Trust and Credibility in Sustainability Reporting
サステナビリティ報告における信頼と信用性 (AI 翻訳)
G. Ormazabal
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、サステナビリティ報告の信頼性確保メカニズムを財務報告と比較し分析する。取締役会、資本提供者、規制当局など多様な利害関係者が情報作成への近接性、影響範囲、メカニズムの成熟度、監視インセンティブの4次元で異なる貢献をし、それらの補完関係が重要であることを示す。
English
This paper examines mechanisms for generating trust in sustainability reporting, arguing that credibility requires a village of stakeholders (boards, capital providers, regulators, etc.) each contributing through different channels. It identifies four dimensions—proximity to information creation, scope of influence, maturity of mechanisms, and incentives to monitor—that explain complementarities and asymmetries, emphasizing coordination over single mechanism dominance.
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
日本のGX文脈では、SSBJ基準や有報でのサステナビリティ開示が進む中、本論文は信頼性確保のための多様なメカニズムの補完関係を整理する。特に、日本の開示制度設計（統合報告書、投資家対応）に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
In the global context of ISSB, CSRD, and SEC climate disclosures, this paper provides a theoretical framework for understanding how different actors contribute to credibility in sustainability reporting, highlighting the need for coordination among mechanisms.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a structured framework for analyzing credibility mechanisms in ESG reporting, enabling further empirical research.
🏢実務担当者:Helps corporate sustainability teams understand the roles of various stakeholders in building report credibility and the importance of complementarity.
🏛政策担当者:Informs policy design by showing that no single mechanism suffices; regulation should foster coordination among different credibility-enhancing mechanisms.
📄 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 2026-05-05 23:26:30
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。