Q&A Case studies: Both private and public markets are needed for structural impact

July 28, 2025

^{This discussion was originally written in Dutch. This is an English translation.}

What is the added value of impact investing in private or public markets? And how does engagement relate to direct investments? During a Q&A session at the Financial Investigator seminar on Energy Transition, Natural Capital and Biodiversity, five investment professionals responded to questions from the audience about impact, risk, data and fairness. What follows is a search for a balance between urgency and feasibility.

By Baart Koster

Impact does not start with the market, but with the mission. In the Q&A session, it quickly becomes clear that the distinction between private and public markets is less important than the common goal. Adrien Cambonie sets the tone: 'We are all working towards the same goal. Achieving the SDGs alone will require $5 to $7 trillion annually. The private equity market is not that big. Impact investing in public markets is therefore not only possible, it is necessary.' He then points to the role of large listed companies. “They have strong balance sheets and global networks. This means they can not only invest, but also stimulate systemic change. And as an impact investor in public markets, you often hold shares for a long time. This provides stable capital, reduces the cost of equity and enables you to guide companies through engagement,” says Cambonie.

Nevertheless, it remains difficult to attribute impact in public markets to specific investors. Xander Urbach says: ‘Companies certainly have an impact, but we don’t report on it or attribute that impact to our funds.’ According to Urbach, the situation is different in private markets: ‘There, you can steer more precisely, with more influence upfront and more specific applications. You are closer to the investment and can, for example, set requirements for biodiversity policy or CO₂ reduction at the selection stage.‘ Nick Brugman adds that the type of impact is also decisive: ’If you focus on nature restoration, you quickly come to the conclusion in public markets that there are only a handful of companies that actually demonstrate this. Private markets are more suitable for that specific impact."

Engagement requires time and guidance

A seminar participant from the audience asks whether the commitment to engagement is worth it. He uses water droplets as a metaphor when he explains that every time you, as an impact investor, enter into a dialogue with a company, it seeps through the organisation. ‘You see companies slowly moving. It takes time, but it works.’ Urbach recognises this, but adds that engagement is only effective if it goes hand in hand with portfolio management. “You need both. A company needs to hear the same message from different sides: this is the direction investors want to go in. It helps if engagement sends a different message to action groups, but points in the same direction.”

However, there is also scepticism. Jan Bertus Molenkamp wonders whether the time invested in engagement always outweighs direct investment in solution-oriented strategies. ‘We simply don't always have the time to slowly move companies towards sustainability. Money has to flow to the frontrunners.’ Brugman shares this concern: ‘With the current rate of biodiversity loss, we simply don't have time to let policy slowly seep through.’ Chair Nikki Trip concludes that both approaches are necessary. ‘There is no conclusive evidence that one works better than the other. So let everyone do what they believe in and then go for it with all their energy and attention.’

We simply don't always have the time to slowly move companies towards sustainability. Money must flow to the frontrunners.

This is followed by a substantive exchange on risk management in climate and biodiversity issues. Aida Giniyatullina sees particular opportunities in private markets in the pre-commitment phase. “That's where we can exert influence with our size. The asset managers and parties we work with are still open to suggestions at that stage. It's much more difficult to make adjustments afterwards.” Timing is also important in the real estate sector, Giniyatullina continues. ‘We see that certification processes, such as BREEAM, have more impact in advance. They look at things like land use and water consumption, which are more difficult to change later, after acquisition.’

Molenkamp also emphasises the importance of careful consideration at an early stage. ‘In private markets, the selection processes are different from those in public markets. Sometimes you can't pull out, so you have to be much more careful in advance. In addition, private projects often allow you to better tailor your approach to local conditions and the needs of stakeholders.’ According to Molenkamp, data also plays an important role. “In private markets, you can often delve deeper into projects. With listed companies, data access is more limited. The question then is: how far are you willing and able to go?”

The relationship between biodiversity and energy transition is proving to be more complex than expected. According to Molenkamp, it is a matter of searching for a very nuanced balance. “Solar panels on agricultural land are good for the energy transition, but bad for biodiversity. We need to move towards dual functions and smart combinations.” Brugman agrees: “Look for locations with limited natural value, such as car parks, and combine energy generation with nature development wherever possible. Space is scarce, so we will have to think holistically.”

No climate without nature

At the same time, Cambonie warns that nature restoration should never be subordinated to climate ambitions. “You see that some projects marginalise biodiversity in favour of climate. But without nature, there is no climate. We need to embed that systems thinking more firmly. Impact is not just CO₂ reduction, it is also the preservation of resilient ecosystems.”

Trip asks a relevant follow-up question: how do you prevent biodiversity from becoming subordinate to short-term goals in the energy transition? Urbach argues for more transparency in trade-offs. 'Show explicitly what the trade-offs are between gains for the climate and losses for biodiversity. Only then can you make socially responsible choices.

Make it clear what the trade-offs are between gains for the climate and losses for biodiversity. Only then can you make socially responsible choices.

A follow-up question from the audience focuses on the concept of “carbon-neutral mining”. Urbach explains that this is technically very complex. 'It works in Sweden because the energy grid is highly integrated. There, you can even electrify heavy equipment. In Africa, this is much more difficult. Companies there often use their own land for solar or wind farms, but it remains a challenge. And I'm only talking about CO₂. The damage to biodiversity is on top of that.' The discussion shifts to the broader bottlenecks in the energy transition, such as grid congestion. Brugman notes that without cooperation and clear direction, we will not be able to resolve the bottlenecks in the infrastructure.

You see that some projects marginalise biodiversity in favour of climate. But without nature, there is no climate. We need to embed that systems thinking more effectively.

Cooperation crucial for energy transition

The panel emphasises that cooperation is crucial to resolving bottlenecks in the energy transition. However, the fragmentation of responsibilities between network operators, governments and investors is cited as a major obstacle. Without clear direction and joint action, progress will be slow, according to the panel. Urbach adds that money is not the biggest bottleneck. “Network operators say that financing is usually available. It's more often a question of personnel, materials and supply chains. But if there is a good business case, pension funds are open to it.”

The next question from the audience prompts the panel to consider energy storage and cooperation: Longer-lasting battery technology is mentioned as an indispensable part of the energy transition. Short peaks can still be absorbed, but aren't more robust solutions needed for longer periods without sun or wind? Brugman calls this type of storage the “holy grail”: 'We sometimes produce more than we can use, but in periods with little sun and wind, that surplus is of no use to us. European cooperation can help here, because peaks in electricity consumption in countries such as Spain occur at different times than in the Netherlands. The shared opinion is that there is much to be gained by making smart use of these differences.

Opportunities in emerging markets

The session ends with a plea for more attention to emerging markets. A speaker from the audience points to the young population in Africa and the risk of global warming if that region develops in a fossil-based way. Trip notes that it is strange that emerging markets have been mentioned so little. Giniyatullina acknowledges that this is also difficult for institutional investors. ‘Projects are often too small. And the checks and guarantees we are used to in Europe are lacking. It takes a lot more effort and control. Moreover, there are legal and fiscal restrictions that make it difficult to invest responsibly in those regions.’

Giniyatullina adds that the importance of impact in emerging markets is evident, but that a well-functioning institutional framework is still lacking. “That doesn't mean we can't do anything. But it requires creativity and cooperation with local parties.” Molenkamp also points to the significant knowledge gap that still exists. ‘We invest little in understanding these markets, even though some African countries are more attractive than Europe in terms of risk-return profile. But we don’t know the local managers. We need to change that.’ Molenkamp cites a recent study on impact loans in Africa as an example. ‘The results are impressive. But there is a bridge to be built: we need to get to know and utilise local expertise. Only then can you invest responsibly in regions with lesser-known risks. International cooperation is indispensable in this regard.’

Moral appeal

Trip concludes with a moral appeal. ‘The energy transition and biodiversity goals are urgent, but we must not lose sight of justice. Those who have benefited most from pollution must also take the lead in finding solutions. If we want the energy transition to succeed globally, its impact must reach beyond our own continent. Perhaps that also means lobbying for rules that make it easier to invest responsibly outside Europe.’

The conclusion of the session is that public and private markets need each other, just as investors in developed and emerging markets do. Real impact requires knowledge sharing, joint investment and international cooperation between public and private parties in both developed and emerging markets. However, knowledge alone is not enough. As Cambonie stated at the beginning of the session, real change also requires scale. After all, the capital flows required are very large and exceed the domain of private equity alone. Without the involvement of listed companies and the long-term commitment of public investors, impact will remain a niche. Cambonie's message: “We need to move away from the idea that impact investing belongs solely in the private sphere.”

Urbach adds that it is not just about direct measurability. “The role of investors in public markets is also to provide direction, through capital, but also through dialogue and expectation management.” Trip's words aptly conclude the Q&A session: “What we have discussed today is not set in stone. But these are building blocks for policy, vision and cooperation. If we all do our bit, we can build something bigger than ourselves, namely a fair and future-proof economy.”