 Thank you, good morning and welcome. It's great and humbling to be here among so many leaders who are shaping the future of social change across so many different sectors. Sectors whose goals are increasing aligning to realize impact and improving people's lives. I'd like to begin by offering some context on the Rockfowler Foundation's long-standing work in the area of innovative finance, particularly the area of impact investing. This year, we are marking our centennial, 100 years since John D. Rockfowler established his foundation with the mission to promote the well-being of humanity throughout the globe. Over those 100 years, the foundation has given away the equivalent of $17 billion, which helped start the field of public health, catalyzed the policy work that led to social security, funded the work of more than 220 noble laureates, helped eradicate woke, warm, and yellow fever and launched the Green Revolution. We're very proud of this impact. But as we begin our second century, we see that the operating landscape for philanthropy is quite different than it was at our founding. 100 years ago, there were a few actors in what we would now call the social sector. Fortunately, that's no longer the case. And this unlocks the potential for even greater impact through new partnerships that can mobilize even more resources. This is important because the challenges we face today are increasingly complex, interconnected, and dynamic. And they require more innovative and integrated solutions across all sectors. Our predecessors at the Rock Thorough Foundation obsessed about finding the root causes to social problems in what they called scientific philanthropy and what we would now call systems-based approaches. The private sector has gained an increasing prominence as a partner in system-based approaches as we all recognize that we fall trillions of dollars short in financing solutions to our most pressing problems. Along with others, the Rock Thorough Foundation saw the possibility of unlocking capital from the private sector to address our most important social and environmental problems. We also saw an increasing appetite from investors for opportunities to realize both financial and social returns. So we spent the last six years and upwards of $40 million building up the infrastructure for impact investing to take root, including helping start the Global Impact Investing Network, or GIN, and the impact reporting and investment standards, or IRIS, to provide a common framework for reporting the performance of impact investments. While there's been tremendous positive momentum and exciting new work by the Omidyar Network and others, it is still early days, particularly on the global stage. To help gauge how far we've come, over the last year, the Rock Thorough Foundation convened a number of regional forums in the Global South. We asked local stakeholders to tell us the state of their home impact investing market. The most popular answer across the board was it's in its infancy and growing. And this was followed by the comment, a lot of talk, not much action. Based on these forums and what we are hearing from investors, even here in the United States, I believe impact investing is facing a challenge similar to what Jeffrey Moore called crossing the chasm. And I know Sonal Shah and Sean Green from the Case Foundation have led workshops here using this frame as well. Crossing the chasm relates to the challenge of scaling the adoption of a new innovation beyond the few but eager early adopters and into the broader but still early majority. Early adopters are visionaries, enthusiasts. They're willing to take leaps of faith and eventualize a new order. The early majority is much more pragmatic. What convinces them to adopt a new innovation is different than what convinces the early adopters. The early majority has different needs, different mentalities, and different thresholds for abandoning true and tried methods for new fangled ways. Yet they are the ones who will move impact investing beyond a niche idea and into more standard practice. So what is needed? I believe three things rise to the top. One, more goal-oriented coordination among actors that applies their comparative advantage to specific social and environmental problems. Two, new management practices to realize both financial and social impact. And three, rethinking paradigms to achieve greater scale. Let's take these one by one. First, the challenge of coordination. In many ways, there's been growing momentum and enthusiasm among impact investors for market-based solutions as the answer to problems of poverty. But mobilizing impact capital alone is not enough to improve the livelihoods and well-being of people living at the bottom of the pyramid. More specific coordination must be done among philanthropy, investors, policymakers, entrepreneurs, and communities to take advantage of their unique roles and capabilities to make the best use of this impact capital. One way to drive better coordination is to align actors to address a specific problem and realize a collective goal. This allows us to learn in two important areas. First, the use of impact investing as a tool to solve problems rather than as an end goal in itself. And second, what other tools such as policy advocacy and community engagement need to accompany impact investing and social entrepreneurship to realize system-wide change. Social impact bonds have followed this trajectory. Over the last three years, the Rockflower Foundation has focused on building the capacity for social impact bonds, a kind of pay-for-success finance innovation that allows investors rather than taxpayers to fund proven approaches to solve social problems at reasonable rates of financial return. With the ecosystem in place, we are now supporting specific deals that solve specific problems, such as homelessness and juvenile justice in Massachusetts. We believe the early majority cares more about seeing a successful track record of how impact investing contributes to solving problems and what financial returns can be realized in doing so, then they care about how the impact investing field is developing overall. To this end, the Rockflower Foundation is exploring the role of impact investing in improving the state of small-scale fisheries and creating mini-grids to support rural electrification and in developing infrastructure that helps cities become more resilient. The second challenge I mentioned is about management practices. There seems to be a holy grail like quest within the impact investing community that if we can only define the right social metrics, we can then manage the social impact using the same management approaches that help us realize financial impact. The problem is that financial impact and social impact are fundamentally different. If we use $70 to create $100 in revenue, that's $30 in net profit, we can all agree to that. But would we all agree to what net social impact is created when $70 is used to create one job in rural Kenya? And what if that job was in a slum in Mumbai? And how does that compare to using $70 to vaccinate three children in Indonesia? These questions illustrate that quantifying social impact is not the same as valuing it. So we need to think beyond the metrics and ask ourselves, if we were to actively manage for social impact, what kind of approaches would we need and what information would be most helpful? Because unless we find these new approaches, we'll only manage the financial impact and accept whatever social impact happens along the way. Defining an integrated approach is the only way to get truly integrated returns. And this brings us to a third challenge, the challenge of big scale. I deliberately use the term big scale to differentiate it from the current paradigm that mostly focuses on achieving continuous and incremental scale. In the social sector, growth is often thought of in only organic terms. How do we take an existing organization and continue to grow it? An impact investor who thinks about big scale might seek to drive a merger between two complementary impact enterprises or fund a central entrepreneur who is deliberately targeting a solution that they could then sell to an NGO rather than scale it up on their own. We have to begin valuing the idea of big scale even more. We have to celebrate the most impactful social enterprises as much as we value the most innovative social enterprises. We need our equivalent of the Fortune 500. It's uncomfortable to think about compromising the purity of a founder's mission in favor of scale, but I feel once the culture of social entrepreneurship values big scale as much as the culture of general entrepreneurship does, we will unlock more creative ways to realize fast and significant growth. And as Laura's fascinating talk illustrated to us, even rethinking who is an entrepreneur in terms of having big scale impact is another opportunity to rethink paradigms around scale. So coordination, management systems and big scale. If there's any group that knows of cutting edge practices that addresses these challenges or can help drive solutions, it's this group assembled here today. We must not accept the comment of a lot of talk, not much action on our next report card. So I challenge everyone here to continue talking, debating and discussing, but to act in equal amount. Building on the hundred years of impact behind us, the Rockflower Foundation will do the same. Thank you very much. Thank you.