Access to Liquidity: How to Address This Central Risk in Impact Investing

As growing volumes of capital seek to invest in impact projects with returns over increasingly shorter timeframes, from days to decades, this article explores a pathway that is both simple and deeply suited to the urgency of our world: directly connecting money to projects by structuring them into successive, economically viable stages that are meaningful and yield measurable returns.

This article draws on insights from the AGILE White Paper, which identifies the systemic barriers to liquidity access, proposes concrete tools for evaluation (AGILE) and disintermediation, and illustrates—through the replicable case of Objectif Sciences International—how return on investment can be structured over 3, 5, or 10 years depending on the amounts invested. It reveals a new culture of finance—plural, agile, and grounded in reality—where financial instruments are finally aligned with the rhythms of the projects and societies they are meant to serve.

The theme of access to liquidity as a major risk in impact investing is addressed explicitly and recurrently across several sections of the AGILE White Paper.

Pages 17 to 21 – Chapter 1: "Excess Capital, Lacking Projects"

• Analysis of the paradox between abundant capital and underfunded projects.
• Highlights the structural barriers preventing smooth capital flow, especially for projects with high social or environmental potential.
• Reference to the lack of shared interfaces and inadequate criteria used by traditional funders.

“While large amounts of capital are available globally, they often remain disconnected from field-ready, impact-oriented initiatives due to a lack of adapted structures and tools.”

AGILE White Paper

Page 34 – Chapter 2: "Foundational Principles of Impact Finance"

• Discusses the need for agile mechanisms to meet the concrete liquidity needs of projects.
• Calls for flexibility in resource mobilization, particularly for hybrid or non-commercial projects.

AGILE White Paper

Page 51 – Chapter 5: "Unlocking Capital Flows for Scalable Impact"

• Central focus on capital flow bottlenecks and the lack of scaling pathways.
• Identifies funding discontinuity risks as a major cause of failure.
• Proposes the creation of dedicated refinancing tools linked to impact indicators.

AGILE White Paper

Page 118 – Chapter 3: "Divide Between Local Projects and Global Financing"

• Discussion on the gap between local scale and globalized finance.
• Highlights the complexity of capital flows and difficulty accessing liquidity for field actors.

AGILE White Paper

Page 132 – Final section: "AGILE as a Lever for Transparency and Ethical Performance"

• The AGILE is presented as a lever to facilitate capital flows.
• Emphasis on disintermediation to reconnect capital and the field.

Going Further: What If the Simplest Solution Were... the Most Direct One?

Towards financial products connected to real-world projects, based on progressive ROI models.

In a world where financial flows are often abstract and disconnected from real-world urgencies, a simple idea is beginning to take hold—championed for decades by some ethical and impact-oriented financial institutions: the simplest solution to fund impact would be to invest directly in projects with sound business models, structured around successive return-on-investment stages.

Far from naive, this idea is backed by decades of practical experimentation.

A Vital Need for Liquidity and Simplicity

Impact finance, while promising, continues to be hampered by:

• long-term closed-end funds,
• opaque criteria,
• excessive intermediation,
  which the AGILE tool presented in the White Paper aims to address with simple solutions.

Yet many high-impact projects can generate ROI within 3 to 5 years, provided they are:

• supported,
• properly scaled,
• and structured into coherent phases.

The Principle of “Successive Sub-Projects”

An ambitious impact project is built:

• step by step,
• on economically viable foundations,
• with measurable progression.

Creating financial products adapted to this logic enables investors to:

• diversify their entry points,
• access gradual returns,
• reinvest as the project progresses.

This project-scaling technique, based on a succession of realistic sub-projects, has been implemented by Thomas EGLI since his first project coaching assignments in 2001 upon returning from Japan, and is now being modeled here.

A Concrete Proposal: Investment Vehicles via AGILE

The Geneva Foundation for the Future, through the AGILE, supports projects using this methodology so that they themselves become:

• return-on-investment vehicles,
• levers for systemic impact,
• generators of direct social effects.

A well-structured project over 3 to 5 years can therefore offer:

• direct or systemic impact,
• ROI with liquidity,
• attractiveness for all types of investors.

Flagship Example: Objectif Sciences International (OSI)

The NGO Objectif Sciences International, incubated within the Foundation’s networks, is a textbook case:

• For small to medium investments (€150,000 to €600,000): 5-year ROI with measurable effects.
• For amounts over €1 million: Business plan with ROI in 7 to 10 years.
• No derivatives, with direct flows to the field, revenues generated locally, and strategic oversight based on 30 years of experience.

This model is:

• replicable,
• scalable,
• and socially and financially profitable.

Towards a New Culture of Impact Investing

In light of today’s challenges, finance now has the opportunity to:

• reconnect with field needs,
• integrate proven models,
• ensure clear and measurable returns.

This is the approach proposed by the Geneva Foundation for the Future through:

• economic modeling,
• strategic mentoring,
• modular investment products.

What if investing in impact finally meant investing in something measurable, useful, and profitable?

Changing perspective means:

• seeing projects not as rigid blocks,
• but as a succession of virtuous, value-generating circles—for the planet, for society, and for portfolios.

Why Access to Liquidity Is a Central Risk in Impact Investing

• 1. Misalignment between capital timelines and project needs
  • Long-term projects vs. short-term return expectations.
  • Result: cash flow interruptions during critical phases.

• 2. Fragmentation of funding circuits
  • Siloing between philanthropy, public finance, and private capital.
  • Frequent funding gaps (pre-revenue, scaling, bridge rounds).

• 3. Lack of structured refinancing mechanisms
  • No clear pathway after the “proof of concept” phase.
  • Risk of undercapitalizing otherwise high-performing projects.

• 4. Inadequate allocation criteria for field realities
  • Traditional financial metrics not applicable to social or environmental projects.
  • Difficult credit access—even for solid projects.

• 5. Volatility or withdrawal of funders due to “perceived risk”
  • Rural or non-commercial projects often excluded.
  • Hence the importance of blended finance.

• 6. Impact on monitoring and evaluation
  • Less liquidity = less impact tracking.
  • Projects sacrifice quality to survive.

What Does the Geneva Foundation for the Future Propose?

• A AGILE to:
  • Identify, evaluate, and monitor projects.
  • Align with SDGs, ESG criteria, legal taxonomies.

• An approach that is:
  • Direct, fluid, and shared.
  • Operationalized from Geneva.

• Recommendations to:
  • Structure ethical liquidity flows.
  • Reconnect capital with the field.
  • Ensure project sustainability.

Investing at the Scale of Reality: Plurality of Projects, Diversity of Timelines, Urgency of Needs

If we’re now talking about many people wanting to invest large amounts of money into impact projects—and expecting returns within days, weeks, months, or quarters—then we’re no longer just talking about yield. We’re talking about a shift in scale. And that’s exactly what the world needs.

New Investors with Varied Horizons

In recent years, the rise of impact finance has attracted a new generation of investors:

• Individuals, who want their money to have visible and immediate usefulness;
• Family offices, eager to anchor their capital in transformative short- and medium-term initiatives;
• Public or philanthropic institutions, aiming to allocate funds more quickly while maintaining traceability and impact standards.

These investors are not necessarily expecting long-term financial returns. Many are seeking quicker paybacks:

• Daily, for some microfinance or basic services products;
• Weekly, in buy/sell impact models (local agriculture, short supply chains);
• Monthly or quarterly, for projects generating regular income (community spaces, renewable energy, community health...).

This evolution calls for a profound adaptation of impact finance instruments.

A Plurality of Timelines = A Plurality of Projects

Historically, most impact investment funds operate on 5- to 10-year horizons. This timeframe remains essential for systemic projects.

But it is far from being the only one. The success of the ecological, social, and economic transition depends on a portfolio of projects with varied maturities, capable of:

• addressing urgent needs (food security, housing, access to healthcare),
• supporting transitional efforts (economic activity creation, training, local supply chain development),
• structuring the long term (resilient infrastructure, research, policy reforms).

This is the logic of multi-temporality embedded in the AGILE tool developed by the Geneva Foundation for the Future: each project is assessed for its ability to generate impact across multiple timelines, with return thresholds defined from the outset.

Adapting Financial Vehicles to Ground Realities

Impact is not a deferred product. It is a living dynamic.

If we want to accelerate the flow of capital to useful projects, we can, for example:

• create fractional investment instruments,
• enable modular capital exits (via “maturity tranches”),
• fund impact from weekly to decadal timescales.

The tools already exist: micro-leasing, revenue-based financing, short-term impact bonds, community revolving funds, etc. What’s now needed is to:

• standardize access to these instruments,
• align evaluation criteria (through AGILE),
• structure the ecosystem around agile liquidity calendars.

And That’s Exactly What the World Needs

According to data from the UNEP, the IPCC, and the OECD, investment needs in sustainable infrastructure, essential services, and social innovation are estimated at over $6 trillion per year by 2030.

But these needs are:

• dispersed,
• heterogeneous,
• underfunded.
  Meeting this reality means financing more projects—smaller, closer, more frequent, and faster.

And this requires:

• increasing the volume of investable projects,
• diversifying their legal and economic structures,
• accepting tiered ROI, non-standard, sometimes symbolic, often hybrid.

This is the focus of the Geneva Foundation for the Future’s 30-year mentoring work, especially through the replicable example of Objectif Sciences International:

• a systemic impact model,
• capable of generating revenue from the early stages,
• structured into profitable, integrated sub-projects,
• with ROI in 3–5 years for smaller investments, and 10 years for strategic commitments.

A Gentle Revolution in Capital

What if we stopped opposing liquidity and impact?

What current developments show us is that tangible impact can be generated at all scales and speeds, provided the models are designed that way.

Instead of trying to force all projects into the same financial calendars, it’s time to recognize that project agility also means temporal agility.

The future of impact finance lies in embracing this diversity: not one single model, but a living ecosystem of multifaceted projects, able to meet the challenges of the real world—over days, months, or decades.

To access the content, get the link by email or log in if you already have an account.