For today’s business traveller, the list of essentials has changed. A passport still gets you across the border, but connectivity is no longer something to sort out after landing. It has become part of what makes international travel function in real time.

For business travellers and globally mobile professionals, connectivity is now part of the journey’s basic infrastructure. It supports everything from transport coordination and hotel access to navigation, work tools, and communication across time zones.

That shift is happening at a meaningful scale: GBTA projected global business travel spending to grow from US$1.57 trillion in 2025, with a further 8.1 per cent increase forecast for 2026. The point is not just that more business travel is happening, but that reliable connectivity has become more central to making those trips productive. 

That is also why eSIM is gaining relevance in international travel. Juniper Research forecasts that the number of devices using eSIMs will reach 1.5 billion globally in 2026, up 30 per cent from 1.2 billion in 2025. That growth is not simply about newer technology; it reflects rising demand for more immediate and seamless connectivity across borders. 

In that sense, eSIM is moving beyond being a tech option and becoming a more practical part of how modern travellers stay operational abroad.

Travel no longer begins when you leave the airport

Travel once allowed for a short transition period after landing. Today, that buffer is much smaller, and the first hour after arrival is often the most operationally important part of the trip.

A traveller may need to message a driver, confirm a meeting, access a hotel booking, open a map, receive a one-time password, or coordinate with colleagues in real time. For business travellers, that same window may also include work email, calendar updates, and time-sensitive decisions.

In other words, travel is no longer something people do first and digitise later. It is digital from the start.

That shift matters. When a journey depends on connected services from the first moments after arrival, connectivity stops being a convenience layer and becomes a core travel utility.

This is especially true for professionals who travel frequently across borders. A delayed connection is no longer a minor inconvenience. It can interrupt schedules, slow decisions, and create avoidable disruption at the exact moment continuity matters most.

Also Read: How eSIM can cut costs, boost CX, and simplify global operations for APAC startups

The old ways of staying connected are increasingly misaligned with modern travel

The issue is not a lack of connectivity options. It is that many traditional options no longer match the pace and expectations of modern travel.

Roaming, airport SIM purchases, and physical SIM swapping were built around an older travel model. But business travel has changed faster than those habits have.

Business trips now often span multiple markets. Travellers are expected to stay responsive in transit, and teams coordinate across countries and time zones as a matter of routine. For many professionals, international mobility is no longer exceptional. It is simply part of how work gets done.

That normalisation is reflected in traveller behaviour. GBTA reports that 80 per cent of business travellers surveyed say they now travel for work as much as or more than they did in 2019.

In that context, legacy connectivity habits begin to feel out of place.

Roaming can still create uncertainty around cost and usage. Buying a SIM on arrival adds friction at the very moment travellers want speed and clarity. Physical SIM swapping is also inconvenient for professionals who depend on their primary number or work device.

That is the real issue. The complexity is no longer justified by the moment.

When international travel becomes more connected, more fast-moving, and more digitally dependent, the expectation shifts from “find a way to get online” to “be online when it matters.”

eSIM fits the way people travel now

This is where eSIM is changing the experience.

eSIM matters not just because it removes the physical SIM card, but because it allows connectivity to be planned and activated in a way that better fits modern travel.

Instead of depending on airport counters or last-minute decisions, travellers can arrange connectivity before departure and land with data already set up or ready to activate. Mobile access becomes part of trip preparation, much like flights, hotels, or visas.

• The first benefit is preparedness. Travellers can begin a trip knowing connectivity is already addressed, removing uncertainty from one of the most important parts of international travel.
• The second benefit is immediacy. The first minutes after landing become easier when maps, messaging, ride-hailing, email, and booking platforms are already within reach.
• The third benefit is continuity. For travellers moving across countries, eSIM reduces the repeated friction of managing separate local SIMs or making new purchase decisions at each border.
• The fourth benefit is simplicity. Professionals are not looking for more telecom decisions while they are travelling. They are looking for fewer interruptions.

That is why eSIM is becoming more relevant. It aligns with what international travellers value most: predictability, speed, and smoother movement across borders.

Also Read: The impact of eSIM on international roaming and travel

Market adoption is moving in the same direction. Juniper Research forecasts that the number of travel eSIM users globally will grow from 40 million in 2024 to more than 215 million by 2028.

This is not just a traveller benefit, it is an enterprise one

The significance of this shift extends beyond individual convenience.

For businesses, travel connectivity has a direct effect on employee productivity, coordination, punctuality, and travel experience. Small moments of delay may seem minor in isolation, but they add up quickly across larger teams, more frequent trips, and tighter travel schedules.

A traveller who cannot access directions, transport, work platforms, authentication tools, or communication channels on arrival is not simply inconvenienced. They are temporarily disconnected from the systems that help the trip function as planned.

For enterprises with regional teams, mobile workforces, client-facing employees, or frequent international travel needs, that matters. Connectivity is part of operational readiness.

Seen through that lens, eSIM is not just a consumer travel upgrade. It is part of a broader shift toward making international travel more seamless and work-ready, helping employees stay connected, reachable, and productive with less friction.

As companies think more seriously about travel efficiency and employee experience, connectivity deserves to be part of that conversation.

The list of travel essentials has changed

Cross-border travel now depends on digital continuity in ways that were far less critical even a decade ago. Crossing a border is no longer just a physical movement. It is also the point at which travellers need to stay connected to the tools and systems that keep the journey moving.

That is why the definition of a travel essential is expanding.

A passport still gets you across the border. But in practical terms, connectivity is what helps you function once you do.

eSIM is gaining relevance because it is better suited to a travel environment where connectivity needs to be ready before disruption begins. As international travel becomes more digital and more time-sensitive, the tools people consider essential will continue to evolve with it.

In that new hierarchy, eSIM is moving closer to the top of the list.

—

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 post The new travel essential: Why eSIM is becoming as important as your passport appeared first on e27.

A few years ago, a global workplace survey landed with a stat that was sharp enough to travel everywhere: 69% of employees said their manager affected their mental health as much as their spouse or partner. It was memorable, slightly uncomfortable, and for many people, not all that surprising.

But the more important point in 2026 is not whether managers matter as much as spouses. It is that everyday management quietly sets the operating conditions for mental health at work.

In my work with Fortune 500 companies across regions, I have seen this play out repeatedly: team strain is rarely driven by one dramatic event, but by the daily management patterns that shape pressure, clarity, pacing and recovery.

That sounds soft until you look at what managers actually control.

Managers shape how much ambiguity people sit with. They influence how quickly teams are expected to respond, how often priorities change, whether meetings swamp the day, whether people can ask for clarification without looking incompetent, and whether pressure comes in short bursts or settles into something more chronic. The World Health Organisation is clear that excessive workloads, low job control, low support, discrimination and job insecurity are all risks to mental health at work. In real organisations, managers often sit right in the middle of those conditions.

This is why the manager question matters more now, not less.

Gallup’s 2025 State of the Global Workplace points to manager engagement as a key pressure point in today’s workplace. When managers are stretched, unsupported, or disengaged, the effects do not stay neatly contained at the manager level. They flow down into the team through poorer communication, less clarity, weaker follow-through, and lower-quality support. Gallup’s argument is simple: if managers are not doing well, teams usually feel it.

That matters in modern work because many teams are not collapsing under one dramatic crisis. They are being worn down by repeated small overloads.

Also Read: The Vietnam startup visa gap: Why founders are renting, not residing

A priority shifts at 4:45 pm. A message arrives marked urgent with no real context. A team member spends the morning in meetings, then has to do their actual work after hours. Another sits on a problem too long because asking early feels risky. None of this looks dramatic in isolation. Together, it creates friction, attention residue, rework and strain.

This is where management becomes behavioural, not theoretical.

A good manager reduces unnecessary load. They create clearer response norms so that everything does not feel equally urgent. They make it easier to raise risks early. They notice when a person needs more clarity, not more pressure. They protect some degree of recovery instead of treating availability as commitment. They know that a team can look functional on paper while quietly leaking energy, judgment, and patience.

That last point is especially important in hybrid and remote work. Gallup’s 2025 reporting found a paradox: remote employees can show higher engagement while also reporting lower well-being. In other words, people may be productive and committed while still feeling more isolated, stressed or emotionally strained. That should be a warning to leaders who still treat performance and well-being as if they naturally move together. Sometimes they do not.

The lazy version of the conversation is to ask whether remote, hybrid or on-site work is best. The better question is what kind of management people are experiencing inside those models.

Are expectations clear?

Do people have enough control over how work gets done?

Is there a realistic path to doing focused work without constant interruption?

Can someone admit they are at capacity before a missed deadline forces the issue?

Can friction be repaired without blame hanging in the air for weeks?

These questions do not sit in a wellbeing programme. They sit in daily management.

This is also why perks so often underperform. Meditation apps, free lunches and one-off resilience workshops may be well-intended, but they cannot compensate for chaotic priorities, poor communication and a manager who signals that boundaries are optional for “real” performers. If the system keeps producing overload, no well-being strategy at the edges will be enough.

Also Read: Excel turns 41 – why it still runs the modern workplace

The practical implication is not that managers should become therapists. It is that leaders need to stop underestimating how much management behaviour shapes cognitive and emotional load.

The strongest managers do a few things consistently.

They reduce ambiguity early. They name what matters most this week. They distinguish between urgent and simply visible. They check in without putting people on the spot. They normalise clarification. They acknowledge effort, then remove blockers. They make it easier for people to recover after friction or mistakes rather than stewing in them. None of this is flashy. All of it changes how work feels in the body and how sustainable performance becomes over time.

This is not about making work endlessly comfortable. Fast-growing companies will always have pressure. Startups, especially, will always face uncertainty, compressed timelines and imperfect information. The question is whether managers turn that reality into useful momentum or into chronic overload.

If leaders want teams that can perform without tipping into constant strain, the most underestimated place to look is not the app budget or the wellness calendar. It is the quality of everyday management.

Because long before burnout shows up in an exit interview, it is often being shaped in smaller moments: how pressure is communicated, how support is offered, what gets rewarded, and whether ambitious work is pursued in ways people can actually sustain.

—

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 post The manager effect: What really shapes wellbeing at work appeared first on e27.

A few weeks ago, I noticed something small but telling.

In a workshop setting, a group of capable adults hesitated before making simple decisions. Not because the task was difficult, but because they were looking for the “right answer.”

This behaviour isn’t new. What’s new is the environment we’re placing it in.

AI agents are no longer just supporting work. They are starting to make decisions inside workflows — prioritising tasks, drafting responses, recommending actions. Increasingly, those outputs are accepted with minimal challenge.

That shift deserves closer attention.

From tool to decision layer

Traditional software helped people execute faster. AI agents introduce a different layer — they don’t just assist, they interpret and act.

In practical terms:

• A single operator can now handle work that previously required multiple roles
• Decision cycles are shorter
• Outputs are more standardised

For startups and lean teams across Southeast Asia, this is a clear advantage. It enables faster iteration, leaner structures, and lower operational cost — critical in competitive markets like Singapore, Indonesia, and Vietnam.

But it also changes how decisions are made.

The hidden trade-off

When AI agents take over parts of decision-making, fewer decisions are made consciously by humans.

Instead, decisions are:

• Accepted,
• Lightly reviewed,
• Or, passed through.

This reduces friction and increases speed. But over time, it can also reduce critical thinking.

This is not a failure of technology. It is a shift in behaviour.

And behavioural shifts scale quietly.

Also Read: Hospitality needs to treat AI agents like a new channel, not a new feature

Who owns the decision?

AI agents are already embedded in high-impact areas:

• Customer support triage
• Fraud detection
• Hiring filters
• Marketing automation
• Internal knowledge workflows

Across Southeast Asia, companies are actively experimenting with these systems to improve efficiency and scale without proportional headcount growth.

But while agents influence decisions, they do not carry accountability.

When something goes wrong, responsibility still sits with the human or organisation.

The challenge is that ownership becomes blurred when:

• Recommendations are automated
• Decision logic is not fully visible
• Human roles shift from judgment to approval

This creates a grey zone that many teams have not fully addressed.

Where AI agents work well

AI agents perform best in environments where:

• Problems are clearly defined
• Data is structured
• Outcomes are measurable

This includes:

• Workflow automation
• Data processing
• Pattern recognition
• Repetitive decision frameworks

In these areas, agents can significantly improve speed and consistency.

For example, many regional platforms already use AI-assisted systems to:

• Flag suspicious transactions
• Prioritise customer tickets
• Optimise delivery or matching systems

These are strong use cases because the boundaries are clear.

Where they fall short

AI agents struggle in areas that require:

• Contextual judgment
• Understanding of human nuance
• Ethical consideration
• Long-term thinking

These are not edge cases.

Also Read: The one-person company was always possible. AI agents make it probable

They sit at the core of leadership, strategy, and people management.

For instance, deciding whether to:

• Override a customer policy
• Hire a non-traditional candidate
• Pivot a product direction

These decisions depend on factors that extend beyond data patterns.

They require judgment.

The real risk is not replacement

Much of the conversation around AI focuses on job displacement.

A more immediate risk is different:

People are becoming passive in decision-making.

When systems consistently provide “good enough” answers, the incentive to think deeply decreases.

Over time, this can lead to:

• Reduced confidence in independent judgment
• Over-reliance on system outputs
• Weaker decision-making capability at the individual level

For organisations, this is a capability risk.

Not visible in the short term, but significant over time.

What organisations need to design for

As AI agents become more integrated, the question is not just adoption.

It is design.

Specifically:

• Where should decisions remain fully human?
• Where can decisions be assisted, but not automated?
• How do we ensure teams continue to exercise judgment?

Some practical considerations:

• Build review layers, not just approval layers
• Encourage teams to question outputs, not just execute them
• Make decision logic more visible where possible
• Train teams on limitations, not just usage

The goal is not to slow down AI adoption.

It is to prevent silent over-dependence.

Also Read: When AI agents take the lead in decision-making, who answers when they mess up?

A capability worth protecting

Decision-making is not just a function.

It is a capability built through repeated use.

When people stop making decisions — even small ones — that capability weakens.

AI agents will continue to improve. That trajectory is clear.

The more important question is whether human capability improves alongside them, or declines quietly in the background.

Closing thought

AI agents are reshaping how work gets done — compressing roles, accelerating execution, and redefining team structures.

But they should not replace one critical function:

Human judgment.

Because organisations don’t just run on efficiency.

They run on people who can think, question, and take responsibility when it matters.

—

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 post When AI agents start deciding, what happens to human judgment? appeared first on e27.

US equity futures advanced in early trading, with Nasdaq 100 futures gaining 0.9 per cent and S&P 500 futures up 0.4 per cent in Asian sessions, supported by strong after-hours results from Alphabet and Amazon.

This optimism meets a sobering reality as Brent crude surged 1.9 per cent to US$120.30 a barrel, a level not seen since mid-2022, driven by uncertainty over a potential blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. The Federal Reserve’s decision to hold interest rates steady at 3.50 per cent to 3.75 per cent on Wednesday, with Chair Powell explicitly citing elevated inflation and geopolitical uncertainty, sets a cautious tone that permeates every asset class.

Corporate earnings provide both relief and concern. Alphabet and Amazon shares climbed in late-session trading, reinforcing the ongoing AI-investment boom that continues to drive capital allocation across technology. Meta Platforms told a different story, slumping in after-hours trading as investors questioned the sustainability of its high capital expenditure levels.

Qualcomm’s 13 per cent rally on significant progress in the data-centre market signals that semiconductor demand remains robust beyond traditional end markets. All eyes now turn to Apple, set to report earnings today, which will serve as the final major test for the Magnificent Seven this season. The divergence among these names reflects a market that is increasingly selective about which growth narratives merit premium valuations in a higher-rate environment.

Geopolitical tensions dominate the macro backdrop. Reports of a US naval blockade and an escalating conflict in Iran have injected volatility into energy markets, while the UAE’s reported exit from OPEC adds another layer of supply-side uncertainty. Asian shares fell at the open on Thursday, with the ASX 200 also opening lower as investors reacted to the oil shock.

The Core PCE Price Index data for March, expected during this session, will serve as a critical input for the Fed’s next policy assessment. This confluence of factors creates a market environment in which traditional correlations break down, and risk assets face heightened scrutiny.

Also Read: Why institutional money is buying crypto while geopolitical risks mount

Within this complex backdrop, crypto-focused equities tell a particularly revealing story. Listed crypto plays experienced a broad sell-off, with Robinhood dropping about 14 per cent after reporting a 47 per cent year-over-year collapse in crypto transaction revenue. Coinbase, Bullish, Gemini, Riot, and Marathon all declined roughly six to eight per cent on the day, while MicroStrategy fell about four per cent.

Across the same window, Bitcoin traded just below US$76,000, down only 0.5 per cent to 1.5 per cent. This divergence underscores a critical distinction that many investors overlook: crypto-linked equities behave more like leveraged technology and fintech exposures than like Bitcoin itself.

From my perspective, this dynamic reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how macro forces transmit through different layers of the digital asset ecosystem. When oil prices surge toward US$120 a barrel, headline inflation expectations rise, pushing Treasury yields higher and compressing multiples for long-duration, speculative equities.

Crypto exchanges depend on trading volumes that have already weakened, while miners operate capital-intensive businesses perceived as highly cyclical. These characteristics make their stocks particularly sensitive to shifts in macro risk appetite, even when the underlying cryptocurrency demonstrates relative resilience.

The market’s reaction reveals that investors still price crypto equities through a traditional growth-stock lens rather than appreciating the unique value accrual mechanisms of decentralised protocols.

Three variables warrant close attention moving forward.

• First, oil prices and war headlines: sustained crude above US$100 per barrel keeps inflation pressure elevated and delays the timeline for rate cuts, creating a persistent headwind for high-beta crypto equities.
• Second, central bank signals: if the Fed or other major central banks adopt a more hawkish stance in response to energy-driven inflation, equity multiples for speculative sectors face further compression.
• Third, sector fundamentals: upcoming earnings from listed exchanges and miners will reveal whether the current selloff reflects pure macro beta or signals weakening business models. Crypto volumes, fee trends, power costs, and pivots toward AI and high-performance computing will all factor into this assessment.

Also Read: While you were sleeping: Iran closed a critical oil route and crypto exploits

The latest slide in crypto-related stocks reflects a macro shock rather than a crypto-specific failure. Surging oil prices feed inflation worries, pin interest rates higher, and punish high-beta, speculative equities across the board.

For investors navigating this landscape, the key distinction is recognising that listed brokers and miners have dual exposure: they participate in Bitcoin cycles while remaining vulnerable to energy-driven macro cycles. Monitoring oil trajectories, Fed expectations, and sector-specific earnings becomes essential when assessing risk in these vehicles versus holding the underlying digital assets.

Mainstream narratives often conflate spot crypto performance with equity proxies, but the transmission mechanisms differ substantially. In a world where geopolitical risk and monetary policy intersect with technological innovation, clarity about these distinctions separates informed positioning from reactive trading.

The path forward demands attention to both the macro forces shaping all risk assets and the unique fundamentals driving decentralised networks. Only by holding both lenses can investors navigate the volatility ahead with conviction rather than confusion.

—

The post Crypto plunges, big tech earnings are strong. So why are markets nervous? appeared first on e27.

The Asia-Pacific startup ecosystem is entering a period defined by uncertainty. Markets are tightening, regulations are shifting, and online outrage cycles can erupt within minutes. For tech founders, this volatility creates a new reality: a single misstep in communication can undo years of work. Companies with strong fundamentals can lose trust overnight. Teams can be blindsided by narratives they did not create but are forced to respond to under pressure.

In this environment, communications readiness is no longer a nice-to-have. It is a strategic advantage. Startups that anticipate risk, prepare clear messaging, and build strong stakeholder relationships move through crises with far less damage. Those without a plan often learn, painfully, that silence and improvisation do not protect reputation. They accelerate the collapse.

Crisis readiness is not about predicting every threat. It is about building the communication muscle to respond with clarity, speed, and honesty when uncertainty strikes.

Why APAC founders face greater exposure

Asia-Pacific founders operate in a landscape that amplifies communication challenges. The region’s diversity in culture, regulation, and consumer expectations makes every crisis more complex to manage.

• Regulatory landscapes shift faster in APAC: New data, fintech, AI, and content regulations can emerge without long lead time. A product feature that is compliant today can raise questions tomorrow. Founders who do not track regulatory trends or prepare proactive communication often end up reacting defensively under scrutiny.
• Social media backlash escalates quickly: APAC countries have some of the world’s highest social media usage. A single negative post can become a national conversation. Screenshots travel across borders. Local outrage can become regional within hours. This speed punishes unprepared founders and rewards companies that know how to step in early with context and accountability.
• The region expects transparency but rarely receives it: Consumers across APAC have become far more informed and vocal. They expect companies to explain decisions, admit errors, and show responsibility. Yet many founders still rely on closed-door communication styles. This mismatch creates credibility gaps during crises.
• Investor pressure is intense: Many APAC investors still prioritise operational discipline and responsible scaling. A communication slip is often interpreted as a leadership slip. Founders who cannot manage narratives risk damaging relationships with the people keeping the company funded.

These factors create an environment where every tech company, regardless of size, is one unforeseen event away from a reputational crisis.

The new crisis realities for startups

Crises today are not always dramatic. Most begin quietly. A product downtime. A misunderstood feature. An unexplained policy update. A user complaint is gaining traction. A regulatory notice. A viral tweet framed without context.

The danger is not always the event. The danger is the vacuum.

If a company does not fill that vacuum with clear information, social media, competitors, and speculation will fill it for them. The narrative forms before founders even realise something is wrong.

Modern crisis management is therefore less about putting out fires and more about preventing those fires from defining the company.

Also Read: How efficient communication drives positive relationships in product development

Why communication is a leadership skill, not a PR task

A crisis exposes the founder more than the product. Teams, investors, and customers look for signals of clarity and composure. Poor communication from the top accelerates panic. Strong communication reduces fear.

Effective crisis communication from founders depends on three qualities:

• Clarity: Unclear statements, vague explanations, or defensive messaging worsen the situation. Founders must deliver direct, jargon-free communication that addresses the issue, the impact, and the next steps.
• Speed: Waiting to respond usually backfires. The early message does not have to be perfect. It has to be real, acknowledging the situation and promising more details soon.
• Accountability: People do not demand perfection from companies. They demand ownership. Founders who accept responsibility, empathise with those affected, and outline corrective action recover faster.

Communication is not spin. It is leadership in public.

The essential elements of a crisis-ready communications strategy

A crisis-ready founder does not rely on improvisation. They have systems, frameworks, and relationships in place long before something goes wrong.

Below are the components every APAC startup should build today.

• A clear crisis response protocol

Every team should know:

• Who speaks
• Who approves messaging
• Who coordinates internal communication
• Who handles investors, customers, and regulators

This prevents delays and confusion, which are two of the biggest drivers of damage.

• Pre-approved messaging foundations

Founders should maintain templates for:

• Outage acknowledgements
• Data issue statements
• Compliance clarifications
• Apology formats
• Social media responses
  

These are not “copy-paste documents,” but structured starting points that save time when pressure hits.

• A single source of truth for updates

During crises, people search for information everywhere. If messages differ slightly across channels, trust erodes.

Founders must establish:

• One primary channel for official updates
• A consistent rhythm of communication
• A clear escalation plan based on new developments
  

Consistency protects credibility.

Also Read: How business leaders can utilise generative AI in employee communications

• Strong relationships with media before you need them

The worst time to meet the press is during a crisis. Founders should invest in relationship-building when times are calm. When journalists already understand your company, they approach crises with context instead of suspicion.

A strong media relationship does not prevent negative coverage, but it leads to fairer, more accurate reporting.

• Internal communication that prevents team panic

In APAC companies, internal silence is often interpreted as internal trouble. Teams begin to speculate, which spreads misinformation. Clear internal communication helps employees act as informed advocates instead of confused observers.

Employees who understand the situation can support, not destabilise, the company.

• Scenario planning for realistic threats

Founders should identify their top five likely crisis scenarios. For example:

• Service downtime
• Regulatory notice
• Data vulnerability
• Public criticism from an influencer
• A viral customer complaint
  

Practising these scenarios builds the reflexes needed during real events.

Also Read: Why Asia is the next growth engine for PR and communications

Why preparedness is the new competitive advantage

Startups that prepare for crises often emerge stronger than before. They demonstrate maturity, stability, and leadership under pressure. Investors notice. Customers notice. Talent notices.

The ability to communicate clearly during uncertainty signals that the company can scale responsibly in a volatile region.

Startups that hope crises never happen often find themselves overwhelmed when they do. Preparation reduces risk, protects reputation, and strengthens relationships.

In a region as complex as Asia-Pacific, where volatility moves faster than most teams can react, crisis-ready communication is no longer optional. It is a core part of building a resilient company.

When a crisis hits, founders do not rise to the level of their ambition. They fall to the level of their preparation.

—

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 post Why APAC founders must treat communication as a leadership skill, not a PR task appeared first on e27.

Exhibitions remain one of the most widely used channels for business development across industries. They provide concentrated access to potential customers, partners, and distributors within a short period of time.

Yet despite the scale of investment, the outcomes often fall short of expectations.

In many cases, the issue is not the quality of the meetings. It is what happens after the event.

Across multiple industries and regions, a consistent pattern appears: A significant portion of exhibition leads never progress into meaningful business conversations.

The gap is rarely strategic. It is operational.

The overlooked stage of the pipeline

Most organisations invest heavily in preparation.

They design booths, train staff, schedule meetings, and prepare marketing materials. Performance during the event is often measured by visible indicators such as:

• Number of visitors
• Number of business cards collected
• Number of product demonstrations conducted

These metrics provide a sense of activity. However, they do not necessarily reflect progress toward revenue.

The stage that determines long-term outcomes begins after the event ends.

Follow-up execution — not initial engagement — is where momentum is either sustained or lost.

Why follow-up breaks down

Through repeated observation in exhibition-driven sales environments, three structural causes appear consistently.

Information is captured without context

Teams often record contact details but fail to capture decision-relevant information.

For example:

• Level of interest or urgency
• Role in the decision-making process
• Specific needs discussed
• Agreed next steps

Without this context, follow-up communication becomes generic.

And generic communication rarely advances a business relationship.

Also Read: The real opportunity in ASEAN’s EV market lies in regional coordination

Responsibility becomes unclear after the event

During the exhibition, roles are well defined.

Sales teams engage visitors. Marketing teams manage materials. Operations teams coordinate logistics.

After the event, ownership of follow-up activities is often less clear.

Questions emerge:

• Who should initiate the next conversation?
• Who tracks the progress of each contact?
• Who ensures that commitments made during the meeting are fulfilled?

When responsibility is ambiguous, execution slows down.

Follow-up is treated as an action rather than a process

Many organisations view follow-up as a single step.

Send an email. Make a call. Share additional information.

In practice, effective follow-up requires a sequence of coordinated actions.

This typically includes:

• Prioritising contacts based on relevance
• Responding within an appropriate timeframe
• Personalising communication based on prior conversations
• Monitoring engagement and scheduling next steps

Without a structured workflow, even promising opportunities lose momentum.

Reframing exhibitions as part of an operational system

A useful shift in perspective is to view exhibitions not as isolated events, but as components of a larger pipeline.

The value of an exhibition is not determined solely by attendance or visibility. It is determined by continuity.

The first meeting establishes relevance. Subsequent actions establish trust.

Organisations that recognise this distinction tend to design their workflows differently.

Instead of optimising only for lead generation, they optimise for relationship progression.

Also Read: Beyond the booth: How tech companies can win at events

The role of collaboration in strengthening execution

Addressing post-event execution challenges often requires coordination across multiple areas of expertise.

Exhibition planning, on-site engagement, and follow-up management are interconnected activities.

When these functions operate independently, information fragmentation becomes more likely. When they are aligned, continuity improves.

For this reason, many organisations are beginning to integrate operational workflows more closely across teams and partners.

The focus is shifting from managing individual events to managing the full lifecycle of a business interaction.

Measuring what actually matters

As organisations refine their approach to exhibition-driven sales, performance measurement is evolving as well.

Execution metrics increasingly complement traditional activity metrics.

Examples include:

• Response rate to follow-up communication
• Number of second meetings scheduled
• Time elapsed between first contact and next action
• Conversion from conversation to qualified opportunity

These indicators provide a clearer view of pipeline health and operational effectiveness.

More importantly, they are actionable.

Teams can improve them through process design and disciplined execution.

Also Read: Building Web3 communities in Vietnam: Lessons from grassroots events

A practical implication for growing companies

For companies expanding into new markets or industries, exhibitions often represent a critical entry point.

They create initial visibility and open conversations that would otherwise take months to establish.

However, the long-term value of these interactions depends less on the event itself and more on the system that supports follow-up.

Organisations that invest in structured post-meeting workflows, including clear ownership, defined timelines, and consistent communication, are more likely to convert early conversations into sustained partnerships.

Conclusion

Exhibitions will continue to play an important role in business development.

But their effectiveness increasingly depends on operational discipline rather than promotional effort.

The most decisive moment is not when a conversation begins. It is when the next step happens.

Companies that design for continuity, not just visibility, are better positioned to translate meetings into measurable outcomes.

—

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 post Why exhibition leads fail, and how companies can build a pipeline that actually converts appeared first on e27.

When was the last time you visited a website to shop or learn something, and felt left out because you couldn’t access it? For many people with disabilities, this is an everyday reality.

Eliminating this exclusion is why accessibility should matter to businesses. Today, we will explore what business accessibility really means – why it matters, what the ROI looks like, and how organisations can build more inclusive experiences for everyone.

With the rise of AI and automation, accessibility is no longer as complex or resource-intensive as it once was. What used to be seen as a compliance burden is increasingly becoming a design and product decision, embedded into how digital experiences are built, scaled, and improved over time.

Why does accessibility matter?

When a product or service is accessible, it means everyone, including people with disabilities, can engage with it fully and independently. Hence, operating an accessible business is not just about complying with regulations but about meeting the needs of a broader customer base in a digital-first world.

Key reasons accessibility matters:

• Inclusivity builds trust: A more accessible product reaches a broader audience and fosters brand loyalty.
• Technology supports accessibility: AI and automation are making accessibility more scalable and efficient to implement.
• Legal requirements are increasing: Many countries now mandate accessibility compliance, especially for digital platforms.

With advancements in AI and assistive technology, accessibility is becoming easier to implement and more impactful than ever. Businesses that embrace it are not only doing the right thing, they are also positioning themselves for long-term success.

Also Read: Empathetic software development: Creating accessibility-first apps for greater inclusivity

The ROI of accessibility

At its core, accessibility drives profitability for businesses. Investing in accessibility yields measurable returns across multiple areas. Here’s how:

• Increased market reach

Around 1 in 4 adults in the US lives with a disability. Increasing accessibility in your business helps you reach a larger audience and invites them in for more engagement. This expands your market reach.

• Improved SEO

Accessible websites follow a clear structure, include alt text, and offer easier navigation, all of which Google loves. What helps a screen reader also helps a search engine. In other words, accessibility and SEO don’t compete; instead, they complement each other beautifully.

• Reduced legal risk

Digital accessibility lawsuits are rising every year. From small startups to global brands, no one is immune. There is also an increase in measures taken to focus on businesses becoming more accessible. Hence, proactive accessibility protects your business from costly legal action and positions your brand as responsible and forward-thinking.

• Better user experience

One last thing to remember is that accessible businesses not just benefit people with disabilities, but they benefit everyone. Features like clear navigation, readable fonts, and video captions enhance usability across the board, think about people with slow internet. Having accessible features improves satisfaction for all users, regardless of ability or context.

How can businesses be more accessible?

Recognising the value of accessibility is the first step. But what does it look like in action? These practical strategies will help you understand how businesses can be more accessible, both sustainably and meaningfully:

• PDF or document accessibility

Documents, especially PDFs, are often where accessibility breaks down. Without proper tagging and formatting, screen readers cannot interpret them, leaving users frustrated.

A dedicated PDF accessibility software can help ensure your digital documents are inclusive, readable, and compliant, without slowing down your workflow.

• Website accessibility

Your website is your storefront. If someone cannot navigate it with a keyboard, read it with a screen reader, or understand its structure, they are more likely to leave and not return due to a poor user experience.

To tackle this website accessibility issue, use clear headings, alt text, accessible colour contrasts, and ensure WCAG compliance from the ground up.

Also Read: Accessibility requirements every startup should know

• Physical accessibility

Accessibility isn’t limited to screens. Think about the layout of your physical space. Are entrances, pathways, and restrooms usable for everyone? Every ramp, every sign, every widened door should send a message: you belong here.

• Closed captions and transcripts

Words matter, especially when they are visible. Closed captions and transcripts not only support users with hearing impairments but also boost comprehension, engagement, and even searchability. This feature makes a business accessible by being a simple fix that creates a big impact.

• Employee training

Tools and checklists only go so far. Real change happens when people understand the “why” behind accessibility. Training your team builds a culture of inclusion and empowers them to create with empathy, not just for efficiency.

Continue monitoring and updating

Making a business accessible isn’t just a one-time project. It is a continuous process that requires regular auditing to stay current with evolving standards and user feedback. Moreover, it is also not just about making your business legally compliant, but also about aligning your brand with ethical values so that all individuals feel included.

—

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 post Why accessibility matters: Reach more customers, reduce risk, and build trust appeared first on e27.

Southeast Asia’s AI story is often told as a race to build models or launch chatbots. The more immediate opening may be smaller and more practical: software agents that reduce fraud losses, clear operational backlogs, and automate repetitive casework inside large local industries. That matters in a region where the digital economy reached US$263 billion in gross merchandise value in 2024, yet trust, labour constraints, and uneven software adoption still slow execution, according to Google, Temasek, and Bain.

The first real gap is not intelligence but operational drag

The strongest case for AI agents in Southeast Asia is not that companies suddenly need more ideas. It is that many still run important processes through spreadsheets, email chains, call-centre queues, manual reviews, and fragmented software.

That makes payments operations, scam detection, BPO workflows, and hospital administration better targets than general-purpose assistants. These are environments where tasks repeat at scale, errors are expensive, and buyers can measure whether a product actually reduces handling time, fraud leakage, or case backlog.

Google, Temasek, and Bain say AI adopters in the region are already realising returns within 12 months. That is a useful signal for founders: in Southeast Asia, the first winning agent startups are likely to sell cost reduction and process reliability before they sell autonomy.

Fraud and compliance may be the clearest wedge

If one category looks especially underbuilt, it is digital trust. Singapore’s annual scam brief put 2024 scam losses at about S$1.1 billion, while the same e-Conomy SEA 2024 research found that half of digital users had already fallen victim to online scams despite feeling confident they could detect them.

That creates room for agentic products that sit inside existing financial and commerce workflows: transaction monitoring, merchant-risk review, scam-pattern escalation, claims triage, customer outreach, and internal investigation support. These are not glamorous use cases, but they map directly to budgets because the cost of doing nothing is already visible.

Also Read: Hospitality needs to treat AI agents like a new channel, not a new feature

The region’s policy conversation also points in this direction. ASEAN’s expanded guidance on generative AI highlights deepfakes, inaccurate outputs, privacy, and malicious activity as material risks, which means products that improve verification, auditability, and safe human handoff may have a more credible path to adoption than agents that try to operate unchecked.

The Philippines shows why back-office agents matter

The second major opening sits in business-process work. Reuters reported that the Philippine IT-BPM industry was on track for US$38 billion in revenue and 1.82 million jobs in 2024, with an industry roadmap targeting up to US$59 billion by 2028. That is exactly the kind of large, process-heavy market where agents can create value without needing fully autonomous decision-making.

A credible startup here would not try to replace entire teams. It would target narrower pain points such as case summarisation, post-call compliance checks, workflow routing, multilingual knowledge retrieval, or quality assurance for voice and chat operations. In those settings, the product succeeds only if it works with existing CRMs, ticketing systems, and service-level agreements.

This is also why the market remains underexploited. Local buyers may be interested in AI, but deploying agents inside live customer operations requires strong integration, careful change management, and clear accountability when outputs are wrong. Even in Singapore, IMDA said only 14.5 per cent of SMEs adopted AI in 2024, up from 4.2 per cent a year earlier, which suggests willingness is rising faster than readiness.

Healthcare administration is a harder market but a real one

Healthcare is often discussed as a moonshot AI category, but the nearer opportunity in Southeast Asia is less about diagnosis than administration. Philips, citing WHO estimates, said the region could face a 6.9 million health-worker shortage by 2030, while surveyed professionals pointed to burnout from non-clinical work and concern about growing patient backlogs.

That makes scheduling, referrals, documentation, discharge coordination, and claims preparation more plausible starting points. An agent that reduces clerical load for nurses, front-desk teams, or care coordinators may be easier to validate and regulate than one that makes frontline clinical judgments.

Also Read: The one-person company was always possible. AI agents make it probable

The same constraint applies across the region: the best products will be the ones that respect low-trust environments. Founders need to assume patchy data, mixed-language workflows, limited technical staff, and buyers who want human oversight embedded from day one.

Early signals are real, but the bar is higher than hype suggests

There are signs that agent-native companies are starting to form. Tech in Asia reported that 35 Southeast Asian startups had raised at least US$1 million for agentic AI products by early 2026, while Singapore-based Level3AI announced a US$13 million seed round to expand enterprise voice and chat automation. Antler separately said it invested US$7.4 million across Southeast Asian AI startups in the first half of 2025, including seven companies through an AI residency in Singapore.

Still, these are early signals, not proof that the region has found its defining winners. The agent startups most likely to work in Southeast Asia will be narrow, local, and deeply operational: they will sell into industries with measurable pain, build around regulation instead of around it, and keep a human in the loop where trust is low.

For founders, investors, and ecosystem builders, the call is straightforward. Stop asking where the region’s AI equivalent of a universal assistant will come from, and start backing teams that can remove a costly hour, a missed payment flag, or a hospital admin bottleneck from a real workflow in Southeast Asia. That is where the gold rush is likely to become a business.

—

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 post Southeast Asia’s AI agent opening is in messy workflows appeared first on e27.

Building a startup in Southeast Asia today can feel like surviving in a vast, deep ocean. The ecosystem is growing, capital is selective, regulatory scrutiny is sharper, and competition is higher.

Founders focus on product, fundraising, and growth loops. That is necessary. But many ignore one of the most reliable growth levers: reputation. And building it does not require a big budget. It requires intention and consistent communication.

According to Burson, companies with strong reputations can realise up to 4.78 per cent in additional unexpected annual shareholder returns. Other studies show that startups with consistent media coverage attract venture capital faster, close funding rounds efficiently, enjoy lower customer acquisition costs, and outperform weaker brands financially.

Reputation in 2026 measurable. And it is a growth advantage. The question is not whether you can afford to invest in it. The question is whether you can afford not to.

Reputation as a tangible asset: The business case for startups

Reputation is no longer a soft concept; it has financial value. Burson estimates the global Reputation Economy at US$7.07 trillion. 

We have seen this clearly in Southeast Asia. When Grab acquired Uber’s Southeast Asia operations in 2018, part of its advantage was reputation. Grab had a long-term commitment to working with regulators. It was trusted. That credibility mattered in a fragmented regulatory environment.

An inverse example is the low-trust environment of e-commerce. Carousell was an early leader. But when security concerns hit the industry amidst the rise in scams, Shopee’s reputation for buyer protection insulated it. Today, Shopee is exponentially larger.

Reputation shapes outcomes. It protects, attracts, and compounds. Yet many founders treat it as a luxury, or only as a checklist item.

Also Read: Why startups should prioritise brand reputation from day one

Why communications cannot be an afterthought

Many founders delay communications because it feels cosmetic, expensive, or premature.

In reality, communications is tightly linked to core business outcomes. How a company positions itself influences fundraising conversations, hiring quality, partnership opportunities, and even how regulators interpret its intent.

Left unmanaged, perception forms anyway. The risk is not a lack of visibility, but misalignment between what a company is building and how it is understood.

Early-stage communication should focus on clarity. What problem is being solved, why it matters, and why this team is credible. When done well, visibility becomes a byproduct of coherence, not the objective.

Start early: Consistency beats perfection

Many startups wait until they feel “ready” to communicate. That threshold is often unclear and constantly shifting.

Start earlier than feels comfortable.

Progress builds trust more effectively than polished narratives. Sharing what is being built, along with the challenges and trade-offs involved, creates a more credible signal than occasional, highly curated updates.

Silence, on the other hand, creates ambiguity. And ambiguity rarely works in a startup’s favour.

Messaging matters: Balancing the three C’s

Execution without messaging clarity creates noise. A useful way to structure communication is across three dimensions:

• Corporate: business fundamentals, vision, governance. Why should stakeholders take this company seriously?
• Concept: product, technology, differentiation. Why does this solution matter now?
• Community: human connection, brand story, ecosystem. Why should people care?

Startups often over-index on product. But technology without credibility feels fragile, while credibility without connection feels distant.

Reputation sits at the intersection of all three.

Also Read: With AI comes huge reputational risks: How businesses can navigate the ChatGPT era

Adapt to context: Southeast Asia is not a single market

Communications is context-dependent.

Southeast Asia is frequently treated as a single region, but media environments, regulatory sensitivities, and audience expectations differ significantly across markets. What works in Malaysia may not translate in the Philippines. What resonates in Singapore may fall flat in Indonesia.

This requires adaptation at multiple levels, from messaging to channel selection to how success is measured.

A single approach may be efficient, but it is rarely effective.

From episodic visibility to sustained credibility

Not all external communication is equal. One-off announcements can generate attention, but they do not build a reputation on their own.

Reputation is cumulative. It is shaped by consistency, clarity, and how a company shows up over time.

Startups that treat communication as an ongoing function, rather than a series of campaigns, tend to build stronger credibility. This has practical implications. Investors engage faster, customers convert with more confidence, and external stakeholders require less persuasion.

Building a startup will always involve uncertainty. Reputation does not remove that uncertainty, but it changes how others respond to it.

In Southeast Asia’s current environment, that shift can be a meaningful advantage.

—

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 post Why reputation is the new growth hack for startups appeared first on e27.

Around a week before I started writing this, I saw a job post on social media that was everywhere. It got a lot of attention, so I clicked to see why. The requirements were:

• Minimum bachelor’s degree.
• More than 15 years of work experience.
• Under 25 years old.

There were plenty of other detailed requirements, too, all tied to the role itself.

My first thought was that it had to be a typo. But after a few minutes, I started thinking about it differently. What if it was not a mistake? What if the recruiter was genuinely looking for someone young, flexible, and still able to deliver senior-level output?

It sounds extreme, but plenty of companies are looking for someone like this.

Why SMEs create unrealistic roles

Most SMEs do not create impossible roles because they like setting impossible standards. They do it because they are under pressure. They need growth, speed, and solid execution, but they often cannot afford multiple hires or senior-heavy teams.

The work still needs to get done. Marketing, operations, customer support, hiring, and admin all have to keep moving. But instead of building a team with clear roles, they squeeze several responsibilities into one position. They look for someone who can think strategically, move fast, adapt easily, and work with very little support. Sometimes they are not hiring for one role at all. They are really asking one person to carry the weight of several jobs.

At the core, they are trying to solve a real business problem with limited resources. 

Why AI agents make this fantasy feel possible

This is where AI agents start to change the picture.

The idea of one person doing the work of several people no longer feels unrealistic. When one employee has AI tools that can draft emails, summarise documents, organise information, suggest ideas, and automate repetitive tasks, that person can suddenly work much faster.

That is a big part of why AI agents are so attractive, especially for lean businesses. They feel efficient, flexible, and scalable. They can help marketers come up with content ideas, summarise campaign results, and prepare reports. They can help recruiters screen CVs, draft outreach messages, and manage interview schedules. In short, they can take a lot of repetitive work off people’s plates.

Also Read: Hospitality needs to treat AI agents like a new channel, not a new feature

And this is not just hype anymore. McKinsey’s 2024 global survey found that 65 per cent of respondents said their organisations were already using generative AI regularly in at least one business function. That does not mean AI is replacing entire roles, but it does show that companies are starting to treat it as a practical tool for everyday work, not just an experiment.

From a business point of view, the appeal is clear. AI agents look like a way to increase output without immediately adding headcount.

The real barrier is not only technology, but trust

The hardest part of using AI agents is not just the technology itself. It is trust, judgment, and the discipline to use them well.

It is fairly easy to trust AI with first drafts, summaries, or simple admin work. It gets much harder when the task involves customer communication, compliance, or decisions that depend on context. That is usually where hesitation starts.

I do not fully trust AI agents all the time. Some tasks that seem simple enough to hand over still do not come back as well as I expect. Sometimes the output is wrong. Sometimes the judgment is off.

And businesses know those mistakes are not always minor. A weak internal summary can be fixed. A poor customer response can damage trust. A compliance mistake can create much bigger problems.

You can see this gap between experimentation and real confidence at the company level, too. McKinsey reported in 2025 that while almost all companies are investing in AI, only one per cent believe they are truly mature in how they use it. The same report says the biggest barrier to scaling AI is not employees, but leadership not moving the change forward fast enough. That matters because many companies talk about AI as if it is just a tool issue, when in reality it is also a management and workflow issue.

So the real question is not just whether AI agents can do the task. It is whether businesses are comfortable relying on them when accuracy, accountability, and judgment really matter.

What AI agents might quietly take away from workers, especially junior talent

This is the part of the conversation I think we should pay more attention to.

A lot of the work AI agents are starting to handle is repetitive, low-risk, and operational. But that is also where many junior employees used to learn. That first layer of work was never just simple work. It was often where people built judgment, picked up context, and grew professionally.

Think about a junior marketer who no longer has to come up with content ideas, write campaign summaries, or prepare monthly reports, or a junior recruiter who no longer needs to screen resumes, schedule interviews, or manage candidate documents. A lot of junior employees used to learn through exactly these kinds of tasks. By drafting, organising, following up, researching, and handling simpler work first, they built pattern recognition, confidence, and judgment over time. 

Also Read: AI agents and the new rules of business execution

If AI agents absorb too much of that layer, companies may become more efficient in the short term, but weaker in the long term. If junior employees do not get enough real experience, where will future managers and specialists come from?

That is why AI adoption should not only be framed as a productivity story. It should also be part of a capability-building conversation. A company can save time today and still create a talent problem for itself tomorrow.

What companies should do instead

This is why businesses should stop thinking about AI agents only as a replacement tool and start treating them as a work redesign tool.

The better question is not, “How many people can AI replace?” It is, “Which tasks should AI take on, which should stay human, and which should be done together?”

AI agents are useful for repetitive admin, first drafts, summaries, sorting information, and process support. Humans are still better at relationship-building, final decisions, ethical judgment, and high-stakes communication. In most cases, the strongest model is not AI alone or human alone, but humans working with AI.

AI can also raise the floor for less-experienced teams. It can help people perform more consistently in areas like drafting, research, reporting, coordination, and execution. But exceptional talent will still stand out. Judgment, creativity, systems thinking, leadership, and taste are still much harder to compress.

That matters because it changes what company-building can look like. A business in Singapore or Australia, for example, may not need one person to do everything locally. It may make more sense to keep the most strategic roles close to home, build human teams in emerging talent markets like Indonesia or the Philippines, and let those teams work alongside AI agents.

That model can work across many functions, from software development to finance and accounting to sales and marketing. The goal is not to replace people. It is to build a more realistic and scalable way of working around them.

For SMEs especially, this matters. The answer is not to keep searching for one magical employee who can do everything. The smarter move is to build better systems around real people.

Also Read: The one-person company was always possible. AI agents make it probable

The end of the all-in-one employee

AI agents will absolutely change the way companies work. They will raise expectations around speed, output, and how much one person can get done. But they should not become an excuse for unrealistic hiring or weak team design.

The real opportunity is not to expect humans to do even more just because AI exists. It is time to rethink how work is shared, where people add the most value, and how teams are built more realistically from the start.

AI agents will not replace workers. But they may replace the fantasy of the all-in-one employee that so many SMEs have been searching for. And honestly, that may not be a bad thing. That fantasy was never a sustainable way to build a business in the first place.

—

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 post AI Agents and the end of the all-in-one employee appeared first on e27.