Battling Green Washing: How Is Singapore Pioneering Genuine Sustainability in Southeast Asia?

In July 2024, China decided not to disclose its country’s clean power usage, encompassing hydro, thermal, nuclear, wind, and solar generation. This decision follows recent data indicating a decrease in the utilization of renewable solar and wind power plants, a trend expected to persist. From January to April 2024, the average operating hours of wind and solar power plants dropped by 77 hours and 42 hours per month, respectively. The utilization of these green energies was anticipated to decline further following the government’s decision to implement less stringent rules on renewable energies. On May 29, 2024, China’s cabinet announced that the limit on renewable power curtailment will be raised from 5% to 10%, indicating a reduction of power production from green energy sources. This is to allow for more construction of renewable capacity, but at lower utilization rates. They expressed their concerns that grid congestion might result in a slower pace of renewable installations.

In contrast, going into effect in 2025, Singapore has rolled out mandatory climate reporting for specific industries, such as the financial, agricultural, food and forest products, and energy sectors. A phased approach will be implemented to give firms that need more time the opportunities to build up their capabilities for accurate reporting. Such disclosures will be made according to local reporting standards aligned with the International Sustainability Standards Board, a global accounting standards body. Industries such as the materials and buildings industry and transportation are next in line among the prioritized sectors. This requirement can be extended and applied to other industries such as entertainment, Information and Communications Technology (ICT), education, and beyond.

Despite advancements in climate technologies to capture accurate and reliable data for impact analysis, such as Singapore’s Evercomm’s leading platform that utilizes innovative IoT technologies to promote seamless sustainable reporting, it is evident that sustainability reports may not always tell the whole story. According to the World Economic Forum, a global study found that 76% of 1,000 executives did not trust the data of their competitors’ sustainability reports. Furthermore, a study by Inmarsat found that 80% of executives believe their competitors are more focused on perception than achieving tangible sustainable outcomes. Governments and companies may publish selective information or present their climate data to appear as though they are meeting their targets on paper. However, this will result in consequences for various stakeholders. One impact would be the distortion of expectations in demand and supply of the technology, implicating investment levels and ultimately hindering progress toward shared climate goals.

Nonetheless, there has also been some progress made in sustainability reporting. In corporate sectors, the Carbon Disclosure Project’s (CDP) database reflects increasing disclosure of companies sharing data, despite not meeting the benchmark criteria, indicating a positive step forward in combating climate change. While it is still a work in progress with only 2% of the companies considered A-List—a criterion that considers the submission of actionable and high-quality environmental data—these developments suggest that enterprises are increasingly giving attention to the importance of sustainable data reporting.

Many stakeholders come into play when addressing climate issues, ranging from international organizations and governments to companies and individuals. Key strategies to gain traction and awareness about the importance of data transparency targeted toward the use of green energies are multifaceted:

• International Organizations to Standardize Methodology of Collecting and Publishing Data: The Paris Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) was launched to boost tracking of progress and enable a more streamlined process. Challenges may occur in different demographics, with differing methods of gathering, managing, and analyzing the data. Developing countries may also lack resources to obtain long-term, good quality data. For example, carbon emissions are categorized into Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions,[1] with Scope 3 being the hardest to quantify and calculate. To this end, ABI Research has implemented a “Telco Sustainability Index” for standardization in the telco industry, and similar methodology could be applied to the other sectors. According to the United Nations Development Program, current capacity building programs have been struggling with inadequate institutional frameworks and sustainable solutions. They should be expanded and improved through regular reviews and rigorous testing.

• Strict Enforcement by the Government or Law: Independent think tank Carbon Tracker stated in its annual report on corporate disclosures that 98% of 134 companies failed to provide sufficient evidence considering the impact of climate matters, potentially leading to inaccurate financial statements, which, in turn, results in unreliable measurement of climate data. Apart from existing initiatives, more governments could implement a law mandating accurate climate reporting, with measures in place to review and verify compliance.
• Partnerships and Collaboration to Increase Accountability and Deployment: While existing partnerships such as Evercomm (Singapore) and Mitsubishi (Japan) have demonstrated increased reach and engagement, additional efforts are necessary to achiever broader and deeper impact. These can result in increased investments, higher adoption of sustainable technologies, increasing economies of scale, and lowering costs.
• Leadership and Management to Have Ownership: Setting definable and ambitious targets for their company should be spearheaded by the management team. When the leadership takes ownership, it becomes easier to cascade these goals throughout the organization, creating a trickle-down effect and exponential reach.
• Reducing the Spread of Climate Misinformation: Misinformation resulting from half-truths or the lack of transparency in data reporting can lead to distrust and damaged reputation, reducing climate awareness and efficiency. Conducting more thorough research and background checks is crucial to ensure veracity of information and wider education. Strict enforcement by governments and environmental watch groups should be implemented to reduce the spread of any misleading climate information.  

[1] Scope 1 Emissions: direct Greenhouse Gas (GHGs) emissions that occur from sources that are owned or controlled by the organization; Scope 2 Emissions: Indirect GHG emissions from the generation of purchased electricity consumed by the organization; Scope 3 Emissions: All other indirect GHG emissions that occur in the organization’s value chain but are not directly owned or controlled by the organization.