Strategic Partnerships for Funding

Partnership teams often struggle to secure investment before they have enough evidence to support the case. The business may recognise the opportunity, but the CFO or CRO still needs to understand what will be tested, how much it will cost and what result would justify further funding. In that situation, asking for the entire partnership budget upfront may not be the best approach. A more practical option is to agree on a defined first stage. Choose one partner motion, one priority segment and a small number of outcomes that can be measured properly. The aim is not to prove that every part of the partnership strategy will work. It is to answer a smaller set of useful questions. Did the motion create qualified pipeline? Did partners bring the business into the right opportunities? Did those deals progress differently? Was the activity repeatable? Basem Emera described this approach in our recent webinar as gated capital release: “If I deliver ABC by September this year, that unlocks more capital for me to do DEF.” In practical terms, that means agreeing with leadership on what the first investment needs to demonstrate before more funding is approved. The conversation becomes: Here is the opportunity we want to test. Here is the partner motion we will run. Here is how we will measure it. Here is the result that would justify the next stage. This gives leadership a clearer basis for making investment decisions, while giving the partnership team the resources to produce evidence rather than relying on projections alone. It also reduces the risk of spreading a limited budget across too many partners, segments and activities before the team knows what is working. The first funding conversation needs to establish what will be tested, how success will be measured and what result would justify further investment. What would your partnership team need to demonstrate to secure the next stage of funding?

Impact startups in MENA are growing fast but funding strategies must evolve just as quickly. One of the questions I’m asked most often by founders is: “Where do we start when it comes to raising funds for climate or sustainability-focused ventures in this region?” Here’s how I usually break it down in 4 key pathways I’ve worked with or closely observed, each requiring a clear narrative, regional awareness, and the right positioning: 1. Government-backed innovation platforms These are not just about incubation, they are increasingly designed to de-risk startups and connect them to capital. 🔹 Example: Hub71 (Abu Dhabi) offers access to corporates, sovereign investors, and a growing base of VC partners through its Incentive Program. It's a launchpad for startups aligned with national priorities. 2. Climate-aligned positioning Framing your solution around climate resilience or adaptation is no longer optional—it’s a strategic funding move. 🔹 Example: ALTÉRRA, the $30B climate investment fund launched by the UAE at COP28, is designed to mobilize capital into areas like clean energy, food security, and nature-based solutions. Startups that clearly align with these priorities stand a stronger chance of attracting institutional and private funding. 3. Corporate sustainability partnerships Corporates in MENA are increasingly partnering with startups to accelerate their ESG goals—often offering pilot funding, technical support, or access to infrastructure. 🔹 Example: PepsiCo Middle East has launched several open innovation challenges in the region, focusing on sustainable packaging, water reuse, and food system transformation. These partnerships are a valuable entry point for startups ready to co-create scalable solutions. 4. Strategic VC alignment Venture capital in MENA is increasingly aligning with long-term sustainability themes—especially in climate tech and resource efficiency. 🔹 Example: VentureSouq, a MENA-based VC, launched its Climate Tech Fund I to invest in technologies tackling the climate crisis—from energy and mobility to the circular economy. They’re actively backing companies that blend strong commercial potential with measurable impact. The takeaway? It’s not just about raising funds, it’s about raising strategically. That’s how you align with where capital is moving in the region. If you found this useful, share it with a founder or ecosystem builder working on climate and impact in MENA. Let’s make these conversations more visible ;-) #ClimateFinance #MENA #ImpactStartups #StrategicFunding #GreenTransition #BusinessWithPurpose

As Harvard faces deep research funding cuts, a private equity firm has stepped in with a $39M commitment to support a Harvard research lab. Could this signal a new future for how academic science is funded? The investment comes from Turkish firm İş Private Equity, which typically backs high-growth small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The funding recipient is the lab of Professor Gökhan Hotamışlıgil at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, whose research aims to develop therapies for obesity and other metabolic diseases. Broader context Private equity (PE) rarely funds basic university research directly, as it doesn’t align with traditional return-focused models. But that’s changing. New structures are emerging where PE capital supports translational or applied academic science: ▫️ New startup - İş Private Equity launched Enlila, a new biotech company created to fund Hotamışlıgil’s lab over the next 10 years. Enlila will also invest in translating the lab’s discoveries into therapeutic products. ▫️ Joint ventures - Since 2017, Deerfield Management has created university partnerships to advance early-stage therapeutics, providing capital and helping universities evaluate projects toward Investigational New Drug (IND) readiness. Recent examples include: - Hyde Park Discovery with University of Chicago ($130M, 2025) - VeritaScience with Washington University in St. Louis ($130M, 2024) ▫️ Royalty monetization - In 2023, Purdue Research Foundation received over $100M from Blue Owl Capital by selling a portion of its royalty interest in Pluvicto, a prostate cancer therapy. Yale University executed a similar deal for the drug Yervoy, turning future royalties into immediate research capital. Takeaway As the research funding landscape evolves, the capital stack for science is becoming increasingly complex. I think we’ll likely see more private equity, venture capital, and philanthropy stepping in to support bold, high-risk science in new and unexpected ways. Curious to hear your thoughts: Should private equity be stepping into early-stage science? Which research areas could benefit most from this approach?

For a number of years this has been bothering me, so I feel compelled to address it. In today's challenging funding environment, early-stage biotech companies with promising therapeutic assets often struggle to secure the capital needed to advance their programs. Simultaneously, many patient foundations, despite their commitment to discovering new treatments for their communities, continue to restrict grant funding to ONLY academic or medical institutions. I think that this policy is really short sighted and not faithful to the commitment that foundations make to their donors. This policy overlooks the critical reality that translating scientific discoveries into approved treatments requires not only groundbreaking research, but also the practical expertise and experience to navigate the complex drug discovery and development process. Companies experienced in preclinical and clinical development play an essential role in this journey and can provide foundations with both therapeutic advancements and potential returns on their investments. Foundations like the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF) have recognized this gap and pioneered a venture philanthropy model. By investing in biotech firms, CFF helped develop transformative therapies like Kalydeco, significantly improving the lives of many with cystic fibrosis. This strategy not only accelerated drug development but also generated substantial returns, enabling further investment in research. Similarly, the CMT Research Foundation (CMTRF) and CureCMT were founded on the principle of funding translational research, actively collaborating with biotech companies to advance treatments for Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. By embracing partnerships with experienced industry professionals, foundations can more effectively fulfill their missions. Such collaborations enhance the likelihood of bringing treatments to patients and offer the potential for financial returns that can be reinvested into further research. In these tumultuous times of limited access to capital, it's crucial for patient foundations to align their funding strategies with their stated goals. Supporting programs and professionals with a track record in therapeutic development is not just logical, it's essential for delivering on promises to the communities they serve. If you are a patient foundation focused on developing therapies for your members, consider investing in early-stage companies that may help your patient population and return a multiple of the investment you make in them. Drug discovery and development is expensive, and there are limited avenues for companies to access the capital needed to advance therapies these days. Everyone has their own perspective, and this is mine after many years working in drug discovery and having encountered many walls to industry from patient foundations. #PatientAdvocacy #DrugDevelopment #VenturePhilanthropy #CureCMT #CFF #InnovationInHealthcare

Nonprofits, if I had to build corporate partnerships from scratch today, here’s the upgraded playbook: 1. Stop Begging. Start Co-Building. Instead of: “We’re looking for sponsors.” Try: “We’re designing the first zero-waste pilot for the city. Want your R&D team on the blueprint?” Why it works: You’re offering frontline innovation hours, not asking for a hand-out. 2. Scrap the Medal Tiers, Design Micro-Experiments. Offer partners bite-sized proofs of concept that grow: • Idea Auction: Their employees vote which of three micro-projects to fund, instant internal buzz. • Reverse Shark Tank: Your beneficiaries pitch company execs for skills-based support hours. • Impact API: Grant the partner early access to your data set (carbon metrics, food-waste stats, etc.) so they can build case studies that matter to their marketing team. Give them a storyline, not a plaque. 3. Run a LinkedIn Play That Feels Like Product-Led Growth. • Build a “Partner Wishlist” public Trello board, tag each dream company in a post when their card moves to “Conversation Started.” • Launch a 90-second Loom series (“What If We Solved ___ Together?”) and DM it to the exact decision-maker, not their generic inbox. • Leverage comment stacking: Recruit five allies to add thoughtful comments under every mission post, signaling social proof before the partner ever replies. Visibility → Familiarity → Pipeline. 4. Assemble a Failure-Lab Advisory Circle. Invite 8 execs to a quarterly dinner where you unpack both wins and flops, under Chatham House Rule. What they contribute: • Hard-won lessons that shortcut your learning curve • Candid connections (“Talk to our supply-chain VP next week”) • Personal stake in turning “near-misses” into success stories People back the messes they helped mop up. 5. Make the Yes Easier Than Scrolling TikTok. • Interactive one-pager: Three clickable funding tiers that auto-populate a DocuSign. • 90-second decision timer: “Pick an option before this video ends, your brand’s social clip is pre-queued.” • Real-time Slack channel invite: They join, drop questions, get instant answers, no calendar ping-pong. Friction kills deals; speed revives them. 6. Follow Up Like a Storyteller, Not an Auto-Responder. • Send a mobile-shot React video when a child opens a textbook you supplied, no polished edit, just authenticity. • Drop a voice memo celebrating their core value in action (“Saw your DE&I lead speak on stage, here’s how we echoed that message yesterday”). • Ship a desk-size artifact: a 3-D-printed model of the water filter prototype they helped fund, land on the desk, live in the memory. Stay relevant without spamming the inbox. Connect with me, comment “Partnership,” and I’ll send a free resource our paying clients use to find thousands of opprutnties for corporate partners on LinkedIn. With purpose and impact, Mario

***Is this the pivot point for biotech financing?*** Two recent developments suggest the funding landscape is shifting—and that shift brings real opportunity. 1. Biogen’s “New Ventures” team launches Biogen is taking a strategic leap: instead of rebuilding in‑house early drug discovery, it’s investing in external research with the option to bring promising assets into its pipeline later. This lean, flexible model lets them scout globally! . 2. OrbiMed closes $1.86 billion fund On August 4, 2025, OrbiMed closed its largest-ever Royalty & Credit Opportunities Fund V, raising $1.86 b — significantly over its $1.75 b target. 🧬 What this means for biotech: 🔍 1. Optimism for early-stage science Biotech ventures now have more routes to validation beyond traditional VC. Deals with pharma or royalty funds like OrbiMed offer financial runway without equity dilution. 🤝 2. New forms of strategic partnership Biogen’s build‑to‑buy, option agreements or equity stakes model opens doors for structured collaborations. Sourcing globally aligns with high‑impact innovation, as Biogen focuses on immunology, rare disease—and beyond. 💰 3. De‑risked capital models are gaining momentum OrbiMed’s $1.86 B fund isn’t just capital—it’s a reflection of the premium on flexible, revenue‑linked financing. Pharma companies increasingly seek to externalize early risk and maintain optionality over promising assets. 📈 The bigger picture: Early-stage biotech is entering a strategic renaissance, with pharma and capital firms acting as ecosystem enablers rather than just acquirers. Non‑dilutive capital is growing up, matching earlier-stage deals by supporting clinical or pre‑commercial growth without sacrificing ownership. This dual front approach—early external scouting (Biogen) plus structured capital deployment (OrbiMed)—signals renewed confidence in biotech, even amid equity wobble. The message is clear: strategic capital is still flowing, and the smartest innovation will find its backers—even in turbulent markets. Would love to hear how others see this shaping deal flow and early-stage opportunity in the coming 12 months. 👉 As biotech leaders and founders, we should ask: How can tailored transaction structures generate strategic flexibility for both sides? https://lnkd.in/ea5h2dEz

𝗜𝘁 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗺𝗲 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗸𝘆 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗜 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝘀𝘂𝗲𝗱. Early on, I chased every funding opportunity that vaguely aligned with our mission. When resources are tight, it’s easy to reshape your work to meet funders’ interests—even if it feels like squeezing a round peg into a square hole. Over time, I learned that this approach comes with costs that can be more detrimental than the reward they bring. These include: 🍃 𝗠𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗗𝗿𝗶𝗳𝘁: We move away from our original purpose when we adjust our programs to fit a funder’s requirements. This “mission drift” can dilute our core impact, spreading us thin and lessening our unique value. 💪🏿𝗧𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗲: Constantly pivoting to satisfy funders’ priorities rather than focusing on a clear mission can lead to burnout and disillusionment, making retaining talented, passionate staff harder. 🎯𝗟𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀: Casting a wide net without a strategy leads to scattered efforts and less productive results. This especially affects the development team, making them less efficient and the relationships they build more surface-level and less impactful. So, how do you ensure funder alignment? I use a weighted rubric that keeps us focused on impact. I rate each funder on key criteria—like mission alignment, application ease, and grant size—scoring them as low, medium, or high. We only pursue funders who meet our threshold so we can focus on partnerships that genuinely support our mission and goals. The criteria include: 🚀 𝗠𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 (𝟮𝟬%): Does the funder have a history of supporting causes like yours? Funders interested in your mission area will likely be a better fit. 💰 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗦𝗶𝘇𝗲 (𝟮𝟱%): Does the grant amount align with your financial needs? You also need to factor in the costs of applying for the opportunity. Does the team time pay off? 👥 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗡𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 (𝟭𝟬%): Is there an existing link through board members or mutual partners? Familiarity can create a trust-based relationship, often leading to a smoother collaboration. 🧘🏿♀️ 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 (𝟮𝟬%): A clear, grantee-focused application process means your team can focus more on impact than on admin. 🧩 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 (𝟮𝟱%): Does the funder’s mission support your core priorities? Funding that aligns naturally with your main programs allows you to focus on impact without significant shifts in strategy. 💬 How do you evaluate funding opportunities? What would you add to the above criteria? #internationaldevelopment #fundraising #nonprofitafrica #fundingafrica

As EnergyX moves closer to commercialization, I’m often asked how we plan to fund multi-hundred-million-dollar lithium production facilities. The reality is that large-scale lithium projects require a diversified capital strategy built for scale and long-term stability. A commercial facility capable of producing tens of thousands of tons of lithium per year can cost more than $300 million dollars to build. Projects at that level rely on multiple funding sources, each serving a specific purpose at a specific stage. Early phases are powered by retail investors who support our R&D, pilot work, demonstration plants, and initial project advancement. Their involvement helps us de-risk the technology and prepare for institutional partnerships. Each project operates within a wholly owned subsidiary. As projects progress, we may sell a minority stake to a strategic commercial partner. Goldman Sachs is currently managing that process for Project Black Giant. For full-scale construction, we turn to structured debt. Our recent $690 million dollar Letter of Interest from the U.S. EXIM Bank is an example of how this financing can reduce upfront capital requirements and improve long-term cost structures. This layered approach allows us to responsibly fund key phases, attract the right institutional partners, and maintain ownership as we scale toward commercial production.

Platform medtech companies face a brutal catch-22 at the seed stage. You need proof-of-concept data to raise capital, but you need capital to generate that data. Christopher Lucas, Ph.D. at DNA Nanobots found a clever way around this chicken-and-egg problem. Traditional VCs kept asking for preclinical validation data that would cost hundreds of thousands to generate. Chris couldn't raise without the data, and couldn't afford the data without raising. His breakthrough: partnering with rare disease foundations willing to invest for preclinical proof of concept. These foundations had completely different incentives from traditional investors. Here's what made it work: 1️⃣ Aligned goals. The foundations needed proof that DNA Nanobots' targeted delivery platform could address their specific rare diseases. Chris needed that same data to validate his technology for investors. 2️⃣ Mission-driven capital. Foundations invest based on potential patient impact, not just returns. They're comfortable with earlier-stage risk when the science looks promising. 3️⃣ Dual-purpose experiments. The preclinical studies served both the foundation's research objectives and provided Chris the validation data for his next fundraising round. Fast forward to today, and James F. Lynch, Chris, and the DNA Nanobots team have brought in that seed round, fueled by foundation-funded pilots. They've completed critical development work to ready their platform for multiple candidates and expanded their strategic partnerships. This exact strategy should work for VivoSphere and other platform companies I'm working with. Platform technologies naturally address multiple disease areas, creating a win-win for strategic partnerships with foundations. The insight: when traditional funding demands data you can't afford, find mission-driven partners who need that same data for their own purposes. ➕ Follow for more on helping drive breakthrough impact. ♻️ Repost to share with founders caught in the data-funding catch-22.

Stop Asking, "What Grants Can We Win?" Start Asking, "Which Funders Should Be Investing in Us?" Here’s a reality check: roughly 90% of available grants are program grants. This fact should fundamentally shape how you approach funding. Funders clearly prefer investing in programmatic support—so give them the opportunity. When you shift from asking, "What grants can we apply to?" to "Which funders should be investing in our proven programs?" everything changes. Grant seeking becomes less about chasing dollars and more about finding the right partners to sustain and scale the change you’re already creating. Here’s a real example. An education nonprofit we worked with was stuck in the “see grant, chase grant” cycle, applying for opportunities that pulled them in too many directions. We helped them consolidate their messaging and align it with funder preferences. Instead of adapting their programs to fit grant requirements, we sought funders to invest in their proven impact. Instead of scattered, one-off applications, we built a cohesive narrative that amplified their mission. Every conversation, application, and report reinforced these partnerships. Their success rate jumped from 20% to 45%. Their grant-only funding grew from $278K to $2.4M. Most importantly, they built a network of funders invested in their long-term success, including several multi-year partnerships. Strategic grant funding isn’t just about dollars—it’s about alignment, trust, and relationships. It’s about creating sustainable support for the change you’re already leading in your community. #NonprofitFunding #GrantWriting #NonprofitImpact #PartnershipsMatter #SocialImpact #FundingStrategy #NonprofitDevelopment #CommunityChange #BuildBetterRelationships Grant Flow