The politicization of ESG investing shows why ESG metrics cannot be depoliticized
ESG投資の政治化は、ESG指標を非政治化できない理由を示している (AI 翻訳)
Sibo Chen
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、ESG投資をめぐる政治的反発が単なる用語論争ではなく、気候や社会危機を財務指標で統治することの限界を露呈していると論じる。ESG指標は政治的な選択であり、非政治化は不可能だと主張し、より限定された利用と強力な開示・グリーンウォッシング対策を提唱する。
English
This paper argues that the political backlash against ESG investing reflects a deeper conflict over governing climate and social crises through financial metrics. It contends that ESG metrics cannot be depoliticized because metrics themselves are political choices, and calls for narrower uses, clearer distinctions from impact investing, and stronger disclosure and anti-greenwashing rules.
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ESG投資が定着しつつあるが、本論文の批判的視点は、SSBJ開示基準や有報でのESG情報の取り扱いを検討する上で示唆に富む。特に、ESG指標の政治性を認識し、開示の実効性とアカウンタビリティを高める議論に貢献する。
In the global GX context
In the global context, this paper speaks directly to the politicization of ESG in the US and EU, where anti-ESG campaigns challenge climate disclosure mandates. It offers a nuanced critique that informs debates on TCFD/ISSB standards, transition finance, and the need for stronger governance around sustainability metrics.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a critical political economy perspective on the limits of ESG as a governance tool.
🏢実務担当者:Offers insights into the political risks of ESG marketing and the importance of clear impact distinctions.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights the need for robust disclosure rules and public accountability mechanisms to prevent greenwashing.
📄 Abstract（原文）
The growing political tension surrounding environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing is not simply a dispute over terminology. It reflects a deeper conflict over whether climate and social crises can be governed through financial metrics without confronting the political-economic structures that produce them. ESG was originally framed as the integration of financially material environmental, social, and governance issues into investment decisions; its tools may influence corporate behaviour through stewardship, disclosure pressure, risk pricing, or capital allocation, but such effects are contingent rather than intrinsic to ESG itself. It should therefore not be treated as equivalent to impact investing, where intentional and measurable social or environmental impact is part of the investment mandate. Yet in public discourse ESG is often marketed as if it could simultaneously protect returns, decarbonize the economy, and demonstrate corporate virtue. This slippage has made ESG vulnerable to attack from both the right and the left. On the right, anti-ESG campaigns fold climate politics into broader anti-"woke" narratives, fiduciary-duty claims, and reactionary defences of fossil-fueled social order. On the left, critics target ESG's vague criteria, weak evidence of real-world impact, and role in legitimizing greenwashing and investor power. Rather than calling for depoliticized ESG metrics, which is self-contradictory since metrics are themselves political choices, I argue for narrower and more contestable uses of ESG metrics: clearer distinctions between ESG integration and impact investing, stronger disclosure and anti-greenwashing rules, and more public accountability over how sustainability is measured and mobilized. For climate policy scholars, the ESG controversy demonstrates both the strategic value and the political limits of economic frames in climate communication.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-07711-0first seen 2026-06-07 04:38:47 · last seen 2026-06-16 04:39:46
🔔 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。