For the past 10 years, Black Sun APAC has reviewed the annual reports of the STI 30, tracking how corporate reporting continues to evolve in response to changing stakeholder expectations and an increasingly complex regulatory landscape. We recently launched the 2026 edition of the research, Unlocking Value Through Trust, which explores the latest trends shaping reporting best practice.
Our research examines reports through six lenses which we call the principles of trust. Together, they provide a framework for building a more rigorous, compelling and value-focused articulation of a business, they are; Purposeful Value focused & material, Strategically aligned, Stakeholder-driven, Future-oriented and Balanced, transparent, credible.
Some of the keys findings included:
Do purpose, values and culture actually impact strategic and operational delivery?
Culture has become a board-level priority across Singapore's largest companies. 93% state that the board sets the tone from the top for ethics, values and desired organisational culture. But meaningful evidence of how boards actually assess and monitor culture remains limited. Only 47% of companies quote specific culture-related metrics used by the board to track whether culture is embedded, and just 13% describe the role of middle management in promoting and embedding culture, despite middle managers being the primary mechanism through which board expectations translate into daily behaviours.
The result is a disconnect. Companies describe culture as a board responsibility, but investors cannot see the governance mechanisms that prove boards are actively monitoring and responding to culture risks. Without disclosure of what metrics the board reviews, how culture dashboards inform board discussions, or whether culture concerns triggered any board intervention, culture governance remains a claimed responsibility rather than a demonstrated practice.
In May 2025, MAS announced a review of the Code of Corporate Governance, with one sub-committee tasked to consider new provisions on corporate culture, board effectiveness, and risk management in emerging areas. This could elevate culture from general guidance to a formal comply-or-explain requirement for the first time. Most STI30 companies still treat culture as a compliance topic, but a few are moving toward more substantive governance. DBS, for example, integrates values-based assessment into its remuneration framework and includes employee indicators in the balanced scorecard used to evaluate group performance.
Is it clear how companies are creating shareholder and stakeholder value?
Reporting is most effective when it is clear, focused, and grounded in the information stakeholders need to understand. Materiality is not just about what topics to cover, it is about how deeply to cover them.
Most STI30 companies communicate well about financial performance. 97% go beyond the numbers to explain what drove profits over the year, and all STI30 companies identify key profitability drivers. But the business model story is less complete. Only 43% of reports present a dedicated business model section, with the remainder scattering business model elements across strategy, operational review, and financial discussion sections, forcing investors to reconstruct the value creation story themselves.
The missing half of the value story is integration. 77% of STI30 companies weave non-financial value into their business model narrative, but acknowledgement is not the same as integration. The question is not whether companies mention ESG outcomes, it is whether they explain how people development, environmental performance, and community engagement actually create and protect financial value. When ESG is embedded in the business model and narrative, it stops being a cost of business and becomes a value driver.
Are strategy, performance and measurement clearly delivered as a unifying thread across reporting?
An aligned report connects every part of a business to its stated goals, in both directions. That means showing how market conditions are shaping plans, how remuneration is dependent on performance, and how consideration of risk is fluid and ongoing.
Most STI30 companies provide strong market context. 97% draw explicit connections between specific market conditions and their strategic priorities, demonstrating that companies are translating market analysis into actionable strategic responses. But what is missing is the risk dimension. Only 1 in 5 companies draw explicit links between those same market conditions and their principal risk disclosures. A company may describe intense competitive pressures in its market review and position pricing power as a strategic priority, but fail to identify competitive risk or margin erosion as a principal risk requiring board oversight.
The same imbalance shows up with technology. STI30 companies have made cybersecurity a governance priority. 90% provide cybersecurity risk updates in their annual reports and 73% identify cybersecurity as a principal risk, a strong disclosure that suggests boards are taking digital risk seriously. Yet when it comes to artificial intelligence, a similar risk discipline is largely absent. AI features prominently in strategy sections, with companies describing AI-driven automation, operational efficiencies, and competitive advantages across sectors. But only 7% specifically identify AI as a principal risk, and only 37% list it as an emerging risk. If AI is material enough to feature in strategy narratives, the associated risks should be material enough to disclose. The gap suggests companies are selectively emphasising upside in strategy, while downplaying risk in governance sections.
On remuneration, STI30 companies have responded to investor and regulatory pressure for executive pay transparency. 9 in 10 provide detailed CEO remuneration breakdowns, splitting base salary, bonuses, long-term incentives and other components in ways that allow shareholders to assess alignment between pay and performance. Director remuneration disclosure is also strong, with 77% providing comparable detail on individual director remuneration. Room remains to deepen practice in line with global peers, particularly around pay-versus-performance comparisons and pay-ratio disclosure.
Do companies truly consider stakeholders in the critical decisions that drive the business?
Trust can only be built by listening to stakeholders, learning from them, and acting with consideration for their interests. As evidenced by the rise of double materiality, companies are expected to know the impact they have on the world and to embed concern for stakeholder input in all key decisions.
Most annual reports include stakeholder language — "we listen to stakeholders", "we balance diverse interests", "we engage meaningfully". But these statements are generic without explaining how the board actually considers stakeholder interests in decisions. Only 33% describe how the board considers stakeholder interests in decision-making, and just half of reports disclose specific stakeholder tensions, trade-offs, or conflicts.
67% of companies describe DEI initiatives with board oversight, but most stop at gender targets. Comprehensive diversity metrics like workforce representation across levels and inclusion survey scores are largely absent. The governance structure exists, but measurement is selective. If diversity warrants board attention, it warrants full disclosure on progress across all dimensions, not just the easiest numbers to report.
Is reporting simply looking backwards or outlining the necessary ambitions and plans for the future?
Investors allocate capital to the future, not the past. A strategically driven report must also be future-oriented, with clear strategic priorities, robust targets, action plans and risk management that demonstrate an organisation that is ambitious, prepared and in control.
Most STI30 companies describe their climate ambitions, with 77% referencing a transition plan and outlining climate-related opportunities. But describing a pathway is not the same as demonstrating it can withstand pressure. Only 17% of the STI30 provide any sensitivity analysis of financial outcomes, offering even a basic view of how revenue, profitability or other key metrics would move if underlying assumptions shifted. For investors trying to judge the resilience of a strategy, commitments without this kind of financial "what if" analysis leave important questions unanswered about how companies would respond if demand, pricing, costs or policy evolve differently from plan.
Materiality assessment is another area where depth is missing. 87% state they conducted a double materiality assessment, yet only 1 in 5 present results in a matrix rather than a list. A matrix shows how sustainability topics affect financial performance and stakeholders, where they overlap, and how tensions and interdependencies between issues influence overall significance — context that lists simply cannot provide.
Value chain disclosure remains limited. Only 30% set out an explicit value chain diagram separate from the business model. Manufacturing and industrial companies are more likely to disclose value chains, likely because physical flows are easier to map. But service-based and asset-light businesses face material value chain risks too, including data centres, outsourced labour and cloud infrastructure dependencies that will shape future performance and resilience.
Are companies being transparent about the challenges faced and the actions taken to drive change?
Credibility is critical in the fight for customers, talent and funding. An honest reflection of challenges with plans to mitigate in the future is far more effective than a greenwashed story that audiences can see right through.
Balance is a genuine strength across the STI30. 93% acknowledge areas of underperformance, setbacks or challenges in their annual reports. Some explain root causes and describe management response in specific terms, such as operational inefficiencies, misjudged market assumptions, or execution gaps, and then describe corrective actions. Genting Singapore described 2025 as a "defining transition year" and acknowledged weaker revenue and profitability, explaining this reflected the impact of major renovation works and the gradual ramp-up of new operations. ST Engineering acknowledged cost overruns and schedule delays on specific defence contracts, attributing these to underestimating technical complexity and facing supply chain disruptions. DBS disclosed a significant digital banking service disruption and explained root causes including system capacity constraints and inadequate stress-testing of upgraded infrastructure.
Where credibility becomes uneven is in technology governance. Nearly all STI30 companies now have technology expertise represented on their boards, with 97% disclosing some form of technology-related experience. But having a board member with tech credentials is one thing. Disclosing how the board governs technology risks, data dependencies, cyber resilience, and digital infrastructure is another. Without disclosure of how technology expertise informs board decision-making, the presence of tech-savvy directors remains a credential, not evidence of governance in action.
On climate assurance, 77% of STI30 companies currently use external assurance on climate disclosures, demonstrating voluntary commitment to credibility before regulatory requirements kick in. Singapore does not mandate external assurance on climate disclosures until FY2029 for Scope 1 and 2 emissions. But not all assurance is equal. Among the STI30 companies with external assurance, only two use reasonable assurance. The rest opt for limited assurance, which confirms nothing material has been misstated but does not actively verify accuracy. As climate disclosure becomes material to capital allocation, the choice between limited and reasonable assurance signals how seriously companies treat data credibility.
The commitments are already there. Purpose, culture, capital discipline, climate ambition and stakeholder engagement are referenced consistently across the STI30. The gap is in evidencing them with enough detail for investors to act on.
The investment narrative needs to come together. Strategy, competitive advantage, capital allocation and financial discipline are often present across the report but not consolidated into a clear, investor-ready equity story. Companies that pull these elements together in one place are significantly better positioned to capture investor attention and build conviction.
Risk narratives need to catch up with opportunity narratives. Whether it is AI, market conditions, or climate, companies are far more comfortable describing upside than confronting downside. Strategically aligned reporting connects market conditions to both sides of the value equation, showing where management sees opportunity and where the board sees risk requiring mitigation.
Stakeholder engagement needs to close the loop. Companies are engaging, but investors want evidence that engagement shapes decisions, not just that it happened. The shift from disclosure to dialogue is where trust is actually built.
Forward guidance is a competitive advantage. In a market where global peers are raising the bar on medium-term financial guidance, Singapore's companies that provide structured, credible forward-looking communication will stand out. Investors allocate capital to the future, not the past.
None of this requires reinventing reporting from scratch. It requires being more deliberate about connecting the dots that are, in many cases, already there.
This article only scratches the surface of what we uncovered across the Six Principles of Trust. The full report, Unlocking Value Through Trust: STI30 Reporting and Communications Research, is now available. Reach out to Beryl Leong at bleong@blacksun-global.com to request a copy.
If you would like an in-depth review of your company's reporting, or to explore what the findings mean for your organisation, get in touch with our team.
About Black Sun
Black Sun Global is a stakeholder advisory and engagement agency that's been driving transformation and positive change for ambitious brands for more than 20 years. With deep expertise in disclosure and reporting, ESG, sustainability, and digital engagement, we reshape how organisations connect with customers, investors, employees, and the wider world.
We are trusted partners to some of the most influential global organisations, sparking innovation and sustainable performance through our strategic insights, partnerships, and proprietary technologies.
As founders of the Positive Change Group, we are on a mission to create a new kind of stakeholder relations partner. Our world-class specialists work closely with executive leadership teams to protect reputations, inspire trust, and promote responsible business practices - building resilience and long-term value in a rapidly changing world.
For more information, please visit: www.blacksun-global.com
Explore our thinking and learn from global thought leaders through
our blogs, podcasts, webinars, and events.