Team structure and compensation
Team size and structure are informed by CVC strategic innovation goals, programme maturity, operating model, fund size and portfolio strategy.
Most CVC teams remain lean, but experience levels continue to rise, reinforcing CVC as a professional career path. Larger funds increasingly adopt blended team structures combining investment, platform and operational leadership roles.
With increasing CVC influence and professionalism, competition for talent has intensified, particularly with VCs and private equity firms. Compensation models remain diverse, with growing use of long-term incentive mechanisms in larger and more independent programmes, especially in the US.
The larger the fund, the more likely that the CVC will have a blended professional team that combines
VCs/PE firms (58%) and other CVCs (53%) are by far the top sources for investment talent, up from less than half in 2025. For programmes with AUM exceeding $100m, three-quarters recruit investors from VC/PE firms and other CVCs. Other external sources include investment banking (32%), management consulting (33%) and startups (23%). Internal sources, sometimes rotational, include strategy (35%), finance/corporate development (32%), R&D (24%), and BD (20%).
While 36% of all CVCs report having a dedicated CVBD/platform team, 43% with assets under management (AUM) exceeding $100m and 53% with AUM greater than $300m have this function. For 69% of CVCs, the platform team will both support portfolio companies and make parent introductions for other interesting startups. In 48% of cases, business unit innovation and tech scouting teams play an engagement role, and in 18% of units, the corporation also has a separate venture clienting programme.
While the role and capabilities of a CVBD team will vary depending on the CVC innovation charter, most are set up to provide access to parent resources via partnerships and supplier networks (83%) and access to research and development and technical expertise (77%). Two-thirds are staffed to be able to provide strategy and innovation advisory services to parent businesses. Investment in marketing and community development teams has risen from 38% in 2025 to 40% in 2026.
A growing number of CVCs are creating project management office resources and funding for pilots and proof of concepts (39%), particularly in the energy, transport and industrial sectors where approximately 45% of CVCs offer these capabilities.
With CVC now ‘main stage’ in the toolkit for innovation and growth, corporations are acknowledging that doing it right takes specialists. CVC has become a ‘professional sport’ and career path. Recruiting and retaining a high-quality team is foundational to corporate venture performance and longevity. Corporations have multiple levers to apply in differentiated ways — most rely on title or band-aligned base compensation, standard corporate bonuses (88%) and parent equity in markets like North America (48%).
Compensation is the area where the survey shows the largest divergence among regions, programme maturity phases and operating models. Across all markets, 25% of CVCs have access to (‘carry-like’) financial upside schemes with another 24% eligible for ad hoc financial performance bonuses. Custom analysis we have done at the GCV Institute using the Keystone survey data shows that financial upside plans are more likely to be included in compensation plans in larger, more mature CVC programmes (e.g. 36% of all funds with assets under management exceeding $100m) and 55% of those with more independent operating models.
US-based CVCs, which compete for talent with VCs/PE firms and other CVCs, appear to have access to the greatest range of long-term incentive (LTI) compensation levers. Close to half participate in corporate stock programmes (RSUs and options) and they are most likely (30% of all respondents, 69% of more independent CVCs) to include some form of financial upside/synthetic carry programme as a key recruitment/retention tool.
The process for calculating financial upside (‘carry’) pools and the timing for payment takes several forms, predominantly structured as annual bonus programmes (ordinary income). In past years the most common model was a fund-based approach designed to mitigate parent risk, but long lead times to reward were seen to undermine programme effectiveness as a retention tool. Now most models include some mechanism for near-term rewards and/or portfolio value ahead of full fund returns.
Most eligibility for carry pool participation starts at the principal level for 51% of CVCs, while 31% include senior associates and associates and 18% analysts. 17% also include senior business development or platform professionals, and 20% (up from 12% in 2025) reward the COO or portfolio management lead. Unlike with VC teams who make capital contributions, corporates typically use these programmes as retention tools, so most (71%) departing CVC team members are not eligible for financial upside payments post-employment.
Compared to 2025, cash compensation for responding CVC leaders has risen for the top quartile and maximum, as have annual vesting corporate equity and ‘carry’ payments. US-based CVCs continue to have somewhat richer packages, although CVCs in Europe recorded the largest annual equity payments.
Diversity, equity & inclusion
The percentage of respondents who include some diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) KPIs in their strategic scorecards continues an annual slide from a high of 41% in 2024 down to 31% in 2026. Only 21% (down from 25% in 2025) explicitly track full CVC team KPIs and 17% look at portfolio CEO targets.
Portfolio company CEOs are primarily male, with 84% of respondents reporting that less than 25% of their portfolio companies are led by female founders or CEOs. Track records are only slightly better with respect to ethnic and racial diversity – 66% of CVCs report that 25% or fewer of their portfolio companies are led by diverse CEOs.
CVC technology stack
Sourcing and deal flow automation (69% ranked ‘1 or 2’) has risen to the top of the CVC priority list, followed by customer relationship and pipeline management ‘CRM’ (57% ranked ‘1 or 2’). Fund portfolio management (enabled by tools such as Carta/Tactyc) is a priority for 32%, particularly expansion stage programmes developing more mature operating infrastructure and those with assets under management above $300m.
Given the breadth of operating models and activities that may fall under the ‘corporate venturing’ umbrella, it is not surprising that horizontal tools such as Microsoft Office (65%) and Google Office Suite (27%) are among the frequently used tools. However, use of Carta – cap table management and valuation (32%), Affinity – sourcing/deal flow (27%), Airtable – collaboration/project management (17%), and Salesforce – CRM (14%) have risen since 2025.
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.
