Most large companies now have sustainability targets. The harder problem is no longer target-setting. It is delivery. That was the clearest takeaway from a recent panel on turning supply chain sustainability targets into execution. The discussion covered Scope 3, supplier data, packaging, water, chemicals, circularity, EPR and verification. The message for Southeast Asia’s startup ecosystem is direct: the opportunity is not in helping companies say more. It is in helping them do, measure and prove more. This matters because Southeast Asia sits inside many global value chains. Apparel, footwear, food and beverage, agriculture, packaging, recycling and manufacturing are all part of the region’s operating base. Global sustainability targets will not be met in the headquarters. They will be met, or missed, in factories, farms, supplier networks, packaging systems and local infrastructure. For startups, the opportunity is large but not simple. The buyer’s need is real. The pain points are operational. The risks are also high. Supplier execution is the first opportunity A recurring issue from the panel was that companies often do not own the assets where sustainability action must happen. In apparel and footwear, for example, brands may rely on suppliers for production. In food and beverage, companies depend on farmers, packaging partners, recyclers and logistics actors. This creates a gap between corporate target and operational control. Startups can help close this gap. The useful products are not generic ESG platforms. Companies need tools that help them understand supplier maturity, collect primary data, track action plans, run supplier progress reviews and connect sustainability performance to sourcing decisions. A practical startup opportunity is supplier execution software that can answer simple questions: Which suppliers matter most? Which suppliers have the weakest data? Which suppliers are constrained by local infrastructure? Which actions have been completed? Which claims can be verified? Which suppliers should receive technical support? The risk is building a reporting tool that does not change supplier behaviour. If the product only creates nicer dashboards, it will not solve the core problem. Also Read: Why investors and customers are betting on ESG-aligned startups Scope 3 data remains broken Scope 3 was one of the strongest themes in the discussion. Companies struggle to collect reliable data beyond Tier 1 and Tier 2. They often rely on emission factors. In Asia, some of these factors may not reflect local conditions well. This creates two problems. First, companies may set targets based on weak estimates. Second, they may claim progress because a calculation method or emissions factor changed, rather than because real operational decarbonisation happened. This opens space for startups in primary data collection, supplier-level measurement, farm-level monitoring, material traceability and emissions calculation quality. But the bar is rising. The market does not need more rough estimates. It needs better evidence. Startups should build around a data hierarchy: Verified primary data is strongest. Unverified primary data is useful for internal management. Region-specific emissions factors are acceptable for interim estimation. Generic emissions factors should be treated as early-stage baselines. The risk is credibility. Any startup claiming to solve Scope 3 must be clear about what it can and cannot prove. Verification will become a product category The panel repeatedly returned to validation and verification. If a company claims that a supplier, factory or farmer reduced emissions, improved water performance or changed material practices, it needs evidence. This creates an opportunity for startups working on audit workflows, traceability, registries, claim rights, chain-of-custody systems and third-party verification infrastructure. The strongest use cases are where multiple companies source from the same upstream producer. If one company funds an improvement, others may also benefit. Without clear claim rules, the first mover may pay while others claim. That creates a free-rider problem. Startups that can track intervention ownership, allocation and verification may become important infrastructure for Scope 3 markets. The risk is trust. Verification products cannot rely only on self-declared inputs. They need defensible methods, auditable records and acceptance by buyers, standards bodies or assurance providers. Also Read: ESG as strategic value: Why Asian boards must move beyond disclosure Circularity is more than collection Packaging was another major theme. Collection is necessary, but it is not enough. A packaging system only becomes circular when collected material can be sorted, recycled and sold into a market that demands the recycled output. This is especially hard for complex materials such as multilayer packaging. Startups often focus on collection apps or recycling marketplaces. Those can help, but they are only part of the chain. The stronger opportunity may be in full-system solutions: packaging design support, material separation, recycling process innovation, recycled output offtake, and verification of recovered volumes. The key question is not, “Was waste collected?” The better question is, “Did the material return to productive use?” The risk is unit economics. If there is no demand for the recycled output, collection systems may depend on subsidies or corporate sponsorship without becoming durable businesses. EPR creates regulatory opportunity, but also execution risk Extended Producer Responsibility was discussed as a way to create clearer accountability across the value chain. If designed well, EPR can shift packaging sustainability from voluntary action to systemic responsibility. This creates openings for startups that help producers comply, report, collect, verify and collaborate. It also creates opportunities for recycling operators, reverse logistics firms and data platforms. But EPR is not just a compliance market. It is an operating market. Producers need practical ways to meet obligations without breaking cost, quality and delivery requirements. The risk is policy uncertainty. Startups should avoid building only for one version of regulation. Better products should be flexible enough to work across different EPR rules, reporting formats and collection models. Infrastructure constraints shape what can scale One panel insight is especially important for founders: sustainability outcomes depend on local infrastructure. Grid stability affects renewable energy adoption. Waste systems affect circularity. Consumer segregation affects collection quality. Recycling capacity affects packaging outcomes. Farmer capability affects agricultural Scope 3. Also Read: The integrity gap in ESG tech: Why defensibility is the next frontier This means startup scaling will not be uniform across Southeast Asia. A product that works in one market may struggle in another because the enabling system is different. Founders should build with market maturity in mind. The right question is not only whether the customer wants the solution. It is whether the local ecosystem can support delivery. The practical founder thesis The best Southeast Asia sustainability startups will not sell ambition. They will sell execution. The strongest opportunities are in: Supplier sustainability operating systems. Scope 3 primary data collection. Farm-level measurement and support. Verification and claim infrastructure. Packaging circularity beyond collection. EPR compliance and recovery systems. Water and energy efficiency for factories. Traceability across complex supply chains. The biggest risks are also clear: Weak data. Over-reliance on estimates. Unverified claims. Poor local infrastructure fit. Lack of demand for recycled outputs. Products that support reporting but not operational change. Business models that do not survive cost, quality and delivery pressures. For founders, the takeaway is simple. Do not build another ESG dashboard unless it changes decisions on the ground. Build tools that help companies act, measure, verify and improve across real supply chains. That is where the market is moving. Panel Discussion took place at the Global Sustainable Development Congress 2026. More information here. Panellists include Ms Mia Gunawa (Puma), Ms Gabrielle Johny (PepsiCo Indonesia) and Mr Tan Win Sim (Verra). The panel was moderated by Mr Khor Zijian (ISEA). — Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of e27. Join us on WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn to stay connected. The post From ESG dashboards to delivery: Where Southeast Asia’s sustainability startups should build appeared first on e27.
Author: Khor Zijian
Source: e27