The UK social impact investment market has matured considerably in recent years, reaching £11bn in 2024. A combination of more specialist lenders, more capital, and growing pressure on grant funding has pushed social investment from a relatively niche concept to a live option for many charities. Increasingly, charities that would never previously have considered borrowing are being approached by, or directed toward, social investors.
As with any new financial product, social investment must be understood by the organisations that leverage it. It carries the same fiduciary weight as any other major borrowing or investment decision and therefore deserves to be made with the same rigour.
What social investment is, and what it isn’t
Social investment is the use of repayable finance to achieve both a social and a financial return. The term describes both sides of the transaction: the funders deploying capital this way (often themselves charities, foundations or social banks) and the organisations receiving it. This article is concerned with the latter. The defining feature is that the money is paid back to the lender or investor, usually with a return, but with a blend of social and financial motivations that a commercial lender would not accept.
The most common structure is a straightforward loan, often priced as a margin over SONIA and used for working capital, asset purchase, or growth. However, social investment often takes the form of broader financing structures than straightforward debt. Alternative forms of finance can be particularly well-suited to charities with uncertain or irregular income streams.
The most relevant non-debt structure for charities is quasi-equity, also called revenue participation. As the sale of shares is generally unavailable to charities, quasi-equity fills the gap between debt and equity. Instead of fixed repayments, the charity agrees to pay the investor a percentage of its future income or trading revenue. Repayments rise when the organisation does well and falls when it does not, which transfers some of the risk to the investor and protects the borrower’s cash flow during lean periods. This makes it suited to charities with a trading arm or a new income stream where the timing and scale of revenue are hard to forecast.
Other structures include patient capital, which is simply repayable finance offered on longer, more flexible terms than a commercial lender would accept; blended finance, where grant subsidy is combined with a loan to reduce the overall cost of borrowing; and unsecured social bonds or crowdfunded loans for organisations able to raise from a wider base. It is worth noting that the grant subsidy in blended finance is not simply free money, it often comes with restrictions on use, impact measurement or reporting obligations that carry a cost of their own. A cheaper loan that demands significant staff time on impact reporting can possibly prove more expensive in resource terms than a slightly financially costlier commercial facility.
The key point is that the right structure depends on the nature of the charity's income. A fixed-term loan suits predictable cashflows; quasi-equity or patient capital suits uncertain ones.
A question that often arises here is why a charity sitting on reserves would borrow at all. The instinct to use cash before debt is sound, but it is not always right. Much depends on whether the funds are indeed available, as reserves may be restricted or designated, or they may be held in investments that cannot be realised quickly or without loss. Even where reserves are free and liquid, drawing them down might breach the charity’s own reserves policy or leave too little headroom for risk. The real comparison is not the loan rate against the deposit rate, but the all-in cost of finance against the opportunity cost of the reserves, adjusted for how restricted and how liquid those reserves actually are.
The borrowing decision: a trustee's framework
Whatever the structure, the decision to take on repayable finance is one for trustees, not management alone. Trustees hold fiduciary duties over borrowing just as they do over investment, and a charity's power to borrow derives from its governing document, supplemented by general law and the explicit social investment power introduced by the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Act 2016.
Before proceeding, trustees should be able to answer a clear set of questions: What is the borrowing actually for, and is it an investment in capacity or impact rather than a way to plug a recurring deficit? How will it be repaid: from future income, from reserves, or from the returns the investment itself generates? What happens if those returns do not materialise as expected? And does the governing document permit borrowing of this kind and scale at all?
Understanding the terms
The headline interest rate is rarely the whole cost. Most social investment loans are variable rate, linked to SONIA, which means repayment costs move with the market and need to be modelled accordingly rather than assumed to be fixed. Recent volatility in the path of expected future interest rates, stemming from the Iran conflict, has further highlighted the interest rate risk inherent in variable rate borrowing.
Lenders frequently attach covenants: requirements to maintain a minimum level of reserves, hit income thresholds or provide regular financial reporting. A breach can trigger default even if repayments are being made on time, so trustees need to understand them before signing. Where a loan is secured, the lender takes a charge over an asset, often a building, which reduces the charity's flexibility to sell or refinance later.
Cashflow and treasury implications
Taking on repayable finance fundamentally changes a charity's cashflow profile. Unlike grant expenditure, which can be scaled back, debt service is a fixed and non-negotiable obligation. That obligation needs to be modelled alongside existing commitments under both base-case and stressed scenarios, and it has direct consequences for reserves policy as a charity servicing debt needs a higher minimum reserves target than one that is not.
This matters most for charities moving into outcomes-based contracting, where payment arrives only after outcomes are delivered and verified, sometimes months later. Borrowing against optimistic income assumptions in that environment is a real risk. A revolving credit facility may be a better fit than a term loan where the need is to bridge timing gaps rather than fund a defined project. Where borrowing bridges to a future grant or contract, the risk lies less in the loan itself than in the assumption that the future income will arrive on time, or at all.
Social investment is a legitimate and increasingly accessible tool, but it is debt, and it should be treated as such. Arlingclose works with charities considering or managing social investment to stress-test borrowing decisions, review treasury and borrowing policies, and ensure trustees have the information they need.
For more information, please get in touch with fwatson@arlingclose.com.
12/06/2026
Related Insights
What Does the Civil Society Covenant Mean for Charity and Local Authority Finances?
Are Current Market Conditions Favourable to Charity Debt Prepayment?
How Can Treasury Training Help Charity Trustees Meet Their Governance Duties?