The Coordinating Impact Capital report by the Center for Science, Technology, and Society encompasses over 10 months of surveys and analysis with more than 45 investment organizations currently working in the field of impact investing. The intent of this project was to unearth actionable suggestions for the social impact community, and identify market mechanisms that can increase the efficiency of invested capital, resulting in greater liquidity opportunities for investors. The project was generously supported by the Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs. The lead authors and guest experts will discuss the landscape of impact investing and a foundation for vetting future social impact investment opportunities.

2. moderator John Kohler Program Director for Social Capital at the Center for Science, Technology and Society

4. Investment syndicate drawn from local venture capital relationships

5. Results of venture capital backed product or service has a global impact

6. Well-defined path of “up-round” investing

8. Investment syndicate drawn from the global impact investing community

9. Results of venture capital backed product or service has a local impact

10. Scarce “up-round” capital available 3

11. Are there…? Headwinds to Efficient impact investing markets -Dalberg

13. Suggest a model for successful syndication

14. Participants across the ‘life cycle’ of SGB development

15. Terms to guide a successful ‘handoff’

16. Identify funding sources by mission and outcome

17. Provide examples of phased financing (rural electrification)

18. Suggest a template for future syndication

19. Building the case for impact investing

20. Study of the impact investing landscape

21. Larger scope of investing in businesses in the broader developing world – BOP loosely defined

22. Assertion of impact investing as an emerging asset class5

23. Direction of Capital Capital Sources Capital Sources Geography Mission Intermediary Funding Organization Size of Funding Type of Capital Desired Liquidity Type of SGB SGB Organizational Objectives Desired Outcome Reporting Requirement Expected Time Frame Investment Outcomes Target 6

25. Financial institutions and corporations are largely absent

26. Financial first vs. impact first discussion continuesSources of impact capital

29. Multiple financing instruments used

31. When asked, the vast majority of respondents do not measure target income levels of their markets10

34. The majority of respondents believed they were best situated to select SGBs when they were operating “in country.” This implies that an arms-length relationship with SGBs reduces return expectations relative to a direct investment relationship12

36. “We do not know who they are in the areas where we operate”

37. “They are a big added cost”

38. Many organizations provide their own capacity development services (business mentoring, operational management and consulting as part of their investment)

39. Redefine who CDOs are: Local business leaders, corporations, advisors and consulting firms13

42. 75% are now expecting 5 - 10+ year holding period

44. 18 Phased Investing Hypothesis Phased Investing (baton pass) – Different impact investors contributing capital at each phase of the SGBs’ development cycle. Examples of this may include: Grant (capacity building) Soft loan (proof of concept) Quasi equity / equity investment (scale the business) Debt provider (long-term, commercial loan—scale the business Co-Investing—Multiple investors pooling capital to make one type of investment. Internal Syndication—An organization participates in multiple phases of the same small and growing business investment cycle; i.e., providing capital in the form of a grant that is later followed by an additional investment in the form of debt or equity.

46. Phased investing is a much more efficient type of syndication and is not happening19

51. Increase the use of local capacity development organizations

52. Develop new investment instruments that reward investors from free cash flow, not valuation build-up

53. Establish mechanisms for ‘mezzanine’ financing to reward the early and brave impact investor

54. Work on market mechanisms that earn greater investor confidenceDiligence and validation Mentoring and capacity development Metrics that matter Financial and regulatory consistency

55. Researchers Sol Tran Jared Abercrombie Krishnan Manjeri Contributing Editors Greg Dalli Rachel Haley Project Lead Jessica Sawhney

56. Panel discussion Susie Lee Principal, TBL Capital Sean Foote Management Team, Labrador Ventures Taryn Goodman Senior Manager, Impact Investing, RSF Social Finance

58. Global social benefit incubator

59. Download online Full Report Available Online www.scu.edu/socialbenefit/socialcapital.cfm