Too Complex to Control? How Firms Navigate Scope 3 Governance Under Institutional Uncertainty
複雑すぎて制御不能？企業は制度的不確実性の下でどのようにスコープ3ガバナンスを進めるか (AI 翻訳)
Victoria Fohrer, Alexander Stierstorfer, Florian Gilljam
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、ドイツのスコープ3排出量が特に多い企業への30件のインタビューと10件の専門家インタビューに基づき、制度的不確実性（CSRD改訂、GHGプロトコル、SBTi基準の変更）の中で企業がスコープ3をどのように運用しているかを分析する。企業は単一のガバナンス手法に収斂せず、組織能力によって3つのアーキタイプ（待機・反応、改善、探求）に分かれる。報告・監査・目標設定に資源を費やす一方で、脱炭素効果は不確実であり、スコープ3は精密な管理指標ではなく、バリューチェーン上の排出ホットスポット特定と協調のための「ステアリングツール」と位置づけられる。
English
Based on 30 interviews with German Scope 3-intensive firms and 10 expert interviews, this paper analyzes how firms operationalize Scope 3 under institutional uncertainty (revisions of CSRD, GHG Protocol, SBTi standards). Firms do not converge on a uniform approach; organizational capabilities lead to three archetypes: Wait & React, Improve, and Explore. A key tension persists: expanding reporting and target-setting consume resources while decarbonization impact remains uncertain. The paper frames Scope 3 as a value-chain steering tool rather than a precise control metric.
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
日本の企業でもスコープ3開示がSSBJや有報で義務化されつつあり、本論文の知見は直接的な示唆を与える。特に、制度的不確実性下での企業の対応アーキタイプは、日本企業の実務設計や政策立案に参考となる。
In the global GX context
This paper offers vital insights for global disclosure scholarship by empirically showing how firms cope with overlapping regulatory and methodological uncertainties in Scope 3 governance. It challenges the assumption that more reporting leads to more decarbonization, highlighting the risk of resource diversion. For jurisdictions like the EU, US, and Japan adopting ISSB/TCFD frameworks, the archetypes provide a lens to anticipate firm behavior.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:The paper provides a nuanced qualitative typology of firm responses to institutional uncertainty in Scope 3, advancing governance theory in decarbonization.
🏢実務担当者:Sustainability managers can benchmark their own approach against the three archetypes and use the steering tool framing to focus limited resources on high-impact emission hotspots.
🏛政策担当者:Regulators and standard-setters should note the risk of reporting burden without guaranteed climate impact, and consider supporting capability-building measures for firms.
📄 Abstract（原文）
As Scope 3 emissions make up the largest share of many firms' carbon footprints, firms face growing pressure to manage emissions beyond their direct control. Ongoing revisions of the CSRD, the GHG Protocol, and the SBTi Net‐Zero Standard further increase regulatory and methodological uncertainty. Drawing on 30 interviews with German Scope 3–intensive firms and 10 expert interviews, we examine how firms operationalize Scope 3 emissions and what explains the heterogeneity in their governance approaches under comparable institutional uncertainty. Firms do not converge on a single governance approach. Instead, organizational capabilities mediate how institutional uncertainty is interpreted, giving rise to three distinct response archetypes: Wait & React, Improve, and Explore. The archetypes differ in capability maturity and governance integration. Across archetypes, a key tension persists: expanding reporting, auditing, and target‐setting absorb resources, whereas decarbonization impacts remain uncertain. We therefore frame Scope 3 less as a precise control metric and more as a value‐chain steering tool that helps firms to identify emission hotspots and coordinate across their supply chains.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70959first seen 2026-05-15 16:59:08
🔔 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。