Unlocking Green Capital: A Strategic Roadmap for Asian Enterprises

Southeast Asia faces a critical funding gap, requiring nearly S$1.1 trillion (US$800 million) over the next decade to upgrade infrastructure and scale renewable energy. While the region’s green economy presents significant growth opportunities, unlocking capital will depend on one key factor: the ability of enterprises to translate sustainability efforts into credible, investable outcomes that attract global investment for a low-carbon, climate-resilient future.

For companies expanding across China and ASEAN, access to green capital increasingly depends on aligning disclosure, governance, and financing structures with global investor expectations.

Asian enterprises are replacing qualitative sustainability narratives with quantitative, audit-ready data aligned with IFRS S1 and S2 sustainability disclosure standards under the ISSB framework. In a climate-resilient future, verifiable transparency is the currency that unlocks capital.

To navigate this shift, enterprises must move beyond fragmented sustainability initiatives and adopt an integrated approach that connects data, standards, and capital. This is captured in the Disclosure, Taxonomy, and Financing (DTF) framework:

• Disclosure ensures transparency through audit-ready, decision-useful data
• Taxonomy provides a common classification to demonstrate credibility and comparability
• Financing translates both into access to capital and investable opportunities

The DTF framework translates sustainability efforts into investable outcomes by linking what companies report, how activities are classified, and how capital is allocated.

“Standardised taxonomies give investors confidence that capital is supporting credible and measurable decarbonisation.”

Navigating the Regulatory Shift toward Transparency

Transparency is the first prerequisite for accessing global capital. Singapore is among the leading jurisdictions in the region, mandating climate-related disclosures based on ISSB frameworks.

Mandatory Reporting Across ASEAN

Singapore has required all listed issuers to report Scope 1 and 2 emissions from 2025, with large non-listed companies set to follow by FY2030. Across ASEAN, jurisdictions such as Malaysia and Thailand are progressively aligning with ISSB standards, with phased implementation of mandatory disclosures underway between 2025 and 2027. While timelines vary, the direction is clear: climate disclosure has shifted from voluntary to mandatory across the region.

The Scope 3 Challenge

Reporting on supply-chain (Scope 3) emissions is emerging as the next frontier. Singapore-listed issuers are expected to begin Scope 3 disclosures from 2026, with similar expectations taking shape across ASEAN markets.

In China, the recently issued Corporate Sustainability Disclosure Standard No. 1 – Climate (Trial) require companies to disclose greenhouse gas emissions across Scope 1, 2 and 3, aligned with IFRS S2, while allowing flexibility for Scope 3 data given its complexity. This signals a clear regulatory direction toward more comprehensive climate reporting; although implementation remains at an early stage. As expectations tighten, this will create a cascading effect across regional and global value chains, requiring companies of all sizes to provide reliable emissions data to remain compliant and competitive.

Assurance and Liability

As disclosures become mandatory, regulatory scrutiny is intensifying. Across Singapore, ASEAN, and China, there is growing emphasis on third-party assurance to mitigate greenwashing risks. Non-compliance can result in financial penalties and potential personal liability for directors, reinforcing the need for accurate, audit-ready climate data.

Leveraging Regional Taxonomies for Credibility

Green finance refers to capital deployed into activities that support environmental sustainability, including decarbonisation, energy efficiency, and climate resilience. While global frameworks such as the ISSB provide guidance on disclosures, there is no single universally accepted standard that defines what qualifies as “green” or “transition” across all markets.

In this fragmented landscape, regional and national taxonomies establish structured classification systems that provide a common reference point for investors, regulators, and enterprises. By aligning with recognised taxonomies, companies can demonstrate credibility, improve comparability across markets, and more effectively access green capital. Conversely, enterprises with misalignment or weak disclosures may face a higher cost of capital and exclusion from green financing pools. As a result, taxonomies are no longer just reporting tools - they are increasingly gatekeepers of capital.

Singapore-Asia Taxonomy (SAT)

The SAT, published in December 2023, is the first multi-sector taxonomy globally to include a transition category, recognising that many Asian economies remain reliant on carbon-intensive sectors. It provides detailed technical screening criteria across eight key sectors such as energy, real estate, and industrials to demonstrate their credible decarbonisation pathways and not just end-state “green” activities.

ASEAN Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance

The ASEAN Taxonomy is a regionally agreed living framework, first introduced in November 2021 and progressively enhanced through subsequent versions, that establishes a common baseline for sustainable finance. It adopts a principles-based “traffic light” system (Green, Amber/Transition, Red) and is designed to be flexible across countries at different stages of economic development. Importantly, national taxonomies, such as the Singapore–Asia Taxonomy, are intended to be interoperable with the ASEAN framework, ensuring regional consistency while allowing for local specificity. This alignment helps investors compare opportunities across ASEAN markets and supports the scaling of cross-border green investments.

China and Cross-Border Alignment

China is developing its own comprehensive green taxonomy while actively working to reduce fragmentation with regional and global frameworks. Through the China-Singapore Green Finance Taskforce, established by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), both countries are advancing taxonomy interoperability. These efforts aim to improve comparability and facilitate cross-border green financing flows, such as green bonds and loans. While this does not constitute full mutual recognition, the alignment strengthens Singapore’s role as a gateway for international capital into China and enhances connectivity between ASEAN and China’s green finance markets.

Green Building Certification

In the built environment, certifications such as BCA Green Mark (Building and Construction Authority Green Mark Scheme, Singapore), LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, United States), and BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, United Kingdom) are frequently used by banks and investors as practical proxies for taxonomy alignment. These standards are often mapped to taxonomy criteria and are helpful in demonstrating alignment with green or transition activities. Across ASEAN and China, local certifications such as Malaysia’s Green Building Index (GBI), Indonesia’s Greenship, and China’s Three-Star Green Building Rating System are similarly recognised within domestic and regional markets and are increasingly referenced in green loan and bond frameworks. However, these local standards are generally less standardised globally, and may require additional mapping or verification to meet international investor expectations.

Strategies to Access Innovative Financing

Traditional bank loans are often insufficient for high-capex green infrastructure, particularly in emerging Asian markets where projects may face technology, policy, or demand risks. As a result, enterprises across ASEAN and China are increasingly turning to specialised financing structures that improve bankability, reduce risk, and broaden investor participation. These mechanisms are often underpinned by alignment with recognised taxonomies and cross-border frameworks, which enhance investor confidence and enable access to international pools of capital.

Blended Finance

Blended finance combines public, multilateral, or philanthropic capital with private-sector funding to de-risk projects such as early-stage renewable energy, grid modernisation, energy storage, or transition projects in emerging markets, where revenue certainty, policy support, or technology maturity may be limited. This approach is widely used across ASEAN, where development finance institutions and government-linked platforms provide concessional capital, guarantees, or first-loss tranches to crowd in private investment for energy transition and infrastructure projects. In China, similar structures are supported through policy banks and state-backed green finance programmes.

The Financing Asia’s Transition Partnership (FAST-P) is a Singapore-led initiative spearheaded by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), in partnership with multilateral development banks and private-sector investors, to mobilise capital for Asia’s energy transition. Launched as part of Singapore’s strategy to position itself as a regional green finance hub, FAST-P convenes investors and deploys catalytic funding such as concessional capital and risk-sharing mechanisms through its partners to absorb early-stage and transition risks. This improves project bankability and enables institutional investors to participate at scale.

Offtake-Based Financing

Enterprises in sectors such as renewable energy, biofuels, and hydrogen can unlock capital by securing long-term offtake agreements with creditworthy buyers. These contracts provide revenue certainty, which strengthens lender confidence and improves financing terms. This model is widely applied across ASEAN power markets and is increasingly relevant in China’s transition sectors, where industrial buyers and utilities play a key role in anchoring demand.

Sustainability-Linked Instruments

Sustainability-linked loans and bonds, where pricing is tied to measurable environmental performance targets, are gaining traction across both ASEAN and China. Increasingly, access to preferential financing terms is linked not just to performance targets, but also to alignment with recognised taxonomies and cross-border frameworks.

A key development is the Common Ground Taxonomy (CGT) - developed by the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) and the European Commission (EC) in 2020 to identify areas of alignment between the China and EU taxonomies. Rather than creating a single unified standard, the CGT provides a structured mapping of overlapping activities and technical criteria, allowing investors to assess whether a project classified as “green” in one system would be considered comparable in the other.

The Multi-Jurisdiction Common Ground Taxonomy (M-CGT) builds on the EU-China Common Ground Taxonomy (CGT). Co-developed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the People’s Bank of China and the European Commission, the M-CGT expands the scope of the CGT to include the Singapore-Asia Taxonomy (SAT), enhancing interoperability across China, the EU and Singapore.

Monetising Carbon: Markets, Pricing and Competitiveness

Carbon is increasingly becoming a financial variable that directly influences project returns, cost structures, and market access. For enterprises, the ability to measure, manage, and monetise carbon is no longer optional; it is central to both financing strategy and competitiveness.

Carbon markets provide a mechanism for enterprises to monetise emissions reductions by generating and selling carbon credits. In Asia, these markets are evolving unevenly across jurisdictions. China operates a government-regulated Emissions Trading System (ETS), where trading takes place on designated platforms such as the Shanghai Environment and Energy Exchange. Under this system, companies are allocated emissions allowances annually; those that exceed their limits must purchase additional allowances, while those that emit less can sell surplus allowances, creating a direct financial incentive to reduce emissions.

In contrast, most ASEAN countries remain at an earlier stage of developing domestic compliance markets and primarily rely on voluntary carbon markets. In these markets, carbon credits, generated from projects such as renewable energy, reforestation, or energy efficiency, are typically traded over-the-counter or through emerging platforms such as Singapore-based Climate Impact X (CIX), which aim to improve transparency, standardisation, and liquidity.

From a company perspective, generating carbon credits involves developing projects that reduce or remove emissions relative to a defined baseline. These emissions reductions are quantified using recognised methodologies, independently verified, and issued as carbon credits by international registries such as Verra (Verified Carbon Standard) and Gold Standard, as well as domestic systems like China’s China Certified Emission Reductions (CCER). This creates an additional revenue stream that enhances project economics and improves access to financing.

Beyond carbon markets, carbon pricing is increasingly embedded into global trade. A key development is the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which imposes a carbon cost on imported goods based on their embedded emissions. From 2026 onwards, importers will be required to purchase carbon certificates linked to EU carbon prices, effectively introducing a carbon cost at the border.

For exporters in ASEAN and China, this creates direct financial implications. Companies with higher emissions intensity will face increased costs and margin pressure, particularly if they are unable to accurately measure and verify their emissions. Conversely, enterprises that invest in decarbonisation and robust disclosure systems can reduce their carbon liability, maintain competitiveness in export markets, and improve access to green financing by demonstrating alignment with international standards.

Emerging Policy and Market Frameworks Supporting Carbon Finance

To address fragmentation and scale carbon finance, governments, multilateral institutions, and market participants are developing new frameworks that enhance credibility, create demand, and improve cross-border interoperability.

Transition Credits

Transition credits are an emerging mechanism designed to incentivise the early retirement or upgrading of high-emitting assets, particularly coal-fired power plants, and their replacement with cleaner energy sources. By monetising avoided emissions from transitioning existing assets, these credits provide a financial pathway to accelerate decarbonisation in sectors where change is otherwise economically challenging. While still evolving, they are increasingly supported by public-private initiatives and are expected to play a key role in Asia’s energy transition.

Article 6 Collaboration

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement provides a regulatory framework for countries to cooperate on carbon markets through bilateral or multilateral agreements. Under these arrangements, emissions reductions can be transferred across borders as Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs). For enterprises, this creates access to government-backed demand for carbon credits, supported by stronger regulatory oversight and clearer accounting rules, which can lead to better pricing and longer-term offtake opportunities, ultimately enhancing project bankability.

Standardisation and Regional Frameworks

A key challenge in carbon markets is fragmentation, as different standards, methodologies, and verification processes can result in inconsistent credit quality and pricing. Regional initiatives such as the proposed ASEAN Common Carbon Framework aim to harmonise how carbon credits are defined, measured, and verified across countries. For companies and investors, greater standardisation improves credibility, reduces due diligence complexity, and enhances liquidity and pricing transparency, which support the scaling of carbon markets across ASEAN.

Back to Perspectives →