Tips for science founders in climate tech

Many, many scientist-startup conflicts come down to miscommunication between scientists and generalist-founders/managers/VCs Scientists, we’ve been trained to be extremely cautious and risk-averse in our words compared to the general population: ➡️ The word “prove” makes us cringe. ➡️ Even the most promising results are paired with caveats and warnings. ➡️ We want to personally see the data before making decisions. But when you join a startup, the founder-CEO (or the VC you’re pitching) may not recognize this mindset. You’re aiming for thoughtful, evidence-based recommendations. They hear uncertainty, hesitation to move forward or a pessimistic mindset. (Eek! The worst thing to bring to a startup!) Some real-life examples I've seen: 👩🔬 "We need more data” 👩🏽💼 “We don’t know what we’re doing.” Scientist means: We want to be thorough and validate findings before making decisions. CEO hears: Indecisiveness, unnecessary delay in execution. Try this: “Based on the current data, I recommend XYZ action. We’ll continue gathering more data to refine as we go.” _____________ 👩🔬“That experiment failed” 👩🏽💼“This is a disaster” Try this: “That experiment gave us critical insights into what doesn’t work. We learned ABC. We will now adjust our approach to XYZ. _____________ 👩🔬 “We cannot completely rule out X” 👩🏽💼 “X is a major risk.” Scientists, we avoid absolute statements in a way the general population doesn’t. This wording can come across as unnecessarily alarming. Try this: “While X is theoretically possible, our data strongly suggests Y is the most likely scenario.” _____________ 👩🔬 “It depends” 👩🏽💼 “We have no idea.” Scientists sometimes assume everyone is as interested in the scientific nuance as they are. Founders typically want decisive guidance. Try this: “The most likely outcome is X. If Y happens, we’ll adjust by doing ABC” _____________ If you’re overly cautious in your communication, you might give the impression you’re unsure. This may lead to someone less knowledgeable making the decision instead. Ask yourself: Am I the best-placed person to have a strong opinion or make a recommendation here? If yes, please be decisive! The CEO or your manager hired you for your expertise, not your ability to list caveats. In an ideal world, your manager or founder-CEO will understand this mindset and be prepared to train scientists as they adapt to a new company and model of working. However, ultimately you weren’t just hired to get the science right. You were hired to get the science right, then communicate that science in a way that drives business decisions. The lack of training can feel overwhelming, but especially in early-stage startup land, sometimes (often!) we need to go outside of our company to learn how to operate most effectively. If this tracks with your experience, I’d be keen hear any other common phrases which you’ve started framing differently for better communication!

Forget unicorns; what #ClimateTech founders really dream of is becoming BANKABLE. It may sound boring, but for climate startups, the ability to raise non-dilutive debt is a sign of technological maturity, allowing them to scale and transition from venture to infrastructure investment. Think solar PV or lithium-ion batteries. Oh, and by the way, that's when you also become a unicorn... The journey to technological maturity (TRL 9) can take years. But if you're already at TRL 6, here's what you can do today to pave the way to bankability: 1. Hire experts - Bank-glish is not a language most founders speak, yet if you want money from banks, you need to know what they are looking for. Expand your team early on with people who have these skills (e.g. people with a project finance background). 2. Add a potential customer to your cap table - now is the time to get a strategic involved. This will signal confidence to the banks, as corporates have a better balance sheet than you, and with equity upside benefits, they are more likely to enter into off-take agreements. 3. Secure off-take agreements- yes, stating the obvious. But remember, non-binding LOIs are not the same as take-or-pay agreements. The latter actually secure future revenues and can be pledged. More on that in a future post. 4. Start small - before you ask the bank for €50M, how about taking €500k? You'll be more likely to get it and you'll improve your credit rating and show that you can be trusted. 5. Get to know the local bank manager - don't go straight to "Deutsche Bank", start with the local "Sparkasse". Local and state-owned banks have more KPIs than just financial returns, such as job creation. If you're doing something positive for the community, you're likely to get a (small) loan, even if your technology isn't 100% proven. Remember, it’s a long journey and it’s never too early to start. @Founders - I’m curious to hear your stories. How did you secure loans early-on? #venturecapital #funding #nondilutivecapital

Last week I caught up with some of our climatetech founders and the Wavemaker Impact team in Singapore. It reminded me how much Europe could learn from the pace, creativity, hunger and grit of emerging markets when it comes to building climate solutions. In South Asia, you don’t have the luxury of slow progress or “pilot purgatory.” Climate impacts hit hard and fast, so the innovation mindset is lean, practical and deeply connected to livelihoods. 1. The Green Discount Forget moonshots and massive R&D budgets. Across South Asia, founders are building cleaner and cheaper solutions that work now: modular, low-capex climatetech with real unit economics from day one, like turning waste into biofuel (Octayne) or agricultural residues into biochar (WasteX) while improving customer margins. ✅ Lesson for Europe: Move beyond the “green premium.” We don’t always need new tech; we need to deploy what already works, faster and at scale. 2. Decentralised Energy and Leapfrogging Like Africa skipped landlines to go mobile, South Asia is leapfrogging traditional grids with off-grid solar, microgrids and batteries replacing diesel, from Agros to Helios Solar Company Limited and SOLshare. ✅ Lesson for Europe: Distributed renewable energy isn’t just cleaner; it’s more resilient. Energy security in wartime or flood season may depend on it. 3. Nature-Based and Community-Led Solutions After decades of deforestation and degraded land, pioneering models are fighting back through community reforestation, mangrove restoration and regenerative agriculture. Ventures like Bumi Baru and Fair Ventures Social Forestry make nature profitable by working with local populations. ✅ Lesson for Europe: Climate action sticks when people have skin in the game. Build with communities, not just for them. 4. The Just Green Transition In emerging markets, climate isn’t a distant moral issue; it’s a development and equity issue. Policy conversations link emissions to jobs, food and public health. When clean tech creates livelihoods, people back the transition. ✅ Lesson for Europe: Embed justice, inclusion and affordability at the heart of the transition, not as an afterthought. 5. Adaptation and Resilience South Asia is among the most vulnerable regions to climate change and has no choice but to adapt: flood defences, early-warning systems, better weather data and climate-resilient crops. Ventures like Rize and Intensel Limited prove that resilience and profitability can coexist. ✅ Lesson for Europe: Don’t just decarbonise, adapt. Resilience is also an investment class. After more than two decades building start-ups across Asia, I’ve seen how constraint breeds creativity and urgency drives focus. Europe has the capital, talent and technology. Maybe it also needs a bit more of that emerging-market scrappiness and hunger. Because the truth is, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. We just need to roll it faster. 🌍💚

2000: Send press release → Land Forbes feature. 2025: Send press release → Journalist skims it → Then checks your LinkedIn → Skims your company blog → Listens to your podcast clip → Scans Twitter mentions → Reads competitor coverage → Scrolls 3–6 months back on your feed → Then replies. Most climate founders still think their tech will sell itself. They write a pitch email, cross their fingers, and get ignored. But it's not 2000 anymore. Journalists aren't waiting in their inbox. And the only founders they write about? The ones who already look like the obvious voice in the space. So if you want media exposure, don't start with PR. Start with consistent content that makes you impossible to ignore. Here's how: Tip 1: Pick one platform and own it completely. For climate founders, that's LinkedIn. Post 2–3 times per week with a mix of founder lessons, industry takes, and behind-the-scenes updates. Journalists check LinkedIn first. Make sure there's substance when they do. Tip 2: Publish one 800-word thought leadership article per month. Post it on LinkedIn, your company blog, or send it as a personal newsletter. Doesn't matter where. What matters is depth. These longer pieces show journalists you can think beyond hot takes. They give reporters substance to quote and link to. And they position you as someone with real expertise, not just engagement tactics. Tip 3: Document your founder journey publicly (the messy parts included) Share the decisions you're making in real time. The regulatory hurdles. The failed pilots. The customer conversations that changed your roadmap. Journalists love founders who are transparent, not polished. Vulnerability builds trust faster than any press kit. Tip 4: Connect with hundreds of journalists and PR folks proactively, months before you need them. 100s of journalists cover climate, tech, and startups. Start building relationships now, not when you're ready to pitch. Comment on their work. Share their articles with your take. Send a DM when they publish something that resonates. Tip 5: Make it stupid-easy for them to cover you. When a journalist does check you out, they should find: • Data points they can cite • Clear founder bios with credentials • High-res photos ready to download • A media kit or one-pager on your site • Quotable soundbites in your recent posts Remove every excuse for them to pass on your story. — The reality? PR doesn't work anymore if you're starting from zero visibility. But if you've been showing up consistently, journalists will come looking for you. That's when the press release actually works. — Founders, what's one story in your industry you wish a journalist would cover right now?

Science commercialization is often framed as lab-to-market, but the real question is: who funds the “too applied for grants, too early for VC” zone? I've seen it firsthand: a chicken-and-egg problem where VCs want traction before they'll commit, and founders need capital to create the very traction investors demand. Too often, brilliant scientists with world-changing technologies get trapped here. How science founders can navigate this valley: 1. Build your funding stack based on alignment — Grants, philanthropy, corporate partnerships, and venture capital each comes with different north stars and risk tolerances. Understand how your science fits now and in the future and plan accordingly. 2. Approach expert funders — Seek out capital providers who deeply understand your space. They’re best positioned to see the potential and impact of your work before it’s consensus. 3. Stage-gate your milestones — Show a path where $X unlocks validation, $Y proves scale, and later capital accelerates commercialization. Make each milestone reduce one major risk for follow on funders. 4. Activate alternative capital — Donor-advised funds, venture philanthropy, mission-driven corporates, and government innovation programs can back early science that’s obvious to experts but not yet to markets. Use them to build incremental validation. 5. Design for optionality — Build multiple paths forward: non-profit arms for public good research, commercial spinouts for market applications, licensing deals for near-term revenue, and strategic partnerships for distribution. 6. Create urgency — Patent deadlines, grant reporting requirements, and pilot customer commitments can become forcing functions that accelerate decisions. Use them to your advantage in funding negotiations. What strategies have you used to bridge this valley? I'd love to hear examples that others can learn from, especially creative financing structures or unexpected funding sources that worked.

I joined the "Move Fast and Fix the Planet" podcast with Stanford Technology Ventures to discuss entrepreneurship and product management in climate and AI. We talked about domains where AI can help build climate solutions. Some examples: 𝟭. 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗜𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿𝘆: AI excels at understanding the world through satellite imagery, which is crucial for various climate applications. 𝟮. 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗟𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘀: AI can efficiently process large datasets, such as transportation trends, essential for identifying patterns and optimizing systems. 𝟯. 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗢𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗩𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: whether it’s predicting contrail formation, optimizing traffic flow, or verifying the effectiveness of a solution (MRV) —AI’s ability to handle large-scale data and identify patterns is key to creating impactful and scalable climate solutions. I also shared advice for product managers/entrepreneurs in climate: 1. Try to 𝗙𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝗻 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: start by diving in to understand the climate challenges, including the sources of emissions across various sectors for mitigation, and for adaptation, the types of effects climate change will have, before developing a solution - and be willing to pivot if learn your solution doesn't solve the climate problem. 2. The "𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲" is a core role of PMs: connect the technology to a user group who will take actions that benefit the planet. Essentially: 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 as a critical “𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗿.” If you haven’t seen the South Park clip on underpants gnomes… the job of a PM is to avoid underpants gnomes! And this is just as important when your goal is climate impact, as when your goal is profit. 3. In climate especially, it is important to 𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁. We spend a lot of time forecasting the potential real-world CO2e impact of our solutions assuming they succeed, and we base prioritization decisions on these forecasts. 4. Be aware of 𝗨𝗻𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗲 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗘𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘂𝗿𝘀: Policy and regulation are a major factor in the climate and energy sectors, and can be an enabler, a hard stop, or somewhere in between (as we’ve seen the shifting landscape in the US this past week). 𝗧𝗼 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗔𝗜: Don't be afraid to dive in and focus on a specific subdomain. Find a high-impact domain that excites you, and dig in. You’ll learn along the way. Look for "climate adjacent" opportunities. Such as a fintech solution for energy efficiency or AgTech. Link to the full podcast: https://lnkd.in/gGXz6Drg

Most climate founders organize their GTM around their product roadmap. They think in features, milestones, and technical innovation. But your customer isn't moving through your roadmap.  They're going through a transformation.  Leaving what's familiar and stepping into the unknown. And that transformation follows a pattern. Carl Jung saw it in human psychology.  Joseph Campbell documented it across every culture's mythology.  Hollywood used it to move billions of people. It's called the hero's journey. And it's not just storytelling, it's the psychological map of how people actually experience change. Which means it's also the map of how your customer adopts your climate solution. Here's what your customers actually need at each stage and where most founders get it wrong: → The Ordinary World (They need education about the hidden costs of their status quo, not product pitches) → The Call to Adventure (They need proof this is urgent for their specific industry, not generic climate statistics) → Refusal of the Call (They need case studies from companies exactly like them, not more detailed feature walkthroughs) → Meet the mentor (They need a low-risk pilot to test with, not full enterprise contracts upfront) → Crossing the Threshold (They need a quick win in the first 30 days, not six-month implementation roadmaps) → Tests, Allies, and Enemies (They need ROI tools for their champions to sell internally to procurement and legal, not product update emails) → The Approach (They need benchmarks showing typical 18-36 month adoption curves, not pressure to move faster) → The Ordeal (They need founder-level intervention, not standard escalation protocols) → The Reward (They need help quantifying and packaging the results, not just celebrations) → The Road Back (They need recognition of who they've become and opportunities to expand their impact, not just renewal paperwork) → The Resurrection (They need celebration of what they've achieved and validation of the journey they took, not treated like just another account) → Return with the Elixir (They need to be empowered as champions who can guide others through the same transformation, not just asked for reference calls) Your customer is the hero of this story. You're the guide who helps them transform. Most founders flip this. They make their breakthrough technology the hero and wonder why deals stall in the middle. Build your GTM around your customer's transformation, not your technology milestones. That's how you stop losing deals and start creating champions who bring others along behind them. PS. Want to see what your GTM looks like when you're the guide, not the hero?  DM me and I'll show you how we've rebuilt this for other climate founders.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝟐𝟎𝟎+ 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐩𝐬 𝐭𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 I spent seven years at Greentown Labs, the world's largest climatetech incubator. As COO, I oversaw two sites, 130,000+ square feet of space, a team of 20+, and at any given time, 200+ startups in various stages of chaos. Here is what I learned: 𝐹𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡: 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑐𝑘 𝑖𝑠 𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠. Most people point to the technology, the systems, the processes, and the market timing. But I would argue there is something above all of that, which is the people, the most valuable asset of any company. I recognize that even companies with great people still fail, but if we get this right most other problems become solvable, otherwise even the best technology with the biggest market loses ground. I saw it from pre-seed to Series B and even in established companies. The stage of the company changes but the pattern does not. People and culture are not enough on their own, but without them nothing else holds. 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑: 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑡 ℎ𝑖𝑟𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡. Arthur Brooks, the author of Happiness Files, makes the case that what actually makes people engaged and productive is not the perks or the ping pong table but three things: feeling their work creates real value, connecting it to something larger, and being genuinely seen. You cannot manufacture those with a culture deck. You can achieve this through these 4 levers: Norms, Systems, Behavior and Recognition. 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑟𝑑: 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑. Operations is the skeleton, finance is the blood, HR is the nervous system, sales is how the organization feeds itself, marketing is how it communicates with the world and leadership is the brain. You cannot have a healthy organization with systems that do not work together. Silos do not just slow you down, they kill the culture. What I got good at was walking into that pattern and making it legible. Figuring out what to prioritize, what to fix, and how to build for scale without losing the people. Sometimes that meant overhauling agreements or rebuilding workflows so people could focus on work that actually mattered. Sometimes it meant keeping the lights on through a pandemic while keeping people motivated. And sometimes it meant making sure the plants were watered, because a well cared for environment tells your team that people matter most. If you are a founder starting to feel the weight of the operational gap, the thing slowing you down that is not the product, I would be glad to talk.

Solar panels, batteries, heat pumps. All hardware. All facing the same Series A wall. Here's what survivors do differently. We just analyzed Series A success patterns for hardware startups. 97% fail. The 3% that survive ignore everything software VCs tell them. The Valley Myth That Kills Hardware: "Move fast and break things." "Get users first, revenue later." "Iterate based on feedback." Hardware doesn't work that way. You can't push a firmware update to fix a supply chain. The Data: Successful hardware Series A raises: $12M median at $45M valuation. Required proof: $1-3M revenue or committed pilots. Timeline: 18 months from seed. Burn rate: $200-400K/month. Most die at month 16. What Climate Tech Winners Actually Do: Month 0-3: File patents. Not "someday." Now. While everyone else is "staying stealth," they're establishing IP moats. Month 3-6: Lock manufacturing partners. Before product-market fit. Before big orders. Before they need them. Month 6-9: Hit 1:4 engineer-to-hardware ratio. One engineer maintaining 4+ deployed units. This metric predicts everything. Month 9-12: Prove 50% gross margins. Not projected. Actual. With real production costs. The Uncomfortable Truth: Your beautiful prototype means nothing if you can't manufacture 1,000 units profitably. Eclipse Ventures gets this. They write $5-25M checks specifically for hardware. They don't expect 80% software margins. Lux Capital gets this. They measure manufacturing readiness, not user engagement. Your local accelerator doesn't get this. Stop listening to them. The Pattern We Found: Failed startups: Perfect products, no production partners. Successful ones: Ugly prototypes, signed manufacturing agreements. The gap between prototype and product isn't engineering excellence. It's supply chain intelligence. Which manufacturing partnership are you avoiding while your runway burns? #CleanTech #HardwareStartup #ClimateTech #SeriesA #Manufacturing

I wish I could sit down with every new founder over coffee. Here’s what I would tell them: A science plan is every bit as important as a growth plan. And I’m not just saying this because I’m trying to peddle something. I’ve spent years in the thick of it, watching brilliant ideas fail spectacularly thanks to a lack of data that could have been easily obtained along the way. It might seem like you're saving time and money by skipping the science, but you’re actually not. Instead, here’s what inevitably happens: 1️⃣ You end up at a crossroads with a potential investor or partner, and they ask for the one thing you can’t provide – solid, science-backed data. 2️⃣ Your team gets tangled in what they think they know, but without the data, it’s just guesswork. That’s money and time down the drain- good runway used on hunches.  3️⃣ You’re surrounded by similar products and need to stand out, but all you’ve got is a cool logo and a product that you think works (but you can’t prove it.) It’s painful to spend time working with startups in later stages, knowing that with a few adjustments at the beginning, they’d be years ahead. Start with science. Let it guide your decisions, from what you build to how you talk about it. It’s the one thing that can clearly tell you if you’re on the right path or if you need to pivot. And when you do have to make those tough calls, you’ll be able to do it with confidence, knowing you’re backed by real insights, instead of just hunches. Please take it from someone who’s been there: Make. A. Plan. #founders #startups #fractionalCSO