During the earliest waves of corporate venturing (dating back to the 1960s), start-ups were cast as Davids against corporate Goliaths. The antagonism was mutual — smaller newcomers were labeled, tellingly, as disruptors. Venturing programs were used as fairly blunt instruments, often in pursuit of diversification goals or to realize financial gains in opportunistic ways. Fast-forward to today, and we find venturing programs to be remarkably nuanced — embodying a sophisticated management practice. The modern environment is better described as a new symbiosis in which established corporations collaborate with start-ups to create deep ecosystems that foster innovation. Corporate venturing has become a tool for adapting, evolving, and responding creatively to changing business conditions.

Corporate venture capital — the traditional model in which large firms take equity stakes in startups — remains a potent tool. Intel and Exxon institutionalized the practice decades ago, and it has proven durable: across hundreds of companies in our global sample, my co-authors Gary Dushnitsky, Claudio Garcia, and Valery Yakubovich and I find adoption rates of 50 to 60 percent. The billions of corporate dollars now flowing into AI innovators like Anthropic and OpenAI illustrate how influential equity-based programs can be.

But equity is not the only entry point — and for many organizations, it may not even be the best one. A newer model, venture clienting, is gaining ground fast, and it works on a fundamentally different logic: instead of investing in a startup, a corporation becomes its paying customer.

The distinction matters more than it might appear. In a traditional corporate venture capital arrangement, a company writes a check, takes a board seat, and waits — sometimes years — for a return. Venture clienting compresses that timeline dramatically. A corporation identifies a startup whose product or technology addresses a real operational need, engages it as a procurement client, and begins extracting value almost immediately through real-world pilots. No equity is exchanged. No board seat is required. The startup gets revenue and a marquee reference customer; the corporation gets access to emerging technology without the capital commitment, governance burden, or long holding period of an equity stake.

The model was pioneered by BMW, which established its internal Startup Garage unit in 2015 specifically to act as a venture client — sourcing, piloting, and purchasing from startups rather than acquiring or investing in them. BMW, Bosch, Walmart — companies like these are now among the most active practitioners of such programs. What their experience reveals is that venture clienting is a multipurpose tool: it can be deployed strategically and with precision, adjusted to specific technology needs, and scaled or paused without the lock-in that equity investments create. Further, these programs give big companies an expedient, cost-effective way to learn about emerging technologies and benefit from diverse sources of innovation, without the investment required to build each one internally. BMW has reported that startup relationships through the Startup Garage have yielded direct advances in autonomous driving — technologies now integrated into production vehicles.

The value flows in both directions. In addition to helping established companies, venture clienting generates benefits for start-ups, providing revenue and allowing them to conduct real-world trials with access to testing, feedback, coaching, and operational guidance. that would otherwise be unavailable or prohibitively expensive to replicate. In a sense, venture clienting provides “road testing” opportunities at scale.

The scale of adoption is now significant. As we discuss in our study, published by the Mack Institute for Innovation Management at the Wharton School, today’s practitioners are witnessing “… a shift where procurement is not just a transactional necessity but a deliberate option to drive growth and transformation.”

The question for executives is no longer whether large companies should work with startups; that has largely been settled. The harder question is which form of engagement fits the strategic problem. Equity investment makes sense when the startup’s trajectory itself matters: when the corporation wants exposure to a breakthrough technology, a seat closer to the learning frontier, upside participation, influence over an emerging ecosystem, or a future acquisition option. But equity is a blunt and patient instrument; it ties up capital, adds governance complexity, and often waits years for impact. Venture clienting starts from a different logic. It asks a more operational question: does this startup solve a problem we have now? By becoming a paying customer, the corporation can test the technology in real conditions, learn faster than it could through internal R&D, give the startup revenue and market validation, and then scale or stop the relationship based on evidence rather than hope. The best companies will not turn this into another false binary: CVC versus venture clienting. They will build a corporate venturing architecture in which investment, procurement, accelerators, venture building, mentorship, and ecosystem work are matched to different objectives and time horizons. Put simply, invest when ownership, influence, or long-term strategic positioning matters; become a customer when the goal is adoption, learning, and speed. The mistake is to let organizational habit decide. The opportunity is to treat each startup engagement as a designed managerial choice.

Venture clienting is not without friction. Cultural divides between large hierarchical corporations and small, agile start-ups are the rule, not the exception. Bridging them requires unfiltered communications and shared commitments to collaboration, momentum, and open-mindedness. The cultural gap must be addressed in genuine, authentic ways — especially amid the rapid experimentation these relationships demand.

When considering venturing programs as collections of management tools, my co-authors and I discover that true artistry lies in how companies combine and sequence those tools. Skillful bundling is just as important — perhaps even more so — than the employment of any single action on its own. A company that runs a venture clienting program alongside a corporate accelerator and a selective equity portfolio is building something more resilient than a company that relies on any one model alone.

Our findings also imply that disregarding venture initiatives can be risky. The key objectives of venture engagements — exploring new markets and adopting new technologies — are notoriously expensive to pursue internally, making them natural candidates for startup collaboration.

We believe the corporate venturing efforts described in our research have evolved over time, and the transformation has lately quickened. Far from being regarded as academic exercises or theoretical explorations, venturing programs are proving themselves fundamental to the long-term vitality of organizations globally, gaining footholds in Asia, Europe, Australia, and across the Americas. Our analysis suggests that today’s brand of corporate venturing is particularly visible in financial and technology industries, though it is also finding success in areas that include manufacturing, retail, and healthcare. Across the board, corporate venturing has broadened its mandate, evolving into a management practice that stretches beyond its original iterations — more systematic, more intentional, and more measurable than previously thought.

For corporate leaders seeking to build sustainable, long-term growth, a thoughtfully designed venture program is a potent resource. Management teams should enact formal processes to regularly evaluate venturing possibilities, ensuring their organizations consider a strategic mix that addresses long-term goals while preparing for the bouts of uncertainty and change that often characterize business conditions. Corporate venture programs were once dismissed as opportunistic financial diversifiers. They have earned recognition as something far more sophisticated — and far more necessary. For management teams charged with clearing a path through uncertainty and volatility, there are few resources as flexible and finely tuned.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.