Thomas Hogenhaven – The €22M regen fund that said no to €7M

After three years, Thomas Hogenhaven, founder and managing partner of Planetary Impact Ventures, is back on the podcast. Thomas and his team just turned down a $7 million investment in their fund. That’s right—said no to $7 million. And this wasn’t some shady source of capital either. This was a serious, institutional investor, fully compliant with KYC requirements. So… why walk away?

It comes down to values and incentives. When you’re building one of the most radical investment funds in the regenerative space, with an evergreen structure and no carry, you can’t afford to compromise. If you let investors in who start nudging you toward their own impact goals- let’s say, a focus on water savings- you risk skewing your entire investment strategy. Drip irrigation might look great on a report measuring millions of liters saved, but that’s not the point here.

Instead the super brave thing to do is say no to these kind of impact measures and trust that the structure and the alligned incentives will automatically make sure you only invest in the most radical founders. This radical approach has ripple effects. Like you might refuse to invest in a company, for example a drone platform, which could be used to spray compost tea. This radical fund will force the company to sign as part of the investment terms to never use the drone spraying platform for the agro chemical industry, but only for agroecological purposes.

Do you see how a new investment paradigm starts to take shape?

RADICAL REGEN FOUNDERS NEED RADICAL, REAL, LONG-TERM MONEY

Unlike traditional venture capital, Planetary operates as an evergreen fund with no carried interest. This means no exit timelines forcing companies toward premature sales, and no performance bonuses pushing fund managers to prioritize short term financial returns over long term financial returns and long term impact. It’s an approach that’s allowed them to attract founders working on genuine system change—those who might otherwise avoid raising investment altogether for fear of compromising their missions.

Radical founders face demotivation and ethical risks with traditional VC capital due to forced exits and misalignment. Thomas explains how exit clauses can compromise their mission.

“Some of those who had taken in money from a traditional VC were quite demotivated by it because all of a sudden there was an exit date in the shareholders or investment agreement […] If I can get sold to a bad actor or someone who doesn’t really want this transition, I can be used for greenwashing or legitimized continuing as it is, and then I have not done anything good. Quite the contrary, there is a risk of me contributing to the bad side of this. ” Thomas Hogenhaven

WHY THOMAS IS BUILDING AN ECOSYSTEM OF OTHER EVERGREEN INVESTORS

Perhaps most thought-provoking is Planetary’s philosophical stance on control itself. In a financial world pretending to certainty, they embrace the fundamental unpredictability of living systems. Like the regenerative farmers they support, they focus on creating favorable conditions rather than dictating outcomes—a humility that paradoxically increases their resilience and effectiveness.

Planetary Ventures alone can’t sustain radical founders long-term. Thomas describes creating coalitions to ensure aligned capital follows their portfolio companies.

“We are starting to see such a coalition […] I think actually having that sort of willingness to co-invest is what we need right now because what we need to do is to create a sort of a clear path for those progressive founders and companies to actually know that there will be funding all along if they take the right, in my mind, radical path in this, and because they won’t need the closed and regular VC funds because there actually is an alternative.” Thomas Hogenhaven

WHY THOMAS IS INVOLVED IN POLITICS IN DENMARK

What makes this conversation particularly valuable is its exploration of influence beyond direct investments. Thomas shares how building a credible, values-aligned institution unexpectedly earned them a seat at Denmark’s agricultural policy table, where they’re helping shape a reform that will return 20% of farmland to nature. This exemplifies how regenerative capital can catalyze change far beyond portfolio companies.

“We built an institution, an investment company, we got invited into a political room that we never expected we would be invited into. I think that also shows that it’s really hard to predict your impact. This is probably one of the highest impact things we can do in this fund’s lifetime.” Thomas Hogenhaven

FUNDRAISING FOR THE FUND IS NOT SO DIFFICULT ANYMORE

Have you considered how your investment approach might change if you prioritized regeneration over exit strategies? Where might you find more aligned capital for your regenerative venture? Over the years, inbound interest replaces scepticism as Planetary’s no-carry/evergreen model gains credibility and Thomas notes a shift in investor trust.

” So, basically all our fundraising is inbound. So, we don’t spend that much time on it. We don’t have a lead list or anything like that. It’s people that hear about us that reach out and are curious to learn about us and we talk to them. We don’t really try to do any selling because if they’re not aligned, I don’t think they should be here because it will implode sooner or later.” Thomas Hogenhaven

PLANETARY VENTURES SAID NO TO €7M INVESTMENT FOR THE FUND

Rejecting misaligned capital preserves integrity. Thomas prioritized mission over scale, fearing institutional demands would distort their theory of change. The fund’s commitment to integrity isn’t just theoretical. Thomas recounts turning down nearly €7 million from an institutional investor whose requirements would have pushed them toward quantifying impacts that can’t meaningfully be reduced to metrics. Instead, Planetary focuses on supporting companies with clear theories of change, like those creating demand for locally-grown legumes or developing non-chemical agricultural technologies.

“We actually just said no to almost 7 million euros from a large investment because we felt we didn’t really agree on the purpose of what we were doing, and I think they were coming from more of a classical impact investor perspective where impact and return go hand in hand”. Thomas Hogenhaven

OTHER POINTS DISCUSSED

Koen and Thomas also talked about:

No-carry compensation model
Impact measurement challenges
Progressive founders as bottleneck

LINKS:

LINKED INTERVIEWS:

——————————————

Feedback, comments, suggestions? Reach me via Twitter @KoenvanSeijen, in the comments below or through Get in Touch on this website.

Join the Investing in Regenerative Agriculture and Food newsletter on www.eepurl.com/cxU33P

The above references an opinion and is for information and educational purposes only. It is not intended to be investment advice. Seek a duly licensed professional for investment advice.

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY NOW!