環境・社会・ガバナンス：持続可能な開発のためのフレームワーク、指標、報告のレビュー

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a structured overview of ESG rating divergence and framework comparison, useful for identifying research gaps in standardization.

🏢実務担当者:Helps corporate sustainability teams understand why ESG scores vary and which reporting frameworks to prioritize for compliance and investor communication.

🏛政策担当者:Offers insights into the limitations of current ESG ratings and reporting, informing regulatory efforts to improve consistency and comparability.

環境・社会・ガバナンス（ESG）の側面は、従来の財務指標を超え、持続可能性、倫理的行動、長期的な回復力を重視し、企業業績を評価するための主要な枠組みとなっている。本概観論文は、ESGの基本要素を統合し、その三つの柱である環境、社会、コーポレート・ガバナンスについて論じる。また、本論文はESG指標と格付けシステムの複雑な状況を検討し、指標の選択、重み付け方式、データソース、開示の検証を含むベンダーごとの基準と方法論の違いが、MSCI、Sustainalytics、Refinitivなどの格付け機関間でESGスコアに有意な差をもたらすことを強調する。定性データと定量データの処理の違い、セクター調整、自己申告への依存は、一貫性のない結果と限定的な比較可能性に寄与している。さらに、本論文は、Global Reporting Initiative（GRI）、Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures（TCFD）、Bursa Malaysia Sustainability Reporting Guidelines、Sustainability Accounting Standards Board（SASB）を含む主要なグローバルおよび地域のESG報告フレームワークをレビューし、その範囲、適用可能性、地域ごとの実施について論じる。その人気の高まりにもかかわらず、ESG評価は依然として、データ品質の不整合、報告システムの標準化の欠如、潜在的な報告エラーなどの重大な限界に直面しており、これらはESG評価の信頼性と比較可能性を損なっている。分析は、効果的なESGの実施が、リスク管理、投資家の信頼、規制遵守、持続可能な価値創造にとって極めて重要であり、特に建設、製造、エネルギーなどの資源集約型産業において重要であることを強調している。

AI 翻訳（deepseek-v4-flash）。 正確を期す場合は下の原文を参照してください。

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) aspects have become a key framework for assessing corporate performance, extending beyond traditional financial metrics, emphasizing sustainability, ethical conduct, and long-term resilience. This overview article synthesizes the fundamental elements of ESG and discusses its three pillars: environmental, social, and Corporate Governance. This article also examines the complex landscape of ESG metrics and rating systems, highlighting how differences in vendor criteria and methodologies including metric selection, weighting schemes, data sources, and disclosure verification, lead to significant differences in ESG scores across rating agencies such as MSCI, Sustainalytics, and Refinitiv. Differences in the processing of qualitative and quantitative data, sectoral adjustments, and reliance on self-declarations contribute to inconsistent results and limited comparability. Furthermore, the paper reviews leading global and regional ESG reporting frameworks, including the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), the Bursa Malaysia Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), discussing their scope, applicability, and regional implementation. Despite its growing popularity, ESG assessments still face significant limitations, such as inconsistent data quality, a lack of standardization in reporting systems, and potential reporting errors, which undermine the credibility and comparability of ESG assessments. The analysis highlights that effective ESG implementation is crucial for risk management, investor confidence, regulatory compliance, and sustainable value creation, particularly in resource-intensive industries such as construction, manufacturing, and energy.

• openaire https://doi.org/10.53623/csue.v5i2.809first seen 2026-05-05 19:08:08 · last seen 2026-09-24 04:29:27