Why Reputation Is a Family Office's Greatest Asset

In the discreet world of family offices, where privacy is often paramount, it's tempting to believe that concepts like 'reputation' or 'public perception' are irrelevant. Historically, the priority has been to remain discreet, operating quietly behind the scenes while building and preserving wealth for future generations. However, in an era of unprecedented transparency and interconnectedness, this traditional fortress of privacy is facing new and complex challenges. Today, a family office’s success is no longer defined solely by its investment performance; it is increasingly tied to its perception, the trust it inspires, and the reputation it meticulously builds and protects. This is a fundamental shift from the tactical to the strategic.

Reputation is no longer a peripheral concern handled by a junior associate after a PR crisis. It is a core strategic asset, a non-financial metric that directly impacts financial outcomes, philanthropic endeavours, and the very legacy a family seeks to create.

Family office principals and chief investment officers are now recognising that their influence and standing, both in the private and public spheres, are essential to navigating the complexities of modern investment and succession.

The most effective offices take a proactive approach that blends legal counsel, governance discipline, and expert strategic communications advice, which protects both the office and the companies it invests in.

Leaders and advisers in this space must treat reputation as the strategic asset that it is, not a reactive function.

The Family Office Ecosystem

Family offices have grown into a formidable force in global finance, managing over US$3.1 trillion in assets across more than 8,000 single-family offices worldwide, according to Deloitte. That figure is expected to rise to US$5.4 trillion managed by nearly 11,000 offices by 2030. In 2024 alone, UBS reported that the average net worth per family office stood at US$2.6 billion, underscoring the scale and influence these organisations now command.

Compared to the global hedge fund industry, which managed US$4.5 trillion in the same year, family offices are not far behind, and they are catching up fast. Despite their scale, many remain lean in structure, with 20% operating with three or fewer employees, and around two-thirds employing no more than ten. These are agile, high-value entities that wield significant investment power, often with limited internal oversight.

This environment places a premium on privacy, trust and perception. Unlike publicly listed institutions, family offices do not rely on brand recognition or shareholder communication, but they are still judged, particularly in private circles of dealmakers, co-investors, and advisers.

A growing reliance on alternative assets, which make up 42% of portfolios, means offices are more exposed to partnerships, joint ventures, and illiquid holdings where reputation drives access and terms. At the same time, the threshold to operate effectively has shifted from US$200 million to upwards of US$3–4 billion, bringing increased visibility and scrutiny. In this context, trust is not just internal—it must be actively maintained across legal, financial, and advisory relationships.

Perception, especially within discreet investment networks, often defines opportunity before any paperwork is signed.

In fact, as I’ve written about before, family offices often lead in terms of investing in innovation where others follow. Why? Because families have sector experience and a vast network that they can tap into.

The Unseen Currency: Perception in the Private Sphere

For family offices, reputation isn't just about what's said in the media. A much more potent and critical aspect of reputation is the perception of them in private settings.

Family offices are becoming increasingly focused on their reputation, not just their public image, but also their reputation among peers and the people they do business with. This private perception is the lifeblood of deal-making. It's about how they are viewed by their peers, potential co-investors, investment banks, and the talent they wish to hire. Within these private spheres, reputation is everything.

It’s the unspoken assessment made over a confidential dinner, the implicit trust granted during a sensitive negotiation, or the quiet confidence that underpins a multi-generational partnership. Family offices with a strong reputation for being a reliable, fair, and trustworthy partner will be presented with better opportunities. Conversely, a family office perceived as brutal, overly aggressive, or lacking integrity will find itself on the outside looking in. This is especially true in a world where direct deals and club-style investments are becoming more common. Principals and CIOs are increasingly judged on their character as much as their capital. The fact is that trust is the currency that makes deals happen in the private world.

This is why the strategic management of reputation is so critical. It’s not about issuing public communications, but about private positioning in private communities. It’s about consistently demonstrating values that positively shape perceptions through actions. It means building long-term relationships, honouring commitments, and ensuring that every interaction, from a confidential meeting to a simple email, reinforces a positive impression, so that when you do speak publicly, you are perceived positively.

The Evolving Landscape: Discretion is Not Enough

Traditionally, family offices have relied on discretion and tight control of information. That model, though, is under strain.

Family offices are becoming 'more institutional in how they act and how they operate, but they are also getting more strategic on their reputation management, recognising that in an increasingly crowded market it is a point of differentiation'.

The size and influence of family offices have grown exponentially, even as oversight remains minimal. This has led to a new wave of scrutiny, especially after high-profile blow-ups like Archegos Capital, which was technically structured as a family office. However, it operated more like a highly leveraged hedge fund. What begins as operational discretion can quickly be perceived as secrecy, creating reputational vulnerabilities.

Reputational crises that arise from poor judgment or a lack of strategic foresight confirm how, even in a private world, there is no hiding. 'Family offices have to be strategic in their thinking and recognise that what happens in the private sphere can, and increasingly does, have public ramifications'. A misstep in a private deal, a poor decision by a portfolio company, or a personal scandal involving a family member can all have a ripple effect. The lines between a family's private life, their business dealings, and their philanthropic activities are increasingly blurred.

The reputation of a family office is intrinsically linked to the reputation of the companies it invests in. As one FT article underscores, 'The actions of a portfolio company, particularly if controversial, can quickly rebound on the family office owner, testing its values and its carefully guarded privacy'. This means a family office must be prepared to offer strategic counsel not just to its own principals, but to the leadership of its portfolio companies, requiring a sophisticated and holistic approach.

The Critical Role of Governance and Legal Partnerships

At the heart of strategic reputation management lies strong governance. Robust protocols ensure that sensitive information is managed securely and that access to advisers is structured and protected. One FT lawyer made the point clearly: 'If access is to be limited, this needs to be agreed from the beginning'. 'Governance is not just about control; it’s about creating a framework that protects the family’s wealth and reputation'.

The FT reporting made it clear that lawyers supporting family offices are increasingly being cut out of the loop. This is risky because without access, legal privilege can be lost, and without counsel, decision-making becomes vulnerable. The core message from the FT articles is that family offices need to seek strategic counsel from experts in reputation management. This is where reputation experts and legal counsel must work together in a collaborative fashion. While lawyers ensure actions are legal, a reputation advisor focuses on whether they are

perceived as ethical, fair, and aligned with values. A legal win can sometimes be a reputational loss. The strategic reputation advisor works

alongside lawyers to ensure that legal and communication strategies are developed in tandem from the outset of a crisis.

Strategic Advisory: Building, Maintaining, and Protecting Your Legacy

For family offices to effectively manage their reputation, they must move beyond tactical firefighting and embrace a proactive, strategic approach. This requires a shift in mindset and a commitment to integrating reputation into every aspect of their operations.

Building Your Reputational Capital

Reputational strength is built over time through clarity, consistency, and credibility. Family offices benefit from defining a clear set of values and principles that guide not only investment strategy, but also how the office is perceived among peers, partners, and advisers. A coherent and well-articulated narrative, shared privately and deliberately, helps ensure that the right perception is reinforced across every interaction, from investment negotiations to philanthropic engagement.

A family office’s reputation is often tied to how well it demonstrates integrity, purpose, and alignment with its stated mission.

Communicating that alignment effectively requires strategic thinking: who needs to understand your position, when should they hear it, and through what channel? Whether it’s a discreet stakeholder update or a closed-door investment briefing, the goal is to ensure that your actions and identity are consistently and credibly understood.

Maintaining Your Strategic Edge

Reputation is not static. It requires ongoing attention to ensure that risks are identified early and mitigated before they become visible problems. This includes reviewing whether portfolio companies and strategic partners continue to reflect the values of the family, particularly when reputational or regulatory risks emerge. It also means identifying blind spots, where decisions made for operational reasons may carry reputational implications.

Crucially, reputation management should not sit separately from legal, compliance, or governance processes. Decisions taken in isolation, without cross-functional input, can inadvertently damage trust. Family offices benefit from an integrated approach where legal advisers, strategic counsellors, and operational leads assess decisions through both a legal and reputational lens.

Protecting Your Legacy in Times of Crisis

No matter how well prepared, every organisation will face reputational challenges. Planning ahead is essential. A tailored crisis response plan ensures the family office is ready to act quickly, cohesively, and in a manner that protects not only the principal’s legacy but also the office’s broader network of relationships and investments.

An effective plan goes beyond external messaging. It includes clarity on internal roles, pre-agreed communications frameworks, and alignment with legal counsel. When done well, this ensures that in moments of scrutiny, whether public or private, the family office responds with authority, coherence, and discretion. The priority is to preserve trust, demonstrate stability, and safeguard long-term reputation, while maintaining privacy and discretion.

By investing strategically in building and safeguarding this invisible but critical intangiable asset, family offices secure more than just their financial capital; they protect their legacy, enhance their influence, and create a foundation of trust that endures across generations. In the discreet corridors where family offices operate, a strong reputation is the ultimate strategic advantage.

Don’t wait for a crisis to discover its value; start building your strategic reputation resilience today.

Why 'Nation by Design' Is Singapore's Blueprint for Success

A few days ago, I read a great post on LinkedIn by Dawn Lim, Executive Director and Chief of the Design Singapore Council, which presented how Singapore is a 𝑵𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒃𝒚 𝑫𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏.’ The post and associated campaign were being shared in the lead-up to Singapore’s Design Week in September this year, and it got me thinking about how Singapore has grown, the values that the country embodies, and the impact ‘Nation by Design’ has had on how this country is perceived.

Nations today are competing for talent, capital, and credibility, and are investing in nation branding campaigns to differentiate themselves. Yet, the problem is that marketing alone is not enough in the hyper-competitive, interconnected world in which we live and work. What matters to business is policy, perception and strategic thinking.

Singapore is one of a small number of countries that stand apart because they have grown and progressed not just by policy, but by vision and design. While governments across Western markets pursue campaigns and reforms to attract growth, few have matched the coherence and clarity of Singapore's approach.

Through its initiative Nation by Design, Singapore presents a great case study in how intentional, values-driven national design has transformed this small city-state into a globally respected hub for innovation, business, and inclusive progress. There is a lot that policymakers and business leaders can learn from the values, processes and presentation that Singapore and other nations are embracing.

From Campaign to Concept: Beyond Marketing to Meaning

Singapore's Nation by Design is more than a slogan. It's a strategic framework for national development based on long-term thinking, cross-sector integration, and human-centred innovation. Launched by the DesignSingapore Council, the initiative integrates design as a strategic tool across government, education, urban planning, healthcare, and business.

Compare this to the UK's ‘GREAT’ campaign, an impressive piece of nation branding that excels in visual storytelling. While ‘GREAT Britain’ builds visibility, Singapore builds systems, and while the UK’s campaign centres on advertising-led messaging,

Singapore embeds design thinking into public service, policymaking, and industry development. That gives it a reputational edge grounded in action, positioning Singapore as modern, innovative, and agile, and ranking 4th globally in the World Innovation Index, with a top ranking of 14 out of 78 indicators.

Key Elements of Singapore's Strategic Model

• Strategic Public Service Culture: Singapore’s civil service is consistently ranked among the world’s most effective. It is strategic, professionalised, and trusted, with civil servants trained to think long term, balance competing interests, and implement swiftly. Their focus is on delivery, and their political and civil service salaries being amongst the highest globally, a conscious decision by the government to attract and retain top talent, prevent corruption, and maintain high performance standards. Transparency and strict performance metrics underpin the system, with performance bonuses and national bonuses being given. This is in stark contrast to more politicised or fragmented systems in many Western democracies.

• Integrated Government and Business Strategy: Government-linked companies and departments (GLCs) like Temasek, Mediacorp and SingTel support national development goals and act as agile bridges between policy and private enterprise. Agencies co-create policies. Startups access decision-makers from the Singaporean government in days. In other countries, industrial strategy often feels abstract, distant or poorly aligned with business incentives.

• Education as Infrastructure: Investment in education is not just a line item; it is a vital component of economic growth. It's part of Singapore’s national identity. World-class universities, vocational institutions, and lifelong learning frameworks ensure a future-ready workforce.

• Fiscal and Tax Environment: With a low corporate tax rate (17%), no capital gains tax, efficient regulation, and a legal framework that is regarded as one of the most transparent and efficient in the world, this underpins a stable, business-friendly environment. Additionally, regulatory ‘sandboxes’ allow fintechs to trial ideas without the usual red tape. This is especially attractive to multinationals and start-ups who want regional headquarters in Asia.

• Design-Led Policy and Urban Innovation: Singapore integrates user-centric design into its public housing, transportation, digital services, and healthcare, thereby increasing citizen satisfaction and service efficiency.

• Reputation Built on Delivery: Consistency, transparency, and quality of delivery have given Singapore high trust scores internationally. Its reputation is earned, not claimed.

Singapore vs. Others: A Comparative View

• United Kingdom: The UK has world-class institutions, cultural influence, and a deep innovation base. But frequent policy shifts, siloed departments, and a reactive rather than strategic civil service have held it back. Campaigns like ‘GREAT’ promote and shape tactical perception, but decision-makers and investors care make decisions based on experience.

• European Union Nations: Germany, France, and others have strengths in industrial design and science, but struggle with fragmented governance across national and EU levels. Regulatory complexity and inconsistent policy incentives dilute impact.

• United States: America remains a magnet for talent and capital, thanks to scale, capital markets, and elite universities. But growing inequality, underinvestment in infrastructure, and political polarisation have dented its global standing. It is more dynamic than designed.

• Japan: Japan excels in design, technology, and tradition. But its demographic challenges, rigid bureaucracy, and slow-moving policy cycles limit its agility. Yet, policy is changing to resolve these issues.

• Gulf Cooperation Council nations - UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia: These nations are investing aggressively in transformation. Initiatives like Saudi Vision 2030 and the UAE’s Smart Government agenda borrow from Singapore’s playbook. Yet they still face trust, transparency, and rights-related perception gaps, which could impact international investor confidence. That said, they are investing heavily in initiatives to reposition how they are perceived.

Trust, Perception and Reputation: Singapore’s Competitive Advantage

Nations are brands. Reputation drives FDI, partnerships, and talent attraction. Singapore understands that reputation must be earned through delivery, not declared through campaigns.

• Trust: Built through decades of consistent service delivery and minimal corruption.

• Perception: Designed by showcasing not only success, but how success is structured and shared.

• Reputation: Maintained by transparency, performance, and future-readiness.

While other nations struggle with policy U-turns, culture wars, and trust deficits, Singapore’s cohesive governance and strategic consistency offer clarity and reassurance to international partners.

Design as a Process: Deep, Iterative, and Inclusive

One of the most powerful differences is how Singapore views design, not as decoration, but as a process. Nation by Design emphasises:

• Empathy: Understanding the needs of citizens, not just policy goals.

• Co-Creation: Involving people in shaping services and places.

• Iteration: Treating solutions as evolving systems, not fixed blueprints.

This mindset is absent in most national branding exercises. It helps explain why Singapore’s public spaces, policies, and platforms feel joined-up, intuitive, and future-proof.

What Other Countries Can Learn

• Institutionalise Strategic Design Thinking: Embed design methodologies into public policy, education, and economic planning. This goes beyond hiring designers; it requires retraining leadership culture.

• Invest in Civil Service Capability: A competent, respected civil service can think across electoral cycles and deliver with consistency.

• Align National Vision with Economic Policy: Growth plans must be cross-sectoral and long-term. Stop treating economic strategy and nation branding as separate silos.

• Create Feedback Loops Between Citizens and State: Use data, consultation, and co-design to build better services and trust.

• Build a Reputation of Delivery: Be known for what you do, and for your delivery, not just what you say. Global reputation flows from domestic performance.

Why ‘Nation by Design’ is More Than a Slogan

Singapore’s approach shows that a small nation can outperform its size if it is intentional, transparent, and strategically designed. It also reminds us that design is not a luxury; it is a lever for inclusive growth, institutional trust, and long-term competitiveness.

Contrast that with the UK, where talent and innovation are abundant, but joined-up thinking is rare. Where slogans abound, but systems are patchy. And where citizens and investors alike increasingly feel that the vision does not match the delivery.

Designing a nation is hard work, but as Singapore proves, it pays off.

A Year In: Labour's Communications Challenge and How Business Can Respond

Last week, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) hosted a timely breakfast event exploring how the government's relationship with business has evolved under Labour and titled ‘Red Tape or Red Carpet? How Has the Government’s Relationship with Business Changed Under Labour?’, the session brought together industry colleagues to discuss whether the new administration was paving a clear path for economic growth or creating new bureaucratic entanglements.

Chaired by Farzana Baduel, CEO of Curzon PR and President-Elect of the CIPR, the panel provided invaluable insight. Guests included John Lehal, former Chief Operating Officer of the Labour Party; Alice Grimes, Head of Public Affairs at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI); and Grace Wyld, Head of Policy and Research at the Future Governance Forum. The timing of the event was significant, marking just over one year since Labour's historic landslide victory in July 2024.

The central tension of the discussion was clear: while the government has made progress in its first year, ministers are becoming frustrated that their message isn't "on the front foot" or being widely recognised. Despite a large number of press officers within the government machine, the administration's story of change and growth is not cutting through.

From Opposition Agility to Government Machinery

The panel offered a striking contrast between Labour in opposition and Labour in power. Pre-election, the party operated with a startup-like agility, with the lines of communication being ‘really tight.’ They were proactive in developing policy and engaging directly with businesses and stakeholders, building a reputation as a credible ‘government-in-waiting.’ Ministers and advisers were accessible, responsive, and nimble.

However, the reality of governing has introduced a new dynamic. The civil service, with its ingrained processes and risk-averse culture, has slowed the pace of change. As was noted, "civil servants make recommendations to you, often looking at things through a lens of kind of worst-case scenario." This caution, while understandable, has constrained the government's agility. What was once a swift, direct operation has now become part of a complex, structured system.

For business leaders who had grown accustomed to Labour's responsiveness before the election, this shift has led to slower turnarounds, uncertainty, and mixed signals. It's not a matter of bad will, but the inevitable friction of a new government learning to operate within a vast and cautious bureaucratic machine after 14 years out of power.

A Cultural Challenge: The Civil Service and Risk

The conversation delved into the cultural challenge at the heart of this issue. When asked what the Civil Service must do to better understand business and become more delivery-focused, the consensus was that while it is filled with talent and commitment, its culture is not structured for innovation. Siloed departments, cautious officials, and a lack of business fluency at senior levels create an environment where a ‘mission-driven’ government struggles to flourish. Change is happening, but this is not being seen, and it is not relating back to delivery, which is what counts.

The panel argued that to achieve its ‘missions,’ the government needs new capabilities within the Whitehall machine. It requires civil servants who can think cross-departmentally, communicate a clear narrative, manage complex relationships, and have the humility to admit what they don't know. As one panellist put it: "It requires a different kind of capability within Whitehall, and the humility to say we don’t have all the answers." Another added: "If missions are to be achieved, they will be achieved by society and the civil service working in collaboration across sectors."

This is not a one-way street; for mission-driven government to succeed, business must also engage with clarity and practical, aligned proposals. Importantly, though, a new agile culture is needed within the civil service.

In my eight years of working as a specialist withinthe UK Government, I’ve had the pleasure of working with some exceptional civil servants, who focus on delivery, some of whom have grown frustrated by the siloed focus on tactical delivery rather than strategic nation-building. And yes, I’ve seen that decision first-hand.

Delivery, Delivery, Delivery - The Problem of Communications and Strategic Leadership

Keir Starmer’s first address outside Number 10 set a clear tone: trust would be rebuilt through "actions, not words." This theme of delivery over messaging has shaped the administration and led the public to focus on delivery before the necessary changes to the machinery of government were made.

Yet the cultural focus on messaging and perception persists. This raises a critical question: how can a government dedicated to delivery transform itself when its core communications approach remains tethered to a traditional media mindset and a culture of risk aversion?

The government’s view of communications appears to be outdated, failing to recognise how dramatically the media landscape has changed. Public opinion is no longer solely shaped by front-page headlines; it is forged in private groups, on social media, and through online communities. While legacy media titles still hold influence, their reach is diminishing.

This is where the appointment of David Dinsmore, a former newspaper editor, to head the Government Communication Service becomes a strategic point of contention. It is not a personal criticism, but a question of strategy. Is a leader with a background rooted in traditional press best equipped to navigate a complex, multi-channel environment where influence is built through listening, storytelling, and nuanced engagement? The government needs a strategic leader who understands this shift and can educate those at the top, from political appointees to senior civil servants, that press relations alone will not get the message out.

Equally, the recent move by Number 10 to restrict civil servants from speaking publicly further highlights this strategic disconnect. As the Institute for Government rightly points out, this is not message discipline; it is "message dysfunction." Such a policy is counterproductive, leaving ministers to answer every technical and operational question and undermining their ability to focus on vision and leadership.

A smarter strategy would separate the political from the practical: ministers articulate the mission, while civil servants explain the details of delivery. Empowering officials to speak builds public trust and helps external partners plan and align. This centralisation of control reveals a deep discomfort with openness, when what is needed is transparency and a recognition of how influence is built in today's environment.

Control of the message is critical and important, but control is needed more during a crisis and not when you are trying to build awareness and your reputation. As the saying goes in corporate communications, you need to get your staff to sell your message and your influencers to amplify it. If they don’t or you restructure them, then the job is harder.

The Return of Strategic Departments

Despite these challenges, there are signs of progress. The government’s ‘growth’ mission is slowly beginning to change thinking at the centre, encouraging a more strategic approach from businesses and their communications operations. While engagement is primarily with large enterprises, the voices of small and medium-sized businesses, the majority of the UK economy, are being heard through trade bodies and associations.

Another key shift is the presence of trade unions in business forums and industrial strategy meetings. This reflects Labour’s roots but also signals a broader move towards tripartite policymaking involving government, business, and labour. While this may have caught some companies off guard, it’s not inherently negative. Done well, it leads to more stable, inclusive, and legitimate policymaking.

Recommendations for Engaging with Government

Drawing from the panel’s insights and the broader political landscape, here are key recommendations for businesses, investors, and trade associations looking to engage effectively with this government:

1. Speak in Coalitions: Ministers are time-poor. Don’t go it alone. Use your trade body or form strategic alliances to amplify your message and demonstrate consensus. The government wants solutions, not just more stakeholder management.

2. Frame Everything in Public Benefit Terms: Your pitch must align with national missions: better jobs, higher wages, climate transition, or skills. Show what your proposal means for the UK public, not just your firm's bottom line.

3. Support the Civil Service Modernisation Agenda: Offer to help. Provide secondments. Co-develop policy pilots. Encourage regulators to co-design solutions. Civil servants need external insight, not pressure.

4. Be Solution-Led, Not Lobbyist-Led: Make your proposals specific and practical. Show the trade-offs and provide clear options. Ministers and advisers will not prioritise vague asks or general introductions.

5. Engage Beyond Your Sector: Missions are cross-cutting. Connect your business to wider missions like net-zero, skills, or public health. This shows you are a partner in national renewal, not just a sectional interest.

6. Invest in Local Delivery Partnerships: If you want to build credibility, show up in the regions. Industrial strategies are being shaped at the local level. Join those conversations and demonstrate your commitment on the ground.

This is the Moment to Deliver

The panel ended with cautious optimism. Labour has cleared the first hurdle: building credibility and articulating a mission. The real test now is delivery, and getting that message out. This will be the immense challenge facing David Dinsmore and the political leadership at the heart of government.

At a time when the Government Communication Service has gone through a period of shock, it needs modernisation and the ability to be agile. There is also a need among leadership that civil servants, from fast-stream to SCS3s, understand that their reputation and perception matter in how policies they create for the ruling party are perceived. If your stakeholders don’t buy into your policies, and there has been no strategic and collaborative working in the creation of policy, tactical communications activities will fail to secure buy-in.

Now is the time to engage with and educate those at the top, making it clear that the press alone will not convey the message effectively.

Changing that perception while simultaneously pushing out a core message of change and growth will be exceptionally difficult. It requires strategic communications not just within the GCS, but across the entire civil service, empowering officials to be the credible voice of the government's work.

This government wants growth and delivery. But it needs your expertise, your partnerships, and your ideas to make it happen.

The moment for talk is over; the moment for delivery is now.

How to Fix Britain’s Broken Culture of Aspiration and Entrepreneurship

For generations, Britain prided itself on innovation. From the steam engine to the World Wide Web, the sparks of ingenuity flew here. We possess world-class universities, deep scientific talent, and a legacy of global trade. Yet, beneath this impressive facade, a troubling reality persists: Britain fundamentally lacks a culture of aspiration and entrepreneurship commensurate with its potential. We have the ingredients, but the engine sputters. Founders, brimming with ideas, too often find the environment here stifles their ambition to truly scale and conquer global markets, especially when compared to the relentless drive fostered across the Atlantic. This isn't just an economic hiccup; it's a cultural deficit with profound consequences for our prosperity.

We are a nation of knowledge, not scale. Unlike the US, China and other Asian countries, we fail at commercialising our knowledge and innovation.

The Aspiration Gap: Risk, Reward, and the Ghost of Failure

Walk into a tech hub in Silicon Valley or Boston, and the air crackles with an almost tangible sense of possibility. Failure, far from being a terminal stain, is worn as a badge of experience, a necessary step on the path to eventual, often monumental, success. The narrative is one of relentless growth, scaling rapidly to capture global markets. Venture capital flows abundantly towards ambitious visions, even unproven ones. The societal message is clear: Aim high, swing big, build something massive. If you fall, learn, and try again.

Contrast this with the UK. While pockets of dynamism exist, the broader cultural landscape is often characterised by risk aversion. The fear of failure looms larger, carrying a heavier social and professional stigma. "Playing it safe" is often subliminally encouraged. This isn't about laziness; it's about deeply ingrained attitudes. Starting a small business? Admirable. But expressing a burning desire to build the next global unicorn? That can sometimes be met with scepticism, even subtle disapproval – "Who do you think you are?" The aspiration to scale, not just survive, feels less embedded in our national psyche.

This cultural difference manifests practically. Founders here report greater difficulty securing later-stage funding needed for explosive growth compared to the US. Investors, perhaps reflecting societal caution, can be perceived as more conservative, seeking earlier profitability over audacious market capture. The result? Promising UK startups, nurtured by our excellent science base, too often get acquired by larger (often foreign) corporations before reaching their full potential, or relocate their headquarters to access the capital and ambition ecosystem they crave. The brain drain isn't just of people; it's of future giants.

Policy Myopia: Wealth Creators vs. Wealth Extractors

What makes the UK’s cultural problem worse is a policy mindset that seems fundamentally out of touch with how entrepreneurship and investment actually work. Recent tax changes targeting non-domiciled residents and high earners have sent a clear, and damaging, message: the UK, its policymakers, and certain members of the media don’t understand, celebrate, or value the people who build or the entrepreneurial spirit that has grown the UK for decades.

Too often, wealth is treated not as something created through risk, effort and reinvestment, but as a static asset to be taxed and redistributed. That framing misses the point — and the opportunity.

These decisions aren’t just symbolic. They directly undermine the founders and investors needed to grow high-value businesses, drive innovation, and create the tax base for public services.

As Dom Hallas, Executive Director of the Startup Coalition, warned on LinkedIn:

“This is a hammer blow to UK competitiveness… It signals to global talent & investors that the UK is not open for business. We are making it harder, not easier, to start and scale a company here.”

Steve Rigby, Group CEO of Rigby Group, echoed the frustration many founders feel:

“Dom I am also receiving similar guidance. Lets that said keep the pressure up to understand the implications here. Norway lost 30 or its 50 wealthiest citizens when it delivered its tax. with 15% of any tax being derived from the top 10 individuals we would have a similar experience.”

Separate to his reply to Dom, Steve shared a post that shared the key and critical issues:

“While we invest significant effort in helping new ventures start their journeys, we do much less to ensure that these companies grow, export and endure over time.

The problem is not a lack of public money as, each year, local and central governments back hundreds of incubators, accelerators and regional growth hubs.

We are missing coherence. Too much funding is awarded on short grant cycles with scant evaluation, leading to a long tail of well-intentioned but under-performing programmes.”

That’s the heart of it: Britain has a perception problem.  and policy is making it worse. Entrepreneurs don’t want applause; they want consistency, clarity, and respect for the risks they take. When success is penalised, not celebrated, ambition moves elsewhere. And in a global economy, talent and capital have no reason to stay where they aren’t welcome.

It’s increasingly clear that policies impacting high-growth entrepreneurs, from changes to capital gains tax and non-dom rules to the closure of investment schemes, are made with little understanding of how start-up ecosystems actually function.

These decisions might win short-term political points but create long-term economic damage. Many successful founders live mobile, global lives. When the UK creates friction, innovators and those who invest in them relocate, often taking their teams, capital, and next ventures with them.

And when we look at wealth, we also need to consider the family offices that are often discreetly among the first around the investment table for any innovation opportunity.

The Perception Trap: Reframing the Entrepreneur

This leads us to the critical challenge of perception. Why? Because Britain has a communications problem. We don’t tell the right success stories. The narrative around entrepreneurship in the UK is still too often cloaked in scepticism.

How are entrepreneurs viewed in the UK? While admired in abstract, the wider narrative surrounding wealth creation is often poisoned by misconceptions:

1. “All Wealth is Ill-Got": A pervasive, often politically expedient, narrative conflates the patient, high-risk wealth creation of scaling a business with rent-seeking or exploitation. This ignores the years of sacrifice, reinvestment, and job creation inherent in building a significant enterprise.

2. "Entrepreneurs are Selfish": The drive to build something significant, to compete globally, is misrepresented as greed, rather than ambition to create value, solve problems, and build lasting legacies. The immense personal risk and long hours are downplayed.

3. "Failure is Final": The stigma persists, discouraging second and third attempts and limiting the pool of experienced founders. We lack the "fail forward" mentality ingrained in other ecosystems.

This negative framing is toxic. It influences public opinion, seeps into policy discussions, and ultimately discourages potential founders and investors. It tells the next generation that building big isn't valued, or worse, is suspect.

We have stories worth telling. But we don’t tell them loudly, proudly, or strategically. Our press focuses on scandals, not scale-ups — our political class rewards cautious administrators rather than visionary builders.

Where’s our equivalent of the US “founder myth,” the garage-to-NASDAQ journey that inspires millions to try?

This creates a perception, both at home and abroad, that Britain doesn’t back its best. Overseas investment comes in to buy our knowledge. It’s all a bit ‘Only Fools and Horses.’

Rebuilding the Engine: Cultivating a Culture of Scale

Transforming this landscape requires a fundamental shift, both culturally and in policy. It’s not about becoming a clone of the US, but about rediscovering and amplifying the ambitious, inventive spirit that is part of our heritage, while crafting a uniquely British path. Here’s how we start:

1.  Policy Revolution:

• Stability & Certainty: Stop the constant tinkering. Entrepreneurs invest over 5-10+ year horizons. Frequent, unexpected tax and regulatory changes (like the Non-Dom status) destroy confidence. Instead provide clear, long-term roadmaps, without fear of headline narratives.

• Incentivise Scale, Not Just Start: Rethink capital gains tax to reward long-term investment in scaling businesses. Reform R&D tax credits to support scaling as much as initial research. Enhance the SEIS/EIS schemes to make them even more effective for growth stages.

• Attract & Retain Global Talent: Fix the visa system. Make it genuinely fast, simple, and affordable for high-skill talent (founders, key employees, investors) to come and stay. Don't just train talent; keep it and attract it.

• Listen, Then Legislate: Engage deeply and continuously with founders and investors before formulating policy. Understand the real-world impact. Bodies like the Startup Coalition should be core advisors, not afterthoughts.

2.  Cultural Transformation:

• Celebrate Scale & Ambition: Government, media, and institutions must actively champion founders building globally significant companies from the UK. Shift the narrative from "small is beautiful" to "scale is essential." Highlight British scaling success stories relentlessly.

• Reframe Failure: Actively destigmatise business failure. Encourage stories of resilience and learning. Support programmes that help founders rebound. Make "I tried, I learned, I'm trying again" a respected narrative.

• Education for Aspiration: Embed entrepreneurship, not just as starting a business, but as a mindset of problem-solving, calculated risk-taking, and ambition, into education at all levels. Showcase diverse role models.

• "National Builders: Narrative: Consciously cultivate a national identity that values builders, those who create companies, jobs, technologies, and export success. Position them as vital to national renewal and pride, alongside other valued professions.

3.  Financial Ecosystem Evolution:

• Unlock Patient Capital: Address the later-stage funding gap. Encourage pension funds and institutional investors to allocate more to high-growth UK ventures. Foster the growth of sovereign wealth-style funds focused on scaling national champions.

• Build Bridge Builders: Strengthen connections between world-class UK science (where we excel) and the scaling expertise and capital needed to commercialise it globally.

Reclaiming Our Future

Britain stands at a crossroads. We possess immense latent potential: unparalleled human capital, scientific brilliance, and a global language. Yet, we are held back by a culture that often subtly discourages the very ambition needed to convert that potential into widespread prosperity, and by policies that too frequently undermine the risk-takers who drive it.

The frustration voiced by Dom Hallas and echoed by Steve Rigby is a symptom of a system failing its builders. We cannot rely on past glories. We need a conscious, national effort to foster a culture where the aspiration to build significant, global enterprises is not just tolerated, but actively celebrated and supported. Where failure on that path is seen as learning, not disgrace. Where government policy is designed with a deep understanding that wealth is created through entrepreneurship and investment, not merely collected and redistributed.

This isn't about favouring the wealthy; it's about creating the conditions for more wealth, higher-quality jobs, greater innovation, and increased tax revenue for public services – a rising tide lifting all boats. It’s about reigniting the engine of aspiration that once powered Britain. The skills, the knowledge, the science are here. Now, we need the courage, the culture, and the smart policies to truly scale. Our future prosperity depends on it.

Growth Without Delivery. Does The UK Face a Confidence Gap?

The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, delivered her 2025 Mansion House speech with great fanfare this week, promising a sweeping reduction in financial services regulation intended to “unleash growth” and “make the UK economy stronger and more secure.” The move is being framed as a purge of red tape, with an ambition to let the City of London be the engine of economic renewal across the country. But the early signs suggest this may be more of a press release than a policy revolution.

As the Financial Times reported, City leaders were notably underwhelmed. Many interpreted the speech as an example of old wine in new bottles: vague talk of regulatory streamlining, a nod to economic patriotism, but little of the substance or urgency needed to stimulate real investment or innovation. On Bluesky, FT journalist Chris Giles put it more bluntly, noting the repetitive nature of City reform pledges over the past two decades. This reaction matters. When the City shrugs, international markets and investors take note.

We had the "Edinburgh reforms" of the financial sector in 2022 Now we've had the "Leeds reforms" of the financial sector in 2025 Which UK city will host the 2028 edition?

— Chris Giles (@chrisgiles.ft.com) July 16, 2025 at 12:41 PM

A Reputation at Risk

The tepid reception from financial leaders exposes a deeper issue: the UK government is struggling with a credibility problem. It’s not just about what’s said, it’s about what’s delivered. For all the talk of unlocking capital and promoting growth, there remains a glaring absence of detailed, costed, and incentivised plans that inspire confidence.

Sadly, this is not a new problem, but it’s becoming more acute. Since the UK voted to leave the EU in 2016, successive governments have promised a “new economic chapter” built on innovation, trade, and financial liberalisation. Yet time and again, plans have been hampered by poor planning and implementation, a cautious civil service culture, and a political class that often lacks the tools or appetite to deliver entrepreneurial policy at scale. It’s all about the headlines, the optics of the short term reaction.

Is the Problem Political or Structural?

While ministers bear ultimate responsibility for policy, it would be unfair, and strategically unwise, to blame the government alone. Much of the paralysis lies within the culture and machinery of government itself.

The UK civil service has many strengths, including legal rigour, policy discipline, and institutional memory. But these very strengths can, paradoxically, become weaknesses. Risk aversion, limited commercial experience, and a preference for consultation and yet another ‘taskforce’ over execution have created a culture in which delivery, teh most vital component, is seen as someone else’s problem.

I’ve worked within the UK Civil Service as a specialist for eight years, and had the pleasure of engaging and supporting some great civil servants who who had strategic vision and a desire to change and unlock growth, but who were equally frustrated by the culture that existed, which was risk averse, not entrepreneurial, had a lack of understanding of modelling based on strategic interests and business outcomes. A culture that was quietly enforced from the top.

This dynamic was on full display in Reeves’ Mansion House speech. Despite the promise to make Britain “the best place to invest,” few new mechanisms were offered to turn sentiment into capital deployment. There were no clear incentives for pension funds, corporates, or institutional investors to back UK innovation. There was no action plan to transform productivity or close the UK’s deepening investment gap.

Policy for Headlines, Not for Growth

One of the most telling aspects of the current economic discourse is the disconnect between rhetoric and outcomes. The Mansion House address came just weeks after the new government launched its Industrial Strategy, a document that outlined broad ambitions but lacked a clear delivery architecture.

Without mechanisms that drive capital into innovation, infrastructure, skills and R&D, these announcements risk being seen as political theatre. The UK’s global competitiveness is on the line. Investors, UK and international, and foreign governments don’t just look at speeches, they study balance sheets, tax frameworks, regulatory consistency, and market behaviour. If the UK wants to unlock and attract long-term capital, it must move beyond headline economics and policy making.

A Missed Opportunity: Mobilising Domestic Capital

What’s striking is how little attention is paid to mobilising UK-based business investment. One area that remains underused is corporate venture capital (CVC).

Encouraging British businesses to create CVCs, dedicated units that invest in start-ups and emerging technologies, could help channel private sector capital into innovation while reducing reliance on state funding.

Globally, CVC investment has soared, with markets like the US, Japan, South Korea, China and Brazil having mature markets. Even the European Union is looking at updating policy in order to support European businesses to invest in innovation that can deliver improved productivity, growth and job creation.

According to Global Corporate Venturing, CVC-backed deals globally has continued to see an increase. Through their corporate venturing arms, corporates are investing at many different stages and are supporting not just with capital, but also with knowledge transfer, increasing the chances of success for many who receive investment.

If the government were serious about growth, it could introduce tax incentives, matched-funding programmes, or regulatory reliefs for businesses that launch CVC arms focused on strategic sectors like AI, clean tech, or advanced manufacturing. Doing so would encourage business-led innovation and open new routes to scale for UK start-ups.

Without a doubt, perception matters when creating policy, but the Daily Mail test should not be a key metrics for what cannot be done.

From Strategy to Execution

So, how can the UK and the Labour Party turn its policy ambitions into tangible economic growth tha tdelivers an increased in productivity and jobs? Here are five recommendations:

1. Establish a Comprehensive UK Innovation Investment Framework: Implement a "UK Innovation Investment Incentive" offering matched funding or EIS/SEIS-like tax reliefs for companies (including larger firms and CVC funds) investing in R&D and early-stage businesses. This framework will be complemented by encouraging City institutions to commit a defined percentage of their assets under management to UK-focused innovation via pensions, private equity, or venture debt, and by launching an "Innovation Bond" scheme to mobilize patient capital for a dedicated UK innovation fund.

2. Enhance Incentives for Employee Ownership and Strategic Reinvestment: Expand tax reliefs for direct employee share schemes (e.g., reduced income tax on purchases, lower CGT on employee-held shares) and establish an "Employee-Owned Business" accreditation. Simultaneously, optimize corporate gains and loss relief by introducing reduced or zero corporate gains tax on profits strategically reinvested into UK R&D or growth activities, and by enhancing loss carry-forward provisions (unlimited with fewer restrictions) and extending carry-back periods.

3. Streamline and Simplify the Business Tax System: Commit to predictable and stable tax policy with longer-term roadmaps, and significantly reduce the administrative burden of claiming tax reliefs, potentially by consolidating existing innovation incentives into a single, clearer "Innovation Tax Credit."

4. Form a Dedicated Delivery and Monitoring Taskforce: Stand up a public-private taskforce, reporting directly to the Chancellor, responsible for overseeing the implementation of regulatory changes and investment mobilisations. This taskforce will benchmark and report progress quarterly through a publicly accessible dashboard, including metrics such as capital deployed, productivity growth, number of start-ups funded, and global investor sentiment.

5. Implement Strategic Communications to Build Confidence: Develop and execute a comprehensive communication strategy around trust, predictability, and investor confidence, both domestically and internationally, to reinforce the narrative power of UK economic policy.

The Cost of Delay

At a time when global capital is increasingly mobile and geopolitical risk is on the rise, the UK cannot afford to simply talk about growth. It must build the frameworks that generate it. The UK is and has always been an entrepreneurial nation. But it needs to relearn to better work collaboratively and the value that can be unlocked by not having Government working in a bubble.

National growth can be delivered by supporting entrepreneurial SMEs, something that the civil service needs to better understand and support, and that the policy is not teh outcome, it’s only the output.

The government’s reputation, both in The City and on the world stage, depends on moving from narrative to numbers.

This moment demands more than tidy speeches. It demands delivery.

How the EU Will Drive Growth Through Corporate Venturing

Earlier this week, the European Innovation Council’s (EIC), released its Corporate Startup Collaboration report, which shines a light on something many have long argued: Europe’s future competitiveness in deep tech depends not just on research or investment, but on how well startups and corporates work together, and how that collaboration is governed, communicated, and incentivised.

The findings make for encouraging reading. Since 2017, the EIC’s Corporate Partnership Programme (CPP) has supported over 1,500 collaborations between startups and more than 120 major companies, including Airbus, Holcim, Galp, and Clariane. These relationships have delivered measurable results, with 97 business deals signed and a 92% satisfaction rate from participating startups.

Yet, while the volume of engagements is growing, the structure needed to support long-term impact — trust, alignment, strategic communication, and incentives — is still not fully in place. If Europe, including the UK, is to lead in scaling deep tech, we must close this gap.

Europe, while making progress, still sits behind both the USA and leading Asian economies in corporate venture capital (CVC) engagement. As an example, in 2024, global CVC-backed funding reached approximately $186 billion, but the USA accounted for over $107 billion of that, compared with only around $30 billion in Europe and a further $39 billion in Asia-Pacific ($30.3 billion and $39.5 billion, respectively). Moreover, U.S. CVC involvement occurs in roughly 32 % of all venture deals, whereas Asian CVC participation peaks at approximately 39 %, and Europe lags behind. That digital deep‑tech investment gap is even more pronounced: between January and September 2024, U.S. deep‑tech startups attracted about $52 billion, in contrast to only $14 billion in Europe and $13 billion in Asia. These disparities reflect deeper structural divides. While Europe’s 10-year CAGR for VC has outpaced other regions (13%, compared with 8% for the U.S. and just 2% for China), absolute funding remains far below the scale needed for global leadership.

Looking at where Europe is compared to the US or Asia, there is a gap that needs to be closed, and if this is achieved, it can deliver growth for European and UK businesses.

Reading the report, we look at the challenges and opportunities as well as what levers policymakers need to pull in order to unlock greater value for corporates, startups, and the public.

Strategic collaboration, not matchmaking

Unlike typical matchmaking programmes, the EIC Corporate Partnership Programme is structured with rigour. Its 10-step process takes place over 4 to 6 months, from open calls and tailored scouting to intensive preparation, one-to-one meetings, and post-event follow-up.

Companies are required to sign a declaration of intent and dedicate internal teams to the process. Startups receive mentoring and coaching before meeting potential partners in curated formats, either single-corporate or multi-corporate days. The most effective outcomes, according to the EIC, come from in-person, single-corporate events where one-to-one time and focused discussions can take place.

This matters. Deep tech isn’t like consumer apps. Startups need corporates for regulatory access, pilot opportunities, supply chain scale, and credibility. Companies need startups to deliver novel IP, fresh business models, and the agility to challenge internal orthodoxy. When structured well, this can be transformational.

Aside from capital, which is critical for innovation, what corporates offer start-ups in deep-tech and other sectors is industry and knowledge that can help start-ups scale quickly and at pace. At the same time, Europe, as a mix of different cultures, can better adapt its propositions for growth in other international markets, because culture, like trust and reputation, matters.

Where success is happening

According to the report, successful collaboration stems from four strategic pillars:

1. Strategy: Companies must define internal innovation goals and align them with startup engagement. This includes governance models, milestone planning, and IP strategy.

2. Commitment: Buy-in from top leadership is non-negotiable. Without executive support and internal champions, efforts are often diluted or delayed.

3. Skills: Companies must have the ability to absorb startup innovation through not just legal, technical, and operational interfaces, but also the internal culture of entrepreneurship and risk-taking.

4. Experimentation: Effective partners run proof-of-concept pilots and establish learning loops, turning each engagement into a foundation for future growth.

These pillars are not unique to Europe, but the structured implementation within the CPP is notable. Corporates like Holcim, which partnered with EIC-backed startup Nanolike to transform logistics and supply chain operations, provide strong case studies. Galp, the Portuguese energy major, used the programme to explore AI-based predictive diagnostics for its refineries.

However, many of these success stories are undercommunicated. And that’s a missed opportunity.

A failure to communicate innovation and change limits the reach and influence that innovation delivers. Perception matters, not just in how products or partnerships are viewed, but in how investors, partners, regulators, and talent judge a company’s long-term relevance.

In the absence of clear, confident communications, others will fill the void with assumptions, outdated narratives, or scepticism.

It is a company's responsibility to shape how it is perceived, not only to maximise the impact of what it is doing today, but to build a sustained reputation that earns trust over time.

Strategic positioning and consistent communication are not short-term PR exercises; they are long-term investments in credibility, stakeholder alignment, and market access. Corporates that fail to articulate their innovation journey risk being excluded from critical opportunities, whether it’s future funding rounds if they’re start-ups, regulatory influence, or the next generation of partnerships that will define industry leadership.

The perception gap: Strategic communications is underused

One of the most striking points from the report, as well as from conversations I’ve had with companies, investors, and policymakers across Europe, is that these programmes often suffer from a lack of narrative. In other words, the innovation is happening, but the world doesn’t see it.

To build ‘reputational capital’ around innovation, European companies and governments must communicate three things clearly:

• What challenge are they solving

• Why was this startup selected

• What was learned, even if the result wasn’t a deal

When communicated well, in owned channels, in trade media, and through C-suite commentary, these collaborations reinforce the credibility of both the startup and established companies. They also serve as powerful soft power tools for nations. In global markets where reputation is often a proxy for reliability, stories of successful, ethical, and innovative collaboration matter.

Look at countries listed in the WIPO’s Global Innovation Index, and you start to see a pattern of which nations deliver greater returns from their business community and the innovation they invest in.

Strategic communications also play a critical role in building trust, a currency that startups desperately need when working with large organisations. When a company publicly commits to a programme like the EIC CPP, shares its governance model, and highlights its innovation roadmap, it becomes a more attractive partner.

Where challenges remain

While the EIC CPP is performing strongly, the report outlines several areas that still require work:

• Fragmented engagement: Many corporates participate at the business unit level, without aligning the entire organisation or integrating startup engagement with broader R&D or commercial strategies.

• CVC under-utilisation: Despite some notable players, many European corporates still treat venture capital as a reactive or PR-driven activity, rather than a strategic lever. Only a minority have established CVCs with genuine autonomy or multi-year mandates. And yes, there is a gap between the timelines for returns from R&D that is held internally within a corporate and a CVC, which looks more at medium and long-term returns.

• Mid-tier corporates missing: The programme remains heavily skewed toward large, well-resourced firms. Mid-sized companies, often the biggest employers in Europe, are largely absent. Equally, universities and the research they deliver can form part of a bigger ecosystem of innovation that companies can access in specific markets.

• Lack of incentive alignment: Many corporates lack fiscal incentives to invest early or take risks on pilots. The thinking here is on trying not to fail with investments, a very different way of thinking than that of the US and China, where knowledge is gained to help innovation. Without capital leverage or tax relief, investment teams remain cautious.

These challenges are solvable. But they require policy engagement and a change in culture within the European C-Suite, which, understandably, focuses on short-term returns to shareholders because it has failed to communicate its longer-term vision and the opportunities for growth that it aims to unlock through CVC and risk-taking.

Time for fiscal alignment: tax incentives as a growth lever

If Europe wants more corporates to behave like investors, they must be treated and rewarded like investors.

At present, R&D tax credits are often geared toward internal innovation. What’s missing is a modernised approach that reflects the reality of open innovation ecosystems. The following mechanisms could unlock significant corporate capital:

• Enhanced R&D deductions for corporates engaging in externally sourced innovation via startups.

• CVC investment credits, similar to angel or EIS-style schemes, where equity investments in early-stage deep tech firms deliver a fiscal benefit.

• Accelerated depreciation for capital assets developed or acquired via startup partnerships.

• Public-private match funding for corporate-led proof-of-concept pilots with VC-backed startups.

Internationally, Canada’s Innovation & Skills Plan and US state-level tax incentive schemes (e.g. in New York and California) offer playbooks that the EU and UK can adapt. They align fiscal tools with the innovation lifecycle, from ideation and R&D through to commercial scale.

The UK’s return to Horizon Europe offers an important bridge here. Through Innovate UK, British corporates can now collaborate more easily with EU partners, aligning funding streams, co-investment opportunities, and tax incentives across borders. Yet, given the volume of capital that exists in the UK, more policy is needed to unlock companies, especially UK companies, as investors in growth, which in return delivers not just shareholder value but also jobs.

Policy today needs to be more about the road to delivery!

Positioning matters — for nations, not just firms

Europe is in a global race for capital, talent, and credibility in deep tech. Positioning matters.

We are competing not only with North America, but increasingly with ecosystems in Singapore, South Korea, and the GCC, including nations like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar, which are leveraging geo-economic capital. In these markets, government strategy, policy, communications, and private capital work hand in hand.

Singapore’s ecosystem, for example, aligns its Global Innovation Alliance with its Economic Development Board, sovereign funds (like GIC and Temasek), and major corporates. The result is a cohesive narrative that attracts startups and reassures global investors.

In contrast, Europe’s narrative is fragmented. Innovation policy often lives in one department, investment incentives in another, and corporate collaboration in a third. The result is missed opportunities.

The UK has been working under Labour to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past by creating its new Industrial Strategy in a more strategic manner. Yet, it overlooks CVCs as a lever for investment and growth.

By aligning messaging, offering clear fiscal pathways, and spotlighting success stories, the EU and the UK can project a stronger voice on the global stage, especially at a time when American researchers are being challenged and are looking for growth opportunities at home within UK and European universities.

As a side note, here in the UK, the narrative has been about non-doms leaving the UK, while ignoring that high-net-worth (HNWI) and ultra-high-net-worth individuals (UHNWI) and their respective family offices are moving from the US to the UK.

Six recommendations to unlock greater value

1. Professionalise strategic communications: Corporates and governments should treat startup collaborations as reputation assets. Assign advisory and communications teams to every pilot, and publish insights, even if a deal isn’t signed.

2. Expand participation to mid-tier firms: Offer tailored entry points for mid-size corporates, possibly through industry clusters or trade bodies, supported by lighter-touch onboarding.

3. Create fiscal incentives for CVC activity: Link tax credits directly to startup co-investment or collaboration, rewarding corporates for deploying capital and taking product risk. And think beyond tax credits to incentivise investment in innovation.

4. Integrate evaluation and learning: Introduce a shared framework across EU and UK corporates to evaluate what works in collaborations. Use these insights to improve programmes annually.

5. Establish thematic CEO summits: Convene Horizon-aligned innovation leaders across energy, biotech, quantum to set strategic goals and unlock institutional alignment. Tasks that the UK’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is doing.

6. Share lessons globally: Position EIC CPP and other initiatives as international models, inviting participation from corporates in Japan, the US, the GCC, and beyond. Communications and engagement is critical in private settings and at public events. Learn how to sell the UK and Europe and the values that it has.

Final thoughts

The EIC’s Corporate Startup Collaboration report isn’t just a snapshot of what’s working — it’s a blueprint for what’s possible.

To turn these partnerships into national competitive advantages, we need to align our policy, positioning, and communication. We must reward risk, showcase results, and utilise strategic communications as a growth engine, not an afterthought.

Europe and the UK have the science, the talent, and now the frameworks. What they need next is coherence and collaboration in how we support innovation, how we discuss it, and how we incentivise it.

That’s how we unlock growth!

---

I work with governments, investors, and corporate leaders to help them sharpen their positioning, communicate with impact, and build the kind of reputational strength that drives long-term value and trust.

If you’re leading in corporate venturing or managing capital through a family office and want to strengthen your reputation and influence, let’s connect.

Please feel free to connect or share this with your network, who may benefit. And subscribe to my LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

Spain’s Innovation Surge: VC and CVC Driving Growth

Spain is no longer just a holiday destination or a logistics hub for Southern Europe. It’s becoming one of Europe’s fastest-evolving venture ecosystems, fueled by deep structural reforms, targeted public investments, and a maturing corporate venture capital (CVC) landscape that’s quietly powering innovation.

Yesterday, I attended an event at the Spanish Embassy in London, where insights were shared on UK–Spain Venture Capital: Trends and Opportunities. Investors, entrepreneurs, and advisors gathered to explore how Spain is positioning itself as a key hub for innovation and scale.

A Decade of Momentum: From Fragmented to Formidable

In just over ten years, Spain’s VC ecosystem has transformed. According to one panellist, “we’ve gone from €1.7 billion in venture funding to €14 billion, and now €22 billion in 2024.” The country has produced 17 unicorns, nurtures over 5,000 start-ups, and has created co-investment models that blend public and private capital with increasing sophistication.

The acceleration is not just in headline figures. It’s about the quality and diversity of innovation. “From neurosurgical research in the Canary Islands to sustainable aviation fuels in Barcelona, Spain’s regional ecosystems are maturing,” noted one speaker.

There’s depth in biotech, clean energy, quantum computing, and AI, often supported by EU Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) funds and the Spanish public sector’s investment arms such as CDTI, ENISA and ICO.

“Tourism and immigration help, but growth now depends on digitisation, clean energy and science-led innovation.”

Spanish Ambassador to the UK, His Excellency Don José Pascual Marco Martínez

What Makes Spain Competitive?

Structural Reform and Stability

1. Spain’s post-COVID reforms in labour law, training, and tax are paying dividends. Start-up and scale-up visa schemes have made it easier to attract global talent. Vocational training reform has helped bridge the science–industry gap.

2. Supportive Funding Ecosystem

   The interplay between public funds (ICO, CDTI, ENISA) and an increasingly active VC and CVC market creates risk-sharing models that are attractive to early and growth-stage companies.

   “Public and private funds now account for 50% of all VC activity in Spain,” said one investor. “You rarely see one without the other.”

3. Cost Advantage and Lifestyle Magnetism

   Barcelona, Valencia, and Bilbao offer high-quality infrastructure, skilled labour and lower costs than major hubs like London or Berlin. “You can hire brilliant engineers in Valencia for half the cost of London,” one UK investor noted.

4. Gateway to Latin America

   Spanish start-ups and corporates benefit from natural corridors into LATAM markets, thanks to language, diaspora ties, and trade flows. For UK investors, this opens up a dual-market opportunity from a single base.

5. Investment into the UK

   The UK is Spain’s second-largest global investment destination, and Spain is among the top 10 investors in the UK, with Spanish FDI growing over 30% in early 2024.

Corporate Venturing: The Quiet Force Behind the Boom

One of the most striking insights from the event was the emergence of Corporate Venture Capital as a vital component of the Spanish innovation system.

CVC funding now accounts for around 20% of all VC in Spain, up from 5% just five years ago. When combined with public financing, corporates and public entities collectively support more than half of Spain’s venture deals.

“Corporate venturing is no longer niche. It’s central to how Spanish innovation scales. Public funds and corporates now play indistinguishable roles in accelerating tech,” said a leading Madrid-based investor.

What’s changed?

• Strategic Maturity: Spanish corporates, from energy to telecoms, now view venture investing as part of long-term open innovation, not a PR exercise.

• Dual Metrics: CVCs measure success through both financial performance and strategic alignment. One speaker from a global CVC described the mandate as:

  “Don’t lose money. Beat the benchmarks if possible. But above all, learn faster than your competitors.”

• Access to Market and Distribution: Start-ups see CVCs not just as chequebooks but as trusted distribution and product planning partners. However, some cautioned against bureaucracy:

  “Corporates can’t take 60 days to approve investments when VCs move in 6,” one founder shared.

For UK investors and corporates, partnering with Spanish CVCs presents an opportunity to share risk, gain market intelligence, and access new verticals, especially in energy, healthtech, and mobility.

Deep Tech: Spain’s Investment Sweet Spot

A key theme across the panels was the strategic opportunity in deep tech, AI, biotech, quantum, and advanced materials. These sectors require patient capital, government alignment, and industrial partnerships, all of which Spain is developing at speed.

“AI might be the most epoch-defining technology of our time, but biotech like CRISPR will redefine human health and life expectancy,” said one panellist. “These aren’t short-run wins. But if you back them right, the moat is unassailable.”

Spain’s universities, particularly in Valencia, Madrid, and Seville, are producing spinouts with increasing commercial potential; however, the scale-up challenge remains.

That’s where international VCs, CVCs and ecosystem builders can make the difference, by bridging the capital, market, and mentorship gap between early-stage and global scaling.

Where Do the Opportunities Lie?

For Investors:

• Late-stage venture and growth equity in under-capitalised Spanish scale-ups.

• Co-investment vehicles with regional governments and Spanish corporates.

• LP roles in emerging VC and CVC funds focused on Spanish deep-tech and climate ventures.

For Innovators:

• Access to European and RRF-linked funding through Spanish public investment vehicles.

• Lower cost of talent and operations without sacrificing access to EU customers.

• Partnerships with Spanish corporates willing to back pilots and new models.

For Corporates:

• Open innovation via structured CVC arms, increasingly aligned with government priorities.

• Shared IP and R&D incentives through consortia funding from EU programmes.

• Market expansion to LATAM through Spain-based start-ups with regional exposure.

A Note on Mindset and Market Entry

One piece of advice echoed throughout the event: presence matters.

“To invest in Spain, or anywhere, you need boots on the ground. You need to spend time in the market, in person,” said a UK-based founder now operating across Madrid and London.

Delegations, co-working residencies, and dual-hub structures are increasingly common. Whether for scouting investment opportunities or embedding talent, Spain rewards visibility and collaboration.

Final Thought: Don’t Miss the Inflection Point

Spain is no longer a peripheral player in European innovation. It is becoming a core part of the EU’s growth engine, particularly as the region retools its industrial base, advances clean energy, and expands digital sovereignty.

For investors seeking to deploy capital beyond traditional destinations, and for corporates looking to establish R&D pipelines and growth partnerships, Spain offers both value and velocity.

“We’re not just catching up. We’re shaping the next wave of European innovation,” said one closing panellist.

Judging by the quality of insight and ambition at this event, it’s hard to disagree. And not just that, but it is also how they deploy that capital in overseas opportunities.

---

If you’d like to explore investment opportunities in Spain, or how CVCs and strategic communications can unlock value across borders, connect with me here on LinkedIn.

Why CVCs Must Lead with Strategic Communication

Corporate Venture Capital (CVC) has come of age. No longer a shadow to traditional VC or simply an R&D extension of parent firms, today’s CVCs are strategic powerhouses,  blending capital with capability, and investing not just money, but deep industry insight, global networks, and operational advantage into the companies they back.

This past week, at the Global Corporate Venturing Symposium in London, I participated in panels and conversations with innovation leaders, fintech entrepreneurs, policy officials, and CVC professionals. We explored everything from the rise of university spinouts to the challenges of financial reform. But a unifying theme ran through it all: how CVCs are uniquely positioned to drive innovation and scale with smarter, more sustainable outcomes,  and why trust, perception, and strategic communications are critical enablers of that success.

From Capital to Capability: The Evolving Role of CVCs

CVCs differ from traditional VCs in ways that can give founders an edge. They bring insight from operating businesses, understand procurement and regulation inside and out, and are often part of global supply chains.

One speaker from a major Middle Eastern financial institution explained how their venture arm, though new, was building bridges between fintechs and their core banking operations,  not just for innovation theatre, but for practical deployment and scale.

This advantage matters. Founders backed by CVCs gain access to not only funding but also commercial pathways, technical expertise, and procurement opportunities that pure-play venture capitalists (VCs) simply cannot offer.

Yet, as many agreed at the symposium, this strategic advantage can only be fully realised when the CVC and the portfolio company speak the same language,  and that’s where communication comes in.

Communications as Strategy, Not Just Output

Too often, communication is treated as an afterthought a tactical activity where the focus is on PR, social media, press releases, blog and/or campaign slogans. These are tools, not strategy.

True strategic communications sits upstream. It clarifies identity. It aligns perception with purpose. It builds trust with investors, policymakers, partners, talent and prospective investment partners like family offices.

And in a world where markets move on confidence and capital seeks clarity, it is as critical as your cap table or product roadmap.

When speaking to founders and CVC professionals alike, I often ask: “How do others see you,  and how much of that are you shaping versus reacting to?” It’s a crucial question, particularly when scaling internationally or preparing for follow-on fundraising.

Communications, when embedded from the start, can do four essential things for a CVC-backed company:

1. Accelerate Trust: Through clarity of message and consistency of presence, start-ups earn the confidence of new customers, regulators, and investors.

2. Position for Growth: Companies that know how to tell their story can attract the right partners and talent at the right time.

3. Build Strategic Advantage: Messaging rooted in market understanding and corporate strategy can differentiate you in crowded sectors.

4. De-risk the Narrative: Anticipating scrutiny (especially in regulated sectors) and shaping the story reduces reputational and operational risk.

The Power of Perception in Private Markets

The conversations at the symposium also explored the reform of private markets and innovations in secondary share trading. Mark James, who is leading work around the Private Intermittent Securities Exchange System (PISCES), described how this new model aims to bring liquidity to private firms,  through regulated, one-day share auctions that allow founders and early backers to realise value without going public.

This is significant. A lack of liquidity has long been a barrier for many founders and investors. But it also introduces a new layer of scrutiny. As private market visibility increases, so does the importance of reputation and perceived performance. Price transparency, investor confidence, and capital flow are no longer just functions of financials,  they are also shaped by sentiment, perception, and trust.

Strategic communications becomes a critical input in these environments. It provides companies with the tools to shape their investor narrative, manage the timing and tone of announcements, and maintain discretion where required.

As one CVC leader put it, “For every investor that wants more transparency, there’s another who wants less.” Communications must navigate that tension with discipline and tact.

Communications, both tactical and strategic, help shape confidence, which is critical in capital markets, specially when fundraising. As I’ve said before and organisations like Lloyds of London have confirmed with their own studies and data, valuations of companies are influenced by the value of reputation, an intangible asset. If you think solely about communications from the perspective of of tactical comms - PR, blogs and social, then there is a misunderstand of how strategic communciations can help steer a company to growth.

University Spinouts: Innovation’s Untapped Arsenal

One of the most energising sessions I joined, which followed on from an event I attended at the SFO Week in May, focused on university spinouts. Institutions like Oxford, Cambridge, and Imperial are attracting global IP and academic talent, with interest accelerating due to shifts in US higher education and global geopolitics. And yes, US researchers are already looking at moving over The Atlantic. Perception matters and influences decisions.

Yet spinouts face a complex challenge. They are often rich in IP but lean on commercialisation experience. Their founders are researchers, not entrepreneurs. Their language is scientific, not strategic.

Here again, communication plays a bridging role, in both the strategic advisory and positioning.

It’s not enough to have a breakthrough; you must communicate it in a way that resonates with funders, regulators, and industry. As I said during one conversation, there’s the “public side of comms,”  your website, your LinkedIn, your media coverage,  but the private side is even more vital. For many companies and spinouts, it requires a model where, as an example, 80% of time is spent with more private and strategic positioning and the remaining 20% if more tactical.

Again, as an example, from my early days supporting charities and NGOs over 30 years ago. Charity fundraising is split between the public side that we all see, the fundraising runs, people sponsoring cake stalls and challenges - activities that are equally critical to win over public support, but the big ticket fundraising from charitable trusts, corporates and foundations, who lend in big numbers. The psychology is perfect. You need £10 million, when £8 million is raised privately, go public and ask people for support the remaining. People tend to be morereceptive.

That’s the work of aligning your story to your business outcomes and shaping how you are seen by those who matter most: prospective investors, regulators, and partners.

This becomes even more important as UK universities scale their IP commercialisation activity. The risk is not the science, it’s the signal.

Communicating value clearly, at the right time, to the right audiences can mean the difference between a licensing deal and a lost opportunity.

CVCs as Builders, Not Just Backers

There’s a fundamental difference between CVCs and many financial investors. CVCs understand timelines. They know that deep-tech and industrial innovation takes longer to commercialise. They operate inside regulatory environments. They see innovation not just as financial upside, but as a strategic necessity for their sector and their own corporate. It forms part of a wider strategic vision of planning for the long term.

And this long-term view is powerful if harnessed well.

The GVC Institute and GCV’s network play a vital role in sharing operational knowledge and facilitating peer learning among CVCs. At the symposium, there was honest discussion about the friction that can exist between a parent corporation’s priorities and a CVC’s investment goals. But there was also a clear appetite for solving it through internal education, strategic alignment, and communications that reflect both the independence and the integration of CVCs.

One of the more powerful observations made was that “CVCs can help start-ups succeed because they understand supply chains and internal procurement better than most.” That’s insight no Series A fund can buy. Strategic communications can amplify that advantage by packaging knowledge into a reputation, turning operational value into perceived value.

The GCV Powerlist 100

The Case for a Communications Playbook for CVCs

If you’re a CVC leader reading this, here’s what I’d advocate:

1. Treat Your Reputation Like an Asset: As Lloyd’s of London and KPMG report that i highlighted before said, reputation can account for over 25% of a firm’s market value. And it’s even more pronounced for early-stage companies, where visibility and perceived credibility drive deal flow.

2. Embed Communications into Due Diligence: When investing in companies, assess not only their tech or team, but their readiness to communicate clearly, strategically, and with impact. Build that ability early.

3. Offer Non-Capital Value Through Communications Support: Your portfolio companies need more than just cash. Equip them with narrative development, media training, and stakeholder engagement tools. That’s what makes a founder confident in front of a sovereign wealth fund or a government panel.

4. Engage Policymakers with Clarity and Purpose: Many of the innovations you back will face regulatory scrutiny. Helping companies prepare and shaping the policy environment around them is a role few CVCs play, but should. You want a narrative that gives regulators and other investors confidence and where there are issues these need to be resolved privately.

5. Measure Perception as a Leading Indicator: Just as you monitor run rate and burn, track perception in relevant stakeholder groups. It’s often the best early signal of future fundraising, partnership, or acquisition potential.

Why Now Matters

As we look to the second half of 2025, the context is both urgent and hopeful. Capital markets are evolving. Regulatory reform here in the UK is underway. Equally, within the EU there are movements to deregulate and change the culture so that the innovation that is created within this trading block can scale. IP is moving across borders. The UK, in particular, is in a “Goldilocks” moment for innovation, with global talent inflows, attractive legal frameworks, and new secondary markets emerging.

But for these opportunities to translate into outcomes, we need more than science and money. We need alignment. We need trust. And we need a narrative.

That’s where communication comes in, as a strategic lever.

If you lead a CVC fund or advise start-ups, ask yourself this: “Are we shaping how your CVC and each of your portfolio of companies are seen? Or are you hoping that your success will be obvious?”

The winners will do the former.

How the UK Can Turn Policy into Private Investment

NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang and UK PM Keir Starmer

The UK is entering what many describe as a “Goldilocks moment” for innovation, an inflexion point where policy ambition, private capital, and ecosystem readiness converge. For family offices and corporate venture capital (CVC) investors, recognising this structural shift and responding with long-term, trust-based investment strategies is both a commercial and reputational imperative.

NVIDIA’s Vote of Confidence

At London Tech Week 2025, NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang declared: “Because of AI, every industry in the UK will be a tech industry.” He backed this with substance: the launch of a new NVIDIA AI Lab, a national AI developer training initiative, and commitments to AI-native 6G research. However, he also highlighted a strategic vulnerability: the UK is “the largest AI ecosystem in the world without its own infrastructure,” calling for urgent action on sovereign compute investments .

CNBC at London Tech Week 2025: Nvidia Jason Huang says UK is in a ‘Goldilocks’ moment: ‘I’m going to invest here’

The Mansion House Accord: Institutional Capital in Motion

Simultaneously, the Mansion House Accord is unlocking domestic institutional capital. Seventeen of the UK’s largest DC pension schemes have pledged to allocate 10% of their default funds into private markets by 2030, releasing up to £50 billion, with at least half earmarked for UK-based private assets. This commitment, underpinned by support from Rothschild & Co and the UK Treasury, signals a shift from passive allocation to proactive nation-building.

For family offices, this opens co-investment opportunities with robust governance frameworks, and for CVCs, it validates private market participation as part of a broader industrial strategy.

Public Policy Foundations: Spending Review 2025

The fiscal backdrop adds further depth. The Spending Review 2025 outlines a £18 billion increase in real-terms departmental spending from 2024–25 to 2027–28, and commits £4.5 billion to innovation, AI infrastructure, and digital connectivity.

Crucially, it focuses on skills investment and lifelong learning as enablers of productivity and social mobility. This is more than budget-setting; it’s a strategic attempt to rewire the UK’s economic engine around innovation and human capital.

Academic–Industry Hubs: Catalysts for Growth

The Cambridge × Manchester Innovation Partnership, backed by £6 million in joint funding from Research England and partner universities, exemplifies this national ambition. With participation from Microsoft, Arm and AstraZeneca, the partnership is designed to commercialise research, develop scale-ups, and attract foreign investment into UK IP. These hubs are not only incubators, they’re mechanisms for de-risking early-stage innovation and aligning capital to long-term policy goals.

Unlocking Regulation and Incentivising Innovation

While the capital and policy signals are clear, one critical piece remains under-leveraged: regulatory reform and incentive design for entrepreneurs.

If the UK is to fully realise its growth potential and broaden its tax base, it must modernise outdated rules and actively support innovation.

1. Regulation as Enabler, Not Obstacle

Too often, regulation is framed as a post-facto guardrail. In a growth environment, it must instead be a strategic enabler. Regulatory frameworks should:

• Accelerate licensing for new technologies (e.g., AI-enabled health diagnostics, fintech, green energy storage).

• Create fast-track regulatory sandboxes for highly regulated sectors (e.g., aerospace, life sciences), modelled after the FCA’s AI sandbox.

• Incentivise family office and CVC-backed companies with pre-certification programmes to de-risk product rollouts and meet global standards.

Such measures would help innovative firms scale faster while reinforcing the UK’s reputation as a responsible but responsive regulatory jurisdiction.

2. Smart Tax Reform for Founders and Investors

Generating more income for the state means supporting those who create value. HM Treasury and HMRC should consider the following:

• Reform CGT treatment on founder equity, especially for start-ups moving from Seed to Series B. Current punitive tax rates often push founders to exit early or relocate.

• Reintroduce a modernised version of Entrepreneurs’ Relief, with caps tied to impact metrics such as job creation, R&D investment or export revenue.

• Expand Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS) limits and offer additional relief for investments into regions or sectors prioritised in the UK Innovation Strategy.

Such incentives would not only drive more founder-led scale-up activity but also support longer holding periods, increasing value capture and thus tax receipts for the UK.

3. Institutional Alignment: Mobilising Pension and Public Funds

Pension capital, unlocked via the Mansion House Accord, should be matched by regulatory alignment:

• Allow DC schemes to offer innovation-linked default funds with proper oversight and diversified governance.

• Streamline reporting requirements for private-market investment vehicles, encouraging pension funds to increase allocations to tech, climate, and infrastructure sectors.

• Incentivise blended finance models where public funds (e.g., British Patient Capital) de-risk early-stage innovation for private follow-on capital.

Why This Matters to Family Offices and CVCs

The reputational payoff from strategic alignment is clear. Family offices that invest not only capital but capability, by helping shape governance, standards, and policy dialogue, will be perceived as nation-building partners.

CVCs, particularly those active in regulated or critical sectors, can build credibility by showcasing how their investments contribute to UK sovereign goals.

At next week’s GCV Symposium in London, corporate venture leaders will discuss exactly these themes. But to succeed, this must go beyond discussion. Family offices and CVCs should co-develop position papers with academic partners, contribute to regulatory consultations, and take visible positions in public‑private investment and innovation alliances.

We need to break down barriers and move at pace if we are to unlock growth and deliver for everyone and not the few, which is the current perception.