← 論文一覧に戻る

開示志向・行動志向基準による環境スコア信頼性の評価：CRISUS・MACONT・MARA統合分析

Evaluating environmental score reliability through disclosure- and action-oriented criteria: An integrated CRISUS, MACONT and MARA analysis (原題)

Koray Yapa, Deniz Sevinç, Aykut Yakar

Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi📚 査読済 / ジャーナル2026-10-21#ESG経営インパクト: 資金調達対象セクター: cross_sector
DOI: 10.33707/akuiibfd.1971900
原典: https://doi.org/10.33707/akuiibfd.1971900

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

トルコBISTサステナビリティ25指数構成企業の2023–24年LSEG環境スコアを、開示志向・行動志向の個別指標から構築した基準別ランキングと比較した研究。CRISUSで客観的重みを算出しMACONT・MARAで順位を生成、両者の整合性を検証した。行動志向指標（排出原単位変化・売上当たりエネルギー・廃棄物リサイクル）が最大の重みを持ち、複合スコアと基準別順位の乖離は企業・年ごとに変動する。報告された環境スコアは単独で読むべきでなく、その基礎となる運用指標と併せて評価すべきと結論づける。

English

This study compares reported LSEG environmental scores of BIST Sustainability 25 Index firms (2023–24) against criteria-based rankings built from disclosure- and action-oriented indicators. Using CRISUS for objective weights and MACONT/MARA for ranking, it finds action-oriented metrics (emission intensity change, energy per revenue, waste recycling) carry the largest weights. Consistency between composite scores and criteria-based rankings varies by firm and year, so reported scores should be read alongside their operational components.

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

SSBJ・有報での環境スコア開示が進む日本では、複合ESGスコアの妥当性を運用指標で検証する視点は投資家説明や統合報告書の質向上に有用。スコアを鵜呑みにせず構成要素を確認する実務的示唆を提供する。

In the global GX context

As ISSB/CSRD push toward granular, action-based environmental disclosure, this paper offers a methodology for testing whether composite ESG ratings track underlying operational performance—relevant to rating agencies, assurance providers, and disclosure scholars questioning score reliability.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:複合ESGスコアと基準別ランキングの乖離を多基準手法で検証する実証設計の参考になる。

🏢実務担当者:自社の環境スコアを運用指標と突き合わせ、開示の弱点を特定する際に活用できる。

🏛政策担当者:ESG格付・スコアの信頼性確保や開示規制の設計において、行動指標の重みを考慮する根拠となる。

📄 Abstract（原文）

Composite environmental scores combine diverse aspects of corporate policies, commitments, and performance, but the resulting rankings may fail to fully reflect firms’ positions across the underlying criteria. To address this limitation, we draw on 2023–2024 LSEG Data & Analytics metrics for constituents of the BIST Sustainability 25 Index, evaluating whether reported environmental score rankings align with criteria- based rankings built on selected disclosure- and action-oriented indicators. Utilizing reported environmental scores as a baseline, the empirical design applies the CRISUS method to compute objective criterion weights, followed by MACONT and MARA algorithms to generate firm rankings. Consistency between the benchmark and multi-criteria outcomes is assessed via normalized score proximity and absolute rank differences. Objective weighting assigns the largest weights to action-oriented metrics in both years, showing that operational indicators— specifically emission intensity change, energy use per revenue, and waste recycling—account for the sharpest cross-firm variation. Rather than revealing systematic divergence across the board, consistency between composite scores and criteria-based rankings fluctuates by firm and year. These findings demonstrate that reported environmental scores should not be read in isolation, but instead evaluated alongside their underlying operational components.

🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース

🔔 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。