.svg)
Singapore's first year of mandatory climate reporting: where the Scope 3 gaps are
Singapore's largest listed companies have filed their first mandatory climate reports, and the gaps are already visible. An Eco-Business review of 24 Straits Times Index (STI) companies, published on 10 November 2026, found uneven assurance and late disclosures. Scope 3 reporting is required of the same companies from FY2026.
What did the first climate reports show?
Eco-Business reviewed the first climate reports of 24 of the 30 STI companies. Six were left out: three have September year-ends and three are secondary listings.
- Assurance was uneven. About 10 companies chose limited assurance over their emissions, CapitaLand Investment chose reasonable assurance, and SATS and Yangzijiang Shipbuilding had none.
- Disclosures often arrived late. Of the 24, 16 published their climate disclosures with their annual reports, and at least five released them weeks afterwards.
- Financial effects were often missing. Many of the companies did not put a financial value on their climate risks and opportunities.
When does Scope 3 reporting start for Singapore companies?
STI companies must report Scope 3 emissions from FY2026. Under the proposed changes, other companies would keep ongoing relief on Scope 3. Assurance stays voluntary until FY2029, and the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) has proposed requiring a full compliance statement from FY2028. Public consultation on the proposals closed on 25 October 2026.
Why is Scope 3 data hard for these companies to collect?
The data sits with suppliers and contractors. Hotels show the scale: a single property can buy from up to 1,200 spending categories, each needing its own emission factor. Eric Ricaurte of Greenview, quoted in the review, considers spend-based estimates of limited use for cutting emissions, and puts the time needed to get sustainability data in order at about three years. The trade-off between sector averages and supplier-specific data is covered in why spend-based reporting isn't enough.
ComfortDelGro, used in the review as a comparison from outside the STI, estimated 10 Scope 3 categories it was not required to report. It also points out that the data suppliers send back can itself be an estimate.
How are other markets handling Scope 3 data gaps?
The advisers quoted in the review disagree on how much relief is right. EY considers Singapore's proposed approach sufficient for now. KPMG wants companies to explain their data gaps and their plans to close them, which is what Hong Kong already asks. Australia has given companies a temporary shield from private lawsuits over their Scope 3 disclosures. KPMG's Cherine Fok expects larger Singapore companies to make meaningful progress on financial effects within two to three reporting cycles.
