Explore how Link can help you assess, prioritize, and reduce your company's impacts and risks related to nature.
By submitting this form you agree to be contacted by Link Nature. To opt-out of communications, please click the unsubscribe link in our emails.
Our model is designed to make it easier for people to invest in high-impact climate solutions. Instead of the typical one-million-euro minimum needed to invest in venture capital and private equity funds, people can invest with us starting from twenty thousand euros. This opens the door for a broader group of people to invest in the climate technologies of the future. As a result, some of our investors are more motivated by a strong desire to create tangible impact, while others are primarily focused on the financial opportunities of the transition. This diversity of motivations is quite unique.
We see it primarily as a co-benefit of our climate investments. Our portfolio has over 225 companies, and while our main goal is carbon reduction, many have a significant positive impact on biodiversity. For example, we invest in alternative proteins which reduce the pressure on land from animal agriculture, a major cause of deforestation. Another great example is battery recycling. It greatly contributes to our climate targets, but also reduces the need for destructive mining of virgin materials. The challenge for us now is to work out how to properly capture and report on that positive value for nature.
The challenge for us now is to work out how to properly capture and report on the positive value for nature.
Yes, but primarily to avoid negative impacts. Our core principle is that we don't want to invest in solutions that might be good for the climate but end up fueling the biodiversity crisis. We know that some things that are labeled as "climate solutions" can have significant, unintended consequences for nature.
We’re seeing funds in the US rebrand from ‘climate’ to ‘resilience’ to navigate political headwinds.
A classic example is the transition to electric vehicles, which relies heavily on mineral mining that can destroy habitats. We also actively exclude investments in large-scale hydropower and biomass-for-energy projects. While they are renewable energy projects, they can have a significant negative effect on ecosystems. Our priority is to avoid solving one problem by creating another.
The driver is both strategic and pragmatic. Strategically, it has always been our plan to expand into other critical impact areas beyond just reducing emissions. The timing, however, is a pragmatic balancing act. You need a crystal-clear story to get capital moving, and many investors are just getting comfortable with climate tech. It's a constant tension between telling a story that is simple enough to be compelling, and one that does justice to the systemic nature of the problem. To give you an example: we see funds in the US rebranding from ‘climate’ to ‘resilience’ to navigate political headwinds. The funds are actually still largely the same. We are constantly thinking about how we communicate our portfolio, and a key part of that is learning how to effectively articulate positive and negative biodiversity impacts.
We need to see a sufficient pipeline of deals with proven business models. Right now, many biodiversity solutions are seen as projects you'd support for their positive impact, rather than as proven businesses that can deliver competitive financial returns. As an investor, we must be able to offer a product that is not only impactful but also financially attractive. The market needs more time to develop before we can build a robust, diversified fund around it.
Yes, we absolutely do. Two years ago, we would have said the same thing about climate adaptation. It was seen as important, but the business case wasn't clear. Now, because of the very real and costly impacts of wildfires and floods, we're seeing banks and insurance companies investing heavily in adaptation technologies. That has created a market, which has led to more startups, which in turn attracts more investment funds. We see a similar path for biodiversity. It might be on a different timeline, but the underlying logic is the same.
That's why you have to look at the capital flows. You can see that despite the noise, innovation is happening, and money is following.
It’s crucial to look past the headlines. The political rhetoric is worrying, but the underlying data tells a more powerful story. The simple truth is that most climate technologies are becoming fundamentally more efficient and therefore cheaper than their fossil fuel counterparts. Political regimes like the one in the US now can try to slow this down as much as possible, but they can’t change the direction of travel – the economics are just too powerful.
And capital flows are proving it. Last year, $2.1 trillion flowed to climate technologies versus less than $1 trillion to fossil fuels—and that gap is widening. This isn't just a trend in a few progressive countries; technologies like solar and batteries have become so cheap, their adoption is rapidly happening across the global south as well.
"That's why you have to look at the capital flows," says Idse Luirink. "It gives you hope because you can see that despite the noise, the innovation is happening, and the money is following." Liza Rubinstein adds: "That's the most important signal, and it's the story we tell our investors. While the world is facing enormous challenges, we can show them that real capital is moving to build solutions."
