ESG

Given the myriad of ESG issues, there are different regulatory regimes and best practices governing different issues, with some applying only to specific sectors in Singapore.

On the environmental front, there are laws which regulate specific environmental issues. These include:

• the Environmental Protection and Management Act 1999, which is the main law on the protection and management of the environment and resource conservation;
• the Energy Conservation Act 2012, which introduced mandatory energy management practices and reporting requirements for greenhouse gas emissions;
• the Resource Sustainability Act 2019, which regulates electronic, food and packaging waste;
• the Carbon Pricing Act 2018, which introduced a fixed-price credit-based tax mechanism to incentivise emissions reduction; and
• the Carbon Pricing (Amendment) Act, which was passed by Parliament on 8 November 2022 and came into force on 1 January 2024 and which, among other things, has increased:
• • the carbon tax rate; and
  • the price of a fixed-price carbon credit.

Similarly, typical social issues such as health and safety and employment practices are governed respectively by laws such as:

• the Workplace Safety and Health Act 2006; and
• the Employment Act 1968.

Governance is an area for which Singapore is well recognised. The main regulatory framework relating to corporate governance is found in laws such as:

• the Companies Act 1967;
• the Securities and Futures Act 2001; and
• specifically for companies listed on the Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited (SGX-ST):
• • the Listing Rules of the SGX-ST (‘Listing Rules’); and
  • the Code of Corporate Governance.

An important component of governance is anti-corruption and the primary Singapore legislation governing this aspect is the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960.

These laws are supplemented by directives, guidelines and codes of practices issued by the relevant statutory bodies established to administer the laws, independently or in partnership with key industry stakeholders. There are also laws and guidelines which are targeted at specific industries such as the energy, maritime and financial sectors.

As there is no single mandatory ESG framework, the type of regulatory framework that applies depends largely on the ESG issue at hand. Generally speaking, by the very nature of the subject, environment-related matters and specific social issues such as employment are regulated by hard laws.

In contrast, Singapore adopts a disclosure-based philosophy towards the issue of corporate governance. Listed companies in Singapore are required under the rules to comply with the Code of Corporate Governance on a ‘comply or explain’ basis; any departure from the provisions under the code will require comprehensive and meaningful explanation. The code is complemented by the Practice Guidance, which contains best practices for adoption on a voluntary basis.

With the increased focus on ESG issues, various regulators and authorities have also introduced ESG-focused guidelines – particularly in the form of reporting and risk management requirements. For example, under the Listing Rules, for the 1 January–31 December 2024 financial year, reporting on climate-related financial risks is mandatory for listed issuers in:

• the financial industry;
• the agriculture, food and forest products industry;
• the energy industry;
• the materials and buildings industry; and
• the transportation industry.

These should be aligned with recommendations by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). All other listed companies must follow the TCFD recommendations on a ‘comply or explain’ basis.

Following the release of a new global baseline of standards for sustainability disclosures (which fully incorporates the TCFD recommendations) by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), Singapore’s Sustainability Reporting Advisory Committee proposed in July 2023 that listed and large non-listed companies be progressively required to begin reporting ISSB-aligned climate-related disclosures from 2025.

On 28 June 2023, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) – Singapore’s integrated financial regulator – also issued a public consultation paper on a Proposed Code of Conduct for ESG Rating and Data Product Providers to seek views on a voluntary industry code of conduct for ESG rating and data product providers. This followed:

• the publication in November 2021 by the International Organization of Security Commissions (IOSCO) of its Final Report on ESG Ratings and Data Products Providers, which identified, as areas of concern in a largely unregulated industry, the lack of transparency in relation to:
• • ESG ratings and data product methodologies and data sources;
  • conflict of interest management; and
  • interactions with rated/covered entities by product providers; and
• a ‘call for action’ paper published on 7 November 2022 which sets out key points that relevant standard-setting bodies and industry associations should bear in mind in adopting and promoting the recommended good practices in the IOSCO report.

In February 2024, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority of Singapore (ACRA) and Singapore Exchange Regulation announced details of the upcoming implementation of mandatory climate reporting requirements for companies in Singapore:

• Mandatory reporting of ISSB-aligned climate-related disclosures (CRDs), including Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions:
• • From FY2025, all listed issuers must prepare and file annual CRDs, including Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions. ‘Listed issuers’ are defined as issuers of equity securities listed on Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited, comprising:
  • • Singapore-incorporated and foreign-incorporated companies;
    • business trusts;
    • investment funds (excluding exchange-traded funds); and
    • real estate investment trusts.
  • These disclosures will adhere to standards aligned with the ISSB framework.
  • From FY2027, large non-listed companies (NLCos) with annual revenue of at least S$1 billion and total assets of at least S$500 million will be required to do the same. Around 2027, ACRA will review whether to extend the CRD reporting requirements to smaller NLCos with annual revenue of at least S$100 million but less than S$1 billion. Sufficient notice will be given to companies to prepare for the new requirements.
• Mandatory reporting of Scope 3 GHG emissions:
• • Listed issuers will be required to report Scope 3 GHG emissions from FY2026.
  • Large NLCos will not be required to report Scope 3 emissions before FY2029. The timeline for large NLCos will be determined after ACRA reviews the reporting experience of listed issuers. ACRA will provide at least two years’ notice to give large NLCos adequate preparation time.
• External limited assurance on Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions:
• • Listed issuers must obtain external limited assurance for their Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions beginning in FY2027.
  • Large NLCos will follow suit from FY2029.
• Limited assurance involves fewer procedures and provides a lower level of certainty compared to statutory financial audits.
• Requirements for external assurance:
• • Assurance must be performed by a registered climate auditor, which can be an ACRA-registered audit firm or a testing, inspection and certification firm accredited by the Singapore Accreditation Council.
  • External assurance will be conducted based on either:
  • • a Singapore standard equivalent to ISSA 5000 (General Requirements for Sustainability Assurance Engagements) that is being developed by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board; or
    • SS ISO 14064-3, which is Singapore’s identical national adoption of ISO 14064-3.

There are also guidelines issued by industry regulators to promote sustainability efforts. An example is the first sector-specific Maritime Sustainability Reporting Guide issued by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore with its partners to encourage maritime companies (listed and non-listed) to invest in sustainability reporting efforts.

The various ESG-related laws, rules and codes are administered by the relevant statutory bodies and governmental agencies in charge of the relevant areas or regulators of specific industries.

For instance, environmental legislation and policies are generally administered by the National Environment Agency of Singapore (NEA), a statutory board formed under the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment. The officers of the NEA are empowered under the relevant environmental legislation and regulations to undertake enforcement measures, including the power to:

• inspect;
• obtain information;
• carry out searches; and
• seize evidence

Any person found guilty of an offence under the relevant environmental legislation and regulations may be liable for a fine and/or imprisonment.

Social issues such as employment practices are under the purview of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), and there are different divisions and statutory bodies under the MOM responsible for different employment related matters.

For listed issuers, the SGX-ST has oversight in respect of their compliance with the Listing Rules, which includes:

• the disclosure of corporate governance practices; and
• the preparation of sustainability reports.

Besides an administrative role, the SGX-ST also has investigative and enforcement powers for the purpose of enforcing the Listing Rules, such as:

• initiating disciplinary actions against issuers and/or their officers; and/or
• imposing sanctions such as:
• • reprimands;
  • composition offers;
  • trading suspensions; and
  • delisting from the SGX-ST.

The sector-specific regulations and codes will be implemented by the regulator of each sector. For instance, MAS, which regulates the financial sector, introduced the Green Finance Action Plan (and subsequently the refreshed Finance for Net Zero Action Plan), aimed at developing Singapore as a leading green finance centre in Asia globally. As part of this plan, MAS issued the Environmental Risk Management (ERM) Guidelines to require banks, insurers and asset managers to assess, monitor, mitigate and disclose environmental risks. While contravention of these guidelines does not constitute a criminal offence or attract civil penalties, observance of such guidelines is expected of a financial institution (FI), as it may have an impact on MAS’s overall risk assessment of that FI.

Singapore is committed to upholding the rule of law, so the well-established hard laws mentioned elsewhere in question 1 will be strictly enforced. However, public officers will consider the facts of each case before exercising discretion within limits and making decisions in order to strike a balance between strictness and flexibility.

In introducing new regulations and policies, statutory bodies and regulators generally adopt a consultative approach; if the implementation of certain new regulations and policies may pose a challenge for the relevant stakeholders, a transitional period will usually be provided. For instance, with respect to climate-related disclosures consistent with the TCFD Recommendations, the SGX-ST set out a transitionary framework under which listed issuers were only required to report on a ‘comply or explain’ basis for the financial year commencing 1 January 2022, with mandatory reporting to be extended to selected issuers in industries most affected by climate change (eg, financial, agriculture and energy) from FY2023 onwards.

Similarly, the ERM Guidelines were issued by MAS after conducting public consultations with the relevant FIs and other interested parties. In recognising that the relevant FIs may face initial challenges in implementing the ERM Guidelines, they were given 18 months from the issuance of the guidelines to assess and implement them.

In October 2023, MAS launched another round of consultation papers on its Guidelines on Transition Planning for FIs. These guidelines set out MAS’s proposed supervisory expectations for FIs to have a sound transition planning process to facilitate effective climate change mitigation and adaptation measures by customers and investee companies.

Where appropriate, statutory bodies and regulators will also use ‘regulatory sandboxes’ to experiment with new regulatory methods before making changes to existing regulations or laws on a wider scale. For example, the NEA established a regulatory sandbox to allow parties to experiment with innovative environmental services related technologies and solutions in an environment where regulations are relaxed within parameters. This allows the NEA to assess the impact of the new technology or solution before deciding on the appropriate regulatory adjustments.

To encourage industry-wide initiatives that complement the existing ESG framework, there are various collaborations between the public sector and the private sector.

MAS has been leading the effort by convening the Green Finance Industry Taskforce (GFIT) from November 2019 to April 2023. This comprised representatives from FIs, corporates, non-governmental organisations and financial industry associations. GFIT was tasked with helping accelerate the development of green finance, including through the development of a green taxonomy for Singapore-based FIs. Building on these efforts, Singapore introduced the Singapore-Asia Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance in December 2023 to guide FIs in identifying green activities.

MAS also partnered with the financial industry and other industry sectors to pilot four digital platforms under Project Greenprint, which aims to:

• utilise technology and data to mobilise capital for ESG projects;
• assess commitments; and
• measure their impact.

One of the platforms, EGX ESGenome, is a common disclosure portal jointly developed with the SGX-ST with the aim of simplifying the ESG disclosure process and increasing accessibility to ESG data by international investors and FIs. Another is a platform which aggregates sustainability data from multiple sources, including a carbon management platform developed by leading global agribusiness Olam International to help businesses measure and manage carbon emissions.

Recognising that carbon credits play an effective role in supporting decarbonisation, the SGX-ST has partnered with Temasek Holdings and banks to launch Climate Impact X, a Singapore-based global carbon exchange and marketplace that will focus on carbon credits generated through nature-based solutions and use technology to ensure a transparent and verifiable carbon market. The Asian Carbon Institute, a non-profit voluntary carbon credit standard organisation and registry, was also established in 2022.

Other prominent examples of private sector initiatives include the following:

• The Singapore Green Finance Centre, launched by MAS and private sector partners, is the first local multi-disciplinary research institute committed to green finance research and talent development.
• Singapore Trade Data Exchange (SGTraDex) is a digital platform established in 2022 that facilitates secure data sharing among supply chain ecosystem partners. SGTraDex was launched by the Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore in partnership with private companies.
• The EcoLabs Centre of Innovation for Energy is an innovation centre focused on boosting local deep-tech energy innovation capabilities to support Singapore’s sustainable energy transition aspirations. It is a joint initiative by Nanyang Technological University, Enterprise Singapore and the Sustainable Energy Association of Singapore.
• Aligned with Budget 2024 goals to lower barriers to sustainability for businesses and SMEs, the ESGpedia Starter Tool is now available free of charge. This user-friendly platform enables companies to create an ESG profile by disclosing metrics aligned with international ESG reporting standards. It also includes tools for calculating Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions, helping businesses to enhance their ESG commitments and unlock greater regional and global opportunities.
• The Singapore Sustainable Finance Association (SSFA) was launched by MAS in January 2024 as Singapore’s first cross-sectoral industry body dedicated to developing the nation as a global hub for sustainable finance. The SSFA aims to support Singapore’s low-carbon transition and sustainable economic growth by:
• • fostering collaboration between financial and non-financial sectors;
  • promoting best practices; and
  • advancing sustainable finance standards, solutions and skills.
• The Singapore Carbon Market Alliance (SCMA) was launched by the Singapore government in partnership with the non-profit International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) as an exclusive platform designed to help Singapore-based companies acquire carbon credits under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. The SCMA facilitates connections between companies and suppliers of credit, promoting flexible emissions reduction while channelling climate finance to developing nations. The initiative is managed by the Economic Development Board.

The hard laws governing environment-related matters are intended to regulate certain pollutive or hazardous activities and apply to entities carrying on such activities in Singapore. For example:

• the Environmental Protection and Management Act 1999 regulates, among other things:
• • the pollution of air, water and land;
  • noise control; and
  • the import, manufacture, sale and storage of hazardous substances;
• the Energy Conservation Act 2012 regulates the supply of certain electric goods for compliance with applicable energy efficiency standards and the implementation by energy-intensive companies in certain sectors of mandatory energy management practices;
• the Resource Sustainability Act 2019 regulates the collection and treatment of electrical, electronic and food waste to ensure that those who profit from the supply of such goods bear the cost of collecting and treating the goods when they become waste; and
• the Carbon Pricing Act 2018 applies to business facilities that carry out any activity involving the emission of greenhouse gas, particularly targeting those companies involved in large amounts of fossil fuel combustion.

On social issues such as employment, anyone that engages in employment practices in Singapore must comply with the applicable employment laws.

As for sustainability reporting and disclosure, it is mandatory for listed issuers – regardless of industry – to prepare a sustainability report and comply with the principles under the Code of Corporate Governance. Starting from FY2025, listed issuers must also prepare and file annual climate-related disclosures (CRDs), including reporting on Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions, as detailed in question 1.2.

Singapore-incorporated companies which are not listed on the Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited must still comply with the Companies Act 1967 as the main statute governing corporate governance matters in Singapore.

Further, as highlighted in question 1.2, beginning from FY2027, large non-listed companies (NLCos) with annual revenue of at least S$1 billion and total assets of at least S$500 million will be required to file CRDs similar to listed issuers. Around 2027, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority will review whether to extend these CRD reporting requirements to smaller NLCos with annual revenue of at least S$100 million and less than S$1 billion.

Through the launch of the Singapore Green Plan 2030 in 2021, the Singapore government has made it a national agenda to transform Singapore into a city of sustainability in its path towards net-zero emissions. Under this plan, it has launched various schemes to help local businesses build up capabilities and capture opportunities in the area of sustainability.

Enterprise Singapore, a government agency which champions enterprise development, was introduced the Enterprise Sustainability Programme in 2021. The programme assists local enterprises by:

• providing subsidised training workshops;
• supporting sector-specific initiatives in partnership with industry partners; and
• strengthening the sustainability ecosystem – for example, by improving the availability of green financing.

Financial institutions which provide green financing under this programme can make a claim against Enterprise Singapore for any amount which they fail to recover from the borrower and guarantor in proportion to the risk-share percentage of 70%.

Enterprise Singapore is also working with the Singapore Standards Council and the Singapore Accreditation Council to develop:

• green standards and accreditation programmes in areas such as low carbon technologies and sustainable food production; and
• a standards mapping tool for sustainable practices intended to aid Singapore’s shift towards a green economy.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore has also launched the Green and Sustainability-Linked Loan Grant Scheme, which:

• reduces the borrowing costs of green and sustainable bonds and loans by defraying the additional expenses of obtaining independent external reviews; and
• promotes the development of green and sustainability-linked loan frameworks to make such financing more accessible to small and medium-sized enterprises.

Through this, the banks can direct financing to more sustainable activities and entities across different industries will receive funding to help them transition to more sustainable practices.

Climate change has featured heavily on the Singapore government’s agenda in the last few years, as there is growing recognition that this is an existential challenge for Singapore. Following the 26th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Singapore joined the Powering Past Coal Alliance and committed to:

• phase out the use of unabated coal in its electricity mix by 2050; and
• restrict direct government finance of unabated coal power internationally.

This is in line with Singapore’s long-term low emissions development strategy to:

• achieve “net zero emissions by 2050”; and
• “reduce emissions to around 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2030 after peaking emissions earlier”.

Energy transition: As part of its energy transition plan, Singapore intends to leverage four other switches:

• natural gas;
• solar;
• regional power grids; and
• low-carbon alternatives.

Given Singapore’s land scarcity, there are limitations as to the amount of solar energy that Singapore can harness. As such, Singapore is looking to lower the carbon footprint of the power sector further by importing around 30% of its electricity from low-carbon sources in Malaysia, Indonesia and Laos. In 2022, Singapore began the cross-border import of 100 megawatts of hydropower from Laos via Thailand and Malaysia using existing interconnectors.

Singapore has also launched a National Hydrogen Strategy to explore the use of low-carbon hydrogen – starting with the use of ammonia – as a low-carbon fuel or feedstock. The strategy sets out how Singapore will:

• prepare for hydrogen deployment domestically; and
• work with partners to build a hydrogen supply chain in Asia.

In addition, Singapore is exploring nuclear energy as a potential low-carbon power source. In July 2024, Singapore signed a ‘123 Agreement’ with the United States, facilitating the transfer of nuclear materials and technology, while also committing to build a pool of approximately 100 nuclear safety experts.

Sustainable and transition finance: Sustainable and transition finance is another key focus of Singapore’s ESG framework. In December 2023, Singapore introduced the Singapore-Asia Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance to guide financial institutions in identifying green activities. The government:

• has also established a code of conduct for ESG rating providers to ensure transparency; and
• is leveraging transition credits as credible financing instruments to phase out coal power in the region.

Carbon pricing and management: In order to achieve net-zero emissions, Singapore also announced in the Budget Statement 2022, delivered by the minister of finance, that it would increase its carbon tax from the current S$5 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions to S$25 per tonne in 2024 and 2025, and S$45 per tonne in 2026 and 2027, with a view to reaching S$50 to S$80 per tonne by 2030. This will allow businesses to price the cost of carbon and take appropriate actions to decarbonise.

In parallel, in October 2023, the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment and the National Environment Agency announced the eligibility criteria under the International Carbon Credit (ICC) framework which will allow carbon tax-liable companies to use eligible ICCs to offset up to 5% of their taxable emissions.

Additional sustainability initiatives: Several sustainability initiatives were announced in Singapore’s Budget 2024 and during the Singapore Airshow, including the following:

• Singapore Green Plan 2030: The government aims to:
• • quadruple solar energy deployment by 2025; and
  • ensure that all newly registered cars are cleaner-energy models by 2030.
• Carbon capture and storage (CCS): A partnership with S-Hub, led by ExxonMobil and Shell, is exploring a cross-border CCS project to capture and store at least 2.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually.
• International Energy Agency (IEA) regional office: On 21 October 2024, the IEA established the IEA Regional Cooperation Centre in Singapore—its first office outside of its Paris headquarters—to support and accelerate Asia’s clean energy transition. The Centre’s key focus areas include:
• • renewable energy scaling;
  • cross-border power trade; and
  • clean energy investments.
• Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF): The Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint mandates the use of SAF for flights departing from Singapore starting in 2026, alongside the introduction of an SAF levy.

Listed issuers have continuing disclosure obligations under the Listing Rules of the Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited (SGX-ST) (‘Listing Rules’) to disclose material information that is necessary to avoid the establishment of a false market in the company’s securities or would be likely to materially affect the price or value of its securities, except in limited circumstances. Failure to comply with such continuous disclosure obligations or the disclosure of false or misleading statements may result in a breach of the Securities and Futures Act 2001. Specifically, in relation to ESG disclosure, listed issuers must publish an annual sustainability report for their financial year within the same timeframe as their annual report, although a longer timeframe is permitted if there is external assurance on the sustainability report.

The sustainability report must describe the sustainability practices with reference to certain primary components set out in the Listing Rules on a ‘comply or explain’ basis (although issuers in certain industries must publish a climate report aligned with the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) Recommendations). These components include:

• material ESG factors;
• policies, practices and performance in relation to such factors;
• targets in relation to each factor;
• a sustainability reporting framework; and
• a board statement confirming that the board has:
• • considered sustainability issues as part of its strategic formulation;
  • determined the material ESG factors; and
  • overseen the management and monitoring of these factors.

Further, the SGX-ST – recognising the difficulty faced by listed issuers in benchmarking ESG disclosures, due in part to the inconsistency and lack of comparability of ESG data disclosures – has distilled 27 ESG metrics commonly reported by listed issuers, with each metric mapped against globally accepted reporting frameworks such as:

• the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI);
• specific industry standards issued by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (including SASB 110, SASB 130, SASB 140, SASB IF-RE-140a.1, SASB 150, SASB 310, SASB 320 and SASB 330);
• the TCFD Recommendations; and
• the World Economic Forum’s recommended set of metrics and disclosures.

These ESG metrics serve as a baseline for reporting and are not intended to be exhaustive.

In terms of sectoral requirements, banks, insurers and asset managers are required under the Environmental Risk Management Guidelines to disclose their approach to managing environmental risk in a manner that is clear and meaningful to stakeholders. They are also encouraged to disclose the potential impact of material environmental risk on the bank, including quantitative metrics such as exposures to sectors with higher environmental risk. The disclosure should be in accordance with well-regarded international reporting frameworks, such as the TCFD Recommendations.

There are also specific reporting and/or record-keeping obligations under the various environmental laws. For example:

• under the Environmental Protection and Management Act 1999, a register of the tests conducted to monitor the industrial emission of air impurities must be kept available for inspection;
• under the Carbon Pricing Act 2018, operators of business facilities with a carbon dioxide equivalence that attains the first emissions threshold must submit greenhouse gas emissions reports to the National Environment Agency (NEA); and
• under the Resource Sustainability Act 2019, producers of specified packaging that fulfil prescribed threshold criteria must submit to the NEA:
• • reports on information relating to such specified packaging; and
  • a plan to reduce, reuse or recycle packaging in Singapore (also known as the ‘3R plan’).

In July 2022, the Monetary Authority of Singapore published a circular on the Disclosure and Reporting Guidelines for Retail ESG Funds. The guidelines state that, effective from January 2023, fund managers must reveal:

• the investment’s ESG focus and relevant criteria, methodologies or metrics; and
• the sustainable investing strategies of retail funds being sold with an ESG label.

The guidelines specifically state that funds must ensure that at least two-thirds of their net asset value are invested in accordance with their stated ESG investment strategy.

Unlike listed issuers, non-listed issuers are not subject to any mandatory ESG disclosure requirements in Singapore. However, with increasing evidence that integration of ESG policies into corporate strategy can yield a positive effect on their financial performance, there is a developing trend for non-listed issuers to make ESG disclosures on a voluntary basis. The Sustainability Reporting Advisory Committee has proposed that listed and large non-listed companies should be progressively required to report International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB)-aligned climate-related disclosures from financial year 2025. The sustainability reports published by listed issuers serve as a good reference point for non-listed issuers.

Generally, the most commonly adopted sustainability reporting framework is the GRI Standards. An increasing number of entities include climate-related disclosures made against the TCFD Recommendations, which have also been fully incorporated in the disclosure standards of the ISSB (ie, International Financial Reporting Standards S1 and S2). Other international frameworks and industry specific guidelines used by local entities are the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the Carbon Disclosure Project.

Based on the SGX-Centre for Governance and Sustainability (CGS) Sustainability Reporting Review Report 2021 issued pursuant to a joint review by the SGX-ST and the CGS at the National University of Singapore Business School, the 10 most commonly disclosed material factors are those of a social and environmental nature. The most commonly disclosed are:

• for social factors:

ESG disclosure is a tenet of good governance and promotes the accountability and transparency of a company. In this regard, the board of a company has the dual role of:

• determining the company’s strategic direction; and
• conceptualising its approach to governance.

The SGX-ST’s Sustainability Reporting Guide states that the board’s role includes setting strategic objectives with an appropriate focus on sustainability. The board should determine the ESG factors that are material to the company’s business and ensure that those factors are monitored and managed, which translates into the board bearing ultimate responsibility for the company’s sustainability reporting. To this end, the board should put in place through the various levels of management an appropriate sustainability governance structure.

The board is usually supported by a sustainability committee, which may comprise members of the board and/or senior management. The committee will:

• provide the board with specific oversight on strategic and investment decisions related to sustainability; and
• assist with the implementation and communication of the company’s sustainability activities to its stakeholders.

Some companies have also created the executive role of a chief sustainability officer (CSO) to spearhead the formulation and execution of the company’s sustainability strategy and efforts. CSOs face an evolving mandate due to the business resilience pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic, but their main role remains that of ascertaining transparent ways to integrate sustainability into the company’s business functions and processes.

The SGX-ST recommends that listed issuers adopt globally recognised frameworks and international disclosure standards to guide their reporting, since this allows for improved quality and comparability of ESG data. An example of such a framework is the GRI Standards, which allow organisations to transparently depict the impact of their activities in a structured manner. These disclosure standards are the global baseline for sustainability disclosures in the financial markets.

It is important for a company to:

• disclose the proper governance structure and operational arrangements that are in place to manage ESG issues within the company; and
• demonstrate that ESG issues have been integrated into its existing strategy and risk management processes.

Such disclosures should set out:

• the roles and responsibilities of the board and at each level beyond the board;
• the frequency of reporting and discussions; and
• how progress against climate-related or other metrics and targets is tracked.

Companies should also provide internal or external assurance to:

• enhance the accuracy and credibility of their disclosures; and
• confirm that the information provided presents a true and balanced picture of their sustainability efforts and their underlying processes.

With effect from 1 January 2022, listed issuers must subject their sustainability reporting process to internal review and may additionally commission an independent external assurance on the sustainability report.

The SGX-CGS Sustainability Reporting Review Report 2021 also highlighted various best practices in reporting and disclosure, including:

• identifying relevant climate/environmental risks and opportunities;
• reporting based on consistent indicators and cross-references against targets;
• reporting performance data for all material topics with multi-year performance data to provide more context;
• disclosing short-term and long-term targets that are specific and measurable for all material topics; and
• reporting on clear linkages between performance and business strategy and financial performance.

These best practices aim to increase the confidence of stakeholders and other interested parties in the credibility of the reporting and disclosure.

Knowledge and understanding of ESG issues among most companies in Singapore is still relatively nascent compared to their counterparts in jurisdictions that are further along in their ESG journey (eg, the European Union). As such, many companies have focused their efforts in a more limited manner by:

• aiming to comply with the applicable ESG-related laws, reporting and disclosure obligations and corporate governance standards; and
• designing and implementing ESG strategies with more short-term results.

In this regard, companies in Singapore are guided by the various applicable laws, regulations, codes and guidelines issued by the relevant statutory bodies or governmental agencies and industry regulators. They are further supported by various incentives such as the Enterprise Sustainability Programme introduced by Enterprise Singapore, under which Enterprise Singapore will set aside S$180 million to help an estimated 6,000 Singapore companies go green by providing training workshops, project support and financing.

The board is the key force in driving the development of a company’s ESG strategy. In particular, the board members must take steps to:

• identify and inform themselves of the relevant climate risks; and
• satisfy themselves of the adequacy of the company’s sustainability strategy and how it is being implemented through various levels of management in monitoring, reporting and managing climate risks.

As noted in two reports commissioned by the Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative on a board’s liabilities and responsibilities in relation to climate risk and climate change, failure by the board in this regard may potentially expose members to prosecution by the relevant governmental agencies, criminal sanctions or regulatory penalties, as well as to civil liabilities.

Company officers have an equally important role to play in the design and implementation of the company’s ESG strategy. Research indicates that 52% of the CEOs of Singapore companies are of the view that employees should have a strong voice on climate change if they are to feel engaged and motivated. This is unsurprising, given that company officers are engaged in the day-to-day running of the company’s business and affairs at a micro level, and are thus the ‘first responders’ in detecting the relevant climate risks and proposing the appropriate measures to address and mitigate them.

While different companies adopt and implement different frameworks and metrics to monitor the success of implementation of their ESG strategy, ESG reporting and disclosure remains one of the most common and important ways of doing so. See questions 3.2 and 3.4.

See questions 3.3 and 4.2.

There is a consistent and growing practice of including ESG-related performance and outcomes as one of the factors to consider in determining executive compensation. In the KPMG 2021 CEO Outlook survey, 63% of CEOs in Singapore reported that their remuneration was tied to ESG outcomes. However, more recent data from the SGX Sustainability Reporting Review 2023 revealed that only 16% of listed issuers linked top executive remuneration to sustainability performance – a significant decrease from 26% in 2021. This decline suggests that while sustainability reporting has improved, the alignment of executive compensation with ESG outcomes has weakened in recent years. Nevertheless, the growing emphasis on ESG strategy among companies indicates a continuing need to reinforce the link between executive pay and the effectiveness of such strategies.

First, companies should understand:

• the ESG-related targets and strategy that they are setting and pursuing; and
• how these align with their overall business and strategy.

It is important to think not only about the positive impact that the company’s targets and strategy could have on the environment and the community in which it is operating, but also about the ‘sustainability’ of the effort required to implement the strategy and meet the targets in terms of the company’s ability to make continued progress in the long run. This helps to ensure that the company is not merely ‘jumping on the bandwagon’.

Second, companies should not only take care to focus on climate-related targets, but also remain cognisant of the ‘social’ and ‘governance’ components of ‘ESG’ – in particular, the impact that their business and operations may have on the communities in which they operate.

Third, companies should select the reporting standards and frameworks that are most applicable to them, bearing in mind the best practices in this regard as set out in question 3.4. Companies should ensure that they can comply with the chosen standards and frameworks, so that they can clearly communicate their ESG strategy, targets and progress.

Ultimately, commitment to ESG and sustainability is a long-term play. Any company that is unable to demonstrate tangible commitment to the cause and measurable results in the long run may risk jeopardising its reputation and credibility.

In the Budget Statement 2022, it was noted that green finance is one of the fastest-growing segments and Singapore now accounts for close to half of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) green bond and loan market. The Singapore government remains committed to driving growth in the green finance market, recently completing its third issuance of 50-year sovereign green bonds under the Singapore Green Bond framework, valued at S$1.5 billion. Proceeds from these bonds will support public sector green infrastructure projects. In 2024, it was reported that S$2.1 billion out of the amount raised through the 50-year Green Singapore Government Securities (Infrastructure) bond – issued in September 2023 with an issuance size of S$2.8 billion – was allocated to the development of the Jurong Region Line and Cross Island Line under Singapore’s Green Bond framework.

Lenders in Singapore are keenly aware of the need to support the nation’s sustainability agenda and of their critical role in providing financing solutions to help clients transition to a low carbon economy. This is in part due to the push by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to accelerate the growth of green finance in Singapore. From a regulatory perspective, banks are required under the Environmental Risk Management (ERM) Guidelines to build resilience against the impact of environmental risk by implementing robust ERM policies and processes. They are also encouraged to assist in the transition towards an environmentally sustainable economy by channelling capital through their green financing and investment activities. By engaging in green financing activities, lenders can also reap intangible benefits in the form of lower reputational and counterparty risks, as well as stronger client relationships.

The Green Finance Industry Taskforce (GFIT) was set up by MAS in 2021 to accelerate the growth of green finance across the region. Its stated focus areas include:

• developing a green taxonomy;
• improving environmental risk management practices of financial institutions (Fis);
• enhancing disclosure; and
• promoting green finance solutions.

These efforts are aimed at guiding FIs towards the adoption of sustainable practices, with the goal of supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy by directing capital into green and transitional activities. After multiple rounds of consultation with relevant Singapore government agencies and the public, MAS launched the Singapore-Asia Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance in December 2023.

In 2021, GFIT launched a Green and Sustainable Trade Finance and Working Capital Framework for short-term trade, both funded and contingent, and working capital solutions for green and sustainable purposes. It provides a ‘principles-based’ approach for banks to:

• assess eligible green trade finance transactions;
• introduce controls to assess whether environmental objectives and principles are met; and
• provide guidance on recommended industry certifications for trade finance activities to qualify as green.

Banks will need to assess, among other things, whether the prospective borrower’s use of the funds meets any of the environmental objectives specified therein (eg, climate change mitigation, biodiversity protection). The borrower may be asked to submit documentary evidence, which could be in the form of a recognised industry certificate, government licence or accepted third-party assessment showing the environmental and/or social benefits that will be assessed, measured or quantified. The bank should also assess the suitability of the borrower, as companies involved in certain prohibited activities (eg, illegal logging operations, trade of endangered species or exploitation of labour) should not qualify for green and sustainable trade finance and working capital. That said, instead of withdrawing credit, investments or insurance coverage from borrowers that face higher climate-related risks, banks are encouraged to actively support them with credible transition and adaptation plans, helping them to reduce their carbon footprints and build resilience to climate change. Additionally, banks should adopt a multi-year approach, extending beyond typical financing time horizons, to assess climate-related risks effectively, as both physical and transition risks take time to manifest and are uncertain. An integrated, holistic approach to risk management is essential, considering not only the climate-related risks but also the interrelated nature risks – such as biodiversity loss – that could arise during the transition to a net-zero economy.

Further, in June 2022, the Singapore government introduced the Singapore Green Bond Framework to:

• provide a governance structure for the issuance of green bonds by the Singapore government; and
• serve as a benchmark for corporate green bonds.

Designed to align with global best practices, the framework adheres to the core principles outlined in:

• the International Capital Market Association (ICMA) Green Bond Principles 2021; and the
• the ASEAN Capital Markets Forum ASEAN Green Bonds Standards 2018.

The framework is built on four core components:

• Use of proceeds: The funds raised from the issuance of the green bond must be used for qualifying green expenditures that support the environmental goals outlined in the ICMA Green Bond Principles and the ASEAN Green Bond Standards.
• Project evaluation and selection: The framework outlines processes for selecting and evaluating projects to ensure they meet the defined environmental criteria. These processes must be transparent and robust, involving clear governance structures within the issuer to ensure that funds are used appropriately.
• Management of proceeds: The issuer should track the net proceeds of the green bond and verify them through a formal internal process linked to investment operations for eligible green expenditures.
• Reporting: Issuers must provide annual reports detailing the allocation of funds and the environmental outcomes of the financed projects. This includes the following processes:
• Allocation reporting: Issuers must disclose how the bond proceeds have been distributed across specific projects.
• Impact reporting: Issuers must outline the environmental impact of these projects, including metrics that demonstrate the environmental benefits achieved.

In accordance with the core components of the framework, it also includes two key recommendations that align with best practices in the green bond market.

• External review: Issuers are encouraged to hire an external reviewer to assess the green bond framework’s alignment with the four key components.
• Green Bond Framework: Issuers should clearly outline how their green bond aligns with the framework, presenting this in an accessible format for investors.

By establishing these standards, the framework aims to enhance ESG financing in Singapore while promoting the issuance of high-quality green bonds by both public and private entities, thus advancing Singapore’s climate and sustainability goals. While the framework applies to bonds and relates more to issuer/borrower-side issues, it can still provide helpful guidance to ESG lenders by setting benchmarks for ESG financing.

As early as 2017, MAS launched a Green Bond Grant Scheme to catalyse the green bond market in Singapore by allowing issuers to offset the additional costs of issuing such bonds. The scheme, which was subsequently renamed the Sustainable Bond Grant Scheme, was expanded to include social, sustainability and sustainability-linked bonds. Additionally, in 2021, the National Environment Agency became the first statutory board to set up a S$3 billion multi-currency medium-term note and green bond framework, with proceeds from the issuance of notes used to finance sustainable infrastructure development projects such as Tuas Nexus, Singapore’s first integrated water and solid waste treatment facility.

The issuance of green, social, sustainability and sustainability-linked bonds in Singapore dropped from S$10.1 billion in 2022 to S$7.4 billion in 2024. MAS has attributed this decline to the global slowdown in bond issuances driven by rising interest rates and inflation.

That said, green and sustainability-linked loans remain highly relevant in the Singapore market, achieving six consecutive years of growth, with their total value surging from S$25.2 billion in 2022 to S$30.4 billion in 2023. Leading banks in Singapore have reported a significant increase in green financing initiatives, consolidating the country’s position as Southeast Asia’s premier hub for green, social and sustainability-linked loans and bonds, with over half of the region’s market share. In the Asia-Pacific region, Singapore also led in green and sustainability-linked lending in 2023, with Singapore-based issuers accounting for:

• 20.32% of syndicated lending volume for sustainability-linked across the Asia-Pacific ex-Japan markets; and
• 32% of syndicated lending volume for green assets and projects in the region.

As part of the Finance for Net Zero Action Plan, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Finance and Deputy Chairman of MAS Lawrence Wong announced in April 2023 that MAS will set aside a total of S$15 million to enhance and extend the sustainable bond and loan grant schemes to support transition instruments until 31 December 2028 in order to facilitate Singapore’s net-zero ambitions. The scope of the grant schemes will also be expanded to support transition bonds and loans, with safeguards put in place to reduce the risk of ‘transition-washing’. Separately, in the Budget Statement 2024, it was announced that MAS would top up the Financial Sector Development Fund with a further S$2 billion, to be applied towards building capacity in sustainability financing, among other things.

Building on the Finance for Net Zero Action Plan, MAS has expanded its efforts to advance Asia’s decarbonisation and green infrastructure development by launching the Financing Asia Transition Partnership (FAST-P). This initiative seeks to capitalise on the blended financing structure and mobilise US$5 billion from public, private and philanthropic sources. Blended finance leverages catalytic capital from both concessional and non-concessional sources to drive investment in sustainable development goals, de-risking projects for private investors and enabling them to participate in projects that might otherwise be beyond their risk appetite.

At the 29th Conference of the Parties on 12 November 2024, it was announced that the Singapore government would pledge up to US$500 million in concessional capital to support FAST-P, with the goal of creating a US$1 billion concessional fund that can attract up to US$4 billion in commercial capital for transition projects. FAST-P has already made significant strides since its creation, with the Australian government committing US$50 million on 3 December 2024 to one of the programmes under the FAST-P initiative aimed at supporting clean energy transitions and sustainable infrastructure development in Southeast Asia.

On 15 June 2023, MAS announced an expansion of its Sustainable Loan Grant Scheme, initially launched in 2021, to support a wider range of businesses. The revised scheme helps corporates to obtain sustainable or transition financing, offsetting up to S$125,000 of expenses incurred for external reviews of eligible green, social, sustainability, sustainability-linked and transition loans. Similarly, the Sustainable Bond Grant Scheme was enhanced in 2023 to defray up to S$125,000 costs incurred for external reviews to assess eligible green, social, sustainability, sustainability-linked and transition bonds. Both schemes are designed to promote the adoption of internationally recognised standards and principles, and will be effective until 31 December 2028.

Further, to combat the risk of greenwashing and criticisms that there is inconsistency and a lack of transparency in sustainable finance, borrowers are spending more effort on:

• setting well-documented key performance indicators (KPIs);
• engaging third parties such as Sustainalytics to provide a second opinion on the alignment of their financing framework with the relevant green loan/bond or sustainability-linked loan/bond principles; and
• engaging qualified external providers to verify satisfaction of KPIs and sustainability performance targets (SPTs) on a regular basis and publicly publishing the reports of such providers.

Another challenge is the moral hazard created by sustainability-linked loans/bonds. There is usually an interest/coupon adjustment or premium if the borrowers or issuers are unable to achieve the SPTs. This thus creates a paradox where investors benefit from the borrower’s or issuer’s failure to deliver on its sustainability goals. It remains to be seen whether more innovative penalty structures could better align a borrower’s or issuer’s financial and social interests.

In December 2023, MAS launched the Singapore Taxonomy. The Singapore Taxonomy provides a detailed science and evidence-based framework for classifying activities as green, transition or ineligible across eight focus sectors:

• energy;
• real estate;
• transportation;
• agriculture and forestry/land use;
• industrial, information and communication technology;
• waste/circular economy; and
• carbon capture and sequestration.

The Singapore Taxonomy draws on scientific data and methodologies from reputable sources, including:

• the EU Taxonomy;
• the Science-based Targets Initiative;
• the Transition Pathway Initiative; and
• the Climate Bonds Initiative.

A distinctive feature of the Singapore Taxonomy is that it uses a traffic-light classification system to categorise economic activities based on their environmental impact and sustainability, as follows:

• green (near net zero);
• amber (transition); and
• red (ineligible).

Additionally, the Singapore Taxonomy sets out various ‘do no significant harm’ criteria (currently characterised in the Singapore Taxonomy as ‘best practice disclosure’), which indicate that while activities may contribute to climate change mitigation activities, they should not cause significant adverse harm to the other environmental objectives of the Singapore Taxonomy – that is:

• climate change adaptation;
• protection of healthy ecosystems and biodiversity;
• promotion of resource resilience and the circular economy; and
• pollution prevention and control.

While not legally binding at present, the Singapore Taxonomy should be considered by lenders seeking to align their lending practices with specific environmental goals. In this regard, the taxonomy will provide lenders with specific criteria that will allow them to more meaningfully evaluate whether the activities and assets of potential borrowers are in line with their own environmental objectives.

Another potential benefit of the Singapore Taxonomy relates to existing concerns about the omission of the ‘additionality principle’ in the context of SPTs, whereby SPTs may be framed as such ‘low-hanging fruit’ that they can be achieved without receiving the proceeds from the sustainability-linked bonds or loans or green loans, thus rendering moot the additional positive environmental or social impacts that the sustainability-linked bonds or loans or green loans are meant to have. Best practice would be to set SPTs over and above a ‘business-as-planned’ corporate baseline that is formulated within a future timeframe, to ensure that the SPTs are not achievable without deviation in the sustainability direction from the ordinary course of the company’s business. In short, SPTs set must be ambitious, yet meaningful. The benchmarks established by the Singapore Taxonomy offer a robust and structured framework for the formulation of nuanced and realistic SPTs that are not only congruent with internationally recognised standards, but also meaningful and ambitious to the relevant borrower’s core business (ie, SPTs that drive significant, transformative change, as opposed to merely allowing for compliance with minimal effort).

Institutional investors and activist shareholders play a key role in influencing a company’s ESG strategy and, by extension, in shaping the ESG landscape in Singapore.

First, various institutional investors in Singapore have committed to reducing the net carbon emissions attributable to their portfolios and are seeking out sustainable investments to add to their portfolio. This in turn encourages companies looking to attract investments to do likewise. For example, Temasek Holdings and various major banks and funds in Singapore (eg, DBS, UOB, Morgan Stanley and BlackRock) have:

• integrated ESG considerations into their investment decisions; and
• developed structured and comprehensive due diligence frameworks for the selection of sustainable investments or investments in companies with a sound and robust ESG strategy and performance.

Second, institutional investors have also introduced and implemented various programmes to help portfolio companies to transform their businesses to be more sustainable. For example, through the Stewardship Asia Centre, Temasek Holdings has sought to create awareness of ESG-related concerns and build up capability to address these concerns through research, education, engagement and advisory services.

Third, institutional investors have made clear that they are prepared to actively engage the boards of their portfolio companies on ESG issues and will not be shy through voting activities to influence board composition and hold boards accountable on ESG issues. GIC – one of the investment entities in Singapore that manage the government’s reserves – became a signatory to CDP, Climate Action 100+ and the Asia Investor Group on Climate Change in 2022, sending a clear signal that it intends to engage more actively with portfolio companies on climate-related risks and opportunities and offer support in their carbon transition journey.

Singapore-headquartered bank UOB is a signatory to:

• the Singapore Stewardship Principles for Responsible Investors, an industry-led initiative for responsible investment supported by the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited; and
• the UN-supported Principles for Responsible Investment.

See question 6.1. Notably, there has yet to be the sort of shareholder activism seen with Exxon Mobil and Chevron in Singapore; and, based on historical experience with shareholder dissatisfaction with corporate decisions, this is unlikely to be the preferred mode through which activist shareholders (or, for that matter, institutional investors) would seek to exert influence and effect change on companies in Singapore.

The current focus of institutional investors and activist shareholders is on getting companies to recognise, identify and address:

• ESG-related issues and concerns (in particular, climate risks and the importance of reduction in carbon emissions);
• disclosure and reporting; and
• capacity building to adequately address these issues and concerns.

For instance, UOB has developed a structured due diligence framework to ensure that investment partners have operationalised policies and processes in place and/or adopt or align with globally recognised disclosure and reporting standards and frameworks, such as those of:

• the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures; and
• the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board.

DBS has also advocated for benchmarks in ESG criteria or ratings to facilitate:

• systematic assessments of potential investments; and
• the making of investment decisions based on ESG-related considerations.

See questions 6.1 and 6.2.

See questions 6.1 and 6.2.

In addition to those discussed in question 6, other stakeholders have played an active and important role in shaping the ESG landscape in Singapore through various formal and informal engagement channels. The views of stakeholders contribute to informing a company’s identification of material ESG concerns; and continued and sustained engagement with stakeholders provides a company with an up-to-date picture of its sustainability efforts – both within its business and in the environment and community in which it operates.

Stakeholder engagement has been identified as a key aspect of sustainability reporting and disclosure. The Sustainability Reporting Review Report 2021 recommended that, as a best practice, companies should disclose:

• how they identify their stakeholders;
• the stakeholder engagement channels that are available; and
• how stakeholders’ concerns are addressed.

In the same report, it was observed that currently, around one-third of Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited (SGX-ST) issuers report on how they identify their stakeholders and their stakeholders’ concerns and how they respond to the same.

Indeed, stakeholder engagement appears to be a key driver of sustainability reporting and disclosure. Under Practice Note 7.6 on Sustainability Reporting issued by the SGX-ST, it is noted that interaction of the issuer with its stakeholders is of interest to investors for its relevance to sustainability across the value chain of the issuer.

Singapore is showing signs of shifting away from a primarily incentive-based approach to one which incorporates more mandatory legal and regulatory requirements. Among other things, with respect to climate-related disclosures, Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited has made climate reporting mandatory for issuers in certain industries. This was implemented in tranches:

• by 2023 for issuers in the financial, agriculture, food and forest products, and energy industries; and
• by 2024 for issuers in the materials and building and transportation industries.

Singapore also announced in the Budget Statement 2022 that it would raise its carbon tax from S$5 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions to S$25 per tonne in 2024 and 2025, and S$45 per tonne in 2026 and 2027, with a view to reaching S$50 to S$80 per tonne by 2030.

Recent initiatives are aimed at providing the relevant opportunities, incentives, resources and programmes to foster an ESG landscape that is conducive to uptake by all companies. For example, on 11 October 2023, in conjunction with the raising of the carbon tax, the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment and the National Environment Agency announced the eligibility criteria under the international carbon credit (ICC) framework which will allow carbon tax-liable companies to use eligible ICCs to offset up to 5% of their taxable emissions. See also questions 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.2, 2.3, 5.1 and 5.2.

Further bolstering the regulatory shift is Singapore’s Budget 2024, which underscores the urgency of addressing climate change through targeted ESG measures. From 2025, listed companies are required to prepare sustainability reports aligned with the International Sustainability Standards Board framework, ensuring consistency and transparency in climate-related disclosures. The Budget also emphasised the importance of transitioning to clean energy pathways such as geothermal, hydrogen and nuclear energy, aligning with COP28 goals to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030.

To aid companies in meeting these increasing obligations, the Budget introduced several financial support mechanisms. Starting 1 April 2024, the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Green will expand to support businesses adopting green solutions. Simultaneously, the Sustainability Reporting Grant will defray up to 30% of the costs for large companies preparing their first sustainability report; while small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) will receive up to 70% cost defrayment through the SME Sustainability Reporting Support Programme.

Singapore is also focused on building a robust green workforce to support the shift towards a sustainable economy. Enhanced training programmes for mid-career workers and Institute of Technical Education graduates, along with sustainability-focused internships and attachments, will ensure the development of skills necessary to implement ESG strategies. The Budget further promotes collaboration between the government, sectoral agencies and trade associations and chambers to chart industry-specific decarbonisation roadmaps, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors.

These regulatory and supportive initiatives, coupled with environmental levies on high-ecological-impact products and services, reflect Singapore’s commitment to a balanced approach. By integrating mandatory measures with robust support, Singapore is positioning itself as a leader in regional ESG innovation while fostering sustainable transitions across all levels of the economy.

Given Singapore’s push to develop an ESG-friendly landscape, companies should feel free to take advantage of the available opportunities, incentives, resources and programmes – see questions 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.2, 2.3, 5.1 and 5.2. These are designed not only to help companies kickstart their sustainability journey, but also to assist them in developing sustainability strategies to advance their ESG goals and targets.

In designing and implementing their ESG strategies, companies should be mindful to:

• actively engage investors and stakeholders (see questions 6 and 7); and
• ensure that their ESG strategies:
• • align with their overall business and strategy;
  • consist of not only short-term but also long-term goals; and
  • are sustainable in the long run (see question 4.6).