FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

The application process

How can investment service providers (ISPs) apply?

ISPs that are interested in applying should respond to the request for investment proposals (RFP).

The deadline for proposals is 11:59pm (UK time) on Friday 19 December 2025.

Following the deadline, proposals will be reviewed against an assessment framework and a shortlist (expected to be five ISPs) will be agreed. Shortlisted ISPs will be informed in February 2026. They will be invited to present at the live event on 25 March 2026 at the Barbican, London.

We intend to provide applicants with high-level feedback on their proposals if they are not shortlisted. This will be dependent on the number of applications and capacity of the partners. Feedback will not be possible before the EIC event on Wednesday 25 March 2026.

No, but we would expect only one application per ISP to be shortlisted per ISP.

The partner charitable foundations will develop a detailed assessment framework, with input from Gallagher. The framework will largely be based on the questions in the RFP.

 

This framework will then be used by different representatives of the partner foundations to produce a long list of ISP submissions. This long list will be discussed in detail by the partners and the Future Generations Panel to produce a shortlist (expected to be five ISPs) who will be invited to present at the EIC event.

Proposals must not exceed 15 A4 pages (excluding a cover page, disclaimers and appendices). The 15-page limit is meant for responses to the questions in the RFP. 
 
Exceeding the page length will result in an automatic rejection.  
 
We will accept organisational due diligence questionnaire responses, specifically requested examples, or illustrations as appendices with reference to this in your responses. Where references are made to an appendix, please be as specific as possible. We do not encourage appendices beyond these.

Unfortunately, we cannot share the assessment framework weighting.

At a high level it should cover your intention to apply, what your organisation is, what your solution is, and why you think it meets the brief.  

We had about 70 registered for this webinar, and we’re seeing a lot of interest. Last time we ran this back in 2020, we received 59 applications, and we expect similar this time. 

Investment solution

What type of investment products are suitable to apply to the EIC?

The EIC is deliberately agnostic on asset class and structure – meaning that a wide range of investment products can be proposed, provided they meet the core objectives of the mandate.

 

Suitable products could include, but are not limited to:

 

  • Public market strategies.
  • Hybrid or multi-asset solutions combining both public and private investments.
  • Private market and/or alternative investment strategies, as long as they can meet the liquidity requirements in the RFP.
  • Thematic investment solutions.

There are no prescribed impact themes or investment labels, though we have laid out some general priority areas and exclusions in the RFP.

We are intentionally not setting a fixed definition for what constitutes a “reasonable” financial return. We recognise that this a different approach to the norm in the investment industry. Our intention is for ISPs to not be constrained by specific financial return restrictions.

 

We encourage ISPs to interpret “reasonable” in the context of the EIC’s purpose – to create a portfolio that prioritises positive social and environmental impact for future generations, while still delivering a financial outcome that meets the needs of charitable foundations.

 

Proposals should clearly articulate the financial assumptions that underpin the approach, how they relate to the intended impact, and how any trade-offs between financial return and impact have been considered and justified.

The partners have a strong preference for a pooled or scalable investment structure, but segregated mandates are not excluded.

 

As stated in the RFP, “The investment solution should consider the ability for fellow investors that are not involved in the process to join afterwards. Our aim is to enable a material shift in capital.”

 

This means ISPs should prioritise structures that allow other values-led asset owners to invest alongside the partners in the future. Proposals that demonstrate replicability, scalability, or co-investment potential will be viewed favourably.

The geographic scope is global, and ISPs may propose portfolios that invest and create impact anywhere in the world. Positive impact in the UK will be well received, given the UK charitable foundations leading the initiative. However, proposals are expected to cover a global mandate and explain the benefit to future generations globally.

Yes. The RFP makes clear that the capital can and should be actively invested, not only used for income generation. The partners do, however, expect some capacity for short-term liquidity, with a preference for at least quarterly liquidity and the potential for drawdowns or distributions of up to 3.3% per year. Liquidity requirements vary across the partners.

 

ISPs may propose different liquidity structures – particularly if this enhances the level or quality of anticipated impact. The expectation is that at least 50% of capital could be made liquid within 12 years. It should be kept in mind though that scalability of the investment solution is another priority of the process.

No. The amount of up to £50m is across all partners. The decision of whether / where to invest is up to the respective trustees of each of the partners.

The liquidity expectations are set out in the RFP and remain the best guide. As stated there, we would prefer investment solutions that can offer “at least quarterly liquidity with drawdowns or distributions of around 3.3% p.a., and the option for substantial (>50%) liquidity within twelve years. We are open to structures that allow for different levels of liquidity, particularly if this augments the anticipated level of impact.” 
 

Some capacity for liquidity is important to enable portfolio management and allow other foundations to participate over time. 

 

We recognise that many high-impact strategies, particularly those involving private markets or real assets tend to be less liquid. The RFP does allow for some flexibility where lower liquidity can demonstrably enhance impact. Partners also have different liquidity requirements, so we could consider whether this could be managed within one investment solution. 

 

However, submitting a proposal with materially lower liquidity than described in the RFP would carry some risk.  

 

We appreciate that this may make it more challenging for ISPs to construct their proposals, but we hope this additional context helps. 

We prefer the product to be structured in a way that allows for scalability, so not being limited to charity clients would be preferable. On the more technical fund structure question, we are not prescriptive provided the fund meets the regulatory and liquidity requirements stated. 

There is no preference here.

There has been a cost to partners to run this process, which will end up being around £50,000 to £100,000. We are interested in exploring the idea of there being some kind of mechanism for recouping at least some of that cost. It won’t be used as part of the assessment process, but we are keen to explore options. 

Success would look like several things:

 

  • Growth in assets under management – e.g. other clients seeing it as a best– in– class product and investing in it. 
  • Starting to see a few of the impacts of the investments becoming more tangible. 

Yes, although it would be worth clarifying when differences come out between the two strategies, or whether you’d be proposing some kind of blend of the two strategies themselves.  

The EIC is grounded in a long-term, future-generations perspective. This means we expect ISPs to be intentionally thinking in multi-decade or even multigenerational terms when considering the potential impact of their proposed investment. We understand monitoring impact over very long time horizons is complex. We encourage ISPs to be creative and realistic when tackling this.

 

On the financial side, the relevant time horizons are set out in the RFP. We expect an investment horizon of at least the mid-term (5–7 years). The RFP also outlines the expected liquidity profile.

 

We recognise there can be tensions between long-term impact horizons and the liquidity preferences described in the RFP. We encourage ISPs to explain how their proposed structure manages this balance in a responsible and transparent way.

Impact

Why a focus on future generations this time?

Young people and future generations are excluded from most investment decisions. They also carry a large amount of the risk related to these decisions. That is why we have explicitly designed the 2026 EIC to create an investment portfolio for future generations. The process includes the participation of a Future Generations Panel who will shape the investment process and help ensure that the mandate reflects the needs of tomorrow’s society.

We are intentionally agnostic on impact themes. The challenge is for ISPs to describe how their proposed solution will deliver intentional social and environmental impact that considers the needs and priorities of future generations. The aim is to promote creativity among ISPs in their responses.

 

That said, the Future Generations Panel has identified several priority areas that were included in the RFP. Please see elsewhere on this page how their role works in this process.

The key thing is we would want to understand what was being achieved from the impact perspective, just as much as we would want to understand what we’re achieving in terms of financial return. The specific form of reporting and metrics will depend on the product. 

We are interested in how impact is embedded within all decision-making for the strategy rather than a specific portion. 

We want to understand how you incorporate DEI in your decision–making. There are questions in the RFP that indicate some of the areas we are interested in. 

Investment service providers

Are ISPs based outside the UK eligible for the EIC?

ISPs need to have appropriate regulatory status to manage investments on behalf of UK charitable foundations.

Unfortunately, we are not able to offer regulatory advice or confirmation of eligibility pre application – the position can vary depending on the firm’s exact activities and structure, and it’s ultimately up to each investment service provider (ISP) to satisfy themselves that they can lawfully manage investments from UK charities.

That said, our general understanding is as follows:

  • Under UK law, investment management activity for UK clients generally requires Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) authorisation. There are some exemptions we believe, but these are unlikely to be relevant in the case of the Endowments Investing Challenge (EIC).
  • In practice, many non-UK firms that work with UK investors do so through a UK-authorised partner or via a fund structure that can lawfully accept UK investment.
  • There are potential tax considerations for UK charities when investing in non-UK investment products, which may make the process of allocating investments to a non-UK product more challenging.

We appreciate that this may not give a definitive answer, but it’s an area where each ISP will need to seek their own regulatory or legal advice.

Participating in the EIC offers the opportunity to compete for a substantial investment mandate while showcasing innovative approaches to values-led and impact-driven investing. From similar processes in the past there is precedent for successful candidates to attract a significant amount of capital to their investment solution. Shortlisted candidates (expected to be five) will get visibility at a high-profile event attended by foundations, investors, and stakeholders from across the sector. Participants will also help the investment sector prioritise positive impact on future generations amid the current backlash against sustainable investing. 

Yes, we are open to this type of structure.

No.

We’re looking for one or two winners for the process – the “People’s Choice winner” and potentially a “Future Generations Winner” selected at the event that might be the same or might be different.  

Yes, we encourage it.

Fees

When will fees be assessed?

Fees will be part of the assessment at every stage.

Unfortunately, we cannot share the assessment framework weighting. 

No. However, we will assess applications based on reasonable fee ranges for the asset types. 

Yes, that could be possible. 

If you could give us a range of fees that you would charge, that would be helpful. And then we might follow up at longlist stage if needed. 

Partners, supporting organisations and the Future Generations Panel

What role do supporting organisations play?

The supporting organisations are of different types. There are some charitable foundations that are contributing to the process and are undecided as to whether they can commit to the investment mandate. There are some who are contributing time and expertise. Gallagher is the final supporting organisation and you can see the FAQ about their role below.   

Gallagher serves as an independent technical advisor to the Endowments Investing Challenge. Its primary roles are to:

 

  • Support the partners to design a fair and robust assessment framework to shortlist applications from ISPs. Input will be provided primarily on the financial due diligence parts of the framework.
  • Conduct additional due diligence on one or more ISP(s) after the EIC event in March 2026.

While Gallagher provides advice on the assessment framework and carries out due diligence, it does not make the investment decisions – those remain with the governance bodies of each partner foundation, nor does it officially endorse any of the winners.

The Future Generations Panel is a group of young adults (aged 18–25) whose goal is to surface the priorities of young adults and future generations throughout the EIC. Over 700 applications were received to join the panel. Panel members were selected randomly, whilst also ensuring there was representation from people facing economic, social, and/or environmental marginalisation. The panel’s vision is “a sustainable and fairer future where we take pride in communities and are equitable, with no hate and injustice.” The group will work with the charitable foundation partners throughout the process.

The panel will technically be working with Friends Provident Foundation until the end of June 2026. We don’t have a decision looking further ahead yet. However, we’ve explored the idea of having an engagement panel – made up of partners and potentially members of the Future Generations panel – that engages with the winner(s) over the longer-term.

There are no partners for whom this would be the entire investment portfolio and the proportion varies by partner.

These are listed in the RFP, page 3. 

This is likely to be one meeting for each invested partner separately, but we would be open to discussing how we could make this more efficient and bring partners together. 

Event at the Barbican

What will happen at the event?

Each of the shortlisted applicants will be asked to present their investment proposal to a wide variety of stakeholders and answer questions from the audience. Once all presentations are concluded, a vote will take place at the event, and a “People’s Choice Winner” will be announced. A “Future Generations Winner” is also expected to be identified, which may or may not be the same as the “People’s Choice Winner”.

After the event, additional due diligence will be completed by Gallagher, on the winning ISP(s). The partners will then independently make decisions on where to invest, based on the results of the event and the due diligence. Partners are expected to invest in the winning ISP(s), but decision-making is ultimately retained by the relevant governance bodies.

Each presentation will be made to an audience of stakeholders, including:

 

  • Trustees, investment committee members and staff members of partner and supporter charitable foundations.
  • The Future Generations Panel and other young people.
  • Grantees of charitable foundations.
  • Sector experts and other invitees.

A vote will be held at the end of the day with all audience members voting. A “People’s Choice Winner” will be announced. The Future Generations Panel is expected to separately declare a “Future Generations Winner”, which may or may not be the same ISP.