Same Firms, Different Verdicts: ESG Rating Choice and the Measurement of Greenwashing
同じ企業、異なる評価: ESG格付けの選択とグリーンウォッシングの測定 (AI 翻訳)
Praveen Kumar Ashok Kumar, Rafał Sieradzki
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、企業の環境開示（トーク）と実際の排出実績（ウォーク）の乖離を「開示-パフォーマンス・ギャップ」として測定し、グリーンウォッシングの実態を解明。欧州大手200社を分析し、旗艦指数への組み入れがギャップを拡大する一方、再生可能エネルギー利用や環境投資がギャップを縮小することを発見。選択するESG格付けによって検出されるグリーンウォッシングが異なることを示した。
English
This paper measures the Disclosure-Performance Gap (DPG) to quantify greenwashing at the firm level. Analyzing 200 large European firms, it finds that flagship index membership widens the gap, while renewable energy use and environmental capex narrow it. The study shows that detected greenwashing is conditional on the choice of ESG rating provider.
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基準が2025年から適用開始予定であり、開示と実績の乖離（グリーンウォッシング）が注目されている。本論文の手法は日本の企業・規制当局に参考となる。
In the global GX context
As global regulatory frameworks like CSRD and ISSB tighten, greenwashing detection becomes critical. This study provides a replicable methodology for measuring disclosure-performance gaps and highlights the influence of ESG rating choice.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a robust methodology for measuring greenwashing at the firm level and tests the Aggregate Confusion hypothesis.
🏢実務担当者:Highlights how ESG rating choice can affect perceived greenwashing, informing disclosure strategy.
🏛政策担当者:Demonstrates the need for standardized disclosure metrics and caution with rating-based enforcement.
📄 Abstract（原文）
This paper investigates the Aggregate Confusion hypothesis (Berg, Kolbel, and Rigobon, 2022) at the firm level by measuring the Disclosure-Performance Gap (DPG), the standardised divergence between a firm's voluntary environmental disclosure ("Talk") and its realised emissions performance ("Walk"). The sample comprises 200 large European firms 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 model is selected through a six-stage process, candidate assembly, correlation screening, VIF based multicollinearity filtering, stepwise forward search under the corrected Akaike Information Criterion, Cook's distance screening, and HC3 re-estimation across 421 candidate specifications, estimated by ordinary least squares with HC3 robust standard errors on the full sample. Flagship index membership is the strongest predictor of a wider gap ($β$ = +0.78, p < 0.01), consistent with institutional ceremonial conformity. TCFD endorsement is also positive ($β$ = +0.86, p < 0.05) but identified off a small group of non-supporting firms, so it is read as directional, not a precise magnitude. Renewable energy use ($β$ = -0.31, p < 0.01) and environmental capital expenditure ($β$ = -0.22, p < 0.05) significantly narrow the gap, consistent with signalling theory, while governance and monitoring variables carry no explanatory power. Results are robust to influence trimming, rank-based recoding of the disclosure score, and removal of the TCFD variable. Replacing the CDP Climate Score with the LSEG Environmental Pillar Score eliminates the index-membership effect while the renewable-energy effect survives, showing that detected greenwashing is conditional on the rating lens applied.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.31469first seen 2026-07-01 04:11:52
🔔 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。