Both internationally and in the UK pension funds are starting to think about allocating capital to impact but based on money actually commited, the UK is lagging behind its European counterparts. At the first Gathering in Dartington in 2017, investors and advisers came up with an idea to promote impact investment to pension funds. At this year’s Gathering, delegates heard about what progress had been made.

How do we make social investment work better? Who’s doing what to build the infrastructure, how does it fit together, and how do we know it’s really helping? Who should be involved, who pays for it, and how do we build a collective sense of what’s most important?

The ‘Dan Show’, with hosts Daniel Brewer (Resonance) and Danyal Sattar (Big Issue Invest) aimed to challenge the audience to leave Leicester with a different way of thinking or even concrete plans to start doing something differently. As Brewer said: “It’s not just about what The Gathering can do for you – it’s about what you decide to do as a result.” 

What are we all doing to raise the bar on impact? What’s the difference between our own ideas (and claims) on impact and the impact priorities of our investees? And are we giving enough thought to the real impact on the people who really matter?

We invest into enterprises that measure their impact – but how do we know we’ve got it right? Who owns ‘what good is’ anyway? And how can we make sure our investments leave end users more capable for their own future? This discussion explored ways to ensure the end users or beneficiaries of our investments get a say and get empowered.

How do we deal with failure? When an investment is not going well, how do investors make the trade-off between financial and social return? This frank discussion covered difficult choices and how we can develop shared values and best practices for an impact first approach to investment. 

In this debate, two ‘teams’ took opposing (and in some cases deliberately exaggerated) positions to explore how we could resolve the tensions between investors with very different motivations and viewpoints – those focused on philanthropic (“impact first”) and commercial (“finance first”) capital. 

In this debate, two ‘teams’ took opposing (and in some cases deliberately exaggerated) positions to explore how we could resolve the tensions between investors with very different motivations and viewpoints – those focused on philanthropic (“impact first”) and commercial (“finance first”) capital. 

How can we provide more patient, affordable, risk-tolerant and flexible finance to social enterprises?