The Singapore Stock Exchange has this weekend issued a policy statement on sustainability reporting and proposed guide for sustainability reporting for  its listed companies.   The press release that makes the announcement includes a link to the policy statement and guide and states that SGX is seeking feedback from the public on the adoption of sustainability reporting and its policy guidelines (closing date for feedback is 29 October).

The guide takes the why, how, where, who, what approach - which advocates the use of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The policy statement provides the exchange's view of sustainability and how it should be approached within an organisation (the board is ultimately responsible).

An interesting extract from the policy is the statement below:
"The Exchange adopts a progressive approach towards the policy on sustainability reporting, which balances global and local developments. The policy statement sets the baseline for holistic reporting going beyond corporate governance to social and environmental aspects. We expect, with our statement, to generate awareness among listed companies, leading to acceptance and commitment to sustainability as an operating principle as well as to be reported on. As the pace of sustainability reporting gains momentum amongst issuers, the Exchange will review our policy on sustainability reporting to keep pace with global developments and will consider formulating formal rules to regulate disclosure if necessary."

This is a very welcome move by the SGX, it will be interesting to watch the response from the business community within Singapore in the coming months and the uptake of officially encouraged voluntary reporting that follows. Our recent research for ACCA examining reporting around ASEAN and the Asian Sustainability Rating (ASR) show that currently Singapore companies do not disclose as much as their counterparts in the region - will this change going forward?

 More on this in CSR Asia Weekly.

An interesting story developed over the past few days in Singapore - as shareholders arrived at the Annual General Meeting of Golden Agri Resources, the palm oil arm of Sinar Mas on Tuesday, Greenpeace held their own press conference in Singapore to "release fresh evidence showing how Sinar Mas continues to destroy Indonesia's rainforests despite promises to stop."   Interesting in that the story got half page coverage in the local paper (in the Money section) and as the journalist who covered the story pointed out  this is "a rare confrontation in corporate Singapore".   NGO pressure has not been a significant driver for sustainable practices in Singapore to date - however, perhaps this is changing.  Businesses who do have operations outside of Singapore and are part of global supply chains are becoming increasingly vulnerable to scrutiny and resulting campaigns.   Businesses based in Singapore would be sensible at the very least to KIV (keep in view) this issue and at best start becoming global NGO aware and understand the risks and opportunities that NGO's can bring to a business. 

A few things have caught my eye in the past couple of days in relation to company directors and disclosure.  The first has been a couple of articles in the Today newspaper in Singapore.  On Wednesday the paper covered a story about the Singapore Stock Exchange (SGX) naming and shaming a number of former directors for failing in their role and responsibilities as directors of companies. Arguably those directors should find board room doors closed to them from here on in and now that their names are in the public domain this makes that much more likely.  Today the paper has a story about executive pay and the need for all listed companies in Singapore to be transparent, down to the last dollar, about how much directors are paid - the article names some companies it expects to be transparent who aren't.  It also looks at compliance with the Code of Corporate Governance and how the 'comply or explain approach' isn't working when a blanket explanation about 'the highly competitive nature of the industry' is an easy get out.

The other interesting development is an online tool developed by Webb-site.com in Hong Kong - the tool called 'Who's Who in Hong Kong's elite'. The tool identify who sits on which Statutory and Advisory Body in Hong Kong and which company boards they also sit on - connecting the dots. 

The financial crisis has by necessity raised a huge question mark about who runs a company and how.  Articles, actions by the SGX and websites like these can only help stakeholders determine answers to these questions.

Two exchanges in Asia:  Hong Kong and Singapore have recently produced CSR Reports using the GRI Reporting Framework, arguably setting the tone for companies who list on the respective exchange.  The Hong Kong Exchange report is available for download as a standalone report here and the Singapore Exchange report is integrated in the Annual Report and available for download here. Watch this space for more regulators to be reporting on their own sustainability performance.

McDonald's in Singapore is having a pig problem.  Not a problem with a living pig but a missing toy pig.  The pig toy was to be part of the 12 character Doraemon set depicting the animals of the Chinese Zodiac calendar.    But McDonald’s decided not to include the pig toy to avoid offending Muslim customers, and had a Doraemon Cupid toy in its place instead.  The removal of the pig has made it to the press with journalists expressing that actually it was Chinese consumers who were offended - with those born in the year of the pig missing out on the chance to collect the full set.  A McDonald's spokesperson said that the Pig was replaced with Cupid as Valentines Day is also coming up.  Sociologist Daniel Goh said that if McDonald’s did not consult Muslim opinions before making the decision to exclude the pig toy, the company had then presumed Muslim sensibilities. He added that it amounted to a form of self-censorship. Some have stated in response to the media stories that whilst McDonald's could have handled the issue better at least it was a sign that the company was trying to be culturally sensitive, others are commenting that McDonald's should be boycotted until they get cultural sensitivities right.    So what is the right thing to do in this instance? Some stakeholder engagement to find out what people think about your product and how you market it?