Common Industry Challenges

What’s holding back natural climate solutions? Natural climate solutions (NCS)—from reforestation and agroforestry to wetland restoration—have long been championed as low-cost, high-benefit pathways for reducing greenhouse gases. In theory, they could provide over a third of the climate mitigation needed by 2030 to stay under 2°C of warming. But in practice, progress is stalling. A sweeping new PNAS Nexus study reveals why. Drawing on 352 peer-reviewed papers across 135 countries, researchers led by Hilary Brumberg cataloged 2,480 documented barriers to implementing NCS. The obstacles are not ecological. Rather, they are human: insufficient funding, patchy information, ineffective policies, and public skepticism. The result is a vast “implementation gap” between what is technically possible and what is politically, economically, or socially feasible. The analysis found that “lack of funding” was the most commonly cited constraint globally—identified in nearly half of all countries surveyed. Yet it rarely stood alone. Most regions face a tangle of interconnected hurdles. Constraints from different categories often co-occur, compounding difficulties: poor governance erodes trust; disinterest stems from unclear benefits; technical know-how is stymied by bureaucratic confusion. These patterns vary by region and type of intervention. Reforestation projects, for instance, face particularly high scrutiny over equity concerns—especially in the Global South, where land tenure insecurity and historical injustices run deep. Agroforestry and wetland restoration often struggle with the complexity of design and monitoring. Meanwhile, grassland and peatland pathways remain understudied, despite their importance. The study’s most striking insight may be spatial. Countries within the same UN subregion tend to share a similar profile of constraints—more so than across broader development regions. This geographic clustering suggests an opportunity: Supranational collaboration, if properly resourced and attuned to local context, could address shared challenges more efficiently than isolated national efforts. Crucially, the authors argue that piecemeal fixes will not suffice. Because most countries face an average of seven distinct constraints, many from different domains, effective solutions must be integrated and cross-sectoral. Adaptive management—a flexible, feedback-based approach—could help. By identifying which barriers arise at each stage of an NCS project’s lifecycle, it may be possible to design interventions that are not just technically sound, but socially and politically viable. Natural climate solutions still hold vast potential. But unlocking it will require less focus on where trees grow best—and more on where people can make them thrive. 🔬 Brumberg et al 2025. Global analysis of constraints to natural climate solution implementation. PNAS Nexus. https://lnkd.in/gDmYJEph

Blackrock just took a big write-down on its Global Renewable Power Fund III. Because of two ill-fated investments in Northvolt and SolarZero. Surprisingly, a $4.8 billion fund saw its internal rate of return plummet due to just two portfolio companies faltering. This fund was BlackRock's third flagship GRP fund, part of its bet on the energy transition and a push towards renewable energy and infrastructure. Many of the funds’s assets are early-stage climate infrastructure investments in: EV charging, renewable generation, and power storage and transmission. Are they simply making bad investments or is this a prequel to what to expect? What this tells me about climate tech investing: 1. The significant impact of two companies on a $4.8 billion fund suggests that traditional risk models needs reevaluation. The conventional playbook for diversification doesn't quite work in climate tech. When companies in your portfolio are all betting on similar technological advances or regulatory shifts, they tend to sink or swim together. Traditional risk models might be missing these hidden correlations. 2. The Northvolt situation is a wake-up call - throwing money at climate tech isn't enough. These companies need investors who roll up their sleeves and get involved. We're seeing a shift from passive to active investing, where deep operational expertise is just as crucial as the capital itself. 3. SolarZero, a major player in New Zealand Energy Sector, was far from an early-stage startup when BlackRock acquired it in 2022. Despite its 50-year history , something went wrong. It hints at a broader challenge: global funds rushing into new markets might be overlooking local market dynamics and regional complexities in their eagerness to deploy capital in the renewable space. As this sector matures, we need a new framework for resilient investment strategies that can better weather the failures of individual companies while capitalizing on the overall growth trend in clean energy. #climatetech #VC #investment #newbook #fundclimatetech #blackrock Link for the news in the comments.

Major roadblocks to corporate sustainability  🌎 Sustainability strategies are advancing, but execution remains a challenge. Even companies with strong commitments face internal and external barriers that slow progress. Identifying these roadblocks is the first step toward addressing them. Leadership remains a defining factor. Without clear executive commitment, sustainability struggles to move beyond surface-level initiatives. A lack of mandate and strategic prioritization often leads to fragmented efforts rather than systemic integration. Short-term financial pressures further complicate decision-making, prioritizing immediate returns over long-term resilience. Even with leadership support, execution can stall due to limited organizational expertise. Many teams lack the technical knowledge to operationalize sustainability goals, from ESG reporting to decarbonization strategies. Without this capability, sustainability remains aspirational rather than actionable. Another key challenge is weak strategic integration. In many organizations, sustainability is still treated as a side initiative rather than a core business driver. Embedding it into financial planning, product development, and supply chains requires a shift from compliance-driven approaches to value creation. Beyond internal capacity, operational constraints play a role. Limited resources—financial, technological, and human—can slow down execution. Cultural resistance within organizations also remains a factor, as legacy mindsets often favor conventional business practices over systemic change. Data is another weak link. Inconsistent, incomplete, or unreliable sustainability data creates challenges in measurement and decision-making. Without robust tracking systems, companies struggle to set credible targets, demonstrate impact, or refine strategies over time. Finally, broader systemic factors—regulatory uncertainty, supply chain risks, and lack of industry collaboration—create additional complexity. Policies are evolving, but alignment across industries is still inconsistent, making it difficult for companies to navigate expectations and scale best practices. Addressing these challenges requires more than ambition—it demands a structured approach that aligns leadership, strategy, and execution. Companies that recognize these barriers early and build internal capacity to overcome them will be positioned for long-term success. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange

In a chapter co-authored with Udit Mathur for IDFC Foundation’s India Infrastructure Report 2024, we examine the twin resource challenges shaping India’s clean energy transition: critical minerals and water. As deployment of solar, wind, and storage accelerates, securing access to critical minerals is essential. We outline five strategic priorities for the Government’s Critical Minerals Mission—ranging from long-term planning and exploration to processing capabilities and international partnerships. We also highlight the water risk: India holds just 4% of the world’s freshwater but supports 18% of its population. With renewables expanding in water-scarce regions, we recommend stricter enforcement of water-use norms and cluster-level planning. Our core argument is that with anticipatory policy, institutional reform, and global collaboration, India can deliver on its energy transition goals without being constrained by these vital resources. #EnergyTransition #IIR2024 #ReNewTheFuture Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) MoEF&CC

The ultimate power move in music isn't a chart-topping hit—it's re-recording your entire catalog. When Taylor Swift's masters were sold against her wishes, she didn't just complain—she headed back to the studio. "When something says (Taylor's Version)," she explained, "that means I own it." Four albums in, her strategy has paid off spectacularly. Music copyright is multi-layered: composition rights (melody/lyrics), master recording rights (the actual audio), and performance rights (for public playback). Artists often control some but not all—which is why re-recording creates new masters they can fully own. Crucially, Swift retained her publishing rights for her early albums, making the re-recording strategy feasible in the first place. Swift isn't the first to play this card. JoJo re-recorded her early albums after a label dispute left them unavailable on streaming services. Def Leppard created "forgeries" of their hits to gain leverage in digital royalty negotiations. Frank Sinatra founded his own record label and re-recorded his classics for creative freedom. The financial impact is staggering—Swift's re-recordings consistently outperform the originals. Red (Taylor's Version) broke Spotify's record for most-streamed album in a day by a female artist, effectively devaluing the original masters. This strategy has contributed significantly to Swift becoming a billionaire in 2023—largely through music revenue, a rare achievement in the industry. Meanwhile, music catalogs have become hot investment properties, with over $5 billion spent on acquisitions in 2021 alone. Investors view music rights as stable assets that generate reliable returns. The industry has noticed. Labels are now extending re-recording restriction periods from 5-7 years to 10-30 years in new contracts. Musicians should consider strategic pushback: leveraging existing fanbase data in negotiations, pushing for shorter contract terms, and seeking reversion clauses that return masters after a certain period. If full ownership isn't possible, joint ownership structures with labels offer an alternative—even partial control provides a seat at the table for future decisions. As Brendan Brown of Wheatus, who re-recorded "Teenage Dirtbag," bluntly advised: "Never give away your publishing or your masters... there's no excuse not to hoard your s*** and keep it under your bed." If you could see any artist reclaim their back catalog through re-recordings, who would it be and which album deserves the "(Artist's Version)" treatment first? #IPidity #copyright #WorldIPday #MastersOfTheirDomain P.S. Interested in how IP supports investment in the music industry? Tune in to WIPO's IP Finance Dialogue on May 13. We'll be discussing ongoing research we're conducting on this topic. Register here: https://lnkd.in/eD9cXSak

Pentagon rewrites acquisition playbook. November 4 memo transforms how defense buys capability. LaPlante's draft blueprint accelerates everything. Duffey now leads the charge. Portfolio Acquisition Executives get $500M direct authority. No more programs crawling through 47 approval layers while China fields hypersonics in 18 months. The acceleration mechanics. PAEs = Mission-focused portfolios • Long-Range Strike, Autonomous Systems, Air Defense • 3-star civilian leads with delegated spending power • Cross-functional teams: PMs + engineers + operators • Pilots launch Q2 2026, full deployment by 2028 Commercial-First mandate changes the game • 70% COTS requirement for non-classified components   • 6-12 month sprint cycles replace 5-year milestones • Fixed-price contracts reward speed over specs • Mountain View integration hubs connect DoD to Valley velocity Two-to-Production ensures resilience • Dual suppliers mandatory before LRIP • Digital twins enable virtual qualification • CHIPS Act trusted foundries get subsidies • Supply chain redundancy becomes non-negotiable Accredited Test Pipelines enable continuous deployment • Pre-certified modular labs for incremental updates • AI anomaly detection replaces months of manual validation • 10 pipelines by end-2026, scaling to 50 by 2030 • DevSecOps finally moves from theory to practice The GAO warns of 15-20% cost inflation due to redundant qualifications. Senators raise workforce transition concerns. Industry adapts business models for compressed timelines and commercial integration. The strategic reality cuts deeper. When PAEs control budgets and commercial tech sets the pace, acquisition velocity becomes a competitive advantage. Traditional and non-traditional contractors alike face the same imperative. Adapt or lose relevance. Is your acquisition strategy ready for 50% timeline compression? Supply chain mapped for dual-source mandates? Teams prepared for 6-month sprint cycles? When procurement speed determines strategic outcomes, velocity becomes victory.

Carbon projects – “a snapshot from the ground in SE Asia”. After spending the last few months in the field, the following are my key takeaways: o   For all the hype that seen on LinkedIn, relatively little money has trickled down to the ground level for project implementation. ARR is seeing some traction while REDD remains tough. Frustration is rife at the field level reading about all the high-profile conferences attended and funding “available” while seeing so little action where it really matters. o   The most depressing fact right now is the lack of interest in REDD+ projects. All science shows that we must save the existing forests as the number one priority. This is patently obvious when you spend time in the jungle. Due to bad press, a lack of understanding, and fear of greenwashing, investment for REDD remains mostly ‘just talk’. The losers from this are not the big corporates. The real losers are the forests and forest communities. To me, this is very sad.  o   New projects are finding implementation significantly more challenging than anticipated. I cannot emphasize this enough, but unless senior management have relevant forestry start-up experience, then key aspects get missed. o   There are some good ARR projects starting to come through. Where successful, the positive impact for communities is significant. It is hard work though. o   There are many new consultants entering the carbon sector. Beware of those who only have office-based experience. You cannot read a methodology and state that you understand carbon implementation. Simple mistakes are being made because people “don’t know what they don’t know”. o   Every project is unique. There are no “cookie cutter” solutions. I’ve in excess of 30 years experience and still need to study every project before starting to define baselines and how they should be managed.  o   Technical and managerial support from senior experienced consultants during start up and implementation is significantly helping projects to achieve targets and avoid costly mistakes. o   For ARR, it is essential that the first planting is successful and acts as a best practices example for subsequent work. Quality first, then quantity. o   Compromise is needed in ARR when selecting species. Financial reality means fast growing species first for sequestration then build biodiversity over time as the site allows. Each site requires a specific regime. Maximise ANR as much as possible. o   Stop looking for perfect projects. They don’t exist. This is why we have risk buffers and the more conservative approach in updated methodologies. o   I’ve met some NGO’s who can scale and manage significant projects. Please don’t shoot me for saying this, but there are even more that require significant technical / managerial support and time to scale. In most cases, they should definitely be part of carbon projects but design their roles for where they have the skills and capacity to achieve the targets to the required standards.

Rick Rubin on self-doubt and self-sabotage: "Some successful artists are deeply insecure, self-sabotaging, struggling with addiction, or facing other obstacles to making and sharing their work. An unhealthy self-image or a hardship in life can fuel great art, creating a deep well of insight and emotion for an artist to draw from. They can also get in the way of the artist being able to make many things over a long period of time. People who are particularly challenged in this sense generally can’t produce creative work over and over again. This isn’t because they’re not artistically capable, but because they were only able to break through their own issues one or two times and share great work. One of the reasons so many great artists die of overdoses early in their lives is because they’re using drugs to numb a very painful existence." (Rick Rubin, The Creative Act)

As the UK prepares to see the latest SDR, I’ve written in the Financial Times (link below), arguing that the key question to define success is this: can we actually use what we buy? The MOD faces a deeper challenge than procurement inefficiencies or budget constraints: a cultural resistance to adoption. Adoption is when new technologies go from “trial” to “tool” — becoming part of doctrine, training, and permanent budget lines. Until that moment, the military can’t use them. And the companies building them? They don’t get paid. To unlock private capital investment into defence, investors need to see a customer that actually adopts and rewards innovation. The UK has spent tens of millions on FPV drones — but all were sent to Ukraine. Our own troops train without them. Meanwhile, Ukraine updates tactics weekly, adapting faster than the MOD finds its pen. The MOD knows what kit it needs. But internal structures actively block progress — leaving our forces dangerously behind modern warfare trends. We need more than reform on spreadsheets. We need a cultural shift. The SDR, the new Defence & Security Partnership with the EU, and discussions of a global defence bank are promising steps. But unless the UK fixes its adoption bottleneck, these reforms won’t deliver real change. Innovation doesn’t just need funding. It needs will. Read the full piece in the Financial Times: https://lnkd.in/e-mwp32H #UKDefence #SDR2025 #DefenceTech #FPVDrones #MOD #DefenceReform #TechnologyAdoption #FutureForce

The fashion industry’s journey toward sustainability is encountering significant challenges due to a volatile market, incoming regulations, and shifting politics. What started as a gradual shift has now become more pronounced. Brands that once proudly showcased their sustainable initiatives are now scaling back or pausing these efforts. This shift is accompanied by job cuts in senior sustainability roles, with companies like Nike and Canada Goose restructuring their teams. Moncler even removed its chief sustainability officer earlier this year. While some companies continue to hire for sustainability roles, the industry is rethinking how to resource and manage these teams. Brands like ASOS.com and Crocs have delayed or abandoned their climate targets, citing unrealistic initial goals. Companies claim they are restructuring to align with changing standards and business realities, not lowering their sustainability ambitions. However, these changes threaten to derail the industry’s already lagging climate progress, especially as record-breaking temperatures highlight the urgency of action. In the aftermath of the 2015 Paris Agreement and a pandemic-fueled consumer awakening, big brands set ambitious sustainability targets. However, as business priorities shift, sustainability efforts, which often have intangible benefits, are becoming easy targets for cost-cutting. This trend extends beyond fashion, particularly in the US, where political backlash against “woke capitalism” has led some companies to abandon both diversity and climate targets. Nike and Canada Goose have significantly cut their sustainability teams, though they maintain their commitment to sustainability. McKinsey & Company reports that about two-thirds of fashion brands are behind on their decarbonization schedules. The changes also reflect tightening regulations and evolving standards, prompting companies to reevaluate their sustainability initiatives. Many are becoming more cautious in communicating achievements and setting targets amid a crackdown on #greenwashing. Recruiters note that the structure of sustainability teams is changing, with C-suite positions being slashed and key activities integrated into more operational roles. New hires are focused on change management rather than grand strategy. The challenges are not unique to the fashion industry; various sectors are adjusting their sustainability goals in response to external pressures and evolving market conditions. As we navigate these turbulent times, it is crucial to find a balance between business realities and the urgent need for sustainable practices. In the meantime, the world keeps getting hotter.  🌱 #Sustainability #BusinessStrategy #ClimateAction #CorporateResponsibility #EnvironmentalGoals #Leadership #Innovation #FutureOfWork The Business of Fashion https://lnkd.in/g3SJ7Dqx