Southeast Asia is entering a clean energy boom. From Indonesia’s nickel smelters to Vietnam’s solar farms and Malaysia’s electric vehicle assembly lines, the region is attracting billions in foreign investment aimed at powering the global shift away from fossil fuels. China has emerged as the single most important partner in this transformation, financing renewables, dominating electric vehicle (EV) supply chains and driving battery manufacturing across ASEAN.
Yet beneath the headline numbers lies a fractured landscape. Policies, standards, skills programs and environmental safeguards remain uneven. Countries are moving forward, but rarely in step with one another. Without coordination, ASEAN risks being locked into low-value roles — exporting raw materials, hosting low-cost assembly, and bearing the environmental and social burdens of extraction — while missing the chance to shape the rules of the emerging green economy.
The case for a structured China–ASEAN clean energy–industrial mechanism is growing urgent. Such a mechanism could bridge investment with governance, align capital with capacity, and embed environmental, social, and governance (ESG) safeguards into the foundations of Southeast Asia’s energy transition.
The boom has already revealed fault lines. In April 2025, the United States imposed punitive tariffs — some as high as 3500 percent — on ASEAN solar exports, citing unfair subsidies and supply chain vulnerabilities. The move exposed just how fragile Southeast Asia’s clean energy trade is without coordinated industrial policy.
Meanwhile, domestic operations raise equally serious concerns. Nickel processing in Indonesia has been marred by reports of unsafe labor conditions, displacement of communities and deforestation. Mining in the Philippines has triggered protests over habitat destruction and weak enforcement of safeguards. Such controversies risk undermining the legitimacy of ASEAN’s clean energy expansion at home, even as global investors push for higher sustainability standards.
Without a framework that links industrial upgrading to environmental and social protections, ASEAN risks becoming a low-cost assembly hub — dependent on external capital, but unable to move up the value chain or secure durable development benefits.
For Beijing, deeper clean energy engagement with ASEAN is not charity. It aligns squarely with China’s strategic priorities:
-
Diversifying export markets at a time when Western countries are tightening trade restrictions.
-
Embedding outbound manufacturing in emerging hubs where labor is cheaper and industrial demand is rising.
-
Locking in supply chains for critical minerals such as nickel, cobalt and rare earths.
-
Scaling green technologies in markets where demand is still accelerating.
China already dominates ASEAN’s EV and battery markets. Companies such as BYD, CATL and SAIC are embedding production facilities across the region, while Chinese state-owned enterprises and policy banks finance renewable energy infrastructure. For ASEAN, China offers what no other partner can match: a combination of capital, technology, and industrial scale.
But this asymmetry also creates vulnerability. Without institutional mechanisms, Southeast Asia’s bargaining power is diluted, leaving rules of cooperation shaped ad hoc, project by project.
ASEAN is not starting from zero. Platforms such as the ASEAN-China Clean Energy Cooperation Centre and the ASEAN+3 Clean Energy Roundtable Dialogue already exist. However, their mandates are limited to dialogue and technical exchange. They lack the authority to coordinate investment, harmonize industrial policy, or enforce ESG standards at a regional scale.
What is missing is a dedicated mechanism — one that ties clean energy cooperation directly to industrial policy, workforce upgrading, and sustainability safeguards. Without such an anchor, ASEAN’s clean energy transition risks remaining fragmented and vulnerable to external shocks.
- Labour and Skills Development
The most immediate gap lies in human capital. Investment is pouring into factories and infrastructure, but skills development is lagging. The proposed mechanism could:
-
Convene thematic working groups on workforce upgrading.
-
Support regional training hubs modeled after Singapore’s FAST-P program.
-
Co-design curricula with industry and academia to prepare workers for EV assembly, battery recycling, and renewable grid integration.
This would ensure that the clean energy boom translates into durable employment, not just short-term construction jobs.
- Linking Capital and Capacity
Current investments often arrive faster than ASEAN states can absorb them. The mechanism could bridge this disconnect by:
-
Curating a pipeline of bankable regional projects that align with ESG standards.
-
Pairing Chinese policy banks with ASEAN state-owned enterprises and global financiers to fund green industrial zones.
-
Drawing on models such as Indonesia’s Danantara initiative to link manufacturing capacity with infrastructure and sustainability.
- Institutional Alignment
Clean energy cooperation has been dominated by one-off deals. The mechanism could move the region toward enduring partnerships through:
-
Track 1.5 dialogues bringing together policymakers, businesses and researchers.
-
Joint procurement reforms to reduce duplication and enhance transparency.
-
Case studies and workshops on ESG compliance and decarbonisation strategies.
- Enforceable ESG Safeguards
Sustainability cannot be a box ticked at the start of a project. The mechanism could make ESG safeguards continuous and verifiable, requiring:
-
Chinese corporates to adopt higher operational standards.
-
ASEAN ministries to embed clear regulations into national frameworks.
-
Local authorities to enforce safeguards consistently, with regional monitoring.
Launching such a mechanism across all ten ASEAN members may be politically unrealistic. A more credible start would be to form a coalition of willing states — likely Indonesia, Vietnam and Malaysia, which already host significant clean energy cooperation with China. This smaller group could pilot the mechanism, test governance models and demonstrate proof of concept.
Over time, participation could expand as political and market conditions allow. A rotating ASEAN co-chair, aligned with the annual ASEAN Chair, would ensure regional ownership, while a standing Chinese ministry would provide continuity.
Private firms would not be passive beneficiaries. They could act as conveners, committing both capital and expertise to:
-
Joint R&D ventures in battery recycling and grid technologies.
-
ESG compliance programs embedded in supply chains.
-
Local partnerships that bring technology transfer and training into practice.
Such involvement would translate government frameworks into tangible industry outcomes.
For ASEAN, the mechanism would operationalise its oft-stated goal of centrality. It would align national energy strategies with regional goals and provide a coherent framework to engage external partners. For China, it would offer a structured channel to reduce friction, address ESG concerns, and turn investments into durable goodwill.
The mechanism would not isolate ASEAN from other partners. Japan and South Korea remain key players in clean energy and could continue their engagement through the ASEAN+3 Roundtable. The proposed mechanism would simply provide a sharper focus on China, while complementing broader partnerships.
The risks of continuing with fragmented bilateralism are mounting:
-
Tariff shocks like the U.S. solar penalties highlight supply chain vulnerabilities.
-
Nickel disputes in Indonesia and the Philippines reveal the environmental and social risks of unmanaged extraction.
-
Missed opportunities in workforce development threaten to lock ASEAN into low-value roles.
Without structured cooperation, Southeast Asia risks capturing little more than the environmental costs of the clean energy transition, while higher-value gains flow abroad.
Skeptics may argue that ASEAN’s history of slow consensus-building makes such a mechanism unlikely. Yet the same history shows that lean, flexible coalitions often succeed where grand frameworks falter. By starting with a few willing states and focusing on industry-facing projects, the proposed mechanism offers a pragmatic alternative to past “talk shops.”
Its durability will not rest on declarations or communiqués. It will depend on its ability to deliver tangible outcomes: skilled jobs, green industrial zones, enforceable safeguards and credible ESG compliance.
ASEAN’s clean energy boom is real, but its trajectory is uncertain. Without coordination, the region risks being locked into extractive, low-value roles, exposed to external shocks and unable to shape the rules of its own energy transition.
China’s economic weight makes a China–ASEAN clean energy–industrial mechanism less a choice than a necessity. Properly designed, it could turn fragmented investments into strategic industrial capacity, align environmental safeguards with growth, and secure Southeast Asia a stronger role in the global green economy.
