Evidence On The Financial Performance Of Impact Investments

2y ago
69 Views
2 Downloads
1.74 MB
36 Pages
Last View : 15d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Camden Erdman
Transcription

GIIN PERSPECTIVESEvidence on theFinancial Performance ofImpact Investments

AcknowledgmentsAuthorsAbhilash Mudaliar, Research DirectorRachel Bass, Research Senior AssociateReviewersAmy Stillman, Communications DirectorHannah Schiff, Research ManagerJennifer Lawrence, Communications AssociateAbout the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN)The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) is a nonprofit organization dedicatedto increasing the scale and effectiveness of impact investing around the world. TheGIIN builds critical infrastructure and supports activities, education, and research thathelp accelerate the development of a coherent impact investing industry. For moreinformation, see www.thegiin.org.November 2017

Dear ReaderImpact investing is a growing movement capturing the attention of investors across the world.But too much capital is still sitting on the sidelines, which results in part from suspicions aroundfinancial performance. Throughout the industry’s development, investors have questioned theability of impact investments to generate financial returns similar to traditional investments.While a lack of data previously left this question unanswerable, recent research has shed valuablelight on this topic.Part of the role that the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) plays in building the impactinvesting market is providing resources that fill knowledge gaps for impact investors. To betterunderstand recent research and increase transparency around the topic of financial performance,we have produced GIIN Perspectives on Research about the Financial Performance of ImpactInvestments. This report synthesizes findings across over a dozen studies on the financialperformance of investments in the three largest asset classes in impact investing: private equity,private debt, and real assets, as well as individual investor portfolios allocated across asset classes.From these data, we have gleaned key insights that reinforce the broader credibility of theimpact investing market. First, market-rate returns are achievable in impact investing, withreturns distributions among market-rate-seeking impact investments comparable to those ofanalogous conventional investments. Second, small funds do not necessarily underperformrelative to their larger peers. And third, the impact investment market includes opportunities forinvestors with varied risk appetites, investment strategies, and target returns.Of course, financial performance is just one side of the equation. Impact investors are definedby their intent to generate a positive social and/or environmental impact alongside a financialreturn, and as such there remains a critical need for aggregate research on the impact of impactinvestments. This is challenging, not least because investors measure and report their impactusing very diverse methods. However, the GIIN is committed to helping advance standardizedframeworks for measuring and managing impact and to contributing to the body of researchon this front.The insights from this report indicate a robust and multifaceted impact investing industry.However, we believe active impact investors, as well as researchers and other entities, can domore to embrace their field-building responsibilities by openly sharing data on the financialand impact performance of their investments, either directly to the public or by contributing toaggregated, third-party research.Transparency around performance allows new players to enter the market confidently, andenables current players to make more informed portfolio allocation decisions, set well-informedperformance expectations, and better achieve their investment strategies. By confirming theindustry’s potential, we hope to see greater flows of capital funding sustainable solutions to ourmost critical social and environmental challenges.Abhilash MudaliarResearch Director, Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN)F I N A N C I A L P E R F O R M A N C E O F I M PAC T I N V E S T M E N T Si

TABLE OF CONTENTSIntroduction2Private Equity4Introducing the Impact Investing Benchmark.5Great Expectations.7Impact Investing Finds Its Place in India.8GIIN Perspectives.10Private Debt122017 Symbiotics MIV Survey. 13Benchmarking Impact:Australian Impact Investment Activity and Performance Report.14UK Market Studies. 15GIIN Perspectives.16Real Assets17The Financial Performance of Real Assets Impact Investments. 17Benchmarking Impact:Australian Impact Investment Activity and Performance Report. 19GIIN Perspectives. 20Portfolio Approaches21Christian Super. 21Grassroots Capital Management.22Gray Ghost Microfinance Fund.23KL Felicitas Foundation.23Triodos Microfinance Fund.25Triodos Renewables Europe Fund.25Conclusion26Appendix: Financial Performance Resources27F I N A N C I A L P E R F O R M A N C E O F I M PAC T I N V E S T M E N T S1

INTRODUCTIONAs the impact investing industry scales and matures, one critical driver of growthis available data and research on financial performance. Recent years haveseen the release of a number of studies by a range of organizations – includingCambridge Associates, the GIIN, Wharton, McKinsey, and BCG – on thefinancial performance of impact investments. Through such research, investorscan gain deeper insights into the range of impact investment opportunitiesavailable, make more informed asset allocations decisions, set appropriate returntargets, and benchmark their performance to peers.In this report, the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) brings together thesevarious studies to provide investors with a comprehensive view of the growingbody of research on the financial performance of impact investments. In additionto describing the scope and key findings from each study, this report synthesizesfindings and implications across available research by asset class. By compilingavailable data, this report also identifies areas where further research couldenhance the market.The report covers aggregate research on the performance of funds in the threemost-used asset classes in impact investing: private equity, private debt, andreal assets (Figures 1 and 2). In addition, this report summarizes portfolio-levelperformance from five impact investing organizations that have publicly releasedtheir own financial performance data.FIGURE 1: ASSET ALLOCATIONS BY INSTRUMENTn 208; AUM USD 113.7 billion5%0.2% 2%3% 2%34% Private debt34%14%22% Real assets19% Private equity14% Public equity5% Public debt3% Deposits & cash equivalents2% Equity-like debt0.2% Pay-for-performance instruments19%2% Other22%Source: GIIN 2017 Annual Impact Investor Survey2G LO B A L I M PAC T I N V E S T I N G N E T WO R K

FIGURE 2: NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITH ALLOCATIONSUSING AN INSTRUMENTn 209; respondents may allocate using multiple instruments.Private equity159Private debt113Equity-like debt55Deposits & cash equivalents34Real assets33Public equity27Public debt21Pay-for-performance instruments16Other18020406080Source: GIIN 2017 Annual Impact Investor SurveyThis report focuses only on financial performance—which is, of course, justone side of the performance equation for impact investments. For the industryto continue to grow and achieve its full potential, it is equally important tounderstand the impact performance of impact investments. While aggregateanalysis of impact performance is methodologically challenging for variousreasons, including the lack of robust and comparable data, it remains a primaryfocus of the GIIN and other industry bodies.Insights for this report were derived from existing, published research on thefinancial performance of impact investments produced by a wide range oforganizations. In some cases, the Research Team followed up with authors of aparticular study to gather additional information not available in public reports.F I N A N C I A L P E R F O R M A N C E O F I M PAC T I N V E S T M E N T S3100120140160

PRIVATE EQUITYPrivate equity is the most commonly used instrument in impact investing,deployed by over 75% of impact investors that responded to the GIIN’s mostrecent Annual Impact Investor Survey. The third largest asset class in impactinvesting in terms of asset allocations, it accounted for about 19% of globalimpact investing assets under management (AUM) as of the end of 2016.Data from the survey indicate that 82% of impact investors with substantialallocations to private equity principally target market-rate returns. The remaining18% principally target below-market-rate returns.Additionally, the survey captured data on gross returns expectations forinvestments made in 2016 (Figure 3). Depending on market type and targetreturns, investors reported average gross returns expectations ranging from4.9% to 16.5% for 2016 vintage equity investments.FIGURE 3: AVERAGE GROSS RETURNS EXPECTATIONS FOR 2016VINTAGE EQUITY INVESTMENTSAverages shown beside each diamond. Error bars show /- one standard deviation.25%n 33n 7n 35n 1620%15%16.5%14.4%13.4%10%5%0%4.9%Market RateBelow MarketDeveloped Market EquityMarket RateBelow MarketEmerging Market EquitySource: GIIN 2017 Annual Impact Investor SurveyThe past few years have seen significant growth in the availability of performancedata in the private equity asset class. In 2015, the GIIN partnered withCambridge Associates, one of the world’s leading investment consultancies,to develop the Private Equity Impact Investing Benchmark. The initial releaseincluded 51 funds; the dataset has been updated quarterly since and nowincludes 71 funds. Also in 2015, the Wharton Social Impact Initiative released astudy analyzing the financial performance of 32 private equity impact investmentfunds. The financial performance analyses in both of these studies focused onlyon funds targeting market-rate returns. More recently, the global managementconsultancy McKinsey & Company released a study analyzing the financialperformance of private equity and venture capital investments into socialenterprises in India.4G LO B A L I M PAC T I N V E S T I N G N E T WO R K

These studies represent a new arena of research on impact investing and offergreater clarity and insight into performance across the private equity asset classin aggregate, within particular segments, as well as at a fund level.Introducing the Impact InvestingBenchmarkAuthors: Cambridge Associates (CA) and the Global Impact InvestingNetwork (GIIN)Publication date: June 2015 with ongoing quarterly updates.Last updated: March 2017Methodology· CA and the GIIN identified impact investing funds intending to createpositive social impact for participation in the benchmark through theirrespective databases and various industry network bodies.· Notably, only impact investing funds explicitly targeting risk-adjustedmarket rates of return were included in this study. Impact investors targetingconcessionary returns were excluded from this study.· Returns were calculated by the research team (rather than being selfreported). Funds submitted both annual audited financial statements andunaudited quarterly or semiannual cash flow statements since inception.· The benchmark analyzes pooled internal rate of return (IRR) net of fees, totalvalue to paid-in (TVPI) multiples, and distribution to paid-in (DPI) multiplesamong the full sample and disaggregated by vintage year, fund size, andgeographic focus.Sample overview· The sample included 71 market-rate-seeking private equity impact fundstargeting social impact objectives.· Within the sample, 37% of funds manage over USD 100 million, 56% of fundsmanage between USD 10 million and USD 100 million, and 7% of fundsmanage USD 10 million of assets or less.· By vintage year, 8% of funds began investing between 1998 and 2001, 32% offunds between 2002 and 2007, 27% funds between 2008 and 2010, and 32%between 2011 and 2014.· By sector, 71% of aggregate fund capitalization is with multi-industry fundsand 20% with funds focused on financial services. The remainder is in fundsfocused on business services, information technology, and consumer/retail.· Geographically, 39% of aggregate fund capitalization focuses on Africa,37% on the United States, 17% on a mix of emerging markets, and theremainder in a mix of developed markets.F I N A N C I A L P E R F O R M A N C E O F I M PAC T I N V E S T M E N T S5

Study findings5.8%· Since inception, the 71 funds have generated aggregate net returns of 5.8% onaverage and 4.6% at the median (Figure 4).AGGREGATENET IRR· Fund-level IRR can vary substantially, with the top 5% of funds achievingannual rates of return of 22.1% or higher and the bottom 5% achieving -15.4%or lower. This range is similar to what is seen in conventional investing andillustrates that fund manager selection is key to strong performance.· Funds with total AUM of USD 100 million or less generated a pooled annualreturn of 8.9%, whereas funds with total AUM exceeding USD 100 millionachieved a pooled annual return of 5.0%.· Funds allocating primarily to emerging markets generated a pooled returnof 6.7%, whereas funds with a developed market focus achieved a pooledreturn of 4.8%.FIGURE 4: DISTRIBUTION OF FUND IRRs NET TO LPs IN PE/VC IMPACT INVESTINGn shown above each bar.25%n 71n 45n 26n 33n 3820%15%5TH Percentile10%25TH Percentile5%Median(50TH Percentile)0%75TH Percentile-5%-95TH Percentile-10%-Mean-15%-20%-OverallUSD 100 millionUSD 100 millionDeveloped MarketsEmerging MarketsSource: CA-GIIN PE/VC Impact Investing Index & Benchmark Statistics (2017 Update)Study caveats and limitations· Calculated returns include both realized and unrealized valuations.The performance of funds of more recent vintage years is largely unrealized;for these funds a clearer indication of actual performance will emerge as fundsmature. For example, funds of vintage years between 1998 and 2001 had aDPI multiple of 1.62 compared to funds of vintage years 2011 to 2014 with aDPI multiple of 0.06. Such variance also exists in the TVPI multiple of thesesame funds (1.72 and 1.09 respectively).6G LO B A L I M PAC T I N V E S T I N G N E T WO R K

· Given the relative youth of the impact investing industry, the universe ofrelevant funds—and hence the study sample—is small. As such, large fundsdisproportionately influence pooled IRR figures. Further, the ability to conductsub-group analysis (such as by sector focus) is limited as sample sizes becometoo small to yield meaningful findings.· While the benchmark assesses the incorporation of impact intentionalityto determine fund manager eligibility for the study, it does not analyzeimpact performance.Great ExpectationsAuthor: Wharton Social Impact Initiative (WSII)Publication date: October 2015Methodology· WSII evaluated the financial performance of 32 private equity impactinvesting funds targeting market rates of return and investing in a total of170 portfolio companies.· WSII gathered fund- and transaction-level data via a survey. WSII alsorequested source documents, such as audited financial statements.Financial performance was calculated using both financial statementsand survey responses.· The report analyzed performance relative to public market equivalents(PMEs). Specifically, the report evaluated pooled quarterly returns (gross offees, expenses, and carried interest) as a ratio to a spliced Russell Microcap/Russell 2000 index and the S&P 500 index.· Authors measured unrealized returns using three different methodologies:held at fair market value (FMV) or cost as reported by the general partners(GPs) on financial documents, held at FMV using a ratio of all of a GP’s openinvestments to reported holding value, and excluding those held at cost.· WSII also calculated individual fund performance to generate a 95%confidence interval of the expected PME ratio.Sample overview· The sample included 32 market-rate-seeking private equity impact fundsinvested into 170 companies.· A total of USD 1.7 billion has been committed to these 32 funds.· Participating funds invest globally, with the most common focus areasincluding Latin America (32%), North America (28%), and Asia (25%).· By strategy, 37% of funds target private equity, 34% venture capital, 19%mezzanine and buyout finance, and 9% hybrid strategies.F I N A N C I A L P E R F O R M A N C E O F I M PAC T I N V E S T M E N T S7

9.2%AGGREGATEGROSS IRRStudy findings· In aggregate, impact investments held at FMV or cost had a MicrocapPME ratio of 0.89, S&P PME ratio of 0.91, gross IRR of 9.2%, and cashmultiple of 1.39x.1· In analyzing each individual fund, the study found a 95% confidence interval ofthe Microcap PME ratio of 0.74 to 1.15 with a median of 0.95 and a confidenceinterval of the S&P 500 PME of 0.77 to 1.18 with a median of 0.93.· Within the sample, 75% of funds expect or require social and/or environmentalimpact to continue post-exit. Among 16 funds, these aligned exits (excludingwrite-offs) generated gross IRR of 33.5% and a cash multiple of 4.9x comparedto a similar gross IRR of 35.0% and cash multiple of 4.1x among all market-rateseeking exits (excluding write-offs). Among all these exits, including write-offs,gross IRR reached 18.6% with a cash multiple of 2.3x.Study caveats and limitations· Returns in more recent years remain largely unrealized and have beenestimated using a range of valuation standards.· In calculating a ratio of participating funds’ performance to the RusselMicrocap/Russell 2000 index and S&P 500 index, authors compareperformance of a set of private equity funds to that of public equities whichmay not necessarily share risk/return profiles.· In each instance, the confidence interval of the PME ratios straddles 1.00,suggesting that impact funds perform in line with their public marketequivalent on a gross basis. However, it is not clear how they perform net offees and expenses.Impact Investing Finds ItsPlace in IndiaAuthor: McKinsey & CompanyPublication date: September 2017Methodology· Analysis focused on exits data from equity investments provided byfund manager members of the Indian Impact Investors Council (IIC),the VCCEdge deal database, and investee companies.· The sample was selected by first identifying social enterprises,2 and thenanalyzing exits made by investors from these social enterprises.1 A ratio of 1.00 indicates perfectly equal performance between impact investments and the PME. Ratioslower than 1.00 indicate underperformance by impact investments, and ratios greater than 1.00 indicateoutperformance by impact investments.2 Specifically, impact investments for this study were defined as equity investments made in for-profitenterprises where management and investors have a stated mission of serving and measuring impact onunderprivileged communities or the environment.8G LO B A L I M PAC T I N V E S T I N G N E T WO R K

· Additional insights were derived from interviews and surveys of 15 impactinvesting limited partners (LPs), 19 GPs, and 34 social enterprises as wellas from desk research based on the GIIN and J.P. Morgan Annual ImpactInvestor Surveys from 2013–2017.· Financial returns figures reflect realized returns only and include partial exitreturns for the stake sold.Sample overview· The sample consisted of 48 private equity and venture capital transactionsmade in India, among which 31 targeted the financial inclusion sector, seveneducation, four healthcare, four clean energy, and two agriculture.· All exits occurred between 2010 and 2015.· Deal size varied, with an average investment of USD 2.1 million. Five dealswere USD 5 million or larger, 11 between USD 1 million and 5 million,17 between USD 0.1 million and USD 1 million, and 15 smaller than USD0.1 million.Study findings11%· The gross IRR in US dollar terms across the sample of 48 exits varied widelyfrom -46% to 153% with a median of gross IRR 10% and a weighted averageof 11%. The top third of exited investments generated gross returns of 18%per annum or higher, and the bottom third generated gross returns of 2% perannum or lower.· Among the investments in the top third by IRR, 12 were in financial inclusion,two in clean energy, one in education, and one in agriculture.· Returns varied by deal size, with the median IRR highest among deals in theUSD 1 million to USD 5 million range (16%; n 5) and lowest among dealssmaller than USD 0.1 million (2%; n 15). Returns ranged the most amongsmaller deals, which accounted for both the lowest and highest IRRs from theoverall sample (-46% to 153%). Deals of USD 5 million or larger demonstratedthe narrowest range of returns (0% to 18%).· Authors found no clear relationship between returns and holding period.Study caveats and limitations· The study analyzes self-reported financial performance in one specific slice ofthe impact investing universe: the PE/VC asset class in the Indian market.· The analysis is restricted only to exits and, thus, does not give a sense for totalfund returns, which typically also include write-offs, net fees, and expenses.· As the methodology begins by identifying social enterprises, the sampleincludes investments by conventional investors who may not haveimpact intent.· The sample may also exclude investments by impact investors into enterprisesthat do not identify or qualify as social enterprises.F I N A N C I A L P E R F O R M A N C E O F I M PAC T I N V E S T M E N T S9AVERAGEGROSS IRRAMONGEXITS

GIIN PERSPECTIVESThe CA-GIIN, WSII, and McKinsey studies all provide rigorous, independentanalyses of the financial performance of private equity impact investments.Although there are differences in methodology, samples, and calculated outputs,the overall findings demonstrate a consistent view of the market’s performance.TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGIES AMONG PRIVATEEQUITY IMPACT INVESTING PERFORMANCE STUDIESStudyIntroducing thePrivate EquityBenchmarkAuthorsCambridgeAssociates(CA) and theGIINSample71 market-rateseeking-fundsMeasures of performanceIRR net of fees at fund level (pooled,quartile distributions, by fund size andgeographic focus)Total value to paid-in multiplesDistribution to paid-in multiplesGreatExpectationsWhartonSocial ImpactInitiative (WSII)170 transactionsPooled gross IRR relative to Russellfrom 32 marketMicrocap/Russell 2000 index andrate-seeking funds S&P 500 indexImpact InvestingFinds Its Place inIndiaMcKinsey &Company48 exits frominvestments intosocial enterprisesGross IRR from exited investments(full and partial exits) by sector anddeal sizeMarket-rate returns are achievable in private equity impact investing. Boththe CA-GIIN and Wharton studies found that market-rate-seeking private equityimpact investing funds can achieve returns comparable to conventional privateequity funds. The CA-GIIN benchmark found mean returns of 5.8%, top quartilereturns above 9.7%, and a standard deviation of 10.8%, and the Wharton studyfound gross IRR of 9.2% from a sample of 32 private equity funds. Among exitedinvestments—thus excluding write-offs—the McKinsey study found an averagegross IRR of 11%. Once fees, expenses, and carry are taken into account, onewould expect net returns to be close to what was calculated in the CA-GIIN study.Among conventional investments, CA has found 10-year pooled returns of 11.0%p.a. among global PE funds (excluding the U.S.)3 and of 10.0% among U.S. funds.4As in mainstream investing, impact investment returns vary widely.The CA-GIIN study found individual fund returns ranging from -15.4% to22.1% among the middle 90% of participating funds. Likewise, the WSII studyfound a confidence interval of the median microcap PME ratio ranging from0.74 to 1.15 with similar ranges reported in other complementary analyses.The McKinsey study, which conducted analysis at the transaction level,found IRR ranging from -46% to 153%. This degree of variation is also foundin conventional private equity, illustrating that in any private investing fundmanager selection is key to success.3 “Global ex US PE/VC Benchmark Commentary: Fourth Quarter 2016.” Cambridge Associates. August entary-fourth-quarter-2016/.4 “US PE/VC Benchmark Commentary: Fourth Quarter 2016.” Cambridge Associates. August /us-pevc-benchmark-commentary-11/.10G LO B A L I M PAC T I N V E S T I N G N E T WO R K

Target returns and actual returns differ. Private equity investors often indicatehigh returns expectations, with all funds participating in the CA-GIIN benchmarktargeting returns of 15% or higher. However, as evidenced by the studiesincluded, pooled average performance is in the single digits. This disparityillustrates that although fund managers typically target top-quartile returns, onlya small percentage of funds actually achieve strong double-digit returns.Smaller funds do not necessarily underperform. The CA-GIIN study foundthat impact funds with under USD 100 million in total assets generated averagereturns of 8.9%, higher than the 5.0% net IRR among larger funds in the impactbenchmark. The conventional wisdom is that smaller funds are expected tounderperform larger ones, and this finding suggests that that may not necessarilybe the case.Mission-aligned exits can yield strong financial outcomes. Within theWharton study’s sample, 75% of funds expected or required social and/orenvironmental impact to continue post-exit. These aligned exits (excludingwrite-offs) generated gross IRR of 33.5% and a cash multiple of 4.9x, returnswhich are comparable to the gross IRR of 35.0% and cash multiple of 4.1x amongall market-rate-seeking exits (excluding write-offs). This finding reinforces theidea that investments can seek impact—even after the point of exit—while stillgenerating strong returns.F I N A N C I A L P E R F O R M A N C E O F I M PAC T I N V E S T M E N T S11

PRIVATE DEBTPrivate debt is the largest asset class in impact investing, accounting for about34% of total impact AUM according to the GIIN’s 2017 Annual Impact InvestorSurvey. The survey also found it was the second-most commonly used assetclass, with over half of respondents indicating some allocations through privatedebt. Data from this survey indicate that among impact investors that allocate75% or more of their impact assets to private debt, 39% principally target riskadjusted market rates of return. The remaining 61% target below-market returns,including returns closer to market rate and closer to capital preservation.The survey also includes data on gross returns expectations among investmentsmade in 2016 (Figure 5). On average, gross returns expectations range from2.7% to 9.2% depending on whether the investment is in a developed market oremerging market and whether the investor is principally seeking market rates ofreturn or concessionary returns.FIGURE 5: AVERAGE GROSS RETURNS EXPECTATIONS FOR 2016VINTAGE DEBT INVESTMENTSAverages shown beside each diamond. Error bars show /- one standard deviation.18%n 22n 14n 19n 2316%14%12%10%8%6%9.2%7.4%7.0%4%2.7%2%0%Market RateBelow MarketDeveloped Market DebtMarket RateBelow MarketEmerging Market DebtSource: GIIN 2017 Annual Impact Investor SurveySome research on the financial performance of private debt impact investmentshas emerged in recent years. In 2016, Symbiotics released a ten-year report onthe performance of microfinance investment vehicles, and Impact InvestingAustralia released a study about both financial and impact performance ofimpact investments in Australia. Additional research was released in 2015 by theBoston Consulting Group and EngagedX on the performance of below-marketrate-seeking social investors in the UK. Together, these studies begin to improvetransparency around performance data in specific segments of the private debtimpact investing market, as well as help identify gaps where more research couldyield insight.12G LO B A L I M PAC T I N V E S T I N G N E T WO R K

2017 Symbiotics MIV SurveyAuthor: SymbioticsPublication date: September 2017Methodology· Symbiotics invited all known microfinance investment vehicles (MIVs) toparticipate in the survey. Of the 127 MIVs targeted, 98 participated, and 93were included in final analysis.5· A substantial portion of the analysis focused on the full MIV dataset (n 93),while additional analysis looked specifically at the private debt-focused portionof respondents (n 52).6· Performance was analyzed using both simple and weighted averages of yieldand net IRR. Additional analysis evaluated the total expense ratios and feesrequired for fund management.· All data were self-reported by participating funds, rather than reportedthrough audited financial statements.Sample overview· Altogether, the 93 MIVs managed USD 12.6 billion in assets. The 52 fixedincome funds mana

In this report, the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) brings together these various studies to provide investors with a comprehensive view of the growing body of research on the financial performance of impact investments. In addition to describing the scope

Related Documents:

May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)

Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .

On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.

̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions

Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have

Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được

Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.

Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. 3 Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.