally

required to understand the relevant demographics and

the quantity, quality and size of potential investment

targets. To ensure that the VPO/SI can invest selectively

in high-quality organisations, the number of potential

investments should signicantly exceed the total

number of investments required to ll the portfolio.

Domestic 64%

Cross border 3%

Western

Europe

Asia

Africa

Latin

America

Eastern

Europe

North

America

THE STATE OF VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT IN EUROPE |

THE EVPA SURVEY 2015/201661

As a result, for the rst time this year, 29% of the

resources were allocated without using any specic

geographical criteria. Then considering the remaining

71%, in line with the last survey’s results, European

VPO/SIs are increasingly focusing their activities in

Western Europe, which received 67% of the total

resources invested, amounting to a two percentage

points increase compared to scal year 2013.

61 Ibid.

Figure 16: Geographic focus of VPO/SIs by € spend

in scal year 2015

(n=97)

29%

Not set criteria

71%

Set criteria

March 2018

3.2 TYPE OF SPO

Venture philanthropy can operate across a spectrum

of organisational types, from charities and non-prot

organisations through to socially driven business. The

diagram below sets out the range of organisational

types that may have some social mission of one form or

another. Those that are typically considered for invest-

ment by VPO/SIs will generally fall into the Charities,

Revenue Generating Social Enterprise and Socially

Driven Business categories, collectively referred to as

Social Purpose Organisations (SPOs) in this paper:

62 Adapted from John Kingston, Big Society Trust, by Pieter Oostlander, Shaerpa

63 Boiardi, P. and Gianoncelli, A. (2016), “The State of Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment in Europe | The EVPA Survey

2015/2016”. EVPA.

Charities

Primary driver

is to create

social impact

Primary driver

is to create

ﬁnancial return

‘Blended’ social impact and ﬁnancial return

Impact Only

Grant making

Venture Philanthropy

Social Purpose Organisations (SPOs)

Social investment

Finance First

Revenue Generating Social

Enterprises

Socially

Driven

Business Traditional Business

Grants only:

no trading

Trading

revenue and

grants

Potentially

sustainable

>75%

trading

revenue

Break-even

all income

from trading

Proﬁtable

surplus

reinvested

Proﬁt

distributing

socially

driven

CSR

Company

allocating

percentage to

charity

Mainstream

Market

Company

Impact First

Figure 17: The EVPA

Spectrum

(Source: EVPA)62

THE STATE OF VENTURE PHILANTHROPY AND

SOCIAL INVESTMENT IN EUROPE | THE EVPA

SURVEY 2015/201663

OtherNGOs, no trading

35 35

NGOs, trading

23 19 21

Social entreprises and

social businesses

37 37

797

Figure 18: Type of investee by VP/SI

€ spend in scal years 2012–2015

(numbers in %)

Fiscal year 2015 n=97

Fiscal year 2013 n=82

Fiscal year 2012 n=64

Venture philanthropy is not appropriate for all

SPOs, just as venture capital is not the best form of

nancing for commercial businesses at all stages of

their lifecycle. In general, VP is best suited to SPOs

that require an injection of capital to achieve a ‘step

change’ in their operations (see Figure 18). For some,

this may mean providing nance that enables the SPO

to replicate their operating model in a new or much

more broadly dened target market. For other more

established SPOs, VP funding may be appropriate in

instances where the organisation is underperforming

and seeking to re-design its core strategy or restruc-

ture operations.

Part 3. The Investment Strategy

42 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

THE STATE OF VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT IN EUROPE |

THE EVPA SURVEY 2015/201665

Figure 19: Investee’s maturity at time of investment in scal

year 2015

(n=108 numbers in %)

VPO/SIs generally want to direct their resources to

young, small to medium-sized organisations with

growth potential or to organisations that are at an

inexion point such as scale up, merger or turnaround

(see Figure 19).

It is important to invest in organisations in the early

stage of development but VPO/SIs investing in early-

stage SPOs may face diculties in attracting capital:

the ecosystem is slow in recognising the importance

of early stage. The early stage of development calls for

more patient capital and this could reduce the funding

possibilities.

In terms of size, most VPO/SIs invest in organisations

that are small to medium.

However, there is still divergence in what works best

with regard to the VPO/SI size. Some VP/SI CEOs

propose that VPO/SIs should not invest in small SPOs,

but rather focus on a few, large investees that can

achieve disrupting impact. As the risk is high, VPO/SIs

need to invest in organisations that have potential to

scale, and in entrepreneurs that are willing to do so.64

Set criteria

n=58

multiple choice

> 5.1 years

2.1-5 years

0.1-2 years

0 years (incubation)

No set criteria

64 Hehenberger, L., and Boiardi, P., (2014), “Learning from failures in Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment”, EVPA.

65. Boiardi, P. and Gianoncelli, A. (2016), “The State of Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment in Europe | The EVPA Survey

2015/2016”. EVPA.

The most common age of investee organisations is

2.1–5 years (62% of respondents). Some VPO/SIs

also target early-stage organisations with an age of

0.1-2 years (40%), others take the risk of incubating

start-ups (17%), and about one VPO/SI out of ve

invests in more mature organisations that are more

than 5 years old.

March 2018

3.3 TAILORED FINANCING AND THE

DIFFERENT TYPES OF FINANCIAL

INSTRUMENTS66

VP/SI nancial instruments are broadly similar to

those used in the commercial investment sphere,

but also include the grant and grant-related nancial

instruments.

Financial instruments are contracts involving monetary

transfers through which, in the VP/SI space, venture

philanthropy organisations and social investors nan-

cially support social purpose organisations. The three

main groups of nancial instruments are grants, debt

instruments and equity instruments.

In addition to grants, debt and equity, a VPO/SI can

use hybrid nancial instruments (HFIs) to support its

investees.

Hybrid nancial instruments (HFIs) are monetary

contracts that combine features of the traditional FIs

(grants, debt instruments and equity instruments) in

order to achieve the best possible alignment of risk and

impact/nancial return for particular investments. HFIs

are nancial instruments seeking to reconcile some of

the basic tensions between the nancial requirements

of the investors and the impact motivation of the social

entrepreneurs (Varga and Hayday, 2016). HFIs are well

suited for the funding of SPOs that are developing

products and services for which there is potentially a

market (Spiess-Kna and Struewer, 2015) to respond

to their diverse nancing needs (Damaschin-Țecu and

Etchart, 2016). Even though hybrid nancial instru-

ments can be very useful to better nance SPOs, not

all VPO/SIs may be aware of the possibility to also use

them, and may not know how to structure and deploy

them. It could also be that it is complex and hence

it risks being lengthy to implement, also because it

requires nancially literate businesses to invest in,

so that they understand the mechanism. Or VPO/SIs

might simply not be aware of the term “hybrid nancial

instruments” and what it entails, demonstrating that

HFIs are still not easily understood and used, both by

the VPO/SI and their investees (Varga and Hayday,

2016). Some examples of hybrid nancial instruments

are mezzanines, convertible loans/debts, and recover-

able grants68.

66 This section was developed based on the EVPA report: Gianoncelli, A. and Boiardi, P., (2017), “Financing for Social Impact | The

Key Role of Tailored Financing and Hybrid Finance”, EVPA.

67 See Part 2, Chapter 3 (pages 43-44) in Gianoncelli, A. and Boiardi, P., (2017).

68 See Part 2, Chapter 3 (page 45) in Gianoncelli, A. and Boiardi, P., (2017).

MAIN TYPES OF FINANCIAL

INSTRUMENTS67

• Grants are a type of funding in the form of a cash

allocation that establishes neither rights to repay-

ments nor any other nancial returns or any form of

ownership rights on the donor.

• Debt instruments are loans that the VPO/SI can

provide to the SPO, charging interest at a certain

rate. The interest charged can vary depending on

the risk prole of the investee and on the securiti-

sation and repayment priority of the loan (senior vs

subordinated loan).

• Equity instruments are contracts through which

a VPO/SI provides funding to SPOs and in return

acquires ownership rights on part of the SPO’s

business. This can be appropriate when the

prospect of a loan repayment is low or non- existent.

If the SPO is successful, the equity share holds

the possibility of a nancial return in the form of

dividend payments. In addition, it allows for the

possibility of a transfer of ownership to other

funders in the future.

Part 3. The Investment Strategy

44 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

The above list refers to the most commonly used hybrid

nancial instruments in the VP/SI sector, but it is not

exhaustive. Dierent variations and combinations of

nancial instruments are possible. The range of options

available, therefore, should be seen as a continuum

rather than a set of discrete choices.

As described in the EVPA report “Financing for Social

Impact”70, tailored nancing is the process through

which a venture philanthropy organisation or a social

investor nds the most suitable nancial instrument (FI)

to support a social purpose organisation choosing from

the range of nancial instruments available (grant, debt,

equity, and hybrid nancial instruments). The choice of

the nancial instrument(s) will depend on the impact/

nancial return expectations and risk prole of the

VPO/SI and on the needs and characteristics of the SPO.

In this report, EVPA denes tailored nancing as a

three-step approach take should take into account and

on the same level of importance the assessment of

both the characteristics of the VPO/SI and of the SPO.

Figure 20: Tailored nancing as a three-step process

(Source: EVPA’s Knowledge Centre)

TYPES OF HYBRID FINANCIAL

INSTRUMENTS69

• Mezzanine nance is a hybrid of debt and equity

nancing, usually used to fund the scaling of an

organisation. Although it is similar to debt capital,

it is normally treated like equity on the organisa-

tion’s balance sheet. Mezzanine nance involves

the provision of a high-risk loan, repayment of

which depends on the nancial success of the SPO.

This hybrid nancial instrument bridges the gap

between debt and equity/grant through some form

of revenue participation. Examples include a loan

that is only repayable through royalties based on

the future sales of a product or service; or a royal-

ty-sharing agreement that can be activated once

an agreed protability threshold has been reached.

These hybrid nancial instruments can oer an

appropriate balance of risk and return.

• Convertible loans and convertible debts are “two

dierent circumstances in which the loan may be

converted into equity.” In both cases we are looking

at “a loan that has to be repaid. However, in one

circumstance, because the lender is willing to vary

the loan terms in the borrower’s favour, the borrower

gives the lender rights to exchange its creditor

position for an ownership in the enterprise at a later

date. In another, more challenging circumstance,

a loan is converted into equity either because the

borrower’s regulator requires the intermediary

to bolster its capital or upon the occurrence of a

future funding round. It is particularly useful where

the enterprise is so young that a valuation is not

possible and an equity price cannot be set” (Varga

and Hayday, 2016).

• Recoverable grants are grants that can be returned

to the VPO/SI, under certain terms and conditions

agreed in advance by the VPO/SI and the SPO.

Recoverable grants are “designed to focus the

recipient on sustainability and reduced risk of grant

dependence”. (Varga and Hayday, 2016).

69 See Part 2, Chapter 3 (pages 45-46) in Gianoncelli, A. and Boiardi, P., (2017), “Financing for Social Impact | The Key Role of

Tailored Financing and Hybrid Finance”, EVPA.

70 Gianoncelli, A. and Boiardi, P., (2017), “Financing for Social Impact | The Key Role of Tailored Financing and Hybrid Finance”,

EVPA.

Assess the

pre-conditions

of the VP/SI

organisation

1. 2.

Assess the

ﬁnancial needs

of the SPO

Match the VP/SI

organisation’s

goals with the

SPO’s needs

March 2018

THE STATE OF VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT IN EUROPE |

THE EVPA SURVEY 2015/201672

The statistics from the Survey also show that tailored

nancing is a reality in Europe, with the majority of VPO/

SIs adapting their nancing model to the needs of the

investee. The majority of VPO/SIs (59%) do adapt their

nancing model to meet the needs of their investees

either always (in 32% of the cases) or often (in 27% of

the cases). A smaller share of VPO/SIs only adapts the

nancing model in some cases (31%) or rarely (5%), and

only 5% reported never adapting the nancing model to

the needs of the investees.

As part of its general investment strategy, the VPO/SI

will need to assess in advance which nancial instru-

ment(s) it plans to deploy. To do this exercise, the VPO/

SI needs to take into consideration its pre-conditions,

especially its impact strategy, which depends mainly

on its risk/return/impact prole71. And on the other

side, also the SPO should reect on its nancial needs.

Then the VPO/SI evaluates if its goals match with the

ones of the SPO (third step of the tailored nancing

process).

Using a tailored nancing approach, by assessing the

needs of the SPO before oering the most suitable

nancial instrument(s), has several potential advan-

tages (see box below):

ADVANTAGES OF USING A TAILORED

FINANCING APPROACH

• It can achieve greater impact by nding the most

appropriate solution for each individual case.

• The range of nancial instruments oered may

encourage an SPO to take a more active role in

assuring its own nancial sustainability.

• It can help to broaden the SPO’s vision to include a

wider range of social investors.

• It can improve the VPO/SI’s asset management (i.e.

funds can be recycled when not only grants are

used).

Always

Sometimes

Rarely Never

Often

71 To have a complete overview of the pre-conditions linked to the VPO/SI that may have an implication on the choice of the

nancial instrument(s) to use, see pages 24-29 in: Gianoncelli, A. and Boiardi, P., (2017), “Financing for Social Impact | The Key

Role of Tailored Financing and Hybrid Finance”, EVPA.

72 Boiardi, P. and Gianoncelli, A., (2016), “The State of Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment in Europe | The EVPA Survey

2015/2016”. EVPA.

Part 3. The Investment Strategy

Figure 21: % of VPO/SIs adapting their nancing model to

the needs of their investees in scal year 2015

(n=108)

46 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

3.4 CO-INVESTING POLICY

Co-investment can be an important part of a VPO/

SI’s investment strategy. It represents an excellent way

of raising funds for VP activities – and may be easier

than raising funds for the VPO/SI itself. In addition,

it can help to promote VP among a wider audience.

It also eliminates the ‘blind pool’ element, whereby

investors are asked to fund unidentied organisations.

It can help VPO/SIs to target suitable trusts and foun-

dations that are appropriate for a given investment.

Co-investing does prompt certain cost considerations.

Some VPO/SIs may wish to charge co-investors a fee

for managing the investment – to share overheads.

This can often be a dicult negotiation. Co-investing

can also be risky in particular if the co-investors do

not have similar objectives. There are several accounts

in the sector of diculties arising during the invest-

ment period when purely nancial co-investors opted

out of an investment that was doing well from a social

impact perspective, but without generating the desired

nancial return – forcing the investee out of business

and the social impact investor to fail73.

For these reasons, as reported in EVPA’s research on

exit strategies74, a recommendation before engaging

with co-investors is for the VPO/SI to assess the

co- investors’ investment strategy and objectives,

nancial/impact trade-os and exit plans, to make

sure they are compatible and aligned. Furthermore, as

with the SPOs, it is important to agree on roles and

responsibilities among co-investors up front. Although

co-investors who add value are a denite plus,

managing the consortium is easier if there is one active

lead investor – usually the VPO/SI – and a syndicate of

other investors that are mainly passive.

Other aspects of the relationship should also be agreed

upon (see box below).

73 Hehenberger, L., and Boiardi, P., (2014), “Learning from failures in Venture Philanthropy and Social impact investment”, EVPA.

74 Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2014), “A practical guide to planning and executing an impactful exit”, EVPA.

ASPECTS OF THE CO-INVESTMENT

RELATIONSHIP TO AGREE UPON

BEFOREHAND

• How often will co-investors attend regular review

meetings?

• Will they help to supply or source value-added

services?

• Will they automatically follow the lead investor in

continuing or stopping funding in a crisis?

• What are the reporting obligations of the SPO and

the lead investor?

Co-investment

Pros Cons

• More funds available for target organisations; VPO/SI

may invest in more organisations.

• Spreading risk:

-Additional validation of investment opportunity.

-Shared risk in case of failure and should additional

funding be required.

• Target organisation is not dependent on one funding

source.

• Mitigate possible lack of deal ow.

• Co-investors can add specic skills, for example, many

foundations have deep knowledge of specic social

sectors.

• Reduce demands (reporting, etc.) on the SPO if lead

investor manages relationship.

• May increase the reputation of the SPO through

multiple investment partners.

• Additional liability for the VPO/SI if co-funders lean on

its work.

• Fund management cost ratios may increase since

the same support organisation (VP/SI management

team) is managing a signicantly larger portfolio – if

co-investors do not contribute to management costs.

• Potentially more time-consuming for VPO/SI and

investee in terms of reporting and relationship

management issues.

• Potentially slower decision-making.

• VPO/SI may have to sacrice independence.

• Misalignment in the investment strategy of the

co-investors can generate issues throughout the

investment period and at the time of exit.

• Co-investors without a local presence in the

geographies where they invest may ‘free ride’ without

adding value.

March 2018

THE STATE OF VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT IN EUROPE |

THE EVPA SURVEY 2015/201675

Co-investment is a key component of European

VPO/SIs’ investment strategy. About 63% of respond-

ents have co-invested in the past and 19% said they are

interested in doing so, even if they have not co-invested

yet. Only 18% of the respondents expressed no interest

in co-investing.

Half of respondents that have co-invested have done so

with foundations (51%), while 25% have co-invested with

venture capital/private equity investors. About 16% of

the respondents report having co-invested with main-

stream banks, 15% with public nancing institutions, 13%

with both nance rst impact investors and companies,

and 5% with micronance institutions.

Yes, we have

co-invested

in the past

No, we do

not co-invest

in general

We are interested,

but we have not

co-invested yet

Foundations engaged in other

forms of philanthropy

Venture capital and

private equity investors

Venture philanthropy organisations

and societal impact ﬁrst investors

Mainstream banks

Public ﬁnancing institution

Finance ﬁrst impact investors

Companies

Other

Microﬁnance institutions

59 51

18 25

14 13

11 16

75 Boiardi, P. and Gianoncelli, A., (2016), “The State of Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment in Europe | The EVPA Survey

2015/2016”. EVPA.

Figure 23: Type of co-investors in scal years 2013 and 2015

(multiple choice, numbers in %)

Figure 22: Co-investment in scal year 2015

(n=102)

Fiscal year

2015 n=55

Fiscal year

2013 n=44

Part 3. The Investment Strategy

48 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

3.5 NON-FINANCIAL SUPPORT76

The non-nancial element of a VPO/SI’s support can

be as important to the investee’s development as the

nance the VPO/SI provides. EVPA denes non-nancial

support as the support services VPO/SIs oer to

investees (SPOs) to increase their social impact, organ-

isational resilience and nancial sustainability, i.e. the

three core areas of development of the SPO.

Figure 24: The three areas of development of the SPO

(Source: EVPA)

As impact measurement and management are central

to the VP approach, the VPO/SI will put particular

eort in supporting the SPO’s strengthening its social

impact. The goal of impact measurement is to manage

and control the process of creating social impact in

order to maximise or optimise it (relative to costs).

In its report “A practical guide to measuring and

managing impact”77 EVPA has devised a ve-step

framework to guide VPO/SIs in developing an impact

measurement process for the SPO. We recommend a

detailed reading of that report to fully understand how

to implement impact measurement. EVPA is playing

a leadership role in the impact measurement eld, as

shown by the extent to which EVPA’s work on impact

measurement is being referenced in the European

Commission’s Standard78 on impact measurement, and

our participation in and contribution to the report79

produced by the Working Group on Impact Measure-

ment of the taskforce on social impact investment

established by the G8. In fact, by using the EVPA guide-

lines, VPO/SIs can feel condent that they are adhering

to the EU standard on impact measurement. In this

report, the main conclusions of the EVPA study are inte-

grated into the section on investment process (Part 4).

In order to help VPO/SIs tackle the challenges of

planning, delivering and valuing non-nancial support,

EVPA has developed a ve-step model for managing

non-nancial support. In this report, the main conclu-

sions from the ve-step process are integrated into the

section on investment process (Part 4).

As part of its investment strategy, the VPO/SI should

rst consider the possible forms of non-nancial

support available to help the SPO advance on the three

core areas of development (i.e. social impact, nancial

sustainability and organisational resilience). Based

on the VPO/SI’s own impact objectives and Theory

of Change, i.e. the social change it wants to achieve

through its investment strategy, the VPO/SI can choose

which types of non-nancial support are core to imple-

menting its strategy.

It is recommended that the VPO/SI maps its assets, to

assess who will provide the core and non-core support.

The core support should be provided by the VPO/SI’s

internal team, and only in case the issue is very technical

and outside of the competences of the internal team by

paid, low-bono or pro-bono consultants. The non-core

support can be externalised to low-bono or pro-bono

supporters or to paid consultants. The VPO/SI also

needs to consider how it will nance the non-nancial

76 This section was developed based on the EVPA report on non-nancial support: Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2015),

“A practical guide to adding value through non-nancial support”, EVPA.

77 Hehenberger, L., Harling, A., and Scholten, P., (2015), “A practical guide to measuring and managing impact - Second Edition”, EVPA.

78 For more info: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-696_en.htm

79 For more info: http://www.socialimpactinvestment.org/reports/Measuring%20Impact%20WG%20paper%20FINAL.pdf

Social impact

The social change on the target

population resulting from an

SPO’s actions.

Financial

sustainability

The assessment that an SPO

will have sucient resources

to continue pursuing its social

mission, whether they come

from other funders or from own

revenue-generating activities.

Organisational

resilience

The assessment of the degree

of maturity of an SPO, in terms

of the degree of development

of the management team and

organisation (governance, fund-

raising capacity etc.).

March 2018

support it provides and – in order to do so – it needs to

have a clear view of the real cost of the non-nancial

support it is providing. The EVPA report “A practical

guide to adding value through non-nancial support”80

provides practical guidance on how to monetise the

cost of non-nancial support.

80 Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2015), “A practical guide to adding value through non-nancial support”, EVPA.

TOOL

Figure 25: A mapping of non-nancial support

(Source: EVPA)

Speciﬁc Support Area of development

Social

impact

• Support developing the Theory of Change and the Impact Strategy

• Support to develop an evaluation framework and performance measures

Operational Support

• Marketing

• Operational management

• Technical assistance in specialist areas

• ICT advice

• Support on procurement

• Estate management/access to physical

space

• Legal advice

Strategic Support

• Strategy consulting

• General management advice

• Strategic planning advice

• Support to develop the business strategy

• Support to develop new products or

services

• Support to develop new business

systems or procedures

• Advice on management of change

Organisational

Resilience

• Support to develop board of directors

• Advice or assistance to strengthen the

board/governance system

• Board development/governance

assistance

• Assistance in recruitment of new

board members

• Strengthening CEO + mgmt team

(through coaching/mentoring)

• Recruitment/talent provision

Financial

Sustainability

Impact MeasurementTheory of Change and Impact Strategy

Generic SupportGeneric Support

• Assistance securing funding

from other sources

• Use VPO's reputation to help

grantees secure funding from

other sources

• Practical support with

fundraising

• Fundraising advice or strategy

• Assistance securing follow-on

funding

• Business Planning

• Business Model

Development (business

model canvas)

• Sound ﬁnancial mgmt

capabilities and ﬁnancial

mgmt tools

• Develop ﬁnancial systems

• Financial management

advice

• Financial planning/

accounting

• Support to establish new

ﬁnancial systems

Fundraising Financial ManagementRevenue strategy

Governance SupportHuman Capital Support

Part 3. The Investment Strategy

50 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

VP/SI INDUSTRY BY THE NUMBERS:

FROM THE EVPA SURVEY 2013/201481

The spend on NFS is dicult to quantify for a vast

majority of the European VPO/SIs. In the EVPA

Survey 2013/2014, only 11% of the respondents

always measures the spend on non-nancial support,

compared to a majority (52%) that never or rarely

measures it.

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

In most cases

Always

0 20 40 60 80

Strategic support

Revenue strategy

Financial management

Fundraising

Theory of Change

Operational support

Governance support

Human capital support

Other

81 Hehenberger, L., Boiardi, P., and Gianoncelli, A., (2014), “European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2013/2014 – The

EVPA Survey”, EVPA.

82 Boiardi, P., and Gianoncelli, A., (2016), “The State of Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment in Europe | The EVPA Survey

2015/2016”. EVPA.

THE STATE OF VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT IN EUROPE |

THE EVPA SURVEY 2015/201682

The services provided by most VPO/SIs include

strategic support (85%), revenue strategy (77%)

followed by nancial management (73%). Then, 67%

of the sample indicated to oer non-nancial support

in the areas of fundraising and impact measurement,

supporting investees in developing their own Theory

of Change, impact strategy, evaluation framework and

performance measures.

Figure 26: Proportion of VPO/SIs who measure the spend

on NFS in scal year 2015

(n=95)

Figure 27: Non-nancial support activities provided in scal

year 2015

(n=108, multiple choice, numbers in %)

March 2018

3.6 THE EXIT STRATEGY83

We dene an exit strategy as the action plan to

determine when a VPO/SI can no longer add value to

the investee, and to end the relationship in such a way

that the social impact is either maintained or amplied,

or that the potential loss of social impact is minimised.

The EVPA report “A practical guide to planning and

executing an impactful exit” provides a ve-step

framework for the exit strategy (as shown below). In

this report, the main conclusions are integrated into

the section on investment process (Part 4).

83 This section was developed based on the EVPA report on exit strategies: Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2014),

“A practical guide to planning and executing an impactful exit”, EVPA.

2. Developing

an exit plan

3. Determining

exit readiness

4. Executing

an exit

5. Post-investment

follow-up

• Investment targets

- Milestones

- Timing

- Mode

- Resources

• Post-exit scenarios

- Monitoring

Monitoring the

investment targets

based on milestones

Determining exit

readiness:

How

To whom

Evaluation

Follow-up of

the SPO

SPO:

Targets:

Social impact

Financial sustainability

Organisational resilience

VPO/SI: Social return

Financial return

For the

VPO/SI

For the

SPO

Of the

VPO/SI

Of the

SPO

Investment strategy B Key elements for exit B Screening

1. Determining key exit considerations

Figure 28: The ve-step exit strategy

(Source: EVPA)

As part of the investment strategy, the VPO/SI needs

to think about how the exit strategy will guarantee the

social mission of the investee is locked in, so that the

SPO will continue pursuing its social impact goals even

after the VPO/SI has exited.

Dierent options for locking-in the social impact

include:

OPTIONS FOR LOCKING IN THE SOCIAL

IMPACT OF THE SPO AT THE TIME OF EXIT

• Developing new legal forms.

• Locking in the social impact through the business

plan.

• Building the social mission into the organisational

culture.

Part 3. The Investment Strategy

52 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

The elements of the investment strategy that aect the

exit strategy are as follows:

• Context: The geographical and the sector focus

of a VPO/SI determines the context in which both

the SPO and the VPO/SI operate and will therefore

inuence the exit strategy, especially in terms of

whom to exit to and how to exit. In some cases,

choosing to operate in a certain sector will reduce

the exit options.

• Type of investee: The type of investee funded and

the stage of development of the investee inuence

how the VPO/SI exits, whom the VPO/SI can exit to

and the milestones the VPO/SI and the SPO use to

dene exit readiness.

• Type of funding: Each investment modality (debt,

equity or grant) will have dierent benets/place

dierent constraints on the exit strategy. Some invest-

ment structures will simplify exit, while others will

pose some more challenges for both the investor and

the investee at the time of exit. The investor needs to

perform an overall assessment of the nancial instru-

ments it uses to nance the SPOs in its portfolio and

how they inuence the exit.

• Co-investing: Co-investors with a broad network that

can be leveraged are a very important asset, especially

at the time of exit. However, co-investors also create

challenges. Before engaging with co-investors the

VPO/SI needs to assess the co-investors’ investment

strategy and objectives, nancial/impact trade-os

and exit plans, to make sure they are compatible and

aligned. A misalignment in the investment strategy of

the co-investors can generate issues throughout the

investment period and at the time of exit.

• Relationship with VPO/SI funders: The way in which

the VPO/SI is funded impacts the investment strategy

and as a result the key exit considerations. If funders

have a strong inuence on the investment strategy

of the VPO/SI, a sudden change in the investment

strategy will result in the development of new key

exit considerations.

The overarching social and nancial objectives of

the VPO/SI inuence all the elements of the invest-

ment strategy, so they will also have an inuence on

the VPO/SI’s exit strategy. Some VPO/SIs have a social

sector focus and many have developed specic social

impact objectives they would like to achieve in the

social sectors where they operate. Financial return

goals express the preference of the VPO/SI in terms

of return on investment (ROI) of the SPOs it invests in

and the denition of how each investment is expected

to contribute to the overall portfolio return.

KEY ISSUES

AND LEARNINGS

• Clear focus – The VPO/SI needs to be clear at the

outset about its objectives and its operating model.

What areas of social need will it address? What

types of organisation will it invest in? What types of

nancial instruments will it use?

• Role of nancial instruments – Carefully selecting

and applying the most suitable nancial instru-

ment(s) for a given organisation is part of the ‘art’

of VP investing.

• Non-nancial support is critical to the success of

the VP approach – Clearly dening which types

of non-nancial support are core to the VPO/SI’s

strategy will help the VPO/SI understand which

resources it needs and which organisations it should

invest in.

• It is important to consider which elements of the

investment strategy will determine how the exit

strategy is further developed.

March 2018

PART 4.

THE INVESTMENT

PROCESS

Teens and Toddlers © Impetus – The Private Equity Foundation

54 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

4.1 INVESTMENT APPRAISAL

Dierent participants employ diering terminology

for the investment appraisal process. It is advisable for

the VPO/SI to be aware of the time required by the

SPO to undergo investment appraisal, and to ensure

that the time used at each screening stage is propor-

tionate to the potential benet. While this is guesswork

for a start-up fund, it can be established through inde-

pendent investee feedback for more mature funds.

However, the key elements of the process are often

similar and follow certain key steps.

For each investment, the VPO/SI goes through an

investment process as outlined below (see Figure 29).

This process helps maximise the achievement of the

social and nancial return objectives for the VPO/SI at

the time of exit. By properly managing the process, the

VPO/SI maximises its exit options and works towards

enabling the most appropriate and impactful use of its

resources. The VPO/SI should plan, monitor and execute

the investment and the exit with the nal aim of leaving

behind an SPO that has a stronger business model and

organisational structure and that is capable of attracting

and managing the resources necessary to pursue its

social impact goal(s) in the long term.

After assessing the key elements of its investment

strategy, the VPO/SI screens the investments opportu-

nities available (deal ow). After the rst deal screening,

a detailed screening (or due diligence) helps the VPO/SI

to decide which SPOs to invest in and decide how to

structure the deal (deal structuring). The investment

management both at SPO and VPO/SI level follows

the investment appraisal phase. When the VPO/SI can

no longer add value or when the investment objec-

tives have been achieved, the relationship between the

VPO/SI and an investee organisation ends with an exit.

PART 4.

THE INVESTMENT PROCESS

Investment

Strategy

Deal

Screening

Due

Diligence

Deal

Structuring

Investment

Management

Evaluation &

Post-exit

Follow-up

Exit

Investment Process

Investment Appraisal

KEY STEPS OF THE INVESTMENT

APPRAISAL PHASE

• Deal Screening: A knock-out screening step for

applicants who do not meet the standard applica-

tion criteria. This will eliminate organisations that will

denitely not secure funding. This is a preliminary

screening procedure of the investment opportunities

available (deal ow) – it requires initial application

documents only.

• Due Diligence: Detailed screening usually resulting in

the investment proposal presented to the investment

committee for a nal investment decision.

• Deal Structuring: A set of terms and conditions

which specify how the agreement between the

VPO/SI and the investee SPO is to be concluded.

Figure 29: The investment process in the VP/SI space

(Source: EVPA)

March 2018

4.2 DEAL SCREENING

The rst step of the appraisal process is a preliminary

screening procedure of the investments opportunities

available (deal ow), followed by a knock-out screening

of the applicants that do not meet the standard appli-

cation criteria (rst screening).

4.2.1 Deal ow

Generating high-quality deal ow is one of the most

important challenges a VPO/SI will face and it should

receive the same level of priority as fundraising. Even if

this is not immediately apparent, the task is likely to be

just as dicult. Planning for deal ow should therefore

start around the same time as planning for fund-

raising. Finding early investment opportunities that

oer a good t to the VPO/SI’s objectives can be of

crucial importance in securing investment. The type of

investee that is the target of VP activity is sometimes

hard to nd. In many ways, VPO/SIs have to take an

active part in creating the market and good ideas may

need to be incubated.

This section deals with the various issues related to deal

ow. Due to the possible lack of suitable social purpose

organisations available, identifying and approaching

target SPOs directly is the recommended route for

securing initial deals. According to the EVPA Survey

2013/201484, 90% of the European VPO/SIs chose this

investee identication method. Managing open funding

applications is another option, but it can impose signif-

icant administrative burdens without providing any

guarantee of success.

Managing an open application process can create

a pool of disappointed applicants that can have a

negative impact on the VPO/SI’s reputation. Moreover,

the VPO/SI has to decide whether to operate a ‘gated’

process, where it invites applications at specic times,

or it has an always-open application process. The former

can be very cost-eective in terms of generating and

processing deal ow but it presupposes:

1. Good marketing channels for the VPO/SI to

broadcast its process;

2. A fairly mature SPO market where organisations

will be open to respond to a gated process; and

3. A well-branded VPO/SI, with an existing track

record.

There are many ways of identifying potential invest-

ment targets85:

84 Hehenberger, L., Boiardi, P., and Gianoncelli, A., (2014), “European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2013/2014 –

The EVPA Survey”, EVPA

85 Ibid.

DIFFERENT WAYS OF IDENTIFYING

POTENTIAL INVESTMENT TARGETS

• Networking with intermediaries, other funders,

and, in particular, potential co-investors with a

deep knowledge of the eld of interest (preferred

investee identication activity by European VPO/SIs,

with 79% using this option).

• Speaking at sector-specic conferences (innovative

approaches arouse interest – this option is used by

62% of European VPO/SIs).

• Through existing portfolio organisations (these

can be the best source, and it is used by the 59% of

European VPO/SIs).

• Through desk research (done by 47% of European

VPO/SIs).

• Connecting with VC funds that have dropped

high-risk deals, which could be of interest (this is

particularly relevant if your VPO/SI focuses on social

enterprise investments).

• Looking for SPOs implementing projects within the

focus area of the VPO/SI (this is relevant if your

VPO/SI has a sector or geographic focus).

• Organising business plan competitions (also more

relevant to social enterprise – used by 32% of

European VPO/SIs).

Part 4. The Investment Process

56 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

MEASURES THAT HELP OPTIMISE

DEAL FLOW

• In the beginning, aim for quick wins by choosing

low-risk deals. Some early success stories can help

to secure nancing. Deals that oer higher levels

of social return will more likely ow once a robust,

high-quality portfolio is in place.

• Working with a small group of aligned co-inves-

tors will signicantly improve the quality of your

deal ow. These may be foundations or trusts, other

individual philanthropists, or a corporate or even a

state funder. If the co-investors are older than your

VPO/SI, they will have an existing pipeline, rela-

tionships and market knowledge, all of which can

save you time. However, be specic about what you

are interested in and what you are not interested

in. Make a ‘what my fund will not invest in’ list and

circulate it widely.

In addition to attracting deal ow, your VPO/SI needs

to dene clearly the type(s) of investments it is looking

for, as well as the selection criteria and the application

process to employ. Several other measures can help to

optimise deal ow:

VP/SI INDUSTRY BY THE NUMBERS:

FROM THE EVPA SURVEY 2013/201486

Figure 30: Investee identication activities in scal year 2015

(n=94, multiple choice, numbers in %)

86 Ibid.

According to the EVPA Survey 2013/2014, 90% of

VPO/SIs are proactive in their search to identify and

approach the SPOs to invest in, whereas 63% accept

open applications. The latter increased from the latest

data we had from scal year 2011 when the percentage

of European VPO/SIs that accepted open applications

was 43%. The application process is normally used in

less developed markets or when the VPO/SI has not

yet developed its own network of potential SPOs to

invest in. VPO/SIs increasingly make contact through

networking and intermediaries (79%, an increase of

9 percentage points compared to scal year 2011),

followed by conferences and organised events (62%,

an increase of 14 percentage points compared to the

past), and existing portfolio organisations (59%, an

increase of 5 percentage points).

Professional

networking

and intermediaries

90% of respondents identify and approach target

SPOs proactively, speciﬁcally through ...

Conferences and

organised events

Existing portfolio

organisations

Desk research

62 59

63% of respondents identify SPOs

through applications ...

Application –

all year

Gated

application

Other

applications

Business plan

competitions

for social prizes

March 2018

• Select your marketing channels (but remember that

word of mouth is the most powerful channel of all):

-Website, web links, annual report of the VPO/SI,

publications, conference presentations, etc.

-Current investees

• Casting the net widely (e.g. by publishing informa-

tion and application forms on the web) may trigger

many applications, but they may not be of the right

quality. If you do communicate through the web

about the projects you prefer to do, it is advisable to

also communicate the type of projects you denitely

do not. Also provide a case example of an ideal

investment.

• Develop a clear positioning around your VPO/

SI’s value-added services – and articulate this

very clearly to SPOs. You will need to dierentiate

yourself from all other funding sources, including

other philanthropies, state and corporate funders.

• Do not be afraid to focus on organisations that

you already know - If rejected applicants have

had a positive experience and have received some

added value, they will refer you on to others (clearly

communicating positive feedback and constructive

criticism arising from due diligence can represent

tremendous added value for an SPO; so can a

referral by you to another funder).

• Provide a case example of an ideal investment, and

include a “what we will not invest in” list on your

website.

4.2.2 First screening

The impact objectives of the VPO/SI will guide the deal

screening step in the investment process, narrowing

down the type of SPO that will be considered for invest-

ment. For each potential investment, it is important to

evaluate the expected outcome of its investment in the

SPO, i.e. the expected outcome of the SPO and how

the VPO/SI expects to contribute to achieving that

outcome. To assess whether the potential investment

opportunity ts with the VPO/SI strategy, the VPO/SI

can ask questions detailed in Step 1 of the impact meas-

urement process proposed by EVPA (Setting Objec-

tives)87, which are derived from the Theory of Change of

the VPO/SI and help guaranteeing alignment between

the goals of the VPO/SI and the goals of the SPO.

A two-step approach to rst screening is recom-

mended, with ‘reject/continue’ decision points after

each step.

The outcome of rst screening is the basis for the initial

decision by the VPO/SI. Detailed screening will only be

completed for organisations with a serious chance of

securing investment. As such, it should not consume

much time from the SPO.

The exit strategy of the VPO/SI is an integral part of its

investment strategy and aligning the exit strategy and

the investment strategy is a crucial pre-condition for a

successful exit. The key exit considerations developed

in parallel to the investment strategy guide the VPO/

SI throughout the investment process and especially in

the deal screening, i.e. in assessing which investment

opportunities t with the VPO/SI’s social impact and

nancial return goals (please refer to section 3.6)88.

FIRST SCREENING:

A TWO-STEP APPROACH

Step 1: Desk screening of strategic t between investor

and investee

• Thematic focus

• Geography

• Investment size

• Social relevance/impact

Step 2: Discussions with management to get

acquainted and to get an overall view of the organi-

sation and its activities, projects, partners, including

a preliminary needs’ assessment and whether the

VPO/SI can add value.

87 Hehenberger, L., Harling, A., and Scholten, P., (2015), “A practical guide to measuring and managing impact – Second Edition”,

EVPA.

88 Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger,L., (2014), “A practical guide to planning and executing an impactful exit”, EVPA.

Part 4. The Investment Process

58 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

4.3 DUE DILIGENCE

Detailed screening, sometimes referred to as due

diligence, will usually be performed (at least in part)

through analysis and validation of a business plan.

Interviews with SPO management, sta and board,

review of relevant documentation and focused

research on external information sources will be of

crucial importance.

Stakeholder analysis (i.e. Step 2 of the impact meas-

urement process proposed by EVPA89) should be

an integral part of the due diligence phase. To avoid

wasting resources, it is advisable for the VPO/SI to

increase the intensity (i.e. more stakeholders, more

involvement from the same stakeholders and higher

numbers involved from each group up to the number

required for a non-biased and random sample) of the

analysis as it becomes more likely that the investment

will be realised.

Considering the funding oer of the VPO/SI, at this

stage, there can be two dierent scenarios: (i) the

VPO/SI has the possibility to pick among a wider range

of FIs; (ii) the VPO/SI can only use a single type of

nancial instrument, e.g. due to its legal structure.

In the rst case, the VPO/SI should assess what is

the best FI to use, among the dierent possibili-

ties available, which can be successful in terms of

the VPO/SI’s expectations, SPO’s needs and impact

achieved. In the second case, the VPO/SI needs to

assess whether the only FI it can deploy is really the

most appropriate to eectively nance the SPO and

to match its own goals with the needs of the SPO. Or

whether, for the VPO/SI, it would be more convenient

to nd other SPOs to support and for the SPO to look

for other types of nancing90.

The detailed screening process will cover at least the

following items:

ITEMS TO BE COVERED DURING

THE DUE DILIGENCE

• Social Impact:

- Theory of Change – What is the theory of change?

It is vital to gain a detailed understanding of the

current and expected social impact of the SPO.

It not only reduces the risk of making the wrong

investment, but also creates a common under-

standing of the impact of an organisation among

all stakeholders and allows the VPO/SI and SPO to

‘speak the same language’. If an SPO is claiming

a certain outcome then they need to prove it. If

the SPO cannot deliver the data, the VPO/SI must

consider whether they will bring in the expertise

and provide the necessary support so the data can

be collected or question whether the SPO is an

appropriate investment at all.

-Impact measurement systems – Track record

of execution; impact measurement steps; social

impact targets; monitoring and reporting on

social performance. It is useful as part of the due

diligence phase to check whether the impact

monitoring system the SPO already works with is

sucient to meet the requirements of the VPO/

SI. Otherwise, the VPO/SI may need to contribute

to improving it through non-nancial support and

those costs should be factored in before making an

investment decision.

• Financial Sustainability:

-Market – Market size, growth, developments,

segments; relevant other initiatives/competitive

positioning. The appeal of a specic SPO can also

make the VPO/SI overestimate the future develop-

ment of a market: the recommendation here is to try

to be prudent when making predictions about it.

-Sources of income – Funding trends and funding

mix.

-Financial – History (results, previous nancings);

budgets and forecasts; funding gap/nancial ask;

co-nancing; terms of investment, nancial reporting

and control process in place.

89 Hehenberger, L., Harling, A., and Scholten, P., (2015), “A practical guide to measuring and managing impact – Second Edition”,

EVPA.

90 See Part 2, Chapter 4 (pages 49 and 50) in Gianoncelli, A. and Boiardi, P., (2017), “Financing for Social Impact | The Key Role of

Tailored Financing and Hybrid Finance”, EVPA.

March 2018

The detailed screening should deliver the key infor-

mation needed to complete the investment appraisal

process, including:

In the due diligence phase the VPO/SI and the SPO

work together to determine the nancial needs of the

SPO. In chapter 3.3 of this report, we highlighted the

importance for the SPO to reect on its own nancial

needs (i.e. auto-assessment) already during the de-

nition of its own business model. In the due diligence

phase, it is important for the VPO/SI to assess on its

side the nancial needs of the SPO, to make sure there

is a match between the nancial instruments available

on the VPO/SI’s side and the needs of the SPO. The

match will then be formalised in the deal structuring

phase (see chapter 4.4).

The rst question to be answered in order to assess

if there is a match between the VPO/SI and the SPO

is: “Does a market (commercial or public) exist for the

SPO’s products/services or activities?”

As shown in the gure above, based on the answer to

this question, four possible scenarios open up92:

1a. If the SPO has a business model that will never

become self-sustainable, it will take a charity/NGO

status and will need to be nanced through grants

throughout its existence (eventually with dierent

amounts, depending on the decision to scale or not

to scale). Here we are thinking of SPOs that are,

for example, active in advocacy, and that are the

primary target for our members that do highly-en-

gaged grant-making and for the public sector in the

phase of scaling.

1b. If market infrastructures are not yet developed but

there is a potential for the SPO to build the market

and then become self-sustainable, we argue that

the VPO/SI will need to provide rst grants, and

then social investment (in the form of patient

equity, loans and hybrid nancial instruments). This

is one of those cases in which the SPO will need to

change its organisational structure while it evolves,

moving from a grant-based model to a social-in-

vestment model.

2. If there can be a market (either immediately or

down the line) for some of the activities and/or for

the products/services developed by the SPO but

part of the activities will never become self-sustain-

able, the SPO will take a hybrid structure and will

need to have access to a mix of grants and social

nance, provided often by dierent actors.

KEY INFORMATION TO BE DELIVERED BY

THE DUE DILIGENCE

• Needs’ assessment (to understand what type of

nancial and non-nancial support is needed and

the status of development of the SPO in terms of

social impact, nancial sustainability and organisa-

tional resilience)91.

• Risks related to the investment.

• Potential mitigation measures (conditions for

investment).

• Potential phasing of nancing (milestones).

• Possibilities for scaling the initiative.

• Involvement by VPO/SI after investment.

• Exit option(s) (see section 4.6).

• Organisational Resilience:

-Organisation – Legal structure; quality of manage-

ment; governance; transparency of results, board

quality. Dysfunctional SPO’s boards are time-

consuming and can constitute a major problem.

Extensive reference checks on the management

team are important not to overestimate the

capabilities and the entrepreneurial spirit of the

management team of the SPO.

-Operations – What the SPO does to deliver on its

strategy, including details of the organisation’s

income-generating model, if relevant. A technical

review of the appropriateness and solidity of the

product or service the SPO delivers/ performs may

be a part of the process.

91 EVPA’s “A practical guide to adding value through non-nancial support” provides a useful needs’ assessment tool.

92 See Executive Summary (page 9) in Gianoncelli, A. and Boiardi, P., (2017), “Financing for Social Impact | The Key Role of Tailored

Financing and Hybrid Finance”, EVPA.

Part 4. The Investment Process

60 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

3. If the SPO has a business model that allows it to

become self-sustainable, it will choose an organi-

sational structure which is very close to a traditional

commercial organisation. In this case the SPO ideally

has access to social investment already in the early

stage of development (so access to very patient

equity, loans and hybrid nancial instruments). In this

report we underline how these organisations still might

need grant in the seed stage, but should also have the

opportunity to access patient social nance.

Once the VPO/SI has assessed in which of the cate-

gories above the SPO falls, the VPO/SI, considering

the nancial instrument(s) it has available, can decide

whether or not to invest in the SPO.

The time required by the SPO for detailed screening

should be in direct proportion to the size of the potential

investment. However, in practice, even small invest-

ments require substantial screening. VPO/SIs should

consider the minimum size of investment required to

ensure that their own eciency is not compromised.

Figure 31: Path for the SPO – Assess the SPO’s nancial needs

(Source: EVPA Knowledge Centre)

NO Grants

Grants Equity

instruments,

Loans, Hybrid

nancial

instruments

50/50

YES

1A. THERE IS NO MARKET

The SPO will never become self-sustainable

due to the segment of the market it is

serving and/or due to the type of products/

services it is oering

Transition

from a grant-

based model

to a social-

investment

model

MIX of Grants and Equity

instruments, Grants and Loans,

Hybrid financial instruments

Equity instruments, Loans,

Hybrid nancial instruments

2. THERE IS A MARKET FOR PART OF

THE SPO’s PRODUCT/SERVICES

There can be a market (either immediately or

down the line) for some of the activities and/

or for the products/services developed by

the SPO but part of the activities will never

become self-sustainable

3. THERE IS A MARKET

The SPO has a business model that allows it to

become self-sustainable

1B. THERE IS NO MARKET YET

Market infrastructures are not yet

developed but there is a potential for the

SPO to build the market and then become

self-sustainable

Ask the following question:

“Does a (private or public) market exist for the SPO’s products/services or activities?”

March 2018

93 Hehenberger, L., Boiardi, P., and Gianoncelli, A., (2014), “European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2013/2014 – The

EVPA Survey”, EVPA.

VP/SI INDUSTRY BY THE NUMBERS: FROM

THE EVPA SURVEY 2013/201493

The EVPA Survey 2013/14 shows that European

VPO/SIs are personally involved in due-diligence activ-

ities, with 94% of the respondents performing a site visit

to interview top management in person. Performing

general searches is done by the largest majority of

the VPO/SIs, with 88% of the survey respondents

performing at least a review of the investee docu-

mentation received online and 76% of the respond-

ents performing a general web search. Over 70% of

the respondents meet with the key people in the SPO,

speaking with the members of the board of directors

and to previous business partners and investors of

the SPO. Over almost half the respondents interview

the employees in person and reaches out to the top

management of the SPO, without meeting in person.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Site visits: interview with

top management in person

Review of investee documentation received online

(annual reports, ﬁnancial statements, others)

Web search

Speak with members of the board

of directors of potential investee

Speak to previous business partners

or investors of potential investee

Speak with top managers (not in person)

Site visits: interviews with investee’s employees

(not top management) in person

Site visits: interviews with investee’s clients

or ﬁnal beneﬁciaries in person

Legal due diligence conducted by

an independent third party

Financial due diligence conducted by

an independent third party

Speak to government oﬃcials and

regulators involved in the sector of interest

Operational due diligence conducted

by an independent third party

Other

Speak to local representatives of

multi-lateral organisations

(IADB, World Bank, ADB, IMF, UNDP, etc.)

Figure 32: Due diligence activities in scal year 2013

(n=93, multiple choice, numbers in %)

Part 4. The Investment Process

62 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

The entire appraisal process, and the due diligence in

particular, is a two-way process that will require coop-

eration between VPO/SI and SPO, enabling each to

see where and how they can add value (it is a learning

process). We encourage transparency as many SPOs

may not be familiar with practices that the investor

may regard as a standard way of working that requires

no explanation. Being involved in the appraisal process

also creates commitment and a motivation for a

positive outcome. The VPO/SI should only engage in

areas where it can add value and not seek to compen-

sate for the target SPO’s lack of resources. Notwith-

standing this, outsourcing due diligence to a third

party, or compensating the SPO for undertaking the

task itself, creates a more arm’s-length relationship

and can make rejection decisions further down the line

easier and more objective. Regardless of the level of

involvement agreed, it will be important to spend time

with the SPO’s entire management team and board, to

judge their quality and general ‘buy-in’ to the plan.

Building a close relationship between the two parties

(culture and personality t, mutual trust).

The extent of engagement during the appraisal process

should be weighed against the level and form of

engagement the VPO/SI will adopt during the invest-

ment phase. In the appraisal phase the VPO/SI and

the target SPO should explicitly discuss the scope and

style of their engagement during the investment phase.

Potential forms of engagement available include active

participation, reporting, coordinating engagement

with other investments, taking a board seat (active or

observer), etc.

ADVANTAGES OF BUILDING A CLOSE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VPO/SI

AND THE SPO

• Involves dierent management levels from each

organisation.

• Allows meetings to take place at dierent locations

• Allows experiences and expectations to be shared

(results, timing, eort).

• Lays the basis for future cooperation.

THE STATE OF VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT IN EUROPE |

THE EVPA SURVEY 2015/201694

On average, VPO/SIs performed due diligence on 20%

of the screened organisations and selected 53% of the

organisations that had gone through due diligence. The

share of organisations that were funded after passing

due diligence has increased compared to the past, a

result that may indicate an increase in the quality of the

deal screening process in the VP/SI sector. On average,

each VPO/SI screened 86 organisations in 2015, did

further due diligence on 17 of them and selected

9 investees.

Figure 33: Average and median number of SPOs screened,

under due diligence and funded per VPO/SI in scal years

2012-2015

100

Screened Due

Diligence

Funded Screened Due

Diligence

Funded Screened Due

Diligence

Funded

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2015

Fiscal year 2015 n=87

Fiscal year 2013 n=77

Fiscal year 2012 n=69

94 Boiardi, P. and Gianoncelli, A. (2016), “The State of Venture

Philanthropy and Social Investment in Europe | The EVPA

Survey 2015/2016”. EVPA.

Average

Median

March 2018

4.4 INVESTMENT DECISION AND DEAL

STRUCTURING

The relationship that develops between a VPO/SI’s

management team and the leadership of an invest-

ment candidate is a crucial factor in the investment

decision, as the judgement of the quality of the lead-

ership (non-prot CEO, social entrepreneur, etc.) and

the executive team, enabling the VPO/SI to build trust

and condence in the SPO’s ability to deliver during

the investment phase.

The interaction with the potential investee SPO will

help to answer certain key questions (see box below).

In many cases, there will be a need to develop and

review a business plan for the target SPO. This can

happen at dierent points in time, depending on the

size and capabilities of the SPO. Larger, more estab-

lished SPOs should be able to write their own plan. This

ensures that the applicant maintains ownership of the

plan and the objectives it contains, and that the social

mission is built into the organisational culture so that at

the time of exit there is no incentive to discontinue it.

If the SPO is capable of writing up its own plan, limited

commitment will be needed from the investor, with

the business plan acting as the starting point for rst

screening and discussions. However, other organisa-

tions will require assistance with business planning.

The VPO/SI should only assist in elds in which it can

add value. In all cases, there should be a sense of joint

development and ownership of the business plan, with

objectives that incorporate the perspectives of each

organisation. Cooperation in business planning creates

commitment and buy-in from both sides. Co-developed

business plans are generally developed after the rst

screening analysis and discussion has been completed

(i.e. there has been a preliminary approval).

When deciding about investments, the recommenda-

tion in general is to avoid investments in SPOs with

high product/service risk; in sectors or geographies

that the VPO/SI does not know or where the risk of not

creating impact is too high; investments too quick or

only to ll quotas, without adding strategic value; or

nally in SPOs not ready for the VP approach95.

To reduce the risks of failures in deal selection, the

VPO/SI should consider undertaking stepped invest-

ments96 in target SPOs. The VPO/SI can ‘test the water’

with new organisations by completing small invest-

ments initially as:

• This can limit risk and minimise failure.

• Seeding multiple SPOs through small capaci-

ty-building investments or donations can allow a

VPO/SI to ‘get to know’ the organisations and test

them without risking too substantial funds.

Managing negative decisions is another important part

of the investment process. The VPO/SI should build in

several evaluation and decision-making steps within the

overall appraisal process, so that it can, where necessary,

refuse funding at an early stage. The applicant should

be made aware of each step in the decision-making

process, and the key criteria considered at each step.

One challenge in deal selection is to say no (an early

no) to appealing but unpromising ventures. Even more

dicult – and of utmost importance – is to distil this skill

into a code of practice that is to develop the knowledge

QUESTIONS THAT WILL BE ANSWERED

THANKS TO THE INTERACTION WITH THE

POTENTIAL INVESTEE

• Is the leadership truly and deeply motivated by the

mission of the organisation?

• Is it focused on maximising the organisation’s social

impact?

• Does it have a clear vision of where the organisation

needs to be in three to ve years – and how to get

there?

• Does the leadership have the critical competencies

and skills needed to execute its plans eectively?

• Does the board add value where needed?

• Can we work together?

95 Hehenberger L. and Boiardi, P., (2014), “Learning from failures in Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment”, EVPA.

96 Incremental investments to the same investee.

Part 4. The Investment Process

64 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

and skills to have a feeling for what is right, a sort of

screening skills apprenticeship. To achieve this ability,

it is necessary to build up experience – and experience

stems from attempts97.

If and when a positive decision on the investment is

made, understandings and agreements should be laid

down in an investment contract between the VPO/SI

and the SPO. Before this is nalised, legal due diligence

may be performed to eliminate, where possible, the

risk of any further obstacles or surprises.

Ideally, when the deal is structured, apart from nancial

considerations, the VPO/SI and SPO should work

together to develop a plan that allows the VPO/SI to

work towards an exit (exit plan), and a plan where the

development needs of the SPO and the main aspects

of the non-nancial support have been identied (non-

nancial support plan).

4.4.1 Non-nancial support plan98

When the deal is signed, the VPO/SI and the SPO

discuss and develop the non-nancial support plan

(see Figure 34 p. 66-67). For each development area

that has been agreed as priority to tackle, including

impact measurement, the non-nancial support plan

should include the baseline, goal, milestones, and

target outcomes for the SPO, along the dimensions of

nancial sustainability, organisational resilience and

impact objectives.

The plan should also include the details of the support

the VPO/SI will provide to the SPO to achieve the

planned milestones, and the concrete deliverables, e.g.

have a governance system in place.

The resources of any SPO are limited and decisions have

to be made about the amount of time and resources

that an SPO should dedicate to impact measurement99.

An important role of the VPO/SI is to convince the

investees of the value of impact measurement, provide

assistance where possible and dene with them the

responses to the essential questions to help them

express their objectives. Dening in the initial stages of

the relationship with the SPO exactly what it wants to

deliver makes it much easier at a later stage to assess

whether this has been achieved. To remove a reliance

on and/or culture of ‘gut feeling’, it is essential that

the VPO/SI works with the SPO to develop an impact

monitoring system which can be integrated into the

management processes of the organisation, dening

timings for each indicator (as not all impact happens

at the same time), tools to be used and responsibili-

ties. The cost to support and maintain such a system

(including personnel time and costs) should be part of

the SPO’s budget and hence may be part of the nego-

tiation with the investor in order to decide how costs

should and/or could be split.

At the deal structuring phase, it is important to

clarify who is responsible for measuring what. The

responsibilities of who measures what could and

probably should evolve over time as the SPO grows

and develops and should be reviewed on an annual

basis. For impact measurement the expected outputs,

outcome and impact, and the corresponding indicators

should be dened before the investment is made and

agreed upon by the VPO/SI and the SPO. The VPO/SI

should ask the SPO to focus on those indicators that

are directly related to the SPO’s Theory of Change and

hence in line with their operational process. Any addi-

tional indicators required for the VPO/SI to satisfy its

own impact measurement needs should be collected

by the VPO/SI. Similarly, for the objectives in terms of

nancial sustainability and organisational resilience,

the VPO/SI and the SPO need to agree on what data

will be collected during the investment management

phase and how the SPO will be able to give feedback

on the non-nancial support provided.

Reporting requirements should also be agreed

upfront between the VPO/SI and the SPO, preferably

involving co-investors in the decision-making process

to eliminate a multiple reporting burden for the SPO.

97 Hehenberger L. and Boiardi, P., (2014), “Learning from failures in Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment”, EVPA

98 This section was developed based on the EVPA report on non-nancial support: Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2015), “A practical

guide to adding value through non-nancial support”, EVPA

99 Hehenberger, L., Harling, A., and Scholten, P., (2015), “A practical guide to measuring and managing impact – Second Edition”, EVPA.

March 2018

Managing expectations about frequency and level of

detail for reporting, and the way the SPO reports will

reduce the risk of problems later on in the process.

Both SPO and VPO/SI should formally engage in

fullling their part of the non-nancial support plan,

and to ag potential issues or problems as they arise,

allowing the plan to be exible. It is good practice to

present the non-nancial support plan as a part of the

documents signed in the deal structuring phase, so

that it represents a ‘charter of engagement’, which can

be used by both parties as a pressure point towards

the other to ask for delivery of results or of support.

4.4.2 Choosing the best nancial instrument100

In the deal structuring phase, the VPO/SI and the SPO

need to choose which nancial instrument will be used

to support the SPO.

In the table below, EVPA combines three broad

VPO/SIs’ impact strategies and the four possible

dierent scenarios – described in chapter 4.3 – consid-

ering the existence or not of a (private or public) market

for the product/service/activity of the SPO. Then, for

each combination, there are types of nancial instru-

ments more appropriate than others. It is important to

highlight that all these considerations strictly depend

also on the stage of development of the SPO.

Table 1 summarises the options that, in a perfect market,

are the most advisable to choose to support each

category of SPO. For example, SPOs that oer products

and services that will never have a market should be

supported by VPO/SIs that seek exclusively to generate

a social impact. On the other hand, VPO/SIs that want

to generate a social impact but also look for a nancial

return should nance SPOs that are or will be able to

generate returns through their business model.

Table 1: Matching the expectations of the VPO/SI with the

nancial needs of the SPO

(Source: EVPA Knowledge Centre)

100 Section based on Gianoncelli, A. and Boiardi, P., (2017), “Financing for Social Impact | The Key Role of Tailored Financing and

Hybrid Finance”, EVPA.

Part 4. The Investment Process

SPO’S BUSINESS MODEL

1A. THERE IS NO

MARKET FOR THE

PRODUCTS AND

SERVICES OF THE

SPO

1B. THERE WILL BE

A MARKET FOR THE

PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

OF THE SPO

2. THERE CAN BE A

MARKET FOR SOME OF

THE PRODUCTS/SERVICES

OF THE SPO BUT PART

OF THE ACTIVITIES WILL

NEVER BECOME SELF-

SUSTAINABLE

3. THERE IS A MARKET

FOR THE PRODUCTS

AND SERVICES OF THE

SPO

VPO/SI’S IMPACT

& FINANCIAL RETURN

EXPECTATIONS

A. Social

impact only

• Grants • Grants (seed/market

building)

• Grants (for the non-prot

part)

• Grants (seed)

B. Social

impact rst,

nancial return

accepted

• Grants (seed/market

building)

• Hybrid nancial

instruments

• Social Investment

(validation and scaling)

• Grants (for the non-prot

part)

• Social investment (for the

income-generating part)

• Grants and social

investment

• Hybrid nancial

instruments

C. Social Impact

and nancial

return on the

same level

• Hybrid nancial

instruments

• Social investment

(scaling)

• Social investment (for the

income-generating part)

• Hybrid nancial

instruments

• Social investment

(scaling)

NO MARKET MARKET

66 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment 67

March 2018

Capability

Derived from discussion on needs’ assessment in Step 2

(matching VPO’s and SPO’s views)

Monitoring

(for Step 4)

Derived from needs’ as-

sessment (Step 2) and

NFS mapping (Step 1)

From the VPO’s asset

mapping (core vs non-

core) in Step 1

Monitoring

(for Step 4 and Step 5)

Specic need of

the SPO

Priority

for SPO?

(1 to 3)

Baseline Goal Milestone Outcome Mapping NFS

needed to achieve

milestone / objective

Who provides it? Deliverables

Social Impact Social Impact

Theory of

Change

and Impact

Strategy

Impact

Measurement

Financial Sustainability Financial Sustainability

Fundraising The SPO has limited

access to multiple

categories of

funders

1 70% of SPO

revenues coming

from VPO’s

investment

<30% of SPO

revenues coming

from VPO’s grant

50% of SPO

revenues coming

from VPO’s grant by

the end of year 1

• Assistance securing

funding from other sources

• Networking with potential

funders and government

• Practical support with

fundraising

• Fundraising advice or

strategy

Core and in-house expertise

B VPO sta

Revenue

Strategy

Financial

Management The SPO has limited

nancial plans &

monitoring

2 Financial planning

and reporting tool

insucient

Fully edged

nancial planning

and reporting

system in place

by the end of the

nancing period

Have a version of

tool X tailored to

the SPO

CFO capable of

using the tool by

the end of year 1

• IT support to develop the

tool in line with the needs

of the investee

• Train the CFO to use the

tool

Core but very specialised B

External paid consultant

Tailored to by [DATE]

CFO training: 2 days / month

for 5 months

Organisational Resilience Organisational Resilience

Governance

Support

Human

capital

Support

TOOL

Figure 34: The non-nancial support plan

(Source: EVPA)

Part 4. The Investment Process

68 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

Some SPOs may be hesitant to work with funding

instruments other than grants because they perceive

them as risky or simply confusing101. Grants can be used

in situations that overlap with other types of nancing.

These situations can be geographically specic (to the

funding market in a particular country for example) as

well as specic to the solution provided by the invest-

ment and to the length of time needed to solve the

problem. Grants are particularly well suited to situa-

tions where the possibility of generating earned income

is highly unlikely, undesirable or dicult to achieve

within the investment horizon of the VPO/SI. Large-

scale systemic change processes that attempt to alter

an entire sector may require ten years or more before

generating revenue and would therefore require grant-

making rather than other types of nancial instruments.

Furthermore, grants or grant-related instruments will

be preferable when earned income of the recipient

organisation is anticipated to be insucient to cover

expense budgets, and in the absence of securitable

assets. However, in the EVPA report “Learning from

failures in Venture Philanthropy and Social Invest-

ment”102, experienced VPO/SIs expressed some frus-

trations in the use of grant instruments. Issues arise

because it is sometimes dicult to control what grant

money is used for and in some cases the lack of high-

quality projects that can be nanced through grants.

Suggestions on how to overcome these challenges

include disbursing the grant according to milestones

and requesting a matching grant. However, grants are

essential to act as risk capital in particular to fund

high-risk organisations.

In the same report, debt is recommended as a good

funding solution when starting to experiment with VP.

In particular, convertible loans can be used instead of

equity to avoid costly valuations. However, one should

bear in mind that non-grant instruments have limita-

tions, as they imply some level of income generation.

Repaying a loan from third-party grants or donations

may not be acceptable. Moreover, they can also give

rise to conicts between social and nancial objectives.

4.4.3 Exit plan103

On top of the non-nancial support plan, the VPO/SI

and the investee should discuss and co-develop an

exit plan upfront. The exit plan allows the two parties

to clarify the key points related to the exit, which

include the general goals of the investor (related to the

nancial, organisational and impact milestones of the

investment), the expectations of both parties and the

timing of the exit. The aim is to maximise the trans-

parency of the relationship between the investor and

the investee and to clarify expectations. The exit plan

must be matched with the deal structuring, and the

resources necessary to monitor the investment and to

roll out the overall exit plan need to be allocated.

Figure 35: Key elements of an exit plan

(Source EVPA)

101 To have a complete overview on when it is most suitable to use a certain type of nancial instrument, and a list of pros and cons of

the nancial instruments listed in this paragraph, see: Gianoncelli, A. and Boiardi, P., (2017), “Financing for Social Impact | The Key

Role of Tailored Financing and Hybrid Finance”, EVPA.

102 Hehenberger, L., and Boiardi, P., (2014), “Learning from failures in Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment”, EVPA.

103 This section was developed based on the EVPA report on exit strategies: Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2014),

“A practical guide to planning and executing an impactful exit”, EVPA.

Exit market

scenarios

Goals for

the SPO and

milestones

Timing of exit

Resources

Mode of exit

Investment

targets of

the VPO

Exit

plan

March 2018

The key elements of the exit plan are:

104 Hehenberger, L., Boiardi, P., and Gianoncelli, A., (2014), “European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2013/2014 – The

EVPA Survey”, EVPA.

KEY ELEMENTS OF

THE EXIT PLAN

• Investment goals of the VPO/SI – as derived from

the key exit considerations.

• Goals of the SPO and milestones – as dened in the

non-nancial support plan, used to help determine

when exit readiness is achieved.

• Timing of the exit – i.e. the investment horizon,

which largely depends on the exibility oered by

the nancial instrument used.

• Mode of exit – including how and whom to exit to,

both of which largely depend on the nancial instru-

ment used.

• Resources – to monitor the investment and roll out

the exit plan (should be included in non-nancial

support plan).

• Exit market scenarios – in which the VPO/SI tries to

predict whom it will exit to and what the market will

be like at the time of exit.

Sometimes

Always

Rarely

Often

VP/SI INDUSTRY BY THE NUMBERS:

FROM THE EVPA SURVEY 2013/2014104

The statistics from the EVPA Survey 2013/14 conrm the

importance of engaging the SPO in the development

of the exit plan. Co-creation generates commitment

and ownership in the SPO and improves the whole exit

strategy process. Half of the VPO/SIs surveyed always

involve the SPO in the development of the exit plan, and

32% asserts to involve SPOs often. Only 1% of the VPO/

SIs involve the SPO rarely in the development of the

investment plan of their investment strategy to derive

key exit considerations.

Figure 36: % of VPO/SIs that involve the investee in the

development of the exit plan in scal year 2013

(Source: EVPA) (n=60)

The development of the exit plan is a joint eort of

the VPO/SI and the SPO, and the goals and milestones

should be formalised and included in a Memorandum of

Understanding (MoU). The exit plan needs to be detailed

and clear (including when the VPO/SI will exit, how and

to whom), but also needs to provide sucient exibility

(and liquidity) to be able to react to deviations.

Part 4. The Investment Process

70 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

4.5 INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT

The management of the VPO/SI’s investments is closely

connected to the size of its portfolio, i.e. the number

of SPOs supported. Investment management for VPO/

SIs operates on two levels: at the level of each investee

SPO, and at the level of the portfolio as a whole.

4.5.1 Size of portfolio

A dening characteristic of VPO/SIs, especially as

compared to many pure grant-makers, is the relatively

small size of the portfolio of organisations being actively

supported at any time. However, in choosing the size of

their portfolios, VPO/SIs will also be guided by the need

to have a minimum number of investments to provide a

sucient spread in terms of investment risk and to demon-

strate that their investment model works in a variety of

situations. Interestingly, the EVPA Survey 2015/2016

shows a sharp increase in the average number of investees

per VPO/SI in scal year 2015 compared to the past (see

Figure 37 below). These results could be driven by the

increase in the size of VPO/SIs’ funds and the economies

of scale that can be generated by investing through

bigger funds. The portfolio size will be determined by

the size of the fund, the average size of the target organ-

isations and the average level of support needed (taking

into account the need to avoid nancial dependency).

However, there are other factors to consider, as shown in

the box below.

FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN ASSESSING

THE SIZE OF THE PORTFOLIO

• Is the relationship limited to a single ‘investment

round’ or will follow-on funding be needed? The

term of the initial investment and the stage of devel-

opment of the investee can inuence this question.

• The cost (internal or external) of any non-nancial

support to be provided to the SPO.

• The value of leverage – the exchange of knowledge

and experience between portfolio organisations can

lead to the creation of signicant added value with

little or no additional cost. Building the portfolio

selectively can drive the emergence of this incre-

mental value.

• A large number of small portfolio companies will, in

general, consume more support costs (fund manage-

ment costs) than a small number of large portfolio

companies, without necessarily generating any addi-

tional impact.

105 Boiardi, P. and Gianoncelli, A., (2016), “The State of Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment in Europe | The EVPA Survey

2015/2016”. EVPA.

THE STATE OF VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT IN EUROPE |

THE EVPA SURVEY 2015/2016105

Figure 37: Median and average investees per VPO/SI in scal

years 2012-2015

For scal year 2015, the average number of total

investees in the portfolio of a VPO/SI was 36, a 50%

increase compared to scal year 2013, and the median

number was 16. The average number of new investees

added to the portfolio in scal year 2015 was 9 and the

median was 3.

Average MedianAverage Median

779

433

New investees Total current investees

Fiscal year 2015 n=87

Fiscal year 2013 n=78

Fiscal year 2012 n=72

March 2018

4.5.2 Investment management at the SPO level

The plan for the investment phase engagement should

be discussed and agreed with the SPO during the

investment appraisal process, to ensure there are no

surprises.

The key elements of the investment management

strategy should include:

As mentioned in section 4.4, these issues should

generally be set out in an investment agreement with

the SPO in order to limit future misunderstandings or

disappointments.

4.5.2.1 Taking a seat on SPOs’ board

Many European VPO/SIs take a seat on the SPO’s

board in at least some of their investments. Initially,

it was very dicult to secure a board seat, but the

practice has become more acceptable as the added-

value dimension has become more recognised. Often,

especially in start-ups, VPO/SIs take an active board

seat that can almost be likened with co-entrepreneur-

ship. In those cases, VPO/SIs do not manage, but are

involved in all major decisions.

There are two key questions that will drive the VPO/SI’s

preferences on board representation:

• Can we really add value to the board and is it useful

for us?

• Do we have the capacity to do this?

The decision will often depend on the size of the

investment and its importance within the VPO/SI’s

overall portfolio. In addition, VPO/SIs considering

taking a board seat will need to think about how they

will handle conicts of interest (when re-investment

is on the agenda, for example). The VPO/SI should

try to anticipate such situations upfront and plan its

approach accordingly. Using dierent people to take

on the roles of portfolio manager and board represent-

ative can help. EVPA has developed a code of practice

that can serve as a useful guide in taking board seats

– it can be found in the membership section of our

website.

Taking a board seat is not the only way to learn about

or inuence an SPO’s activities. In some cases, it may

be adequate to have an ‘observer’ seat on the board.

This can be a good compromise when there is resist-

ance from the SPO to the VPO/SI taking a full seat. A

VPO/SI may also be able to achieve its objectives by

introducing external people to the board as opposed

to taking a seat itself. If a third party is appointed

to the board through the VPO/SI’s introduction, it is

important to spell out that person’s role: does he or

she have any obligation to the VPO/SI? Is the board

member formally the VPO/SI’s representative, with

an obligation to report on what happens at board

meetings?

However, some European VPO/SIs actively decide not

to take a seat on the SPO board (see Impetus-PEF case

study below).

KEY ELEMENTS OF THE INVESTMENT

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

• Agreed social outcomes/targets and targets for the

organisational development of the SPO.

• The nature of the relationship (ideally based on

openness, partnership and trust)

• Rights and obligations of both parties.

• Frequency of meetings (generally monthly or half-

yearly)

• Right of the VPO/SI to appoint a board member or

not (see below)

• Funding plan (including co-investment) with key

milestones.

• Key areas for capacity building or adding value (see

section 4.4.1).

• Exit planning (see section 4.4.2).

Part 4. The Investment Process

72 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

CASE STUDY: IMPETUS – THE PRIVATE

EQUITY FOUNDATION

Impetus Trust106 in the UK initially chose not to take

a board seat in order not to confuse its role as a VP

funder and the role of charity board as fundraiser.

Impetus Trust thought a presence on the board would

have reduced the motivation to raise additional funds.

In 2002, there was a lot of suspicion around private

sector people entering the social sector, and Nat Sloane

recalls that Impetus thought it could ‘spook’ the boards.

This was probably a misjudgement. Impetus-PEF now

has a staged process, working with the investee for

around a year to get to know the organisation. There is

no board seat at this stage but Impetus-PEF commu-

nicates that in the next stage it would want a board

seat. The SPOs then move through a ‘funnel’ model,

where only a certain number progresses through each

subsequent stage of investment all the way up to scale

funding. Impetus-PEF may ask for a board seat so as

in later funding stage. So far Impetus-PEF has insisted

that investment directors are not the ones taking the

board seat so as not to complicate the relationship

between investment directors of the VPO/SIs and

CEOs of the SPOs. If a VPO/SI is genuinely committed

to a long-term partnership and impact, why not be on

the board?107

106 Impetus-PEF after the merger between Impetus Trust and the Private Equity Foundation in 2013.

107 Hehenberger L., and Boiardi, P., (2014), “Learning from failures in Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment”, EVPA.

108 Boiardi, P. and Gianoncelli, A. ,(2016), “The State of Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment in Europe | The EVPA Survey

2015/2016”. EVPA.

THE STATE OF VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT IN EUROPE |

THE EVPA SURVEY 2015/2016108

Figure 38: % of investees where the VPO/SI takes a board

seat in scal year 2015

(n=55)

A notable percentage of VPO/SIs take board seats with

their investees to support the SPO from within, similar

to the approach in venture capital. A total of 25% of

the VPO/SIs surveyed always take a seat on the board

of its investees and 27% of the sample is part of the

SPO’s board in the majority of cases. However, 44% of

respondents takes a board seat only in a minority of

cases, while a negligible 4% of the VPO/SIs replied that

they have never taken a board seat.

Majority of cases

Always

Never

Minority of cases

March 2018

109 Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2015), “A practical guide to adding value through non- nancial support”, EVPA. And Hehenberger,

L., Harling, A., and Scholten, P., (2015), “A practical guide to measuring and managing impact – Second Edition”, EVPA.

110 Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2015), “A practical guide to adding value through non- nancial support”, EVPA.

111 Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2014), “A practical guide to planning and executing an impactful exit”, EVPA.

4.5.2.2 Monitoring the achievement of the goals set

in the non-nancial support plan109

A monitoring of the progress of the SPO against the

objectives set in the non-nancial support plan needs

to be conducted regularly during the investment

process. Some indicators may be reported by the SPO

more frequently than others. For the impact meas-

urement system, typically, output indicators can be

captured more frequently than outcome indicators that

might require more time and eort to collect relevant

data. VPO/SIs usually require their investees to report

against the predened indicators every quarter, every

six months or on an annual basis during the investment

period.

Stakeholder analysis may need to be repeated either

at predened intervals during the investment period or

when signicant developments occur, such as a change

to outcomes being achieved, major new funding

streams, new business lines being entered, changes to

policy environment, etc. It is advisable to get back to

the key stakeholders to verify that their expectations

are being met. Verifying and valuing results should be

repeated as a ‘reality check’ at several points during

the investment and value creation process of a VPO/SI.

We recommend that this step be performed at least

once during the investment period to check that the

impact is achieved and valued.

The main objective of monitoring is to learn from the

data collected and analysed so that changes can be

made and corrective actions implemented. The VPO/SI

together with the SPO should use the data collected

to analyse the results against the initial objectives and

decide which strategies and interventions worked and

which did not. The indicators set at the deal structuring

stage can be revised if signicant changes are made in

the business and impact model of the SPO during the

investment process.

4.5.2.3 Non-nancial support delivery models110

The VPO/SI delivers non-nancial support (NFS) either

directly or through a third party. There is a variety of

NFS delivery modes, including one-on-one coaching,

group trainings and oering access to networks. Each

delivery mode has its pros and cons, which need to be

weighed before taking a decision on how each type of

non-nancial support is to be delivered. The develop-

ment of the SPO is monitored using the non-nancial

support plan as a dashboard and corrective actions

are implemented, if need be. The non-nancial support

plan shall also highlight when it is time for ending the

relationship between the VPO/SI and SPO. The VPO/

SI and the SPO need to clarify upfront how heavily

the VPO/SI will be engaged with the SPO and set the

targets that will determine if exit readiness has been

achieved. Non-nancial support will be delivered until

the desired impact is seen, or until the VPO/SI realises

it cannot add any more value to the SPO.

4.5.2.4 Determining exit readiness111

The VPO/SI monitors the investment based on the exit

plan co-developed with the investee. The SPO coop-

erates with the VPO/SI by providing information on

the status of development of the project and on the

achievement of the goals set in the plan. The moni-

toring is crucial, as it allows the VPO/SI and the SPO

to take action in case of deviations from the original

exit plan.

Based on the monitoring, the VPO/SI and the SPO

determine if readiness is reached relative to the

planned date of exit.

Part 4. The Investment Process

74 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

Exit readiness is measured along three dimensions:

Figure 39: The three areas of development of the SPO

(Source: EVPA)

It is important that the SPO reaches the goals on all

three dimensions because a strong, nancially viable

organisation is the pre-requisite for the long-term

achievement of the social impact goals.

The VPO/SI also considers exit readiness from the

perspective of its own social impact and nancial

return goals.

At the moment of determining exit readiness, ve

scenarios are possible:

DETERMINING EXIT READINESS – FIVE

SCENARIOS

• Readiness is reached or partially reached, to the point

that the VPO/SI can no longer add value to the investee.

In this case the VPO/SI can exit the investment according

to plan.

• Readiness is reached or partially reached, to the point

that the VPO/SI can no longer add value to the investee,

but investment readiness is not reached. In this case the

VPO/SI can:

- Invest more resources to bridge the gap between exit

readiness and investment readiness

- If there is no market for the SPO, let go.

• Readiness is reached or partially reached, and the VPO/SI

feels it can still add value to the SPO. In this case the

VPO/SI re-invests in the SPO taking it to the next level.

• Readiness is not reached or only partially reached and

the VPO/SI feels it can still add value to the SPO. In this

case the exit strategy process needs to go back to step 2:

the VPO/SI and the SPO need to develop a new exit plan.

• Readiness is not reached and the VPO/SI cannot add

more value to the SPO. In such case the VPO/SI needs to

accept the failure and let go, while trying to minimise the

loss of social impact.

Social impact

The social change on the target

population resulting from an

SPO’s actions.

Financial

sustainability

The assessment that an SPO

will have sucient resources

to continue pursuing its social

mission, whether they come

from other funders or from own

revenue-generating activities.

Organisational

resilience

The assessment of the degree

of maturity of an SPO, in terms

of the degree of development

of the management team and

organisation (governance,

fund-raising capacity etc.).

VP/SI INDUSTRY BY THE NUMBERS:

FROM THE EVPA SURVEY 2013/2014112

Financial sustainability is stated by roughly one-third

of VPO/SIs (32%) to be the most important dimension

of exit readiness of the investee, followed by social

impact (29%) and organisational resilience (27%). This

result points to the fact that follow-on investors are

increasingly interested in SPOs that are reaching break

even or self-sustaining and that VPO/SIs consider their

job done when the SPO is not only exit ready but also

investment ready, i.e. attractive for follow-on investors.

Financial Sustainability

Social Impact

Other

Organisational Resilience

112 Hehenberger, L., Boiardi, P., and Gianoncelli, A., (2014), “European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2013/2014 – The

EVPA Survey”, EVPA.

Figure 40: Relative importance of the three dimensions of

the SPO’s exit readiness (n=62 weighted average)

March 2018

Figure 41: Relative importance of the two dimensions of the

VPO/SI’s exit readiness (n=60 multiple choice)

Almost all VPO/SIs (93%) consider societal return

crucial for determining the achievement of exit

readiness, while less than a half of the VPO/SIs surveyed

consider readiness to be achieved on the VPO/SI side if

the nancial return goals have been achieved.

Building a good relationship with the SPO during the

appraisal process is crucial to making a success of the

investment phase. The most successful relationships

will be based on mutual trust and respect, not on legal

documents and fear of funding being withheld. To

achieve social innovation the VPO/SI has to allow for an

element of risk, therefore giving the SPO the ‘permission

to fail’, while trying to mitigate the risks of failing. By

acknowledging and accepting this condition, the VPO/

SI can act to support the SPO and help it not to fail113.

Open engagement with the SPO is the best possible

means of obtaining early visibility of problems. An

open engagement can be maintained in several ways:

When things go wrong the rst reaction of the VPO/SI

should be “How can we help?” rather than “Should we

stop the funding?” or “Who is to blame?”. However, VPO/

SIs should avoid the temptation to try to solve problems

simply by making more funds available – this approach

may actually exacerbate problems in some instances.

Sometimes, the most appropriate form of action may

be to leverage your networks, provide specic market

intelligence to the SPO or even just oer moral support.

To avoid any potential misunderstanding when problems

do arise, it is essential to set out in advance a process for

dealing with underperformance. This should be part of

an overall culture or environment in which openness and

honesty are rewarded – so that the SPO reports to the

VPO/SI as a matter of course, even when results do not

match expectations. Establishing an environment that

provides early visibility of problems will also allow for

early identication of corrective measures.

Any potential solution that involves additional funding

should be treated as a new investment decision –

meaning that the VPO/SI’s investment appraisal process

is applied in the usual fashion. It should be absolutely

clear to the investment committee that the risk/return

prole of this investment (in social and nancial terms)

matches with the VPO/SI’s regular criteria. Possible

co-funders can be included in this process. It is

important not to let emotion cloud judgment. Personal

commitment to investees and their objectives can

tempt funds to extend additional nance without a full

consideration of the merits of the deal.

In the most severe cases, when the situation has dete-

riorated to such an extent that additional funding is

needed but cannot be justied, the funders will take a

decision to stop nancial support. In these instances,

the VPO/SI should consider whether it has a respon-

sibility to help wind down the SPO responsibly. This

might involve the provision of some additional funds in

the short term.

113 Hehenberger L., and Boiardi, P., (2014), “Learning from failures in Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment”, EVPA.

Social return achievable Financial return achievable

WAYS TO MAINTAIN AN OPEN ENGAGEMENT

WITH THE SPO

• Board representation or observer position (see

section 4.5.2.1).

• Regular (e.g. monthly or quarterly) progress

meetings with SPO management and sta.

• Regular nancial and social performance reporting.

Part 4. The Investment Process

76 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

It is important to recognise that the VPO/SI’s inuence

depends in part on how much of the SPO’s funding

it supplies. It may be able to inuence other funders

with a similar agenda (e.g. other grant makers – see

co-investment, section 3.4) but other funders, such as

government agencies, may have conicting objectives.

4.5.3 Investment management at the VPO/SI level

A maturing VPO/SI will have a number of SPOs in its

portfolio, all of which will be – or should be – operating

within the VPO/SI’s focus area. VPO/SIs that have

been active for several years will need to acknowledge

the greater need for portfolio management rather

than just individual investee management, managing

more investee organisations in larger portfolios.

In managing the portfolio, some aspects should be

taken into account:

114 One Foundation commissioned independent feedback from their grantees through a quantitative survey, carried out by Centre for

Eective Philanthropy in Boston. An independent evaluation of Inspiring Scotland’s portfolio companies was performed by Noah

Isserman.

115 Hehenberger, L., Harling, A., and Scholten, P., (2015), “A practical guide to measuring and managing impact – Second Edition”, EVPA.

ASPECTS TO CONSIDER WHEN MANAGING

THE PORTFOLIO

• Flagship investments: Since VP is an emerging

practice, selecting investments in well-recognised

and reputable SPOs can be a valuable way to build

credibility in the sector and provide leverage for

future investment activity. This will be a particularly

useful strategy for new funds that are starting to

build a track record.

• Leverage: It will enhance the mission of the VPO/

SI as a whole, as well as the prospects of individual

portfolio SPOs, when investments are made in

organisations that complement each other rather

than compete against each other. This approach

creates the possibility to leverage knowledge and

experience. These opportunities for cross-SPO

leverage should be pursued actively – they should

be identied and documented during the invest-

ment appraisal process.

• Competition for resources: Inevitably, portfolio

SPOs will compete for resources – both funding

and support – within the VPO/SI. Good account

management can help to minimise any problems

that arise.

• Facilitation: Portfolio managers should be encour-

aged to create links between portfolio SPOs that

have the same client base, for example, or that

share the same suppliers. Regular meetings with

all portfolio organisations, or a relevant subset, will

enable experiences to be exchanged.

• Feedback from SPO: In addition to routine commu-

nication, VPO/SIs with a portfolio of investees can

commission independent feedback on the perceived

eectiveness of investment model and portfolio

management practices, e.g. the value to the SPO of

investment appraisal processes, reporting processes,

and non-nancial value add. The Euro return on

time invested in investment appraisal can also be

measured. It is also possible to benchmark these

against other VPO/SIs. This has provided valuable

lessons to some European funds114. EVPA and AVPN

are planning to launch a project to assess the value

of the VPO/SI support on their investees.

• VPO/SI’s cost eciency: It is vital to track whether

the VPO/SI uses its resources eciently. This is a

critically important area to track as VPO/SIs need

to report to their funders/investors. As VPO/SIs

mature, and need to broaden their investor/funder

bases beyond founder and early-stage funders,

measuring cost eciency becomes increasingly

important. It is valuable for VPO/SIs to start thinking

about what to track and how to report on this right

from the start of the journey.

• VPO/SI’s impact measurement115: For a VPO/SI, it

is not enough to just consider the impact achieved

by the SPO, it is also important to assess the impact

of the work of the VPO/SI on the SPO. It is recom-

mended that VP/SIs use independent studies to

assess the value they provide to their SPOs, as

directly questioning investees may be a delicate

matter not always providing truthful answers.

March 2018

116 This section was developed based on the EVPA report on exit strategies: Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2014), “A practical

guide to planning and executing an impactful exit”, EVPA.

4.6 EXIT116

In most cases, an SPO’s funding horizon will be longer

than a VPO/SI’s investment horizon. Hence there will

be a point in time where the relationship between SPO

and VPO/SI will end. This separation is called ‘exit’. The

‘exit’ is the end of the relationship between the VPO/

SI and an investee organisation either after a pre-de-

ned time, when the VPO/SI can no longer add value

or when the investment objectives have been achieved.

At the time of exit, the VPO/SI determines how to

exit (mode of exit) and whom to exit to (follow-on

investors), balancing the nancial and social return.

The exit strategy execution determines the end of the

nancial relationship of the VPO/SI with the SPO and

therefore coincides with the last step of the investment

process.

How the exit strategy is executed depends on:

ELEMENTS THAT INFLUENCE THE

EXECUTION OF THE EXIT STRATEGY

• The type of nancial instrument used – as some

instruments have a xed duration (e.g. grant)

and the support is withdrawn when the exit date

is reached, whereas other instruments are more

exible (e.g. equity).

• The context – as in dierent countries the exit

process is implemented dierently according to the

possibilities for an investee to nd new sources of

funding.

• The stage of development of the SPO – as dierent

stages of development call for dierent exit modes

(see table below).

Financial Instrument Grant Debt Equity

Exit mode

Find matching support

(follow-on grant sought)

Find matching support

(follow-on grant sought)

Endowment creation for

the investee

Follow-on loan sought Follow-on loan sought

Buy-back, sale or hand-over of equity

stake

Strategic sale or merger of the SPO to an

industrial partner

Non-prot IPO

Let go (self-sustainability) Let go (self-sustainability) Let go (self-sustainability)

Not to sell equity B Stay on board

Franchise Franchise Franchise

In terms of whom to exit to there are three options:

• To nd a new investor that can better support the

investee, both in terms of nancial and non-nan-

cial support, such as:

-A public funder

-A traditional grant-maker

-A commercial/traditional investor

-An industrial partner

-Another VPO/SI

-Stock exchange IPO

• The SPO has become self-sustainable, and can

continue on its own with no additional support

• The investee is not performing and has to shut

down its operations. This is a case of failure, and

therefore the investment is not exited to any

specic entity.

Part 4. The Investment Process

78 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

Whatever the choice of whom to exit to, the decision

needs to be guided by the objective of keeping the

social mission of the SPO going, unless it has been

demonstrated that the intervention of the SPO does

not generate sucient social return to justify its

existence.

The assessment of the ‘t’ of potential new investors

– including whether they share the same position on

the social mission, their anticipated nancial return,

the desire for inuence and the level of engagement in

the investment – is an important exercise to enable the

social impact to be maintained after exit.

The VPO/SI and the SPO should discuss how much

responsibility is placed on the investor to help the

investee nd follow-on nancing versus this being the

responsibility of the entrepreneurial team. Additionally,

the VPO/SI needs to assess whether the social mission

of the investee can create tangible value (mission

lock-in) such that the acquirer is de-incentivised from

discontinuing the investee’s social mission.

Whom to exit to Opportunities Risks

Public funder • Financial capacity

• Can replicate the model at national level

• Possibility to inuence policy

• Broader mission/lookout on public welfare

• Not capable of supporting long-term nancial

resilience

• Might not be engaged

• Short-term approach depending on electoral

mandates

• It takes long to build relationships

Grant-making

foundation

• Financial capacity Social sector knowledge

• Able to achieve collective/systemic impact

• May be less capable of supporting long-term

nancial resilience

• Might not be engaged

• Narrow mission

Commercial/

traditional

investor

• Support on business model Financial capacity • Less focus on social impact

Industrial

partners

• Provides work and clients • May have little knowledge of social impact

• May be less inclined to build capacity of SPO

Another VPO/SI • Highly engaged Scaling Financial capacity • Risk of misalignment of objectives (if additional

investor)

Stock exchange

IPO

• Potential to mobilise (large amounts of private

capital for public good

• Still under development / few experiences so far

Let the SPO

continue on its

own

• Self-sustaining/independent • Not fully prepared

No exit options • Continue funding for another round, hoping

that options will materialise or the investee will

become self-sustaining

• Cannot continue forever

March 2018

117 Hehenberger, L., Boiardi, P., and Gianoncelli, A., (2014), “European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2013/2014 – The

EVPA Survey”, EVPA.

VP/SI Industry by the numbers: from The

EVPA Survey 2013/2014117

Figure 42: To whom have VPO/SIs exited (in scal year 2013)?

(n=57, multiple choice, numbers in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50

Management team

Other VPO/SI

Public Funder

Other

Corporate

Commercial Investor

Public shareholder base

No one – the SPO had

become self-sustaining

Almost half of the VPO/SIs (46%) have exited SPOs

that were self-sustaining, while 28% have exited to the

management team of the SPO. These results are encour-

aging, as VP/SI works to build stronger organisations

that are capable to become self-sustainable and scale.

One-quarter of the exited investments were passed on

to another VPO/SI, while almost one-fth were taken

over by a public funder. Corporate and commercial

investors are an upcoming option to exit to, representing

14% of the exits each. Only 4% of the investments were

exited to a public shareholder base, pointing to a lot of

untapped potential for this exit option.

0 10 20 30 40

Repayment of debt

Other

Buy-back, sale or handover

of equity stake

Strategic sale or merger of the SPO

Endowment creation for the investee

Figure 43: How have VPO/SIs exited their investments

(in scal year 2013)?

(n=61, multiple choice, numbers in %)

The mode of exit depends on the nancial instrument

used by the VPO/SI. In the case of a grant-funded invest-

ment, the exit is a discontinuation of a grant, whereas

for social impact investment the exit may involve

repayment of a loan, or divestment of an equity stake.

In any case, 41% of the investments were exited through

debt repayment, and 25% through a buy-back, sale or

handover of equity stake. Strategic sales accounted for

15% of the total exits and the creation of an endowment

for the investee accounted for 10% of total exit.

Part 4. The Investment Process

80 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

4.7 EVALUATION AND POST-EXIT

FOLLOW-UP

4.7.1 Evaluation

Post-exit, there will also be an evaluation of the invest-

ment (degree of achievement of investor’s and inves-

tee’s objectives and learnings from the process), and

potentially a post-investment follow-up.

The VPO/SI evaluates the success of the project after

exit in terms of nancial return and social return and

the SPO determines how well it has achieved its objec-

tives along the three dimensions of social impact,

nancial sustainability and organisational resilience.

Importantly, the VPO/SI should also evaluate how well

it has succeeded in supporting the SPO to achieve its

objectives.

In terms of social return, a VPO/SI should aim to

measure the outcomes of the investment against initial

objectives. The outcomes should be veried, so that

the resulting information can be used by the VPO/

SI itself to assess its success as a ‘high-engagement’

investor and take away learnings for future invest-

ments. It will also be used to report back to donors and

investors on the ‘social return’ on their investment. The

impact of the SPO itself may also be a selling argument

when ‘handing over the baton’ to future social impact

investors.

To understand the value of the non-nancial support it

provides, the VPO/SI should measure how the investee

perceives the value of the non-nancial support it has

been provided with, periodically, or at least at the

end of the investment period. Ideally, this assessment

is made through a survey conducted by an external,

independent third party. We also recommend that the

VPO/SI makes an assessment of how well the SPO has

reached the objectives dened at the beginning of the

investment – although it is dicult to assign the attri-

bution of the VPO/SI’s support to those achievements

(or lack thereof). The learnings of the nal impact

assessment will inform the future non-nancial support

cycles, as they generate lessons learned as to what

type of support investees value most. With sucient

data, the VPO/SI should be able to discern patterns

showing what types of non-nancial support oered,

as well as by whom and how, are generating the best

outcomes for SPOs’ development.118

4.7.2 Follow-up activities

The follow-up refers to all those activities that the

VPO/SI puts in place to keep a link with the SPO

after exit (oering additional non-nancial support,

networking, etc.) to keep contact with the SPO with

the purpose of both monitoring and supporting the

achievement of the social impact goals after the exit.

Post-exit monitoring and support can be another way

to try to reduce the risk of mission drift and check

that the follow-on investor is continuing the original/

intended social mission/impact.

Follow-up activities are optional and the extent to

which they are performed depends on the strategy of

the VPO/SI and the willingness and incentives of the

SPO to stay in touch.

118 Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2015), “A practical guide to adding value through non- nancial support”, EVPA.

March 2018

VP/SI INDUSTRY BY THE NUMBERS:

FROM THE EVPA SURVEY 2013/2014119

75%

53%

37%

18%

12%

Provide access to networks

In the form of

non-ﬁnancial support

Help the SPO look for

follow-up ﬁnancing

Other

Keep a seat on the

board after exiting

Yes

n=60 n=51

multiple choice

Yes

119 Hehenberger, L., Boiardi, P., and Gianoncelli, A., (2014), “European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2013/2014 – The

EVPA Survey”, EVPA.

CASE STUDY:

PHITRUST PARTENAIRES – ALTER-ECO

Phitrust Partenaires is a social impact investment fund

dedicated to providing hybrid support to economically

viable, for-prot businesses in sectors that promote

positive social impact and sustainable development, in

Europe and globally.

In 2006, Phitrust became involved with Alter-Eco via

a pure equity investment of €528,000 (€442,000 in

2006, 5.6% share, and €86,000 in 2009, an additional

1.8% share), with a member of Phitrust’s Investment

Committee actively participating in – and indeed

chairing, during the exit process – the company’s

executive board. Alter-Eco is a company that imports a

variety of products from small producers, paying them

above-market rates for their work, including 30–50%

upfront, and distributing their products through

large retailers in developed countries. Products are

packaged under a well-known brand name that is inte-

grated into the market economy and recognised for its

high-quality, fair trade products.

The vast majority (85%) of the VPO/SIs that keep

contact with the former investee stated that they

provide access to networks to the former investees,

53% continue providing non-nancial support and 37%

help the investee look for follow-on nancing.

Figure 45: Modes through which VPO/SIs keep in contact

with the SPOs post-exit (scal year 2013)

Figure 44: % of VPO/SIs that keep contact with the former

investees (scal year 2013)

(n=60)

Part 4. The Investment Process

82 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

Case Study: Phitrust Partenaires – Alter-Eco120

Elements of

the exit strate-

gy process

Phitrust Partenaires – Alter-Eco case

STEP 1

Key exit

considerations

Given Phitrust’s investment strategy, the following exit strategy considerations have been

identied:

- Social return and nancial return are equally important for Phitrust. This implies that exit will

be considered successful when both social and nancial return goals are met. Exit readiness

will most often be achieved when the investee has achieved its goals in terms of social im-

pact, nancial sustainability and organisational resilience.

- Phitrust envisions exits of the equity portfolio to occur at a point in time that is mutually

agreed upon between the Investment Committee of Phitrust and the entrepreneurial man-

agement team of the SPO. When using debt, the exit plan is kept exible and the invest-

ment is monitored closely throughout the period to be able to quickly address the issues

when they arise.

- Phitrust needs to manage the exit process together with the co-investors, align the exit

strategy and the exit strategy process with them and be prepared to look for new co-

investors at the exit date of current co-investors.

STEP 2

Developing

the exit plan

Phitrust began addressing the idea of an exit prior to any actual investment in Alter-Eco,

during the due diligence phase. Phitrust wanted to ensure that the investee understood

that while Phitrust had a long-term investment and mentoring horizon, the exit remained a

certainty. When the deal was being structured, Phitrust worked with the Alter-Eco entrepre-

neur to dene the exit plan. The SPO was asked to report (either annually or every six months)

on measurable impact criteria, directly related to the social mission of the organisation. The

company’s activities were linked to measurable results that led to the expected long-term

eects as shown in the gure:

The exit plan was revised regularly with Alter-Eco management team, on a formal and informal

basis.

Ideas,

contribution Activities Result Long-term eﬀects

• Improve the

income of fair

trade and organic

food producers in

countries in both

the South and the

North

• Preﬁnance purchases

directly from

producer coopera-

tives

• Support and monitor

cooperatives

• Develop and market

a range of Alter-Eco

branded products in

supermarkets across

Western Europe and

North America

• Ensuring regular

income for produ-

cers at above market

prices

• Development of

activities to

transform products

in developing

countries

• Re-structuring

cooperatives to

ensure their

sustainability

• Poverty reduction in

rural areas

• Preservation of

agricultural family

model

• Raising awareness

about socially

responsible

consumption

120 Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2014), “A practical guide to planning and executing an impactful exit”, EVPA.

The table below provides an overview of the ve steps

of the exit strategy process applied to the exit case of

Phitrust Partenaires from its investee Alter-Eco:

March 2018

STEP 3

Determining

exit readiness

Phitrust Partenaires’ 2012 Annual Report indicates that while Alter-Eco was meeting its sales

goals and social return expectations, Phitrust felt that the company’s nancial growth and

overall development were not progressing as quickly as had hoped, in large part due to head-

winds in the fair trade market in France.

Faced with the fact that several equity investors in Alter-Eco were reaching fund maturity and

would soon need to sell their shares, and given the stagnant demand for fair trade products

in France, it became increasingly clear in 2011 that new investors were needed to provide the

capital necessary to open up new markets for the company. Thus began a two-year process of

discussions with potential follow-on investors (led by the executive board, chaired by a member

of Phitrust’s Investment Committee). Phitrust Partenaires had decided that the market context

and the need for an inux of new capital meant that its value-add to the SPO was increasingly

diminished, and that a strategic exit to an appropriate follow-on investor would be the most

benecial decision for both Phitrust and Alter-Eco.

STEP 4

Executing the

exit

In late May 2013, subsequent to several rounds of negotiations with potential follow-on inves-

tors, Phitrust’s shares (and indeed all shares of Alter-Eco) were sold to Wessanen Distriborg, a

European leader in the sale of organic food products. Those who exited felt strongly that this

additional support was necessary to enable Alter-Eco to continue developing in an increas-

ingly dicult fair trade and organic food market. The buyer oered to maintain the existing

business model (allowing small producers in developing countries to access Western European

customers) in addition to providing access to other European markets, particularly in Northern

Europe.

To Phitrust, it was crucial that the follow-on investor would ensure the continued growth of

the company, both from a nancial and impact perspective. For this reason, it prioritised the

sale of its shares to a company that would maintain the existing business model, rather than

one which would have prioritised a nancial strategy but potentially re-oriented the compa-

ny’s social activities towards more commercially benecial operations. This exit strategy was

a clear mandate from the Investment Committee, and was the lens through which Alter-Eco

approached each potential new investor.

STEP 5

Post-

investment

follow-up

When evaluating the achievement of its own social impact and nancial return goals, Phitrust can

consider the investment to have been successful. Phitrust exited a strong company, importing

from a large number of high-quality producers paid above market rates. From a nancial return

perspective, the transaction price retained was that of the balance sheet valuation of Alter Eco

as of 31 December 2012.

Dimensions Results

Social impact Working with 42 small holder farmers in South &

Central America, Africa and Asia Farmers paid 51%

above market rates

>8,000 tonnes of CO2 oset annually

Financial

sustainability

€17.7 million in annual sales in 2012

(+84% since 2005)

Organisational

resilience

Poised to continue expanding in new markets, be

they in other European countries or internationally

Part 4. The Investment Process

84 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

KEY ISSUES

AND LEARNINGS

• Deal ow – Getting the right volume and quality

of deal ow is critical. Therefore, most funds take

a proactive approach to identifying and engaging

with target SPOs, rather than establishing an open

application process.

• Deal Screening and Due Diligence – While the

precise process varies from organisation to organ-

isation, most employ multiple screens. Final invest-

ments are usually made on the basis of the SPO’s

business plan and match between (i) the social

impact objectives of the SPO and the social impact

and nancial return objectives of the VPO/SI and

(ii) the needs of the SPO and the oer of the

VPO/SI in terms of non-nancial support.

• Investment Decision and Deal Structuring – The

VPO/SI shall choose to support SPOs that have

alignment in terms of objectives and that can

benet from the nancial and non-nancial support

the VPO/SI can oer. The deal structuring is a

planning phase, during which the VPO/SI and SPO

develop the non-nancial support plan, the exit plan

and set the objectives for the SPO in terms of social

impact and its measurement.

• Investment management – During the investment

phase, the VPO/SI will be actively engaged with

investee SPOs on an ongoing basis. This engage-

ment can take many forms but it should be agreed

on beforehand. The VPO/SI monitors the investment

by means of the plans agreed in the deal struc-

turing, takes corrective actions if and where needed,

and assesses when exit readiness is achieved.

• Exit – At the time of exit the VPO/SI will decide

whom to exit to and the mode of exit. These will

largely depend on the type of nancial instrument

used, the context and the stage of development of

the SPO. The VPO/SI is guided in its decision by the

aim of keeping the social impact of the SPO going

even after exit.

March 2018

PART 5.

REFLECTIONS ON THE

JOURNEY SO FAR

86 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

Venture Philanthropy is a relatively new addition to the

philanthropy toolkit. Although in Europe the industry

is just over ten years old, the VP approach is today

considered one of the key tools of organisational

philanthropy in Europe, with its own practices that are

increasingly normalised and shared. European VPO/

SIs have been able to ‘bend’ USA models to match

their own political and cultural contexts, ranging from

Western European welfare states to emerging markets

in Central and Eastern Europe121, where the approach is

spreading.

In the rst edition of 2008, we documented how VP

itself was an innovation emerging from both the phil-

anthropic and investment worlds/markets, and the

founding players in Europe were innovating through

applying investment principles to investees in order to

support them to make a step change in their impact.

The nature of the innovation was the development

and testing of VP tools and approaches in dierent

political economic and cultural contexts across Europe

and also in the developing world. The second edition in

2010 showed how the VP approach emerged as a way

to tackle social sector challenges in an environment

strongly hit by reducing Government budgets also due

to the nancial crisis and how VP broadened the set of

nancial instruments used, catalysing a social impact

investment movement which complemented and built

on the use of grants in the initial VP movement. In the

2016 edition we focussed on the learnings of ve years

of research of the KC, providing guidance to organi-

sations that wanted to start investing using the VP

approach around what works and what does not, and

helping established organisation rene their approach

to achieve even greater social impact.

In this edition, we close the cycle, with new insights

into how VPO/SIs tailor their nancial instruments to

the needs of the investees, showing how the model of

VP/SI has come to a crystallisation.

WHAT ARE THE UPCOMING

CHALLENGES FOR THE SECTOR?

Social investment funds are starting to raise bigger

funds than before, thanks to the positive track record

with their rst funds, but also with the increased access

to institutional and public funding channelled through

by funds of funds such as Big Society Capital in the

UK, and the European Investment Fund’s (EIF) Social

Impact Accelerator. Bigger funds will allow the social

impact investment fund managers to hire more people

and pay them more competitively, but it will also mean

that most likely they need to target higher nancial

returns. Such a pressure on nancial returns may force

fund managers to take less risk and invest in more

mature social enterprises, leaving early-stages entities

under-funded. In particular, we observe a lack of su-

cient patient investment capital available in the sector

to nance the so-called “valley of death”. It is hard for

SPOs – especially in the early stages of development

– to attract appropriate funding to grow and scale the

social impact. In fact, without risk-adjusted rates of

return, it is hard to raise investments from mainstream

and even nancial rst impact investors. Furthermore,

business models with high working capital needs are

dicult to nance without a track record. Due to the

diculty to attract both commercial capital, and social

investment capital from nance-rst impact investors,

early stage SPOs face a strategic nancing gap that

PART 5.

REFLECTIONS ON

THE JOURNEY SO FAR

121 For more information on EVPA’s work on helping build the CEE market, check: https://evpa.eu.com/central-eastern-europe-cee/

cee-task-force.

March 2018

leads to a potential failure in their growth122. This is why

hybrid nance is emerging as a topic, with new hybrid

vehicles being set up to accommodate for dierent

impact/nancial risk/return proles of investors while

allocating the resources to SPOs in the most ecient

way. Hybrid nance is still in its infancy, so more

research and analysis is needed to assess whether this

new path for VP/SI will bring more eciency and eec-

tiveness in the market.

It is clear that the global impact ecosystem needs to

evolve further to cover all stages in the evolution of

both non-prot organisations and self-sustainable

social enterprises. Some countries are more advanced

than others, but in general, we need incubators, angel

investors and grant-makers at early stages, social

impact investors at more mature and growth stages,

and corporates and public funders to provide more

resource-heavy investments to scale up massively. At

the end of 2016, the European Commission’s Expert

Group on Social Entrepreneurship (GECES)123 published

a report that represents a call for action for a European

Action Plan for the Social Economy and Social Enter-

prises. The report proposes a series of policy recom-

mendations in four key thematic areas, one of them is

helping social enterprises to access nance.124 Comple-

mentary, the European Commission is enlarging its

focus on social investment thanks to the European

Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI)125 launched as one

of the three pillars of the Investment Plan for Europe –

also known as “the Junker plan”126. EFSI contributes to

social impact achievement through the reinforcement

of the EaSI Programme127 and the creation of a Social

Impact Window under the EFSI Equity Product128,

implemented by the European Investment Fund to be

channelled via social sector nancial intermediaries.

EFSI Social Impact Window directly targets social

sector nancial intermediaries linked to incubators and

accelerators, business angels, as well as payment-by-

results mechanisms targeting social enterprises and

social sector organisations delivering social impact129.

The role of venture philanthropy in the social impact

ecosystem is to enable a step change towards

achieving systemic impact, by bringing solutions and

organisations to a more sustainable and scalable level.

In essence, by applying the VP model, the funder

should enable the investee organisation to move from

one level to the next (e.g. from start-up to growth),

by becoming more sustainable and scalable, on its

trajectory towards achieving systemic change. Venture

philanthropy can as such be seen as an approach that

is applicable by funders interested in achieving social

impact, whether they are interested in a nancial return

or not.

We look forward to the next stage of innovation and

learning in venture philanthropy and social impact

investment, to sharing that learning, and to contrib-

uting to the emerging global debates on impact and

practice. Lastly, we must remain humble as we remind

ourselves of why we do this work together, to improve

the world we live in.

122 Gianoncelli, A. and Boiardi, P. (2017), “Financing for Social Impact | The Key Role of Tailored Financing and Hybrid Finance”,

EVPA. p. 72.

123 For more info: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/social-economy/enterprises/expert-groups_en

124 To have access to the report GECES (Commission Expert Group on Social Entrepreneurship), (2016), “Social enterprises

and the social economy going forward – A call for action”, European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/

social-enterprises-and-social-economy-going-forward-0_en

125 For more info: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/funding/efsi_en

126 For more info: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/jobs-growth-and-investment/investment-plan-europe-juncker-plan_en

127 To know more about the axis dedicated to Social Entrepreneurship of the European Programme for Employment and Social

Innovation (EaSI): http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1084&langId=en

128 For more info: http://www.eif.org/what_we_do/equity/efsi/index.htm

129 For more information, watch the EU webinar “EU Funding Update for VP/SI Practitioners: EFSI Social Impact” organised by EVPA

in November 2016: https://evpa.eu.com/pages/eu-webinar-8-eu-funding-update-for-vp-si-practitioners-efsi-social-impact.

Part 5. Reections on the journey so far

88 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

SOURCES

Achleitner, A., Schönig, M., Heinecke, A., Noble, A.,

and Spiess-Kna, W., (2011), “Social impact investment

Manual An Introduction for Social Entrepreneurs”,

Technische Universität München and Schwab Founda-

tion for Social Entrepreneurship.

http://schwabfound.weforum.org/content/

social-investment-manual

Boiardi, P., and Gianoncelli, A., (2016), “The State of

Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment in Europe

| The EVPA Survey 2015/2016”. EVPA.

https://evpa.eu.com/knowledge-centre/publications/

the-state-of-venture-philanthropy-and-social-invest-

ment-vp-si-in-europe-the-evpa-survey-2015-2016

Balbo, L., Hehenberger, L., Mortell, D., and Oost-

lander, P., (2010), “Establishing a Venture Philanthropy

Organisation in Europe: A Practical Guide”, EVPA.

Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2015), “A practical

guide to adding value through non-nancial support”,

EVPA.

https://evpa.eu.com/knowledge-centre/publications/

adding-value-through-non-nancial-support-a-practi-

cal-guide

Boiardi, P., and Hehenberger, L., (2014), “A practical

guide to planning and executing an impactful exit”,

EVPA.

https://evpa.eu.com/knowledge-centre/publications/

planning-and-executing-an-impactful-exit-a-practi-

cal-guide

Buckland, L., Hehenberger, L., and Hay, M., (2013), “The

Growth of European Venture Philanthropy”, Stanford

Social Innovation Review.

https://ssir.org/articles/entry/

the_growth_of_european_venture_philanthropy

GECES (Commission Expert Group on Social Entre-

preneurship), (2016), “Social enterprises and the

social economy going forward – A call for action”,

European Commission.

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/

newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=9024

Gianoncelli, A. and Boiardi, P. (2017), “Financing for

Social Impact | The Key Role of Tailored Financing and

Hybrid Finance”, EVPA.

https://evpa.eu.com/knowledge-centre/publications/

nancing-for-social-impact

Damaschin-Țecu, R., and Etchart, N., (2016), “Building

the Social Investment Industry in Central and Eastern

Europe | The Case of Romania”, NESsT.

https://issuu.com/nesster/docs/

ro_bldg_social_investment_industry_

Hehenberger, L., and Boiardi, P., (2015), “Learning

from failures in Venture Philanthropy and Social

Investment”, EVPA.

https://evpa.eu.com/knowledge-centre/publica-

tions/learning-from-failures-in-venture-philanthro-

py-and-social-investment-a-practical-guide

Hehenberger, L., Boiardi, P., and Gianoncelli, A.,

(2014), “European Venture Philanthropy and Social

Investment 2013/2014 – The EVPA Survey”, EVPA.

https://evpa.eu.com/knowledge-centre/publications/

evpa-survey-2013-2014-european-venture-philanthro-

py-and-social-investment

Hehenberger, L., and Harling, A-M., (2013), “European

Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

– The EVPA Survey”, EVPA.

https://evpa.eu.com/knowledge-centre/publications/

evpa-yearly-survey-2011-2012-european-venture-phi-

lanthropy-and-social-investment

APPENDICES

March 2018

Hehenberger, L., Harling, A., and Scholten, P., (2015),

“A practical guide to measuring and managing impact

– Second Edition”, EVPA.

https://evpa.eu.com/knowledge-centre/publications/

measuring-and-managing-impact-a-practical-guide

John, R., (2006), “Venture Philanthropy: the evolution

of high engagement philanthropy in Europe,” Skoll

Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Said Business

School, University of Oxford.

http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/les/Skoll_

Centre/Docs/Venture%20philanthropy%20in%20

Europe.pdf

Letts, C., Ryan, W., and Grossman, A., (1997),

“Virtuous Capital: What Foundations Can Learn from

Venture Capitalists”, Harvard Business Review.

http://www.wheatridge.org/wp-content/

uploads/2012/03/Virtuous_Capital_HB.pdf

Metz Cummings, A., and Hehenberger, L., (2010),

“Strategies for Foundations: When, why and how to

use Venture Philanthropy”, EVPA.

https://evpa.eu.com/knowledge-centre/publications/

strategies-for-foundations-when-why-and-how-to-use-

venture-philanthropy

OECD netFWD, (2014), “Venture Philanthropy in

Development: Dynamics, Challenges and Lessons in

the Search for Greater Impact”, OECD Development

Centre.

http://www.oecd.org/dev/Venture%20Philan-

thropy%20in%20Development-BAT-24022014-

indd5%2011%20mars.pdf

Porter, M.E., and Kramer, M.R., (1999), “Philanthro-

py’s New Agenda: Creating Value”, Harvard Business

Review.

https://hbr.org/1999/11

philanthropys-new-agenda-creating-value

Proscio, T., (2014). “Harvest Time for The Atlantic

Philanthropies. 2012-2013: Decline and Rise”, Center

for Strategic Philanthropy and Civil Society. Stanford

School of Public Policy. Duke University.

http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/app/

uploads/2015/09/Atlantic-Philanthropies-Har-

vest-Time-2012-2013.pdf

Spiess-Kna, W., and Struewer, B., (2015), “Social

Investing Fundamentals of an impact-rst investment

strategy”, Zeppelin University and Roots of Impact.

http://www.roots-of-impact.org/wp-content/

uploads/2015/01/Social_Investing-An-Introduc-

tion-vnal.pdf

Varga, E., and Hayday, M., (2016), “A recipe book for

social nance. A practical guide on designing and

implementing initiatives to develop social nance

instruments and markets”, European Commission.

http://ec.europa.eu/social/

BlobServlet?docId=15079&langId=en

Varga, E., (2015), “Corporate social impact strategies

– new paths for collaborative growth”, EVPA.

https://evpa.eu.com/knowledge-centre/publications/

corporate-social-impact-strategies-new-paths-for-col-

laborative-growth

Vecchi, V., Casalini, F., Cusumano, N., and Brusoni, M.,

(2010), “Oltre Venture: the rst Italian impact invest-

ment fund”, SDA Bocconi School of Management.

http://www.sdabocconi.it/en/site/

impact-investing-lab/materials-and-events/materials

Appendices

90 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

WEBSITES

Part 1: Introduction

• http://www.socialimpactinvestment.org/

• https://evpa.eu.com/membership/our-members

Part 2: Key issues for the Venture Philanthropy

Organisation and the Social Investor (VPO/SI)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.Carried_interest

• http://www.eif.org/what_we_do/equity/sia/index.

htm

• http://www.bridgesfundmanagement.com/

our-team/

• http://www.phitrustactiveinvestors.com/data//

Rapport_annuel_2014_version_nale.pdf

• https://evpa.eu.com/policy/eu-funding

• http://www.bigsocietycapital.com/

• http://www.oltreventure.com/en/

Part 3: The Investment Strategy

• http://www.theoryofchange.org

• http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-696_

en.htm

• http://www.socialimpactinvestment.org/reports/

Measuring%20Impact%20WG%20paper%20FINAL.

pdf

Part 5: Reections on the journey so far

• https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/social-

economy/enterprises/expert-groups_en

• http://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/social-enter-

prises-and-social-economy-going-forward-0_en

• http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/

funding/efsi_en

• https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/jobs-

growth-and-investment/investment-plan-europe-

juncker-plan_en

• http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?-

catId=1084&langId=en

• http://www.eif.org/what_we_do/equity/efsi/index.

htm

• https://evpa.eu.com/pages/eu-webinar-8-eu-fund-

ing-update-for-vp-si-practitioners-efsi-social-impact

Glossary of Terms

• http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Blended_

Finance_A_Primer_Development_Finance_Philan-

thropic_Funders_report_2015.pdf

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loan_guarantee

• http://www.schwabfound.org

• http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/social-economy/

enterprises_it

List of interviewees (alphabetical order):

• Luciano Balbo, Founder and President, Oltre

Venture.

• Emilie Goodall, Director of Projects, Bridges Fund

Management.

• Deirdre Mortell, CEO, Social Innovation Fund Ireland.

• Pieter Oostlander, Fund manager, SI2 fund.

• Chloé Tuot, Social Investment Manager, former

Phitrust.

March 2018

Accelerator

A programme through which an organisation supports

investment-ready social enterprises by providing them

with business development support, mentoring, infra-

structure, and access to relevant networks in order to

help them grow.

Attribution

Attribution takes account of how much of the change

that has been observed is the result of the organisa-

tion’s activities, and how much is the result of actions

taken simultaneously by others (e.g. other SPOs,

government).

Baseline

The baseline is the initial collection of data that

describes the state of development of the SPO when

the VPO/SI starts investing in it. The baseline serves as

a basis for comparison with the subsequently acquired

data on the development of the SPO.

Beneciaries

The people, communities, broader society and environ-

ment that a SPO seeks to reach through its activities.

Beneciaries can be aected positively or negatively

by the activities of the SPO.

Blended Finance

The OECD denes blended nance as “the strategic

use of development nance and philanthropic funds to

mobilize private capital ows to emerging and frontier

markets” (Source: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/

WEF_Blended_Finance_A_Primer_Development_

Finance_Philanthropic_Funders_report_2015.pdf)

Business model

A business model describes the rationale of how an

organisation creates, delivers, and captures value,

in economic, social, cultural or other contexts. The

process of constructing a business model is part of

the business strategy. In theory and practice, the term

business model is used for a broad range of informal

and formal descriptions to represent core aspects of a

business, including purpose, business process, target

customers, oerings, strategies, infrastructure, organ-

isational structures, sourcing, trading practices, and

operational processes and policies including culture.

Business plan

Document which describes an organisation’s goals and

the operating model and nancial resources which will

be used in order to reach them.

Co-investment (aka co-investing or co-funding)

In private equity, co-investment is the syndication

of a nancing round or investment by other funders

alongside a private equity fund. In venture philan-

thropy, it involves the syndication of an investment into

a social purpose organisation (SPO), by other funders

(e.g. grant-makers or individuals) alongside a venture

philanthropy organisation.

Convertible loans and convertible debts

Convertible loans and convertible debts are “two

dierent circumstances in which the loan may be

converted into equity.” In both cases we are looking at

“a loan that has to be repaid. However, in one circum-

stance, because the lender is willing to vary the loan

terms in the borrower’s favour, the borrower gives the

lender rights to exchange its creditor position for an

ownership in the enterprise at a later date. In another,

more challenging circumstance, a loan is converted

into equity either because the borrower’s regulator

requires the intermediary to bolster its capital or upon

the occurrence of a future funding round. It is particu-

larly useful where the enterprise is so young that a

valuation is not possible and an equity price cannot be

set” (Varga and Hayday, 2016).

Deal ow

Deal ow refers to the number and/or rate of new

proposals presented to the investor. This term is

used with respect to venture capital/private equity

funds, venture philanthropy funds, and has also been

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Glossary of Terms

92 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

borrowed and used by philanthropists in reference to

‘deals’ or potential projects to be awarded grants.

Debt instruments

Debt instruments are loans that the VPO/SI can

provide to the SPO, charging interest at a certain rate.

The interest charged can vary depending on the risk

prole of the investee and on the securitisation and

repayment priority of the loan (senior vs subordinated

loan).

Due diligence

Due Diligence is the process where an organisation or

company’s strengths and weaknesses are assessed in

detail by a potential investor with a view to investment.

Endowment

A donation of money or property to a non-prot organ-

ization, which uses the resulting investment income for

a specic purpose. “Endowment” can also refer to the

total of a non-prot institution’s investable assets, also

known as “principal” or “corpus,” which is meant to be

used for operations or programs that are consistent

with the wishes of the donor.

Equity instruments

Equity instruments are contracts through which a VPO/

SI provides funding to SPOs and in return acquires

ownership rights on part of the SPO’s business. This can

be appropriate when the prospect of a loan repayment

is low or non-existent. If the SPO is successful, the

equity share holds the possibility of a nancial return

in the form of dividend payments.In addition, it allows

for the possibility of a transfer of ownership to other

funders in the future.

Exit

The end of the relationship between the venture philan-

thropy investor and social purpose organisation (SPO).

The nature of the exit will normally be agreed before

the investment is completed. In the case of a charity,

the venture philanthropy funder will ideally be replaced

by a mix of other funders (see nancial sustaina-

bility). The time scale for the exit can be agreed upon

at the outset. In the case of a social enterprise, exit

may require the repayment of a loan, for example, and

the timing will depend on the commercial success of

the enterprise. An exit strategy is the action plan to

determine when the VPO/SI can no longer add value to

the investee, and to end the relationship in such a way

that the social impact is either maintained or amplied,

or that the potential loss of social impact is minimised.

Financial instruments (FIs)

Financial instruments are contracts involving monetary

transfers through which, in the VP/SI space, venture

philanthropy organisations and social investors nan-

cially support social purpose organisations.

Financial sustainability

Financial sustainability for a social enterprise is the

degree to which it collects sucient revenues from the

sale of its services to cover the full costs of its activ-

ities. For charities, it involves achieving adequate and

reliable nancial resources, normally through a mix of

income types.

Foundation

Public-benet foundations are asset based and

purpose- driven. They have no members or share-

holders and are separately constituted non-prot

bodies. Foundations focus on areas ranging from the

environment, social services, health and education, to

science, research, arts and culture. They each have an

established and reliable income source, which allows

them to plan and carry out work over a longer term

than many other institutions such as governments

and companies. In the context of VP, foundations are

non-prot organisations that support charitable activ-

ities either through grant-making or by operating

programmes. Source: www.efc.be

Fund

A fund is a vehicle created to enable pooled investment

by a number of investors and which is usually managed

by a dedicated organisation.

Grant-maker

Grant-makers include institutions, public charities,

private foundations, and giving circles, which award

monetary aid or subsidies to organisations or individ-

uals. Generally known as foundations in Continental

Europe, grant-makers also include certain types of

trusts in the United Kingdom.

March 2018

Grants

Grants are a type of funding in the form of a cash allo-

cation that establishes neither rights to repayments nor

any other nancial returns or any form of ownership

rights on the donor.

Guarantee

A guarantee is a promise by one party (the guarantor)

to assume the debt obligation of a borrower if that

borrower defaults. A guarantee can be limited or

unlimited, making the guarantor liable for only a

portion or all of the debt. In the VP context, guarantees

are one of the nancial instruments available for VPO/

SIs to support SPOs. The VPO/SI in this case does not

need to supply cash up-front, but it opens up access

to bank funding by taking on some or all of the risk

that the lender would otherwise incur. (Source: https://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loan_guarantee)

High-engagement partnership

Creating hands-on relationships between the supported

organisation’s management and the VP/ SI organisation.

This practice foresees VPO/SIs taking board seats in the

organisations they invest in or give a grant to, and/or to

frequently meet with investees’ management.

Hybrid Finance

Allocation of nancial resources to impact-oriented

investments combining dierent types of nancial

instruments and dierent types of risk/return/impact

proles of capital providers. (Source: Gianoncelli, A.

and Boiardi, P., 2017)

Hybrid Financial Instruments (HFIs)

HFIs are monetary contracts that combine features of

the traditional FIs (grants, debt instruments and equity

instruments) in order to achieve the best possible

alignment of risk and impact/nancial return for

particular investments.

Hybrid Financing Mechanism

Financing schemes developed to increase the resources

brought to impact-oriented investments by de-risking

traditional capital (i.e. retail, commercial or public).

(Source: Gianoncelli, A. and Boiardi, P., 2017)

Hybrid Financing Vehicles

Funds developed to provide nance to SPOs in a more

ecient way, while satisfying dierent risk/return/

impact proles of investors. (Source: Gianoncelli, A.

and Boiardi, P., 2017)

Hybrid structure/nature

The hybrid structure of the SPO is a combination of a

for-prot entity and a not-for-prot entity. The hybrid

structure is an innovative way to address the issue of

access to nance. By setting up a hybrid structure, the

SPO can attract grants through the non-prot entity

and social investment through the for-prot entity,

hence increasing the pool of resources available while

channelling them in the most eective way. (Source:

Gianoncelli, A. and Boiardi, P., 2017)

Impact investing (II)

Impact investing is a form of investment that aims at

generating social impact as well as nancial return.

Impact measurement and management (IM or IMM)

Measuring and managing the process of creating social

impact in order to maximise and optimise it.

Incubator

A programme through which an organisation supports

very early-stage social enterprises by providing them

with business development support, mentoring, infra-

structure, and access to relevant networks in order to

make them investment-ready.

In-house resources

Resources provided within the venture philanthropy

organisation itself, through its sta members or volun-

teers, as opposed to people within the greater network

of the venture philanthropists, service providers, or

portfolio organisations.

Indicators

Indicators are specic and measurable actions or

conditions that assess progress towards or away from

outputs or outcomes. Indicators may relate to direct

quantities (e.g. number of hours of training provided)

or to qualitative aspects (e.g. levels of beneciary

condence).

Glossary of Terms

94 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

Investee

The social purpose organisation that is the target of

the VPO/SI activity and the recipient of nancial and

non-nancial support.

Investment

An investment is the use of money with the expecta-

tion of making favourable future returns. Returns could

be nancial, social, and/or environmental.

Investment proposal

The investment proposal is the document prepared

by the VPO/SI to present a potential investment

(including nature, goals and funding) to the investment

committee.

Key performance indicators (KPIs)

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are a business

metric used to evaluate the extent to which the

organisation has achieved a goal and factors that are

crucial to the success of an organisation. KPIs dier

per organisation, business KPIs may be net revenue

or a customer loyalty metric, while government might

consider unemployment rates.

Long-term investment

A long-term investment is made over a period of ve

years or more.

Mezzanine nance

Mezzanine nance is a hybrid of debt and equity

nancing, usually used to fund the scaling of an

organisation. Although it is similar to debt capital, it

is normally treated like equity on the organisation’s

balance sheet. Mezzanine nance involves the provision

of a high-risk loan, repayment of which depends on the

nancial success of the SPO. This hybrid nancial instru-

ment bridges the gap between debt and equity/grant

through some form of revenue participation. Examples

include a loan that is only repayable through royalties

based on the future sales of a product or service; or a

royal- ty-sharing agreement that can be activated once

an agreed protability threshold has been reached.

These hybrid nancial instruments can oer an appro-

priate balance of risk and return (Balbo et al., 2016).

Mission-related investing (MRI)

The dedication of the full portfolio of assets and invest-

ments of a foundation to its social mission.

Non-nancial support (NFS)

The support services VPO/SIs oer to investees (SPOs)

to increase their societal impact, organisational resil-

ience and nancial sustainability, i.e. the three core

areas of development of the SPO.

Organisational resilience

The assessment of the degree of maturity of an SPO,

in terms of the degree of development of the manage-

ment team and organisation (governance, fund raising

capacity etc.).

Organisational support (also known as capacity

building)

Approach aimed at strengthening organisations

supported to increase their overall performance by

developing skills or improving structures and processes.

Outcomes

The changes, benets, learnings, or other eects (both

long and short term) that result from the organisation’s

activities.

Outputs

The tangible products and services that result from the

organisation’s activities.

Portfolio

A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or organisa-

tions that have received sponsorship from the investor.

A distinction is often made between ‘active’ and ‘past’

portfolio, distinguish between the organisations with

which the investor is actively involved. Usually, however,

all portfolio organisations are included in the greater

network of the investor.

Portfolio manager (also Investment manager)

A portfolio manager is given the responsibility of

tracking the performance of and maintaining communi-

cations with the various organisations and/or projects

within the investor’s portfolio.

March 2018

Pre-investment stage

The pre-investment stage is the process during which

the investor examines the operations and leadership of

the project or organisation with a view towards making

an investment. This might include a detailed review

of the nancials, operations, or reference checks for

organisational leaders. The term due diligence is also

used, which has a legal denition as a measure of

prudence. In other words, the investor is assessing if it

is likely to get what it thinks it is paying for.

Private equity

Ownership in a rm which is not publicly traded and

which usually involves a hands-on approach and a

long-term commitment for the investors.

Pro-bono contribution

Professional work undertaken voluntarily and without

payment. Unlike traditional/unskilled volunteerism, it

is service that uses the specic skills of professionals

to provide services to those who are unable to aord

them.

Pro-bono contributor

A professional who provides specic skilled support to

an organisation without the payment of a fee.

Recoverable grants

Recoverable grants are grants that can be returned to

the VPO/SI, under certain terms and conditions agreed

in advance by the VPO/SI and the SPO. Recoverable

grants are “designed to focus the recipient on sustain-

ability and reduced risk of grant dependence”. (Varga

and Hayday, 2016).

Return on Investment (ROI) (see also Social Return

on Investment (SROI)

The Return on Investment (ROI) is the prot or loss

resulting from an investment. This is usually expressed

as an annual percentage return.

Scaling up

Processes of developing and growing the activities

of an SPO to expand its social reach and increase its

social impact.

Seed nancing

Seed nancing is money used for the initial investment

in a start-up company, project, proof-of-concept, or

initial product development.

Short-term investment

A short-term investment is made over a one-year

period less, or an investment that matures in one year

or less.

Social enterprise

A social enterprise is an operator in the social economy

whose main objective is to have a social impact rather

than make a prot for their owners or shareholders.

It operates by providing goods and services for the

market in an entrepreneurial and innovative fashion

and uses its prots primarily to achieve social objec-

tives. It is managed in an open and responsible manner

and, in particular, involves employees, consumers and

stakeholders aected by its commercial activities.

The Commission uses the term ‘social enterprise’ to

cover the following types of business:

• Those for who the social or societal objective of

the common good is the reason for the commercial

activity, often in the form of a high level of social

innovation.

• Those where prots are mainly reinvested with a view

to achieving this social objective.

• Those where the method of organisation or ownership

system reects the enterprise’s mission, using demo-

cratic or participatory principles or focusing on social

justice.

There is no single legal form for social enterprises.

(Source: European Commission http://ec.europa.eu/

growth/sectors/social-economy/enterprises_it)

Social entrepreneur

Social entrepreneur is dened by the Schwab Founda-

tion as a leader or pragmatic visionary who:

-Achieves large scale, systemic and sustainable

social change through a new invention, a dierent

approach, a more rigorous application of known

technologies or strategies, or a combination of

these.

Glossary of Terms

96 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

-Focuses rst and foremost on the social and/or

ecological value creation and tries to optimise the

nancial value creation.

-Innovates by nding a new product, a new service,

or a new approach to a social problem.

-Continuously renes and adapts approach in

response to feedback.

(Source: http://www.schwabfound.org)

Social impact

The attribution of an organisation’s activities to broader

and longer-term outcomes. To accurately (in academic

terms) calculate social impact you need to adjust

outcomes for: (i) what would have happened anyway

(‘deadweight’); (ii) the action of others (‘attribution’);

(iii) how far the outcome of the initial intervention is likely

to be reduced over time (‘drop o’); (iv) the extent to

which the original situation was displaced elsewhere or

outcomes displaced other potential positive outcomes

(‘displacement’); and for unintended consequences

(which could be negative or positive).

Social Investment (SI) (also known as Social

Finance)

Social investment is the provision and use of capital to

generate social as well as nancial returns. The social

investment approach has many overlaps with the key

characteristics of venture philanthropy, however social

investment means investment mainly to generate social

impact, but with the expectation of some nancial

return (or preservation of capital).

Social Impact Bond

Results-based contracts between governments/public

entities and social investors that enable federal state,

and local governments to partner with high-per-

forming service providers by using private investment

to develop, coordinate, or expand eective programs

(Source: Dear et al., 2016 Available here: http://social-

nance.org/social-impactbonds-the-early-years/).

Social Innovation

Social innovations are new ideas that meet social needs,

create social relationships and form new collaborations.

These innovations can be products, services or models

addressing unmet needs more eectively. The European

Commission’s objective is to encourage market uptake

of innovative solutions and stimulate employment.

(Source: European Commission http://ec.europa.eu/

growth/industry/innovation/policy/social_it)

Social investment intermediaries

Organisations that aim at increasing the pool of nancial

resources available for SPOs to reach and scale their

social impact by bridging the demand and the supply

side of capital, channelling funds towards SPOs in a

more ecient way and bringing more resources into

the VP/SI space.

Social Purpose Organisation (SPO)

An organisation that operates with the primary aim

of achieving measurable social and environmental

impact. Social purpose organisations include charities,

non-prot organisations and social enterprises.

Socially Responsible Investing (SRI)

Also known as sustainable, socially conscious, “green”

or ethical investing, this term denes any investment

strategy seeking both nancial return and social good.

In its broadest usage, SRI refers to proactive practices

such as impact investing, shareholder advocacy and

community investing. Socially responsible investments

encourage corporate practices that promote environ-

mental stewardship, consumer protection, human rights

and diversity. They can also represent the avoidance of

investing in industries or products that can be socially

harmful, including alcohol, tobacco, gambling, pornog-

raphy, weapons and/or the military. The term dates

back to the Quakers, who in 1758, prohibited members

from participating in the slave trade.

Social Return on Investment (SROI)

The SROI concept, essentially a cost-benet analysis,

is used by charities, donors and non-prot organisa-

tions to rate the results of their endeavours with rm

evidence of impact and value created. The idea of social

return on investment was pioneered in the 1990s by a

U.S. venture fund called REDF and has since caught on.

Social sector

Social sector is an alternative term used in reference

to the non-prot sector, non-governmental sector,

voluntary sector, independent sector, or third sector.

Social venture capital

Social venture capital is an enterprise approach

to tackling social problems through investment,

supporting the creation and the expansion of commer-

cially sustainable enterprises to maximise social and

nancial returns. In developing countries, this approach

is used to create jobs and empower the poor.

March 2018

Tailored nancing (TF)

The process through which a venture philanthropy

organisation or a social investor (VPO/SI) nds the

most suitable nancial instrument(s) to support a

social purpose organisation (SPO), choosing from the

range of nancial instruments available (grant, debt,

equity, and hybrid nancial instruments). The choice

of the nancial instrument(s) will depend on the risk/

return/impact prole of the VPO/SI and on the needs

and characteristics of the SPO.

Theory of change (ToC)

A theory of change denes all building blocks required

to bring about a given long-term goal. This set of

connected building blocks is depicted on a map known

as a pathway of change or change framework, which is

a graphic representation of the change process.

Venture philanthropy (VP)

VP is a high-engagement and long-term approach to

generating social impact through three practices:

• Tailored nancing: using a range of nancial instru-

ments (including grants, debt, equity and hybrid

nancial instruments) tailored to the needs of organi-

sation supported.

• Organisational Support: added-value support

services that VPO/SIs oer to investees (SPOs)

to strengthen the SPO’s organisational resilience

and nancial sustainability by developing skills or

improving structures and processes.

• Impact measurement and management: measuring

and managing the process of creating social impact

in order to maximise and optimise it.

Venture Philanthropy Organisation/Social investor

(VPO/SI and/or VP/SI organisation)

An organisation pursuing a venture philanthropy/social

investment approach.

Volunteer

A person who voluntarily oers himself or herself to

performs a service willingly and without pay. For the

purpose of this report, dierently from pro-bono and

low-bono supporters, volunteers oer unskilled labour.

Glossary of Terms

98 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

March 2018

100 A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment

THE EUROPEAN VENTURE PHILANTHROPY ASSOCIATION (EVPA)

Established in 2004, EVPA works to enable venture philanthropists

and social investors to maximise societal impact through increased

resources, collaboration and expertise.

EVPA’s membership covers the full range of venture philanthropy and

social investment activities and includes venture philanthropy funds,

social investors, grant-making foundations, impact investing funds,

private equity rms and professional service rms, philanthropy

advisors, banks and business schools. EVPA members work together

across sectors in order to promote and shape the future of venture

philanthropy and social investment in Europe and beyond.

EVPA is committed to support its members in their work by providing

networking opportunities and facilitating learning. Furthermore, we

aim to strengthen our role as a thought leader in order to build a

deeper understanding of the sector, promote the appropriate use of

venture philanthropy and social investment and inspire guidelines

and regulations.

http://www.evpa.eu.com

Rue Royale 94

1000 Brussels, Belgium

Tel: +32 (0) 2 513 21 31

Email: info@evpa.eu.com

EVPA is grateful to Fondazione CRT for

the support of its Knowledge Centre

With the nancial support of the

European Commission

VENTURE PHILANTHROPY

SOCIAL INVESTMENT

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

ISBN 9789082494044

9 789082 494044

EVPA Venture Philanthropy And Social Impact Investment A Practical Guide

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation