Singapore is the most mobile payment-ready nation in the world, according the the Mobile Payments Readiness Index by MasterCard. Philippines came in second in Southeast Asia, followed by Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

The Index gauges the readiness of 34 countries across the globe in three different categories: Peer-to-peer, mobile commerce, and point-of-sale. An overall score was given for each country, with a score of 60 indicating an inflection point where a country is ready for the mass adoption of mobile payment.

To derive that score, six different factors were weighed on a 0-100 scale:

Consumer Readiness – MasterCard surveyed 1,000 consumers in each of the 34 countries to gauge their familiarity with mobile payment, willingness to use mobile payment and current usage of the three payment types.

Environment – Economic, technological and demographic elements, such as Internet access and per-capita income.

Financial Services – Depth of the financial services sector, including accessibility and affordability, and penetration of digital (plastic card-based) payments.

Infrastructure – Mobile phone penetration, network coverage and breadth of NFC terminals.

Mobile Commerce Clusters – Partnerships among financial services, telecommunications companies, governments and technology providers.

Regulation – Structure and efficiency of each market’s legal and governmental bodies.

The average score for all countries is 33.2, far from the inflection point. This indicates that it’s still early days yet for the mobile payment space.

Singapore has emerged on top primarily because of its infrastructure and regulatory environment. All of its population is covered by a mobile phone network, while its laws on information and communication technology are well-developed. Malaysia is within the top ten in both categories.

Generally, countries in the Asia-Pacific have done well in terms of consumer readiness. Filipinos, for instance, are third most open to mobile payments in the world.

Indonesians, on the other hand, are an exception. Their overall score flagged due to the lack of consumer readiness and mobile commerce clusters.

The country’s population are not familiar with mobile payments, and score low on willingness and frequency of use. The upside is that their willingness to use mobile payments score higher than familiarity, meaning with enough marketing and consumer education, Indonesians could be adopting the technology in large numbers.

For a fuller understanding of the MasterCard study, check out the Index’s website. Global and individual country reports can be downloaded too.

Recently, I did a talk at JFDI, a Y-combinator-quality incubator for South East Asia, where I shared how it is like to be an entrepreneur.

A lot of people tend to think: Being entrepreneur is about having a $1B+ home run in the first try. But it’s almost never the case. The best way to describe the life would be through an analogy of playing poker.

Why poker? Well, it is one of those few card games, where you are not playing against a bank/dealer, but rather amongst the players themselves. Winning a hand is not just a matter of having the best card, but also how you play the hand (since having the best card may not necessarily lead to a win).

Lastly, it’s about knowing when to double down (put more resources), when to fold (call it quits) or when to call the other’s bluff (competitors who posture rather than being a real threat).

The slides I did at JFDI are at the bottom of the article. Here’s a summary of the talk:

1) We all start at a level playing field with almost similar start-up capital;

2) Rarely on the first round will we ever get four Aces and clean up the table right away;

3) Pragmatic approach in lowering risk would be to play each round and win a little, round over round, rather than looking for that 1 super home run. Plan to play for the long-haul;

4) Know when to fold or when to double down. Unlike a traditional game of poker, there’s a time limit to playing entrepreneurial poker. Therefore, one would have to maximize the number of rounds one can play in a finite time for best possible result;

Entrepreneurship is inherently risky, however, we can take certain steps to limit those risk factors that are within our grasp.

Interestingly, Fred Wilson from Union Square Ventures (NYC) wrote a post eight years ago, unknown to me, on how being a venture capitalist is like playing poker. An entrepreneur and a VC are partners of the same coin. Guess which is heads and which one tails?

Photo: Ross Elliot

About the author

Saumil Nanavati was the co-founder and CEO of Chalkboard, which recently shut down. As a pan-continental serial digital media entrepreneur from Silicon Valley to Asia Pacific, he manages sales, marketing, and operations at Chalkboard, the local mobile ad network.

He has a long history in all things digital, particularly cross roads of digital and advertising. Prior to Chalkboard, he was the co-founder and CEO of Sydus, which he took from incubation to a successful exit. He has managed the P&L’s in advertiser funded digital solutions for mobile and web, managed music & entertainment business within these segments, including @Sydus, the largest pan Asian advertiser funded mobile music service.

A customer named Gary Tan posted a complaint on the company’s Facebook Page alleging that he has been discriminated against.

Apparently, his request to get a corner table for three for himself and a guest was rejected. However, a foreigner that came in later was able to do the same. Think Rosa Parks, 21st Century version.

What really pissed people off, however, was the response from Guy Wachs, the restaurant’s founder. He said: “Dear sir, we have an international staff including many Singaporeans and respect all people. We deeply regret your remark (emphasis mine). Guy Wachs, Director.”

A screenshot was captured of the comments, which was apparently deleted. It caught fire on the forums (examples here and here) since yesterday:

Some of you may be shocked by the venom thrown at foreigners in these forums. It’s a political issue, which I’m not going to dwell on, but here’s the gist of it: Many Singaporeans have been rather peeved lately by the government’s liberal immigration policies, and they feel like they’re not being taken cared of enough.

In this context, the tepid reaction towards the restaurant’s actions wasn’t surprising.

Regardless of who’s right or wrong here, there are many lessons startups can learn from this incident. While I’m certainly no customer service expert, I intend this article to be the start of a fruitful discussion — a departure from the mindless raging you see in the forums.

1) When interacting with customers on social media, think twice before posting anything.

The Internet forgets easily, but it doesn’t forgive. Deleted articles and comments are easily captured and live on for perpetuity. While Internet users are generally fickle-minded and move quickly from controversy to controversy, rest assured that any online misdemeanor, real or perceived, can be easily dug out online.

With that in mind, it really pays to think carefully about how you respond to angry customers. As slighted as you feel — and that’s understandable since your business is your baby — a badly handled PR situation could boomerang on you, a hundred times.

In Guy Wach’s case, perhaps that terse comment wasn’t the best way to deal with the situation. Perhaps he did it in a moment of anger, and angry heads are not rational.

2) For God’s sake, read the news.

This controversy might have been avoided had the owners been more careful about the cultural context they operate in. As far removed as it sounds, understand not only the business environment, but also the society in its entirety. This can really help you get customers.

Had the Wild Honey folks been sensitive to the anti-foreigner sentiments brewing in Singapore right now, they might not have responded the way they did.

Whether or not this favoritism towards foreigners is really happening, the managers might want to ensure it will never occur, given how Singaporeans despise it.

3) If you decide to apologize to a customer, remember to validate your staff too, especially if they did nothing wrong.

As an entrepreneur, you aren’t just a PR spokesperson. You’re an employer, leader, and cheerleader. It’s often the case that the customer thinks they are right when in fact the employees did nothing wrong. In such instances, be sure to also pull your staff aside and reassure them that you have their backs. Public chastisement can backfire and bring down company morale.

4) Deleting negative comments on Facebook doesn’t help.

Tempting as it might sound to delete the negative comments that flood your Facebook Page as a result of the negative backlash, remember that a Facebook Page does not work the same way as your company newsletter. It is not a one-way street.

Deleting comments willy-nilly might give the impression that you’re hiding something or being insincere. A balance has to be struck here: While there are comments that deserve to be deleted for whatever reasons — being racist, for example — others should stand because they’re valuable feedback.

You have to roll with the punches.

5) Customers are not always right, so there’s no need to bend over backwards for them.

You are providing a service, not a sweatshop. Customers make all sorts of demands, and a lot of them are unreasonable. In the age of social media, people like to make a huge song and dance about a company when they feel offended, so giving them what they want — an insensitive comment — is the surest route towards a PR disaster.

To defuse a tense situation when you feel they are unjustified, make your response as uncontroversial as possible, while giving the impression that you are dealing with the situation behind closed doors. No need to give a public account. Do apologize, but do it without saying that the errant customer is right.

An alternative approach to consider is to give them exactly what they want, and more besides. It is the “turn the other cheek” method.

A good case study would be this incident that occurred between OCBC Bank and a customer who demanded a cake on her birthday.

She literally got her cake and ate it. And some backlash of her own on the side.

OCBC Bank came out the winner.

Conventional wisdom says that Singapore is an attractive test market and launchpad for the rest of Asia. Indeed, that’s what its government agencies like to say. Actually, they’re not wrong either.

If you’re a startup that wants to go into emerging markets, Singapore may be a great place to set up your regional headquarters, but it most certainly isn’t your test market.

David Wilkie, an entrepreneur based in Phnom Penh, certainly thinks Cambodia is a great place to launch his business. 

Previously consultant for development work with Silicon Valley startups. He later participated in the first Startup Weekend Cambodia, and won the competition with his idea, called SMS Dating.

Now renamed Chibi, David’s startup is an SMS dating and networking service that’s 100 percent anonymous and helps users make new friends.

The service, which will launch in a few days, does not require an Internet connection. Users simply sign up by sending a message, and they will be matched automatically. They can exchange contacts, or simply end the current chat session to start a new one.

Beyond texts services, Chibi will provide voice chat as well. He’s also in the midst of developing iOS and Android mobile apps.

Chibi’s revenue stream will come from charging users for using premium short code SMSes, which are short telephone numbers customers can use with the service to send and receive messages. These short codes can also be dialed.

While he has competitors in Asia, David claims that Chibi is different because it offers voice and text services in the user’s local language — either Khmer for Cambodia or English.

“This is important because many of our customers cannot read, write or speak English. With Chibi, even if you can’t read, you can still call the short code, listen in Khmer, and meet a new friend,” he says.

David’s startup is built for emerging markets. Cambodia fits that profile, with a high mobile peneration rate of 87 percent but a low internet penetration of 0.35 percent, according to research. Mobile internet usage is on the rise too (read: Consumer internet trends in SEA).

But with a small population of 14 million (almost three times of Singapore), David isn’t content to stay in the country. He sees Cambodia as a launchpad to Thailand and Vietnam, which has a population of 78 million and 86 million respectively.

If successful in Cambodia, he plans to launch locatized versions of Chibi in those countries.

There are several other advantages to starting up in the country.

With its low cost of living, David has been able to bootstrap without the need for investors. This has given him freedom to concentrate on market analysis, product development, market validation, and so on. Living and starting a business in Singapore, on the other hand, is much more costly.

Another benefit David enjoys is the highly competitive and less regulated nature of the mobile operating industry in Cambodia, due to the fact that there are eight major mobile operators there.

“I was able to secure a deal with one of the major companies in less than one month,” he says.

Countries in Southeast Asia like Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines may be up-and-coming entrepreneurial hubs, but their efforts may be undone by clogged airports.

An illuminating report by Reuters has revealed that Southeast Asia’s main airports are struggling to keep up with demand, resulting in delays, long lines, and planes being forced to circle overhead or wait at the tarmac.

The situation is likely to get worse.

A main reason for the spike is the emergence of low-cost carriers that have now enabled more people to visit other countries. This drastic increase in demand for budget travel was never foreseen by airport designers.

Jakarta’s Soekarno-Hatta International Airport now serves over 50 million passengers annually, more than twice of what it was designed for in the mid-1980s.

Immigration queues at Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi Airport can last about two hours, as it is running over capacity. The same situation can be seen at Kuala Lumpur’s budget terminal, home to AirAsia.

As a result, Southeast Asian airlines may have to cancel or delay their orders of new planes, totalling about US$47 billion, causing further supply crunch. Travelers may eventually find it harder to book a flight to their desired location at an optimal time.

Even Singapore, noted for its efficiency, may not be able to keep up in the future. The Center for Asia Pacific Aviation has said that a third runway and fifth terminal may be needed for Singapore to maintain its status as a leading hub — and they need to be ready by 2020.

It is currently building a fourth air terminal, it will only be completed in 2017.

Even while airports are struggling, the startling fact is that Southeast Asia remains a market that is under served by airlines. Con Korfiatis, vice president of budget airline Citilink, says that in Indonesia, only 300 single-aisle jets serve the country’s 230 million people, compared to 3,000 in the United States, with a population of 310 million.

These problems could dampen the growth of Southeast Asian economies and their entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Airport congestion would drive up the costs of air travel due to higher operating costs resulting from wastage. Starting and doing business becomes more expensive, and startups would feel the brunt of the effects due to their limited cashflow.

Planning a trip would become as complicated as the job of a pilot. This takes time away from customer acquisition and product development.

“You need to check the weather, the traffic warnings on the radio and other things before you leave your home or the hotel,” an Investment bank executive told Reuters.

Travelers who fly regularly from Jakarta to Singapore on Monday mornings find themselves needing to leave home before the break of dawn to catch a 6am flight — and they still get caught in traffic jams on the way to the airport.

Eventually, if the situation worsens to a severe degree, investors and entrepreneurs may be deterred from even coming into the region.

Governments are fighting hard to overcome the problem, although it’s unclear how effective these measures will be.

Malaysia is building another budget terminal that will launch by April 2013.

Jarkarta is overhauling its Soekarno-Hatta airport. A third runway and fourth terminal are in the works, although the plan is being hindered by land acquisition issues. They might be forced to build an entirely new airport.

Photo: Andy_Mitchell_UK

The best place for social entrepreneurship?

“Where’s the best place in the world for a social entrepreneur to live and build a social enterprise?”

That’s a tough question. It appears there are two schools of thought when it comes to attempting an answer: Get close or go big.

Some people believe that a social entrepreneur should be physically near to her target market. If she is working on poverty alleviation, then perhaps she should be in a city like Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Or if she is fighting air or water pollution then perhaps Dhaka, Bangladesh. That certainly makes sense for a number of social entrepreneurs.

But then there are those of us who think that a social enterprise with the greatest potential for global impact requires a very specific type of climate to flourish. In my research, I’ve identified a few factors that deeply matter: Access to talent, access to funding, access to markets, a good business climate, and a supportive culture. From that perspective, highly developed cities rise to the top.

When I asked my social entrepreneur friends to attempt an answer they threw out the following: Boston, Cambridge, Copenhagen, Delhi, Ho Chi Minh City, Hong Kong, London, Manila, Mumbai, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, Singapore, Stockholm, Vancouver, and many others.

Most said there is no single ‘best’ place, which makes sense. But the same people also identified Silicon Valley as the best place for entrepreneurs, at least in general. So perhaps there is an answer?

The best place to be will certainly vary for any particular social entrepreneur. It will depend on what industry they’re in, what stage of growth they’re in, how they reach their customers or beneficiaries, whether they’re suitable for social investment or not, and a whole host of other factors.

But for a general answer, my search led me to three top choices: London, Silicon Valley, and Singapore.

London is home to some of the world’s most prominent social powerhouses: The Young Foundation, Social Innovation Exchange, School for Social Entrepreneurs, UnLtd, among others. It is certainly a contender.

Silicon Valley is the world’s poster child for entrepreneurship. It has an extraordinary amount of talent, money, and energy.

But Asia is the future. I place a lot of weight on this claim. If you’re a social entrepreneur thinking ten or more years out, Asia cannot easily be ignored.

So let’s talk about Singapore.

Two years ago, I was on a trip around the world with one of my mentors. He was consulting; I was trying to determine where I should base myself as a young social entrepreneur. At the tail end of our trip we landed in Singapore, ostensibly only for a very brief visit. I ended up staying for two weeks to research the social innovation and entrepreneurship sector. It was nascent, but extremely impressive.

In fact, within two months I had moved to Singapore to do capacity building in the sector. This is after one of Singapore’s most prominent social entrepreneurs telling me point blank to stay in the United States where there were “more opportunities to do good”.

Perspective is a funny thing.

All that said, let’s try to answer the question.

I’d wager the best place to be today is Silicon Valley. It’s just too much of a juggernaut to beat–the ecosystem to build (social) enterprises is very well developed.

But that’s only my answer for the short-term.

Long-term, I’ve placed my bets on Singapore. I have hope the climate will continue to improve for several reasons, but for one the government is set on building Singapore’s entrepreneurial and philanthropic sectors. That’s encouraging.

And I believe it’s already a fantastic place for social entrepreneurs. Here’s why:

Access to talent

• Very high standard of living which draws talent in (and keeps it)
• Liberal immigration laws for foreign talent

Access to funding

• Asia’s first social stock exchange
• Tech-focused social enterprise incubator being built with S$1.25M initially available
• S$1M (US$0.8M) social innovation challenge
• S$588k (US$466k) social enterprise competition
• Growing venture philanthropy and impact investing community
• S$300k (US$238k) grants for social entrepreneurs focusing on employing disadvantaged Singaporeans
• S$200k (US$159k) grants for enterprises focused on volunteerism or philanthropy
• S$50K (US$40k) grants for brand-new startups
• #1 in Asia for philanthropy and #1 in world for concentration of millionaires

Access to markets

• Geographically situated between three of the largest markets in the world: China, India, and Indonesia
• Airport rated #2 in world with multiple discount airlines flying the region

Good business climate

• #1 place in world to do business
• 80% of population is English-literate and much of the other 20% can speak at least the basics
• Very low corporate income taxes and zero tax on first S$100,000 for first three years
• No capital gains taxes
• Tied for #1 for lack of corruption
• Government bodies work very actively to support enterprise: EDB, SPRING, MTI
• #1 at protection of intellectual property

Supportive culture

• Approximately 150 existing social enterprises
• Dedicated social enterprise association
• Multiple dedicated social entrepreneur co-working spaces
• Multiple dedicated academic institutions: Lien Centre, LKY School of Public Policy, Grameen Creative Lab
• Online community-edited directory for the social sector (“a Wikipedia for people who care”)
• Established degree program in social entrepreneurship at polytechnic level
• Widely circulated sector-focused publication Goodpaper.sg that is read in over 650 cities
• Five million residents and 9.7 million annual international travelers concentrated in a very densely populated space (with an amazing transportation system) creates a unique melting pot of ideas

The downsides

• Capable local talent is in high demand
• Very small domestic market of 5 million
• Financing for small to mid-sized social enterprises may currently be difficult past pre-seed stage, especially until the Impact Investment Exchange opens and the venture philanthropy community grows
• Very risk-averse society
• Singaporeans are effectively indifferent to social entrepreneurs (only 2% can correctly identify a single social enterprise)

But none of that should hold a talented social entrepreneur back.

Things would really start to get interesting if 100 additional foreign social entrepreneurs built their companies here. Or a 100 additional locals decided to do the same.

Further, the Singaporean government and/or social investors could massively accelerate the development of Singapore’s social enterprise ecosystem by:

• Creating a Startup-Chile type visa and funding support program
• Investing in a privately run Unreasonable Institute type incubator
• Investing in a privately run The Hub Singapore
• Bringing B Corp or similar legal structure to Singapore

All in all, I think Singapore is a great place for social entrepreneurs now and will likely get much better. It even has a shot at becoming Asia’s “Social Silicon Valley”. Perhaps one of several around the world. Time will tell.

What do you think? Where would you like to live and build your social enterprise?

This article is republished with permission from his blog.

Photo: AIM Neutron

About the author

James Norris has founded, co-founded, or established 3 social enterprises, 8 organizations, and 5 clubs which have collectively ran for 60+ years (first at 15). He has helped with developing a venture-backed 100,000 sq ft for-profit museum meets theme park startup, and is assisting the Polymath Foundation in building a physical university for 10,000 young Leonardo da Vinci’s.

Rocket Internet is a company that belongs to the Samwer Brothers. They are known for their amazing execution prowess and their ruthlessness in cloning successful US Internet companies. Of course, their tactics and methods have raised the ire of many, including pro-Silicon Valley reporters such as Sarah Lacy who mounted a campaign against them.

But is the company’s impact on the Southeast Asia digital market all bad? I’ll examine this issue in detail and argue that while it may have some impact on innovation, it isn’t bad for the industry as a whole.

Rocket Internet’s footprint in Southeast Asia: Attack of the Clones

In the past few months, Rocket Internet has launched five companies: Wimdu, Pinspire, Zalora, FoodPanda and Lazada, which are clones of various well-known Internet companies from Silicon Valley: AirBnB, Pinterest, Zappos, and Amazon. Using Singapore as their headquarters, they have spawned their units very quickly around Southeast Asia, with a major focus on Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia.

If you look carefully at their portfolio, you’ll notice they have two key areas of interest: e-commerce and currently sexy start-ups in Silicon Valley. While I applaud them for their aggressive hiring spree in Singapore which will help to service our economy with more jobs, I am aware of their ability to quell innovation within the region.

Everyone might be wondering: Why Southeast Asia of all places, after Europe (where their headquarters is in Germany)? First of all, Southeast Asia is as fragmented as Europe, with many diverse cultures, languages and nationality.

Unlike large single markets such as the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India & China) and United States, the user behaviour of mobile and web users are radically different but clustered into two blocs.

The more developed economies like Singapore and Malaysia favor mobile and web penetration almost equally while emerging economies such as Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia favor mobile over web by a ratio that ranges from 3 to 5.

ASEAN’s inability to form a single common market is also reminiscent of the European Union’s failure,  unfolding before our very own eyes. Given the way the Samwer Brothers operate, it’s therefore not surprising that they’re setting sights on Southeast Asia because of its economic similarities with Europe.

Southeast Asia often remains an after-thought to those who are seduced like butterflies to single markets like India and China and to some extent, Indonesia. With a lack of innovation and the US tech companies trying to put a square peg into a round hole with their templates, most local companies within each Southeast Asia country merely perform technology arbitrage and hence the whole mobile web industry suffers as a whole.

So, if the Samwer Brothers can somehow build a business structure that can address the fragmentation of Southeast Asia with a unifying mobile web theme such as e-commerce, you can see that the big companies might have no choice but to pay them “a ransom”, as Sarah puts it.

From a macro point of view, contrary to the tirades of Sarah Lacy, the view that Rocket Internet is bad for the entire industry is totally exaggerated.

Her only argument that it is detrimental to the industry (which we all agree) is that cloning is not the best way to encourage innovation. Like any technologist, I am against the concept of frugal innovation.

But while Sarah gives credit to Chinese Internet companies for innovating after they copy, there’s a big difference between the Samwer Brothers and companies like Baidu, Alibaba and Sina. Yes, they are all clones, but while the Samwer brothers are expanding their cloning prowess globally, the Chinese clones are protected by the Chinese government against external competition.

Sarah is exactly right about how US companies treat going global as an afterthought. The problem is that US technology companies see international expansion like Starbucks — maintaining a consistent look and feel everywhere in the world, but franchising a cafe brand is different from tailoring technologies to the needs of a specific economy.

That is why Paypal is having a rough ride in Southeast Asia, where they find it tough to convince small and medium businesses to use their payment service as compared to the local counterparts who offers lower rates.

But where PayPal and the others fail, the Samwer Brothers could succeed. And if they do, isn’t the ransom they collect well-deserved?

Who benefits from that? The consumers who are scouring for good deals and offers.

While many see Rocket Internet as a bane to an innovative start-up environment, they do not see that they are of equal threat to the medium and large Asian conglomerates.

In addition to that, one should really examine the business interests behind Rocket Internet. What do they really want? If you’ve looked at their track record, their intention is to get their portfolio of companies acquired, and make money.

Everyone might not be happy about them making money but they will do one thing that will most benefit the Southeast Asian market: Generating exits that will induce investors from all over the world to turn up and invest in this market.

So, market realities are not going to change in the Southeast Asia market. Sarah Lacy’s books and articles will not drive investors to Southeast Asia, but more acquisition activity towards Samwer brothers’ Rocket Internet will.

If you are planning to clone a company like Pinterest, my advice is to avoid the Rocket Internet’s radar unless you have a team that can execute as fast as they do and have a lot of cash to hold the whole operation together.

Otherwise, you are a passing footnote, and it is important to note that the Groupon clones phenomenon is just a one-off thing. On the other hand, if you are really doing something innovative, you should avoid revealing too much of your success until you have enough money in the bank, a product and a team with such a competitive advantage that makes it ridiculously hard for them to replicate.

Either way, winter is already here.

Image Credits: Oliver Samwer from PandoDaily

The adoption of green practices among entrepreneurs could become the new black in 2012. With natural resources dwindling, the quest for more sustainable business practices that generate profits will remain a pressing issue for years to come.

In addition, as more consumers are willing to spend more on green products, the boon to an organization’s profitability can be substantial. As such, companies know that taking the plunge into green business practices is necessary to add to their company’s overall value.

Green Future Solutions, a Singapore-based business that promotes environmental awareness and action, provides consultancy services to help SMEs reduce costs, increase revenue, and become more sustainable.

Its founder and director, Eugene Tay, sees ways for businesses to reduce the environmental impact of their products throughout its life cycle by exploring the demand for green products and services and being proactive to meet this need, which would help them gain a competitive advantage and increase revenue.

“Business owners will be in a better position to build up their reputation and enhance their brand as a sustainable company. The business can then market its environmental practices or the environmental benefits of its products or services,” he said.

Marketing green products and services as sustainable businesses

Green Cleaners, a leading eco friendly cleaning service in Singapore, is one company that is actively marketing itself as a green business. They specialize in providing green cleaning services to offices and bespoke facilities such as kindergartens, hotels, spas, gyms and health studios.

Colin Pudsey, its founder who moved to Singapore from Australia, started the company in early 2009 after his sinuses and asthma became worse due to long office hours. Suspecting the cause might have been the potent and toxic chemicals used to clean his floors, he tried looking around for a less harmful cleaning service, but couldn’t find one.

He expects a boom in the green cleaning business: “This industry trend is fast becoming mainstream and an expected option in certain areas of the cleaning industry.”

“The U.S.’s well-known previous Vice-President, Al Gore, has created a dynasty around the importance of “green” and saving the environment citing starting a green business as one of the top business start-up options to consider.”

Started two and a half years ago, Green Cleaners now sells their own range of green cleaning products. They also have a franchising program to meet increasing demand across Asia.

They are also helping their clients to promote environmental responsibility as a savvy marketing tool through their Green Stamp certification of approval, which Colin says “has proved to be an excellent value added service.”

Government support and incentives

For economies to progress, governments see a need for industries and companies to tap into renewable energy and become sustainable businesses. The Singapore government has schemes and funding to encourage firms to take the leap and adopt green practices.

Vaidehi Shah, projects manager from the Singapore Environment Council, believes government funding and incentives plays an important role in helping companies in various industries go green, and points out that Building and Construction, Manufacturing, Research, and Transport industries stand to gain the most from government incentives.

Some schemes that help businesses include the Water Efficiency Fund (WEF), which encourages companies to manage their water demand more efficiently, and the Energy Efficiency Improvement Assistance Scheme (EASe), a co-funding scheme administered by the National Environment Agency (NEA) to encourage companies in the manufacturing and building sectors to carry out energy appraisals and identify potential areas for energy efficiency improvement.

She says of these eco-shifts: “Businesses are becoming increasingly concerned with greening the whole value chain – beyond the manufacturing process, they’re also becoming mindful of peripheral issues such as transport, packaging, waste management, and even corporate philanthropy.”

Adopting green labels and certifications

Green labels and certifications are becoming more important in the eyes of companies and consumers. With more consumer awareness comes greater impetus within the business environment to seek out certification and external validation for their green efforts, and display eco-labels that distinguish them from other competitors.

One such certification is Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), an internationally recognized mark of excellence that provides building owners and operators with a framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions.

Colin of Green Cleaners believes the push for such certifications has resulted in more firms engaging the services of his company: “LEED certification not only covers the design and construction stages of a new building but operations too. This means there are points to be earned for things like the how the building is cleaned!”

Similiarly, the BCA Green Mark Scheme was launched in January 2005 to encourage the construction of environment-friendly buildings in Singapore. This benchmarking scheme incorporates internationally recognized best practices in environmental design and performance that has a positive effect on corporate image, leasing and resale value of buildings.

According to Vaidehi of SEC, her organization has the Singapore Green Labelling Scheme, Eco-Office Certification and Singapore Environmental Achievement Awards, and these are examples of local certification and awards programmes that reward strong business commitment to environmental excellence.

She also feels companies are genuinely encouraging behavioural change amongst their workers, to achieve soft changes in their corporate image:

“Environmental volunteering, allowing flexible work hours and telecommuting to reduce car-use and putting up reminders within the office to conserve water, electricity and paper are just some examples. SEC’s Project Eco Office is cognizant of the importance of this, and places heavy emphasis on green behaviour in their certification criteria.”

Monitor and manage environmental risks and impacts

Environmental monitoring and managing such risks and impacts has its benefits and there is a growing awareness among companies to give back as climate change and environmental disasters impact everyone.

The Body Shop is an ideal example of a company engaging in green practices. A well-known advocate of social and environmental responsibility, they are moving towards a hub-based distribution system, consolidating shipping to make less frequent deliveries and merging different types of orders. This improves efficiency and reduces the amount of air freights needed, lessening the company’s carbon footprint.

Eugene of Green Future believes companies can reduce the use of fuel, materials and chemicals and at the same time increase the efficiency and productivity of their operations by finding ways to reduce consumption and disposal so that businesses save on utilities bills and waste disposal fees.

“There are many opportunities to reduce unnecessary wastage and inefficient practices in the business, and reduce costs.”

Photo: Tanaka Juuyoh

Dr Ni Zhengdong (second from left) and Marc van der Chijs (second from right).

Depending on who you speak to, China is either a dead zone or the land of milk and honey for foreign entrepreneurs who want to set up a new enterprises there.

Firmly entrenched in the Avoid China camp is Marc van der Chijs, who, ironically enough, is the founder of Tudou, the second most popular video sharing site in China. It was recently bought over by Youku.

“There are less opportunities in China these days; the environment is not so positive anymore,” he says at the sidelines of DEMO Asia in Singapore, “I’ve been there for 12 years, had a great time. I still love the country. But doing business as a foreigner has become more difficult.”

He reached this conclusion after starting a new business called unitedstyles, a site that allow users to design, share and buy their own fashion.

They needed to hire a lot of foreign designers, but it was getting hard to woo these people and bring them into China.

“Getting a visa was impossible,” he says. There’s a maximum number of visas a startup can apply for, as the government wants more local talent to be hired.

But getting competent local staff who know social media and can speak excellent English is hard. Marc couldn’t find them.

Another challenge was finding Venture Capitalists with a global outlook. If you’re an entrepreneur based in China who wants to serve a global market, securing funding might be a challenge.

“When I talk to Chinese VCs, they want to focus on the Chinese market. That’s the only market they know” he says.

But while the golden age for foreign entrepreneurs in China has long past, Marc believes that businesses focusing solely on China still have a decent shot at success. Given how large the market is, startups don’t have to look outwards to succeed.

For now, Marc has decided to relocate part of unitedstyles elsewhere. He cites Singapore as a possible location.

“If I set up a business today, it won’t be in China,” he says.

On the other hand…

However, Dr Ni Zhengdong is more optimistic about doing business in the country. He is the founder and CEO of Zero2IPO Ventures, a service provider for venture capital firms that also does some investments.

Having started the firm in 1989 and helped raise funds for 150 companies over the past two years, he has seen how the startup ecosystem in China has grown over time.

He still believes opportunities are abundant for foreign entrepreneurs, citing how annual angel and VC investment has ballooned from US$500M a year in 2000 to over US$30B today.

“That’s a lot of money,” he says.

Funds in China are divided into two types. US dollar funds, set up by prominent American VC firms like Sequoia Capital and KPCB, offer nearly the same term sheets and legal counsel as their Silicon Valley offices. Valuations can be even higher.

Renminbi funds, on the other had, focus more on manufacturing and traditional businesses.

“If I’m a young tech startup doing mobile commerce, I’ll look at the US Dollar fund. It’s very easy to communicate with the fund managers,” he says.

Despite the fierce and brutal competition in China’s tech space, he believes opportunities are still present in the SoLoMo and e-commerce industries.

Government funding is also another way to kickstart a company in the country.

Dr Ni says that there are technology science parks where startups are given grants just to work there. Companies can receive anywhere from 100k RMB (US$16k) to 5M RMB (US$800,000) in their first year.

The goverment’s aim is to attract more expat Chinese to return to their homeland to set up businesses.

However, that avenue is slowly being overshadowed by the private sector, which has now become the dominant source of funding for entrepreneurs.

China’s not for everybody

Despite the large size of the Chinese market, many entrepreneurs have gotten themselves burnt while taking a crack at it.

Sometimes, the best option is to stay away, as tempting as it might be to get in on the action.

That’s what Adeo Ressi, who runs startup incubator Founder Institute and TheFunded.com, an online community where entrepreneurs rate investors, did.

When asked about why he hasn’t set up in China and India, he says: “We’re not in a rush. India and to a lesser extent China have a lot of backroom dealings that I’m not comfortable with. If I have to run sessions on how to deal with corruption, then I don’t want to be in that market.”

He adds: “Entrepreneurs have enough problems in the world, they should have a set of rules to play by and not accept bribes.”

But for those who are convinced that setting up a business in China is their goal, Marc and Dr Ni both have similar advice to give: Spend at least a few years working in the country first.

“Understand the culture and market, and make sure you have many connections. Having Chinese partners is also very important,” says Marc, “if you don’t have any experience in China, don’t even try; it’s a waste of time.”

Related content:

The Chinese government is more pro-business than Singapore
Tradesparq makes finding suppliers in China less nightmarish