同じ企業、異なる判定：ESG格付けの選択とグリーンウォッシュの測定

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a rigorous methodology for measuring greenwashing and demonstrates rating-dependent results, useful for further research on ESG rating divergence.

🏢実務担当者:Highlights that ESG ratings can yield different verdicts on the same firm, urging companies to understand how rating choices affect their perceived greenwashing risk.

🏛政策担当者:Suggests that regulatory efforts to standardize ESG ratings and disclosure metrics are critical to reduce ambiguity and enhance market trust.

This paper investigates the Aggregate Confusion hypothesis (Berg, Kölbel, and Rigobon, 2022) at the firm level by measuring the Disclosure-Performance Gap (DPG), defined as the standardised divergence between a firm's voluntary environmental disclosure ("Talk") and its realised emissions performance ("Walk"). The sample comprises 200 large European firms drawn from the Energy, Materials, Industrials, and Utilities sectors of the STOXX Europe 600 in fiscal year 2023, the final cross-section of the voluntary reporting era before the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. The estimated model is identified through a systematic six-stage model selection process, namely candidate assembly, Pearson correlation screening, multicollinearity filtering by Variance Inflation Factor, stepwise forward search across five variable pools under the corrected Akaike Information Criterion, Cook's distance influence screening, and HC3 re-estimation, which evaluates 421 candidate specifications. The selected model is estimated by ordinary least squares with HC3 robust standard errors on the full sample of 200 firms. The strongest predictor of a wider gap is flagship index membership (β = +0.78, p < 0.01), consistent with institutional ceremonial conformity; Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) endorsement is also positive (β = +0.86, p < 0.05) but is identified off a small group of non-supporting firms and is read as directional rather than as a precise magnitude. Two substantive commitments significantly narrow the gap, renewable energy use (β =-0.31, p < 0.01) and environmental capital expenditure (β =-0.22, p < 0.05), consistent with signalling theory. Governance and monitoring variables carry no explanatory power. The core findings are stable under influence trimming, under a rank-based recoding of the ordinal disclosure score, and when the TCFD variable is removed. Replacing the CDP Climate Score with the LSEG Environmental Pillar Score on the identical firms eliminates the index-membership effect while the renewable-energy effect survives, showing that detected greenwashing is conditional on the rating lens applied.

• openaire https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.7027618first seen 2026-09-01 05:03:35 · last seen 2026-09-21 04:34:00