Environmental Accountability or Symbolic Compliance? A Critical Review of ESG Ratings, Greenwashing, and Indirect Emissions in the Global Insurance Sector
環境アカウンタビリティか象徴的コンプライアンスか？グローバル保険セクターにおけるESG格付け、グリーンウォッシング、間接排出の批判的レビュー (AI 翻訳)
Kirill Patyrykin, Lyudmila Vasyukova
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、保険セクターにおけるESG格付けとグリーンウォッシングを批判的に検討。スコープ3排出（引受・投資活動）の報告ギャップを指摘し、ESG格付けが実質的な環境行動より開示・ガバナンスを重視する傾向を明らかにした。
English
This review critically examines ESG ratings and greenwashing in the global insurance sector, highlighting gaps in Scope 3 emissions reporting (underwriting and investment activities). It finds that ESG ratings often prioritize disclosure and governance over substantive environmental action, calling for stricter accountability measures.
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やJSDAが開示基準を策定中であり、保険業界のスコープ3算定やグリーンウォッシング対策が課題。本論文は、実質的な環境パフォーマンス評価の重要性を示唆する。
In the global GX context
Globally, with ISSB and CSRD pushing for enhanced Scope 3 disclosure, this paper provides critical insights into how ESG ratings may mask greenwashing in the insurance industry, urging regulators to demand more rigorous environmental accountability.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:A critical framework for evaluating ESG ratings and greenwashing in insurance, with focus on Scope 3 gaps.
🏢実務担当者:Guidance on improving Scope 3 reporting and avoiding symbolic compliance in sustainability disclosures.
🏛政策担当者:Evidence of rating shortcomings; supports stricter regulation of ESG ratings and mandatory Scope 3 reporting.
📄 Abstract（原文）
The increasing visibility of the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) models has altered the demands of corporate sustainability, which makes ESG ratings one of the primary instruments that investors, regulators, and other stakeholders can use to evaluate environmental responsibility in any industry, the insurance sector being one of them. Peer-reviewed journals, working papers, regulatory reports, and NGO/industry publications were carefully chosen as sources of information to represent different academic, regulatory and practical views on the issue in question, covering 2010-2024. Through the analysis, the ESG theory, greenwashing theory, and institutional theory are combined to uncover the methodology inconsistencies, gaps in Scope 3 emissions reporting, and the predominance of hollow compliance. The analysis highlights the gap between declared sustainability performance and reality, especially in the area of indirect emissions of underwriting and investment activities, and greenwashing trends in the industry. The results indicate that ESG ratings often exaggerate the environmental responsibility of the insurers and include disclosure and governance rather than action in climate over substantive action of environmental accountability in financial intermediaries, and require a more stringent and comprehensive set of approaches to assessing environmental accountability of financial intermediaries.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openaire https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.22770first seen 2026-05-14 22:25:18
🔔 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。