Heleen Herbert: ‘Strengthening the investment funnel’

Herbert is energetic and positive – even when it comes to the Netherlands’ position. In a conversation with Martijn van Dam, she explains how she wants to strengthen the business climate and the investment chain, and shares her thoughts on the role the government should play in this. Van Dam has been chair of the NVP, the trade association for investment firms, since June of last year. The Ministry of Economic Affairs is not unfamiliar territory for Van Dam: from November 2015 to September 2017, he served as State Secretary there in the Rutte II cabinet. At the time, his office was located next to Herbert's, where this interview is taking place.

Both Herbert and Van Dam studied Industrial Engineering. Herbert was an easy learner, she says. That is why she briefly considered a STEM program such as civil engineering or aerospace engineering at Delft University of Technology.
However, she chose industrial engineering at the University of Twente, and in hindsight, she is glad she did. Thanks to that study, she learned to think in systems. That skill proved invaluable at the Dutch Railways (NS) and later at Heijmans. At this construction company, she had served as chief commercial officer since 2014 and held the position of strategic director for the past two years.

What was your motivation to accept this ministerial post?
‘Early in my career, I said I wanted to become a mayor someday. To me, that role symbolized what I value: connecting people, jointly taking responsibility, and making a difference in society. Just before my fiftieth birthday, I felt I needed to explore that ambition. That is why I took an orientation program for mayors, which included internships at two municipalities. That led to the surprising realization that the role of mayor did not suit me at all. I discovered that, while I was open to everyone's opinion in the democratic process, I also have my own opinion and like to be the one to decide what we are going to do.
Thanks to the program, I realized that I drew tremendous energy from the work I did at Heijmans. As an executive, I worked with a team on major societal goals, such as the energy transition and improving the livability of inner cities. My drive to make an even greater contribution to the Netherlands is what led me to I accept this ministerial post with conviction.’

What surprised you most about the way things work in The Hague?
‘I find it shocking how much time goes into amending legislation. That can easily take one or two years. Unbelievable. I also had not realized beforehand that, as a minister, my primary focus initially would be on implementing policies devised by my predecessors. So, I am still mainly fulfilling a process role, while I would like to play a more impactful role. I also have to get used to the language in The Hague. For instance, I am labeled as results-driven here, even though I do not recognize myself in that description. To me, ‘results-driven’ means short-term success. In my previous environment, I was actually seen as a visionary: the term ‘impact’ fits that better than ‘results.’ I am clearly still in a transitional phase.’

It is not often that executives from the business world become ministers. How do you experience that transition?
‘I realize my background is quite unusual. That makes my position challenging at times. When you are one of the few with a different background, you have to work harder to build bridges with those around you. It would be easier if there were more people with business experience around. This is by no means a complaint, but I do regularly ask myself: Do I need to learn even more about how things work here and adapt accordingly? Or should, on the contrary, I hold on to what I have brought with me?’

Can you give a specific example?
‘Because of my background, I am used to asking myself, in everything I do, what the effectiveness of it is. What is the problem we need to solve here? Who stands to benefit from this, or not? Those questions guide and direct me – I link them to every decision. I noticed that this approach was initially somewhat disruptive here; it was not what was normally done. Yet, I am sticking to it, because I am convinced that we need to have a dot on the horizon.’

What is your strategy for strengthening the Dutch economy?
‘In line with the Wennink Report and the commitments in the coalition agreement, we are aiming for structural economic growth of at least one and a half percent. To achieve that growth, we must above all become more productive. We simply do not have any more people we can deploy. At the same time, we must become more resilient, because we live in an increasingly turbulent world. The strategy rests on three pillars. First, we need to innovate in a more targeted way. We are very good at developing knowledge, but commercializing that knowledge is proving difficult. The second pillar focuses on financing innovation. There is enough capital available, but how do entrepreneurs access it? How do we ensure that both small and large investors get on board, and that they alternate in good time? The government must also play a facilitating role here. The third pillar is just as important: there must be room for doing business. The Netherlands currently faces many bottlenecks, such as a permit-issuance process that is too slow, the nitrogen issue, grid congestion, and clogged highways. I cannot solve all those problems on my own from the Ministry of Economic Affairs. We need to work together smartly.’

How do you involve everyone in this strategy?
‘I think it is important to start with optimism. That way, you activate people more quickly than if we were to approach this out of fear or vulnerability. I see myself as a down-to-earth idealist. I pursue major societal goals and believe that taking the first, concrete steps is crucial. That is how you build the confidence needed to take the next ones. Let us not forget that the Netherlands truly has a goldmine on its hands. We have fantastic R&D facilities, excel in quantum technology, and have a strong semiconductor industry. At the same time, we need to be realistic: we are falling short in a few areas. Our investment system have several shortcomings.’

What are those shortcomings? What kinds of obstacles do entrepreneurs who want to scale up run into?
‘It is clear that the number of spin-offs from universities and research institutions is too low. We need to increase that number. Additionally, the question is how we should help startups navigate the so-called valley of death: the difficult phase between an initial funding round and a follow-on investment, during which many promising young companies fail or move abroad. I do not believe that we should always support every young company, but where there is market failure, we do need to ensure that promising companies in the scaling-up phase can grow more quickly. The real question is how we strengthen all the links in that investment funnel and how we can better align them with one another.’

What role should the government play in this?
‘The government should never become the system’s primary financier. We must not compete with market players – that would be a misuse of taxpayer money. We want, above all, to be the catalyst when the market fails to respond to an issue, as certain investments are indeed socially and economically important.’

How can we prevent the future National Investment Institution from becoming too prescriptive?
‘Together with the Ministry of Finance, we are exploring how we can partially cover the startup risk with a limited public contribution. This could be done, for example, through a revolving fund at our National Investment Institution: a fund in which the invested money – via loans or equity stakes – flows back over time, so it can be reinvested in new companies. By partially eliminating that startup risk, we can attract a multiple of private capital. We also want to attract pension funds in this way. Institutional capital is still struggling to find its way to scaleups.
The key point is that we are adding something the market does not yet offer. I am also looking abroad for inspiration. The Tibi initiative, named after economics professor Philippe Tibi, is particularly interesting. Since 2019, this program has encouraged insurers and pension funds to invest in funds that finance French tech scale-ups, without the government itself having to put new money on the table. And it is working: the program has nearly tripled investments in French tech, at relatively little cost to the treasury. In this way, the government acts not only as financier but, above all, as a facilitator connecting supply and demand.’

There is concern that the government is cutting back on early-stage programs such as seed capital, even though public funding is crucial at that stage. Is there room to maintain these programs?
‘I like to take a broader view of the entire investment chain. It does not help if we pour more money into the beginning of that chain, while companies get stuck halfway through or move abroad because they cannot scale up here. That means we are doing something not right elsewhere in the chain. My call to the sector is: show what an investment at the beginning yields for the Dutch economy as a whole.’

Investors consider policy predictability to be extremely important. How do you prevent inconsistent policies from making investors hesitant to invest in a sector?
‘That is a valid point. Every time I discuss strengthening the investment climate with the House of Representatives, I emphasize the importance of consistent policy. If you want major societal transitions to succeed, you absolutely need investors. They benefit from clear frameworks that do not keep changing. Otherwise, things will go wrong. For example, in the energy sector, several companies have gone under due to changing regulations. In addition, uniform regulations are important. To give an example from my former field: as long as municipalities impose different requirements on the construction quality of homes, builders will not industrialize. That is why we really need to move toward consistent and more uniform regulations: it is necessary to boost labor productivity.’

Entrepreneurs and investors are also calling for fewer rules, just as Wennink notes in his report. What can they expect?
‘The time and effort entrepreneurs spend complying with sometimes unnecessary administrative obligations comes at the expense of innovation and investment, and is therefore hindering economic growth. That is why we, as a cabinet, are working hard to reduce the regulatory burden. We took on the challenge of eliminating, simplifying, or better aligning 500 rules for entrepreneurs with practical impact before the summer. Although we did not achieve that ambition – it turned out to be 403 – I am positive. Awareness within government agencies about the consequences of new and existing laws and regulations has increased. Moreover, it is not just about having fewer rules; we must also strive for rules that are less burdensome – also when it comes to new policy. That requires more intensive collaboration with entrepreneurs. They know best where the bottlenecks lie in practice.’

What do you hope to have achieved by the end of your term as minister?
‘I hope that in a few years, we will be proud not only of ASML. While the semiconductor industry certainly is of great value, it would be fantastic if we could create a few more ecosystems such as that in the Netherlands. Only then will we have realized our broader industrial policy and laid the foundation for a stronger economy.’

This interview was published in Management Scope 07 2026.