In the climate ecosystem, the quality of a pitch is never just about a founder’s charisma or the ambition behind an idea. It rests on a team’s ability to demonstrate rigour, a deep understanding of the issues, and technical credibility. At We Take Part, we review more than a hundred projects every year. This frequent exposure reveals recurring patterns, some of which represent real warning signs regarding a project’s credibility.

Identifying these signals helps bring greater transparency to investors and supports entrepreneurs in meeting the level of excellence required to tackle climate challenges. Here are the main red flags we encounter in climate pitch decks.

Greenwashing often appears in pitches through communication filled with environmental promises but lacking tangible evidence. It can take several forms:

Disproportionate promises

Entrepreneurs may promise massive emissions reductions, gigantic future markets, or lightning-fast adoption. When such claims aren’t backed by methodologies or models, they become risk signals. Impact must always be measurable, reproducible, and verifiable.

Lots of “green talk”, no data

A pitch may multiply buzzwords and “green” vocabulary (negative carbon, circular solution, rapid scale-up, deep transition) without ever presenting metrics, even approximate ones—simply to suggest environmental relevance. A serious climate project does not shy away from metrics: waste volumes treated, energy consumption, tonnes of CO₂ avoided, biodiversity impact, etc.

An impact narrative disconnected from the product

Many projects claim to contribute to climate action without demonstrating any direct or indirect effect. If the link between the solution and environmental impact (such as emissions avoided) isn’t explicit, measured, or measurable, further scrutiny is needed.

Climate transition sectors are demanding, with long sales cycles and potential clients who are often professionals. In this context, a pitch without strong market validation is a major red flag.

No evidence of user interest

A project may be technologically promising, but that does not guarantee it solves a tangible need. Signals such as letters of intent, pilots, user feedback, or early contracts are essential.

Poor understanding of market constraints

Some pitches describe an enormous theoretical market without accounting for real-world factors: regulation, standards, purchasing cycles, integration complexity, existing competitors, or institutional inertia.

Too much product, not enough customer

When a pitch focuses solely on the solution and ignores the problem as experienced by stakeholders, it often reflects a lack of iteration or a technology-first development process.

In climate projects, the ability to project into the future is essential. Impact is measured over years, sometimes decades. A lack of long-term vision raises concerns about the project’s sustainability.

Overly fragile business models

If a pitch presents a financial trajectory based on unrealistic or incomplete assumptions, it becomes difficult to assess both impact potential and economic viability.

An unclear industrialisation strategy

In climate innovation, impact often depends on the ability to scale. If the pitch includes no clear strategy for industrialisation, partnerships, distribution, or operational optimisation, a critical piece is missing.

No alignment between ambition and actual capabilities

Some projects present very ambitious goals but lack the technical skills, funding, or action plan needed to bridge the gaps.

Spotting red flags is not about excluding founders, it’s about elevating the overall level of rigour. Climate projects need reinforced credibility to attract capital, convince partners, and accelerate real impact.

At We Take Part, we see this approach as an act of education and transparency. Explaining what is missing in a pitch gives entrepreneurs the tools to improve. And it allows investors to move forward with confidence in a sector where data quality and model robustness determine the relevance of every investment.

Risk warning : Investing in startups involves a risk of total or partial loss of capital, as well as illiquidity. Only invest amounts you are prepared to lose.