Reflections on the upGrad ESG & Leadership Masterclass

Most webinars are a waste of an hour.  You join, you endure forty-five minutes of someone reading their own slides aloud, you leave having learned nothing that you could not have gleaned from a two-paragraph Google search.  The organisers congratulate themselves.  The speaker adds “thought leader” to their LinkedIn profile.  Everyone goes home none the wiser.  The KnowledgeHut upGrad masterclass on ESG and Leadership held on 1st June 2023 was not that.  It was the kind of session that is uncomfortably rare in the professional development space, one where the speaker had actual operational knowledge, actual skin in the game, and an actual opinion about what matters and what does not.

As the then Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Zenith and President of the Board of Red Sycamore, I was tapped to deliver a masterclass on my thoughts on corporate leadership in the ESG industry.  We are living in the age of climate change, and the primary risk exposure for any business operating on an intermediate to long-term horizon is carbon taxes and carbon credits.  Not reputational risk.  Not consumer sentiment.  Not the annual sustainability report that your communications team writes and nobody reads.  Carbon taxes.  The hard financial impost that governments are legislating into existence at an accelerating pace and that will determine whether your business model survives the next decade.  This is not a point the industry has failed to make.  It is a point the industry has made badly, repeatedly, in language so laden with jargon and moral earnestness that the average CFO closes the tab within thirty seconds.  The upGrad session made it differently.  It made it as a financial argument, not an ethical one.

The Tesla Example, Revisited with the Benefit of Hindsight

The Tesla example is worth dwelling on because most commentators who cite it get it wrong, and the years since have made the correction considerably more interesting than it was in 2023.  Tesla Incorporated is routinely discussed as an electric vehicle manufacturer.  For years it was, more accurately, a regulatory credit arbitrage business that also happened to make cars.  In 2022, Tesla reported US$1.78 billion in regulatory credit sales.  In 2023, that figure was US$1.79 billion.  In the first quarter of 2024 alone, it reported US$595 million.  Tesla’s competitors, General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis, were paying Tesla to exist, funding their most dangerous competitor because they had failed to meet the emissions standards Tesla exceeded by design.

That revenue stream has since collapsed, and the collapse is the sharpest lesson in this entire argument.  Tesla’s credit revenue fell 28% in 2025 to roughly US$2 billion.  By the second quarter of 2026, it had cratered to just US$146 million, down 67% year-on-year, after the 2025 Working Families Tax Cuts Act reduced the American civil penalty for missing Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to zero, removing rivals’ incentive to buy Tesla’s credits at all.  In Europe, Toyota and Stellantis withdrew entirely from Tesla’s CO₂ pooling arrangement for 2026, with Stellantis instead building its own compliance pool alongside its Chinese partner Leapmotor.  Tesla did not lose this revenue because carbon regulation weakened.  It lost it because rivals stopped needing to rent compliance from a competitor once the political and structural conditions shifted.  The lesson from 2023 was correct.  Carbon markets are a market to be captured.  The lesson the intervening years added is that a revenue model built on renting a regulatory gap is only as durable as the regulation itself, and regulation is precisely the variable a competitor’s own government can legislate out from under you.

The Immediate Takeaways, Tested against What Actually Happened

The session’s immediate takeaways were three.  ESG market leadership translates into market dominance.  ESG market leadership affects market access.  ESG market leadership is part of personal and corporate branding.  None of these are new ideas.  The ESG consulting industry has been saying variations of them for years.  What distinguished the upGrad session was the specificity of the argument and the absence of the usual hedging.  Most ESG presenters will tell you that sustainability is important and that you should consider doing more of it.  This session told you why, with numbers, and what happens to businesses that do not.

As we approach 2030, every signatory to the Paris Agreement remains under increasing domestic political pressure to demonstrate measurable progress on their climate pledges.  The mechanism most governments are reaching for is the carbon tax, and what was transitional in 2023 is now live.  The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism entered full operation from January 2026, and the definitive regime now imposes an actual carbon cost, rather than a reporting obligation, on imports from countries without equivalent carbon pricing.  For any Southeast Asian manufacturer exporting to Europe, this stopped being a future problem two years ago and is now simply an operating cost.

The CBAM is not alone.  Singapore introduced its carbon tax in 2019 at S$5 per tonne.  It rose to S$25 per tonne in 2024, and is on schedule to reach S$45 per tonne in 2026 and S$50 to S$80 per tonne by 2030.  Companies that had not begun decarbonisation planning by the time of the original masterclass were not behind the curve.  They were off the map, and the map has only become less forgiving since.

Leadership as a Structural Observation, Not a Values Statement

The point about leadership was equally unambiguous.  Leadership is not the art of commanding.  It is the exercise of influence to effect preferred outcomes.  Corporate leadership without ESG leadership is inadequate corporate leadership.  This is not a values statement.  It is a structural observation.  A chief executive who does not understand their company’s carbon exposure, who cannot articulate a credible decarbonisation pathway, and who treats ESG as a communications function rather than a strategic one, is not fit for purpose.  The market has continued to agree, and more emphatically than in 2023.  A study that year found 77% of Asia-Pacific firms included ESG metrics in evaluating senior executives’ remuneration packages, up from 63% the year before.  The board is watching.  The shareholders are watching.  The regulators, now armed with CBAM’s fully operational enforcement regime, are watching with considerably sharper teeth than they had two years ago.

What the upGrad session did, and what very few ESG presenters manage to do, was land the argument without losing the audience to either despair or boredom.  The carbon market is not a threat to be managed.  It is a market to be captured.  Every industry has exposure to it.  The businesses that are ahead of this are not the ones that hired a Chief Sustainability Officer and issued a glossy annual report.  They are the ones that built carbon strategy into their revenue model, though Tesla’s own subsequent collapse in credit revenue adds a crucial refinement: the model must be built on genuine, durable environmental value, not on a regulatory arbitrage that a rival government can dismantle in a single tax bill.

Red Sycamore, for what it is worth, is doing exactly this, building investment-grade blue carbon credits for the compliance market across up to 500,000 hectares of seagrass coastline in the Siargao region of the Philippines, with further access to coastline near the Bay of Siam in southern Thailand.  It is not a charitable endeavour.  It is a financial instrument backed by measurable, verifiable environmental impact, calibrated using Reef Aquaculture Conservancy MRV methodology, and structured to meet compliance-market documentation standards rather than the voluntary-market self-certification that collapsed so publicly elsewhere in the industry.  That distinction, compliance-grade and durably verified versus voluntary and cheaply revocable, is precisely what the upGrad session was advocating, and precisely what the market has since demanded of every serious corporate player, whether they were ready for it or not.

Most of them were not.  The gap between where corporate ESG strategy stood in 2023 and where it needs to be today is not a gap that gets closed by webinars.  But it helps, occasionally, to hear someone make the argument without apology, without hedging, and without the insufferable self-congratulation that has become the signature register of the sustainability industry.  The upGrad session was that.  It should have had a larger audience.  It should have been recorded and circulated to every senior management team in Southeast Asia.  It was not.  That, too, is a data point about where the industry actually is.

---

Terence Nunis | Executive Chairman, Equinox Zenith & Red Sycamore | Author, The 1% Playbook: The Billionaire Cheat Code

Carbon Credits: The Trillion-Dollar Market Hiding Behind a Two-Billion-Dollar Scandal

A carbon credit is a permit.  One credit allows the holder to emit one tonne of CO₂, or the equivalent in other greenhouse gases.  It is also called a carbon offset.  Polluting companies receive credits allowing them to emit up to a periodically shrinking limit, and any surplus gets sold to companies that need more.  Cap-and-trade, in one paragraph.  What follows is why the scale of this system matters far more than most commentary bothers to explain.

The Two Markets are Not Remotely Comparable in Size, & Treating Them as Equivalent is the First Mistake

Global compliance carbon markets reached a trading value of approximately $1.5 trillion in 2024, covering roughly 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions across 46 national and 37 subnational jurisdictions.  The EU Emissions Trading System alone accounts for the overwhelming majority of that figure, valued at around €770 billion, and it has generated over €175 billion since 2013, ploughed directly into renewables, energy efficiency, and low-carbon innovation.  EU compliance permits closed 2025 at roughly €82.85 per tonne, up 21.5% year-on-year.

The voluntary market, by contrast, was valued at approximately $2 billion to $2.5 billion in 2023, and even its most optimistic growth projections put it at $100 billion to $250 billion by 2030, still a fraction of where compliance markets already sit today.  The voluntary market is not a smaller version of the same thing.  It is roughly 0.15% the size of the compliance market, running on self-certification instead of government enforcement, which is precisely why an investigation could find, as The Guardian, Die Zeit, and SourceMaterial did in January 2023, that over 90% of Verra’s rainforest offset credits were likely phantom credits representing no genuine reduction at all, with the underlying deforestation threat overstated by roughly 400% on average according to a Cambridge University study.  Disney, Shell, Gucci, BHP, and Salesforce all bought into that fiction.  A market a few billion dollars in size, built on marketing department discretion, will always be more vulnerable to exactly this kind of collapse than a trillion-dollar market operating under statutory cap enforcement. 

Consider What This Money is Actually Supposed to Fund, because the Shortfall is Obscene

The Loss and Damage Fund, agreed at COP27 and operationalised at COP28 in 2023, exists to compensate developing nations for climate harm they did not cause.  Estimates of what developing countries actually need range from $215 billion to $387 billion annually this decade, with some analyses, including from the Loss and Damage Collaboration, putting current-year losses already above $400 billion annually, projected to rise to $580 billion by 2030 and between $1.1 trillion and $1.7 trillion by 2050.  The initial pledges at COP28 totalled roughly $700 million.  That is not a rounding error against $400 billion.  That is 0.1% to 0.2% of one year’s actual need, pledged as though it were a permanent solution.  Pledges and competing national interests were never going to close a gap of this magnitude, and four years on from COP28 nothing about that arithmetic has improved.

The GDP Numbers Underneath All of This Should Terrify Anyone Treating Climate Finance as Optional

The Swiss Re Institute’s stress test across 48 economies, representing 90% of global GDP, found that under a severe scenario of 3.2°C warming, the global economy could lose up to 18% of GDP by 2050 compared to a world without climate change.  Even under a moderate 2°C scenario, the loss sits at 11%, translating to roughly $23 trillion in reduced annual global output.  China stands to lose close to 24% of its GDP in the severe scenario.  ASEAN markets specifically are projected to lose about 37% of GDP by 2048 under the most extreme case, with Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand collectively losing economic output exceeding seven times their combined 2019 GDP by 2050.  This is not a distant abstraction for the region.  It is the single largest economic risk most ASEAN economies will face this century, and it dwarfs, by orders of magnitude, the entire current size of the voluntary carbon market that keeps absorbing corporate climate budgets to negligible effect.

Why a Secondary Market Matters Strategically, Not Just Financially

A trillion-dollar compliance market with a liquid, fungible secondary layer does something a $700 million pledge round can never do: it attracts institutional capital at the scale the GDP numbers demand, because pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, and insurers will only deploy serious money into an asset class with price discovery, ratings, and enforceable standards behind it.  Currently, compliance carbon credits are not fungible across markets, which strangles exactly the kind of liquidity that would let capital move efficiently toward the highest-integrity mitigation projects.  Fixing that requires several things done in parallel: quality standards and a clear regulatory framework defining which credits qualify, verified against actual emissions reductions rather than marketing claims; rated carbon credits as the mechanism that finally lets institutional risk committees treat these instruments the way they already treat rated corporate debt; and a single, liquid trading infrastructure that makes credits genuinely tradeable rather than trapped inside jurisdiction-specific silos.

Regulatory recognition is the final and hardest step, running through partnerships with sovereign wealth funds on the basis that this infrastructure constitutes strategic national assets, and through recognition from central banks willing to treat high-integrity carbon credits as rated instruments rather than reputational accessories.  Achieve that, and carbon credits sit one step from full financial instrument status, tradeable and collateralisable the way investment-grade debt already is. 

A $400 billion annual funding gap and an 18% GDP loss scenario cannot be financed by phantom credits, self-certified rainforest projects, and corporate goodwill campaigns.  They require a trillion-dollar compliance market with real liquidity, real ratings, and real enforcement, scaled to match the size of the problem it claims to solve.  Climate mitigation has to become self-funding through a genuine secondary market, because pledges have had every opportunity to close this gap, and the numbers prove, year after year, that they never will.

---

Terence Nunis | Executive Chairman, Equinox Zenith & Red Sycamore | Author, The 1% Playbook: The Billionaire Cheat Code

The Next Industrial Revolution from AlterCOP29

The following are notes of the presentation delivered at AlterCOP29, on the 14^th November 2024.  These are my opinions, as President of Red Sycamore. 

I said this at COP28, and I am repeating it here, carbon credits are the new oil.  With the proper strategic framework, it becomes a strategic asset that can influence energy and financial policy of related nations.  These are the steps that I believe we should work at, which democratises the process. 

We need to encourage private players to run carbon exchanges, in the same way that the cryptocurrency market has grown.  We should create the hype, and ride it, instead of stifling it.  Perhaps an offshore compliance exchange is an option. 

This is my controversial opinion: Fold the voluntary carbon credit market into the compliance market.  This is inevitable anyway.  As we develop carbon credits as financial instruments, I foresee increasingly more comprehensive compliance and regulatory frameworks.  There is no space for the laissez-faire approach of the voluntary market. 

We need to work towards creating rated, investment-grade compliance carbon credits, as a first step towards having them recognised as financial instruments.  The best carbon credits projects to create the necessary volume for trade is blue carbon credits from seagrass projects.  This is why Red Sycamore is in this space. 

The strategic intent for this is to create a secondary market for carbon credits.  When we have carbon credit futures, ETFs, and other derivatives, we have speculation and a viable secondary market that is a means to create the liquidity and encourage investment into more sustainability projects globally. 

This is how we address the funding gap, and bring in more players into the market.  If there is money to be made, there will be investment.  An appeal to self-interest is far more realistic than an appeal to altruism.  Major corporations and funds are beholden to self-interest.  Any claim of altruism is cynical and hypocritical.

Enhancing Market Confidence from AlterCOP29

The following are notes of the presentation delivered at AlterCOP29, on the 14^th November 2024.  These are my opinions, as President of Red Sycamore. 

To enhance market confidence, the obvious next step is establishing clear, standardised criteria for what constitutes a high-quality carbon credits.  From a financial perspective, we need to agree, across financial institutions, on the status of carbon credits, whether commodity, options contract, or something different.  The independent verification by accredited third parties should be made more stringent.  Gold, Verra and similar organisations are not the answer.  We need something that functions just like rating agencies like Moody’s and Fitch.  Perhaps, we need something similar for the carbon market. 

Projects need a better, legally enforceable framework for transparent, publicly available information about their methodologies, results, and impacts when reporting.  This framework needs to be standardised across projects, as far as practicable.  What we have is nowhere near enough.  Also, considering the different kinds of credits, even in the compliance market, we need a mechanism for convertibility.  This is a step towards fungibility. 

At COP29, there is a push to mobilise US$65 billion annually from the private sector to complement public funding for climate projects.  I am sceptical. The answer is not found in philanthropy and localised private funding.  This is publicity, not reality.  This level of coordination is not going to compete with the energy lobby, the mining lobby and other special interest groups.  The way forward is the appeal to self-interest, not altruism.

Regional Developments in Sustainability Finance from AlterCOP29

The following are notes of the presentation delivered at AlterCOP29, on the 14^th November 2024.  These are my opinions, as President of Red Sycamore. 

Regulators are setting minimum standards for sustainability reporting and disclosures to introduce more transparency and accountability on climate issues.  One of the discussions is the legal responsibilities of Chief Sustainability Officers (CSOs).  Some companies are pushing for the appointment of people with legal backgrounds.  Others, including myself, are pushing for CSOs to have an accounting background, because this is not primarily about legal compliance, but financial compliance. 

Countries are developing green taxonomies to standardise what qualifies as a green or sustainable investment.  The ASEAN Taxonomy Version 2 was released in June 2023, to provide a science-based framework to classify sustainable activities.  It includes four environmental objectives: mitigation of climate change risks, adaptation to climate change, protection of healthy ecosystems and biodiversity, and promotion of resource resilience and a transition to a circular economy.  The ASEAN Capital Markets Forum (ACMF) has released a roadmap for sustainable capital markets, focusing on strengthening infrastructure and improving access to financial products.  This roadmap aims to promote sustainable finance and support the region’s transition to a low-carbon economy. 

The ASEAN Taxonomy aims to ensure interoperability with other widely used international taxonomies, such as the EU Taxonomy and the Green Bond Principles.  Indonesia, Malaysia, The Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam are developing national taxonomies to align with the ASEAN Taxonomy.  Here, in Singapore, we have introduced a carbon tax and are developing its taxonomy to support sustainable finance and decarbonisation efforts. 

Issuance of green bonds has increased, with a cumulative value of over US$4 trillion since 2018.  Sustainability-linked bonds have gained traction, as they link financial performance to sustainability targets.  Despite a drop in net inflows from US$161 billion in 2022 to US$63 billion in 2023, sustainable funds continue to attract significant investments.  Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) funds are becoming more popular.  Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) and Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) provide funding and support for sustainable projects.  These institutions help to implement policies that promote sustainable finance.  The sustainable finance market in SEA is still relatively small, which indicates significant potential for growth.  Several countries in the region are considering or implementing carbon pricing mechanisms to incentivise emission reductions. 

Discussions at COP29 are focused on establishing a new climate finance goal to replace the previous commitment of US$100 billion annually by 2020.  Developing countries, including those in SEA, are advocating for a higher annual commitment of at least US$1.3 trillion from wealthy nations to support climate action.  Singapore has pledged up to US$500 million to support Asia’s decarbonisation and climate resilience through the Financing Asia’s Transition Partnership (FAST-P).  They aim to raise US$5 billion with international partners to make climate action less financially risky.  That is extremely ambitious. 

The Economic Development Board (EDB) has launched a new grant to support carbon project developers and finance activities that can generate high-quality carbon credits aligned with Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.  This grant aims to spur the development of more carbon projects in the region. 

Several countries in Southeast Asia are considering or implementing carbon pricing mechanisms to incentivise emission reductions.  Singapore introduced its carbon tax on 01^st January 2019, under the Carbon Pricing Act (CPA).  The initial tax rate was set at S$5 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent (tCO2e) for the first five years (2019-2023) to provide a transition period for businesses to adjust.  To support its net zero target, the carbon tax will be raised to S$25/tCO2e in 2025, S$45/tCO2e in 2026 and 2027, and is expected to reach S$50-80/tCO2e by 2030.  The carbon tax applies to all industrial facilities with annual direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of at least 25,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e).  This covers about 80% of Singapore's total GHG emissions from around 50 facilities in sectors such as manufacturing, power, waste, and water. 

From this year, companies can use high-quality international carbon credits (ICCs) to offset up to 5% of their taxable emissions.  These credits must comply with rules under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and meet seven principles to demonstrate high environmental integrity.  A transition framework has been introduced to support emissions-intensive trade-exposed (EITE) companies as they work to reduce emissions and invest in cleaner technologies, while managing the near-term impact on business competitiveness. 

Malaysia is considering implementing a carbon tax, with discussions ongoing about the appropriate rate and coverage.  Indonesia has introduced a carbon tax on coal, with the revenue intended to fund renewable energy projects and reduce emissions.  The Philippines has implemented a carbon pricing mechanism through its Renewable Energy Act, which includes incentives for renewable energy projects.  No Southeast Asian (SEA) countries have implemented a national Emissions Trading System (ETS) similar to the European Union ETS. 

The global carbon credit framework is a system designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by allowing countries and companies to trade carbon credits.  Article 6 enables countries to pursue voluntary cooperation to reach their climate targets.  It allows for the trading of carbon credits between countries, helping to finance climate action in developing nations.  Credits traded under Article 6 come with corresponding adjustments to ensure that emissions reductions are not counted twice.  The Core Carbon Principles (CCPs) set rigorous thresholds on disclosure and sustainable development, ensuring that carbon credits meet high-integrity standards.  These principles serve as a global benchmark for high-quality carbon credits.  The supervisory body for Article 6.4 has established standards for how international carbon crediting projects will work.  This includes a dynamic mechanism to update these standards as needed.  This framework is expected to direct resources to the developing world and help save up to US$250 billion a year when implementing climate plans. 

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) introduced a concept called transition credits to help accelerate the phase-out of coal-fired power plants in Asia.  Transition credits are a new class of high-integrity carbon credits generated from the emissions reduced through the early retirement of coal-fired power plants (CFPPs) and their replacement with cleaner energy sources.  These credits aim to provide financial incentives for asset owners to retire coal plants earlier than their operational lifetimes, serving as a complementary financing instrument to bridge the economic gap for early coal plant retirements.  The Asian Development Bank, the International Energy Agency, and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Singapore are also involved.  According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), Southeast Asia will need an estimated US$12 billion in concessional finance by the early 2030s to support the accelerated uptake of clean energy technologies.

Overview of Major Trends in Sustainability Finance in SEA from AlterCOP29

The following are notes of the presentation delivered at AlterCOP29, on the 14^th November 2024.  These are my opinions, as President of Red Sycamore. 

Red Sycamore were at the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change’s 28^th Conference of Partners, in November 2023.  While there, the team had private discussions with: government representatives, central bankers, representatives from financial institutions and major corporations, and potential investors of sustainability projects. 

Our conclusion: the carbon credit system, and sustainability finance, as a whole, needs to evolve.  Consider this: the Loss and Damage Fund was established to assist developing countries particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.  Current efforts and pledges fall short of what is needed.  As of September 2024, a total of U$S702 million has been pledged to the fund by 23 contributors.  Countries like France, Italy, Germany, and the UAE have pledged significant amounts, with each contributing at least US$100 million.  According to a UN report, developing countries will need US$300 billion per year by 2030, and US$500 billion by 2050 to adapt to climate change.  The 2022 Adaptation Gap Report indicates that international adaptation finance flows to developing countries are five to ten times below estimated needs. 

The projected loss of GDP due to climate change varies by region and scenario.  According to recent reports, climate change could lead to a 16.9% loss in GDP by 2070.  India alone is projected to face a 24.7% GDP loss.  If no mitigating actions are taken, the global economy could lose up to 18% of GDP by 2050.  If we assume a projected GDP loss of 18% by 2050, considering that as of 2024, the global GDP is approximately US$100 trillion, the projected loss in is US$18 trillion.  These numbers assume high emissions scenarios.  The Loss and Damage Fund does not have near enough to address this, even if we assume that it is only used for infrastructure development to address climate change, which is fanciful.  We are all stakeholders of this planet.  Sustainability finance needs to be democratised.  This presentation is an overview of the issue.  It is not meant to answer the questions in detail, but to continue the conversation, and bring more stakeholders to the table.

Executive Leadership Seminar Panel 2: “ESG & Climate Change - Succeeding in a New World”

Panel 2 of the Executive Leadership Seminar was “ESG & Climate Change - Succeeding in a New World”.  Leadership in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and in climate change refers to the role of leaders in driving sustainability initiatives within their organisations.  Leaders need to educate themselves and build their climate-risk competency, gaining an understanding of industry-specific global warming, international debate, risk literacy, and more.  Leaders are responsible for integrating ESG principles into their organisation’s strategy and operations.  This includes setting ESG goals, tracking progress, and reporting on ESG performance.  Leaders play a crucial role in addressing climate change by reducing their organisation’s environmental impact, investing in clean technologies, and advocating for policies that support a low-carbon economy. 

Executive Leadership Seminar Panel 2: “ESG & Climate Change - Succeeding in a New World”

This panel explored developments since the last United Nations Climate Change Conference, 28^th Conference of Partners, at Dubai, and how we need to adapt to the new regulatory framework, the sociopolitical realities, and the onset of carbon credits as a proposed financial instrument.  This upends the financial market and shapes economic policy globally. 

The panel was moderated by Mr. Kin Ng, Chief Executive Officer of Red Sycamore Group.  The panellists were Mr. Matthew Fernandez, Chief Operating Officer of microLEAP PLT; Mr. Melvin Tan, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of 8VantEdge; Dr. Roslina Chai, Founder of Chrysalis Institute of Be-ing, and Senior Associate, Strategy & Innovation for  Decision Processes International Asia; and Mr. Vernon Lim, Senior Consultant of Monarch Advisory and Vjoire. 

Mr. David Chen, Chief Executive Officer of AgriG8; Mr. Kevin Lim, Chief Executive Officer of Megaton Shipping; Dr. Victor Tay, Chief Executive Officer of Global Catalyst Advisory, Governing Council of the China-ASEAN Business Alliance, and Regional Managing Director of Asia; Stout Investment Bank; and Dr. Vincent Lim, Chief Financial Officer, Asia-Pacific of Datalogic Singapore, and Associate Faculty of the Singapore Institute of Technology