In 2025, sustainability reporting in Singapore moves into a more mature regulatory phase. What used to be driven by voluntary frameworks, investor relations, or reputational concerns is now being reinforced by structured rules, board accountability, international alignment, and financial incentives. Companies operating in Singapore must understand that ESG reporting is no longer a branding exercise. It is being integrated into regulatory filings, risk disclosures, and long-term capital allocation decisions. The shift is visible across three fronts: climate disclosure requirements, greenhouse gas emissions reporting, and carbon taxation.
Singapore’s regulators have made it clear that the country intends to position itself as a trusted financial hub in a decarbonising global economy. To achieve this, disclosure standards must be comparable with international norms, data must be verifiable, and companies must demonstrate emissions transparency. The outcome is a 2025 landscape where ESG and carbon reporting are treated as compliance obligations linked to governance, capital markets, and national climate commitments.
1. ESG Reporting Rules for Companies in Singapore in 2025
The ESG reporting framework in 2025 sits on top of sustainability disclosures introduced over the past decade but now demands greater granularity and standardisation. For listed entities on the Singapore Exchange, sustainability reports remain mandatory, but climate disclosures are moving toward mandatory alignment with the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). These ISSB-aligned disclosures are designed to ensure that climate-related risks, transition plans, and emissions data can be compared across jurisdictions.
The structure of ESG reporting in Singapore follows the typical sustainability pillars: environmental, social, and governance. However, regulators are singling out climate-related environmental disclosures due to their financial materiality. Reporting must now address climate risk management, emissions measurement, physical and transition risks, and decarbonisation pathways. The expectation is that sustainability reporting becomes part of the broader financial reporting ecosystem rather than an appendix.
In 2025, listed companies must continue publishing annual sustainability reports that include board oversight, stakeholder materiality, and performance metrics. Boards are expected to take accountability for climate-related matters instead of delegating responsibility entirely to sustainability teams or external consultants. This governance shift ensures that climate issues influence enterprise risk management, capex decisions, supply chain planning, and investor communications.
2. Mandatory Climate Reporting for Listed Companies
Climate reporting is now the most significant regulatory development for companies in Singapore. Under the roadmap set out by financial regulators, SGX-listed issuers begin mandatory climate disclosures aligned with ISSB standards. These standards draw heavily from the TCFD structure, requiring disclosures around governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. Mandatory reporting subjects climate disclosures to the same seriousness as financial statements, especially where they intersect with long-term value.
Companies must declare emissions under the greenhouse gas protocol for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, and certain industries will need to disclose Scope 3 emissions where relevant. For most organisations, collecting reliable Scope 3 data is the most difficult task because it requires supply chain engagement, emissions estimation methodologies, and revision of procurement policies. Still, Singapore regulators are messaging clearly that emissions transparency is no longer optional.
From 2025 onward, climate reporting is not limited to sustainability reporting season. Companies are expected to announce material climate-related developments through market disclosures if they affect valuations, risks, or operational continuity. For example, the financial impact of carbon pricing, supply chain instability, or climate risk exposure may be treated as financially material issues for investors. The link between climate risk and capital markets is intentional and is expected to shape board attention and resource allocation.
3. Carbon Reporting and the Carbon Pricing Regime
Alongside climate disclosure requirements, Singapore operates a carbon tax regime that places compliance obligations on large emitters. While the carbon tax has been in place for several years, the price is progressively increasing to align with Singapore’s long-term climate commitments. The tax applies based on measured greenhouse gas emissions, meaning reporting accuracy is essential for financial compliance.
Facilities emitting above the reporting threshold must measure, monitor, and verify emissions following regulated methodologies. Reports must undergo external verification and be submitted to authorities for carbon tax assessments. In 2025, the tax structure already incentivises reductions by making emissions a direct operating cost rather than a theoretical climate concern. The pricing mechanism encourages large emitters to evaluate abatement investments, energy efficiency improvements, and renewable procurement.
Measurement and reporting rules are complemented by allowances for certain emissions accounting approaches, which help companies plan decarbonisation pathways more rationally. However, regulators are careful about ensuring that carbon accounting remains robust and traceable. The long-term view is that accurate emissions accounting forms the foundation for future market instruments, including carbon credits, green financing structures, and transition plans.
4. Interaction Between ESG Reporting and Carbon Reporting
Many companies attempt to treat ESG reporting and carbon reporting as separate activities, but in 2025 the two are deeply interconnected. ESG regulation requires companies to disclose climate targets and decarbonisation strategies, while carbon reporting provides the emissions baseline and financial liability data that underpin those targets. Without carbon data, climate disclosures risk becoming aspirational statements with no measurable performance.
Carbon reporting reinforces three important dimensions of ESG reporting:
-
Financial Impact:
Emissions now carry direct tax implications, changing how CFOs and controllers treat environmental data. -
Credibility:
Emissions are subject to verification, strengthening trust in sustainability reports. -
Accountability:
Carbon measurement introduces quantifiable indicators for climate performance, shifting the conversation away from marketing narratives.
For boards and executives, the convergence of ESG and carbon reporting means sustainability must transition from communications to governance. Risk management, audit, finance, and operations all become stakeholders in emissions data.
5. Implications for Non-Listed & Mid-Market Companies
Although climate disclosures are mandatory only for SGX-listed issuers in 2025, non-listed and mid-market companies in Singapore should not assume they are exempt. Regulatory roadmaps already state that large non-listed entities will be phased into mandatory climate reporting later in the decade. Even before that phase-in, supply chain pressures are accelerating the adoption of carbon reporting among private companies.
Multinational buyers, especially in technology, manufacturing, energy, food, and industrial supply chains, increasingly require emissions disclosures from their suppliers. A non-listed Singapore company that cannot provide carbon data risks losing procurement eligibility. For companies involved in export activities, the issue is more pronounced due to international carbon border adjustments and ESG preferences from international buyers.
Private companies may not yet be taxed directly on emissions if they are below statutory thresholds, but they face reputational and market access risks. Many mid-market firms are responding by voluntarily adopting emissions measurement frameworks, setting internal reduction targets, and preparing for future regulatory inclusion. In short, companies that prepare early will face lower compliance costs and less operational disruption when mandatory reporting expands.
6. Internal Challenges Companies Face in 2025
Despite the regulatory clarity, companies face several operational challenges when preparing for ESG and carbon reporting compliance. These challenges are practical rather than ideological and revolve around data, systems, capability, and verification.
Data Collection Complexity:
Carbon reporting requires emissions factors, activity data, metering systems, and supply chain data that are often held in separate departments. Companies that relied on spreadsheets for voluntary sustainability reporting are discovering that compliance-grade carbon accounting cannot be sustained manually.
Measurement Boundaries:
Defining organisational and operational boundaries for emissions remains a source of confusion. Different reporting frameworks define boundaries differently, and companies must ensure consistency across financial reporting, ESG disclosures, and carbon tax submissions.
Capability Gaps:
Sustainability reporting used to be communications-driven, but carbon reporting requires technical knowledge in accounting, engineering, and verification. Many companies lack internal specialists and must seek external consultants or training for finance and sustainability teams.
Verification Requirements:
Carbon tax reporting and mandatory climate disclosures introduce verification expectations that mirror financial auditing. This increases the importance of data traceability, documentation, and quality control systems.
Board Accountability:
Many boards still lack climate literacy. Yet governance rules place climate oversight at board level, meaning directors must learn how to interpret emissions data, transition risk, and carbon pricing impacts.
7. Strategic Benefits Beyond Compliance
Although ESG and carbon reporting impose compliance costs, companies that treat the requirements strategically often gain competitive advantages. Investors are placing higher premiums on credible transition strategies, banks are offering sustainability-linked financing structures, and customers with decarbonisation goals are prioritising suppliers who can support emissions reduction. Early adopters of carbon transparency are securing better positions in procurement chains, capital markets, and long-term valuation assessments.
Carbon reporting also enables companies to calculate the cost-benefit of emissions-reducing investments. Without measurement, decarbonisation remains speculative. With accurate emissions data and carbon pricing signals, CFOs can model payback periods for energy efficiency upgrades, electrification, renewable procurement, or process optimisation. The tax mechanism helps quantify environmental performance in financial language that executives and investors understand.
8. Preparing for 2025 and Beyond
To align with ESG and carbon reporting requirements in Singapore, companies should take several structured steps throughout 2025.
-
Establish governance ownership at board and management levels for climate and carbon matters.
-
Map emissions boundaries and data sources across operations and supply chains.
-
Build emissions measurement processes and technological systems to replace spreadsheets.
-
Prepare for verification by documenting methodologies, assumptions, and controls.
-
Integrate carbon-related costs and risks into financial planning and enterprise risk management.
-
Develop transition strategies with realistic timelines, reduction targets, and capital plans.
These steps reflect how sustainability has shifted from reporting to operational planning. Companies that treat sustainability and carbon as long-term capabilities rather than reporting obligations will be better positioned for future policy tightening.
Conclusion
ESG and carbon reporting in Singapore in 2025 represent a decisive regulatory shift. Climate disclosures are becoming mandatory, emissions data are tied to taxation, and sustainability reporting is linked to financial markets. Businesses must transition from narrative-based sustainability to data-driven climate accountability. The companies that adapt early will gain better access to capital, global supply chains, and policy incentives, while laggards will face higher compliance costs, lost procurement opportunities, and strained investor confidence.
As Singapore advances toward a low-carbon economy, ESG reporting is no longer a marketing deliverable. It is a governance requirement, a financial variable, and a compliance obligation. The 2025 landscape rewards companies that treat carbon data as strategic infrastructure rather than an annual sustainability exercise.