サステナビリティ報告における信頼と信頼性
Trust and credibility in sustainability reporting (原題)
G. Ormazabal
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
サステナビリティ報告の信頼性は単一の仕組みや主体では担保できず、取締役会・資本提供者・ゲートキーパー・規制当局など多様な主体の協働によって初めて成立すると論じる。各主体の影響力は情報生成への近接性、影響範囲、仕組みの成熟度、監視インセンティブの4次元で異なり、これらが補完性と非対称性を説明する。情報が将来志向で企業外部にあり科学的に複雑なため、財務報告以上にこうした相互補強と調整が重要だと指摘する。
English
This paper argues that credibility in sustainability reporting cannot be secured by any single mechanism or actor but requires coordinated contributions from boards, capital providers, gatekeepers, and regulators. Their influence varies along four dimensions—proximity to information creation, scope of influence, mechanism maturity, and monitoring incentives—explaining complementarities and asymmetries. Because ESG information is forward-looking, external, and scientifically complex, such mutual reinforcement matters more than in financial reporting, with implications for governance and policy design.
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基準の確定や有報でのサステナビリティ開示義務化が進む日本では、保証制度や第三者検証の設計が喫緊の課題であり、多主体の補完関係を論じる本稿は制度設計の枠組みとして直接的に有用。
In the global GX context
As ISSB/CSRD and assurance regimes (e.g. ISSA 5000) expand globally, this paper offers a governance framework for how gatekeepers, regulators, and boards must reinforce each other to make ESG disclosure credible—directly relevant to ongoing assurance and enforcement debates.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:開示の信頼性を多主体ガバナンスの観点から捉える分析枠組みとして、実証研究の設計に活用できる。
🏢実務担当者:保証・第三者検証や取締役会監督の整備を、単一手段ではなく相互補強の観点で設計する指針になる。
🏛政策担当者:保証制度や規制監督の設計において、ゲートキーパーと規制当局の役割分担と調整の重要性を示す。
📄 Abstract（原文）
This paper examines the mechanisms that can generate trust and credibility in sustainability reporting. Building on insights from financial reporting and emerging ESG evidence, I argue that credibility in sustainability disclosure cannot be secured by a single mechanism or stakeholder; rather, it takes a village. Boards, capital providers, gatekeepers, regulators, and other stakeholders each contribute through different channels and at different stages of the reporting process. Their influence varies along four dimensions – proximity to information creation, scope of influence, maturity of mechanisms, and incentives to monitor ESG reporting – which together explain the complementarities and asymmetries among them. Because sustainability information is often forward-looking, external to the firm, and scientifically complex, these complementarities are especially important – probably more so than in financial reporting. The analysis highlights that credibility in ESG reporting depends not on the dominance of any single mechanism, but on the coordination and mutual reinforcement among them, a feature that has significant implications for governance and policy design.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6437162first seen 2026-10-23 05:56:51 · last seen 2026-11-06 05:25:16
🔔 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。