PwC Singapore’s Bing Yi Lee highlights role of credible execution, measurable impact in ESG success

He believes that organisations must focus on resilience, accountability, and long-term value creation whilst sustainability matures in Asia.

The rising regulatory expectations and the stakeholders’ demand for accountability have greatly affected sustainability in Asia. Such factors have pushed organisations to focus not on broad ESG commitments but on how sustainability initiatives can deliver tangible business outcomes.

Businesses are also facing climate risks, energy volatility, supply chain disruptions, and changing investor expectations — putting sustainability as a key driver of resilience and competitiveness.

Bing Yi Lee, Partner, Sustainability & Climate Change, Financial Services Assurance at PwC Singapore, offers insights into this shift, having advised organisations on sustainable finance, sustainability reporting, environmental risk management, and climate transition strategies.

Lee, an experienced banking and capital markets specialist, has also provided audit, assurance, and advisory services to financial institutions and led sustainability assurance engagements for several major institutions in Singapore.

As a judge at the ESGBusiness Awards 2026, he shared his perspectives on the evolution of ESG adoption, leadership's role in sustainability transformation, the growing importance of sustainable finance, and the future of sustainability assurance.

What are the biggest changes you have observed in ESG adoption across Asia over the past few years?

One of the biggest changes I have observed is the shift from commitments and labels to credible execution, resilience, and measurable business outcomes. In fact, despite global ESG headwinds and a softening of public commitments in recent years, ESG momentum across Asia has not disappeared but evolved. It has become more pragmatic, focusing on sustainability as a driver of resilience, competitiveness, and long-term value. At the same time, recent energy crises and geopolitical disruptions have also made energy resilience a much more prominent part of the ESG conversation.

Whilst many organisations were previously approaching ESG primarily through the lens of disclosure, ratings or reputation, leading companies today are asking more commercial and operational questions: How do we reduce exposure to energy price volatility? How do we strengthen supply chains? How do we allocate capital to transition opportunities that create measurable value?

This shift is consistent with our findings in PwC’s latest Annual State of Decarbonisation Report, which notes that the business case for decarbonisation has strengthened and leading companies are showing that sustainability action can improve margins, growth, and resilience. For example, it found valuation premiums of 15% to 59% for companies in hard-to-abate sectors that are allocating more capital to the climate transition and 8% to 13% higher profitability amongst consumer goods and retail companies that effectively integrate sustainability into product design.

How important is leadership commitment in driving successful ESG transformation across organisations?

In my view, the organisations that make the most progress are those where sustainability is embedded into governance structures rather than treated as a standalone function. That means clear board oversight, defined management accountability, integration into enterprise risk management, linkage to financial planning and investment decisions, and appropriate internal controls over sustainability data. Ultimately, the tone from the top helps determine whether sustainability remains an intent on paper or becomes a source of resilience, trust, and long-term value creation.

In your opinion, what factors make a sustainable financing framework credible and effective?

A credible and effective sustainable financing framework translates sustainability goals into bankable structures, tracks how capital is deployed, and verifies whether outcomes are actually achieved.

First, robust structuring is fundamental to turning frameworks into real financing action. This means mapping business activities and capital expenditure plans to recognised taxonomy criteria, selecting eligible projects and KPIs, and embedding these into the terms of the financial instrument. For more complex, capital-intensive projects, including those that matter for transition – grid upgrades, large-scale renewables, coastal protection, and the like – origination is as much about structuring the risk and capital stack as it is about meeting taxonomy thresholds.

Second, transparent reporting is critical. For use-of-proceeds instruments like green loans and bonds, investors need visibility on where the money goes and whether capital has been channelled into eligible projects under recognised frameworks. For sustainability-linked instruments, this also means reporting on progress in meeting sustainability performance targets. 

Third, external verification is what builds trust and enhances investor confidence by verifying that financing outcomes are accurate and measurable. This includes post-issuance assurance over use-of-proceeds allocations or the performance of sustainability-linked KPIs.

What does a successful climate transition look like from a financial perspective?

From a financial perspective, a successful climate transition is one where climate action is embedded into the company’s business model, capital allocation, and financial planning. It is not simply about setting a net-zero or emissions reduction target – it is about translating that target into a clear operating and investment plan. That means being specific about what transition requires across procurement decisions, plant upgrades, fleet renewal, product mix, energy sourcing, supplier engagement, technology investments, capital expenditure, and other details. 

Ultimately, a successful climate transition should be commercially grounded to communicate a clear value story: how it protects the business from downside risks, strengthens resilience, and positions it for long-term growth. This value story should be supported by robust analysis, transparent assumptions, measurable milestones, and disciplined governance.

How do you see sustainability assurance evolving alongside financial audits in the coming years?

Sustainability assurance will become increasingly prominent alongside financial reporting and financial audits in the coming years. I see this evolving in two mutually reinforcing ways: first, through regulation, as markets move gradually from voluntary to mandatory assurance; and second, through capital market demand, as investors and other stakeholders increasingly rely on sustainability information for decision-making.

This evolution will also be accelerated by the increasing integration of sustainability reporting with financial reporting. The ISSB standards, for example, emphasise sustainability-related financial disclosures and the concept of connected information, helping users understand the links between sustainability risks and opportunities, strategy, financial performance, financial position and cash flows. As sustainability information becomes more connected to financial statements and management discussion, assurance will naturally need to become more aligned with the financial audit process.

Assurance standards are also evolving to support this shift. The new International Standard on Sustainability Assurance (ISSA) 5000, which will be effective for assurance engagements on sustainability information reported for periods beginning on or after 15 December 2026, will provide more specific requirements and guidance for sustainability assurance, supporting greater consistency, comparability and robustness in assurance practices.

As a judge for the ESGBusiness Awards 2026, what key qualities will you use when assessing the nominees?

As a judge, I will be looking for authenticity, impact, and scalability.

First, I will assess the quality of execution. Ambition is important, but execution is what creates impact. I will be looking for clear objectives, strong governance, accountable leadership, credible implementation plans and evidence of progress over time.

Second, measurable impact matters. Strong nominees should be able to show tangible outcomes, supported by relevant metrics, baselines, and transparent reporting.

Finally, I will consider scalability and long-term value. The most compelling sustainability initiatives are those that go beyond a one-off project. They create new capabilities, influence markets or supply chains, mobilise capital, strengthen resilience, or demonstrate models that others can learn from.