Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA) secured the Platinum Award for Asia’s Best Stakeholder Reporting at the 11th Asia Sustainability Reporting Awards (ASRA), the highest honour in its category. In this exclusive interview, Pradit Fuangfoo, Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO), reflects on what he calls “much more than an award — a profound external validation of our strategic shift and the rigour we have embedded into our governance.” He shares how PEA transformed sustainability reporting from a regulatory exercise into a core strategic function, underpinned by Double Materiality, external assurance, financial-grade data systems, and a commitment to delivering measurable national impact.
Congratulations on winning at the 11th Asia Sustainability Reporting Awards. What does this recognition mean for your sustainability team and your organisation?
Thank you. This recognition is much more than an award; it is a profound external validation of our strategic shift and the rigour we have embedded into our governance. As a state enterprise, this award secures our most important asset: trust. It validates that our approach to sustainability—moving it from a regulatory practice to a core strategic function—is benchmarked against the best in Asia. Ultimately, the award confirms the team’s relentless effort to establish transparent and robust reporting processes, which is essential for maintaining our relationship with stakeholders and the public to lead the national energy agenda.
Sustainability reporting has evolved rapidly. How has your reporting approach matured over the past few years, and what were the biggest lessons from this journey?
Our reporting approach has been elevated dramatically over the last few years, moving from simply documenting operational results or stakeholder feedback to a systemic, holistic approach that integrates sustainability from our core strategy through to our outcomes. The biggest step was adopting the Double Materiality process, which has upraised the report from a simple communication tool to a powerful governance document; because, it now serves as a key input for our strategic decision-making, directly linking our climate goals, like the Carbon Neutrality mandate, to our operational and financial planning.
The biggest lesson from this journey is realising that the true value of reporting lies not in the final document, but in the internal process and data infrastructure used to produce it. We learned that to achieve genuine credibility, we must track the entire cycle systematically: from integrating our material issues into strategy, through monitoring Initiative Output, and most importantly, demonstrating the Outcome and Shared Value created for society. To solidify this determination and transparency, our disclosures are now published as an interconnected set of three reports: the PEA Stakeholder Engagement Report that discloses our process and outcome with stakeholders, the PEA Materiality Assessment Report sharing our work through Double Materiality, and the main PEA Sustainability Report aligned with the GRI Standard. This confirms that our sustainability data is managed with the same precision as our financial data.
The ASRA judges emphasise rigour, transparency, and impact. Which parts of your report do you feel best demonstrate these qualities?
We feel these three qualities—Rigour, Transparency, and Impact—are best demonstrated by the fundamental shift in our reporting from a compliance exercise to a powerful governance tool. Rigour is established by subjecting our entire report to the GRI Standards and the inclusion of External Assurance, confirming the integrity of the data that underpins our strategic mandates. Transparency is achieved through our detailed, interconnected reporting system of the three reports and the adoption of the Double Materiality process, which openly links climate risks and social impacts to our financial planning. Finally, Impact is proven by the outcomes detailed through each stakeholder group and project, which quantify how strategic investments, such as Micro Grid deployment, deliver measurable national benefits in terms of both environmental progress and Shared Value for the communities we serve.
Could you walk us through the process of materiality assessment — and how you are now integrating double materiality or value-chain impacts into your reporting?
Our approach to materiality assessment has fundamentally matured from a single-lens view to a rigorous Double Materiality process. We focus on two axes of assessment, integrating impacts across our entire value chain, following four key phases:
- Identification and Value-Chain Mapping: The process begins by establishing the organisational context and compiling a comprehensive List of Sustainability Topics. Crucially, we proactively assess the Impact Across the Value Chain —both upstream—such as suppliers and procurement—and downstream — through customers and community engagement—to ensure all potential positive and negative impacts related to our operations are considered.
- Double Materiality Assessment: This is the core of our advanced reporting. Instead of relying solely on stakeholder interest, we assess each topic against two important dimensions to prioritise our focus:
- Impact Materiality: We assess the significance of the organisation’s positive and negative impacts on the economy, environment, and people. This assessment utilises five criteria, including the level of impact, potential opportunities/risks, stakeholder importance, and scope, to evaluate each topic.
- Financial Materiality: We assess the significance of sustainability topics that could create or diminish our enterprise value. This ensures topics like climate-related risks are managed as a financial imperative.
- Integration and Strategic Outcome: The results of both assessments are plotted onto a Materiality Matrix to identify our most critical issues—those with Dual Impacts, meaning they are high on both Impact and Financial Materiality. These Material Topics then become the direct mandate for our strategy. The final report section, Approach for Materiality Topics, details exactly how these issues are translated into driver actionable targets.
- Validation & Endorsement: To ensure rigour and accountability, the entire materiality assessment process and the resulting Material Issues are presented to and reviewed by the Board of Directors and senior management. This Validation & Endorsement confirms the completeness and integrity of the findings, formally embedding them into the highest level of corporate strategy and securing the mandate for the necessary investments.
How do you ensure data accuracy and credibility across complex topics such as GHG emissions, supply-chain sustainability, and human rights?
We ensure data accuracy and credibility through a two-part, disciplined strategy Standardisation of internal processes and External Verification by independent third parties. To meet the standard, all necessary sustainability data is collected and reported based on globally recognised protocols, such as the GHG Protocol for our emissions data, which ensures consistent methodologies for boundaries and conversion factors across all operational units. Credibility is secured by the final step: by engaging an independent assurance provider to conduct a Limited Assurance Review of our most material data points, including GHG Emissions and key social metrics, in accordance with the GRI Standards. This verification confirms that our internal data controls are sound and that our reported figures are materially accurate and reliable, allowing us to manage sustainability as a rigorous governance function.
What new sustainability frameworks (for example, ISSB or TNFD) are you preparing to align with, and what challenges or opportunities do they bring?
We are planning to align with the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) framework primarily because the rigorous Double Materiality assessment process we currently employ is derived from its fundamental principles. The ESRS standard mandates the assessment of both financial materiality and impact materiality to determine which topics must be reported and requires detailed disclosure requirements for each topic. Since our current reporting already utilises a robust Double Materiality process, aligning with the ESRS allows us to validate and elevate the rigour of our existing methodology, securing our status as a globally credible state enterprise.
Reporting aside, which sustainability initiative or achievement from the past year are you personally most proud of?
The sustainability achievement I am personally most proud of this past year is the successful implementation and activation of the Phaluai Renewable Microgrid Project. This initiative represents the realisation of our strategy, as it directly translates our Smart Energy Solutions vision into a concrete outcome for a remote community. For decades, Phaluai suffered from unreliable, expensive power delivered by a vulnerable long-distance cable. We transformed expectation to reality by deploying a Hybrid Microgrid solution, utilising Solar PV and Battery Energy Storage Systems. The deployment successfully moved the island community to near-total energy independence, drastically improving service quality and enhancing climate resilience for all residents and critical infrastructure like local schools and clinics. This achievement proves that our internal culture of Collaboration between our Engineering, Operations, and Stakeholder teams is effective in delivering high-impact benefits to the community.
How do you engage internal teams and business units in the sustainability agenda so that reporting reflects genuine performance, not just compliance?
We ensure sustainability is a core job function, not an add-on task. Sustainability targets are integrated through initiatives that directly align with the material topics derived from our Double Materiality Assessment. The organisation’s core strategy embeds sustainability into the masterplan and Key Performance Indicators KPIs of all departmental leaders across the entire organisation, not just the C-suite. For instance, the Engineering Department is held accountable for Grid Modernisation progress, while Human Capital Management is responsible for Human Rights Due Diligence and Human Capital Development. This ensures genuine ownership and performance delivery from each function and department. Furthermore, we enforce mandatory training on the importance of sustainability and stakeholder engagement for all 30,000+ employees. This ensures that every employee understands how their daily actions—from data input to operational decisions—contribute directly to our organisational sustainability targets.
Many companies are still struggling to link sustainability KPIs with business results. How has your organisation made that connection visible in its strategy and disclosures?
The connection between our sustainability KPIs and business results is made visible by using the rigorous Double Materiality assessment, which is aligned with the principles of the ESRS framework, to directly drive our financial and operational strategy. This process mandates that sustainability topics are treated as determinants of enterprise value, not just compliance issues. By requiring us to quantify how every material topic affects our financial health, the assessment directly justifies core business initiatives. For instance, the KPI for Grid Modernisation—a sustainability mandate for resilience—is quantified as a necessary business result to prevent operational failures and secure revenue stability. Furthermore, the ESRS and GRI standards provide detailed disclosure requirements, which, in turn, dictates which action in the organisation actually provides that data, ensuring our sustainability reporting becomes an integrated management tool. This complete integration ensures that sustainability KPIs are inseparable from our core business results.
Finally, what advice would you give to other sustainability professionals aspiring to reach ASRA-winning standards in their reports?
The advice would be to driving great value from sustainability reporting is to make a deep commitment to the refinement and quality of the internal process. The quality of the report depends entirely on the rigour of the underlying process, and your primary objective must be to build a mechanism that accurately diagnoses where improvements are needed in your value chain. This requires mandating financial-grade rigour for all data, which forces internal discipline, and leveraging the Double Materiality assessment as a strategic diagnostic tool. This mechanism then shows precisely where in your chain you can make the most high-impact improvements, allowing the true value of sustainability reporting to shine as a driver of strategic and financial benefit, moving the entire organisation far beyond mere regulatory practice.
