← 論文一覧に戻る

ブルガリアとモルドバにおけるLCSAおよび環境安全保障リスク分析のためのESG開示の実用性診断

Diagnosing ESG Disclosure Usability for LCSA and Environmental Security Risk Analysis in Bulgaria and Moldova (原題)

Radosveta Krasteva-Hristova, Luminița Diaconu

World📚 査読済 / ジャーナル2026-08-21#ESGOrigin: EU経営インパクト: 調達リスク対象セクター: cross_sector
DOI: 10.3390/world7080141
原典: https://doi.org/10.3390/world7080141

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

本研究は、ブルガリアとモルドバの36組織のESG開示を、15指標のデータギャップマトリクスを用いて評価した。開示品質を「可用性」「粒度」「監査可能性」の3次元で分離し、監査可能性が最も弱いことを発見。Scope 3排出量が最も弱い指標であり、開示の実用性向上の必要性を示す。

English

This study evaluates ESG disclosures of 36 organizations in Bulgaria and Moldova using a Data Gap Matrix covering 15 indicators. It separates disclosure quality into availability, granularity, and auditability, finding auditability weakest. Scope 3 emissions are the weakest indicator, highlighting the need for more usable disclosures.

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開示が始まる中、開示の質（監査可能性や粒度）の重要性が増している。本研究成果は、日本の企業が開示の実用性を高めるための参考となる。

In the global GX context

As ISSB and CSRD frameworks emphasize decision-useful information, this study's focus on auditability and granularity aligns with global disclosure quality demands. It offers a diagnostic tool applicable to emerging markets and beyond.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:Provides a framework for assessing ESG disclosure quality beyond mere presence, useful for comparative studies.

🏢実務担当者:Highlights the need to improve auditability and Scope 3 reporting to meet stakeholder expectations.

🏛政策担当者:Suggests that regulators should focus on enhancing disclosure quality, not just quantity.

📄 Abstract（原文）

Reliable sustainability analysis requires more than the presence of ESG disclosure; it requires information that is specific, traceable and analytically usable. This exploratory study assesses a purposive corpus of 36 organisations in Bulgaria and Moldova (18 per country) using a Data Gap Matrix covering 15 ESG indicators. The revised framework explicitly separates three observed disclosure-quality dimensions—availability, granularity and auditability—from two framework-assigned analytical overlays—LCSA relevance and environmental-risk relevance. Environmental security is retained only as a framework-based interpretive lens for the environmental-risk overlay and is not treated as an observed outcome. The matrix generated 540 organisation–indicator coding units. Medians, interquartile ranges and score frequencies are the primary descriptive summaries; country and sector tests are retained only as secondary, sample-specific checks and are restricted to the three observed dimensions. Auditability is the principal weakness (median = 1.00), with only 7 of 540 coding units receiving the maximum score, while Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions constitute the weakest observed indicator. No Holm-adjusted country or sector difference is established for the observed disclosure-quality dimensions, consistent with limited statistical power. The findings diagnose limited disaggregation, source traceability and assurance readiness, but do not measure organisational ESG performance, conduct an LCSA, or establish environmental-security outcomes. Interpretation is constrained by purposive sampling, heterogeneous report types, common-indicator applicability and the absence of independent double coding.

🔗 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。