Venturing into the future: Exploring venture capitalists’decision-making criteria for cellular agriculture startups

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the article is to explore the investment decision criteria of venture capitalists (VCs) in the cellular agriculture industry, focusing particularly on the initial screening phase. It seeks to understand the relative importance of various criteria that VCs consider when selecting cellular agriculture ventures for early-stage investment.

Research Design & Methods: The research employs a multi-method approach, including expert interviews and a survey-based choice-based conjoint (CBC) experiment. We conducted interviews with investment managers from VC firms, an incubator, and a nonprofit organisation. The CBC experiment involved 44 individual investors, focusing on various investment criteria like entrepreneurial spirit, professional background, and scalability.

Findings: The study reveals that in the cellular agriculture sector, investors place the highest importance on scalability, the entrepreneurial spirit of the founding team, and the value-added of the product and technology. Other criteria like the team’s track record, proof of concept, degree of competition, and professional background are considered less important. This emphasis on scalability and product value differs from non-industry-specific studies where team-related criteria often dominate.

Implications & Recommendations: For new ventures in cellular agriculture, understanding these criteria can help tailor their investment proposals more effectively. For cellular agriculture investors and policymakers, these insights can assist in benchmarking and shaping policies to support industry development. Recommendations for policymakers include funding open-access R&D and creating critical infrastructure.

Contribution & Value Added: This article contributes significantly to the field by applying the conjoint study method in the context of finance, which is relatively novel. This approach offers valuable insights that surpass those obtained from traditional surveys, providing a more nuanced understanding of investment decision criteria. It is one of the first to systematically investigate these criteria in the growing area of cellular agriculture. The findings add a new dimension to the ‘jockey (entrepreneur) vs horse (product)’ debate in venture capital decisions and offer practical guidance for entrepreneurs and investors in this sector, making it a noteworthy addition to entrepreneurial finance and venture capital studies.

Keywords

venture capital , entrepreneurial finance , conjoint analysis , investment decision , cellular agriculture

Author Biography

Fabian Baumann

Business Strategist at Formo Bio GmbH (Germany), co-founder and board member at CellAg Deutschland e.V., MSc in business management (2022). His research interests include the cellular agriculture industry, particularly concerning behavioral finance, consumer behavior, and international entrepreneurship.

Marc Mehlhorn

Marc Mehlhorn

Professor for Entrepreneurial Finance and FinTech at Faculty of Business, Economics and Law, University of Applied Sciences, Cologne, Germany

Correspondence to: University of Applied Sciences, Claudiusstrasse 1, 50678 Cologne, marc.mehlhorn@th-koeln.de

ORCID  https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8681-6884

References

1. Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R.K., & Culpepper, S.A. (2013). Best-Practice Recommendations for Estimating Cross-Level Interaction Effects Using Multilevel Modeling. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1490-1528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313478188
2. Akingbemila, V. (2022). SAFE (Simple Agreement for Future Equity) and the Startup Founder. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4063226
3. Andres, R. (2018). Venture capitalists’ decision-making in later-stage ventures. Dissertation, University of Trier. Retrieved from https://ubt.opus.hbz-nrw.de/ on October 3, 2022.
4. Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
5. BCG & Blue Horizon (2021). Food for Thought. The Protein Transformation. Retrieved from https://bcg.com/ on September 4, 2022.
6. Benjaminson, M.A., Gilchriest, J.A., & Lorenz, M. (2002). In vitro edible muscle protein production system (mpps): stage 1, fish. Acta Astronautica, 51(12), 879-889. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0094-5765(02)00033-4
7. Bigos, K., & Michalik, A. (2023). The role of foreign venture capital and foreign business angels in start-ups’ early internationalization: The case of Polish ICT start-ups. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Re-view, 11(4), 139-153. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2023.110409
8. Block, J., Fisch, C., Vismara, S., & Andres, R. (2019). Private equity investment criteria: An experimental con-joint analysis of venture capital, business angels, and family offices. Journal of Corporate Finance, 58, 329-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2019.05.009
9. Block, J.H., Hirschmann, M., & Fisch, C. (2021). Which criteria matter when impact investors screen social enterprises?. Journal of Corporate Finance, 66, 101813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101813
10. Buxton, A. (2022). Betterland Foods’ New Woo Chocolate Bar Is Made With Perfect Day’s Animal-Free Whey Protein. Retrieved from https://www.greenqueen.com.hk/ on April 21, 2022.
11. Cambridge Associates & The Global Impact Investing Network (2015). Introducing the Impact Investing Benchmark. Retrieved from https://thegiin.org/ on April 13, 2022.
12. CE Delft (2021a). LCA of cultivated meat. Future projections of different scenarios. Retrieved from https://cedelft.eu/ on January 21, 2022.
13. CE Delft (2021b). TEA of cultivated meat. Future projections for different scenarios. Retrieved from https://cedelft.eu/ on January 21, 2022.
14. Chrzan, K. (1994). Three kinds of order effects in choice-based conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters, 5(2), 165-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994106
15. Chrzan, K., & Orme, B. (2000). An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series. Retrieved from https://sawtoothsoftware.com/ on April 29, 2022.
16. Connelly, B.L., Certo, S.T., Ireland, R.D., & Reutzel, C.R. (2011). Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419
17. Dalal, A. (2022). Meta-analysis of determinants of venture capital activity. Entrepreneurial Business and Eco-nomics Review, 10(1), 113-128. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2022.100108
18. Dane, E., & Pratt, M.G. (2007). Exploring Intuition and its Role in Managerial Decision Making. The Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.23463682
19. DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and Cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 263-287. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.263
20. Elrod, T., Louviere, J.J., & Davey, K.S. (1992). An Empirical Comparison of Ratings-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint Models. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 368. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172746
21. Ferrati, F., & Muffatto, M. (2021). Reviewing equity investors’ funding criteria: a comprehensive classification and research agenda. Venture Capital, 23(2), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2021.1883211
22. Fountain, H. (2013). A Lab-Grown Burger Gets a Taste Test. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/ on April 11, 2022.
23. Franke, N., Gruber, M., Harhoff, D., & Henkel, J. (2006). What you are is what you like—similarity biases in venture capitalists’ evaluations of start-up teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6), 802-826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.07.001
24. Franke, N., Gruber, M., Harhoff, D., & Henkel, J. (2008). Venture Capitalists’ Evaluations of Start–Up Teams: Trade–Offs, Knock–Out Criteria, and the Impact of VC Experience. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 459-483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00236.x
25. GFI (2019). 2018 State of the Industry Report. Cell-based Meat. Retrieved from https://gfi.org/ on April 15, 2022.
26. GFI (2020a). 2019 State of the Industry Report. Cultivated Meat. Retrieved from https://gfi.org/ on April 20, 2022.
27. GFI (2020b). 2019 State of the Industry Report. Fermentation. Retrieved from https://gfi.org/ on April 20, 2022.
28. GFI (2021a). GFI startup survey results. Retrieved from https://gfi.org/ on September 16, 2021.
29. GFI (2021b). 2020 State of the Industry Report. Cultivated Meat. Retrieved from https://gfi.org/ on January 21, 2022.
30. GFI (2021c). 2020 State of the Industry Report. Fermentation: Meat, Eggs, and Dairy. Retrieved from https://gfi.org/ on January 21, 2022.
31. GFI (2021d). GFI investor survey results. Retrieved from https://gfi.org/ on April 20, 2022.
32. GFI (2022a). 2021 State of the Industry Report. Cultivated meat and seafood. Retrieved from https://gfi.org/ on April 18, 2022.
33. GFI (2022b). 2021 State of the Industry Report. Fermentation: Meat, seafood, eggs, and dairy. Retrieved from https://gfi.org/ on April 18, 2022.
34. Gompers, P.A. (1995). Optimal Investment, Monitoring, and the Staging of Venture Capital. The Journal of Finance, 50(5), 1461-1489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1995.tb05185.x
35. Gompers, P.A., Gornall, W., Kaplan, S.N., & Strebulaev, I.A. (2020). How do venture capitalists make deci-sions?. Journal of Financial Economics, 135(1), 169-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.06.011
36. Green, P.E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400402
37. Hall, J., & Hofer, C.W. (1993). Venture capitalists’ decision criteria in new venture evaluation. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(1), 25-42, https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(93)90009-T
38. Hsu, D.K., Haynie, J.M., Simmons, S.A., & McKelvie, A. (2014). What matters, matters differently: a conjoint analysis of the decision policies of angel and venture capital investors. Venture Capital, 16(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2013.825527
39. Ives, M. (2020). Singapore Approves a Lab-Grown Meat Product, a Global First. The New York Times. Re-trieved from https://www.nytimes.com/ April 11, 2022.
40. Janney, J.J., & Folta, T.B. (2006). Moderating effects of investor experience on the signaling value of private equity placements. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(1), 27-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.008
41. Jung, S., Koch, G., & Rauch, M.G. (2011). Decoding VCs Decision Making Behavior in Biotechnology: The Rela-tive Importance of Established Decision Criteria and the Role of Start-Ups’ Knowledge Networks. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1926626
42. Kaplan, S.N., Sensoy, B.A., & Strömberg, P.E. (2009). Should Investors Bet on the Jockey or the Horse? Evi-dence from the Evolution of Firms from Early Business Plans to Public Companies. The Journal of Fi-nance, 64(1), 75-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01429.x
43. Kim, D., & Lee, S.Y. (2002). When venture capitalists are attracted by the experienced. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00227-2
44. Kowitt, B. (2019). The First ‘Animal-Free’ Ice Cream Hits the Market. Retrieved from https://www.fortune.com/ on November 4, 2022.
45. Macmillan, I.C., Siegel, R., & Narasimha, P.N.S. (1985). Criteria used by venture capitalists to evaluate new venture proposals. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), 119-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(85)90011-4
46. Monika & Sharma, A.K. (2015). Venture Capitalists’ Investment Decision Criteria for New Ventures: A Review. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 189, 465-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.195
47. Moritz, A., Diegel, W., Block, J., & Fisch, C. (2021). VC investors’ venture screening: the role of the decision maker’s education and experience. Journal of Business Economics, 92(1), 27-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-021-01042-z
48. Muzyka, D., Birley, S., & Leleux, B. (1996). Trade-offs in the investment decisions of European venture capi-talists. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(4), 273-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(95)00126-3
49. National Venture Capital Association (2022). 2021 NVCA Yearbook. Retrieved from https://nvca.org/ on February 15, 2022.
50. Orme, B. (2016). CBC/HB v5. Software for Hierarchical Bayes Estimation for CBC Data. Retrieved from https://sawtoothsoftware.com on May 3, 2022.
51. Oxford Economics (2021). The socio-economic impact of cultivated meat in the UK. Retrieved from https://www.ivy.farm/ on April 9, 2022.
52. Petty, J.S., & Gruber, M. (2011). In pursuit of the real deal. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(2), 172-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.002
53. Poindexter, J.B. (1976). The Efficiency of Financial Markets. The Venture Capital Case. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.
54. Post, M.J. (2012). Cultured meat from stem cells: challenges and prospects. Meat Science, 92(3), 297-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.008
55. Rischer, H., Szilvay, G.R., & Oksman-Caldentey, K.M. (2020). Cellular agriculture - industrial biotechnology for food and materials. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 61, 128-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2019.12.003
56. Sawtooth Software (n.d.). Lighthouse Studio Help. Manual. Retrieved from https://sawtoothsoftware.com/ on April 23, 2022.
57. Shepherd, D.A., Ettenson, R., & Crouch, A. (2000). New venture strategy and profitability. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 449-467. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00007-X
58. Shepherd, D.A., & Zacharakis, A. (1999). Conjoint analysis: A new methodological approach for researching the decision policies of venture capitalists. Venture Capital, 1(3), 197-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/136910699295866
59. Silva, J. (2004). Venture capitalists’ decision-making in small equity markets: a case study using participant observation. Venture Capital, 6(2-3), Article 1, 125-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691060410001675974
60. Slade, P., & Zollman Thomas, O. (2023). Cheese without cows: consumer demand for animal-free dairy cheese made from cellular agriculture in the United Kingdom. International Food and Agribusiness Man-age-ment Review, 26, 801-820. https://doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2022-0150
61. Smith, J.K., & Smith, R.L. (2019). Entrepreneurial finance. Venture capital, deal structure & valuation. (2nd ed.). Stanford, California: Stanford Business Books.
62. Stephens, N., Di Silvio, L., Dunsford, I., Ellis, M., Glencross, A., & Sexton, A. (2018). Bringing cultured meat to market: Technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends in Food Sci-ence & Technology, 78, 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.010
63. The Environmental Law Institute and New Harvest (2017). Perceptions of Cellular Agriculture - Key Findings from Qualitative Research. Retrieved from https://new-harvest.org on July 22, 2024.
64. Thomas, O.Z., & Bryant, C. (2021). Don’t have a cow, man: consumer acceptance of animal-free dairy prod-ucts in five countries. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5, 678491. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.678491
65. Thomas, O.Z., Chong, M., Leung, A., Fernandez, T.M., & Ng, S.T. (2023). Not getting laid: consumer ac-ceptance of precision fermentation made egg. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1209533
66. Tyebjee, T.T., & Bruno, A.V. (1984). A Model of Venture Capitalist Investment Activity. Management Science, 30(9), 1051-1066. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1051
67. Valliere, D., & Peterson, R. (2007). When entrepreneurs choose VCs: Experience, choice criteria and intro-spection accuracy. Venture Capital, 9(4), 285-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691060701605413
68. van Eelen, W.F., van Kooten, W.J., & Westerhof, W. (1999). Industrial production of meat from in vitro cell cultures on 1999. Patent no. WO/1999/031223: Patent Description.
69. Wells, W.A. (1974). Venture Capital Decision Making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Carnegie-Mellon University.
70. Wessendorf, C.P., Wilking, D., & Terzidis, O. (2019). Significance of Criteria for Early-Stage Venture Assess-ment: Systematic Literature Review. Retrieved from https://publikationen.bibliothek.kit.edu on January 16, 2022.
71. Wood, P., Thorrez, L., Hocquette, J-F., Troy, D., & Gagaoua, M. (2023). “Cellular agriculture”: current gaps between facts and claims regarding “cell-based meat”. Animal Frontiers, 2(13), 68-74. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfac092
72. Zacharakis, A.L., & Meyer, G.D. (2000). The potential of actuarial decision models. Journal of Business Ventur-ing, 15(4), 323-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00016-0
73. Zbierowski, P., & Gojny-Zbierowska, M. (2022). Talented enough to be a business leader? An alternative approach to entrepreneurs’ traits. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 10(1), 175-187. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2022.100112