Publish our investment thesis on European technological sovereignty#
What this is, concretely#
This commitment consists of publishing on your website an explicit investment thesis describing your view of European technological sovereignty and the criteria you apply to the companies in your portfolio. The document, generally 5 to 15 pages, typically covers the following: your reading of the European strategic context, the dimensions of sovereignty you consider (software chain, hosting, governance, open source funding, capital), the evaluation criteria you apply in due diligence, the practices you expect from your holdings, your own commitment to support the ecosystem (alongside fund-001 and fund-002).
The commitment does not require an exhaustive or perfect thesis — it requires an explicit thesis. Many European funds claim to have a sensitivity to sovereignty without formalising what that means concretely. Formal publication forces the work of clarification and offers entrepreneurs, LPs, and the ecosystem an evaluable document.
Why this commitment matters#
Funder transparency on their thesis is one of the most structuring transformation levers. Today, the information asymmetry is total: an entrepreneur preparing a fundraise has poor knowledge of the real criteria the fund will apply, and improvises ad hoc answers. If the thesis is public, the entrepreneur can prepare upstream, structure their pitch, and concretely demonstrate how their company fits the thesis — or choose another fund if the alignment is weak.
The commitment resonates with thesis 10 of the manifesto: “measuring sovereignty requires evaluating code, governance, funding, distribution, and skills separately — and refusing any score that aggregates these dimensions to the point of masking their weaknesses.” A published investment thesis spells out which dimensions you consider and how you weight them — which helps avoid the trap of the hollow aggregated score.
The collective effect is particularly strong in the funding market. When several funds publish converging theses on sovereignty, the ecosystem structures itself around these criteria. Entrepreneurs integrate the criteria into their preparation. Other funds are pushed to publish their own thesis to remain competitive. An implicit norm emerges: a fund that does not publish its thesis signals either that it does not have one, or that it does not wish to be held to it — in either case, the absence becomes an explicit negative signal.
The commitment logically complements fund-001-sovereignty-criteria-due-diligence (which formalises the criteria internally) and fund-002-fund-european-foundation-projects (which complements investment with direct support). The public thesis is the external coherence element that articulates these two commitments.
A concrete example#
A European growth-stage VC fund, around 350 million euros under management, takes this commitment in May 2026 with a 9-month horizon. The investment team (12 people) devotes several workshops to the collective formalisation of the thesis. The final document runs to 12 pages and is organised in six sections: European strategic context and the fund’s reading, operational definition of technological sovereignty applied to portfolio companies, six weighted criteria applied in due diligence (software chain, hosting, capital structure, open source commitment, continuity plans, transparency), practices expected of portfolio companies (publication of a Sovereignty Profile within 12 months of investment, participation in open source programmes, European hosting choice by default), the fund’s own commitment (allocation of 0.4% of assets to direct support of the open source ecosystem, annual report publication), articulation with existing manifestos and initiatives.
The document is published on the fund’s website in February 2027, accompanied by communication to LPs and the specialised press. It becomes a reference in conversations with entrepreneurs and is cited by other funds in their own theses published in the following months. The fund updates the thesis annually.
Anti-pattern to avoid#
A thesis published but not applied in practice (the announced criteria do not weigh in actual decisions) creates a gap between discourse and practice that proves more damaging than the absence of a thesis. A thesis reduced to hollow phrasings (“we believe in European technological sovereignty”) without operational criteria contributes nothing to the ecosystem. The strength lies in precision (operational criteria), in coherence (alignment with actual practice), and in updating (regular updates reflecting changes in the landscape).
Success indicators#
By the 9-month horizon, you can reasonably consider this commitment fulfilled if an investment thesis document is published on your website, if it covers the main elements mentioned (context, criteria, expectations of the portfolio, own commitments), if coherence with your actual due diligence practice is observable, and if an annual update procedure is defined. Citation of the thesis by other actors in the ecosystem (entrepreneurs, other funds, press) strengthens the collective value of the commitment.
JSON schema category: publication. Default horizon: 9 months. Applicable to: businesses, public administrations, foundations.