Impact Investing Guide

Triodos Bank just launched a €300 million fund that treats nature as a profitable asset class. Not a charity. Not an offset. A return. This has been years in the making. In 2024, Triodos Bank and Fondaction - a Canadian investment fund - announced a partnership with the explicit intention to jointly accelerate positive change in global finance. The goal was clear from day one: close the finance gap for biodiversity and natural capital in developed markets. Last month, that partnership became a fund. Triodos Investment Management and Fondaction Asset Management have launched Value Nature Fund I - a closed-end natural capital fund targeting €300 million, aimed at transitioning farmland and forests to regenerative, closer-to-nature practices across North America and Europe. The fund brings together Fondaction's expertise in impact-driven investments in North American environmental markets. And Triodos's track record in European sustainable food and agriculture systems. Two complementary networks. Two continents. One investment thesis. The financial case is explicit: The firms say the fund comes at a moment of unmatched opportunity - creating value from the transition towards sustainable food and timber supply chains, hedging portfolios against volatility and inflationary pressures, and enhancing the resilience of critical economic sectors. This is not the language of philanthropy. It is the language of a portfolio manager. The fund intends to classify as SFDR Article 9 - the EU's most stringent sustainable finance label - with measurable impact KPIs across biodiversity and ecosystem services, climate mitigation and adaptation, and social wellbeing. Performance is tracked and outcomes are reported. Jonathan Coupland, Portfolio Manager at Fondaction, put it plainly: "Natural capital represents a structural response to ecosystem degradation, helping institutional investors address financial risks that can no longer be overlooked." That sentence matters. Not a values statement. A risk statement. The partnership's founding ambition was to demonstrate the scalability of solutions that address the dual climate and biodiversity crises with integrity - and that can achieve both financial performance and positive outcomes for nature. Value Nature Fund I is that demonstration. At €300 million scale. The question for every institutional investor watching: if Triodos and Fondaction see unmatched opportunity in natural capital and can build the vehicle for it - why not you too?

New paper, "Sustainable Investing: Evidence From the Field" (with Tom Gosling and Dirk Jenter). We survey 509 equity portfolio managers, of both traditional and sustainable funds, on whether, why, and how they incorporate firms’ environmental and social performance into investment decisions. 1. Both traditional and sustainable funds rank ES last out of six drivers of long-term value: below strategy, operational performance, governance, culture, and capital structure in that order. Clients interested in financial returns should not overweight a fund's ES credentials above its ability to assess these other factors. 2. This low relative ranking doesn't mean that ES is immaterial in absolute terms. Indeed, 73% of sustainable and even 45% of traditional investors expect ES leaders to deliver positive alpha. Unexpectedly, the most popular reason is that ES is a signal for other important value drivers rather than mattering directly. As I wrote in "The End of ESG", ES is "extremely important and nothing special". 3. ES performance influences stock selection, engagement, and voting for 77% of investors (66% traditional, 91% sustainable). Calls to "ban ES" make little sense as many traditional investors voluntarily incorporate it. 4. Only 24% of traditional and 30% of sustainable investors would sacrificing even 1bp of annual return for ES, citing fiduciary duty concerns. Policymakers and the public need to have realistic expectations of the asset management industry's likely ES impact. It will incorporate financially material ES factors, but it won't subsidize ES investments that offer below-market returns. That’s not because fund managers are greenwashing, but because they are fund managers. Their fiduciary duty is to their clients, whose goals are often financial. 5. But non-financial goals can be pursued through ES constraints such as fund mandates. 71% (61% traditional, 84% sustainable) report that ES constraints required them to make different investment decisions. These constraints sometimes reduced the very ES impact they aim to achieve, for example by preventing funds from investing in ES laggards whose performance they could have improved. 6. Overall, traditional and sustainable investors are more similar than commonly believed. Sustainable investors recognise fiduciary duty and are unwilling to sacrifice financial returns for ES. Traditional investors view ES as material and face ES constraints (firmwide policies, client wishes) preventing investment in "unsustainable" stocks. While some clients are attracted by sustainability labels, many traditional funds invest sustainably and many sustainable ones don't - and chasing a label can prevent true sustainable investing. Big thanks to the those who filled in the survey, beta-tested it, distributed it, and were interviewed. We hope that by directly involving practitioners, we can increase the relevance of academic research. https://lnkd.in/eGzRzE5t

How Sustainability Teams can make money. Ethical operating companies like Patagonia, Ben & Jerry’s, and Interface have proven that sustainable business practices aren’t just a “nice to have”. they drive profitability. It improves the bottom line of a company. Now, as corporate sustainability teams face growing pressure to prove their value amid deregulation and cost-cutting, it’s time for a strategic repositioning. Sustainability isn’t just policy work. It’s a core driver of business success that delivers financial returns. Here’s an approach that aligns impact with investment: High ROI + High Impact 👉 Priority Initiatives Low ROI + High Impact 👉 Strategic Investments High ROI + Low Impact 👉 Quick Wins Low ROI + Low Impact 👉 Low Priority Projects Impact How much does this project contribute to environmental and social sustainability? 💚 Carbon Reduction 💚 Circularity 💚 Water & Energy Savings 💚 Social Impact 💚 Biodiversity Protection ROI (Return of Investment) How much financial value does this project generate? 📈 Cost Savings 📈 Revenue Growth 📈 Regulatory & Compliance Benefits 📈 Brand & Customer Value 📈 Operational Efficiency Scoring System To prioritise projects, it’s necessary to have a scoring system in place—for example, a 1–10 scale for each metric under both Impact and ROI. Then, you weight the metrics according to the company’s priorities (e.g., carbon might be weighted more heavily). Examples Here are some examples for potential business cases: 💡 LED lighting retrofits 👉 Priority Initiatives Often has payback periods < 2 years with significant energy savings 🔃 Product redesign for circularity 👉 Strategic Investments Transformative impact but requires R&D and retooling 🚚 Optimising logistics routes 👉 Quick Wins Quick fuel savings but smaller portion of overall emissions 🌳 Carbon offsetting low-impact activities 👉 Low Priority Projects When direct reduction would be more effective »When you are led by values, it doesn't cost your business, it helps your business.« - Jerry, Greenfield / Co-Founder Ben & Jerry’s. This Matrix helps to prove it.

There's a word for someone who takes all the risk so everyone else can make market rate returns and do finance as usual. It's not "catalytic." It's a patsy. Here's how it works: An impact first investor is invited into a fund structure: (typically a 10 + 1 + 1 & 2 / 20) built entirely around investor timelines and return expectations. They're placed at the bottom of the capital stack, absorbing first losses, so that everyone above them can achieve market rate returns. The pitch is: your capital makes the deal possible. You're catalysing something that wouldn't happen otherwise. And maybe that's true, but I think we need to look more deeply at what's actually been designed here. The fund timeline serves the investors, not the entrepreneurs or communities receiving the capital. The incentive structure (carry tied to financial returns) frames financial success as impact success, which means deep impact or genuine trade-offs become structurally improbable. Not because anyone is acting in bad faith, but because that's what the incentives produce. And nobody in the structure (not the GP, not the other LPs) is asked to change a single thing about how they operate. The only people actually putting impact first are the ones sitting at the bottom of the stack, taking the first loss. That is a raw deal. And impact first investors are not falling for it anymore. To be fair, many of them never did, which is one of the reasons that blended finance has not scaled as quickly as many had hoped. Now I am not saying blended finance doesn't work or isn't useful. Thoughtfully designed blended deals are genuinely powerful and the field needs more of them, but there is a meaningful difference between building a fit for purpose fund that blends finance to create greater access and affordability for entrepreneurs and communities and blended finance that identifies impact first capital as the grease that allows banks and institutional investors (and other impact investors!) to go home happy. The first creates something new. The second just subsidises business as usual. So what does better look like? As part our Innovative Finance Initiative works and the writing I've been doing for my new book, I've got cases coming out of my ears! I'm excited to share them with you. :) I won't say that we have all the answers yet, but the direction is clear: funding structures should be designed for those who need the capital, not those who have it. Timelines set by entrepreneurs and communities, not fund cycles. Incentives that actually reward impact, not just returns. Capital that is genuinely in the service of impact, not the other way around. This is some of the most important work happening in the field right now. Expect a lot more from me on this in the coming months as I finish the book and IFI begins publishing outputs from a year of deep thinking and doing with our members. Feel free to share your comments / critiques below. :)

What if philanthropy funded African entrepreneurs, not just NGOs? For decades, philanthropic capital in Africa has flowed primarily through nonprofit channels. But what if we expanded the lens? What if we recognized that entrepreneurship is impact and that investing in businesses can be just as transformative as funding charities? Because here’s what the data shows: 📊 Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) make up over 80% of employment in Africa, yet they receive less than 10% of philanthropic or donor capital. (Source: IFC, African Development Bank) Now consider this: A bakery that hires 12 women is solving poverty. A solar startup reducing blackouts is improving health outcomes. A logistics company like Cloudy Deliveries is restoring dignity, mobility, and economic agency in townships. These aren't side stories. They’re frontline solutions. And in many cases, they’re achieving what NGOs alone cannot - sustainability, scale, and systems change. To be clear: NGOs remain essential. But we must stop seeing them as the only vessels for doing good. Because impact isn’t defined by tax status. It’s defined by outcomes. And if the outcome is more jobs, local ownership, dignity, and upward mobility - shouldn't that be worth funding? Yes, there are regulatory and risk constraints. But more philanthropic leaders are experimenting with: Recoverable grants Hybrid finance models Catalytic capital Equity investments in social ventures Imagine if philanthropy didn’t just react to problems, but invested in African builders. Not just donors funding projects but partners backing enterprises designed in and for the communities they serve. This is the shift from charity to co-creation. From aid to agency. From dependency to shared ownership of the future. So ask yourself: What African entrepreneur do you know who’s creating real, measurable social impact? Tag them. Celebrate them. And if you're a funder or advisor, consider this: What’s stopping you from backing one today?

SDGs as a framework for impact investment 🌎 The SDGs offer a universal reference point, but their utility for investors depends on how well they can be translated into actionable themes. Phenix Capital’s SDG–Impact Investing framework bridges this gap by mapping each goal to specific investment domains. This mapping reframes the SDGs not as abstract targets, but as investment-relevant categories — from financial inclusion and circular economy to clean transport and climate mitigation. It enables clearer capital deployment pathways within complex global agendas. Rather than treating all goals uniformly, the framework recognizes variance in capital flows. Goals such as SDG 7 (Clean Energy), SDG 9 (Industry & Innovation), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities) have attracted the largest volumes of committed capital, reflecting both maturity and scalability. Themes tied to social inclusion (e.g. access to education, gender lens investing, affordable housing) remain underfunded despite their structural relevance to long-term development and systemic resilience. Environmental goals are addressed through themes like ocean preservation, sustainable agriculture, water efficiency, and biodiversity — areas where alignment with regulatory and disclosure frameworks is increasingly critical. Blended finance and technical assistance (SDG 17) are positioned not as peripheral tools but as enablers to accelerate private capital participation in frontier markets and early-stage solutions. By aligning investments to themes rather than goals alone, the framework helps clarify intentionality, guide impact measurement, and strengthen portfolio coherence across multiple mandates. This approach is not just a classification exercise — it is a necessary step in moving from broad commitments to capital strategies that are both scalable and aligned with global outcomes. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #SDGs #impact #investment

I stopped obsessing over publishing… and that’s when my research career took off. (Here’s what I discovered) Four years ago, I believed publishing was the only path to academic success. My inbox? Empty. My collaborations? Stagnant. My impact? Limited to footnotes in other people’s papers. Then, I did something radical: I shared my work outside journals. A blog post about the LCA work I did for a partner. A LinkedIn post breaking down techno-economic assessment and process design methods. A webinar sharing my research outputs. Crickets. For weeks. Until a founder DM’ed: "Liked the recording of your webinar. Can you do something like this for us to verify our TEA?" A week later, an academic mentor slid into my DMs: "Saw your recent work on carbon capture. Can we co-write a research bid?" I wasn't sure what to do. This wasn’t “real” academic work. I’d been pre-conditioned to share my work only in scholarly journals and conferences. But suddenly, my research was solving problems, not merely gathering dust. So I leaned in. I built a simple system:  1. Every paper made available as PDF with posts on problem, method, outputs  2. Conference slides became PDFs shared with key takeaways  3. Complex science converted into trade magazines and blog posts The response? A FTSE 250 energy company invited me to perform a market study for their new direct air capture business strategy. Learned societies invited me as a keynote speaker for their events. And yes, citations keep coming, but now tied to real-world impact. Here’s what academia won’t tell you: Visibility isn’t vanity. It’s the bridge between your work and the problems it can solve. You don’t need 100 papers to make a difference. You need the right people to see your work. Now? I teach researchers to build this bridge. Because your career shouldn’t hinge on how many journals you’ve cracked. It should hinge on how many minds you’ve changed. Start there. Let the papers follow. P.S. What is the most significant challenge that pre ents you getting your research seen by others? #science #scientist #research #publishing #phd #postdoctoral #professor #academia #highereducation

How are the world's elite universities and a new generation of family leaders reshaping the future of Family Offices and impact investing? While the complexity of managing Family Offices continues to grow, the need for specialized education and training has never been greater. According to EY, the educational backgrounds and entrepreneurial mindsets of NextGen leaders will significantly influence the future of Family Offices. Deloitte echoes this sentiment, emphasizing that NextGen leaders are turning to universities not only for education but also for mentorship and networking, making these institutions vital partners in adapting to a rapidly changing global landscape. UBS highlights that the new generation of Family Office leaders is seeking broader educational opportunities to understand global markets and emerging technologies, which universities are well-positioned to provide. Campden Wealth reinforces the importance of universities, stating that as the industry becomes more institutionalized, the educational credentials of NextGen leaders will be increasingly crucial. A notable shift driven by the NextGen is the transformation of impact investing. The older generation often approached investments and philanthropy as separate endeavors—allocating some funds for financial returns and others for charitable causes. However, the NextGen is pioneering a more holistic approach, seamlessly combining the objectives of profit and purpose. They are not only integrating social and environmental considerations into their investment strategies but also actively refraining from investing in companies that contribute to societal or environmental harm. This shift is adding momentum to the growth of impact investing, as more Family Offices adopt these values-driven strategies under the leadership of the NextGen. Universities are responding to this demand by offering programs tailored to the unique needs of Family Offices, covering areas such as governance, succession planning, and the impact of emerging technologies. Beyond formal education, these institutions also provide experiential learning opportunities, such as internships and partnerships with Family Offices, giving students practical insights and industry experience. As the Family Office industry evolves, the collaboration between universities and Family Offices will become even more critical. By equipping NextGen leaders with the education, resources, and networks they need, these institutions are ensuring the long-term success and sustainability of family wealth across generations. #familyoffices #familyoffice

I reviewed 50+ MPH resumes this week. Almost all had certificates. Only a handful had real epidemiology projects. I sat with that for a moment. Because the pattern is clear: We are helping students collect credentials… but not teaching them how to think like epidemiologists. And employers see it instantly. After mentoring hundreds of MPH and PhD students, here’s the truth I wish someone had told me early in my career: Epidemiology rewards analytical thinkers, not certificate collectors. If you want to stand out, here is the roadmap: 1. Start with a real health question: Not “What software should I learn?” But “Which population health problem can I analyze today?” Examples: → County-level mortality trends → Disparities in your state’s chronic disease data → Injury or overdose time-series → BRFSS risk factors in your region Your skills grow when they’re anchored to real questions. 2. Begin with open, free, public health data: You don’t need access to hospitals or EHRs. Use: → CDC WONDER → NIH, WHO, and state dashboards → BRFSS, NHANES, National Vital Statistics → Environmental, mobility, or policy datasets Insight > access > certificates. 3. Build a portfolio that shows real epidemiologic reasoning: Examples that stand out: → County-level cluster detection → Social determinants + outcome mapping → Time-series analysis of injury or overdose deaths → Vaccination disparities by demographics These demonstrate the two traits hiring managers look for: clarity and rigor. 4. Level up: help local organizations: Most small health groups need analytics support: → Community clinics → Nonprofits → Health departments → Research labs They get value. You get experience. Your portfolio becomes credible overnight. 5. Document your full workflow: This is where most learners fall short: → Clear notes → Reproducible R/Python code → GitHub/OSF → One-page interpretation summary This shows how you think - not just what you built. 6. Deliver insights quickly. Improve later: Epidemiology is a decision science. Speed matters. → A simple map beats a perfect model delivered late → A basic trend line beats a stalled analysis → A quick dashboard beats analysis paralysis Impact happens when you ship consistently. 🔑 My 1-2-3 Framework for Applied Epidemiology 1. Understand the population + outcome 2. Choose the simplest valid method 3. Make everything transparent and reproducible This is how high-impact epidemiologists work. 💡 Turn Every Project Into Three Career Assets 1. GitHub repository 2. A one-page public health brief 3. A short LinkedIn post sharing your insight This builds a real professional identity - not just a list of certificates. If you want my template for documenting epidemiology projects, comment “Ready.” Like + repost to help future epidemiologists focus on impact, not credentials. #Epidemiology #PublicHealth #MPH #DataAnalysis #CareerAdvice

Why are purpose-driven investments not seen as real investments? It’s time to change this. To this day, many still make a distinction between conventional hardcore investments and philanthropic efforts. This is an imagined divide. Impact investing is the only real way forward—not just for the planet, but our wallets too. There’s a compelling business case for prioritising ESG outcomes in investments and we’re long overdue in making this mindset mainstream. All of us can agree that the world is in crisis. As it stands, CO2 levels are rising at an alarming rate. Left unchecked, the climate emergency will impact food and water security, cause damage from extreme weather events and cost our global economy as much as US$23 trillion by 2050. While steady progress has been made in climate awareness, this has yet to be matched with urgent, collective action. We need all hands on deck—including finance. We must start acting on our ecological crisis by directing meaningful investments towards disruptive sustainable solutions. There’s a fallacy that we must await ‘miracle’ technologies to save our planet. The truth is climate solutions already exist. Wind and solar energy, for example, is cheap and effective. We don’t need far-reaching experiments to get us to net-zero. Instead, we need an ecosystem to support current innovations and help them scale their impact. This is at the heart of what we do at AlphaTrio Capital. We’re doubling down on initiatives that target the most pressing socio-environmental challenges of today, driving SDG progress while making future-proofed financial returns. As the world wakes up to the critical need to transition into a low-carbon economy, we’re focused on 3 key investment verticals. Proptech solutions to decarbonise buildings and enable smart green urban cities, cleantech to accelerate the renewable energy revolution, and agri-food tech to address biodiversity loss and bolster our food system’s resilience amidst a climate-stricken future. What we need now is mainstream consensus that impact investing is the only viable pathway. It is a trillion-dollar opportunity for us to align our capital towards mission-driven solutions that have a shot at saving us from the climate crisis. As echoed by Singapore DPM Heng Swee Keat the financial sector must have a role in building this consensus, from mobilising capital to engaging and guiding clients towards a greener future. As an island country vulnerable to the most brutal impacts of the climate, Singapore is making headway, having launched the Finance for Net Zero Action Plan last year. I recently shared my thoughts on financing net-zero as a speaker and panellist at the LGT Climate Conference in Singapore. It was a privilege to be among an impressive cohort, including DPM Heng Swee Keat, En Lee, Dilhan Pillay Sandrasegara, gim huay neo, Manish Pant and many others. I am deeply grateful to H.S.H. Prince Max von und zu Liechtenstein for the invitation.