Lever des fonds pour l'adaptation climatique ou la mitigation du bruit - avec Thierry Vandewalle (Wind)

Julien: Welcome to Fighting Noise, the podcast that supports technology innovation to fight against noise pollution Today, have an exceptional He is an investor of the year in the VC Most importantly, my guest was an entrepreneur. He sold his company to Publicis before managing digital and moving to the VC GP from the Isai was 2015 one of the most cost-effective in the city. He also set up his own Evergreen called Wind, which is therefore the VC of year Bonjour, Thierry Vandewalle.

Thierry Vandewalle: Bonjour Julien.

Julien: Thank you very for here. Thierry, you launched Wind in 2015, it was not an impact except on my part. It became a few years later. Do you think that the success displayed by Wind today, this year, is also linked to this notion of impact?

Thierry Vandewalle: Well, yes, think that when we launched the first fund in 2015, we were ourselves into the investment, we had never done that with Xavier, we had done the Angel, etc., but it was our first fund. We didn't reason vertically, so we were a generalist We did a little bit everything. And then, we realized that we were still doing the same kind of company, and so when we launched the second We thought, first, we're to do something that corresponds a little to what we did at the end of the first which was the most logical. And then to have a strategy, something that goes with It's good for us because we say to at least we know why we wake up in morning. It's good for our Limited Partner who know why they invested in us. It's good for our employees, the people with whom we work, because they also know why they came. So think, indeed, having a strategy and addition, after having a strategy, impact. it's better than just being very generalist. Which we could have we could have said at the bottom line, we are very generalist and then infinite, do only the projects we like, which are in a pact. But we preferred to limit ourselves, at least it's clearer and it gives a real direction.

Julien: Mm-hmm. Great. I started introducing myself, but maybe you'll it better than me. I guess. Thierry Vandewalle, who are you?

Thierry Vandewalle: I will try to go quickly, I have had several entrepreneurial I will always talk to my associate Xavier because fact we have together and today we do together. So I will often use the plural. But we first set a data analytics when we started in 2000, just after school, we are both engineers. And we set up a data analytics the time, data analytics ... There were not many places where was lot of data. The only places where there was lot of data was the CRM. So finally, it brought to the CRM and therefore to communication, since we work with marketing and communication The expanded, we became a web agency so-to-say There are fewer now, but at the time it was all that was around the web e-commerce.

Julien: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Thierry Vandewalle: The company grew well, we were about 150-200 people when we sold it to Publicis in 2007. And then we took of Publicis France, it was kind part of the deal when we sold the company. It went very well, integration went really well with Publicis, it was great three-year And suddenly Publicis asked us to do the same thing, but in other direction, in Asia. And so Xavier went to Singapore, I to Shanghai. and to manage the digital part of the group. And then we did the opposite, was actually us buying companies I had to buy in a year almost twenty agencies. So was pretty nice, especially in Asia, a little bit in all the Asian So it was a nice adventure. There we plunged into the adventure of Atelier Cologne was a perfume house. from China, which was a very nice success. an extraordinary and we sold the company back in 2016 to L'Oreal. And that's when we both came back to Paris and that's when we launched Wind 1, as I said, it's a loop on what you said, the very generalist which also had a particularity, is that Wind 1 was only with the money we had earned from our first two exits, so it was very heritage-like as a fund.

Julien: Wait.

Thierry Vandewalle: We really liked this job, being in touch with entrepreneurs, having the impression, hope, real as possible, that we help them and that move forward with them. And that's why last year we said, let's go to the next level by doing a more institutional in which there are also external people who subscribe, who are bigger, who can invest in more companies. And it's a little about your question of strategy, impact, etc. Fund 1. We didn't have a strategy because there was no need to When it's purely heritage, you don't need to explain to you do it. On top that, of a more institutional We have counterparts everywhere, employees, LP's etc. So it's logical to say what we're going to

Julien: No counter-order. When was the the Fund 2?

Thierry Vandewalle: The Fond 2 was launched in 2023, did the first closing in June 2024. the Fond is brand new. Fond 2 is brand new. Wind is old, but it was Fond 1 for very long time.

Julien: and that had already had some great hits between Wind 1 and Wind 2, which also you, I imagine, to put back and to convince LP We will talk about this part LP, it also me, just the notion of impact, say your strategy revolves around impact. Can you give me your definition of impact? Because impact has become a very popular in 2024-2025, in 2015 it was, I think it was an unknown word by the

Thierry Vandewalle: What? Yes, absolutely.

Julien: Clearly, today, what your definition of impact? Scope 3 is the SDG of the United Nations What is your precise thesis?

Thierry Vandewalle: There are two things, is what we want to what we like to and what we communicate. And as we are an institutional are clear that we have committed to applying and we will apply. On the first, which is most interesting, almost, for us, are on the adaptation to global We say to world tomorrow will change.

Julien: Mm-hmm.

Thierry Vandewalle: The makes a lot of industries, energy, lot of things will evolve in world and it is still important to adapt. So adapting is either, on the one hand, solving problems. So if there less CO2, less things, etc., we solve the cause but we will also manage the consequences. We do not only the causes in the end. That is, we can also say that it will heat up whatever we do, unfortunately. And so it will generate consequences on economies, our lives, on cities.

Julien: Mm-hmm.

Thierry Vandewalle: etc. If we can find technological to solve or least adapt to problem, that's what we want to do. With a very technological we will always have this vision, we are for technologies that can allow us to adapt or manage or mitigate the consequences of global We will always be on this very technological

Julien: Deep tech.

Thierry Vandewalle: We are somehow technosolutionists. know there people who don't like that word, but in this case, we are. I'm not saying that technology will the answer to everything, but we are absolutely convinced that technology is least part of the answer. And we're going to focus as an investment That's for the communication what we want to do. Not only with the computer, it's what we do. After, you asked the formal

Julien: That will everything.

Thierry Vandewalle: because the word impact can be bit a mess, etc. We use quite bit, the word impact, you will quite a bit on our website, etc. It turns out that the European is very precise, are funds that are article 9, which is our case. Article 9 means several things, but among other things, we will... perfectly respected the European So we have a taxonomy. After we get into little complicated The taxonomy is mitigation, so reducing CO2 And then adaptation, making sure that even if we don't them, or if any case the climate warms up anyway, how to adapt. And then, suddenly, this taxonomy, so there are 4,000 pages, it's a list. activities that are or not included in the subject. Oil wells are not included in the subject. this exonomi is very precise and we committed to completely it.

Julien: Why did to to institutional There were steps in your opinion between the heritage fund, Evergreen, no LP, quite calm. The really institutional fund, the article 9, you could have gone to a more classic with private LPs. Why this choice?

Thierry Vandewalle: In fact, no, there are not many steps because in fact, either you make a non-regulated and there, almost, it's either with your money or it's a family, but you can't manage the money of others. Either you are regulated, as soon as you manage the money of others, so I'm not talking about all the club deals, the SPVs, etc., that we didn't want to because...

Julien: Oui. away

Thierry Vandewalle: For us, these things have big alignment There is no real between the people who put the money and the manage If you take the Club Deal as we often propose, the one who does the deal is paid according to what people put in the Club Deal. If it doesn't work, if investment doesn't work, it's not a for him. He will stopped the carry, not very serious, but he will have hit the fees. In a fund...

Julien: Mm-hmm. He missed the basket and get the fees

Thierry Vandewalle: When you invest in 20 companies, if one doesn't work, it comes in deduction from the one worked. So there is an alignment, in a formal is a total between the LP, so those who put money, and those who manage it. In the club deal, and the club deal has a of things that are good elsewhere, but on this aspect, is no alignment between the two. the person who manages the club is more like a business than a fund is to say, more they sell the products, more... It's like a business and there is no subject. But it's a little different anyway. So we didn't to that and suddenly you don't much choice but to get regulated because as as you manage the money of others in a vehicle, there is a regulation and it's mandatory. And from the moment we were regulated, We were obliged to in Article 9, we were not obliged to that we to align on the taxonomy. We could have just made a classic But here we come back to the of before, we thought it good to do it from the moment that we wanted to it And we wanted to in this type of vehicle. That's what we were interested in. As much as to end. And indeed ...

Julien: Wait.

Thierry Vandewalle: that we are told that we want to this, but are we really to Well, we are committed to doing it. And on a very clear Quite restrictive, but very clear.

Julien: The community in a club deal is relatively unsticky. You say that you receive a lot of requests from different clubs and you don't have this sense of belonging to several communities. It can happen, but it's always complicated. Are the LP that you are going convince today, through ADN Article 9, I don't know if the two words are as compatible as that, but are you... it allows us to to convince them more easily, to have an impact in the work of bringing this LPs we remember that they are the fund's and therefore they make the fund live on the years to come. Is this a real argument or what I sometimes hear, the notion of impact, I think you use the word a is a bit scary because we imagine that it will be opposition to the return of the fund that we propose.

Thierry Vandewalle: Well, think everything is true in what you say. we have in our LP people who don't care little that we are article 9, don't care a little that we have the taxonomy, they invested on our head to Xavier and me. We say yes, that's you've this for 10 years, you invest in the fund, we love what you do, we come with you, we have ...

Julien: Both.

Thierry Vandewalle: At the very we wouldn't made an impact, it wouldn't have a I think it's a small half of our investors, small half of our LP came not for the thesis itself, but more for what we are and what have done previously. That's exactly it. Yeah, the results, not only the results, the way we manage the companies, we co-invested with them sometimes, they found that the way we managed the company corresponded to their vision of doing and so they said, well, here, we follow you a second time.

Julien: And result of the FONT1.

Thierry Vandewalle: And then there is a half, which I think is a large half of the investors who indeed came on the thesis. So there it is, are you good, article 9, is there all that, are there all these constraints? Because I, I only want to invest in this thesis and so I'm happy that you are committed to respecting And then there is also a third part. but I see less by definition since they are not with us, who will estimate that as soon as we have a fund that has impact we will perform and that performing does interest I don't think that at all, I think first that we have to do it beyond that and well first have to do it whatever happens and in addition I don't see at all why it would less.

Julien: Yeah

Thierry Vandewalle: I think even that contrary, if we find solutions to a problem that we are sure will happen, normally we create value But it's not necessarily the life of the world.

Julien: I would rather say that you are interested in feedback and the impact funds, you don't have to be angry about it. When you compare it to more classic, generalist that were to hit the SaaS the B2B SaaS, and now they going to the AI Agents the return is not any worse. After that, it's difficult to have the...

Thierry Vandewalle: No, no.

Julien: The

Thierry Vandewalle: There not many formal and then would need a lot of feedback on that. And then, as you say, the notion of impact fund covers a lot of things. And then you have several types of impact. see, we are on the environmental impact. You funds that are on the social It must be admitted that on the social is probably more difficult to mix performance on a fund and social I'm not it's impossible. I think it's more difficult. On the environmental impact, seems me, both seem me to going in the same direction.

Julien: Do you have grid of that allows you to compare results, indicators of economic and extra-economic in the analysis of your deal flow? Because having the visibility that has WIND today, I remember, VC of the year, I imagine that all the files arrive at some point on your table. How do you analyze that and also analyze, even in existing the real impact you have a...

Thierry Vandewalle: Ah, oui, oui. C'est même très formalisé. C'est très, très formalisé. C'est formalisé pour une raison déjà simple, c'est que le carry d'interest, qui est le bonus de performance dans les fonds, notre carry d'interest est lié à 50 % à des critères financiers, classiques qu'il y dans tous les fonds, et pour 50 % à des critères non financiers. Et donc, dès lors qu'on a...

Julien: a grid and a calculation

Thierry Vandewalle: So, 50 % of this bonus to non-financial means that we have to follow them. We have to identify them and then follow them. So, way we do it is that go for each company, each time we invest in a company.

Julien: Mm.

Thierry Vandewalle: It will have a classic plan, normal, and it will also have an extra-financial On one, two three criteria, we will try not to ten because otherwise we are lost, one, two or three criteria that we define with society and on which we will commit. Yes, it's at time of investment. At time of investment. At the same time that we the financial

Julien: Mm-hmm. Prendons la due diligence ou déjà on a... Ok. But really, world has to Commitment is not linked to this extra-financial Yes, you're making the decision anyway. It's a decision-maker.

Thierry Vandewalle: little bit too. Yes, we can't... Yes, it's time to make the We make this extra-financial We will engage on KPI. And then, at the end, we will follow every year. And then at the end, when we sell the company, since a fund always has a vocation to sell the company 5, 6, 7, 8 years later, we will if we have reached the KPI, the criteria that were given at time of investment.

Julien: Okay.

Thierry Vandewalle: and following the name these criteria, in order to all the exits, we will see if the bonus is given to or not. And in case there is an alignment of interest with our LP, our investors, who are the people who pay the bonus, in any case, if the financial are reached, pay it. Because we would not want them to encouraged to do bad deals, an impact of view. And so, whatever happens to

Julien: Mm-hmm.

Thierry Vandewalle: If we reach the financial they will pay the normal And if we are not due, all or all parties, because there is a whole ... Well, all this is described in the regulations. In this case, it is given to foundations. That's it. It's for us not to ... It's the choice between us and our LP, it was a decision, to say that it is legitimate that if the financial are reached, they pay the bonus. And at the time ...

Julien: Okay. That's a point I didn't know. Your choice? Nico.

Thierry Vandewalle: we thought was legitimate to that if we don't reach the extra financial it's not given to And then we wondered what we were with

Julien: Hence the notion of foundation. I come back to the noise, which is the theme of this podcast. When we met for first time, you told me right away, while listening to the subject, told me, as long as it's not regulated, it's difficult. What is perception you have about the subject of pollution sonore? You, are interested in environmental issues in general, what is your personal of this subject?

Thierry Vandewalle: Listen, it's a subject that I discover a little with you, because like a lot of people, I think I didn't ask that question But then I live in Paris, so I live in the So first of I live every day, like everyone else, in fact, and not very pleasant. It's sure that the terrace of cafe, the of the truck in the middle of the cars.

Julien: Mm-hmm.

Thierry Vandewalle: I read a bit like that, I'm not a specialist, that indeed it poses a problem to all biodiversity, which sometimes has noise. there are some places where no noise, but when we in the Bois de Boulogne for biodiversity, I think it's a bit complicated.

Julien: Mm-hmm.

Thierry Vandewalle: And so yes, it's good neither for the animals, nor for us, nor even for the flora, as far understand, but I see that from afar. So yes, I think it's a subject that in my opinion is very important, much more important than it but which is today, and not, as you said at beginning, not really on the table, we don't much. So after, when I said regulate, there I may a little directly, but For a company to exist, it's the difference between an NGO and a fund, we invest in companies that have a business model. For a company to exist on all these impact is that it is really an economic that is not linked to regulation and it can happen, especially on environment because the climate changing anyway, well, regardless of the regulation, it's still hotter, so you have to adapt.

Julien: Mm-hmm.

Thierry Vandewalle: but on other subjects, the regulation that requires movement, it's hard to real economic Today, solar or trying to consume better has no direct interest. Oil cost less. If is no regulation that requires carbon with a bunch of things that require it's hard to a company that finds its economic think that's maybe a bit If there is no regulation that says, well, tomorrow there must be four times less noise, do car or etc., the manufacturers of scooters really have an interest in doing something that does not And if, on the hand, is regulation, well, will have invent technologies that make the engine make less noise. I'll give you an example, but...

Julien: Mm-hmm. Yes, regulations exist in all sectors and are constantly It's not overnight. The example of mobility of motor cars has been limited for long time. So the electric mobility that comes is not a problem of mobility because motors have been regulated for a while. 70 % of noise of motor cars is the contact between the tire and the chassis. Regulation imposes to the engine, but it has no real The noise of mobility is the most people. Then is noise in the building. People who are impacted by mobility are generally less in the street where you know what you want to happen, so it falls into the building. And there are regulations, but which are fact quite light, which tend to reinforce themselves with lobbyism and actors who, by opening the chakras, allow to increase that. I like to questions like this because for people like you who discover the subject, you have an intellectual but you don't experience on a basis, an incident, which I don't do for but it happens around you, your neighborhood or somewhere else, because of the noise of this sound and it becomes your sacerdoce Today, you create... You create no noise, as I described, or no noise 2, whatever you want. You create something. How are you going tackle this subject, knowing that we know, we said limited Are you going to try to improve the regulations? Are you going to try to find something that is regulated? How do as an entrepreneur, investor, see this type of solution? Because I'm you, in the long run, we'll have bring solutions, we'll have finance these solutions.

Thierry Vandewalle: I've always loved innovation and I've always worked in innovation and that's what I do. I'll for innovations that allow the noise, in this case the that will annoy me, or I would seen, to longer And I'm sure there are plenty of innovations on these subjects. After... there will probably be, if I the parallel with the environment, a small number of cases where there will be an economic model in itself that turns because we innovate for something that will make less noise. And there plenty of people who are interested in seeing something that makes less noise. innovation finds its economic on don't know, acoustic 10 times more efficient than today's Well, that in the building, it can be bought without the need for subsidies or whatever, or regulations, simply because people are fed up with hearing their neighbors. So there are things to do. And then there will still be a percentage, in my opinion, superior to half, where these innovations would be great. but she doesn't an economic because, in quotes, everyone cares about individually. The noise is there, but no one will say, well, I'm the one who invests because, well, and that's a subject of If is no regulation that pushes, happens. Everyone thinks it's a shame that there is this noise, but nothing happens. So there are really both.

Julien: Yes, but it's not worth investing.

Thierry Vandewalle: And in the impact of the we find the same things. There are businesses that run without regulation because the interest is well seen by everyone. And there is an individual well, individual or a society, but in any case an actor. And then there are a lot of other subjects that, without the regulation that pushes, do not out of the

Julien: These the same investors between startups that have a solution everything that is going regulated, and startups that have already found a business model through demand. Is it financed in same way? Is it a VC case? Not in your

Thierry Vandewalle: Yeah, both are financed the way, because in both cases we are about a business. Except that there is one case where the business runs on in other case it only runs because there are people who have given incentives. It's for that as an investor, I prefer the first one because the second one, the regulation, can move, can change overnight. We see it today on CO2 regulation is a bit backward, etc. And when we invest in a business case on and regulation is backward, it's a subject. So I prefer the first You can't be wrong, almost everything we is driven by a form of

Julien: Oui.

Thierry Vandewalle: So, the waste management, If there was no regulation behind it, everyone would their waste in the street and that's it. large part of our businesses are driven by regulations. So, there are regulations that are things that know will never move, that have been for long And then there are things, it's a month that was voted on 15 days you say to it still there next year? So yes, it is financed in the same way. Earlier, it was bad example, the example of the engines, because in effect it is no the subject, but it regulations that drive that, but which drive then businesses that can develop. So yes, it's the same kind of business.

Julien: You asked me to punctual, I ask a micro last question before thanking you. Private equity or VC, if the future makes the VCs not all become private equity, is a trend that is emerging in the United States. Private equity or VC for companies, startups that are just starting to find their model to go and themselves.

Thierry Vandewalle: There is a continuum, and I hope there is always continuum so that is not a hole. So the beginning, a technological is a venture. It's a VC because you have finance the first factory, first software, the R &D. You have to finance before there is something. And we, our job is to finance companies that do necessarily a lot of revenue at the moment, but which have a high in the long And then there are the Série A and then the VC Gross. And then there is a moment or another, because if the company always loses money, it's not a company anymore. So there is a moment or another when the company becomes profitable. And at that moment, it's not really VC it becomes private equity, which resonates in multiple EBIT etc. Often when you are profitable, is less growth is, there is a rule, I will not bother with the numbers like that, but we will say that a PE He likes a company that is profitable, let's say 5%, 10 % profitability, and then that makes 10, 15 % growth per year. And even if it makes zero, at the limit, he will value less, but it's okay for too. It makes the profit every year and then it doesn't We, in venture, we will want a company that has a very strong growth, at least x2 or x3 every year. But we are ready for is a lot of loss and lot of risk. And so as along, all this, we invest, it grows, as it it takes risks and ends up having an EBIT becomes positive and then it goes down. That's the logic in any case.

Julien: It's the same logic, it's good to hear that we are still on a strong similar to what we have known for last few Thierry Vandewalle thank you very for interested in the subject I defend with nonoise and with this podcast. Thank you your advice. And feel free to comment on this podcast episode on the networks and listening And thank you all for attention. See soon.

Thierry Vandewalle: Merci Julien,