We are a young country, and growing fast. 50% of our population is under the age of 35 years. Our maternal death rates, at around 250 deaths per 100,000 births, are around 100 times the rate in Australia (WHO). Only 33% of our kids finish primary school, and only 15% finish high school. (UNICEF).

Too often, impact frameworks are treated as compliance tools—boxes to tick for funders, donors, or annual reports. But when done well, they are much more than that. An impact framework, thoughtfully designed and strongly embedded in the human experience of impact, does more than articulate outcomes to stakeholders; it becomes a living process that shapes how teams think, learn, and drive strategy.

Community, as a concept, is simultaneously self-evident (we know it’s out there) and complex (we'd all define it slightly differently). It’s typically defined as the warm, fuzzy and reciprocal engagement between a smaller, more localised group of individuals who share a common purpose.

For Australian NFPs, restoring public trust is not just a reputational concern—it is fundamental to their ability to deliver social impact. Organisations that embrace transparency, actively engage with communities, and adapt to shifting expectations will be best positioned to navigate this new era of grievance and uncertainty.  

We spend a lot of time working with non-profits and funders, exploring how they can do more to contribute to a more equitable society. In spite of that, we spend very little time exploring whether applying a gender-lens to our discussions around the design, implementation and funding of interventions in a deliberate and thoughtful manner could lead to better outcomes.

Compassion, often cited as the greatest virtue, acknowledges the suffering in the world, and recognises a community is only as strong as its weakest (a very African sentiment, pointing to their communitarian view of the world, and central to the ‘Ubuntu’ philosophy that ‘we are all connected’).  

Since the beginning of the impact investing movement in Australia and abroad, we have heard from investors that ‘the deals aren’t there’. But on the demand side, for example amongst social enterprises, we also hear that ‘there is not enough appropriate capital’.

Despite the leadership and progress we see internationally from prominent Foundations, like Ford and Rockefeller who have committed their endowments to the objective of 100% responsible investing and impact, and the growing number of ‘100% Foundations’ convened by TONIIC (US), the $50bn Trusts and Foundations sector in Australia still has a long way to go to shift its traditional investment mindset.

As we are all asset owners in some form, we too can play a role in the change by making our expectations clear to our own financial advisors, institutions and superannuation funds.

“Addressing the climate and biodiversity crisis is not just about getting to net zero. It’s about the impact of that transition on people and communities… If we don’t mitigate the consequences and maximise the opportunities – particularly in relation to jobs and skills that that offers, the transition is simply not going to happen…”

We must drastically reduce emissions and stimulate nature to absorb more by restoring biodiversity – through afforestation and reforestation. To reverse the sharp decline, we have and continue to see in biodiversity by 2030, we need to address a funding gap of US$825 billion per year (this figure comes from ‘Financing Nature: Closing the Global Biodiversity Financing Gap’ by The Nature Conservancy).

The Paris Agreement defines net zero as achieving “a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases”. The IPCC’s report released in August 2021 stated that…“emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are responsible for approximately 1.1°C of warming since 1850-1900… unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5°C or even 2°C will be beyond reach”.