In Conversation with Andrew Hall, Principal Investment Manager at Greater Manchester Pension Fund and James Burrows, Director at Better Society Capital

James Burrows, Director at Better Society Capital sat down with Andrew Hall, Principal Investment Manager at Greater Manchester Pension Fund, to discuss where social outcomes partnerships fit within GMPF's local investment strategy and what this means for LGPS funds considering their local investment allocations.

James: Andrew, thanks for making the time. GMPF is one of the first LGPS funds to intentionally invest locally and has been doing so long before the Pension Schemes Act 2026 made it a requirement. What first drove that approach, and how has the conversation around local investment changed internally since, if at all?

Andrew: Local investment has been part of GMPF's approach for more than 25 years, long before it became a national policy priority. The principle was simple: if we can find investments that generate attractive risk-adjusted returns while supporting the economy our members live and work in, that is a compelling outcome for a pension fund.

As one of the largest LGPS funds, we recognised early on that pension capital could support housing, regeneration, business growth and infrastructure, alongside delivering the long-term returns needed to pay pensions.

The conversation has certainly evolved since then. Today, we have committed over £1.5bn and built a dedicated impact strategy, and the question is no longer whether local investment can work but how we scale it responsibly while maintaining strong governance, impact measurement and fiduciary discipline. Looking ahead, the development of the Northern Pool provides additional opportunities to access a broader pipeline of locally relevant investments while retaining a focus on regional priorities.

James: Social outcomes partnerships or ‘SOPs’ - where an investor's return is linked to measurable outcomes for people and places - are still an emerging asset class for many pension funds. GMPF have invested into social outcomes since 2014 - what makes a local investment into SOP’s appealing to GMPF, and why might they be a good fit for other LGPS funds?

Andrew: Social outcomes partnerships are attractive because they align funding with local impact. Instead of paying simply for activity, capital is linked to achieving measurable improvements in people’s lives. That creates strong alignment between investors, commissioners and delivery organisations.

For GMPF, SOPs fit naturally within our place-based impact strategy. We have committed £15 million to social outcomes partnerships and see them as a way of tackling issues such as homelessness, family support and wellbeing while targeting appropriate risk-adjusted returns.

Another attraction is diversification. Returns are linked to social outcomes rather than traditional market drivers, creating a different return profile within a pension portfolio.

For other LGPS funds and pools, SOPs can complement more traditional local investments such as housing, infrastructure and SME finance. Crucially, clear and transparent outcomes make it easier to show how pension capital benefits local communities alongside delivering returns.

James: Greater Manchester faces some acute social challenges - homelessness among them. How far do the specific social issues facing communities across Greater Manchester shape where GMPF chooses to invest? What has GMPF learned from its role in the Greater Manchester ecosystem about the impact local investment can have?

Andrew: The social and economic challenges facing Greater Manchester are an important influence on our strategy. We start with local priorities, then look for opportunities that deliver both impact and appropriate returns.

Homelessness is a good example. Through the Greater Manchester Better Outcomes Partnership (GMBOP), we have seen first-hand how outcomes-based approaches can support young people at risk of homelessness. That direct evidence of impact - preventing homelessness before it becomes entrenched - has strengthened our conviction in the asset class.

More broadly, our portfolio addresses issues such as housing supply, employment, health inequalities and access to essential services - areas that matter to our members. We are not looking to solve every social challenge, but where there is a well-structured opportunity to deliver meaningful outcomes, we are keen to support it.

The biggest lesson is that meaningful impact is rarely achieved in isolation - the strongest outcomes emerge when investors, local government, commissioners and providers work to a shared objective, as GMBOP shows. Local knowledge matters: understanding the challenges facing a place improves both investment decisions and delivery. We are not replacing public funding, but we can provide patient capital that scales solutions with proven impact - supporting communities, creating economic value and generating returns for beneficiaries at the same time.

James: GMPF’s members are largely public sector workers across Greater Manchester, many living in the same communities this capital is targeting. How do you think about that dual relationship, and does it change how you report back to members on what their money is achieving?

Andrew: Many of our members live and work in the same communities where our capital is invested. That creates a unique connection between the pension fund and the places our investments seek to support.

However, it does not change our fiduciary responsibility. Our first duty is to deliver sustainable pensions and strong long-term returns, and local investments must meet the same standards as any other investment in the portfolio.

What it does change is the importance of transparency. Members increasingly want to understand not only how their pension is performing financially, but also how their money is contributing to housing, jobs, regeneration and community outcomes. That is one reason GMPF became the first UK pension fund to independently assess and report the place-based impact of its local investment portfolio using The Good Economy's PBII Framework. It helps members better understand both the financial performance of their pension and the wider benefits their capital is supporting.

James: GMPF runs its local allocation through trusted intermediaries, with outcomes set centrally and delivery left to local partners. For other LGPS funds weighing this up, what does genuinely good governance of a local allocation look like in practice - and how central is rigorous, comparable impact measurement to keeping social outcomes investments accountable?

Andrew: Good governance starts with treating local investment in exactly the same way as any other investment activity. Opportunities should meet clear return objectives, robust due diligence standards and defined risk parameters.

For GMPF, that means working with specialist managers who have proven expertise while maintaining strong oversight, accountability and reporting. We set the strategic objectives and ensure managers are delivering against them.

Impact measurement is equally important. If investors want social or place-based outcomes, they need a credible way of measuring whether those outcomes are actually being achieved, which is why GMPF places such emphasis on independent impact reporting and assessment.

With SOPs, rigorous measurement sits at the heart of the model because financial returns are linked directly to outcomes. Local investment can be scaled successfully, but only if it remains disciplined, measurable and accountable.

James: What could a more devolved system mean for GMPF and the wider LGPS community? With greater emphasis on local growth, alongside the ongoing pooling reforms, does this create new opportunities for pension funds to invest locally and at scale?

Andrew: Devolution can create more investable opportunities because local and regional authorities are best placed to understand their communities' priorities. As local growth strategies develop, investors gain greater visibility over opportunities in housing, infrastructure, business growth and social outcomes.

Alongside this, the ongoing LGPS pooling reforms create an opportunity to connect local ambition with institutional scale. Through the Northern Pool, funds can share expertise, access a broader pipeline of opportunities and deploy capital into larger projects than might be possible individually.

For GMPF, the opportunity is not simply to invest more locally, but to do so in a way that remains consistent with our fiduciary duty. Strong governance, accountability and impact measurement will remain essential as opportunities scale through pooling arrangements.

James: Looking ahead, what’s next for GMPF’s local investment strategy - are there other asset classes you’re actively exploring beyond where GMPF has already allocated?

Andrew: We expect local investment to remain a major strategic priority for GMPF. Our portfolio is deliberately diversified across housing, commercial property, SME finance, infrastructure and social investment because different asset classes address different local needs while contributing to portfolio returns.

The next phase will also be shaped by the Northern Pool. We see opportunities to work alongside partner funds to access larger-scale investments, particularly in infrastructure, clean energy, housing and social investment. Pooling should enable us to combine resources and expertise while ensuring investments remain connected to the needs of communities across the North.

We are also interested in digital infrastructure, specialist housing, innovation-led businesses and social outcomes partnerships, where momentum behind outcomes-based commissioning is helping the market mature.

Ultimately, our objective remains unchanged: delivering strong long-term returns for members while contributing to the economic and social strength of Greater Manchester and the wider North.