Don’t ask “CVC or not?” — ask “How should we design it?” CVC works. The real risk isn’t doing it — it’s doing it without clear structure, governance, and intent. 
To CVC or Not to CVC: An Examination of Venture Clienting with Francesco Di Lorenzo
In January, Nicolas Sauvage welcomed Francesco Di Lorenzo to Corporate Venturing Insider for a conversation that blended operator experience with academic rigor. The two have crossed paths for years across Europe’s innovation circuit—from TechBBQ to EUVC Summit stage and a Combient Foundry–Maersk event moderated by Jeppe Høier.
While Sauvage speaks from the front lines of corporate venture capital, Di Lorenzo brings a decade of research into how ideas move between large firms and startups. “I entered this field approximately 10 years ago,” he explains, tracing his interest from consulting into academic work inspired by Schumpeter and Arrow. What began as research into inventor mobility evolved into a broader inquiry: how and why corporates invest in—or collaborate with—startups.
That journey ultimately led him beyond traditional CVC into the wider landscape of corporate venturing—where today, venture clienting has emerged as one of the most talked-about models.
To CVC or Not to CVC?
Sauvage frames the debate with a Shakespearean flourish: “To CVC or not to CVC?”
Two decades of research suggest the answer has largely been “yes.” Corporate investment in startups has shown positive financial and innovation effects. But, Di Lorenzo notes, the more important question has shifted.
“The question is not CVC, yes or no,” he says. “It’s how.”
Over the past decade, academic and practitioner focus has moved toward structure, governance, and incentive design. And in recent years, as some corporates retrench from equity investing, a new model has gained momentum.
Enter venture clienting.
Rather than investing in startups, corporates become early customers—collaborating operationally instead of financially. It feels faster, cheaper, and more controlled. In an era of deeptech uncertainty and capital discipline, that’s appealing.
But Di Lorenzo is wary of the narrative.
The Hidden Costs of “Cheaper”
“Venture clienting is about OpEx,” he says, contrasting it with CVC’s visible CapEx allocations. “You need a lot of people from operations that dialogue with a startup.”
Unlike a CVC fund—where capital is clearly allocated and measured—venture clienting’s costs are dispersed across business units. The time, integration effort, and organizational friction often remain hidden.
“If we measured those OpEx in a strict way,” he argues, “I bet they would be much less attractive opportunities than we believe they are.”
Governance presents another challenge. Startups routinely complain about corporate bureaucracy. Even CVC units, he notes, cite internal bureaucracy as their top pain point. Why should venture clienting be immune?
“Gazelle versus elephant,” he says, referencing the common metaphor. The cultural and structural asymmetries don’t disappear simply because equity is off the table.
The Market-for-Lemons Risk
Di Lorenzo also raises a subtler concern: strategic dependency.
He recounts a Nordic scale-up that rejected collaboration with a large European corporate because the proposed partnership would have restricted its ability to work with competitors. Instead, it accepted investment from a corporate that allowed broader market access.
If venture clienting leads corporates to demand exclusivity, startups may self-select. The strongest ventures—those confident in scaling independently—may walk away. What remains could be a “market for lemons,” where only startups willing to accept restrictive terms engage deeply.
“I don’t have the data,” he admits. “This is speculation. But I’m going to look into it.”
That willingness to interrogate assumptions is what makes Di Lorenzo’s critique unusual. In an ecosystem often enamored with the “new kid on the block,” he is asking uncomfortable questions.
Short-Term Wins, Long-Term Risk
Sauvage pushes back thoughtfully. Venture clienting can produce quick wins—internal champions, repeat business groups, visible ROI. In contrast, CVC often requires four years or more to show results.
But Di Lorenzo sees a strategic danger.
CVC, by nature, supports exploration. It looks five years out, acting as a “window on technology.” Venture clienting, focused on solving today’s operational problems, may bias firms toward incrementalism.
“If you repeat this game many times,” he warns, “the firm may unlearn to be explorers.”
That dynamic risks myopia—optimizing local problems while missing disruptive threats. Sauvage likens it to a frog growing comfortable in slowly heating water.
The solution, Di Lorenzo suggests, is not substitution but integration.
Both, Not Either
Rather than abandoning CVC in favor of venture clienting, corporates should design for coexistence.
He points to Maersk Growth as an example: separate but coordinated units for equity investment and strategic partnerships, reporting close to top leadership.
“Create a unit of venturing where the two identities are coexisting,” he says. Investing and collaborating serve different time horizons and strategic objectives. Both matter.
Critically, he emphasizes board commitment. Many venturing units fade after four years because top leadership wavers. “From skin in the game to board in the game,” he says, arguing that sustained corporate innovation requires governance at the highest level.
Exploring the Dark Side
When asked what excites him most today, Di Lorenzo surprises again.
“The dark side,” he replies.
Research has focused heavily on whether corporate venturing works. Far less attention has gone to misappropriation risk, strategic intent misalignment, and friction between startups and corporate investors.
Corporates do not invest out of charity, he reminds listeners. Their objectives may collide with startup ambitions—especially when both operate in the same industry. In some cases, startups may even accept lower valuations to mitigate perceived risks of idea appropriation.
These tensions, he argues, deserve more systematic study.
There is no definitive “best model” yet. But their discussion makes one thing clear: the conversation has matured. Corporate innovation is no longer about picking a single tool. It is about designing systems that balance exploration and execution, capital and collaboration.
In a field prone to cycles of enthusiasm, Di Lorenzo’s critique offers something valuable: intellectual discipline.
As he and Sauvage conclude, corporate venturing remains a powerful force. But if venture clienting is the new star, it would be wise to examine its shadow as carefully as its shine.
_________________________________________________________________________
Enjoyed this conversation?
Discover more insights from corporate innovators, top investors, and founders at cv-insider.com—the official home of the Corporate Venturing Insider series.
Follow us on your favorite platform for bite-sized takeaways and full episodes from across the CVC ecosystem:
🎧 Apple Podcasts
🎧 Spotify
✍️ Medium
