Impact Finance
ArchivePublished October 2018. The survey figures are as at 2018.See what's changed

Impact Finance · Challenges & opportunities for platform operators

Towards an interoperable impact finance ecosystem

We are pleased to share with the impact community our review of 150 impact investing platforms, networks and organizations that promote, support or convene investors in the impact finance area.

Download the Report Now Read More
The review
150
impact investing platforms, networks and organizations reviewed
35
platforms (25%) participated in a detailed online survey
5
Not surprisingly, of the platforms we reviewed, at least 5 are no longer in business.
Scroll for more

Then and now

The survey figures are as at 2018. This is how the wider picture looks now.

This review is published here as it was written, and its survey figures describe the platforms as they were in 2018. The figures below show how the wider picture has moved since.

The figureIn the review (2018)Now
Impact platforms150impact investing platforms, networks and organizations reviewed727impact technology platforms in Armillaria's platform database. A broader count than the 2018 review, so not directly comparable.Armillaria platform database, 2020–2025
The impact investing market—not sized in the review$1.571 trillionimpact investing assets under management, held by over 3,907 organisations.GIIN, Sizing the Impact Investing Market 2024 (October 2024)
OPICOPICcollated the additional platforms in the listDFCThe BUILD Act replaced the Overseas Private Investment Corporation with the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, launched in late 2019.Congressional Research Service, August 2025

The study confirms that there is widespread duplication of effort, fragile business models, and similarity of value propositions.

Market fragmentation is not only ineffective, it is unconscionable.

The review

Prompted by our own experience as investors, technologists, and system designers.

Our purpose, in addition to providing an overview of the platform landscape, is to identify opportunities for alignment of prospective partners around the strategy, design and implementation for such global impact infrastructure; and explore scenarios for collective action.

Prompted by our own experience as investors, technologists, and system designers, we were interested in better understanding prevailing business models and motivations for sharing (or hoarding!) data, innovations, and investors.

35 platforms (25%) participated in a detailed online survey about their technical, operational, and business specifications.

In addition, we spoke at length with 17 key informants who represent various platforms, pertinent networks, and / or prospective partners in a collaborative next phase to build a more effective global impact infrastructure.

Not surprisingly, of the platforms we reviewed, at least 5 are no longer in business.

Our analysis builds on ongoing work to design and develop an interoperable, global, modular, distributed, and democratic infrastructure for mobilising data, innovations, and capital at the volume and velocity required to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

We thank all of those who took the time to respond to the survey and agreed to be interviewed. We appreciate their time and insights!

We invite your feedback, and look forward to working with interested parties on the next phase(s).

02 · Valuing Collaboration

Despite these observations, the survey highlighted a desire for increased collaboration.

Despite these observations, the survey highlighted a desire for increased collaboration, especially in the areas of technology, pipeline development, and compliance.

23%

Collaboration is a core value.

The survey response rate of 23% is significantly higher than industry average of 10-15%, suggesting a willingness to work together.

91%

Collaboration is highly desirable.

A significant majority of respondents (91%) indicated a willingness to explore deeper interoperability.

32% · 50%

Collaboration is highly actionable.

In addition to existing licensors, 32% are leveraging external platform data, and 50% are preparing to, or willing to use it.

Advancing beneficial outcomes is the entire focus of the impact finance ecosystem. So it inevitably begs the question, is there a more effective way to harness the skills, resources, and talents within it to greater effect?

Connecting the various platforms into a more cohesive whole will have the following key benefits:

01

support finance seekers in attracting funding more quickly

02

connect funders directly to opportunities that match their investment thesis

03

help existing platforms to refine, focus, and leverage their unique offerings.

Our prototyping around SDG6 suggests that platforms are willing to share data as long as the value proposition is clear.

This means aggregating, curating, refining, and sharing every deal, with every prospective funder on the planet.

And doing so in a manner that supports global regulatory compliance, deal syndication, and appropriate sharing of fees.

03 · Focusing on Connection

No more platforms.

What it does need, as apparent from the study we have undertaken, is a concentration on the connective tissue that defines and enables interoperability between platforms.

01

There is great evidence of a desire to be interoperable from both the survey and the interviews we have undertaken. There is not, however, much evidence of ‘doing’, likely because the implications in terms of cost and revenues are unclear in a fragmented market where financing for building technology is a challenge and resources are scarce.

02

A lack of market discipline and coherent feedback from a collective of systems has created a situation where messaging is unclear, and patterns as to who has built which part of the continuum are hard to discern among the noise.

Communication between platforms in the ecosystem appears to be challenging.

03

There are some very strong financial-first players ready to collaborate, who could be a significant part of an emerging, improved impact infrastructure, essentially cross-subsidising the technology we need with their mainstream channels.

04

There is an affliction related to idiosyncratic lingo. Many are doing the same thing and using different words to describe it. This creates confusion and mixed signals that does not serve the collective.

05

There is a very real demand for technology development resources, as well as for regulatory and compliance support for operating platforms. The answer does not lie in a shiny new interface, but in a deeply layered process and tech infrastructure that enables true collaboration.

04 · The Path Forward

Centralise or federate?

The binary choice before us is that between a centralised vs a federated solution.

Low likelihood of success

Centralised

In the centralised approach, one would acquire and otherwise merge all the platforms into a single global platform (“the one platform to rule them all”), enforcing strict standards and protocols throughout the sector. We give this approach a low likelihood of success.

High likelihood of success

Federated

In the federated approach, one would develop a distributed data model that operationalises ownership of deal data to the venture seeking financing, increasing interoperability of deal data, and fosters the development of complementary business models that replace data ownership with other value-added offerings. We give this approach a high likelihood of success.

We have comprehensively described what needs to be built in From Billions to Trillions, and there are a number of practical scenarios for how to advance a global, distributed, democratic infrastructure for mobilising data, innovations, and capital at the volume and velocity necessary to successfully address the SDGs.

These scenarios are not mutually exclusive, and alone or in combination advance the needed infrastructure:

Develop data federation protocolsSupport the rationalisation of the impact industryFocus on a sector, specifically SDG6, where there is traction with other funders and stakeholders.

06 · Get Involved

In addition to the three scenarios we have put forward, are there others that we should consider?

Please get in touch and share your ideas!

Put simply: It’s time.

After 10 years of trying to emulate the Silicon Valley way of building global platforms, and doing so badly, it’s time for the impact industry to build its own infrastructure that’s fit for the purpose of accelerating social change.

We believe there is an opportunity to harness the talent, creativity and ingenuity evinced by the platforms we surveyed, and to overcome the fragmentation of the impact industry by taking a collaborative approach to building better digital, legal, and financial infrastructure.

Why Collaborate across Platforms?

In isolation, the 150+ platforms serving the impact industry will continue to struggle to get to scale at a moment in history when we urgently need to unleash more capital, more quickly, into the solutions for achieving the SDGs. So what’s the upside of collaboration for each of us?

01

As investors, we want to see more relevant deals that are right for our flavor of capital.

02

As platform operators, we want to provide more value to our customers, members, and users.

03

As entrepreneurs, we want an easier time finding the funding and partners we need to scale our solutions.

04

All of us want to achieve the SDGs more quickly and effectively.

Please get in touch if you are interested in collaborating!

07 · Impact Platforms

Impact Platforms

The list of impact platforms below includes all platforms that formed part of this survey (marked with an *), as well as additional platforms collated by OPIC. This is by no means a comprehensive list of impact finance platforms, but potentially represents one of the most detailed contemporary lists to be published in one location.

Struck through: no longer operating. Where a link remains, it goes to an archived copy (2018).