“Impact-first” in Prime’s definition prioritizes social mission above any other possible investment outcomes such as financial returns or other definitions of a successful investment track record. An investment approach that is “impact-first” may sometimes (but not always) make concessions on financial returns metrics, particularly when investing in “non-lockstep” companies or assets. Being a lockstep vs non-lockstep company or asset is not inherently a good or bad thing. If a non-lockstep company, project, or fund does not pursue one or more of the identified impact-first markets or approaches, it did so because either the company, its investors, or other market forces influenced its decision making away from the impact-first application(s) in pursuit of other outcomes that were higher priority for those parties.

To learn more about catalytic investing from Tideline, visit this link.

A company, solution, or project is a fit for additionality when its climate impact potential would not be enabled, accelerated or deepened were it not for support from charitable sources.

This paper is a look at how Prime incorporates a lens of additionality into our investment practice in order to ensure capital is flowing where it is needed most.

We compiled this resource library for a range of audiences based on growing interest from practitioners, including:

• Philanthropic asset owners looking to understand the potential applications of catalytic capital and how they can better engage with intermediaries
• Impact-first intermediaries - both existing and prospective - that wish to gain a deeper understanding of how new intermediaries can be launched and managed
• Advisors to philanthropic asset owners, such as RIAs, attorneys, membership groups, or philanthropy strategists that may be positioned to provide advice related to catalytic investing
• Those with a general interest in the growing field of catalytic capital and its potential to drive change across a range of impact areas

For further detail, visit this slide.

Prime uses the seven phases framing based on our own experience launching and implementing impact-first investment programs over the past decade. You will see further detail on each phase once you enter the resources library.

We believe there are discrete steps that must be taken with appropriate go/no-go milestones and important agency decisions along the way. Who pays for each phase? Who is the ultimate authority during each phase? What are the challenging questions that will pop up during each phase? What are best practices in each phase? What are the pitfalls to avoid?

We’ve mapped the work of launching and running an impact-first investment program onto discrete phases – hypothesis, substantiating, designing, constructing, fundraising, implementing, and evaluating. Complex challenges of launching an impact-first investment program will pop up right away around the question “who is leading each of the seven phases?” There are conflicts of interest for investment managers that may ultimately implement the program to lead the substantiation and design phases, important choices about who pays for legal fees during construction, and/or who stewards external relationships during fundraising, as well as complicated relational questions to contemplate during implementation. We’ve structured the documents library around these seven phases to help support your thinking through these important but complex questions!