In a recent conversation between Kohki Sakata (CEO, IGPI Singapore) and Shivaji Das (MD, IGPI Singapore), the two explored what’s making Japan attractive today, what sectors present the greatest opportunities, and how foreign firms can succeed in one of Asia’s most complex markets.
Several recent factors are converging to attract renewed global interest in Japan. The weakening yen and the relatively low valuation of listed Japanese companies have made the market especially appealing, especially from an M&A perspective. Many firms on the Tokyo Stock Exchange are trading below book value, opening the door to both activist and strategic investment.
Beneath these financial signals lies a deeper structural story. Japan is facing issues that many other countries will soon encounter—an aging society, declining population, and aging infrastructure. These legacy systems, often highly dependent on human labor, represent urgent social challenges—and untapped market potential for companies offering scalable, tech-enabled solutions.
Infrastructure is emerging as one of the most promising sectors. Japan’s centralized models for water supply, energy, and transportation—built in the 20th century—are becoming increasingly outdated. In their place, decentralized systems such as microgrids or modular water technologies, already common in emerging markets, are becoming viable and cost-effective options even in Japan’s suburbs and regional cities.
In B2C, particularly in healthcare, significant gaps also present clear opportunities. While many countries have adopted telemedicine as a core part of their healthcare infrastructure, Japan continues to rely on in-person consultations. The infrastructure, technology, and user behavior in Japan are ripe for transformation—especially following the global acceleration of digital healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Foreign companies often focus exclusively on Tokyo and Osaka, but real opportunities lie beyond these megacities. Tier 2 cities like Kumagaya and Takasaki—within easy reach of Tokyo—face real, unsolved problems that can be solved by business solutions: limited public transport, retail decline, food logistics inefficiencies, and more.
These areas have fewer competitors and are underserved by both large incumbents and agile startups. The combination of accessible markets and unmet needs makes them ideal testing grounds for innovative business models. They’re close enough for efficient operations but distant enough to avoid the saturation and competition of the major metros.
While Japan is renowned for its technological sophistication, it often excels more in optimization than reinvention. The application layer—making things better—is a strength. But building entirely new ecosystems from scratch requires architectural thinking: the ability to assemble stakeholders, align incentives, and design interconnected platforms.
For example, a functional telemedicine ecosystem needs municipal governments, medical professionals, logistics players, and IT infrastructure to work in unison. This kind of ecosystem orchestration is an area where foreign companies can add exceptional value—and face relatively limited domestic competition.
Success in Japan starts with the right leadership. A local country manager is essential, but not just anyone—this person must understand Japanese business culture and have global exposure. The danger lies in over-customizing solutions to “fit” Japan in ways that dilute strategic clarity.
What’s truly needed is the ability to draw abstractions, see common patterns across markets, and design frameworks that balance local sensitivity with global scalability. Architectural thinking, not reactive localization, is the key to building relevance and longevity in Japan.
M&A is a powerful—but timing-sensitive—entry strategy. Japanese companies often struggle to grow independently and can benefit from external partnerships. However, acquisitions are rarely welcomed when a company is doing “well enough.”
The optimal window is during inflection points: moments of distress, strategic transition, or the need for digital transformation. At those points, openness to external capital and fresh thinking increases—making it an ideal time for foreign investors to engage.
Understanding how decisions are made is critical. Japanese organizations tend to be bottom-up; even CEOs may lack the authority to drive sweeping change. Contrast this with Western firms, where top-down leadership is more common.
Moreover, identity in Japanese business culture is often tied to membership rather than qualification. Individuals introduce themselves as members of a company, not by their credentials or past achievements. This nuance shapes trust, hierarchy, and relationship-building—elements that foreign companies must respect and navigate carefully.
Japan may once have seemed inaccessible, but today it is a market ready for change. With long-standing challenges demanding fresh solutions, and with global attention shifting toward resilient, high-potential economies, Japan is regaining its place on the strategic map.
From infrastructure and healthcare to mid-sized regional cities and ecosystem-building, the opportunities are real—and they’re growing. With the right mindset, timing, and guidance, foreign companies can thrive in Japan—not in spite of its complexities, but because of them.
For those ready to take the first step, IGPI stands ready as a trusted partner on the ground.
To find out more about how IGPI Group can provide support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
Kohki Sakata, CEO of IGPI Singapore
After joining Cap Gemini and Coca Cola, Kohki joined Revamp Corporation where he managed projects on global expansion and turnaround in various sectors including F&B, healthcare, retail, IT, etc. After joining IGPI, he has managed projects mainly on global expansion and cross border M&A in various sectors such as logistics, IT, telecom, retail, etc. In addition to his broad experience in implementing solutions that has been developed in Western countries, he has developed multiple methods to turnaround Asian companies with focus on setting clear vision and employee empowerment. Kohki has proven the practicality of these methods by turning around Asian companies not only as an advisor but also as senior management.
He graduated from Waseda University Department of Political Science and Economics and IE Business School.
Shivaji Das, Managing Director of IGPI Singapore
Shivaji has over 20 years of strategy consulting experience, specializing in New Business Models, Innovation Roadmaps, and Sustainability Journeys. He has worked with private and public sector clients across 25 countries in sectors like Technology, Semiconductors, Chemicals, Healthcare, Renewable Energy, and Construction. Previously, Shivaji was a Partner and Managing Director-APAC at Frost & Sullivan. His paper on Artificial Intelligence was presented at CAINE-2000 in Hawaii, USA. He is the author of seven acclaimed travel, art and business books including The Visible Invisibles and Rebels, Traitors, Peacemakers (both Penguin Random House), as well as The Great Lockdown: lessons learned during the pandemic from organizations around the world (Wiley, USA).
He is an alumnus of IIT Delhi and IIM Calcutta.
IGPI Group is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & Investment Group headquartered in Tokyo with a footprint in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne, as well as parts of Europe and India. The organization was established in 2007 by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI Group has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI Group has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~8,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
IGPI employs a hands-on approach to strategy execution, ensuring that leadership teams not only develop strategies but implement them effectively. One of the most pressing challenges organizations face today is balancing psychological safety with performance accountability.
It is crucial to understand that psychological safety is not about eliminating stress, but rather creating a culture where individuals feel secure enough to take risks and drive results.
Organizations often focus on psychological safety as an end in itself, equating it with reducing workplace stress and promoting open dialogue. This perspective, however, risks diminishing performance. Companies exist to create value, and psychological safety must be aligned with business objectives. A psychologically safe workplace should enable employees to challenge ideas and contribute meaningfully, not just speak freely. High performance emerges from the intersection of psychological safety and accountability. When these are decoupled, organizations either become too rigid or too permissive — both of which undermine long-term success.
In 2012, Google initiated Project Aristotle, a comprehensive study to understand team effectiveness. The project analyzed data from 180 teams across the company, considering over 250 attributes. Research findings indicated that psychological safety was the most critical factor in team success, outweighing individual performance or team composition. However, Google’s study also emphasized that psychological safety needed to be coupled with clear goals and a culture of dependability to truly drive high performance.
Leaders often adopt a binary mindset, treating psychological safety and accountability as mutually exclusive. In reality, both must coexist. This balance is achieved through timely and specific feedback. Annual performance reviews have proven ineffective. Feedback must be immediate and actionable, providing concrete examples for improvement. Vague mandates such as “increase sales” or “reduce costs” fail to drive change. Managers must translate objectives into concrete, executable actions.
When leaders provide direct, specific, and constructive feedback, they foster a culture of continuous improvement — where employees feel safe to take risks while remaining accountable for results.
A common leadership pitfall is focusing on immediate problem-solving rather than scalable solutions. Many managers tend to jump to conclusions, solving specific issues instead of designing repeatable frameworks. For instance, if a store experiences a stockout, an inexperienced manager might simply increase inventory orders. A skilled leader, however, would develop a demand-forecasting model that prevents future occurrences across all locations. Effective leadership is about building processes, not just fixing problems.
Successful managers resist the urge for quick fixes and instead establish scalable, generalizable principles that drive sustainable success.
Toyota’s Production System (TPS), developed in the mid-20th century, revolutionized manufacturing by focusing on systemic solutions rather than quick fixes. At its core, TPS emphasizes continuous improvement (kaizen) and respect for people, encouraging employees at all levels to identify and solve problems. This approach led Toyota to develop scalable solutions like the “5 Whys” technique for root cause analysis and the “Just-in-Time” production method. As a result, Toyota not only improved its own efficiency and quality but also set a new standard for manufacturing processes worldwide, influencing industries far beyond automotive.
A core competency for high-performing leaders is the ability to abstract complexity into clear, structured frameworks. However, abstraction without deep operational understanding leads to flawed decision-making. To make meaningful strategic decisions, leaders must first engage with real-world complexity. This can be achieved through various means:
| 1. | Rotating employees across functions | |
| 2. | Ensuring employees who don’t typically interact with customers are exposed to real customer feedback | |
| 3. | Encouraging executives to work at the ground level |
Without these experiences, strategic decision-making risks becoming detached from reality, leading to frameworks that appear sound on paper but fail in execution.
The essence of management is organizational augmentation — enabling a company to scale execution beyond individual capability. As teams grow, complexity increases, making information flow and decision clarity more challenging. Managers must design mechanisms for knowledge-sharing, cross-functional collaboration, and decision-making at scale.
This approach aligns directly with IGPI’s methodology for hands-on strategy execution — ensuring that leadership is not just about defining strategy, but actively shaping the mechanisms that drive impact.
| 1. | Psychological safety is a tool for high performance, not an end goal. | |
| 2. | Timely, specific feedback is essential to maintaining accountability. | |
| 3. | Managers must design scalable solutions, not just fix immediate problems. | |
| 4. | Operational experience is critical — abstraction must be rooted in real-world insights. | |
| 5. | Leadership is about expanding an organization’s execution capability, not just directing individuals. |
IGPI works alongside leadership teams to ensure that these principles are not just understood — but embedded into the fabric of how organizations operate.
Kick-start your transformation journey towards a high-performance culture. Speak with IGPI today to explore how we can elevate your organization’s managerial effectiveness and execution excellence.
To find out more about how IGPI Group can provide support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
Kohki Sakata, CEO of IGPI Singapore
After joining Cap Gemini and Coca Cola, Kohki joined Revamp Corporation where he managed projects on global expansion and turnaround in various sectors including F&B, healthcare, retail, IT, etc. After joining IGPI, he has managed projects mainly on global expansion and cross border M&A in various sectors such as logistics, IT, telecom, retail, etc. In addition to his broad experience in implementing solutions that has been developed in Western countries, he has developed multiple methods to turnaround Asian companies with focus on setting clear vision and employee empowerment. Kohki has proven the practicality of these methods by turning around Asian companies not only as an advisor but also as senior management.
He graduated from Waseda University Department of Political Science and Economics and IE Business School.
IGPI Group is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & Investment Group headquartered in Tokyo with a footprint in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne, as well as parts of Europe and India. The organization was established in 2007 by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI Group has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI Group has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~8,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
The central takeaway? Competitive advantage in this era will hinge on collaboration rather than control, and on horizontal adaptability rather than vertical dominance.
India’s industrial evolution provides a compelling example of adaptive modernization. Historically constrained by infrastructure challenges and bureaucratic hurdles, Indian businesses have overcome these barriers by embedding digital solutions throughout their value chains.
AI-driven manufacturing optimization, cloud-enabled R&D collaboration, and hyper-efficient logistics—such as 15-minute urban deliveries—are now standard practices. What stands out is not just the technology itself but the seamless integration of digital tools with operational agility.
This combination of resourcefulness, adaptability, and digital expertise has enabled Indian firms to scale rapidly and efficiently while sidestepping legacy constraints. For companies aiming to succeed in emerging markets, India’s recent strategies offer valuable insights into future opportunities.
Globalization emphasized frictionless flows of goods, capital, ideas, and people across borders. In contrast, regionalization prioritizes proximity—focusing on shared resources within regions, local responsiveness, and platform-based integration over global sprawl.
Japanese firms, traditionally structured around vertically integrated models, face unique challenges in this transition. The Toyota-style keiretsu ecosystem—built on deep supplier exclusivity and control—is less suited to an environment where flexibility, interoperability, and cross-platform collaboration are paramount. Vertical integration is no longer an unqualified strength. Companies must now realign themselves with horizontally structured ecosystems that emphasize shared infrastructure and decentralized innovation.
India’s Tata Group serves as an illustrative case for legacy firms navigating high-tech industries like defense and electronics. Despite its scale and reputation, Tata has faced challenges in establishing a foothold in these sectors.
Why? Success in high-tech industries today requires more than capital and infrastructure—it demands integration into dynamic innovation ecosystems driven by startups and globally connected R&D. Tata’s struggles highlight a broader issue: legacy organizations often find themselves misaligned with the decentralized and entrepreneurial nature of modern innovation.
The broader lesson for others, including Japan’s trading houses, is clear: success increasingly depends on orchestrating diverse partnerships across corporates, startups, academia, and government rather than relying solely on internal capabilities.
In the regionalization era, traditional industry boundaries are dissolving. The concept of “moving up the value chain” is being replaced by sector convergence and cross-pollination of technologies. Instead of focusing solely on vertical advancement, companies must ask how they can build and manage ecosystems – sustainable competitive advantage will often come from enabling networks rather than owning every component within them.
Japanese trading companies are already adapting to this shift. Their recent growth reflects a deliberate transformation—from resource brokerage to ecosystem enablers—embedding themselves deeply within local contexts while maintaining global reach.
Entering India today requires more than replicating past models. The traditional approach—producing in Japan, exporting to India, and localizing manufacturing later—no longer guarantees success. India now boasts robust infrastructure: digital platforms, skilled talent pools, energy access, and financial inclusion. The challenge lies in co-creating new capabilities with local partners across conglomerates, SMEs, and startups.
Embedding within India’s industrial ecosystem demands shared ownership, mutual learning, and a long-term perspective. Companies that prioritize integration over mere entry will position themselves for sustained relevance and growth.
India’s business landscape values speed; Japanese firms excel in precision. While these traits are often seen as opposites, they can be complementary. Speed enables responsiveness to market dynamics; precision ensures reliability over time. The key is harmonizing these strengths. Japanese companies can contribute process discipline and engineering rigor to complement India’s agile experimentation-driven approach. Together, these attributes can drive both innovation velocity and operational excellence.
India’s growth is ecosystemic rather than sector-specific. However, certain value chains present particularly strong opportunities for Japanese firms:
| ● | Hospitality & Lifestyle : Rising demand for premium services offers opportunities to leverage Japan’s expertise in service design. | |
| ● | Medical Devices & Aerospace : These sectors require both precision engineering and rapid innovation—a natural synergy between Japanese manufacturing depth and India’s design agility. | |
| ● | AgriTech : Combining Japanese machinery with Indian SaaS platforms could create scalable solutions targeting global markets. |
Japanese firms often excel at bottom-up operational improvements, while Indian companies adopt top-down approaches marked by boldness and agility. This contrast creates opportunities for synthesis: blending Japan’s operational excellence with India’s dynamic strategy can produce organizations that are both resilient and adaptable.
Historically reliant on manual engineering expertise, Japanese firms must now adapt as tacit knowledge becomes codified into software and AI systems. To remain competitive, they must identify which processes can be digitized while preserving critical human-led elements. Without this clarity, even highly advanced industries risk disruption by software-native competitors.
India and Japan have the potential to pioneer a new industrial paradigm rooted in hardware-software convergence, ecosystem thinking, and regional collaboration.
By combining Japan’s product expertise with India’s agility and entrepreneurial drive across sectors like agriculture or MedTech, both nations can create scalable solutions that serve not only their own markets but also global needs.
In this age of regionalization, competitive advantage will belong to those who master the art of connection—across geographies, disciplines, and mindsets. The future of strategy lies not in building walls but in weaving networks—and those who excel at weaving will lead the way forward.
To find out more about how IGPI Group can provide support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
Kohki Sakata, CEO of IGPI Singapore
After joining Cap Gemini and Coca Cola, Kohki joined Revamp Corporation where he managed projects on global expansion and turnaround in various sectors including F&B, healthcare, retail, IT, etc. After joining IGPI, he has managed projects mainly on global expansion and cross border M&A in various sectors such as logistics, IT, telecom, retail, etc. In addition to his broad experience in implementing solutions that has been developed in Western countries, he has developed multiple methods to turnaround Asian companies with focus on setting clear vision and employee empowerment. Kohki has proven the practicality of these methods by turning around Asian companies not only as an advisor but also as senior management.
He graduated from Waseda University Department of Political Science and Economics and IE Business School.
Shivaji Das, Managing Director of IGPI Singapore
Shivaji has over 20 years of strategy consulting experience, specializing in New Business Models, Innovation Roadmaps, and Sustainability Journeys. He has worked with private and public sector clients across 25 countries in sectors like Technology, Semiconductors, Chemicals, Healthcare, Renewable Energy, and Construction. Previously, Shivaji was a Partner and Managing Director-APAC at Frost & Sullivan. His paper on Artificial Intelligence was presented at CAINE-2000 in Hawaii, USA. He is the author of seven acclaimed travel, art and business books including The Visible Invisibles and Rebels, Traitors, Peacemakers (both Penguin Random House), as well as The Great Lockdown: lessons learned during the pandemic from organizations around the world (Wiley, USA).
He is an alumnus of IIT Delhi and IIM Calcutta.
IGPI Group is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & Investment Group headquartered in Tokyo with a footprint in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne, as well as parts of Europe and India. The organization was established in 2007 by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI Group has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI Group has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~8,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
Two major forces are accelerating the move toward regionalization. The first is the digital revolution, or what can be called the smartphone revolution in emerging markets. Today, nearly everyone has a powerful computing device in their hands, enabling new business models that were previously impossible. Digital platforms allow companies to localize services dynamically, adapting to the needs of regional consumers in real time.
The second key driver is global decoupling, caused by geopolitical tensions and economic realignments. Trade barriers, sanctions, and shifting regulatory environments have made it more difficult for companies to operate under a single, unified global strategy. Instead, businesses are adopting regionalized approaches, leveraging local champions such as CP Group in Thailand and Mahindra Group in India, as well as fast-growing unicorns that are reshaping local economies.
The digital revolution is also disrupting traditional manufacturing models, making vertical integration less relevant. The automotive industry offers a prime example. With the rise of electric vehicles (EVs), components have become increasingly modularized, reducing complexity in supply chains. Unlike traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, which require thousands of intricate parts, EVs rely on fewer, more standardized components.
This modularization has enabled startups and regional players to enter the market with specialized designs, sourcing components globally and focusing on assembly and service differentiation. At one point, China had over 500 EV manufacturers, illustrating how a shift away from vertically integrated models can foster greater innovation and competition.
For Japanese, European, and U.S. multinational companies, this shift requires a reassessment of how they structure their supply chains and operations. The old model—where companies designed a product centrally and exported it globally—is giving way to regional manufacturing ecosystems where businesses must tailor their offerings based on localized consumer demand and regulatory conditions.
As regionalization accelerates, MNCs must redefine how they position themselves in these new ecosystems. The key challenge is no longer just about producing the best products but about delivering localized services efficiently.
In the past, a company like Toyota could build a globally standardized car like the Corolla and sell it across multiple markets. Today, businesses must design services and customer experiences tailored to specific regional needs, which requires closer collaboration with local partners.
Japanese companies, in particular, need to shift away from value chain-based thinking and instead adopt a layered approach to market entry. In Southeast Asia, Japanese firms have traditionally built vertically integrated supply chains similar to their domestic models. However, this approach has not worked as effectively in India, where business conditions and consumer preferences differ significantly. Rather than replicating the Suzuki-Maruti model—which successfully built a localized automotive supply chain in India—new entrants must adopt more flexible business models, aligning themselves with regional market structures and emerging business layers.
ASEAN has long operated as a regional economic bloc, where companies naturally adopt regional approaches to manufacturing and supply chains. India, however, has traditionally functioned as an independent market, but its role in the regionalization movement is now evolving.
For Japanese firms, ASEAN has historically been seen as an extension of their home market, allowing them to replicate Japan-style vertical integration across the region. India, in contrast, requires a fundamentally different strategy – Japanese companies entering India must move beyond value chain thinking and instead analyze which layers of the economy they should focus on. The competitive dynamics and consumer behaviors in India are distinct from ASEAN, requiring new business models, localized strategies, and stronger local partnerships.
Suzuki’s success in India came from building a vertically integrated supply chain, establishing deep control over local production. While this model worked well for Suzuki, it is not necessarily replicable for other industries or new market entrants.
Traditional Japanese manufacturing firms are accustomed to deeply integrated supplier networks, where tier-one, tier-two, and tier-three suppliers exclusively serve a single OEM. However, in a regionalized economy, companies must instead determine which layer of the value chain they excel in and adapt accordingly.
For example, Japanese firms entering India today may find greater success by focusing on specific segments of a layered market rather than attempting to build and control an entire supply chain. The ability to identify core competencies—whether in manufacturing, software, or services—and integrate them into regional ecosystems will be critical for future success.
Geopolitical tensions have become a dominant factor shaping business strategy. In the past, corporate leaders assumed that political changes had minimal impact on economic decision-making, but the events of recent years have shown that this assumption no longer holds.
For Japanese firms accustomed to fully integrated, self-controlled supply chains, adapting to geopolitical uncertainty requires two key shifts. First, companies must build robust business intelligence capabilities that go beyond simply tracking political events. They must actively analyze where global resources, talent, and supply chain opportunities exist.
For instance, a recent project analyzed global AI talent distribution and identified regions with emerging AI expertise that had not previously been considered strategic hubs. This type of intelligence gathering is essential for companies looking to navigate geopolitical risks while optimizing their operations globally.
Second, Japanese firms must embrace open innovation and collaborative supply chains rather than focusing solely on self-contained, vertically integrated networks. In a world of regionalized trade and shifting alliances, building strategic partnerships across multiple geographies will be key to reducing risk and maintaining resilience.
The shift from globalization to regionalization is reshaping how companies operate across industries. Digital transformation and geopolitical realignments are making traditional value chain approaches obsolete, forcing companies to adopt more flexible, layered business models.
For Japanese, European, and U.S. firms, success in this new era will depend on their ability to localize services, adapt supply chains, and form strategic partnerships within regional economies. Companies must move beyond product standardization and instead focus on layered market strategies, identifying their core strengths and leveraging them in specific regional contexts.
The most successful firms will be those that combine digital intelligence, supply chain flexibility, and regional collaboration, positioning themselves as key players in the evolving global economic landscape.
At IGPI, we have extensive experience supporting multinational corporations in navigating the complexities of regionalization by optimizing supply chains and adapting business models to localized market needs. Our understanding of the interplay between digital transformation, geopolitical tensions, and regional market dynamics allows us to provide tailored strategies that enhance operational flexibility and resilience in a rapidly evolving global landscape.
To find out more about how IGPI Group can provide support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
Kohki Sakata, CEO of IGPI Singapore
After joining Cap Gemini and Coca Cola, Kohki joined Revamp Corporation where he managed projects on global expansion and turnaround in various sectors including F&B, healthcare, retail, IT, etc. After joining IGPI, he has managed projects mainly on global expansion and cross border M&A in various sectors such as logistics, IT, telecom, retail, etc. In addition to his broad experience in implementing solutions that has been developed in Western countries, he has developed multiple methods to turnaround Asian companies with focus on setting clear vision and employee empowerment. Kohki has proven the practicality of these methods by turning around Asian companies not only as an advisor but also as senior management.
He graduated from Waseda University Department of Political Science and Economics and IE Business School.
Shivaji Das, Managing Director of IGPI Singapore
Shivaji has over 20 years of strategy consulting experience, specializing in New Business Models, Innovation Roadmaps, and Sustainability Journeys. He has worked with private and public sector clients across 25 countries in sectors like Technology, Semiconductors, Chemicals, Healthcare, Renewable Energy, and Construction. Previously, Shivaji was a Partner and Managing Director-APAC at Frost & Sullivan. His paper on Artificial Intelligence was presented at CAINE-2000 in Hawaii, USA. He is the author of seven acclaimed travel, art and business books including The Visible Invisibles and Rebels, Traitors, Peacemakers (both Penguin Random House), as well as The Great Lockdown: lessons learned during the pandemic from organizations around the world (Wiley, USA).
He is an alumnus of IIT Delhi and IIM Calcutta.
IGPI Group is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & Investment Group headquartered in Tokyo with a footprint in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne, as well as parts of Europe and India. The organization was established in 2007 by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI Group has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI Group has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~8,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
The second Trump administration raises concerns about the future of sustainability investments in ASEAN. Over the past few years, the region has seen significant momentum in areas like hydrogen, carbon capture, and renewable energy, driven by global commitments to climate action. However, if the U.S. shifts its stance, corporations may pause to reassess their exposure, delaying projects and investment decisions.
Yet, the broader trajectory remains clear. Climate change is accelerating, and public pressure for action is growing. While short-term disruptions may occur, long-term sustainability initiatives will continue, supported by multilateral agreements like COP16 and coalitions led by Japan and Singapore. Rather than retreating, businesses should take a calibrated approach—hedging against political shifts while staying committed to the long-term potential of green investments.
For decades, globalization followed a predictable formula: source raw materials at the lowest cost, manufacture in cost-effective locations, and export to high-margin markets. However, digitalization and shifting geopolitical realities are making this model obsolete.
The new paradigm is regionalization—where companies leverage regional synergies rather than purely global supply chains. ASEAN firms are already adapting – companies like Vietnam’s VinFast are not just producing electric vehicles but integrating them into smart city ecosystems, creating value beyond manufacturing. In contrast, many Chinese manufacturers continue to operate under old globalization rules, aggressively exporting amid domestic slowdowns.
This shift presents a strategic imperative for ASEAN, Japanese, and Korean firms: competing solely on cost is no longer viable. The future lies in regional collaboration, digital integration, and problem-solving within ASEAN’s unique ecosystem.
The next three to five years will be defined by several key geopolitical risks. The trajectory of U.S. trade policy remains a central concern. A more protectionist America could disrupt trade flows and unsettle markets. Meanwhile, conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, and potential tensions in the Taiwan Strait pose risks to supply chains, energy prices, and currency stability.
Beyond military conflicts, the geopolitical landscape is being reshaped by ideological battles. A growing backlash against sustainability policies, particularly in parts of the U.S. and Europe, could slow the green transition. Political instability is another concern, with leadership changes in Indonesia, Japan, and Korea introducing regulatory unpredictability. Resource nationalism is also emerging as a critical factor, as major powers compete for control over strategic minerals and supply chains.
Japanese businesses in ASEAN must prepare for these disruptions, not just by managing risk but by identifying where opportunities may emerge in this shifting landscape.
Periods of uncertainty often create openings for specific industries. The defense sector, particularly outside the U.S., is set to expand as European and Asian countries ramp up military spending. Infrastructure and housing will benefit from deregulation in key markets like India, Indonesia, and China, creating opportunities for investment. The digital economy, including fintech and e-commerce, will continue to thrive as shifting regulations open new doors for innovation.
Rather than seeing uncertainty as a purely defensive challenge, businesses should approach it as an opportunity to reposition for long-term growth.
The flood of daily political events makes it easy for companies to fall into a cycle of reaction rather than strategy. But geopolitics should be a tool for shaping long-term vision, not just a series of immediate risks to manage.
Companies must expand their strategic horizons. Instead of focusing solely on domestic markets or short-term disruptions, they need to analyze how resource flows and political alliances will evolve over the next decade. This means thinking five, ten, or even twenty years ahead rather than getting caught up in daily headlines.
Equally important is ensuring that geopolitical strategy is not confined to top management. Mid-to-long-term planning must be embedded across the organization, from leadership down to operational teams. This prevents businesses from being swayed by short-term noise and ensures consistency in strategic execution.
Many companies recognize the importance of geopolitical intelligence but struggle with making it actionable. The most common mistake is relying on fragmented, news-driven analysis that lacks business relevance.
A well-structured intelligence function requires an in-house team that interprets global events through a business-specific lens. Rather than dispersing intelligence efforts across multiple units, companies should establish a centralized function that synthesizes insights across the organization.
However, internal teams cannot do this alone and collaborating with external experts is essential. While external specialists bring deep geopolitical insights, they often lack the granular understanding of how these developments impact specific industries. A hybrid model—combining internal expertise with external analysis—allows companies to build a nuanced, actionable intelligence framework.
At IGPI, we have supported multiple clients in setting up business intelligence teams that do more than just track events. Our approach focuses on turning intelligence into clear, strategic direction —ensuring that insights are not just collected but used to drive real decision-making.
Geopolitical uncertainty is not a passing trend—it is the new reality. Companies that continue to view it as an external risk rather than an integral part of strategy will find themselves constantly reacting rather than leading.
The businesses that succeed in this environment will be those that recognize:
– The era of globalization is over, and regionalization is the future.
– Geopolitical risks are not just threats—they are opportunities for those who anticipate them.
– Intelligence is only valuable if it is structured to drive long-term strategy, not just immediate reactions.
At IGPI, we specialize in helping businesses decode geopolitical complexity and turn risks into competitive advantages. In an era where uncertainty is the only constant, the ability to think ahead will define the winners of tomorrow.
To find out more about how IGPI Group can provide support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
Kohki Sakata, CEO of IGPI Singapore
After joining Cap Gemini and Coca Cola, Kohki joined Revamp Corporation where he managed projects on global expansion and turnaround in various sectors including F&B, healthcare, retail, IT, etc. After joining IGPI, he has managed projects mainly on global expansion and cross border M&A in various sectors such as logistics, IT, telecom, retail, etc. In addition to his broad experience in implementing solutions that has been developed in Western countries, he has developed multiple methods to turnaround Asian companies with focus on setting clear vision and employee empowerment. Kohki has proven the practicality of these methods by turning around Asian companies not only as an advisor but also as senior management.
He graduated from Waseda University Department of Political Science and Economics and IE Business School.
Shivaji Das, Managing Director of IGPI Singapore
Shivaji has over 20 years of strategy consulting experience, specializing in New Business Models, Innovation Roadmaps, and Sustainability Journeys. He has worked with private and public sector clients across 25 countries in sectors like Technology, Semiconductors, Chemicals, Healthcare, Renewable Energy, and Construction. Previously, Shivaji was a Partner and Managing Director-APAC at Frost & Sullivan. His paper on Artificial Intelligence was presented at CAINE-2000 in Hawaii, USA. He is the author of seven acclaimed travel, art and business books including The Visible Invisibles and Rebels, Traitors, Peacemakers (both Penguin Random House), as well as The Great Lockdown: lessons learned during the pandemic from organizations around the world (Wiley, USA).
He is an alumnus of IIT Delhi and IIM Calcutta.
IGPI Group is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & Investment Group headquartered in Tokyo with a footprint in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne, as well as parts of Europe and India. The organization was established in 2007 by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI Group has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI Group has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~8,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
We have touched upon the Japanese side being challenged with internal buy-in/alignment for Australia, and the Australian side on the “customized approach” to Japan or Japanese corporates. While these issues can be anticipated and planned for, unexpected situations always arise. Hence, the actual engagement will become a valuable experience for understanding each other. This Part III (the final part in the series) intends to put a spotlight on how Japanese corporations can engage with Australian universities and research institutes. These institutions offer a wealth of untapped potential and represent a rich source of capabilities Japanese corporations can leverage off, and frankly less explored at this stage.
The wider objective of this piece is our contribution to a conversation about increasing the A-J innovation success cases in the Australia-Japan corridor. Specifically, IGPI shares some of its observations of how Japanese corporates can engage or partner with Australian universities and research institutes – these could be in the forms of straightforward research relationships all the way to commercialization initiatives.
Throughout the article series, we have touched on the changing nature of “What” and “Who” Japanese corporations are collaborating with in the Australia-Japan corridor. We explored the capabilities of the broader Australian innovation ecosystem, including universities and research institutes.
However, we also highlighted that both Japanese and Australian sides need to prepare internally before engaging. For Japanese corporations, this involves internal alignment between headquarters and the local arm. For Australians, it means developing a customized Japan strategy to understand and overcome cultural or communication barriers.
You can find Part I can be found here and Part II here.
The next question is “how,” or in other words, the “actions” to take for collaboration.
It is first important to note that it is common for Australian universities to have a dedicated department for managing industry collaboration and IP-related matters (e.g. commercialization). These departments are generally known as “Technology Transfer Offices” or TTOs1.
TTO is a general term, and some universities might call it an “Industry Engagement Office” or something similar. TTOs are a crucial point of engagement for any industry partner, regardless of whether they have existing connections with university faculty. This is because the university’s IP management and contractual matters will ultimately be handled by the TTO. Therefore, establishing a holistic relationship with the university early on is important and beneficial.
From the Australian perspective, identifying the right contact within a Japanese corporation is essential. However, this is easier said than done since, unlike Australian universities with their standardized TTO function, Japanese corporate structures vary significantly. To get started, having a Japanese engagement specialist is helpful. If this expertise is not accessible internally, then engaging with government bodies (like Austrade in Japan) or ecosystem participants (like IGPI) can be a strong starting point for your Australia-Japan innovation journey.
Once you know who to contact, the next step is exploring engagement and partnership options. Here are some collaboration methods Japanese corporations and Australian universities can potentially explore (but not limited to):
2.1. Example of Mode of Collab. # 1: Contract Research
Contract research offers a tailored approach for Japanese corporations to access expertise from Australian universities on specific research topics. This could include, consulting, evaluations, lab services, or independent research projects2. The scope is flexible and can range from simple research outsourcing to joint research projects led or supported by the university. However, contract research is generally considered a transactional engagement rather than a long-term partnership, though it can be a stepping stone. It’s a valuable way for Japanese corporations in Australia to gain first-hand experience with a university’s research capabilities.
2.2. Example of Mode of Collab. # 2: Center of Excellence (CoE)
Center of Excellence (CoE) is a generic term referring to hubs that have specialized units (or individuals, or even collaborations between organizations) focused on a particular area of expertise3. While not exclusively research-focused, CoEs can be instrumental in driving business or industry transformation.
There are already examples of CoEs in Australia with Japanese participants.
| CoE | Brief Example |
|---|---|
| ARC Centre of Excellence in Quantum Biotechnology x Olympus | The Arc Centre of Excellence in Quantum Biotechnology’s focus is partnering with industry and government to seek to drive fundamental understanding and innovation across manufacturing, clean energy, agriculture, health and national security4. |
Unlike contract research, a CoE represents a deeper commercial and technical collaboration on a focus area between the partners.
2.3. Example of Mode of Collab. # 3: Intellectual Property (IP) utilisation
Compared to the previous examples, utilizing intellectual property (IP) offers a more direct and relatively immediate path to commercialization. There are several ways universities utilize IP, and Japanese corporations could be involved with5:
| [1] | Licensing to external companies (i.e. university owns IP, Japanese corporations pay for the IP usage) | |
| [2] | License assignment or selling/buying the IP (i.e. IP’s ownership is sold to third party) | |
| [3] | Create a spin-off company to utilize the IP (different to licensing, as spin-offs generally act as an extension of the university as explained in the Part II article) |
Methods [1] and [2] are straightforward in concept. However, spin-offs can involve Japanese corporations co-establishing the spin-off, also known as “Joint Venture Spin-off / Spin-out” or JVSO. While not uncommon, JVSO offer practical advantages. The industry partner becomes a part-owner and can influence the entrepreneurial mindset and commercial direction of the spin-off. It could also benefit the venture’s credibility and stability with the support of the industry partner too6.
These are just a few examples of how to engage and partner with universities or research institutes. The most suitable method will depend on each partnership’s objectives, timing and situation.
In this article series, we have covered the bottlenecks on the Japanese and Australian sides, and explored various forms of engagement or partnership the two parties can action. But it is important to note that there is a critical gap to be addressed for innovation to reach the real-world, this is commonly known as the “Innovation Valley of Death” (hereafter Valley of Death).
The Valley of Death refers to the timing where public funding (i.e. university funds) for research decreases, but there isn’t enough private fundings (i.e. industry partner support) to reach the minimum investment level needed to sustain the initiative7.
Graph 1: Idea to Value – The Innovation Valley of Death8
Here is a simple scenario to illustrate the Valley of Death:
| 1 | An innovative technology, heavily supported by university on the primary R&D funding, reaches the point where it is proven in a lab environment | |
| 2 | The next step is to test it in the real-world and investigate the problem/solution fit | |
| 3 | At this point, primary research funding from the university starts to diminish as the project nears its conclusion | |
| 4 | But industry players are not ready to invest due to uncertainty about the technology’s business scalability | |
| 5 | As a result, the funding/investment level may be insufficient to support the technology’s commercialization |
The above is an example where R&D is run by a separate entity (i.e. university). However, the same principle applies to internal corporate R&D and new business creation cases as well. For example, the initial R&D might be conducted, but further for scaling could be withheld due to core the business being prioritized or facing challenges that require those funds.
Also, it is noted that Australia is experiencing “publishing inflation”, where researchers are prioritizing the number of papers published over the impact of that paper/research9. This suggests an entrepreneurial mindset focused on commercialization might be lacking or not prioritized. While university professors and TTOs are aware of this issue and working to address it, change cannot happen overnight.
Despite these challenges, it is critical to outline that a smooth transition from the R&D to scaling / commercialization, enabled by sufficient collaborative funding or support is a vital requirement for any innovation to succeed.
For specific/apt Australian innovations that may appeal to Japanese corporations – to avoid the Valley of Death, several factors are crucial. The “Why?”, “What?” and “How?” of the Australian innovation must be (i) well-defined within an international context and (ii) discovered and identified by the right audience (e.g. Japan Inc.) and (iii) aligned with the right market situation and timing. And this is where IGPI Group can add value.
IGPI Group has been working with universities and corporations in Japan to address this issue of innovation commercialization by setting up a subsidiary entity “Advanced Technology Acceleration Corporation”, in short ATAC.
ATAC’s focus is being the bridge to support universities and research institutes, start-ups and Japanese corporations to perform hands-on incubation of cutting-edge technologies, bringing them to the real world based on market needs.
Figure 1: Diagram on ATAC’s support10
So far, IGPI Group has executed these initiatives for both Japanese corporations or individual Japanese universities. One example is a joint initiative with Toyota Motor Corporation to establish the “Innovative Technology Acceleration Platform” or ITAP, which collaborates with University of Tokyo’s School of Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology and Nagoya University on technology incubation11.
Figure 2: Toyota Global Newsroom12
Another example is a joint initiative with Nagoya Institute of Technology called “Nagoya Institute of Technology Expansion Platform” or NITEP, which specializes in incubating and commercializing the university’s expertise13.
These are just a few examples from Japan, but symbolizes a strong commitment to hands-on incubation and bringing innovation beyond the labs and to the real world through collaboration—literally “Bridge the Valley of Death”. IGPI Group has developed a deep-rooted understanding of innovation ecosystem and incubation processes and we see strong potential for applying our learnings in the Australia-Japan corridor too.
If you are an Australian university or research institute or an Australia corporation that has the ambition of building new businesses through Australia-Japan innovation, we will be glad to have a confidential conversation. IGPI provides highly customized business advisory to its diverse range of clients, including but not limited to:
I. Building your “for Japan” or “with Japan” strategy
II. Capability statement prioritization based on needs/wants of Japan Inc.
III. Market assessment for specific research initiatives x Japan as a market or Japan Inc.
IV. Strategic partner/capabilities search x Japan
V. Commercial negotiations support
VI. Other custom hands-on support (for/in Japan) etc.
To find out more about how IGPI Group can provide support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
1 Knowledge Commercialisation Australasia – https://techtransfer.org.au/ipc-training/commercialisation/who-participates-in-commercialising-universities-ip/
2 University of Melbourne Contract research – https://research.unimelb.edu.au/partnerships/collaborate/research-collaboration/contract-research
3 Catalant Everything you need to know about CoE – https://catalant.com/coe-everything-you-need-to-know-about-centers-of-excellence/
4 The University of Queensland – https://smp.uq.edu.au/research/research-centres/arc-centre-excellence-quantum-biotechnology
5 Knowledge Commercialisation Australasia – https://techtransfer.org.au/ipc-training/commercialisation/commercialisation-pathways-and-vehicles/
6 J-Stage Articles – https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsmeicbtt/2002.1/0/2002.1_77/_article/-char/en
7 Idea to Value – https://www.ideatovalue.com/inno/nickskillicorn/2021/05/the-innovation-valley-of-death/
8 Idea to Value – https://www.ideatovalue.com/inno/nickskillicorn/2021/05/the-innovation-valley-of-death/
9 The Age: We’ve hit peak science, and that’s not good https://www.theage.com.au/national/we-ve-hit-peak-science-and-that-s-not-good-20240116-p5exkb.htmll
10 ATAC website – https://igpi-atac.co.jp/
11 Toyota Global Newsroom – https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/37000298.html
12 Toyota Global Newsroom – https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/37000298.html
13 IGPI News – https://www.igpi.co.jp/2020/07/28/news_20200728/
Mr. Rachit Khosla is the Country Manager of IGPI Australia. Rachit is a seasoned strategy consulting professional with over 14 years of experience in leading and executing market entry and growth strategies (both organic and inorganic) and open innovation engagements for Fortune 500 businesses and large MNCs across the Asia Pacific. He has advised clients in a diverse range of industries, including automotive, fin-tech, industrial and manufacturing, med-tech & healthcare, smart cities, construction materials, travel, IT & telecommunications to name a few. Rachit was the former Country Manager and Director for YCP Solidiance (now Japanese-owned) and Founder and CEO of an online B2B marketplace startup for professional advisory services focused on Emerging Markets.
Mr. Kaoru Shingae is a Consultant at IGPI Australia. Prior to joining IGPI, Kaoru worked at Toyota, BMW and Boston Consulting Group, primarily specializing in the Automotive and Mobility sector and with exposure to wider industrial sectors. Kaoru has both internal and external strategy experience with a deep understanding on ‘What’ is most important for all stakeholder’s future. He has end-to-end experience from corporate and enterprise-level planning to all the way down to operational planning. Kaoru is a holistic all-rounder who engages with both strategic and operational stakeholders throughout the company. Past achievements include crisis turnaround plans, long and mid-term vision plans, CEO’s company goal plans and sales & market operational plans plus delivery, to name a few. Kaoru has graduated from The University of Melbourne with a Bachelor of Commerce.
Ms. Devina Hashifah is an Intern at IGPI Australia (Nov 2023 – Feb 2024). Devina graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Melbourne, majoring in Marketing and Management. She has previously worked in the financial advisory sector and student consulting organizations, conducting research for clients from the agriculture, renewable energy, microfinance, and media industry.
IGPI Group is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & Investment Group headquartered in Tokyo with a footprint in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne, as well as parts of Europe and India. The organization was established in 2007 by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI Group has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI Group has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~8,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
Australia has rich innovation capabilities and potential that could yield significant benefits for Australia-Japan (A-J) innovation and even beyond.
The key question is “How to enable Australia?”
This entails fully unlocking the innovation capability and potential that Australia holds. This article intends to put a spotlight on the rich capabilities and the missing link which Australia as a nation faces to spearhead their innovation efforts for Japan in particular.
The wider objective of this piece is to contribute to discussions on increasing successful A-J innovation cases within the Australia-Japan corridor. Specifically, IGPI shares some of its observations of the potential bottlenecks faced by the Australian side – these include challenges in gaining awareness and recognition from the Japanese side in a customized fashion, which by no means have easy fixes.
Australia-Japan relationship has been a longstanding and complementary relationship that started in the form of trading in traditional sectors such as energy, agriculture, and mining.
It was touched upon in part I how this relationship is now evolving in terms of “What” and “Who” in recent years. Examples touched upon were Japan transitioning from traditional fossil fuels to initiatives such as renewable energy generation and hydrogen; and widening the collaboration partners beyond mega corporations to include universities and startups in Australia. It also highlighted the bottlenecks Japanese corporations face, such as “Why Australia?” and their motivation to explore such opportunities, particularly addressing the alignment or misalignment between the HQ and local arm.
For the full article on part I: What are the bottlenecks being experienced on the Japanese side?
However, this does not mean there are no bottlenecks on the Australian side. Australia faces its own bottlenecks as the “Innovation supplier”, providing solutions to the Japanese “demand” side.
For decades, Australia has been a key partner for Japan. As previously discussed in part I, this relationship has now dramatically shifted towards sourcing innovative solutions in various forms from broader players in the Australian innovation ecosystem. Namely, these have been from (i) Startups / Spinoffs, (ii) Universities, and (iii) Research Institutes.
2.1. Startups and Spinoffs
Throughout the world, startups have played a pivotal role in driving innovation.
Australia, recognized as having one of the largest startup ecosystems in the world (9th in the world, 2nd in Asia-Pacific)1, is home to numerous unicorns such as Canva, Atlassian, and Airwallex, to name a few. But most recently, the B2B sector startups have been on the radar of Japanese corporations, showing notable progress in Japan and beyond:
| Collaboration | Brief Example |
|---|---|
| Macnica x icetana | Macnica has secured a strategic stake in icetana, a leading artificial intelligence software developer. As part of this deal, Macnica will assume the role of the exclusive distributor for icetana in the Japanese and Brazilian markets2. |
| JR East Water Business x Hivery | JR East Water Business in collaboration with Hivery, an Australian AI-driven retail tech company, will roll out AI-driven vending machine optimization solutions to 6,000 vending machines across the East Japan Railway’s train stations3. |
Both examples illustrate Japanese corporations leveraging solutions from Australian startups in Japan and beyond.
One unique fact to note is that both icetana and Hivery are startups but started off as spinoffs of an Australian university or a research institute. The term “spinoff” describes a new and separate entity created by the parent entity that holds all or partial shares4. In the context of an Australian university or a research institute, spinoffs are created with the aim to boost entrepreneurial activities to commercialize a certain innovative technology5. In the same line, icetana was spun off from Curtin University (Perth, Western Australia), and Hivery from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (in short CSIRO, Australia’s National scientific research agency).
As these startups and spinoffs aim to commercialize the innovative technology they possess, they represent the significant potential for collaboration with industry partners in technical, business, or financial forms to realize new business opportunities.
2.2. Universities
On the other hand, Australia is a rich source of innovation from numerous universities. Australian universities are recognized for their world-class capabilities, comparable to the institutions the USA and UK universities. Based on QS World University Rankings 2025, the composition for Australia, Japan, the UK, and the USA in total count and the count in the “Top 50s” are as follows:
Figure 1: QS World University Rankings 20256
Factually, Australia ranks 3rd in the Top 50 coverage, behind the USA and UK. The interesting fact here is that despite being 3rd, Australia has the highest “coverage ratio” relative to the country’s total university count within the ranking (6 in the top 50 out of a total 38 = 16%; compared to 8% for the USA and 9% for the UK). This highlights the exceptional quality of Australian universities despite being fewer in number.
This excellence is evident in the “International Research Network” metric introduced by the QS World University Ranking in 2024, which provides insights on how internationally connected an institution’s research is as well as recognizing the importance of collaborative research more broadly7.
Here’s how the top 3 Australian universities fare against their counterparts in the USA and UK in terms of international research connectivity:
| Country | International Research Network Score (Top 3 Average) | University | Individual Score | Overall Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | 97.2 | The University of Melbourne | 97.4 | 13 |
| The University of Sydney | 95.8 | 18 | ||
| The University of New South Wales | 98.3 | 19 | ||
| USA | 97.5 | MIT | 96 | 1 |
| Harvard University | 99.6 | 4 | ||
| Stanford University | 96.8 | 6 | ||
| UK | 98.9 | Imperial College London | 97.4 | 2 |
| University of Oxford | 100 | 3 | ||
| University of Cambridge | 99.3 | 5 |
Figure 1: QS World UnivTable 1: QS World University Rankings International Research Network Scores8
Again, despite the overall ranking being lower, the research capabilities of the top 3 Australian universities are on par with, or even exceed, those of the leading institutions in the USA and UK. It should be noted that overall ranking includes metrics outside of research capabilities, such as international student ratio, and non-capability specifics.
In addition, Australian university’s research and development spending is notably high on a global scale. This is illustrated by the “HERD” or “Higher Education Expenditure on R&D” metric, which measures the R&D expenditure by higher education entities such as universities as a percentage of GDP. Below is a comparison of the USA, UK, Japan and Singapore:
Figure 2: OECD Stat Dataset – Main Science and Technology Indicators Higher-Education Expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP9
| Country | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | 0.62% | 0.61%* | 0.62% | 0.64%* | 0.61% |
| Singapore | 0.64% | 0.56% | 0.52% | 0.52% | 0.52% |
| Japan | 0.38% | 0.38% | 0.37% | 0.38% | 0.38% |
| UK | 0.39% | 0.39% | 0.65% | 0.63% | 0.66% |
| USA | 0.36%* | 0.37%* | 0.36%* | 0.36%* | 0.38%* |
Table 2: OECD Stat Dataset – Main Science and Technology Indicators Higher-Education Expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP10
* Note: Estimate (Australia case) or slight definition differs (USA case), Data based on full available data for all 5 listed country comparison
Apart from the UK, which has increased significantly since 2018, Australia is represented with a consistently high level of expenditure or investment into R&D from a GDP percentage basis, which is by contrast, much higher than the likes of the USA or Japan.
Australian universities offer world-class innovation potential, which can be nurtured as business opportunities. The key importance is to make that “critical step” to collaborate with industry partners to realize that capability outside of the lab and apply it to the real world.
2.3. Research Institutes
Separate from universities, Australia also has numerous research institutes. These can be categorized into individual organizations or “Cooperative Research Centers” (hereafter CRC).
Individual organizations can range from national science agencies such as the CSIRO to more niche specialized research institutes (e.g., Health – Melanoma Institute Australia, or even university spinoff R&D entities, etc.).
Most notably, CSIRO is the largest research institute in Australia and one of the significant globally, is often compared to the Australian version of Japan’s “AIST” (産業技術総合研究所) or “RIKEN” (理化学研究所). Typically budgeted with approximately $1.6B AUD annually, it is ranked as the 6th or 7th against selected international applied research organization over the past 10 years and with over 4,000 industry and government partners11. For reference, AIST’s annual expenditure in FY22 was around $1.1B AUD12**. CSIRO’s R&D ranges in 9 fields (further split into subcategories) and works in a collaborative manner with the universities and industries to bring innovation to the real world13.
Figure 3: CSIRO Research fields14
With its broad coverage and extensive network of connections, CSIRO represents the diverse capabilities of Australia’s national science agency.
The other important research institute category is the CRCs. CRCs are Australian government programs since 1990 with the government providing funding support for industry-led collaborations. CRC themes vary depending on each CRC but are all aimed at addressing industry identified problems and key issues. Typically, CRC are mid to long-term programs that can range from 5 to 10 years, but shorter programs (CRC-P) up to 3 years also exist15. CRCs require at least one Australian industry organization and one Australian research organization, but they are not limited in total numbers, and can include non-Australian corporations as partners as well. Below are examples of CRCs that interacted with Japanese corporations:
| CRC x JP Cos | Focus of CRC | Grant size | Collaboration form |
|---|---|---|---|
| Food Agility CRC x NTT, Yamaha Motor | Support Australian agrifood industry to be profitable and sustainable16 | $50M | Official CRC Partner |
| Future Energy Exports CRC x Impex | Energy export decarbonization17 | $40M | Official CRC Partner |
| Future Energy Exports CRC x JX NOEX, Mitsui O.S. K. Lines, Osaka Gas | Collaboration Conduct research and development to demonstrate the technical feasibility and operability of low-pressure and low temperature solutions for bulk CO2 shipping transport18. | ||
| Heavy Industries Low-carbon Transition (HILT) CRC x Mitsubishi Heavy Industries | De-risk decarbonisation pathways for heavy industry19 | $39M | Official CRC Partner |
Note that entities can be part of the CRC itself (official CRC partner) or engage in a collaborative form, such as the Future Energy Exports CRC with companies like JX NOEX. It is also important to highlight that government grants require the applicants (i.e. CRC lead and partners) to at least match the amount of government grant / funding either through cash and / or in-kind contributions. With both long-term support and commitment, CRCs are unique research initiatives that bring like-minded partners together 20.
While each Australian startup / spinoff, university or research institute faces unique challenges, a common issue is the limited “Awareness” of Australian innovation capabilities. Despite the high quality and rich sources of innovation, Australia’s recognition by Japan lags behind that of global innovation hubs likes of Silicon Valley or Europe.
Unlike the USA or European countries, Japan is a unique country that requires a very different approach culturally or communication wise. Hence from an Australia point of view, applying a global strategy may not necessarily be most effective approach.
IGPI has seen many cases on both the Australian and Japanese sides having basic misunderstandings due to certain cultural differences or communication methods. In particular, the cultural differences can at time cause unnecessary friction unintentionally.
For example, due to the size and organizational structure, Japanese corporations may cause mass communication delays to get to the “Right” person. Even after making contact, an “unwritten” authorization or approval process, known as “Nemawashi”, might be required. This process of consulting stakeholders informally can significantly extend timelines and might be seen as a loss of momentum from a non-Japanese perspective. However, these processes are often integral to Japanese culture, intended to show respect and give courtesy updates to the people who may be impacted by a certain decision, just that it took a bit of time, which may have been out of their control.
To address this type of barrier, it is important for the Australian side to consider a dedicated and specific Japan strategy. This strategy should focus on deepening engagement and forming partnerships with Japan and Japanese corporates. Elements could include prioritizing capabilities that are particularly relevant to Japan, appointing an internal advocate for Japan-related initiatives, and establishing dedicated channels for promotion and interaction with Japanese entities.
It is important to be clear on the details of “what is requested” and “what can be offered as an exchange” from the Australian side to the Japanese side.
Unless there is a clear ambition and direction set for Japan, it could be difficult for both Australian and Japanese side to understand “what is the aim or goal”.
By addressing these bottlenecks with a targeted approach, Australia-Japan collaboration can improve, leading to more successful innovation partnerships across the Australia-Japan corridor.
IGPI Group has developed a deep-rooted understanding of Japanese Corporations and has been a part of the global expansion and ambitions of many prominent companies across the APAC and beyond. If you are an Australian startup, university or research institute, and believe in the potential of Australia-Japan on the pillars of innovation and keen to enhance your approach to Japan / Japanese corporations, we will be glad to have a confidential conversation. IGPI provides highly customized business advisory to its diverse range of clients, including but not limited to:
To find out more about how IGPI can provide consulting support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
1 StartupBlink – Global Startup Ecosystem Ranking
2 icetana – https://www.icetana.ai/investor-updates/global-technology-giant-macnica-takes-strategic-investment-in-icetana
3 Hivery – https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/Articles/2019/November/hivery-exports-ai-solutions-to-the-world
4 investopedia – https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/spinoff.asp
5 Taylor & Francis Online – https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2086148
6 QS World University Rankings 2025 – https://www.topuniversities.com/world-university-rankings
7 QS World University rankings Methodology – https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology
8 QS World University Rankings 2025 – https://www.topuniversities.com/world-university-rankings
9 OECD. Stat – https://data-explorer.oecd.org/
10 OECD. Stat – https://data-explorer.oecd.org/
11 CSIRO Annual report FY22-23 – https://www.csiro.au/en/about/Corporate-governance/annual-reports/22-23-annual-report
12 AIST: Employees and Budget – https://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/about_aist/facts_figures/fact_figures.html
** RBA Exchange rate at $1 AUD = ¥97 JPY as of 12/08/24
13 CSIRO Research – https://www.csiro.au/en/research
14 CSIRO Research – https://www.csiro.au/en/research
15 Business.gov.au – https://business.gov.au/grants-and-programs/cooperative-research-centres-crc-grants
16 Food Agility CRC – https://www.foodagility.com/about
17 Future Energy Exports CRC – https://www.fenex.org.au/about/
18 Future Energy Exports CRC news – https://www.fenex.org.au/australian-japanese-partners-execute-rd-project-agreement-to-develop-safe-and-efficient-solutions-for-industrial-scale-shipping-of-co2/
19 HILT CRC – https://hiltcrc.com.au/about/
20 Business.gov.au – https://business.gov.au/grants-and-programs/cooperative-research-centres-crc-grants
Mr. Rachit Khosla is the Country Manager of IGPI Australia. Rachit is a seasoned strategy consulting professional with over 14 years’ experience of leading and executing market entry and growth strategy (both organic and inorganic) and open innovation engagements for Fortune 500 businesses and large MNCs across Asia Pacific. He has advised clients in a diverse range of industries including automotive, fin-tech, industrial and manufacturing, med-tech & healthcare, smart cities, construction materials, travel, IT & telecommunications to name a few. Rachit was the
former Country Manager and Director for YCP Solidiance (Japanese owned) and Founder and CEO of an online B2B marketplace startup for professional advisory services focused on Emerging Markets.
Mr. Kaoru Shingae is a Consultant at IGPI Australia. Prior joining IGPI, Kaoru has worked at Toyota, BMW and Boston Consulting Group, primarily specializing in the Automotive and Mobility sector and with exposure to wider industrial sectors. Kaoru has both internal and external strategy experience with deep understanding on ‘What’ is most important for all stakeholder’s future. He has end-to-end experience from corporate and enterprise level planning to all the way down to the operational planning. Kaoru is a holistic all-rounder in engaging with both strategical and operational stakeholders throughout the company. Past achievements include crisis turnaround plans, long and mid-term vision plans, CEO’s company goal plans and sales & market operational plan plus delivery to name a few. Kaoru has graduated from The University of Melbourne with a Bachelor of Commerce.
Ms. Devina Hashifah is an Intern at IGPI Australia (Nov 2023 – Feb 2024). Devina graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Melbourne, majoring in Marketing and Management. She has previously worked in the financial advisory sector and student consulting organizations, conducting research for clients from the agriculture, renewable energy, microfinance, and media industry.
Industrial Growth Platform Inc. (IGPI) is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & investment firm headquartered in Tokyo with offices in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne. IGPI was established in 2007 by former members of Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI has vast experience of supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~7,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
Within the Australia-Japan realm, the “energy-heavy” relationship has evolved across two related dimensions — “what?” and “who?” — with more stakeholders such as universities and startups garnering the limelight. This article intends to put the spotlight on such examples.
The wider objective of this piece is our contribution to a conversation about increasing the A-J innovation success cases in the Australia-Japan corridor. Specifically, IGPI shares some of its observations of the potential bottlenecks faced by the Japanese side between the HQs and local arms of Japanese corporations. These are internal and complex matters that by no means have easy fixes.
It is no secret that Japan and Australia have cultivated a longstanding and complementary trading relationship, underscored by traditional sectors such as energy, agriculture, and mining. In 2022, Australia contributed to Japan’s resources by supplying Japan with 43% of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) and 66% of its coal, with a predominant share of 75% in thermal coal[1]. On the other side, 7% of total Australian imports comes from Japan, including vehicles, machineries, and electronics (as of Dec 2023)[2]. Japan and Australia have built their relationship on comparative advantages, with Australia serving as a raw materials supplier and Japan as a manufactured goods producer[3].
The nature of the “energy-heavy” partnership between Australia and Japan is evolving in two related dimensions — these are “what?” and “who?” referring to needs and players, respectively.
2.1. Evolving Needs (“What”?)
Japan is a highly developed nation but lacking in natural resources, and Australia possesses abundant natural resources that can complement Japan’s requirements. Japan drew up a national strategy to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050[4], which encompasses a systematic transition from traditional fossil fuels to initiatives such as renewable energy generation and hydrogen transportation. While traditional energy sources will continue to play a role in Japan’s energy strategy in the mid-term, the trend towards a long-term transition to decarbonization is steadfast. In this global trend towards decarbonization and a sustainability focus, collaborations between two nations are widening. Some examples:
| “What?” | Brief Example |
|---|---|
| From Energy to Technology | Although energy remains a high focal point for now, the collaboration paradigm has evolved from traditional resources like coal to a shift towards cutting-edge technologies such as hydrogen transportation. One notable example is LAVO, an Australian energy storage and technology startup that integrated Artificial Intelligence (AI)-enabled digital solutions, which supplied its metal hydride storage technology to the leading Japanese trading house Marubeni Corporation. This will lead to the export of Australian green hydrogen. This collaboration established a precedent as the first of its kind to demonstrate the profitability and safety of exporting Australian renewable hydrogen stored in metal hydride to international market[5]. |
| From Procurement to Co-development | The goal of decarbonization also drives Japan’s investment from procurement to business or technical collaboration for co-developing innovative technologies. Japanese corporations such as JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corporation, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, and Osaka Gas have partnered with Australian corporations, including Future Energy Exports CRC, deepC Store, and Low Emission Technology Australia, along with Australian universities such as the University of Western Australia and Curtin University. Together, they have formalized a Project Agreement aimed at collaborative research and development on low-pressure and low-temperature solutions for the bulk transport shipment of CO2. This is to showcase the technical feasibility and operational viability of the solutions and ultimately advancing technologies for the secure and efficient shipment of substantial quantities of CO2[6]. |
2.2. Evolving Partnerships (“Who”?)
The transition of “what” is marked by widening of the players. While mega corporations once held a dominant position, the Australia-Japan collaboration is now witnessing increased participation from innovative participants such as universities and startups.
Australia’s innovation network is characterized by a highly complex yet proactive landscape, where collaborations and partnerships evolve to meet the demands of a rapidly advancing technological era. The collaborative partners between Japan and Australia are in a state of transition from (i) “Corporations x Corporations” to also include (ii) “Corporations x Universities”, (iii) “Corporations x Startups” and (iv) “Universities x Universities”. It symbolizes the growing realization of the strengths of Australian universities and startups, which Japanese corporations can leverage upon for mutual benefit. Some examples:
| “Who?” | Brief Example |
|---|---|
| Corporations x Universities | Macquarie University, a world-leading AI research powerhouse, and Fujitsu, a leading Japanese information and communication technology corporation, have together announced their establishment of AI Research Laboratory at Macquarie University. By utilizing the strengths of each other — the university’s research capabilities and Fujitsu’s generative AI and human sensing technologies — the focus is on researching and developing promising AI applications and related technologies for the society[7]. |
| Corporations x Startups | Morse Micro, an Australian fabless semiconductor startup reinventing Wi-Fi for IoT, secured Series B funding from a consortium of investors led by the Japanese ASIC and system-on-a-chip (SoC) developer MegaChips. Following this investment, MegaChips entered a partnership with Morse Micro to produce compliant semiconductors and modules, offering assurance, sales support, and new distribution channels. This came about because both Morse Micro and MegaChips share a common goal of revolutionizing IoT connectivity by innovating connectivity and establishing robust Wi-Fi HaLow solutions for the future[8]. |
| Universities x Universities | UTS (University of Technology Sydney), with pioneering food tracking technology, has shared the technology to the Wagyu beef farmers in both Australia and Japan. As part of the project Hokkaido University, the partner in the project supported the relationship between Australia and Japan on technology promotion. The project aimed to provide IoT and blockchain-enabled capabilities to the food supply chain market[9]. |
These select examples corroborate the fact that Japanese corporations are increasingly taking note of Australia’s innovation potential. The complementing strengths and common goal synergies can lead to collaboration not only limited to Australia or Japan but in the wider region/world. For this to happen at scale, a long-term view of investment and nurturing is critical. Corporations and stakeholders must actively address these aspects to incubate and support the growth of innovative ideas and technologies.
It is also noteworthy to share that these collaborations take place across diverse sectors and typically are in some combination of business, technical, and financial partnership. Apart from the well-known and time tested (i) “Corporations to Corporations”, some more examples occur across (ii) “Corporations x Universities”, (iii) “Corporations x Startups” and (iv) “Universities x Universities”.
3.1. Corporations x Universities – Examples
| Date | Type | Sector | Japanese Entity | Australian Entity | State | Quick Overview |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep-23 | Technical | Data Security | NTT | UTS | NSW | NTT and UTS are collaborating to address data security risks collectively, integrating state-of-the-art encryption technology[10]. |
| Jun-23 | Technical | Smart City | NEC Australia | University of Wollongong | NSW | A strategic alliance aimed at jointly spearheading smart city initiatives within the Illawarra region[11]. |
| Apr-23 | Technical | Smart Automotive | IDOM | RMIT | VIC | Collaboration on multiple specialized initiatives dedicated to the advancement of intelligent automotive solutions through the utilization of emerging technologies[12]. |
| Jul-22 | Technical | Carbon Neutrality | Nippon Steel | University of QLD | QLD | Joint research proposal between Nippon Steel and University of QLD aiming to transform CO2 into valuable chemicals through synergistic application of microbial and electrochemical processes[13]. |
| Nov-21 | Technical | Hydrogen | Chiyoda Corporation, ENEOS | QUT | QLD | Jointly announced a ground-breaking achievement of the first-ever successful technological verifications for CO2-free hydrogen to a practical level at scale[14]. |
Table 1. Collaboration between Japanese Corporations and Australian Universities
3.2. Corporations x Startups – Examples
| Date | Type | Sector | Japanese Entity | Australian Entity | State | Quick Overview |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar-23 | Financial | Automated Driving | Suzuki Motors | Applied Electric Vehicles | VIC | Suzuki Motors and Applied Electric Motors Electric Vehicles have signed an MoU to develop an autonomous electric vehicle platform[15]. |
| Oct-22 | Business | AI | Macnica Inc. | icetana | WA | Macnica has secured a strategic stake in icetana, a leading artificial intelligence software developer. As part of this deal, Macnica will assume the role of the exclusive distributor for icetana in the Japanese and Brazilian markets[16]. |
| May-22 | Technical | Engineering Design | Sumitomo Mitsui Construction (SMCC), IHI | Roborigger | WA | SMCC and IHI are collaborating with Roborigger to design and develop the first autonomous tower crane[17]. |
| Dec-21 | Business | Medical | Terumo Corporation | Q-Sera | QLD | Q-Sera, a University of QLD startup, specializing in the development of rapid serum blood collection tube technology, is set to manufacture and deploy its innovation in Japan. This comes after forming a partnership with Terumo Corporation, Japan’s leading medical device company[18]. |
| Dec-19 | Technical | Blockchain | Kansai Electric Power Co Inc. (KEPCO) | Powerledger | WA | Powerledger has expanded its trial in collaboration with KEPCO to facilitate the creation and tracking of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) as well as solar energy trading[19]. |
Table 2. Collaboration between Japanese Corporations and Australian Startups
3.3. Universities x Universities – Examples
| Date | Type | Sector | Japanese Entity | Australian Entity | State | Quick Overview |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct-23 | Technical | Laser Tech | EX-Fusion, Osaka University | University of Adelaide | SA | The University of Adelaide has partnered with EX-Fusion, a leading Japanese laser fusion startup, and the Institute of Laser Engineering at Osaka University to advance laser technology for clean fusion energy[20]. |
| Nov-22 | Technical | Photovoltaic | Kyoto University, Osaka University | RMIT University | VIC | This project aims to enhance an existing collaborative research network between Australia and Japan to develop next generation solar cells known as perovskite solar cells[21]. |
| Feb-22 | Technical | Telecommun-ications (6G) | Osaka University, Kyushu University | University of Adelaide, RMIT University | SA, VIC | These universities synergize essential capacities to advance 6G telecommunications, addressing the anticipated surge in data traffic by 2030[22]. |
| Jul-21 | Technical | Robotic | University of Tokyo | University of Sydney | NSW | This forum aims to discuss the use of urban robots in public spaces, inviting scholars from Australia and Japan to exchange the latest smart technologies. It also aims to promote ongoing collaboration among researchers in innovation and technology from both countries[23]. |
| May-20 | Technical | Carbon Neutrality | University of Tokyo | University of Queensland | QLD | Realize the goal of “Nanoarchitectured Functional Porous Materials as Adsorbents and Catalysts” to reduce greenhouse gas levels, mitigating global warming and converting them into valuable chemicals[24]. |
Table 3. Collaboration between Japanese Universities and Australian Universities
The nature of Japanese corporation’s associations varies significantly. Regardless of size, corporations may have had extensive length of association with Australia (over multiple decades) or extremely short time. However, the key issue faced in boardrooms is the depth of “Why Australia?” within that corporation and “how motivated” they are to explore such opportunities. IGPI has seen in many cases that the local arm understands the potential on one side but is challenged to convince HQ/RHQ to take any further action (e.g., strategic alignment, etc.). On the other hand, the RHQ/HQ looks at various countries and is not always clear on “Why Australia?” etc., and doesn’t offer much support to the local arm (e.g., funding, human capital dispatch, etc.).
So, the key is addressing these complex and layered internal issues to get the ball rolling. Based on IGPI’s diverse experiences of working with Japanese corporations’ HQs and various in-market offices, as well as supporting JETRO for a case study, there are eight key elements that need to be addressed for smoothly exploring innovation opportunities in a cross-country setting. It usually begins with alignment on strategy, mission, vision, and values (MVVs).
Image: JETRO Case Study Summary Report[25]
Regardless of the Japan or Australia side, unless the counter-country element is identified as part of the future, there will be misalignments, lack of actions, and/or insufficient implementation.
There are notable companies that have already overcome such challenges. For example, companies like NTT and Fujitsu have defined Australia as a “Testbed” market. In NTT’s case, Australia’s unique geographic landscape was perfect for developing next-gen agricultural sensing and communication technologies — with proactive consumers to test new technologies[26]. And in Fujitsu’s case, setting up a “Digital Transformation Center” within Macquarie University in Sydney was to take advantage of the university’s capabilities directly for ideation and co-creation of new solutions for customers — exemplifying the benefits from the diversity of talents[27].
These are examples of “Defining a clear role for Australia”, but high in impact to enable HQ/RHQ and local arm alignment.
IGPI Group has developed a deep-rooted understanding of Japanese corporations and has been a part of the global expansion and ambitions of many prominent companies across APAC and beyond. If you are a Japanese HQ or a local arm and believe in the potential of Australia-Japan based on the pillars of innovation but feel constrained due to any or all of the eight elements in this article, we will be glad to have a confidential conversation. IGPI provides highly customized business advisory to its diverse range of clients, including but not limited to:
To find out more about how IGPI can provide consulting support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
[1] https://japan.embassy.gov.au/tkyo/resources.html
[2] https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/imports
[3] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Completed_inquiries/1999-02/japan/report/c05
[4] https://www.meti.go.jp/english/policy/energy_environment/global_warming/roadmap/
[5] https://www.lavo.com.au/blog/marubeni-lavo-exporting-hydrogen
[6] https://www.fenex.org.au/australian-japanese-partners-execute-rd-project-agreement-to-develop-safe-and-efficient-solutions-for-industrial-scale-shipping-of-co2/
[7] https://www.fujitsu.com/au/about/resources/news/press-releases/2023/fujitsu-and-macquarie-university-establish-new-research-lab-to-accelerate-development-of-human-sensing-and-generative-ai-technologies.html
[8] https://www.morsemicro.com/2022/09/06/morse-micro-raises-140m-in-series-b-funding-to-accelerate-iot-connectivity-and-revolutionize-our-digital-future/
[9] https://www.uts.edu.au/about/faculty-engineering-and-information-technology/global-engagement/international-news/tracking-technology-wagyu-beef
[10] https://www.uts.edu.au/about/faculty-engineering-and-information-technology/news/ntt-data-uts-partner-enhance-data-security-research
[11] https://www.uow.edu.au/media/2023/uow-and-nec-australia-join-forces-to-drive-smart-city-innovations-in-the-illawarra-.php
[12] https://idomi.com.au/2023/04/20/idom_rmit_partnership/
[13] https://www.nipponsteel.com/en/news/20220722_100.html
[14] https://www.eneos.co.jp/english/newsrelease/2021/pdf/20211102_01.pdf
[15] https://www.appliedev.com/suzuki-press-release-30-march-2023
[16] https://www.icetana.ai/investor-updates/global-technology-giant-macnica-takes-strategic-investment-in-icetana
[17] https://www.roborigger.com.au/sumitomo-mitsui-construction-teams-with-roborigger/
[18] https://uniquest.com.au/rapid-serum-blood-collection-technology-developed-by-uq-startup-q-sera-to-be-made-in-japan/
[19] https://www.powerledger.io/media/power-ledger-kepco-extend-trial-to-create-and-track-renewable-energy-credits
[20] https://www.adelaide.edu.au/newsroom/news/list/2022/12/14/fusion-of-expertise-aims-to-develop-sovereign-capability.
[21] https://www.dfat.gov.au/people-to-people/foundations-councils-institutes/australia-japan-foundation/grants/2021-22-grantees
[22] https://www.dfat.gov.au/people-to-people/foundations-councils-institutes/australia-japan-foundation/grants/2021-22-grantees
[23] https://www.dfat.gov.au/people-to-people/foundations-councils-institutes/australia-japan-foundation/grants/meet-our-2020-21-grantees
[24] https://japantoday.com/category/tech/first-grant-awarded-under-rio-tinto-australia-japan-collaboration-program
[25] JETRO “Case Study on Management Innovation of Japanese Companies in Southeast Asian Markets and Identification of Key Points” Summary Report
[26] https://www.foodagility.com/posts/australia-the-testbed-for-new-green-iot-technologies
[27] https://corporate-blog.global.fujitsu.com/apac/2019-12-20/digital-transformation-centre-brings-co-creation-to-life-in-australia/
Mr. Rachit Khosla is a seasoned strategy consulting professional with rich experience in leading and executing market entry, growth strategy and open innovation/new business creation engagements for Fortune 500 businesses, large MNCs and Govt. bodies across the Asia Pacific. He has advised clients in diverse industries including green and digital areas. Before joining IGPI, Rachit was the Country Manager at YCP Solidiance, and after that, a co-founder of Conquerem — an online B2B e-bidding platform for boutique consulting firms. Rachit is an avid traveler who has set foot in 40+ countries and lived in 4 countries.
Mr. Kaoru Shingae is a Consultant at IGPI Australia. Prior to joining IGPI, Kaoru worked at Toyota, BMW, and Boston Consulting Group, primarily specializing in the automotive and mobility sector and having exposure to wider industrial sectors. Kaoru has both internal and external strategy experience with a deep understanding of ‘What’ is most important for all stakeholders’ future. He has end-to-end experience in corporate and enterprise-level planning, all the way down to operational planning. Kaoru is a holistic all-rounder who engages with both strategic and operational stakeholders throughout the company. Past achievements include crisis turnaround plans, long and mid-term vision plans, CEO’s company goal plans, and sales & market operational plan plus delivery, to name a few. Kaoru graduated from The University of Melbourne with a Bachelor of Commerce.
Mr. Jiachen Wang is an Intern at IGPI Australia (Nov 2023 – Feb 2024). Jiachen is currently pursuing his Master’s Degree in Finance from the University of Melbourne. Prior to this, he completed an Honours Bachelor of Science from the University of Toronto, majoring in Statistics and Geographic Information Systems. He has had previous internship experiences in the financial sector, spanning equity research, investment banking, and corporate venture capital.
Industrial Growth Platform Inc. (IGPI) is a Japan-rooted premium management consulting & investment firm headquartered in Tokyo with offices in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne. IGPI was established in 2007 by former members of Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turnaround projects in Japan. IGPI has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation, to name a few. IGPI has vast experience supporting Fortune 500s, government. agencies, universities, SMEs, and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has approximately 7,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
In recent times, the escalating geopolitical rivalry between the United States and China has revived bipolar dynamics reminiscent of the Cold War, when much of the world became pawns in a superpower competition. Moscow’s aggression against Ukraine has only intensified pressure on developing nations to pick a side between the democratic West and authoritarian China and Russia — a choice that many resist. Meanwhile, a succession of systemic shocks — including the coronavirus pandemic, economic fallout from Ukraine, and deepening climate emergency — have underscored the gross inequities at the core of the world economy and the vulnerability of lower- and middle-income nations to political, economic, and ecological crises not of their own making.[1] Within this, there stands a nation that is uniquely positioned because of its ties to ‘both camps’ that can help bridge the divide potentially like no other — but easier said than done!
The Global South is a multifaceted concept encompassing geographical, geopolitical, historical, and developmental aspects, with certain exceptions.[2] Used since the late 20th century, the term has seen increased application as we moved into the 21st century. Carl Oglesby, a political activist, is credited with first using “Global South” in 1969. In an article for the liberal Catholic magazine Commonweal, Oglesby discussed how the Vietnam war represented a peak in the North’s dominance over the South. But it was only after the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union — which marked the dissolution of the so-called “Second World” — that the term gained momentum.
The Brandt line, a definition from the 1980s dividing the world into the wealthy north and the poor south.
https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1098296 [3]
In a global context, “the North” and “the South” serve as alternative terms for “developed” and “developing” countries, respectively, based on the Brandt line. Together, these terms constitute nearly the entire global population.[4] The two groups are often differentiated by their levels of wealth, economic development, income inequality, democracy, and political and economic freedom, as measured by freedom indices. States that are seen as part of the Global North tend to be wealthier, less unequal, and considered more democratic and developed countries. Southern states are generally poorer, developing countries with younger, more fragile democracies, often reliant on primary sector exports and frequently share a history of colonialism by Northern states.[5] After colonialism, the North continued to maintain unequal trade relationships with the South, which further perpetuated the economic disparities between the regions.[6]
Nevertheless, the divide between the North and the South is often challenged and said to be increasingly incompatible with reality. For example, the differences in the political, economic, and demographic makeup of countries tend to complicate the idea of a monolithic South.[7] How can countries like China and India, each with about 1.4 billion people and GDPs of about $18 trillion and $3.4 trillion, respectively, be lumped together with the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, with a population of a little over 300,000 and a GDP of $984 million, or the southern African country of Zambia with 19 million people and a GDP of $30 billion?[8] Furthermore, globalization has also contested the notion of two distinct economic spheres.
In 2023, many newspaper articles and reports have increasingly referenced the “North-South divide”, predominantly in the context of the war-struck era our planet is experiencing. Illustrating this point, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sparked unity among Western democracies not seen since the first Gulf War. However, the Global South did not meet the Western expectation of global, unified condemnation and action against Russia.[9] As such, the unwillingness of many leading countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to stand with NATO over the war in Ukraine has brought the term to prominence once again. Global South leaders have been demanding an end to the “plundering international order,” calling for a more representative and responsive global system that caters to the needs of developing economies.[10]
Apart from this, not long ago, the pandemic also posed many challenges for the Global South. The challenges were daunting for a myriad of reasons varying across the diverse countries. They include weak public health systems, lower living standards, and a lack of services in densely concentrated cities or widely dispersed rural populations. Even amongst middle-income countries, whose economies tend to be export-oriented and commodity-dependent, the collapse of global demand puts significant pressure on their national accounts. For some, dependency on tourism and foreign remittances makes up a substantial portion of their GDP, and any losses in these sectors exacerbate unemployment and revenue losses.[11]
From a Japanese lens, the term “Global South” has become such a buzzword that it graces the daily news.[12] Japan has been actively engaging with the Global South, pursuing this engagement through various means such as frequent visits, dialogues, and regional forums, including the G20. Japan’s approach is characterized by its desire to foster a free and open international order, ensure global peace, and address global inequalities.[13]
The North-South divide remains relevant today, as global inequality continues to pose a significant challenge. This divide surrounds economic, social, and environmental disparities.[14] While some countries in the Global South have achieved considerable economic and social progress, others still grapple with poverty and underdevelopment. The divide also influences vulnerability to climate change, with developing countries in the South often facing a disproportionate share of the impacts. Factors such as limited resources for adaptation and mitigation, widespread poverty, and exposure to natural disasters contribute to this vulnerability.[15]
Addressing the North-South divide thus requires a comprehensive and coordinated approach that includes policies to promote sustainable economic development, improve governance and political stability, increase access to education and healthcare, and reduce inequality within and between countries. International cooperation and partnership are also essential for addressing global challenges and promoting equitable development. Although easier said than done, some of the ways to address the North-South divide can include:
To that end, Japan is setting a five-year investment target of more than $13 billion to support developing countries in the Global South, a move that aims to deepen ties with growing, resource-rich economies. The 2 trillion yen ($13.3 billion) in funding would come from investments by Japanese companies backed with government aid, Japan’s Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) stated.[16] As per the then METI Minister Nishimura, “We will strengthen collaboration through support and investments that lead to solutions to societal challenges facing emerging markets, such as carbon reduction and digitalization; Japan aims for ‘win-win’ relationships with the Global South, in which aid leads to economic expansion, local investments by Japanese companies, and export growth.”[17]
Japan’s focus on the Global South brings a ray of light amid an increasingly chaotic global situation.[18] As an example of the themes mentioned above, such as climate change and investment, an initiative that was recently announced is India-Japan Fund (IJF). IJF is a $600 million fund launched by the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and India’s National Investment and Infrastructure Fund (NIIF). The fund will be supported by JBIC-IG Partners (a JV of JBIC and IGPI) and aims to invest in environmental sustainability and low-carbon emission strategies, focusing on areas such as renewable energy, e-mobility, and waste management.[19] Interestingly, the fund will have almost equal financial contribution from the Japanese and Indian sides, which is significant in the North-South discussion as it brings in connotations of equality — one of the root issues of this historical divide.
From a global North-South lens, Australia’s role in this divide is complex due to its unique position. Geographically located in the Global South, Australia is considered part of the Global North due to its economic and political ties. If we examine Australia further, it is a regional superpower and one of the richest nations in the world,[20] situated in an important and strategic position for Global North allies with Asia-Pacific interests. Its Western-influenced political economy, combined with its relations with many Asian countries provide a unique geopolitical context.[21]
The above makes Australia’s role in the Global North-South divide crucial, and based on Australia’s worldview, including the growing importance of the Global South, Australia can contribute to the world order in a way that matches its interests. Some of the dimensions along which Australia is/can further play a role include economic, environmental, and security aspects, acting as a bridge in the divide:
1. Economic Partnerships and Aid for Development
2. Environmental & Innovation Cooperation
3. Regional Stability, Security & Cooperation
4. Education, Knowledge & Cultural Exchange
It is essential to note that the role of any individual country, including Australia, is complex and multifaceted. Furthermore, we have established that all Global South countries can’t have a ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy due to their diverse global views and progress.
IGPI established its Australian operations in 2020 as we recognized the increasingly prominent role that Australia is playing and can play in APAC and the wider world. Although Australia is not new to corporate Japan, since business relationships go back several decades, the nature of the relationship has been evolving quickly. There are many untapped opportunities waiting to be introduced to the world — based on the fact that Australia has a relatively high quality of innovation,[22] but commercialization of those innovations hasn’t been its strong point. This is one area where Japanese expertise in globalizing businesses can complement Australia in solving global issues. On that note, IGPI supports JETRO’s J-Bridge program, which encompasses open-innovation-driven collaborations between Japanese corporations and Australian companies in their strength areas of “Green” and “Digital”.
Several Australian innovations can potentially solve issues in the Global South. As a public example of the above point with regards to innovation cooperation — Australian insurance company, Hillridge Technology helps farmers lessen the financial impact of adverse weather events by using blockchain technology to immediately and automatically pay out insurance claims as soon as a weather event occurs within a certain distance from a farmer’s operations.[23] Also, Hillridge Co is co-operating with Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Group (MSIG) in Vietnam to launch a new agricultural insurance product that protects farmers in Vietnam from the risks of drought.[24]
In future, IGPI Australia will endeavor to continuously focus on joining more dots between Japan, Australia and the rest of the world through its business pillars of advisory and investments to play its part in making this planet a more cohesive place.
To find out more about how IGPI can provide consulting support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
[1] https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/08/15/term-global-south-is-surging.-it-should-be-retired-pub-90376
[2] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/everyones-talking-about-the-global-south-but-what-is-it/articleshow/103453914.cms?from=mdr
[3] https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/37558
[4] https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/north-and-south-global#:~:text=As%20terms%2C%20the%20North%20(also,were%20increasingly%20seen%20as%20pejorative
[5] https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/37558
[6] https://tourismteacher.com/north-south-divide/
[7] https://apnews.com/article/what-is-global-south-19fa68cf8c60061e88d69f6f2270d98b
[8] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/everyones-talking-about-the-global-south-but-what-is-it/articleshow/103453914.cms?from=mdr
[9] https://ppr.lse.ac.uk/articles/10.31389/lseppr.88
[10] https://theconversation.com/the-global-south-is-on-the-rise-but-what-exactly-is-the-global-south-207959
[11] https://www.lse.ac.uk/international-relations/centres-and-units/global-south-unit/COVID-19-regional-responses/COVID-19-and-the-Global-South
[12] https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Japan-must-take-its-Global-South-vision-forward-in-2024
[13] https://ecfr.eu/article/what-europe-can-learn-from-japans-approach-to-the-global-south/
[14] https://tourismteacher.com/north-south-divide/
[15] https://tourismteacher.com/north-south-divide/
[16] https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Japan-aims-for-13bn-in-Global-South-investments-economic-minister
[17] https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Japan-aims-for-13bn-in-Global-South-investments-economic-minister
[18] https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Japan-must-take-its-Global-South-vision-forward-in-2024
[19] https://www.jbic.go.jp/en/information/press/press-2023/press_00102.html
[20] https://www.primecapital.com/insights/australians-are-the-richest-in-the-world/#:~:text=In%20terms%20of%20mean%20wealth,United%20States%20and%20Hong%20Kong.
[21] https://eprints.qut.edu.au/123774/1/North-In-South.pdf
[22] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-isnt-australia-moving-up-ranks-global-innovation/
[23] https://research.csiro.au/aus4innovation/australian-insurer-helps-vietnamese-farmers-though-new-technology/
[24] http://bizhub.vn/corporate-news/hillridge-msig-team-up-to-protect-farmers-in-vn_344956.html
Mr. Rachit Khosla is a seasoned strategy consulting professional with rich experience in leading and executing market entry, growth strategy and open innovation/new business creation engagements for Fortune 500 businesses, large MNCs and Govt. bodies across the Asia Pacific. He has advised clients in diverse industries including green and digital areas. Before joining IGPI, Rachit was the Country Manager at YCP Solidiance, and after that, a co-founder of Conquerem — an online B2B e-bidding platform for boutique consulting firms. Rachit is an avid traveler who has set foot in 40+ countries and lived in 4 countries.
Industrial Growth Platform Inc. (IGPI) is a premier Japanese business consulting firm with a presence and coverage across Asian markets. IGPI was established by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ) in 2007. IRCJ, a US $100 billion Japanese sovereign wealth fund, is known as one of the most successful turn-around funds supported by the Japanese government.
In 2017, IGPI collaborated with the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) to form JBIC IG, providing investment advisory services and supporting overseas investment. In 2019, JBIC, along with BaltCap, jointly established Nordic Ninja, a €100 million venture capital fund to focus on deep tech sectors such as autonomous mobility, digital health, AR/VR/MR, artificial intelligence, robotics and IoT in the Nordic and Baltic region. In 2019, IGPI established IGPI Technology to focus on the area of science and technology. The company invests in technological ventures and provides hands-on management support. The company also provides business development support towards commercialization and monetization of technologies.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
October 2023 findings from Deal Street Asia (DSA) reveal a notable shift in market dynamics, with Southeast Asian (SEA) startups navigating through the lowest quarterly deal volume in nearly three years. The third quarter, spanning July to September, witnessed only 151 deals being closed, representing a significant 27% quarter-on-quarter decline. Yearly, this translates to a substantial 34% year-on-year reduction in total deal volume and a noteworthy 52% year-on-year decrease in total deal value.
This market shift extends across early-to-later stage funding rounds. Seed-stage deals, in particular, hit a three-year low in Q3 2022, experiencing a volume drop of 44% compared to the same period the previous year. Additionally, the median value of seed rounds softened, falling by 22% over the last nine months. Similarly, Series A to Series D rounds have also encountered significant reductions. Series A deal volume faced a particularly challenging scenario in the initial nine months, while Series C witnessed the deepest correction in median value, plummeting by 59% from the same period the previous year.
A sector-wise comparison by quarter in Southeast Asia (SEA) reveals the following trends:
In Q3 2023, the Food and Agriculture Tech sector secured funding amounting to $254 million, reflecting a growth of 638% from the $34 million raised in Q2 2023. However, this still represents a drop of 40% compared to Q3 2022. The Energy sector, on the other hand, experienced growth with funding amounting to $89 million in Q3 2023—an increase of 482% and 1014% from Q2 2023 and Q3 2022, respectively.
In 2021, there was a notable surge in startups securing funding at inflated valuations, driven by a pursuit of rapid growth and increased cash burn. However, the trajectory shifted in 2022, signaling a return to normalcy. The market experienced a decline in deal frequency, a moderation in valuations, and a rise in flat and down rounds.
While specific statistics for Southeast Asia (SEA) regarding the proportion of up, flat, and down rounds are unavailable, insights from the U.S. market provide a glimpse into this trend. Carta’s Q3 2023 report revealed that nearly one in five investments in the U.S. was characterized as a down round. The Coller Capital Global Private Equity Barometer for Summer 2023 noted that 59% of Asia-Pacific (APAC) Limited Partners (LPs) anticipate more down rounds in the next 12 months, contrasting with 24% of APAC LPs expecting fewer down rounds.
Highlighting this shift, notable instances of down rounds in SEA in 2023 include Bitkub. As reported by Asia Tech Review, Bitkub, a Thailand-based crypto exchange, attracted a $500 million investment from Siam Commercial Bank (SCB) in 2022 for a 51% stake at a valuation exceeding $1 billion. However, in July 2023, Bitkub agreed to sell a 9.22% share to Asphere for approximately $17 million, valuing the company at $184 million. This case exemplifies the recalibration in valuation dynamics and investor sentiments that have become prevalent in the evolving landscape of startup funding in the region.
Through discussions with investors, industry practitioners, and startup founders, several key reasons have been identified as contributing to the current fundraising downcycle. These include:
– Uncertainty in macro-economic conditions
The recovery in economic performance post-pandemic has been patchy, and geopolitical tensions, such as the Ukrainian-Russian war, the ongoing trade war between the US and China, and the Israel-Gaza War, have brought uncertainty to the overall economy. This has led to supply chain issues that partly contribute to the inflation we see today.
– Higher cost of funds
As a corollary to the prevailing inflation, the US Central Bank, commonly known as “The Fed,” has undertaken a series of 11 interest rate hikes since March 2022. Presently, the Fed Funds rate stands within a range of 5.25-5.5%, while the 10-year Treasury has reached its zenith at above 5%. This upswing in the cost of funds plays a pivotal role in shaping asset allocation strategies.
The escalation in the cost of funds brings forth numerous implications, among others:
The recent lackluster performance of stock markets in October, coupled with the anticipation of prolonged higher interest rates and subdued after-market showings of recent IPOs from the summer, has created a challenging landscape. The potential for significantly reduced valuations is prompting many IPO aspirants to reconsider or delay their market debuts. The continuous rise in the 10-year Treasury yield is especially discouraging for potential deals. Those still contemplating an IPO may face the necessity of accepting substantial reductions in valuation.
– Startup performance not meeting investors’ expectations
Amidst the pandemic, a notable surge in deals at impressive valuations occurred. However, this optimistic trend did not translate universally for startups, as a substantial number faced challenges meeting these elevated expectations. Some even resorted to returning investors’ funds, while others succumbed to bankruptcy and had to implement cost rationalization measures.
One example is Zume, backed by Softbank, which ceased operations in June 2023 after an eight-year run. Initially, the startup embarked on ambitious plans to revolutionize the pizza industry by investing $446 million in equipping delivery trucks with robotic pizza-makers and smart ovens, aiming to freshly cook pizzas en route to customers. However, Zume encountered various technological challenges, including issues with cheese sliding off pizzas. These challenges resulted in increased expenses and faster depletion of funds compared to revenue generation, ultimately leading to the cessation of operations.
Another case is IRL, an event discovery and planning app. Despite raising approximately $200 million across various funding rounds and achieving unicorn status in 2021, the startup faced numerous challenges. A significant expansion in its headcount was followed by a 25% workforce reduction in 2022, indicating deeper underlying issues. The situation worsened when both an SEC probe and an internal investigation revealed that a staggering 95% of the app’s reported 20 million active users were fake accounts. This unsettling truth dealt a fatal blow to the company, resulting in its permanent shutdown. These instances underscore the intricate challenges faced by startups, even amid a backdrop of prolific deal-making during the pandemic.
– Recent IPOs of well-known startups have been disappointing
The recent post-IPOs performance of a handful of startups has been disappointing.
– VC funds have faced difficulties in raising monies, with some having to downsize aspirations
The first quarter of the year has witnessed a notable shift in the venture capital landscape, as reported by Preqin’s latest venture capital report. In a departure from the quarterly average of 460 over the past five years, only 144 venture capital funds successfully closed during this period.
Moreover, the fundraising market is displaying a growing concentration of larger funds. As larger funds have demonstrated an ability to leverage their brand, track record, and scale to secure more capital, especially during turbulent market conditions. Preqin’s findings reveal that a significant half of the capital raised by venture capitalists in the first quarter flowed into the coffers of just five funds. This trend underscores a notable shift in investor confidence and strategy amid a bear market for technology.
It is also reported that funds with a focus on the Asia-Pacific region appear to be in a more favorable position to attract capital compared to their counterparts in North America and Europe. The first quarter saw the closure of the largest fund, Primavera, an Asia-focused venture capital firm renowned for backing industry giants such as Alibaba and Bytedance, which managed to secure a $4 billion commitment, accounting for a noteworthy 15% of the total value of funds closed in the past quarter.
As the venture capital landscape continues to evolve, these trends shed light on the strategies and preferences of both investors and fund managers in navigating the current market conditions.
Given the challenging fundraising environment, it is foreseeable that there will be higher pressure from potential investors pushing for a lower valuation – a “down-round” – whereby the subsequent round of funds raised is valued lower than the preceding round. Such a down-round carries both legal and economic implications.
Often, startup founders may not have a good inventory of terms that they have agreed with in their prior funding rounds; unfortunately, some of these may come to bite them back during difficult times. One of the things that all founders need to pay careful attention to is the anti-dilution provision and specifically how this provision is worded – whether it is full-ratchet or on a narrow/wide-based weighted-average. The full ratchet provision is generally the most onerous one for the founders.
While it is a little too late to modify the provisions of the already agreed anti-dilution terms, knowing, and having a good understanding of these terms will at least let founders plan in terms of potential dilution and how this may impact different stakeholders and guide them in pursuing their future fundraising.
As the old saying goes, “Internally generated cash is always the cheapest source of capital,” so it is very important that founders adopt a “thrifty” attitude. Some of the things that we have come across during such times are for founders to focus on extending the cash runway above all else. To do so, we often see founders re-focusing on their core business. Doing so may necessitate founders closing down pilot/pet projects and non-profitable business segments. An example would be Grab, which has closed its Autoinvest and Earn+ products recently.
At the same time, one tip we have for founders to execute cost restructuring before even considering fundraising. The sooner this is done, the more confident investors are that founders can undertake tough decisions during necessary times. The ability to retain selective key staff and to let go of others is very important in such times. As to profitability, we generally see that many are not yet profitable today, unfortunately. From our feedback and experience dealing with investors and founders of such startups, we strongly advise that founders have a clear idea of how to chart for profitability. Also, some have cut back on spending, and hence growth, just to show profitability. Unfortunately, such a strategy does not work. Clearly, investors, especially VCs, understand that such businesses will not be attractive for funding as well.
We also advise founders to reach out to the investors in their cap table and consider a follow-on/extension round to raise money under the same terms. Investors who have already invested in your company should be rightfully aware and have a better understanding of your company’s situation. Hence, they are in a better position to help during a downturn. Such a round typically allows the business some room for survival to tide through difficult periods.
Besides this, investors may also seek bridge financing from current investors. The key to successfully executing this is to be very clear on the proceeds of this fund and ensure that the amount raised through this extension leads to a meaningful milestone that will allow them to get through this difficult period.
We also advise investors to look for alternative ways to gain funding – one of which has gained popularity these days is to raise debt funding (popularly known as Venture Debt or Private Credit). However, this strategy may work best for startups that have collaterals – such as receivables backed by credible paymasters or have assets that have visible liquidation value – such as land/property.
Many venture debt funders we spoke to have also mentioned that having a good VC name in the cap table and having these VC personnel heavily involved in the startup’s management team, such as being part of the board or having an oversight of the startup’s management, helps in their underwriting. These VC involvements provide some assurance in terms of follow-on funding and governance, respectively.
That said, founders need to be fully aware that the venture debt’s cost of funding today can go as high as 15% in USD term. We also advise that it is important to negotiate credit terms that work best for both parties – not only on the interest rate but also on the repayment schedules. In addition, some venture debts may consider lower interest rates in place of having an option to purchase shares in the startup in the future (Warrants) if they see the startup as promising.
We also see some banks extending a program to financestartups – in Indonesia, for example, recently we saw Superbank – a digital bank supported by Grab and Singtel secure a partnership with Genesis Venture to provide debt-funding solutions to innovative Indonesian startups. This can also be an alternative source of funding that founders need to look into. Other than this, crowdfunding platforms and government grants (where the startups can have access to such funding lines) may also be useful in this difficult time.
Other than sourcing for alternative sources of funding, startups may take away the conversation on valuation this round by having it structured as convertible debt or SAFE (Simple Agreement for Future Equity). Doing so is essentially kicking valuation further down the road.
Another alternative is to perform a structured preferred equity round – for instance, agreeing on friendlier terms for investors during this funding round like a higher liquidity preference – such as a 1.5-2.0x liquidity preference in combination with participation rights or to sweeten things up, you may also include guaranteed terms. Again, founders need to strike a balance between giving out too much and “dirtying up” the investor terms – which will save them in terms of valuation but will haunt them later if things do not go as planned.
At the end of the day, a down round may not be all too bad. Founders need to realize that it is not the end of the world when such things happen. The key is to understand that there are options to mitigate this and if all goes well, while not perfect, allow founders to keep their startups safe through the funding winter.
IGPI Singapore has worked and collaborated with players in the startup ecosystem, including the founders of startups from various stages and sectors, VCs/ PEs, fellow advisors, and strategic regional and global investors as both strategic and M&A advisors. Through our vast experience in negotiating and dealing with both up and down cycles, we offer tailored, suitable advisory solutions in different funding environments. We understand the difficulty of today’s fundraising environment and provide our independent, professional solutions suited to your startup’s funding needs.
IGPI Singapore can support your company in its business development and maximize its chances of success – Get in touch with us here!
Mr. Erwin Thio is the Senior Manager of IGPI Singapore. His areas of expertise are in M&A deal management (both buy-side and sell-side), deal structuring, valuation and commercial due diligence, market analysis, and project management. He has also spent several years working within the investment and fund management (particularly for Real Estate Private Equity Funds) division of major developers such as Mapletree, Lendlease, Savills IM, and CFLD, where he helped with deal execution and origination, capital raising, fund creation/ development, and management.
Mr. Marcus Tan is an Associate of IGPI Singapore. He has started his career with IGPI. He graduated from Singapore Management University with a Bachelor of Business Management, majoring in Finance. During his time in university, he has gained overseas internship experiences in the chartering and offshore industry.
Industrial Growth Platform Inc. (IGPI) is a premium Japanese management consulting and M&A advisory firm headquartered in Tokyo with offices in Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai, and Melbourne. IGPI has 14 institutional investors, including prominent Japanese mega-corporations such as Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit, and Sumitomo Corporation to name a few.
IGPI has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, universities, SMEs, and startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs such as market entry and growth strategies, various aspects of M&A, innovation advisory, new business creation, etc. IGPI is consciously an industry agnostic firm (work in 10+ industries) and this coupled with its making its venture investments (30+ till date) adds to its uniqueness. IGPI has a JV with the Japan Bank of International Cooperation (JBIC) – one of JV’s initiatives is a VC fund in Europe (EUR 100mn fund) with participation from Honda, Panasonic, and Omron.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
Copyright© 2025 Industrial Growth Platform Pte. Ltd. All rights reserved. Web Excellence by Verz
