Environmental, social, and governance reporting has become an established part...
Environmental, social, and governance reporting has become an established part of corporate disclosure across the Asia Pacific region. Over the past decade, expectations around transparency on sustainability, climate exposure, workforce practices, and governance structures have shifted from informal guidance to more clearly defined obligations. This shift reflects the region’s growing integration into global capital markets and the increasing importance placed on non-financial risks.
Asia Pacific is not a single regulatory environment. ESG reporting practices differ widely across countries, shaped by local legal systems, economic development, and industry concentration. Some markets have introduced detailed reporting standards aligned with international frameworks, while others are still building foundational disclosure requirements. Despite these differences, shared direction is evident. ESG reporting is moving toward greater consistency, stronger regulatory oversight, and closer alignment with financial reporting.
For companies operating across borders, it creates both complexity and opportunity. Understanding how ESG reporting works across major Asia Pacific markets is essential for maintaining compliance, managing risk, and meeting stakeholder expectations.
Asia Pacific plays a central role in global production, trade, and consumption. Many of the environmental and social challenges that feature prominently in ESG discussions, including climate exposure, labour practices, and resource use, are closely linked to economic activity in the region. As a result, expectations around transparency have increased, particularly for companies with international investors or supply chain exposure.
Regulators and stock exchanges across Asia Pacific have taken a more active role in shaping ESG reporting practices. Sustainability disclosure is increasingly viewed as a tool to improve market integrity, strengthen corporate governance, and support the development of sustainable finance. This has led to a steady expansion of reporting requirements, particularly for listed companies and large enterprises.
From a business perspective, ESG reporting has moved beyond reputational considerations. It now plays a role in enterprise risk management, capital allocation, and long-term planning. Companies are expected to demonstrate that they understand and manage material environmental and social risks, rather than simply reporting high-level commitments.
The influence of global investors and international standards has been a major factor in the development of ESG reporting in Asia Pacific. Companies based in the region often raise capital from overseas markets or operate within global supply chains. As a result, they are subject to expectations shaped by frameworks and regulations originating outside their home jurisdictions.
This external pressure has encouraged regulators to align local requirements with widely recognised standards. The aim is to improve comparability and reduce barriers for companies operating internationally. While local adaptations remain, the overall direction has been toward convergence rather than fragmentation.
For organisations, ESG reporting provides a structured way to identify and manage non-financial risks that may affect performance over time. Issues such as climate transition risk, workforce safety, supply chain resilience, and governance effectiveness are increasingly relevant to financial outcomes.
In Asia Pacific, where regulatory requirements are still evolving, building ESG reporting capabilities early can help organisations adapt more smoothly to future changes. It can also improve internal decision making by providing better visibility into areas that were previously managed informally.
Despite differences in national regulations, ESG reporting across Asia Pacific is shaped by a relatively small number of international frameworks. These frameworks provide common definitions, metrics, and disclosure principles that are used by both regulators and companies.
The Global Reporting Initiative remains widely used across the region, particularly for environmental and social disclosures. Many regulators reference GRI standards when developing sustainability reporting requirements, and companies often rely on them as a baseline for voluntary reporting.
Climate-related disclosure has increasingly been guided by the Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures. TCFD recommendations have influenced regulatory requirements in several Asia Pacific markets, particularly in relation to governance, risk management, and strategy.
More recently, the establishment of the International Sustainability Standards Board has accelerated efforts to harmonise sustainability reporting. IFRS S1 and S2 are being adopted or referenced by multiple jurisdictions, signalling a move toward a common baseline for sustainability and climate-related financial disclosures.
Other frameworks, including SASB standards, integrated reporting, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, continue to shape reporting practices, particularly for companies with significant international exposure.
The regulatory approach to ESG reporting varies significantly across Asia Pacific. Some countries have introduced detailed mandatory requirements, while others rely on guidance or comply or explain mechanisms. These differences reflect local policy priorities, market maturity, and regulatory capacity.
Australia is implementing mandatory climate‑related financial disclosures for large businesses and financial institutions through new Australian Sustainability Reporting Standards (ASRS), aligned with ISSB. Reporting is phased by size from reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2025, covering governance, strategy, risk management, emissions, and scenario analysis, with expectations that scope widens over time.
The Australian approach closely aligns with international standards, reflecting the country’s exposure to global capital markets and climate-related risks.
China’s ESG regime has been evolving through guidance and pilot programmes, but recent policy steps mark a shift toward more formal requirements. From 2026, the China Securities Regulatory Commission will require key index constituents on the Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges to publish ESG reports, with particular emphasis on environmental disclosure for high‑impact sectors.
Environmental disclosure has received particular attention, especially in sectors with significant environmental impact. While formal mandatory requirements remain limited, regulatory signals suggest that ESG reporting obligations will continue to expand.
Hong Kong embeds ESG requirements in HKEX Listing Rules, combining mandatory elements with “comply or explain” provisions. Enhanced climate‑related disclosure requirements, aligned with TCFD and converging toward ISSB S2, apply for financial years commencing on or after 1 January 2025, starting with more stringent obligations for larger and higher‑risk issuers
India’s Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR) is now the core ESG reporting framework for the top listed entities, requiring detailed quantitative and qualitative disclosures across E, S, and G.
The BRSR Core value‑chain requirements, which extend ESG reporting to key suppliers and customers, have been postponed by SEBI to FY 2026, with obligations initially limited to partners representing at least 2% of procurement or sales, up to a cap of 75% of the value chain.
Japan has progressively strengthened corporate governance and sustainability disclosure, with climate reporting particularly important for companies on the Prime Market of the Tokyo Stock Exchange. In 2025, the Sustainability Standards Board of Japan (SSBJ) issued its first sustainability disclosure standards, including general, climate, and an application standard, aligned with ISSB guidelines, providing a domestic framework that preserves international comparability.
Across Southeast Asia, ESG reporting requirements are developing at different speeds. Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam have each introduced or strengthened sustainability reporting rules, often combining exchange‑level guidance with sector‑specific regulations; while depth and enforcement vary, ISSB and TCFD influence is increasingly visible.
Singapore has taken a leadership role in Asia Pacific by embedding sustainability reporting into listing rules and progressively moving toward ISSB‑informed climate disclosures. Listed companies have long been required to publish sustainability reports on a “comply or explain” basis, and climate‑related disclosure is being strengthened through a climate reporting roadmap that will eventually extend to large non‑listed entities. In the coming years, Singapore’s Climate‑Related Disclosures (CRD) framework, aligned with IFRS S1 and S2, will require more detailed reporting on governance, strategy, risk management, metrics, and targets for climate‑related risks and opportunities.
Regulators have signaled that climate reporting will transition from best practice to a core component of financial‑adjacent disclosure. This reflects the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s broader focus on sustainable finance and climate risk supervision, as well as expectations from international investors active in the Singapore market. For companies, it means that climate‑related information is increasingly assessed alongside traditional financial metrics when capital allocation and risk decisions are made.
Malaysia is in the process of moving from primarily exchange‑driven sustainability reporting to a more comprehensive national regime. Bursa Malaysia’s Sustainability Reporting Guide has already made ESG disclosures standard for listed companies, with sector‑specific guidance and expanded requirements for climate‑related information. Building on this foundation, the National Sustainability Reporting Framework (NSRF) will introduce phased mandatory sustainability reporting for Main Market issuers and large non‑listed entities, using ISSB standards, particularly IFRS S1 and S2, as a baseline.
Under the NSRF roadmap, larger listed companies will adopt climate‑first reporting ahead of other issuers, with broader sustainability disclosures following as the framework matures. Over time, this is expected to align Malaysian ESG reporting more closely with global expectations and improve comparability for international investors. Parallel initiatives, such as the National Industry i‑ESG Framework and tools like the Simplified ESG Disclosure Guide for SMEs, indicate that regulators are also focused on bringing smaller businesses and value‑chain partners into the sustainability ecosystem, even where formal reporting is not yet mandatory.
New Zealand was an early mover on mandatory climate‑related disclosures via XRB climate standards for large listed issuers, banks, insurers, and investment entities, covering governance, strategy, risk management, and emissions (including selected Scope 3). In late 2025, however, the government narrowed the scope by raising the threshold for listed issuers from NZD 60 million to NZD 1 billion market capitalisation and removing managed investment scheme (MIS) managers from the regime, while maintaining reporting expectations for the largest climate reporting entities.
It has established a relatively mature reporting environment and influenced regional discussions on climate disclosure.
Beyond the larger markets, several other Asia Pacific jurisdictions are also strengthening ESG reporting expectations. South Korea has introduced phased sustainability disclosure for listed companies, with climate‑related reporting and governance requirements tightening in line with international norms. Taiwan has similarly expanded corporate social responsibility and climate disclosure rules for larger and high‑impact issuers, supporting investor demand for more consistent information.
In South Asia, markets such as Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh are at earlier stages but are developing sustainability reporting guidelines for listed companies, often influenced by IFRS, GRI, and local governance codes. While the depth of disclosure varies, the direction is toward more systematised ESG reporting frameworks as capital markets develop.
Most formal ESG reporting requirements in Asia Pacific currently focus on listed issuers and large enterprises. However, small and medium‑sized enterprises and privately held businesses are increasingly drawn into the ESG reporting ecosystem through supply‑chain relationships, financing, and voluntary frameworks.
Larger customers, lenders, and multinational parents often request sustainability data, policies, or certifications from their business partners to meet their own reporting and risk‑management obligations. Initiatives such as Malaysia’s Simplified ESG Disclosure Guide for SMEs and Singapore’s various SME sustainability toolkits reflect a broader regional trend toward supporting smaller businesses as they begin to formalise ESG practices and disclosures.
ESG reporting practices in Asia Pacific are also shaped by industry characteristics. Different sectors face different risks, stakeholder expectations, and regulatory pressures, which are reflected in their disclosure priorities.
Financial institutions are generally among the most advanced ESG reporters in the region. Regulatory requirements, investor scrutiny, and risk management considerations drive relatively comprehensive disclosures.
Reporting often focuses on climate risk exposure, governance arrangements, responsible lending and investment practices, and social considerations such as financial inclusion.
Energy, utilities, mining, and extractive industries face high levels of scrutiny due to their environmental impact. ESG reporting in these sectors places strong emphasis on emissions, transition strategies, environmental management, and community engagement.
Investor expectations have driven increased transparency around climate risks and long-term transition planning.
Manufacturers are required to manage a wide range of ESG issues, including emissions, energy use, workplace safety, and supply chain labour standards. Reporting in this sector often involves complex data collection across multiple sites and jurisdictions.
As regulatory expectations increase, manufacturers are investing in systems to improve data consistency and control.
In consumer-facing industries, ESG reporting places greater emphasis on supply chain transparency, labour practices, and product responsibility. Brand reputation and customer expectations play an important role in shaping disclosure practices.
Environmental topics such as packaging, waste, and resource use are also increasingly prominent.
Technology and service companies typically focus on governance, data protection, workforce practices, and ethical conduct. While direct environmental impacts may be lower, energy use associated with digital infrastructure is becoming a more visible reporting topic.
Despite progress, ESG reporting in Asia Pacific continues to face practical challenges. Data quality remains a persistent issue, particularly for emissions and supply chain metrics. Many organisations rely on manual processes and fragmented systems, making it difficult to ensure consistency and accuracy.
Regulatory complexity is another challenge for companies operating across multiple jurisdictions. Differences in scope, definitions, and reporting timelines increase the burden of compliance.
Assurance practices for ESG data are still developing. While financial audits are well established, sustainability assurance lacks consistent standards and expertise in some markets. Smaller organisations often face additional constraints due to limited resources and technical capacity.
Emerging international assurance standards such as ISSA 5000, together with jurisdiction‑specific roadmaps in markets like Singapore and Malaysia, are expected to gradually raise expectations for independent verification of ESG data. As these standards are adopted, companies will need to strengthen internal controls, documentation and systems to provide the evidence base auditors require, particularly for climate and emissions‑related metrics.
Asia Pacific companies are increasingly affected by sustainability regulations originating outside the region. The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) all have implications for APAC exporters and multinationals with EU links. Even where local reporting is not yet mandatory, customers and group parents subject to these rules often require more detailed ESG and climate data from Asia Pacific operations and suppliers.
This value‑chain pressure is particularly significant for sectors such as manufacturing, energy‑intensive industries, and agriculture. Companies that depend heavily on international supply chains or export markets increasingly treat ESG reporting as a condition of market access rather than a purely domestic compliance obligation.
The direction of travel for ESG reporting in Asia Pacific is toward greater standardisation and stronger regulatory oversight. ISSB standards are likely to form the foundation for sustainability reporting across many jurisdictions, even where local adaptations remain.
Technology is expected to play a growing role in supporting ESG reporting, particularly through data management platforms that improve efficiency and traceability. Regulatory scrutiny is also likely to increase, with greater focus on data quality and governance.
Over time, ESG reporting is expected to resemble financial reporting more closely in terms of structure, controls, and assurance. Organisations that invest early in robust reporting processes will be better positioned to adapt to these changes.
ESG reporting in Asia Pacific reflects the region’s diversity and its increasing integration into global markets. While regulatory approaches vary, the overall trend is clear. Transparency around environmental, social, and governance performance is becoming a baseline expectation.
Organisations operating in the region face growing demands to produce credible, consistent, and decision-useful ESG disclosures. Those that treat ESG reporting as part of core business governance, rather than a standalone exercise, are more likely to build resilience and maintain trust as expectations continue to rise.
Want to know how SAMESG® works?
SAMESG® streamlines ESG reporting—automating data collection, ensuring compliance, and delivering audit-ready reports in one powerful platform.
About the author
Director – Projects & Value Chain at SAM Corporate LLC
Follow the expert:
Rajagopal Kannan is the Director of Projects & Value Chain at SAM Corporate LLC, leading ESG, risk management, and sustainability initiatives. With over 20 years of experience, including a decade in banking and financial risk, he specializes in credit structuring, Basel II & III, ISO 31000, COSO ERM, internal audit, and regulatory compliance under CBUAE, DFSA, ADGM, and SCA.
His current focus lies in ESG integration, climate and sustainability risk management, and value chain sustainability. A GRI-certified Sustainability Professional and GARP-certified SCR holder, he also holds multiple global credentials including PRM®, GRCP, GRCA, CRCMP, CBiiiPro, CSM, and CISI Level 3.
