radiofree.asia

Category: Impact Investment

  • BYND: 10 Things Everyone Gets Wrong About Beyond Meat

    7 Mins Read

    Beyond Meat enjoyed a bit of a small rally recently, especially after its latest earnings call. However, there has been a lot of negative discussion about Beyond Meat and its stock price over the past year, which indeed continues to struggle.

    Is the negativity justified? Is it accurate? Is the product to blame? Is it CEO Ethan Brown? Below, I share the ten reasons investors of all culinary persuasions might be wrong about BYND. 

    1. Ceci N’est Pas Un ‘Consumer Staple’ 

    Beyond Meat’s IPO valuation was more aligned with tech companies during the dot-com bubble than with consumer staples/food companies, per the image below. This proved to be a real Achille’s heel for the stock, as tech companies trade at higher multiples and have faster growth trends. Food products are not SaaS, and these companies tend to have much slower growth than their tech counterparts. The markets eventually corrected for this, bringing the company’s stock price way down. 

    2. Path to Profitability: No P/E, No Love‘

    The media loves a founder with a ‘save-the-world’ dream. From Steve Jobs to Sergey Brin, Silicon Valley has trained us to love a visionary. Beyond’s CEO Ethan Brown may indeed make his vision a reality of shifting the global food system away from livestock meat eventually, but Wall Street analysts don’t want to hear about a future dream. They want to see consumer demand, revolutionary IP, and, more than anything else, a realistic path to profitability. 

    Financial analysts usually rely on a P/E ratio (share price per earnings) to evaluate a company’s performance and in the case of Beyond Meat, which has not achieved profitability yet, the ratio is negative, leaving analysts flummoxed. Additionally, analysts want to see revenue growth, not revenue declines, as is the case for Beyond Meat. Add to this that most Street analysts may not see the need to shift away from an animal meat food system, and it’s not hard to see why the stock has been battered by downgrade ratings.

    3. Consistency For The Win. Confidence For The Bigger Win.

    If analysts aren’t interested in the plant-based dream and are deprived of their crucial revenue growth and P/E metrics, how exactly can they analyze a company accurately and provide fair stock ratings? The answer is earning calls. Wall Street analysts tend to look to the CEO to accurately guide for financial expectations: Will the company be profitable? And if so, by how much? And when? They expect the CEO to be able to know their business well enough to accurately predict growth (or loss) from three months to a year out.

    Much of Wall Street is about managing expectations. Consistently hitting quarterly expectations in earnings calls gives analysts confidence that the CEO is in control of the business. Consistently missing quarterly expectations and not being able to right the ship quarter after quarter will do the exact opposite. This is what happened to Beyond Meat for too many quarters in a row. 

    4. ‘I Have a Dream’ vs. ‘Show Me The Money 

    Dreams are great but profitability is the holy grail. Beyond Meat IPOed during the exuberant 2019 bull market. The stock rose 163% in one day of trading, the largest bump for an IPO stock since the 2008 crash. While institutional investors make up 85% of the market, it’s the retail investors that got really excited about BYND, and this resulted in the stock’s price being driven way up. Irrationally so, some might say. Ever since, the company has struggled to show analysts a convincing path to profitability. 

    As of the last earnings call, the Street seems to have regained some confidence in Brown as a CEO and the stock in general. While U.S. sales were down, the company still beat expectations and sales were down less than expected ($73.7 million rather than $66.8 million in the fourth quarter of 2023). This is 10% better than expected for the US. Further, international sales were up 22% in retail and 34% in foodservice. 

    The stock was rewarded for this, but losing less sales than expected is hardly revenue growth. Even in forecasting out for 2024, the best the company could do was state that it would hold steady at around $345M, and lose no more. Not exactly growth. The company hasn’t been able to hold on to all of its gains, but there was a moment when it rallied for the company. So why did The Street react positively?  

    5. It’s The Spending, Stupid

    What was so different about the Feb 27th earnings call? Well, Brown shared that in 2023 the company brought operating expenses down to $107.8 million for the year, compared with $320.2 million in 2022, a two-thirds reduction in spending!

    It appears The Street had been waiting to see this kind of leadership from the company since its IPO. Could Beyond Meat run a fiscally responsible company?

    BYND was up 31% the day after the earnings call (Feb 28th, 2024), trading at $9.83, up from $7.52. It then surged 106% in after-hours trading. As of writing ten days later, it is $8.07.

    Less interested in big visions around the future of protein, analysts had been hoping for a solid balance sheet and a realistic path to profitability, or at least stopping the bleeding, controlled spending and management focused on the numbers, not the dream- all of which Beyond delivered.

    6. What’s Up with Consumer Demand? Inflation.

    While some vegans claim that Beyond Meat’s cleaner labels are the reason why the company is having trouble, the more likely explanation for declining domestic sales is inflation. The average grocery shopper is facing skyrocketing food prices. 

    The Beyond Meat brand is intended for meat eaters looking to make a smarter choice for themselves and the planet. With the cost of its plant-based patty up to double that of a heavily subsidized livestock meat burger, it’s no secret why mainstream consumers can’t afford them on a regular basis. 

    The company appears to be working hard on price parity, but it’s key not to ignore food inflation’s role when looking at the whole financial picture. According to the industry think tank the Good Food Institute, what matters most to alternative protein consumers is taste, price, and convenience. I have come to believe it is price, price, and price. 

    7. Covid, (Supply) Chains and China, Oh My!

    Often missing from Beyond Meat analysis is the bigger contextual picture. Since going public in mid-2019, the company has faced Covid-related complications (including restaurant closures), supply chain disruptions due to wars and pandemics, China’s economic crash, global inflation, and general societal angst. Even one of these externalities would challenge a healthy company- and yet Beyond has weathered all of these simultaneously. To still be standing and on the way to profitability is a testament to the young public company’s staying power. Can it continue to weather the storm?

    8. Big Meat vs. Beyond Meat

    In the past 18 months, the mainstream media has been relentless in its attacks on the plant-based meat sector. While many see the negative narratives as directed against the entire industry, in reality, as the only public company in the space, Beyond Meat bears the brunt of the hits and it’s undoubtedly had an outsized impact on the stock performance. 

    Lately, a slew of reports and investigations have detailed how Big Meat lobbyists are behind the attacks. Will analysts start to price in the cost of this misinformation?  Most likely not.  It is not their problem. The sector and the company are going to have to continue to deliver against misinformation by lowering prices and critical innovation. 

    9. Innovate or Die 

    All is not lost. Given the choice between innovating and dying, Beyond Meat has chosen to innovate. Despite expenses decreasing by two-thirds in 2023, the company released new ‘clean label’ products: AMA-certified cholesterol-free plant-based steak tips and a new burger patty made with avocado oil and fava beans that offers its consumers the same taste at a fraction of the saturated fat content.  

    The company is making it clear that it is hyper-focused on what works (healthier versions of its star products) and unattached to what doesn’t (Beyond Jerky, ending a distribution agreement with PepsiCo that didn’t perform well) as it journeys to profitability. This is what Wall Street wants to see. 

    10. So What Now? 

    A few things are transpiring. Firstly, coming off of COP28 and the push for financing food system change fast, the Street is beginning to process what many in the plant-based industry have known for years: food tech IS climate tech. Society won’t achieve its collective global net zero goals without investing in meat reduction, given the livestock sector’s emissions footprint. Beyond Meat’s future trajectory is inextricably linked to this reality. 

    Secondly, if Ethan Brown can continue to manage earnings call expectations, then analysts may welcome the CEO they want to see: an Ethan Brown dialed into the priorities of The Street; marching towards profitability, fiscal control, a commitment to products at price parity with meat and innovation-led R&D.

    No doubt, the company has a long way to go to get a justified stock price rally that can last, but with operational spending cuts and potential profitability on the horizon amidst the environmental messaging finally taking hold in the financial community, it may be a step closer to turning a corner.

    The post BYND: 10 Things Everyone Gets Wrong About Beyond Meat appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Opinion: Future Food Tech Funding Needs A Complete Overhaul

    12 Mins Read

    Funding future food innovations is crucial. As traditional VCs look elsewhere, it’s for the sector to welcome new and diverse sources of investment, from blended capital to redeemable equity.

    By Sonalie Figueiras, founding editor at Green Queen Media and advisor at Better Bite Ventures, Mucake and Alwyn Capital, and Maximilian von Poelnitz, Venture Partner at Ajinomoto Corporate Venture Capital

    Over the past five years, we have seen a food tech hype bubble building as generalist investors entered the space in droves attracted by the promise of backing climate solutions, the realization that the current food system faces existential challenges, hundreds of passionate mission-led founders, a handful of IPOs that made global headlines because of outsized returns, social media-fueled foodie trends and the promise of helping make the world a better, more environmentally-friendly place. More simply put, food innovation became sexy. 

    Over time, a disconnect formed between R&D initiatives and go-to-market strategies, and while new money flooded the space, deep sector expertise and long-term track records were hard to come by. 

    This culminated in the easy money and public stock market euphoria of 2020 and 2021 especially with Covid-led government cash infusions. By 2023, the bubble had burst, and over the past 12 months food tech companies have seen their valuations slashed, dozens of startups have disappeared from the space and the generalist money has moved on to new pastures like climate tech, with funding rounds drying up. 

    The pendulum has now swung back in favour of cash-infused investors and companies that are actively prolonging runway and driving a clear path to commercialization and profitability.  This is problematic for deep tech companies in sectors like cellular agriculture and precision fermentation where there is still a lot of work to do to drive bench-scale applications to industrial and commercial scale distribution; many companies will struggle to move from the lab to the open market without access to capital.  

    Foodtech investing today: burned by hype

    So what went wrong? Ultimately, investors were led to believe that food tech could behave like a tech business and that distribution was simple. There was a sense of ‘build it and they will come’. In 2019/2020, CAGR calculations also made for easy math given that alternative protein markets were growing at over 15% annualized and in some sectors like dairy at over 50%.  This led to further media hype and many new /generalist investors jumping into the sector feet-first. Ultimately both the production and distribution math was challenged as startups continue to struggle to move from pilot scale to commercial scale.  Further demand for innovative products driven by taste and texture will contribute to additional adoption but not based on the timelines that investors were originally sold. 

    Foodtech as an investment class: one brush cannot apply to all types

    One of the most important “resets” to have occurred over the past 12 months has been investors recognizing that food businesses are not SAAS or technology companies. The term food tech really should not be seen as a catch-all but rather spans a wide variety of industries that include biotech, CPG and/or ingredient-focused R&D houses. This ultimately requires investors with deep expertise in each and a much more niche focus, and in certain verticals, a far longer time horizon for exit. 

    Except for a few innovation-led plant-based companies like Impossible Foods (precision fermentation-derived heme), Climax Foods (plant casein IP), or EQUII (protein-enriched flour), most plant-based food/meat companies are CPG plays and should be classified (and diligenced) as such. A CPG venture capital firm ultimately has a different investment thesis than a deep-tech fund.

    While there is a long history of successful investments and M&A in the food space, the reality is that a Danone will never be a Google or an Apple in terms of market share and revenues – the food business simply does not have the same unit economics as software companies.

    Investor Daniel Gluck wrote about these differences in a social media post: “CPG companies don’t scale as fast as tech, typically. Like tech, CPG focuses on creating and changing habits. But customers are more adventurous with apps on their phone than food on their shelves. Most retailers take on new products only 1 to 2 times a year. Customer adoption takes time and growth is slow.”

    Wired journalist Matt Reynolds reports further: “Food isn’t like the technology industry, Reams points out. Food companies—even ones with a cool technological edge—do not grow like a software company, he says. Food companies operate on razor-thin margins, prices are volatile, and customers can be extremely picky about what they’ll put in their mouths. There’s also a scaling issue. Software companies can scale rapidly because getting their product to new customers costs almost nothing. It’s just a matter of duplicating lines of code, or hooking up a user to a centralized database that already exists. Food isn’t like that. Every extra plant-based burger requires more soy and pea plants that have to be grown, plus labor costs and processing time. Bigger factories and more efficient production will reduce the cost per burger, but scaling is a slow process that requires expensive physical infrastructure, with no guarantee that customers will buy those slightly-cheaper burgers once they’re made.”

    That being said, liquidity events exist every year as large incumbents such as General Mills, PepsiCo, Netsle, or Unilever continue to be active in the space. The takeaway here is that this makes for a completely different investor base as and life cycle.

    Food is not ‘frivolous’

    With the challenges facing the industry, there continues to be an existential need for food tech solutions and productivity gains. The recent hype cycles in the industry and the failures that continue to gain media attention do not change the fact that the industry is solving a core problem: the very real issues facing our global food systems, which are responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We cannot solve the climate crisis without evolving our food systems. 

    In a piece asking whether the venture capital model is broken,  James Ledbetter writes of the sector’s frivolity problem: “Venture capital’s frivolity or lemming problem is not recently acquired. The Internet highway is littered with roadkill of venture-backed companies that would have been considered silly even if they had succeeded.” As we consider how the food industry can benefit from different funding structures and formats, it’s important to state that food, unlike many flash-in-the-pan apps, is anything but frivolous. Food is an essential part of human daily life and must be accorded the importance it merits. 

    Deeptech food: a longer game 

    Over the past five years, the term food tech has also come to mean a key focus on synthetic biology, precision fermentation, and even cellular agriculture. These represent sectors with very different capital requirements and investment horizons compared to a standard plant-based meat alternative product. 

    Deep-tech and cultivated meat/food tech companies have more parallels with healthcare technology given their long R&D cycles, some form of regulatory approval, and the need to plan distribution and supply chain effectively.  More importantly, these businesses come with significant infrastructure needs whether through co-manufacturing agreements or a self-designed manufacturing hub. At each business milestone, the company or start-up requires different forms of capital that cannot be supported purely by the venture capital industry. 

    The key concern in the functional food tech industry is innovators moving from bench scale to pilot scale and then ultimately to commercial scale. Each stage requires a significant investment and technically the risk profile is reduced at each stage. In 2023, venture capital investors tend to shy away from deals where 50% of the capital is put into capex. Again, there are clear parallels with the traditional healthcare biotech inverter landscape. At pilot scale, food tech companies need access to other forms of capital as they begin to take what they created in a lab and bring it to market. 

    Ultimately, the industry is at a tipping point as it awaits better infrastructure, more project finance, and greater government support. Infrastructure projects do not lend to venture capital timelines.  For investors, the next few years will involve increased consolidation and survival exercises by several larger startups. This will potentially be very good for a few early movers but still requires these businesses to find product market fit and commercial success.  

    Foodtech (esp deep-tech sectors like cultivated meat) has an investment horizon problem: VC exit timelines don’t match technology lifecycles. In the healthcare space, there is a mechanism for VCs to exit their investments as a new round of investors might join at the clinical trial stage. Ultimately food tech needs a milestone-driven approach that allows for other forms of patient capital to enter the investment pool.

    So where do we go from here?

    What’s clear is that the classic Silicon Valley VC model is not necessarily adapted to the needs of systemic food system change. To finance a transition to a less carbon-intensive, more resilient global food system that meets the needs of humanity ethically, sustainably and nutritionally, new types of capital are needed. Below we explore some of the possibilities.

    Patient capital

    Patient capital does not have a rigid definition, but generally, the term refers to long-term investments where investors are prepared to wait a considerable amount of time (3-5 years in some sectors, 10-15 years in others) before seeing any financial returns. For this reason, fund managers implementing a patient capital strategy will maintain their investments even if they’re seeing short-term losses for the fund. Pension funds and sovereign wealth funds are typical examples of patient capital. In recent years, patient capital has also come to be associated with impact investing. In this context, rather than maximising immediate returns for shareholders, the focus is on maximising the positive social or environmental impact of an investment, alongside financial gains. Non-profit investment fund Acumen, for instance, defines patient capital as “investment in an early-stage enterprise providing low-income consumers with access to healthcare, water, housing, alternative energy, or agricultural inputs.”

    Both patient capital and venture capital seek a return on investment. Besides its longer time horizon, however, patient capital also has a higher risk tolerance than traditional forms of investment and can perhaps provide more follow-on investment in the event that a company enters a challenging capital environment. 

    Blended/public capital

    Food is a commonwealth sector- we all need a better food system. Investing in food system solutions should involve commonwealth interests, including taxpayer money, and should be based on defined criteria around finding solutions to the biggest problems of our time such as bulwarking our global food system against the consequences of climate change.

    We need more blended capital solutions, where public funds match private sector investment, effectively doubling funding rounds for young startups. Given food’s importance in society, governments should be actively participating in the future food sector and investing in innovation and talent. A great example of the successful deployment of blended/public capital is the Bpifrance story (Banque Publique d’Investissements France), the French government’s investment bank arm.

    In an in-depth piece for Sifted, reporter Chris O’Brien writes about the success of ‘La French Tech’ being underwritten by Bpifrance:

    “To understand the secret of France’s entrepreneurial boom, take a close look at state bank Bpifrance, an economic beast whose tentacles reach into every corner of this nation’s innovation ecosystem. Between direct and indirect investments, Bpifrance poured €1.6bn into French tech startups and venture funds in 2022 alone, up from €1.51bn in 2021…A closer look at the cap tables of the 120 companies reveals that 51 raised some kind of direct investment from Bpifrance, according to Dealroom…Even in Europe, where government investment in the economy is de rigueur, Bpifrance stands apart. And, a decade after its creation, its mission continues to expand with programmes to stop climate change and rebuild France’s industrial base.” 

    The ‘Shared Prosperity’ model and redeemable equity

    Gutter Capital offers a model they dub “shared prosperity”, a  model that “derives from 16th century maritime commerce…“Sailing crude vessels on treacherous routes from Europe to Asia and the Americas, early navigators risked death or capture on the high seas to deliver their cargo. As compensation, ship captains would take 20% of the profit from goods carried. Carried interest was born. Today, carried interest refers to how venture capitalists are compensated, taking 20% of the profits from the investments they make. Where sea captains risked life and limb to earn their keep, today’s venture capitalists enjoy the spoils of conquest while remaining safe on shore…The Gutter Infinity Fund will attempt to share the wealth by spreading both risks and rewards across the fund’s stakeholders…Our view is that founders are getting a raw deal,” Teran tells Fast Company, “so we’re putting our money where our mouth is and doing something about it.”

    Food tech companies can also consider nontraditional equity structures such as redeemable equity. Can Atacik, founder of Alethina Impact Investments and Advisory, founding partner of ImpACTNOW Capital, and a venture partner of Venture Science talks about how climate entrepreneurs in particular can leverage redeemable equity to raise funding on alternative terms.

    “Some climate founders may have a venture that doesn’t have a likely exit on a 10-15 year horizon (or exiting may not even be the right outcome). Keeping the business private long-term may lead to better business outcomes and climate impact, and founders may want to have the right to regain ownership over time.”

    Redeemable equity enables founders to buy back ownership from VCs at pre-defined terms, which means investors can still have a compelling exit without forcing an IPO or acquisition. While the upside can be lower, a redeemable structure does mean greater downside protection than traditional VC.

    An increasing (though small) number of startups are pursuing non-traditional equity models during fundraising. A German femtech team just raised a seed round that included the co-founder creating her own sustainable financing instrument, dubbed the Future Profit Partnership Agreement (FPPA). As reported here, she developed a “a mezzanine financial instrument that combines advantages of equity and debt capital and enables an appropriate return for investors…Instead of a conventional equity round, they offer a profit share. The agreement ends as soon as the return is achieved…Profits are a means to an end and are reinvested, used to cover capital costs or donated.”

    Venture debt

    With the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), there has been a significant uptake in financial services and banks targeting venture debt (the higher interest rate environment has helped as well). This is a form of financing that allows Series A and B startups to finance capex or other working capital needs even when they are cashflow negative or only at pilot stage from a revenue standpoint.  In addition, we are starting to see project finance firms put up the capital for equipment especially if that equipment can be moved or re-used in the event of a default. 

    However, this form of capital still does not solve for the physical space constraints of creating an industrial food ecosystem. It also does not provide enough capital to truly build large-scale infrastructure and ultimately venture debt is still bound to a startup’s ability to raise its next round.  As such it certainly can help a startup as it begins to commercialize but won’t provide the capital required for the industry to mature. 

    Low-interest government-backed loans

    At a cellular agriculture conference last week, alternative protein think tank founder Bruce Friedrich underlined the importance of government support for the cultivated meat sector and he specifically cited low-interest government loans as a key mechanism to boost innovation and help startups scale in a nascent industry, highlighting how vital these loans had been for electric vehicle pioneers.

    “Elon Musk says they would have failed twice, if not for long-term low-interest government loans. There is no solar industry, there is no EV [electric vehicle] industry, there is no biopharma industry, if not for governments helping the companies that can’t qualify for standard bank loans, giving them long-term low-interest loans,” said Friedrich. Low-interest government-backed loans have been notably absent as an option for future food founders. One reason for this? Food has not yet reached mainstream consciousness as a key climate concern. This needs to change, given the importance of adapting food systems to reach net global zero goals.

    One could argue that no other sector matters as much as food if humanity is to continue to thrive amidst an increasingly acute climate crisis. As such, it’s critical to explore new types of financing and new invested capital formats to support the food tech sector and its community of innovators and entrepreneurs. 

    Sonalie Figueiras is a journalist, serial climate entrepreneur, longtime food systems change activist and the founding editor of Green Queen Media.

    Maximilian von Poelnitz is a venture partner with Ajinomoto helping to set up their new $100m venture capital fund. He has deep experience in food, bio, and climate tech investing following his roles as an investment director and managing partner at DSM Venturing and New Territory Ventures respectively. 

    The post Opinion: Future Food Tech Funding Needs A Complete Overhaul appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Kelpon: German Female Founding Duo Raises 7-Figure Seed for World’s First Seaweed Tampon with Self-Created Financial Instrument

    vyld
    4 Mins Read

    Vyld, the female-founded Berlin startup making sustainable period products from algae, has secured a seven-figure sum in seed funding that includes a financing instrument they created themselves.

    Three years after launch, Vyld has raised funding worth seven figures using a novel financing model, helping its mission to disrupt the feminine care industry. The company will use the investment to launch Kelpon, the world’s first tampon made from seaweed, and accelerate the development of its period diaper.

    The investment is a combination of German government and EU funds, and angel and VC capital, leveraging a self-developed sustainable financing instrument, the Future Profit Partnership Agreement (FPPA). Created by co-founder Ines Schiller, the model blends the advantages of equity and debt capital, and aligns with Vyld’s vision of steward ownership and self-sustenance.

    The startup will use the funds to launch to market what it claims is the world’s first tampon made from seaweed, while continuing to develop its incontinence pads. It’s part of a long-term vision of creating an Algaeverse of healthy, sustainable and circular products tapping seaweed’s potential to develop a regenerative economy and promote ocean conservation, which helps Vyld contribute to 12 of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals.

    seaweed tampons
    Courtesy: Vyld

    Built on a unique regenerative financing model

    Crafted by Schiller, a former film producer, Vyld’s mezzanine financial instrument ensures the company remains independent, allowing profits to be reinvested, used to cover capital costs, or funnelled into philanthropic purposes – all the while enabling an appropriate return for investors. Instead of having an exit-based model like traditional VC startups, Vyld focuses on longer-term sustainability.

    Steward ownership has two core principles. The first is self-governance, which means the voting rights of the company always remain with active employees, rather than external investors. The second is a profit-for-purpose approach, which means its profits can’t be privatised. So instead of being redistributed to shareholders, they’re reinvested in the company’s mission. It means that Vyld as a business owns itself.

    Under the FPPA, the startup offers profit shares instead of a conventional equity round. Once the returns are achieved, the agreement ends. This means new investments can be secured outside of the typical equity round cycle, giving the company financial independence. This model appeals to investors who are interested in regenerative financing and are critics of maximalist financial principles.

    “Tackling questions of ownership, power and financing is crucial to me as an entrepreneur. Business models create realities and extractive models do not only threaten the environment and health, but also reproduce exploitative standards and anti-democratic tendencies,” explained Schiller. “We want to counter this with a model that promotes creation instead of consumption, quality instead of quantity and triple top line instead of hypergrowth.”

    Kai Viehof, one of Vyld’s investors, added: “Vyld shows that neither shareholder-value-driven venture capital nor unbridled growth is needed to successfully implement sustainable ideas that really make a difference for our planet and our society. However, change can only become possible on a broad scale if investors also rethink and provide the necessary capital fairly and with reasonable return expectations.”

    As part of the company’s knowledge-sharing commitment, it is making this financial model available as an open-source case study to encourage other businesses to adopt a similar regenerative approach.

    vyld tampon
    Courtesy: Vyld

    Vyld will release seaweed tampons this year, with diapers in development

    Vyld was founded by Schiller and Melanie Schichan in 2021, with the long-term target of creating an entire ecosystem of non-food seaweed products under the Algaeverse, which entails both B2B and B2C offerings. The aim is to transform a menstrual health sector that produces high amounts of waste.

    The startup claims that 90% of all period products employed are single-use, and plastic makes up a big chunk of their composition. Plastic comprises 90% of the content in disposable period pads, which is the equivalent of four plastic bags. It means these are not biodegradable and can take up to 600 years to decompose.

    The seaweed Vyld uses in its menstrual products, though, biodegrades on land and in water, requires no fertilisers to grow, and doesn’t need to be bleached (unlike conventional tampons). Plus, it sequesters huge amounts of carbon and nitrogen while growing, offers anti-inflammatory benefits during use, and can also be applied across a range of materials, from tampon cores to external packaging.

    The startup’s initial products are the Kelpon (a tampon) and Dyper (a diaper). The former was part of a successful trial with over 100 consumers late last year and is now being prepared for market launch. The latter is in pilot phase, part of a Windelwald (‘diaper forest’) project in partnership with German sanitary solutions company Goldeimer.

    An algae-based compostable diaper without plastic or superabsorbent polymers, the Dyper is being trialled in 50 households both for everyday use and its potential as a humus fertiliser. The used diapers are composted under controlled conditions, and the fertilisers help plant a forest – hence the name ‘diaper forest’.

    It’s an exercise in regeneration, marrying the ethos of the financial model with its product offering. It puts Vyld in pole position to disrupt a $30B market with sustainability and ethics at the heart of things.

    The post Kelpon: German Female Founding Duo Raises 7-Figure Seed for World’s First Seaweed Tampon with Self-Created Financial Instrument appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Does Your Bank Support Fossil Fuels? Make 2024 the Year You Move Your Money

    4 Mins Read

    With online bank-checking tool Bank.Green, you can figure out whether you’re banking with fossil fuel backers. 

    2024 might just be the year when more of us can choose wisely when it comes to where we bank. Thanks to a sustainable banking campaign called Bank.Green, people can search whether they are supporting banks that continue to invest in dirty energy despite the climate crisis. 

    Bank-checking tool

    The bank-checking tool, which was first launched in 2021, allows users to search up their bank, generating a result on a red-to-green metre. There are multiple categories, ranging from Worst and Bad to OK, Good and Great. At the top of the green scale are banks rated Great, which have agreed to not provide any financing to fossil fuels and have backed up their claims with third-party verification. 

    Most of the data comes from investigations by NGOs such as the Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack and Reclaim Finance, as well as Bank.Green’s research. 

    Courtesy: Bank.Green

    If you search for HSBC, Bank.Green gives a red rating and provides information about the US$144.9 billion the corporation has funnelled into coal, oil and gas between 2016-2022. The bank also holds the title of being the second most generous financier of fracking in the UK and the largest backer of coal within Europe. 

    Related: HSBC’s greenwashing tactics – the banking industry’s dubious sustainability claims

    Where you put your money matters

    The reason why your banking choices matter is because the money entrusted to banks is currently being used to fund dirty energy and other climate-wreaking projects. 

    “Without your money, banks cannot make these loans and investments,” reads Bank.Green’s explainer. “It is up to you to choose – safeguard your money with banks that support fossil fuels, or those that do not.”

    The impact of the banking industry reemerged in the headlines lately, thanks to award-winning actress Olivia Coleman’s satirical video campaign produced by Make My Money Matter. In the advert, the actress starred as Oblivia Coalmine, a “latex clad oil exec paid for by our pensions”. In the UK, £88 billion of the nation’s pension savers money is used to back fossil fuels. 

    As a non-profit organisation, Bank.Green hopes to raise awareness about the banking industry’s role in the climate crisis. According to data from the Banking on Climate Chaos report led by global environmental NGOs including the Sierra Club and the Rainforest Action Network, more than $5.5 trillion has been poured into the fossil fuel industry between 2016-2022. 

    Just 60 of the world’s top banks were responsible for the staggering figure, with names like HSBC, SMBC of Japan and ING among some of the worst offenders. The latter, ING based in the Netherlands, invested more than €7 billion between 2016-2017, as per data from Fair Finance International. 

    Related: How to get your portfolio into climate shape

    Courtesy: Clay Banks via Unsplash

    What is a sustainable bank?

    But all this scrutiny amounts to little real impact unless consumers make the change. Unless banks face monetary pressure to halt their investments in fossil fuels, it is unlikely that the industry will move towards greener practices. 

    Bank.Green says that it hopes to help guide money away from unsustainable banks by generating practical solutions, like switching to what it has dubbed a “fossil-free bank”. Under the non-profit’s Fossil-Free Banking Alliance, banks that have ended their connections to coal, oil and gas are identifiable with a certification badge. 

    Among some of the banks certified include the online-only Clean Energy Credit Union based in Colorado, and Texas-headquartered Green Dot, currently the world’s largest prepaid debit card company by market cap. 

    Courtesy: Bank.Green

    “There are a lot of fossil-free banks out there that don’t have a way of shouting about it yet,” said Bank.Green co-founder Zak Gottlieb, at the time of the alliance’s launch in late 2022. “Fossil Free Certification is the simplest way to signal to customers, professionals in the banking sector, and the general public that a sustainability-conscious financial institution is putting its money where its mouth is.”

    However, fossil-free banking options remain sparse in places like Asia. Hong Kong, for instance, is devoid of a single bank certified under Bank.Green’s scheme. In these cases, the non-profit advises consumers to apply pressure through a pledge or raise sustainability concerns directly with their financial provider. 

    The post Does Your Bank Support Fossil Fuels? Make 2024 the Year You Move Your Money appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Does Your Bank Support Fossil Fuels? Make 2024 the Year You Move Your Money

    4 Mins Read

    With online bank-checking tool Bank.Green, you can figure out whether you’re banking with fossil fuel backers. 

    2024 might just be the year when more of us can choose wisely when it comes to where we bank. Thanks to a sustainable banking campaign called Bank.Green, people can search whether they are supporting banks that continue to invest in dirty energy despite the climate crisis. 

    Bank-checking tool

    The bank-checking tool, which was first launched in 2021, allows users to search up their bank, generating a result on a red-to-green metre. There are multiple categories, ranging from Worst and Bad to OK, Good and Great. At the top of the green scale are banks rated Great, which have agreed to not provide any financing to fossil fuels and have backed up their claims with third-party verification. 

    Most of the data comes from investigations by NGOs such as the Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack and Reclaim Finance, as well as Bank.Green’s research. 

    Courtesy: Bank.Green

    If you search for HSBC, Bank.Green gives a red rating and provides information about the US$144.9 billion the corporation has funnelled into coal, oil and gas between 2016-2022. The bank also holds the title of being the second most generous financier of fracking in the UK and the largest backer of coal within Europe. 

    Related: HSBC’s greenwashing tactics – the banking industry’s dubious sustainability claims

    Where you put your money matters

    The reason why your banking choices matter is because the money entrusted to banks is currently being used to fund dirty energy and other climate-wreaking projects. 

    “Without your money, banks cannot make these loans and investments,” reads Bank.Green’s explainer. “It is up to you to choose – safeguard your money with banks that support fossil fuels, or those that do not.”

    The impact of the banking industry reemerged in the headlines lately, thanks to award-winning actress Olivia Coleman’s satirical video campaign produced by Make My Money Matter. In the advert, the actress starred as Oblivia Coalmine, a “latex clad oil exec paid for by our pensions”. In the UK, £88 billion of the nation’s pension savers money is used to back fossil fuels. 

    As a non-profit organisation, Bank.Green hopes to raise awareness about the banking industry’s role in the climate crisis. According to data from the Banking on Climate Chaos report led by global environmental NGOs including the Sierra Club and the Rainforest Action Network, more than $5.5 trillion has been poured into the fossil fuel industry between 2016-2022. 

    Just 60 of the world’s top banks were responsible for the staggering figure, with names like HSBC, SMBC of Japan and ING among some of the worst offenders. The latter, ING based in the Netherlands, invested more than €7 billion between 2016-2017, as per data from Fair Finance International. 

    Related: How to get your portfolio into climate shape

    Courtesy: Clay Banks via Unsplash

    What is a sustainable bank?

    But all this scrutiny amounts to little real impact unless consumers make the change. Unless banks face monetary pressure to halt their investments in fossil fuels, it is unlikely that the industry will move towards greener practices. 

    Bank.Green says that it hopes to help guide money away from unsustainable banks by generating practical solutions, like switching to what it has dubbed a “fossil-free bank”. Under the non-profit’s Fossil-Free Banking Alliance, banks that have ended their connections to coal, oil and gas are identifiable with a certification badge. 

    Among some of the banks certified include the online-only Clean Energy Credit Union based in Colorado, and Texas-headquartered Green Dot, currently the world’s largest prepaid debit card company by market cap. 

    Courtesy: Bank.Green

    “There are a lot of fossil-free banks out there that don’t have a way of shouting about it yet,” said Bank.Green co-founder Zak Gottlieb, at the time of the alliance’s launch in late 2022. “Fossil Free Certification is the simplest way to signal to customers, professionals in the banking sector, and the general public that a sustainability-conscious financial institution is putting its money where its mouth is.”

    However, fossil-free banking options remain sparse in places like Asia. Hong Kong, for instance, is devoid of a single bank certified under Bank.Green’s scheme. In these cases, the non-profit advises consumers to apply pressure through a pledge or raise sustainability concerns directly with their financial provider. 

    The post Does Your Bank Support Fossil Fuels? Make 2024 the Year You Move Your Money appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Climate Tech Funding Drops 30% in 2023, Despite Overall Positive Post-Covid Trend

    6 Mins Read

    2023 turned out to be a shaky year for investment into the climate tech space, though overall funding has remained on an uptrend since 2020. 

    A new report summarising the key investment trends in the climate tech industry has revealed a 30% year-on-year drop in funding in 2023. Overall, climate tech venture and growth investment reached just $32 billion, marking the first annual decline in the post-pandemic era. 

    Describing the market as having “hit pause” in the last year, analysts say the sector has now evolved into one “more focused on large-scale deployments that approach being bankable and boring”. The annual report was published by market intelligence firm Slightline Climate (CTVC), based on data from venture capital and growth equity deals publicly announced throughout 2023. 

    Slower growth in 2023, transport leads the way with 6 of 10 biggest deals of the year

    Despite a notable peak in financing in the third quarter of the year, which reeled in $12.5 billion, funding in 2023 was in a notable decline compared to the previous years since 2020. Deal counts also decreased for the first time since 2020, with figures down 3% year-on-year. 

    The uptick in Q3 results is consistent with prior quarterly funding trends, but last year’s was mainly a result of mega-rounds such as the H2 Green Steel and Ascend Elements deals. Described as the “mega investment drivers”, the 10 largest deals across 2023 made up nearly a quarter (24%) of total annual climate investment. 

    These mega-rounds were dominated by the transport sector, bagging 6 of the top 10 deals. Batteries, a subfield of the industry, led the pack, with Northvolt raising $1.6 billion in two funding rounds to scale up battery production in Europe while US battery facility Redwood Materials secured $1 billion. 

    Along with the energy sector, transport and energy together bagged 60% of total investment since 2020. 

    Courtesy: Unsplash

    Related: Can AI tech fight climate change without a mega emissions footprint?

    Smaller deals, fewer rounds

    Zooming in, the overall 30% drop in funding into climate tech was the result of fewer rounds and smaller sizes in the deals that did happen. 

    In 2023, the average deal size declined by 28% compared to the year before, while deal count fell by a smaller margin of 3%. There were fewer numbers of seed and series A rounds, down 12% and 11%, respectively. Even bigger drops were seen in later-stage deals, with series C and growth investment falling by 35% and 41%, respectively. 

    “Growth funding shrank as a share of overall funding, making up 39% of total funding in 2023, compared to its 50% share in earlier years,” the report states. “Many companies suffering valuation overhangs from previous earlier rounds are opting to extend runway and grow into their prior valuations rather than attempt to raise more large rounds.” 

    The primary reason for the sluggish numbers was rising interest rates and growing supply chain costs, which analysts believe made 2023 a difficult year for firms to kickstart production. In some cases, project cancellations occurred, further deterring investors from opening up their wallets in late-stage rounds. 

    Climate tech funding ‘down, but not out’

    Though the numbers suggest a bleak future, analysts maintained an overall balanced outlook, attributing the trends to the broader economic landscape. 

    “In 2023, a challenging macro environment marked by higher interest rates and a cautious private investment market raised the hurdles for deployment,” the Sightline Climate report authors shared. “Now looking forward, interest rates are expected to come down, rules around policy incentives and regulation are emerging, and international competition has become a driving force for climate tech.” 

    If we look at the current figures against 2020 numbers, most verticals are still green, a sign of encouraging growth overall. Since 2020, around 2,600 climate tech firms have raised over $142 billion of venture funding across 4,156 deals. 

    Food and land use was the only sector where investment was lower in 2023 compared to three years ago. At the current rate, analysts believe that food and land use investment will be outstripped by industry in 1-2 years unless the space sees a major change of headwinds in favour of climate-friendly solutions for nature restoration and livestock. 

    Related: What will shape the Future of Food in 2024? 

    Climate activity is still up: 36% increase in 2023

    Another area of light is total activity rates, which jumped 36% from 1,910 active climate tech startups in 2022 to 2,589 by December 2023. 

    “So while total investment is down, activity in the climate ecosystem is way up,” says the report, which detailed the energy sector as one which saw the most movement. 

    Interestingly, deal activity is indicative of global emissions, which is not the case when we look at the actual amounts invested. In other words, activity in each climate tech sector is aligned with global emissions, while funding numbers showed a mismatch, with transport relatively overfunded and energy and industry being underfunded. 

    For example, transport is responsible for 15% of total GHG emissions, but reigned in roughly 37% of private funding for the last 3 years. Energy and industry, on the other hand, were underfunded mainly due to the slower pace of innovation in industrial decarbonisation, though these imbalances are slowly evening out in 2023. 

    “In 2023 we witnessed a positive tick in the right direction, with increased investment in Industry and in non-renewable Energy sectors such as Hydrogen and Energy Storage.”

    Corporates buy-in, fewer repeat investors

    According to the report, the number of investors who deployed capital on 5+ deals in 2023 declined by 25% year-on-year. This trend was consistent across all verticals and was a continuation of the negative repeat investor figures recorded in the 2022 annual report. 

    In 2023, the number of general climate investors went down by 4% to just 833 unique investors, with the biggest drop in investor interest in the food and land use sector. 

    Courtesy: Unsplash

    Meanwhile, big corporates made a splash in headlines, demonstrating their huge buying power and bagging most of the leaderboard spots in the most active climate acquirers of the year. 

    Oil giant Shell, for instance, bought out 7 climate tech firms since 2021, including Davion, Daystar Power and Inspire Clean Energy. Its rival BP also bought 5 companies since 2020, including Archaea Energy, Amply Power, and Open Energi.

    “Acquisitions are seen as a way for corporates to transition their offerings for the new climate economy,” commented the report authors. 

    Other major acquisitions include Schneider Electric’s buy-out of 4 tech companies in the energy, transport and climate management space, as well as Nasdaq’s investment into Metrio Software, Puro.earth and OneReport, all climate software names. 

    Aside from acquisitions, corporates also poured capital into late-stage and growth rounds, with Aramco Ventures launching a $1.5 billion Sustainability Fund and names like Microsoft appearing among the largest mega-rounds of the year.

    The post Climate Tech Funding Drops 30% in 2023, Despite Overall Positive Post-Covid Trend appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • New VC Joyful Ventures Will Buoy Alternative Protein Category With $23 Million Fund

    Joyful Ventures founders
    3 Mins Read

    The new venture capital fund, Joyful Ventures, has unveiled a formidable $23 million climate venture fund to propel the transition of the colossal $1.5 trillion global animal protein sector toward sustainable food practices.

    The Joyful Ventures fund is helmed by Milo Runkle, Jennifer Stojkovic, and Blaine Vess, who all bring a wellspring of knowledge in alternative protein. It marks the first LGBTQ and woman-led protein fund.

    Runkle, a prominent advocate for food system reform and alternative protein pioneer, founded and led the nonprofit Mercy for Animals for more than two decades, facilitating partnerships with corporate giants including Walmart, Nestlé, and McDonald’s, bringing welfare improvements to more than 2 billion animals.

    Stojkovic, a celebrated figure in food-tech innovation, has been a powerhouse in tech industry circles, working alongside stalwarts like Google, Microsoft, and Meta. A best-selling author and founder of the Vegan Women Summit, she is an influential angel investor and advisor to some of the industry’s largest plant-based brands.

    Vess is an experienced entrepreneur and investor, who brings a history of startup success and extensive investment experience having backed over fifty early-stage companies.

    Pre-seed B2B focus

    The launch comes amid a challenging VC climate as 2023 has seen a significant reduction in investor support following an investment surge of $329 billion in 2021 and 2022. But the founders say they see great opportunity amid the down market; hey plan to invest the fund in disruptive and innovative pre-seed and seed-stage global startups specializing in a broad spectrum of technologies including plant-based, precision fermentation, mycoproteins, molecular agriculture, and cultivated technologies, with an emphasis on B2B opportunities.

    Bluu Seafood's cultured fish
    Bluu Seafood’s cultured fish | Courtesy

    “We’re not just passively investing in promising sustainable food technology startups,” Stojkovic said in a statement. “Our team is fully committed to leveraging our expertise, powerful network, and industry insights to nurture our portfolio companies, guiding them towards growth and success. Not many in the industry have access to the industry’s top founders and CEOs at their fingertips like our team. This kind of connectedness and mentorship experience is invaluable for our founders.”

    “We believe that the global movement toward food transformation is expanding and accelerating. The future is full of multi-billion dollar, world-changing sustainable protein companies whose founders face critical challenges, particularly in the pre-seed and seed stages,” Vess said.

    The fund is supported by an advisory team and LPs, comprising global industry founders and CEOs from diverse backgrounds including Bjorn Oste, Co-Founder of Oatly, Dr. Sandhya Sriram, CEO of Shiok Meats, Ryan Bethencourt, Co-founder of Indie Bio and CEO of Wild Earth, and Arturo Elizondo, CEO of EVERY.

    ‘Investing in global transformation’

    “We are not just investing in companies; we are investing in global transformation,” Runkle said. “We are proud to champion entrepreneurs forging a future where nutritious, sustainable food is universally accessible.”

    Ivy Farms cell-cultured meat
    Ivy Farms cell-cultured meat | Courtesy

    As the climate crisis increases, Joyful will focus on preventing more greenhouse gases “rather than trying to deal with the carbon, methane, and the nitrogen that we’re creating,” Stojkovic said. “[L]et’s prevent it from happening by changing what is on our plates,” she said.

    According to data from Boston Consulting Group investing in plant-based protein is 11 times more impactful from a climate investment perspective than EVs, it’s three times more impactful than decarbonizing cement, and four times more impactful than green building, and yet, Stojkovic says “that’s where you keep continuing to see most of the investments go. If you are interested in investing in climate, and you want real, scalable, quick solutions, there’s nothing better than food.”

    The post New VC Joyful Ventures Will Buoy Alternative Protein Category With $23 Million Fund first appeared on Green Queen.

    The post New VC Joyful Ventures Will Buoy Alternative Protein Category With $23 Million Fund appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • I Attended COP27 As A Youth Delegate. Here Are My Takeaways.

    COP27 youth delegates
    4 Mins Read

    I was a youth delegate at COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh. It was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. I saw history being made in many ways. Below I share my takeaways.

    COP27 is an important milestone in the climate race but is also a work in progress that still has a great deal of room for improvement. It is undeniable that ground-breaking decisions were made during the conference on climate justice, but no development was made on phasing-out fossil fuels.

    The Establishment of A Loss and Damage Fund

    Loss and Damage, the economic and non-economic impact of climate disasters, has been a sensitive topic in the past decades. Most governmental institutions from developed regions are reluctant to contribute to loss and damage finance since it could imply the liability of historical emissions. This year, vulnerable countries, led by Pakistan which experienced one of the worst floods in history earlier this year but has a greenhouse gas emission of less than 1% of global emissions, aggressively fought for the fund. This was the first time that Loss and Damage was included in the COP agenda, which definitely proves that international institutions are aware of the importance of climate justice, and protecting the rights of the most at-risk populations.

    “A fund for loss and damage is essential—but it’s not an answer if the climate crisis washes a small island state off the map—or turns an entire African country to desert,” mentioned in U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres’s tweet. Mitigation and adaptation efforts should come together while solving the intensifying climate crisis in developing countries. The Loss and Damage fund is a breakthrough, but we are still waiting for transparency on the use of climate finance as well as allocation criteria. 

    Fossil Fuels and A Just Transition

    “A clear commitment to phase-out all fossil fuels? Not in this text,” said Alok Sharma, President of COP26. There were over 600 fossil fuel lobbyists at COP this year, with a greater influence than any frontline communities. These delegates, together with producing states baulked, and we do not see much progress made on fossil fuels after the “phase-down” agreement in COP26. The situation is worrying, especially when global emissions from fossil fuels will reach another record high in 2022, not to mention the emission level would need to halve within 11 years to reach the 1.5 degree Celsius Paris temperature target. 

    The good news is both private and public sectors have started putting just transition in place, the fair and equitable transformation when moving towards a low-carbon economy. Everyone has been discussing the renewable energy transition. But what about the people who depend their lives on fossil fuel-intensive industries? They should be granted the opportunity to receive retraining opportunities, and this is not limited to only the energy field, but also many other ones that might be affected by sustainability transitions. It is delighted to see that the first-ever Just Transition Pavilion was launched in COP27, and the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) with Indonesia was announced during G20 to support the shift from coal to renewables. Yet, UAE, a major oil-producing nation, will be hosting COP28 next year. I hope they can take a more balanced approach without allowing fossil fuel lobbyists to wield too much influence.

    A Louder Youth Voice

    The role of youths in international climate change conferences is finally getting more attention, with young people becoming official stakeholders in climate policy under the Action for Climate Empowerment action plan. It was impressive how hundreds of youngsters came together at the first Children and Youth Pavilion at COP, exchanging ideas and sharing experiences on local climate issues. As part of the official youth constituency of UNFCCC (YOUNGO), I got the opportunity to join a bilateral meeting with Alok Sharma, the President of COP26 during the second week of COP27 to deliver the demand of our generation through discussing the Global Youth Statement drafted by YOUNGO members. It was a rewarding experience to share our thoughts as global youths with high-level climate leaders. While I appreciate how the younger generations are able to make use of COP27 to make their voices heard by international leaders, I hope this is not only a “youth-washing” act. The new generation is disproportionately affected by climate change, and they deserve to be heard. I look forward to seeing the innovative mindsets and passion of young people to drive future climate action, in addition to how youths’ demands can be included in future COP agreements.

    What’s next?

    There are a lot of “first-ever” moments during this COP, and what’s next? The discussion on how to curb climate change will have to go on. While we are reassured to see governments recommit to keeping 1.5 alive instead of backsliding on climate agreements, it is important to note that global emission is anticipated to peak by 2025. This COP did make some progress, especially on the loss and damage fund. But guess we will have to wait till next year to see more implementation details.

    Lead image courtesy of Canva.

    The post I Attended COP27 As A Youth Delegate. Here Are My Takeaways. appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • The ‘Loss and damage’ fund breakthrough offers hope, but COP27’s overall outcome remains inadequate

    cop27 loss and damage
    5 Mins Read

    By: Matt McDonald, Associate Professor of International Relations, The University of Queensland

    For 30 years, developing nations have fought to establish an international fund to pay for the “loss and damage” they suffer as a result of climate change. As the COP27 climate summit in Egypt wrapped up over the weekend, they finally succeeded.

    While it’s a historic moment, the agreement of loss and damage financing left many details yet to be sorted out. What’s more, many critics have lamented the overall outcome of COP27, saying it falls well short of a sufficient response to the climate crisis. As Alok Sharma, president of COP26 in Glasgow, noted:

    Friends, I said in Glasgow that the pulse of 1.5 degrees was weak. Unfortunately it remains on life support.

    But annual conferences aren’t the only way to pursue meaningful action on climate change. Mobilisation from activists, market forces and other sources of momentum mean hope isn’t lost.

    People in Pakistan carry belongings through flood waters
    Catastrophic floods inundated Pakistan this year. A loss and damage fund would help countries recover from disasters like this. AP Photo/Fareed Khan, File

    One big breakthrough: loss and damage

    There were hopes COP27 would lead to new commitments on emissions reduction, renewed commitments for the transfer of resources to the developing world, strong signals for a transition away from fossil fuels, and the establishment of a loss and damage fund.

    By any estimation, the big breakthrough of COP27 was the agreement to establish a fund for loss and damage. This would involve wealthy nations compensating developing states for the effects of climate change, especially droughts, floods, cyclones and other disasters.

    Most analysts have been quick to point out there’s still a lot yet to clarify in terms of donors, recipients or rules of accessing this fund. It’s not clear where funds will actually come from, or whether countries such as China will contribute, for example. These and other details are yet to be agreed.

    We should also acknowledge the potential gaps between promises and money on the table, given the failure of developed states to deliver on US$100 billion per year of climate finance for developing states by 2020. This was committed to in Copenghagen in 2009.

    But it was a significant fight to get the issue of loss and damage on the agenda in Egypt at all. So the agreement to establish this fund is clearly a monumental outcome for developing countries most vulnerable to the effects of climate change – and least responsible for it.

    It was also a win for the Egyptian hosts, who were keen to flag their sensitivity to issues confronting the developing world.

    The fund comes 30 years after the measure was first suggested by Vanuatu back in 1991.

    Not-so-good news

    The loss and damage fund will almost certainly be remembered as the marquee outcome of COP27, but other developments were less promising. Among these were various fights to retain commitments made in Paris in 2015 and Glasgow last year.

    In Paris, nations agreed to limit global warming to well below 2℃, and preferably to 1.5℃ this century, compared to pre-industrial levels. So far, the planet has warmed by 1.09℃, and emissions are at record levels.

    Temperature trajectories make it increasingly challenging for the world to limit temperature rises to 1.5℃. And the fact keeping this commitment in Egypt was a hard-won fight casts some doubt on the global commitment to mitigation. China in particular had questioned whether the 1.5℃ target was worth retaining, and this became a key contest in the talks.

    New Zealand Climate Change Minister James Shaw said a group of countries were undermining decisions made in previous conferences. He added this:

    [this] really came to the fore at this COP, and I’m afraid there was just a massive battle which ultimately neither side won.

    Perhaps even more worrying was the absence of a renewed commitment to phase out fossil fuels, which had been flagged in Glasgow. Oil-producing countries in particular fought this.

    Instead, the final text noted only the need for a “phase down of unabated coal power”, which many viewed as inadequate for the urgency of the challenge.

    Man behind a COP27 podium
    Simon Stiell, UN climate chief, speaks during a closing plenary session at COP27. AP Photo/Peter Dejong

    Likewise, hoped-for rules to stop greenwashing and new restrictions on carbon markets weren’t forthcoming.

    Both this outcome, and the failure to develop new commitments to phase out fossil fuels, arguably reflect the power of fossil fuel interests and lobbyists. COP26 President Alok Sharma captured the frustration of countries in the high-ambition coalition, saying:

    We joined with many parties to propose a number of measures that would have contributed to [raising ambition].

    Emissions peaking before 2025 as the science tells us is necessary. Not in this text. Clear follow through on the phase down of coal. Not in this text. Clear commitments to phase out all fossil fuels. Not in this text. And the energy text weakened in the final minutes.

    And as United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres lamented: “Our planet is still in the emergency room”.

    Beyond COP27?

    In the end, exhausted delegates signed off on an inadequate agreement, but largely avoided the backsliding that looked possible over fraught days of negotiations.

    The establishment of a fund for loss and damage is clearly an important outcome of COP27, even with details yet to be fleshed out.

    But otherwise, the negotiations can’t be seen as an unambiguously positive outcome for action on the climate crisis – especially with very little progress on mitigating emissions. And while the world dithers, the window of opportunity to respond effectively to the climate crisis continues to close.

    It’s important to note, however, that while COPs are clearly significant in the international response to the climate crisis, they’re not the only game in town.

    Public mobilisation and activism, market forces, aid and development programs, and legislation at local, state and national levels are all important sites of climate politics – and potentially, significant change.

    There are myriad examples. Take the international phenomenon of school climate strikes, or climate activist Mike Cannon-Brookes’ takeover of AGL Energy. They point to the possibility of action on climate change outside formal international climate negotiations.

    So if you’re despairing at the limited progress at COP27, remember this: nations and communities determined to wean themselves off fossil fuels will do more to blunt the power of the sector than most international agreements could realistically hope to achieve.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Lead image courtesy of Canva.

    The post The ‘Loss and damage’ fund breakthrough offers hope, but COP27’s overall outcome remains inadequate appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Op-Ed: I’m a COP 27 Youth Delegate for Hong Kong. Here’s What I Hope To Achieve.

    COP27 youth delegate op-ed
    4 Mins Read

    As I prepare to go to COP27 as a Hong Kong Youth Delegate selected by CarbonCare InnoLab (CCIL), I am reflecting on what I want to see achieved from what continues to be one of the most important conferences in the world when it comes to the climate emergency. Our work is only just beginning.

    The Glasgow Climate Pact was adopted at COP26 and some progress has been made. A number of countries have indeed committed to phasing out coal and accelerating the transition toward electric vehicles. While it is heartening to see international institutions working towards decarbonization, the reality is we are still waiting for the actual implementation details.

    My generation is eager to see more ambitious and effective action to keep our 1.5-degree target alive, not just pledges. As COP27 approaches, I am desperate to see both the governments and the business world moving from promises to actions to avoid irreversible climate crises. I would like to raise three issues in particular that need immediate attention before it is too late.

    1) Better progress on loss and damage agenda 

    Loss and damage refers to the economic and non-economic losses associated with intensifying climate issues, including homeland destruction and biodiversity loss. According to a report published by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), natural disasters are responsible for the death of 115 people per day and causing USD 202 million in economic losses daily. This issue has remained unresolved, mainly due to countries’ reluctance to contribute part of their financial reserves to those of developing countries.

    COP27 is taking place in Egypt, an African country currently facing climate catastrophes such as droughts and rising sea levels- there should be no excuse for stakeholders not to include loss and damage in their agenda. Parties and international organizations should take this opportunity to push forward the global commitments on loss and damage finance. This should be a topic discussed not only by developing nations but also by developed ones, as they are the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. 

    In addition to the contribution of governments, multinational banks should also take part in accelerating funding for the increasingly severe climate change impacts happening to the vulnerable populations, at which the economic cost is estimated to be between $1 and 1.8 trillion by 2050 in developing countries if no adaptation or precaution are implemented in time. This is true for places like Hong Kong, where research by Climate Central shows that 61% of the city’s residential area will be covered by sea level if the global temperature rise reaches 3 degrees Celsius. Let’s be clear: we are not far from there. Vulnerable, coastal nations might be the first to confront these issues, but they will affect the whole planet eventually. The unimaginable human suffering that is coming due to the consequences of climate change should be the urgency to call on all stakeholders to contribute to loss and damage finance, and COP27 can really set the stage here.

    2) More ambitious nationally determined contributions (NDCs)

    The NDCs submitted during COP26 revealed that the existing effort of all governments combined can only limit global warming to a level of 2.4 degrees Celsius, which is far from the 1.5 degrees Celsius of the Paris temperature limit. And that’s only IF all the committed countries follow through on their NDC pledges. As of 24 October 2022, only 21 countries out of 193 parties to the Paris Agreement have submitted an update on NDCs, with only 15% of global emissions covered by the new contributions. COP27 is where international collaboration should take place, where countries can learn from each other and make improvements on national policies. No one can escape the global climate emergency. Making more aggressive goals is one thing; finding solutions to actually achieve these goals will be where the substance lies. 

    I hope to see global institutions promise to bring down their greenhouse gas emissions and hold themselves accountable at COP27, as well as contribute to the Global Climate Fund that will support global climate-resilient projects. NB: we need 10 times more than the current commitment to reach the target of USD 100 billion. We can only offer a healthy, safe future to the next generation of policymakers join forces to work toward sustainability. 

    3) A path towards a smarter carbon market

    Article 6 of the Paris Agreement laid the foundation for governments to trade carbon with one another to achieve their national climate plans. This is a big deal. The initial intention of this was to incentivize countries to commit to higher decarbonization targets, since theoretically, they are able to cut emissions at a lower cost by using the carbon market mechanism. Yet, if this framework is not utilized properly (double-counting or failing to address additionality), it might become an excuse for nations not to turn down emission levels as they can simply purchase carbon from somewhere else. 

    Both the private sector and government officials are waiting to see what the actual implementation of Article 6 looks like, and we expect more concrete details after COP27. It is understandable that countries are moving towards decarbonization at different paces. The rules of the carbon market mapped out in Article 6 can be a solution, but we should be cautious that it does not become another loophole in climate commitments. Policymakers’ universal goal is to cut emissions while hastening the transformation of sustainable cities and economies, and this should never be compromised.  

    Although efforts and commitments have been made in previous years, our world is still nowhere near on track for a sustainable, equitable future. The numerous global climate disasters that have already taken place this year from Northern American droughts to pan-European forest fires to extreme flooding in Pakistan have repeatedly underlined how urgently we need to adopt more aggressive and concrete climate actions. As we gear up for COP27 this November, my hope is that this international climate change conference can be a turning point in changing pledges into reality.

    Lead image courtesy of

    The post Op-Ed: I’m a COP 27 Youth Delegate for Hong Kong. Here’s What I Hope To Achieve. appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Want to create a better world? Empower more women investors. 

    impact investing women
    7 Mins Read

    By: Helena Wasserman Eriksson & Sonalie Figueiras

    Empowering more women to become investors will unlock billions into ESG investing and help fight the climate crisis.

    You may have seen the recent headlines about Adam Neumann, formerly of WeWork, raising a whopping $350M from leading Silicon Valley venture capitalist Andreessen Horowitz for his new startup Flow after having been famously ousted from his co-working startup for his reckless leadership and for losing billions of dollars of investor money. Apparently, if you are rich, white and male, failing upwards is welcomed and even funded. And this while women and minority founders continue to receive less than 3% of total venture capital investment globally. If white, middle-aged men continue to be the majority of all investors and startup owners, products and services will continue to be designed for them. A good example of this are car seat belts. The automotive industry is a male-led industry. Car seat belts were not designed for women’s bodies or for pregnant women. And wouldn’t you know it, studies show that women are more likely to die or get injured in a car crash. Representation is key so we can build products and services that serve not just a small section of society but also women, children, LGBTQI and people of color. 

    SoGal Ventures 2020 Pitch Competition / Courtesy Pocket Sun

    Women-led VC firm Sogal Ventures, co-founded by Pocket Sun in 2015 , has been investing in diverse founders with ESG criteria right from the start- way before it was popular. As Sun shared with us, “as VCs, we need to exercise our great decision making power of where capital goes with great conscience. To me, this means supporting diverse companies, and fostering more diverse angels and VCs who are more inclined to support world-positive companies benefiting the environmental, social and corporate systems. We’re doing society a disservice and perpetuating the barriers if we do otherwise.” 

    As of 2022, most famous investors are men.  How many of you can name even one of the twelve women on Forbes’ Midas 2022 List? Most of us will draw a blank.This list ranks female investors by their portfolio companies that have gone public or been acquired for at least $200 million over the past five years, or that have at least doubled their private valuation since initial investment to $400 million or more over the same period. But the truth is, when we think of top global investors, most of us are picturing men. Folks like Warren Buffet. Or Bill Gates. Or Ray Dalio. So you can imagine how surprising it was to uncover that actually, women-led investor portfolios perform better than men.

    Female investor & CEO of ZhenFund Anna Fang, who was named to Forbes’ 2021 Midas List 2022

    Women outperform men as investors

    There are countless more studies underlining this conclusion – see here for proof that women outperform as retail investors and here for data about how. VC firms with 10% more female investing partners make more successful investments at the portfolio company level, have 1.5% higher fund returns, and see 9.7% more profitable exits. Perhaps you’re wondering what makes women so different as investors. According to all the research, women tend to remain calm during market swings, have a tendency to save more, think long term and maintain a balanced portfolio amongst other reasons. None of this will come as a surprise to most women reading this. We are the mothers, the sisters, the family budget managers, the community helpers, the school PTA leaders. Thinking about the future and on behalf of others is in our DNA. 

    Women are instinctively back ESG-themed stocks and companies

    A 2021 UBS study revealed that female investors are more inclined to invest in ways that align with ESG (Environmental and Social Governance) values. In other words, the very same investments that are currently making headlines in all major news outlets due to the climate crisis we are all finally waking up to. So not only does research show that women invest better than men, the data illustrates that women instinctively favor ESG themes when they back companies and stocks. 

    Marisa Drew, Chief Sustainability Officer at Standard Chartered Bank; she previously the same position at Credit Suisse / Courtesy FX News Group

    Women own the corporate sustainability space

    As ESG has become the investment trend du jour, corporates have been scrambling to hire talent to create and manage their internal strategy. More and more firms are appointing Chief Sustainability Officers or Heads of ESG, from luxury giant Kering to Big 4 accounting firm EY, as well as German industrial giant Siemens and Swiss bank Credit Suisse. These new leaders are charged with driving climate and equality actions in their organizations. A little bit of Linkedin digging reveals that in over 80% of cases, these leaders are female. This is yet again unsurprising. The same UBS study showed that women are naturally mindful of the social and environmental impact of their investments. In fact, women show a greater tendency to be prosocial, altruistic and empathetic; to display a stronger ethic of care; and to assume a future-focused perspective. In other words, women are more inclined to look for investments that are in line with their values instead of prioritizing opportunistic investments. 

    Impact investors of the future: Greatest of All Time tennis champion and Serena Ventures founder Serena Williams / Courtesy Pexels

    Twenty years from now, the best investors will be female and they will back impact

    According to 2020 data published by BCG, women make up half of the world’s population but own only a third of all global wealth, despite data suggesting women are investing now more than ever before. 

    If women are better investors and are naturally good at ESG investing, why aren’t there more women investors? Several reasons: The founders of Girls That Invest, a podcast run by two Australian female investors, collected data from over 200,000 female investors asking them what was holding them back from starting to invest. The studies showed that one of the main reasons is a belief they held that women were bad or frivolous investors instead that they could learn. Given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, this is a tragedy. 

    In Singapore, one of the most progressive cities in Asia when it comes to environmental innovation and entrepreneurship, only 2% of VC funding goes into climate tech in Asia. Imagine the progress we could make on the climate emergency if more women became investors? Can you imagine how many trillions of funding would get unlocked if we simply empowered more women to invest whether as retail, angel or venture capital investors?

    Becoming a good investor comes with practice. Crucially, it also comes with confidence. And women everywhere need more of it. 

    Angelina Kwan, CEO of Stratford Finance Ltd and investor, believes training and practice inspires confidence. “Just like professional athletes, women need to learn, train and practice at responsible investing and having the confidence that they are just as good if not better than the Warren Buffets or Ray Dalios of the world! They own it and now they have to SHOW it through their results! Only then can we move the needle to improve the results and have more women on the bench!”

    In twenty years from now, the Warren Buffets and Ray Dalios of tomorrow will be female and they won’t be backing coal- they will be funding green hydrogen, medical psychedelics for mental health, progressive education, a safer food system and so much more. Let’s work to help them get there.

    Helena Wasserman Eriksson is an impact investor and head of business development at Top Tier Impact – the global ecosystem for impact and sustainability leaders. Follow her on Instagram or contact her on Linkedin.

    Sonalie Figueiras is an impact investor, journalist and serial entrepreneur who has dedicated her life to fighting the climate emergency. She is the founder of leading sustainability media Green Queen, climate tech startup Source Green and organic trade platform Ekowarehouse.

    Lead image courtesy of Canva.

    The post Want to create a better world? Empower more women investors.  appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • The 7 Best Vegan Shark Tank Pitches

    5 Mins Read

    These seven Shark Tank appearances proved significant for plant-based entrepreneurs and made for exciting viewing.

    ABC’s Shark Tank has become synonymous with cutthroat deals and investors circling for prime opportunities. As consumer demand for vegan foods increases, the panel of experienced entrepreneurs, particularly Mark Cuban, alongside a range of celebrity guest investors, have shown greater interest in the booming plant-based sector.

    After going vegetarian in 2019, Cuban has led offers for numerous plant-based startups on the show. He has even championed some to appear in the past (see below).

    Best vegan Shark Tank Pitches

    Not all founders have walked away from Shark Tank with a deal in place, but most have conceded that the exposure from a Shark Tank appearance did their companies no harm. Chief amongst them is Deborah Torres, founder of Atlas Monroe, who turned down Mark Cuban’s offer of $1 million to buy her company outright. But deal or no deal, all of these pitches are worth a re-watch.

    Image by Everything Legendary.

    1. Everything Legendary

    Pitch: Vegan beef burgers “made in a kitchen, not a lab”. 

    Deal scooped: $300,000 from Mark Cuban for a 22 percent equity share.

    Significant successes: Widespread distribution into Publix, Sprouts, Ralphs, Safeway and Target and a recently announced partnership with Live Nation to supply vegan food at summer concerts.

    Maryland-based Everything Legendary is a Black-owned startup that set out to change the impact of fast food, particularly on BIPOC communities. Using pea and hemp protein, products are usually lower in calories and higher in protein than competitors’ alternatives. Earlier this year the brand confirmed it has closed a $6 million Series A funding round for total company expansion, including the development of multiple new product lines. 

    2. Project Pollo

    Pitch: Plant-based chicken sold on a ‘pay what you can afford’ basis and in locations that used to be conventional fast-food restaurants. Founder Lucas Bradbury has been vocal about putting Chick-fil-A out of business.

    Deal scooped: None, despite Kevin O’Leary calling the product the “best fake chicken” he had ever eaten.

    Significant successes: More than a dozen restaurants opened in Bradbury’s home state of Texas and multiples are planned for completion out of state, later in 2022. Bradbury received an email from mark Cuban suggesting that he go on the show. Despite completing the rigorous application process, he left without a deal due to the company’s speed of growth. He wasn’t deterred and stated that he acts in ways that are best for Project Pollo only. Investors have been secured since the show aired.

    3. Snacklins

    Pitch: Vegan pork rind snacks that are healthier than their conventional counterpart at 90 calories a serving.

    Deal scooped: $250,000 from Mark Cuban for a five percent equity share and five percent of advisory shares.

    Significant successes: Expansion of its Rockville factory, due to a surge in demand following the television appearance and distribution into more than 2,500 stores across the U.S.

    It has been reported that when he first appeared on Shark Tank, Snacklins’ founder Samy Kobrosly’s company was seeing around $5,000 in online sales per week. Following the episode airing, this shot up, with the Washington startup now surpassing $5.3 million in total sales. Additional distribution is expected to come this year, with new flavour lines being added to the roster as well.

    4. Wild Earth

    Pitch: Vegan dog food for improved pet health.

    Deal scooped: $550,000 from Mark Cuban, for 10 percent equity share.

    Significant successes: Targeted expansion to include vegan supplements for dogs that target joints, digestion and skin.

    Ryan Bethencourt presented his Californian plant-based dog food product to the sharks. His focus on clean protein quickly gained Cuban’s interest and a slew of future investors as well. In 2021, one year after the Shark Tank appearance, Wild Earth netted $23 million in a Series A Plus funding round, with Cuban investing again. Some of the funding will be diverted to Bethencourt’s new interest: cultivated meat for dog and cat food products. 

    5. Cinnaholic

    Pitch: Freshly baked vegan cinnamon rolls, finished with a range of toppings.

    Deal scooped: $200,000 from Robert Harjavec for a 40 percent equity share.

    Significant successes: Opening 69 franchise locations throughout the U.S. and Canada.

    Cinnaholic combines Cinnabon with every ice cream parlour that’s ever existed and a few artisanal doughnut shops too. It creates large, gooey cinnamon rolls that can be topped with a variety of sweet treats, including brownie pieces, fruit, peanut butter and cookie dough, all vegan of course. The Californian startup has moved into catering, cakes and DIY cinnamon roll bars, to keep things interesting.

    6. Pan’s Mushroom Jerky

    Pitch: Umami-forward jerky made using mushrooms.

    Deal scooped: $300,000 from Mark Cuban for an 18 percent equity share. 

    Significant successes: Creating a bidding war between Cuban and fellow sharks Lori Greiner and Blake Mycoskie, who wanted to partner up and offer a joint deal. Nationwide distribution has also been secured since the show aired, with Kroger, Fresh Thyme, Whole Foods and Foxtrot market coming on board.

    Oregon-based Pan’s was inspired by founder Michael Pan’s experience of a mushroom snack in Borneo, which he claims tasted exactly like conventional jerky. Recognising the opportunity to bring a beloved snack to vegan audiences, he develop a line of shitake mushroom-based jerky using clean, protein-rich ingredients. Pan has spoken fondly of his appearance on Shark Tank, calling it a validating and humbling experience.

    7. Mrs. Goldfarb’s Unreal Deli

    Pitch: Vegan deli meats based on classic New York offerings.

    Deal scooped: $250,000 from Mark Cuban for a 20 percent equity share.

    Significant successes: A switch from wholesale-only to retail sales that allowed for a pivot into new lines including turkey and steak slices, alongside the classic vegan corned beef.

    Founder Jenny Goldfarb has commented that she applied for Shark Tank because one ‘Shark’ dollar is worth five consumer dollars, due to the widespread media exposure that follows. Goldfarb founded her company to veganise the classic new York deli sandwiches that she grew up with. Corned beef was her first product launched, with exclusive distribution to food service partners. 

    Lead photo by ABC.

    The post The 7 Best Vegan Shark Tank Pitches first appeared on Green Queen.

    The post The 7 Best Vegan Shark Tank Pitches appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Want To Invest Like Bill Gates? These Are The Alternative Protein Companies He Has A Stake In

    4 Mins Read

    Bill Gates is a repeat investor in the alternative protein sector. He has cited the industry as crucial to helping solve the climate crisis, with alternatives to animal agriculture heralded as essential developments. Not one to just talk about his opinions, Gates has doubled down on his assertions by investing in multiple alt-protein startups, across an array of niches. 

    Below, we have rounded up Gates’ alt protein investment portfolio, which covering all bases across multiple verticals and manufacturing technologies including fermentation, cell-based and conventional plant-protein processing.

    1. Nobell Foods

    Country of origin: U.S.

    Total funding to date: $100 million.

    Participation from Gates: Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Gates’ investment arm, led a $75 million Series B funding round in 2021.

    Nobell Foods is engaged in programming soybeans to produce casein, the protein in dairy that allows cheese to melt, stretch and retain a tangy taste. The startup has been operating under stealth conditions but hopes to have vegan mozzarella and cheddar to debut by the end of 2022. The two varieties have been selected to make the biggest impact on the U.S. market, with the two accounting for 60 percent of all conventional cheese consumed.

    2. Nature’s Fynd

    Country of origin: U.S.

    Total funding to date: $500 million.

    Participation from Gates: Breakthrough Energy Ventures participated in an $80 million Series B funding round in 2020.

    Nature’s Fynd has developed a plant-based protein that it calls Fy. Made using fungi, the biomass fermented protein is slated to have an exceptionally low carbon footprint. In 2021 it gained FDA approval and has since launched vegan breakfast patties into Whole foods Market. 

    Wider global rollout is in the works, with the Asian market a particular focal point for the startup. Vegan meat and cheese products are slated for release.

    3. Beyond Meat

    Country of origin: U.S.

    Total funding to date: $128 million.

    Participation from Gates: The specifics remain unknown. Rumours were floated that shares were sold or transferred to a foundation, ahead of stock price crashes in 2021. 

    Beyond Meat has been an alternative meat leader, landing partnerships with KFC, Pizza Hut, and McDonald’s, among others. The company is currently eyeing expansion in Asia as a route to success, plus expansions with its numerous partnerships with fast-food chains. 

    4. Impossible Foods

    Country of origin: U.S.

    Total funding to date: $2 billion.

    Participation from Gates: Repeat investment totalling a reported $50 million+.

    Arguably Beyond Meat’s biggest competitor, Impossible Foods produces meat alternatives designed to taste and cook more realistically. This is thanks to its development and use of heme, a novel ingredient from the soybean plant root, which imitates the bloody appearance of conventional meat. Impossible has manufactured the full gamut of popular meats, including beef, pork, and chicken. It has also partnered with grocery giant Kroger to develop private label alternative meat lines. 

    5. Upside Foods

    Country of origin: U.S.

    Total funding to date: $600 million.

    Participation from Gates: Repeat investment, including in the most recent $400 million Series C raise.

    Upside Foods is a serious contender in the cultivated meat sector. The company has built a large production facility, dubbed ‘EPIC’, given the public tours to start leveraging positive opinion and is eagerly awaiting regulatory approval for its chicken products. It had hoped to secure said approval before the end of 2021 but progress has been slow. Chicken has already been successfully produced and the company states that beef and duck are being developed as well. 

    Upside was one of the first companies to formally declare it had developed a fetal bovine serum-free growth medium, to drive down costs and raise ethical standards within the cell-based meat scene.

    6. Motif FoodWorks

    Country of origin: U.S.

    Total funding to date: $345 million.

    Participation from Gates: Confirmed repeat participation, including in the most recent $226 million Series B funding round.

    Motif FoodWorks started as an ingredients innovator and has moved into the plant-based meat sector itself. The startup gained FDA approval for its ‘HEMAMI’protein, which adds an ‘authentic’ meaty taste and smell to plant-based products. It also landed the company in hot water with Impossible Foods, which claimed a patent infringement. Motif has strongly denied the claim and has filed its own complaint that Impossible’s patent is meaningless and should be revoked. The case is ongoing. 

    The most recent move into commercial product sales is said to be an ongoing evolution that will see a staggered rollout pushing through to 2023. Beef, chicken, and pork analogues have all been confirmed, with foodservice partners, retailers with private-label ranges and distributors being targeted.

    7. Eat Just

    Country of origin: U.S.

    Total funding to date: $400 million.

    Participation from Gates: Early participation has been confirmed but Eat Just does not disclose all of its fundraising efforts, so exact amounts and timescales are unknown.

    Eat Just’s latest funding round came in March 2021, when the plant-based egg pioneer scooped $200 million. The raise was earmarked to support its plant and cell-based activities, accelerating R&D capabilities for both sides. Since then the company has announced plans for two large production facilities, in the Middle East and Asia, plus gained regulatory approval for E.U. sales of its flagship JUST Egg line. 

    The cultivated meat side of the company, dubbed Good Meat, has gained regulatory approval for a second cell-based chicken product to be sold in Singapore, which remains the only country in the world to give the green light to cultivated meat.

    Lead photo by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

    The post Want To Invest Like Bill Gates? These Are The Alternative Protein Companies He Has A Stake In appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Football Star Chris Smalling Is Making It Easy For Fellow Celebrities To Invest In Planet-Friendly Startups

    4 Mins Read

    Chris Smalling, AC Roma centre-back and former England football team professional, has launched a global investment consultancy. ForGood is a joint venture between Smalling, activist investor Sebastiano Cossia Castiglioni and B-Corp creative agency founder Rebecca Wheeler. Fellow international sportspeople, celebrities and musicians are invited to participate, becoming ‘Changemakers’ in the process of investing.

    ForGood will seek to invest exclusively in startups and entrepreneurs addressing environmental issues, with a focus ambitious and disruptive propositions that help fight the ever-worsening climate crisis. ForGood is looking to invest between £50,000 to £1 million-plus into startups in the pre-seed, seed and Series A phases. 

    Photo by Chris Smalling/Instagram.

    Leveraging the power of celebrity

    Smalling is committed to getting more high profile personalities involved in environmentally progressive projects and use their influence for positive climate action. ForGood will act as the middleman, making it simple for ‘changemakers’ to invest in opportunities that are both profitable and offer planetary benefit.

    “I want to look back on my life as someone who achieved lots on the pitch, but also someone who made a difference on a much greater scale,” Smalling said. “We’re on a simple but huge mission to transform the world for the better and drive a global movement for good. Investing in a more sustainable future shouldn’t have any barriers, and at ForGood we believe that connecting people with a common cause has the power to bring change on a global scale. We want to play a key role in accelerating an ecosystem that actively invests and champions the next generation of responsible businesses, with the ambition to drive a movement of doing things ‘for good’.”

    Smalling will lean on his own experience of investing in planet and health-friendly startups. The footballer turned plant-based six years ago and wants to share his insights with similarly powerful investors. To date he has backed vegan meal delivery service allplants, natural energy drink brand Virtue Drinks and Piñatex, the pineapple alternative to animal leather.

    Photo by Nike/Piñatex.

    A planet-friendly portfolio 

    The team at ForGood comprises of investment experts, strategists, food scientists and brand marketing professionals, allowing for broad, holistic views on potential investments. Castiglioni leads from the front, with his experience in plant-based business investment and venture capital fund heritage. He previously founded Vegan Capital and co-founded Plantesis and Natural Order Acquisition Corp.

    “The future of our children and our planet depends on us and on the choices we make right now, today, not tomorrow. ForGood is on a mission to promote intelligent, radical change, rethinking supply chains and production systems. With the aim of ending animal suffering, and by promoting a cruelty-free, healthy, vegan lifestyle, we will inspire and support a new generation of entrepreneurs and businesses,” Castiglioni said in a statement. “ForGood is committed to building a portfolio of exciting companies and ideas, who share our values and ethics. I’m honoured to be working alongside Chris, Rebecca and our Changemakers, and to be part of a team that’s focused on empathy, progress, and change.”

    ForGood’s portfolio of eleven companies includes Europe’s fastest-growing alternative meat brand Heura, natural laundry startup Dirty Labs, vegan pet food company The Pack and Matthew Kenney Cuisine. Each is supported by ForGood’s consultancy arm that offers brand growth services, led by Wheeler.

    Photo by Future Farm.

    Celebrities supporting the companies of tomorrow

    Influential personalities and celebrities investing in the plant-based and sustainable sector are becoming a trend, with the likes of Beyond Meat and Future Farm welcoming big name celebrity brand ambassadors Kim Kardashian and Anitta, respectively.

    Leonardo DiCaprio is amongst the most prolific serial plant-based investors, regularly lending his support to food techs that offer planet-friendly alternatives to conventional meat and dairy foods.  His most recent investment came in early May when it was announced he had backed Lewis Hamilton’s vegan Neat Burger chain. Participating in the restaurant’s Series B raise as a strategic investor, he commented that the burger startup was the kind of alternative protein interest that will shape real change and result in global emissions reductions. It followed an announcement declaring that he had joined Californian alternative dairy giant Perfect Day’s sustainability council as an advisor. 

    DiCaprio has also backed cultivated meat and seafood firms, including Wildtype, plus environmental documentary Fin.

    Lead photo by Chris Smalling/Instagram.

    The post Football Star Chris Smalling Is Making It Easy For Fellow Celebrities To Invest In Planet-Friendly Startups appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Synthesis Capital Secures $300 Million For Food Tech Investment Opportunities

    4 Mins Read

    London’s Synthesis Capital has closed its first fund, scooping more than $300 million in capital pledges. According to the company, this is the largest dedicated food tech VC of its kind. The year-old investor, Led by Costa Yiannoulis, Rosie Wardle, and David Welch, the fund is looking to support food techs and alternative protein startups. Yiannoulis and Wardle are experienced investors within the sector while Welch, a biologist, brings a unique technical expertise.

    Confirmed fund backers include CPT Capital, Credit Suisse Climate Innovation Fund, Société Familiale d’Investissements, The Nest and Dynamic Loop Capital, amongst others. The fund has earmarked 15 investments, each expected to receive around $15 million in funding.

    Cultivated chicken salad. Photo by Upside Foods.

    Financing the future of food

    Synthesis has back five companies already. Vienna’s Arkeon is notable, as a gas fermentation specialist and sits alongside Californian alternative dairy giant Perfect Day, cultivated meat pioneer Upside Foods and Israel’s Redefine Meat in the portfolio.

    The fund has been initiated to support companies seeking to provide solutions to the current food system’s inherent unsustainability. Yiannoulis and Wardle have stated that since their investment journey with the sector began, back in 2014, the landscape has changed significantly. Today, more investors are looking to support startups focussed on food security and positive climate action. Government and venture capital supporters have both been observed to be participating more, according to Yiannoulis.

    Food tech is no longer an unknown entity. Concepts, such as cultivated meat and precision fermented dairy have been proven viable. Now, companies need to get ahead in eth space through investment and the ability to scale.

    “How we can scale these things is so important, and the two criteria other than obviously rating, that we look for is protectable and scalability,” Yiannoulis told Tech Crunch. “That’s the difference. This is not a science project anymore. It is now about how to actually scale this.”

    An ABEC bioreactor design. Photo by ABEC.

    Accounting for infrastructure

    Scaling isn’t always as simple as moving to larger premises and buying more equipment. In the cultivated meat sector, installing bioreactors large enough to produce demand-appropriate amounts of protein requires custom infrastructure. This can be seen in practice with GOOD Meat’s recent announcement that it is working with ABEC to design and build the world’s largest bioreactors for a new production facility.

    Plant-based and fermentation tech companies commonly fare easier, according to Wardle, as they are usually able to benefit from existing infrastructure and qualified supply chains.

    The lion’s share of investment into food techs appears to be going into what Wardle identifies as the consumer-facing element. This presents an opportunity for future investors to look at developments and technology that are closer to the farm than the fork. She calls these the “foundations of science” in an interview with Tech Crunch.

    Better Bite VC General Partners
    Simon Newstead and Michar Klar. Photo by Better Bite Ventures.

    The funds looking to change the world

    Synthesis Capital joins a number of other venture capital firms seeking to fund sustainable companies. In February, Better Bite Ventures announced it had secured a $15 million fund for supporting the APAC alternative protein sector. The fund, founded by Michal Klar and Simon Newstead, looks to back early-stage founders seeking to usurp animal-based proteins within the region. The two have backed 10 regional startups to date and demonstrated a keen eye for future sector superstars, with TiNDLE amongst their success stories.

    Trellis Road is taking a different tack, as a micro venture capital fund. Started by Anna Ottosson and Erik Byrenius, both former startup founders themselves, the fund offers backing to early-stage food techs with ethical leanings. In January this year it was announced that the fund had reached $18 million, after being initially bootstrapped. It has supported 16 companies across four continents so far.

    Lead image of Synthesis Capital’s founders. Images by Synthesis Capital.

    The post Synthesis Capital Secures $300 Million For Food Tech Investment Opportunities appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • HSBC Responsible Investing Head Stuart Kirk Compares Climate Change to Y2K

    4 Mins Read

    Stuart Kirk, HSBC Asset Management’s (HSBC AM) global head of responsible investing has raised eyebrows following a speech at a Financial Times event. At the Moral Money gathering, hosted on May 19, he compared the climate crisis to the Y2K bug before stating that investors don’t need to worry about climate change.

    Kirk doubled down on his analogy, stating that during his career, there had perpetually been “some nutjob telling me about the end of the world. What bothers me about this one is the amount of work these people make me do.” The controversial statements were made during his Why investors need not worry about climate risk speech.

    Photo by Ryan Parker at Unsplash.

    ‘Who cares if Miami is six metres underwater in 100 years?’

    This was one of Kirk’s questions to the audience. He continued to say that Amsterdam is already in such a predicament but remains a “really nice place” and that “we will cope with it”. Such comments have been deemed as insensitive, at best, given global heatwaves and floods that have been confirmed as worsening due to climate change. 

    Observers might have assumed that the HSBC AM head was outing himself as a climate change denier, but no. The emphatic speaker made it clear that he believes in the science surrounding climate change and that he knows there “will be fires”, but that these can be tackled with ‘adaption’. 

    This last element led neatly into a short tirade about what he sees as HSBC’s failings. Kirk called into question how much climate change really impacts a big financial institution, citing the irreversible consequences as irrelevant to the day-to-day running of the business.

    “At a big bank like ours, what do people think the average loan length is?” he asked his audience. “It is six years. What happens to the planet in year seven is actually irrelevant to our loan book. For coal, what happens in year seven is actually irrelevant.”

    UN special envoy Mark Carney.

    Calling out industry peers

    Mark Carney, ex-governor of the Bank of England, came under fire from Kirk for what he viewed as Carney ‘raising the alarm’ in the climate crisis, from the perspective of the financial services sector. The ex-governor once claimed that the effects of the climate crisis will overshadow the cost of living crisis substantially. Kirk used a direct quote on a presentation slide, declaring that “unsubstantiated, shrill, partisan, self-serving, apocalyptic warnings are ALWAYS wrong”.

    Taking things a step further, Kirk revealed that he views financial professionals that are aligning with climate issues as simply filling their time ahead of retirement and trying to stay relevant. He spoke of people looking to “out-hyperbole the next guy” and central banks skewing figures to push their own climate-aligned agendas.

    Carney, for his part, is now a special envoy for climate action with the United Nations. He is a respected and candid voice within the financial sector, calling for a move away from coal, oil and gas as key investments and fuel sources.

    Photo by M Schultz at Unsplash.

    HSBC and the climate

    Following Kirk’s explosive speech, HSBC AM has sought to distance itself from comments made. CEO Nicolas Moreau released a statement that the remarks made at the Moral Money event “do not reflect the views of HSBC Asset Management nor HSBC Group in any way”.

    “HSBC Asset Management is committed to driving the transition to a sustainable global economy and has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure its clients’ monies are managed for positive long-term environmental and social outcomes,” Moreau told Investment Week. “HSBC regards climate change as one of the most serious emergencies facing the planet, and is committed to supporting its customers in their transition to net zero and a sustainable future and, like HSBC Asset Management, is committed to achieving net zero by 2050.”

    Kirk has since been suspended from his role while an internal investigation is carried out.

    Earlier this month, HSBC was named as being at risk of a caution from the Advertising Standards Authority. The watchdog is considering issuing a warning to the financial institution over “misleading” adverts that appear to exaggerate the climate action it is taking. Two bus stop posters are at the centre of the controversy. Both talk about the activities being undertaken by HSBC to lessen climate change consequences, while withholding emissions data for the company itself. If a caution is given, it will be the first time a major bank has been exposed for inconsistent environmental claims.

    Lead photo of Stuart Kirk.

    The post HSBC Responsible Investing Head Stuart Kirk Compares Climate Change to Y2K appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Stanford University Announces First New School In 70 Years Is Focussed On Sustainability

    4 Mins Read California’s Stanford University has revealed that a new school will be opening at the start of the 2022 fall semester. The Doerr School of Sustainability has come about thanks to a $1.1 billion donation from John and Ann Doerr, plus gifts from other philanthropists. The focus of the school will be to identify and mobilise […]

    The post Stanford University Announces First New School In 70 Years Is Focussed On Sustainability appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Heura Obliterates Crowdfunding Target During Early Access Investment Round From Consumer-Fans

    3 Mins Read Spanish alt-protein startup Heura has overtaken its latest crowdfunding target four times over, in a mere 12 hours, attracting €4 million and counting. Initially looking to secure a total of €1 million for expansion, the company has confirmed it met that goal in just 30 minutes, during its early access phase on Crowdcube. The round […]

    The post Heura Obliterates Crowdfunding Target During Early Access Investment Round From Consumer-Fans appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • 10 A-List Celebrity Investors That Have a Stake In Vegan Protein

    5 Mins Read

    From Natalie Portman to Drake, celebrities are investing in vegan brands, products, and services out to change the world.

    Property and Rolexes have been superseded as savvy investments for the rich and famous. Now, it’s all about who can invest in the most innovative future food company. From plant-based protein to cultivated meat, the alt-protein sector has experienced a slew of celebrity support in recent years.

    The following 10 celebrities have set themselves apart through their discerning investment portfolio:

    ​​1. Natalie Portman 

    Famous for: Being a Hollywood actor, from the age of 12.

    Invested in: Boston-based Tender Food and French startup La Vie. The former specialises in whole-cuts and the latter in bacon.

    Vegan or not?: Yes. Portman has been vegan since 2011, after first turning vegetarian. She is considered to be an activist and regularly speaks about her desire to see the world moving away from animal protein.

    Bonus extra fact: Portman was born in Israel, a burgeoning hub for alt-protein.

    2. Robert Downey Jr

    Famous for: Being Iron Man. And Sherlock Holmes.

    Invested in: New York’s MyForest Foods and San Francisco’s Nobell Foods. MyForest recently rebranded from Atlast Foods and looks to make bacon from mycelium. Nobell specialises in soy-based vegan cheese that properly melts.

    Vegan or not?: Yes. Downey Jr. confirmed he had gone fully plant-based at a film premiere in 2020. He cited a love for legumes as a driving force.

    Bonus extra fact: Downey Jr. announced in April that he is co-authoring a book about eliminating carbon emissions from diets.

    3. Snoop Dogg

    Famous for: Being Snoop Dogg and a rapper from the original old school influx.

    Invested in: California’s Outstanding Foods, a manufacturer of pig-free pork rinds snacks. He is also an ambassador for Beyond Meat, seeking to educate BIPOC communities in particular about the benefits of plant-based living.

    Vegan or not?: Confusingly, no. He is a huge advocate for the movement but is yet to make the move to veganism himself.

    Bonus extra fact: Snoop officially converted to Rastafarianism in 2012. This lends extra insight into his appreciation for plant-based foods. 

    4. Lewis Hamilton

    Famous for: Being a Formula 1 world champion.

    Invested in: Chilean unicorn NotCo and his own burger chain, Neat Burger.

    Vegan or not?: Staunchly vegan, yes. He takes it one step further as his beloved bulldog Roscoe is also plant-based.

    Bonus extra fact: Hamilton claims he went vegan to be as healthy as possible while avoiding damaging the planet. He has faced his fair share of criticism due to the perceived hypocrisy of his career and environmental leanings. 

    5. Leonardo DiCaprio

    Famous for: Finally getting an Oscar in 2016. And being one of Hollywood’s biggest stars.

    Invested in: LA-based Beyond Meat, fellow LA brand Hippeas, San Francisco’s Wildtype, Dutch food tech Mosa Meat, and Isreal’s Aleph Farms.

    Vegan or not?: Unconfirmed but largely questioned. His investment portfolio would suggest a plant-based leaning, though he has never formally declared himself meat-free.

    Bonus extra fact: DiCaprio is a member of San Francisco-based Perfect Day’s sustainability council. He joined as an advisor.

    6. Jay-Z

    Famous for: Being Mr Beyoncé. And a mogul.

    Invested in: California’s Impossible Foods, Australia’s plant-based chicken brand Simulate, Oatly and Cali-based vegan cheesemaker Misha’s Kind Foods.

    Vegan or not?: Not vegan but has dabbled, see below.

    Bonus extra fact: Jay Z joined his wife in a 44-day vegan ‘diet’ plan that was designed to help her get ‘stage-ready’ ahead of a Coachella performance. Though it has been reported that he only completed 22 days.

    7. Katy Perry

    Famous for: Being a singer and judge on American Idol.

    Invested in: California’s Impossible Foods (see Jay Z above).

    Vegan or not?: Presumably, yes. Back in 2021, Perry announced that she was ready to go fully vegan, after transitioning toward the lifestyle over a period of four months. Perry’s dog, Nugget, joined her in becoming vegan. She revealed to fans that he had been lessening his meat intake alongside her and that he would be eating vegan food in the future.

    Bonus extra fact: Perry dressed as an Impossible burger for the 2019 Met Gala and praised the product for getting her through her pregnancy with daughter Daisy, red meat-free.

    8. Serena Williams 

    Famous for: Being one of the most spectacular athletes to grace tennis courts the world over.

    Invested in: California’s Impossible Foods (see Jay Z and Katy Perry above) and U.S. vegan delivery service Daily Harvest.

    Vegan or not?: When in training, Williams is strictly plant-based. She has cited this as helping with recovery and injury prevention. During off-seasons, she has admitted to relaxing her strict diet to include favourite ‘cheat’ meals.

    Bonus extra fact: Like Katy Perry, Williams found herself turned off by red meat while pregnant and ate Impossible burgers instead of beef.

    9. Anushka Sharma and Virat Kohli 

    Famous for: Being a Bollywood sensation (Sharma) and an international cricket player (Kohli).

    Invested in: Mumbai startup Blue Tribe Foods. The two have also become brand ambassadors, as they believe in the products so much.

    Vegan or not?: Yes. The two had been vegetarians for years and decided to go fully vegan together. They have talked about it extensively on their social media channels. The two have  240 million followers on Instagram alone. 

    Bonus extra fact: In 2021, Kohli was the victim of trolling after netizens decided he had deceived them about his vegan status. The cricket player reiterated that he was a vegetarian and the time and had never claimed to be vegan. Both he and Sharma now say they are vegan.

    10. Drake

    Famous for: Knowing about that Hotline Bling. And being a rapper.

    Invested in: LA-based Daring, a plant-based chicken startup.

    Vegan or not?: It’s never been entirely confirmed, though he did spark a wave of excitement when he announced he no longer eats animals, during a Twitch stream in 2018. Vegetarian most likely. Vegan? Possibly. He definitely referred to himself as such in one Instagram post, so fans are drawing their own conclusions.

    Bonus extra fact: In light of a potential vegan conversion, PETA sent the rapper a gift basket, to initiate a truce. The activist-led organisation had previously called the rapper out for wearing Canada Goose jackets.

    Lead photo created by Green Queen.

    The post 10 A-List Celebrity Investors That Have a Stake In Vegan Protein first appeared on Green Queen.

    The post 10 A-List Celebrity Investors That Have a Stake In Vegan Protein appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • ‘We Can All Win’- Early Alt Protein VC Chris Kerr Talks Overhype, The Role Of Media And Why Success Is About Sticking To The Basics

    Chris Kerr Unovis VC

    17 Mins Read A few weeks, I sat down (via Zoom) with Chris Kerr to talk about the alternative protein industry. Chris is the founding partner and Chief Investment Officer at Unovis Capital Management and their early-stage venture capital fund New Crop Capital to. Their investment thesis revolves around identifying companies that are successfully creating products that can […]

    The post ‘We Can All Win’- Early Alt Protein VC Chris Kerr Talks Overhype, The Role Of Media And Why Success Is About Sticking To The Basics appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Better Bite Ventures Announces $15 Million Alt Protein Fund To Back Asia’s Future Food Unicorns

    Better Bite VC General Partners

    5 Mins Read Better Bite Ventures, a venture capital firm with a focus on backing early stage Asia Pacific (APAC) startups in the alternative protein sector, has announced the launch of a $15 million fund. Better Bite’s mission is to support early-stage founders developing crucial climate-friendly alternatives to animal-based proteins in what it describes as the ‘world’s largest […]

    The post Better Bite Ventures Announces $15 Million Alt Protein Fund To Back Asia’s Future Food Unicorns appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Startup Funding But Not As You Know It: How The Trellis Road Micro Fund Is Changing VC Forever

    3 Mins Read Trellis Road is the brain child of Anna Ottosson and Erik Byrenius. It was born out of a desire to support early stage food tech startups. Initially using their own money, the two invested in projects to fast-track their knowledge. Now, two years later, Trellis Road is a fully fledged operation with an $18 million […]

    The post Startup Funding But Not As You Know It: How The Trellis Road Micro Fund Is Changing VC Forever appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • VegTech Invest Launches Its First Plant-Based ETF On The New York Stock Exchange

    3 Mins Read The VegTech Plant-based Innovation & Climate ETF has been unveiled. Launching on the New York Stock Exchange, it features a portfolio of 37 publicly-traded companies. Each is immersed in plant-based innovations including ingredient development and animal-free product design.  Companies included in the ETF have been selected for their commitments to addressing issues such as the […]

    The post VegTech Invest Launches Its First Plant-Based ETF On The New York Stock Exchange appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • BlackRock: The Next Big Tech Unicorns Will Be Climate-Focused

    4 Mins Read BlackRock CEO Larry Fink says the next big tech investments will be climate-focused in green hydrogen, agriculture, steel and green cement.

    The post BlackRock: The Next Big Tech Unicorns Will Be Climate-Focused appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • BlackRock: The Next Big Tech Unicorns Will Be Climate-Focused

    4 Mins Read BlackRock CEO Larry Fink says the next big tech investments will be climate-focused in green hydrogen, agriculture, steel and green cement.

    The post BlackRock: The Next Big Tech Unicorns Will Be Climate-Focused appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Nordic FoodTech To Back 20 More Startups After Closing €42M Fund

    3 Mins Read Nordic FoodTech, the region’s first dedicated fund investing sustainable food startups, has closed its first fund with €42 million.

    The post Nordic FoodTech To Back 20 More Startups After Closing €42M Fund appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • European Food Tech Investment Heats Up with 2 New Multimillion Funds

    3 Mins Read Food tech investment in Europe is heating up, with two new funds dedicated to the sector launched by Eatable Adventures and Five Seasons VC.

    The post European Food Tech Investment Heats Up with 2 New Multimillion Funds appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • A Chat w/ Brinc x Halo Impact On Their New Accelerator

    4 Mins Read Hong Kong-headquartered investor and accelerator Brinc has just partnered with Halo Impact to launch a new Circular Economy Accelerator Program. Dedicated to tech-forward circular economy solutions across a number of industries, the new program will accelerate much-needed solutions for everything from renewables to sustainable packaging with startups receiving up to $100,000 in funding and access […]

    The post A Chat w/ Brinc x Halo Impact On Their New Accelerator appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Global Food Giants Pour $80M Into Lever VC Alternative Protein Fund

    3 Mins Read Lever VC’s alternative protein focused fund has raised $80 million in a round backed by global food conglomerates and big meat firms.

    The post Global Food Giants Pour $80M Into Lever VC Alternative Protein Fund appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Hong Kong and Swiss Investors Say ‘Ecological Blockchain’ Startups Are The Future

    2 Mins Read Launched by Hong Kong-based Sonic Capital and Tavis Digital in Zurich, Sphere wants to support the emerging ecological blockchain sector.

    The post Hong Kong and Swiss Investors Say ‘Ecological Blockchain’ Startups Are The Future appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.