The State of SWF Social Impact Integration: Trends and Opportunities

This report from JFI’s Social Wealth team is the first systematic look at how social impact is defined, measured, and monitored across the $13 trillion Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) sector. The report, based on a survey of 21 of the world’s most prominent sovereign savings and development funds, was created in tandem with the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds.

The report’s executive summary:

The 2025 IFSWF Survey reveals that the sovereign wealth sector has moved past the question of whether social impact matters and on to questions of clarifying and measuring it effectively in practice. With growing scrutiny on the role of large institutional investors in shaping equitable and sustainable outcomes, sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) are increasingly expected to demonstrate how their investments contribute to broader social goals. Our findings reflect a sector-wide evolution from rhetorical commitments to implementation strategies—albeit at different stages of integration and with diverse institutional approaches.

Deepening Engagement Across the Board

Both development and savings funds are increasingly integrating social impact considerations into their investment processes. Among development funds, which often have mandates linking capital deployment to national development goals, five out of eight indicate that they already apply a defined methodology to evaluate social outcomes. Among savings funds, which are traditionally focused on long-term risk-adjusted financial returns, only one among nine respondents currently uses such a methodology, but five more report active plans to implement one. This suggests a widening recognition that addressing social outcomes is material to long-term performance and legitimacy.

Mandates Shape Social Priorities and Practices

Development funds consistently integrate social impact evaluation into core activities, often using multidimensional indicators aligned with national policy goals. By contrast, savings funds tend to prioritize infrastructure and environmental themes and are less likely to assess social outcomes systematically, reflecting the differing institutional origins and objectives of the funds.

Measurement Practices Are Evolving but Uneven

While most SWFs indicate that they use a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess social outcomes, measurement practices remain variable and context-dependent across funds. Despite ongoing fragmentation with regard to framework alignment, early signs of consolidation are emerging, particularly around the Sustainable Development Goals and select industry standards. Still, substantial gaps remain in the consistent application of metrics, definitions, and attribution logic, limiting comparability across funds and regions.

Gaps in Data and Methods Persist

Data availability and benchmark methodologies remain major obstacles. Most funds rely primarily on internal data or information provided by investees, with limited use of public or third-party datasets. This restricts capacity to benchmark performance and could impair credibility.

Barriers Reflect Different Stages of Social Integration

Funds exhibiting lower levels of social impact integration, such as those without defined methodologies or evaluation frameworks, tend to report challenges like unclear methods and difficulty aligning social goals with investment objectives. In contrast, funds with more established practices often face technical challenges, such as improving data quality, embedding impact evaluation into workflows, and scaling measurement efforts. Across the board, there is a recognized need for better measurement infrastructure: clearer standards, capacity building, and opportunities for peer learning.

Measuring Financial Additionality is Still a Nascent Practice

While awareness of financial additionality — the unique catalytic role of sovereign investments — is rising, few funds currently attempt to measure it systematically. Barriers cited include difficulty in establishing counterfactuals and a lack of consolidated methodologies. Even among adopters, defining and demonstrating additionality remains an operational challenge, highlighting the need for guidance and shared frameworks.

Normalizing Social Impact Integration

To better understand the variation in social impact practices, we developed a Social Impact Integration Index that normalizes survey responses across key dimensions such as measurement approach, frameworks, and thematic focus. This index, which is not to be interpreted as a ranking tool, helps to identify where funds are along the integration spectrum and what types of barriers they tend to face. Notably, funds with medium levels of integration — those actively engaging in but not yet institutionalizing social impact practices — emerge as a particularly strategic group for peer learning, capacity building, and trend forecasting. The index offers a foundation for future benchmarking and targeted dialogue across the SWF community.

We are eager to administer this survey regularly to build a time series and further contribute to the growing momentum for impact measurement, credibility, and shared learning between and among sovereign wealth funds.