Monitoring of Impact Investment Funds Luiz Proenca de G… · Web viewInvestment Impact Funds are...

2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428

MONITORING OF IMPACT INVESTMENT FUNDS

Renato Luiz Proença de Gouvêa

BrazilianDevelopment Bank - BNDES

Roberto de Oliveira Pereira

BrazilianDevelopment Bank - BNDES

July 1-2, 2015Cambridge, UK 1


ABSTRACT

Investment Impact Funds are similar to Venture Capital funds in several aspects, but

with one fundamental difference; their performance is also measured by the benefits provided

to lower income classes. Funds invested in startups: induce management and governance

changes, suggest projects to raise capacity and search for new business opportunities. These

support activities demand continual screening to recognize market changes and lapses in

performance to decide what actions are needed to enhance the startup’s evolution. As a

contribution to the impact fund’s management, the developed model presented in this text

assists the monitoring from investor's internal activities to the observation of social benefits

and return of investment. Two models used by the development banks to plan, monitor,

evaluate and communicate their investment performance were used to create the final model

to monitor investment impact funds. So, investment impact fund’s complexity was

represented by a synthesis of these two models: “Logical Framework” and “Outcome

Mapping”. Logical Framework focuses on investment’s impact chain and Outcome Mapping

on the change process behavior of the partners, in this case management and governance

improvement. In the end, the proposed synthesis model is applied to hypothetical case, where

the whole process of investment impact funds is described.

Keywords: funds, impact investing fund, monitoring, Logical Framework, Outcome

Mapping, new firms, startups, development bank



MONITORING OF IMPACT INVESTMENT FUNDS

INTRODUCTION

The public sector often uses management tools originally developed for private companies. In

this paper, an inversion of this will be proposed: the adjustment of management tools

developed in government and multilateral institutions for monitoring startups supported by

“impact investment funds”, which are essentially private funds. Impact investment funds are

similar to the Venture Capital (VC) funds, with a crucial difference: the performance of

impact funds is assessed both in relation to the social impact generated and to the capital

return. The main contribution of such funds is the supporting of innovation in products and

services targeted at lower income classes.

Such funds constantly monitor the development of companies supported through decision

making concerning new support actions until disinvestment, which takes place when it is

deemed that the investment has achieved the expected return or that the company lacks

potential to achieve its goals. In order to prepare a model for monitoring impact investment

funds, expertise of the Government and Multilateral Development Financial Institutions

(GMDFIs) is used. For decades such institutions have been developing instruments for

supporting the management cycle of their initiatives, as well as improving planning,

monitoring and assessment routines. One of the focuses of such activities is the monitoring of

products and services delivered and the scope of the end goals of projects and programs

supported. The proposal for monitoring such funds is based on a model that summarizes two

tools: Logical Framework and Outcome Mapping.



VENTURE CAPITAL AND IMPACT INVESTMENT FUNDS

Venture Capital Funds

The European Venture Capital and Private Equity Association defines Venture Capital as

investment in companies in the initial stage of development with expected profits that are

much higher than the opportunity cost. Such high return is due to the high growth potential

and to the value added by managers of such funds to the companies.

According to the National Venture Capital Association of the United States, the main

characteristics of the Venture Capital investments are i) the companies that receive the

investment are usually privately held corporations; ii) most companies have fast growth

potential, are innovative and belong to the high technology sectors; iii) investment provides

assistance for the development of the company and of new products or services, taking a high

risk with expected profits; iv) invested resources come from private funds, pension funds,

gifts, foundations, companies and individual investors; v) investors usually transform their

interests into shares of the companies.

Research conducted by Fred Dotzer (2001) reported the main benefits to the business

ofVenture Capital funds, according to entrepreneurs: financial management, hiring of

personnel for higher management, strategic instructions, working capital planning,

organizational planning, performance monitoring and feedback, and building relationships

with other companies.

The funds must continuously monitor the company’s progress and actively participate in its

management to guarantee that VC investments generate the value expected by its investors.

The purpose is to detect deviations or problems, aid decision making concerning actions

necessary for the company’s progress and make strategic changes from time to time. Such

monitoring is planned in the initial stage of financial investment, and includes a series of

follow-up actions: meetings, visits, boardroom participation and preparation of reports. Such



monitoring activities demand significant effort from the investment fund managers, which

may lead to increased management costs. For such reason, VC funds often establish

partnerships with “company accelerators” after investment of capital. (Kaplan, Strömberg,

2001)

The accelerator´s funds complement VC funds by selecting small startups with growth

potential, usually specializing in the same sector, by providing strategic and operational

instructions by means of mentors, connecting the company to networks for the exchange of

experience and technologies and by attracting new investors and clients.

The relationship of accelerators with startups usually lasts from three to six months. After this

term, more resources are demanded in order for the the further development of the startup. At

such stage, the accelerator eventually transfers its interest to other larger investors (Mille and

Bound, 2011).

Impact Investment Funds

Since the expression “impact investment” was first coined in 2007 during a meeting of

officers at the Rockefeller Foundation, this type of investment has been spreading all over the

world (Addis, McLeod, Raine, 2013).

The most distinguishing feature of impact investment is its purpose of reaching a positive

social, cultural and/or environmental benefit with financial return. The financial return

differentiates the impact investment from philanthropic support. The intentional design aimed

benefits for the society separates it from other traditional investments.

Impact investment encourages innovations focused on society’s lower socialeconomic

classes. Such private investments can complement the action of governments for improving

social services and may provide solutions that philanthropic interventions usually do not

achieve. These funds invest in several areas: culture, community development, education,



employment, health, environmental management, sustainable agriculture, renewable energy,

justice and housing (RIIA, 2013).

These funds join private and public interests to combineprofitable investments to achieve

social goals, a blended value. The International Finance Corporate (IFC), for example,

teamed up with the insurance company New York Life Insurance to create a fund for

supporting the creation of jobs for small and medium startups (SMEs) in the City of Sichuan,

China. (Clark, Emerson, Thornley, 2014)

Startup strategy must be adapted constantly to react to changes inthe market. The demands of

developing effort to build social startups, envolves daily challenges and many setbacks.

Impact funds, like Venture Capital funds, needaccurace of data to steer the organization in

the right direction. (Westaway K., 2014). Fund´s managers are increasingly looking to create

a social management information system to assist them innot only tracking performance

and impacts but also assessing the relative value of the impacts they generate (Bugg-

Levine, Emerson, 2011). Concerning monitoring, the most commonly used system of

indicators for monitoring impact investments is Impact Reporting and Investments Standards

(IRIS), which provides a catalogue of indicators per sector, proposed by The Global Impact

Investing Network (GIIN). IRIS indicators encompass social, environmental and financial

impacts. Such impact indicators are used for subsidizing the calculation of the Global Impact

Investing Ratings System (GIIRS), one of the most used tools for assessing the generation of

impacts of the companies. As a result, GIIRS provides a rating of the development stage of

each company, which allows it to compare impact results between different companies

(without identifying them) and to follow up the progress of the company itself. The GIIRS

assessment involves 50-120 questions considered by their importance for each sector. The

questions were originally divided into four impact categories (B-Lab, 2011):



i) Governance - mission and engagement, governance, anticorruption, transparency

and reward policy.

ii) Workers - benefits, training, participation in decisions and results, flexible work

environment, nondiscrimination policies, policy for hiring third parties and

occupational safety.

iii) Community - policy for verifying conduct of suppliers concerning social,

environmental and legal requirements, development of local economy, promotion

of diversity(including women, physically-impaired individuals and minorities in

general), support of social action by means of gifts and participation of

employees.

iv) Environment - policies for reducing environmental impact on raw materials,

purchases, environmental management, recycling, less polluting production,

incentives for employees to use public transportation, reduction of business trips,

environmental standard certificates, reduction of waste and emissions.

Subsequently, another area was created for dealing with impact business models:

v) Socially & Environmentally Beneficial Business Model - generation of services

and products for the lower socioeconomic classes, incentive for renewable energy,

environmental preservation, and pollution prevention and education.

According to JP Morgan, apudLazzarini,Pongeluppe and Yoong (2013), the impact

investment market has been rapidly growing over the last few years. It is a market with

expected direct investment potential from US$ 400 million to US$ 1 trillion before 2020.



GOVERNMENT AND MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL

INSTITUTIONS (GMDFI)

GMDFIs play a key role in financially supporting economic and social development, with the

purpose of improving quality of life. Supported interventionsare analyzed for their economic

and financial feasibility, which allows generation of return in order to offset financing, and by

virtue of benefits concerning development.

Such institutions were first created in France in 1852, called banquesd´affaires, aiming at

launching and financing infrastructure projects, businesses and industrial companies, which

needed long-term financing. After World War II, a number ofGMDFIs expanded in order to

encourage development and efforts for economic recovery, among them was the Bank for

Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), which is nowadays a division of the World Bank,

founded in 1944. (ABDE, 1994).These institutions primarily loaned to governments, but they

realized that private companies also needed investment support. The World Bank, founded in

1946, for example, launched International Finance Corporate to invest directly into the

private sector in 1956 (Bugg-Levine, Emerson, 2011).

Over the years, GMDFIs have developed models for formulating, monitoring and assessing

projects. The necessity for this is motivated both by the need for using management

instruments and to report back to stakeholders.

INSTRUMENTS USED BY GMDFIs FOR DESCRIBING THE LOGIC OF

INTERVENTIONS: LOGICAL FRAMEWORK, OUTCOME MAPPING AND

SYNTHESIS MODEL

Theory of Change

In order to monitor projects or programs, it is necessary to know how to keep up with the

progress of interventions by means of indicators. The first step is logically defining the



intervention´s Theory of Change. Interventions are represented in a structure that, from

assessment of cause and effect implications of a problem situation, outlines strategies and

means for changing such situation. (Pfeiffer, P., 2005). The process shows the relation

between activities to be performed, products and services to be delivered and expected

effects, usually represented by figures (Lazzarini, 2013). After definition of the logic of the

desired change, the next step is to identify indicators that allow follow up at each

development stage of the intervention.

Logical Framework Description

Logical Framework (Logframe) is one of the most disseminated instruments for

representing the Theory of Change. It is used for planning, monitoring and assessing

development programs and projects.

The representation of Logframe is linear, from activities necessary for the delivery of

products and services to expected direct and indirect effects. Figure 1 represents the impact

chain from which Logframe is created:

Figure 1, Impact Chain

Logframe represents the impact chain in two categories: a vertical logic and horizontal logic.

Vertical logic clarifies the expected impact chain (Activities, Products and Services

delivered, Direct Effects, Indirect Effects). Horizontal logic describes how each stage of the

impact chain of the project/program will be monitored by means of indicators, with

description of their sources of evidence and external prerequisites for the success of the

intervention. Figure 2 below presents the Logical Framework Matrix.



Figure 2, Logical Framework

InterventionLogic

Objectively measurable and

verified Indicators

Source of verification

Important Assumptions

Indirect Effects

Wider problems the project or program will help to resolve

Ways of measuring the achievement of indirect

effect

Sources of information

External factors necessary to sustain

objectives in the long run

Direct Effects

The immediate impact on the area or target group to be

achieved by the program/project

Ways of measuring the achievement of direct

effect


External actors necessary if achieved

project/ program contribute to reaching

the indirect effect

Products and

Services

Deliverable results expected form the program/project to

attain the direct effect

Ways of measuring the services and product

delivery


Factors out of program/project control which, if present, could restrict progress from

outputs to direct effects

Activities Summary of tasks to deliver the products and services Activities’ status Sources of

information

Factors out of program/project control which, if present, could restrict progress from activities to achieving

outputs

Logframe and impact investment funds

Logframe is used for defining and detailing activities, products and services delivered and

impacts on the company and social impacts planned by the impact investment funds. It is not

suitable for dealing with changes in the management of the companies supported, an essential

condition for achieving the expected results.

Outcome Mapping Model Description

Outcome Mapping (OM) methodology was proposed in 2001 for filling gaps that existed in

the Logical Framework´s approach. It by highlights the importance of behavior changes of

intermediary agents of financing, who are usually representatives of local governments, for

the success of interventions and sustainability of results. This is the case of support of

GMDFIs support in developing countries, when the sustainability of effects of improved

quality of life are only feasible by means of the participation of local groups: NGOs,



community and others stakeholders(called boundary partners by Outcome Mapping

methodology). (Earl, Carden, Smutylo, 2001).

Other factors that differentiate OM from Logframeare the proposal of a management cycle

(planning, monitoring and assessment) and the relation of contribution of products and

services for the purposes (effects) in a less direct way than in Logical Framework.

The three stages for development of the management cycle are described below:

The first stage of the cycle consists of the Project of Intentions, where intervention is

planned. The first activity of this stage consists of defining the vision, that is, the goal and

effects it intends to achieve as a result of implementation of interventions. Afterwards, there

is definition of the mission, which describes how the program will contribute to the vision.

After definition of the mission, the behavior outcomechallenges are set forth for each

boundary partner. The changes, encouraged by the program, are monitored from the

establishment of logical progress markers. A set of progress markers are defined for each of

the outcome challenges and represent a change model expected for the boundary partner. The

progress markers represent the information that fund’s managers have to gather in order to

monitor the achievement towards the desired outcomes. Progress markers can be considered

as sample indicators ofbehaviour changes.

Figure 3 Example of Progress Markers

LMH: low , medium , highExpect to see Who?

L MH

Board of directors have a important role in decision process



Within this phase, a strategic matrix is created with actions planned by GMDFIs for

contributing to changes and results. There are three types of matrix actions: the causal type,

which leads a high probability of produce changes, for instance new equipment delivery. The

second type is the persuasion for change, in which there is description of the support to be

made for training, dissemination of information and planning workshops. The third type is

supporting the sustainability of changes,this includes building of community networks for

exchanging of knowledge and hiring consultants. These purposes are defined for individuals

and groups, as shown below:

Figure 4, Strategy Map

Source: Earl, S., Carden, F., Smutylo, T. (2001).

The last part of the first phase, having defined the goals and how changes will be encouraged,

is to set forth how the organization will internally act for improving its contributions towards

reaching expected results.

The second phase encompasses the structure for monitoring the implementation of strategies

and the progress markers of changes.

The third and final phase is assessment planning. The entire process is depicted below:



Figure 5, Monitoring and Assessment Process

Source: Earl, S., Carden, F., Smutylo, T. (2001).

OM and impact investment funds

The approach of OM, by focusing on the challenges of behavior changes, clearly shows the

importance of the continual influence of the external agents (funds) for the evolution of

partners (companies). The concepts of challenges of changes, progress markers and strategy

maps are major contributers to modelling this typeof intervention. For impact investment

funds, changes are mainly made to the company’s management and capacity. Another

relevant item, arising from the continual effort to stimulate changes, is the description of

activities to establish change strategies.

Synthesis Model

Roduner and Walter Schläppi (2008) proposed a methodological evolution, by joining the

strengths of Logframe and OM methodologies. The Synthesis Model (SM) proposed by them

allows representation of both the evolution of changes in partners and the results provided for

in terms of products and services and their effects. According to the authors, the SM



proposed is only an initial reference for proposals of intervention structuring, that is, an

analysis structure from which a specific solution must be created for each case, depending on

the context.

SM proposed by Roduner, Ambrose (2009) is represented below:

Figure 6, Synthesis Model

Description:

Overall Goal: clear and concrete formulation of the desired impact, it is an overall

goal that must guide interventions.

Direct effects of products and services and behavioral changes (Program Goal): direct

effects expected as a result of projects completion and changes in the partners

behavior.

Challenges of Changes of Partners (Outcome Challenge): the results of the external

agent actions to change organizational practices and structures are formulated for each

partner. For each challenge, qualitative and quantitative indicators are used as gradual



progress markers for each partner in order to allow the monitoring of changes.

Progress markers must be continuously monitored so to detect project deviations and

implement occasional corrections.

Products and Services delivered (Output): deliveries from the contribution as an

external agent. The products and services reflect concrete deliveries, which may be

verified by means of indicators.

Strategy Map: setting out tasks, duties and liabilities to be performed for delivery of

products and services. The definition of the set of strategies to be performed is a result

of the performance planning of the agent. The strategies adopted must be periodically

reviewed for effectiveness, efficiency, and, most of all, their contribution to changes.

Results must be plausibly connected with change challenges.

Mission: it defines the role of change external agent (IFDGs) in relation to partners

and results. It includes the organizational practices of the change agent: internal

strategies of the external agent so that its performance is innovative, creative, efficient

and relevant.

Model for monitoring Impact Funds (MFI)

The purpose of this model is to provide a representative model for the development stages of

the startups supported by impact investment funds, to monitor the actions and results.

Whilst preparing the model proposal, practices and instruments developed by GMDFIs for

monitoring their investments were considered. This decision was deemed relevant because of

the similar goals of the impact investment funds and GMDFIs, since both of them seek to

associate benefits for the society and financial return.

The proposal adjusts the Synthesis Model to the specificities of the impact investments, that

is, changes are made for representing the investment and efforts of management of the funds

for developing the supported countries. The first change is that there is only one “partner” in



this case, which is the invested company, contrary to the Synthesis Model which covers for

many partners.

Furthermore, the challenges of change become the ones that will help the company in a

sustainable way, with management and governance compatible with its growth and increased

capacity. Another fundamental aspect to be considered is that there are two expected effects

of the performance of strategies: financial return and social and environmental impact

(blended value).

Although GRIIS is commonly applied in full four impact categories for assessing results of

the companies supported by the impact investment funds, due to the still incipient state of the

supported companies, the decision was made to only use two categories: “Governance” and

“Business Social and Environmental Impact”. The reason for this choice was that governance

is the initial focus of funds, a consequence of corporate constitution of the company and a

crucial requirement sustainable. Moreover, the “Business Social and Environmental Impact”

category was selected for measuring the social and environmental impact generated by the

companies. Ratifying such simplification, on GIIRS website http://giirs.org/companies/get-

rated-companies there is a warning that GIIRS methodology may not be suitable for

companies in the initial stage of growth. By adopting GIIRS, even if partially, it is still

possible to compare the stage of supported companies to others of the same sector in the

categories considered.

Changes made in the Synthesis Model are shown in Figure 7.



Figure 7, Model for Monitoring Impact Funds

The two feedback loops show a cyclical management process. If deviations are observed

during monitoring, new strategies are defined for reaching the goals.

Presentation of Hypothetical Case: Total Health company

In order to illustrate the use of the monitoring model proposed for impact investment funds, a

hypothetical case will be used, based on the case of the company Saútil described below

(Lazzarini, Minardi, Pongeluppe, 2013).

The company Total Health offers information about health services. It catalogues the

locations of enrolled users to facilitate their access to health care services, negotiates lower

prices of medicine and provides medical advice. The majority of clients are of C, D and E

socioeconomic classes.



Clients contact of Total Health is made through an online portal. The company is 1 year old

and has 20 permanent employees, on 48 hours per week contracts, and 5 part-time

employees, on 40 hours per week contracts.

For supporting the company, Corpo Capital impact investment fund established a partnership

with the accelerator of companies Acelerasementes, which provides instructions to the

management of Total Heath. Their role is share knowledge and education to startups like a

mini startup MBA. They help to review and to improve the startup´s strategy and to develop

through the help of mentors. The mentors are successful entrepreneurs who specialize in

different fields of expertise. They oversee the balanced scorecard of disciplines needed to

launch a successful business. (Romans, 2013). The Acelerasementesmentors are business

owners and officers with expertise in providing managerial support, discovering new

improvement opportunities, creating business-related opportunities and sharing experience

and information. The purpose of Acelerasementes is, within a short period of time, to prepare

Total Health so that it may reach its economic and social goals, becoming attractive to other

investors.

The business plan approved by the partners set forth the goal of attracting five thousand

clients of C, D and E classes in the following year, of which 1,500 are from socioeconomic

class E (earn of less than $2 per day), with projected revenue of $ 50,000/month and profits

of 20%. For achieving this, it will be necessary to increase the number of workers of Total

Health from 20 to 35 employees, purchase five servers for expansion and contingency and

purchase software for increasing the safety of the online portal.

Methodology Applied to the Case of Total Health

The main change of the Model for Impact Funds for Total Health consists of representing the

existence of two change agents: Corpo Capital and Acelerasementes. As seen, the impact

results obtained through the support of Total Health are measured by means of GIIRS.



Changes made in the Model for Total Health contemplate strategies and actions planned by

Acelerasementes and Corpo Capital and definition of goals for expected effects.

For monitoring corporate advances of “Governance”, indicators are used for measuring the

governance progress, such as: effective performance of the board of directors, awareness of

employees concerning the company’s mission and communication with clients for feedbacks

and complaints. For monitoring “Business Social and Environmental Impact”, the main

indicator is the percentage of clients served receiving less than $2 per day.

Figure 8, Example of Model for Monitoring Impact Funds



The stages from one to five refer to the company Total Heath. Stage 6 is defined for all

companies that are part of the fund’s portfolio.

Description of stages of Figure 8:

Stage 1 - Mission: liabilities of support actions are shared between Acelerasementes

accelerator and Corpo Capital. The mission of each one is stated in the cooperation

agreement, and Acelerasementes has greater input for guiding and monitoring Total

Heath.

Stage 2 - Internal activities of Acelerasementes and Corpo Capital: meetings on the

situation of the company, sector monitoring, performance verification, generation of

ideas and approval of guidelines for new actions in the company.

Stage 3 - Performance strategies: advisory actions, board participation, support

(training, instructions) and definition of projects for achieving the goals of the startup,

please see ‘Planning, Management and Governance’ and ‘Projects’.

Stage 4.a - Planning, Management and Governance: increased management capacity,

whose result is assessed by Governance-GIIRS criteria. Such improvement may result

from the recommendations and the expertise of Acelerasementes´s mentors and of the

managers of Corpo Capital fund, through the creation of an effective board of

directors, hiring of officers and training for increased managerial capacity of current

officers at Total Heath. The progress marker for the board of directors has three

levels: 1) creation of the board of directors, 2) bimonthly meetings of the board and 3)

influence of the board on the company’s strategic decisions.

Stage 4.b - Projects: project results for providing the company with greater productive

capacity and infrastructure. The main projects are the purchase and installation of new

servers, increased security of online portal, training and advertizing campaign for

services offered.



Stage 5 - Investment in specific purposes, with goals established by investor and

partners, namely:

i. Financial and economic: financial return of the investment. To achieve revenue of

$ 50,000/month and profits of 20%.

ii. Social return: measure of effects produced by the company in the target public,

service of 5,000 clients, of which 1,500 present earn less than $ 2 per day.

Stage 6 - Portfolio purposes: financial, social and environmental results of the group

of companies supported by Corpo Capital fund. This stage is not discussed in this

example.

Monitoring procedures of each stage in the case of Total Heath:

In stage 1, the process begins with agreement between Acelerasementes and Corpo

Capital for developing the business potential of Total Health. Acelerasementes plays

the role of mentor to Total Health and continuously monitors the results obtained. The

role of Corpo Capital fund is to cooperate with Acelerasementes and Corpo Capital to

review strategic planning, through the board, and to participate in the preparation of

action strategies with Acelerasementes and the company executive board.

In stage 2, internal activities of agents of the program (Corpo Capital and

Acelerasementes) initiates for defining or reviewing support strategies in order for

Total Health to achieve its goals.

In stage 3, support actions are conducted in relation to each type of strategy (causal,

persuasion and support). Activities to be performed are also set out in detail for

subsequent delivery of products and services and for improved management.

In stage 4, results of the actions performed and defined in the previous stage are

monitored for delivery of products and services (output) and performance of changes

in the company’s management. Monitoring includes the verification of compliance



with physical and financial time schedule of projects being performed until final

delivery of products and services. Among the projects to be implemented in Total

Health there is increased capacity of data processing and storage (acquisition of five

servers), installation of information security software, hiring of consultants and

training for officers.

In stage 5, the results concerning social impacts and economic and financial return are

measured and compared with predetermined goals. The report GIIRS, criteria of

“Business Social and Environmental Impact” measures the impact results. The

analysis of results made in stage 5 generates subsidies for new internal actions and

strategies (Stages 2 and 3).

Stage 6 refers to the monitoring of aggregate results of the investments in all

companies in the portfolio of Investments of Corpo Capital Investment Fund. Its

monitoring is outside the scope of this example.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of the proposal presented in this paper is to provide a management instrument

for impact investment funds, whose characteristics are to set forth goals of financial

performance and generation of social and environmental benefits. The proposed model is

prepared from a combination of two instruments used by IFDGs (Logical Framework and

Outcome Mapping). The purpose is to propose a monitoring model to provide assistance in

the management of investments and in the communication to investors concerning actions

undertaken and results achieved (from internal meetings to define support strategies to

considering social and financial impacts). The model was hypothetically applied in order to

clarify the proposed monitoring process clearer and to facilitate its application to real cases.



The application of the model to real cases will allow the detailed monitoring of the entire

impact chain of investment, stage by stage.



References

ABDE, (1994), Políticas de financiamento de longo prazo, funding e formatação de

instituições financeiras de longo prazo

Addis R., McLeod J., Raine, A. (2013). Impact–Australia Investment for social and economic

benefit, Canberra: Department of Education, Government of Australia

B-Lab. (2011), Global Impact Investing Ratings System (GIIRS), Assessment 101

Bugg-Levine A., Emerson J., (2011), Impact investing : transforming how we make money

while making a diference, Jossey-Bass

Clark, C., Emerson, J., Thornley, B., (2014), The Impact Investor: Lessons in Leadership and

Strategy for Collaborative Capitalism, Jossey-Bass/ Wiley Brand

Earl, S., Carden, F., Smutylo, T. ( 2001). Outcome Mapping, Building learning and reflection

into development programs, International Development Research Center

Kaplan S., Strömberg P., (2001), Venture Capitalists As Principals: Contracting, Screening,

and Monitoring, Steven N, American Economic Review.

Knowton, L., Philips, C. (2009), The logic model logbook, Sage

Lazzarini, S., Minardi, A, Pongeluppe (2013). VOX Capital: Equilibrando Retorno

Financeiro e Social em Investimentos de Impacto (Balancing Financial and Social Return

in ImpactInvestments), Insper

Lazzarini, S., Pongeluppe, L., Yoong, P (2013). Guia para Avaliação de Impacto

Socioambiental para Utilização em Investimentos de Impacto (Guide for Assessing Social

and Environmental Impact for Use in ImpactInvestments), Insper

Mille, P. and Bound K. (2011). The Startup Factories, Nesta

Pfeiffer, P. (2005). Gerenciamento de Projetos de Desenvolvimento

(ManagingDevelopmentProjects), Brasport



RIIA - Responsible Investment Association Australasia, (2013), Responsible Investment

Benchmark Report

Roduner, D. Ambrose, K. (2009). A Conceptual Fusion of the Logical Framework Approach

and Outcome Mapping, OM Ideas

Roduner, D., Schläppi, W. (2008). Logical Framework Approach and Outcome Mapping a

Constructive Attempt of Synthesis, Rural Development News

Romans, A. (2013), Entrepreneurial Bible to Venture Capital: Inside Secrets from the

Leaders in the Startup Game, McGraw-Hill

Westaway K., 2014, Profits and purpose: How Social Innovation is Transforming Business

for Good, Wiley Nonprofit Authority


Monitoring of Impact Investment Funds Luiz Proenca de G… · Web viewInvestment Impact Funds are...

Documents

Transcript of Monitoring of Impact Investment Funds Luiz Proenca de G… · Web viewInvestment Impact Funds are...