The State of ESG Reporting in Asia-Pacific: 2026 Landscape

Asia-Pacific is no longer following Europe’s lead on sustainability reporting — it is building its own regulatory architecture, and the pace of change has accelerated dramatically. In the span of three years, the region has moved from a patchwork of voluntary frameworks and stock exchange guidelines to a landscape where mandatory, auditable sustainability disclosure is the norm for large companies in most major economies.

For multinationals operating across the region, the complexity is significant. Each jurisdiction has adopted different standards, different timelines, and different assurance requirements — though the underlying convergence toward ISSB-aligned frameworks provides a degree of coherence that did not exist even two years ago.

This article maps the current state of ESG reporting requirements across the major Asia-Pacific markets as of early 2026, identifies the regional trends shaping the next phase, and examines what all of this means for companies navigating multi-jurisdiction compliance.

Japan: SSBJ Standards Go Live

Japan’s approach to sustainability reporting has crystallized around the Sustainability Standards Board of Japan (SSBJ), which finalized its disclosure standards in March 2025. These standards are closely aligned with ISSB’s IFRS S1 (General Requirements) and IFRS S2 (Climate-Related Disclosures), with Japan-specific modifications that reflect the country’s unique corporate governance structure and industrial composition.

Current status: SSBJ standards become mandatory for Prime Market-listed companies with market capitalization above JPY 3 trillion starting with fiscal years beginning April 2026. The scope expands progressively — companies above JPY 1 trillion from April 2027, and further broadening expected by 2028. The Financial Services Agency (FSA) has confirmed that SSBJ-aligned disclosures will be required within annual securities reports (yuho), placing them under the same legal framework as financial statements.

Key requirements: Climate-related disclosures aligned with IFRS S2, including Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions. Governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets for climate-related risks and opportunities. The SSBJ has added Japan-specific guidance on transition planning, reflecting the country’s energy mix challenges and the industrial sector’s reliance on hard-to-abate processes.

Assurance: Limited assurance required from the outset. The FSA has indicated a phased transition to reasonable assurance, though the timeline remains under deliberation.

What to watch: Japan’s implementation will be closely observed as a test case for ISSB adoption in a major economy. The integration of sustainability disclosure into yuho — rather than a separate sustainability report — signals a structural shift toward treating sustainability information as financially material by default.

Australia: Mandatory Climate Reporting Is Here

Australia moved decisively with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Act 2024, establishing mandatory climate-related financial disclosure for large entities. The requirements took effect in phases starting January 2025.

Current status: Group 1 entities (meeting two of three thresholds: consolidated revenue over AUD 500 million, gross assets over AUD 1 billion, or 500+ employees) are already reporting for fiscal years starting on or after January 1, 2025. Group 2 entities (AUD 200 million revenue / AUD 500 million assets / 250+ employees) begin reporting from July 2026. Group 3 (AUD 50 million revenue / AUD 25 million assets / 100+ employees) from July 2027.

Key requirements: Aligned with ISSB standards, specifically IFRS S2. Disclosures cover governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets for climate-related risks and opportunities. Scope 3 emissions reporting is required, though the government has provided a three-year transition period during which Scope 3 disclosures carry modified liability protections.

Assurance: Limited assurance required for Scope 1 and 2 emissions from the outset. The assurance scope expands progressively to cover all climate disclosures. Reasonable assurance is the eventual target.

Enforcement: The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has regulatory oversight. Misleading or deceptive sustainability disclosures are subject to existing financial reporting enforcement mechanisms — this is not a soft-touch regime.

What to watch: Australia’s phased approach and liability protections for Scope 3 offer a practical model for managing the transition to mandatory disclosure without overwhelming the assurance market. The Group 2 wave beginning mid-2026 will be the first real test of scalability.

Singapore: SGX Drives Mandatory Climate Reporting

Singapore has pursued a dual-track approach — stock exchange requirements for listed companies and broader economy-wide standards through the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) and Singapore Exchange (SGX).

Current status: SGX mandated climate reporting on a “comply or explain” basis starting in 2024 for all listed companies, with mandatory ISSB-aligned reporting (no “explain” option) for large-cap issuers beginning in fiscal year 2025. The scope expands to all listed issuers by fiscal year 2027. Beyond the exchange, Singapore has signaled intent to extend mandatory sustainability reporting to large non-listed companies through legislative amendments expected to be enacted in 2026.

Key requirements: Climate disclosures aligned with IFRS S2, building on the earlier TCFD-based reporting that SGX mandated. Singapore has adopted the ISSB standards with minimal local modifications, positioning itself as an early mover in full ISSB alignment. Scope 3 reporting is required but with a phased implementation that allows companies to build capability over multiple cycles.

Assurance: External assurance of Scope 1 and 2 emissions data is mandatory for large-cap issuers from fiscal year 2025. The assurance requirement broadens to cover all climate disclosures progressively.

What to watch: Singapore’s decision to extend mandatory reporting beyond listed companies is significant — it signals that sustainability disclosure is becoming a mainstream corporate obligation, not just a capital markets requirement. The city-state’s role as a regional financial hub means its standards influence reporting practices across Southeast Asia.

Hong Kong: HKEX Moves to Mandatory Climate Disclosure

Hong Kong has transitioned from voluntary sustainability reporting guidance to mandatory climate-related disclosure aligned with ISSB standards.

Current status: The Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX) implemented new climate-related disclosure requirements effective January 2025 for Main Board issuers. The requirements are mandatory, replacing the previous “comply or explain” ESG reporting framework for climate-related disclosures. The broader ESG reporting requirements (social, governance) remain on a “comply or explain” basis for now.

Key requirements: Climate disclosures aligned with IFRS S2, covering governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. Scope 1 and 2 emissions reporting is mandatory. Scope 3 emissions are required on a “comply or explain” basis initially, transitioning to mandatory in subsequent phases. Cross-industry and industry-based climate metrics are required, with HKEX providing sector-specific guidance.

Assurance: Independent assurance is not yet mandatory but is “strongly encouraged.” HKEX has signaled that mandatory assurance requirements will follow, likely aligned with the phased approach adopted in other ISSB-adopting jurisdictions.

What to watch: Hong Kong’s approach creates an interesting competitive dynamic with mainland China’s own evolving sustainability disclosure requirements. As the gateway for international capital flowing into Greater China, Hong Kong’s ISSB alignment has implications well beyond its own market.

South Korea: Phased Mandatory Sustainability Disclosure

South Korea has been deliberate in its approach, announcing mandatory sustainability reporting through the Korea Sustainability Disclosure Standards (KSDS) aligned with ISSB.

Current status: The Financial Services Commission (FSC) confirmed mandatory KSDS-aligned sustainability reporting for companies listed on KOSPI with assets exceeding KRW 2 trillion, effective for fiscal years beginning January 2026. The scope expands to all KOSPI-listed companies by 2028 and is expected to include KOSDAQ large-caps in a later phase.

Key requirements: Full alignment with ISSB standards (IFRS S1 and S2). Climate-related disclosures are the first phase, with additional sustainability topics (social, governance) to be phased in as ISSB issues further standards. South Korea has added Korea-specific implementation guidance, particularly around the country’s semiconductor and heavy industry sectors.

Assurance: Limited assurance from the outset, with a transition to reasonable assurance planned over five years. The Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) is developing detailed assurance standards in collaboration with the Korea Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

What to watch: South Korea’s large industrial conglomerates (chaebols) have complex value chains spanning semiconductors, shipbuilding, automotive, and petrochemicals. Their Scope 3 reporting will be a significant test of ISSB-aligned disclosure at scale in heavy industry contexts.

India: SEBI’s BRSR Framework Matures

India took an early lead in mandatory ESG reporting among emerging markets, and its framework has continued to evolve.

Current status: The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) mandated the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR) for the top 1,000 listed companies by market capitalization, effective since fiscal year 2022-23. The BRSR Core — a subset of key ESG metrics subject to reasonable assurance — has been mandatory for the top 150 companies since fiscal year 2024-25 and expands to the top 500 from fiscal year 2026-27.

Key requirements: The BRSR covers nine ESG principles spanning environment, social, and governance topics. BRSR Core focuses on quantitative metrics including GHG emissions, water consumption, waste generation, gender diversity, and value chain ESG practices. India has not formally adopted ISSB standards but has signaled an interoperability approach — the BRSR Core metrics are designed to be mappable to ISSB and GRI requirements.

Assurance: Reasonable assurance is required for BRSR Core metrics — notably, India has moved directly to reasonable assurance for this subset, bypassing the limited assurance phase that most other jurisdictions are using as a starting point. This reflects SEBI’s confidence in the maturity of assurance practices for the specific metrics covered.

What to watch: India’s “own framework with interoperability” approach contrasts with the direct ISSB adoption seen elsewhere in Asia-Pacific. As Indian companies increasingly access international capital markets, the degree to which BRSR reporting satisfies global investor expectations will be closely tested.

ASEAN: Emerging Frameworks and Growing Momentum

The ASEAN region presents a diverse picture, with several markets accelerating their sustainability reporting requirements while others remain in earlier stages.

Thailand: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has mandated sustainability disclosure for listed companies, with climate-related reporting aligned with ISSB standards beginning in 2026 for large-cap companies. Thailand’s strong sustainability finance ecosystem — including the Thailand Taxonomy and green bond frameworks — creates a supportive context for reporting.

Malaysia: Bursa Malaysia has moved from voluntary to mandatory sustainability reporting, with ISSB-aligned climate disclosure required for Main Market listed companies starting fiscal year 2025. The exchange has provided implementation support including sector-specific guidance and training programs.

Philippines: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has mandated sustainability reporting for publicly listed companies and large non-listed corporations, with requirements taking effect progressively through 2026. The Philippines has adopted a GRI-based framework while signaling future alignment with ISSB.

Indonesia: The Financial Services Authority (OJK) has issued sustainability reporting regulations for financial institutions and is expanding requirements to listed companies. Indonesia’s approach emphasizes the Islamic finance dimension, with sustainability metrics aligned with shariah-compliant investment frameworks.

Vietnam: Still in early stages, with voluntary sustainability reporting guidelines for listed companies. The State Securities Commission has indicated that mandatory requirements will follow, likely by 2028, drawing on ISSB frameworks.

Regional Comparison

Jurisdiction	Framework	Mandatory Start	Scope	ISSB Alignment	Assurance Requirement
Japan (SSBJ)	SSBJ (ISSB-based)	April 2026 (large-cap)	Prime Market, phased by market cap	High — direct adoption with modifications	Limited, transitioning to reasonable
Australia	ISSB / IFRS S2	January 2025 (Group 1)	Phased by revenue/assets/employees	High — direct adoption	Limited for Scope 1 & 2, expanding
Singapore (SGX)	ISSB / IFRS S2	FY 2025 (large-cap)	All listed, expanding to non-listed	High — direct adoption	Mandatory for Scope 1 & 2 (large-cap)
Hong Kong (HKEX)	ISSB / IFRS S2	January 2025	Main Board issuers	High — direct adoption	Encouraged, mandatory expected
South Korea (KSDS)	KSDS (ISSB-based)	January 2026 (large-cap)	KOSPI, phased by assets	High — direct adoption with guidance	Limited, transitioning to reasonable
India (BRSR)	BRSR / BRSR Core	FY 2022-23 (BRSR)	Top 1,000 listed companies	Moderate — interoperability approach	Reasonable for BRSR Core (top 150)
Thailand	ISSB-aligned	2026 (large-cap)	Listed companies, phased	High — ISSB alignment	Phased introduction
Malaysia	ISSB-aligned	FY 2025 (Main Market)	Main Market listed	High — ISSB alignment	Phased introduction

Key Regional Trends

Convergence Around ISSB

The most significant trend across Asia-Pacific is the decisive move toward ISSB-aligned standards. Japan, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia have all adopted or closely aligned with IFRS S1 and S2. India remains the notable exception with its own BRSR framework, though even India has designed for interoperability.

This convergence has practical implications. Companies reporting under one ISSB-aligned jurisdiction can leverage much of the same data, methodologies, and frameworks for others. The incremental cost of adding a new jurisdiction is lower than it would be in a world of fully divergent standards.

From Voluntary to Mandatory — Rapidly

The speed of the transition from voluntary to mandatory reporting across the region has been remarkable. In 2022, only India had mandatory ESG reporting for a broad set of listed companies. By 2026, every major Asia-Pacific economy either has mandatory requirements in effect or has enacted them with near-term implementation dates. The “comply or explain” middle ground, once the dominant approach, is disappearing.

Phased Scope Expansion

Nearly every jurisdiction has adopted a phased approach — starting with the largest listed companies and expanding progressively to smaller listed companies and eventually non-listed entities. This pattern acknowledges the capacity constraints in the assurance market, the data infrastructure challenges at smaller companies, and the need for a learning period. For multinational companies, it means the reporting obligation is a moving target — entities that are not yet in scope in one jurisdiction may already be in scope in another.

Climate First, Broader ESG Later

Most new mandatory requirements focus on climate-related disclosures, reflecting the ISSB’s initial focus on IFRS S2. Broader social and governance disclosures remain primarily on a voluntary or “comply or explain” basis in most markets, though India’s BRSR is a notable exception with its nine-principle framework. As ISSB develops additional standards beyond climate, the mandatory scope across Asia-Pacific will likely expand.

The Assurance Gap

The growing assurance requirements are creating capacity challenges across the region. There are not enough qualified sustainability assurance practitioners to serve the expanding population of reporting companies — particularly outside the Big Four, which dominate the market. Several jurisdictions have responded by accepting limited assurance initially and phasing in reasonable assurance over multi-year transitions.

Implications for Multinationals

Companies operating across Asia-Pacific face several distinct challenges that domestic-only companies do not.

Multiple framework compliance. A company listed in Tokyo with significant operations in Australia, Singapore, and India may need to satisfy SSBJ, Australian climate disclosure rules, SGX requirements, and BRSR reporting — simultaneously. While ISSB convergence helps, the differences in scope, phase-in timelines, assurance requirements, and jurisdiction-specific modifications create real complexity.

Data infrastructure across borders. Collecting consistent, auditable sustainability data from operations in multiple countries — each with different data systems, measurement standards, and reporting cultures — is a significant operational challenge. Centralized data platforms are becoming essential rather than optional.

Assurance coordination. Engaging assurance providers across multiple jurisdictions, ensuring consistent methodology, and managing the audit timeline when different subsidiaries have different reporting deadlines requires careful coordination and often multiple assurance relationships.

Regulatory monitoring. The regulatory landscape is changing rapidly. Requirements that are “comply or explain” today may be mandatory next year. Scope thresholds are dropping. New countries are enacting requirements. Companies need systematic regulatory monitoring to avoid being caught off-guard.

How to Navigate Multi-Jurisdiction Reporting

The most practical approach for multinationals operating in Asia-Pacific has three elements.

Build on the ISSB baseline. Since most Asia-Pacific jurisdictions have aligned with ISSB, start with a comprehensive ISSB-compliant data collection and reporting process. This becomes the foundation that you adapt for jurisdiction-specific requirements, rather than building separate processes for each country.

Centralize data, localize output. Invest in a single data infrastructure that captures sustainability data across all operations in a consistent format. Generate jurisdiction-specific reports from this centralized data — adjusting for local framework requirements, language, and filing formats.

Automate framework mapping. The differences between SSBJ, Australian requirements, SGX rules, and BRSR Core are real but systematic. AI-powered reporting tools can map the same underlying data to multiple frameworks simultaneously, maintaining consistency and flagging where jurisdiction-specific adjustments are needed. This is precisely the kind of rules-based, cross-referencing work where automation delivers the most value.

Socious Report is built for this reality. The platform ingests sustainability data once and maps it automatically to ESRS, ISSB, SSBJ, and GRI frameworks — generating jurisdiction-specific outputs with full audit trails. For companies operating across Asia-Pacific’s increasingly complex regulatory landscape, this eliminates the need to maintain parallel reporting processes for each market.

Looking Ahead

The Asia-Pacific sustainability reporting landscape will continue to evolve rapidly through 2026 and 2027. Key developments to watch include the expansion of scope thresholds across all jurisdictions, the introduction of mandatory reporting for non-listed companies in Singapore and potentially other markets, the evolution of ISSB standards beyond climate, and the buildout of assurance capacity across the region.

For companies, the strategic imperative is clear: invest in reporting infrastructure and capabilities now, while the requirements are still ramping up, rather than scrambling to comply as each new phase takes effect. The companies that built their reporting capability early — during the voluntary or early-mandatory phases — consistently outperform latecomers in report quality, assurance outcomes, and cost efficiency.

Navigate multi-jurisdiction ESG reporting with confidence — see how Socious Report handles SSBJ, ISSB, ESRS, and more from a single platform.