1 Introduction
From Facebook’s role in the Arab Spring in 20101 and the civil unrest in Myanmar,2 to the leading social and digital platforms’ neglect of labor laws,3 and Wirecard’s money laundering scandal,4 the technology industry has not been exempt from human rights violations. Simultaneously, new technologies are pivotal in creating a more sustainable and equitable future. Each stakeholder in the technology industry must choose whether to act as a force for good or to ignore the potential adverse impacts of these technologies. Venture capital (vc) investors, in particular, hold a unique position as they invest in early-stage companies and thus have the power to significantly influence innovation through their funding decisions. The stance of vc investors on human rights critically affects which new technologies will be developed and whether their societal impact will be positive or negative.
This paper discusses the influence vc investors enjoy in the implementation of human rights due diligence. In particular, it aims at identifying the regulatory obligations pertaining to human rights that may apply to vc investors and the challenges they face when trying to implement human rights due diligence
This article does not extend to environmental rights as human rights, such as the right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.5 Additionally, the paper occasionally references concepts from the broader framework of Environmental Social Governance (esg), as human rights considerations are often incorporated within esg.
2 Setting the Scene: What Is the Issue?
2.1 Who Are Venture Capital Investors and Why Do They Matter in the Context of Human Rights Implementation?
vc investors constitute a subset of private equity investors who are specialized in early-stage and high-growth companies,6 often referred to as startups. vc investors focus on providing the knowledge and financial resources to support startups from their inception to their exit, which typically is an acquisition by a larger corporation, an initial public offering, or bankruptcy. To do so, vc investors raise funds from private individuals, pension funds, corporations, financial institutions or governments, commonly referred to as limited partners (lp).7 They then scout for startups with high potential of returns and invest significant amounts of cash in exchange for equity. Once the investment is made, they help the startups in their portfolio reach their growth target by sitting on their board, introducing them to potential customers, sharing their knowledge and networks, and providing further access to financing through successive funding rounds. When the company exits, vc investors intend to make a profit on their investment, which will be partially redistributed to their lps. As approximately 70% of the investments fail to provide a positive return,8 vc investors rely on a small portion of their portfolio of investments to generate sufficient returns to cover for losses and generate a profit. This has been
The global venture capital market is relatively small compared to the public market, as it represents $2.5 trillion of assets under management (2022).10 However, the impact of the vc firms on our world must not be underestimated, as their investments will decide which technologies will strive and which will fail.11 For example, the rise of artificial intelligence startups (ai) in late 2022 is a direct result of the $19 billion the vcs poured in ai in 2018 alone.12
Furthermore, vcs often have a stronger hold than other investors on the governance of the company they invest in. Building and growing a startup requires a lot of capital and expertise that they can specifically provide. vc investors and the other shareholders of the company negotiate shareholders’ agreements in which they agree on a common set of rules on how the company shall be managed and how they should act as shareholders. In addition, shareholders’ agreements provide investors with specific privileges and rights, both financially (liquidation preferences) and socially (board representation, veto rights, etc.).
As vc investors have a strong influence on the technologies that we, as a society, use today and will use tomorrow, they have an opportunity to play a crucial role in the adoption, or lack thereof, of human rights due diligence (“hrdd”). Most of them are uniquely positioned to allocate their funding to startups that do not negatively impact human rights or engage in human rights abuses. This is especially important for startups developing frontier technologies,13 such as
2.2 What Are the Challenges Faced by Venture Capital Investors When Trying to Integrate Human Rights Considerations in Their Processes?
Historically, venture capitalists have fallen short of demonstrating an impressive record on esg matters, positive impact and sustainability. Critics have long highlighted the lack of diversity and inclusiveness among the leading players of the industry.15 Probably as a result, many companies backed by venture capital have also disregarded human rights in general, ignoring in particular basic rules in terms of privacy and labor rights.16 Coupled with the largely unchallenged ‘move fast and break things’ motto, it is of no surprise that venture capitalists have not led the way so far towards promoting proper esg and, in particular, hr aligned responsible investments.
Indeed, a 2021 report from Amnesty International found that only one out of the 53 vc investors they interviewed had human rights due diligence processes in place.17 Furthermore, according to a 2022 survey conducted by the Principles for Responsible Investment (“pri”), 83% of the investors surveyed found it difficult to incorporate esg factors in their investment process due to the many challenges they are facing when doing so.18
Among these challenges, vc investors struggle to remediate the integration of human rights considerations with startups’ grow-at-all-costs culture. Implementing credible hrdd processes usually requires hiring specific personnel, which will incur costs for the startups that often rely on very limited resources.19 As nearly three quarters of startups eventually run out of money,20 they often prioritize developing their product and focusing on their growth over designing potentially costly hrdd processes.
Finally, 86% of investors surveyed by pri stated that they fail to find appropriate resources to identify relevant sets of esg metrics.22 The lack of unified metrics and industry standards tailored for the needs of vc investors is another barrier to appropriate hrdd processes.
All such arguments are valid but certainly not a reason to abstain. Furthermore, other arguments are even more debatable. For instance, vc investors often claim they lack influence over company management. As they compete to secure the best investments, they are inclined to adopt a founder-friendly approach to be accepted as investors. This can lead to inadequate checks and balances within the company and make it more challenging to enforce the adoption of essential hrdd processes. Even when vc representatives are involved in company management, such as serving on the board of directors, they may struggle to take an active role across all their startups. A single investor might manage up to 30 startups in the portfolio,23 resulting in insufficient time and resources to attend each board meeting.
Or so the story goes. In truth, opportunities for vcs to make a positive impact are real, but they greatly vary depending, in particular, on the timing of the investment and the maturity of the target. In early-stage investments, founders are crucial to the early traction of the company, and vcs, which have to buy their way in for the best candidates, might have difficulty addressing a proper and comprehensive discourse with regard to hr, let alone esg. In syndicates, only the lead investor will negotiate, and mission alignment discussions are often secondary to financial valuation. As minority shareholders with only a limited set of protective provisions designed to protect the investment rather than promote a sustainability agenda, impact driven by vc investors may be initially limited.
However, the argument progressively turns into an excuse in growth investments, which materialize at a later stage. Startups are then less dependent on their historical founders, proper business plans are drafted and implemented,
2.3 What Regulatory Frameworks Apply to Venture Capital and Human Rights?
Until recently, specific legislation regulating how vc investors must treat human rights due diligence considerations has been scarce, if not non-existent. In the past years, however, governments have adopted several regulations aimed at pushing corporations to think about human rights and esg considerations in their daily operations. Even if some of these regulations do not apply directly to vc investors, they will have an indirect effect on their business practices and must be analyzed to understand how the vc industry might evolve.
Moreover, vc firms’ activity is multinational by nature. For example, vc firms usually raise capital from investors all over the world, have offices in one or more countries, incorporate their funds in tax friendly legislations and invest in startups based in different regions. Establishing the precise framework applying to a specific vc firm can therefore be challenging. For more clarity, the present analysis will be limited to the regulations applicable to vc investors located and investing in Europe and Switzerland.
First, vc investors are subject to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (“ungps”). In theory, they must therefore adopt the human rights due diligence mechanisms described under principles 17 to 21 of the ungps. However, as the ungps only provide general guidance, they may not be suitable to serve as the common guidelines the vc industry needs. Their influence in the actual decision-making process remains weak.24
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“oecd”) adopted a due diligence guidance for responsible business conduct (“oecd
On the regional level, the European Union recently committed to improving how European financial institutions integrate sustainability into their operations by adopting specific sets of regulations.
In particular, the European Union adopted the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (“sfdr”), which aims at implementing transparency with regards to the integration of sustainability risks by financial market participants, including vc funds, and the consideration of adverse sustainability impacts in their processes.27 The sfdr specifies disclosure levels for financial institutions claiming to take into consideration esg factors in their investment thesis (“light-green funds”) and those which claim to seek a positive impact (“dark-green funds”). As a result, vc investors are required to measure the sustainability of their investments, including human rights considerations.
In addition to the sfdr, the European Union adopted the EU Taxonomy, which aims at setting common criteria for determining whether an economic activity qualifies as sustainable28 by defining six environmental objectives which an investment must contribute to and not significantly harm to be deemed sustainable. Furthermore, the EU Taxonomy states that any investment deemed as sustainable must comply with the oecd Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.29
Finally, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (“csddd”)30 was adopted in April 2024.31 While the csrd and sfrd primarily focus on transparency and reporting obligations, the csddd requires companies to actively mitigate their adverse impacts on human rights and the environment. Companies within the scope of the csddd must conduct due diligence on their own activities and assess the impact of their upstream and downstream operations.32 However, the number of companies affected by the csddd will be limited, as it applies only to European companies with more than 1,000 employees on average and a net worldwide turnover exceeding eur 450 million in the last financial year.33 Non-European companies will also fall under the csddd if they generate a turnover of more than eur 450 million within the EU, without needing to meet a specific employee threshold.34 Additionally, companies providing services rather than products are not required to conduct due diligence on their downstream activities and business partners.35 The
In Switzerland, the adoption of regulations promoting broader implementation of human rights due diligence practices has been slow. In response to the Responsible Business Initiative, a citizen initiative, the Swiss parliament adopted articles 964a to 964l of the Swiss Code of Obligations (“sco”) in 2020. These articles establish a series of transparency obligations regarding non-financial matters.37 Under these provisions, companies must report on their CO2 targets, social issues, employee-related issues, respect for human rights, and efforts to combat corruption. However, this regulation only applies to public companies, corporations with at least 500 full-time equivalent positions, or those exceeding either a balance sheet total of 20 million Swiss francs or a sales revenue of 40 million Swiss francs. Additionally, sector-specific regulations apply to companies involved in the mining and trade of certain minerals, or those offering products or services suspected of being manufactured or provided using child labor. These companies must implement due diligence processes for their supply chains. Given the size and industries in which startups operate, few will actually be affected by these regulations. However, on the 26th of June 2024, the Federal Council opened consultation proceedings pertaining to the introduction of a new regulation aimed at strengthening transparency obligations and widening the range of corporations that would be subject to such obligations38. Even if the exact outline of the regulation remains to be seen, this signals a desire from the Federal Council to align with the EU on this topic.
The regulatory framework outlining the rules that venture capital investors must follow when implementing human rights due diligence remains relatively
3 Time to Act: How Can Venture Capital Investors Implement Human Rights Due Diligence?
3.1 What Measures Can Venture Capital Investors Implement?
When they set up an investment fund (fundraising) and start screening the market for potential candidates (sourcing), vc investors need to have in place a clear investment strategy embedding human rights considerations, which is fully supported by, and communicated to, the lps. Once a target has been identified, the initial due diligence exercise should be conducted in a way that allows adequate identification of potential human rights issues and related remedial measures. Of course, the terms of any investment should be negotiated in a way to ensure a shared vision, mission alignment and proper governance and transparency regarding human rights issues within the stakeholders. Once the investors close the deal, continuous management and monitoring on progress should be implemented. Finally, human rights compliance should also be part of the discussion investors have when they go public or sell their stake to new investors (exits). Throughout this process, vc investors must appropriately document the measures they are taking to make sure that their own activity does not create adverse human rights impacts.
3.1.1 Sourcing Deals
vc firms depend on the financial resources provided by their lps to close deals. Accordingly, lps should clarify their expectations from the outset of the fundraising and fund structuring processes, not only in terms of financial performance but also with regard to sustainability issues, and human rights impacts in particular. Alignment with the general partners (“gps”) at the head of the venture capital firms, which will deploy the assets provided by the lps, is usually embedded in the fund prospectus documentation. In Europe, the sfdr provides a strong common ground for vc investors to rely on when deciding the content of their policy commitment and internal alignment with their lps by choosing a “light-green fund” (Article 8 sfdr) or “dark-green fund” (Article
vc investors may also specifically decide which industries or sectors should be excluded altogether, as the risk of harm to human rights is simply too high to even consider any investment (exclusion list).43 For example, the defense and warfare industry may be deemed incompatible with human rights and therefore excluded per se. However, exclusion lists may be difficult to implement in practice as startups are often active in multiple sectors and their technology can have more than one end-use, especially in “frontier” or “deep” technologies. To illustrate, can vcs which excluded the defense and warfare industry from their investments still fund a startup developing a drone that may, under certain conditions, be modified and used on a war ground? vc investors should therefore also implement strong processes on how to identify potential investments that do not comply with their exclusion list.44
3.1.2
Once a potential candidate has been identified, the first step is to conduct due diligence to identify potential risks. The audit usually focuses on identifying financial, technological, business or legal risks, and relies on the expertise of external advisors, such as accountants, consultants and lawyers, to analyze the material provided by the target. Due diligence rarely extends in venture capital circles yet to human rights impact assessment (or even broader sustainability issues).
In our view, however, it is key that vc investors explicitly integrate human rights considerations into their due diligence processes in order to identify any potential adverse impacts. To do so, they should submit a specific human rights-related questionnaire to the management of the target.
- (i)Do all employees have a formal contract of employment?45
- (ii)What percentage of the workers are full-time vs. part-time vs. contractors?46
- (iii)Does the business model rely on low wage or gig labor at any point in the supply chain?47
- (iv)What percentage of your workers have access to paid time off, healthcare, and other benefits?48
- (v)Does the company employ migrant workers, and if so, which processes are used to ensure minimum standards of human rights are adhered to?49
The questionnaire should also include questions pertaining to the startup’s specific technology and the potential negative impact it may have on human rights, such as:50
- (i)
Can the technology be used for the defense industry, including in conflict-affected areas? - (ii)Is any part of the technology observing behaviors from any stakeholder? If yes, does the surveillance limit work autonomy, diminish well-being and/or limit workers’ and the public’s privacy?
- (i)Are any of the customers active in any of the following fields: production or trade in any illegal product or activity, gambling, casinos and equivalent enterprises, prostitution, mining, defense or warfare ?
- (ii)Are any of your suppliers based in any of the following countries: [list of countries known for low human rights standards]
The questionnaire should also include sector-specific questions based on the potential risks linked to this sector or technology. For example, vc investors seeking to invest in a startup in the field of artificial intelligence should conduct further investigation about the potential risks of the ai being developed by the startup. Risks of harm from ai startups may derive from the product that they develop, its end-use, or from the way the data is being collected and processed.51 Furthermore, vc investors funding ai startups should seek to determine the maturity of the technology and the efforts that are being taken by the startup to mitigate the risk of unethical ai technology.52
In addition to the questionnaire, vc investors should request access to any specific documentation, including contracts with employees and suppliers, which may help further assess potential human rights impacts.
3.1.3 Negotiating the Terms
The findings of the due diligence will be part of the negotiation of the investment deal. Discussions will of course address the valuation of the target and the privileges offered to the investors (in terms of financial liquidation preference but also specific governance rights such as board representation, priority rights in share acquisitions, and veto rights on certain key decisions).
All such key issues are traditionally first addressed in a term sheet, which is a lighter document than the actual agreements supporting the investment deal. Several term sheet templates are available on the market, and many of them have been open sourced by professional associations. This is the case, for example, in the US53 and Switzerland.54 However, such broadly used documents, which have sometimes become de facto standard in the venture capital industry, rarely specify that the due diligence that the investors must conduct before they can commit to funding the target should include esg considerations, let alone human rights impact assessment.55
One notable exception is the Impact Term Sheet (“its”), which is the result of an extensive consultation and open collaboration process managed by the Netherlands-based Legal Innovation for Sustainable Investments (“lisi”) foundation. lisi’s mission is to advance the structures and legal models of impactful investments, and make the investment space more approachable, appealing and accessible for every stakeholder involved in the process.56 The its is an open sourced 28-page long annotated template term sheet for impact investments, and is currently being rolled out among leading European
- (i)The clarification that the due diligence performed by the investors shall extend to the target’s impact performance and contain a gap analysis in business, financial, and impact metrics that needs to the reflected in a business plan and the deal documentation;
- (ii)The requirement to initially identify relevant stakeholders, including mapping risks (including with regard to human rights) according to severity of impact, magnitude and likelihood of occurrence;
- (iii)The inclusion of impact objectives in annual “Strategic Performance Metrics” to determine the target’s adjusted valuation and allow regular assessment of the stakeholders’ interests and management;
- (iv)The duty to measure, transparently report on, and act upon possible risks and adverse impacts, in particular on human rights of stakeholders;
- (v)The implementation of a grievance management mechanism in addition to proper governance and mission safeguard processes and checks, including when exiting the investment.
3.1.4 Managing the Investment
Once the investment has closed, vc investors are usually represented on the board, and thus have direct access to, and full visibility on, the company’s operations. By law, their duty is to run the business, unless delegated to management, and act in the best interests of the company at all times.
From a legal perspective, the specific actions that vc investors should, or may, take to ensure human rights are not abused will therefore very much depend on whether it actually is in the best interests of the company to actively promote human rights (and more generally esg) best practices and seek to have a positive impact, or whether legal compliance is deemed sufficient and, if so, whether compliance shall be sought on the (Swiss based) company level only or extend to foreign owned subsidiaries, or even stakeholders such as suppliers and communities.
In a first scenario, the company has a clear purpose of pursuing a positive impact. Such purpose has been reflected in its articles of incorporation or other constitutional documents, maybe as part of a B Corp Certification59 or as a result of adopting a steward owned structure.60 In any event, the company’s purpose and mission are sufficiently “anchored” for the board to safely consider not only shareholders but also broader stakeholders’ interests, and in particular address human rights considerations.61
In a second scenario, the investors have managed, in the negotiations, to convince all shareholders and board members to adhere to a shared vision with a dedicated sustainability approach that still needs to be properly designed and implemented post-investment. Although purpose is not formally “embedded” in any constitutional document, the relevant stakeholders, and in particular the shareholders, contractually commit to implementation actions. As an example, the model vc documentation proposed by the Singapore Venture and Private Capital Association specifically include a detailed “esg Agreement.”62 The same goes for a schedule to the model shareholders agreement for early-stage investments published by the British Venture Capital Association.63 In such cases, the board may also actively pursue a sustainability approach.
3.1.5 Exiting the Position
The effort of vc investors to implement human rights diligence only makes sense if they are continued once the vc investors exit their position. vc investors exit their position by selling their shares, either on their own or during an exit event such as an acquisition by another company or entering the public market. Setting up the measures needed to make sure that the shareholders will seek to find buyers who share the same commitment to human rights is crucial. One way to do so is to require shareholders seeking an exit to prioritize selling to existing shareholders in order to guarantee the continuity of the commitment to implement human rights due diligence. If external investors are needed, the selling shareholders must consent to sell only to a buyer ready to commit to the startup’s effort on human rights.66
4
Innovation and sustainability are not exclusive. Investing in technology does not imply disregarding human rights. Venture capital leaders love to promote their achievements and the impressive performance of their business model, which in the last 50 years has provided the most reliable and trusted source of returns on risky investments in technology and innovation.
As lps increasingly demand that the financial resources they invest in vc firms not only provide a financial return but also serve a broader purpose, vc investors will have to play a more active role in the advancement and proper management of human rights in industries that have traditionally ignored them. Because they join companies in their infancy, vc investors can build a sustainability culture and mindset from the start of the venture journey, and concretely help design, implement and monitor a whole range of sustainability actions and processes without much pushback or interference. As vc investors provide financing resources for the continuous growth of the company, they are in a key position to direct part of the resources to the sustainability efforts, in particular with regard to measurement, reporting and improvement.
If investments are properly structured and negotiated, and investors and companies can agree on a shared vision and anchor the corporate purpose in constitutional documents, the law will support the efforts by the company’s board of directors and management to implement proper measures to ensure human rights compliance. Investors willing to have an impact and promote sustainability should seize the opportunity.
Rebecca J. Rosen, “So, Was Facebook Responsible for the Arab Spring After All?,” The Atlantic, September 3, 2011,
“Myanmar: The social atrocity: Meta and the right to remedy for the Rohingya,” Amnesty International, September 29, 2022,
“UK: Fairwork analysis of working conditions for 12 digital platforms finds none meet five basic standards of fair work; incl. co. responses,” Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, June 14, 2023,
Jörn Poltz, “German prosecutors open Wirecard money laundering probe,” Reuters, July 9, 2020,
Jaap Bartels and Willem Schramade, “Investing in human rights. overcoming the human rights data problem,” Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investing 14, no. 1 (January 2024): 199–219,
Adam Hayes, “What Is Venture Capital?,” Investopedia, updated March 7, 2024,
Id.
“Risky Business; How leading venture capital firms ignore human rights when investing in technology,” Amnesty International, July 30, 2021, 7,
Johannes Lenhard and Susan Winterberg, “How Venture Capital Can Join the esg Revolution,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, August 26, 2021,
Pontus Averstad et al., “Private markets turn down the volume,” McKinsey & Company, March 21, 2023, 10,
Theodoros Evgeniou and Claudia Zeisberger, “Venture Capital Crucial to Push for ‘Ethical’ ai and Tech Standards,” insead, March 16, 2022,
“Bridging the private equity gap to tackle tech business model risks,” United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner B-Tech Project, 1,
Frontier technologies are defined as: “technologies currently being developed and holding realistic potential to not only become reality but to become socially and economically relevant in the foreseeable future.” See Susan Wintenberg et al., “Responsible Investing in Tech and Venture Capital: Advancing Public Purpose in Frontier Technology Companies,” Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, August 2020, accessed May 19, 2024, 6, footnote 2.
Ravit Dotan, “Responsible Investing in ai: a Guidebook for vcs,” Tech Better ai, December 12, 2022,
See e.g., Lenhard and Winterberg, “How Venture Capital Can Join the esg Revolution,” supra note 9.
Peter Dunbar, “Starting up: Responsible investment in Venture Capital,” Principles for Responsible Investment (pri), January 24, 2022,
See e.g., Amnesty International “Risky Business,” supra note 8, at 13.
See e.g., Dunbar, “Starting up,” supra note 16, at 25.
Id.
Id.
See id. at 27.
Id.
See id. at 26.
See e.g., Amnesty International, “Risky Business,” supra note 8, at 13.
oecd (2018), “oecd Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct,” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (oecd), May 30, 2018,
Id. at 10–11.
Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 on sustainability‐related disclosures in the financial services sector (Text with eea relevance), oj l 317, December 9, 2019, 1–16, Article 1.
Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (Text with eea relevance), oj l 198, June 22, 2020, 13–43, Article 1.
Id. at Articles 3(c) and 18.
Directive (EU) 2024/ 1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859.
European Parliament, “Due Diligence: meps adopt rules for firms on human rights and environment”, Press release, April 24, 2024,
Morganne Kroon, et al., “erm Policy Alert – Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (csddd)”, April 26, 2024, at 6.
Article 2 par.1 let. a) csddd.
Article 2 par.2 let. a) csddd.
Principle for Responsible Investment (pri), “Investor briefing – EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive”, April, 2024, at 7.
See e.g. Kroon et al., “erm Policy Alert – Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (csddd)”, supra note 32, at 7.
For more details, see Giul Neri-Castracane, “La (due) diligence sous les art. 964a à 964l co” in Modernisation du droit de la société anonyme du 19 juin 2020, Collection lausannoise cedidac, 2024.
Federal Council, “Gestion durable des entreprises : le Conseil fédéral veut durcir les règles en matière de publication d’informations”, Press release, June, 26, 2024,
See e.g., United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner B-Tech Project, “Bridging the private equity gap to tackle tech business model risks,” supra note 12, at 3.
Amit Bouri et al., “Impact-based incentive structures,” Global Impact Investing Network (giin), December 8, 2011,
“esg Due Diligence Questionnaire for Private Equity Investors and their Portfolio Companies,” Invest Europe, accessed May 19, 2024,
“esg Assessment Framework,” Institutional Limited Partners Association, July 21, 2021,
For an example of an exclusion list, see “ifc Exclusion List (2007): Defines the types of projects that ifc does not finance,” International Finance Corporation (ifc), July 30, 2007,
Douwe Korf, “Opinion on the implications of the exclusion from new binding European instruments on the use of ai in military, national security and transnational law enforcement contexts,” European Center for Not-for-Profit Law, October 2022,
Invest Europe, “esg Due Diligence Questionnaire,” supra note 40, at 6.
Liz Sisson, Nathalie Gazzaneo, and Howe Campbell, “Venture Capital and Public Purpose Playbook,” in Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, April 12, 2021, 20.
Id.
Id.
Invest Europe, “esg Due Diligence Questionnaire,” supra note 40, at 6.
Sisson, Gazzaneo, and Campbell, “Venture Capital and Public Purpose Playbook,” supra note 45.
See e.g., Dotan, “Responsible Investing in ai,” supra note 14, at 11.
Id. at 13.
“Model Legal Documents,” The National Venture Capital Association, July 12, 2023,
“seca Model Documentation: Venture Capital,” Swiss Private Equity & Corporate Finance Association, accessed May 19, 2024,
In all fairness, models date a few years, and newer versions have some “esg” flavors in more sophisticated templates for final agreements, such as shareholders agreement or investment agreements, but still not at the term sheet stage.
For more about Legal Innovation for Sustainable Investments (lisi), see “Impactful investing, made easier for everyone involved,” lisa, February 20, 2024,
The lisi Impact Term Sheet is available at “The Impact Term Sheet – Welcome to smarter investment deals,” lisi, February 20, 2024,
Mathieu Blanc and Jean-Luc Chenaux, “Corporate Governance,” in Berner Kommentar: Kommentar zum schweizerischen Privatrecht, eds. Peter Nobel and Christoph Müller (Bern: Stämpfli, 2023), 493–541; Michel Jaccard and Anh-Thu Thai, “Venture Capital, esg and Sustainable Investments – Where do we stand? What needs to be done?,” Swiss Review of Business and Financial Market Law, July 3, 2023,
More about the B Corp Certification, see “Certification B Corporation,” B-Lab, accessed September 02, 2024, B Corp Certification - B Lab Switzerland (blab-switzerland.ch).
More about steward owned structures, see “It all starts with ownership,” We Are Stewards, accessed May 19, 2024,
See also lisi, “The Impact Term Sheet,” supra note 56, which encourages such a “purpose” approach.
“Model Legal Documents – Venture Capital Investment Model Agreements (vima) 2.0,” Singapore Venture and Private Capital Association, accessed May 19, 2024,
“Model documents for early-stage investments,” British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association, February 2023,
lisa, “The Impact Term Sheet,” supra note 55, at 13.
See e.g., id. at 18.
See e.g., id. at 21.