Sustainability Ratings: Theory and Institutional Development
サステナビリティ格付け：理論と制度的発展 (AI 翻訳)
I. Guzov, Zhuldyz R. Babaeva
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
サステナビリティ格付けの理論的・制度的発展を検討。規制圧力の高まりの中で、格付け手法の多様性や比較可能性の欠如が課題であることを示し、透明性・比較可能性・検証可能性を備えた規制モデルへの移行を提言。日本市場においても、格付けの質向上と規制枠組み構築に示唆を与える。
English
This paper examines the theoretical and institutional development of sustainability ratings amid growing regulatory pressure on non-financial reporting. It identifies methodological fragmentation due to diverse criteria, scoring scales, and lack of unified reliability standards, positioning ratings as mechanisms to reduce information asymmetry. The study argues for a regulatory model ensuring transparency, comparability, and verifiability, providing a foundation for national rating market regulation.
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基準や有価証券報告書での非財務情報開示が進む中、本論文はサステナビリティ格付けの制度的課題を整理し、国内の格付け市場規制の設計に示唆を与える。投資家・企業双方にとって格付けの信頼性向上は重要な課題であり、その基礎理論を提供する。
In the global GX context
Globally, the proliferation of ESG ratings under TCFD, ISSB, and CSRD frameworks has raised concerns about comparability and reliability. This paper contributes to the ongoing debate by systematically analyzing the theoretical underpinnings and institutional evolution of sustainability ratings, offering insights for regulators aiming to standardize rating methodologies.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:This paper provides a theoretical foundation for understanding the fragmentation in sustainability rating methodologies and the need for regulatory harmonization.
🏢実務担当者:Sustainability and disclosure teams can use the findings to better interpret rating differences and prepare for potential regulatory changes in rating standards.
🏛政策担当者:Regulators should note the call for a transparent, comparable, and verifiable regulatory model for sustainability ratings to enhance market integrity.
📄 Abstract（原文）
The article examines the theoretical and institutional aspects of development of sustainability ratings under the growing regulatory pressure on non-financial reporting. The object of the study is the international and national approaches to the development of the rating methodologies, while the tasks include systematising the theoretical foundations of rating agencies’ approaches and identifying the key directions of their institutional evolution. As a result, the study reveals factors underlying the methodological fragmentation of the sustainability rating market, including the diversity of criteria, differences in scoring scales, and the absence of unified reliability standards. The (authors of the) research demonstrated that the given sustainability ratings function as a mechanism for reducing information asymmetry and serve as signals of companies’ non-financial risks; however, their interpretation is complicated due to the lack of methodological comparability. The study substantiates the need to transition to a regulatory model that ensures transparency, comparability, and verifiability of the ratings. The practical implication of the study lies in establishing a foundation for the development of a national regulatory system for the sustainability rating market and for improving the quality of non-financial information for stakeholders. The study may be of interest for national regulators, professional communities, as well as for investors and financial market participants.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://accounting.fa.ru/jour/article/download/778/612first seen 2026-07-18 08:30:18
🔔 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。