Kearney’s Sustainability Expert Tanima Singh: The key is moving towards a business resilience and competitiveness narrative
She emphasised the growing importance of pragmatic ESG strategies focused on resilience, accountability, and measurable business outcomes.
Businesses in Asia are facing growing pressure to rethink how ESG is integrated into their operations, supply chains, and long-term strategy. Hence, organisations are striving to balance sustainability ambitions with rising operational pressures.
Along with this are the new regulations surrounding emissions, traceability, and corporate disclosures, which push companies to accelerate their decarbonisation efforts.
Tanima Singh, Specialist Principal at Kearney, offers insight into these developments. She has more than 12 years of experience in ESG transformation strategy, decarbonisation, sustainable supply chains, socio-environmental impact assessment, and sustainability advisory.
She has engaged with private and public sector organisations and development finance institutions and has led several net-zero strategies, Scope 3 emissions tools, climate policy development, and sustainable sourcing frameworks.
Tanima has also spearheaded supply chain risk assessments and worked with multilateral organisations and governments on projects related to green finance, low-emissions development strategies, renewable energy, and climate resilience.
As a judge for the ESGBusiness Awards 2026, Tanima shared her perspectives on sustainable supply chains and ESG transformation, as well as the trends that are largely contributing to the future of sustainability in Asia.
Sustainable supply chains have become a major focus worldwide. What are the most urgent supply chain sustainability challenges currently facing companies in Asia?
The most urgent challenge for supply chains at present, not just in Asia, but even globally, is the high volatility induced by geopolitical risks, trade fragmentation, and climate disruptions. As the world’s manufacturing hub, Asia sits at the centre of key geopolitical flashpoints — including US–China trade tensions, Red Sea shipping disruptions, semiconductor nationalism, and critical mineral security concerns. This has increased pressure on companies to build more resilient and diversified supply chains. However, this also increases pressure to balance cost competitiveness with pureplay sustainability innovations. Since Asia houses hubs for some low-margin industries like garments, electronics, and commodity manufacturing, it is all the more difficult for companies to retain focus on sustainability whilst fighting for survival by maintaining cost competency.
Having said that, it is crucial for companies in Asia, and all across the world, to work towards a more sustainable future. In that regard, the most pressing issue is supply chain decarbonisation, especially Scope 3 emissions, which often account for 65 to 95% of a company’s total emissions. Whilst net zero targets, including Scope 3 decarbonisation goals have been announced by several companies globally, many Asian suppliers still rely heavily on coal-based energy and lack the infrastructure to transition quickly to low-carbon manufacturing.
Water stress poses another growing operational risk, which can leave supply chains even more vulnerable than the current state. Many manufacturing hubs across Asia face increasing floods, heatwaves, droughts, and water shortages, threatening production continuity and resource availability.
Ensuring human rights and fair labour practices is also increasingly becoming important, particularly in industries such as apparel, electronics, agriculture, and mining. Risks around forced labour, migrant worker exploitation, and unsafe working conditions continue to create reputational and regulatory exposure.
Finally, a major structural challenge is that many SMEs across Asia lack the financial and technical capability to meet rapidly evolving ESG requirements, creating a widening gap between global sustainability expectations and supplier readiness.
In your work with governments and private sector organisations, where do you currently see the strongest momentum for ESG transformation?
The strongest momentum for ESG transformation at present is coming from sectors and countries where sustainability is becoming directly linked to regulatory structure, competitiveness, investment, and market access rather than just compliance.
In my experience, the fastest progress is visible in energy and industrial sectors, particularly around decarbonisation, renewable energy, hydrogen, and circular economy initiatives.
It is also visible in supply chains and manufacturing in Asia, where companies are responding to increasing pressure from global customers and regulations around Scope 3 emissions, traceability, and ethical sourcing. Additionally, it is seen in mining and critical minerals, especially in regions like the Middle East, Australia, and Latin America, where governments want to position themselves as responsible suppliers for the global energy transition.
Furthermore, fast progress is also visible in government-led transformation agendas, where sustainability is being driven through large-scale regulatory and industrial policy frameworks. A strong example is the European Green Deal, which is already under implementation and aims to make the EU climate-neutral by 2050. This has led to concrete measures such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), stricter corporate sustainability disclosures (CSRD), and incentives for clean industrial manufacturing.
At the same time, the nature of ESG transformation is evolving. Earlier, the focus was largely on reporting and compliance. Today, the strongest momentum is in areas where ESG creates strategic value — improving resilience, securing investment, enabling access to global markets, and strengthening long-term supply chain competitiveness.
How do you view the growing pressure from investors and regulators on corporate sustainability disclosures?
Over the last decade, I’ve seen corporate sustainability disclosures evolve from a largely voluntary reputational exercise into a core business and governance requirement. The pressure from investors and regulators today is fundamentally different from what it was even five years ago — it is now driven by financial materiality, risk management, and accountability.
Now, investors increasingly want sustainability data that is decision-useful, comparable, and auditable. They are no longer satisfied with high-level ESG commitments or standalone sustainability reports filled with qualitative narratives. The focus has shifted toward measurable indicators — emissions trajectories, climate transition plans, water usage, supply chain risks, biodiversity exposure, and governance oversight. In many ways, ESG reporting is beginning to resemble financial reporting in terms of scrutiny and expectations.
At the same time, regulators are pushing the market toward standardisation. Frameworks such as the EU CSRD, CSDDD, ISSB standards, SEC climate disclosure proposals, and CBAM are collectively moving sustainability disclosures from “nice to have” toward mandatory compliance. This is particularly important because one of the biggest historical challenges in ESG was fragmentation — companies reporting different metrics using different methodologies, making comparisons difficult.
What is also becoming increasingly clear is that disclosures are no longer just about transparency; they are becoming a proxy for resilience and long-term competitiveness. Companies that cannot clearly articulate their transition strategy, supply chain risks, or decarbonisation pathway are beginning to face higher investor skepticism, financing pressure, and even market access challenges.
That said, I also believe the market is still in a transition phase. Many organisations — especially in emerging markets and complex supply chains — are struggling with data quality, Scope 3 visibility, internal capabilities, and reporting fatigue due to overlapping frameworks. So whilst the direction is absolutely clear, the real challenge now is helping companies move from compliance-driven reporting toward genuinely integrated sustainability management backed by reliable data and operational transformation.
In what ways can businesses avoid treating ESG purely as a compliance requirement and instead use it as a driver of innovation and resilience?
In my experience, businesses create the most value from ESG when they stop viewing it as a standalone reporting or compliance function and start embedding it into core business strategy, operations, and risk management. That said, the current global situation has undeniably shifted priorities. Over the past few years, geopolitical instability, inflationary pressures, supply chain disruptions, energy security concerns, and economic uncertainty have pushed many organisations into a more defensive mode. In several boardrooms, short-term operational resilience is understandably taking precedence over long-term sustainability ambitions.
However, the more mature organisations increasingly recognise that the current volatility actually reinforces the strategic importance of ESG rather than diminishing it. For example: companies investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency are reducing exposure to fuel price volatility and energy security risks; businesses strengthening supply chain traceability and supplier diversification are becoming more resilient to geopolitical disruptions and regulatory shocks; organisations improving water efficiency and circularity are better prepared for resource scarcity and climate-related operational risks; and firms embedding ESG into governance and risk frameworks are generally better positioned to respond to investor scrutiny, regulatory changes, and reputational crises.
The key shift is moving from a purely “values-led” ESG narrative toward a “business resilience and competitiveness” narrative. Today, the stronger organisations are prioritising fewer but more material initiatives with measurable business outcomes.
Ultimately, the companies likely to succeed in the next decade will be those that balance near-term geopolitical and economic realities with long-term sustainability imperatives. ESG is no longer just about corporate responsibility — it is increasingly becoming a framework for resilience, adaptability, and strategic differentiation in an increasingly uncertain world.
What emerging ESG trends do you think will shape Asia’s business environment over the next five years?
Over the next five years, ESG in Asia will become far more tied to competitiveness, resilience, and market access rather than being viewed purely as a compliance exercise. As geopolitical tensions, trade fragmentation, and supply chain disruptions continue, companies are increasingly balancing sustainability ambitions with operational and economic realities.
One of the biggest trends will be the acceleration of supply chain decarbonisation and traceability, driven by regulations such as CBAM, CSRD, and forced labour laws. Asian exporters will face growing pressure to demonstrate low-carbon and transparent supply chains to maintain access to global markets.
Another key trend will be pragmatic decarbonisation. Rather than focusing only on long-term net-zero commitments, businesses are prioritising commercially viable initiatives such as energy efficiency, renewable integration, circularity, and supply chain diversification.
Climate resilience and resource security will also gain importance, particularly around water stress, extreme weather, and energy security. At the same time, investors will increasingly focus on execution credibility — measurable outcomes, governance, and transition readiness — rather than broad ESG commitments alone.
Ultimately, ESG in Asia is evolving from a reporting-driven agenda into a core business resilience and strategic transformation agenda.
As one of the judges at the ESGBusiness Awards 2026, what actions would you recommend for companies beginning their ESG journey or lagging behind in this regard?
For companies beginning their ESG journey, the priority today should be practicality over perfection. In the current environment of geopolitical uncertainty, supply chain disruption, and cost pressures, ESG initiatives need to be closely linked to business resilience and operational risk reduction.
My recommendation is to start with a focused materiality assessment to identify the ESG issues that have the greatest business impact. Rather than launching broad sustainability programmes, companies should prioritise a few high-impact initiatives with measurable outcomes.
In practice, the fastest value often comes from improving energy efficiency, strengthening supply chain visibility, reducing resource intensity, and building stronger governance and risk oversight. Establishing credible ESG data and accountability mechanisms early is also critical. I would also caution against pursuing ESG purely through ambitious public commitments without operational readiness. Investors and regulators are increasingly focused on execution credibility rather than aspirational targets alone.
Ultimately, the focus should be long-term sustainability and not just temporary high-visibility, low impact solutions.
