The pressure to share is real

Governments, international organisations, and large corporations are increasingly vocal about the need for green technology to be more widely accessible. The argument is straightforward: climate change is a global emergency, the technologies needed to address it exist largely in the hands of businesses in wealthy countries, and restricting access to those technologies through IP enforcement is slowing the global response to a problem that affects everyone.

For Malaysian SMEs, this debate may seem distant. But it has practical implications. Large corporate partners and government procurement bodies are increasingly factoring technology sharing commitments into their supplier and partnership criteria. Export markets, particularly in Europe, are developing regulatory frameworks that favour green technology businesses with open licensing policies. And the international funding landscape for green innovation is beginning to reward businesses that demonstrate a commitment to broad technology access alongside strong commercial fundamentals.

What sharing actually means in practice

When policymakers and advocates talk about sharing green technology, they are not generally suggesting that businesses give away their innovations for free. What they are typically advocating for is a more flexible and accessible approach to licensing, one that makes green technology available to a wider range of users, in a wider range of markets, on terms that reflect the economic capacity of the licensee rather than the maximum rent that can be extracted from the market.

For an SME, this might mean offering tiered licensing arrangements where royalty rates are lower for smaller businesses or for licensees operating in developing markets. It might mean contributing certain non-core patents to a shared patent pool that gives the broader green technology industry access to foundational technologies on standardised terms. Or it might mean structuring collaborative research and development arrangements with partners in other markets in a way that builds shared IP ownership from the outset rather than concentrating it in a single entity.

None of these approaches requires an SME to abandon its commercial interests. They do, however, require a more sophisticated and deliberate approach to IP strategy than simply filing patents and enforcing them to the maximum extent possible.

The risk of doing nothing

The risk for Malaysian SMEs that ignore this debate is not merely reputational. As the regulatory environment around green technology access evolves, businesses that have built their commercial models around restrictive licensing may find themselves on the wrong side of emerging international norms. Government procurement programmes in key export markets may begin to favour suppliers with open licensing commitments. Development finance institutions may condition funding on technology access provisions. And the large multinational partners whose supply chains Malaysian SMEs aspire to enter may impose sharing requirements as a condition of partnership.

At the same time, the risk of sharing too much is equally real. An SME that commits to broad open licensing without careful legal advice may find that it has undermined the very IP rights that protect its core competitive advantage. The key is to share strategically, identifying which elements of the IP portfolio can be shared without compromising the business’s fundamental commercial position, and which elements must be protected at all costs.

How to approach green technology sharing strategically

The starting point is a clear and honest assessment of the IP portfolio. Not all patents in a green technology portfolio have equal commercial value. Some protect the core inventive concept that underpins the entire business. Others protect peripheral features or alternative embodiments that are commercially useful but not essential to the competitive position of the business.

A strategic sharing approach would typically focus any open licensing or sharing commitments on the peripheral elements of the portfolio while maintaining strong protection over the core innovations. This approach allows the business to participate constructively in the technology access debate, to meet the expectations of partners and funders, and to build goodwill in markets where open innovation is valued, all without surrendering the IP protection that makes the business commercially viable.

Working with an experienced IP advisor to map the portfolio, identify the core and peripheral elements, and design a licensing strategy that achieves the right balance is an investment that most green technology SMEs will find worthwhile.

Conclusion

The question of whether green technology should be shared is not one that Malaysian SMEs can answer with a simple yes or no. The honest answer is that some of it probably should be, on the right terms, to the right parties, in the right markets, and with the right legal safeguards in place. Getting that balance right requires strategic thinking, professional advice, and a willingness to engage with a debate that is shaping the future of the green technology industry whether businesses choose to participate in it or not.

Sharing wisely is not the same as giving away. For the SMEs that understand the difference, it can be a genuine source of competitive advantage.

For further enquiries or advice, please contact us at kass@kass.asia for expert guidance.