誰が保証する資格を持つのか：サステナビリティ保証における専門職・経営陣による捕捉
Who Qualifies to Assure? The Professional and Managerial Capture of Sustainability Assurance (原題)
Flavia Rodricks, Muhammad Al Mahameed, Umair Riaz
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、サステナビリティ・環境報告保証（SERA）における保証人の「資格」がなぜ激しく争われるのかを、アクターネットワーク理論とインドの規制当局・NGO・保証人・報告企業への質的調査から分析する。ISAE 3000（改訂）は能力を要求しつつ外部の免許・検証メカニズムを欠き、資格は境界オブジェクトとして曖昧なまま専門職・経営陣の評判的正当性が優先される。結果として保証が実質的説明責任ではなく象徴的営為に縮小しうると指摘し、透明で対話的かつ執行可能な能力証明の仕組みを求める。
English
This study examines how assuror qualification in sustainability and environmental reporting assurance (SERA) is constructed and why it remains contested, using actor–network theory and qualitative evidence from Indian regulators, NGOs, assurors and reporting firms. It finds that ISAE 3000 (Revised) demands competence yet lacks any external licensing or verification mechanism, letting professional and managerial actors privilege reputational legitimacy over demonstrated expertise. Qualification thus becomes a fragile boundary object, risking assurance as symbolic rather than substantive accountability, and the authors call for transparent, enforceable competence-demonstration mechanisms.
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基準の確定と保証制度の整備が進む中、保証人の資格・独立性・能力証明の設計は有報開示や投資家対応の信頼性を左右する論点であり、本論文は保証制度設計の実務的示唆を提供する。
In the global GX context
As ISSB/CSRD regimes move toward mandatory assurance, this paper directly informs the global debate on who is licensed to assure, how competence is verified, and how assurance integrity can counter greenwashing—key for standard setters and regulators.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:保証の資格・独立性をANTで捉え直す枠組みは、開示インフラ研究の理論的参照点になる。
🏢実務担当者:保証人選定や保証範囲の設計時に、能力証明と独立性の実質性を確認する視点を与える。
🏛政策担当者:保証人資格の外部検証・執行メカニズム導入の必要性を裏付ける根拠として活用できる。
📄 Abstract（原文）
ABSTRACT This study examines how the qualification of assurors in sustainability and environmental reporting assurance (SERA) is constructed and why it remains fiercely contested. Drawing on actor–network theory (ANT) and qualitative evidence from regulators, NGOs, assurors and reporting companies in India, we conceptualise ‘qualification’ as a ‘boundary object’ flexible enough for competing actors to invoke, yet too ambiguous to secure substantive credibility. Assurance standards do not license practitioners, a function ordinarily undertaken by regulators and professional bodies. Nevertheless, ISAE 3000 (Revised) requires the engagement partner to possess ‘sufficient competence in the underlying subject matter’ and requires practitioners who are not professional accountants to identify the equivalent professional requirements under which they operate. Our analysis examines what becomes of these competence requirements when no external mechanism consistently verifies the claims made. The findings reveal that assurance standards require competence but rely substantially on practitioners to identify and disclose the professional requirements governing their work, without themselves providing an external licensing or verification mechanism. This ambiguity enables professional and managerial actors to privilege reputational legitimacy over the transparent demonstration of expertise, potentially reducing assurance to a symbolic exercise rather than a mechanism of substantive accountability. The study contributes to the SERA literature by reframing qualification as a fragile, networked achievement rather than a fixed credential. It highlights the need for transparent, dialogic and enforceable mechanisms through which competence claims can be demonstrated, scrutinised and sustained, thereby safeguarding independence, rigorous materiality assessments and stakeholder trust. These findings offer theoretical and practical insights for standard setters and policy makers seeking to mitigate greenwashing and strengthen the integrity of sustainability assurance.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.71669first seen 2026-10-18 04:52:30
🔔 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。