← 論文一覧に戻る

アジアにおけるESG開示枠組みの比較レビュー：シンガポール、香港、マレーシア対EUベンチマーク

Comparative review on ESG disclosure framework in Asia: Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaysia against EU benchmarks (原題)

Albert C. Y. Teo, Ao Liang, Kah Hon Leong

Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies📚 査読済 / ジャーナル2026-09-11#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: 10.20448/ajssms.v13i4.9301
原典: https://doi.org/10.20448/ajssms.v13i4.9301

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

香港・シンガポール・マレーシアのESG開示枠組みをEUのESRSと比較し、強制範囲・保証要件・セクター適用・段階的導入の観点から質的に分析した研究。政策継続性が規制の予見性を保つ一方で、EUへの急速な整合を妨げる遺産的慣行を固定化する「諸刃の剣」であることを示す。規制当局に対し、定期的なギャップ分析と証拠に基づく見直しを提言する。

English

This study qualitatively compares ESG disclosure frameworks in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia against the EU's ESRS across mandatory scope, assurance, sectoral coverage, and phased implementation. It finds Asian frameworks are markedly heterogeneous, and that policy continuity preserves predictability but anchors legacy practices impeding EU alignment. It recommends structured gap analyses and periodic evidence-based reviews for regulators.

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

日本はSSBJ基準の確定と有報でのサステナビリティ開示義務化を控え、アジア諸国の制度設計とEU整合の課題は直接的な参照点となる。特に政策継続性と国際整合のトレードオフは、日本がIFRS S1/S2ベースのSSBJを段階適用する際の論点と重なる。

In the global GX context

As ISSB standards are adopted across Asia, this paper maps how Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia diverge from the EU's ESRS, offering a comparative lens for global convergence debates. It adds to disclosure scholarship by framing divergence through institutional path dependency rather than a simple gap assessment.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:アジアの開示制度の制度的経路依存性とEU整合の比較枠組みを提供する。

🏢実務担当者:アジア拠点の多国籍企業が域内の開示要件の差異とコンプライアンス分断を把握するのに有用。

🏛政策担当者:国内ガイドラインの定期見直しとEU基準とのギャップ分析の必要性を示唆する。

📄 Abstract（原文）

Driven by intensifying investor scrutiny and cross-border regulatory spillover, the demand for globally comparable sustainability reporting has sharpened. This study investigates why ESG disclosure frameworks diverge across Asia-Pacific jurisdictions, specifically examining how historical policy continuity shapes current configurations in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia relative to the EU's ESRSs. A qualitative comparative analysis is employed, systematically mapping each Asian framework against the ESRSs across mandatory scope, assurance requirements, sectoral coverage, and phased implementation. The concept of policy continuity serves as the central analytical lens, enabling a process-oriented interpretation of institutional evolution rather than a static gap assessment. Asian frameworks demonstrate marked heterogeneity, with voluntary approaches, staggered roadmaps, and narrower sectoral applications contrasting with the EU's comprehensive mandatory regime. Policy continuity emerges as a double-edged instrument in that it preserves regulatory predictability and local stakeholder trust, yet simultaneously anchors legacy practices that impede rapid alignment with the EU's accelerating trajectory. Divergent reporting standards are fundamentally embedded in each jurisdiction's unique institutional layering. The analysis confirms that path dependency does not preclude deliberate recalibration, but substantive convergence demands intentional, periodic policy interventions. Regulators should conduct structured gap analyses and evidence-based periodic reviews of domestic guidelines. Strategically balancing local developmental priorities with global norms will enhance cross-jurisdictional comparability, strengthen international investor confidence, and reduce compliance fragmentation for multinational enterprises operating across these markets.

🔗 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。