The sustainability director loved our carbon tracking platform. She said it was exactly what her company needed to meet their climate commitments.
Then she sent our proposal to the CFO for budget approval.
The CFO rejected it: "This is a $200K investment to track something we're not required to report. What's the financial return?"
The sustainability director came back to us frustrated: "Can you help me build a business case that finance will approve? They don't care about our climate goals."
This is the fundamental positioning challenge in climate tech: buyers say they care about environmental impact, but they need economic justification to get budget approved.
"Good for the planet" doesn't get deals closed. "Reduces costs while improving sustainability" does.
I spent two years selling climate tech solutions by leading with impact messaging. Our close rate was 18%. Then I rebuilt our positioning around economic value with sustainability as a benefit, not the primary value prop.
Close rate jumped to 51%.
Here's what I learned about positioning climate tech when impact and ROI are in tension.
Why Impact-First Positioning Fails at Budget Approval
Early climate tech positioning followed a pattern:
"Companies must reduce carbon emissions to combat climate change. Our solution helps you measure and reduce your environmental impact."
This positioning assumes buyers with sustainability authority also control budgets.
They usually don't.
Sustainability directors, CSR teams, and ESG officers care deeply about climate impact. But they rarely have large budgets or purchasing authority.
Budget holders—CFOs, COOs, VPs of Operations—evaluate investments on financial criteria: cost reduction, revenue increase, risk mitigation, competitive advantage.
"Reduce carbon emissions" doesn't map to any of those categories unless you can connect it to tangible business outcomes.
The buyers who care about your impact messaging can't approve budgets. The buyers who approve budgets don't lead with impact as purchase criteria.
We rebuilt positioning to speak to both audiences:
For sustainability champions (who discover and evaluate):
"Achieve your climate commitments while reducing operational costs. Our platform tracks carbon emissions and identifies cost-saving opportunities in your energy usage, supply chain, and operations."
For budget holders (who approve purchase):
"Reduce energy costs 15-25% while meeting emerging climate disclosure requirements. Our platform identifies waste, optimizes resource usage, and provides audit-ready sustainability reporting."
Same product. Different emphasis depending on which audience we're speaking to.
Impact matters to champions. Economics matter to budget approvers. You need both messages.
The ROI Proof That Actually Convinces CFOs
I presented carbon reduction projections to CFOs: "You'll reduce emissions by 10,000 tons of CO2 annually."
CFOs asked: "What does that mean for our P&L?"
I learned to translate environmental impact into financial impact:
Instead of: "Reduce 10,000 tons of CO2 annually"
Say: "Reduce energy consumption by 15%, saving $2.4M annually in electricity costs. This also eliminates 10,000 tons of CO2."
Instead of: "Optimize supply chain sustainability"
Say: "Reduce supply chain logistics costs by 12% through route optimization and load consolidation. This cuts fuel consumption by 18% and reduces carbon emissions by 5,000 tons."
Instead of: "Achieve carbon neutrality goals"
Say: "Avoid regulatory penalties estimated at $500K annually by meeting upcoming emissions disclosure requirements. Our platform ensures compliance while reducing operational costs."
The environmental impact is real in all these examples. But leading with financial impact gets budget approval while delivering climate outcomes.
CFOs don't oppose sustainability—they need business justification for investments. Give them financial ROI and they'll approve projects that also deliver impact.
The Regulatory Argument That Works (and Doesn't)
I tried to sell climate tech on fear: "Regulations are coming. You need to prepare now or face penalties."
This messaging failed for two reasons:
Reason 1: Regulatory timelines are often distant and uncertain. "Prepare for regulations that might arrive in 3-5 years" doesn't create urgency.
Reason 2: Companies delay until regulations are finalized. Ambiguous future requirements don't justify current investment.
The regulatory argument that works:
Instead of: "Future regulations will require emissions reporting. Start preparing now."
Say: "SEC climate disclosure rules require public companies to report emissions data starting in 2025. Companies are taking 12-18 months to implement systems that can generate compliant reports. If you start now, you'll meet the deadline. If you wait, you'll face rushed implementation and potential non-compliance."
The difference: specific regulation + specific timeline + specific consequence = urgent business need.
We tracked which regulatory drivers actually closed deals:
High urgency regulatory drivers:
- SEC climate disclosure rules (specific deadlines, clear penalties)
- EU carbon border adjustments (financial impact on imports/exports)
- State-level renewable energy mandates with specific compliance dates
- Industry-specific regulations (e.g., shipping industry carbon intensity reduction requirements)
Low urgency regulatory drivers:
- "Emerging regulatory landscape" (too vague)
- "Stakeholder pressure for transparency" (not legally binding)
- "Voluntary disclosure frameworks" (optional)
Specific regulations with defined timelines drive budget approval. Vague regulatory trends don't.
Why "Sustainability" Isn't a Budget Line Item
A purchasing manager told me: "We don't have a sustainability budget. We have operations budget, compliance budget, and capital improvement budget. Which category does your solution fit?"
I'd been positioning our climate tech as "sustainability investment"—which isn't a budget category at most companies.
We repositioned based on which budget our solution actually impacts:
Energy management solutions: Operations budget (reduce utility costs)
Supply chain carbon tracking: Supply chain efficiency budget (optimize logistics)
Emissions reporting platforms: Compliance budget (meet disclosure requirements)
Renewable energy management: Capital improvement budget (infrastructure investment with payback period)
Waste reduction technology: Operations budget (reduce material waste and disposal costs)
This required rethinking how we talked about our solutions:
Instead of "climate tech platform," we positioned as "energy management platform that delivers carbon reduction."
Instead of "sustainability solution," we positioned as "supply chain optimization that improves environmental performance."
This wasn't about hiding climate benefits—it was about positioning them within budget categories that actually exist.
The Customer Proof That Climate Buyers Need
Traditional B2B proof points: customer logos, case studies showing ROI, testimonials.
Climate tech proof needed additional credibility:
Scientific credibility: Buyers wanted proof that our carbon calculations were scientifically sound, not marketing claims.
Third-party validation: Independent verification that our impact measurements were accurate.
Comparable peer adoption: Evidence that similar companies were investing in climate solutions.
We built climate-specific proof points:
Scientific methodology documentation: Published detailed methodology showing how we calculated carbon reductions, reviewed by climate scientists and sustainability experts.
Third-party audits: Had major customers' carbon reduction claims verified by independent auditors (Deloitte, EY) to prove our measurements were credible.
Industry-specific case studies: Instead of generic case studies, we created vertical-specific proof (manufacturing, logistics, commercial real estate) showing impact and ROI in comparable companies.
Certification and standards compliance: Demonstrated alignment with GHG Protocol, SBTi (Science Based Targets initiative), and other recognized frameworks.
This scientific rigor mattered more in climate tech than traditional B2B software because buyers needed to defend the validity of their climate impact claims to stakeholders, investors, and regulators.
The Messaging Split: Champions vs. Approvers
We tried to create one message that worked for both sustainability champions and budget approvers.
It satisfied neither.
We split messaging:
For sustainability champions (website, content marketing, conference presence):
"Achieve your science-based climate targets while uncovering operational cost savings. Our platform measures carbon across operations, identifies reduction opportunities, and tracks progress toward climate commitments."
This messaging leads with impact (achieving climate targets) while acknowledging economic benefits (cost savings).
For budget approvers (executive briefings, board-level materials, CFO presentations):
"Reduce operational costs by 15-20% through energy optimization and resource efficiency while meeting emerging climate disclosure requirements. Our platform delivers measurable ROI with documented sustainability outcomes."
This messaging leads with economics (cost reduction) while acknowledging compliance and sustainability as additional benefits.
Both messages are true. Both audiences care about both aspects. But leading with the wrong emphasis for each audience kills deals.
Sustainability champions need impact-forward messaging to get excited and champion internally. Budget approvers need economics-forward messaging to justify the investment.
For climate tech companies navigating dual value propositions, platforms like Segment8 offer vertical-specific messaging frameworks that help balance impact and ROI positioning for different stakeholder groups.
The Pricing Model That Aligns with Climate Economics
Traditional SaaS pricing: subscription based on seats or usage.
Climate tech pricing needed to align with how climate investments are evaluated:
What didn't work: Monthly SaaS subscription ($X per user per month)
Sustainability investments are often capital projects evaluated on multi-year payback, not operational subscriptions.
What worked: Pricing models aligned with climate economics:
Energy savings-based: "Our platform costs $150K annually. Based on your energy usage, we'll identify $400K in energy cost reductions, delivering 2.7x ROI in year one."
Performance-based: "Pay based on actual carbon reduction achieved. $X per ton of CO2 eliminated, verified by third-party audit."
Project-based: "Implementation cost of $X with projected 18-month payback through energy savings. After payback, ongoing savings of $Y annually."
Risk mitigation: "Compliance platform priced at $X annually. Non-compliance penalty risk: $500K annually. ROI = risk avoidance."
These pricing models framed climate tech as investments with clear financial returns rather than costs to be justified.
We offered multiple pricing options depending on buyer preference:
- Subscription model for buyers with operational budgets
- Project-based pricing for capital budget buyers
- Performance-based pricing for buyers skeptical of ROI claims
Matching pricing structure to how buyers evaluate climate investments improved close rates significantly.
Why Greenwashing Fears Kill Deals
A corporate sustainability VP told me: "I'm interested in your solution, but I'm nervous about claiming carbon reductions we can't prove. If we announce progress and it's challenged as greenwashing, it's worse than not claiming anything."
Greenwashing risk—fear of making environmental claims that can't be substantiated—became an objection we hadn't anticipated.
Buyers wanted climate solutions that delivered provable, defensible impact, not estimated or modeled projections that could be challenged.
We restructured our value prop around proof and defensibility:
What buyers rejected: "Our models estimate you'll reduce carbon emissions by 15%."
What buyers accepted: "Our measurement system tracks actual energy consumption and calculates carbon reductions using EPA methodologies. All claims are third-party audited and compliant with GHG Protocol standards."
Changes we made:
- Shifted from projection-based impact claims to measurement-based impact tracking
- Built audit trails showing exactly how we calculated carbon reductions
- Partnered with third-party auditors to verify customer impact claims
- Aligned methodology with recognized standards (GHG Protocol, SBTi, TCFD)
- Provided documentation customers could use to defend their climate claims publicly
This audit-grade proof was more expensive to deliver than simple estimates, but it eliminated the greenwashing concern that was blocking deals.
The Unexpected Buyer: Investors and Lenders
We initially targeted operations and sustainability teams as buyers.
Then we discovered another buyer with budget and urgency: investor relations and finance teams managing ESG disclosure.
Investors and lenders increasingly require climate data from portfolio companies. Companies that can't provide credible climate metrics face:
- Lower valuations (ESG factors impact valuation multiples)
- Higher cost of capital (lenders offer better terms for strong ESG performance)
- Investor pressure and difficult board conversations
This created a different buyer with different pain points:
Sustainability teams: Need to achieve climate goals and demonstrate progress.
Finance/IR teams: Need to satisfy investor ESG due diligence and maintain access to capital.
We built separate GTM motion for finance/IR buyers:
Positioning for IR teams: "Satisfy investor ESG due diligence with audit-ready climate data. Our platform generates reports that meet investor expectations and support favorable ESG ratings."
Proof points for IR teams: Customer examples of improved ESG ratings, successful investor presentations, private equity portfolio company deployments.
This finance/IR buyer motion generated larger deals with faster cycles than sustainability-led deals because finance teams had budget authority and investors created clear deadlines.
What Worked: The Dual-Value Positioning Framework
Neither pure impact positioning nor pure ROI positioning succeeded alone in climate tech.
The positioning that worked:
Primary value prop (lead message): Economic/business outcome
"Reduce energy costs 15-25% while optimizing resource usage across operations."
Secondary value prop (supporting message): Climate impact and compliance
"This cost reduction also eliminates 10,000+ tons of CO2 annually and meets emerging climate disclosure requirements."
Proof structure:
- Financial ROI (payback period, annual savings, cost reduction %)
- Climate impact (tons CO2 reduced, renewable energy %, emissions intensity improvement)
- Third-party verification (audit reports, methodology alignment, certification)
This dual-value framework acknowledged that both economics and impact matter, but led with the message that gets budget approval.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Climate Tech GTM
Climate tech buyers claim to be "mission-driven" and "committed to sustainability."
Then they evaluate purchases on the same financial criteria as any other B2B investment.
The uncomfortable truth: sustainability commitment doesn't override financial discipline.
Climate tech companies that position primarily on impact struggle to close deals. Climate tech companies that position on economics with sustainability benefits succeed.
This doesn't mean buyers are insincere about climate goals. It means climate investments compete with all other investments for limited budgets and need economic justification to win.
What doesn't work:
- Impact-first positioning without economic value
- Vague regulatory fear without specific timelines
- "Sustainability budget" framing (category doesn't exist at most companies)
- Projected impact without measurement proof
- Single messaging for both champions and approvers
- SaaS subscription pricing for capital-evaluated investments
What works:
- Economics-first positioning with impact as key benefit
- Specific regulations with clear deadlines and penalties
- Budget category alignment (operations, compliance, capital)
- Measured, verified, audit-grade impact proof
- Champion messaging (impact-forward) separate from approver messaging (economics-forward)
- Pricing models aligned with climate investment evaluation (payback, ROI, performance-based)
- Greenwashing protection through third-party verification
Climate tech is growing rapidly. The market opportunity is enormous. But the GTM playbook isn't "sell on mission"—it's "deliver mission outcomes through economically justified investments."
The companies winning in climate tech are the ones that accept this reality and build positioning that satisfies both impact goals and financial requirements.
Mission matters. Economics determines what gets funded.
Position for both.