This paper aims to investigate the relationship between board governance and sustainability disclosure in Singapore. Regression analysis is performed using cross-sectional data of Singapore-listed companies to examine the relationship between sustainability disclosure and various board governance factors, including board capacity, board independence, and board incentive. The findings show the presence of significant associations between board governance and sustainability disclosure. In terms of board capacity, companies with larger board sizes and a higher number of board meetings are more likely to practice sustainability reporting, and their reporting qualities are higher. For board independence, the percentage of independent directors positively impacts the firm's reporting probability and quality on sustainability in Singapore. For board incentives, the practice of long-term incentives for executive directors can significantly improve both the probability and quality of sustainability reporting. The study adds to the literature on corporate governance and sustainability disclosure. It provides empirical evidence and guidance for firms and policy-makers in Singapore and beyond on how sustainability disclosure can be improved through robust board governance.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve quality of end-of-life (EOL) care are increasingly focused on eliciting patients' EOL preference through advance care planning (ACP). However, if patients' EOL preference changes over time and their ACP documents are not updated, these documents may no longer be valid at the time EOL decisions are made. OBJECTIVES: To assess extent and correlates of changes in stated preference for aggressive EOL care over time. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of a formal ACP program versus usual care in Singapore. PATIENTS: Two hundred eighty-two patients with heart failure (HF) and New York Heart Association Classification III and IV symptoms were recruited and interviewed every 4 months for up to 2 years to assess their preference for EOL care. Analytic sample included 200 patients interviewed at least twice. RESULTS: Nearly two thirds (64%) of patients changed their preferred type of EOL care at least once. Proportion of patients changing their stated preference for type of EOL care increased with time and the change was not unidirectional. Patients who understood their prognosis correctly were less likely to change their preference from non-aggressive to aggressive EOL care (OR 0.66, p value 0.07) or to prefer aggressive EOL care (OR 0.53; p value 0.001). On the other hand, patient-surrogate discussion of care preference was associated with a higher likelihood of change in patient preference from aggressive to nonaggressive EOL care (OR 1.83; p value 0.03). CONCLUSION:The study provides evidence of instability in HF patients' stated EOL care preference. This undermines the value of an ACP document recorded months before EOL decisions are made unless a strategy exists for easily updating this preference.