After a difficult 2024, when major corporations declared a retreat from climate action or social goals, a re-elected President Donald Trump set the tone for another hard year ahead by pulling the United States out of the Paris treaty and rolling back a climate disclosure rule meant to cover Asia Pacific companies and signal commitment to mandatory reporting when it was first passed.
How Asian companies will respond to America’s retreat from climate action has been the subject of much debate, with some industry observers fearing that corporate interest in environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues will wither and CSOs will lose their voice in the boardroom.
Andrew Buay, vice president of group sustainability at Singtel, a Singapore multinational telecommunications company, told the Eco-Business Podcast that the anti-ESG sentiment spreading from the West will “flush out” companies that have merely been “chasing a trend or doing sustainability for compliance reasons”.
Corporate leaders need to be courageous, take the high ground and rise “above all the noise,” said Buay, whose employer has earned recognition for using an internal carbon price to accelerate its ambition to reach net zero by 2045 – the most ambitious decarbonisation target set by an Asian telco to date.
“I’m very confident we will maintain momentum,” said Buay, who lists the increasing breadth and scope of sustainability as the most difficult thing about his job. “Even artificial intelligence (AI) is a potential ESG topic now.”
“
The [anti-ESG backlash] will flush out those who are chasing a trend or doing sustainability for compliance reasons.
Andrew Buay, vice president, group sustainability, SingTel and Optus
Buay, who has spent all of his 35-year career at SingTel, including a stint as chief operating officer of Globe Telecom in the Philippines, said that there will always be sceptics who try to make the job of the CSO harder.
A strategy to overcome “chief anti-sustainability officers” – that is, people who try to block the sustainability agenda – is to find alliances, he said. “Find people who like you, who understand sustainability, believe in it, and are part of the equation of outcomes you need to achieve. You need to find enough champions to outnumber the blockers.”
Buay has spent the last eight years in sustainability in a dual role that also covers talent development, based in Australia, a country that has motivated him to work in sustainability, such is its exposure to climate extremes. He was in Australia in 2012, when the most intense cyclone in the country’s history – Cyclone Yasi – struck.
Andrew Buay has worked at Singtel for 35 years, the last eight years in sustainability. Image: Eco-Business
Tune in as we discuss:
- Why a SingTel “lifer” pivoted to sustainability
- The hardest thing about being a CSO
- Responding to anti-ESG sentiment
- Doing two jobs at once – how to avoid burnout
- Driving the sustainability agenda across cultures
- Physical and transition risks in Singapore and Australia
- Survival strategies for CSOs
- Advice for aspiring sustainability practitioners
- Dealing with “Chief Anti-Sustainability Officers”
The edited transcript:
How did you end up in sustainability?
I’ve been with the Singtel group since I graduated in 1990. I have had very diverse roles, across sales, marketing, strategy and venture capital – and have also been in positions across the region.
For me, starting to think about sustainability started when I was first in the Philippines in 2003 to 2007 as the chief operating officer of Globe Telecom. I got exposure to extreme poverty and social issues, unlike anything I’d seen in Singapore, and natural disasters; cyclones, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions.
So you become very sensitised to the power of nature and its impact on networks and on society.
What really sharpened my thinking was when I went to Australia, looking after Optus in various leadership positions. There, you really start to see the effects of natural disasters, even in a developed economy.
An important turning point was in 2012 – Cyclone Yasi, which wrought devastation across a very wide segment of the community in Queensland. I recall at the time I was listening to a customer call into our contact centre. The customer was pleading with our help desk for us to find their family. Because when the cyclone hit, we lost our network, emergency services communications was down and people could not connect to their families. Just listening to the voice of that desperate customer really made you understand the implications of the role of our business in communications and connecting society, and more so during times of natural disaster.
That was 2012. I felt then as a company, we could actually do a lot more in sustainability. We did a lot of philanthropy work with the community, but not anything systematic across the full spectrum of sustainability.
So in 2013, I put my hand up to set up and expand the sustainability function. That was the starting point. As I did that, I stepped down from other senior leadership positions. At the same time, I started a role in internal leadership development.
What are most difficult things about your job right now?
Some of the biggest challenges include the increasing breadth and scope of what constitutes a sustainability topic. It’s not just about climate. There’s nature, labour rights, social issues, geopolitics. Even AI is a potential ESG topic, because there are environmental, social and governance implications.
The complexity of sustainability issues is now becoming very macro. Every country has different legislation on topics like climate, human rights, and modern slavery, and in an entity that’s operating in a multi-geography environment, that adds complexity.
When you consider geopolitics, whether it’s the wars in Ukraine or what’s happening with the US administration, energy shocks, climate policies – they impact the whole ecosystem, and that makes it more challenging to navigate.
Then at the operating level, there is a lot more cross-dependency. So the complexity that sustainability professionals have to upscale, integrate, and embed is challenging.
In the last few years, we have focused a lot on strengthening governance – for instance, we have had ESG KPIs (key performance indicators) since 2020 – which helps to drive the sustainability agenda, because the role of the board starts to embed and integrate sustainability, so that it’s not just a separate sustainability function.
The increasing breadth and scope of what constitutes sustainability is a big challenge for CSOs, says Buay. “Even AI is a potential ESG topic, because there are ESG implications.” Image: Eco-Business
Even before Donald Trump was elected, anti-ESG sentiment was brewing in the United States. How does this affect you and your job, and how does it affect your peers in sustainability leadership positions in Asia?
That question is coming up at every forum of discussion.
I’ll start with the analogy of Australian politics. Australia’s bipolarisation of climate is no different from the US. Whether it’s a Liberal or Labor government, they have extremely polarised views on climate. But Australian corporates have been able to progress in sustainability, despite the polarisation and the constant swing of policies around climate.
Now, obviously, the US and Trump is a much bigger animal. But I still hold the same view that if companies are doing sustainability authentically – they have the right principles in place and it makes business sense – then I don’t see [the ESG agenda] changing.
The [anti-ESG backlash] will flush out those who are chasing a trend or doing it for compliance reasons. Those will be the ones who shift their position.
I’m very confident we’ll maintain momentum.
Recently, the Singapore government announcements on net zero and its pursuit of a much more aggressive pathway than was originally predicted. I think that’s a fantastic example of leadership, where despite the changes in rhetoric, a country is prepared to be courageous enough to say, ‘we’re updating it, this is our trajectory’, and be able to take the high ground above all the noise.
I think more corporates and countries need to take that position.
There’s been a lot of discussion in the industry about burnout and people in sustainability having to do two jobs. How do you do two jobs – human resources and sustainability?
The role had three dimensions. There was the Singapore side of sustainability, which is where I started the group role. Then subsequently Optus was brought into the picture and the role expanded very quickly beyond the social impact area into climate, environment, etc. Then there was the leadership development element.
But I have had many parallel roles over my career. I think it comes down to how you lead, develop people, and how you empower and trust people.
I see the leadership development side as complementary to what I do, because if you develop good people, good leaders who are purpose driven and ethical, then you can empower and trust them. It allows you then to scale the roles and responsibilities to be able to cover a much broader spectrum.
There are many drivers of burnout but I believe burnout happens when teams are just taking on too much and are not working on mobilising the rest of the organisation. It happens when you are not getting enough resources.
I believe purpose makes a very big difference in building resilience during challenging times.
If you came into the role for the wrong reasons and are not purpose driven, then it’s very easy to feel stressed, and want to quit. But if you take a longer term view, and believe in a mission beyond yourself, you will tend to keep going.
How do you ensure consistency in driving the sustainability agenda through the Singapore and Australian operations?
The sustainability agenda and its maturity varies significantly by jurisdiction. We also have massive regional mobile operations in many of the major Asian markets, which are all at very different stages of maturity.
The approach we take is to conduct materiality assessments. Every three to five years, we ask what are the major issues that are impacting the business. And we use these materiality assessments to shape the prioritisation of the strategy.
But when we do the materiality assessment, we get a sense of the bottom-up issues at the op-co (operating company) level. And then we also get a holistic view of what are the common themes or issues across every sector.
For example, climate is a big topic across every industry. Labour issues are very important for a systems integration business where 80 per cent of the cost structure is labour-related. Conducting materiality assessments allows us to develop a collective strategy, even while the execution can be nuanced to a local jurisdiction or to a particular operating entity.
How does climate risk differ for Singtel across geographies?
When you talk about physical risk, Australia has existing and historical extreme exposure to bushfires and flooding from cyclones. So the way we’ve had to think about network design and adaptation could be very different from a place like Singapore, where there’s a lot more work done at the governmental level on drainage and flood management.
We still do look at assets that could be in high risk areas. But in Singapore, you are able to complement it with the government’s own long term plans. In Australia, you may be on your own. Because the infrastructure there is very exposed.
We may have communications facilities that are laid across a bridge. The bridge are not built for resilience, and when the flood comes in, the bridge goes out. Everything from power, communications, transport is gone with the bridge. So it’s very different adaptation strategy.
“
One of the secrets to survival for a CSO is not being too precious about losing our job.
If you take transition risk, Australia has a very high emissions factor because it’s still coal. It’s adding a lot of renewable energy into the market, but they are starting from a very high emissions position relative to Singapore, which has mainly natural gas, which produces much lower emissions.
But going forward, Singapore is a lot more challenged to transition to clean energy compared to Australia, because Australia has a lot more potential for renewable energy.
At a time when companies are rolling back sustainability targets, what’s the secret to survival for a chief sustainability officer? How are you certain that the sustainability team is secure in what you do? Do you feel vulnerable?
Firstly, no one is immune to anything. I’ve been in the corporate world long enough to know that. But I think it’s also not about survival. In this space you’ve got to thrive. If people are only surviving, then they are in the wrong role and wrong company.
One secret to surviving and thriving is being purpose driven. Because if your purpose is not clear, and is not aligned with the company’s purpose, then it’ll be an uphill battle.
You’ve got to take a long term view. Because the long term view gives you resilience.
We can’t do it alone. We need diverse champions – believers to get you the win. That’s critical.
I have spoken about governance – as topics emerge, current or future, the organisation knows how to deliver as it’s part of the discipline of how the company addresses issues.
Getting the board involved in the strategy, as increasingly most boards are starting to do, makes a lot of difference too.
And then, of course, embedding and integrating sustainability.
I think one of secrets of survival for a CSO is not being too precious about losing our job. Because I think if we do it right, and we integrate sustainability, we will loosen dimensions of the job to allow us to focus on new areas – as opposed to just adding more load to our shoulders and not giving things away.
Isn’t the key to survival for a sustainability function the reporting line? Do you have to have a direct reporting line to the CEO?
I think that’s only one part of the equation. Many CSOs have asked me: what’s the right structure? Should we be in the strategy unit, report to the CEO. It really depends.
In Singtel’s case, when we started out, because sustainability grew out of CSR (corporate social responsibility) and philanthropic donation, it was parked in HR. And I remain in HR, report to the chief HR and subsequently chief people and sustainability officer. So I’ve seen functions flourish in every area and functions fail in every area. There’s no magical formula.
But whoever are the leaders must be able to navigate the complexity of the organisation. And that has helped me because I’ve come from all parts of the company.
When you think of sustainability, you need to think about it in an ambitious, but pragmatic way.
Having champions and endorsement at the leadership level is as important as to whom you report. We have never reported directly [to the CEO], but access to the board is important from a very early stage.
Even though we didn’t form a standalone sustainability committee until two years ago, we’ve had full access to the board. This helps to create understanding and visibility at the board level.
The other area is board governance, which becomes increasingly important because you are dealing with much larger, more complex issues.
Even for a business that might be seen as slightly more mature in sustainability, the things we are now focusing on are a lot larger, more complex, and have bigger financial and strategic implications, so senior management and the board need to be on that journey.
Melanie Kwok, the head of sustainability at Sino Group, has said that she finds it frustrating that there is a gap between the knowledge students are acquiring at university and what’s required by employers. What do you say to young people about what to expect for a role in sustainability and how they should prepare?
Well, if you are frustrated with the knowledge gap of graduates coming out of university now, imagine where we were 13 years ago.
“
Don’t bother to look for jobs with sustainability in the title. Every role can embed sustainability opportunities.
Having said that, three things come to mind.
One, for people thinking of finding a role in sustainability, I would want to make sure they dig deep into their own purpose. If they are bound by a certain value system and ethics, that’s a very important starting point.
Second, don’t even bother to look for roles with sustainability titles, because every role can embed sustainability opportunities.
Third, think about acquiring skills besides technical skills. A lot of people are rushing out and getting technical skills such as carbon accounting and sustainability reporting. This is good. But sustainability is a complex thing that goes beyond pure technical skills; we need to be building cognitive skills such as problem solving, agility, stakeholder engagement, and communications.
All those are the skills are equally as important. So don’t think graduating with a master’s in environmental sustainably is necessarily going to get you a job. It only gets you the foot in the door.
If there’s one thing I encourage people to go out and read, it’s the World Economic Forum’s The Future of Jobs Report. If you look at what the CEOs are saying are going to be the most important skills over the next five years, many are cognitive skills.
What do you make of the idea of a “chief anti-sustainability officer” – someone in the company who opposes the sustainability agenda. Have you had any experience of that? And what are some of the more underrated skills that a sustainability practitioner needs to do their job?
On underrated skills, one is understanding how a system works.
Systems thinking is a very vague term. But you need to understand how to break down the interdependencies of different systems.
That’s one very important skill that sometimes people struggle with – dealing with the silo nature of sustainability because they are trying to look at it and engage stakeholders on a very siloed basis.
Chief anti-sustainability officers are a dime a dozen.
I think it’s a normal response to anything that is new and not well understood – there will always be sceptics.
It is the norm in any complex organisation – and it just means you have got to know how to navigate it.
One key strategy is: find alliances, find people who like you across the organisation, who understand sustainability, believe in it, and are part of the equation of outcomes you need to achieve. You need champions who outnumber the blockers.
There is the analogy of the crazy dancer. The first person who dances, people think the guy is crazy. The second person that follows the crazy dancer starts a movement.
You need more people who are already believing in it, understanding it. It could be a niche area of the business, but when they move, and they demonstrate the outcomes, you have others who start to follow.
And at the end of the day, the blockers or chief anti-sustainability officers are political animals. They don’t want to stick out like a sore thumb. When everyone else has seen the benefits and starts advocating for it, the blockers are going to play smart and go with the flow. They may not fully agree or fully buy into it, but they are not going to be so vocal [in opposition].
You need to take a targeted, pragmatic view, and focus on areas where there is business value. An example of this comes from our marketing team from a few years ago.
We got them to spend a day in a retail shop. They observed what our retail staff did with packaging. A customer would walk in wanting to buy a new phone with a new plan. The retail staff would go out the back, strip all the branded packaging off, throw it into the bin and the customer would walk out.
One or two months later, our retail marketing staff got rid of all the brand packaging for our SIM cards, saving 50 tonnes of cardboard and $2.5 million in a year. This is an example of a quick win that is not complex but creates business value. The more you can find these wins, the more others will see the benefits.
This transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity.
