← 論文一覧に戻る

Credibility in Practice: A Channel-Based Framework for ESG Disclosure Reliability

実践における信頼性：ESG開示の信頼性のためのチャネルベースの枠組み (AI 翻訳)

Albert Tan

Crossrefプレプリント2026-01-01#開示インフラOrigin: Global経営インパクト: 調達リスク対象セクター: cross_sector
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.6244758
原典: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6244758

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

本論文は、ESG開示の信頼性が制度的成果であると主張し、説明責任チャネルを分析単位とする枠組みを提示する。法的媒体、検証主体、手続的経路、制裁セットの4要素を特定し、0-2のスコアカード（ACCS）を開発。シンガポールとタイのISSB準拠気候開示に適用し、同様の報告見出しでも国内制度により信頼性が異なることを示す。

English

This paper argues that ESG disclosure reliability is an institutional outcome, proposing a channel-based framework with four elements: legal vehicle, actors, procedural pathways, and sanctions. It operationalizes a 0-2 Accountability Channel Credibility Scorecard (ACCS) and applies it to ISSB-aligned climate disclosure in Singapore and Thailand, showing divergent credibility profiles despite similar reporting headings.

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開示が始動し、信頼性確保が課題。本枠組みは日本の開示制度の設計・評価に示唆を与え、投資家対応や規制当局の監督に活用できる。

In the global GX context

Globally, as ISSB and CSRD converge, this framework offers a diagnostic for assessing disclosure credibility beyond semantic alignment, relevant for regulators and firms facing due-diligence pressures in supply chains.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:Provides a novel conceptual framework for analyzing disclosure reliability, useful for comparative governance research.

🏢実務担当者:Offers a practical scorecard to assess and improve the credibility of their sustainability disclosures.

🏛政策担当者:Highlights how institutional design affects disclosure credibility, informing regulatory oversight and standard-setting.

📄 Abstract（原文）

Global sustainability disclosure templates are converging, but semantic alignment does not guarantee that sustainability claims are reliable when challenged. This paper argues that disclosure reliability is partly an institutional outcome: it is produced by the accountability pathway that links a disclosure statement to feasible contestation and credible consequences. The paper develops a channel-based framework that treats the accountability channel as the unit of analysis and specifies four constitutive elements: (V) the legal vehicle rendering claims official; (A) the actors who verify, supervise, and adjudicate; (P) the procedural pathways that make claims challengeable (including access to evidence); and (S) the sanction set that makes misstatement costly, including rapid correction powers. Channel performance is assessed through a credibility triad namely tempo, visibility, and remedial bite, grounded in a deterrence logic (perceived probability × expected consequence, discounted by time). The framework is operationalised as a conservative 0-2 Accountability Channel Credibility Scorecard (ACCS) using publicly observable evidence within a bounded evidence window. Illustrative application to listed-issuer, ISSB-aligned climate disclosure channels in Singapore and Thailand shows how similar reporting headings can produce divergent credibility profiles when embedded in distinct domestic accountability architectures. The ACCS is offered as a practice-facing diagnostic for firms, regulators, and value-chain counterparties confronting rising sustainability due-diligence pressures in land-use-salient supply chains, where verification is structurally costly.

🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース

🔔 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。