報告されたScope 3カテゴリ7排出量が比較困難な理由：カウンティングとアカウンティングの構造的分離
<p>Why Reported Scope 3 Category 7 Emissions are Difficult to Compare: Structural Separation between Counting and Accounting</p> (原題)
Hiroyuki Yamada, Ken Hidaka
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本研究は、Scope 3カテゴリ7（従業員通勤）排出量の比較可能性問題を、カウンティングとアカウンティングの構造的分離という概念枠組みで説明する。7カ国35社の公開情報を分析し、比較に必要な前提条件（システム境界、計算方法、データソース、排出係数）の識別可能性にばらつきがあることを示した。形式的には比較可能に見えても、実質的な比較可能性が限られることを指摘し、前提条件の開示の重要性を強調する。
English
This study explains comparability challenges in Scope 3 Category 7 (employee commuting) emissions through a conceptual framework distinguishing counting from accounting. Analyzing public disclosures from 35 firms across seven economies, it shows that key assumptions (system boundaries, calculation methods, data sources, emission factors) vary in identifiability. Reported figures may appear formally comparable but offer limited meaningful comparability, highlighting the need to disclose underlying assumptions.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本ではSSBJ開示基準の適用が迫る中、Scope 3の実務的な比較可能性は投資家対応の重要論点。本論文はカテゴリ7の開示実務に具体的な示唆を与え、有報や統合報告書での前提条件開示の充実に貢献する。
In the global GX context
Globally, as ISSB and CSRD mandate Scope 3 disclosure, comparability is a key concern for investors and regulators. This paper provides a conceptual lens to understand why reported figures may not be comparable, informing disclosure standards and best practices.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a novel conceptual framework (counting vs. accounting) to analyze Scope 3 comparability, useful for further empirical and theoretical work.
🏢実務担当者:Highlights the need to disclose assumptions in Scope 3 Category 7 reporting to enhance credibility and comparability for stakeholders.
🏛政策担当者:Suggests that disclosure standards should require explicit reporting of assumptions to improve comparability across firms.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions are increasingly central to corporate decarbonization, yet interorganizational comparability remains limited. Among the fifteen Scope 3 categories, employee commuting (Category 7) provides an illustrative case: emissions arise from diverse individual mobility behaviors but are aggregated and disclosed as a single organizational figure. However, it remains unclear why reported Category 7 emissions may still be difficult to compare meaningfully across organizations.&nbsp;<span>To address this gap, this study develops and applies a conceptual framework that distinguishes between counting and accounting in carbon emissions. The framework is informed by prior research and applied through a structured disclosure analysis of publicly available corporate documents from 35 large firms across seven major economies, supplemented by a group-level analysis of 17 firms. The analysis focuses on whether key underlying assumptions relevant to comparisons-such as system boundaries, calculation methods, data sources, and emission factor references-can be identified from public disclosure.&nbsp;</span><span>The study shows that comparability challenges go beyond data limitations or inconsistent reporting. Rather, they are linked to structural separation between counting and accounting. This separation appears in corporate disclosure as variation in assumptions and their identifiability. As a result, reported figures may appear formally comparable while still offering limited meaningful comparability. By framing Category 7 emissions at the interface between counting and accounting, this study provides a conceptual explanation of persistent comparability challenges and highlights the need to disclose the assumptions required to interpret reported differences across firms.</span>
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openaire https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6835739first seen 2026-09-01 04:47:22 · last seen 2026-09-21 04:25:31
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。