← 論文一覧に戻る

炭素クレジット：気候解決策かグリーンウォッシュの道具か？公共言説と市場動向の混合手法分析

<b>Carbon Credits: Climate Solution or Greenwashing Tool? A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Public Discourse and Market Trends</b><b></b> (原題)

Jolly Masih, Dinesh Yadav, Sanskriti Singh, Komal, Rachit Chawla, Ritik Kourav

Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability📚 査読済 / ジャーナル2026-08-17#AI×ESGOrigin: Global経営インパクト: 調達リスク対象セクター: cross_sector
DOI: 10.66635/29a1fc14
原典: https://doi.org/10.66635/29a1fc14

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

本研究は、炭素クレジットが気候変動対策として信頼できるか、それとも企業のグリーンウォッシュに過ぎないかを、機関の言説と一般の言説の乖離に着目して検証する。Quora、Reddit、X、Facebook、企業のサステナビリティ報告書などのデータを収集し、VADERによる感情分析、Google Trends、Talkwalker、EDAを用いて分析した。結果、2021年以降の関心の高まりと市場成長（2022年20億ドル、CAGR 34.6%）にもかかわらず、一般の言説は透明性と実効性に懐疑的であり、信頼ギャップが明らかになった。

English

This study examines whether carbon credits are credible climate solutions or greenwashing, focusing on the gap between institutional narratives and public discourse. Using mixed methods including VADER sentiment analysis, Google Trends, Talkwalker, and EDA on data from Quora, Reddit, X, Facebook, and corporate reports, it finds that despite rising interest post-2021 and market growth (USD 2.0B in 2022, CAGR 34.6%), public sentiment remains skeptical, highlighting a trust gap and need for stronger governance and verification.

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、カーボンクレジット市場（J-クレジット）の活用が進む中、本研究成果は信頼性確保の重要性を示唆する。SSBJ開示やGX経済移行債との整合性を考える上で、市場の透明性と検証の厳格化が日本企業の対応に示唆を与える。

In the global GX context

Globally, this study contributes to the debate on voluntary carbon market integrity, relevant to ISSB and CSRD disclosure requirements and the integrity principles for carbon credits. It provides empirical evidence of public skepticism that can inform policy and corporate communication strategies.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:Provides a mixed-methods framework for analyzing public discourse on carbon markets, useful for further research on market integrity and trust.

🏢実務担当者:Highlights the need for transparent communication and robust verification in carbon credit projects to maintain stakeholder trust.

🏛政策担当者:Emphasizes the trust gap and calls for stronger governance and verification standards in carbon markets, relevant for designing effective climate policy.

📄 Abstract（原文）

This study investigates whether carbon credits are perceived as a credible climate mitigation mechanism or merely a form of corporate greenwashing by examining the gap between institutional narratives and public discourse. Introduced under the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, carbon credits were designed as a market-based instrument to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and support organizations in achieving net-zero targets. Governments, corporations, and international organizations have consistently promoted carbon credits as an effective pathway towards decarbonization and sustainable development. However, recent investigations have raised concerns regarding the environmental integrity and effectiveness of voluntary carbon markets. Reports evaluating projects certified by major registries, particularly Verra, suggest that a substantial proportion of carbon credits failed to deliver the emission reductions claimed. Independent assessments further indicate that only a limited share of certified projects generated measurable and additional climate benefits. This growing discrepancy between institutional claims and empirical evidence has contributed to increasing public skepticism, with carbon credit frequently being criticized as instruments of greenwashing rather than genuine climate solutions. This study adopts mixed-methods research design by integrating qualitative and quantitative analytical techniques. Data were collected from multiple digital platforms, including Quora, Reddit, X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, corporate sustainability reports, and published research articles. Public attention and online engagement were examined using Google Trends data from 2015 to 2024 and Talkwalker social listening analytics. Sentiment analysis was conducted using the Valence Aware Dictionary and Sentiment Reasoner (VADER), which classified public opinions into positive, neutral, and negative categories. A word cloud was developed to identify the dominant themes discussed in relation to carbon credits. In addition, Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) was employed to examine relationships among issued, retired, and outstanding carbon credits, while market size projections were analysed to evaluate financial trends within the voluntary carbon market. The findings reveal a significant increase in public interest in carbon credit after 2021, primarily driven by COP26 commitments, corporate net-zero pledges, and growing climate policy discussions. Google Trends data indicate a marked increase in search activity during 2023 and 2024, corresponding with regulatory developments and greater emphasis on nature-based carbon removal initiatives. Market analysis further demonstrates that the voluntary carbon market, valued at approximately USD 2.0 billion in 2022, is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 34.6% through 2030. Renewable energy projects constitute the largest market segment, followed by afforestation, reforestation, and energy-efficiency initiatives. Despite this rapid market expansion, sentiment analysis indicates that public discourse remains largely skeptical, with concerns centered on transparency, accountability, and the actual environmental effectiveness of carbon credit projects. The study highlights a substantial trust gap between governments, corporations, and the public, emphasizing the need for stronger governance, rigorous verification standards, and transparent communication to improve the credibility and effectiveness of carbon markets in supporting global climate mitigation objectives.

🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース

🔔 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。