Semi-structured interview analysis

After each interview, the completed interview guide (completed by the researcher in each interview) was manually entered into an electronic survey tool (Survey Monkey) to understand basic trends and then exported to excel. Each line of data was augmented by commentary offered in each interview in the same excel spreadsheet to help explain why a particular foundation may have responded in the manner in which they did. Summary tables were developed to categorise the data to a coding theme to understand what strategies were being deployed by South African foundations, their reasons for engaging/not engaging and the likelihood of future engagement.

Table 2 shows how each question was coded and its reference in the literature.

Table 2: Semi-structured interview coding table

Semi-structured interview question Coding theme Reference to the literature

Section 1: Background information on your philanthropic foundation (“Foundation”)

Please describe your role at the Foundation

How long has the Foundation been in existence? How is the Foundation structured?

What is the year end for the Foundation’s latest audited financial statements?

Section 2: Generating funds for the Foundation’s mission

As at the Foundation's last audited financial year end, how much money did your Foundation provide for your direct mission activities (excluding operational costs) via grants, loans or equity, for the year?

As at the Foundation's last audited financial year end, what percentage of the funds that you provide for your mission fall into the following categories:

• Grant

• Patient capital (a concessionary loan with extremely long- term repayment periods)

• Convertible debt (a concessionary loan which may be converted into grant or another form of finance (e.g. equity) at some point in time)

• Loans (at interest rates ranging from 0% to below the prime lending rate)

• Loans (at interest rates ranging from the prime lending rate and above)

• Equity (a stake in an entity on mutually agreeable terms) that you will seek to exit at some point in the future) • Other

As at the Foundation's last audited financial year end, what percentage of the funds that you provide for your mission were generated by: investments that your Foundation’s endowment made; funds that the Foundation raised from individuals; funds raised from corporates; funds raised from other foundations; and funds raised from other sources?

Establishing context (existing practices)

Section 3: SRI, RI and impact investment strategies

What is your Foundation’s approach to Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) strategies for the Foundation’s assets? What is your Foundation’s approach to Responsible Investment (RI) strategies for the Foundation’s assets?

What is your Foundation’s approach to Impact Investment strategies for the Foundation’s assets?

Does the Foundation have a SRI, RI or impact investment strategy for the Foundation's assets that are used to generate an

Establishing context (investing for impact strategies deployed)

income for the Foundation’s operations and/or funds that are used to exercise the Foundation’s mission?

Is the SRI, RI or impact investing strategy for the Foundation's assets aligned to your Foundation’s mission?

Why does the Foundation not have a SRI, RI or impact

investment strategy for its assets. Please tick all that apply. (This

question was also asked in the affirmative)

A. A responsible investment or impact investment strategy is not permissible in terms of our Articles of Association or Trust Deed

B. A responsible investment or impact investment strategy is not permissible in terms of legislation that applies to our Foundation C. Our Trustees/Directors do not have the capacity to implement a responsible investing or impact investing strategy for our Foundation

D. Our Trustees/Directors do not have the willingness to implement a responsible investing or impact investing strategy for our Foundation

E. Over and above financial performance, our

Trustees/Directors do not need to concern themselves with the composition of Foundation’s investment portfolio holdings F. Our Trustees/Directors are satisfied that the Foundation’s investment portfolio provides adequately to enable the Foundation’s mission

G. Our Trustees/Directors do not have the skills to implement a responsible investing or impact investing strategy for our Foundation

H. There is limited human capital within the Foundation to design, implement and manage a responsible investment or impact investment strategy

I. There are insufficient responsible investment or impact investment products for our Foundation to implement a responsible investing or impact investing strategy

J. The Foundation’s investment advisors have not advised or recommended a responsible investing or impact investing strategy

K. Following a responsible investment or impact investing strategy may not offer optimal performance for our Foundation’s assets Strategies permissible (Mandate issues) Strategies permissible (Compliance issues) Skills capacity Leadership Fiduciary duty Fiduciary duty Skills capacity Skills capacity Absorptive capacity of the market (pipeline)

Role of advisors Financial performance (Charlton et al., 2014) (Charlton et al., 2014) (Charlton et al., 2014) (Charlton et al., 2014) (Jenkins, 2012) (Jenkins, 2012) (Charlton et al., 2014) (Charlton et al., 2014) (Charlton et al., 2014) (Emerson & Smalling, 2017) (Weatherly-White, 2017)

L. The Foundation’s asset managers do not have a framework with respect to responsible investment of impact investment

advice, deal origination and/or impact measurement Role of advisors

(Emerson & Smalling, 2017)

Section 3a: Likelihood of engaging with investing for impact strategies

How likely is the Foundation to facilitate interaction between Foundation management responsible for mission related projects and/ grant making and Trustees that set the investment strategy for the Foundation’s assets?

How likely is the Foundation to apply an ESG screen to your Foundation’s investment portfolio?

How likely is the Foundation to screen out investments that are potentially damaging to society and/or the environment? How likely is the Foundation to screen in investments that relate in some way to your foundation’s mission?

How likely is the Foundation to engage with the companies your Foundation invests in, either directly or through your investment manager?

How likely is the Foundation to withdraw or divest your Foundation’s capital from an investment because of social or environmental concerns? Collaboration ESG screening Negative screening Positive screening Investor engagement Divestment (Business & Sustainable Development Commission & Convergence, 2017) (Dhlamini et al., 2017) Ibid Ibid Ibid (Harrison, 2018)

Section 4: Blended finance approaches

In the last audited financial year, has the Foundation worked collaboratively with another Foundation to jointly fund a particular initiative?

In prior financial years, has the Foundation worked collaboratively with another Foundation to jointly fund a particular initiative?

In the last audited financial year, has the Foundation worked collaboratively with a corporate, an impact investor and/or a development finance institution to jointly fund a particular initiative?

In prior financial years, has the Foundation worked

collaboratively with a corporate, an impact investor and/or a development finance institution to jointly fund a particular initiative?

Context setting

Collaboration (Business & Sustainable Development Commission & Convergence, 2017)

Section 4a: Likelihood of engaging in blended finance approaches

How likely is the Foundation to convene a multi-stakeholder meeting to establish ways to collaboratively fund parts of the ecosystem related to your Foundation’s mission?

How likely is the Foundation to use the funds it has at its disposal for its mission to de-risk an initiative that creates a positive social or environmental impact?

How likely is the Foundation to use the funds that it has at its disposal for its mission to leverage additional funding for initiatives that create a positive social or environmental impact? How likely is the Foundation to provide technical assistance to social/environmental enterprises or not-for-profit initiatives that your Foundation supports?

How likely is the Foundation to participate in a pay-for-success model (such as a social impact bond) for an initiative that your Foundation supports?

How likely is the Foundation to use the funds that it has at its disposal for its mission, to provide guarantees to

social/environmental enterprises or not-for-profit initiatives that your Foundation supports?

Collaboration

Risk/reward positions

Leveraging

Technical assistance

Pay for success

Guarantees (B u sin ess & Su stain ab le Dev e lo p m en t Co m m is sio n & C o n v er g en ce , 2 0 1 7 ; Jo h n so n , 2 0 1 8 ; Q u élin et al. , 2 0 1 7 ; Sm ee ts , 2 0 1 7 )