サステナブルファイナンスにおけるESG評価規制：方法論的多元性、プロセス基盤型監督、そして国際規制協調

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

🔬研究者:ESG格付規制の比較制度分析と反射的法理論の応用に関心のある研究者に、正当性フレームと手続メカニズムの体系化を提供する。

🏢実務担当者:格付・データベンダーとの契約や苦情対応、開示様式の整備を進めるサステナビリティ開示担当者に、透明性・追跡可能性の実務要件を示す。

🏛政策担当者:ESG評価規制の設計・国際協調を担う規制当局に、方法論統一ではなく手続基盤の共通化と地域別の規制強度調整という政策オプションを提示する。

Financial markets have taken climate and sustainability more seriously since the 2015 Paris Agreement. ESG ratings have emerged as a key mechanism for translating corporate sustainability information into assessments that inform investors, asset managers, index providers, and product design. But greater influence has also meant greater scrutiny, revealing problems such as rating divergence, opacity, poor data, conflicts, and market concentration. Drawing on the European Union’s ESG Rating Regulation (EU 2024/3005), Japan’s Code of Conduct for ESG Evaluation and Data Providers, and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) principles, this paper argues that global ESG rating regulation should adopt a process-based approach rather than mandating uniform rating outcomes. This argument is grounded in reflexive law theory and the principle of proportionality, which emphasize that regulation should shape the organizational environment and decision-making processes of rating agencies without dictating substantive rating conclusions. The paper demonstrates that methodological pluralism is both inevitable and desirable, provided that rating processes are transparent, data sources are traceable, conflicts of interest are managed, and rating limitations are clearly communicated.The paper makes three contributions. First, it identifies a composite legitimacy framework for ESG rating regulation, comprising investor protection, market integrity, and—as an indirect but necessary dimension—the governance of environmental and social externalities. Second, it systematically articulates the institutional pathway through which process-based regulation can address market failures while preserving methodological diversity. Third, it operationalizes the principles of transparency, interpretability, traceability, and accountability into concrete regulatory mechanisms, including disclosure formats, data-version control, conflict-management rules, and complaint-handling procedures. The paper concludes that effective global coordination requires a common procedural foundation rather than substantive harmonization of rating methodologies. Jurisdictions should calibrate regulatory intensity to local market conditions, institutional capacity, and the developmental stage of their ESG ratings markets, while adhering to minimum standards on anti-fraud, conflict prevention, methodological transparency, and data governance.

• semanticscholar https://media.sciltp.com/articles/2610005371/2610005371.pdffirst seen 2026-11-04 05:39:32 · last seen 2026-11-06 05:33:19