企業サステナビリティ報告における文化とコミュニケーション：GoldwindとVestasの比較談話分析
Culture and Communication in Corporate Sustainability Reporting: A Comparative Discourse Analysis of Goldwind and Vestas (原題)
Huan Cai, Jiayi Xu
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
風力発電機メーカー2社（中国GoldwindとデンマークVestas）の2024年サステナビリティ開示を談話分析で比較した質的事例研究。気候行動・サプライチェーン労働・労働安全の3テーマで、価値整合・証拠の具体性・手続き的説明責任という3つの信頼性資源が共存することを示す。両社の違いは国民文化だけでは説明できず、報告形式や規制義務、企業事情が影響すると論じる。
English
A qualitative comparative case study analyzing the 2024 sustainability disclosures of wind-turbine makers Goldwind (China) and Vestas (Denmark). Across climate action, supply-chain labor and occupational safety, it identifies three coexisting credibility resources: value alignment, evidential specification and procedural accountability. The authors argue these configurations cannot be attributed to national culture alone—reporting format, regulation and corporate context matter—and offer a bounded framework for comparative sustainability discourse.
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
SSBJ基準や有報でのサステナビリティ開示が進む日本企業にとって、『信頼性ある開示とは何か』を談話レベルで捉える視点は統合報告書の質的改善に有用。特にサプライチェーン労働・労働安全の記述はScope 3や人権DD対応の実務示唆を含む。
In the global GX context
Speaks directly to ISSB/CSRD-era debates on what makes sustainability claims credible across jurisdictions, showing that evidential specification and procedural accountability—not just narrative framing—drive credibility for global audiences. Useful for disclosure scholars comparing Asian vs European reporting styles.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:比較サステナビリティ談話の分析枠組み（価値整合・証拠・説明責任）を提供し、文化決定論を退ける実証的視点を与える。
🏢実務担当者:海外投資家向けに開示の信頼性を高めるには、数値証拠と苦情・説明責任手続きの明示が鍵になると示唆する。
🏛政策担当者:開示制度設計において、様式・規制義務が企業の記述内容に与える影響を考慮すべきことを示す。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Abstract This article investigates how two wind-energy manufacturers, Goldwind and Vestas, construct the credibility of sustainability claims for geographically dispersed audiences. Rather than treating Chinese and Danish reporting as predetermined instances of high- and low-context cultures, the study adopts a qualitative comparative case-study design and close discourse analysis of their publicly released 2024 disclosures. Three parallel topics—climate action, supply-chain labor and occupational safety—organize an evidence-led reading of policy references, numerical claims, assigned responsibilities, acknowledgement of adverse outcomes and mechanisms of accountability. The analysis identifies three coexisting credibility resources: value alignment, evidential specification and procedural accountability. Goldwind combines collective-purpose language with metrics, supplier monitoring and explicit workplace-safety targets; Vestas embeds quantified performance and grievance procedures within a wider narrative of learning, partnership and safety culture. Critically, these configurations cannot be attributed to national culture alone: reporting format, regulatory obligations, genre and corporate circumstances provide alternative explanations. The paper contributes a bounded framework for comparative corporate sustainability discourse and argues that credible international communication depends on how narrative orientation, measurable evidence and organizational accountability are articulated together.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://jhkpress.com/index.php/cabti/article/view/168first seen 2026-11-08 05:10:18 · last seen 2026-11-13 05:22:07
🔔 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。