Why market access is a test, not a breakthrough for South African startups

In South Africa’s entrepreneurial ecosystem, market access is often framed as the ultimate breakthrough. Founders speak about getting onto retail shelves, securing a distributor, or landing a major buyer as if these milestones mark the beginning of scale. Yet from where I sit at 22 On Sloane, working closely with Startups navigating funding readiness, mentorship cycles, and expansion pipelines, market access is rarely the core challenge. More often than not, it simply exposes a deeper issue which is operational maturity.

Over the past year, reviewing mentorship reports, export readiness assessments, and investor engagement tracking, a consistent pattern has emerged. Founders do not struggle because they lack ambition or product-market potential. They struggle because their internal systems are not designed to carry growth.

When a business moves from selling directly to customers to supplying multiple retail outlets, complexity increases immediately. Inventory forecasting becomes less forgiving. Cash flow cycles lengthen. Quality control must be standardised across batches. Documentation must withstand scrutiny from buyers, banks, and sometimes international regulators. What was once manageable through founder oversight alone suddenly requires structure, delegation and process discipline.

We have seen instances where demand accelerated faster than backend systems could handle. I have witnessed founders who managed to secure the ideal client persona, only to realise months down the line that their production team is unable to fulfil orders at the pace of the client’s demand. What began as a win slowly turned into a crisis . Orders were secured, but delivery timelines slipped. Retail placements were achieved, but production consistency faltered. In other cases, investor conversations progressed, but due diligence revealed weak financial records and undocumented processes. In these moments, market access did not fail the business. The absence of structure did.

The narrative that visibility equals viability is one of the most persistent myths in the startup space. Exposure creates opportunity, but it also amplifies weakness. Without documented standard operating procedures, clear financial reporting rhythms, and basic governance structures, scale becomes strain. Founder dependency becomes a bottleneck. Decision-making slows. Teams operate reactively rather than strategically.

Our export readiness work provides a clear illustration. Several companies may demonstrate strong product quality and clear demand signals. However, progression into structured export programmes depends on far more than product appeal. Traceability systems, compliance documentation, production planning and financing models become decisive factors. In one recent pipeline, only one company advanced fully into the programme. The differentiator was not marketing strength. It was operational depth and documentation discipline.

The same pattern applies to funding access. Investors often speak about risk mitigation. What they are assessing, beyond the pitch deck, is whether a business can absorb capital responsibly. Financial controls, reporting clarity and governance frameworks signal credibility. Capital flows more readily to enterprises that demonstrate internal coherence. Contracts follow competence. Growth follows structure.

This is where the shift from hustle to infrastructure becomes critical. Hustle is often necessary in the early stages of a venture. It builds resilience and customer traction. But hustle alone does not build longevity. Systems do. The transition requires founders to separate ownership from management thinking, to formalise roles before crisis demands it, and to build data visibility before investors request it. It requires moving from informal coordination to structured performance management.

At ecosystem level, this reshapes how support must be designed. Inspiration and networking events have their place, but they are insufficient. If we want South African Startups to compete regionally and globally, we must invest in strengthening their internal architecture. That means mentorship that interrogates governance, platforms that track engagement and performance over time, and structured pathways that prepare businesses not only to enter markets but to remain competitive within them.

Market access, then, is not a door waiting to be opened. It is a stress test. It reveals whether the business beneath the brand has the discipline to endure scale and the systems to protect its growth.

If we continue to treat market access as the breakthrough, we will keep mistaking exposure for progress. The real measure of ecosystem strength is not how many startups enter the market, but how many remain competitive within it three to five years later. Until we prioritise operational infrastructure with the same urgency we give to visibility, we will continue to celebrate entry while overlooking endurance.

 Ruth Maposa, Programme Analyst at 22 On Sloane.

*** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL.

BUSINESS REPORT