A diverse group of around 25 people stood together on a terrace. A diverse group of around 25 people stood together on a terrace. A diverse group of around 25 people stood together on a terrace.

What we learned when we opened up our investment decision-making

Author: Charlie Crossley, Investment Engagement Manager

Date: 25/06/2026

Investment decision-making happens behind closed doors. Charities and other values-based investors are no exception. A small group of trustees, committee members, and advisers review papers, debate financial matters, and make decisions. This is often done thoughtfully. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors are sometimes considered. But it is rarely open or accessible. 

 

Since 2020, when we ran an ESG and impact investing challenge with The Blagrave Trust and Joffe Trust, we’ve been experimenting with what happens when you open the doors and invite more people into those conversations. 

 

Most recently, through the Endowments Investing Challenge (EIC), we brought together charitable foundations and a Future Generations Panel (FGP) of young people to help decide how millions of pounds of charitable capital are invested. This time, we were looking for an investment service provider (ISP) that could prioritise positive impact on future generations.  

 

The FGP are seven young people disproportionately impacted by a range of social, economic and environmental risks. Their experiences and opinions shaped the process and decisions throughout, culminating in the EIC event where five shortlisted ISPs presented their portfolios.

The Future Generations Panel (a diverse group of seven young people) on stage at the Endowments Investing Challenge event.

“We helped shape the criteria, debated the proposals, and actively directed the entire process.

Future Generations Panel member

“[The] event was good and a memorable experience. I loved asking questions to investment service providers and speaking at opening and closing on stage.

Future Generations Panel member

As we developed the EIC, we’ve learned from many others (listed at the bottom of this post). Here are some of our learnings from the process.

 

1. New questions and challenges emerge

The FGP brought new conversations. This was challenging and uncomfortable, but important. Although it’s impossible to say what the EIC process would have looked like without the FGP, they made sure issues like war, genocide, the role of big tech were given focus.  

We have grown up with war as a near constant, and we are determined not to support it in the investment choices we make, including those investing in the companies which facilitate the technology for warfare and genocide.

Future Generations Panel member

“We brought a level of urgency and real-world focus that older boards just don’t prioritise the same way.

Future Generations Panel member

Investment professionals discuss financial benchmarks and asset allocation. These concepts matter a lot. But they are not necessarily the questions that other stakeholders start with. 

 

For charities, this brings a challenging and crucial question to the fore. One that is simply not talked about enough: 

 

Are we prepared to accept lower financial returns on our investments, to achieve more positive impact, less harm, and better values-alignment? Even if this means there’s less money to spend on grants and operations. 

 

2. Language matters

A striking aspect of participatory investing is how much specialist language is a barrier to conversations. For those of us closer to the world of investment, it takes time, effort, and self-awareness to communicate accessibly. That process can be uncomfortable and even feel patronising. There is also no doubt a human tendency to want to demonstrate knowledge. But we must break down these barriers. 

If we can’t understand you, we can’t recommend you.

Future Generations Panel member

3. Experts on tap, not on top

The role of experts in participatory investing processes is essential and it is challenging. We asked a lot of the EIC experts: to bring their years of knowledge and experience, generously feed it into the process, and then have the emotional intelligence to stop short of overly influencing decisions… “experts on tap, not on top”. 

 

4. Significant resource and excellent facilitation is needed

Participation takes time, money, and effort. Recruiting participants, paying for their time, supporting them to engage confidently, providing information accessibly, and acting on their feedback all require resources.  

 

On the positive side, there are skilled people who can help and provide expertise many foundation staff do not have. For example, the mostly random selection process that FGP co-designer Oli advised us to use was arguably fairer, and certainly much more efficient, than a traditional recruitment process. 

 

Facilitating conversations is a crucial part of the process. Charities should support facilitation skills, both in-house and externally, as it has wide spillover effects beyond specific participatory efforts. 

 

5. It must be meaningful – and that is hard 

Participation is tokenistic if people are asked for views but ultimately ignored. Due to governance structures and charitable law, the final decision of the EIC always sat with the trustee boards of each charitable foundation partner. This is an important responsibility that trustees must and do take seriously. 

 

We were clear where the FGP’s formal power started and ended throughout the process. Some FGP members were happy with the level of power they had:

“We had lots of power through the process and continually felt awed by the amount of power we had.

Future Generations Panel member

But some members still expressed significant frustration that the ultimate investment decisions won’t all be influenced by their recommendation. 

our ideas kind of went out the window for some of them which was depressing.

Future Generations Panel member

We are considering whether process changes could help further align decisions, for example having more interactions with ultimate decision-makers and participants throughout. 

“It would have been beneficial for us to have known certain boundaries that the charities had [of what they could invest in]. We were finding stuff out at the last minute which was a bit off putting.

Future Generations Panel member

All these considerations are real and deserve contemplation. But they are challenges to be learned from, not reasons to avoid participation altogether. 

 

Why open up these conversations? 

For charities, there is an important question beneath all of this. 

 

If we believe our investment decisions have consequences for communities, workers, future generations, and the environment, should those groups have some voice in shaping decisions?

If you want your money to actually change the world, you need to bring us into the room, listen to us, and trust us.

Future Generations Panel member

Participation is not a silver bullet, nor does it replace trustee responsibilities. But the growing number of experiments suggest that opening up investment conversations can challenge assumptions and strengthen alignment between charity purpose and capital. 

 

Perhaps most importantly, it can push charity investors beyond their comfort zones and help bring accountability to decisions. 

 

What next? 

The answer will differ between charities.  

 

You don’t need to start with a full participatory panel or large-scale assembly. A simpler place to begin might be asking: which of our stakeholders have a voice in our investment decisions, and which do not? And then doing something to include those that don’t.  

 

Some of the actions you could consider: 

  • Discuss your top three investment holdings with your ALL trustees and staff. Question whether these investments feel aligned to your charitable purpose and mission. 
  • Survey stakeholders about your investments.
    • In 2024, we surveyed key stakeholders about our investment policy, asking for views on issues ranging from exclusions to impact priorities. We know other charities have done this too. You can download our survey and adapt for your own purposes.
    • We also got input from a range of 18-25 year olds at the beginning of the EIC process.
  • Discuss your investments with grant holders.
  • Get in contact and ask us about our experience ([email protected] 

 

Other examples of participatory investment that we learned from

The Vested programme, involving foundations including Barrow Cadbury Trust and Trust for London, explored participatory approaches in social investment.

 

Organisations such as Barking & Dagenham Giving have pioneered participatory investment decision-making with a local focus.

 

The Great Canadian ESG Championship and the Australian Endowments for Impact Challenge, which were partly inspired by our first challenge.

 

Pension fund Nest’s member assembly is one example of large investors seeking to better understand the views of the people whose money they invest and whose future they impact.


 

Some of the results from our survey of 18-25 year olds at the beginning of the EIC process

A graph showing the percentage results when 60+ young people were asked what should charities definitely not invest in. The results are: Fossil fuels or similarly high carbon fuels 66%, Weapons and arms 93%, Tobacco 86%, Alcohol 79%, Gambling 79%, Adult entertainment 73%, High interest lending (payday loans etc.) 63%, Companies that engage in severe and repeated efforts to lower the amount of tax paid 52%, Companies that directly contribute to discrimination and incitement to hatred 86%, Companies that have a severe and sustained negative impact on the natural world and ecosystems 86%, Nuclear energy 46%, Other 5%
A graph showing the percentage results when 60+ young people were asked ‘For a charity or foundation, what do you think should matter most when it comes to investing their money? Please select up to 3 responses’. The results shown are: Making as much money as possible so that it can give more money to good causes 49%, Making as much money as possible so that it can keep running longer 20%, Making as much money as possible so that it can keep running longer 76%, Investing in things that make a positive difference now and in the future 89%, Keeping money safe and available when needed 42%, Other (please specify) 0%