Blog

Sustainable finance is no longer limited to institutional investors. It has increasingly opened up to retail investors through crowdfunding, enabling them to directly support projects with environmental and social impact. In this space, one question comes up regularly: how can we distinguish genuinely committed platforms from those that merely rely on green rhetoric? Contrary to common belief, the answer does not lie solely in labels. In impact crowdfunding, regulation and operational expertise matter more than labels.

PSFP authorisation: the only truly mandatory certification

Since the European ECSP Regulation (European Crowdfunding Service Providers Regulation) came into force in 2023, any crowdfunding platform operating in Europe must be authorised as a PSFP (Crowdfunding Service Provider). This authorisation now constitutes the common regulatory foundation of European crowdfunding:

• it is mandatory to operate legally;
• it imposes strict requirements in terms of governance, transparency, risk management, and investor information;
• it is granted by national regulators (in France, the AMF), under the coordination of ESMA (the European regulator).

Today, there are around 220 PSFP-authorised platforms in Europe, all subject to the same regulatory framework, regardless of their sector positioning. It is therefore PSFP authorisation, not a voluntary label, that primarily ensures investor protection.

Labels vs. expertise: the real debate

Labels play a useful role in certain segments of sustainable finance, particularly for investment funds:

• ISR Label
• Greenfin Label
• Finansol Label

They help classify and compare standardised financial products. But in crowdfunding applied to climate and impact projects, the logic is different. Platforms do not offer packaged products, but concrete projects that are often complex, technical, and heterogeneous. In this context, the decisive factor is not the label, but the platform’s real expertise.

What truly makes the difference:

• the ability to source credible projects;
• to analyse their technical, financial, and environmental viability;
• and to monitor their performance over time.

What investors should really check

To assess the robustness of an impact-oriented PSFP, investors should focus on three key criteria, which are far more revealing than any displayed label.

1. Team expertise

• Professional experience in sustainable finance, climate, or energy
• Technical knowledge of the financed sectors (cleantech, climatetech, biodiversity, etc.)
• Proven analytical capabilities (e.g. background in due diligence, structured finance, impact investing)

2. ESG and impact analysis methodology

• Existence of a structured and documented analysis framework
• Systematic integration of environmental, social, and governance issues
• Alignment with recognised standards (SDGs, EU taxonomy, etc.)

3. Process transparency

• Clarity of the selection methodology
• Measurable and verifiable impact indicators
• Regular and accessible reporting for investors

For established platforms, the track record of funded projects and exits is also an indicator of maturity. For newer platforms, team expertise and methodological rigor are the decisive criteria.

The We Take Part model: a “proof-driven” infrastructure

At We Take Part, the decision was made to build a platform based not on the display of labels, but on a robust infrastructure of evidence and analysis.

• A team from the sustainable finance ecosystem, combining financial, regulatory, and impact expertise
• Systematic impact analysis for each project, aimed at demonstrating real and measured positive impact (rather than simply declared impact)
• Transparent and structured reporting, enabling investors to track project progress over time

This approach goes beyond declarative claims and moves toward a factual and measurable framework, which is essential to combating greenwashing in crowdfunding.

Regulation and expertise: the true pillars of sustainable crowdfunding

In impact crowdfunding, trust does not rely on the proliferation of labels, but on:

• a robust regulatory framework, common to all PSFP-authorised platforms;
• strong operational expertise, capable of assessing, structuring, and monitoring complex projects;
• ongoing transparency toward investors.

This combination enables PSFPs like We Take Part to fully play their role: channelling savings toward projects with real, measurable, and lasting impact, while protecting investors.

Investment in startups and unlisted projects involves a risk of total or partial loss of invested capital, as well as liquidity risk. Only invest amounts you can afford to lose.

Sources: ESMA PSFP Register, France FinTech, AMF