The recent merger of the Asia Sustainability Leadership Council ( ASLC ), a leading advocacy platform for sustainability in Southeast Asia, with the China Sustainability Leaders Council ( CSLC ) signals a significant shift in the Asia-Pacific environmental, social and governance ( ESG ) landscape as sustainability strategies aligned with China’s development model are expected to gain greater influence.

Both councils were originally established by the Conference Board, a US-based non-profit business research organization founded in 1916 and composed of senior executives from major global corporations. The Shanghai-based CSLC was set up 2017 to engage multinational companies operating in China, while the Singapore-based ASLC was launched in 2020 to promote corporate sustainability collaboration in Southeast Asia.

In September 2025, the Conference Board announced the closure of the ASLC, citing declining member support and resource constraints amid shifting regional priorities. The CSLC was subsequently renamed the Asia Sustainability Leadership Council, retaining its Shanghai headquarters and China-focused leadership.

This restructuring, according to industry observers, effectively consolidates the Conference Board’s Asia sustainability programmes under a single, China-led framework. While the move may improve operational efficiency and leverage China’s expanding sustainability infrastructure, it also raises questions about the future of Southeast Asia-focused advocacy.

“This merger reflects the reality of where corporate momentum and resources are currently strongest,” says one sustainability consultant familiar with both councils’ operations. “But it also risks leaving Southeast Asian firms with less localized support as they navigate evolving ESG expectations.”

The merger highlights a broader trend: China’s growing influence over the region’s ESG agenda. Beijing’s state-backed sustainability programmes, aligned with frameworks like Made in China 2025 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals ( SDGs ), have mobilized extensive capital and policy support. China’s green economy, analysts estimate, now exceeds US$1.4 trillion in value in 2025, covering renewable energy, electric vehicles and green finance.

In contrast, ESG adoption across Southeast Asia remains uneven, constrained by varying disclosure standards, differing regulatory maturity and a mix of voluntary and mandatory reporting regimes. The former ASLC had served as a bridge for multinational firms tackling region-specific issues, such as deforestation, labour rights and supply-chain transparency. Its absence could slow regional alignment with global standards, such as those of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures ( TCFD ) and the Global Reporting Initiative ( GRI ).

The consolidation may also reshape investor perceptions. A China-based council could channel greater attention to state-driven, scalable ESG frameworks backed by clear government targets and incentives, features attractive to institutional investors seeking predictability. However, these frameworks may be less adaptable to Southeast Asia’s fragmented and localized challenges.

Some analysts caution that the shift may temporarily weaken regional cooperation and knowledge-sharing mechanisms in Southeast Asia, which rely on cross-border engagement and localized initiatives. Others note that new platforms, possibly under Asean ( Association of Southeast Asian Nations ) or independent sustainability networks, could emerge to fill this gap.

The Conference Board’s planned Australia/New Zealand ( ANZ ) council aligns with this idea, but Southeast Asia-specific initiatives remain unconfirmed.

While primarily targeted at ANZ’s mature ESG ecosystems – where frameworks like Australia's Sustainability Reporting Standards ( effective 2024 ) and New Zealand’s mandatory climate disclosures provide robust models – the council, according to the consultant, can indirectly mitigate some gaps left by the September 2025 closure of the Singapore-based ASLC.

These gaps include fragmented regional standards, reduced localized advocacy for Southeast Asia-specific issues ( for example, deforestation and labour practices ) and slower alignment with global frameworks like TCFD or GRI.

In any case, the Conference Board’s decision to restructure the ASLC mirrors broader global ESG headwinds, including what some call a “reset” of sustainability priorities amid policy fatigue and investor pushback. Nearly half of global executives, surveys in 2025 show, now view net-zero targets as a “flashpoint” issue, complicating funding and strategic alignment.

In that context, China’s structured approach to green finance, anchored in national policy, state incentives and a rapidly expanding green bond market, offers investors a clearer pathway for engagement. Still, maintaining balance between China’s scale and Southeast Asia’s contextual diversity will be crucial to ensuring that Asia’s sustainability movement remains inclusive and regionally representative.

In short, while the ASLC-CSLC merger strengthens institutional focus and resource efficiency, it also underscores the need for renewed Southeast Asia-specific initiatives. Without them, the region risks losing a vital platform that once helped align local priorities with global sustainability goals.

The Conference Board’s broader restructuring plans, such as the Australia and New Zealand Sustainability Leadership Council, could mitigate some Southeast Asian gaps.