Fundraising Impact Assessment

I asked a nonprofit CEO one question that made her go silent for 30 seconds. The organization: $8M budget. Beautiful mission. 80+ employees helping families in crisis. The question: "If you accomplish everything in your strategic plan, will these families still need you in 5 years?" Her answer broke my heart: "Well... yes. They'd still need our services." That's when I realized the uncomfortable truth: Most nonprofits accidentally design themselves to be permanent. Think about it: → We measure meals served, not families achieving food security → We count shelter beds filled, not people permanently housed → We track program attendance, not life transformation Success = more people receiving a service Failure = running out of clients I watched this Executive Director's face change as she realized what I was getting at. "So you're saying we should measure how many people graduate OUT of needing us?" Exactly. The nonprofits creating real change? They're designing themselves out of business. While they provide essential day-to-day supports, they're doing everything they can to ensure their services won't be needed in the future. The rest are running programs that meet immediate needs but may unintentionally sustain systems of dependence. Here's the test: If your organization executed its programs perfectly, would the problem you're solving disappear? If not, you might be treating symptoms instead of causes. I get it - people need meals today, housing today. Those services matter deeply. But without addressing root causes, we risk creating well-intentioned cycles of dependence. And that's why our sector struggles to break cycles of generational poverty. Uncomfortable truth? Sometimes.

Sustainability Reporting 🌍 Sustainability reporting is evolving from a compliance-driven exercise into a strategic tool for decision-making and long-term value creation. A well-structured approach ensures that reporting is not just about disclosure but about driving measurable impact. Defining the purpose and scope is essential to establishing credibility. Aligning with leading frameworks and setting clear objectives ensures that reporting serves both regulatory requirements and business strategy. Stakeholder engagement is more than a formality—it is a critical input for identifying risks, opportunities, and material sustainability issues. Proactive dialogue with key stakeholders strengthens both relevance and accountability. Materiality assessments should go beyond traditional risk mapping. A dynamic, double-materiality perspective helps organizations understand not only how sustainability issues impact business performance but also how business activities affect society and the environment. Metrics and indicators must be both quantifiable and decision-useful. Aligning with frameworks such as ISSB ensures that sustainability data is integrated with financial reporting, improving comparability and investor confidence. Data integrity is non-negotiable. Establishing rigorous collection and validation processes enhances accuracy, reduces greenwashing risks, and strengthens the foundation for credible reporting and informed decision-making. Analyzing results is about more than tracking progress. Benchmarking against industry peers, setting science-based targets, and embedding insights into corporate strategy transform reporting into a driver of continuous improvement. A sustainability report should not be an endpoint but a catalyst for action. Integrating findings into core operations, governance, and investment decisions ensures that sustainability commitments translate into real-world impact. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #reporting

The latest benchmarks for US startup fundraising - from pre-seed through Series C. Data: nearly 1,500 rounds raised so far in 2025. Only includes software companies, but don’t worry - a deep tech version is coming soon. Rounds completed on SAFEs in the orange color tiers are split by total amount raised, since everyone has a slightly different definition of “pre-seed” and “seed on SAFEs”. Rounds on priced equity in the blue color tiers split by round names. Just primary rounds, no bridges or extensions or “Series A Jr” stuff going on. Couple things to keep in mind: 1) these are heavily influenced by SF and NY deals because…that’s where the most deals are happening! National figures take on the character of the most mature markets. 2) Actually fewer deals are happening these days but at robust valuations and round sizes. 3) Lots of AI up and down these figures. 4) These are just benchmarks. Each deal is different. You can have a high valuation and high dilution, or tiny dilution and a high val, or a hundred other ways. These are pretty expensive numbers, candidly. $20M post-money at Seed is pricey! But the underlying dynamic is not all rosy for founders. VCs are competing hard for certain deals but again the total number of rounds is falling. The venture tale of “haves and have nots” has never been more true. Share with a fundraising founder 🙏 #startups #founders #fundraising

𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧-𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐓𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐬 – 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 🇪🇺 I recently shared a collection of open-access tools to assess climate and nature-related risks in Germany. Now, here’s a structured list covering the whole of Europe. It brings together: 🏛️ The relevant political regulations and strategies 🗂️ Frameworks for climate risk assessment aligned with these regulations 📚 Key resource hubs and EU-funded projects on climate risk ⛈️ The best reports on climate risk in Europe 📊 A methodology for cost-benefit analysis of climate adaptation measures 🗺️ Leading geospatial tools for mapping and monitoring climate- and nature-related risks. ❗The list is structured along the steps of a climate risk assessment and the relevant hazards to cover: flood, drought, wildfire, ecosystem degradation, ... For geospatial tools, I included only the strongest solutions available. But since the scope is European-wide, their precision is limited. To delve deeper into the matter, I’ve included key practical frameworks, EU resource hubs, and more. 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭? Please comment below, and I’ll send it to you. (If you prefer to DM me, that works too.)

𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁-𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗼 𝗟𝗣𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗴𝗼𝗲𝘀. And when they do understand... they wonder if it's efficient. That's why we've created the VSCSM framework, which breaks down studio capital deployment into five categories: 1. 𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗼 𝗦𝗚&𝗔 (15-25% allocation) 2. 𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝘀 (10–35% Allocation) 3. 𝗜𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (0–10% Allocation) 4. 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 (30–50% Allocation) 5. 𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄-𝗢𝗻 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 (0–20% Allocation) These 5 categories tell us where studio money goes and what the standard capital allocation is for each bucket. 𝗟𝗲𝘁'𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗵𝘆𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗼 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵: - $10M Fund - 3 years of newco building, 7 years of support - 10 total B2B SaaS portfolio companies - $1M/year operating budget initially, $100k/year hold - $25k common + $500k preferred per build - $1M total follow-on reserve 𝗦𝗼 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 $𝟭𝟬𝗠 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱? 1. 𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗼 𝗦𝗚&𝗔 $740K over 3 years or $74K per company. Roughly 20% of total fund. 2. 𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝘀 $2.96M across all builds, $296K per company. Bulk of operational budget. 3. 𝗜𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 $300K total or $30K per company to secure early equity. 4. 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 $5M total or $500K in preferred equity per build. 5. 𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄-𝗼𝗻 $1M reserve or $100K reserve per company (though unevenly used in reality). The final all-in cost per company: ~$900k (excluding follow-ons). 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴: - Total Studio Cost per Company = $900K (SG&A, Builds, Initial Cap) - Average Equity Stake = 45% (25% common + 20% preferred) - Cost Per Equity Point = $20,000 Most VCs need much more than $20K to secure 1% ownership (especially with no operating load.) The studio also runs lean, with a Studio Scalability Ratio of 1.25:1 (10 companies supported by 8 staff). 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁: 37% of deployed capital goes to operating the studio, while traditional funds aim for ~20%. This transparency gives LPs what they rarely get in venture: a true cost basis for startup equity formation. So... is ~$900K worth securing 45% of each newco with dedicated resources and an active building model? That's the capital efficiency debate at the heart of the venture studio model.

My nonprofit friends, why are we so afraid of messy data? I hear it all the time: ● "We can't ask that question—it might confuse people." ● "This survey works fine; it's what we've always used." ● "If we dig too deep, we might find something we don't want to see." Here is the problem: when we stick to the same safe questions and the same tidy reports, we stop growing. We stop learning. Data collection isn't supposed to be neat and tidy. It's supposed to reveal the mess. To spark discomfort. To challenge assumptions. Think about it: ● If your donor survey shows no gaps between who gives and who benefits, are you really asking the right questions? ● If your program evaluation scores are always glowing, could you be missing feedback from the people too uncomfortable to speak up? ● If your board dashboards never include community input, whose voices are you really prioritizing? Messy data—data that is incomplete, complicated, or contradictory—isn't purely bad data. It is your directional support for work to be done. It's where the real insights live. Here are three steps you can take to embrace this mess and use it to drive meaningful change: ● Audit your data collection: Go back to your surveys, focus group guides and intake forms. Which questions are missing? Are you asking things that make people uncomfortable in productive ways, or just sticking to what's easy to measure? ● Welcome contradictions: Dig deeper if your data doesn't have conflicting opinions or surprising results. Discomfort in your findings often signals areas where change is needed. Instead of dismissing it, ask: What is this teaching us? ● Ask for feedback on your data practices: Go beyond asking your team. Bring in the voices of your community—your beneficiaries, donors, and stakeholders. Show them the data you are collecting and ask: Does this reflect your reality? What are we missing? As a sector, we often talk about "driving impact." Let's not forget that real impact comes from asking hard questions with the entire community, listening to the answers we would rather not hear, and using that data to build the needed change, not just justify it. #nonprofits #nonprofitleadership #community

👉 CSRD EXPLAINER INCL. ESRS 👈 Last week I posted a quiet popular model of the EU CSRD. Newly, I added more specific and helpful information to the model from your inputs! * Number of disclosures for each ESRS (see below) * ESRS 2 intercorrelations specific for topical ESRS incl. transition plans for ESRS E1 and ESRS E4 * Strategy and Business Model disclosures. Be aware that these apply to all material sustainability matters and the topics the issuer or reporting entity reports on (SBM-X) * Mandatory reporting disclosures incl. BP1-2 and GOV1-5 (ESRS E2) and IRO-2, (Disclosure requirements in ESRS covered by the undertaking’s sustainability statement). Interestingly, a forward-looking analysis of the conditions that could lead the undertaking to conclude that climate change or biodiversity is material in the future is included in the transition planning. * SBM-3* (Material impacts, risks and opportunities and their interaction with strategy and business model) for ESRS assessed as financial material, hence be aware that phase-in options are applicable for first year of reporting and further qualitatively for first three years * Transition plans (ESRS E1-1 and ESRS E4-1) * MDR-M** indicates that metrics are related to quantitative numbers or monetary value of impacts and has to be translated into financial effects if possible. This presuppose, that the sustainability matter is deemed financially material Hence if the undertaking concludes a topic (other than climate change as this topic is 'comply or explain') is not material and therefore omits all the Disclosure Requirements in the corresponding ESRS, it may briefly explain the conclusions of its materiality assessment for that topic. This explanation has to include all topics, sub-topics, and sub-sub-topics in Application Requirement 16 (ESRS 1). Remember to include the impacts and dependencies that leading to value chain (VC) risks. CSRD requires that reported sustainability information relates to an undertaking’s own operations and its upstream and downstream VC including products and services, business relationships and suppliers. Be aware that supply chain (SC) and value chain (VC) does not include the same and that the value chain definition is broader that business relationships and transactions. The reason for this is that the impacts, risks and/or opportunities deriving from impacts and dependencies, of a reporting undertaking often occur in its upstream or downstream VC rather than in its own operations and supplier tiers.

Most biodiversity footprint assessment tools & databases share a common weakness: the EXIOBASE model. So it is excellent news that after 4 years, it received a major update! 📖 EXIOBASE is an Environmentally-Extended Multi-Regional Input-Output model (EEMRIO). Put more simply, it's a bunch of tables describing the economy, including trade between countries, and it includes a lot of data on the associated environmental impacts. 🔦 Used by most tools & databases Whether they mention it or not, most of the tools used by corporates and financial institutions to assess their impacts on biodiversity and the associated transition risks rely on EXIOBASE when only financial data are available. Let me highlight my last sentence as it's quite important: when commodities, pressures (e.g. water consumption, land occupation, etc.) or biodiversity state data are collected, many tools directly use them and do not rely on EXIOBASE's proxies based on financial data. But when there are gaps, EXIOBASE fill them. Users of EXIOBASE include ENCORE v2 (which uses it to infer upstream dependencies or impacts), the #GlobalBiodiversityScore (GBS) or the Biodiversity Footprint for Financial Institutions (BFFI). Together with the pressure-impact models (GLOBIO, ReCiPe, LC Impact...), EXIOBASE is one of the core and common components of all those tools. Its limitations are thus their limitations (again, when only financial data are available). 🔎 Why is EXIOBASE so preponderant? It has been built to assess with as much precision as possible the environmental impacts of economic activities. As a consequence, its sectoral granularity is almost unmatched (except maybe by Eora) especially for high-impact sectors such as agriculture (sub-divided by crops) or electricity production (sub-divided by fuel or source, e.g. solar or wind). It also has a great regional granularity with 49 regions. And its environmental data are rich with GHG emissions, commodity consumption, etc. It is also free, even though its licence does not allow all uses. Commercial licences are possible. 🆕 What's in EXIOBASE 3.9.5? Released on 14 February 2025, it contains major improvements: 1️⃣ Timeliness: all data updated to 2020 (vs 2011 earlier). With annual update planned (and already nowcasting up to 2024 in beta). This is the most significant. Using 2011 data was really starting to make no sense as the economy has deeply changed since then. All the tools & databases should quickly update to EXIOBASE 3.9.5. 2️⃣ More reliable GHG emissions factors, directly available as Scope 1, 2, 3 consistent with the GHG protocol 3️⃣ Other improvements hard to explain beyond specialists but: it's great! 💬 Do you know which data are used in your biodiversity footprint assessments? Are they up to EXIOBASE 3.9.5's quality?

Can we use #LCA to measure a product system's impact on #biodiversity ❓ The answer is yes❗ - How reliable are these calculations? Well, that is up for discussion. The impact on biodiversity should always be measured in situ by surveying the species richness of and ecosystem and in combination with other techniques usually including local communities' knowledge. - Why do I think so? Because ecosystems are essentially unique everywhere we look, the impact of a substance emission or material extraction from nature (elementary flows) varies from region to region. It is different to perform a given activity in an urban area than in a rainforest. However, in the last decade, new Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods have been developed to account for regional differences in the impact on biodiversity. They typically focus on assessing the impacts of #landuse and land-use change, as these are among the most significant drivers of biodiversity loss. They may quantify impacts in terms of potentially disappeared fractions of species (PDF) over a certain area and time (usually m2/year) or use other metrics to estimate the change in species richness or ecosystem quality. Some of the methods that include approaches to assess biodiversity impacts are: ➖ ReCiPe: a comprehensive LCIA method that includes a model for assessing land use impacts on biodiversity through the PDF metric. It aims to quantify species loss over a certain area and time due to land use. ➖ IMPACT World+Endpoint: This method includes an attempt to integrate biodiversity impacts through several impact categories such as the PDF from freshwater acidification, damage to ecosystem quality from changes in the soil pH, marine acidification, ecotoxicity, land transformation and occupation, water pollution, and water availability. It is one of the most complete. ➖ USEtox: focused on toxicological impacts, includes considerations for ecotoxicity, which indirectly affects biodiversity by assessing the potential toxic impacts on aquatic and terrestrial species. ➖ Land use biodiversity (Chaudhary et al., 2015): recommended by the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative: "The indicator represents regional species loss taking into account the effect of land occupation displacing entirely or reducing the species that would otherwise exist on that land, the relative abundance of those species within the ecoregion, and the overall global threat level for the affected species." I love this method because includes regional factors. ➖ Global Biodiversity Score (GBS): not a traditional LCIA method, GBS is a tool developed to help companies assess their impact on biodiversity. Using a common metric, it translates pressures from organizational activities into impacts on biodiversity. We need to think way beyond #carbonfootprint to aim for a #sustainable world. Biodiversity loss is that issue that although highly interlinked with #climatechange, is the actual major environmental issue we face.

In-Depth Look: ECBonds Fund Allocation Among Top Three Political Parties A recent dive into the Election Commission's (EC) latest bond issuance and redemption figures has revealed an unexpected discrepancy: more bonds have been redeemed than were originally issued. Detailed Insights: Data Cross-Verification: Upon closely examining the alignment between donor contributions and the recipient's top three political parties, inconsistencies in bond ID matching across EC's records were evident. Discrepancy in Figures: Analysis revealed 18,871 transactions in the purchase list against 20,241 in the redemption records. Ideally, these figures should align or indicate fewer redemptions, contradicting the observed data. Identifying Gaps: The missing bond numbers in purchase documentation, yet appearing as redeemed, suggest inadvertent possible oversights. Seeking Collective Insight: This preliminary analysis aims to highlight and address potential anomalies. While I've exercised due diligence, the complexity of data might harbour overlooked details. Hence, I invite feedback, insights, or alternate interpretations from the community. Your expertise can provide invaluable perspectives or validate the findings, ensuring our collective understanding and the integrity of electoral finance monitoring. Engagement Appreciated: Your thoughts, feedback, or any supplementary analysis would be greatly appreciated to enhance the accuracy and depth of this investigation. #ECBonds #FinanceAudit #TransparencyInPolitics