Materiality in Environmental Information Disclosure: A Comparative Analysis of the Securities Law of the United States and China
環境情報開示におけるマテリアリティ:米国証券法と中国証券法の比較分析 (AI 翻訳)
null Wu Huihui, Hasani Mohd Ali , null Hazlina Shaik Md Noor Alam
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本研究は、米国と中国の証券法における環境情報開示のマテリアリティ(重要事項性)を比較分析する。米国は財務的マテリアリティを重視するのに対し、中国はダブルマテリアリティ(財務的・環境社会的影響の両方)を採用している。両国ともマテリアリティ判断の曖昧さやグリーンウォッシュの課題を抱え、国際的調和の必要性を論じる。
English
This study compares materiality in environmental disclosure under US and Chinese securities laws. The US uses a financial materiality standard, while China adopts double materiality considering both financial and environmental/social impacts. Both face challenges in ambiguity, enforcement, and greenwashing, arguing for convergence and alignment with global standards like TCFD and GRI.
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
日本でもSSBJがサステナビリティ開示基準を策定中であり、米国(SEC)と中国(CSRC)のマテリアリティアプローチの比較は、日本の開示制度設計に示唆を与える。特にダブルマテリアリティの適用可能性を検討する上で参考になる。
In the global GX context
This comparative analysis of materiality approaches in the US and China is highly relevant to global disclosure harmonization debates. As the ISSB and other frameworks evolve, understanding how two major economies define materiality informs the development of interoperable standards and helps address greenwashing risks.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a structured legal comparison of materiality in environmental disclosure between two key jurisdictions, useful for scholars of comparative securities regulation and ESG disclosure.
🏢実務担当者:Corporate sustainability teams operating in US or China markets can understand the different materiality expectations and regulatory risks.
🏛政策担当者:Regulators and standard-setters can learn from the US-China divergence and convergence challenges when designing national or international disclosure rules.
📄 Abstract(原文)
The purpose of this study lies in exploring the role of materiality in environmental information disclosures under the securities laws of the United States and China, discussing the differences in the regulatory mechanism, limits of enforcement, and challenges of seeking global harmonization. The paper does a comparative legal analysis of statutory provisions, judicial interpretations, and regulatory frameworks of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC). Furthermore, it provides frameworks of global sustainability reporting such as the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The findings show that U.S. securities law uses a financial materiality standard with respect to what companies must disclose to investors. On the other hand, China’s regulatory approach has a double materiality in considering not only financial impacts but also wider environmental and social factors. Although there are these distinctions, both of these jurisdictions face issues of common obstruction such as ambiguities in materiality determination, inconsistent enforcement, and fear of greenwashing. This paper asserts that the U.S. and China regulatory frameworks need to converge more to promote greater corporate transparency and ESG disclosures. Regulators can even align disclosure practices with internationally recognized standards of work to add confidence for investors, fight off misleading sustainability claims and ensure accountable reporting in pertinent environments. The study concludes that the green challenges of global markets can only be tackled by regulating cooperative actions and using standardized reporting guidelines.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
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。