As Southeast Asia contends with its most severe haze crisis in over a decade, efforts to hold companies responsible for the widespread fires have been complicated by limited access to critical data and the challenges of cross-border enforcement. Singapore has taken steps under its Transboundary Haze Pollution Act, issuing legal notices this year to 10 firms suspected of involvement in slash-and-burn practices contributing to the pollution. However, no fines have yet been imposed, highlighting ongoing difficulties in securing accountability.
The identification of potential culprits relies heavily on satellite imagery, meteorological data, and analyses conducted by both government agencies and environmental groups. For example, Singapore’s authorities used such tools to pinpoint firms operating in hotspot areas, while organisations like Greenpeace and Indonesia’s Pantau Gambut have produced reports linking fires to plantations owned by companies such as First Resources and Bumitama Agri, which are listed on the Singapore Exchange.
Despite these efforts, a major obstacle remains the lack of transparent and detailed information on plantation boundaries and company operations. Experts note that Indonesia, where most of the fires occur, generally does not share detailed concession maps or comprehensive data on corporate involvement in fire incidents. Instead, information is often limited to broad administrative divisions without clear links to individual firms. The Indonesian government has recently restricted access to its geospatial mapping platform Sigap, requiring written approval and threatening criminal charges for unauthorized use, further complicating data gathering.
Environmental campaigners and legal experts say requirements for companies to voluntarily disclose their fire histories, ownership structures, and responses to hot spots are insufficient. Without such transparency, it is challenging to trace the origin of fires or determine whether producers are taking adequate measures to curb reoccurrence and restore vulnerable peatlands.
Singapore’s Senior Minister K. Shanmugam acknowledged the challenges in attributing blame and indicated that the Republic is considering strengthening its legal framework. Measures under consideration include targeting companies’ financial incentives, such as access to funding, government grants, and investor relations, as well as potentially revising existing laws or introducing new ones to compel greater cooperation.
Currently, the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act allows the National Environment Agency (NEA) to issue preventive measures—such as requesting firms to halt burning activities and submit fire mitigation plans—but these do not carry direct penalties if ignored. Since 2015, only a handful of cases have progressed, with some still under investigation. Legal analysts note that issuing notices alone does not establish culpability, and enforcement is hindered by the cross-border nature of the crisis and the opacity surrounding land ownership.
To improve enforcement, experts suggest Singapore should require all companies with operations or listings linked to the country to disclose detailed information on their plantation areas, supply chains, and subsidiaries. This proactive approach could equip regulators with reliable data before haze events escalate, rather than relying on overseas authorities during a crisis. Additionally, firms with ties to Singapore operating in fire-prone regions could face mandatory fire-prevention obligations, including peatland restoration efforts known to deliver ecological and social benefits.
Some observers also question whether the current maximum penalty of S$2 million is sufficiently deterrent, especially for large conglomerates. For example, Asia Pulp & Paper (APP), which has been linked to repeat offenders, reported an operating profit of US$1.65 billion in 2025, underscoring concerns that fines may not impose significant financial consequences for such companies.
As Southeast Asia continues to grapple with haze-induced pollution, policymakers and stakeholders appear focused on refining legal tools and closing information gaps to better hold firms accountable and mitigate future crises.