Confucius argued that the correction of names was the first duty of government. If names are not correct, language cannot accord with truth. If language cannot accord with truth, nothing can be accomplished.
The ancient Chinese philosopher was talking about statecraft. But the principle holds for capital allocation to technology.
A common sentiment in European climate tech circles (yes, I used the term) is that as long as the technology being built is the same, it's irrelevant what we call it.
I disagree.
What you call something shapes what you build or fund, what you measure, and what you are ultimately accountable for. Even if those decisions are often unconscious, they act as a steer.
What you call something shapes what you build or fund
The debate around what to call building or investing in technologies explicitly designed to restore human and planetary health is – at its core – a debate about values.
And that's why, almost two years since the 'climate tech is dead' narrative took hold in European tech, VCs and founders are still talking about labels, at conferences, in boardrooms, and in interviews with journalists.
New shoots
Over the past year or so, there have been a lot of conversations about the climate tech boom and bust – where it went wrong and how it might look in the future. As a journalist, I've been privy to many of them.
One thing that's clear is that while some funds admittedly fled the space, most did not. Actually, many have been doubling down on solving for social and environmental problems. Ironically, that push has further exposed the limitations of the 'climate tech' framing as too focused on carbon emissions, as missing the big picture.
And from all that messy back and forth, new labels are emerging.
Luxembourg-based venture capital firm Satgana recently rebranded to "earth tech" to better align with the planetary boundaries framework – which accounts for far more than decarbonisation.
And from all that messy back and forth, new labels are emerging.
Others, including Ananda Impact Ventures and Eka Ventures, have stuck to the impact label but pushed for an emphasis on "systemic" investing – based on a systems approach to environmental and social issues.
Some funds have opted for "resilience tech" – though resilience has been partly captured by the defence industry, which complicates things. Another label is "industrial tech," but I think this one is too vague to catch on.
Perhaps the term getting the most traction in my conversations lately is "regenerative." Vague, perhaps, but it has a certain earthy quality that I think might catch on.
Earlier this year, Impact Loop broke the news that Norrsken Foundation is allegedly working on a new fund targeting "regenerative" businesses – a significant institutional signal that the term is moving from the fringe.
As climate tech reveals itself as increasingly narrow, I've also been partial to "impact" – and yes, I acknowledge the conflict of interest. The term is admittedly broad, but politically durable and increasingly useful as an umbrella.
Either way, the fact that serious people are arguing about this seriously – with reference to planetary boundaries and ecological systems – suggests a sector asking harder questions about what it is actually trying to do. That is a good sign, even if it does not feel like one.
For now, I'll continue to call myself a "climate tech reporter" because nothing else quite fits – yet.