£420 Million Flowing Through CICs — And Most of You Still Can't Get a Loan

Here’s a number that sounds good: £420 million. That’s the annual flow of social investment through CICs and asset-locked bodies, according to Big Society Capital’s latest market analysis. It’s a number that gets quoted in speeches, written into reports, and used to demonstrate that the social investment market is maturing.

Here’s a number that sounds less good: £35,000. That’s the average per organisation if you divide £420 million across 12,000 CICs.

And here’s the number that actually matters: most CICs still can’t access any social investment at all.

The £420 million figure is real. But it’s concentrated. A handful of large CICs — the community health spinouts, the housing associations, the big care providers — account for the vast majority of it. The typical CIC, the one with five employees and a turnover of £200,000, is still borrowing from friends and family or scraping by on grants.

The structural problem hasn’t changed. Social investment funds are designed for organisations that can demonstrate a track record, offer security, and absorb due diligence costs. Most CICs don’t meet those criteria. They’re too small, too asset-light, and too focused on complex social outcomes that don’t fit neatly into investment models.

Big Society Capital has done important work in building the market. The £420 million figure is real progress. But the market has developed in a way that serves the top of the sector while leaving the grassroots behind. It’s a pattern we see across financial services — the big get the capital, the small get the excuses.

I don’t have an easy answer. But I know that quoting £420 million as evidence of success while most CICs can’t access £10,000 is a form of dishonesty. We need to be honest about the gap between the macro numbers and the micro reality, or we’ll never build the investment infrastructure that small CICs actually need.