In Southeast Asia, a new investment philosophy is gaining traction: funding for good. This approach goes beyond traditional profit metrics, seeking startups that tackle pressing social and environmental challenges while delivering solid financial returns.

For investors, the rationale is clear: businesses that solve real problems often create more resilient revenue streams, attract loyal customers, and reduce long-term risks—all of which translate into better returns.

Why funding for good works

Investing in ventures with measurable social impact isn’t just ethical—it’s strategic. Purpose-driven businesses often operate in underserved markets, leverage technology to scale, and build trust with stakeholders. With ESG and impact investing gaining momentum in SEA, startups that quantify their impact are increasingly attracting funding from both traditional and impact-focused investors.

Models of funding for good

Funding-for-good takes many forms, offering multiple ways for investors to create both impact and returns:

• Equity investment: Buying shares in startups with measurable social or environmental outcomes, sharing in both profits and mission-driven success.
• Sustainability-linked loans: Lending with interest rates tied to achieving specific ESG targets, such as carbon reduction, energy efficiency, or social impact metrics. Lower risk and lower costs reward measurable progress.
• Revenue-sharing or outcome-based financing: Investors receive returns only if certain social or environmental outcomes are met, aligning incentives with real-world impact.
• Blended finance: Combining concessional funding (from donors or development banks) with commercial capital to de-risk investments in high-impact sectors like agriculture, health, or renewable energy.

Also Read: The future of work with AI: 2025 and beyond

Catalysing industry-wide impact and transformation

These finance models, especially sustainability-linked loans (SLLs) are no longer niche financial instruments—they are catalysts for  transformation across Southeast Asia. By tying financing terms to measurable environmental or social outcomes, SLLs incentivise companies to embed sustainability into the core of their operations.

Here’s how different sectors are embracing this model:

Self-storage: StorHub’s green commitment

In 2023, StorHub secured an SG$180 million (US$133.2 million) SLL from CIMB and UOB, marking the first of its kind in Asia’s self-storage sector. The loan’s interest rate is linked to sustainability performance metrics across 13 properties in Singapore, including energy efficiency and carbon footprint reduction. This initiative underscores StorHub’s commitment to integrating ESG principles into its operations.

Beverage industry: ThaiBev’s sustainable growth

Thai Beverage Public Company Limited (ThaiBev) completed a THB 10 billion (US$270 million) SLL with Bank of Ayudhya (Krungsri) in 2024, the first SLL for a local beverage company in Thailand. The loan features Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) related to sustainability targets, aligning with ThaiBev’s commitment to sustainable growth.

Data centres: AirTrunk’s sustainable financing

AirTrunk, a hyperscale data centre operator, closed an A$16 billion (US$10.56 billion) sustainability-linked refinancing package across Australia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Singapore. The financing includes targets for energy and water efficiency, renewable energy uptake, and gender pay equity, aiming for net-zero emissions by 2030.

Supply chain: Goodpack’s green logistics

Goodpack, a Singapore-based sustainable supply chain solution provider, secured a US$790 million SLL coordinated by ING. The loan is the first private equity-backed leveraged SLL in Southeast Asia, supporting Goodpack’s efforts to enhance sustainability in the supply chain industry.

Education: Vinschool’s sustainable expansion

Vinschool Joint Stock Company in Vietnam signed a US$150 million syndicated SLL with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in 2024. The loan supports Vinschool’s initiatives to improve educational infrastructure and access, aligning with sustainable development goals.

Also Read: From Seed to Series: Navigating different funding rounds with PR

These examples illustrate a key trend: SLLs and impact investing are penetrating diverse industries and supply chains, gradually making sustainability a financial and operational priority. For investors, this means climate change is no longer abstract—it’s actionable, measurable, and directly tied to business performance. Companies that adapt not only reduce environmental impact but also position themselves as leaders in a rapidly decarbonising economy, creating long-term value for both shareholders and society.

The investor perspective

It is clear that impact can be quantified, de-risked, and scaled. Funding for good is not charity—it’s smart, long-term value creation. By using modern investment instruments like SAFE, convertible notes, and sustainability-linked loans, investors can both structure risk efficiently and maximise measurable impact.

Funding for good is thus not philanthropy disguised as business; it is a strategic approach to long-term value creation.The question is whether SEA investors will seize this moment to make purpose-driven investment the standard.

The challenge—and opportunity—for investors is to make funding for good the norm rather than the exception. By backing startups that deliver measurable social impact, capital can flow toward ventures that strengthen communities, preserve the planet, and still generate strong financial returns.

The question is: will investors in Southeast Asia lead the charge in proving that doing good and doing well are not only compatible, but profitable for people, planet and profit?

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Image courtesy: Canva Pro

The post Funding for good: A new era appeared first on e27.

As a CTO leading a company that specialises in app development, custom software, AI/ML solutions, and cloud services, I can tell you that many of my peers in the tech world focus heavily on the latest technologies. They chase after the newest frameworks, tools, or innovations. While this is important, I believe there’s something even more critical: trust.

In my years of experience, I’ve come to realise that technology, no matter how advanced, only thrives in an environment of trust. Without it, all the cutting-edge solutions in the world won’t make a real impact. Here’s why trust should be at the heart of everything we do in tech.

The trust factor in software development

When we build apps or custom software for clients, trust is the foundation. Clients must trust us to deliver what we promise on time, within budget, and with a high level of quality. They need to know that we’re not just chasing the latest tech trends, but that we’re focused on building solutions that solve their unique problems.

This trust goes both ways. We also trust our teams. When developers and engineers feel trusted, they’re more likely to be creative, motivated, and focused on delivering top-tier results. They know they have the freedom to innovate and the support they need to succeed.

Building trust in AI and Machine Learning

In the world of AI and ML, trust is even more crucial. These technologies can be transformative, but they’re also often seen as a “black box” mysterious and sometimes even intimidating. To use AI/ML effectively, businesses must trust that the algorithms are working as expected, that the data is secure, and that the models are making decisions in an ethical way.

As a CTO, I’ve always emphasised transparency in AI development. We ensure that our clients understand how we’re training models and making decisions. This openness builds trust, especially when dealing with sensitive data. By offering clear explanations and setting realistic expectations, we can make AI approachable and valuable.

Also Read: Indirect prompt injections: The AI attack vector you didn’t see coming

Cloud services and the trust challenge

Cloud services represent another area where trust is vital. Companies are placing their most important data and systems in the cloud, trusting that they’ll be secure, accessible, and reliable. Any disruption or breach could have severe consequences. That’s why we invest heavily in cloud security, compliance, and reliability.

We don’t just trust the cloud providers we work with — we build trust with our clients by making sure that their data is protected, and that they have 24/7 access to their services. Our commitment to keeping their systems running smoothly is what sets us apart in this competitive space.

Trust is built over time

Trust doesn’t happen overnight. It’s earned through consistent actions. As a CTO, I’ve learned that our clients’ trust is the result of our company’s track record. It’s about delivering on promises, addressing issues when they arise, and always being transparent about our processes.

We focus on long-term relationships, not short-term wins. We want our clients to know that we are always looking out for their best interests, that we aren’t just after the next big tech trend. Instead, we’re focused on making sure their technology works for them, now and in the future.

Trust with your team

I also want to emphasise how trust with your internal team is just as important. As a leader, you must trust your team to make decisions and take responsibility. This empowers them to do their best work. It also fosters a culture of collaboration, where everyone feels their voice is heard and valued.

Technology is ever-evolving, and there will always be new tools and frameworks to learn. But trust is timeless. When your team trusts each other and the leadership, it creates an environment where innovation flourishes.

Also Read: Semiconductors at risk: The invisible threats that could break global supply chains

The bottom line

While many CTOs may obsess over technology, I obsess over trust because I’ve seen firsthand how it drives everything else. Technology can solve problems, streamline processes, and improve business outcomes. But without trust, none of that matters. It’s trust that keeps clients coming back. It’s trust that inspires teams to perform at their best. And it’s trust that allows technology to reach its full potential.

So, while I’m certainly passionate about the latest tech trends and innovations, I never lose sight of the bigger picture. Trust is what makes technology truly powerful. It’s the glue that holds everything together and ensures long-term success. And that’s why, as a CTO, it’s what I obsess over most.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Image courtesy: Canva Pro

The post Most CTOs obsess over tech, I obsess over trust — here’s why appeared first on e27.

The withdrawal of the United States from a range of international climate and energy institutions marks a structural shift in how it exercises influence in global governance. The fiscal savings associated with withdrawal are minor relative to overall federal expenditure. The more consequential effect lies in reduced institutional presence, diminished influence over rule formation, and altered channels of international coordination. You can read about it here, in my earlier piece.

Institutional participation is a form of geopolitical leverage. It provides access to agenda-setting processes, influence over reporting standards, early insight into regulatory direction, and informal coordination channels across states. Even when US leadership has been inconsistent, continued participation preserved the ability to shape, slow, or redirect emerging norms. Withdrawal reduces that capacity.

The global climate and energy system is unlikely to collapse as a result. Major developed economies and climate-vulnerable states continue to support multilateral engagement. However, governance influence will shift toward actors that remain active. Standards, methodologies, and financing frameworks will increasingly reflect their priorities. The system will persist, but with greater fragmentation and reduced US shaping power.

For startup ecosystems, this matters because climate and energy governance operates upstream of markets. Definitions of “renewable,” “transition,” “carbon-neutral,” and “sustainable” influence procurement rules, capital allocation, disclosure requirements, and trade conditions. When institutional influence shifts, startup operating environments shift with it.

The most likely systemic outcome is regulatory divergence. Carbon accounting systems may differ across jurisdictions. ESG disclosure regimes may lose harmonisation. Hydrogen classification and transition taxonomies may evolve along separate tracks, look at how nuclear energy has become the hot topic when it was hydrogen a couple years ago. For multinational companies, this increases compliance complexity. For startups, it introduces market segmentation risk at an earlier stage.

Influence over climate governance will redistribute rather than disappear. The European Union is positioned to expand regulatory influence. China will likely continue emphasising infrastructure scale and manufacturing dominance. Middle powers will gain greater negotiation space. The United States is likely to exercise influence more through bilateral agreements and industrial policy than through institutional leadership.

Also Read: Why I’m trading bytes for atoms: The 65-year-old investor breaking the climate tech silos

Within this broader geopolitical adjustment, Southeast Asia occupies a strategically significant position.

Southeast Asia is characterised by rapid energy demand growth, high climate exposure, infrastructure deficits, and dependence on external capital and technology. It does not define global standards but implements them. Changes in institutional engagement by major powers, therefore, affect the region primarily through capital flows, project structures, and compliance frameworks.

A structural transfer of climate leadership from the United States to Southeast Asia is unlikely. The region does not possess equivalent research depth, capital scale, or institutional agenda-setting capacity. However, selective reallocation effects are plausible.

As regulatory uncertainty increases in advanced economies, investors may seek high-growth deployment markets. Southeast Asia’s energy transition requires:

• Grid expansion
• Distributed energy systems
• Storage deployment
• Climate adaptation infrastructure

These are capital-intensive sectors with clear demand fundamentals. Private capital may therefore allocate incrementally more toward the region, not as a governance substitute, but as a growth destination.

The geopolitical shift also increases the likelihood of bilateral, project-based engagement. If US climate diplomacy becomes more commercially oriented, Southeast Asia could see expanded direct partnerships in liquefied natural gas, grid modernisation, critical minerals cooperation, and energy infrastructure financing. In this context, the region becomes a strategic project arena rather than a co-designer of institutional frameworks.

For startups, the implications are concrete.

• First, market fragmentation increases the value of interoperability. Southeast Asian startups that can design products compliant with multiple reporting regimes and standards frameworks will hold a structural advantage. Regulatory translation and cross-border compatibility become investable capabilities. AI-led green growth is one big space, and I’ve talked extensively about it.
• Second, infrastructure-heavy innovation gains relative importance. Unlike mature markets focused on optimisation, Southeast Asia’s transition requires build-out. Startups in distributed solar, storage integration, grid software, microgrids, climate resilience, and water systems operate in markets defined by execution rather than abstract policy alignment. These sectors are less dependent on multilateral coordination and more dependent on capital mobilisation and public-private partnership structures.
• Third, capital formation within the region becomes more important. If global governance becomes less centralised, regional sovereign wealth funds, development banks, and blended finance vehicles may play a larger role in underwriting projects. Startups that understand these capital structures will scale more effectively than those relying exclusively on Silicon Valley or European venture capital.

Also Read: The shifting geopolitics of sustainability, energy, and climate

There are also constraints.

Regulatory harmonisation within ASEAN remains incomplete. Sovereign risk varies significantly across member states. Currency volatility, political transitions, and legal enforcement inconsistencies raise perceived risk for international investors. Deep-technology research infrastructure remains concentrated outside the region. These factors limit the scale of ecosystem migration from advanced economies to Southeast Asia.

The likely outcome is not a wholesale pivot of global clean-tech leadership toward Southeast Asia. Instead, the region becomes a deployment-intensive growth market within a more fragmented geopolitical system. Startups that treat Southeast Asia as an execution platform rather than a governance hub are better aligned with structural realities.

From a geopolitical perspective, the US withdrawal signals a shift from institutional leverage toward industrial and bilateral leverage. For startup ecosystems, this increases the importance of understanding how state power shapes capital flows, standards formation, and infrastructure finance.

For founders and investors operating in Southeast Asia, the core strategic question is not whether global climate governance continues. It is how fragmentation alters funding channels, regulatory pathways, and scaling models.

In a less centralised global system, startup ecosystems become more regionally defined. Southeast Asia’s advantage lies in demand growth, infrastructure needs, and its position between major power blocs. Its vulnerability lies in policy inconsistency and capital dependence.

The long-term trajectory depends less on US disengagement and more on Southeast Asia’s ability to strengthen regulatory coherence, improve project execution, and build institutional credibility. In a geopolitically fragmented climate regime, regions that reduce uncertainty and align capital with infrastructure needs will attract disproportionate innovation activity.

The shift underway is therefore not a transfer of leadership. It is a reordering of how and where clean-tech innovation scales.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of e27.

Join us on Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn to stay connected.

The post Reconfiguration of SEA cleantech ecosystem appeared first on e27.

The global business landscape is currently undergoing a structural shift so profound it has been dubbed the AI Apocalypse. For decades, the global economy has been optimized for a world where human intelligence was the primary scarce resource. We are now witnessing the “unwind” of that premium. As machine intelligence becomes a competent and rapidly improving substitute for human cognition across a growing range of tasks, the financial systems built upon billable human hours are undergoing a painful, disorderly repricing.

Defining the AI apocalypse

The term “AI Apocalypse” does not refer to a cinematic doomsday scenario of rogue machines. Instead, it describes an economic “left tail risk” where the rapid adoption of autonomous, agentic AI triggers a mass displacement of white-collar work. According to the viral Citrini Research report, “The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis,” we are entering a period where the traditional value of human-led data synthesis, strategic insight, and process management is being eroded by systems that can perform these functions faster and at a fraction of the cost.

The source of market panic

The current anxiety among investors and professionals stems from the realization that AI is moving beyond simple “copilot” assistance to “agentic” autonomy.

• Agentic AI can execute complex workflows without human intervention.
• This shifts the paradigm from technology augmenting humans to technology replacing the need for human intermediaries.
• The fear is not just about job losses, but a deflationary spiral where the collapse of labor costs leads to a contraction in consumer spending and a fundamental devaluation of service-oriented business models.

High-profile casualties: why Accenture and IBM?

Legacy consulting and IT services giants like Accenture and IBM have found themselves in a unique and uncomfortable position. Historically, these firms thrived on “information asymmetry,” they possessed expertise their clients lacked.

1. Model Conflict: Their revenue models are heavily reliant on billable hours. If AI can produce a 5,000-word strategic white paper in minutes, a task that previously took a team of consultants weeks, the core value proposition of the “billable head” collapses.
2. Cannibalization: To remain relevant, these firms are selling the very AI tools that allow clients to bypass human consultants. They are essentially building their own replacements.
3. Exposure: With massive global workforces, Accenture alone employs over 740,000 people, they carry enormous fixed cost bases that become liabilities if utilization rates drop due to AI-driven efficiency.

Also read: Why Singapore manufacturers must embrace MES for the future

Evidence of the “intelligence crisis” in 2026

Recent developments suggest the scenario described by Citrini Research is already in motion. In early 2026, the market response to new enterprise AI tools from providers like Anthropic saw Accenture stock drop significantly, reflecting an “AI scare trade.”

The “re-pricing” is visible in the divergent narratives between corporate messaging and market valuation:

• Falling Bookings: In late 2025 and early 2026, reports emerged of declining quarterly new bookings for major IT services firms. For instance, Accenture noted a slowdown in its U.S. federal business, with internal sources describing a scramble for work-breakdown structure (WBS) coverage as employees fight for billable projects.
• Booking-to-Revenue Lag: While firms report high “Advanced AI bookings,” there is a noticeable lag in converting these into actual revenue. In December 2025, it was noted that while AI bookings nearly doubled, they represented only a small fraction of total revenue, suggesting that “AI pilots” are not yet replacing the massive revenue streams lost from traditional consulting.
• The End of Transparency: In a telling move during the Q1 fiscal 2026 earnings call, Accenture leadership announced they would stop reporting specific metrics for advanced AI revenue and bookings. The company argued AI is now “pervasive,” but critics view this as a way to mask the potential “cannibalization” where AI projects fail to offset the decline in legacy services.

Strategic vision for the Singapore business community

For businesses in Singapore, the AI Apocalypse presents a critical crossroad. The city-state’s high-value, service-led economy is particularly exposed to the “intelligence unwind,” but also uniquely positioned to lead the transition.

• From Intermediary to Architect: Singaporean firms must move away from being “implementers” of technology to becoming architects of AI-integrated ecosystems.
• Outcome-Based Models: Local businesses should accelerate the shift toward “outcome-based” or “fixed-price” pricing. Relying on billable hours in 2026 is a strategy for obsolescence.
• Sovereign AI and Ethics: As global firms struggle with workforce friction and legacy models, Singaporean enterprises can gain a competitive edge by focusing on “Sovereign AI” and robust AI governance, areas where human oversight remains a high-value, non-negotiable premium.

The AI Apocalypse is not the end of business, but the end of business as we knew it. The firms that survive will be those that embrace their own transformation before the market decides they are no longer necessary.

Also read: Top 5 best ERP software for building material business in Singapore | 2026 guide

Why we write this article

PRbyAI aims to share updated market news using our team’s tech knowledge, helping B2B customers make informed decisions.

About PRbyAI

PRbyAI is a tech-driven Martech startup leveraging cutting-edge AISEO to help customers generate leads and tap into new markets.

—

Want updates like this delivered directly? Join our WhatsApp channel and stay in the loop.

This article was shared with us by PRbyAI

We can share your story at e27 too! Engage the Southeast Asian tech ecosystem by bringing your story to the world. You can reach out to us here to get started.

Featured Image Credit: Canva Images

The post The intelligence unwind: Navigating the AI apocalypse and the consulting crossroad appeared first on e27.

Conversations about equity in the digital economy often begin with representation. We measure the number of women who are founders, the number who work in engineering roles, and the number who hold leadership positions.

These numbers matter. But in practice, the inequalities many founders encounter begin much earlier, often before funding or hiring even enters the picture.

They begin with access to ecosystems.

Before a startup raises capital or gains media attention, there is a quieter question that shapes opportunity: who already understands how the ecosystem works.

The invisible infrastructure of opportunity

Technology ecosystems are built on networks.

Investors frequently meet founders through referrals. Speaking invitations often come through professional networks. Media coverage can begin with relationships that provide context and credibility.

For founders already embedded in these circles, the process can feel natural. For others, especially those entering the startup world for the first time, the pathways are far less obvious.

When I first started building companies, many aspects of the startup ecosystem were unfamiliar to me. Concepts like investor networks, founder communities, and speaking platforms were things I discovered over time rather than systems I was immediately part of.

This experience is not uncommon. Many founders know how to build products or market services, but the broader ecosystem around startups — capital networks, media exposure, and industry platforms — is something they encounter only after they begin building their companies.

Without that awareness, it is difficult even to know where opportunity exists.

Ecosystems compound opportunity

Being part of a network does not guarantee success. However, it can significantly increase the number of opportunities a founder encounters.

Visibility often creates a chain reaction.

A founder who gains exposure may receive speaking invitations. Speaking opportunities can build credibility. Credibility often leads to introductions. Introductions may eventually lead to partnerships or funding conversations.

Each step increases the likelihood of the next.

For founders who begin outside these networks, the challenge is different. They are not only building a company; they are also learning how the ecosystem itself operates.

That learning curve can be steep, particularly in industries where relationships and reputation play a significant role in opening doors.

Also Read: Cybersecurity and trust: A digital dawn for women in rural India 

Partnerships and hiring reflect similar dynamics

The same pattern appears in partnerships and hiring.

Startups frequently seek partnerships that allow them to expand their reach or credibility. Larger organisations often prefer partnering with companies that already demonstrate traction or visibility.

This creates a natural filtering effect. Companies with existing exposure tend to attract more partnership opportunities.

Hiring decisions can follow a similar logic. Many professionals prefer the stability of established companies with clearer career pathways. Startups, by contrast, rely on individuals who are comfortable with uncertainty and risk.

Neither of these patterns is inherently unfair. They are rational decisions from the perspective of individuals and organisations.

However, when combined, they can reinforce ecosystems in which opportunity tends to circulate among those already connected.

The role of AI in expanding reach

Artificial intelligence is often discussed as a tool that could level the playing field for founders. In practice, its impact is more nuanced.

AI primarily amplifies capability.

For founders who already understand how to conduct outreach, build networks, or create content, AI can significantly increase scale. Tasks that previously required teams can now be automated or accelerated.

Outreach campaigns, research, content creation, and operational workflows can be executed far more efficiently.

However, AI does not automatically replace strategic understanding. If someone does not yet know how to approach investors, position themselves publicly, or build professional networks, AI cannot fully bridge that gap.

In many ways, AI functions similarly to a team. It can execute instructions and scale processes, but the direction still comes from the founder.

For those who understand how ecosystems operate, AI can expand its reach. For those still learning, the underlying challenge remains the same: understanding how to navigate the system.

Also Read: Bridging the gender gap in GenAI learning: Strategies to get more women involved

Equity is also about ecosystem transparency

Discussions about equity in tech frequently focus solely on representation. Representation is important, but a wider set of factors influences ecosystems.

Geography, cultural context, and professional exposure all shape how easily someone navigates the startup environment.

In regions with mature startup ecosystems, founders may encounter investors, accelerators, and industry platforms early in their journey. In other regions, these pathways may be less visible or accessible.

Equity, therefore, is not only about who participates in the digital economy. It is also about how transparent and accessible the ecosystem itself is to newcomers.

Lowering the barriers to entry

One of the most meaningful ways to build a more equitable tech ecosystem is by making these pathways clearer.

This can include initiatives such as:

• Sharing knowledge about how investor networks operate
• Creating platforms where emerging founders can gain visibility
• Expanding mentorship and peer networks for early-stage founders
• Making ecosystem knowledge easier to access for those entering the industry

These changes do not eliminate competition or guarantee outcomes. Instead, they reduce the gap between founders who grow up inside startup ecosystems and those who enter them later.

Opportunity should not depend solely on proximity to the right circles.

Building more inclusive digital economies

The digital economy continues to evolve rapidly. Tools such as AI are lowering operational barriers and enabling smaller teams to build and scale companies more efficiently than before.

Yet the flow of opportunity within technology ecosystems is still heavily influenced by networks and access.

As ecosystems expand, the challenge is not only to increase participation but also to make the knowledge, relationships, and pathways that shape opportunity more visible.

When founders understand how these systems work, they can participate more fully and contribute back to the communities that support them.

Stronger ecosystems are not built only through innovation. They are built by ensuring that more people understand how to enter and navigate the opportunities they create.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of e27.

Join us on Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn to stay connected.

The post Why access to ecosystems is tech’s true equality problem appeared first on e27.