(8 minute read)
Published: 9 December 2025
Written by: Alice Thornton, Head of Research and Impact
Earlier this year we invited proposals for investment consultants to express interest in advising us on investing our endowment responsibly, in line with our recently updated Investment Policy. Our Request for Proposals document outlined our key investment advice needs – we were looking for one or two investment consultant(s) to advise on one or both of:
- Our financial investment portfolio, which is predominantly invested in public equities at present;
- Our new social investment portfolio, which we have recently committed to build up to a value of 10% of our endowment (c.£15m).
We were really excited about the opportunity to engage with the wider investment advisory market to explore the range of services and expertise that we could benefit from. We hoped that the process would prove insightful, but underestimated just how much we would learn – and how much interest our Request for Proposals seemed to generate amongst prospective consultants.
If you would like to find out more about the shortlisted organisations and the two investment consultants we have appointed, please read my previous blog post ‘Introducing our new investment consultants’ by clicking here. In the remainder of this blog I will share some of the key insights we’ve gained through running this process, in the hope this learning will prove useful to other charitable grantmakers who are considering a review of their investment advice needs.
Why did we choose to appoint new investment consultants, and why now?
There were several factors that contributed to our decision to review our investment advice needs:
1) Charity Investment Governance Principles: We were pleased to contribute to the consultation which informed the recently published Charity Investment Governance Principles. These principles advise charities with endowments like ours to retender for investment advisers every four to five years (see Part 4: Decision-making, risk and control). This provided a useful prompt: our previous investment consultant had advised us for over five years, and we therefore felt it would be an appropriate time to review this appointment.
2) Our approach to responsible investment has become more ambitious: Since 2020, we have developed our thinking on investment so that we now take account of non-financial outcomes alongside financial returns. In 2024 we strengthened our policy on exclusions – in particular, to exclude primary market investment in fossil fuels – and in 2025 we further clarified our ambition to achieve a positive impact through our endowment. This evolving and more ambitious approach to our investing meant that our investment advice needs have evolved too. We wanted to test the market for an investment consultant that is equally ambitious about responsible investment, and can actively support us to progress our charitable aim through the way our endowment is invested.
3) Our new social investment portfolio: Earlier this year, we approved our first Social Investment Policy which commits us to develop a portfolio of social investments representing approximately 10% of our endowment (c.£15m). For the first time, we were therefore seeking a social investment consultant who could support us with planning and building this new portfolio of social investments.
We decided to review our investment advice needs holistically, and run one process encompassing both our financial advice needs and social investment advice needs. We were open to appointing one investment consultant to advise on both our financial portfolio and social investment portfolio; or two investment consultants, one to advise on each portfolio separately.
Although in some ways this made the process more complex, we are glad we took this approach: it meant we were able to explore the range of services available in the wider market, and remain open to consultancies that could offer one holistic approach as well as those with a stronger specialism in one or the other types of advice.
What did we learn about market interest in providing investment advice to charitable foundations like ourselves?
We were surprised by the level of interest sparked by our Request for Proposals. Although we are a relatively well networked organisation, at circa £150m our endowment is not large compared to many of our Trust and Foundation peers.
We were concerned that our emphasis on being ambitious about responsible investment might not be attractive to mainstream investment consultancies, particularly given the current political backlash against responsible investment. We were also unsure whether there would be a significant market for the type of social investment advice that we were looking for.
But we were wrong to worry. We received a total of 35 proposals – which well exceeded our expectations – after answering over 150 questions from 42 interested parties. We believe that most of the organisations that submitted a proposal came across the opportunity via our existing networks, known contacts or posts on LinkedIn. Others may have seen two articles about our Request for Proposals published by sector publications, Pensions & Investments: The International Newspaper of Money Management and Financial Investments News.
Of the 35 proposals we received, 30 met our essential requirements and were good quality. Overall, we were really encouraged by the high number and variety of responses we received, and the opportunity this represented for a thorough and competitive selection process. We also felt that the high level of interest demonstrates a strong appetite for investment consultancies to attract clients like us – perhaps indicating that the market for responsible and social investment advice is expected to continue growing, despite political headwinds.
What did we learn about the investment advisory market’s approach to impact?
When we wrote the Request for Proposals, we had a completely open mind about whether to appoint one consultant covering our financial and social investments, or whether to appoint two consultants, one specialising in each. We also did not know what the wider market’s attitude would be towards these options, or whether organisations would have sufficient expertise to provide both types of advice.
In the end, about half of the proposals we received expressed interest in advising us on both our financial and social portfolios. A quarter expressed interested in advising us on our financial portfolio only, and a quarter in advising us on our social investment portfolio only. The proposals represented a wide range of views: some argued strongly, and persuasively, in favour of taking a more holistic approach with one investment consultant advising on both portfolios; others argued strongly, and equally persuasively, in favour of appointing two consultants each with more specialist expertise.
In practice, we found that it was harder for proposals that expressed interest in advising us on both portfolios to demonstrate equal suitability for both. Some offered strong ‘mainstream’ advice services focusing on financial investments, but struggled to make a convincing case for their specialist expertise in social investments. Others had a strong and compelling impact focus, but struggled to demonstrate the scale or experience required to advise our financial portfolio.
Of the six proposals shortlisted for interview, only one had expressed interest in both roles; two expressed interest advising us on our financial portfolio only, and three in advising us on our social investment portfolio only.
What did we learn about the quality of advice available related to responsible and social investing?
Overall, we consistently scored proposals offering social investment advice services lower than those which offered advice on our financial portfolio only. This may reflect the fact that the market for social investment advice is less well developed, and perhaps as a result proposals found it harder to demonstrate well-established expertise. It may also be the case that the advice we were looking for is relatively niche, and few organisations were convincingly able to demonstrate their specialist knowledge.
On the other hand, we were also consistently underwhelmed by the approach to responsible investment reflected in proposals offering advice on our financial portfolio. Many proposals failed to give this aspect of our investment advice needs due consideration, despite the strong emphasis we had given it in our Request for Proposals document. Others demonstrated a good overall approach to responsible investment, but could not seem to offer insights which would really challenge or drive forward our ambitions in this area.
What did we learn about the costs of investment advice services?
The fees we were quoted in the proposals we received varied enormously. It is difficult to compare fees directly given that the level and range of services proposed also varied, but roughly speaking, the most expensive proposals were approximately a factor of ten more expensive than the cheapest ones. We found the cost of proposals very difficult to score; different organisations proposed different fee structures, and it was often difficult to ascertain exactly what level of service we would receive (for example, how many days of time had been factored in to deliver the services we had asked for, and at what level of seniority). Many proposals promised that the cost of their fees could be offset by negotiating lower fund management fees, but without transparency on what those fees might be, we could not be certain that this would be the case.
Overall, we did not feel that there was a strong correlation between the quality of the written proposals we received, and the fees quoted; many poor quality proposals quoted high fees, and several high quality proposals quoted fees that were relatively low compared to others.
What did we learn about the geography of the investment advisory market?
Amongst the 35 proposals we received, most were either UK-based or were large global companies with an office in London. We also attracted some proposals from US-based companies looking to establish, or grow, their client base in the UK. We were surprised not to receive any proposals from mainland European consultancies, despite European countries in many ways being at the forefront of global responsible investment efforts. This may reflect a lack of interest in delivering to a UK client base, or perhaps reflects our weaker networks in advertising this opportunity on the continent.
Although we began this process with an open mind about where our investment consultant should be based, in practice we found that large global investment advisory companies and US-based companies found it difficult to demonstrate the depth of knowledge of the UK social investment market that we were looking for, and most (with one exception) struggled to demonstrate a stronger than average approach to responsible investment. This meant that overall we felt the potential disadvantages of appointing a non-UK based consultant outweighed the potential benefits of a more global outlook.
What did we learn about the importance of independent investment advice?
As the shortlisting process progressed, the importance of appointing consultant(s) who could offer fully independent investment advice became more and more clear to us. Many of the proposals we received disclosed some level of non-independence; either because the company (or another company within the group of companies) offers fund management services as well as advisory services, or because they only advise on a list of preferred managers which does not take our specific requirements into account, or (in a few cases) because the organisation invests its own assets as well as advising others. Given our commitment to investing our endowment responsibly, and using it as far as possible to further our charitable aim, we realised that it is crucial for us to appoint investment consultant(s) who can provide tailored and independent advice.
What happens next?
We are really delighted to have appointed as our new investment consultants Gallagher (formerly known as Redington) and S and One Ltd, a specialist impact investment consultancy led by Shishir Malhotra who will also work alongside Amir Rizwan. The process of shortlisting 35 proposals required time and effort, but this highly competitive process has given us confidence in the quality of both consultants we have appointed, as well as helping to clarify our investment requirements, priorities and preferences. We are excited to work with both organisations to strengthen our investment approach in the years to come.
If you are interested in finding out more about this process, or are considering reviewing your organisation’s investment advice needs, please do get in touch. We would be happy to share our experience and provide further detail on what we have learnt through this process.