Global climate change is accelerating the carbon neutrality process, with Asia-Pacific countries successively introducing mandatory climate information disclosure requirements. As regulatory oversight tightens and investor attention increases, enterprises urgently need to establish climate information disclosure systems that comply with the TCFD framework. Singapore has required financial institutions to mandatorily disclose climate-related information since 2023, Japan has implemented the TCFD framework among companies listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange’s main board since 2022, and Korea plans to implement mandatory disclosure for all listed companies starting in 2025. Against this backdrop, an in-depth analysis of climate information disclosure practices in the Asia-Pacific region and a summary of scenario analysis and risk assessment methods have significant guiding implications for enterprises to improve their governance frameworks and enhance disclosure quality.

Overview of Asia-Pacific Climate Disclosure Development

1.1 Regional Policy Evolution

The Asia-Pacific region, as one of the most dynamic economic regions globally, has experienced a development journey from voluntary to mandatory and from singular to systematic approaches in climate-related financial information disclosure. Japan, as a regional leader, established the TCFD Consortium as early as 2019, and as of October 2024, more than 1,500 companies and institutions have joined, accounting for over 30% of global TCFD supporters. The Japan Financial Services Agency (JFSA) revised its Corporate Governance Code in April 2022, requiring companies listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange’s main board to disclose climate-related information according to the TCFD framework, and further expanded the disclosure scope to companies listed on the Growth Market in 2023.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) issued Environmental Risk Management Guidelines in late 2022, explicitly requiring banks, insurance companies, and asset managers to implement mandatory climate-related information disclosure from 2023. Meanwhile, the Singapore Exchange (SGX) requires all listed companies to adopt the TCFD framework for information disclosure starting from FY2024, with a three-year transition period to help companies gradually improve their disclosure content. The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission and Hong Kong Exchange have been implementing mandatory climate information disclosure requirements in phases since 2023, initially covering listed companies with market capitalization exceeding HK$10 billion, with plans to expand to all listed companies by 2025.

Korea’s Financial Services Commission (FSC) proposed in its “2050 Carbon Neutrality Promotion Strategy” to implement mandatory environmental information disclosure for all listed companies starting from 2025. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) plans to require listed companies with market capitalization exceeding AUD 500 million to disclose climate-related risks and opportunities from July 2024. Notably, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) introduced a corporate sustainability reporting framework in May 2022 and will implement mandatory ESG information disclosure in three phases by 2025.

1.2 Market Status Analysis

Climate information disclosure practices in the Asia-Pacific region show significant regional characteristics and development differences. According to the TCFD 2023 Progress Report, Japanese enterprises lead globally in information disclosure coverage and completeness, with over 80% of main board listed companies disclosing climate-related information according to TCFD recommendations. In terms of disclosure quality for the three framework elements of governance, strategy, and risk management, Japanese enterprises score above the global average. Particularly in scenario analysis application, about 65% of Japanese TCFD supporting enterprises conduct climate scenario analysis, far exceeding the global average of 40%.

Singapore and Hong Kong, as important financial centers in Asia-Pacific, play crucial roles in promoting standardized climate information disclosure. As of early 2024, over 300 enterprises in Singapore have committed to adopting the TCFD framework, with financial institutions showing the highest participation rate of over 90%. In Hong Kong, more than 200 listed companies voluntarily adopt the TCFD framework, mainly concentrated in finance, real estate, and utilities sectors.

However, regional development imbalances remain prominent. According to the Asian Sustainable Finance Initiative (ASFI) 2024 research report, except for developed markets like Japan, Singapore, and Hong Kong, other markets still have significant room for improvement in climate information disclosure levels. For example, Korean enterprises show relatively insufficient disclosure depth in risk quantification assessment and financial impact analysis, with only about 30% of KOSPI 100 index component companies fully disclosing climate-related metrics and targets.

Countries also differ in their disclosure content focus. Japanese enterprises emphasize emission reduction targets and specific actions, Singapore enterprises focus on risk management processes and governance mechanisms, while Korean enterprises pay more attention to technological innovation and transition strategies. These differences reflect both the variations in industrial structure and development stages among countries and the differentiation in regulatory priorities.

Notably, with the increasing degree of supply chain globalization, the demand for coordinated disclosure among regional enterprises has become increasingly prominent. Taking the automotive industry as an example, Japanese Toyota and Korean Hyundai have begun requiring their Asia-Pacific suppliers to provide standardized carbon emission data, promoting the formation of a climate information disclosure system covering the entire industry chain. Meanwhile, regional financial institutions are strengthening cooperation, with Singapore’s DBS Bank and Japan’s MUFG exploring the establishment of unified climate risk assessment standards.

Overall, climate information disclosure practices in the Asia-Pacific region are in a rapid development stage, with national regulatory frameworks gradually improving and market participation continuously increasing, although challenges remain in disclosure quality and standard uniformity. In the future, with the implementation of mandatory disclosure requirements and the improvement of market mechanisms, regional climate information disclosure levels are expected to further improve.

In-Depth Analysis of Scenario Analysis Methodology

2.1 Climate Scenario Selection and Application

In Asia-Pacific climate information disclosure practices, scenario analysis has become a core tool for enterprises to assess climate risks and opportunities. According to TCFD recommendations, enterprises need to consider at least two scenarios, including a 2°C or lower temperature rise scenario and a scenario consistent with current policy commitments. In practice, Asia-Pacific enterprises mainly adopt three types of scenarios: energy scenarios released by the International Energy Agency (IEA), climate scenarios by NGFS (Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System), and enterprise-customized scenarios.

IEA scenarios are most widely applied in the Asia-Pacific region, with the Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS) and Announced Pledges Scenario (APS) being most frequently used. According to TCFD 2024 regional survey data, about 75% of Japanese TCFD supporting enterprises use IEA scenarios, while adoption rates in Singapore and Korea are 65% and 58% respectively. This is mainly due to IEA scenarios having complete energy system transition pathways and detailed sector analysis, particularly suitable for manufacturing and energy enterprises. For example, Japanese manufacturing leader Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, in its 2023 TCFD report, analyzed transition pathways for key industries such as power, steel, and chemicals based on IEA’s NZE2050 scenario.

NGFS scenarios are more popular among financial institutions as they provide a systematic analysis framework for macroeconomic and financial risks. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) explicitly recommends financial institutions use NGFS scenarios in its climate risk stress testing guidelines. As of 2024, all four major Singapore banks use NGFS scenarios for climate risk assessment, covering three typical pathways: orderly transition, disorderly transition, and hothouse world. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority also adopted the NGFS scenario framework in its 2023 climate risk stress test.

Customized scenarios show a growing trend in the region, especially in climate-sensitive industries. According to EY’s 2024 Asia-Pacific Climate Report, about 40% of surveyed enterprises have developed scenario assumptions that align with local characteristics. These customized scenarios typically combine national emission reduction targets, industry development plans, and corporate strategies to better reflect regional characteristics. For example, Australian mining giant BHP specifically considered the impact of carbon pricing mechanism evolution in the Asia-Pacific market on mineral demand in its scenario analysis.

2.2 Risk Quantification Assessment Techniques

Asia-Pacific enterprises have adopted multi-level technical approaches in risk quantification assessment, transitioning from qualitative analysis to quantitative assessment. In terms of assessment technique selection, methods mainly include sensitivity analysis, Monte Carlo simulation, and integrated assessment models. According to PwC’s 2024 Asia-Pacific TCFD Practice Survey, about 55% of enterprises still primarily use qualitative analysis, 35% employ semi-quantitative methods, and only 10% have achieved comprehensive quantitative assessment.

Sensitivity analysis is the most basic and widely applied assessment method. Enterprises typically select key variables such as carbon prices, energy prices, and market demand to analyze their impact on financial indicators. Japanese automaker Toyota, in its 2023 climate report, analyzed the impact of carbon price increases from $50 to $200 per ton on operating costs and optimized product structure and supply chain layout accordingly. Korea’s POSCO focused on evaluating the economic feasibility of hydrogen metallurgy technology under different carbon price levels.

Monte Carlo simulation methods are more commonly applied in financial institutions, especially when assessing investment portfolio climate risks. Singapore’s DBS Bank developed a climate risk assessment tool based on Monte Carlo simulation, estimating credit risk changes under different climate pathways by generating numerous random scenarios. This tool now covers about 80% of its corporate loan portfolio in Southeast Asia. Hong Kong’s HSBC uses Monte Carlo methods to assess the impact of extreme weather events on real estate collateral values.

Integrated Assessment Models (IAM) are gradually becoming popular among large enterprises and research institutions. These models can simulate complex interactions between climate change, socio-economic development, and energy systems. The climate-economic model developed by Japan’s Mitsui & Co. in collaboration with the University of Tokyo integrates multiple dimensions such as energy prices, technological progress, and policy interventions to assess transition risks in different regions.

2.3 Opportunity Identification and Management

In the context of climate transition, Asia-Pacific enterprises increasingly focus on combining risk assessment with opportunity identification. According to Deloitte’s 2024 Asia-Pacific Climate Opportunity Survey, over 70% of surveyed enterprises believe market opportunities from climate change outweigh risks. Opportunity identification mainly focuses on four aspects: resource efficiency improvement, new energy technology application, market development, and financial innovation.

Resource efficiency improvement is the most direct source of opportunities. Through energy-saving retrofits and process optimization, enterprises can significantly reduce operating costs. Korea’s SK Group disclosed in its 2023 sustainability report that implementing smart energy management systems reduced annual energy costs by 15%, equivalent to savings of about $200 million. Japanese manufacturing enterprises achieved 10-20% energy efficiency improvements on average through the introduction of IoT and artificial intelligence technologies.

New energy technology applications create enormous market opportunities. The Asia-Pacific region expects to invest approximately $2 trillion in renewable energy development between 2025-2030, driving rapid growth in related equipment manufacturing and service demands. Japan’s Toyota plans to launch 30 electric vehicle models by 2026, expecting electrification-related revenue to reach 30% of annual revenue. Korea’s Hyundai Motor Group has made hydrogen energy technology a strategic priority, planning to achieve an annual production capacity of 500,000 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2028.

In market development, demand for low-carbon products and services is growing rapidly. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance forecasts, the Asia-Pacific green product market size will grow from $1.5 trillion in 2023 to $4 trillion by 2030. Singapore enterprises are actively positioning themselves in regional carbon trading markets, developing carbon credit products and services. Australian enterprises have established advantages in renewable energy certification and carbon offset schemes.

Financial innovation provides enterprises with new financing channels. The Asia-Pacific region’s green bond issuance volume grew from $185 billion in 2020 to $450 billion in 2023. Innovative instruments such as Sustainability-Linked Bonds (SLB) and transition bonds are developing rapidly, providing funding support for enterprise climate transition. Japan’s SoftBank Group’s $2 billion sustainability-linked bond issued in 2023, with interest rates linked to renewable energy usage ratios, created a new model for climate financing in the technology sector.

Risk Assessment Practice Guidelines

3.1 Physical Risk Assessment Methods

As one of the regions most significantly affected by global climate change, physical risk assessment has become an important component of enterprise climate information disclosure in the Asia-Pacific region. According to the World Bank’s 2024 Climate Risk Report, the region’s average annual economic losses due to extreme weather events have exceeded $100 billion and are expected to increase to $300 billion by 2050. Facing intensifying physical risks, regional enterprises have developed systematic assessment method systems.

Acute physical risk assessment mainly targets extreme weather events such as typhoons, floods, and heat waves. Enterprises generally adopt methods combining historical data analysis with climate model predictions to assess future extreme event probabilities and potential impacts. The typhoon path prediction model developed by the Japan Meteorological Agency is widely adopted by many enterprises; this model, based on 50 years of historical data combined with predictions from multiple Global Climate Models (GCM), can provide risk scenarios for enterprises over the next 20-30 years. Singapore has established a high-resolution climate prediction system covering the Southeast Asian region through the National Climate Change Research Program (CCRS), supporting enterprises in conducting detailed risk assessments.

Chronic physical risk assessment focuses on long-term trend changes such as sea level rise and precipitation pattern changes. Enterprises typically establish assessment frameworks covering multiple time scales, analyzing in conjunction with asset lifecycles. For example, Australia’s BHP Group, in its 2023 TCFD report, analyzed in detail the long-term impact of sea level rise on coastal mining areas and port facilities, with assessment cycles covering three time nodes: 2030, 2050, and 2100. Korea’s Hyundai Construction established an engineering adaptability assessment system considering monsoon climate changes for Southeast Asian infrastructure projects.

Supply chain physical risk assessment is a new challenge facing enterprises. As global supply chain vulnerability becomes increasingly apparent, enterprises have begun to focus on the climate risk transmission effects in upstream and downstream segments. According to Asian Development Bank research in 2024, about 60% of manufacturing enterprises in the region have incorporated supplier physical risks into their assessments. Japan’s Sony Electronics developed a supply chain climate vulnerability map, achieving visualized risk management by integrating information such as supplier geographic locations, production capacity, and climate risk exposure.

3.2 Transition Risk Assessment Framework

Transition risk assessment needs to consider multiple dimensions including policy regulations, technological changes, market shifts, and reputational impacts. Asia-Pacific enterprises generally adopt a hierarchical, multi-scenario assessment framework, adjusted according to industry characteristics and corporate strategies. According to KPMG’s 2024 Asia-Pacific Climate Risk Survey, approximately 85% of surveyed enterprises have established transition risk assessment frameworks, though significant differences exist in assessment depth and breadth.

Policy risk assessment is the primary component of transition risk analysis. Enterprises need to track and analyze how changes in carbon pricing mechanisms, energy efficiency standards, and emission restrictions affect their operations. The sector-specific emission reduction roadmap released by Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry provides important reference for enterprises. For example, the steel industry needs to achieve a 30% emission reduction target by 2030, requiring enterprises to consider the application costs of low-carbon technologies such as Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) in their assessments. Carbon prices in Korea’s emissions trading market rose from $20 per ton in 2020 to $40 in 2024, prompting enterprises to incorporate carbon price increase risks into their financial planning.

Technology risk assessment focuses on how low-carbon technology development impacts existing assets and business models. Enterprises typically analyze from three dimensions: technology maturity, commercial viability, and substitution effects. Singapore’s Temasek Holdings has established an emerging technology assessment database tracking the development of over 1,000 low-carbon technologies globally. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Japan uses technology roadmap methodology to assess how new technologies like hydrogen energy and energy storage impact traditional energy equipment businesses.

Market risk assessment needs to consider factors such as changes in consumer preferences, product substitution, and competitive landscape evolution. Enterprises commonly combine market research with competitive analysis. Hyundai Motor included in its transition risk assessment a specific analysis of how changes in electric vehicle penetration rates in the Asia-Pacific market affect their traditional fuel vehicle business. Results show that regional electric vehicle market share is expected to grow from 15% in 2023 to 45% by 2030, leading to decreased capacity utilization of traditional models and increased asset impairment risks.

3.3 Financial Impact Analysis Pathway

Financial impact analysis is a key link connecting climate risk assessment with enterprise decision-making. Asia-Pacific enterprises have developed systematic methods from risk identification to financial quantification, mainly including three steps: impact pathway analysis, financial indicator selection, and monetary evaluation. According to EY’s 2024 Asia-Pacific TCFD Survey, about 45% of enterprises can conduct monetary evaluation of major climate risks, an increase of 20 percentage points from 2020.

Impact pathway analysis needs to clarify how climate risks transmit to enterprise financial performance. Enterprises typically establish causal relationship diagrams or impact matrices to track risk transmission chains from external environment to internal operations. For example, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation’s climate risk transmission model breaks down borrowers’ physical and transition risks into financial impacts across four dimensions: revenue, cost, assets, and liabilities, and assesses credit risk changes accordingly.

Financial indicator selection should cover core dimensions including revenue, costs, assets, and capital. Enterprises need to select appropriate measurement indicators based on risk characteristics. Revenue aspects mainly examine product demand changes and price impacts; cost analysis includes direct costs such as raw materials, energy, and carbon emissions, as well as indirect costs like compliance and technical transformation; asset evaluation focuses on fixed asset impairment and intangible asset impacts. DBS Bank, in its 2023 climate report, detailed the impacts of climate risks on key indicators such as non-performing loan ratios, capital adequacy ratios, and portfolio returns.

Monetary evaluation is the ultimate goal of financial analysis. Enterprises commonly combine scenario analysis with sensitivity testing to estimate financial impact scales under different climate pathways. For example, POSCO estimated that under a 2°C scenario, carbon price increases and steel demand changes could lead to a 15-20% profit reduction by 2030. Given assessment uncertainties, enterprises typically provide range estimates rather than point estimates, and explain key assumptions and limitations. BHP, when assessing climate risk financial impacts, clearly listed key assumptions including commodity prices, technology costs, and policy timelines.

Typical Case Analysis

4.1 MUFG’s TCFD Practice

As one of the largest financial institutions in the Asia-Pacific region, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group’s TCFD practice represents the highest level of climate information disclosure in the regional financial industry. Since joining TCFD supporting organizations in 2019, MUFG has continuously innovated in governance structure, risk management, scenario analysis, and target setting, providing valuable experience for regional financial institutions.

In terms of governance structure, MUFG established a climate change response system directly led by the board of directors. In 2023, the group established a Sustainability Committee chaired by the CEO, regularly reporting climate-related matters to the board. A Climate Risk Working Group under the Risk Management Committee is responsible for assessing and monitoring climate risks. To ensure execution, the group links climate target achievement with executive compensation, with sustainability-related indicators accounting for 15% of variable compensation.

In risk management, MUFG developed unique climate risk assessment methods. The group established a risk assessment framework covering 14 high-carbon industries, setting specific assessment indicators and thresholds for each industry. For example, assessment of the power sector includes dimensions such as carbon intensity, renewable energy proportion, and transition plan credibility. As of March 2024, the group had completed climate risk assessments for approximately 8,000 corporate clients, identifying about 150 high-risk clients requiring special attention.

In scenario analysis, MUFG uses a multi-scenario combination approach to assess climate risks. The group selected three main scenarios from NGFS: Orderly Transition (Net Zero 2050), Disorderly Transition (Delayed Transition), and Hot House World (Current Policies). Analysis shows that under the disorderly transition scenario, the group’s credit costs could increase by 25-30% by 2050, mainly due to rising default risks from high-carbon industry clients. Consequently, the group developed industry-specific lending policies, such as restricting coal power project financing and increasing renewable energy credit ratios.

In target setting, MUFG established ambitious emission reduction targets. The group committed to reducing investment and financing portfolio carbon emissions by 30% from 2019 levels by 2030, achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. To support this goal, the group plans to provide 100 trillion yen in sustainable finance by 2030. In fiscal year 2023, the group completed 35 trillion yen in sustainable finance, with green finance accounting for about 45%.

4.2 DBS Bank’s Climate Strategy

As Southeast Asia’s largest bank, DBS Bank’s climate strategy fully reflects Singapore’s innovative concepts as a regional financial center. The bank began systematically implementing the TCFD framework in 2020, developing unique practices in climate risk management, sustainable financial product innovation, and stakeholder engagement.

In risk management systems, DBS established a “three lines of defense” model. The first line is business units, responsible for daily climate risk identification and management; the second line is risk management departments, responsible for policy framework development and implementation oversight; the third line is internal audit, ensuring risk management system effectiveness. In 2023, the bank upgraded its environmental and social risk management framework, incorporating climate factors into credit approval processes. Assessment showed approximately 12% of corporate loans face medium to high climate risks.

In portfolio management, DBS adopts a “dual-track” strategy. On one side, the bank set a timeline for gradually exiting coal-related financing, committing to complete coal financing exit by 2039. On the other side, it strongly develops green finance, planning to provide 50 billion SGD in renewable energy financing by 2030. As of early 2024, the bank’s renewable energy financing balance reached 18 billion SGD, nearly 200% growth from 2020.

In product innovation, DBS launched several innovative sustainable finance products. In 2023, the bank issued Asia’s first biodiversity-linked sustainability-linked bond, sized at 500 million USD. The “Transition Finance Framework” launched the same year provides customized financing solutions for high-carbon industry clients, helping them achieve low-carbon transition. As of March 2024, over 50 enterprises have received transition financing support through this framework.

4.3 Hyundai Motor’s Transition Journey

As a global leading automotive manufacturer, Hyundai Motor’s climate transition practice demonstrates systematic solutions for manufacturing enterprises addressing climate change. Since releasing its first TCFD report in 2021, the company has made significant progress in product strategy, supply chain management, and operational decarbonization.

In product strategy, Hyundai established an “electrification first” development roadmap. The company plans to achieve 36% global electric vehicle sales share by 2030, and complete electrification in major markets by 2040. To support this goal, the company plans to invest 22 billion USD in electric vehicle R&D and capacity building. In 2023, the company built its first overseas electric vehicle-exclusive factory in Indonesia, with annual capacity of 150,000 units, mainly serving the Southeast Asian market.

In supply chain management, Hyundai launched the “Green Partner” program. The company requires core suppliers to set science-based carbon targets and provides technical and financial support to help suppliers achieve emission reductions. By 2023, about 65% of tier-1 suppliers had joined the program. The company also established a supply chain carbon footprint tracking system, achieving full-process carbon emission monitoring from raw materials to finished products. Data shows supply chain carbon emissions decreased by 12% in 2023 compared to 2020.

In operational decarbonization, Hyundai took comprehensive measures. The company deployed a 100MW rooftop photovoltaic power generation system at its Ulsan factory in Korea, one of Asia’s largest industrial rooftop solar projects. Through energy efficiency improvements and clean energy use, global factory operational carbon emissions decreased by 18% in 2023 compared to 2020. The company is also piloting green hydrogen use at its Chennai factory in India, planning to expand hydrogen applications to all overseas factories by 2025.

In risk management, Hyundai established a multi-level climate risk assessment system. The company uses IPCC’s SSP1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios to assess business impacts under different temperature pathways. Analysis shows that under the 2°C scenario, carbon pricing mechanisms could increase operating costs by 15-20% by 2030. In response, the company set internal carbon prices at 80 USD per ton to guide investment decisions.

Implementation Pathway and Recommendations

5.1 Organizational Structure and Governance

Based on Asia-Pacific enterprises’ climate information disclosure practices, establishing sound organizational structure and governance mechanisms is fundamental for achieving high-quality disclosure. Effective governance structure should form a closed loop from top to bottom, ensuring climate-related matters receive full attention and systematic management.

At the board level, a dedicated sustainability or climate change committee should be established to regularly review climate strategy and major issues. Based on leading Asia-Pacific enterprise practices, this committee typically meets quarterly, with annual review items including: climate target achievement, major risk identification and response, and information disclosure quality assessment. It is recommended that independent directors comprise no less than 1/3 of the committee, with at least one member having professional climate and sustainability background.

Management needs to establish cross-departmental working mechanisms to ensure effective climate strategy implementation. It is recommended to establish a sustainability management committee led directly by the CEO, with a climate change working group underneath, covering core functional departments including risk, finance, operations, and investment. Daily work should be coordinated by a dedicated sustainability department, which should be staffed with adequate professionals, suggesting 5-8 people for medium-sized enterprises.

In assessment and incentives, linking climate targets with management compensation has become international best practice. It is recommended that climate-related indicators account for no less than 10% in executive annual assessment, with specific indicators potentially including: carbon reduction target completion rate, green business revenue proportion, and climate risk management effectiveness. 2023 data shows about 45% of large listed companies in Asia-Pacific have established climate target and compensation linkage mechanisms, expected to reach 65% by 2025.

5.2 Capacity Building and Tools

Climate information disclosure requires enterprises to possess professional analytical capabilities and management tools. Enterprises are recommended to develop capabilities in the following aspects:

First is talent development system building. Enterprises should establish layered and classified training mechanisms, designing differentiated courses for board members, executives, middle management, and front-line employees. Training content should cover core modules including climate science basics, policy regulations, risk management, and scenario analysis. Recommended annual training hours: no less than 8 hours for board members, 16 hours for core management personnel, and 24 hours for professional technical personnel. External professional institutions can provide training support, such as TCFD official certification courses.

Second is tools and system building. Enterprises need to establish climate data management platforms for automated data collection, analysis, and report generation. Platform functions should include: carbon emission accounting, climate risk assessment, scenario analysis simulation, and target tracking. Depending on enterprise scale, building such systems typically requires investment between 500,000-2 million USD. Meanwhile, integration with existing enterprise management systems is important to ensure effective linkage between climate data and core data like finance and operations.

Third is methodology system building. Enterprises should establish climate risk assessment methodologies fitting their characteristics, including risk identification standards, assessment processes, and quantitative models. It is recommended to introduce international common methodology frameworks such as PCAF (Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials) and SBTi (Science Based Targets initiative), and localize them according to industry characteristics. Methodology systems should be updated annually to maintain consistency with latest scientific understanding and practical experience.

5.3 Disclosure Optimization and Enhancement

High-quality climate information disclosure requires continuous optimization and enhancement. Based on practical experience in the Asia-Pacific region, companies are recommended to improve disclosure quality in the following dimensions:

Regarding content completeness, companies should ensure their disclosures cover all four core elements of the TCFD framework. The governance section should emphasize decision-making mechanisms and responsibility allocation; the strategy section should detail scenario analysis processes and results; the risk management section needs to quantify major risks assessment; and the metrics and targets section should provide comparable historical data. The 2023 Asia-Pacific TCFD report assessment shows that only 35% of companies achieved complete coverage of all four elements, with risk quantification and scenario analysis being common weak points.

In terms of data quality, companies should establish strict data quality control systems. First, scope definition must be clear, specifying organizational and operational boundaries; second, calculation methods must be standardized, using recognized standards and emission factors; third, data sources must be reliable, establishing internal audit and external verification mechanisms. It is recommended to engage third-party institutions to verify key data to enhance disclosure credibility. Data shows that approximately 55% of climate reports in the Asia-Pacific region received third-party verification in 2023.

Regarding disclosure format, emphasis should be placed on coordination with other corporate reports. Companies can combine standalone climate reports with annual reports and sustainability reports to ensure systematic and accessible information. In terms of timing, it is recommended to release climate reports simultaneously with annual reports to facilitate comprehensive evaluation by investors. Notably, as of 2024, several Asia-Pacific economies, including Singapore, Japan, and South Korea, have incorporated climate information disclosure into mandatory requirements for listed companies, and this trend is expected to expand further.

Looking ahead, as regulatory requirements and market expectations increase, corporate climate information disclosure will evolve toward more refined and standardized approaches. Companies are advised to closely monitor international trends and regional policy changes, prepare capabilities and systems in advance to ensure continuous improvement in disclosure quality. Particular attention should be paid to alignment with the forthcoming ISSB sustainability disclosure standards, which are expected to become important reference standards for corporate climate information disclosure in the Asia-Pacific region.

Conclusion

For companies operating in the Asia-Pacific market, establishing a robust climate information disclosure system is not only an inevitable choice to meet regulatory requirements but also a key lever to enhance international competitiveness. Through systematic review of climate disclosure practices in the Asia-Pacific region, companies can better understand national regulatory requirements and market characteristics, conducting scenario analysis and risk assessment based on best practices while considering their own circumstances. Meanwhile, high-quality climate information disclosure helps companies gain investor recognition, broaden financing channels, and seize green transformation opportunities. Looking forward, as climate disclosure practices in the Asia-Pacific region continue to deepen, companies should continuously improve governance structures, strengthen capacity building, and promote continuous enhancement of information disclosure quality to contribute to sustainable development.