OVERSTATED OR UNDERSTATED? EXPLORING THE PARADOX OF GREENWASHING, GREENHUSHING, AND GREENWISHING IN CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING
過大評価か過小評価か？企業のサステナビリティ報告におけるグリーンウォッシング、グリーンハッシング、グリーンウィッシングのパラドックスを探る (AI 翻訳)
Zuhairah Abdul Hadi, Wan Sallha Yusoff, Juraini Zainol Abidin
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、企業のサステナビリティ報告におけるグリーンウォッシング（誇大表示）、グリーンハッシング（過小表示）、グリーンウィッシング（過度に楽観的表示）の3つの現象を体系的にレビュー。PRISMAフレームワークに基づき24件の研究を分析し、ガバナンス、市場・ステークホルダー、測定手法の3つのクラスターを特定。開示の信頼性には、制度的インセンティブやステークホルダー圧力、評価システムの制約が影響することを示す。
English
This systematic literature review examines greenwashing, greenhushing, and greenwishing in corporate sustainability reporting. Using PRISMA, it analyzes 24 studies and identifies three clusters: governance/institutions, markets/stakeholders, and measurement/methods. The findings show that disclosure authenticity is shaped by institutional incentives, stakeholder pressures, and assessment system constraints.
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基準の導入や有報でのサステナビリティ開示義務化が進む中、グリーンウォッシング防止と開示の質確保が重要課題。本レビューは、日本企業が開示と実績の乖離をどう管理すべきか示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
Globally, regulators (SEC, EU CSRD) are tightening anti-greenwashing rules. This review provides a comprehensive taxonomy of disclosure discrepancies, helping stakeholders understand drivers and mechanisms of misleading sustainability claims.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Researchers can use the three-cluster framework to guide future empirical studies on greenwashing drivers and mitigation.
🏢実務担当者:Corporate sustainability teams can identify common pitfalls in disclosure and improve authenticity by addressing institutional and stakeholder pressures.
🏛政策担当者:Policymakers gain insights into regulatory monitoring and assurance mechanisms to enhance disclosure credibility.
📄 Abstract（原文）
The increasing demand for sustainability communication has led in the emergence of practices of greenwashing, greenhushing, and greenwishing, which collectively represent the spectrum of paradoxes in corporate sustainability reporting. This systematic literature review analyzes how organizations create discrepancies between sustainability disclosure and actual performance through the exaggeration, concealment, or overly optimistic portrayals of sustainability initiatives. This study examines these phenomena by analyzing institutional, market, and methodological factors that influence corporate accountability. A systematic literature review following the PRISMA framework was conducted using the Scopus and Web of Science databases. As a result, 24 studies that satisfy the inclusion criteria were selected. The results of the thematic synthesis revealed three main research clusters: (1) Governance, Institutions and Ecosystem Drivers, i.e., how board composition, political connections and regulatory frameworks influence disclosure; (2) Markets and Stakeholders, i.e. how investors, consumers and partners respond to credibility gaps, and (3) Measurement, Methods and Paradoxes, which highlight methodological approaches in Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) assessments, assurance mechanisms and certification systems that influence sustainability disclosure issues. Evidence suggests that sustainability reporting is influenced not only by business intentions but also by institutional incentives, stakeholder pressures, and the constraints inherent in current assessment systems. The findings from this study not only enhance theoretical and practical understanding of disclosure authenticity but also suggest a relationship between mechanisms such as credibility, regulatory monitoring, and interdisciplinary evaluation approaches with corporate communications.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.35631/aijbes.827042first seen 2026-05-15 18:16:09
🔔 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。