[pt] A indústria de Capital de Risco tem recebido atenção significativa de formuladores de políticas, investidores e empreendedores em todo o mundo devido à sua história de sucesso em mercados desenvolvidos, especialmente nos Estados Unidos. No entanto, sua implementação em países em desenvolvimento enfrenta desafios que levam os investidores a se adaptar, especialmente nos estágios iniciais e mais arriscados. Nesses segmentos, outros investidores, como Anjos, Aceleradoras e Corporate Venture Capital (CVC), tornam o ambiente mais competitivo, fornecendo mais opções para empreendedores que buscam capital. No entanto, a literatura ainda não aborda os efeitos que esses investidores de diferentes perfis têm em suas startups investidas. O paradigma da escada financeira, que implica que os IVCs atuam apenas em estágios avançados, ainda está presente, mas isso tem mudado na última década nos Estados Unidos e mais recentemente no Brasil. Nesta tese, examinamos os efeitos de diferentes investidores em startups em estágios iniciais nos Estados Unidos e no Brasil por meio de três artigos de pesquisa relacionados. No primeiro artigo, realizamos uma revisão sistemática da literatura de CVC de 2005 a 2019, identificando mecanismos impulsionadores e efeitos em empreendimentos investidos. Isso fornece uma compreensão mais ampla dos múltiplos fatores que influenciam a relação entre investidores e empreendimentos, as diferenças nos perfis e incentivos de diferentes tipos de investidores de VC e como eles influenciam os empreendimentos. Este artigo também revela tendências e lacunas na literatura que orientam os artigos seguintes. No segundo artigo, investigamos os efeitos comparativos e conjuntos dos principais tipos de investidores de VC (IVC, CVC, Grupo de anjos e Aceleradoras) em 13.098 empreendimentos em estágios iniciais que receberam sua primeira rodada de investimento nos Estados Unidos de 2005 a 2016. Os resultados mostram que empreendimentos em estágios iniciais apoiados por IVCs alcançaram melhores resultados do que seus pares em todos os objetivos de estágios iniciais, contradizendo o efeito de marco esperado de investidores como Grupos de anjos e Aceleradoras e levantando questões sobre a validade de alguns aspectos do paradigma da escada financeira. No terceiro artigo, focamos nos resultados de 1.937 empreendimentos de estágio inicial que receberam seu primeiro investimento no Brasil entre 2000 e setembro de 2022. Examinamos empreendimentos apoiados por IVCs, CVCs, Anjos e Aceleradoras, e os resultados indicam diferenças significativas em relação aos EUA. No Brasil, os IVCs não apresentaram presença tão marcante como nos EUA, e o desempenho positivo esperado foi observado apenas em empreendimentos apoiados por IVCs altamente experientes. Além disso, os Anjos apresentaram o melhor desempenho para objetivos específicos de estágio inicial. No geral, nossa análise dos dois mercados demonstra diferenças significativas nos efeitos dos investidores de VC sobre o desempenho de empreendimentos de estágio inicial. O modelo de investidor IVC demonstra superioridade em relação aos seus pares no mercado americano, enquanto no Brasil, outros investidores também se destacam, especialmente Anjos. Essas diferenças podem ser devido a fatores no ambiente econômico local, moldando os perfis dos investidores e influenciando a maneira como eles operam no país. / [en] The Venture Capital industry has gained widespread attention from policymakers, investors, and entrepreneurs worldwide due to its success history in developed markets, particularly in the United States. How ever, its implementation in developing countries faces challenges that drive investors to adapt, particularly in the earliest and riskiest stages. In these segments, other investors, such as Angels, Accelerators, and Corporate Venture Capital (CVC), make the environment more competitive, providing more options to entrepreneurs seeking capital. Nevertheless, the literature still fails to address the effects these investors of different profiles have on their invested startups. The finance escalator paradigm, implying that IVCs only act in advanced stages, is still present, but this has been changing in the last decade in the US and more recently in Brazil. In this thesis, we examine the effects of different investors on early-stage startups in the US and Brazil through three related research articles. In the first article, we conduct a systematic review of the CVC literature from 2005 to 2019, identifying driving mechanisms and effects on invested ventures. This provides a broader understanding of the multiple factors influencing the relationship between investors and ventures, the differences in profiles and incentives of distinct types of VC investors, and how they influence ventures. This article also reveals trends and gaps in the literature that guide the following articles. In the second article, we investigate the comparative and joint effects of the main VC investor types (IVC, CVC, Angel Group, and Accelerator) on 13,098 early-stage ventures that received their first investment round in the US from 2005 to 2016. The results show that early-stage ventures backed by IVCs achieved better results than their peers in all early-stage goals, contradicting the milestone effect expected from investors like Angel Groups and Accelerators and raising questions on the validity of some aspects of the finance escalator paradigm. In the third article, we focus on outcomes for 1,937 early-stage ventures that received their first investment round in Brazil between 2000 and September 2022. We examine ventures backed by IVCs, CVCs, Angels, and Accelerators, and the results indicate significant differences from the US. In Brazil, IVCs have not shown a pervasive presence as in the US, and the expected positive performance was only true for ventures backed by highly experienced IVCs. Additionally, Angels revealed the best performance for specific early-stage goals. Overall, our analysis of the two markets demonstrates significant differences in the effects VC investors have on the performance of early-stage ventures. The IVC model investor demonstrates superiority over its peers in the American market, while in Brazil, other investors also stand out, especially Angels. These differences may be due to factors in the local economic environment, shaping investors profiles and influencing the way they operate in the country.

Over the last three decades, scholars in management, policy, and geography have examined the growing economic, social, and spatial impact of the financial sector. Venture capital firms have been a focus, generating a contested but deep literature around the roles of such "value-adding" capital providers in supporting the growth of firms, industries, and various territorial innovation models. In parallel, there has been substantial government support-financial, regulatory, and otherwise-of these private sector financial intermediaries, despite scepticism. The past twenty years have seen the emergence and rapid growth of analogous funders in the third sector, itself the realm of substantial experimentation and growth. These new intermediaries, "venture philanthropists", have become important players in shaping, structuring, and channelling funding to the third sector. The activities and effects of venture philanthropists are underexplored, as are their growing interactions with governments-despite intentional and striking similarities between the evolution of venture capital and that of venture philanthropy. This dissertation addresses these gaps by systematically examining the emergence, evolution, and operational practices of two influential British venture philanthropy funds: the first such fund in Europe (Impetus Trust) and the first fund in the world co-created with the state (Inspiring Scotland). The two venture philanthropy organisations (VPOs)-one with roots in venture capital, the other with roots in the voluntary and government sectors-both conducted the venture capital-inspired operational model of venture philanthropy in similar ways. That said, the VPOs reflected the logics and practices of their founders and funders. Impetus Trust more closely resembled early-stage venture capital, with a reliance on London-based networks, funders, and service providers-and a heavily London-focused portfolio. Inspiring Scotland evidenced the logics of government rather than charity in several instances, with substantial original research into social issues, heavily structured portfolios on set timelines, and regionally-distributed staff. This approach broadened access, allowing support of SPOs and their clients across various (and underserved) geographies, but limited options for opportunity-driven or expressive functions of philanthropy. I surveyed the CEOs of most organisations supported by the two venture philanthropy funds (82 of 98 charities and social businesses), supplemented by interviews of selected CEOs and the founders and staff of the two funds. I find that, overall, the two VPOs each engaged in seven core activities of venture capital, intentionally adapting them to the third sector: sourcing and selection, due diligence, an engaged relationship, provision of funding, provision of non-financial support, creation of network linkages, and intentional exiting of relationships. As in venture capital, this process had broader effects: providing signals of investee quality, preparing investees for subsequent funding, and expanding networks. The combination of long-term relationships and high formal reporting requirements imposed significant costs for SPOs-and also created a virtuous cycle of trust and collaboration between VPOs and SPOs. The venture philanthropy model also had broader societal effects, creating data regarding individual organisations and the efficacy of responses to social issues, which in both cases informed policy. As intermediaries, venture philanthropists decreased power differentials and improved the flow of (oft-anonymized) information amongst funders, statutory bodies, and funded organisations, facilitating several types of collaboration. SPO managers indicated that they received, on average, approximately ten different types of non-financial support-like strategy consulting, human resources support, or legal counsel. These managers reported in interviews and surveys that the non-financial services provided by venture philanthropists were highly valued, on average. Further, managers believed these services provided more value than it cost the VPOs to provide them. Likewise, managers highly valued most forms of new networking connections (though not all services or linkages were found to be valuable). Smaller SPOs valued services and network links more highly than larger SPOs, although all sizes of SPOs indicated both were valuable, on average. Importantly, this data was provided by SPO managers and focused on the SPO-VPO dyad-rather than provided by VPOs and focused at the portfolio or trust level. This filled an important gap in the literature: academics and practitioners often lament that the voices of charities supported by foundations are not often enough heard, which limits our understanding of many aspects of organizational philanthropy and its effects-in particular the burdens and benefits for recipient organisations. I documented the co-creation of the first government-supported venture philanthropy fund through eleven interviews with founding managers and government officials. This model, in which state, private, and civil society actors collectively founded and funded a value-adding capital provider, militates against neoliberal assumptions of an ever-diminishing state, as does the leveraging of private resources in alignment with state aims-though it raises concerns around democratic processes, accountability, and local control. This work helps inform the changing nature of the voluntary sector and its relationship with the state. I focus on the increasing interaction of actors between and across systems-sometimes in new roles and coordinated by new intermediaries-in the allocation of resources and delivery of services in the public interest. These new interactions inform broad bodies of work that seek to understand changing sectoral roles, most notably discourses surrounding neoliberalism(s), financialisation, and public management. Overall, I find privately- and publicly-funded venture philanthropy playing a role in the third sector analogous to the role of venture capital in the private sector, with similar practices and concomitant effects in data generation, network formation and strengthening, facilitating partnerships, and signalling the quality of supported organisations. By examining two such emerging models of capital provision, I contribute grounded understanding of the way such systems are created and function across the private, public, and third sectors.

Portés par des changements technologiques, des cadres juridiques nouveaux, une demande de financement croissante de la part des entreprises innovantes et une montée en maturité des opérateurs du marché, les professionnels du financement de l’innovation ont pour partie modifié leurs pratiques et de nouveaux outils émergent. Ces nombreuses évolutions posent des questionnements théoriques essentiels.La thèse vise à investiguer trois de ces modes de financement. Le premier, les Social Impact Bonds (autrement dénommés en France Contrats à Impact Social) sont un mode de financement de l’innovation sociale non entrepreneuriale apparu en 2010 en Grande-Bretagne. Le second outil analysé est celui du financement participatif (crowdfunding). Forme émergente de financement des projets entrepreneuriaux par la foule sur internet, il connait une croissance forte depuis une décennie. La thèse questionne l’impact du degré d’innovation sur la réussite des campagnes. Le troisième et dernier outil évoqué dans la thèse est celui des fonds de Multi Corporate Venture Capital (MCVC), et leurs formes organisationnelles. / Driven by technological change, new legal frameworks, growing demand for cash from start-ups, and a growing maturity of market operators, innovation finance professionals have partly modified their practices. On the one hand, traditional financing tools have modernized their organizations and methods, and on the other, new forms of financing have emerged. These numerous evolutions open essential theoretical questions, while questioning the traditional theories of the financing of innovation as well as suggesting new theoretical considerations.The thesis investigates three of these modes of financing. The first, the Social Impact Bonds (otherwise known as Contrats à Impact Social, in France) are a way of financing the non-entrepreneurial social innovation that appeared in 2010 in Great Britain. The second tool analyzed is about equity crowdfunding. Emerging form of financing entrepreneurial projects by the crowd on the internet, it knows a strong growth since a decade. The thesis analyzes the impact of innovation degree on campaigns’ success. The third and last tool mentioned in this thesis is that of the funds of Multi Corporate Venture Capital (MCVC).

Diploma thesis analyses venture capital, which is part of alternative asset class investment. At the outset, paper very briefly discusses the private equity industry and differences between venture and buyout capital. Followed by a chapter that discusses entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial finance, financing alternatives for new ventures and the importance of venture capital and its impact on new businesses. Next chapter describes problems and risks that venture capital fund and entrepreneurs face after the contract is being signed. The paper also highlights some instruments that can be used against these risks and problems. The biggest part of thesis describes whole venture capital investment cycle from getting money, screening opportunities to valuation and exit of portfolio companies. Lastly the paper analyses venture capital in Central and Eastern Europe region (CEE) and briefly describes venture capital company based in Prague - Credo Ventures and its portfolio companies.

Background: This study investigates the role of gut feelings in early-stage venture investments, particularly in environments characterized by high uncertainty. By examining how both inexperienced and experienced investors utilize intuition, the research aims to uncover the cognitive and emotional foundations that influence investment decisions. Purpose: The research aims to understand how gut feelings impact investment decisions across different levels of investor experience. It compares the strategies of seasoned investors with those of novices, providing insights into how intuition and analytical reasoning are integrated. The objective is to offer practical guidance for investors on effectively combining gut feelings with analytical methods to navigate uncertain investment landscapes. Method: A multi-method qualitative approach was employed, combining semi-structured interviews and think-aloud protocols to capture real-time decision-making processes. Data were gathered from 11 investors, resulting in 14 hours of verbal protocols, which were subsequently analyzed using protocol analysis. A hypothetical investment scenario involving a fictional company, EcoPower Innovations, was used to elicit detailed responses from participants. Conclusion: The study finds significant differences in how gut feelings influence investment decisions based on the level of investor experience. Experienced investors skillfully blend intuition with data analysis, leveraging their expertise to manage uncertainty more effectively. In contrast, inexperienced investors tend to rely more on emotional impulses, demonstrating less integration of intuitive judgment with analytical reasoning. These findings highlight the importance of investor education in promoting the balanced use of gut feelings and analytical techniques, thereby improving decision-making in uncertain environments. Additionally, the research offers valuable insights for entrepreneurs on tailoring their approaches to potential investors based on their level of experience and expertise.

文化創意產業乃近年來政府所大力推動的重點產業，儘管文化究係一種「服務」或「產業」，爭議頗多，然而睽諸世界先進國家，如英國設有事權統一之文化媒體體育部(The Department of Culture, Media and Sport)職司全英文化政策之擬訂，並以發行彩券部份收入，鼓勵新穎多元之創作；再如丹麥政府早就發現企業界和文化界的語言渾然不同，發現國家需要教育課程來訓練學生如何經營文化事業，這包括建立對整個產業的知識，能夠斡旋協調、解決衝突，並擁有處理預算、智慧財產權、合約及版稅的能力，於是當務之急，是希望商學院可以把注意力多放在文化界的發展潛力上，增加相關主題、課程和所謂「第三級教育」的訓練；澳洲則就文化產業核心，從精英藝術與社區藝術之論述，進一步發展到休閒與娛樂；其文化態度，亦跳脫文化公民權之爭論，邁入文化消費期。凡此種種，皆從發展文化創意「產業」之角度，作為施政方針。 　　反觀台灣文化創意產業之經營環境日益艱困，至今未有事權統一之「文化部」，文化創意政府分工上，教育部獨置身事外以及至今未能建立諸如好萊塢的「完工保證」制度以吸引投資者等，因此本研究所欲探討之主題計有四項： 1.文化創意產特質為何？與過去台灣所擅長的製造業的價值鏈、商業模式等，有何不同？ 2.政府政策之制訂與產業界之需求，其緊密度為何？是否尚有政策調整之空間與方向？ 3.文化創意產業之經營者係一「守門人」之角色，此守門人之角色如何整合「線上成本」與「線下成本」中之各個成員角色，在「彈性專業化」的合作關係中，形成一種商業模式？ 4.文化創意人普遍缺乏避險觀念，因此如何「以銷定產」，透過「創業財務」理論，經由「高概念」與「國際分工」募集資金，迴避風險，是為本研究所要深入探討的主題。 / The idea of developing cultural and creative industries has been putting forward by the government in recent years even though the arguments of culture being as a service or an industry remains disputable. However, policymakers in more advanced countries have moved beyond the debate and recognized the importance of the industries at different level: The United Kingdom sets up the Department of Culture, Media and Sport as the solo division in charge of policy formulation. Part of the income from National Lottery is devoted to encourage creation; Being aware of the differences between business professionals and creative talents, Denmark educates students with the know-how of cultural industry management, including the skills of negotiation and conflict solving and the abilities to deal with budget, copyright, contract and royalties. It also urges business schools to enhance entrepreneurial potential by adding more topics, classes and so-called “tertiary education” to their curriculums. Australia, on the other hand, has extended the core value of culture and creative industries from elite and community arts to recreation and entertainment. It has moved from the phrase of debating cultural citizenship into cultural consumption. With reference to the experience of other countries, we can conclude that culture and creativity sectors should be considered as “industries” rather than “services” for policy measures. On contrary, the business environment has become difficult for the cultural and creative sectors in Taiwan. There’s no one single government entity to take account of cul-tural factors and attach greater importance to promoting the development of cultural indus-tries in the course of policy formulation and implementation; Ministry of Education has not partake in studying the vision for development and direction for the industries; Lacking of completion guarantees leaves investors with big doubts and consequently hider the estab-lishment of finance resources. To solve the above-mentioned issues, this research will fo-cus on: 1.The characteristics of cultural/creative industries. How are they different from the value chains and business models of manufacturing that has dominated Taiwan's industrial sector? 2.The gaps between current policies and the real needs of the industries. What can be done to favor the development of the sectors? Any adjustment to make or ap-proach to establish? 3.The role of decision makers in cultural/creative industries as “gatekeepers.” How do they control the above and below the line costs and utilizing the concept of flexible specialization to manage their businesses? 4.The sales and marketing of creative products. Traditionally, creative talents have little knowledge on risk control. How to develop new products or services in the context of existing provision in the market? How to avoid risk and raise money by bringing in the notion of “high concept” and “co-production” in filmmaking?