This paper offers a national plan for Indonesia to change youth entrepreneurship from a profit-first approach to a people-planet-profit approach. It places this plan in the context of the latest natural disasters in Aceh, West Sumatra, and North Sumatra, where floods and landslides showed how forest deterioration, watershed damage, and extractive land-use are increasingly generating socio-economic costs. Based on a systematic literature review of Indonesian laws, including Presidential Regulation No. 2/2022 and the National Youth Entrepreneurship Strategy, as well as ASEAN startup frameworks and environmental studies, the paper recognizes three policy levers. Firstly, youth entrepreneurship governance should be reoriented toward outcome-based accountability, not only job creation, business survival, social inclusion, but also watershed health. Secondly, impact-oriented financing needs to be a mix of public funds, private capital, micro-fiscal incentives, and post-financing mentoring. Thirdly, green entrepreneurship should feature in vocational education, MBKM programs, regulatory sandboxes, and green procurement. The paper maintains that youth entrepreneurship should no longer be seen just as an employment strategy but should be a national resilience agenda that links job creation, ecological restoration, disaster-risk reduction, and the Golden Indonesia 2045 vision.
Introduction
Floods and landslides that devastated Aceh, West Sumatra, and North Sumatra at the end of 2025 were, in a way, a warning about the fragility of Indonesia’s ecological and economic systems, besides just natural disasters. Hundreds of people lost their lives, thousands of families were displaced, and access to health services, clean water, roads, and other essential goods was severely disrupted. Disaster-management authorities reported an ever-increasing number of casualties and damage to infrastructure, while field reports highlighted extreme weather, forest degradation, land-use change, and weakened upstream watershed functions as a combination of factors that escalated the destructive power of the floods. [1]
This disaster made decision-making a lot more difficult as well, pointing to an even bigger question. How should Indonesia rebuild local economies in regions that are increasingly exposed to hydrometeorological risks? In the aftermath, the usual things governments do are to provide emergency assistance, repair infrastructure, and give some short-term economic relief. While they may be the basics, they are not complete solutions. If watershed degradation, forest loss, and unsustainable economic practices continue, then the same regions will be vulnerable to recurring disasters over and over again. Some of the experts of Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), or Gadjah Mada University, are of the opinion that this calls for urgent watershed rehabilitation and reforestation. [2], [3] The central government, on its part, has also revealed a plan to review and cancel permits of companies allegedly involved in environmental degradation in the affected areas. These developments indicate that disaster recovery and ecological restoration can no longer be seen as two separate matters; the same goes for local economic transformation.
Against this backdrop, youth entrepreneurship must also be rethought. It is a mistake to continue considering it a mere means of providing jobs for the unemployed or increasing the number of startups. It must be incorporated into a larger national resilience agenda. Indonesia requires young people who are entrepreneurs not only to generate employment opportunities and establish successful enterprises but also, at the same time, contribute to environmental restoration, watershed rehabilitation, disaster preparedness, and community resilience. Therefore, the recent floods in Sumatra offer a compelling reason for the reexamination of the entrepreneurship policy, and they demonstrate that entrepreneurship without ecological awareness can replicate vulnerability, whereas entrepreneurship driven by social and environmental impacts can help reduce it.
Indonesia is on the verge of a demographic window where a significant portion of its population will be of working age. This demographic pattern has the potential to serve as the engine for productivity, innovation, and economic growth. On the other hand, it can also become a liability if youth unemployment, skill mismatches, and unequal opportunities are not tackled. A demographic dividend is not a given. It needs institutions, skills, investment, and policy coherence. Otherwise, the potential of a young population will be wasted, and some observers have even called it a demographic time bomb. [4] The question is not just whether young Indonesians want to start a business. Many do. What is more pressing is whether the ecosystem supports them in establishing sustainable, resilient, and socially beneficial enterprises.
Recently, the Indonesian government made several important strides toward entrepreneurship. Supporting this, Presidential Regulation No. 2 of 2022 on National Entrepreneurship Development gives a crucial legal foundation for enhancing entrepreneurship across sectors. Likewise, the National Youth Entrepreneurship Strategy points out youth entrepreneurship as a policy focus with quite a detailed description of the necessary components of competence, access to markets, capital, community support, and institutional coordination. [5], [14] Given that these measures demonstrate that the state has identified the strategic role of young entrepreneurs in economic transformation, the realization of policy objectives must be accompanied by an effective implementation framework.
One of the main challenges of such projects is that success is gauged mostly by outputs rather than outcomes. Most programs keep track of the number of training sessions given, the number of people reached, the number of business competitions held, or the number of loans distributed. Though these metrics are definitely informative, they don’t give us a complete picture. For example, they don’t let us know whether the young entrepreneurs managed in the end to create decent jobs, survived 3 or 5 years, got access to wider markets, improved productivity, lessened environmental risks, or contributed to local resilience. In areas prone to natural disasters, the disparity is even greater. Business entrepreneurship programs rarely assess whether the supported businesses have served to protect watersheds, reduce wastes, practice agroforestry, operate circularly, or adapt to climate change.
This paper is about the fact that one of the biggest things Indonesia can do to make youth entrepreneurship relevant to the changing times is to transition from a profit-first model to a people, planet, profit framework. Of course, this isn’t about denying profit. On the contrary, this is about placing profit within a far-reaching comprehension of value creation. In other words, a business is sustainable if and only if it can bring about a profitable situation for future generations to come while also strengthening communities and reducing the negative impact on the environment. Such an approach, which is most commonly referred to as the triple bottom line, is highly relevant to Indonesia, not only because it is confronted with youth unemployment and ecological degradation but also because the country is experiencing an increase in disaster risk.
Sociopreneurship to Green Innovation: Clarifying the Conceptual Foundation
In any discussion of policy formation, we first need to understand some major concepts. The initial one is sociopreneurship, using an entrepreneurial method that puts social value as the main focus of business. Traditional entrepreneurship, most times, sees social benefits as accidental, whereas sociopreneurship sees a social problem first and then creates a business model to address it. Sociopreneurship in Indonesia is typically linked with poverty alleviation, community empowerment, inclusive finance, halal-based microenterprises, and helping marginalized groups. [6] In places prone to disasters, sociopreneurship can initiate livelihood restorations, arrange cooperative productions, and provide local solutions after crises.
Secondly, the term green innovation refers to the creation or improvement of goods, services, business models, and production methods that have less impact on the environment and use fewer resources. Initiatives such as using recycled materials, renewable energy, sustainable transport, organic farming, waste conversion, water saving, and low-carbon technology are some. [7] Green innovation is significant as several environmental problems are also economic ones. Problems such as deforestation, poor waste disposal, mining causing damage, and irresponsible land use are not only environmental issues; they are driven by economic factors. If markets incentivize extraction instead of restoration, then businesses will also follow that path. Therefore, policies are needed to assist in creating markets that encourage restoration, circular practices, and climate resilience. It argues that for a business to be sustainable, it has to combine social, environmental, and economic aspects. [8] The ‘people’ element covers social inclusion, community well-being, decent work, and empowerment. The ‘planet’ element is concerned with ecological integrity, resource efficiency, biodiversity, and climate resilience. The ‘profit’ element is about financial viability, scalability, and long-term business sustainability. These three elements should be considered together rather than individually. A case in point, a youth-led enterprise that restores mangroves, creates local employment, and generates income through eco-tourism or sustainable aquaculture, is achieving all three objectives at the same time.
The triple bottom line (people, planet, profit) approach is even more crucial for Indonesia, as the country has multifaceted development challenges. Creating more startups alone will not solve the problem of youth unemployment. Environmental issues cannot be resolved simply by regulations if the communities do not have other ways of making a living. Building resilience against disasters through infrastructure alone is not possible if natural ecosystems keep degrading. Green social entrepreneurship can be the means that connects jobs, skills, local economic growth, environmental recovery, and disaster risk reduction.
But such a conceptual change needs more than just motivational words. It needs practical instruments. Regulations have to be specific about what the social and environmental impact really means. Finance should be given to enterprises that can demonstrate actual results. Education must equip the youth with green and digital skills. Government procurement can be a tool for creating early markets for sustainable products and services. Local authorities should be empowered to pilot new regulations aimed at responsible innovations. Without such instruments, people, planet, profit might well remain just a slogan rather than a genuine policy framework. To put it differently, a system is not the lack of programs. On the contrary, there are quite a few programs, training, mentoring, credit schemes, startup competitions, incubations, digital-skills initiatives, and local entrepreneurship campaigns. The issue is how these programs are coordinated, measured, and linked to broader development priorities. Most initiatives are still output-oriented. They count activities but do not sufficiently evaluate long-term effects.
This is a problem because youth entrepreneurship is expected to solve so many structural issues. It is expected to help solve youth unemployment, reduce skills gaps, support innovation, expand digital adoption, strengthen local economies, and even contribute to national competitiveness. Besides, youth entrepreneurship is now expected to help with resilience and ecological repair in the face of climate-related disasters. These are the level of outcome objectives. They cannot be measured by merely counting the number of participants trained or business proposals submitted.
Consider the example of a training program that attracts thousands of participants. But how many of these actually establish businesses? How many survive up to three years? How many employ other young people? How many enter formal markets? How many adopt green practices? How many reduce waste, restore degraded lands, or provide services that help communities in their adaptation to flooding? Rarely are such questions systematically answered. Consequently, decision-makers may go on financing programs that appear very active on paper but fail to produce a real change.
Fragmentation is another issue. Various ministries, local governments, universities, private companies, and civil society organizations offer entrepreneurship programs with different goals and indicators. Some focus on digital startups while others focus on MSMEs, youth empowerment, cooperatives, women entrepreneurs, vocational training, or village entrepreneurship. Such a wide range could be a strength if properly coordinated. But without an integrated framework, it may lead to duplication, poor targeting, and limited policy learning. While programs may be concentrated in urban centers, youth in rural and disaster-prone regions remain underserved.
The Sumatra floods provide a vivid example of how fragmentation can be costly. Regions that are prone to disasters require entrepreneurship models that are integrated with ecological restoration and local resilience. Youth living in such areas may be helped to set up enterprises in agroforestry, watershed monitoring, forest-based eco-tourism, waste management, sustainable agriculture, clean water technology, and community logistics. Nevertheless, such models can only be formed if there is coordination between the entrepreneurship policy, environmental policy, disaster risk management, vocational education, finance, and local economic planning. If these policy areas continue to be treated as separate, the chance for integrated recovery will be lost.
Furthermore, reports from the media and environmental experts have traced instances of deforestation, legal and illegal mining, and logging to the heightened risk of flooding in parts of Sumatra. This is not to imply that youth entrepreneurs are the ones causing such disasters. Rather, it indicates that the entrepreneurship policies of the future have to be formulated taking into account the ecological vulnerabilities. Besides being market actors, young entrepreneurs should be supported as contributors to sustainable land-use changes. Entrepreneurship should facilitate communities in moving away from destructive practices toward those that are regenerative in terms of the economy.
Policy Landscape: Strong Upstream Direction, Weak Downstream Discipline
The biggest issue with Indonesia’s youth entrepreneurship ecosystem is that it isn’t the lack of programs; actually, there are quite a lot of them: training, mentoring, credit schemes, startup competitions, incubation, digital-skills initiatives, and local entrepreneurship campaigns. The problem is that these programs are very loosely coordinated, measured, and linked to development priorities at the national level. Many initiatives are still very output-oriented. They mainly count activities but don’t evaluate their long-term effects well enough.
This poses a problem because youth entrepreneurship is one of the solutions expected to work on structural problems. It is expected to lower youth unemployment, fill in the gaps in skills, promote innovation, enhance digital adoption, strengthen local economies, and contribute to the competitiveness of a country overall. Now, in the context of natural disasters caused by climate change, youth entrepreneurship is also expected to be linked to measures of environmental consciousness and ecological repair. All of these are outcome-level targets. Counting only the number of people trained or business proposals submitted will never suffice for these outcomes.
Almost all the documents on the policies of the country give a good basis to start from. Presidential Regulation No. 2/2022 establishes a stronger national policy framework for entrepreneurship. It also acknowledges the existence of multiple thematic groups, including youth entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs, technology entrepreneurs, women entrepreneurs, and village entrepreneurs. [10] This recognition matters quite a lot as it shows that entrepreneurship is not a one-size-fits-all field. Young entrepreneurs have different challenges compared to the owners of businesses who are older. Social and green entrepreneurs encounter different market barriers than ordinary firms. Village entrepreneurs are operating under different infrastructure and market conditions than urban startups.
A national youth entrepreneurship strategy is prepared to work hand in hand with this rule, by outlining the five main pillars: equipping young entrepreneurs with the right skills; widening their access to markets; making it easier for them to have access to funds; encouraging family and community support; and lastly, enhancing institutional support and business environment [14]. These pillars broadly match the literature’s recognition of an entrepreneurial ecosystem’s core elements. They are also in line with the ASEAN framework for the promotion of digital startups, which highlights the importance of talent, education, funding, connectedness, legal environment, and infrastructure. [12]
Such a congruence between national and regional plans is really a ray of hope. It shows that the direction of Indonesia’s policy is not a solitary one but part of a bigger regional concept of startup ecosystem development. ASEAN policy documents stress that digital startups not only require entrepreneurs but also talents, funders, enablers, mentors, infrastructure, legal certainty, and regional connectedness. [12], [13] For Indonesia, this is especially important because it is a country with a large number of young people, a flourishing digital economy, and a huge regional disparity.
The issue lies further down the line. Policy papers give guidelines, but actions need to be well coordinated and have measurable outcomes. In many instances, entrepreneurship policy is still delivered through separate programs. Training may not be paired with financing. Financing may not be paired with mentoring. Incubation may not be paired with procurement or market access. Environmental targets may not be taken into consideration in entrepreneurship indicators. Local governments may not have the proper capacity to modify national strategies in line with the specific economic and ecological conditions of their localities.
It would be highly desirable if policy instruments could be integrated and connected across sectors. To illustrate, green entrepreneurship in flood-prone regions should not merely be a youth program. It should be linked with all the things that are water-related, like watershed rehabilitation, spatial planning, disaster-risk reduction, vocational education, cooperative development, and local procurement. Biochar as a soil retention agent and community-based watershed monitoring would be activities performed by a young entrepreneur, who would be eligible for support not only from entrepreneurship agencies but also from environmental, disaster-management, and rural development programs.
Hence, a much more pronounced “impact lens” in the current policy framework is necessary. This would entail that, aside from the business profitability aspect of a youth business, programs would also consider the social and environmental value created. What percentage of the youths of the locality has the company hired? Does it include women, people with disabilities, or deprived communities? Is the company involved in reducing waste, restoring land, or community preparedness? Has it been able to strengthen local supply chains? Has it survived beyond the initial grant period? These types of queries ought to be included in program planning and assessment.
Success Determinants: Skills, Finance, Networks, Regulation, and Culture
There is a growing body of research suggesting a number of factors that contribute to the success of youth entrepreneurship. First, developing the right skills is essential. Youth who want to start their own business should not only be motivated; they should be equipped with a range of relevant skills. These include digital literacy, financial literacy, management skills, the ability to conduct market analysis, negotiation skills, legal awareness, and green skills, which are becoming increasingly important. These green skills may involve understanding resource efficiency, complying with environmental standards, circular production, recognizing climate risks, and sustainable supply chains. Standard entrepreneurship courses are hardly sufficient for the youth if they fail to help young people link their ideas to actual markets and local issues.
Vocational education and the Merdeka Belajar Kampus Merdeka (MBKM) programs can be of great help in this aspect. MBKM is the reform of higher education in Indonesia, which allows students to gain learning experiences beyond the conventional classrooms. It can be a vehicle to expose students to green entrepreneurship projects, community enterprises, cooperatives, and disaster recovery initiatives. For instance, students could engage in projects on waste-to-product innovation, sustainable agriculture, clean water, renewable energy for rural areas, or eco-tourism in restored forests. These projects would develop participants’ skills in practice and, at the same time, increase the capacity of local communities.
Secondly, financing is very important. Limited collateral, brief business track record, and restricted access to formal financial institutions often characterize the situation of young entrepreneurs. Traditional loan schemes may be ill-suited for start-up green and social enterprises, especially if their financial returns are slow or they produce partly non-financial benefits. For this reason, blended finance is gaining momentum. Blended finance refers to the strategic use of public or development finance for mobilizing additional private investments to infrastructure in the sectors of social and environmental value. In youth entrepreneurship, blended finance could offer a progression where seed grants offer an opportunity for experimentation, concessional loans assist early operations, angel investments facilitate growth, and impact investments lead to scaling.
Thirdly, ecosystem connectivity is the third key. Young entrepreneurs must have access to mentors, peers, suppliers, buyers, universities, investors, regulators, and communities. Cooperative efforts among universities, companies, local governments, cooperatives, and civil society organizations can alleviate the isolation experienced by many young entrepreneurs. It is not enough for incubators and accelerators to offer just training facilities. They ought to open doors for young entrepreneurs to acquire technology, markets, legal support, procurement opportunities, and mentoring with a long-term perspective.
Fourth, regulation can be a catalyst or a hindrance to innovation. The streamlined business licensing enabled by the National Business Identification Number (NIB) is a step in the right direction, but green and social enterprises require regulatory flexibility as well. For instance, a green regulatory sandbox could be a way for local governments to experiment with different types of businesses under strict supervision. Startups involved in community waste conversion, renewable energy provision at an affordable price, ecosystem services, or nature-based tourism could be granted temporary regulatory assistance while their environmental and social performances are being assessed.
And, the last but not least determinant is culture. Entrepreneurship calls for courage; however, courage is only one part of what entrepreneurial character requires. To be able to learn from mistakes, young entrepreneurs need to be in an environment where there is no danger. In many places, failure is seen as something bad, which deters young people from trying something new. Providing them with competitions and awards can increase their exposure, but this should not be the only assistance given to them. Monitoring their progress after providing them with funding, peer mentoring, cooperative learning, and sharing failed attempts are some of the activities that lead to the survival of entrepreneurs during the challenging start-up phase, the so-called valley of death.
After the disaster, these five success factors play an even more significant role. Youth entrepreneurs are not functioning under normal market conditions. They may encounter the destruction of infrastructure, a decrease in the power of the consumer, disruption in the supply chain, trauma, and unstable ecology. Hence, business development initiatives along with psychosocial support, community reconstruction, ecosystem restoration, and disaster preparedness should be the components of entrepreneurship programs in the affected regions.
Improvement Agenda I: Governance and Accountability for Results
One of the key points of the improvement agenda is to enhance governance and accountability for results. Indonesia requires a clear coordination system to continuously support youth entrepreneurship. A cross-ministerial council or a national task force could be the main coordinating body to link national and local programs, set annual priorities, harmonize indicators, etc. Besides the government ministries, this body should also include local governments, universities, financial institutions, cooperatives, private companies, and youth communities.
However, the intention of such a body should not be to add new bureaucracy. It would be a body to ensure that programs are complementing each other and public funds are used for programs that can show results. For instance, it could identify youth green entrepreneurship sectors that have the potential to contribute by addressing climate change, e.g., watershed restoration, waste management, sustainable agriculture, circular economy, renewable energy, eco-tourism, and disaster logistics. It could also identify those regions that need special support, i.e., regions with the highest rates of unemployment, disaster risk, ecological degradation, and youth entrepreneurial potential.
It is essential to have a national dashboard. This dashboard should present outcome-based indicators, namely, the number of direct and indirect jobs created, business survival after three and five years, the inclusion of women and vulnerable groups, youth participation outside Java, progress in digital and financial skills, and environmental indicators such as vegetation cover, waste reduction, and watershed health. This kind of dashboard would change the entrepreneurship politics from a mere visibility of events to a measurable public value.
Besides, the dashboard should make it possible for policy learning. If a certain program works in one province, the policymakers should learn the reasons. The system should distinguish whether targeting, training quality, finance, mentoring, market access, or local regulation is the issue in case of failure of a program. Unless there is such learning, programs are doomed to make the same mistakes all the time. Youth entrepreneurship policies would become more flexible and evidence-based through outcome-oriented governance.
Using Sumatra’s flood relief efforts as an example, this dashboard can monitor whether youth-led initiatives are aiding in recovery and resilience. For instance, it can track the number of youth businesses active in reforestation supply chains, community nurseries, sustainable agriculture, clean-water systems, ecotourism, or waste management. This can be very instrumental in aligning entrepreneurship policy with disaster recovery and environmental restoration.
Improvement Agenda II: Sustainable Finance and Impact Incentives
The second agenda is about sustainable finance. Public funding should not only aim at increasing the number of beneficiaries but also at transforming incentives. If youth entrepreneurs are to be encouraged to create green and social enterprises, then recognition should be given to these types of businesses when they are financed, as they generally experience higher initial costs, longer payback periods, and face the difficulty of measuring their non-financial value.
A green-social blended finance model could be a mix of public revolving funds, philanthropic capital, private investors, and development finance. Public funds could be frontline providers to the extent that they absorb part of the risk to encourage private sector investors to follow. This same building block can be deployed in environments that are a bit more challenging for commercial investors, e.g., watershed rehabilitation, agroforestry, bioengineering, circular waste management, and community-based renewable energy.
In terms of ecosystem recovery, matching grants can be conditioned upon verifiable outcomes. For example, a youth enterprise engaged in agroforestry could be further assisted if it attains targets such as tree survival, farmer participation, income generation, and soil-water conservation. A startup in the circular construction materials sector could be supported after it shows that it has reduced waste and created jobs locally. A cooperative that is engaged in eco-tourism in the restored forests can be awarded based on the indicators like income distribution, conservation results, and community participation.
Besides, micro-fiscal incentives could be introduced to spur further innovation. The initiatives can be small tax rebates, those that help cover a part of the expenses related to research and development, grants to support certification, or the buyer’s side preference for youth-led green enterprises. One must set the goal to design incentives that are easily accessible to small businesses while at the same time making them stringent enough to safeguard against the practice of greenwashing.
Mentorship after financing is of great importance, too. Most businesses don’t fail because they never get capital, but because they are totally lost when they finally do. Young entrepreneurs may be required to get help in cash flow management, market strategy, legal compliance, branding, product development, environmental standards, and impact measurement. Giving financing without giving mentoring is essentially contributing to the risk of failure. This is why all the major financing instruments should have the feature of post-financing assistance.
Therefore, the link between financing and resilience is essential for the disaster-prone regions. Youth-led enterprises that support flood-risk reduction, watershed rehabilitation, emergency logistics, access to clean water, and local food systems are to be viewed as strategic investments. They create economic value, but at the same time, reduce the future public costs that come with disasters.
Improvement Agenda III: Talent, Curriculum, Sandbox, and Market Access
The third agenda focuses on talent, curriculum, regulatory experimentation, and market access. Green entrepreneurship should feature prominently in vocational education, higher education, and community training, not be treated as a niche topic. As climate risks escalate, all entrepreneurs will have to be versed in sustainability, resource efficiency, environmental compliance, and resilience planning.
Vocational schools and higher-education institutions could adopt green entrepreneurship through project-based learning. In addition to learning how to draft business plans, students should be able to do the following: identify environmental issues, come up with workable solutions, estimate costs, test products, measure impact, and reach out to actual buyers. MBKM programs can facilitate such efforts by, e.g., placing students in local governments, cooperatives, environmental organizations, social enterprises, and green startups.
To ensure consistency across training programs, green skills certification can be introduced. It does not have to be a complicated process. For example, a certificate could be given for knowledge of waste management, sustainable packaging, digital marketing for green products, carbon literacy basics, sustainable agriculture, ecosystem restoration, social-impact measurement, etc. A reliable yet straightforward certification system will also benefit employers, investors, and government agencies in their identification of proficient young entrepreneurs.
Besides that, regulatory sandboxes should be put in place. Young entrepreneurs can test their solutions under supervision in green innovation zones that local governments establish. For example, a district facing flood problems may approve pilot projects for biochar production, riparian restoration, community waste processing, low-cost water filtration, or digital watershed monitoring. While regulators check safety and impact, they give entrepreneurs freedom to innovate. This technique offers a good balance between flexibility and accountability.
Market access is the last element. A large number of green enterprises supported by young people crumble due to the fact that demand is either weak or unpredictable. One way the government could contribute to the creation of early demand is through green procurement. Indeed, public procurement acts as a strong market instrument. If local governments set aside a portion of their procurement for environmentally friendly goods and services manufactured by young, verified MSME entrepreneurs, they will provide a stable demand anchor. This can enable young enterprises to make the transition from the pilot stage to commercial viability.
Green procurement may cover goods and services connected with recycled materials, sustainable food, local eco-tourism, reforestation supplies, clean water systems, disaster-preparedness tools, and low-emission logistics. To ward off mere gestures of tokenism, procurement standards should be made transparent and based on simple yet credible verification. This will not only help keep greenwashing at bay but will also give genuine youth opportunities to enterprises.
Improvement Agenda IV: Collaboration Culture and Ecosystem Equity
The fourth agenda tackles culture and territory. Indonesia’s entrepreneurship ecosystem should transition from a culture of isolated competition to one of safe collaboration. It is true that competitions, hackathons, and pitching events can be inspirational tools for youth, but these cannot substitute for long-term ecosystem development. A lot of entrepreneurs need continuous support when the limelight is taken away. They need access to peer networks, mentors, legal advice, markets, and even the chance to recover from failure
The creation of safe spaces is a priority. Young entrepreneurs who choose to start their own business often get frowned upon by their relatives and neighbors, who still see entrepreneurship as a very risky undertaking, as opposed to getting a formal job. This, of course, is a valid view, especially for low-income families where a failure means not just the loss of work but also a threat to the family’s livelihood. A healthy ecosystem is one that provides sufficient support for aspiring entrepreneurs through mentoring, cooperative models, shared infrastructure, and staged financing.
Cooperatives can be a very efficient but, unfortunately, still underestimated instrument. Even though Indonesia’s entrepreneurship policy almost exclusively uses the language of startups and individual founders, in many rural and disaster-prone areas, cooperative entrepreneurship may in fact be much more appropriate. For instance, cooperatives can be used as a means of pooling resources, distributing risk, increasing bargaining power, and engaging in environmental activities based on local community support. The Keling Kumbang cooperative in West Kalimantan, for example, has been reported as a model with a large membership, considerable assets, and involvement in forest-management activities. [17] Such examples indicate that entrepreneurship should not necessarily be understood as venture-capital startups, and sometimes collective enterprises may be stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive.
Ecosystem equity matters just as much. So far, Indonesia’s entrepreneurship infrastructure is mostly located in major urban areas, especially on Java. However, issues like disaster vulnerability, ecological degradation, and youth unemployment are not only problems of these big cities. The regions outside Java need stronger campus, community, and corporate hubs. These hubs will allow local youth to reach out to mentors, markets, digital tools, green technologies, and financing. Besides, entrepreneurship programs can be tailored to local ecological problems, for instance, coastal erosion, peatland degradation, watershed risk, or forest loss.
Media, civil society organizations, and youth networks function as “multipliers”. They can help spread the people-planet-profit concept to a larger public, provide role models, support ethical consumption, and make young entrepreneurs known to wider audiences. In case of the flood-affected communities, such networks can serve as the demand builders for ecosystem-restoration products and services. Moreover, the recovery will not be just a matter of the authorities but will reflect the wishes of the youth as the main stakeholders of the local community.
Conclusion
Indonesia possesses a vast array of policies regarding entrepreneurship. It has continuously been developing its policy and strategic framework, which is anchored on the Presidential Regulation No. 2/2022, National Youth Entrepreneurship Strategy, and learning at the regional level from ASEAN startup frameworks. The only thing required now is the disciplined execution that connects policies to relevant and measurable results. Youth entrepreneurship can no longer be judged merely on the counting of events, trainings, or loans. It has to be judged by the number of quality jobs that have been created, the persistence of businesses, the extent of inclusion of disadvantaged groups, the strengthening of local economies, and the improvement of environmental conditions.
Recently, floods in Aceh, West Sumatra, and North Sumatra have made us aware of the fact that it is time for such a dramatic change in perspective. Apart from disaster-resilience entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship ecosystem restoration should be at the core of the national entrepreneurship. If forest and watershed degradation are tolerated, the economic recovery will be unstable and vulnerable. However, when young entrepreneurs are enabled to establish etc, businesses that will help ecosystems of rest, create employment, and develop community resilience, then entrepreneurship will be a means that is greatly effective in adaptation and mitigation.
First, rearranging the three components of the triple bottom line from profit to people, planet, profit is not simply a reasoning from a moral perspective. It is quite a down-to-earth strategy for development. It brings together economic opportunities with ecological imperatives. It links youth employment with disaster risk reduction. It associates education with green skills. It uses finance not only to grow businesses but also to reduce vulnerability. It transforms procurement into a market for sustainability. It shifts governance from outputs to outcomes.
This may be an agenda for Indonesia as a whole, but it is especially related to the Golden Indonesia 2045 vision. It is impossible to create a prosperous Indonesia on the basis of environmental vulnerability and youth exclusion. It is a young generation that will be digital-savvy and financially competent, but also they will be socially responsible and ecologically aware. If executed correctly, youth entrepreneurship could be one of the main tools of Indonesia in constructing a fair, green, and resilient future.
[1] Shela Oktavia, “Korban tewas banjir Sumatera masih bertambah, ratusan ribu orang mengungsi,” Kompas.com, December 6, 2025, https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2025/12/06/07242541/korban-tewas-banjir-sumatera-masih-bertambah-ratusan-ribu-orang-mengungsi. [Accessed December 11, 2025]. [In Indonesian].
[2] Agus Utantoro, “Pakar UGM desak pemerintah segera rehabilitasi DAS,” Media Indonesia, December 9, 2025, https://mediaindonesia.com/humaniora/838198/pakar-ugm-desak-pemerintah-segera-rehabilitasi-das. [Accessed December 11, 2025]. [In Indonesian].
[3] Reyhan Fernanda Fajarihza, “Pemerintah bakal cabut izin 8 perusahaan terindikasi penyebab banjir Sumatra,” Bisnis.com, December 5, 2025, https://ekonomi.bisnis.com/read/20251205/12/1934459/pemerintah-bakal-cabut-izin-8-perusahaan-terindikasi-penyebab-banjir-sumatra. [Accessed December 11, 2025]. [In Indonesian].
[4] Rinaldy Meidianto, “Deceleration of the competitiveness of Indonesian youth in facing development challenges towards a Golden Indonesia 2045,” Journal Research of Social Science, Economics, and Management 4, no. 10 (June 2025): pp. 1554–1569, doi: 10.59141/jrssem.v4i10.828.
[5] Republic of Indonesia, Presidential Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 of 2022 concerning National Entrepreneurship Development 2021–2024, 2022, https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Home/Details/212548/perpres-no-2-tahun-2022. [Accessed December 11, 2025].
[6] Siti Nur Azizah, Annisa Nur Salam, and Ahmad Zaenal Arifin, “Model design of sociopreneurship: Halal-based development of micro, small and medium enterprises through zakat institutions,” ISRA International Journal of Islamic Finance 15, no. 3 (September 2023): pp. 46–63, doi: 10.55188/ijif.v15i3.610.
[7] Osarodion Ogiemwonyi, Mohammad Nurul Alam, Ibrahim E. Hago, Noor Azlinna Azizan, Fariza Hashim, and Md Sazzad Hossain, “Green innovation behaviour: Impact of industry 4.0 and open innovation,” Heliyon 9, no. 6 (June 2023): p. e16524, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16524.
[8] Peter Fisk, People Planet Profit: How to Embrace Sustainability for Innovation and Business Growth (London, Kogan Page, 2010).
[9] Budi Kuncahyo, Muhdin, and Qori Pebrial Ilham, Hutan Digital: Masa Depan Pengelolaan Hutan Skala Kecil yang Cerdas dan Berkelanjutan. Kuningan (Indonesia: Goresan Pena, 2025). [In Indonesian].
[10] Rofiq Hidayat, “Melihat materi Perpres Pengembangan Kewirausahaan Nasional,” Hukumonline, January 25, 2022, https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/melihat-materi-perpres-pengembangan-kewirausahaan-nasional-lt61ef656c125bb/?page=all. [Accessed December 11, 2025]. [In Indonesian].
[11] A. Permadi et al., “Asia-EU connectivity: Potensi ekonomi digital,” November 2022. [In Indonesian].
[12] ASEAN Digital Ministers, Framework for Promoting the Growth of Digital Startups in ASEAN, Jakarta, Indonesia: ASEAN Secretariat, 2021.
[13] L. Lanzona, A. Espinoza, and N. Espinoza, Promoting Business Incubation Strategies to Support Entrepreneurship and Startup Businesses of Young Talents, ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Policy Brief No. 15, ASEAN Secretariat, 2024.
[14] Kementerian Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional/Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional, Strategi Nasional Kewirausahaan Pemuda. Jakarta, Indonesia: Kementerian PPN/Bappenas, 2022. [In Indonesian].
[15] Suci Rahayu and Aprillia Ika, “Dalam membangun bisnis, lebih dari kompetisi, ada ruang aman entrepreneur untuk bertumbuh,” Kompas.com, September 12, 2025, https://money.kompas.com/read/2025/09/12/173428726/dalam-membangun-bisnis-lebih-dari-kompetisi-ada-ruang-aman-entrepreneur-untuk. [Accessed December 11, 2025]. [In Indonesian].
[16] A. R. Tamyis, D. Widyaningsih, A. R. Fatah, and F. N. Astini, “Ekosistem kewirausahaan pemuda di Indonesia,” The SMERU Research Institute, 2021, https://smeru.or.id/id/research-id/ekosistem-kewirausahaan-pemuda-di-indonesia. [Accessed December 11, 2025]. [In Indonesian].
[17] Farid Gaban, Dandhy Laksono, Yusuf Priambodo, and Benaya Harobu, #Reset Indonesia: Gagasan tentang Indonesia Baru (Jakarta, Indonesia: Koperasi Indonesia Baru, 2025). [In Indonesian].
