The latest report published by PwC Singapore, with support from the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants (ISCA) and Singapore Exchange Regulation (SGX RegCo).
State of play: ESG assurance readiness
Despite the extension to climate reporting timelines by Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) and Singapore Exchange Regulation (SGX RegCo), the requirement for listed companies to report their Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by FY2025 remains unchanged.
This is the perfect time for companies to capitalise on this two-year window to enhance their assurance preparedness, ensuring they are fully equipped to meet forthcoming regulatory demands.
To support this transition, Boards and governance bodies must take proactive steps to meet ACRA and SGX RegCo requirements. This includes strengthening internal processes and systems, engaging assurance providers early, and equipping staff with the necessary skills.
Through this survey, we sought to assess the current state of play among Singapore’s listed companies concerning the elements supporting sustainability reporting, and how they influence the current level of assurance readiness.
“The extended timeline for mandatory sustainability assurance by FY2029 provides companies with additional time to be assurance-ready. It creates an opportunity for management to engage an assurance practitioner early and allows management sufficient time to address gaps in reporting, controls, and processes, as well as to develop internal capabilities. This proactive approach can help manage risks and enhance the reliability of companies’ reports.”
Key insights
"The extended timeline for sustainability reporting and assurance presents companies with a strategic opportunity to strengthen ESG capabilities—starting with the foundational scaffolding of reporting: process, systems, and people. Companies should begin by conducting gap analyses and developing clear roadmaps to guide their progress over the next few years, ahead of mandatory reporting and assurance requirements. By making full use of this window, organisations can position themselves to meet future expectations with confidence and credibility—while also responding to growing stakeholder demands for timely, transparent, and trustworthy sustainability information."
Larger companies are leading the way in sustainability assurance, but the wider market still lags
Our survey findings reveal a varied level of maturity in sustainability reporting among listed companies, with STI constituents leading the way. Although the climate reporting clock is ticking slower for non-STI constituents in Singapore, the gap between their current state and the level of sophistication demonstrated by STI constituents remains notable. Bridging this gap will require focused effort, investment, and capacity building to meet evolving expectations and assurance requirements.
Proportions of listed companies who have obtained external assurance over sustainability-related information
Internal reviews have laid a good foundation for external assurance
Companies have embarked on internal reviews over sustainability data since the SGX RegCo requirement became effective 1 January 2022, even though the approach differs across the industry. Among smaller, non-STI constituents, internal reviews over sustainability data are typically conducted through outsourced Internal Audit (IA) functions—likely due to limited internal resources, capacity, or the absence of an in-house IA team. In fact, 75% of smaller, non-STI constituents rely on outsourced IA, in stark contrast to STI constituents, where only 14% use internal IA functions.
There is much room for automation and streamlining of data collection and reporting processes, including formal policies for data collection and internal review for STI constituents
Based on survey responses, many companies continue to rely on manual methods for data collection and reporting, with 48% of smaller, non-STI constituents still using spreadsheets to manage the process. Generally, the sophistication of data collection tends to increase with company size. Among STI constituents, 57% have adopted ESG systems, compared to 38% of non-STI constituents with a market capitalisation above $1 billion (“larger, non-STI constituents”). Larger companies, given their scale and operational complexity, are more likely to see value in investing in technology to manage their sustainability reporting processes.
A similar trend is observed in the frequency of data collection. Smaller, non-STI constituents tend to collect data less frequently, likely due to the manual and spreadsheet-based nature of their processes.
In contrast, our findings indicate that larger, non-STI constituents surveyed are leading the pack amongst the listed companies with 95% of respondents with established formal policies in place for data collection, as well as documented procedures for the internal review of sustainability data.
Level of ESG training varies significantly across the board
Whilst ESG training is generally well-integrated into capacity building programs amongst STI constituents, majority of smaller listed companies have yet to do so – and amongst those who do, only half find their current training adequate. This points to a clear opportunity to strengthen capacity building through more targeted and structured ESG training initiatives. ACRA’s Sustainability Reporting Body of Knowledge (BOK) and other industry-led efforts can play a key role in bridging these gaps and equipping companies with the skills needed to meet evolving sustainability expectations.
Finance teams are engaged in sustainability reporting to a limited degree
The extent of finance function involvement in sustainability reporting currently varies across companies, with most engaging finance teams only to a limited degree. 65% of companies responded that they engage finance only to a limited extent or not at all. Companies which do involve finance to a moderate or large extent are the minority at present. However, this is expected to evolve. With the introduction of the ISSB standards and the growing emphasis on the connectivity between sustainability reporting and financial reporting, finance teams are likely to play a more central role moving forward.
Readiness assessments are emerging as a strategic tool
With mandatory assurance on the horizon, it is encouraging that readiness assessments are gaining traction as a proactive way to evaluate whether data, controls, and personnel are prepared for external scrutiny. This positively signals growing awareness of their value in building assurance maturity.
"With the extension of mandatory sustainability assurance timeline in Singapore, it is crucial that companies make good use of this time to build capacity towards credible reporting and assurance readiness. Our study noted that whilst larger companies are leading the way in sustainability assurance, the wider market still lags significantly, and there are notable gaps between large and smaller companies that need to be addressed. Encouragingly, assurance readiness assessments are gaining traction among Singapore businesses, with over eight in ten STI constituents and larger non-STI companies having either conducted or are considering assurance readiness assessments. This positively signals the growing recognition of assurance in building trust and the value in starting early."
Are you ready?
At its core, sustainability reporting is not just about meeting evolving regulatory demands and requirements — it is about turning compliance into competitiveness, building trust, enabling resilience, and contributing meaningfully to regional and global efforts in climate action. When companies approach sustainability reporting and assurance with the right purpose and objective, it can serve as a powerful lever to unlock business value and support long-term competitiveness.
Read our report for a deeper dive on this topic
For more of our ESG insights, visit Asia Pacific Centre for Sustainability Excellence (CSE)
About the survey
From 14 August 2025 to 1 October 2025, PwC collected a total of 116 responses to our survey, which was distributed to both listed and non-listed companies. The following chart reflects the distribution of respondents to our survey.
The first wave was from 14 August 2025 to 1 October 2025 from ISCA distribution.
The second wave was from 2 September 2025 to 1 October 2025 from the Singapore Exchange (SGX) survey distribution.
The survey was distributed to all SGX-listed companies, alongside an open invitation extended to non-listed companies. Due to the limited number of responses from non-listed entities, our analysis predominantly centred on listed companies (110 respondents), unless otherwise stated. With an overall response rate of 18% from SGX-listed companies, it is important to note that the percentages and figures presented are drawn exclusively from responses received, and may not fully represent the entire landscape of listed and non-listed companies in Singapore.
The distribution of company types analysed in the survey
Contact us
Sustainability and Climate Change Practice Leader, PwC Singapore
Tel: +65 9817 8213
Indrie Tjahjadi
Managing Director, ISSB Specialist, Sustainability and Climate Change, PwC Singapore
Tel: +65 9827 9428