Bernard Eng

China has issued its first dedicated climate disclosure standard CSDS No.1 (Climate – Trial) marking a major step toward a national sustainability disclosure system. 1. The standard follows the familiar four-pillar structure: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics & targets aligned with global best practices. Application is voluntary for now, but experts widely agree this is a transition phase before mandatory adoption. 2. 𝐃𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞: - How climate issues affect financial performance - How business activities impact the environment and China’s national climate goals 3. CSDS 1 is broadly aligned with ISSB standards, but goes further by embedding national priorities and impact materiality. 4. Companies are encouraged to disclose GHG inventories, internal carbon pricing, and climate scenario analysis, turning climate narratives into measurable data. 5. China currently has two parallel disclosure systems one from the Ministry of Finance and one from stock exchanges expected to converge over time. 6. Large listed companies in Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen already face mandatory ESG disclosures, though some elements (Scope 3, scenario analysis) remain voluntary. Preparedness is uneven: - Large SOEs and blue-chip firms are relatively advanced - SMEs and private companies face major data, skill, and coordination gaps - Interoperability is emerging as a key challenge, as Chinese firms must align disclosures across China, Hong Kong, EU (CSRD/CSDDD), and global markets. learn how to conduct double materiality assessment with Sustainability 101 link below in the comment

40

3 Komen

🌍 SME Sustainability Cheat Sheet Most small and medium sized businesses do not need a new program. They need sustainability integrated into decisions that manage risk, support performance and prepare the company for a regenerative, low carbon and inclusive economy. The central challenge is prioritization. SMEs cannot address every issue, and wide efforts dilute progress. The starting point is business relevance. This means identifying where sustainability intersects with rising costs, fragile supply chains, regulatory pressure and changing expectations from customers, lenders and partners. From there, progress depends on focus. A light assessment of material issues helps reveal two or three themes that matter most for resilience and long term value. These priorities differ by sector, but all point toward the same idea. Sustainability becomes actionable when it aligns with daily operations. Traction improves when companies build on what already works. Existing processes, teams and routines often contain the foundations for integration. Adding simple risk indicators, short weekly check ins or supplier expectations can accelerate adoption without unnecessary complexity. Execution improves when simplicity guides decisions. High impact and low barrier actions such as improving efficiency, training teams to reduce avoidable waste or mapping top suppliers for ESG risks help demonstrate measurable progress. These early steps strengthen internal capability and reinforce the link between sustainability and operational performance. Measuring value requires a few clear indicators. Utility reductions, supplier mix, employee engagement and rates of resolved compliance risks can provide the insight needed to inform decisions and improve transparency. These indicators support governance, improve reporting and create the baseline for future improvements. Sustainability also strengthens commercial positioning. Procurement eligibility, access to new client segments and higher brand trust increasingly depend on credible practices. Clear communication about what the company is doing and why it matters helps build this confidence. The most resilient SMEs treat sustainability as a strategic lever for competitiveness. The aim is progress based on clear priorities, simple actions and better decision making. Which areas are SMEs in your sector finding most difficult to prioritize today? #sustainability #esg #GBSHConsultGroup

1

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝗶𝗼𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻? At the 𝗦𝗚𝗙𝗜𝗡 𝗦𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁, researchers from the Sustainable and Green Finance Institute (SGFIN), NUS presented new research examining how corporate disclosure frameworks operationalize the 𝗞𝘂𝗻𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴–𝗠𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗕𝗶𝗼𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 (𝗚𝗕𝗙). Using large-scale document analysis and machine learning text classification, researchers conducted the 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 of how major corporate disclosure frameworks translate the GBF’s global biodiversity targets into corporate reporting requirements. The results highlight an important structural bottleneck: even when companies disclose biodiversity information, existing widely used frameworks only partially capture the priorities embedded in global biodiversity framework. As biodiversity reporting frameworks evolve, the landscape is moving 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, with the 𝗧𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗡𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲-𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 (𝗧𝗡𝗙𝗗) increasingly emerging as the main global framework and gaining support from the 𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗕/𝗜𝗙𝗥𝗦 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺. These findings also point to several priorities for policymakers, regulators, and standard setters: • Strengthen alignment between TNFD disclosures and the Global Biodiversity Framework, ensuring that corporate disclosures capture key biodiversity indicators such as ecosystem condition, species exposure, and major biodiversity pressures. • Incorporate stronger biodiversity measurement approaches into disclosure standards, drawing on methodologies developed by the 𝗦𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗧𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗡𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 (𝗦𝗕𝗧𝗡) to improve how biodiversity impacts and dependencies are quantified. • Ensure consistency across the emerging disclosure architecture, particularly as ISSB develops nature-related standards building on TNFD, to avoid locking in gaps between corporate reporting and global biodiversity policy objectives. • Support implementation through regulatory guidance and exchange-level disclosure requirements, helping translate biodiversity frameworks into consistent corporate reporting practices. Stronger alignment between global biodiversity policy, disclosure frameworks, and corporate reporting will be critical to translating biodiversity commitments into meaningful corporate action. Researchers: Yingtong Zhu, Román Carrasco, Mengshi Ge, Johan Sulaeman, Patricia Chu. (Post contributed by Mengshi Ge, Research Fellow at SGFIN) #NUS #SGFIN #SGFINSummit2026 #sustainablefinance #greenfinance #Sustainability #Biodiversity #NaturalCapital #PhysicalRisk #ClimateRisk

45

From governance to performance: How sustainability strategy mediates corporate sustainability success This study examines how sustainability governance influences sustainability strategies and how these strategies subsequently affect sustainability performance in Southeast Asian public companies. Sustainability governance is operationalized using two Refinitiv Eikon proxies: the presence of a sustainability committee and the use of sustainability assurance. Sustainability strategy is measured using the corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy score, while sustainability performance is captured through Refinitiv’s environmental, social, and governance (ESG) score, a disclosure-based indicator widely used in prior research (Ma, 2024; Ghinizzini et al., 2025). The sample included 255 listed firms from Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance (ANOVA) identify cross-country and industry differences, and structural equation modelling (SEM) with path analysis tests the hypothesized relationships. The results showed that governance mechanisms support the development of sustainability strategies, which subsequently enhance sustainability performance. #corporategovernance #firmperformance #sustainability #listedfirms #disclosure Find this paper recently published in our journal Corporate Governance and Sustainability Review below https://lnkd.in/dB_2hH2p

14

How ESG Is Reshaping SME Access to Finance For small and medium-sized enterprises, the ESG discussion has changed. The main question is no longer whether ESG is relevant to SMEs, but rather how it affects access to finance, participation in the market, and long-term survival. Banks are now including environmental and governance risks in their credit assessments for SMEs. Large companies expect their suppliers to meet ESG standards. Governments are linking grants, incentives, and public procurement to sustainability requirements. At the same time, events like climate shocks, supply-chain disruptions, workforce instability, and weak governance put SMEs at greater financial risk. ESG frameworks help SMEs recognize, handle, and lower these risks, often through practical and cost-effective steps. te In this situation, ESG is not just a marketing strategy for SMEs. It serves as a tool for financial and operational resilience. SMEs that incorporate ESG into their strategies become more attractive to banks, competitive, and ready for the future. Those that do not adapt face higher financing costs, limited market access, and increased exclusion from value chains. What do you think is the biggest ESG-related barrier to SME financing today, such as cost, data, awareness, or regulation? #ESG #SMEs #SustainableFinance #ClimateFinance #AccessToFinance #RiskManagement #ResponsibleBusiness #FutureOfWork #EconomicResilience #InstitutionalFinance #EarnMoreConsultants

3

1 Komen

🌏PILLAR 1 – ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR CLIMATE ACTION IN MALAYSIA Building an effective national response to climate change is not just about policies — it’s about institutions that can deliver. Pillar 1of5 of Malaysia’s National Climate Change Institutional Assessment (CCIA) focuses on the backbone of implementation: ✅ Regulatory frameworks ✅ Clear mandates ✅ Strong coordination ✅ Real technical capacity All designed to achieve the Three Cs: Commitment. Coordination. Cooperation. 📜 1. Regulatory Framework – Climate Change Bill (RUUPIN) Malaysia is in the final stages of developing its first overarching climate law: The National Climate Change Bill (RUUPIN). 🔧 Key elements in the October 2024 framework: • Creation of a dedicated regulatory body • A National Integrated Climate Data Repository • A National Climate Fund for financing mitigation & adaptation ⚠️ Strategic gaps identified: • No mandatory national emissions targets • No regular climate risk & vulnerability assessments • Unclear federal–state responsibilities • Potential overlap with existing agencies • Inconsistent emissions reporting standards 👉 Without these fixes, enforcement risks becoming fragmented. 🏛️ 2. Functional Mandates – Ministerial Evolution Since the Dec 2023 restructuring, climate governance now sits across two core ministries: 🌱 Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability (NRES) • Leads climate policy & sustainability • Houses the Climate Change Division ⚡ Ministry of Energy Transition and Water Transformation (PETRA) • Oversees energy transition, utilities & water transformation 🚨 Institutional risk: Malaysia has undergone five major restructurings in five years. Frequent reshuffling leads to: • Loss of institutional memory • Slower delivery • Reduced accountability in Parliament ➡️ Stability matters as much as ambition. 🤝 3. Coordination & Governance Mechanisms Malaysia has built high-level coordination bodies — but transparency remains limited. 🌍 National Climate Change Action Council (MTPIN) • Established 2020 • Chaired by the Prime Minister • Sets national climate direction 🧭 National Steering Committee on Climate Change (NSCCC) • Oversees implementation • Chaired by NRES Secretary General 🔬 Technical Committee on Climate Change (TCCC) • Manages UNFCCC reporting • Runs six technical working groups 📉 Core accountability challenge: • No public dashboards • No accessible meeting outcomes • No progress tracking mechanisms ➡️ Coordination exists — visibility doesn’t. 👩‍💼 4. Technical Capacity & Human Resources This is where the system is most fragile. 📊 Current reality: • NRES Climate Change Division: 28 staff (5x growth — good progress) • Every other ministry: zero dedicated climate units • Environment-related ministries overall: 23% staff reduction in a decade ❌ What’s missing: • No government-wide capacity assessment • No training roadmap • No talent pipeline CONTD IN COMMENTS

8

1 Komen

Sustainability reporting continues globally: Philippines mandate ISSB-aligned sustainability reporting standards 👇 The Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission has announced the adoption of the 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗦𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 (𝗣𝗙𝗥𝗦 𝗦𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆). The standards are aligned with the sustainability and climate disclosure framework developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board under the IFRS Foundation. They will serve as the basis for new mandatory sustainability and climate-related reporting requirements for large and listed companies in the Philippines. 𝗦𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 The requirements will be introduced gradually: 👉 2027: listed companies with a market capitalisation above ₱50 billion, reporting on fiscal year 2026 👉 2028: listed companies with a market capitalisation above ₱3 billion 👉 2029: all remaining listed companies, including debt-only issuers, as well as large non-listed companies with annual revenues above ₱15 billion 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 👉 The framework includes PFRS S1 (sustainability-related disclosures) and PFRS S2 (climate-related disclosures), corresponding to ISSB S1 and S2. 👉 In addition, companies will be required to disclose Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions two years after they first fall within the reporting scope. Scope 3 emissions will be phased in at a later stage. 🇪🇺 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀? European companies with subsidiaries, listed entities, or significant operations in the Philippines will need to comply with the local PFRS Sustainability requirements for those entities. In addition, European companies may increasingly receive ISSB-aligned sustainability data from Philippine subsidiaries, suppliers, or business partners, which can be used as input for CSRD reporting and risk assessments. #ESGreporting #PFRS

10

💁 Build confidence in carbon accounting and climate-related disclosures.   Join us for the SGBC Industry Course: Corporate Carbon Footprint for Climate-Related Disclosures on 10 September 2026 and gain practical knowledge on measuring, managing and reporting greenhouse gas emissions to support organisational sustainability goals.   As climate-related reporting requirements and stakeholder expectations continue to evolve, organisations are increasingly expected to understand and disclose their carbon footprint with accuracy and transparency. Led by Grace Cheah, Founder of Sustinere, this course equips participants with the foundational knowledge and practical skills needed to navigate the carbon accounting landscape.   What you'll learn: • Understanding the principles and importance of corporate carbon footprinting • Quantifying and reporting Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions • Applying recognised carbon accounting methodologies and standards • Interpreting carbon data to support business decision-making and climate strategies • Strengthening organisational readiness for climate-related disclosures and sustainability reporting • Leveraging carbon footprint insights to identify opportunities for emissions reduction and performance improvement   Through practical examples and real-world applications, participants will gain a clearer understanding of how carbon accounting supports climate action, corporate transparency and long-term business resilience.   Whether you are a sustainability professional, ESG practitioner, facilities manager, consultant, building owner or corporate decision-maker, this course provides valuable insights into building a strong foundation for effective carbon management and climate-related reporting.   📅 10 September 2026 🔗 Register here: https://lnkd.in/gUTVqVYy

9

1 Komen