Family offices, both single family offices (SFOs) and multi-family offices (MFOs), represent one of the most heterogeneous but increasingly influential investor groups within the global impact investing landscape. Unlike banks, developmentfinance institutions, insurers, or pension funds, family offices are typically not bound by regulatory capital requirements, formal mandates, or externally imposed return benchmarks. Their investment behaviour in impact funds targetingemerging markets and developing economies is shaped primarily by family values, intergenerational objectives, personal conviction, and a distinctly idiosyncratic risk tolerance rather than institutional constraints.
At Broadpeak, we collaborate with industry experts, impact-driven investors, and academic institutions to address urgent global challenges. Through our articles and trilogies, we aim to share the insights we have gained from these projects with our network. Explore all of our published articles and trilogies in the blog section of our website.
General Characteristics
This flexibility is the source of both their appeal and the challenge they pose to fund managers. On the one hand, many family offices can provide patient capital, accept illiquidity, and move earlier than institutions, especially when the impactthesis is credible and the relationship is trusted. Many are willing to accept longer J-curves, extended holding periods, and higher levels of illiquidity, allowing them to act as risk capital providers at first close or during manager formation—stageswhere institutional investors are often constrained by scale, track record, or liquidity requirements. On the other hand, because the term “family office” describes an operating model rather than a standardized institution, fundraising can stall easily. Pacing can be misread, decision authority can be assumed incorrectly, and the process can feel either too institutional with heavy diligence too early, or too vague, especially when it comes to downside clarity. In family office fundraising, misalignment is often procedural rather than strategic.
The family office ecosystem has expanded rapidly and is considered the fastest-growing investor group. There were an estimated 8,000 single family offices globally in 2024, projected to grow to 10,720 by 2030. Global single family office AUM isexpected to reach upwards of USD 5.4 trillion by 2030. These figures are useful as a directional indicator of scale but understate the broader family office universe due to many operating through embedded or hybrid structures. Total global family office assets are currently estimated at USD 6 to 7 trillion, though only a fraction is allocated to impact strategies, and an even smaller share to EMDE-focused funds.
Country datapoints illustrate how material certain regional pockets can be. Switzerland is a strong hub with around 300 SFOs covering a net worth of around USD 800 billion, while SFOs in the United States manage over USD 1 trillion. For family offices, impact is no longer niche. The GIIN estimates the impact investing market at USD 1.571 trillion AUM. Family offices are estimated to represent approximately 10–15% of capital committed to private impact funds globally, witha slightly higher share in early-stage and niche strategies. In EMDE-focused funds, their share is likely closer to 8–12%, reflecting higher perceived risk and complexity.
Over the past decade, family offices have shifted from largely ad hoc direct impact investments to more structured allocations through impact funds. This development reflects generational change, as younger family members place greateremphasis on aligning capital with social and environmental objectives, as well as pragmatic considerations. Direct investing in emerging and developing economies has become operationally complex, increasing the appeal of fund structures thatprovide diversification, governance, and professional risk management.
Family offices investing in EMDE impact funds tend to fall into a set of recognizable profiles. The first is the mission-driven SFO, often rooted in philanthropic or development-oriented origins. These families may accept below-market orasymmetric return profiles where additionality is high and are more willing to support first-time managers, frontier markets, or innovative structures, particularly if governance is strong and the team is trusted. The second is the commercially oriented SFO, which targets market-rate returns but values impact as a differentiating lens, risk framework, or expression of identity. These offices can resemble flexible institutional allocators in their diligence standards, but with longer time horizons and fewer “hard constraints” on portfolio construction. The third is MFOs as allocators or aggregators, deploying on behalf of multiple families into a diversified portfolio. For MFOs, reporting quality and process discipline can matter as much as strategy, because they are tasked with translatingcomplex risk-return-impact trade-offs into something that works across multiple principals.
Geographically, European family offices are more prominent in EMDE impact allocations, reflecting proximity to established impact managers, long-standing engagement with development finance themes, and cultural familiarity withsustainability-oriented investing. North American family offices often participate more selectively and frequently prefer later-stage exposure or co-investment alongside known managers rather than blind-pool commitments.
The more predictive split, however, is not geography but objective. In practice, the most useful segmentation for fundraising is whether the family office is primarily a preserver or a grower. Preservers focus on liquidity planning, drawdowns, and governance discipline. They often invest in private markets but need the cash-flow story and the downside story to make sense inside the family. Growers tolerate illiquidity and volatility when they believe they have thematic edge and valueaccess, often through co-investments. They often build conviction through proximity to the team and the portfolio.
Investment decision-making within family offices is often highly personalized. Personal preferences regarding sectors, geographies, and specific business models play a central role and can outweigh formal portfolio construction considerations. Climate, energy transition, renewable energy, conservation, regenerative agriculture, or inclusive finance strategies are frequently supported because they resonate with the family’s entrepreneurial history, values, or intergenerational narratives of wealth preservation and systemic risk, rather than because they optimize portfolio-level risk metrics.
Despite their flexibility, family offices are not uniformly permissive investors. While they are generally more open to smaller fund sizes and first-time managers than institutional investors, many apply relatively high qualitative requirements regarding governance, organizational structure, and decision-making processes. Financial inclusion, agriculture, and SME finance often appeal to entrepreneurial families who understand the logic of distribution, unit economics, and productivity. Health and education attract philanthropic legacies, though allocations can be smaller because outcomes and cash flows are longer-dated and less predictable. In EMDE contexts, one additional factor matters: operational credibility. Families are often willing to embrace complexity when they believe the manager’s local execution capacity is real. First-time managers that are not sourced through trusted personal networks or peer family office referrals often face heightened scrutiny.
Across profiles, ticket sizes vary widely. SFOs may commit anywhere from under USD 1 million to USD 20 million per fund depending on scale and conviction. MFOs typically place smaller tickets per underlying family but also have theopportunity to aggregate. What often distinguishes family office capital is not absolute ticket size but rather timing and role. Families are frequently willing to support smaller funds, specialized strategies, and first closes, particularly whenpersonal relationships with the fund are fostered.
Finally, family offices matter because they can be structurally catalytic. They often invest alongside DFIs in junior or equity risk, provide early commitments that enable first close, or fill gaps left by institutions whose constraints exclude smalleror more specialized vehicles. Their capital rarely determines total fund size, but it can determine whether a strategy reaches viability.
Investment Cases
The following cases illustrate how family offices translate values-driven or entrepreneurial capital into structured exposure to emerging markets and developing economies through impact funds. Family offices rarely appear as dominant investorsby volume, but they are disproportionately present at early stages of fund formation and in specialised strategies. Across these cases, family offices typically invest as limited partners alongside DFIs and other impact-oriented institutions, oftenat first close and with ticket sizes ranging from USD 2 million to USD 15 million.
The first example is Tsao Family Office as an investor in TLG Capital Africa Growth Impact Fund II, managed by TLG Capital. Tsao Family Office has a long-standing focus on inclusive growth and sustainable development across Asia and Africa, which aligns closely with the fund’s SME lending strategy. The fund targets USD 200 million and focuses on least-developed African markets that are underserved by commercial banks. Capital is deployed through structured partnerships withlocal financial institutions, reducing origination and monitoring risk. The fund provides dollar-denominated senior loans, which helps mitigate currency risk for international investors. Tsao’s participation reflects a willingness to accept countryand execution risk in exchange for high development additionality. The family office invested at an early stage, contributing to the credibility of the fund with other investors. This case illustrates how family offices can support scalable private credit strategies that combine impact with disciplined downside protection.
The second example is Tripple, a family office operating a 100 % impact-only investment strategy. Tripple has positioned itself as a catalytic early investor in first-time and emerging fund managers globally. Its portfolio includes commitments tomanagers such as ReGen Ventures, Amboy Street Ventures, Streetlife Ventures, Superorganism and JustFund. These managers operate primarily in early-stage climate, cities, gender and regenerative systems strategies. Tripple explicitly acceptsmanager formation risk and long J-curves as part of its investment thesis. The family office often invests at first close, helping funds reach critical mass. Its involvement signals validation to other impact investors and DFIs. This case demonstrateshow family offices can accelerate ecosystem development by underwriting early-stage manager risk.
The third example is Builders Vision, founded by Lukas Walton, which manages more than USD 15 billion across asset classes. Builders Vision integrates direct investments, fund commitments and philanthropic capital within a unified impactframework. A core element of this strategy is its close relationship with S2G Ventures, a multi-sector investment firm focused on food systems, oceans and energy transition. Through S2G, Builders Vision gains exposure to both developed and emerging market opportunities. The platform structure allows for sector specialization and operational depth that would be difficult to achieve through third-party funds alone. Builders Vision also uses its balance sheet to support ecosystem-building initiatives and policy engagement. The family office takes a long-term view, prioritising systemic change over short-term liquidity. This case shows how very large family offices can internalise impact platforms to scale thematic strategiesglobally.
The fourth example is Ceniarth, the single family office of Diane Isenberg. Ceniarth manages a portfolio exceeding USD 500 million with a stated objective of full impact-first alignment. The office invests across a diversified set of funds includingGlobal Partnerships, MCE Social Capital, Acre Impact Capital, Deetken Impact and Open Road Impact. These funds focus on financial inclusion, SME finance, agriculture and community development in emerging and frontier markets. Ceniarthprioritises capital preservation and downside protection, often investing in senior or structured debt instruments. Returns are targeted at modest, inflation-plus levels rather than full market benchmarks. The family office has built long-term relationships with a small number of trusted managers. This case illustrates a patient capital approach that blends development objectives with conservative financial structuring.
The fifth example is RS Group, the family office of Annie Chen. RS Group has articulated a strong commitment to sustainability, gender equality and climate action. Its investment in SJF Ventures III provides exposure to clean energy and circulareconomy businesses. The fund operates primarily in North America but serves as a learning platform for global climate investing. RS Group participates as part of a diversified impact portfolio that includes both fund and direct investments. The family office values established managers with strong governance and measurable outcomes. Its allocation reflects a preference for growth-stage strategies with scalable business models. This case highlights how family offices may use non-EMDE funds to complement higher-risk emerging market exposure. It also illustrates the role of sector alignment in manager selection.
The sixth example is Meraki Impact, founded by the Russo family and focused on regenerative systems in Latin America. Meraki Impact is an investor in the Caribbean Basin Sustainable Energy Fund managed by Deetken Impact. The fundfinances renewable energy projects across island economies with high dependence on fossil fuels. Investments are structured to generate stable, infrastructure-like cash flows. Meraki values the regional focus and on-the-ground presence of thefund manager. The investment aligns with the family’s interest in climate resilience and regional development. Currency and political risks are mitigated through diversification across jurisdictions. The family office invested with a long-term horizon consistent with infrastructure asset profiles. This case demonstrates how regional family offices deploy capital into geographically aligned climate strategies.
The seventh example is CO_Capital, launched by the Sánchez-Navarro family. CO_Capital focuses on poverty reduction and climate resilience in Mexico and Central America. Its investment activities include providing long-term capital to Café Capitán, a cooperative expanding organic coffee production in Chiapas. The investment supports smallholder farmers and promotes sustainable agricultural practices. CO_Capital combines fund investments with direct transactions where sectorexpertise exists. Returns are structured over long time horizons and prioritise income stability over rapid growth. The family office plays an active role in governance and strategic direction. This case illustrates how family offices blend direct and fund-based approaches in EMDE contexts. It also highlights a strong preference for tangible, place-based impact.
The eighth example is PFC, an investor across both local and global impact strategies. PFC has committed capital to the KYIP Impact Mission Fund managed by KYIP Capital, which focuses on health and sustainable lifestyle businesses in underserved Italian regions. In parallel, PFC invested in Brookfield Global Transition Fund II managed by Brookfield Asset Management. This dual approach allows the family office to balance local social impact with exposure to large-scale global decarbonisation assets. The Brookfield fund provides institutional-scale infrastructure exposure with strong return potential. The KYIP fund delivers community-level impact with higher engagement and visibility. PFC uses fund diversification tomanage risk across geographies and asset types. This case demonstrates how family offices construct blended impact portfolios combining local and global strategies.
Current Trends
Family offices are expected to play a gradually expanding role in EMDE impact funds, although without the scale or consistency of institutional capital. Three key trends are shaping this evolution.
The first is increasing professionalization. More family offices are building dedicated impact investment teams or partnering with specialized advisors, leading to more structured due diligence, clearer articulation of impact objectives, and a higher baseline for diligence quality.
The second is deeper collaboration with development finance institutions and blended finance structures. Family offices are increasingly comfortable investing alongside DFIs, particularly where their participation signals governance disciplineand risk quality. Where structures provide downside protection, families are more willing to play complementary roles as junior or catalytic capital.
The third trend is selective consolidation of strategies. Rather than spreading small allocations across many funds, family offices are concentrating commitments with a limited number of trusted managers and often investing across multiple fund vintages. This mirrors institutional behaviour while retaining flexibility in terms of fund size and structure.
At the same time, structural constraints remain. Many family offices are lean by design, with limited internal resources. Decision-making is shaped by family governance, and priorities can shift quickly due to liquidity events, operating companyneeds, tax considerations, or internal consensus issues. Succession dynamics and differing views among family members can further slow decision-making. A slow process is not necessarily disinterest, but often simply the reality of a familyenterprise. This matters because the most common fundraising failure is misread pacing, with managers pushing institutional speed onto a system that cannot or will not operate that way.
Relationship is also part of underwriting. With institutions, process can carry you far. With family offices, who introduces you, how consistently senior leadership shows up, and how plainly you communicate risk often matter as much as strategyitself. Families value peer validation and shared risk, particularly in unfamiliar territory – an important dynamic in EMDE investing. Exposure to EMDE macroeconomic volatility remains a concern, particularly during periods of global uncertainty, and will continue to temper allocation speed. As a result, allocations are likely to grow incrementally rather than dramatically.
Despite these limitations, family offices occupy a structurally important niche in EMDE impact investing. Their willingness to invest early, accept complexity and illiquidity, and align capital with deeply held values allows them to support strategies that fall outside the reach of regulated institutions. In an environment of tightening public budgets and cautious institutional capital, this flexibility becomes increasingly valuable to the resilience of the EMDE impact fund ecosystem. In practical terms, fundraising from family offices works best when managers stop trying to “raise from family offices” in the abstract and start raising from families whose mandate matches the strategy, pacing, and operating style. Whensegmentation is done early, the first touch stays simple, and governance and liquidity are treated as core topics rather than appendices, managers spend less time in stalled conversations and more time building LP relationships that last.
