Written evidence submitted by CDC Group
plc
We welcome the opportunity to brief the Committee
on CDC's work as part of the Inquiry process.
Our submission focuses on the first area of the Inquiry,
namely CDC's effectiveness. We have not attempted to address additional
areas of the Inquiry, namely the reforms proposed by the Secretary
of State on 12 October 2010. We believe it would be premature
to comment until the DFID-led consultation is completed and detail
on the reforms is provided.
Section 1 is an executive summary.
Section 2 is an introduction to CDC.
Section 3 looks at our effectiveness.
Section 4 is a brief conclusion.
The submission also includes case studies which we
hope the Committee may find useful.
A set of appendices is attached providing additional
information:
Appendix A CDC's Investment Code.
Appendix B CDC's indicators for monitoring and evaluation.
Appendix C CDC's performance history.
Appendix D CDC mobilising third party capital.
Appendix E List of first-time fund managers.
Appendix F Triple Value's external perspective on
CDC's development impact measurement.
Appendix G KPMG's independent assessment report to
CDC Group plc
Appendix H CDC's monitoring and evaluation framework
and summary of the evaluation results CDC Group plc www.cdcgroup.com
SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 CDC's role is tackling poverty in the developing
world by investing vitally needed capital in promising private
sector businesses. No country has reduced poverty in the absence
of economic growth and it is the private sector that drives economic
growth. Businesses create jobs, train people and invest in research
and development of new products and services. The private sector
provides the taxes for governments to invest in public services,
health and education.
1.2 Although successive governments have asked
CDC to achieve this using different methods and strategies, CDC's
mission has not changed in its 62 years of existence. The company's
purpose has always been to contribute to sustainable economic
development in poor countries by stimulating and investing in
the private sector.
1.3 Along with our shareholder, DFID, CDC believes
that growing the private sector is the single most important contributor
to the economic growth upon which the developing world's prosperity
depends. Without a thriving, responsible and profitable private
sector the poor countries of the world will continue to struggle
with poverty.
1.4 The most serious impediment to economic development
is that international commercial investors are still reluctant
to invest in poor countries. They see these places as risky, difficult
and unpredictable. They continue to shy away from backing businesses
with great potential but limited access to finance. Without substantially
higher levels of investment, enterprises in poor countries are
struggling to expand. This is a major issue for development.
1.5 This is why CDC's capital, like that of other
development finance institutions (DFIs), is so important. We play
a vital role in putting essential capital to work in businesses
located in countries that have extremely challenging investment
environments. So CDC's role is to do the hardest things in the
hardest places.
1.6 But our capital on its own is a drop in the
ocean. The amount of investment needed across the poor countries
of Africa alone can be reckoned in the trillions of dollars. The
key to attracting this capital is persuading and encouraging private
and commercial investors to make commitments of capital in poor
countries. In order to attract this capital it is essential to
demonstrate that good risk adjusted returns can be made. Without
those returns, investors will shy away from these markets.
1.7 CDC's task therefore is twofold: first to
back businesses with potential and second to do so in a way that
encourages others to invest.
1.8 Our capital is "patient capital":
we are not looking for quick "in and out" returns and
we are always prepared to take the long term view.
1.9 The current fund-of-funds model was introduced
by the last administration in 2004. The model means that we place
our capital with fund managers who in turn raise capital from
other investors and invest that larger pool of capital in businesses
on the ground.
1.10 This model has been implemented by CDC with
many significant achievements:
- currently invested in nearly 900 businesses in
73 developing countries;
- 3 million lives supported;
- nearly US$ 3 billion of local business
taxes paid by businesses in 2009;
- over US$ 23 billion in third party
capital invested alongside CDC in funds;
- more capital invested in sub-Saharan Africa and
in Asia than any other European DFI; and
- local financial capacity-building in at least
37 countries.
1.11 All of this has happened with no fresh capital
from the UK Government for over 15 years.
1.12 Although it has the important advantage
of helping to attract vital capital from other investors, the
model has drawbacks. CDC is, in legal and practical terms, one
step removed from the businesses. This limits the level of information
we have access to, the control we can exercise and the degree
of influence we are able to exert over the investee companies.
The fund-of-funds model, therefore, brings complex contractual
and practical challenges.
1.13 CDC has worked energetically to mitigate
these challenges. Our Investment Code, which our fund managers
are required to follow, covers environmental, social and governance
(ESG) issues (see Appendix A), together with our monitoring and
evaluation systems, are seen by many other DFIs as leading-edge
and innovative. Nonetheless, with 70 fund managers and nearly
900 investee businesses in some of the world's most difficult
investment environments, problems will inevitably arise. CDC is
not complacent about this and we accept that difficulties have
been encountered.
1.14 That said, much has been achieved under
the fund-of-funds model. The progress we have been able to make
to stimulate the private sector and develop capital markets in
poor countries is set out later in this submission.
1.15 CDC is discussing with our shareholder how
we can expand the range of investment tools we use to achieve
greater developmental impact through supporting the private sector.
This will include, for example, direct investments which are a
highly effective way of targeting specific sectors, countries
and businesses. It will also include the provision of debt and
guarantees because not all businesses in the developing world
need equity investment, and some require other forms of finance.
These are all important ways of ensuring that CDC's capital continues
to be at the forefront of developmental thinking and is as developmentally
effective as possible.
1.16 But whatever our precise investment model,
our focus will continue to be on ensuring long-term profitability
in the portfolio companies because it is financial performance
that is widely recognised as the vital bedrock for sustainable
economic development.
1.17 Lasting development impact is the goal of
all who work at CDC. The organisation cannot stand still and as
knowledge and understanding about sustainable economic development
grows and adapts, we must do the same. CDC recognises this and
is open and receptive to change.
1.18 A key objective of any DFI should be the
ability to mobilise capital from responsible commercial investors.
This is because developing economies' growth depends on the availability
of a much larger pool of capital than DFIs alone can provide.
1.19 The public consultation taking place will
be an important element in framing CDC's future activities. We
are enthusiastically committed to achieving the highest possible
impact and welcome new and creative ways of ensuring that the
potential of the developing world's entrepreneurs is unlocked
to bring about a thriving private sector to benefit all.
SECTION 2
CDC'S CURRENT
WAY OF
WORKING
2.1 CDC exists to improve people's lives in developing
countries by helping businesses to grow. Set up over 60 years
ago, the Colonial Development Corporation was established to "investigate,
formulate and carry out projects for developing Colonial Resources".
CDC has changed its name and adapted its investment model over
the years to suit changing economic and investment climates and
modes of development thinking, but its central mission has remained
constant: to foster growth in sustainable businesses and, in doing
so, help to raise living standards in developing countries. We
remain committed to adapting to the demands and challenges that
our mission places upon us.
2.2 Originally focusing its efforts on agricultural
production, CDC's investments were by the mid-1990s mostly debt-based
and were sourced and monitored by CDC staff from offices in the
United Kingdom, Africa, Asia, Central and South America. In the
late 1990s, driven by a well-documented shortage of equity capital
in many developing countries, a decision was taken to focus on
equity investment.
2.3 In 1997 the then Prime Minister announced
that CDC should become a Public Private Partnership. Plans were
therefore put in place to privatise CDC. This proved not to be
possible as there was insufficient interest from private sector
investors.
2.4 In the early 2000s, in an effort to encourage
additional equity capital for investment in private sector companies
in developing countries, the decision was taken by Government
to spin out CDC's direct investment teams into what became Actis
and Aureos, two leading emerging market private equity fund managers.
CDC began operating through an intermediated business model focused
on the world's poorer countries with DFID remaining CDC's sole
shareholder. Our new role as a fund-of-funds investor meant that
we were no longer a direct investor in companies in emerging markets.
Instead we now deploy our capital through private equity funds,
such as those managed by Actis and Aureos, which in turn invest
in companies in developing countries. These private equity funds
thereby provide CDC with an indirect share in the businesses in
which the fund manager invests. Through these investments the
fund managers provide companies with access to the capital and
advice that allows them to expand and improve their businesses.
Other investors, both public and private, invest alongside CDC
in the funds. This further expands the access to capital for fund
managers to invest in businesses in emerging markets.The spin-out
of Actis and Aureos enabled the amount of capital invested in
developing countries to multiply considerably, while avoiding
a situation where CDC would be in direct competition with its
fund managers.
As Professor Ajay Shah of the Indian National Institute
of Public Finance and Policy in Delhi and former Indian Government
economics adviser has said:
"Private equity in India is actually very different
to what is known in the mainstream western discourse as private
equity. Private equity is much more like venture capital, in that
it's about putting large amounts of capital and professional management
inputs into relatively smallish projects, bringing them up to
scale, and then putting them out into the public markets
So you start with a team that has some very good ideas but just
does not have the capital to pull it off. And for whatever reasons
the domestic financial system is malfunctioning, and the standard
banks and the other sources of capital don't take the risks and
don't put their money into some of these extremely nice projects
so
there could not be anything more developmental in India than private
equity investment."
2.5 CDC is not designed to solve all development
challenges. It is one part of the UK Government's armoury to combat
poverty. We are asked by Government to contribute to poverty reduction
in two ways, by:
- investing responsibly in the creation and growth
of viable private businesses in poorer developing countries to
contribute to the economic growth that is central to reducing
poverty; and
- mobilising private investment in these markets
both directly and by demonstrating a profitable and responsible
track record. CDC does this because many commercial investors
still shy away from poor countries, particularly in sub-Saharan
Africa, which are seen as risky, unknown and problematic.
What is CDC seeking to redress?
2.6 Through investment in private businesses,
CDC contributes to economic development and poverty reduction.
Its investment increases jobs, income, productivity, goods, services
and tax revenues. CDC aims to invest its capital in countries,
regions, businesses and sectors in which private investors are
currently reluctant to invest. This means that CDC investment
aims to be financially additional, i.e. it should avoid crowding-out
private investors.
2.7 In addition, CDC acts as a catalyst, attracting
(crowding-in) private investors by demonstrating that profitable
and responsible investments can be made in difficult business
environments in developing countries.
2.8 In poor countries, DFIs are performing a
vital role in providing the capital businesses need to expand.
Although all DFIs share the same goal of supporting the private
sector in poor countries, they carry this out in varying ways.
Some focus on debt. Others undertake direct investment in businesses.
Some DFIs invest only the capital of their own government and
others manage and invest commercial capital as well. The range
of approaches means it is difficult to compare DFIs on a like-for-like
basis. CDC and SIFEM, the Swiss DFI, for example, are the only
DFIs to operate fully as fund-of-funds private equity investors.
Nonetheless, all DFIs work to back promising businesses in poor
countries and to do so in a way that encourages more capital into
the developing world.
2.9 This shortage of capital remains a significant
and primary impediment to economic growth in poor countries. Other
challenges to economic growth exist but the shortage of capital
remains a central barrier to long-term poverty reduction. For
example, almost 50% of African companies identify lack of access
to finance as a major constraint to doing business1. The cost
of finance, including investment finance, is higher in Africa
than any other part of the world and the access for small and
medium enterprises (SMEs) is particularly limited. Estimates vary,
but a UN policy brief in October 2010 suggests that Africa as
a whole receives only 5% of foreign direct investment, while its
population accounts for more than 15% of the world's total. Similar
challenges exist in South Asia too. On 18 November 2010, Duvvuri
Subbarao, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, a country
that has more people living on less than US$2 a day than the whole
of Africa, said:
"India needs to raise its investment by a quantum
step if it is to realise its aspiration of double digit growth.
We certainly need to augment our domestic resources with foreign
savings. For obvious reasons, we have a preference for long-term
funds over short-term funds, for equity over debt and for FDI
over portfolio flows."
2.10 The focus of CDC's investments is on the
low-income countries of sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Our investment
policy for 2009-13 means that of all our new commitments:
- 75% must be based in low-income countries;
- 50% must be in sub-Saharan Africa; and
- up to £25 million per annum can be
invested in SMEs funds in other developing countries.
2.11 CDC has, as the table below indicates, more
capital invested in sub-Saharan Africa and in Asia than any other
major2 European DFI. CDC's portfolio also has the highest percentage
focus on Asia and the highest on sub-Saharan Africa.
CDC'S CURRENT
WAY OF
WORKING
Source: Dalberg Development
Advisers.
| Size of portfolio
on 1 January 2009 (US$m)
| Share of portfolio
on 1 January 2009
| New 2009 commitments
|
CDC | 1340 | 1574
| 2914 | 40% | 47%
| 87% | 57% | 33%
| 90% |
IFU | 111 | 148
| 259 | 21% | 28%
| 49% | 32% | 41%
| 73% |
FINNIFUND | 141 | 105
| 246 | 35% | 26%
| 61% | 36% | 29%
| 65% |
DEG | 846 | 1410
| 2256 | 18% | 30%
| 48% | 25% | 38%
| 63% |
FMO | 1333 | 1150
| 2483 | 29% | 25%
| 54% | 34% | 28%
| 63% |
PROPARCO | 874 | 437
| 1311 | 40% | 20%
| 60% | 45% | 17%
| 62% |
SIMEST | 21 | 210
| 231 | 3% | 30%
| 33% | 2% | 25%
| 27% |
2.12 Currently, CDC catalyses private investment at three
levels:
- fund level: CDC can help persuade other investors to
commit capital alongside it into the funds that it backs. From
2005 to 2010, over US$ 23 billion of third party capital
has been invested alongside CDC. Some of this capital would not
be there were it not for the "stamp of approval" signified
by CDC's investment. CDC has developed a methodology which gives
an approximate indicator as to how much third party capital is
mobilised by CDC's presence. On a three year rolling basis, third
party capital mobilised currently stands at 346% of invested CDC
capital, with the trends since 2005 shown below:
- co-investment: when these funds invest in companies,
this may persuade other investors to invest additional capital
in these companies;
- wider country level: if CDC achieves commercially attractive
returns by investing in companies in the poorer developing countries,
this can persuade other, unrelated investors, that these countries
are worth investing in.
Why isn't enough investment going into the world's poorer countries?
2.13 Despite some limited increased interest in the developing
world from commercial investors, businesses in poor countries
still struggle to secure the finance they need to grow. The table
below shows that many of the countries where CDC invests are some
of the lowest ranking in the world when it comes to corruption.
This is a serious barrier for other investors. Investors need
reassurance about returns. Issues around corruption, transparency
and ease of doing business mean that many investors are reluctant
to enter emerging markets.
2.14 The current, relatively small level of DFI capital going
to businesses in emerging economies will have to be dwarfed by
significantly larger levels of private, commercial capital if
the developing world is to win the fight against poverty. The
influx of private capital into China in the last decade is testament
to this effect. CDC considers its role as a catalyst for increased
private capital as central to its purpose and its effectiveness.
In poor countries DFIs are performing a vital role in providing
the capital businesses need to expand but it is a drop in the
ocean compared to what is needed for long-term sustainable growth.
Ranking's of CDC's largest investment destinations in sub-Saharan
Africa in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions
Index for 2009 (rank out of 180 countries):
Rank | Country
|
162 | Democratic Republic of Congo
|
154 | Côte d'Ivoire |
146 | Kenya |
130 | Nigeria |
126 | Tanzania |
69 | Ghana |
55 | South Africa |
THE CDC BUSINESS
MODEL
2.15 Given the challenges outlined above, CDC's model was
devised by DFID and CDC to make a distinct and tangible development
impact. Through its intermediated investment model, CDC no longer
invests directly. Instead it invests in locally-based fund managers'
funds, which in turn invest risk capital in businesses. The intermediated
approach enables CDC to be developmental in several ways:
A wider investment footprint: The intermediated model means
CDC benefits from a much broader investment footprint, with our
fund managers channeling CDC capital and good business practices
into nearly 900 businesses in 73 countries, many more than would
be possible than under other investment models. The model also
offers a good spread of risk across sectors, countries and fund
managers.
Supporting local entrepreneurs and investors: The intermediated
business model enables decisions to be made locally by fund managers
with experience on the ground which is essential when dealing
with portfolio companies on a regular basis. CDC supports and
creates capacity building through both the emergence of new and
typically locally-based fund managers (thereby deepening local
capital markets) and more established international managers with
local offices. Enabling local management of companies leads to
better performance - both financially and against other development
indicators
BROOKSIDE DAIRIES
Many Kenyans live in remote areas of the country with few basic
services. One problem for farmers is that they have limited ability
to sell their produce to national suppliers. Over the past 12
years, CDC's investment in Brookside Dairies has helped tackle
this problem.
CDC's capital has helped Brookside to expand its production capacity
and develop a highly effective collection and distribution system
across the Eastern Province to the Central Province and the Rift
Valley. This means that all milk collected is quality-tested and
reaches the dairy within three hours.
Over 150,000 Kenyan small dairy farmers, distributors and retailers
now work with Brookside Dairies to bring high quality fresh milk
to market. The milk is available in traditional outlets such as
shops and supermarkets, but also in small kiosks in remote areas.
Brookside Dairies is a successful and growing company. It has
diversified its product range to include yoghurt and butter and
is helping dairy farmers to access credit facilities so they in
turn can buy new equipment and livestock.
Building sustainable business practices: CDC ensures its
capital is invested in a sustainable manner, embedding international
standards for ESG issues within fund managers' practices and processes.
Emerging market private equity remains a relatively new industry
and CDC, along with other DFIs, has been instrumental in shaping
the ESG policies under which many emerging markets funds now operate.
As a consequence, emerging market private equity fund managers
often operate with more stringent ESG policies than managers operating
in Europe and North America.
Mobilising third party capital: CDC's model mobilises capital
for the world's poorest countries and CDC's catalytic effect has
been dramatic. Since 2004, CDC has committed more than US$ 5 billion
to over 70 fund managers. Alongside or subsequent to CDC's commitments,
other investors have committed approximately US$ 23 billion
to these fund managers. Private equity direct investment into
portfolio companies also creates a multiplier effect as new capital
attracts additional investment and financing in those companies.
CDC has demonstrated to private sector investors that it is possible
to earn market returns in the poorest countries while promoting
the sustainable growth of businesses in emerging markets.
2.16 In the six years since 2004, CDC has created £1.5 billion
of value, bringing it from a value of £1.2 billion to
£2.7 billion today. It has received no funding from
HM Government since 1995.
2.17 The investee companies employ over a million people and
pay taxes in excess of US$ 3 billion to their own governments.
Umeme: Safe and reliable power for Uganda
Millions of Africans do not have access to safe and reliable power.
This means enormous hardship for families, communities, schools,
hospitals and businesses throughout the continent.
Over the last five years CDC's investment in Umeme, an electricity
distribution company in Uganda, has helped bring safe and reliable
electricity to 88,000 new customers. The distribution network
has been extensively overhauled, 30 rural electrification schemes
have been connected to the Umeme grid and an efficient customer
service system has been introduced.
The US$ 60 million investment programme has created
1,000 jobs and Umeme paid local taxes of US$ 4 million
in 2009 alone. US$ 100 million will be invested in the
network over the next four years and a public safety awareness
campaign set up in 2005 will continue throughout the country.
Umeme is helping Uganda develop a modern electricity network supplying
safe and reliable power to people in remote rural areas as well
as towns and cities. This is making significant improvements to
the quality of people's lives. Expanding access to power also
helps run essential services and supports businesses.
ACCRA MAIL
The retail sector in Africa is becoming more important to economic
development, particularly as African countries continue to urbanise
and disposable incomes begin to rise. Retail outlets such as shops,
supermarkets and malls have a significant contribution to make
to development because they create employment, build supply chains,
create markets for local producers and suppliers and stimulate
economic activity. Access for local people to a wider and cheaper
range of goods is also improved.
CDC's capital has helped develop Ghana's first and only A-grade
shopping mall. With 19,000 square meters of retail space on an
eleven acre site, Accra Mall has brought consumer products and
services to the local people which were previously unavailable
or prohibitively expensive. Contracts for cleaning, maintenance
and security have also been awarded to local people. The mall
is hugely popular with the local population.
Extensive supply chains for local products, often displacing imports,
have been introduced.
Accra Mall has created over 1,000 jobs. Sales taxes of US$ 4.3 million
were generated in 2009 and plans are now being developed to expand
the mall, introducing new companies to Ghana's expanding retail
sector.
2.18 While the intermediated business model offers many tangible
benefits, the model also presents challenges and brings with it
inherent limitations. Some of the criticism we have faced from
our detractors has focused on what they see as the drawbacks of
the intermediated nature of our business, in particular the perceived
lack of oversight and direct influence on the activities of some
of investee companies.
2.19 CDC's intermediated model means that it is the fund managers
who are responsible for specific investment decisions and for
the day-to-day oversight of the businesses in which CDC's money
is invested. CDC relies on carefully selected fund managers to
demonstrate evidence of improvement in standards across their
portfolio of investments. While this process does take time and
an immediate turnaround of standards cannot always be guaranteed,
the systems that CDC has put in place are designed to ensure that
there are medium and long-term improvements and that over time
the relevant international standards are reached, as set out in
our Investment Code (Appendix A).
2.20 CDC's investments are in some of the world's most difficult
business environments, so our strategy focuses on implementing
robust measures including strict requirements for fund managers
and portfolio companies, as well as effective monitoring. This
monitoring takes the form of quarterly financial reports, company
visits, annual ESG reporting and a development impact evaluation
at the midpoint and end of a fund's life. This approach is a highly
effective way to prevent taxpayer's money being involved in businesses
that are unable to manage the ESG risks they face. More importantly,
our systems ensure that CDC's own commitment to high standards
is shared and spread to funds and portfolio companies in the countries
where CDC is focused. When problems do surface with its fund managers
or their portfolio companies, CDC works directly with those fund
managers to resolve the issues.
SECTION 3
CDC's effectiveness and how it compares with others
CDC is proud of the achievements it has made since 2004:
- currently invested in nearly 900 businesses in 73 developing
countries;
- over 3 million lives supported;
- Nearly US$ 3 billion local business taxes paid by
investee companies in 2009;
- over US$ 23 billion in third party capital invested
alongside CDC in funds;
- more invested in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia than any other
European DFI;
- currently has investments in 139 funds with 70 fund managers;
- invested over £400 million in infrastructure and
power since 2004; and
- major impact on locally-based investment capability in 37
countries (number of countries where our fund managers have offices).
Understanding development effectiveness
3.1 Measuring development is complex and many institutions,
including DFIs, have approached the matter in a range of ways.
CDC's framework for monitoring and evaluating the developmental
effects of its investments was created after extensive benchmarking
with other DFIs. This benchmarking included comparison with other
European DFI's systems and the IFC's DOTS (Development Impact
Tracking System). Following careful deliberation, CDC chose indicators
closely modelled on IFC's DOTS system, but also adapted to be
more relevant to CDC's intermediated model. See Appendix B for
a full list of indicators and when these are collected.
3.2 In June 2010, CDC updated its monitoring and evaluation
ratings to take into account lessons learnt from the 43 fund evaluations
to date. CDC also recognises the importance of independent evaluations
and a third party consultant was employed to this end in 2009.
So far, 12 fund evaluations have been completed by an independent
third party. Out of the seven funds evaluated, six were considered
to have a satisfactory or better development outcome. CDC's effectiveness
was rated at least satisfactory for all seven funds. At least
50% of the fund evaluations in 2010 onwards will be carried out
by independent consultants to provide an external benchmark against
which to compare CDC's own fund evaluation ratings, to ensure
the robustness and adequacy of the evaluation framework and to
benefit from the additional insights and observations of an external
party.
3.3 When discussion around development effectiveness takes
place, the creation of jobs is often cited as an important indicator.
However, even this can be a misleading and coarse metric. For
example, an investment in an infrastructure project such as a
bridge will create fewer direct jobs than an investment in a factory.
Yet the construction and operation of the bridge will certainly
allow the increased trade, mobility and transport links that are
vital to local economic growth and employment.
3.4 Similarly, many commentators favour investment in small
businesses over larger enterprises believing this kind of investment
to be particularly developmental. SMEs are an important part of
the mix and CDC is one of the largest investors in SMEs of any
bilateral DFI. However, sustainable economic growth requires larger
businesses too, particularly where international trade prospects
and investment in research and development are part of their contribution
to the economy.
3.5 The question of which sectors are especially developmental
is another area of discussion. Some believe, for example, that
agriculture has a particularly important role to play, while others
see infrastructure as a priority. All have their merits. But the
reality is that sustained economic growth of the kind developing
countries need to prosper has to be founded on a mixed economy
playing to the comparative advantages of that economy: businesses
of all sizes and in all sectors, providing employment and training,
with improving standards in ESG matters and generating tax revenues
for local governments to fund public services.
3.6 There is no "one size fits all" investment -
there is always a hard choice between different development impact
outcomes. Goals such as job creation, good ESG performance and
reaching rural poor areas can and do conflict with each other.
Mining creates a lot of jobs in rural areas but represents a high
risk from a health, safety and environmental perspective. Agribusinesses
reach rural areas and are lower risk, but do not always generate
as many jobs as other sectors. Financial services companies can
generate a lot of jobs and are relatively safe but are usually
not based in rural areas. Regardless of your choice, you can never
tick all the boxes and reach all the development impact goals.
But what is clear is that the critical element missing in emerging
economies is sufficient capital investment for businesses to grow.
Tackling this issue is fundamental to all economic development.
CDC's effectiveness
3.7 As previously emphasised in this submission, one of CDC's
most important functions is to mobilise additional investment
in poor countries. Capital flows to the developing world, particularly
sub-Saharan Africa, need to increase significantly. For example,
it is estimated that there is a US$ 60 billion shortfall
in investment for infrastructure in Lagos State alone for the
next ten years (Nigerian Public and Private Partnership Agency
2010).
3.8 In 2006, India's then Finance Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram
identified India's infrastructure deficit as its greatest challenge
announcing that US$ 500 billion in investment would
be needed, a third of which would need to come from the private
sector. Encouraging large scale commercial capital investment,
therefore, is crucial. If the private sector is to grow, commercial
investors must put much higher levels of their capital to work
in poor countries. DFIs have a limited pool of capital. This capital
must be used effectively and imaginatively in a way that acts
as a magnet for what is really needed -international capital on
a massive scale.
3.9 CDC has met this challenge in three ways:
- by achieving successful and profitable investments in the
hardest placed;
- by demonstrating this track record to other investors thereby
encouraging them to invest in turn in poor countries; and
- ensuring that fund managers improve their understanding of
how to control and manage ESG risks and opportunities that result
from their investment strategies.
3.10 The key to CDC's investment is to demonstrate to commercial
investors that it is possible to make good returns by investing
responsibly in businesses in poor countries. Profit is essential.
Investors need to see a return on their capital. Without the prospect
of profits, commercial investors will shy away from any market,
developed or developing.
3.11 Over the past six years CDC has performed well and has
delivered good returns. In 2004 CDC's net worth was £1.2 billion.
That figure now stands at £2.7 billion despite the turmoil
of the global downturn. A detailed breakdown of CDC's returns
and key performance data over the past six years is included in
Appendix C. This has acted as an endorsement to other investors.
CDC's reputation for commercial rigour and our commitment to responsible
investment has demonstrated to commercial investors that doing
business in poor countries can be profitable, ethical and worthwhile.
3.12 Over the past six years more than US$ 23 billion
in additional capital has been invested alongside CDC in funds.
More detailed information about CDC's performance in mobilising
additional capital is included in Appendix D. Throughout CDC's
portfolio of investments there are many examples of funds where
CDC has played a crucial role in mobilising third party capital.
Recent analysis of our portfolio shows that in the 19 funds where
we made commitments in 2009 and 2010 to date, CDC played a leading
catalytic role in 15. This involved issues such as significant
financial commitments, input into the strategy of the funds, the
way in which they were structured and guidance on ESG and other
matters. These funds attracted US$ 3 billion of third
party capital. Many of these funds would not have existed without
CDC or would have appeared in a materially different form.
3.13 Many fund managers will testify to CDC's catalytic effect
in attracting other investors to a fund. As an example, Mr Okey
Enelemah, Chief Executive of African Capital Alliance has said:
"CDC's commitment to African Capital Alliance's (ACA) first
fund in the late 1990s, a time when private equity in Nigeria
was still virtually nonexistent, acted as a 'stamp of approval'
for ACA, reassuring and attracting investors to the manager and
to the asset class as a whole. ACA is currently raising its third
private equity fund, targeted at US$ 350 million. ACA's
success can be partly attributed to the pioneering investment
of CDC in the early years of the manager's life."
3.14 The investment profession in poor countries, particularly
in sub-Saharan Africa, is significantly under-developed. One important
piece of the jigsaw in developing capital markets is to harness
the skills that currently exist and to Nurture firms and individuals
so that local investment professionals are empowered to drive
the sustainable business growth on which economic development
depends. Building local capacity and financial infrastructure
is a key objective for sustainable development.
3.15 One of CDC's most important contributions to sustainable
development has been our work with local investment professionals
and in particular with African and Asian professionals raising
funds for the first time. Traditionally, commercial investors
make investment decisions based on the all-important previous
track record of a fund manager. Without this track record, the
task of attracting investors can be a great challenge. It is even
more of a challenge in developing countries where commercial investors
are still reluctant.
ATHI RIVER
STEEL
Since 1998 CDC's capital has been supporting Athi River Steel,
a steel smelting company in Kenya. The country's steel industry
was still in its infancy at the time of CDC's initial investment.
50% of the country's steel was imported at high cost and the little
scrap metal collected was exported at low prices.
Athi River Steel's business model has proved successful. It produces
hot rolled steel products such as fasteners and building materials
using scrap metal. The plant is based in the Mavoko township 30
km from Nairobi. It provides jobs and training for 900 people
in this poor area where there are few employment opportunities
outside agriculture.
The plant has stimulated economic activity in the region more
broadly. Increased demand for transport and other services has
had a positive impact on the local economy and some small enterprises
have grown to serve the workforce. For example, a group of women
has set up a small catering business supplying traditional food
to the company's employees. Safety standards have been improved
across the business.
The company has also helped create a flourishing scrap metal industry.
By 2004 over 1,000 collection businesses had been registered and
Athi River Steel estimates that 150,000 Kenyans now receive income
from scrap metal sales.
3.16 Almost all CDC's fund managers are locally based. From
Accra to Lagos, Nairobi to Johannesburg, Colombo to Karachi and
across India, CDC's fund managers have local offices that understand
and serve the immediate and wider regions.
3.17 60% of CDC's fund managers are managing capital on behalf
of investors for the first time. Most of these fund managers would
not have got off the ground without CDC's support. One of many
examples of CDC's pivotal role is the GEF Africa Sustainable Forestry
Fund. In this case CDC identified the sustainable forestry sector
as an area of opportunity for Africa. We invited potential fund
managers to put their proposals to us and as a result of that
process we selected a fund manager and committed US$ 50 million
to the fund. Subsequently other investors have committed over
US$ 50 million to this new fund alongside CDC. We are
proud of this achievement which represents a tangible contribution
to development. Frequently CDC will work with new managers over
a long period of time to help them establish themselves. We provide
support and advice on setting up the fund, attracting additional
investors, monitoring the portfolio, reporting to investors and
structuring the fund itself to deliver greatest possible value.
This fund and all the subsequent jobs, investment and growth that
will come out of it would not exist without CDC.
3.18 A list of CDC's first-time fund managers is included
in Appendix E.
3.19 CDC's success depends on selecting good fund managers
who support CDC's developmental objectives and who know and understand
their local business environment. Fund managers must also abide
by our Investment Code which sets out our approach to ESG matters
at the funds and portfolio company level. The Investment Code
is included in Appendix A.
3.20 When DFID asked CDC to operate as a fund-of-funds in
2004, emerging markets were even less developed than they are
currently. Private equity was virtually unknown in sub-Saharan
Africa and investment levels in India were much lower than is
presently the case. In 2004 CDC had investments with just three
fund managers. That figure is currently 70. CDC is the largest
provider of capital for private equity in India and sub-Saharan
Africa, and is seen as the pioneer in these arenas, something
of which the UK can be justifiably proud.
CDC AND VALUE
FOR MONEY
3.21 CDC has always been mindful of the need to deliver value
for money to DFID and the UK taxpayer.
3.22 CDC's achievements in terms of capital deployed, additional
investments mobilised, jobs and livelihoods supported and tax
revenues generated, have not required any new funding from DFID
for over 15 years.
3.23 The UK government does not require CDC to pay tax and
so the profits the company has made are re-invested each year
in promising businesses in the developing world where a severe
shortage of capital is holding those businesses back.
3.24 CDC's success has enabled the company to continue investing
in poor countries throughout the global economic downturn at a
time when commercial investors were withdrawing their already
low exposure to emerging markets.
3.25 All this has been achieved with a total staff of fewer
than 50. The company's operating costs in 2009 were 0.5% of net
asset value. This compares favourably with the fund-of-funds industry
benchmarks up of to 1%.
MEASURING IMPACT
AND THE
EVALUATION PROCESS
3.26 CDC's evaluation framework, benchmarked against those
of other DFIs, is similar to and based on the system developed
and used by the IFC for investments through financial intermediaries.
The system, which was also developed with the support of DFID,
is intended to be practical, simple and focused on investigating
key information to assess development impact.
3.27 Funds are evaluated at the midpoint and at the end of
the fund's life. In 2009 seven of the 20 development impact evaluations
were conducted by an independent assessor, Steward Redqueen (formerly
Triple Value), a renowned emerging markets consultancy specialising
in assessing and evaluating investment effectiveness. In line
with industry best practice, CDC has increased the number of independent
evaluations of funds to 50% in 2010.
3.28 Steward Redqueen's (formerly Triple Value) findings and
perspective on CDC's development impact are included in Appendix
F.
3.29 In 2009, CDC's systems and processes to implement its
Investment Code were also independently assured by KPMG. KPMG's
report is included in Appendix G.
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
Profitability of businesses and the consequent returns made by
funds are vital indicators of success. There can be no sustainable
development without financial success.
Financial success is also a key consideration for commercial investors.
By demonstrating profitability, CDC is better able to attract
crucial third party capital to poor countries.
CDC's own financial returns ensure that we are able to continue
investing much needed capital in developing economies without
seeking additional funding from the UK Government.
SPANDANA SPHOORTY
FINANICIAL SERVICES
Around one third of the world's poor live in India with millions
of the poorest having little access to financial services to help
improve their lives. Microfinance, with its emphasis on very small
scale entrepreneurship, plays a vital role in development.
In 2007 CDC's capital was invested in Spandana Sphoorty, an Indian
microfinance institution helping 2.4 million poor people borrow
small amounts of money to start their own small scale enterprises.
The company has over 1,300 branches spanning 12 provinces across
India. Over half of the borrowers live in remote rural areas and
nearly all94%are women.
The average micro-loan made by the company is US$237. Loans range
from a few dollars for daily wage labourers and traders to larger
sums for micro-businesses often in agriculture. New products are
also being pioneered and the company recently launched a maternity
hospital for low-income women.
Spandana Sphoorty has 900 employees and paid US$14 million
in local taxes to the Indian government in 2009. It is a profitable
institution, which means the company is sustainable and can therefore
continue to help poor people at the very bottom 'of the pyramid'
find a way out of poverty in the longer term.
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
This dimension of our impact assessment looks at how investments
have generated benefits for the local economies in terms of commercially
successful and growing businesses that provide jobs and generate
taxes.
ESG
This dimension examines the adherence of fund managers and their
portfolio companies to CDC's Investment Code. It also covers the
improvements portfolio companies are making, with the assistance
of fund managers, to their practices and standards on ESG matters.
PRIVATE SECTOR
DEVELOPMENT
CDC wants to play a role in developing the private sector in poorer
economies by investing in funds which in turn invest capital in
promising businesses. Understanding the extent to which we are
achieving this aim is an important element of assessing our impact.
We look for broader private sector development effects including:
- increased investment of commercial capital alongside CDC;
- more efficient capital markets; and
- improvements to the regulatory environment as a result of
contributions from fund managers.
3.30 Finally we evaluate CDC's specific impact against two
further considerations. The first is CDC's added value to fund
managers such as in helping to shape their investment thesis,
upgrading their professional skills and helping them to improve
their ESG management. The second is CDC's impact in terms of attracting
third party capital into funds.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
EVALUATION RESULTS
FOR 2009
3.31 The results of 2009's evaluation process, along with
a summary of CDC's monitoring and evaluation framework and indicators,
are included in Appendix H. Out of the seven funds evaluated,
six were considered to have a satisfactory or better development
outcome. CDC's effectiveness was rated at least satisfactory for
all seven funds.
SIERRA INVESTMENT
FUND, SIERRA
LEONE
Sierra Leone has made real economic and political progress since
the end of the civil war in 2002 and its democratic government
is keen to attract foreign investment.
The country has been heavily reliant on donor funding and until
recently has been ignored by investors because of its perceived
problems. But Sierra Leone has experienced strong economic growth,
averaging about 7% annually since 2005.
In 2009, CDC became the first DFI to make a private equity investment
focused solely on Sierra Leone since the end of the civil war.
CDC's US$ 5 million investment in the locally run Sierra
Investment Fund is the first of its kind in the country.
Sierra Investment Fund provides financial backing to entrepreneurs
and has already made investments in local businesses including
Ice Ice Baby, a local ice producer, and Sierra Fishing Company
which is the largest fishing business in the country. The investment
will provide new jobs and services for the country's people. CDC
anticipates that its commitment to the fund will reap profits
that can be re-invested in other businesses in the years ahead.
CONCLUSION
4.1 CDC is a highly successful DFI, with more investments
in the poorest countries of the world than any other bilateral
DFI. Its development impact is high and at the same time it is
financially successful - thereby creating even more resources
for investing in those poor countries.
4.2 The task of assessing development impact is complex and
challenging. Nonetheless, it is essential. CDC is investing public
money and the organisation must account for the difference it
is making in supporting the private sector in the developing world.
4.3 Since 2004 and the introduction of the fund-of-funds model,
much has been achieved. Although the scale of investment needed
in poor countries is still immense, progress is being made and
CDC has played a part in that.
4.4 However, we recognise the limitations of the model. We
acknowledge the need for change and are open to new and creative
ideas. The consultation process recently announced by DFID will
help to inform how CDC should adapt its model.
Initial ideas include:
- providing debt and guarantees, where there is still a need
for capital;
- investing directly with carefully selected partners, enabling
a more focused approach on sectors and geographies that are of
priority; and
- exploring new innovative ways of investing, providing these
have the long term potential to attract third party capital.
4.5 CDC is a developmentally ambitious organisation. We welcome
the opportunity to explore effective and imaginative ways of putting
UK government capital to work in promising businesses in the poor
countries of the world to help them grow, create jobs and contribute
to lasting prosperity for all.
APPENDIX A
CDC'S INVESTMENT
CODE
CDC's mission is to generate wealth in emerging markets, particularly
in poorer countries, by providing capital for investment in sustainable
and responsibly managed private sector businesses.
CDC invests in the creation and growth of commercially viable
private businesses in poor countries. Commercially sustainable
businesses, supported by CDC, play a vital part in economic development:
they employ and train people, pay taxes, invest in research and
development, and build and operate infrastructure and services.
This contributes to economic growth, which benefits poor people.
CDC also mobilises private investment in these markets both directly
and by demonstrating profitable investments.
Sustainable private sector development requires responsible business
management of environmental, social and governance ("ESG")
matters. This Investment Code defines CDC's principles, objectives,
policies and management systems for sustainable and responsible
investment with respect to ESG.[2]
It also includes an Exclusion List, which
specifies businesses and activities in which CDC will not
invest.[3]
1. PRINCIPLES
CDC, and the businesses in which its capital is invested,
will:
- comply with all applicable laws;
- as appropriate, minimise adverse impacts and
enhance positive effects on the environment, workers, and all
stakeholders;
- commit to continuous improvements with respect
to management of the environment, social matters and governance;
- work over time to apply relevant international
best practice standards,[4]
with appropriate targets and timetables
for achieving them; and
- employ management systems which effectively address
ESG risks and realise ESG opportunities as a fundamental part
of a company's value.
2. OBJECTIVES
AND POLICIES
2(a) The environment
OBJECTIVES
- To minimise adverse impacts and enhance positive
effects on the environment, as relevant and appropriate, from
the businesses in which CDC's capital is invested.
- To encourage the businesses in which CDC's capital
is invested to make efficient use of natural resources and
to protect the environment wherever possible.
- To support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
which contribute to climate change from the businesses in which
CDC's capital is invested.[5]
POLICY
Businesses in which CDC's capital is invested will:
- operate in compliance with applicable local and
national laws (as a minimum);
- assess the environmental impact of their operations
as follows:
- identify potential risks and appropriate mitigating
measures through an environmental impact assessment where
business operations could involve loss of biodiversity or habitat,
emission of significant quantities of greenhouse gases, severe
degradation of water or air quality, substantial solid waste or
other significant negative environmental impacts;[6]
and
- consider the potential for positive environmental
impacts from business activities; and
- take appropriate actions to mitigate environmental
risks, ameliorate environmental damage, and enhance positive
effects as follows:
- where an activity is assessed to present significant
environmental risks, work over time to apply the relevant
IFC policies and guidelines,[7]
if these are more stringent than local legislation,
with appropriate targets and timetable for improvements; and
- as appropriate, work over time towards international
environmental best practice standards.[8]
2(b) Social matters
2(b)(i) Labour and working conditions
OBJECTIVES
- To require the businesses in which CDC's capital
is invested to treat all their employees and contractor fairly
and to respect their dignity, well-being and diversity.
- To encourage the businesses in which CDC's capital
is invested to work over time towards full compliance with the
International Labour Organization ("ILO") Fundamental
Conventions[9]
and with the United Nations ("UN")
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[10]
POLICY
Businesses in which CDC's capital is invested will:
- comply with applicable local and national laws
(as a minimum);
- not employ or make use of forced labour of any
kind;
- not employ or make use of harmful child labour;[11]
- pay wages which meet or exceed industry or legal
national minima;
- treat their employees fairly in terms of recruitment,
progression, terms and conditions of work and representation,
irrespective of gender, race, colour, disability, political opinion,
sexual orientation, age, religion, social or ethnic origin, or
HIV status;
- allow consultative work-place structures and
associations which provide employees with an opportunity to present
their views to management; and
- for remote operations involving the relocation
of employees for extended periods of time, ensure that such
employees have access to adequate housing and basic services.
2(b)(ii) Health and safety
OBJECTIVES
- To attain safe and healthy working conditions
for employees and contractors of the businesses in which CDC's
capital is invested.
- To safeguard the health and safety of all those
affected by the businesses in which CDC's capital is invested.
POLICY
Businesses in which CDC's capital is invested will:
- comply with applicable local and national laws
(as a minimum);
- assess the health and safety risks arising from
work activities; and
- take appropriate actions to eliminate or reduce
risks to health and safety as follows:
- where an activity is assessed to present significant
health and safety risks,[12]
work over time to apply the relevant IFC
policies and guidelines,[13]
if these are more stringent than local legislation,
with appropriate targets and timetable for improvements; and
- as appropriate, work over time towards international
best practice standards for health and safety.[14]
2(b)(iii) Other social matters
OBJECTIVES
- To be objective, consistent and fair with all
stakeholders of the businesses in which CDC's capital is invested.
- To recognise and, as appropriate, promote the
social development impact from the businesses in which CDC's
capital is invested.
POLICIES
Businesses in which CDC's capital is invested will:
- take account of their impact on employees, contractors,
the local community and all others affected by their operations
as follows:
- identify potential adverse effects and appropriate
mitigating measures through a social impact assessment in
cases involving resettlement, critical cultural heritage, indigenous
peoples, non-local labour or other issues where the negative
impact could be significant;[15]
and
- consider social development contributions; and
- take appropriate actions to mitigate risks, ameliorate
negative impacts, and enhance positive effects.[16]
2(c) Governance: Business integrity and good
corporate governance
OBJECTIVES
- To ensure that CDC, and the businesses in which
CDC's capital is invested, exhibit honesty, integrity, fairness,
diligence and respect in all business dealings.
- To enhance the good reputation of CDC.
- To promote international best practice in relation
to corporate governance in the businesses in which CDC's capital
is invested.[17]
POLICY
CDC, and the businesses in which CDC's capital is
invested, will:
- comply with all applicable laws and promote international
best practice,[18]
including those laws and international best
practice standards intended to prevent extortion, bribery and
financial crime;
- uphold high standards of business integrity and
honesty;
- deal with regulators in an open and co-operative
manner;
- prohibit all employees from making or receiving
gifts of substance in the course of business;
- prohibit the making of payments as improper inducement
to confer preferential treatment;
- prohibit contributions to political parties or
political candidates, where these could constitute conflicts of
interest;
- properly record, report and review financial
and tax information;[19]
- promote transparency and accountability grounded
in sound business ethics;
- use information received from its partners only
in the best interests of the business relationship and not for
personal financial gain by any employee;
- clearly define responsibilities, procedures and
controls with appropriate checks and balances in company management
structures; and
- use effective systems of internal control and
risk management covering all significant issues, including environmental,
social and ethical issues.
3. EXCLUSIONS
CDC's capital will not be invested in the following
businesses or activities:
- production of or trade in any product or activity
deemed illegal under applicable local or national laws or regulations,
or banned by global conventions and agreements, such as certain:
- hazardous chemicals, pesticides and wastes;[20]
- ozone depleting substances;[21]
and
- endangered or protected wildlife or wildlife
products;[22]
- production of or trade in arms, ie, weapons,
munitions or nuclear products, primarily designed or primarily
designated for military purposes; or
- production of, use of or trade in unbonded asbestos
fibres.[23]
CDC's capital will not be invested in businesses
for which the following activities or products are, or are intended
to be, a significant source of revenue:
- gambling;
- pornography; or
- tobacco or tobacco related products.[24]
4. MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS FOR
CDC'S FUND
MANAGERS[25]
In order to implement CDC's Investment Code effectively,
CDC requires its Fund Managers to enter into a formal agreement
pursuant to which each Fund Manager commits to an investment undertaking
similar in substance to sections 1-4 of this Investment Code.[26]
Where Fund Managers have effective control or significant
influence over portfolio companies,[27]
CDC requires its Fund Managers to procure
that such portfolio companies sign an undertaking confirming that
they will operate in line with sections 1-3 of this Investment
Code.
CDC also requires its Fund Managers to establish
and maintain ESG management systems [28]
which:
- assess the impact of all new investments on ESG
matters as an integral part of the investment appraisal process;
- give new investments a risk rating on ESG issues
to determine the appropriate level of management and monitoring;
- if an investment is made despite identified shortcomings
in relation to ESG issues, or if any issues would arise during
the investment period, assist the portfolio company concerned
to develop an action plan to address such issues, with appropriate
targets and timetable for improvements;
- encourage the managers of portfolio companies
to work towards continuous improvements in these areas, with
targets for improvements as appropriate;
- encourage the managers of portfolio companies
to adopt and implement policies relating to ESG matters, particularly
where businesses entail significant risks;
- monitor portfolio companies' performance on ESG
matters and their progress towards relevant action plans and
targets for improvements;
- monitor and record incidents involving portfolio
companies that result in loss of life, material effect on the
environment, or material breach of law, and promote appropriate
corrective actions; and
- consider sections 1-3 of this Investment Code
in all investment and divestment activities.
To demonstrate the implementation of this Investment
Code, CDC requires its Fund Managers to:
- report annually on the implementation of their
ESG management systems and on the performance of portfolio companies
against sections 1-3 of this Investment Code in a format acceptable
to CDC;[29]
- set targets for improvements where appropriate;
and
- as soon as possible inform CDC about incidents
involving portfolio companies that result in loss of life, material
effect on the environment, or material breach of law, and any
corrective actions taken.
5. MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS FOR
CDC
CDC will:
- assist its Fund Managers as appropriate to establish
and maintain ESG management systems;
- monitor the implementation of the Investment
Code through its Fund Managers' annual reports, with verifications
as appropriate;
- evaluate its Fund Managers' implementation of
the Investment Code periodically, using internal and external
sources as appropriate, usually:
- at the end of a fund's investment period or the
half-way point of the duration of a fund, which would typically
be five years after a standard fund has commenced; and
- at the end of the duration of a fund, which would
typically be 10 years after a standard fund has commenced;
- in instances where CDC invests directly and independently,
establish and maintain ESG management systems substantially
similar to those described above for its Fund Managers;
- consider the cumulative effects of CDC's investments
with respect to the Investment Code and:
- minimise adverse effects;
- maximise development impact; and
- promote synergies;
- identify major risks and opportunities associated
with climate change in investments and potential investments
made by its Fund Managers and proactively promote through those
Fund Managers the application of international best practice
standards in the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases;[30]
- incorporate lessons learned into CDC's future
investment strategy;
- keep up-to-date on new developments with respect
to relevant international agreements and best practice standards;
and
- review this Investment Code periodically to ensure
its continuing suitability and effectiveness.
APPENDIX B
CDC'S INDICATORS
FOR MONITORING
AND EVALUATION
| |
As relevant/appropriate
|
CDC Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)
| | Always
|
| | |
When to record
|
| | |
| | Evaluations
|
Performance area | Concept
| Indicators | At investment
| Annual monitoring | Mid
| Final |
1. Development Outcome |
Financial performance | Fund managers' ability to attract commercial capital to poor country markets
> financial return to investors
| Net IRR of fund * | Target
| | |
|
Fund level | |
| | | |
|
| |
| | | |
|
| |
| | | |
|
| |
| | | |
|
| | IRR for each realized exit (%)
| | |
| |
| | Total investment ($)
| | |
| |
| | Total commitment ($)
| | |
| |
| | Investment period (yrs)
| Target | |
| |
Economic performance
Investee company level***
| Contributions to economic growth
> commercially viable and growing businesses that generate employment and pay taxes
| % of portfolio companies with EBITDA increases
| | |
| |
| | % of portfolio companies with increase in turnover
| | |
| |
| | % of portfolio companies with increase in employment
| | |
| |
| | % of portfolio companies with increase in taxes paid
| | |
| |
| | % total portfolio increase: EBITDA
| | |
| |
| | % total portfolio increase: Turnover
| | |
| |
| | % total portfolio increase: Employment
| | |
| |
| | % total portfolio increase: Taxes paid
| | |
| |
| | % of portfolio companies with SME classification at time of acquisition (if relevant)
| Target? | |
| |
| | % of portfolio companies which serve low-income markets / populations (if relevant)
| Target? | |
| |
ESG performance
Investee company level***
| Responsible investment and business practices with respect to the environment, social matters and governance (ESG)
> fund managers' ESG management systems and the ESG performance of portfolio companies
| Environment: Portfolio companies addressing environmental and climate related risks and opportunities
| Risks and targets |
| | |
| | Social: Labour and working conditions, health and safety performance record and other social matters
| Risks and targets |
| | |
| |
| | | |
|
| |
| | | |
|
| | Governance: Quality of portfolio companies' governance structure, track record of governance issues
| Risks and targets |
| | |
For fund manager | | Quality of and improvements to GPs ESG management system
| Quality | |
| |
| | ESG serious incidents performance record
| | |
| |
Private sector development | Broader private sector development effects:
> more efficient capital markets
> regulatory improvements
> benefits to customers from increased availability of goods, services and infrastructure
| Third party capital from DFIs and/or non-DFIs being invested other funds/fund managers
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
| |
| | Local capacity building
| | |
| |
Directly related to the investment |
| Frontier fund manager? (Y/N; change in status)
| Rating | |
| |
| | Local fund manager? (Y/N; change in status)
| Local? | |
| |
| | Raising of successor fund?
| | |
| |
| | Non-DFI financing in successor fund ($; %)
| | |
| |
| | Debt or other external financing raised by investee companies ($)
| | |
| |
| | Average holding period for investee companies (yrs)
| | |
| |
| | Multi-country investments/operations (LICs, SSA; % capital)
| Target? | |
| |
| | Type of investment (growth, privatization; expansion; VC; etc.)
| Target? | |
| |
| | Type of realised exits (IPO, trade sale, MBO, sale to investor(s))
| | |
| |
Investment context | | Change in no. of PE firms in the market
| Updated annually in CDC's knowledge management system
|
| | % increase in PE investment as share of GDP
| |
Contextual or directly related |
| Enhancements to investment environment (regulations, etc.)
| Target? | |
| |
| | Enhancements to sectors where portfolio companies operate (if available)****
| Target? | |
| |
2. CDC Effectiveness |
Catalytic effects | CDC's direct role in bringing in other investors
> focus on commercial capital
| Third party capital from DFIs and/or non-DFIs being invested other funds/fund managers, with evidence of attribution to CDC
| | |
| |
| | |
| |
| |
| | Frontier fund manager whose establishment can be attributed with evidence to CDC? (Y/N; change in status)
| Rating | |
| |
| | Local fund manager whose establishment can be attributed with evidence to CDC? (Y/N; change in status)
| Local? | |
| |
| | Raising of successor fund, with evidence of attribution to CDC
| | |
| |
| | Other factors, eg increase in market liquidity for distressed assets funds
| | |
| |
| | Examples of CDC helping GPs with fund raising (qualitative; $)
| Target? | |
| |
Added value | CDC's direct contributions to improve the way fund managers invest CDC's capital, for example:
> to shape a fund's investment thesis or terms
> to improve fund managers' ESG management systems
> to recruit or contract key technical expertise for responsible and successful investment management
| Examples of CDC qualitative assistance to GP (eg shaping terms, fostering alignment, improving strategy, enhancing carry structure or other matters)
| Target? | |
| |
| | CDC support to improve fund ESG performance (eg ESG management systems, corporate governance structure or other matters)
| | |
| |
Note: ESG management systems and performance will be assessed
relative to CDC's Investment Code and the risk level of portfolio
companies. Improvements over time will be valued in the evaluation.
The investment portfolio of each fund manager will be risk rated
based on its portfolio companies and the inherent risk levels
of the sectors / geographies where they operate.
* For that asset class, type of fund manager, and / or geography.
** Including labour and working conditions, health and safety,
and other social matters.
*** ESG issues and improvements should be reviewed for all portfolio
companies in high-risk sectors and for others as appropriate.
The mid-point evaluation covers available information at that
time.
**** If any and as per available information, eg, infrastructure
development (eg, power, roads, water); availability of products
or services (eg, telecom penetration); new technologies or other
inventions.
APPENDIX C
CDC'S PERFORMANCE
HISTORY
| 2004 | 2005
| 2006 | 2007 |
2008 | 2009 |
| £m | £m
| £m | £m
| £m | £m
|
Total return after tax | 179
| 426 | 375 |
672 | (359) | 207
|
| | |
| | | |
New investments | 200
| 156 | 257 |
412 | 436 | 359
|
Proportion in Africa | 70%
| 57% | 29% |
53% | 44% | 61%
|
| | |
| | | |
Portfolio cash generated | 287
| 508 | 407 |
986 | 268 | 162
|
| | |
| | | |
Value of investment portfolio | 937
| 938 | 1,125 |
1,184 | 928 | 1,411
|
Proportion in Africa | 42%
| 49% | 49% |
60% | 56% | 52%
|
Proportion in Infrastructure and power
| 44% | 51% |
46% | 26% | 24%
| 18% |
| | |
| | | |
Outstanding commitments | 378
| 833 | 914 |
1,601 | 1,972 | 1,561
|
| | |
| | | |
Underlying portfolio companies | 250
| 344 | 325 |
409 | 682 | 794
|
| | |
| | | |
Number of funds | 37
| 47 | 69 | 100
| 127 | 134 |
| | |
| | | |
Number of fund managers | 3
| 13 | 26 | 42
| 59 | 65 |
New fund managers in the year | 1
| 10 | 13 | 16
| 17 | 6 |
APPENDIX D
CDC MOBILISING THIRD
PARTY CAPITAL
| 2004 | 2005
| 2006 | 2007 |
2008 | 2009 |
| $m | $m
| $m | $m | $m
| $m |
CDC new commitments | 853 |
188 | 852 | 1,865 |
876 | 335 |
Other investors' commitments alongside CDC
| 498 | 1,580 | 3,595
| 5,025 | 8,653 | 3,599
|
| | |
| | | |
Third party mobilised on three year rolling basis*
| | | |
| | |
2008-2010 (to date) | |
| | | | 346%
|
2007-2009 | |
| | | 278% |
|
2006-2008 | |
| | 193% | |
|
2005-2007 | |
| 142% | | |
|
* new basis since 1 January 2009 based on target markets and including
tapering for later series of funds.
APPENDIX E
LIST OF
FIRST-TIME
FUND MANAGERS
Access Holdings
Actis Capital
Adlevo Capital
Advanced Finance and Investment Group
African Capital Alliance
African Lion
Altra Investments
Ambit Pragma Ventures
Amundi
Aureos Capital
Avigo Capital Partners
Berkeley Partners
BTS Investment Advisors
Business Partners
Capital Today
CITIC Capital
Citigroup Venture Capital International
CMIMC
Development Partners International
Equator Capital Partners
Fountainvest Partners (Asia)
Frontier GP Pte Ltd
GroFin
Helios Investment Partners
Horus Development Finance
JS Private Equity
Kendall Court
Keytone Capital Partners
Kotak Mahindra Group
Lok Capital
ManoCap
Minlam Asset Management
Multiples Investment Advisers
New Silk Route Advisors
Rabo Equity Advisors
Saratoga Capital
Sphere Holdings
Travant Capital
Tripod Capital International
Vantage Capital
Ventureast
Zana Capital
APPENDIX F
TRIPLE VALUE'S
EXTERNAL PERSPECTIVE
ON CDC'S
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
MEASUREMENT
An external party, Triple Value has evaluated the performance
of seven funds and also added a new component: an assessment of
the socio-economic impact of a fund.
TRIPLE VALUE:
OUR INSIGHTS
INTO CDC'S
EVALUATION PROCESS
Triple Value's work for CDC
In 2009, Triple Value evaluated the performance of seven funds
on behalf of CDC. Four evaluations concerned midterm evaluations
of African funds while three evaluations were final evaluations
of Asian funds. As described earlier in this report, our evaluation
approach consisted of a combination of CDC's evaluation methodology
and Triple Value's Socio- Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) model.
Each fund evaluation was based on an analysis of relevant information
and documents and a judgement of a fund's performance. Subsequently,
interviews were conducted with people involved in the fund (including
CDC staff, fund managers and representatives of portfolio companies).
In addition, site visits to local fund management offices and
portfolio companies were organised.
In total, Triple Value visited eight fund management offices and
14 portfolio companies in six African countries.
As almost all Asian investments had been exited a long time ago,
no visits were made in Asia. These evaluations were completed
based on desk research and in-depth interviews with fund management
and CDC staff.
The value add of an external view
The purpose of an external evaluation exercise is threefold.
Firstly, it provides an external judgement of a fund's performance
and thus enhances the independence of the evaluation. Secondly,
it tests the effectiveness and robustness of CDC's evaluation
methodology. And thirdly, external evaluations enable CDC to compare
the results with those of internally performed evaluations and
judges whether these suffer from internal bias.
MAIN FINDINGS
Out of the seven funds evaluated by Triple Value, six were considered
to have a satisfactory or better development outcome. And CDC's
effectiveness was rated at least satisfactory for all seven funds.
As the ratings of the 13 internal evaluations show very similar
ratios (85% of funds have a satisfactory or better development
outcome and 100% rate CDC's effectiveness as more than satisfactory),
this suggests that CDC's evaluation methodology serves as a framework
to assess a fund's performance in an objective way.
While working with CDC's methodology, we found that it is a thorough
approach to perform an evaluation. Naturally, we also came across
some aspects where we think that the methodology needs to be modified
or sharpened and CDC is currently working on this.
CONCLUSION
We think that external evaluations contribute to a transparent
and accountable fund evaluation process. By producing external
evaluations side by side with those produced internally, a strong
combination is built based on in-depth knowledge of the fund's
details and an outside perspective on fund performance and CDC
investment decisions. The assessment of the wider socio-economic
impact of a fund provides information on the development impact
of supply chains that was not previously available, although it
does not include all aspects of development.
Compared to CDC staff who live with the funds every day, for external
evaluators it can be a challenge to acquire sufficient knowledge
of a fund's details in order to form a robust opinion on its performance.
However, by working closely with CDC staff and fund managers this
issue is substantially alleviated. Moreover, starting with a completely
fresh mind has the advantage that new insights can be identified.
Evaluating CDC's own effectiveness is naturally more objectively
done by an outsider.
Given the different character and dynamics of internal and external
evaluations and the strong combination they make towards an overall
evaluation approach, we agree with CDC that outsourcing approximately
half of its fund evaluations contributes to a strong approach.
APPENDIX G
KPMG'S INDEPENDENT
ASSURANCE REPORT
TO CDC GROUP
PLC
Scope
KPMG LLP was engaged by CDC Group plc ('CDC') to provide limited
assurance over CDC's description of its processes to implement
its Investment Code in pages 64 to 67 of the CDC Development Review
2009 ('the Development Review').
Responsibilities
The preparation, maintenance and integrity of CDC's Development
Review, including the pages over which we provide this opinion,
are the sole responsibility of the directors of CDC.
Our responsibility is to express our conclusions in relation to
the above scope and in accordance with the terms of our engagement
letter dated 26 January 2010.
This report is made solely to CDC in accordance with the terms
of our engagement. Our work has been undertaken so that we might
state to CDC those matters we have been engaged to state in this
report and for no other purpose. To the fullest extent permitted
by law, we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other
than CDC for our work, for this report, or for the conclusions
we have reached.
Which assurance standards and criteria did we use?
We conducted our work in accordance with International Standard
on Assurance Engagements 3000 (ISAE 3000): Assurance engagements
other than Audits or reviews of Historical information, issued
by the International Auditing and Accounting Standards Board.
We conducted our engagement in compliance with the requirements
of the IFAC Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants, which
requires, among other requirements, that the members of the assurance
team (practitioners) as well as the assurance firm (assurance
provider) be independent of the assurance client. The IFAC Code
also includes detailed requirements for practitioners regarding
integrity, objectivity, professional competence and due care,
confidentiality and professional behaviour. KPMG LLP has systems
and processes in place to monitor compliance with the IFAC Code
and to prevent conflicts regarding independence
Section five of CDC's Investment Code, as set out in Appendix
1 (pages 80 to 84) of the Development Review, describes CDC's
responsibilities and management system for implementing the Investment
Code, and we have used that description as the basis of our evaluation.
What did we do to reach our conclusions?
We planned and performed our work to obtain all the evidence,
information and explanations that we considered necessary to understand
and review CDC's processes to implement its Investment Code. Our
work included the following procedures and evidence-gathering
activities:
- Interviews with the CEO, Board members, senior management,
and relevant staff at CDC to assess the approach to handling material
issues, controls in place, incentives and penalties, and escalation
procedures;
- interviews with 12 out of 16 investment professionals to discuss
their roles in implementing the Investment Code and the activities
they carried out as part of screening, due diligence, monitoring
and evaluation procedures of selected funds and portfolio companies;
- Interviews with the ESG team to discuss work plans, training,
internal controls and guidance documents;
- Examination of the documentation produced at different points
in the investment lifecycle, for a risk-based selection of funds
(21 funds out of 134 funds);
- Examination of internal and external documentation including
correspondence, minutes of meetings, reports and presentations
relating to the implementation of the Investment Code;
- Examination of training and guidance documentation, including
the Toolkit for fund managers, and attended an internal training
session for CDC staff; and
- Examination of other relevant sections of the Development
Review to evaluate whether any disclosures are inconsistent with
our findings.
Inherent limitations
As outlined on page 8 and 9 of the Development Review, CDC operates
as a fund of funds in the Private Equity industry, in which relationships
are generally trust-based and therefore the nature and number
of checks between parties may vary significantly. As CDC is one
step removed from the companies which ultimately receive its funds,
CDC is inherently limited in its ability to perform compliance
checks of these companies' performance against minimum requirements
of the Investment Code.
Emphasis of matter
Our work covered the design of the processes for implementation
of the Investment Code and the extent to which those processes
have been implemented in relation to a selection of funds. Our
work did not include an assessment or test of adherence of individual
funds and portfolio companies to all the principles of the Investment
Code.
In the course of our work we noted that CDC's processes have been
evolving over time. Therefore whilst CDC has made efforts to apply
additional reporting requirements to older funds this has not
always been possible or appropriate, for example, in the case
of legacy assets as described on page 67.
All of our work was carried out at CDC, not at fund managers or
portfolio companies, and included examination of evaluation reports
carried out by CDC and Triple Value. We also draw your attention
to the process improvements planned by CDC in their description
of the implementation of the Investment Code.
OUR CONCLUSION
Based on the scope of our engagement and the work described above,
nothing has come to our attention to suggest that CDC's description
on pages 64 to 67 of the processes to implement the Investment
Code is not fairly stated.
Vincent Neate
Partner
For and on behalf of KPMG LLP
23 April 2010
APPENDIX H
CDC'S MONITORING
AND EVALUATION
FRAMEWORK AND
SUMMARY OF
THE EVALUATION
RESULTS
CDC'S MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK AND INDICATORS
Development outcome | Concept
| Typical performance indicators |
Financial performance | * Fund Managers' ability to attract commercial capital to poor country markets
> financial return to investors
| * Net IRR of funds versus investment targets
* IRR for each exit
|
Economic performance | * Contributions to economic growth
> commercially viable and growing businesses that generate employment and pay taxes
| * Employment
* Taxes paid
* EBITDA and turnover (increase over time)
* SMEs and low income reach (if relevant)
|
ESG performance | * Responsible investment and business practices with respect to the environment, social matters and governance (ESG)
> fund managers' ESG management systems and the ESG performance of portfolio companies
| * ESG issues and improvements over time
* Development outlays (if available)
* Environmental products/services (if relevant)
|
Private sector development | * Broader private sector development effects:
> more efficient capital markets
> regulatory improvements
> benefits to customers from increased availability of goods, services and infrastructure
| * Third party capital
* Local capacity building
* Enhancements to sectors and benefits for
consumers eg, increase in telecom penetration, new infrastructure, increased access to power and financial services
|
CDC effectiveness | Concept
|
Catalytic effects | * CDC's direct role in bringing in other investors
> focus on commercial capital
|
Added value | * CDC's direct contributions to improve the way fund managers invest CDC's capital, for example:
> to shape a fund's investment thesis or terms
> to improve fund managers' ESG management systems
> to recruit or contract key technical expertise for responsible and successful investment management
|
2009 EVALUATIONS IN
SUMMARY
- 20 funds.
- 11 fund managers.
- 313 companies.
- 15 mid-point evaluations, 5 final evaluations.
- CDC's evaluation work in 2009 covered funds investing in companies
of all sizes and in all sectors.
- 10 funds investing in Africa, 8 funds investing in Asia.
- 13 evaluations conducted by CDC.
- 7 conducted by external consultants.
2
CDC's Investment Code is compatible with the 2006 International
Finance Corporation ("IFC") Policy and Performance Standards
on Social and Environmental Sustainability ("IFC Performance
Standards").
See www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/PerformanceStandards.
A Fund Manager that follows the IFC Performance Standards fulfils
the requirements on the Environment and Social Matters set out
in this Investment Code. The Investment Code is also compatible
with the 2007 agreement for common environmental and social standards
among the European Development Finance Institutions ("EDFI
Rome Consensus"). Back
3
CDC's Exclusion List is compatible with those of the IFC and the
EDFI Rome Consensus. Back
4
As referenced in this Investment Code and as may develop over
time. Back
5
In line with the 1994 United Nation Framework Convention on Climate
Change and the associated 2005 Kyoto Protocol ("UN Framework
Convention"), see www.unfccc.int/2860.php as may be amended
from time to time. Back
6
Activities with potential significant adverse environmental impacts
that are diverse, irreversible or unprecedented; mindful of potential
cumulative, secondary or synergistic impacts that may occur as
a consequence. Back
7
The IFC Performance Standards and the 2007 IFC Environmental,
Health and Safety Guidelines ("IFC EHS Guidelines"),
as may be amended from time to time and adopted by CDC. IFC EHS
Guidelines include general guidelines and industry sector guidelines
for forestry, agribusiness/food production (including fisheries),
general manufacturing, oil and gas, infrastructure, chemicals
(including pharmaceuticals), mining and power. See www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/PerformanceStandards
and www.ifc.org/ifcext/policyreview.nsf/Content/EHSGuidelinesUpdate. Back
8
Including the range of internationally certifiable environmental
standards issued by the International Organization for Standardization
("ISO"), the ISO 14000 series, notably including standards
for environmental management systems (ISO 14001) and greenhouse
gas emissions (ISO 14064-65), as may be amended from time to time.
See www.iso.org Back
9
The ILO Fundamental Conventions are the Conventions on Freedom
of Association and Collective Bargaining; Forced Labour; Child
Labour; and Non-Discrimination, as may be amended from time to
time. See www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/docs/declworld.htm for the
texts of these Conventions and a list of the countries that have
ratified each of them. Back
10
See www.un.org/Overview/rights.html Back
11
As defined by the ILO C138 Minimum Age Convention from 1973 and
the ILO C182 Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention from 1999.
See www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/docs/declworld.htm Back
12
Activities that could have a severe health or safety impact for
workers or affected communities. Back
13
The IFC Performance Standards and the IFC EHS Guidelines, as may
be amended from time to time and adopted by CDC. See www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/
PerformanceStandards and
www.ifc.org/ifcext/policyreview.nsf/Content/ EHSGuidelinesUpdate Back
14
Including OHSAS 18001, the international occupational health and
safety management system specification, and industry specific
international good practice standards related to the safety of
product use, eg the international Good Manufacturing Practice
("GMP") standards for food and pharmaceutical products
promoted by the World Health Organization ("WHO"), see
www.who.org Back
15
Activities with potential significant adverse social impacts that
are diverse, irreversible or unprecedented. Back
16
As relevant, by applying IFC Performance Standards on Land Acquisition
and Involuntary Resettlement; Indigenous Peoples; and Cultural
Heritage; as may be amended from time to time and adopted by CDC.
See www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/PerformanceStandards. Back
17
Including the 2004 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
("OECD") Principles of Corporate Governance, as may
be amended from time to time. See www.oecd.org Back
18
Including the 2005 UN Anti-Corruption Convention, see www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/index.html;
the 1997 OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, see www.oecd.org; and,
as relevant, the 2005 Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
("EITI"), see www.eitransparency.org; as may be amended
from time to time. Back
19
CDC promotes the International Financial Reporting Standards ("IFRS")
issued by the International Accounting Standards Board ("IASB"),
see www.iasb.org; and the International Private Equity and Venture
Capital Valuation Guidelines ("IPEVC"),
see www.privateequityvaluation.com Back
20
Including those specified in the 2004 Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants ("POPs"), see www.pops.int;
the 2004 Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure
for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International
Trade, see www.pic.int; and the 1992 Basel Convention on the Control
of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal,
see www.basel.int; as may be amended from time to time. Back
21
As covered in the 1999 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete
the Ozone Layer, see www.ozone.unep.org, as may be amended from
time to time. Back
22
As covered in the 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species or Wild Flora and Fauna ("CITES"), see www.cites.org,
as may be amended from time to time. Back
23
This does not apply to purchase and use of bonded asbestos cement
sheeting where the asbestos content is less than 20%. Back
24
Except, in the case of tobacco production only, with an appropriate
timeframe for phase-out. Back
25
For the purposes of the Investment Code, "Fund Manager"
means (i) investment fund managers managing capital on behalf
of CDC; (ii) financial institutions managing and/or investing
capital on behalf of CDC; and (iii) other intermediated institutions
managing and/or investing capital on behalf of CDC Back
26
By side letter or equivalent agreement. Back
27
A Fund Manager will be deemed to have significant influence over
a portfolio company where its fund has (i) an ownership interest
in the portfolio company in excess of 20%, which is presumed to
be a level that allows for participation in the financial and
operating policies of a portfolio company (if the percentage is
lower but gives rise to the same participation, this will also
meet the definition of significant influence); or (ii) board representation
to a level that allows for participation in determining the financial
and operating policies of the portfolio company; or (iii) rights
to influence the financial and operating
policy decisions of the portfolio company
pursuant to a shareholders' or similar agreement. Back
28
Further guidance on ESG management systems and assessments is
provided in CDC's Toolkit for Fund Managers, see www.cdcgroup.com.
Guidance on environmental and social management systems and assessments
is provided in IFC Performance Standard 1, see www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/
PerformanceStandards. ISO 14001 is a certifiable international
standard to help organisations minimise how their operations negatively
affect the environment, see www.iso.org Back
29
A suggested format for ESG reporting is available on CDC's website,
while other reporting formats could be acceptable. See www.cdcgroup.com Back
30
In line with the UN Framework Convention, as may be amended from
time to time, and including IFC Performance Standards, IFC EHS
Guidelines, and ISO 14064-65, as may be amended from time to time
and adopted by CDC. See www.unfccc.int/2860.php, www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/PerformanceStandards,
www.ifc.org/ifcext/policyreview.nsf/Content/EHSGuidelinesUpdate
and www.iso.org Back
|