Is the VC as it has evolved suited to financing impact and sustainable projects? Could evergeen models (with no predefined exit horizon) become more widespread? At Asterion, we take these questions very seriously... We tell you what we think in this article.
A week ago, Roland Berger and Station F published a joint study on the evolution of venture capital companies in the face of the climate challenge.
8,000 billion euros are needed for the ecological transition between now and 2030, according to the EU. Responding to the urgency of climate change requires substantial resources, and this cannot be achieved without private capital.
According to Roland Berger, who interviewed dozens of French and European companies for this study (we answered the questionnaire online), the small world of VCs is undergoing a significant shift in the destination of these investments. Here's the proof: by 2021, $111 billion will have been invested in start-ups and scale-ups with a climate impact worldwide.
Fad or lasting conversion? Is VC as it has evolved adapted to financing impact and sustainable projects? Could evergeen models (with no exit horizon) become widespread?
The study outlines a few possible answers... The conclusion, very much in line with Asterion's investment philosophy, obviously appealed to us... Decoding:
Today, 85.3% of VC funds claim to have a dedicated vertical or climate pocket in their portfolio (STATION F & Roland Berger survey, 2023).
Among the reasons behind this movement, the study mentions :
In the second part, the study's authors address the vexed question of the mismatch between contemporary VC models and the quest for sustainability. There are at least three reasons for this.
To counter these shortcomings of the current VC model, the study concludes with the emergence of evergreen schemes: funds with patient capital and no exit horizon. Evergreen funds offer an alternative to funds with a fixed exit date, which require a return of capital over a short-term horizon, and thus polarize investment towards companies with a potential for a rapid return.
We had the opportunity to share this conclusion in a Linkedin post, which I am republishing here for the occasion:
At a time when every fund is creating an "impact" arm, it's not easy to find your way around. Most VCs (including "impact" VCs) create funds with an exit date (between 6 and 8 years for most).
This has two consequences:
- The need to return capital over a given timeframe leads to the selection of companies with short-term potential VS breakthrough innovations
- Additional pressure is put on founders to sell earlier or find a new investor, which often has a negative impact on the company, the founders and their employees.
An evergreen fund, on the other hand, has no pre-established exit date, providing greater peace of mind for founders who can plan ahead for the long term.
At Asterion, structuring our investments via dedicated vehicles (SPVs) also brings greater flexibility to our community of investors, who can exit at any liquidity event.
In short, yes, there is momentum in climate tech. But if we're serious about the long term, this evolution must go hand in hand with a reinvention of investment patterns, starting withevergreen.
Of course,evergreen is only one stage in the reinvention of the model. Other initiatives and safeguards need to be put in place. For example, anchoring the mission in the company's articles of association, assessing impact by mobilizing all stakeholders, long-term governance of investment vehicles and the creation of commons will enable the entire ecosystem to move forward. And we have many other projects in the pipeline. But we'll come back to them later.
To find out more :