Company details

HEADCOUNT

25-99

ORG TYPE

Startup

SECTOR

Energy & Climate

WEBSITE

https://www.earthbanc.org

About the company

Earthbanc is a Stockholm-headquartered climate and nature tech company founded in 2019, focused on land restoration and nature-based projects supported by software, data, and MRV (measurement, reporting and verification). Earthbanc describes work across forestry, agriculture, carbon removal and supply chains, combining geospatial and AI capabilities with on-the-ground delivery. Public job pages also position “EarthTree” in India as the delivery arm for forest restoration and farmer livelihood work.

Locations and presence

Earthbanc lists Stockholm as the headquarters and a small-company size band on LinkedIn. Public hiring pages show operational hiring in India (for example Delhi and Shillong), and third-party writing also references activity across additional international locations.

Palpable Score

42.7

/ 100

Earthbanc has some entry-level access through internships and at least one junior role surfaced on third-party boards, plus job descriptions that spell out responsibilities clearly. The score is pulled down by thin pay transparency, limited published onboarding detail, and a very small set of employee reviews that skew negative on management support.

Pillar 1: Early-career access

Score

8.0

/ 20

The company has advertised an “Intern – Finance Data Analysis” role with a genuine early-career entry point, including defined responsibilities across data collection, analysis, and reporting.
Earthbanc has also appeared with junior-branded tech hiring on external job boards (for example a “Junior DevOps” listing that has since expired), suggesting early-career hiring happens but is not steady.
The company’s most visible “Work with us” jobs page has been dominated by mid-to-senior requirements (3+ years, 5+ years, and 15–20 years), which limits consistent 0–3 year access.

Pillar 2: Hiring fairness and transparency

Score

12.0

/ 20

The company’s internship posting lays out the work in detail (tasks, responsibilities, and requirements), which helps candidates understand what the role is and what “good” looks like.
Earthbanc’s EarthTree jobs page uses deadlines and role requirements, but relies on email-based applications and does not explain a consistent interview flow or assessment style.
The company does not publish much about candidate experience expectations (timelines, stages, or feedback), so transparency stops at the job description.

Pillar 3: Learning and support

Score

9.0

/ 20

The company has at least one employee review saying new joiners “get to learn new tech,” which is a real learning signal even if it’s informal.
Earthbanc’s internship description includes cross-functional collaboration and structured outputs (dashboards, reports, KPI monitoring), but it does not describe onboarding, pairing, or a ramp plan.
The company’s public “What we offer” language is high-level (impact, culture, “growth opportunities”) and rarely names concrete support mechanisms like 1:1 cadence, mentoring, or training budgets.

Pillar 4: Pay fairness and stability

Score

6.7

/ 20

The company’s public job pages tend to avoid salary ranges, so early-career candidates cannot sanity-check pay fairness up front.
Earthbanc uses “competitive compensation” phrasing in at least one public posting, but without specifics on salary bands, benefits, or stability signals like bonus structure.
The company has too little public pay and benefits detail (and too little third-party salary data) to score higher without guessing.

Pillar 5: Early-career outcomes

Score

7.0

/ 20

The company has employee reviews from former employees with short tenure that describe weak leadership connection to on-the-ground teams and poor receptiveness to feedback, which is a red flag for early-career retention.
Earthbanc’s LinkedIn footprint suggests a small team size, but public progression stories, promotions, or clear leveling are not visible for juniors.
The company has only a couple of public employee reviews and no published early-career outcomes (promotion rates, cohort progression, retention over 12–24 months), which limits confidence in outcomes either way.