GCV Keystone conducts an in-depth global survey to provide an informed perspective on trends and best practices in corporate venturing programme strategies and operations. It looks at processes and team designs for accelerating performance and overcoming the corporate ‘antibodies’ that inhibit CVC programme impact and resilience. The survey provides an industry aggregate basis for the GCV Keystone benchmarking platform, which enables programme-specific filtering of the data by parent vertical sector and size, CVC maturity phase, investment focus, operating model, etc.
The 2026 survey delves into critical CVC building blocks including:
In 2026, GCV also provided support to the Private Equity and Venture Capital Association in Brazil (ABVCAP) and partnered with the Japan Venture Capital Association (JVCA) to conduct a survey of CVCs based and investing in Japan.
Note: Throughout this report, percentages in all graphs are rounded to the nearest decimal or whole number. Therefore, they may not add up to exactly 100%. Additionally, variations in response rates across questions may affect the comparability of results across graphs, particularly those showing combined questions.
Most CVC units have parent transformative innovation charters
95%
of CVCs target early-stage deals and 35% give top priority to Horizon 3 innovation
Corporate parents demand ‘impact’
36%
give top priority to Horizon 1, while 49% also have a startup venture client program
CV Programs are ultimately expected to pay for themselves
40%
of CVCs with AUM <$100m put financial returns at the top of their priority lists
More than half of CVCs now take LP stakes in VC funds
35%
allocate more than one-fifth of CVC capital to indirect investments
LP positions are seen to extend reach
69%
use LP positions to for access to specialist sectors
CVC strategic value capture must be programmatic
89%
rely on formal pipeline or sector portfolio reviews to target critical co-investment opportunities
Financial portfolio management is table stakes for CVC resilience
52%
target VC-level or top quartile venture portfolio returns with secondary sales emerging as a strategic portfolio management tool
Formal ‘platform’ functions drive strategic impact delivery
43%
of CVCs with AUM <$100m include business development teams
Strategic performance communication is complicated
84%
lead with activity-based indicators, with over half using success stories to show impact
Primary sources for CVC investors are VCs/PE firms and other CVCs
75%
recruit from institutional investors or other corporates.
CVC is a career path not a management rotation
63%
report that average
years of relevant CVC/VC team
experience exceeds five years.
CVCs can apply parent compensation levers in unique ways
50%
have access to special ‘’carry-like” bonus programs or financial performance ‘spot bonuses.’
As corporate venture capital (CVC) becomes a core instrument in the corporate innovation toolkit, expectations around professionalism, governance and performance continue to rise. The global CVC community is responding by sharing best practices and codifying operating models, metrics and talent approaches that support long-term impact.
This benchmarking survey draws on GCV’s access to the world’s largest and most diverse population of corporate venture investors. The sample spans industries, geographies, investment mandates and maturity stages, with deliberate efforts to include both long-established market leaders and newer programs.
Nearly 400 CVC units contributed to the 2026 GCV Keystone Benchmarking refresh, reinforcing its position as the most comprehensive source of data on CVC operations, structures and performance.
The survey confirms that corporate venturing is now firmly embedded across most major industries. Participating companies span a wide range of sizes, with 64% reporting annual revenues between $1bn and $50bn, underscoring that CVC is no longer confined to the largest multinationals.
Many respondents operate across multiple verticals, which explains strong representation from industrials, energy, financial services, IT, transport, consumer and healthcare sectors. Geographically, respondents reflect the globalisation of CVC: 56% of corporate parents are domiciled in North America and Europe, 26% in Asia and 15% in Latin America.
Although 70% of corporate parents are headquartered outside North America, 35% of CVC units have their headquarters or significant operations there, with a further 28% based in Europe. This reflects the continued gravitational pull of the US and European venture ecosystems for deal flow, talent and partnerships.
CVC objectives, operating styles and performance priorities vary significantly by maturity. Encouragingly, more programmes are now surviving the historical three-year inflection point.
Two-thirds of respondents are over three years old, with 43% in an “expansion” phase (years 4–6) and more than a quarter having reached “resiliency” (seven years or more). Excluding newer markets such as Japan and Brazil, resilient programmes account for 31% of respondents. In younger APAC and Latin American ecosystems, startup-stage programmes represent 40%.
Many corporations are adopting a full-spectrum innovation approach, combining equity investing with venture clienting, technology scouting, venture building and accelerator activity. Nearly half of respondents now operate venture client or partnering programs for later-stage engagement, alongside tech scouting functions. Venture building and accelerators continue to decline slightly in prevalence.
Sector and regional differences are pronounced. Built world, energy and healthcare CVCs—particularly in Europe and Latin America—are most likely to operate venture building units. Latin American programs are especially active across venture clienting and venture building. By contrast, only around one-fifth of North American and resilient CVC units maintain venture building capabilities.
Most CVC charters emphasise transformative innovation beyond existing core businesses. In practice, programs balance near-term business enhancement (Horizon 1) with longer-term disruption preparedness (Horizon 3), both of which rank highly among respondents. Financial returns continue to grow in importance and are now considered table stakes, particularly for larger funds and those operating with greater independence.
Fund size varies widely by region. While 53% of respondents report current funds of $100m or less, this figure is heavily influenced by Latin America, where 88% of funds fall below that threshold. In North America and Europe, more than half of current funds exceed $100m, and 37% of resilient programmes manage over $500m in assets under management.
Although almost all CVCs are funded by their corporate parents, a small but growing minority are establishing multi-LP structures that include institutional or ecosystem investors.
A diverse range of operating models has emerged, all fundamentally strategic in intent. While 67% of programmes still invest directly from the corporate balance sheet, one-third now operate through more independent legal structures—a proportion that has stabilised over recent years.
Among balance-sheet investors, alignment with business-unit priorities remains common. However, nearly a quarter now have the autonomy to define and execute independent investment theses. Reporting lines reflect CVC’s growing strategic importance: most programmes report to the CEO, CFO or chief strategy officer, with patterns varying by region, maturity and scale. New programmes generally report to the CEO. Large, resilient programmes are more likely to report to the CFO, while North American CVCs are most likely to report to a Chief Strategy Officer.
Investment committees continue to streamline. Most now have fewer than five voting members, typically including the CVC head and CFO, with CEOs, strategy leaders and business-unit heads also frequently involved.
External independent members are increasingly common, particularly among larger and more autonomous programmes. Some 22% of corporate venture investment committees have external members, up from 17% last year. More independent CVCs that operate like investment partnerships are most likely (32%) to include external ‘independent’ specialists on their ICs, while 30% of startup phase programmes also rely on external VC experts as IC advisors.
Half of ICs meet on a regular cadence (monthly most common), with 51% gathering as needed, which can be challenging to manage with busy C-level executives. Most ICs own decisions on initial investment approval (89%) and follow-ons (81%). However, 19% of CVC teams are now empowered to manage investments with ‘lifetime’ investment approval for startups that continue to perform. Some 19%, typically mature programmes, have independent investment team approval rights for transactions below a certain size (e.g. $5-10m)…this number rises to 26% for units with AUM exceeding $300m.
Contents
GCV provides the global corporate venturing community and their ecosystem partners with the information, insights and access needed to drive impactful open innovation. Across our three services - News & Analysis, Community & Events, and the GCV Institute - we create a network-rich environment for global innovation and capital to meet and thrive. At the heart of our community sits the GCV Leadership Society, providing privileged access to all our services and resources.
