Fundraising

Are offsets any good? Is it still possible to fund climate projects that matter? ❓ Despite the best intentions, the effectiveness of carbon offset has been under scrutiny ever since an investigation sparked by the Guardian, early 2023, revealed that nearly 90% of carbon credits were essentially worthless... ❓ Yet, we need to scale carbon capture to nearly 10 GT of CO2 by 2050 according to the IPCC if we are to achieve Net Zero. It's all the more essential to identify meaningful solutions. Our new Greenly | Certified B Corp study sheds some light on this What we now think we know: 🧐 Offset projects, especially in forestry, had been grossly overstating their impact. 🌲❌ The biggest failings of these offsets is "additionality" : many projects exaggerated threats or were already viable without carbon credits. This resulted in funding activities that would have occurred anyway, thereby providing no real additional environmental benefit. 🌍🔍❌ 🏢⚠️ Major corporations like Shell and Disney relied on these misleading credits to claim carbon neutrality, leading to widespread greenwashing accusations. 📉🕵️♂️ Without rigorous oversight, these schemes misled consumers and investors into thinking they were supporting effective climate action, when in reality, the environmental benefits were negligible. As the new Greenly | Certified B Corp study shows, offsets have therefore become a risk for ESG leaders, sparking tough questions and reducing the investment in them: - Greenwashing vs. Genuine Impact: Are we truly making a difference or just polishing our public image? 💅🕵️♂️ - Local vs. Global: Should we focus on local projects to support our communities or invest globally for broader impact? 🌐🏘️ - Carbon Neutrality: A Myth?: Is "carbon neutrality" just a convenient buzzword? Are we fooling ourselves? 😱🤔 Recreating trust is all the more essential. Guiding principles include: 👉 Companies must focus on measuring and reducing their emissions first, abandoning claims of carbon neutrality, and focusing instead on multi-year strategies typically in line with Science Based Targets initiative 👉 For emissions that can't be reduced right away, funding projects is still interesting, provided they are real. 👉 Funding real projects means in general disregarding forestry or renewable offset projects that typically have little additionality, and instead, focusing on real capture, typically stronger in the following areas: Industrial Processes, Energy efficiency, Ocean, Soil, Mineralization, Direct factory capture, Gas capture... Learn more about these fascinating topic in our new Greenly | Certified B Corp study here : https://lnkd.in/eKeRc6Ny

Less than 2% of venture capital goes to women. Two percent. And if you’re a woman of colour, the number gets even smaller. I’ve seen it firsthand. When I started fundraising for indē wild, I walked into rooms where no one looked like me. Where I was questioned more, doubted more, and had to prove myself in ways my male counterparts didn’t. I came prepared with numbers, a solid business, a brand that already had a community behind it, and still, the skepticism was there. And yet, research proves that when women-led businesses get funded, they don’t just succeed. They outperform. According to Boston Consulting Group (BCG), women-founded companies generate more than twice as much revenue per dollar invested as those led by men. Forbes research shows that startups backed by First Round Capital performed 63% better when they had a female founder. Women-led businesses have also proven to be more resilient during economic downturns and foster higher employee engagement. Women aren’t lacking ideas or drive or results. We’re lacking access. That’s the part that needs to change. Funding shouldn’t be about who looks the part or who fits a certain mold, it should be about vision, strategy, and impact. Women don’t need more confidence. We need capital. And it’s time for investors to realize that betting on women isn’t just the right thing to do…it’s the smart thing to do. If you've been through this, I see you. If you're in a position to change this, I hope you do. #womeninbusiness #vc

That VC asked who was picking up my kids. So I started tracking every bias. 165 investor meetings. 73 inappropriate questions. I documented them all. The data will make you angry. Good. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻: • 31 asked about childcare arrangements • 19 questioned my "work-life balance" • 14 asked if my husband was "okay with this" • 9 wondered how I'd handle travel with kids 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗸𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿: VCs who asked about my kids? 0% conversion. VCs who asked about unit economics? 23% conversion. Meeting #47: "How does your husband feel about you running the company?" Meeting #48: Pitched to his rival. Got a cheque. 𝗜 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝗮 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗱: -10 points for each personal question -20 points for childcare concerns -30 points for "husband" questions -50 points for suggesting I hire a male CEO The worst offender? -140 points. Still took the meeting. Still said no to their offer. 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱: Bias is predictable. Track it. Your time has value. Protect it. Their questions reveal their thinking. You don't need their approval. The pattern is clear: Investors who focused on my personal life weren't serious about my business. 𝗦𝗼 𝗜 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝘆 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵: Created pre-meeting filters Asked my own screening questions Walked out of 3 meetings (yes, really) Turned down two term sheets (painful but necessary) Only engaged high-conviction investors Your kids aren't a liability. They're watching you build empires. What's the worst bias you've faced in a pitch? #BiasInVC  #FemaleFounders  #FundraisingData

My friend raised $100 million from well-known VCs and is shutting the company down in the next couple of weeks. I met with him to learn what went wrong. He asked me to share his recent startup experience with my LinkedIn community, hoping it could benefit other founders. His biggest regret on his nearly 7-year journey was accepting a significantly overvalued Series A round. He raised a large financing round at a massive valuation from well-known VCs, which generated significant media buzz. This was the kind of moment many founders post about and celebrate. He had many term sheets and took the one with the largest valuation. Turns out, that inflated valuation from his round created immense pressure and set expectations so high that securing crucial follow-on funding became impossible. Then a few product delays hit. A key hire fell through. Normal startup turbulence. Follow-on funding dried up. Morale dropped. The story shifted. He also had many early VCs on his cap table that were chasing markups. Their playbook was simple: inject capital, hype the company, and flip it to the next investor at a higher valuation. The lesson? Valuation is not validation. It’s a bet. And if it’s misaligned with reality, it can sink even the most promising company. A more grounded valuation is the key to sustainable growth and navigating the long, unpredictable startup journey. Raise what you need. From people you trust. Build a good foundation to get through any ups and downs. #founder #funding #investing #vc #venturecapital #entrepreneur #startup

I sent the same appeal to 10,000 donors. One version raised $67,000. The other raised $142,000. The only difference? Where I put the word "you." Donor-centered writing isn't just nice—it's profitable: • "You" in the first sentence increases response by 23% • Stories about donors (not beneficiaries) raise more money • Questions outperform statements in both open and response rates One organization rewrote their case statement from "we need" to "you can" language and saw major gift closes increase by 41%. The most powerful word in fundraising isn't "give"—it's "you." What small language shift has made the biggest difference in your fundraising?

It's been an incredible 2 years working alongside some phenomenal women I now get to call friends. The task was to unpack the challenges faced by high growth women-led businesses, of which there are many. I won't dive into that, because we all know them. I would like, instead, to focus on the recommendations. There are 7 and they are all achievable. Recommendation 1: Investors should better monitor the proportion of funding they invest in female founded businesses. The Taskforce believes that by encouraging more investors to collect data on the proportion of funding they allocate to female-led businesses they will better target action to increase it. Recommendation 2: Firms should set their own voluntary targets for the number of women in senior investment professional roles and report against them on their websites. The Taskforce’s view is that increasing diversity of senior investment professionals will help increase investment in women-led businesses - venture capital firms with a female partner are more than twice as likely as firms without to invest in a company with a woman on the management team. Recommendation 3: Increase signatories to the Investing in Women Code, particularly for private debt funds and Limited Partners, to boost investment in women-led enterprises. The Code is a voluntary commitment from financial services to support female entrepreneurship. The Taskforce recommends an increased push to get private debt funds and Limited Partners to sign up to the code to increase the flow of funding to female founded businesses. Recommendation 4: Drive inclusive behaviour in the investment ecosystem. The Taskforce has submitted a response to the Financial Conduct Authority’s consultation on diversity and inclusion in the financial sector which includes a call to reduce the threshold for companies below 251+ employees to incorporate venture capital firms (most of which are SMEs), to drive greater diversity in the companies and, thus, their decision making. Additionally they have called for the requirement for companies to have a carers’ leave policy in place, as they view this as an important factor in returning talent and retaining gender diversity at senior levels. Recommendation 5: Roll out Female Founder Growth Boards across England. Almost 46% of the UK’s high-growth enterprises are located in London. The Taskforce believes this is due to easier access to funding, connections, knowledge sharing, talent, and customer base. They have created a ‘blueprint’ for regions outside London to replicate that environment. Female Founders Growth Boards bring together public and private sector stakeholders to create a pool of resources. The blueprint also includes a dashboard, collating data to highlight opportunities and monitor progress. Taskforce member Zandra Moore has already set up a Female Founder Growth Board in Leeds. The aim is for the blueprint to be self-perpetuating, being replicated by more cities across England.  

Following USAID's funding freeze, the UK government has also announced cuts to its international ‘aid’ budget. While these cuts will impact organizations across the development and humanitarian sectors, they will hit grassroots and feminist organizations the hardest—especially those working on issues that are already overlooked and underfunded. For years, women-led, feminist, and grassroots organizations have struggled to access even the smallest amounts of funding. Now, with over $60 billion annually (or even more) in cuts in international development funding, these organizations will find it even harder to access resources. Yes, we can debate the bureaucratic power imbalances that institutions like USAID have reinforced between funders and implementing organizations and the unequal playing field. But we cannot deny that lives are at stake. And maybe this is the time we can interrogate how we can create a funding ecosystem that is actually just, equitable, and capable of addressing structural and systemic challenges. As development practitioners, a few things we need to explore: First, how do we create a balance between responding to urgent humanitarian crises and investing in long-term solutions? Important life-saving programs are in crisis, and while we need to mobilize funding for them, we also need to think about channeling funds to solutions that last. Second, I cannot emphasize enough the need to fund grassroots movements and community-led organizations. We will never be able to address structural issues if sustainable, long-term, flexible funding is not channeled to grassroots-led solutions and if the power is not shifted back to the communities. This needs to be the topmost priority for funders right now. Third, can we rethink how individual philanthropy and crowdfunding work? How can we mobilize and encourage individual donors and philanthropic organizations to move away from one-off campaigns and short-term initiatives and instead invest in long-term change? Fourth, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funding is such an untapped resource. Can corporations / private-sector build meaningful, long-term partnerships with grassroots movements instead of just funding feel-good initiatives? #USAID #feministorganizations #grassrootsorganizations #gender #fundingfreeze

The donor development continuum is dead. Discovery -> Cultivation -> Solicitation -> Stewardship This framework was based on the premise that you have control over the relationship. That’s no longer the case. This is what is happening right now: ❗ Donors are DISCOVERING you and forming their own opinions through social media and other digital or in-person gathering places ❗ They can see right through your “CULTIVATION” efforts. They come off as insincere and actually undermine trust ❗ SOLICITATION, when disconnected from feeling involved in co-creating the project, yields smaller and token gifts if at all. ❗ STEWARDSHIP, if it is being done, again feels insincere. Don’t tell me how much you love me (and my wallet). Show me what we achieved together. WHAT IS A FUNDRAISING OPERATION TO DO?? 💡 This process still works at the very top of your donor pyramid and where you control the information environment (think of board meetings). 💡Draw donors in with something they cannot obtain elsewhere. For example, opportunities to co-create the change they want to see in the world. 💡 Once you’ve drawn them, invest in creating communities that will keep them around. 💡 Create stories, videos, news items that are “shareable.” Would you tell a friend at the bar about your latest press-release? What words would you use? 💡 Invest in scaling up your peer-to-peer efforts, which seemed so inefficient in the past. This is a traditional tactic that still works. You just need to figure out how to do more of it with the same resources (probably, involving tech). Once you’ve done all of this, THEN identify your top prospects and approach them. Essentially, you’ve built a larger pipeline that has people who know and trust you. These are just some ideas. I’m sure you’ll have other/better ones. Please share.

Today, a fantastic report "Invisible Women" is published by Impatience Earth, highlighting how climate change disproportionately impacts women in the UK, especially women of colour. This is due to their disproportionate role as carers and heads of single-parent households, lower pay, greater vulnerability to job and funding cuts, and lack of representation in decision-making. Women are also far more likely to be leading effective grassroots initiatives with meaningful climate resilience and adaptation benefits for their communities, yet they are not represented in climate policy decision-making, are ineffectively consulted, and attract less funding from philanthropy. "Single parent mothers, disabled girls and migrant women simply don’t have the microphone when it comes to planning our climate response in the UK." "Time and again, it is invisible women who are leading the grassroots work of building resilience within their communities. It’s now time to fund them." The report is aimed at philanthropic funders and grant-makers, policy-makers and those with influence over climate funding strategies, and anyone who wants to understand the ways that climate change impacts women and marginalised groups in the UK. It was authored by the fabulous Hannah Dillon alongside Yasmin Ahammad, Areeba Hasan, and Sarah Farrell. And I was honoured to have contributed along with Mohammed Afridi, Amber Amoo-Gottfried, Naomi Chapman, Jon Cracknell, Anki Deo, Cliff Fleming, Sarah Fullick, Tatiana Garavito, Sofie Jenkinson, Marcus MacDonald, Misbah Malik, Jess Mally, Bianca Pitt, Olamide Raheem, Daniel Seifu, Martha Dillon, and Jo Williams. Read the full report here: https://lnkd.in/etQ_-EZ8

The Paris Summit last week was an important opportunity for countries to discuss increasing #climatefinance for developing countries. Progress was made, but there's still a long way to go. Debt 'pause clauses' were considered, which allow developing countries to postpone debt repayments in the event of natural disasters. This approach secures resources for recovery and resilient reconstruction. International taxes on carbon emissions and climate-related activities were also suggested to generate funds to support climate action. However, challenges still exist. Current mechanisms are slow, bureaucratic, and limited. We must speed up access to climate finance and propose innovative solutions. Here are a few ideas: ❇ Establish a new international climate finance fund to assist developing countries. This fund could be financed through a combination of public and private funds and used to support a wide range of climate-related projects, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and climate adaptation. ❇ Make it easier for developing nations to access existing climate finance instruments by simplifying the application process, providing greater technical assistance, and reducing bureaucracy. ❇ Encourage private investment in climate finance for developing nations by offering tax breaks, guarantees, or other incentives to companies that engage in climate-friendly projects. ❇ Collaborate with developing countries to create innovative financial structures suited to their specific needs. This might involve using blockchain technology, carbon markets, or other new financial tools. ❇ Encourage technology transfer from developed to developing countries and provide assistance in capacity building to empower nations in tackling climate challenges more effectively. ❇ Increase transparency and accountability to ensure that climate financing is used effectively and efficiently across the administration and disbursement. These are only a few examples; there are many more ways to help developing countries in gaining access to climate finance. What are your thoughts? What are some other ways we might help developing countries get faster access to climate finance? Please let me know in the comments section below. #sustainability #ESG #GreenerTogether #climatechange #climateaction #sustainablefinance #finance #investment #energy