Private capital, public impact: The power of long-term investing

How can private capital help solve real-world challenges while delivering attractive returns?

In this episode of the Sustainable Growth podcast, Jane Goodland speaks with David Epstein, Managing Director at Aviva Capital Partners, about investing beyond traditional asset management. David explains how Aviva Capital Partners uses its balance-sheet capital to support early-stage projects that may fall outside conventional investment mandates, with the aim of earning a fair reward while creating long-term impact.

Exploring examples including the London Cancer Hub and electric bus financing with Rock Road, David discusses how patient capital and public-private partnerships can help unlock regeneration, housing and sustainable infrastructure projects across the UK.

Host: Jane Goodland, Global Head of Sustainability at LSEG

I think the biggest consequence forbusiness is dysfunctionin the workplace.Literally half of our respondentssaid, 'I don't want to work for aCEO whose values are different thanmine'.That's quite extraordinary.Welcome to the LSEG SustainableGrowth podcast, where we talk toleading experts about the bigissues touching on sustainability,business and finance.I'm Jane Goodland, your host, andthis week I'm joined by RichardEdelman, who is CEO ofthe global communications firmEdelman.Today we're going to be talkingabout the 2026 TrustBarometer, which has been going fora staggering 26 years.Welcome to the show, Richard.Thank you so much for giving ussome time, because I know thatyou're super busy this week.You're in Davos on the ground.What's it like over there?It's been a weekof highdrama. I mean, PresidentTrump came and gave a quitestrong speech andwas trying to negotiate forthe Golden Dome in Greenlandand cameout with the result he wanted.And I think inthe end,the idea of the European allianceis still alive. We have NATO.And so we cameto a good place.But there was a lot of business donethis week, too. It was really very,very busy.Yeah, that's certainly what I'mhearing back here in London.So as I said, we're going to focuson the Edelman Trust Barometer.But before we do that, I wanted tostart by touchingon something, the way thatEdelmann describestrust as 'the ultimate currencybetween institutions and theirstakeholders'.Tell us a bit more about that.Why is trust so important?Trust matters because itenables frictionlesstransactions.It also makes possibleyourreliance on others andtherefore, in a way,efficiency.If you have to check at every step,if you have run looking over yourshoulder backwards, you don't runvery fast.It's partly the legal system, butit's also partlywhat is standards ofbehaviour.And there have been violations.People felt violated in 2008in the Financial Crisis.People felt they were violatedduring COVID because they gotwrong information.So all of these have causedquestions in people's minds.Which leads us onto whyit's important to have somemeasure of trust.And of course, that's what thebarometer has been doing for26 years.So let's go back to 2001when it started.I'm interested to know kind of whatstimulated you in the first placeto say, I'm going to go measuretrust.I'm curious to know whether or notthat was a one-off exercise andwhether or it was intentional to berunning it all this time later?We were very curious in the wake ofthe World Trade Organisation meetingin Seattle in 1999.Who were these NGOs,non-governmental organisations, whywere they protesting, what wastheir level of trust relative tobusiness, government, and media?And we were stunned to find out thatNGOs were the most trustedinstitution, and that maintainedposition forthe next 19 years untilCOVID when it became government fora year.Because it had the big bazooka.And then after that, it's beenbusiness for the last five yearsbecause it's the only institution,both competent and ethical.When you sort of set aboutthe barometer, did you mean tomake this anannual affair or was ita one-time thing that you thought,let's repeat this afterwards?So there were intervening eventslike the Iraq War,the Financial Crisis.We also had therise of populism, COVID.So it's been important to continue.And also, I really wanted to pioneerintellectual property forPR companies because theIP has been dominated by consultingfirms. And so I figuredon topics that we knowsomething about, this could beimportant.So over the course of thelast quarter century when you'vebeen doing this kind of measurementexercise, have you seen anykind of long-term trends over thattime? Are there a few that wouldstand out to you that have been kindof a permanent feature?We've already talked about howbusiness has risen to be the mosttrusted.The second is the massclass divide.In other words, the top quartileversus the bottom quartile of incomehave completely differentappreciation of institutions,bottom quartile being much lower.The third is thatdeveloped countries aretrailing developing countries intrust by 15 points.The highest in our study of28 countries are China,India,UAE, Saudi.The bottom are Japan,France, Germany, the UK.And so that's important.Then also trust is local.It used to be conveyed top down.Then in about 2005, it started togo horizontal,peer to peer. And now it's in myemployer, my CEO.And then the last is the battle fortruth. People cannot discernwhat is fact and what isdisinformation.And some people are turning off ofmedia altogether.It's too upsetting.And then others, wehave a huge rise in the belief thatforeign actors are invadingthe media space.And by choice, people, by the way,are narrowing their own media prism,so that they're into Substack orpodcasts or curated social.So they're just seeing that whichthey agree with.I think that's particularlyrelevant in today'sand this year, in fact, in terms ofsome of the things that are comingthrough, that we're really seeingthat coming to fruition.I'm curious to touch onthe title of the2026 barometer, because you'vecalled it 'Trust Amid Insularity',which of course takesus to a very, very pertinenttime and it's very relevant,which is really about kind of thefavouring people and institutionswhere the values andbeliefs are more similar toourselves. So tell us more aboutwhy that theme iscoming through so strongly inthis year's study?So there's been a 10 year progression.Polarisation is political.And so left and right, which isnormal. You know in the UK, forexample, you have Tories and youhave Labour.But people started just reading themedia in those thought bubbles.Then about18 months ago, we started to see therise of grievance.It really kind of started postGeorge Floyd and whatnot, but thesystem doesn't work, Ineed to protest.And in fact, last year we foundthat Gen Z literally sanctionshostile activism,literally throwing paint onsomebody's store or evenshooting an insurance executive inNew York.And so this year we see the rise ofinsularity, which means Ionly trust those with thesame values, with the samemedia choices, and alsothe same answers onimportant social issues.In the US for example,guns or abortion or inthe UK, immigration.So what insularity does isit makes you brittle.It makes you self-convinced.It makes you unwilling to havedialogue and compromise.You're self- convinced.Tortoiseshell.It's a hard tortoiseshell.And have we seen that in theresults in the past or is thisa new phenomena that you've seencoming through in this year's study?You know, I think of this as Dante'sDivine Comedy.We're getting closer to the innercircle of hell.And you can see inthe study that itcomes with side effects.You know people who are insular arealso aggrieved.Also a massive rise innationalism.So the preference fordomestic companies overmultinationals in choiceof products in Canada,in Germany, in Japan,these are long-standingcountries where they have hadmultinationals for hundreds ofyears.So companies can't tolerate that.Also, the big new phenomenon thisyear, which has really causedpeople to get nervous, is AI.In developed countries, you seeliterally two thirds of peoplesaying, I don't want it.I don't want AI because I think it'sa job killer or it'sgoing to take away my privacy.The end product is lack of optimism.And in the end, what yousee is in developed countriesnot a single one of them's over 20%belief that their families aregonna be better off in the nextgeneration.And in France it's 5% and in Germanyit's 6%.That's horrendous.Without optimism, you can't havea viable economy because nocompanies are gonna invest aheadunless they believe they're going toget a return.And would you say that insularity isas a result of other factorsor is it the driving factor?Insularity is definitely aresult oflack of quality information,a deep belief that thesystem is rigged, also thatI don't have a chance.My future is limited.So I may as well stand withmy brothers and sisters who agreewith me to fight back.And you mentioned someof the reasons whythis this typeof feeling isis relevant for business.But can we go into that a bit moredeeply?Because thishas quite profound consequences,both in terms of the talentpool or the consumer base oror simply kind of the businesspartners that you're working with.So tell me a bit more aboutkind of what the results show as tothe consequences of this kind ofmove?I think the biggest consequence forbusiness is dysfunctionin the workplace.Literally half of our respondentssaid, 'I don't want to work for aCEO whose values are different thanmine'.That's quite extraordinary.Same with, 'I don't wantto work with somebody as mysupervisor who I don t agree with'.So on top ofthe problem of being a multinationaland needing to have globalbrands, on top of rejectionof innovation and this is profoundbecause companies dependon innovation. If you're a drugcompany, you've got to have aconstant pipeline ofnew offerings.Again, if it'sa domestic player favoured, if Ibasically don't want change andI'm afraid, Idon't want to change myapproach because it's the one thatI'm secure in.That's a very negative way to lookat the world.Yeah, and I think, presumably,it kind of limits the possibilitiesfor business inall of their, you know, like I said,in terms of the talent pool as well,which is, I think one of the keythings.Actually, the workplace becomesthe most important placefor discussing ofhard issues.You can't do that in yourneighbourhood anymore.There are rules within the workplaceabout how you canaddress others and thereforesafe space.We started to see this two orthree years ago on SafeWorkplace, but now the beliefin my employer and myemployer's CEO and thatit's in fact thesanctuary for me where Ialso meet all kinds of people fromoverseas or different age groups.So it's a melting potthat's a very positive one.And so we're introducing thistheory of trust brokering, whichmeans that you want tooffer employees asafe place to sit and talk.You do not seek to persuade them.You only offer opinions,which can be debated ina coherent and kind way.And you're not anadvocate, you're simply, ina way, arms around andmaking sure that people have achance to talk and process.I must say when Iwas looking at the results ofthe barometer, it's quite asobering read andI'm not going to say depressing,but verging towards that way.But then actually, I think there aresome positive points becauseyou talk about this trust brokeringand it starts to provide thatkind of solution around howemployers become a really, reallyimportant part ofan individual'slife ecosystem really.So, you talked a little bit aboutsome of those trust brokeringpractises.What does it look like when it'sdone really well?Is trust brokering onlysomething we should be thinkingabout in an employment contextat the workforce?Or actually, is there a role morebroadly within sectorsor between sectors?Richard Dixon starteddoing this at Gap becauseSan Francisco had a big homelessproblem.And also, people had gotten used tonot coming to the office, and hewanted to create somesense of bothaction on San Francisco, meaninggetting his employees back involvedin charity and other, andI think also he wantedto change the culture.Make it more positive, can do.So he's made it work.He does these, he has other peopledo these trust brokering sessions.I can also tell you that OliverBate, who's the CEO ofAllianz, has basicallycharged his top 70,000people with doing trustbrokering.And sitting down,whether it's in China, whether it isthe US or Germany,they are graded onwhether or not they are trusted.They have a trust score.And part of this grade of themis whether they've done theseconvenings.That's interesting, isn't it?Because we were talking about thefact that kind of insularitymeans that you, I guess, arealigning yourselves and kind ofbecoming closer with those who shareyour same values and beliefs.But at the same time, we're sayingthat trust brokering is neededto be able totrust people who perhaps aren't likeyou and perhaps don't share thosevalues.I don't really, I'mstruggling to see how you getthrough that. How do you kind of getthrough the wallof insularity, if you like?I think we have to confront conflictentrepreneurs.We need to say, wedon't want to give you advantage forstirring up trouble.And whether it's on social by givingdisinformation, whether it issomehow in beingquite an aggressive advocate.Part of it is how you listen.Part of is how you speak.You shouldn't speak to win.You should speak to discuss.And you should listen beforeyou talk.There's a wonderful programmerun by, in the US, by the NationalGovernors Association started by thegovernor of Utah.And it's called Disagree Better.And they go around andtwo governors, one Republican, oneDemocrat, and they talk andthey discuss issues and theyshake hands at the end and say, wehope the audience has been informed.That's the same sort of thing thatshould happen in the office.You have people who want to have apride flag up.You have other people who havedifferent views.The company has to take a position.Ultimately, do we use the flag?Do we not use the flag?But more broadly, people need tofeel heard and appreciated.Because employees feel veryshaken by allof these consecutive revolutions.We have a geopolitical revolution.We have the AI revolution.We have information ordisinformation revolution.So all of this isdiscombobulating.And I think when you look at kind ofthe average tenure of CEOs invery large companies as well,that doesn't exactly makethings any easier, right?Because actually, those tenures canbe quite short interms of number of years.Here's the thing.The safe place for business the lasttwo years is put your head down andassume that the storm is going topass.I'm arguing that we'regoing into the tortoise shell, butwe're sitting in the middle of theroad and bigtrucks are coming by.So it would be a lot better to getout, get off the road,and join the other turtles.A strained analogy, but I thinkan important one, becauseagain, business is 40 pointsmore trusted than government.And business is the one institutionthat is seen as being able to dosomething. And trust actually isbased on action.People want to seetangible change, whether it'syour supply chain, whether itis who you hire, whetherit training and re-skilling forAI.Because there are goingto be job reductions because ofAI. Repetitive jobs willbe replaced.And it's coming for white-collarworkers before blue.And they're not used to this.So I think you just have to speakdirectly. Be honestbut also beclear that you have a responsibilityto up-skilland continuous education throughoutsomebody's career.And lastly, I think coming on to therole of CEOs, so you talked aboutthat 40 point lead betweenbusiness and government, butactually, I think the report pullsout something really interesting aswell, which is around the role andthe agency that a CEO hasin this kind of contextaround trust brokery.Tell me more about whatCEO's should be picking your reportup and looking for, because it feelsto me that there's some gems inthere andCEOs could be utilisingthese insights in a way thatwould really help theirorganisations.What does your 2026 barometersay about CEOs?CEOs have to be self-confidentenough to meet their critics.They need tolead in a different way.The humility of being able to sitwith people 20 or 30 years youngerand treat them asequals andrespect their views isan urgent kind ofchange of approach.And I think also torecognise theirown insularity. In my case,after October 7th in Gaza,I became quite insular anddefensive. And I alsonarrowed my worldview thatway because Idon't know, I felt under siege.I didn't feel that way in COVID.I felt, you know, strong and thatI had to lead.It was really the first time I'dever felt like that.And so I made a publiccommitment in Davos that I'm gonnachange.That i'm going to open my eyesto the views of others and respectit and debate themin a in a different way.And also, I gave upsome friends who I thought,you know, were too aggressiveon the subject and I'mgoing to change. I'm gonna ask themto be my friends again.Interesting.I think that that's a perfect placeto finish. Thank you so much foryour time.It's been a fascinating insightinto what thebarometer can tell us, what trustmeans, and howwe should be looking out for trustbrokering. So thanks so much, forjoining us on the show, Richard.I hope you have a wonderful restof your time in Davos.But that's it. That's all we havetime for today.Thank you very much indeed.Thank you.Well, I'm afraid that's all we havetime for this week, but I hope youenjoyed that conversation withRichard as much as I did.And don't forget to follow us andrate us on Spotify, ApplePodcasts, or YouTube.And if you've got questions orcomments, you can get in touch byemail at fmt@lseg.com.That's all from me.We'll see you again very soon.

The content and information (“Content”) in the program (“Programs”) is provided for informational purposes only and not investment advice. You should not construe any such Content, information or other material as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other professional advice nor does any such information constitute a comprehensive or complete statement of the matters discussed. None of the Content constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer by the London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG), its affiliates or any third party service provider to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments in this or in in any other jurisdiction in which such solicitation or offer would be unlawful under the securities laws of such jurisdiction. All Content is information of a general nature, is illustrative only and does not address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. LSEG and its affiliates are not a fiduciary by virtue of any person’s use of or access to the Programs or Content. You alone assume the sole responsibility of evaluating the merits and risks associated with the use of any information or other Content in the Programs before making any decisions based on such information or other Content. In exchange for accessing and/or participating in the Program and Content, you agree not to hold LSEG, its affiliates or any third party service provider liable for any possible claim for damages arising from any decision you make based on information or other Content made available to you through the Program. LSEG and its affiliates make no representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the Content. LSEG disclaims all liability for any loss that may arise (whether direct, indirect, consequential, incidental, punitive or otherwise) from any use of the information in the Program. LSEG does not recommend, explicitly nor implicitly, nor suggest or recommend any investment strategy. LSEG and its affiliates do not have regard to any individual’s, group of individuals’ or entity’s specific investment objectives, financial situation or circumstances. The views expressed in the Program are not necessarily those of LSEG or its affiliates. LSEG and its affiliates do not express any opinion on the future value of any security, currency or other investment instrument. You should seek expert financial and other advice regarding the appropriateness of the material discussed or recommended in the Program and should note that investment values may fall, you may receive back less than originally invested and past performance is not necessarily reflective of future performance.