Singapore firms need to start combining climate- and nature-related financial disclosures

With the impending twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, companies can’t solve one without dealing with the other

    • Solutions that address biodiversity or climate change in silo may not be seeing the wood for the trees.
    • Solutions that address biodiversity or climate change in silo may not be seeing the wood for the trees. PHOTO: REUTERS
    Published Wed, Dec 6, 2023 · 05:00 AM

    CLIMATE change has taken centre stage for the past decade.

    In response to the climate crisis, and partly driven by legislation, more companies have begun to address their impacts by measuring their carbon footprint and setting science-based targets to achieve net-zero carbon.

    Yet, we need a greater sense of urgency. Every industry directly or indirectly depends on nature, and industry value chains that at least moderately depend on nature generate over half of global gross domestic product (GDP).

    While carbon emissions, due to their release into the atmosphere, have a global impact, the destruction or loss of biodiversity results in local impacts that have global repercussions.

    But how strongly are climate and biodiversity related? Should companies be looking at the problem with a dual lens? And how do they go about it?

    Climate- and nature-related financial disclosures: The case for a dual approach

    While the driver of biodiversity loss is human activity, climate change is increasingly fuelling this decline, with the effects of the first climate-driven extinction already manifesting in marine ecosystems globally.

    Our biodiverse environment is a nature-based solution to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and flooding, among others, and solutions that address biodiversity or climate change in silo may not be seeing the wood for the trees.

    With many organisations already actively formulating their decarbonisation plans, the time has come to incorporate biodiversity – not only because it’s the right thing to do and makes economic sense, but also because climate and biodiversity are inextricably linked.

    Finding solutions to the complex climate crisis requires innovative thinking and approaches, and one key to this lies in greater transparency and accountability of corporate reporting.

    Two existing frameworks – the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) – seek to bring about this much-needed clarity through better disclosures across four key pillars: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets.

    Following the recent finalisation of the TNFD framework, companies that take a combined reporting approach can leverage its interoperability with TCFD and use biodiversity, nature loss data and recommendations from TNFD to complement their existing climate disclosures.

    One clear benefit are the potential efficiencies that can reduce the cost of compliance, stemming from the harmonised approaches across both frameworks.

    Companies may also be keen to demonstrate leadership in the rapidly growing debate on biodiversity risk, especially since this is likely to remain high on regulatory agendas as we move towards standardised biodiversity disclosure requirements.

    The case is clear – you can’t solve one global crisis without dealing with the other.

    Reporting requirements in Singapore: the biggest hurdles

    Currently, climate reporting based on the recommendations of TCFD is mandatory for listed companies in the finance, agriculture, food, forest products and energy industries. From financial year (FY) 2024 onwards, it will also be mandatory for listed companies in transportation and the materials and buildings industries.

    On the other hand, TNFD is voluntary – not only in Singapore but also globally. To encourage adoption, the taskforce aims to publish a list of early adopters who have indicated their intention at the upcoming World Economic Forum in January 2024.

    One of the biggest challenges faced by companies in Singapore in implementing combined climate- and nature-related financial disclosures is that they simply do not know where to begin. Companies may be unsure of the differences in both frameworks and how to apply them to their organisations. They may also not have sufficient resources and geospatial data to assess their operations and supply chains.

    On a more macro level, a lack of universal measurements for reporting on biodiversity makes collecting quantifiable metrics a challenge, and inconsistencies in biodiversity-related terminologies may impede interpretation.

    With the TNFD framework built on the same structure and language as TCFD, the positive news is that the path to implementation is similar. Companies that have already adopted TCFD will find it is more a process of evolution (rather than starting from scratch) and have the advantage of experience and past learnings. While it can be a daunting process for companies new to both frameworks, the process is widely seen as iterative and so your first disclosure is simply a starting point that will be enhanced with each subsequent disclosure. The aim is for the first disclosure to demonstrate that you understand your responsibilities and the actions you need to take to work towards full compliance.

    Getting into gear

    Organisations in Singapore that are embarking on their TCFD and TNFD journey should start small and lay the foundations that will drive towards positive outcomes in three to five years. It all starts with getting the right people involved, clearly defining the parameters for risk identification and assessment, and analysing the impacts these will have on the business model and strategy of the organisation.

    Stakeholder involvement can make or break the process – this calls for a multidisciplinary team with personnel who can identify and effectively handle climate- and nature-related risks across the business.

    To focus their assessment, stakeholders should agree on all the relevant scenarios and time frames and outline all assumptions and critical business implications under these time horizons and situations. From here, organisations can delve deeper using modelling or refine the narratives and apply a formal risk assessment methodology to prioritise the risks and opportunities to the business.

    Companies that are on track with climate-related reporting can begin to assess their impact on nature by following the Leap approach. This approach will help companies to take the next step, where they can explore and understand biodiversity scenarios and the scenario analysis methodology recommended by TNFD.

    Different companies are at different maturity levels for disclosure. Those that do not have sufficient resources and expertise need not do this alone – they can work with consultancy partners who have experience in official assessment and reporting standards, either with the aim of building capabilities in-house or in creating a relationship with a sustainability partner to guide them through the range of new reporting requirements we will see in the next few years.

    As Singapore strives to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, tackling both carbon and biodiversity together makes sense.

    A better understanding of the synergies between carbon and biodiversity enables organisations to translate these insights into a more cohesive strategy and action plan that looks to capitalise on the societal and economic changes that will ensue as a result of action on climate change and biodiversity.

    The writer is director of RSK Centre for Sustainability Excellence