European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment Survey 2011/2012

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012 The EVPA Survey

European Venture Philanthropy Association March 2013

2 Authors: Dr. Lisa Hehenberger Research Director lhehenberger@evpa.eu.com Anna足Marie Harling Senior Research Associate aharling@evpa.eu.com

Acknowledgements: EVPA would like to express its thanks to the respondents of the survey (listed in the ap足 pendix) that invested time and effort into providing the data, as well as to the Knowledge Centre Advisory Committee members for their input and comments. The hard work of Amy Raisbeck and Elena Balestra was essential in terms of collecting and analysing the data.

Knowledge Centre Advisory Committee: Prof. Ann足Kristin Achleitner, Luciano Balbo, David Carrington, Prof. Johanna Mair, Deirdre Mortell, Pieter Oostlander, Serge Raicher, Nat Sloane

3 Executive Summary

4

Part 1: 12 Introduction Purpose of the report What is Venture Philanthropy?

Role of EVPA in industry evolution Survey scope and methodology

The EVPA Knowledge Centre is kindly sponsored by Natixis Private Equity

EVPA is extremely grateful to Fondazione CRT, Impetus Trust, Invest for Children, Noaber Foundation and Omidyar Network for their generous support

Part 2: Presentation of Survey Results 1. Demographics of VP/SI organisations in survey 2. VP/SI positioning in investment landscape 3. Resources of European Venture Philanthropy 4. Venture philanthropy investment focus 5. VP/SI Investment process 6. Investment funds

18

Part 3: Conclusion

54

Part 4: Appendix Sources List of Survey Respondents

56

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012 The EVPA survey

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

4

Executive Summary

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre March 2013

This is the report of EVPA’s second annual survey of European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment. The purpose of the report is to provide independent data and raise awareness about European Venture Philanthropy & Social Investing (“VP/SI”) so as to at­ tract additional resources to the sector. EVPA acts as the main repository of data on VP/SI in !"#$%&'()*&(+,-,./-0(1-2-(%#$3/1&1(4-5(6$#(2*&(+5.-0(7&-#(&,1/,8(/,(9:;;<(",0&55($2*&#4/5&( 5%&./+&1<(-,1(5$=&(>"&52/$,5(4&#&($6(-(=$#&(8&,&#-0(,-2"#&(#&?&.2/,8(2*&(."##&,2(5/2"-2/$,( when the data was collected. When comparisons over time are made, they refer to the results $6(2*&(9:;;(5"#3&7<(#&?&.2/,8(1-2-(6#$=(2*&(9:;:(+5.-0(7&-#'( !"#$%&%'$(')(*"$&+,"(-.%/0$&.,'12 Venture philanthropy works to build stronger investee organisations with a societal1 pur­ %$5&(@ABC5D(E7(%#$3/1/,8(2*&=(4/2*(E$2*(+,-,./-0(-,1(,$,F+,-,./-0(5"%%$#2(/,($#1&#(2$( increase their societal impact. The venture philanthropy approach includes the use of the !"#$%!&'(!)#%*+&,-&."/")$"0&$"'#%*+!"#' (grants, equity, debt, etc.), and pays particular at­ tention to the *1#$+/#!& ,23!)#$4!& ,-& /)5$!4$"0& ',)$!#/1& $+(/)#. The key characteristics of venture philanthropy include high engagement, organizational capacity­building, tailored +,-,./,8<(,$,F+,-,./-0(5"%%$#2<(/,3$03&=&,2($6(,&24$#G5<(="02/F7&-#(5"%%$#2(-,1(%&#6$#­ mance measurement.

3+,4"2(35'1"(0$6(7"&.'6'/'82 The survey aimed to capture the activity of venture philanthropy and social investment $#8-,/5-2/$,5( @HBC5D( E-5&1( /,( !"#$%&<( -..$#1/,8( 2$( 2*&( 1&+,/2/$,( -E$3&<( -02*$"8*( 2*&/#( investment activity may take place in other continents. The survey was undertaken between I"07(-,1(A&%2&=E&#(9:;9(-,1(2-#8&2&1(HBC5(/,.0"1/,8(E$2*(!HBJ(=&=E&#5(-,1(,$,F=&=­ E&#5'(C"2($6(2*&(;:9(5"#3&75(5&,2<(4&(#&.&/3&1(K;(#&5%$,5&5(@.$=%-#&1(2$(L:(#&5%$,5&5(/,( 9:;;D($"2($6(4*/.*(M(4&#&(6#$=(,$,F=&=E&#5'(N&(1$(,$2(.0-/=(2$(*-3&(.-%2"#&1(2*&(&,2/#&( VP/SI industry in Europe, however we believe the sample to be highly representative.

9"2(:";+/&;(')(&."(3+,4"2 6!+,0%/(5$)'&,-&789' :5!&;<=&>%/")!&/"?&@!%+/"A&/%!&#5!&#,(&),*"#%$!'&$"&#!%+'&,-&789&5!/?B*/%#!%'C As per the previous year’s survey most of the respondents were based in Western Europe, the top O(#&5%$,1&,2(.$",2#/&5(E&/,8(2*&(P,/2&1(Q/,81$=(@;MRD<(S&#=-,7(@;;RD(-,1(T#-,.&(@;:RD<( and only three respondents from Eastern Europe. The average age of the VPOs is 6.5 years, a slight reduction from last year’s average of 7 years. We see a peak of VPOs being set up in 9::U(-,1(2*&,(-8-/,(0-52(7&-#(@9:;;D(5"88&52/,8(-(#&/,3/8$#-2/$,($6(3&,2"#&(%*/0-,2*#$%7(/,( Europe.

1

EVPA purposely uses the word societal because the impact may be social, environmental, medical or cultural.

DE!)*#$4!'& ,-& 789'& 5/4!& +$E!?& ","F(%,.#G(%$4/#!& '!)#,%& 2/)H0%,*"?'C In a change from 0-52(7&-#(=-,7($6(2*&(6$",1&#5($6(HBC5(.$=&(6#$=(2*&(5$./-0(=/55/$,(1#/3&,(5&.2$#(@OKR( $6( #&5%$,1&,25( /,.0"1/,8( 6$",1-2/$,5( -,1( $2*&#( ,$,F%#$+2( $#8-,/5-2/$,5<( 1&3&0$%=&,2( $#8-,/5-2/$,5(-,1(5$./-0(&,2#&%#&,&"#5D<(4*&#&-5(2*&(+,-,./-0(5&.2$#(*-5(=$3&1(2$(5&.$,1(

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

5

Executive Summary

6

%0-.&( @O9R( $6( #&5%$,1&,25D'( )*&( =-,-8&#5( @&V&."2/3&( 52-66D( *-3&( =$#&( $6( -( %#/3-2&( 5&.2$#( E-.G8#$",1(@OUR($6(#&5%$,1&,25D(-,1(5$./-0(=/55/$,(1#/3&,(E-.G8#$",1(.$=&5(5&.$,1(@9WR( of respondents).

I/"A& 789'& 5/4!& ","F(%,.#& '#%*)#*%!'C( X,( 0/,&( 4/2*( 0-52( 7&-#Y5( 5"#3&7<( -( =-Z$#/27( @KURD( of European VPOs are structured as foundations, trusts or charities, and some are set up as companies, funds or multiple structures, although each country has its own terms and 3-#/-2/$,5( $6( 2*&5&( 6$#=5'( )*/5( 7&-#Y5( 5"#3&7( .$00&.2&1( 5%&./+.( 1-2-( $,( /,3&52=&,2( 6",15( .$,5/1&#/,8(2*-2([;R($6(2*&(5-=%0&(#&%$#2&1(2$(=-,-8&(5".*(6",15'(\$52(HBC5(@LKRD(-#&( non­endowed, implying that they engage in continuous fundraising activity.

78GJK&8,'$#$,"$"0&$"&$"4!'#+!"#&1/"?')/(!

J,)$!#/1&%!#*%"&$'&#5!&+/$"&(*%(,'!L&."/")$/1&%!#*%"&$'&2!),+$"0&+,%!&$+(,%#/"#C In a shift from last year’s results the VPOs requiring a societal return only(1&.#&-5&1(6#$=(L:R(2$(9KR'( Those VPOs where societal return is a priority !"#$#%&'$())&*#$($+,(,)-(.$/&#"/, increased from OMR(2$([MR(-,1(HBC5(4*&#&(01)-&#(.$(,2$+,(,)-(.$/&#"/,0$(/&$1,$(,$&3"(.$411#-,5 increased from ;:R(2$(9LR'()*/5(5*$4&1(2*-2(-02*$"8*(5$./&2-0(#&2"#,(/5(2*&(%#/=-#7($EZ&.2/3&($6(2*&(=-Z$#­ /27($6(HBC5<(2*&(#&0&3-,.&($6(5$=&(+,-,./-0(%-7E-.G(@&/2*&#(/,(.-%/2-0($#(-5(-,(-.2"-0(5"#%0"5( $,(2*&(/,3&52=&,2D(*-5(E&.$=&(5/8,/+.-,207(=$#&(/=%$#2-,2'()*/5(/5(E$2*(-,(/,1/.-2/$,($6( changing strategies of existing players and due to the sample changing from year to year.

VPO Investment priorities in 2010 and 2011

50

48 38

2011 2010

26

25 10

numbers in % (2011 n=61, 2010 n=50) Societal return only, no financial return possible

2 This analysis refers to the responses 6#$=(-(0-#8&(=-Z$#/27(@WMRD($6(2*&(HBC5( who answered the relevant survey question. Certain outlying responses were not included in the analysis to ensure the results provided an accurate representation of the industry as a whole

Societal return is priority, and accept financial return

Societal and financial return on equal footing

M!',*%)!'&,-&D*%,(!/"&78GJK I/"A&D*%,(!/"&4!"#*%!&(5$1/"#5%,(A&,%0/"$'/#$,"'&5/4!&/""*/1&2*?0!#'&1,N!%&#5/"&OPCQ+C& 1 Institutional Investors Foundations )*&(=-Z$#/27($6($#8-,/5-2/$,5(@K;RD(-00$.-2&1(0&55(2*-,(]9'L=(2$(HB^AX(@-5(-(2$2-0(E"18&2( /,.0"1/,8(/,3&52=&,25(-,1($3&#*&-1(&V%&,5&5D(/,(2*&(0-52(+5.-0(7&-#<(2*&(-3&#-8&(-=$",2( Other Endowment Income 6 -00$.-2&1(4-5(]U'[=(-,1(2*&(=&1/-,(4-5(];'O='(C,07(-(5=-00(%&#.&,2-8&(@MRD(*-1(-(E"18&2( 21 11 8#&-2&#(2*-,(]9:='(

%

K"?$4$?*/1'& /"?& 8DG7RGS!?0!& >*"?'& Corporations 14 %!(%!'!"#& #5!& +/$"& ',*%)!'& ,-& 78GJK& -*"?$"0PC This year, individual donors and investors are on a par with PE/VC/Hedge Funds to represent 17 2*&( =-/,( 5$"#.&5( $6( 6",1/,8( 6$#( HB^AX( -.2/3/2/&5<( 4/2*( ;KR( -,1( ;UR( $6( 2*&( 2$2-0( 6",1/,8( PE / VC / Hedge Funds 15 respectively. In fact overall, PE/VC/Hedge Funds decreased in importance as a funding Governments

16

(n=47) Individuals European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012 Other

7

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre March 2013

50

48 38

26

2011 2010 numbers in % (2011 n=61, 2010 n=50)

25 10

5$"#.&'(!,1$4=&,2(/,.$=&(#&%#&5&,25(;;R($6(2$2-0(6",1/,8(E"2(6$#(2*$5&(6$",1-2/$,5(-,1( Societal return only, Societal return is Societal and ,$,F%#$+25(2*-2(&52-E0/5*&1(2*&/#($#8-,/5-2/$,5(4/2*(-,(&,1$4=&,2<(-(3&#7(0-#8&(=-Z$#/27( no financial return priority, and accept financial return @M9RD(+,-,.&(2*&/#(HB^AX(-.2/3/2/&5(4/2*(2*&(/,.$=&(6#$=(2*&/#($4,(&,1$4=&,2'(S$3&#,­ possible financial return on equal footing =&,25(8-/,&1(2&##/2$#7(4/2*(;LR($6(6",1/,8<(.$#%$#-2/$,5(#&=-/,&1(52-E0&<(-,1(/,2&#&52/,807<( +,-,./-0(/,52/2"2/$,5(/,.0"1&1(/,(_$2*&#`(E&.-=&(-(G&7(6",1/,8(5$"#.&'(

Distribution of total funding made available to VPOs

48 6

Endowment Income

11 26

2011 2010 numbers in % (2011 n=61, 2010 n=50)

Other

38 21

%

14

Corporations

25 10

17

PE / VC / Hedge Funds

15

(n=47)

1 Institutional Investors

Foundations

50

16 return is Societal priority, and accept financial return Individuals

Societal return only, Governments no financial return possible

Societal and financial return on equal footing

T& 1/%0!%& (,,1& ,-& (%,-!''$,"/1'& Other N,%H& $"& 78GJKC The survey found that 753 people are em­ Societal & %0$7&1(E7(2*&(HBC5(5"#3&7&1<(4/2*(-,(-3&#-8&(52-66(5/a&($6(;O(%&$%0&'()*/5(/5(-(5/8,/+.-,2( financial impact 1 Foundations 15 1 Institutional Investors Impact first /,.#&-5&(/,(2*&(2$2-0(-,1(-3&#-8&(52-66(6#$=(2*&(+,1/,8($6([OU(-,1(W(%&$%0&(/,(2*&(%#&3/$"5( social enterprise Other survey, suggesting that the size of teams dedicated to VP/SI activities is increasing. Adding Endowment Income 6 39 2$(2*/5(,"=E&#(/5(-(%$$0($6(KO[(3$0",2&&#5(-,1(K;U(.$,2#/E"2$#5($6(,$,F+,-,./-0(5&#3/.&5'( 21

19

NGO, trading

VP/SI Spend in 2011 (€) per type of investee

% %

78GJK&K"4!'#+!"#&-,)*' Corporations 14 J,)$/1&!"#!%(%$'!&$'&#5!&H!A&#/%0!#&,-&D*%,(!/"&789'C European VPOs3 continue to invest -.#$55(-(5%&.2#"=($6($#8-,/5-2/$,-0(27%&5'()*&(G&7(+,1/,8(/,(2*/5(7&-#Y5(5"#3&7(/5(2*-2(5$./-0( 26 17 enterprise emerges as the main target of VP/SI investment, representing the largest PE / VC / Hedge Fundsincrease 15 /,(6",1/,8<(6#$=(9LR(/,(+5.-0(7&-#(9:;:(2$(OWR(/,(+5.-0(7&-#(9:;;'(b$,F%#$+2($#8-,/5-2/$,5<( 16 no trading (n=51) NGO, 4/2*($#(4/2*$"2(2#-1/,8<(#&.&/3&(#&0-2/3&07(0&55(6",1/,8(/,(9:;;(-5(.$=%-#&1(2$(9:;:<(4/2*( Governments ;WR( -,1( 9KR( #&5%&.2/3&07( $6( 9:;;( HB^AX( &V%&,1/2"#&<( .$=%-#&1( 2$( OOR( -,1( 9LR( #&5%&.­ (n=47) Latin America 2 Individuals 2/3&07(/,(9:;:'( 1 Eastern Europe N. America 2

Societal & financial impact 1

NGO, trading Africa This analysis refers to the responses 6#$=(-(0-#8&(=-Z$#/27(@WMRD($6(2*&(HBC5( who answered this question. Certain outlying responses were not included in the analysis to ensure the results provided an accurate representation of the industry as a whole

11

Other Asia

9 15 24 19

Impact first social enterprise

% %

3

39 61 Western Europe

26

(n=50) (n=51)

NGO, no trading

27% increase

Total Annual Financial Spend 2011 = €278m Latin America 2 Eastern Europe 1 2 N.Social America European Venture Philanthropy and Investment 2011/2012 Total Annual Non­Financial Spend

€4,1m

Asia €5,2m

2011 = €32m

Executive Summary

M

50

48 38

26

2011 2010

25 10

numbers in % (2011 n=61, 2010 n=50) Societal return only, no financial return possible

Societal and financial return on equal footing

Societal return is priority, and accept financial return

D*%,(!/"&789'&#/H!&%$'H'&2A&$"4!'#$"0&$"&'+/11&,%0/"$'/#$,"'&N$#5&1$##1!&#%/)H&%!),%?C&Most HBC5(@M[RD(1$(,$2(*-3&(5&2(.#/2&#/-(4/2*(#&8-#15(2$(2*&(5/a&($6(2*&($#8-,/5-2/$,5(@/,(](2&#=5D( Institutional Investors in which they invest. For thoseFoundations that do, their 1focus is on organisations in the small to me­ 1/"=(.-2&8$#7(@U:R($6(#&5%$,1&,25(2*-2(*-3&(-(5&2(.#/2&#/-(6$."5($,($#8-,/5-2/$,5(E&24&&,( Other Endowment Income ];::G(-,1(];=(/,(2"#,$3&#D'(X,(.$,+#=-2/$,($6(0-52(7&-#Y5(#&5"025<(HB^AX(8&,&#-007(2-#8&25( 6 21 11 7$",8(/,3&52&&($#8-,/5-2/$,5c([:R(/,3&52(/,($#8-,/5-2/$,5($6(-8&(9FL(7&-#5<(O;R(/,($#8-,/5-­ 2/$,5(2*-2(-#&(0&55(2*-,(9(7&-#5($01(-,1(;KR(-2(2*&(/,."E-2/$,(52-8&'(

%

14

Corporations

In terms of social sector focus, this year "5'$'<%5(0$6(;'5%0/(6"4"/'1<"$& has overtaken 17 *&-02*(-5(2*&(,"=E&#($,&(5&.2$#<(#&.&/3/,8(9:R($6(2$2-0(6",1/,8<(6$00$4&1(E7(&1".-2/$,<(4/2*( PE / VC / Hedge Funds ;LR($6(2$2-0(6",1/,8(-,1(2*&,(*&-02*(4/2*(;9R($6(2$2-0(6",1/,8'()*&(-00$.-2/$,($6(6",1/,8(2$( 15 other social sectors is provided in more detail in the main body of the report.

16 Governments

R5$1?%!"&/"?&A,*#5&/%!&+/$"&2!"!.)$/%$!'&,-&78GJK&$"4!'#+!"#'C In terms of ultimate ben­ (n=47) Individuals

&+./-#/&5($6(2*&(HB^AX(6",1/,8<(2*&(5"#3&7(6$",1(2*-2<(0/G&(0-52(7&-#<(KOR($6(!"#$%&-,(HBC5( 2-#8&2(.*/01#&,(-,1(7$"2*(-5(2*&("02/=-2&(E&,&+./-#/&5($6(2*&/#(/,3&52&&5Y(-.2/3/27'(B&$%0&(5"6­ Other 6&#/,8(6#$=(%$3&#27(@[[RD(-#&(52/00(2*&(5&.$,1(=$52(5"%%$#2&1(8#$"%<(*$4&3&#(",&=%0$7&1( Societal & 158#$"%( $6( 5"%%$#2<( %#$E-E07( Impact first %&$%0&( @9KRD(financial E&.-=&( impact -( =$#&(1/=%$#2-,2( 1"&( 2*&( ."##&,2( &.$­ social enterprise ,$=/.(.#/5/5(/,(!"#$%&<(6$00$4&1(E7(2*&(1/5-E0&1(@9ORD<(=/,$#/27(&2*,/.(.$==",/2/&5(@;ORD<( 39 4$=&,(@;ORD(-,1(/==/8#-,25<(-570"=(5&&G&#5(-,1^$#(#&6"8&&5(@;;RD'

%

19

NGO, trading

U!'#!%"& D*%,(!& -,11,N!?& 2A& T-%$)/& /%!& #5!& +/$"& #/%0!#& %!0$,"'. European VPOs tend to 6$."5(2*&/#(-.2/3/2/&5(/,(N&52&#,(!"#$%&(@K;R($6(6",1/,8D(-,1($2*&#4/5&($,(1&3&0$%/,8(.$",­ 2#/&5<(4/2*(J6#/.-(@9[RD(-,1(J5/-(@WRD(E&/,8(2*&(=-/,(2-#8&2(#&8/$,5(-,1(A$"2*(J=&#/.-(-2­ 26 2#-.2/,8(-E$"2(9R($6(2*&(6",1/,8'( (n=51)

NGO, no trading Latin America 2 N. America 2

Geographic focus of VPOs by € spend in 2011

1 Eastern Europe

Asia

9

24 Africa

% 61 Western Europe

(n=50)

27% increase

€4,1m

Total Annual Financial Spend 2011 = €278m

€5,2m

Total Annual Non­Financial Spend 2011 = €32m

(2011 n=54, 2010 n=45) European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

2010

2011

21

11

(n=47)

Individuals

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre Corporations Other 14 Societal & March 2013 financial impact 1 15

%

15 Governments NGO, trading

(n=47)

17

Impact first social PE / VCenterprise / Hedge Funds

39

16

%

19

W

Individuals

Other Societal & financial impact 1

26 15

(n=51)

NGO, no trading

%1

Latin 19 America 2 78GJK&K"4!'#+!"#&(%,)!''

NGO, trading N. America 2

Impact first social enterprise

39 Eastern Europe

T&(%,/)#$4!&'!/%)5&-,%&$"4!'#+!"#&,((,%#*"$#$!'C Finding the right investee SPOs is a fun­ Asia 1-=&,2-0(%-#2($6(-(HBCY5(-.2/3/27'(X,(0/,&(4/2*(0-52(7&-#Y5(#&5"025<(MWR($6(HBC5(-#&(%#$-.2/3&( 9 26 /,(2*&/#(5&-#.*(2$(/1&,2/67(-,1(-%%#$-.*(2*&(ABC5(2$(/,3&52(/,<(4*&#&-5([OR($6(2*&(!"#$%&-,( VPOs that participated in the study accept open applications.

%

(n=51)

NGO, no trading

242A& PVW& $"& PXYY& /'& ),+(/%!?& #,& PXYXC VPOs have in­ T4!%/0!& ."/")$/1& '*((,%#& $")%!/'!'& Africa vested almost OYCZ&2$11$,"(2*#$"8*(+,-,./-0(-,1(,$,F+,-,./-0(5"%%$#2(5/,.&(2*&7(E&8-,(2*&/#( 61 Latin America 2 $%&#-2/$,5'( X,( 2*&( +5.-0( 7&-#( 9:;;<( 2*&7( %#$3/1&1( /,3&52&&5( 4/2*( ]9UM( =/00/$,( $6( +,-,./-0( Eastern Europe 1 N. America 2 Western5%&,1( Europe%&#( HBC( 6#$=( 5"%%$#2'( )*&#&( 4-5( -( 9UR( /,.#&-5&( /,( 2*&( -3&#-8&( -,,"-0( +,-,./-0( Asia ][';=/00/$,(2$(]L'9=/00/$,'( (n=50) 9

Average financial support provided by VPOs to investees in 2011 and 2010

27% increase

%

24

Africa

Total Annual Financial Spend 2011 = €278m

61Annual Non­Financial Spend Total 2011 = €32m Western Europe

€5,2m

€4,1m (n=50)

(2011 n=54, 2010 n=45)

2010 27% increase

2011 Total Annual Financial Spend 2011 = €278m

6!2#& /"?& !B*$#A& /%!& #5!& +,'#& ),++,"1A& $"'#%*+!"#'C& Interestingly, 70 *'!?& ."/")$"0& Total Annual Non­Financial Spend there 4-5(-(5/8,/+.-,2(/,.#&-5&(/,(2*&("5&($6(&>"/27(-,1(1&E2(/,52#"=&,25(6#$=(9:;:(2$(9:;;'()*&( 2011 = €32m €5,2m €4,1m 57 57 /,.#&-5&(/,("5&($6(/,52#"=&,25($2*&#(2*-,(8#-,25(=-7(E&(-(#&?&.2/$,($6(2*&(8#&-2&#(#&0&3-,.&( 56 $6(5$=&(G/,1($6(+,-,./-0(%-7E-.G<(-,1(=-7(/,1/.-2&(2*-2(_2-/0$#&1(+,-,./,8`(-5(-(G&7(.$=­ 46 (2011 n=54, 2010 n=45) ponent of the VP model 40 is being applied.

2010

2011 % of VPOs using each type 2010 of financing instrument in % in 2011numbers and 2010 (2011 n=61, 2010 n=50)

2011

31

70 57

57

Debt

Equity Grant / Quasi Equity

46

24

18 8

5

56 Guarantee

40

Hybrid Grants

31 2011 2010

Investors

Debt

Social + Co­investors VP/SI Organisation Financial Non­financial (VPO) Equity Grant Guarantee support Hybrid return / Quasi Equity Grants Financing Non­financial support Investee organisations Investors

Social enterprise European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012 1 NGO 1

Social +

NGO 2

NGO n...

Other

24

18 8

numbers in % (2011 n=61, 2010 n=50)

8

Social enterprise 2

Co­investors Multiple social projects developed VP/SI Organisation

Social enterprise n...

5 Other

8

;:

Executive Summary

[,"F."/")$/1&'*((,%#&$'&/&H!A&),+(,"!"#&,-&#5!&5$05&!"0/0!+!"#&78GJK&+,?!1C High en­ gagement is evident in statistics on the frequency of meetings with the SPOs, with almost three quarters of respondents meeting at least quarterly with their investees. The most fre­ >"&,207(>"$2&1(,$,F+,-,./-0(5&#3/.&5(#&=-/,(52#-2&87(.$,5"02/,8<(.$-.*/,8(-,1(%#$3/1/,8( access to networks. :5!%!&$'&$")%!/'!?&/##!"#$,"&#,&+!/'*%$"0&',)$/1&$+(/)#C&The focus on social impact meas­ "#&=&,2( *-5( /,.#&-5&1<( 4/2*( W:R( $6( #&5%$,1&,25 measuring social impact on at least an annual basis during the investment period. However, the objectives of the impact meas­ "#&=&,2(5752&=(-#&<(/,(2*&(=-Z$#/27(@M[RD($6(.-5&5<(52/00(E-5&1($,($"2%"2(=&-5"#&5(5".*(-5( “number of people reached”. Nevertheless we have seen an increase in the percentage of VPOs attempting to measure changes in outcome or social value / impact (which requires an assessment of attribution).

T&+/3,%$#A&,-&789'&5/4!&!E$#!?&',+!&$"4!'#+!"#'&#,&?/#!C&As per last year’s results, most HBC5(.$,2/,"&(2$(%0-,(2*&/#(&V/25<(&/2*&#(/,(-00(.-5&5(@[MRD($#(5$=&2/=&5(@O;RD'(d$4&3&#<(/,( 2*/5(7&-#Y5(5"#3&7(K;R($6(#&5%$,1&,25(5-/1(2*-2(2*&7(*-1(&V/2&1(/,3&52=&,25(2$(1-2&(3&#5"5( L9R($6(0-52(7&-#Y5(#&5%$,1&,25' ='$5/+;%'$ )*&(9:;9(!HBJ(5"#3&7(5*$45(/,(.$=%-#/5$,(4/2*(2*&(+#52(5"#3&7(@9:;;D<(2*-2(2*&(HB^AX(5&.­ tor in Europe is evolving rapidly. The most striking evolution is the shifting balance in return objectives. Although societal impact is the primary focus (organisations that do not have 2*/5(6$."5(-#&(,$2(/,.0"1&1(/,(2*&(5"#3&7D(2*&(#&0&3-,.&($6(5$=&(+,-,./-0(%-7E-.G(@&/2*&#(/,( .-%/2-0($#(-5(-,(-.2"-0(5"#%0"5($,(2*&(/,3&52=&,2D(*-5(E&.$=&(5/8,/+.-,207(=$#&(/=%$#2-,2'( We see this as a sign of the sector becoming more mature.

The survey reveals that *->3?(',80$%;0&%'$;(.04"(@"5'<"(<',"(;'1.%;&%50&"6 in their use of the entire range of VP/SI ‘tools’ to generate greater societal impact. It is encouraging to see the progress made by respondents in developing practices such as impact measurement @W[R(=&-5"#&(5$./-0(/=%-.2D<(1"&(1/0/8&,.&<(.$F/,3&52=&,2<(.-%-./27(E"/01/,8<(&66&.2/3&(,$,F +,-,./-0(-55/52-,.&(-,1(&V/25'()*&#&(4-5(-(,$2-E0&(/,.#&-5&(/,(2*&(3-#/&27($6(+,-,./,8(/,52#"­ =&,25("5&1(E7(2*&(HBC(#&5%$,1&,25(4/2*(-(5/8,/+.-,2(%$5,"0;"(%$(&."(+;"(')("A+%&2(0$6( 6"@&'()*&5&(+,1/,85(/,1/.-2&(2*-2(2-/0$#&1(+,-,./,8(/5(E&.$=/,8(-(#&-0/27'( Important to note from this year’s survey is that European VPOs are increasingly focusing on ;'5%0/("$&",1,%;"(0;(0(&0,8"&(/,3&52&&<(4/2*(0&55(6",1/,8(8$/,8(2$(,$,F%#$+2($#8-,/5-2/$,5<( and that they take risks by investing in ;<0//(',80$%;0&%'$;(B%&.(/%&&/"(&,05C(,"5',6.

The EVPA survey highlights that the VP/SI sector involves a variety of different types of organisations, professionals and funders. The &'1(5'+$&,%"; in terms of housing VPOs are the D9E(F,0$5"(0$6(G",<0$2, whereas the bulk of the )+$6%$8(8'";(&' H";&",$(I+,'1"(0$6( J),%50. Foundations and other $'$K1,'#&( ;&,+5&+,"; remain major players, both in terms of VPOs and in terms of funders of VP/SI. L."(,";'+,5";(')(*-M;(.04"(%$5,"0;"6, as is

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre March 2013

evident in the total and average funding available and invested, and by the fact that there is now a larger pool of professionals working in VP/SI. However, most European VPOs have @+68"&;( ')( /";;( &.0$( NOPQ<( 1",( 0$$+<. It is clear that more funding and resources are needed to help VPOs in their important work to build stronger social purpose organisa足 tions. EVPA is committed to continue the research and promotion of best practice in the key components of the VP/SI model and reiterates the importance of a collaborative approach to developing the sector.

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

11

12

Part 1:

Introduction

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre March 2013

-+,1';"(')(&."(:"1',& This is the second report on European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment published by the European Venture Philanthropy Association. The purpose of the report is to provide key statistics and raise awareness about a sector that is evolving rapidly so as to attract fur­ ther resources to the sector. The positioning of VP/SI in the investment space is clearly on 8"$",0&%$8(;'5%"&0/(%<105&<(*$4&3&#(2*/5(7&-#(4&(5&&(=$#&(#&5%$,1&,25(5&&G/,8(+,-,./-0(#&­ 2"#,5(/,(-11/2/$,(2$(5$./&2-0(#&2"#,5'(T$",1-2/$,5(-,1($2*&#(,$,F%#$+2(52#".2"#&5(#&=-/,(=-­ jor players, both in terms of VP/SI organisations (“VPOs”) and in terms of funders of VP/SI. The survey results show the increased commitment of European venture philanthropy and social investment to supporting ;'5%0/("$&",1,%;"; and that they take risks by investing in ;<0//(',80$%;0&%'$;(B%&.(/%&&/"(&,05C(,"5',6'()*&5&(+,1/,85(.$,2#-52(4/2*(2*&(#&5"025($6(-( recent survey on the impact investment market(E7(IB(\$#8-,^SXXb 4 which showed that a ma­ Z$#/27(@UMRD($6(2*$5&(/,3&52$#5(6$."5($,(8#$42*(52-8&(.$=%-,/&5(and that one of the key chal­ 0&,8&5(/5(2*&(0-.G($6(*/8*(>"-0/27(/,3&52=&,2($%%$#2",/2/&5'(HB^AX(/5(.0&-#07(+00/,8(-(=-#G&2( 8-%(E7(6$."5/,8($,(2*&(&-#07(52-8&(.$=%-,/&5(4/2*(+,-,./,8(2-/0$#&1(2$(2*&/#(,&&15<(#-2*&#( than aiming to achieve market rate returns. The ,";'+,5";(')(&."(*-M;(.04"(%$5,"0;"6, as is evident in the average and total funding available and invested, with cumulative total 5"%%$#2(-=$",2/,8(2$(];'[E,<(-,1(E7(2*&(6-.2(2*-2(2*&#&(/5(,$4(-(0-#8&#(%$$0($6(%#$6&55/$,-05( working in VP/SI. However, most European VPOs have @+68"&;(')(/";;(&.0$(NOPQ<(1",(0$­ num. More funding is needed for VPOs to generate an even greater societal impact.

The report is based on a comprehensive survey conducted by EVPA’s Knowledge Centre that captured key statistics on 61 European VPOs. This is the second such survey that we have conducted and is in line with our ambition to repeat the survey annually and for the the EVPA survey report to become the key point of reference on European venture philan­ thropy and social investment. )*&(#&%$#2(/5(52#".2"#&1(-5(6$00$45'(X2(52-#25(4/2*(-(1&+,/2/$,($6(HB^AX<(/25(&=&#8&,.&<(2*&( role of EVPA and the methodology of the survey. It then presents the results of the survey, including the following sections:

Saltuk, Y, Bouri, A., Mudaliar, A. e(B&-5&<(\'(@9:;OD<(_B&#5%&.2/3&5( on Progress: The Impact Investor A"#3&7`<(IB'(\$#8-,<(SXXb'

4

1. !"<'8,01.%5;(')(*->3?(',80$%;0&%'$;(%$(;+,4"2 2. *->3?(1';%&%'$%$8(%$(%$4";&<"$&(/0$6;501" 3. :";'+,5";(')(I+,'1"0$(*->3?

4. *->3?(%$4";&<"$&()'5+; 5. *->3?(%$4";&<"$&(1,'5";; 0P(!"0/(R'B(0$6(%$4";&<"$&(011,0%;0/ @P(?$4";&<"$& 5P(S%8.("$808"<"$&(0$6($'$K#$0$5%0/(;",4%5"; 6P(-",)',<0$5"(<"0;+,"<"$& "P(IT%& UP(?$4";&<"$&()+$6; Finally, the report presents the key conclusions based on the results of the survey.

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

13

Part 1: NGO, trading Introduction

14

39

%

19

26 (n=51)

NGO, no trading Latin America 2 N. America 2

1 Eastern Europe

Asia

9 H.0&(%;(*"$&+,"(-.%/0$&.,'12V

%

24

Africa

Venture philanthropy works to build stronger investee organisations with a societal purpose 61 @ABC5D(E7(%#$3/1/,8(2*&=(4/2*(E$2*(+,-,./-0(-,1(,$,F+,-,./-0(5"%%$#2(/,($#1&#(2$(/,.#&-5&( Western Europe their societal impact. EVPA purposely uses the word societal because the impact may be (n=50) environmental, medical or cultural. The venture philanthropy approach includes the social, use of the !"#$%!&'(!)#%*+&,-&."/")$"0&$"'#%*+!"#' (grants, equity, debt, etc.), but pays par­ ticular attention to the *1#$+/#!&,23!)#$4!&,-&/)5$!4$"0&',)$!#/1&$+(/)#. The C"2(5.0,05&",%;­ increase are as follows: Total Annual Financial Spend &%5; of venture 27% philanthropy 2011 = €278m

•(S%8.("$808"<"$& – Hands­on relationships between SPO management and Spend venture phi­ Total Annual Non­Financial 2011 = €32m €5,2m lanthropists €4,1m •(M,80$%;0&%'$0/(50105%&2K@+%/6%$8 – Building the operational capacity of portfolio organi­ sations, by funding core operating costs rather than individual projects (2011 n=54, 2010 n=45) •(L0%/',"6(#$0$5%$8(f(P5/,8(-(#-,8&($6(+,-,./,8(=&.*-,/5=5(2-/0$#&1(2$(2*&(,&&15($6(2*&( supported organisation 2010 2011 •( W'$K#$0$5%0/( ;+11',& – Providing value­added services such as strategic planning to strengthen management •(?$4'/4"<"$&(')($"&B',C; – Enabling 70 access to networks that provide various and often complementing skill­sets and resources to the investees 57 57 – Supporting56a limited number of organisations for 3­5 years, then • 7+/&%K2"0,( ;+11',& &V/2/,8(4*&,($#8-,/5-2/$,(-#&(+,-,./-007($#($%&#-2/$,-007(5"52-/,-E0& 46 • -",)',<0$5"(<"0;+,"<"$& 40 – Placing emphasis on good business planning, measurable $"2.$=&5<(-.*/&3&=&,2($6(=/0&52$,&5(-,1(+,-,./-0(-..$",2-E/0/27(-,1(2#-,5%-#&,.7 31

24 2011 18 The following diagram aims to clarify the role of the venture philanthropy/social invest­ 2010 ment organisation in building stronger investee organisations with 8a societal purpose. The 8 numbers in % 5 venture philanthropy/social investment organisation acts as a vehicle, channelling funding

(2011 n=61, 2010 n=50)

6#$=( /,3&52$#5( -,1( .$F/,3&52$#5( -,1( %#$3/1/,8( ,$,F+,-,./-0( 5"%%$#2( 2$( 3-#/$"5( /,3&52&&( Debt Equity Grant Guarantee Hybrid Other $#8-,/5-2/$,5'()*&(,$,F+,-,./-0(5"%%$#2(/5(%#$3/1&1(E7(2*&(HB^AX($#8-,/5-2/$,(/25&06<(E"2( / Quasi Equity

Grants

Venture Philanthropy – building stronger investee organisations

Investors

Social + Financial return

VP/SI Organisation (VPO) Financing

Co­investors Non­financial support

Non­financial support

Investee organisations NGO 1

NGO 2

NGO n...

Social enterprise 1

Social enterprise 2

Multiple social projects developed

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

Social enterprise n...

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre March 2013

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, &,3/#$,=&,2<(."02"#&<(=&1/.-0(#&5&-#.*<(&2.'()*&("02/=-2&(E&,&+./-#/&5(-#&("5"-007(8#$"%5( in society that are somehow disadvantaged, including disabled, women, children, etc. The 5$./&2-0(/=%-.2("02/=-2&07(,&&15(2$(E&(=&-5"#&1(E7(-55&55/,8(*$4(2*&(0/3&5($6(2*&(E&,&+./-#­ ies are improved thanks to the actions of the investee organisations, and going one step fur­ ther, assessing the contribution of the VPO to that improvement. The VPO generates social /=%-.2(E7(E"/01/,8(52#$,8&#(/,3&52&&($#8-,/5-2/$,5(2*-2(.-,(E&22&#(*&0%(2*&/#(2-#8&2(E&,&+­ ./-#/&5(-,1(-.*/&3&(8#&-2&#(&6+./&,.7(-,1(5.-0&(4/2*(2*&/#($%&#-2/$,5'(X,3&52$#5(/,(3&,2"#&( philanthropy/social investment are usually focused on the social return of their investment, #-2*&#(2*-,($,(2*&(+,-,./-0(#&2"#,'( :'/"(')(I*-J(%$(%$6+;&,2("4'/+&%'$5 !52-E0/5*&1(/,(9::[<(!HBJ(/5(-(,$,F%#$+2(=&=E&#5*/%(-55$./-2/$,<(4*$5&(=&=E&#5*/%(/,­ cludes a unique network of venture philanthropy organisations, social investors, grant­mak­ ing foundations and others committed to promoting high­engagement grant making and social investment in Europe. EVPA is a made up of organisations across Europe interested in or practicing venture philanthropy.

Beyond being a mere “tool”, venture philanthropy is emerging as a new industry, with an &,2/#&(5"%%$#2(5752&=(-#$",1(/2<(/,.0"1/,8(-13/5$#7(5&#3/.&(+#=5(-,1(E"5/,&55(5.*$$05(4/2*( programmes specialised in venture philanthropy. As venture philanthropy continues to grow, the industry­building role of the association becomes increasingly important, thus also calling for the development of best practice, guidelines and market infrastructure.

EVPA acts as the main repository of data on the VP/SI industry in Europe. This is the re­ port of the second EVPA survey of European VP/SI that provides concrete data on VPOs in Europe. The survey that enabled EVPA’s Knowledge Centre to collect the data presented will be repeated on an annual basis to provide independent statistics on European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment.

3&0,&%$8(OXYYE(I*-J(;+,4"2;(%&;(<"<@",;('$(0$(0$$+0/(@0;%;(0@'+&(&."%,(*-( '1",0&%'$;(%$(',6",(&'Z • • •

generate key statistics; publish report to disseminate the work of VP/SI organisations; better target EVPA’s services to members’ needs

:"/%0@/"(60&0('$(I+,'1"0$(*->3?(?$6+;&,2(+;")+/()',(I*-J(<"<@",;(&'Z(

This section is based on EVPA’s Code of Conduct: http://evpa.eu.com/ 4%F.$,2&,2^"%0$-15^9:;;^;;^!HBJF Code­of­Conduct_LR_111122.pdf 5

• • •

improve their practices through benchmarking exercises; attract resources including funding and professionals; make their voices heard in government relations

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

15

Part 1: 27% increase Introduction

16

€4,1m

Total Annual Financial Spend 2011 = €278m Total Annual Non­Financial Spend 2011 = €32m

€5,2m

(2011 n=54, 2010 n=45)

2010

2011

70 57

2011 2010 numbers in % (2011 n=61, 2010 n=50)

57

56

46 3+,4"2(;5'1"(0$6(<"&.'6'/'82( 40 by EVPA’s Knowledge Centre. The questions aimed to gain an This survey was elaborated overview of the demographics of the VP/SI sector 31and cover the main practices of VP/SI 24 cover the key organisations in order to gain insight into their daily activities. The questions 18 .*-#-.2&#/52/.5($6(HB^AX(-5(*/8*0/8*2&1(-E$3&'(\-,7($6(2*&(>"&52/$,5(6#$=(2*&(+#52(5"#3&7( 4&#&(#&%&-2&1<(4*/0&($2*&#5(4&#&(=$1/+&1(E-5&1($,(6&&1E-.G<(5$=&(4&#&(&0/=/,-2&1(-,1(-( 8 8 5 few new questions were added. Therefore, it was possible to talk about changes from year to year in some cases, but not in others. Furthermore, when trend data is reported, it is impor­ Debt Equity Grant Guarantee Hybrid Other tant to note that the sample is not completely consistent from yearGrants to year as detailed below. / Quasi Equity The survey itself was set up in the Qualtrics® tool so that the responses could be made di­ rectly online and collected by EVPA. Investors

The survey aimed to capture the activity of *->3?(',80$%;0&%'$;([*-M;\(@0;"6(%$(I+,'1", although &."%,( %$4";&<"$&( 05&%4%&2( <02( &0C"( 1/05"( %$( '&.",( 5'$&%$"$&;. The survey was Social ]+/2(0$6(3"1&"<@",(OXYO + undertaken between and targetedCo­investors EVPA’s full members, organisa­ VP/SI Organisation Financial Non­financial tions whose primary activity is venture philanthropy and social investment, and EVPA’s as­ (VPO) return support sociate members that are active in high engagement grant making and social investment as Financing Non­financial support part of their philanthropy or investment activity. For example, some foundations included in the survey have a separate VP or social investment “fund”. In those cases, we asked the Investee organisations respondents to answer the questions only in terms of that VP/SI fund. The survey was also Social Social Social NGO NGO NGO 5&,2(2$(,$,F!HBJ(=&=E&#5(2*-2(6"0+00&1(2*&(.#/2&#/-($6(E&/,8(E-5&1(/,(!"#$%&(.$,1".2/,8( enterprise enterprise enterprise 1 2 n...

1 2 n...

VP/SI activities. Using snowball sampling, we asked all respondents to provide examples of other VP/SI organisations outside of EVPA membership in order to capture as large a Multiple social projects developed percentage as possible of the total VP/SI population in Europe. )*&(5"#3&7(4-5(+#52(5&,2(/,(I"07(9:;9(-,1(.0$5&1(/,(A&%2&=E&#($6(2*&(5-=&(7&-#'(T$00$4F"%( %*$,&(.-005(-,1(&=-/05(4&#&(.$,1".2&1(/,($#1&#(2$(#&-.*(2*&(+,-0(#&5%$,5&(#-2&($6(K:R'(C6( 2*&( K;( .$=%0&2&1( 5"#3&75<( [:( #&5%$,1&,25( -05$( .$=%0&2&1( 0-52( 7&-#Y5( 5"#3&7( -,1( 9;( 4&#&( new respondents. In the table below, the statistics of the survey are presented: 2012

2011

EVPA members surveyed (full members and members with VP/SI activity)

74

55

EVPA members completed surveys

53

46

EVPA member response rate

72%

84%

Total surveys sent (including non­EVPA members)

102

65

Total completed surveys

61

50

60%

77%

Statistics on surveys collected

Total response rate

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre March 2013

The response rate was satisfactory for this type of study, although notably higher for EVPA members than for non足members. This year, quite a few new leads were provided through the snowball sampling methodology, which could indicate that the targeted population for 2*&(5"#3&7(/5(8#$4/,8(6#$=(7&-#(2$(7&-#($#(2*-2(4&(4&#&(=$#&(&6+./&,2(-2($"#(1-2-(.$00&.2/$,'( We do not claim to have captured the entire VP/SI industry in Europe, however we believe the sample to be highly representative.

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

17

;M

Part 2:

Presentation of Survey Results

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

;W

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre March 2013

The survey was completed by 61 investors and grant足makers based in Europe, using the 3&,2"#&(%*/0-,2*#$%7(-%%#$-.*'(\$52($6(2*&(+,-,./-0(1-2-(%#$3/1&1(4-5(6$#(2*&(+5.-0(7&-#( &,1/,8(/,(9:;;<(",0&55($2*&#4/5&(5%&./+&1'( YP(!"<'8,01.%5;(')(*->3?(',80$%;0&%'$;(%$(;+,4"2 R,*"#%A&,-&,%$0$" :5!&;<=&>%/")!&/"?&@!%+/"A&/%!&#5!&#,(&),*"#%$!'&$"&#!%+'&,-&789&5!/?B*/%#!%'C In line 4/2*(2*&(9:;;(5"#3&7(=$52($6(2*&(#&5%$,1&,25(4&#&(E-5&1(/,(N&52&#,(!"#$%&<(2*&(2$%(O(#&足 5%$,1&,2(.$",2#/&5(E&/,8(2*&(P,/2&1(Q/,81$=(@;MRD<(S&#=-,7(@;;RD(-,1(T#-,.&(@;:RD<(-,1( only three respondents from Eastern Europe. However distribution of respondents from other European countries increased compared to last year. The survey aimed to capture the activity of organisations based in Europe, although their investment activity may take place in other continents. The following graph shows the distribution by country of origin, com足 %-#/,8(9:;9(-,1(9:;;(#&5%$,1&,25'

Respondents by country

11

UK.

France

6

2

Netherlands

Switzerland

3 3 2 2

Ireland

Sweden Estonia Hungary

2011 2010

Denmark

(2011 n=61, 2010 n=50)

Slovakia

5

3

1

Luxembourg

Czech Republic

4 4

2

Norway

Israel

5

3

Italy

Belgium

6

3

Spain

Austria

4

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

2

1

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012 UK & Ireland

1

15

7 7

Germany

2

3

1

11

UK.

Part 2: France Presentation of Spain Survey Results

9:

6

3

6

2

Netherlands

5

3

Italy Switzerland

5

4 4

2

Austria

15

7 7

Germany

3

1

3 3

Norway

2 2

Luxembourg Ireland

4 1 1 \!/%'&,-&78GJK&/)#$4$#A Israel 1 The survey asked respondents to specify the number of years their VP/SI activity had been 1 Sweden 1 $%&#-2/,8'()*/5(>"&52/$,(4-5(/,(5$=&(.-5&5(1/6+."02(2$(-,54&#(.$,5/1&#/,8(2*&(=-,7(4-75( Czech Republic 1 start engaging in VP/SI, using just a few of the key characteristics or that an organisation can 1 Estonia applying the full model.

1 The average age of the VPOs is 6.5 years, a slight reduction from last 1 Although the VP/SI movement is considered about a decade old year’s average of 7 years.

Hungary 1 in Europe, some respondents claim to have been doing VP/SI for longer than that. We see a 1 Denmark 1 %&-G($6(HBC5(E&/,8(5&2("%(/,(9::U(-,1(2*&,(-8-/,(/,(9:;;(5"88&52/,8(-(#&/,3/8$#-2/$,($6(3&,­ Belgium

2011 2010 (2011 n=61, 2010 n=50)

Slovakia 1 2"#&(%*/0-,2*#$%7(/,(!"#$%&'()*$5&(#&5%$,1&,25<(4*$5&(HBC5(4&#&(6$",1&1(/,(9:;;<(4&#&( also from diverse regions: Benelux, Eastern Europe, France, Italy, Scandinavia and Switzer­ land & Austria, showing the strength of venture philanthropy activities across Europe.

Year VP/SI activity founded by country / region

1

2

1 UK & Ireland Switzerland & Austria Spain Scandinavia Italy Germany France Eastern Europe Benelux (n=60)

Social Mission Driven Private Sector Financial Industry Public/Govt numbers in % (Founders n=59, CEOs n=37) 6 Balbo, L., Hehenberger, L., \$#2&00<(h'<(e(C$520-,1&#<(B'(@9:;:D<( “Establishing a Venture Philanthropy Organisation in Europe”, EVPA Knowledge Centre Research Paper.

1 1 1

1

3

1 2012

2011

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2010

2009

1 1

1 1

1

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

2008

2007

2006

1 1

2

1

2

1 1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2005

2004

2003

2002

1

1

2 1 > 10 yrs old

8%,-!''$,"/1&2/)H0%,*"?

789&-,*"?!%'&),+!&-%,+&#5!&',)$/1&'!)#,%C The survey investigated the professional back­ ground of the founders of VP/SI organisations and found, in a change from last year, that 37 /,(=-,7(.-5&5<(2*&(6$",1&#(.$=&5(6#$=(2*&(5$./-0(=/55/$,(1#/3&,(5&.2$#(@OKR($6(#&5%$,1&,25( 36 -,1(/,.0"1/,8(6$",1-2/$,5(-,1($2*&#(,$,F%#$+2($#8-,/5-2/$,5<(1&3&0$%=&,2($#8-,/5-2/$,5( 32 29 -,1(5$./-0(&,2#&%#&,&"#5D'()*&(+,-,./-0(5&.2$#(@/,.0"1/,8(%#/3-2&(&>"/27(-,1(3&,2"#&(.-%/2-0<( 27 26asset management and hedge retail and investment banking, funds) has moved to second %0-.&(@O9R($6(#&5%$,1&,25D'()*&(%#/3-2&(5&.2$#(/,(8&,&#-0(@/,.0"1/,8(%"E0/.07(2#-1&1(.$=%-­ nies, professional services (lawyer, consulting etc.) and entrepreneurs) was also an impor­ 2-,2(5$"#.&($6(HBC(6$",1&#5(4/2*(9UR($6(#&5%$,1&,25'

9

DE!)*#$4!'&,-&789'&5/4!&+$E!?&","F(%,.#G(%$4/#!&'!)#,%&2/)H0%,*"?'C However, executives 5 $6( HBC5( *-3&( =$#&( %#/3-2&( 5&.2$#( E-.G8#$",15( @OUR( $6( #&5%$,1&,25D( -,1( 5$./-0( =/55/$,( 1#/3&,(E-.G8#$",1(@9WR($6(#&5%$,1&,25D(.$=&5(5&.$,1<(6$00$4&1(E7(2*&(+,-,./-0(/,1"52#7( CEO Founders @9KRD'(X2(/5(-05$(4$#2*(,$2/,8(2*-2(-0=$52(*-06($6(2*$5&(g!CY5(2*-2(*-3&(-(%#/3-2&(5&.2$#(E-.G­ ground actually came from the professional services i.e. lawyers, accountants, consultants.

A mix of social sector and private sector professional backgrounds is often found in the management teams of VP/SI organisations.6

Multiple structures European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment32011/2012 Fund Management Company

UK & Ireland Switzerland & Austria Spain Scandinavia UK & Ireland Italy Switzerland & Austria Germany Spain France Scandinavia UK & Ireland Eastern Europe Italy Switzerland & Austria Benelux Germany Spain France (n=60) Scandinavia Eastern Europe Italy Benelux Germany France (n=60) Eastern Europe Benelux (n=60) Professional background of Founders and CEOs of VPOs

1 1

4 European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre 1 1 1 March 2013 1

1 2 1

1

1

2007

1 1 2 1 2006

1 2

1 2

4 2

1

1

1

3 1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1 2 1 1

1 2012

3 1 2011

1 2010

1 2009

1 2008 1

1

1

1 1

1 2010

1 2009

1 2008

2007

2006

1

1

1

1

1

2010

2009 37

2008

2007

2006

1 1 2012

3 2011

1 2012

2011

29

Social Mission Driven Private Sector Financial Industry Public/Govt Social Mission Driven

numbers in % (Founders n=59, CEOs n=37)

1 3

1

29

Private Sector numbers in % Financial Industry (Founders n=59, CEOs n=37) Public/Govt Social Mission Driven Private Sector numbers in % Financial Industry (Founders n=59, CEOs n=37) Public/Govt

1

1 2 1

1

4 1 2

1

2

1

37 26

2 1 2

2 2

1 2 1

1 1

2 2 1

2004

1 1 2 1 2003

1

1 2005

1 2 2

1 2 2

1 1 2005

1 2

1 2

2004

2003

1 2002

1

1

1

1

2005

2004

2003

2002

1 3

36

32

1 2002 1

> 10 yrs old

1 2

> 10 yrs old

1

> 10 yrs old

27

36

32 37 26

27

36

32

9

29

27

26

5

9 CEO

Founders

5

9%0/"$'/#$,"&'#%*)#*%!& 9 T&+/3,%$#A&,-&789'&5/4!&","F(%,.#&'#%*)#*%!'C In line with last year’s results, a majority CEO Founders 5 @KURD($6(2*&(!"#$%&-,(HB^AX($#8-,/5-2/$,5(-#&(52#".2"#&1(-5(6$",1-2/$,5<(2#"525($#(.*-#/2/&5<( although each country has its own terms and variations of this form. Other forms are compa­ ,/&5<(6",15<($#(="02/%0&(52#".2"#&5'()*/5(7&-#Y5(5"#3&7(.$00&.2&1(5%&./+.(1-2-($,(/,3&52=&,2( CEO Founders 3 Multiple structures 6",15(.$,5/1&#/,8(2*-2([;R($6(2*&(5-=%0&(#&%$#2&1(2$(=-,-8&(5".*(6",15(#&8-#10&55($6(0&8-0( Fund Management Company structure.

Corporate Foundation

Organisation structure

1 2

3

2

Fund Management Company 7 Company with charitable status Corporate company Foundation 11 or not­for­profit Fund Management Company 7 Company with charitable status Corporate company Foundation or not­for­profit

8 3 Multiple structures Independent Foundation 34

1115 8 7

Registered Charity or Company with charitable organisation status non­for­profit (n=61) 1115 or not­for­profit company

(n=61)

Registered Charity or non­for­profit organisation

%

8 3 Multiple structures Independent Foundation 34

% 21 % 21

15

Independent Foundation

34 Company

Company

21

Registered Charity or organisation C"2( $6( 2*&(non­for­profit K;( #&5%$,1&,25<( [[R( *-1( &,1$4=&,25( 2*-2( -00$4( -( 6-/#07( %#&1/.2-E0&( 6",1/,8( Company (n=61)

Endowed Non­endowed

44

27 respondents

44

numbers in % Endowment structure Endowed (n=61) Non­endowed

27 respondents

44

numbers in % Endowed (n=61) Non­endowed numbers in % (n=61)

54

budget from year to year. The rest are thus non­endowed entities that need to engage in .$,2/,"$"5( 6",1#-/5/,8'( )*&( =-Z$#/27( $6( !"#$%&-,( HB^AX( $#8-,/5-2/$,5( @U9RD( 2&,1( 2$( E&( 37 respondents stand­alone entities.

27 respondents Primary driver is to create societal value

54

37 respondents

54 37 respondents Primary driver is to create financial value

‘Blended’ societal and financial value

Social Purpose Organisations (SPO’s) ‘Blended’ societal and financial value Socially Revenue Generating Social Driven Enterprises Business European VentureSocial Philanthropy Social Investment Purposeand Organisations (SPO’s)2011/2012 Primary driver is to create Charities societal value

Primary driver Trading Grants only: is to create

Potentially sustainable

Profit ‘Blended’ and financial value Socially Profitable Breakeven all societal distributing

Primary driver is to create

Traditional Business financial value

CSR

Company Primary driver Mainstream allocating is to create

21

CEO

Founders

3 Multiple structures

Fund Management Company

Part 2: Corporate Presentation ofFoundation Survey Results

22

8

Independent Foundation

7

34

Company with charitable status 11 or not­for­profit company Fund Management Company Corporate Foundation

Registered Charity or Company with charitable status non­for­profit organisation (n=61) or not­for­profit 11 company

%

3 Multiple structures

15 8 7

%

15

Endowed Non­endowed numbers in % (n=61)

Endowed Non­endowed numbers in % (n=61)

34 Company

21

OP(*->3?(1';%&%'$%$8(%$(%$4";&<"$&(/0$6;501" Registered Charity or non­for­profit organisation

(n=61)

Independent Foundation

21

Company

VP/SI is one tool in the social investment and philanthropy toolkit. It has emerged in Europe during the present decade as a high engagement approach to social investment and grant making across a range of investee organisations37with a societal purpose (SPOs), from chari­ respondents 27 respondents 2/&5(-,1(,$,F%#$+2($#8-,/5-2/$,5(2*#$"8*(2$(5$./-007(1#/3&,(E"5/,&55&5'()*&(3&,2"#&(%*/0-,­ thropy approach includes the use of the !"#$%!&'(!)#%*+&,-&."/")$"0&$"'#%*+!"#' (grants, equity, debt, etc.), but pays particular attention to the *1#$+/#!&,23!)#$4!&,-&/)5$!4$"0&',F )$!#/1&$+(/)#. In the spectrum7 below, impact only strategies expect a ;'5%"&0/(,"&+,$(0$6( $"80&%4"(#$0$5%0/(,"&+,$'(X=%-.2(+#52(52#-2&8/&5(-/=(2$(-.*/&3&(-(;'5%"&0/(,"&+,$, but may 37 respondents also generate a #$0$5%0/(,"&+,$.

27 respondents

44

54

44

54

Primary driver is to create societal value

Primary driver is to create financial value

‘Blended’ societal and financial value

Social Purpose Organisations (SPO’s)

Primary driver is to createTrading Grants only: revenueand societal value no trading grants

Social

Impact Only Charities Grant making

Grants only: no trading

Socially Driven Business

Revenue Generating Social Enterprises

Charities

Potentially ‘Blended’ societal and financial value Profit Profitable Breakeven all sustainable distributing surplus income from >75% socially reinvested trading trading driven Purpose revenueOrganisations (SPO’s)

Socially Driven Business

Impact First Revenue Generating Social Social investment Enterprises

Trading revenueand grants

Venture PotentiallyPhilanthropy sustainable >75% trading revenue

Profitable surplus reinvested

Breakeven all income from trading

Impact Only

Profit distributing socially driven

Traditional Business Primary driver Company Mainstream is to create allocating Market financial percentage to value Company charity

CSR Company

Finance First Traditional Business

Company allocating percentage to charity

CSR Company

Impact First

Mainstream Market Company

Finance First

T/,-,.&(+#52(52#-2&8/&5<(4*&#&(2*&(+,-,./-0(#&2"#,(/5(=-V/=/5&1(-,1(2*&(5$./&2-0(/=%-.2(/5( Social investment Grant making 5&.$,1-#7<( -#&( ,$2( /,.0"1&1( /,( !HBJY5( 1&+,/2/$,( $6( 3&,2"#&( %*/0-,2*#$%7'( )*&( #&0-2/3&07( Venture Philanthropy ,&4&#(2&#=(_/=%-.2(/,3&52=&,2`(2&,15(2$(/,.0"1&(E$2*(/=%-.2(+#52(-,1(+,-,.&(+#52(52#-2&­ Other 1 Enterprise gies, although the termphilanthropy is used to describe a wide range of investment strategies. In what follows, we present data from the survey that highlights the positioning of European VP/SI 6 Venture philanthropy organisations on the spectrum.

Impact Investing

Terms used to describe VP/SI activities

28

24

Enterprise philanthropy 1

13 (n=59)

Adapted from John Kingston, CAF Venturesome, by Pieter Oostlander, Shaerpa and EVPA

Impact Investing Social venture capital 24

%

Other

6

28

(n=59)

28 Social investment

% 13

7

Venture philanthropy

28

Social venture capital

50

Social investment

48 38

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

2011

26

25

Social Purpose Organisations (SPO’s) Socially

Revenue Generating SocialCentre Driven Charities European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Enterprises

March 2013 Grants only: no trading

Trading revenueand grants

Potentially sustainable >75% trading revenue

Breakeven all income from trading

Business

Profitable surplus reinvested

Impact Only

Impact First

Grant making

Social investment

Profit distributing socially driven

Traditional Business

CSR Company

Company allocating percentage to charity

Mainstream Market Company

Finance First

Venture Philanthropy

Other The plethora of terms used to describe a VPO’s activities was highlighted in our survey. An Enterprise philanthropy 1 &>"-0( ,"=E&#( $6( #&5%$,1&,25( 1&5.#/E&( 2*&/#( -.2/3/2/&5( -5( 3&,2"#&( %*/0-,2*#$%7( @9MRD( -,1( 5$./-0(/,3&52=&,2(@9MRD<(-,1(4/2*(9[R(.-00/,8(2*&=(/=%-.2(/,3&52/,8(-,1(;OR(5$./-0(3&,2"#&( 6 Venture philanthropy capital.

Impact Investing

28

24

%

J,)$!#/1& %!#*%"& $'& #5!& +/$"& (*%(,'!L& ."/")$/1& %!#*%"& $'& 2!),+$"0& +,%!& $+(,%#/"#C& VP/SI organisationsM are largely positioned on the left hand side of the investment spectrum, in­ dicating that societal return is the main purpose. Interestingly, in a shift from last year’s 13 #&5"025<(2*&(HBC5(#&>"/#/,8(-(5$./&2-0(#&2"#,($,07(1&.#&-5&1(6#$=(L:R(2$(9KR'()*$5&(HBC5( 28 4*&#&(5$./&2-0(#&2"#,(/5(-(%#/$#/27(E"2(2*&7(-..&%2(-(+,-,./-0(#&2"#,(/,.#&-5&1(6#$=(OMR(2$( Social venture capital Social investment [MR<(HBC5(4*&#&(5$./&2-0(-,1(+,-,./-0(#&2"#,5(-#&($,(-,(&>"-0(6$$2/,8(/,.#&-5&1(6#$=(;:R( (n=59) 2$(9LR(-,1($,&(#&5%$,1&,2(@9RD(%0-.&5(+,-,./-0(#&2"#,(-E$3&(5$./&2-0(/=%-.2'()*/5(#&5"02( showed that societal return remains the primary objective of the majority of VPOs. However, in a time of scarce resources, recycling capital is increasingly important, although this could also be an indication of changing strategies.

VPO investment priorities in 2011 and 2010

50

48 38

26

2011 2010

25 10

numbers in % (2011 n=61, 2010 n=50) Societal return only, no financial return possible

Societal return is priority, and accept financial return

Societal and financial return on equal footing

N*&,(-5G&1(-E$"2(2*&(+,-,./-0(#&2"#,(2*&7(&V%&.2&1(6#$=(2*&/#(3&,2"#&(%*/0-,2*#$%7(/,­ vestments, the responses were relatively evenly distributed between those VPOs expecting -( %$5/2/3&( #&2"#,( @O:RD<( 2*$5&( &V%&.2/,8( .-%/2-0( 2$( E&( #&%-/1( @O[RD( -,1( 2*$5&( &V%&.2/,8( -( ,&8-2/3&(#&2"#,(@OKRD'(

Summary of return expectations of VPO respondents Positive Return

This analysis refers to the responses 6#$=(-(0-#8&(=-Z$#/27(@WMRD($6(2*&( VPOs who answered the relevant question. Certain outlying responses were not included in the analysis to ensure the results provided an accurate representation of the industry as a whole

Negative Returns

30

36

%

M

34 (n=56)

Capital Repaid

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

23

Part 2: Presentation of Survey Results

24

Negative Returns

30

Positive Return

36

% 34

(n=56)

Capital Repaid

For those VPOs that expected a positive return from their investments the percentage return &V%&.2&1(3-#/&1(6#$=(;R(2$(;LR<(E"2(4/2*(2*&(=-Z$#/27(@K:RD($6(2*$5&(2*-2(&V%&.2&1(%$5/2/3&( #&2"#,5(&V%&.2/,8(-(#&2"#,(%&#(-,,"=($6(LR($#(0&55'

34

Details of return expectations of VPO respondents

25

Negative Returns

30

Positive Return

36

% numbers in % (n=56)

2 ­100 ­97

4 ­95

2

2

2

­90

­50

­25

(n=56)

5

4

5

+3

+4

+5

2 34 2 0

+2

+2,5

7 2

2

2

+8,5 +9,4 +10

+15

Capital Repaid

The survey then asked the respondents whether they had realised a positive return on their /,3&52=&,25( /,( 2*&( 0-52( +5.-0( 7&-#'( C6( 2*&( L[( #&5%$,1&,25( 2$( 2*/5( >"&52/$,<( M( *-1( #&-0/5&1( %$5/2/3&(#&2"#,5(/,(9:;;'()*/5(#&0-2/3&07(0$4(,"=E&#<(8/3&,(2*-2(O:R(&V%&.2(%$5/2/3&(+,-,./-0( Equal or greater than €20m #&2"#,5<(=-7(E&(-(#&?&.2/$,($6(2*&(=$#&(#&.&,2(6$."5($,(+,-,./-0(#&2"#,5(/,(2*&(HB^AX(/,1"5­ €15­20m 2#7'(b&3&#2*&0&55<(8/3&,(2*&(5=-00(5-=%0&(5/a&(/2(/5(1/6+."02(2$(1#-4(6-#F#&-.*/,8(.$,.0"5/$,5( 8 $,(2*&(8&,&#-0("5&($6(+,-,./-0(#&2"#,5(#&.&/3&1(E7(3&,2"#&(%*/0-,2*#$%7($#8-,/5-2/$,5'()*&( 4 €10­15m respondents reported to have reinvested the proceeds from these investments in the same 8 6",1(@[:RD<(1/52#/E"2&1(2$(/,3&52$#5(@O:RD($#("5&1(2$(.$3&#(2*&(.$#&(.$525($6(2*&(HBC(@9:RD'(

%

14

€5­10m ^P(:";'+,5";(')(I+,'1"0$(*"$&+,"(-.%/0$&.,'12

34

4

61

>$"/")$/1&)/($#/1 25 €0­2.5m €2.5­5m I/"A& D*%,(!/"& 4!"#*%!& (5$1/"#5%,(A& ,%0/"$'/#$,"'& 5/4!& /""*/1& 2*?0!#'& 1,N!%& #5/"& (n=49) OPCQ+C&The European venture philanthropy industry is evolving rapidly, however it is still early stage with many relatively small organisations struggling for survival. The major­ 7 /27($6($#8-,/5-2/$,5(@K;RD(-00$.-2&1(0&55(2*-,(]9'L=(2$(HB^AX(@-5(-(2$2-0(E"18&2(/,.0"1/,8( 5 5 4 4 numbers in % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 (n=56)/,3&52=&,25( -,1( $3&#*&-1( &V%&,5&5D( /,( 2*&( 0-52( +5.-0( 7&-#<( 2*&( -3&#-8&( -=$",2( -00$.-2&1( 4-5(]U'[=(-,1(2*&(=&1/-,(4-5(];'O='(C,07(-(5=-00(%&#.&,2-8&(@MRD(*-1(-(E"18&2(8#&-2&#( ­100 ­97 ­95 ­90 ­50 ­25 0 +2 +2,5 +3 +4 +5 +8,5 +9,4 +10 +15 2*-,(]9:='(X=%$#2-,207(2*/5(7&-#(2*&(5%&./+.(>"&52/$,(-5G&1(4-5(2*&(-=$",2(E"18&2&1(2$(-( 1 Institutional Investors HB^AX(52#-2&87(/,(-(+5.-0(7&-#(#-2*&#(2*-,(2*&(5/a&($6(2*&(&,1$4=&,2($#(6",1<(-3$/1/,8(2*&( Foundations problem that only a small percentage of endowments tends to be spent every year.

Other

Endowment Income 6 Equal or greater than €20m

Size of VP/SI budget in the last fiscal year

21

11

€15­20m €10­15m Corporations

(n=47)

14

€5­10m Governments

4 8

8

%

17

% 16

15 14 4

PE / VC / Hedge Funds

61

Individuals €0­2.5m

€2.5­5m (n=49)

11 European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

8

9

10

10

25

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre

4

numbers in %March 2013 2 (n=56) ­100 ­97

­95

25

numbers in % (n=56)

2

2

2

34

2

2

­90

­50

­25

0

+2

+2,5

4

Equal or2greater 2 than 2 €20m

2 ­100 ­97

­90 €15­20m ­50 ­25

­95

0

4

€10­15m

8

2

2

+2

+2,5

5

4

5

+3

+4

+5

5

4

5

+3

+4

+5

7 2

2

2

+8,5 +9,4 +10

+15

7 2

2

2

+8,5 +9,4 +10

+15

8

%

W K"?$4$?*/1'& /"?& 8DG7RGS!?0!& >*"?'& 14€20m%!(%!'!"#!?& #5!& +/$"& ',*%)!'& ,-& 78GJK& -*"?$"0 C&& Equal €5­10m or greater than This year, individual donors and investors are on a par61 with PE/VC/Hedge Funds to rep­ €15­20m #&5&,2(2*&(=-/,(5$"#.&($6(6",1/,8(6$#(HB^AX(-.2/3/2/&5<(4/2*(;KR(-,1(9UR($6(2*&(2$2-0(6",1­ 4 8 4 ing respectively. In fact€10­15m overall, PE/VC/Hedge funds decreased in importance as a funding €0­2.5m €2.5­5m 5$"#.&'(!,1$4=&,2(/,.$=&(#&%#&5&,25(;;R($6(2$2-0(6",1/,8<(E"2<(-5($,&(4$"01(&V%&.2<(6$#( 8 (n=49) 2*$5&(6$",1-2/$,5(-,1(,$,F%#$+25(2*-2(&52-E0/5*&1(2*&/#($#8-,/5-2/$,5(4/2*(-,(&,1$4=&,2<( -(3&#7(0-#8&(=-Z$#/27(@M9RD(+,-,.&(2*&/#(HB^AX(-.2/3/2/&5(4/2*(2*&(/,.$=&(6#$=(2*&/#($4,( 14 €5­10m &,1$4=&,2'(S$3&#,=&,25(8-/,&1(2&##/2$#7(4/2*(;LR($6(6",1/,8<(.$#%$#-2/$,5(#&=-/,&1(52-­ 61 E0&<(-,1(/,2&#&52/,807<(+,-,./-0(/,52/2"2/$,5(/,.0"1&1(/,(_$2*&#`(E&.-=&(-(G&7(6",1/,8(5$"#.&'( 4

%

Distribution of total funding made available by source

€0­2.5m

€2.5­5m (n=49)

1 Institutional Investors

Foundations Endowment Income

11 14

Corporations Foundations

Governments

% 1

Institutional Investors 17 PE / VC / Hedge Funds Other

16 21

%

14

Corporations

21

15 6 11

Endowment Income (n=47)

Other

6

Individuals

17

PE / VC / Hedge Funds

When looking at the diversity of different funding sources, we see that there is variation 15 below, the UK and Ireland have the 11 between countries. As shown in the graph greatest di­ 16 10 10 3&#5/+.-2/$,(/,(6",1/,8(5$"#.&<(4/2*(;;(1/66&#&,2(27%&5<(6$00$4&1(E7(X2-07(-,1(A4/2a&#0-,1( (n=47) Governments 9 -,1(J"52#/-(&-.*(4/2*(;:'(

8

Diversity in sources

number of funding oftotal funding by country sources used in each country (n=61)

5

5

4

4

Individuals

11 9

8

K

U la

ia

tr

us

A

pe

&

nd

d

ro

an

Eu

e Ir

l er

&

y al

It

itz

n

5

10

Sw

er

st

Ea

n ai

Sp

ce

an

5

a vi

4

4

Fr y

na di

an m

er

an

x

This analysis refers to the responses 6#$=(-(0-#8&(=-Z$#/27(@WMRD($6(2*&( VPOs who answered the relevant question. Certain outlying responses were not included in the analysis to ensure the results provided an accurate representation of the industry as a whole

G

Sc

lu ne

Be

total number of funding sources used in each country (n=61)

10

W

K U la nd

&

e

p ro

nd

Eu

la

e Ir

er

&

itz

ly

a It

Sw

n er

st

Ea

n

ai

y

a vi

na

an

e

c an

Sp

Fr

m er

G

di

an

Sc x

lu

ne

Be

Unpaid Volunteers Average No. per VPO = 11

ia

tr

us

A

634 Unpaid Volunteers European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

Pro­bono contributors

617

Pro­bono contributors Average No. per VPO = 11

Corporations

14

Corporations

Part 2: Presentation of (n=47) Survey Results (n=47)

26

15

% % 16

15

Governments

17

PE / VC / Hedge Funds

17

PE / VC / Hedge Funds

16

Individuals

Governments

Individuals

11 9

8

9

8 4

4

5

5

5

5

10

10

10

11

d nd an a el rel Ir I & & K K U U a a ri ri st st y y al tal Au Au It I & & nd nd la rla er e itz itz e Sw Sw op ope r r Eu Eu rn te

s Ea

rn

te

s Ea

ce ce an ran F

Human resources by count

n n ai ai Sp Sp

Fr

y ny an a m rm er e G G ia ia av nav in i nd and Sc

a Sc

S*+/"&)/($#/1 4 4 T&1/%0!%&(,,1&,-&(%,-!''$,"/1'&N,%H&$"&78GJKC(H&,2"#&(%*/0-,2*#$%7(.$=E/,&5(+,-,./,8(4/2*( ,$,F+,-,./-0(5"%%$#2<(/=%07/,8(2*-2(-(G&7(#&5$"#.&(/5(*"=-,(.-%/2-0'()*&(5"#3&7(6$",1(2*-2( 753 people are employed by the VPOs surveyed, with an average staff size of 13 people. This /5(-(5/8,/+.-,2(/,.#&-5&(/,(2*&(2$2-0(-,1(-3&#-8&(52-66(6#$=(2*&(+,1/,8($6([OU(-,1(W(%&$%0&( in the previous survey, suggesting that the size of teams dedicated to VP/SI activities is in­ creasing. Adding to this number is a pool of 634 volunteers. Venture philanthropy organisa­ tions hire consulting services and pro­bono support from various types of organisations in 2*&/#(,&24$#G5'(X,(2$2-0<(K;U(%#$FE$,$(.$,2#/E"2$#5(-,1(;W9(&V2&#,-0(.$,5"02-,25(.$,2#/E"2&( ,$,F+,-,./-007(2$(2*&(HB^AX(-.2/3/2/&5($6(2*&(#&5%$,1&,25' x x lu elu ne n Be Be

total number of funding sources used in each country total number of funding (n=61) sources used in each country (n=61)

10

Unpaid Volunteers Average No. per VPO = 11 Unpaid Volunteers Average No. per VPO = 11

634 Unpaid Volunteers

634

Unpaid Volunteers

Pro­bono contributors Average No. per VPO = 11 Pro­bono contributors Average No. per VPO = 11

617

Pro­bono contributors

617

Pro­bono contributors

Paid external contributors Average No. per VPO = 3 Paid external contributors Average No. per VPO = 3

192 Paid external contributors

192

Paid external contributors

753

Paid employees Average No. per VPO = 13 Paid employees Average No. per VPO = 13

(n=57)

Paid employees

(n=57)

When taking into account whether the VP/SI activities are performed from a larger organi­ Paid employees sation or a standalone entity we see that pro­bono contributors and unpaid volunteers are a more important part of the workforce when VP/SI is part of a larger organisation than when it is performed from a standalone entity. This is in line with our expectations.

753

Part of a larger organisation

Type of contributors according to type of VPO (n=57)

5 Part of25 a larger organisation 25

5

Stand­alone entity

48 Stand­alone entity 48

(n=57)

38

32

38

32 13

17

22

13

17

22

100%

Paid employees Paid external contributors Paid employees Pro­bono contributors Paid external contributors Unpaid volunteers Pro­bono contributors Unpaid volunteers

100%

_P(*"$&+,"(1.%/0$&.,'12(%$4";&<"$&()'5+; 33 This analysis refers to the responses 6#$=(-(0-#8&(=-Z$#/27(@WMRD($6(2*&( VPOs who answered the relevant question. Certain outlying responses were not included in the analysis to 2011 ensure the results provided an accurate representation of the industry as a2010 whole ;:

2011

numbers2010 in % (2011 n=51, 2010 n=44) numbers in % (2011 n=51, 2010 n=44)

39 39

33 J,)$/1&!"#!%(%$'!&$'&#5!&H!A&#/%0!#&,-&D*%,(!/"&789'C European 26 25 VPOs;: continue 25 to invest -.#$55(-(5%&.2#"=($6($#8-,/5-2/$,-0(27%&5'()*&(G&7(+,1/,8(/,(2*/5(7&-#Y5(5"#3&7(/5(2*-2(5$­ 26 25 19 of VP/SI investment, cial enterprise emerges as the main target representing25the largest /,.#&-5&(/,(6",1/,8<(6#$=(9LR(/,(+5.-0(7&-#(9:;:(2$(OWR(/,(+5.-0(7&-#(9:;;'(b$,F%#$+2($#­ 15 19 13 8-,/5-2/$,5<(4/2*($#(4/2*$"2(2#-1/,8<(#&.&/3&(#&0-2/3&07(0&55(6",1/,8(/,(9:;;(-5(.$=%-#&1(2$( 15 9:;:<(4/2*(;WR(-,1(9KR(#&5%&.2/3&07($6(9:;;(HB^AX(&V%&,1/2"#&<(.$=%-#&1(2$(OOR(-,1(9LR( 13 5

5

1

European 1 and Social Investment OtherVenture Philanthropy Profit­ NGO,2011/2012 NGO, maximising with trading no trading Other Profit­ NGO, NGO, social impact

Impact first social enterprise Impact first

Paid external contributors Average No. per VPO = 3

192

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre Paid external contributors March 2013

753 (n=57)

Paid employees Average No. per VPO = 13

Paid employees

Part of a larger organisation

25

Paid employees Paid external contributors Pro­bono contributors Unpaid volunteers

32

38

5

Stand­alone entity (n=57)

48

22

17

13

#&5%&.2/3&07(/,(9:;:'(d$4&3&#(%#$+2(=-V/=/5/,8(&,2&#%#/5&5(4/2*(5$./-0(/=%-.2(5-4(-(1#$%( 100% /,(5"%%$#2(6#$=(;OR(2$(;R<(4*/0&(2*&(_$2*&#_(.-2&8$#7(@4*/.*(/,.0"1&5(=/.#$+,-,.&D(5-4( -,(/,.#&-5&(6#$=(LR(2$(;LR($6(2$2-0(6",1/,8'(

39 VP/SI Spend in 2011 and 2010 (€) per type of investee

33 26 25

25

NGO, no trading

Impact first social enterprise

19

15 2011 2010

13 5

numbers in % (2011 n=51, 2010 n=44)

1 Other

Profit­ maximising with social impact

NGO, trading

J5(&V%&.2&1<(HB^AX($#8-,/5-2/$,5Y(%#/$#/2/&5($6(5$./-0(35'(+,-,./-0(#&2"#,(-#&(/,1/.-2/3&($6( the types of organisations supported, as evidenced by the bars in the following chart. VP/SI $#8-,/5-2/$,5(2*-2(&V%&.2(-(5$./-0(#&2"#,($,07(/,3&52(%#/=-#/07(/,(,$,F%#$+2($#8-,/5-2/$,5'( )*&( $,&5( 2*-2( %#/$#/2/5&( -( 5$./&2-0( #&2"#,( $3&#( -( +,-,./-0( #&2"#,( /,3&52( /,( ,$,F%#$+2( 4/2*( 2#-1/,8( -.2/3/2/&5( $#( /,( 6$#( %#$+2( &,2&#%#/5&5( 4/2*( -( 5$./-0( =/55/$,<( -,1( 2*&( $#8-,/5-2/$,5( 2*-2( %"2( 5$./&2-0( -,1( +,-,./-0( #&2"#,( $,( &>"-0( 6$$2/,8<( /,3&52( =$#&( /,( %#$+2( =-V/=/5/,8( &,2&#%#/5&5(4/2*(5$./-0(/=%-.2<(-02*$"8*(6$#(%#$+2(&,2&#%#/5&5(4/2*(-(5$./-0(=/55/$,(-#&(52/00( an important part.

Priority of social and financial return and type of investee

Societal and financial return on equal footing

23

5

9

23

41

Societal return is priority, and accept financial return

29

14

16

35

6

No set criteria NGO, no trading NGO, trading Impact first social enterprise Profit­maximising with social impact

Societal return only, no financial return possible

38

34

7

21

100%

(n=61)

UK & Ireland Switzerland & Austria Spain Scandinavia Italy

We can also check for regional differences by dividing our sample into the main regions.

A%-/,(-,1(2*&(PQ(-,1(X#&0-,1(6$."5($,(,$,F%#$+25(4/2*(2#-1/,8(#&3&,"&5(2$(-(0-#8&#(&V2&,2( 9 3 1 4 4 2*-,(2*&($3&#-00(5-=%0&<(-,1(0&55($,(%#$+2(=-V/=/5/,8(&,2&#%#/5&(4/2*(5$./-0(/=%-.2'(!-52&#,( 3 3 1 2 1 !"#$%&(*-5(-,(-E$3&(-3&#-8&(6$."5($,(6$#(%#$+2(&,2&#%#/5&5(4/2*(-(5$./-0(=/55/$,<(.0$5&07( 6$00$4&1(E7(T#-,.&(-,1(X2-07'(X,(S&#=-,7<(HBC5(-#&(&>"-007(0/G&07(2$(6$."5($,(6$#(%#$+2(&,­

2

3

5

1 1

1 1

2

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

2

3

4

1

27

Part 2: Presentation of Survey Results

9M

Societal and financial return on equal footing No set criteria NGO, no trading NGO, trading Impact first social enterprise Societal return is priority, and accept financial return Profit­maximising with 2&#%#/5&5(4/2*(-(5$./-0(=/55/$,(-5(,$,F%#$+2($#8-,/5-2/$,5(4/2*(5$=&(2#-1/,8(#&3&,"&5(-,1( 29 35 14 6 16 impact &,2&#%#/5&5( 4/2*( T#-,.&( *-5( -( 52#$,8&#( 6$."5( 2*-,( 2*&( $2*&#( #&8/$,5( $,( %#$+2( social =-V/=/5/,8(

23

5

9

23

41

5$./-0(/=%-.2'(X,(i&,&0"V<(HBC5(*-3&(-(6-/#07(&3&,07(1/52#/E"2&1(6$."5(E&24&&,(,$,F%#$+2( $#8-,/5-2/$,5(4/2*(-,1(,$,F%#$+25(4/2*$"2(5$=&(2#-1/,8(#&3&,"&(-,1(6$#(%#$+2(&,2&#%#/5&5( with mission, with a slight38 preference for the21 latter. Scandinavia and Switzerland and 7 a social 34 Austria are the regions most likely to have no set criteria for the type of investee supported.

100% These regional statistics will be more robust as the sample size increases over the years. (n=61) Societal return only, no financial return possible

Number of respondents supporting different types of investee per region

Switzerland & Austria

3

Spain

1 1

2

2

1 1

Italy

2

3

Eastern Europe Benelux

1

2

2

1

1

2 4

1 5

1

3

4 3

3

3

4

2

1

3

5

3

France

1

5

Scandinavia

Germany

9

4

4

UK & Ireland

1 4

5

1

No set criteria NGO, no trading NGO, trading Impact first social enterprise Profit­maximising with social impact

(n=61)

D*%,(!/"&789'&#/H!&%$'H'&2A&$"4!'#$"0&$"&'+/11&,%0/"$'/#$,"'&N$#5&1$##1!&#%/)H&%!),%?C&Most > 5.1 years Incubation HBC5(@M[RD(1$(,$2(*-3&(5&2(.#/2&#/-(4/2*(#&8-#15(2$(2*&(5/a&($6(2*&($#8-,/5-2/$,5(@/,(](2&#=5D( in which they invest. For those that focus is on organisations in the small to me­ 13do, their16 1/"=(.-2&8$#7(@U:R($6(#&5%$,1&,25(2*-2(*-3&(-(5&2(.#/2&#/-(6$."5($,($#8-,/5-2/$,5(E&24&&,( ];::G(-,1(];=(/,(2"#,$3&#D'(

%

X,(.$,+#=-2/$,($6(0-52(7&-#Y5(#&5"025<(3&,2"#&(%*/0-,2*#$%7(8&,&#-007(2-#8&25($#8-,/5-2/$,5( 2*-2(-#&(7$",8<(-02*$"8*(OKR($6($#8-,/5-2/$,5(*-3&(,$(5&2(.#/2&#/-'(C6(2*$5&(2*-2(1$(@K[R($6( 31 40 #&5%$,1&,25D<(9FL(7&-#5(/5(2*&(=$52(.$==$,(-8&($6(/,3&52&&($#8-,/5-2/$,5(@[:R($6(#&5%$,1­ 0.1­2 years 2.1­5 years &,25D'(A$=&(HBC5(2-#8&2(&-#07F52-8&($#8-,/5-2/$,5(4/2*(-,(-8&($6(:F9(7&-#5(@O;RD<(-,1($2*&#5( (n=30) 2-G&(2*&(#/5G($6(/,."E-2/,8(52-#2F"%5(@;KR($6(#&5%$,1&,25D'(I"52(;OR($6(#&5%$,1&,25(/,3&52(/,( more mature organisations that are more than 5 years old, indicating that, in a change from 0-52(7&-#(@OWR($6(#&5%$,1&,25(/,(9:;:D(HBC5(-#&(0&55(.$,.&#,&1(-E$"2(#&>"/#/,8(5$=&(2#-.G( and Recreation (Culture, Arts, Sports, model Other Recreation and Social Clubs) 1. Culture record before they are convinced that the business of the social purpose organisations 2. Education (Primary, Secondary, Higher, Other) can be scaled up to achieve greater impact.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Research Health (Hospitals, Rehabilitation, Nursing Homes, Mental Health/Crisis Intervention) Social services (Emergency, Relief, Income Support/Maintenance) Environment (Organic, cleantech, animal protection) Development and Housing (Economic, social, community development, fair trade, ethical clothing, employment and training) 8. Law, Advocacy and Politics (Civic/advocacy organization, law/legal services, political orgs) intermediaries and Voluntarism promotion 9. Philanthropic European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012 10. International (Intercultural understanding/development and welfare abroad/providing relief during emergencies)

Spain Scandinavia UK & Ireland

2 41 1 March 2013

Italy Switzerland & Austria

23

Germany Spain

1 31

France Scandinavia Eastern Europe Italy Benelux Germany France Europe AgeEastern of investee organisations, for thoseBenelux VPOs that had a set criteria

3

5

1 1

9W

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre

32

11 1

22

12 2

3

23

3

(n=61)

2

1

2

1

9 43 3

42

3

4

41 5

5

1

5 5

No set criteria NGO, no trading NGO, trading Impact first social enterprise Profit­maximising with social impact

1 1

3 1

1

1

4

4 3

3

11

5 5

4

2

1

2 4

> 5.1 years

4

5

(n=61)

13

> 5.1 years

2.1­5 years

1 16

%

Incubation

40 13

(n=30)

No set criteria NGO, no trading NGO, trading Impact first social enterprise Incubation Profit­maximising with social impact

16

31 0.1­2 years

%

J,)$/1&'!)#,%&-,)*' 31 40 Arts, Sports, Other Recreation and Social Clubs) 1. Culture and Recreation (Culture, )*&(5$./-0(5&.2$#(.0-55/+.-2/$,("5&1(6$00$45(2*&(X,2&#,-2/$,-0(g0-55/+.-2/$,($6(b$,F%#$+2(C#­ 0.1­2 years years Secondary, Higher, Other) (Primary, 2. Education2.1­5 11 ganizations (ICNO) <(+#52(/,2#$1".&1(E7(A-0$=$,(-,1(J,*&/&#(/,(;WW9<(4*/.*(*-5(5/,.&(E&­ 3. Research (n=30) 4. Health (Hospitals, Rehabilitation, Nursing Homes, Mental Health/Crisis Intervention) .$=&(-(52-,1-#1(/,(#&5&-#.*($,(2*&(,$,F%#$+2(5&.2$#'()*&(.0-55/+.-2/$,(5752&=(/5(-5(6$00$45c

The International Classification of Non-profit Organizations

5.

6.

7.

1.

2.

8.

3.

9.

4.

10.

5.

6.

11.

7.

12.

13.

8.

14.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Salamon, L. M., and Anheier, d'(Q'(@;WW9D'(X,(5&-#.*($6(2*&( ,$,%#$+2(5&.2$#'(XXc()*&(%#$E0&=($6( .0-55/+.-2/$,'(Voluntas<(O@OD<(9KUFO:W' 11

Social services (Emergency, Relief, Income Support/Maintenance) Environment (Organic, cleantech, animal protection) Development and Housing (Economic, development, Culture and Recreation (Culture, Arts,social, Sports,community Other Recreation and Social Clubs) fair trade, ethical clothing, employment and training) Education (Primary, Secondary, Higher, Other) Law, Advocacy and Politics (Civic/advocacy organization, law/legal services, political orgs) Research Philanthropic intermediaries and Voluntarism promotion Health (Hospitals, Rehabilitation, Nursing Homes, Mental Health/Crisis Intervention) International (Intercultural and welfare abroad/providing Social services (Emergency,understanding/development Relief, Income Support/Maintenance) relief during emergencies) Environment (Organic, cleantech, animal protection) Religion Development and Housing (Economic, social, community development, Business Professional fair trade,and ethical clothing, associations, employmentUnions and training) Other Law, Advocacy and Politics (Civic/advocacy organization, law/legal services, political orgs) No focus Philanthropic intermediaries and Voluntarism promotion International (Intercultural understanding/development and welfare abroad/providing relief during emergencies) Religion Business and Professional associations, Unions Other No focus

Respondents were asked to check a box whether they focused on one or more out of a list of social sectors, or to specify other if not included in the listing, or check that they had no focus. The following chart provides the percentage of respondents that invest in the listed 20 Other 5$./-0(5&.2$#5(-,1(-(.$=%-#/5$,(/5(%#$3/1&1(2$(2*&(9:;:(#&5"025'(X,(9:;;(0/G&(/,(9:;:<(&1".-­ 22 Religion 2 2/$,(4-5(2*&(,"=E&#($,&(5&.2$#(/,(2&#=5($6(.$",25<(*$4&3&#(4*&#&-5(/,(9:;:(1&3&0$%=&,2^ Business and Professional 3 *$"5/,8(-,1(*&-02*(-,1(&,3/#$,=&,2(4&#&(2*&(,&V2(=$52(%$%"0-#(5&.2$#5($6(6$."5<(/,(9:;;( associations, Unions 5 -02*$"8*(2*&(6$."5($,(&.$,$=/.(-,1(5$./-0(1&3&0$%=&,2(-,1(*&-02*(#&=-/,&1<(+,-,./-0(/,­ 10 Law, Advocacy and Politics 15 .0"5/$,(-,1(-..&55(2$(+,-,.&(E&.-=&(5/8,/+.-,207(=$#&(/=%$#2-,2(-5(-(5&.2$#'(X,(2*/5(7&-#Y5( 11 International promotion 20 22 5"#3&7(4&(-05$(5&&(-(0-#8&#(%#$%$#2/$,($6(#&5%$,1&,25(@/,.#&-5/,8(6#$=(UR(/,(9:;:(2$(;MR(/,( Other 22 Philanthropic intermediaries and 16 9:;;D(*-3/,8(,$(5$./-0(5&.2$#(6$."5<(*$4&3&#(2*/5(=-7(E&($,07(E&.-"5&(/,(0-52(7&-#Y5(5"#3&7( Religion 2 12 Voluntarism promotion Business and Professional 3 -(.-2&8$#7(.-00&1(_A$./-0(!,2#&%#&,&"#5(@S&,&#-0D`(4-5(-(%$55/E0&($%2/$,<(4*&#&-5(/,(2*/5( 16 Research 17 associations, Unions 5 year’s it was not.

10 18 Noand set criteria Law, Advocacy Politics

7

15

Housing 11 20 International promotion 22 21 Culture and Recreation Philanthropic intermediaries and 16 European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012 12 Voluntarism promotion 25 Environment 16 Research 17

34 49

3. Research International (Intercultural understanding/development and welfare abroad/providing 10.

(Hospitals, Rehabilitation, Nursing Homes, Mental Health/Crisis Intervention) 4. Health relief during emergencies) Social services (Emergency, Relief, Income Support/Maintenance) 5.

11. Religion Part 2: Environment (Organic, cleantech, animal protection) 6.

Unions 12. Business and Professional associations, Development and Housing (Economic, social, community development, 7.

Other 13.

Presentation of trade, ethical clothing, employment and training) No focus 14. fair Survey Advocacy and Politics (Civic/advocacy organization, law/legal services, political orgs) 8. Law,Results 9. Philanthropic intermediaries and Voluntarism promotion 10. International (Intercultural understanding/development and welfare abroad/providing

O:

11.

12.

13.

14.

Investment sectors

relief during emergencies) Religion Business and Professional associations, Unions Other No focus

20 22

Other Religion Business and Professional associations, Unions Law, Advocacy and Politics International promotion

2 3

5

10 11

15

22 16 20 12 22 16 2 17 3 18 57 10 Law, Advocacy andHousing Politics 15 20 21 Culture and Recreation 11 International promotion 34 22 Environment Philanthropic intermediaries and 16 25 49 12 Voluntarism promotion 31 Social services 16 Research 41 17 Financial inclusion and access to finance 38 18 No set criteria 44 7 Health 49 Housing 20 46 Economic and social development 21 Culture and Recreation 56 34 56 Education 25 Environment 71 49 31 Social services 41 We also asked respondents12(2$(/,1/.-2&(2*&(3-0"&($6(2*&(/,3&52=&,25(=-1&(/,(2*&(0-52(+5.-0( Financial inclusion and access to finance 38 year dedicated to each social sector. The following chart takes the resulting percentages for 44 Health 49 9:;;(-,1(.$=%-#&5(2*&(#&5"025(2$(5/=/0-#13(1-2-(6#$=(9:;:'(X,(2&#=5($6(6",1/,8<(*&-02*(/5(,$( 21 46 Economic and social development Other 0$,8&#(2*&(,"=E&#($,&(5&.2$#(*-3/,8(6-00&,(2$(6$"#2*(%0-.&(@#&.&/3/,8(;9R($6(6",1/,8(/,(9:;;<( 56 16 1$4,(6#$=(9UR(/,(9:;:D'(X2(*-5(E&&,($3&#2-G&,(E7(&.$,$=/.(-,1(5$./-0(1&3&0$%=&,2(@9:R( 56 Education 20 Economic and social development 71 7 /,(9:;;(35(UR(/,(9:;:D'(!1".-2/$,(/5(2*&(2*/#1(%0-.&1(5&.2$#(/,(9:;;(@;LR($6(2$2-0(6",1/,8D<(-( 15 Education 1&.#&-5&(6#$=(5&.$,1(%0-.&(-,1(9;R($6(2*&(6",1/,8(/,(9:;:'(T/,-,./-0(/,.0"5/$,(@;:RD(-,1( 21 d$"5/,8(@URD(-05$(&=&#8&1(-5(/=%$#2-,2(5&.2$#5(/,(2&#=5($6(6",1/,8(#&.&/3&1' 12 Health 27 Financial inclusion 10 21 Other Housing 7 16 5 20 Economic and social Environment development 7 9 3 15 Social services Education 2 21 3 12 Law, Advocacy and Politics Health 2 27 2011 International 2 Financialpromotion inclusion 10 2010 1 Housing Culture and Recreation 7 3 5 Environment numbers in % 1 Research 9 2 (2011 n=49, 2010 n=35) 3 Social services 2 3 Law, Advocacy and Politics 2 2011 International promotion 2 2010 1 Culture and Recreation 3 numbers in % 1 Research 2 (2011 n=49, 2010 n=35) Philanthropic intermediaries and Other Voluntarism promotion Research Religion Business and Professional No set Unions criteria associations,

2011 2010 numbers in % (2011 n=61, 2010 n=41)

2011 2010 numbers in % (2011 n=61, 2010 n=41)

VP/SI Spend in 2011 and 2010 (â&#x201A;Ź) by target sector This analysis refers to the responses from -(0-#8&(=-Z$#/27(@WMRD($6(2*&(HBC5(4*$( answered the relevant question. Certain outlying responses were not included in the analysis to ensure the results provided an accurate representation of the industry as a whole

12

13 In the previous survey, Housing and Development were included as one sector 4/2*(URj(X,2&#,-2/$,-0(B#$=$2/$,(4-5(,$2( included as a sector and nor was Financial X,.0"5/$,j(A$./-0(!,2#&%#&,&"#5(@S&,&#-0D( was included as a category last year but is not included in this yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s survey

Other Beneficiaries European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012 No set criteria Sickness

16 33

31

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre March 2013

Other

21

16

Economic and social development

7

20

15

Education

21

12

Health Financial inclusion Housing

5

Environment

27

10

7

9 3 Social services 2 3 Law, Advocacy and Politics 2 >$"/1&2!"!-$)$/%$!'&F&#/%0!#&0%,*(' 2011 International promotion 2 R5$1?%!"& /%!& +/$"& 2!"!.)$/%$!'& ,-& 78GJK& $"4!'#+!"#'C The survey also asked 2010 /"?& A,*#5& Culture 1 and Recreation 4*&2*&#(HBC5(2-#8&2&1(-,7(%-#2/."0-#(27%&($6(+,-0(E&,&+./-#/&5($6(2*&(/,3&52&&(ABC5'()*&5&( 3 numbers in are % non足exclusive, meaning that the 1 categories same SPO may be targeting Immigrant Research 2 (2011 n=49, 2010 n=35) Women, or Disabled Youth. Therefore, the survey question allowed respondents to provide ="02/%0&(-,54&#5'()*&(5"#3&7(6$",1(2*-2<(0/G&(0-52(7&-#<(KOR($6(!"#$%&-,(HBC5(2-#8&2(.*/0足 1#&,( -,1( 7$"2*( -5( 2*&( "02/=-2&( E&,&+./-#/&5( $6( 2*&/#( /,3&52&&5Y( -.2/3/27'( B&$%0&( 5"66&#/,8( 6#$=(%$3&#27(@[[RD(-#&(52/00(2*&(5&.$,1(=$52(5"%%$#2&1(8#$"%<(*$4&3&#(",&=%0$7&1(%&$%0&( @9KRD( E&.-=&( -( =$#&( /=%$#2-,2( 8#$"%( $6( 5"%%$#2<( 6$00$4&1( E7( 1/5-E0&1( @9ORD<( =/,$#/27( &2*,/.(.$==",/2/&5(@;ORD<(4$=&,(@;ORD(-,1(/==/8#-,25<(-570"=(5&&G&#5(-,1^$#(#&6"8&&5( @;;RD'()*&(.*-#2(E&0$4(%#$3/1&5(2*&(&,2/#&(1-2-(5&2'(

Ultimate target groups (final beneficiaries) of investee SPOs

16

Other Beneficiaries

33

No set criteria

8

Sickness

23

Disability

10 11

Re足offenders Immigrants, asylum seekers and/or refugees

13

Minority ethnic communities

26

Unemployed people

44

People in poverty

11 13

Elderly people Women

30

Youth

numbers in % (n=61)

33

Children

@!,0%/(5$!'&#/%0!#!?

European VPOs tend to focus their activities either nationally i.e. in their home countries @[KRD($#(/,2&#,-2/$,-007(/'&'($"25/1&(2*&/#(*$=&(.$",2#/&5(@[[RD'()*&(#&=-/,1&#(/5(1/3/1&1(E&足 24&&,(-(#&8/$,-0(6$."5(@9:RD($#(0$.-0(6$."5(@;KRD(4/2*/,(2*&/#(*$=&(.$",2#/&5($#(,$(5&2(.#/2&#/-'

General geographic focus of VP/SI organisations

46

44

20

16 7

numbers in % (n=61)

o

N a

ri

l

na

te

ri

l

na

tc

se

l

io

tio

l

na

a rn

ca

eg

Lo

R

te

io

at

In

N

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

Part 2: Presentation of Survey Results

32

46

44

46

numbers in % (n=61)

44

20

o N

tc

l

se

ca

te

ri

al

ri

a

l

o N

t se

r ite cr

l

na io eg

l ca Lo

R

l

ia

na tio

Benelux Scandinavia

11 17

France Germany

15

Eastern Europe

Lo

na

14

UK & Ireland

na

Switzerland & Austria

Spain

tio

15

Eastern Europe Italy

r te

Germany

UK & France Ireland

n io

na

17

Spain Benelux

In

l

Scandinavia

Italy Switzerland & Austria

eg

r te

al

na io at N

General geographical focus of VP/SI organisations by country of origin

R

In

n io at N

numbers in % (n=61)

16

When looking at different areas of Europe we see a slight difference in the geographical focus depending on the country of origin of the VP/SI organisation.

In Eastern Europe, 7 the focus is either international, national or there is no set criteria. In comparison, in Italian 20regional and local investments rather than VP/SI organisations the focus is on national, international ones. This pattern is repeated but to a16 more nuanced degree (there is some /,2&#,-2/$,-0(/,3&52=&,2D(/,(2*&(PQ(-,1(X#&0-,1<(A%-/,(-,1(S&#=-,7'(T#&,.*(HB^AX($#8-,/­ 7 sations stand out for bifurcating their investment focus between national and international %#$8#-=5<(%#$E-E07(-(#&?&.2/$,($6(2*&(T#&,.*(.&,2#-0/5&1(5752&='(A4/55(-,1(J"52#/-,(HB^AX( organisations have a majority investment focus on international programs whereas Scan­ dinavian and Benelux VP/SI organisations have an approximately equal focus on interna­ tional and local and national programs.

33 15

2025 (n=61)

7 7

5045

11

58

22 22

11

3733

5040

25 40

33

13

40 45 33

40

63

No set criteria Local Regional National International

37 24

46

14 40

14

13

22

63

15

7 7

58

1133

33 11

24

14

11

1420 11

46

14

No set criteria Local Regional National International

50

22

100%

11

33

40

33

U!'#!%"& D*%,(!& -,11,N!?& 2A& T-%$)/& /%!& #5!& +/$"& #/%0!#& %!0$,"'. European VPOs tend to 50 25 25 6$."5(2*&/#(-.2/3/2/&5(/,(N&52&#,(!"#$%&(@K;R($6(6",1/,8D(-,1($2*&#4/5&($,(1&3&0$%/,8(.$",­ Latin America 2 1 Eastern Europe 100% N. America 2 2#/&5<(4/2*(J6#/.-(@9[RD(-,1(J5/-(@WRD(E&/,8(2*&(=-/,(2-#8&2(#&8/$,5(-,1(A$"2*(J=&#/.-(-2­ (n=61) 2#-.2/,8(Z"52(9R($6(2*&(6",1/,8'( Asia

9 Latin America 2 N. America 2

Geographic focus of VPOs by € spend in 2011

Asia 24 Africa

(n=50)

24 Africa

1 Eastern Europe

%

61

9

Western Europe

% 61

Western Europe (n=50)

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

Switzerland & Austria Benelux France Italy

14

14

11

11

58

11

22

International

45

33

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre

63

March 2013

20

37

40

33

Spain UK & Ireland

14

7 7

22

11

33

40

13

25

Eastern Europe

40

33 50

25 100%

(n=61)

Latin America 2 N. America 2

1 Eastern Europe

Asia The chart below shows a more visual representation of the countries that receive most invest­ ment from European VP/SI organisations.

The UK received the highest amount of invest­ 9 =&,2(@-0=$52(]OO=D<(6$00$4&1(E7(T#-,.&(@]9;=D(-,1(S&#=-,7(@];U=D'(S/3&,(2*&(%#$%&,5/27( of European VP/SI organisations to invest in the country where they are domiciled and that 2*&(PQ<(T#-,.&(-,1(S&#=-,7(*-1(2*&(0-#8&52(,"=E&#($6(#&5%$,1&,25(6$#(2*/5(5"#3&7<(/2(/5(,$2( 24 5"#%#/5/,8(2*-2(2*&5&(.$",2#/&5(#-,G(/,(2*&(2$%(O'(d$4&3&#(-05$(/,(2*&(2$%(;:(6$#(#&.&/3/,8( Africa 61 /,3&52=&,25(6#$=(!"#$%&-,(HB^AX($#8-,/5-2/$,5(4&#&(X,1/-(@];9=D<(S*-,-(@]U=D<(Q&,7-( Western Europe 6#$=( !"#$%&-,( @]U=D<( \$a-=E/>"&( @]K=D( -,1( k/=E-E4&( @]K=D<( #&/,6$#./,8( 2*&( 5"%%$#2( VP/SI for organisations in the developing world, in particular Africa.

%

(n=50)

Country focus of VPOs by € spend in 2011

1m

32m

100k 10k

1m 100k

(n=51)

QP(*->3?(?$4";&<"$&(1,'5";; 0P(!"0/()/'B(0$6(%$4";&<"$&(011,0%;0/ Finding the right investee SPOs is a fundamental part of a VPO’s activity. In line with last 7&-#Y5(#&5"025<(MWR($6(HBC5(-#&(%#$-.2/3&(/,(2*&/#(5&-#.*(2$(/1&,2/67(-,1(-%%#$-.*(2*&(ABC5( 2$(/,3&52(/,<(4*&#&-5([OR($6(2*&(!"#$%&-,(HBC5(2*-2(%-#2/./%-2&1(/,(2*&(52"17(-..&%2($%&,( applications.

Investee identification activities

89% 70

54

numbers in % (n=50)

43%

of respondents identify and approach target SPOs proactively, specifically through:

51

48

38

of respondents identify SPOs through application:

33 11

2 er th pl ap ns

io

at

ic

ar ye

n

io

at

ll

­a

ic pl

n

io at

ap

ic

d

e at

O

G

l pp

A

e tiv ns ac io ro tit ,p pe er m th co O an s pl ize ss pr ne al si ci o ts Bu s or en es ev nc d re se fe ani on g C or & ch ar se re k lio es fo D t r po ns g tio ng tin a ki is nis or Ex a g tw or ne es al ari on i si ed es rm of te Pr in &

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

11

Part 2: Presentation of Survey Results

34

If we take a closer look at the type of proactive activities carried out by VPOs, most of these .$,2-.25(-#&(=-1&(2*#$"8*(,&24$#G/,8(-,1(/,2&#=&1/-#/&5(@U:RD<(6$00$4&1(E7(&V/52/,8(%$#2足 6$0/$($#8-,/5-2/$,5(@L[RD(-,1(1&5G(#&5&-#.*(@L;RD' The VPOs screened almost QXXX( %$2&,2/-0( /,3&52=&,2( $%%$#2",/2/&5( /,( 9:;;<( #&8-#10&55( $6( =&2*$1("5&1(2$(+,1(2*&='(J5(5*$4,(/,(2*&(.*-#2(E&0$4<(2*&#&(/5(-(0-#8&(3-#/-2/$,(E&24&&,( 2*&( .$",2#7( 2*-2( 5.#&&,&1( 2*&( =$52( $#8-,/5-2/$,5<( S&#=-,7( 4/2*( ;:KM( 5.#&&,&1<( -,1( 2*&( .$",2#7(2*-2(5.#&&,&1(2*&(0&-52($#8-,/5-2/$,5<(X2-07(4/2*(WO($#8-,/5-2/$,5(5.#&&,&1'()*/5(=-7( E&(-(#&?&.2/$,($6(2*&(=-2"#/27($6(2*&(5$./-0(&,2#&%#&,&"#5*/%(5&.2$#(/,(&-.*(.$",2#7'

Organisations screened per VPO country/region

1068

Germany

914

UK & Ireland

Germany Benelux UK & Ireland Scandinavia Benelux France Scandinavia Switzerland & Austria France Eastern Europe Switzerland & Austria 219 Spain 196 Eastern Europe (n=56) Italy 93 Spain (n=56)

Italy

872

1068 914

660

872

520

660

456

520 456

219 196

93

C,(-3&#-8&<(2*&(HBC5(%&#6$#=&1(1"&(1/0/8&,.&($,(;[R($6(2*&(5.#&&,&1($#8-,/5-2/$,5(-,1( 5&0&.2&1(OMR($6(2*&($#8-,/a-2/$,5(2*-2(*-1(8$,&(2*#$"8*(1"&(1/0/8&,.&'

Number of organisations screened, % due diligence performed and investees selected by VPOs in 2011

4998 4998

14% Due Diligence

Screened

14% Due Diligence 6% Selected Investees

Screened (n=56)

6% Selected Investees (n=35)

(n=56)

(n=35)

C,(-3&#-8&<(-(HBC(4/00(5.#&&,(MW($#8-,/5-2/$,5(/,(-(7&-#<(1$(6"#2*&#(1"&(1/0/8&,.&($,(;U($6( them and select 689 investees.

89 European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

35

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre March 2013

4998 4998

14% Due Diligence

Screened

14% Due Diligence 6% Selected Investees

Screened

Average number of SPOs screened, under due diligence and funded in 2011

6% Selected Investees

(n=56)

(n=35)

(n=56)

(n=35)

89 89

30 17

30 Average Median Average

17

8

Screened (n=56) Screened (n=56)

Median

8

Due diligence (n=35) Due diligence (n=35)

6

5

6

5 Selected Investees (n=35) Selected Investees (n=35)

I,%!&?/A'&'(!"#&,"&?*!&?$1$0!")!&/"?&+,%!&'5/%!?&/)#$4$#$!'C The following pie­chart shows how many days European VP/SI organisations spend on due diligence for an average in­ vestment.

Days spent in due diligence

0­5 days

20+ days 20+ days

27

38 38 9

15.1 ­ 20 days (n=56)

15.1 ­ 20 days

(n=56)

9

% %

27

7

20

0­5 days

20 5.1­10 days 5.1­10 days

7

10.1 ­ 15 days 10.1 ­ 15 days

)*&(.*-#2(5*$45(2*-2(-02*$"8*(=-,7(@9URD(HBC5(5%&,1(0&55(2*-,(+3&(1-75($,(1"&(1/0/8&,.&<( -(0-#8&(%&#.&,2-8&(@OMRD(-05$(5%&,15(=$#&(2*-,(9:(1-75<(-,(/,.#&-5&(6#$=(9KR(/,(9:;:(5"8­ gesting VPOs are putting even more emphasis on due diligence.

Sharing due diligence activities is an increasingly important part of a VPO’s behaviour, with Other 4 U9R($6(#&5%$,1&,25(5-7/,8(2*-2(2*&7(5*-#&1(1"&(1/0/8&,.&(&/2*&#($..-5/$,-007<(6-/#07(=-,7( times or very often. However oneOther would have expected that those organisations that shared Speak to local representatives of 4 multi­lateral due diligence would spendorganisations less time on the due13 diligence but in fact this is not the case. In due­diligence SpeakOperational to local representatives of 9:;;(2*&(-3&#-8&(,"=E&#($6(1-75(6$#(1"&(1/0/8&,.&(4-5(9U(-,1(2*&(=&1/-,(,"=E&#($6(1-75( 15 13 (bymulti­lateral independent third party) organisations was 15. For VPOsOperational thatLegal shared due diligence “very often” the average number of days of due of respondents due­diligence due­diligence 1521 (by independent independent third party) diligence only (by reduced to 26,third andparty) for those organisations that never shared due diligence, of respondents Financial due­diligence 20 25. So far, VPOs seem to share due the average number ofLegal daydue­diligence spent on due diligence was 21 (by (by independent independent third third party) party) diligence as an additional that the investment is solid rather than delegating this Financialguarantee due­diligence 20 Speak to government officials &third regulators (by independent party) 27 activity to another investor. involved in sector

<36% <36%

Site visit: Interviews with Speak to government officials &investee's regulators employees (not top involved mgmt) ininperson sector Site visit: Interviews investee's Speak withwith top managers

employees (not top mgmt) in person European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012 Site visit: Interviews with clients Speak with top in managers /final beneficiaries person

28 27 30 28 32 30

>48% >48%

of respondents of respondents

Screened (n=56)

Part 2: Presentation of Survey Results

36

Due diligence (n=35)

Selected Investees (n=35)

0­5 days

20+ days

27

38

% 20

9

5.1­10 days

7

15.1 ­ 20 days N&(-05$(+,1(2*-2(2*-2(2*&#&(/5(-(0-#8&(3-#/-2/$,(/,(2*&(27%&($6(1"&(1/0/8&,.&(-.2/3/2/&5(%&#­ (n=56) 6$#=&1'(C3&#(M9R($6(#&5%$,1&,25(%&#6$#=(-2(0&-52(-(#&3/&4($6(2*&(/,3&52&&(1$."=&,2-2/$,( 10.1 ­ 15 days

received online, perform a site visit to interview top management in person, speak with members of the board of directors of the potential investee and a general web search. Over almost half the respondents go a step further, speaking to previous business partners or /,3&52$#5<( /,2&#3/&4/,8( 2*&( /,3&52&&Y5( .0/&,25( $#( +,-0( E&,&+./-#/&5<( $#( 5%&-G/,8( 2$( 8$3&#,­ =&,2($6+./-05(-,1(#&8"0-2$#5(/,3$03&1(/,(2*&(5&.2$#($6(/,2&#&52'(J(=".*(5=-00&#(%#$%$#2/$,( $6(#&5%$,1&,25(@lOKR($6(#&5%$,1&,25D(/,3$03&1(-(2*/#1(%-#27(2$(%&#6$#=(0&8-0<(+,-,./-0($#( operational due diligence activities.

Due Diligence Activities Other Speak to local representatives of multi­lateral organisations Operational due­diligence (by independent third party)

4 13

<36%

15

Legal due­diligence (by independent third party)

21

Financial due­diligence (by independent third party)

20

Speak to government officials & regulators involved in sector

27

Site visit: Interviews with investee's employees (not top mgmt) in person

28

>48%

30

Speak with top managers Site visit: Interviews with clients /final beneficiaries in person

of respondents

32

Speak to previous business partners or investors

39 46

Web search

47

Speak with members of the board

numbers in % (n=56)

of respondents

>82%

of respondents

Site visit: interview with top mgmt in person

55

Review of investee documentation received online

56

@P(?$4";&<"$& :,#/1&$"4!'#+!"#&+/?!&$"&78GJK& T4!%/0!& ."/")$/1& '*((,%#& $")%!/'!'& 2A& PVW& $"& PXYY& /'& ),+(/%!?& #,& PXYXC VP/SI organi­ 5-2/$,5(*-3&(/,3&52&1(-0=$52(];'[(E/00/$,(/,(+,-,./-0(-,1(,$,F+,-,./-0(5"%%$#2(5/,.&(2*&7( E&8-,(2*&/#($%&#-2/$,5(@2*&(-3&#-8&(-8&($6(HB^AX(-.2/3/27(E&/,8(K'L(7&-#5D'()*&#&(4-5(-(9UR( /,.#&-5&(/,(2*&(-3&#-8&(-,,"-0(+,-,./-0(5%&,1(%&#(HBC(6#$=(][';=/00/$,(/,(9:;:(2$(]L'9=/0­ 0/$,(/,(9:;;'(h&5%/2&(2*&5&(-3&#-8&(,"=E&#5(2*&#&(/5(52/00(-(5/8,/+.-,2(.$,.&,2#-2/$,(/,(2*&( -=$",25(-3-/0-E0&(6$#(6",1/,8(ABC5<(4/2*(2*&(2$%(+3&(HBC5(-..$",2/,8(6$#(LWR($6(-00(HB^AX( /,3&52=&,2(2*-2($.."##&1(/,(9:;;'()*&(7&-#07(+,-,./-0(5%&,1($6(!"#$%&-,(HB^AX($#8-,/5-­ 2/$,5<( "5/,8( -( HB^AX( -%%#$-.*( -..$#1/,8( 2$( !HBJY5( 1&+,/2/$,<( 4/2*( /,3&52=&,25( #-,8/,8( 27% increase Total Annual Financial Spend 6#$=(8#-,25(2$(&>"/27(4-5(]9UM(=/00/$,(/,(9:;;(6$#(2*&(-88#&8-2&(L[(#&5%$,1&,25(4*$(-,­ 2011 = €278m 54&#&1(2*/5(>"&52/$,<(-,(/,.#&-5&($6([UR(-5(.$=%-#&1(2$(2*&(-,,"-0(5%&,1($6(];MW=(/,(9:;:( Total Annual Non­Financial Spend for 44 respondents.

2011 = €32m

€4,1m

€5,2m

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012 (2010 n=45, 2011 n=54)

4747

Speak with members of the board Speak with members of the board

numbers in % numbers in % (n=56) (n=56)

Average financial support provided by VPOs to investees

of respondents of respondents

visit: interview with mgmt in person SiteSite visit: interview with toptop mgmt in person

5555

Review of investee documentation Review of investee documentation received online received online

5656

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre March 2013

27% increase 27% increase

Total Annual Financial Spend Total Annual Financial Spend 2011 = €278m 2011 = €278m

€5,2m €5,2m

€4,1m €4,1m

Total Annual Non­Financial Spend Total Annual Non­Financial Spend 2011 = €32m 2011 = €32m

(2010 n=45, 2011 n=54) (2010 n=45, 2011 n=54)

2010 2010

2011 2011

[,"F."/")$/1&'*((,%#&'#$11&?$-.)*1#&#,&B*/"#$-AC()*&(,$,F+,-,./-0(5%&,1(1/5%0-75(-,($%­ %$5/2&(2#&,1(4/2*(]O9(=/00/$,(5%&,2(/,(9:;;(4/2*(O;(#&5%$,1&,25(-5(.$=%-#&1(2$(]OW(=/00/$,( 5%&,2(/,(9:;:(-05$(E7(O;(#&5%$,1&,25'()*&(-=$",2(5%&,2($,(,$,F+,-,./-0(5"%%$#2(/5(=&#&07( ;:R($6(2*&(2$2-0(5%&,1(/,(9:;;<(-(1&.#&-5&(6#$=(2*&(9OR(#&%$#2&1(/,(9:;:'(

Aggregate (all respondents and per VPO) annual spend (€) on VP/SI in 2011 and 2010

Aggregate respondents) Aggregate (all(all respondents)

278 278

Aggregate (per VPO) Aggregate (per VPO)

5,25,2 4,24,2

189 189

Financial Spend Financial Spend Non­Financial Spend Non­Financial Spend numbers numbers in €inm€ m

3232

3939

2011 2010 2011 2010 (n=31)(n=45) (n=45) (n=54) (n=31) (n=31) (n=54) (n=31)

2011 Financial spend/Total spend 2011 Financial spend/Total spend 2010 Non­financial spend/Total 2010 Non­financial spend/Total

1 1

1,31,3

2011 2010 2011 2010 (n=31) (n=45) (n=31) (n=54) (n=31) (n=45) (n=31) (n=54) Aggregate all VPOs Aggregate forfor all VPOs 2010 2011 2010 2011 83% 90% 83% 90% 17% 10% 17% 10%

Average VPO Average perper VPO 2010 2011 2010 2011 77% 84% 77% 84% 23% 16% 23% 16%

The decrease may be due to adding an additional question to the survey that probed re­ 5%$,1&,25(-E$"2(4*&2*&#(2*&7(=&-5"#&(2*&(.$52($6(2*&(,$,F+,-,./-0(5"%%$#2(2*&7(%#$3/1&( 2$(/,3&52&&5'(C,07(;:R($6(#&5%$,1&,25(-04-75(=&-5"#&(2*&(.$52($6(2*&(,$,F+,-,./-0(5"%%$#2( %#$3/1&1(-,1(9:R(,&3&#(1$'(d-3/,8(5-/1(2*-2<(9LR($6(#&5%$,1&,25(1$(5$(/,(=$52(.-5&5(-,1( OLR(5$=&2/=&5(1$'(X2(5&&=5(2*-2(6$#(=-,7(2*&(,$,F+,-,./-0(5"%%$#2(/5(1/6+."02(2$(>"-,2/67<( considering the presence of pro­bono experts and volunteers, and sometimes staff days are not counted as expenditure.

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

37

Part 2: Presentation of Survey Results

OM

Proportion of VPOs who measure nonfinancial support

Always Never

10

20

%

10

Rarely

25

In most cases

35 (n= 60) Sometimes Always Never

10

20 [,C&,-&$"4!'#!!'

777 respondents to identify whether their investees were indi­ For this year’s survey we asked In most cases 1038 3/1"-05($#($#8-,/5-2/$,5'(X,(9:;;<(L;(#&5%$,1&,25(=-1&(,&4(/,3&52=&,25(/,(9O[($#8-,/5-­ 25 Rarely 10 tions and 517 individuals. These were added to the 543 ongoing investments in organisa­ tions and 521 ongoing investments in individuals making the total number of investees held UUU($#8-,/5-2/$,5(-,1(;:OM(/,1/3/1"-05'(S/3&,(/,(2*&(%#&3/$"5(7&-#Y5(5"#3&7(4&(1/1(,$2(-5G( 2$( 1/66&#&,2/-2&( 2*&( 27%&( $6( /,3&52&&5<( /2(35 /5( 1/6+."02( 2$( .$=%-#&( 2*&( 5179:;;( #&5"025( 2$( 2*$5&( $6( (n= 60) 9:;:'(T$#(2*&(#&6&#&,.&($6(2*&(#&-1&#5<(/,(9:;:([K(#&5%$,1&,25(*&01(W9W(2$2-0(/,3&52&&5<(4/2*( 234 [L(#&5%$,1&,25(-11/,8(9;U(,&4(/,3&52&&5(/,(+5.-0(7&-#(9:;:' Sometimes

%

New investees in 2011

How many investees Total current investees (organisations or numbers individuals) in € m have you supported with a VP/SI approach?

777

Organisations supported (n=48)

Individuals supported (n=4) 1038

517 234 New investees in 2011 Total current investees

15

numbers in € m Organisations supported 7 (n=48)

New investees in 2011 Total current investees (n=48)

5

3

Individuals supported (n=4)

T$."5/,8( $,( 2*$5&( HBC5( 2*-2( /,3&52( /,( $#8-,/5-2/$,5( 4&( +,1( 2*-2( 6$#( +5.-0( 7&-#( 9:;;( 2*&( median number of investee organisations in the portfolio of a VPO was 7 and the average Median Average number is 15. The median number of new investee organisations added to the portfolio in 9:;;(/5(O(-,1(2*&(-3&#-8&(/5(L'()*&5&(#&5"025(#&/,6$#.&($"#(3/&4(2*-2(2*&(*/8*(&,8-8&=&,2(-%­ proach of venture philanthropy is only possible with portfolios containing a relatively small number of investees.

15 >8­10 years

<=2 years

European Venture Philanthropy and Social 7 Investment 2011/2012 >6­8 years

3

5

9

5

Sometimes

517

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre

OW

234

New investees in 2011 Total current investees

March 2013

777 1038

numbers in € m Organisations supported (n=48)

Individuals supported (n=4)

517 234 New investees in 2011 Total current investees numbers in € m

Median and average investees (organisations) per VPO

15

Organisations supported (n=48)

7

(n=48)

New investees in 2011 Total current investees (n=48)

5

3

New investees in 2011 Total current investees

Median

Average

15

6*%/#$,"&,-&$"4!'#+!"# I/"A& 789'& $"4!'#& -,%& ZF]& A!/%'C7Another of the VP/SI principles is multi­year support, 5 management support for several years claiming that the SPOs need to receive funding and >8­10 years <=2 years 3 in order for a step change to happen. Reinforcing last year’s results, we again found that VP/SI organisations>6­8 follow yearsa multi­year investment approach. The majority of the funders 5 9 /,3&52&1(6$#([FK(7&-#5(@[ORD($#(6$#(9F[(7&-#5(@9WRD'(A$=&(#&6&#(2$(0$,8F2&#=(/,3&52=&,2(-5( Median Average 14 “patient capital” and indeed we see that some VP/SI organisations stay with their investees 6$#(-5(0$,8(-5(KFM(7&-#5(@;[RD(-,1(&3&,(MF;:(7&-#5(@LRD'(J(5=-00(%&#.&,2-8&(@WRD(/5(52/00(/,­ 29 vesting for less than 2 years.

%

Investment duration

>2­4 years

>8­10 years 43

(n=42)

>6­8 years >4­6 years

14

<=2 years

5

9

% 43 Other (n=42)

numbers in % (2011 n=42, 2010 n=43)

2011 2010

29

4

>2­4 years

11

>4­6 years To restricted areas of expenditure

2011 2010

Individuals supported (n=4)

4

11

28 R/(/)$#A&2*$1?$"0C One of the issues To specific project that coststhe VP/SI approach attempts to solve is the lack 35 $6(+,-,./,8(1&1/.-2&1(2$(2*&(.$#&(.$525($6(ABC5'(b$,F%#$+2(=-,-8&#5(-#&(=$#&($62&,(-E0&( 2$(#-/5&(=$,&7(6$#(5%&./+.(%#$Z&.25(2*-,(6$#(2*&(52#-2&8/.(1&3&0$%=&,2($6(2*&($#8-,/a-2/$,( OtherSPOs, 4it is also logical that much 30 of the funding itself. Since aims to in build stronger To coreVP/SI overhead costs an unrestricted 11 way but payment linked to milestones 31 goes to support core costs. The survey tested the extent to which this is happening by asking #&5%$,1&,25(*$4(2*&7(-00$.-2&(2*&/#(6",15'(g$=%-#/,8(2$(9:;:(#&5"025(4&(5&&(-(0-#8&(/,.#&-5&( 4 restricted areas of unrestricted expenditure 34 To core To overhead costs in an /,(2*&(%&#.&,2-8&($6(6",15(1/#&.2&1(2$($3&#*&-1(.$525<(/,.#&-5/,8(6#$=([[R(2$(K[R<(-,1(-( 11 way with predefined payments 13 1&.#&-5&(/,(6",1/,8(8$/,8(2$(%#$Z&.2(.$525<(1&.#&-5/,8(6#$=(OLR(/,(9:;;(2$(9MR(/,(9:;;'()*/5( change seems to indicate that VPOs are moving towards best practice 28 in using the VP/SI To specific project costs approach.

35 To core overhead costs in an unrestricted way but payment linked to milestones European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

30 31

New investees in 2011 Total current investees

[:

(n=48)

>6­8 years3

5

14

Part 2: Presentation of Survey Results

Median

9 Average

%

29

>2­4 years

43 >4­6>8­10 yearsyears

(n=42)

>6­8 years

<=2 years

5

14

9

%

Respondents’ “portfolio” of allocation of funds in 2011 and 2010

Other

29

>2­4 years

4

11

43 To restricted areas expenditure >4­6ofyears

(n=42)

4

11 28

To specific project costs

To core overhead costs in an unrestricted way but payment linked to milestones Other

2011 2010

To core overhead costs in an unrestricted way with predefined payments

numbers in % (2011 n=42, 2010 n=43)

This analysis refers to the responses 6#$=(-(0-#8&(=-Z$#/27(@WMRD($6(2*&( VPOs who answered the relevant question. Certain outlying responses were not included in the analysis 2011 to ensure the results provided 2010 an accurate representation of the industry as a whole numbers in %

14

(2011 n=42, 2010 n=43)

To restricted areas of expenditure

35

30 31

4

11

34

13

4

11 28

To specific project costs

>$"/")$"0&#,,1'&*'!?

35 6!2#&/"?&!B*$#A&/%!&#5!&+,'#&),++,"1A&*'!?&."/")$"0&$"'#%*+!"#'C&VP/SI organisations14 "5&(-(#-,8&($6(+,-,./,8(/,52#"=&,25<(6#$=(8#-,25(2$(&>"/27(/,3&52=&,25'(X,(.$,+#=-2/$,($6( 30 To core overhead costs in an unrestricted 15 linked to milestones way but payment 2*&(9:;:(1-2-<(8#-,25 (#&=-/,(2*&(%#/=-#7(+,-,./,8(/,52#"=&,2("5&1(E7(!"#$%&-,(HBCY5( 31 2 Other /,(2&#=5($6(2$2-0(6",1/,8<(#&%#&5&,2/,8(KLR($6(2*&(6",1/,8(1/52#/E"2&1(2$(/,3&52&&5<(*$4&3&#( Equity/Quasi 4&(1$(5&&(-(1&.0/,&(6#$=(2*&(U9R($6(2$2-0(6",1/,8(1/52#/E"2&1(2*#$"8*(2*/5(2$$0(/,(9:;:'()*/5( 34 To core overhead costs in an unrestricted way with predefined payments .-2&8$#7(-05$(/,.0"1&5(52/%&,15<(-(6$#=($6(6",1/,8($62&,("5&1(2$(+,-,.&(/,1/3/1"-0(5$./-0(&,­ 13 15 trepreneurs. Equity and quasi­equity16(#&%#&5&,2(;LR($6(2*&(2$2-0(6",1/,8<(-,(/,.#&-5&(6#$=( 2*&(;;R(/,(9:;:'(h&E2(/,52#"=&,25(*-3&(1$"E0&1(2*&/#(%#$%$#2/$,($6(2$2-0(6",1/,8(5/,.&(9:;:<( Debt instruments 18 -..$",2/,8(6$#(;MR(/,(2*&(0-52(+5.-0(7&-#<(-,1(/,.0"1&(m$-,5<(A&,/$#(m$-,5<(A"E$#1/,-2&1( m$-,5<(-,1(g$,3&#2/E0&(m$-,5'(C2*&#(/,.0"1&5(*7E#/1(8#-,25<(8"-#-,2&&5(-,1($2*&#(+,-,./,8( 65 instruments.

Grant

%

Financial Instrument Portfolio, % of 2011 VP/SI Spend (€)

2 Other

(n=47) Equity/Quasi

15 Debt instruments

57 (S#-,25(-#&(.-5*(-00$.-2/$,5(2*-2(1$(,$2( produce any repayment and a negative +,-,./-0(#&2"#,'

46

15

2011a Equity involves becoming 2010 shareholder of the investee organisation,

57

18 56

70

% 65 Grant

40 31

(n=47)

16

-,1(>"-5/F&>"/27($#(=&aa-,/,&(+,-,.&( numbers in % is a provision of a high­risk loan, (2011 n=61, 2010 n=50) repayment of which depends on the +,-,./-0(5"..&55($6(2*&(/,3&52&&'

24

18 8

5

8

X,2&#&52/,807<(-02*$"8*(/,(](2&#=5(8#-,25(-#&(52/00(2*&(%#/=-#7(+,-,./,8(/,52#"=&,2<(2*&#&(4-5( -(5/8,/+.-,2(/,.#&-5&(/,(2*&("5&($6(&>"/27(-,1(1&E2(/,52#"=&,25'( Debt Equity Grant 70 Guarantee Hybrid Other

57

/ Quasi Equity

57

Grants

56

European46 Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

40

31

2 Other Equity/Quasi European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre March 2013

Equity/Quasi Equity/Quasi

18 1515

Debt instruments

Debt instruments Debt instruments

% 65

%%

1818

41

2 Other 2 Other

15

Grant

6565

(n=47)

Grant Grant

(n=47) (n=47)

% of VPOs using each type of financing instrument in 2011 and 2010

70 57

57 46

40 5757

5757 4646

2011 2010

56

7070

5656

31

4040 3131

numbers2011 in % 2011 (2011 n=61, 2010 n=50)

2010 2010

numbers numbers in in %% (2011 n=61, 2010 n=50) (2011 n=61, 2010 n=50)

8 1818

Debt

Equity Grant / Quasi Equity

Debt Debt

Equity Equity

Guarantee

Grant Grant

24

18

Guarantee Guarantee

Hybrid

8 8Grants

Hybrid Hybrid

8

5

2424

Other

55

88

Other Other

/ Quasi Equity Grants )*/5(=-7(E&(1"&(2$(2*&(6-.2(2*-2($#8-,/5-2/$,5(-#&("5/,8(-(5&0&.2/$,($6(+,-,./,8(/,52#"=&,25( / Quasi Equity Grants in the VP/SI activities. In fact when asked the average number of instruments used, the re­ spondents’ answers were fairly evenly split between greater than 3 instruments, two to three 1 /,52#"=&,25(-,1($,&(/,52#"=&,2<(5"88&52/,8(2*-2(2-/0$#&1F+,-,./,8(/5(E&.$=/,8(-(#&-0/27'( >3

Average number of instruments used per VPO

31

34

1 1

%

>3>3

3434

3131

%% 35

(n=61) 2­3 3535

(n=61) (n=61) 2­32­3

When analysing the funding instruments used by organizational size, it is interesting to note 2*-2(2*&(%#&1$=/,-,2(8#-,2("5&#5(-#&($#8-,/5-2/$,5(4*$(1&1/.-2&(E&24&&,(];L\(-,1(]9:\( 2$(3&,2"#&(%*/0-,2*#$%7'(T$#($2*&#($#8-,/5-2/$,5<(E$2*(0-#8&#(@&>"-0(2$($#(8#&-2&#(2*-,(]9:\D( -,1(5=-00&#(@0&55(2*-,(];L\D<(&>"/27(-,1(1&E2(/,52#"=&,25(-#&("5&1(2$(-(=".*(8#&-2&#(&V2&,2'( Debt Instruments Equity/Quasi Equity Grants Other More research is required to understand this result.

Financing instruments according to the € amount dedicated to VP/SI

21

24

39

15

Less than €5m

Debt Instruments Equity/Quasi Equity Grants Other 51 Equity/Quasi 15 Other 24 Grants 9 Between €5m and <€10m Debt Instruments Equity

5151

2222

(n=61) (n=61)

7575

1515 22

151525 9 9 2222 1111 27 18

2424

75

444455 (n=61)

21 21 11

242422

3939 44

2525

100%

2727

5555

1818

100% 100%

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

Less than €5m and <€15m Less than €5m Between €10m Between €5m and <€10m Between €5m and <€10m Between €15m and <€20m Between €10m and <€15m Between €10m and <€15m Equal or greater than €20m Between €15m and <€20m Between €15m and <€20m Equal greater than €20m Equal or or greater than €20m

Part 2: Presentation of Survey Results

42

g$F/,3&52=&,2(/5(-(G&7(.$=%$,&,2($6(!"#$%&-,(HBC5Y(/,3&52=&,2(52#-2&87j(K;R($6(#&5%$,1­ &,25(*-3&(.$F/,3&52&1(/,(2*&(%-52(-,1(9;R(5-7(2*&7(-#&(/,2&#&52&1(2$(1$(5$<(&3&,(/6(2*&7(*-3&( no done so yet. Unfortunately only 11 VPOs answered the question asked regarding the type of organisations that they like to co­invest with, hence it is not possible to draw far­reaching .$,.0"5/$,5(6#$=(2*/5(1-2-(,$#(=-G&(-(=&-,/,86"0(.$=%-#/5$,(2$(9:;:(1-2-'(d$4&3&#(6$#( /,6$#=-2/$,( %"#%$5&5( 4&( .-,( 5-7( 2*-2( $2*&#( HBC5( -,1( 6$",1-2/$,5( =-G&( "%( LLR( $6( .$F /,3&52$#5<(4*/.*(/5(/,(0/,&(4/2*(2*&(+,1/,85(6#$=(9:;:'

Co-investment in 2011

No, we do not co­invest in general

18

%

21

61

Wewe aredo interested, No, not co­invest but we are yet to co­invest in general

Yes, we have co­invested in the past

18

(n=61)

%

5P(S%8.K"$808"<"$&(0$6($'$K)%$0$5%0/(;",4%5"; 21 +!!#$"0'& N$#5&61 S$05& !"0/0!+!"#& $'& !"/21!?& 2A& -%!B*!"#& +/"/0!+!"#C The relatively low ,"=E&#( $6( /,3&52&&5( &,-E0&5( -( */8*F2$".*( -%%#$-.*'( U:R( $6( #&5%$,1&,25( =&&2( 4/2*( 2*&/#( We are interested, Yes, we have co­invested /,3&52&&5(-2(0&-52($,.&(-(>"-#2&#<(/,(5$=&(.-5&5(&3&,(4&&G07(@URD($#(=$,2*07(@OLRD'(A/=/0-#( but we are yet to co­invest in the past to the approach in venture capital, some venture often take board seats in 3 philanthropists Yearly Weekly (n=61) their investees to affect the strategic direction from within. However we have seen a small 7 seats compared to last year’s survey. reduction in the percentage of VPOs that take board Half­Yearly This year the percentage of VPOs who always or in a majority of cases take a board seat has 27 1&.#&-5&1(6#$=([[R(2$(OMR'(J(>"-#2&#($6(#&5%$,1&,25(,&3&#(2-G&(-(E$-#1(5&-2<(-,1(OKR(2-G&( board seats in a minority of cases.

%

Yearly 3

Frequency of face-to-face meetings with investees’ management teams

35

Weekly

28

Monthly

7 (n=60)

Half­Yearly Quarterly

27

%

35 Monthly

28 (n=60)

Always Quarterly

17

26

%

European VentureMajority Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012 of Cases

21

Never

Half­Yearly

27

43

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre Yearly 3 Weekly 35 March 2013

% 7

Half­Yearly

28

27 Quarterly

(n=60)

Monthly

%

35 Monthly

28 Quarterly

(n=60)

% of investees where the VPO takes a board seat

Always

17

Majority of Cases Always

%

21 17

(n=54) Majority of Cases

21

Never

26

36 26

%

Never

Minority of Cases

[,"F."/")$/1&'*((,%#&$'&/&H!A&),+(,"!"#&,-&#5!&5$05&!"0/0!+!"#&78GJK&+,?!1C The VPO %#$3/1&5(/25(/,3&52&&5(4/2*(-(#-,8&($6(2-/0$#&1(,$,F+,-,./-0(5&#3/.&5<(2*&(5"#3&7(.-2&8$#/&5( 36 were based on the research by Rob John on the value add of venture philanthropists17. The (n=54) 92 5&#3/.&5(%#$3/1&1(E7(=$52(HBC5(/,.0"1&(52#-2&87(.$,5"02/,8(@W9RD<(.$-.*/,8(@U[RD<(-..&55( Strategy consulting Minority of Cases 98 2$(,&24$#G5(@U:RD<(8$3&#,-,.&(@K9RD<(-,1(6",1#-/5/,8(@LURD'()*&(.*-#2(E&0$4(0/525(2*&(%&#­ Coaching, mentoring of the CEO 74 .&,2-8&5($6(HBC5(5"#3&7&1(2*-2(%#$3/1&(2*&(#-,8&($6(,$,F+,-,./-0(5&#3/.&5'(N*&,(.$=%-#­ or the management team 80 /,8(9:;:(-,1(9:;;(#&5"025<(4&(5&&(-(50/8*2(/,.#&-5&(/,(2*&(-22&,2/$,(%-/1(2$(8$3&#,-,.&(-,1( 70 networks technical assistance in specialistAccess areas.to In­kind contribution was added as an additional cat­ 70 egory. Many of the other categories suffered a slight loss.

62 92 Strategy consulting Governance

Non-financial support by % of respondents

60 57 74 6680 56 5670 70 44 62 6054 38 57 48 66 36 56 36 56 3344 28 54 31 38 42 48 25 36 3638 2133 28 16 31 22 42 8 25 8 38 3 1021

Coaching, mentoring of the CEO Fundraising or revenue strategy or the management team Financial Access to management networks Marketing and Governance communication Operational management Fundraising or revenue strategy Change management Financial management Technical assistance in specialist areas Marketing and communication Legal advice Operational management HR management Change management In­Kind contributions Technical assistance in specialist areas

2011 2010

Legal advice

numbers in % (2011 n=60, 2010 n=50) 17 (I$*,<(n'(@9::UD<(_i&7$,1(2*&(g*&>"&c( how venture philanthropists add value”, Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Said Business School, University of Oxford,. (n = 34; European VPOs surveyed = 32; American = 1; Australian = 1)

IT

Estate management HR management Other In­Kind contributions IT

2011 2010

Estate management

numbers in % (2011 n=60, 2010 n=50)

Other

3

8 8 10

Social purpose organisations in general Organisations in same social sector European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012 Service Providers

16 22

81 77 77

98

60 66 56 57 56 66 44 56 54 56 38 44 4854 3638 3648 33 36 2836 31 3342 28 25 31 38 42 21 25 38 16 22 21

Governance Financial management Fundraising or revenue strategy

Part 2: Marketing and communication Presentation of Financial management Operational management Survey Results Marketing and communication

44

Changemanagement management Operational Technical assistance in specialist areas Change management Legal advice Technical assistance in specialist areas HR Legal management advice In足Kind contributions HR management IT

2011 In足Kind contributions 8 16 2010 S/3&,(2*&(/=%$#2-,.&(-55/8,&1(2$(-..&55(2$(,&24$#G5<(-,1(2*&(6-.2(2*-2(!HBJ(-11&1(-..&55(2$( Estate management IT 8 22 2011 ,&24$#G5(-5(-(G&7(.*-#-.2&#/52/.($6(2*&(HB^AX(=$1&0(/,(9:;;<(4&(-5G&1(#&5%$,1&,25(6$#(=$#&( numbers in % 38 2010 Other Estatesupport management details on the type of networking provided. Social purpose organisations in general (2011 n=60, 2010 n=50) 810 4&#&( 2*&( =$52( .$==$,( 27%&( $6( ,&24$#G/,8( 5"%%$#2( %#$3/1&1( @M;RD<( 6$00$4&1( .0$5&07( E7( numbers in % 3 Other (2011 n=60, 2010 n=50) 10 $#8-,/5-2/$,5(/,(2*&(5-=&(5&.2$#(@UURD(-,1(5&#3/.&(%#$3/1&#5(@UURD'(T/,-,./-0(/,52/2"2/$,5( 4&#&(-05$(-,(/=%$#2-,2(.$,,&.2/$,(%#$3/1&1(E7(HBC5<(4/2*(-..&55(%#$3/1&1(/,(KOR($6(.-5&5'

Type of networking support provided

Social purpose organisations in general

81

Organisations in same social sector Social purpose organisations in general

7781

Service Providers Organisations in same social sector

77 77

Financial Serviceinstitutions Providers

63 77

Organisations in same industry Financial institutions

51 63

Relevant government officials Organisations in same industry

49 51

Multilateral Organisations Relevant government officials

19

numbers in % (n=43)

Other Multilateral Organisations

9 19

numbers in % (n=43)

Other

49

9

X6(4&(0$$G(-2(2*&(-3&#-8&(,"=E&#($6(1-75($6(,$,F+,-,./-0(5"%%$#2(%#$3/1&1(-,1(E7(4*$=<( we see that internal staff, trustees or donors commit the greatest number of days on average @KW'K(1-75<(-02*$"8*(2*&(=&1/-,(/5(O:(1-75D<(6$00$4&1(E7(%#$FE$,$(&V%&#25(@OK'KD(1-75<(%-/1( consultants (17.6 days) and a very low number of days from volunteers (3.5 days).

69,6 69,6

Average number of days of non-financial support committed per investee in 2011

36,6 36,6

17,6 17,6

3,5

(n=39)

s s er er te te un un ol ol s V V s nt nt ta lta ul su ns on co c s id d ts rt ai er Pa p P pe ex ex o no n bo bo o o s Pr Pr f, or , ors af n ff n st do sta do al or l r rn s na s o te tee er ee In rus Int ust t tr

3,5

(n=39)

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012 Financial > Non足financial

45

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre

69,6

March 2013

69,6 36,6 36,6

17,6 3,5

17,6

(n=39)

s s er er te te un un ol ol V V s s nt nt ta ta ul ul ns ns co co s id idrts rt Pa Ppae pe ex ex no no bo bo o o Pr Pr, ors , ors f f af n af n st do st do al or nal or rn s r s te tee nte stee In rus I ru t t

3,5

(n=39)

In this survey, we did not have direct access to the investee organisations, but we asked the HBC5(4*&2*&#(2*&7(=&-5"#&(2*&(%&#.&/3&1(3-0"&(2$(2*&/#(/,3&52&&5($6(2*&(,$,F+,-,./-0(5&#­ 3/.&5(%#$3/1&1'(C,07(9:R($6(HBC5(=&-5"#&(2*/5(/=%$#2-,2(1-2-'(C"2($6(2*$5&(;9(HBC5<(L:R( #&%$#2&1(2*-2(2*&/#(/,3&52&&5(%&#.&/3&(2*&(,$,F+,-,./-0(5&#3/.&5(2$(E&(-5(3-0"-E0&(-5(+,-,./-0( 5"%%$#2(-,1(OOR(2*$"8*2(2*-2(,$,F+,-,./-0(5"%%$#2(4-5(=$#&(/=%$#2-,2(2*-,(+,-,./-0(5"%­ port. A best practice recommendation for VPOs would be to try to assess the value of the ,$,F+,-,./-0(5"%%$#2(=$#&(2*$#$"8*07("5/,8(/,1&%&,1&,2(52"1/&5'(

Do VPO measure investees’ perceived value of nonfinancial support, if yes, how do they value the nonfinancial support compared to the financial support?

Financial > Non­financial

17

80 No (n=61)

80

% %

Financial > Non­financial Non­financial > financial

1733

20 Yes

Non­financial > financial

33 50

20 Yes

Non­financial = financial

50

Non­financial = financial

No

6P(-",)',<0$5"(<"0;+,"<"$& (n=61) :5!%!&$'&$")%!/'!?&/##!"#$,"&#,&+!/'*%$"0&',)$/1&$+(/)#C&An integral part of the VP/SI ap­ proach is measuring and managing societal impact. The focus on social impact measure­ =&,2(*-5(/,.#&-5&1<(4/2*(W:R($6(#&5%$,1&,25 social impact on at least an annual Never measuring 2 Weekly during investment period Only once when basis during the investment period. investment period is completed

Frequency of measurement of societal impact

Only once when investment period is completed

Never 4 6

4 32 Once per year during investment period Once per year during investment period (n=52)

32

6

Monthly during investment period

6 2 Weekly during investment period Monthly during investment period

6

% %21 21

(n=52)

29

Quarterly during investment period

29

Quarterly during investment period

Twice per year during investment period Twice per year during investment period

d$4&3&#<( 5$./&2-0( /=%-.2( =&-5"#&=&,2( 52/00( $.."#5( 0&55( 6#&>"&,207( 2*-2( +,-,./-0( %&#6$#­ =-,.&( =&-5"#&=&,2'( )*&( 0-#8&52( %&#.&,2-8&( $6( HBC5( =&-5"#&( +,-,./-0( %&#6$#=-,.&( $,( -(>"-#2&#07(E-5/5(@O;RD<(4*&#&-5(=$#&(HBC5(-#&(0/G&07(2$(=&-5"#&(5$./&2-0(/=%-.2($,.&(%&#( 7&-#(1"#/,8(2*&(/,3&52=&,2(%&#/$1(@OOR(35(9WR(6$#(>"-#2&#07(/=%-.2(=&-5"#&=&,2D'(T"#2*&#( research is needed to understand why some VPOs only measure impact on an annual basis while others measure it on a quarterly basis. It may be linked to the resources available to the VPO as well as the complexity of the social issue that the social purpose organisation is trying to improve.

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

Part 2: Presentation of Survey Results

46

Frequency of financial and impact measurement

2

Weekly during investment period

6

Monthly during investment period

21 29 31

Quarterly during investment period

19 17

Twice per year during investment period Once per year during investment period Only once when investment period is completed

numbers in % (n=48)

Never Weekly during investment period

4 4 6

2

13

6

Monthly during investment period

21

EVPA, in its most recent guide to impact measurement <(1&+,&5(-(LF52&%(%#$.&55($6(/=%-.2( Quarterly during investmentstep period measurement: step 1: setting objectives; 2: analysing stakeholders; step 3:29 measuring 31 results – output, outcome, impact and indicators; step 4: verifying and valuing impact; and 19 Twice per year during investment step 5: monitoring and reporting.

Different period tools and methodologies are suitable for different Change in 17 Outputs Outcomes Impact Outcomes parts of the process, depending on the requirements and resources of the individual 33VPO. Once per year during investment period 15 The remaining survey questions on performance measurement focused on the social impact 84 81 VPOs. measurement activity of the European 4 ;M

Societal Financial numbers in % (n=48)

numbers in % (n=58)

Objective of impact measurement

33

15

Societal Financial

Only once when investment period is completed

4

69

60 6 )*&($EZ&.2/3&5($6(2*&(/=%-.2(=&-5"#&=&,2(5752&=(-#&<(/,(2*&(=-Z$#/27(@M[RD($6(.-5&5<(52/00( Never 13 based on output measures such as “number of people reached”. Nevertheless we have seen an increase in the percentage of VPOs attempting to measure changes in outcome or social value / impact (which requires an assessment of attribution)

Outputs

84

Outcomes

Change in Outcomes

Impact

81 69 60 Average spend per VPO

numbers in % (n=58)

Hehenberger, L; Harling, A; Scholten, B'(@9:;OD(_J(B#-.2/.-0(S"/1&(2$(X=%-.2( Measurement,” EVPA Knowledge Centre n&5&-#.*(B-%&#'(J(+,-0(3&#5/$,(4/00(E&( available on the KC publications site 6#$=(J%#/0(9:;Oc(*22%c^^&3%-'&"'.$=^ knowledge­centre/publications/ ;M

63.5k

Median spend per VPO

15kalso underlined by the number of respond­ The increased focus on impact measurement was ents who were able to quantify the estimated amount spent on measuring societal impact (n=47) /,(2*&(0-52(+5.-0(7&-#'(X,(-(5/8,/+.-,2(/,.#&-5&(6#$=(0-52(7&-#<([U(#&5%$,1&,25(4&#&(-E0&(2$( -,54&#(2*/5(>"&52/$,<("%(6#$=(;[(/,(9:;:'(X,(9:;;<(2*&(-3&#-8&(-,,"-0(E"18&2(6$#(=&-5"#/,8( 5$./&2-0(/=%-.2(4-5(Z"52($3&#(]KO<:::(@.$=%-#&1(2$(];M<:::(/,(9:;:D<(4/2*(-(=&1/-,(5%&,1( $6(];L<:::'( Average spend per VPO

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

63.5k

Median spend per VPO

81 69 60

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre March 2013

Outputs

Outcomes

84

numbers in % (n=58)

Change in Outcomes

Impact

81 69 60

numbers in % (n=58)

Average and median spend (€) in 2011 on measurement of societal impact

Average spend per VPO

63.5k

Median spend per VPO

15k (n=47)

Average spend per VPO

63.5k

Median spend per VPO

X,(0/,&(4/2*(0-52(7&-#Y5(#&5"025<(-(=-Z$#/27($6(HBC5(@UORD(/,1/.-2&1(2*-2(2*&7(4&#&(,$2("5/,8( 15k a standardized tool to measure social impact, and among those that did use such a tool, the (n=47) most frequently mentioned were Social Evaluator and SROI, although a quarter of people did answer that they were using IRIS indicators or theory of change. Interestingly, when asked whether they used one of the steps of the 5­step process developed in EVPA’s practical 8"/1&(2$(/=%-.2(=&-5"#&=&,2<(E&24&&,(U:R(-,1(W:R($6(#&5%$,1&,25("5&1(&-.*($6(2*&(52&%5'( 28 This suggests that EVPA’s is well grounded in the reality of impact measurement for Step guide 5 VPOs and that although some standardisation in process72 is feasible, the mix of actual tools 28 to be used still depends on the needs and preferences of a particular VPO. Step 4

72

12

Step 3

Steps taken for societal No impact measurement Yes

numbers in % (n=57)

Step Step 52

numbers in % (n=57)

Step 1

72 86

12

Step 3 Step 2

7279

14 28

Step Step 41

No Yes

88

2128

88 21

79

14

86

73

2011 2010 numbers in % (2011 n=52, 2010 n=48)

)*&(1/6+."027($6(*$4(2$(-55&55(2*&(5$./-0(/=%-.2(-2(%$#26$0/$(0&3&0(52/00(#&=-/,5'(X2(/5(-0#&-17( 63 1/6+."02(2$(2#-.G(5$./-0(/=%-.2($6(/,1/3/1"-0(/,3&52&&5<(E"2(2$(-11("%(1/66&#&,2(/=%-.25(6#$=( various social sectors is a real challenge. Many of the more established VPOs are develop­ 37 ing innovative ways of measuring 27 portfolio impact moving beyond mere aggregation of $"2%"25'()*&#&(/5(5$=&(.*-,8&(.$=%-#&1(2$(0-52(7&-#Y5(#&5"025(/,(2*/5(#&5%&.2'(X,(9:;;<(OUR($6( VPOs surveyed are currently “aggregating” social performance on portfolio level, compared 73 2$(9UR($6(2*&(HBC5(/,(9:;:'( Yes

37 2011 2010 numbers in % (2011 n=52, 2010 n=48)

63No

27

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012 Almost Never

Yes

28

No

47

[M

12

Step 3 Step 5

No Yes numbers in % (n=57)

Part 2: 2 Presentation ofStep Step 4 Survey Results Step 1 Step2 5 Step

numbers in % (n=57)

Step1 4 Step

72 86

12

88 21

Step 2

79

14

Step 1

63 37

73

86

27 73

63

numbers in % (2011 n=52, 2010 n=48)

numbers in % (2011 n=52, 2010 n=48)

72 79

28

14

2011 2010

2011 2010

86 88 21 28

Step 3

Aggregation of social numbersatina% performance (n=57) portfolio level in 2011 and 2010

79 72

14 12

No Yes

88

72

21 28

Step 3

No Yes

28

No

Yes

37

27

On the consequences of the impact measurement system, the survey found that the social performance of the investee almost always conditions the unlocking of new funds for a large 73 %#$%$#2/$,(@[URD($6(2*&(HBC5<(E"2(LOR(,&3&#($#($,07(5$=&2/=&5(2-G&(2*&(5$./-0(%&#6$#=-,.&( No Yes 63 into account before releasing Almost Nevernew funds.

37 2011 Does social performance 2010 condition the unlocking numbers in % of new funds (2011 n=52, 2010 n=48)

Almost Never (n=57)

27

47

%

2825

Almost Always

No

Yes

%

Sometimes

Almost Never

(n=57)

28

47 Almost Always

25

28 Sometimes VP/SI staff compensation:

%

Tied to financial performance of investment

%

Count

47

2% Almost1Always

Tied to social performance of investment

6%

3

Last year we found that compensation did not include the social performance Tied to combination of financialstructures and social performance 6% 3 25 -5%&.2(2$(-(8#&-2(1&8#&&'()*/5(7&-#(4&(*-3&(5/=/0-#(#&5"025<(4/2*($,07(;9R($6(2*&(HBC5(/,­ Tied to staff individual targets set by management VP/SI compensation: 65% % 34 Count cluding social performance in the compensation schemes for their own staff (i.e. as tied to (n=57) Sometimes of investment Other Tied to financial performance 21% 2% 111 2*&(5$./-0(%&#6$#=-,.&($6(2*&(/,3&52=&,2($#(-(.$=E/,-2/$,($#(2*&(+,-,./-0(-,1(5$./-0(%&#6$#­ TOTAL Tied to social performance of investment 100% 6% 523 =-,.&($6(-,(/,3&52=&,2D'(J(=-Z$#/27($6(HBC5(@KLRD(5&2(52-66(.$=%&,5-2/$,(2/&1(2$(/,1/3/1"-0( targets – that may social Tied to include combination of performance. financial and social performance 6% 3 Tied to individual targets set by management

65%

34

VP/SI staff compensation: Other

Count 11

% 21%

52 1

2% 100%

Tied to social performance of investment

3

6%

Tied to combination of financial and social performance

3

6%

Tied to individual targets set by management

34

65%

Other

11

21%

52

100%

Tied to financial performance of investment TOTAL

TOTAL Sometimes

Rarely

Never

5 5

11 Investment 2011/2012 European Venture Philanthropy and Social Never Rarely 48

Always

Almost Never European Venture Philanthropy Association28 Knowledge Centre

[W

47

%

March 2013

Almost Always

25 (n=57)

Sometimes

VP/SI staff compensation:

Count

%

1

2%

Tied to financial performance of investment

"P(IT%&; Tied to social performance of investment 6% 3 In VP/SI, the “exit strategy” is the action plan for how to end the relationship in a way that Tied to combination of financial and social performance 6% between 3 does not impact the investee negatively. The “exit” is the end of the relationship Tied to individual targets set by management 65% 34 2*&(HBC(-,1(-,(/,3&52&&($#8-,/5-2/$,(&/2*&#(-62&#(-(%#&F1&+,&1(2/=&(4*&,(2*&(HBC(.-,(,$( longer add Other value or when the investment objectives have been achieved. the case of a 11 In 21% grant­funded investment, the exit is a discontinuation of a grant, whereas for social invest­ TOTAL 100% 52 ment the exit may involve repayment of a loan, or divestment of an equity stake. In any case, an exit requires careful planning and support, notably by building both the organizational -,1(+,-,./-0(#&5/0/&,.&^5"52-/,-E/0/27($6(2*&(/,3&52&&($#8-,/5-2/$,'(C2*&#(Qg(%"E0/.-2/$,5;W include greater detail on how to conduct exits in VP and social investment.

J5(.$=%-#&1(2$(9:;:(1-2-<(=$#&(HBC5(%0-,(2*&/#(&V/2(52#-2&8/&5<(&/2*&#(/,(-00(.-5&5(@[MRD<( $62&,(@O;RD($#(5$=&2/=&5(@;;RD'(J(=-Z$#/27($6(#&5%$,1&,25(@L9RD(-0#&-17(52-#2(%0-,,/,8(2*&( &V/2(E&6$#&(2*&(/,3&52=&,2(/5(=-1&<(-,1(5$=&(@OLRD(%0-,(2*&(&V/2(1&%&,1/,8($,(2*&(%#$8#&55( of the organisation.

Do you have a planned exit strategy for your investments?

Never

Rarely

5 5

Sometimes

11 48

%

Always

31 Often (n=61)

We also asked whether the VPO respondents had achieved any exits so far. In fact a majority $6(HBC5(@K;RD(*-3&(-0#&-17(E&&,(2*#$"8*(-,(&V/2(%#$.&55<(.$=%-#&1(2$($,07(L9R(/,(2*&(0-52( survey.

Exits since inception (2011 and 2010 data)

2011 2010

61 Yes

52 Yes

numbers in % (2011 n=61, 2010 n=50)

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

Part 2: Presentation of Survey Results

L:

61

2011 2010 numbers in % (2011 n=61, 2010 n=50)

Yes

61

2011 2010 numbers in % (2011 n=61, 2010 n=50)

52

Yes

52

Yes

Yes

)*&(O[(HBC5(2*-2(%#$3/1&1(-(,"=E&#(6$#(*/52$#/.-0(&V/25(#&%$#2&1(2$(*-3&(&V/2&1(6#$=(LMU( $#8-,/5-2/$,5(-,1(O[U(/,1/3/1"-05(/,(2$2-0'(UM($6(2*$5&(&V/25(2$$G(%0-.&(/,(9:;;'(

Historical exits (by count) to date

Historical Exit Volume (Organisations)

Historical Exit Volume (Individuals) Historical Exit Volume (Organisations)

587

347

Historical Exit Volume (Individuals)

(n=34)

587

347

(n=34) UP(?$4";&<"$&()+$6;

Investment funds are becoming an increasingly important part of the venture philanthropy 0-,15.-%&<(4/2*([;R($6(#&5%$,1&,25(/,(2*/5(7&-#Y5(5"#3&7(#&%$#2/,8(2$(=-,-8&(-,(/,3&52=&,2( 6",1'()*&(9:;9(!HBJ(5"#3&7(/,.0"1&1(5$=&(5%&./+.(>"&52/$,5(6$#(2*$5&($#8-,/5-2/$,5(=-,­ aging investment funds so as to better understand the dynamics of this sub­group.

The largest number of investment funds is found in the UK & Ireland and France, with Swit­ a&#0-,1(e(J"52#/-(-,1(S&#=-,7(/,(&>"-0(2*/#1(%0-.&'

14

UK & Ireland

13

France

Geographical location of investment funds

Switzerland & Austria

4

UK &Germany Ireland

4 3

Spain France

number of funds (n=25, representing 45 funds)

13

Italy Switzerland & Austria

2

4

Benelux Germany

2

4

23

Eastern Europe Spain number of funds (n=25, representing 45 funds)

Scandinavia Italy

12

Benelux

2

Eastern Europe

2

Scandinavia

14

1

Multiple structures

5 Multiple structures

%

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012 51

44

Not­For­Profit

5

For Profit Structures

51

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre March 2013

14

UK & Ireland

13

France UK & Austria Ireland Switzerland

4

France Germany

4

Switzerland & Austria Spain

3 4 2

Germany Italy

number of funds (n=25, representing 45 funds)

Preferred structure for VP/SI investment funds

13

4

2 3

Spain Benelux number of funds (n=25, representing 45 funds)

14

Italy Eastern Europe

22

Benelux Scandinavia

1 2

When asked about the selected structure for the investment fund, it was clear from the re­ Eastern Europe 2 5%$,5&5(2*-2(2*&#&(/5(,$(%#&6&#&,.&(6$#(,$2F6$#F%#$+2($#(6$#(%#$+2(52#".2"#&5'(J(50/8*2(=-Z$#/27<( L;R( $6( #&5%$,1&,25<( %#&6&##&1( 6$#F%#$+2( 52#".2"#&5<( 4/2*( ,$2F6$#F%#$+2( 52#".2"#&5( "5&1( E7( Scandinavia 1 [[R($6(#&5%$,1&,25(-,1(="02/%0&(52#".2"#&5(E7(2*&(#&=-/,/,8(LR' Multiple structures

5

Multiple structures

5

44 Not­For­Profit Structures

44 Not­For­Profit (n=25, representing 45 funds) Structures

%

51

%

51

For Profit Structures

For Profit Structures

C"#(#&5&-#.*(/,2$(2*&(5/a&($6(2*&5&(/,3&52=&,2(6",15(7/&01&1(-,(-3&#-8&(5/a&($6(];L'M\(-,1( (n=25, representing 45 funds) =&1/-,( $6( ]K'L\<( 5"88&52/,8( 2*-2( -02*$"8*( 2*&#&( -#&( -( 6&4( 0-#8&#( 6",15<( 2*&( =-Z$#/27( -#&( Average Size of Funds much smaller.

Average and median size of investment funds

numbers in € m (n=20, representing 37 funds)

15,8

Average Size of Median Funds

15,8

Median

6,5 6,5

numbers in € m (n=20, representing 37 funds)

\-,-8&=&,2(6&&5(-#&(-(5%&./+.(2$%/.(6$#(/,3&52=&,2(6",15(-,1(2*&#&(/5(5$=&(1&E-2&(-5(2$( whether VP/SI investment fund management fees are or should be higher or lower (in per­ centage terms) than the equivalent funds in Average the venture capital or private equity industry, given VP/SI investment funds are generally of a smaller size and the investees require sig­ ,/+.-,2( -22&,2/$,( 6#$=( HB^AX( 6",1( =-,-8&#5'( C6( 2*&( ;W( $#8-,/5-2/$,5( 2*-2( %#$3/1&1( &3/­ Median Average dence on their management fees, we see a wide range of fee levels. However, in general 2*&5&(=-,-8&=&,2(6&&5(-#&(,$2(5/8,/+.-,207(*/8*&#(2*-,(2*$5&(5&&,(/,(2*&(3&,2"#&(.-%/2-0( $#(%#/3-2&(&>"/27(4$#01'()*&(-3&#-8&(=-,-8&=&,2(6&&(.*-#8&1(4-5(O'[R<(4*/0&(2*&(=&1/-,( Median 4-5(9'9LR'

3,4

3,4

numbers in % (n=19, representing 39 funds)

2,25

2,25

numbers in % (n=19, representing 39 funds)

16Social Investment 2011/2012 European Venture Philanthropy and 13

13

For Profit Structures Average Size of Funds

Not­For­Profit Structures

Part 2: (n=25, representing 45of funds) Presentation Survey Results

52

15,8

numbers in € m (n=20, representing 37 funds)

Median

6,5 Average Size of Funds

15,8 numbers in € m (n=20, representing 37 funds) Average and median

Median

6,5

Average

management fees (for those funds that charge fees)

Median

3,4 numbers in % (n=19, representing 39 funds)

2,25 Average

Median

Interestingly, when asked about their expected returns, VPOs who manage investment funds 16 -#&(=$#&(0/G&07(2$(&V%&.2(-(+,-,./-0(#&2"#,(6#$=(2*&/#(3&,2"#&(%*/0-,2*#$%7(/,3&52=&,25(2*-,( those managing their venture philanthropy activities from other structures. More research is 13 13 required to understand exactly why this is the case, for example whether it is because invest­ ment funds focus on different sectors or whether this has to be the approach for those funds that need to attract external capital.

3,4

numbers in % (n=19, representing 39 funds)

2,25 6

Negative Returns Capital Repaid Positive Return Expected returns for

VP/SI activities managed number of from funds (n=56) investment funds or not

4

4

16 13

No

Yes

6

Negative Returns

4

Capital Repaid Positive Return number of funds (n=56)

13

4

No

Yes

)*/5(5&.2/$,(*-5($,07(6$."5&1($,(2*&(8&,&#-0(.*-#-.2&#/52/.5(-,1(+,-,./-0(#&2"#,5(@&V%&.2&1( and realised) of investment funds but it could be interesting in next year’s survey to ask about the social impact expected and realised as well. More research is certainly needed to understand the different dynamics for funds versus other types of VPOs.

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre March 2013

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

53

54

Part 3:

Conclusion

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre March 2013

)*&(9:;9(!HBJ(5"#3&7(5*$45(/,(.$=%-#/5$,(4/2*(2*&(+#52(5"#3&7(@9:;;D<(2*-2(2*&(HB^AX(5&.­ tor in Europe is evolving rapidly. The most striking evolution is the shifting balance in return objectives. Although societal impact is the primary focus (organisations that do not have 2*/5(6$."5(-#&(,$2(/,.0"1&1(/,(2*&(5"#3&7D(2*&(#&0&3-,.&($6(5$=&(+,-,./-0(%-7E-.G(@&/2*&#(/,( .-%/2-0($#(-5(-,(-.2"-0(5"#%0"5($,(2*&(/,3&52=&,2D(*-5(E&.$=&(5/8,/+.-,207(=$#&(/=%$#2-,2'( We see this as a sign of the sector becoming more mature.

The survey reveals that *->3?(',80$%;0&%'$;(.04"(@"5'<"(<',"(;'1.%;&%50&"6 in their use of the entire range of VP/SI ‘tools’ to generate greater societal impact. It is encouraging to see the progress made by respondents in developing practices such as impact measurement @W[R(=&-5"#&(5$./-0(/=%-.2D<(1"&(1/0/8&,.&<(.$F/,3&52=&,2<(.-%-./27(E"/01/,8<(&66&.2/3&(,$,F +,-,./-0(-55/52-,.&(-,1(&V/25'()*&#&(4-5(-(,$2-E0&(/,.#&-5&(/,(2*&(3-#/&27($6(+,-,./,8(/,52#"­ =&,25("5&1(E7(2*&(HBC(#&5%$,1&,25(4/2*(-(5/8,/+.-,2(%$5,"0;"(%$(&."(+;"(')("A+%&2(0$6( 6"@&'()*&5&(+,1/,85(/,1/.-2&(2*-2(2-/0$#&1(+,-,./,8(/5(E&.$=/,8(-(#&-0/27'( Important to note from this year’s survey is that European VPOs are increasingly focusing on ;'5%0/("$&",1,%;"(0;(0(&0,8"&(/,3&52&&<(4/2*(0&55(6",1/,8(8$/,8(2$(,$,F%#$+2($#8-,/5-2/$,5<( and that they take risks by investing in ;<0//(',80$%;0&%'$;(B%&.(/%&&/"(&,05C(,"5',6.

The EVPA survey highlights that the VP/SI sector involves a variety of different types of organisations, professionals and funders. The &'1(5'+$&,%"; in terms of housing VPOs are the D9E(F,0$5"(0$6(G",<0$2, whereas the bulk of the )+$6%$8(8'";(&' H";&",$(I+,'1"(0$6( ";1"5%0//2(3'+&.KI0;&",$(J),%50. Foundations and other $'$K1,'#&(;&,+5&+,"; remain major players, both in terms of VPOs and in terms of funders of VP/SI. The ,";'+,5";(')(I+,'1"0$( *->3?(.04"(%$5,"0;"6, as is evident in the total and average funding available and invested, and by the fact that there is now a larger pool of professionals working in VP/SI. However, most European VPOs have @+68"&;(')(/";;(&.0$(NOPQ<(1",(0$$+<. It is clear that more fund­ ing and resources are needed to help VPOs in their important work to build stronger social purpose organisations. EVPA is committed to continue the research and promotion of best practice in the key components of the VP/SI model and reiterates the importance of a col­ laborative approach to developing the sector.

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

55

56

Part 4:

Appendix

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

European Venture Philanthropy Association Knowledge Centre March 2013

Sources i-0E$<(m'<(d&*&,E&#8&#<(m'<(\$#2&00<(h'(e(C$520-,1&#<(B'(@9:;:D<( “Establishing a Venture Philanthropy Organisation in Europe”, EVPA Knowledge Centre Research Paper.

EVPA’s Code of Conduct: %##*677&8*(9&"9)1:7;*<)1,#&,#7"*.1(207=>??7??7@ABC<D12&<14<D1,2")#EFGE????==9*24 d&*&,E&#8&#<(m'<(d-#0/,8<(J'<(A.*$02&,<(B'(@9:;OD<( _J(B#-.2/.-0(S"/1&(2$(X=%-.2(\&-5"#&=&,2`<(!HBJ(Q,$40&18&(g&,2#&(n&5&-#.*(B-%&#'( J(+,-0(3&#5/$,(4/00(E&(-3-/0-E0&($,(2*&(Qg(%"E0/.-2/$,5(5/2&(6#$=(J%#/0(9:;Oc( %##*677&8*(9&"9)1:7H,1;.&25&<)&,#/&7*"!.-)(#-1,07 I$*,<(n'(@9::KD<( “Venture Philanthropy: the evolution of high engagement philanthropy in Europe,” Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Said Business School, University of Oxford.

I$*,<(n'(@9::UD<( “Beyond the Cheque: how venture philanthropists add value”, Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Said Business School, University of Oxford. m&225<(g'<(n7-,<(N'(-,1(S#$55=-,<(J'(@;WWUD<( “Virtuous Capital: What Foundations Can Learn from Venture Capitalists”, Harvard Business Review \&2a(g"==/,85<(J'(-,1(d&*&,E&#8&#<(m'(@9:;:D< “Strategies for Foundations: When, why and how to use Venture Philanthropy”, EVPA Knowledge Centre Research Paper.

B$#2&#<(\'!'(-,1(Q#-=&#<(\'n'(@;WWWD< “Philanthropy’s New Agenda: Creating Value”, Harvard Business Review A-02"G<(o'<(i$"#/<(J'<(e(m&",8<(S'(@9:;;D<( “Insight into the Impact Investment Market, An in­depth analysis of investors perspectives -,1($3&#(9<9::(2#-,5-.2/$,5`<(I'B'(\$#8-,<(SXXb' A-02"G<(o<(i$"#/<(J'<(\"1-0/-#<(J'(e(B&-5&<(\'(@9:;OD<( _B&#5%&.2/3&5($,(B#$8#&55c()*&(X=%-.2(X,3&52$#(A"#3&7`<(IB'(\$#8-,<(SXXb' A-0-=$,<(m'(\'<(-,1(J,*&/&#<(d'(Q'(@;WW9D<( X,(5&-#.*($6(2*&(,$,%#$+2(5&.2$#'(XXc()*&(%#$E0&=($6(.0-55/+.-2/$,'(H$0",2-5<(O@OD<(9KUFO:W'

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

57

LM

Part 4: Appendix

`%;&(')(:";1'$6"$&;(&'(&."(3+,4"2 J@;'/+&"(:"&+,$()',(9%6; J/&",(IA+%&2 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Anonymousâ&#x20AC;?

Anton Jurgens Fonds J,&.0(?$%&%0&%4" J;.'C0 J+,%6%; a0<@''(#$0$5" BBVA a7H(3&%)&+$8 a'$*"$&+,"(70$08"<"$&(G<@S a,%68";(*"$&+,"; =JW(ba,"0C&.,'+8. =0&0/+$20(=0%T0 =%&%c"$(=01%&0/ =,"0; G,0<""$(=,"6%&(J8,%5'/" =,"6%&(=''1",0&%) =+/&%40 !"<"&",(F'+$60&%'$ 6'@(F'+$60&%'$( I$&,"1,"$6,"(d(e I:3LI(3&%)&+$8 I;<""(F0%,@0%,$(F'+$60&%'$ I;;/(F'+$60&%'$ F",6(3'5%0/(I$&,"1,"$"+,; F'$60c%'$"(=:L F'$60c%'$"(`0$8(%&0/%0 F'$60c%'$"(-0%6"%0 GJHJ(=01%&0/(-0,&$",;( [)',<",/2(J<@",;d='(=01%&0/\ G''6@"" G''6(!""6(F'+$60&%'$ IKARE ?<105&(F%,;&(?$4";&<"$&; ?<1"&+;(L,+;&( Incluvest BV ?$$'40&%4"(F%$0$5"(F'+$60&%'$ ?$;1%,%$8(35'&/0$6 ?$4";&()',(=.%/6,"$ 9%$8(a0+6'+%$(F'+$60&%'$ `GL(*"$&+,"(-.%/0$&.,'12 7"6%0(!"4"/'1<"$&(?$4";&<"$&(F+$6 NESsT W'0@",(F'+$60&%'$ M/%4",(LB%;&(F'+$60&%'$ M/&,"(*"$&+," M<$%;'+,5"(?$&",$0&%'$0/ L."(M$"(F'+$60&%'$ -.%L,+;&( F,0$5" :02$"(F'+$60&%'$ :';0(J/#",%(F'+$60&%'$ 3."//(F'+$60&%'$

I,-#&2$J-,521: France I,-#&2$J-,521: Netherlands Switzerland Germany Germany Switzerland Spain Germany Germany I,-#&2$J-,521: I,-#&2$J-,521: Spain France Spain F"K&:!1"/5 France Norway France Netherlands France Austria I,-#&2$J-,521: Austria Norway Italy Italy Italy Spain Austria Estonia I,-#&2$J-,521:$ Israel I,-#&2$J-,521:$ Netherlands Switzerland I,-#&2$J-,521: Spain L&.5-": Switzerland DM&)%$G&*"!.-) N",5(/' Netherlands Italy Italy F"K&:!1"/5 Ireland France I,-#&2$J-,521: Spain I,-#&2$J-,521:

European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2011/2012

-+@/%;."6(@2(&."(I+,'1"0$(*"$&+,"(-.%/0$&.,'12(J;;'5%0&%'$ )*/5(&1/2/$,(\-#.*(9:;O g$%7#/8*2(p(9:;O(!HBJ Email: info@evpa.eu.com Website: www.evpa.eu.com g#&-2/3&(g$==$,5(J22#/E"2/$,Fb$,.$==&#./-0Fb$(h&#/3-2/3&(N$#G5(O':'( You are free to share – to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work – under the following conditions: • Attribution: You must attribute the work as EUROPEAN VENTURE BdXmJb)dnCBo(Jbh(ACgXJm(XbH!A)\!b)(9:;;^9:;9( g$%7#/8*2(p(9:;O(!HBJ' • 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: Dr Lisa Hehenberger, Anna­Marie Harling L21";"&Z Myriad and Book Antiqua !";%8$(0$6(&21";"&&%$8Z(B/2.*(i0-.G(S#-%*/.(h&5/8,(n$22&#1-=^i&#0/,( (pitchblackgraphicdesign.com) XAib(WUMW:M;W:U:OO

='12,%8.&()',(1.'&'; Front cover: ­ 3 smiling children © Ark F(S#$"%($6(2&&,-8&#5(p(X=%&2"5()#"52 ­ Happy family © Arianna Forcella (Oltre Venture) F(\-#G&2(p(mS) Back cover: ­ Boys at school © CIFF ­ Teenagers © Headstrong Organiza­ tion supported by the One Foundation

78 Avenue de la Toison d'Or 1060 Brussels, Belgium tel: +32 (0) 2.513.21.31 Fax: +32 (0) 2.534.24.77 Email : info@evpa.eu.com

EVPA is a membership association made up of organisations interested in or practicing venture philanthropy. Established in 2004, the association is a unique network of venture philanthropy organisations and others committed to promoting high­engagement grant making and social investment in Europe.

Currently the association has 160 members from 22 countries.

The EVPA Knowledge Centre is kindly sponsored by Natixis Private Equity

EVPA’s mission is to promote the expansion, effectiveness and impact of venture philanthropy and social investment in Europe.

The EVPA Knowledge Centre is the hub for European knowledge and thought leadership on venture philanthropy and social investment. Its mission is to: 1. provide EVPA members with resources and knowledge to assist them in the development of strategy and best practice

EVPA is extremely grateful to Fondazione CRT, Impetus Trust, Invest for Children, Noaber Foundation and Omidyar Network for their generous support

2. provide EVPA/VP field with legitimacy to: • Inspire professionals and attract funding • Enable academic research • Engage public information 3. Connect practitioners, academics and advisors around field know­how.

€25.00 VENTURE PHILANTHROPY SOCIAL INVESTMENT SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP ISBN 9789081907033

9 789081 907019