Corporate Carbon Footprint Disclosure Quality in Latin America: A Multi-Country Assessment Using the Carbon Integrity Index
ラテンアメリカにおける企業のカーボンフットプリント開示の質：カーボン・インテグリティ・インデックスを用いた多国間評価 (AI 翻訳)
Rodrigo Gil, Sara Martínez, Jose Traub, Romina Moran, Carlos Morillas
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
この研究は、ラテンアメリカ5カ国103社のカーボンフットプリント開示の質を、カーボン・インテグリティ・インデックスを用いて初めて多国間評価したものである。83.5%の企業がバリューチェーン排出量データを開示する一方、スコープ3の開示品質は低く、不確実性の定量化はほぼ欠如している。開示の不足は業界横断的に均一であり、自主的枠組みでは低品質での収束が見られることから、能力構築と国内執行枠組みの必要性が示唆される。
English
This study provides the first multi-country assessment of carbon footprint disclosure quality in Latin America, analyzing 103 company reports from five countries using the Carbon Integrity Index. While 83.5% disclose some value-chain emissions, Scope 3 disclosure quality is low (average 0.19–0.31) and uncertainty quantification is nearly absent (94% non-disclosure). Deficiencies are uniform across sectors, suggesting structural barriers. Voluntary frameworks lead to convergence at low quality levels, highlighting the need for differentiated capacity-building and national enforcement.
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
本論文は、自主的な開示枠組みの限界をラテンアメリカの事例から示しており、日本のSSBJや有価証券報告書における気候関連開示の任意と強制のバランスを考える上で示唆に富む。特に、スコープ3開示の質の向上には、能力構築と規制の両方が重要であることが分かる。
In the global GX context
This paper offers valuable comparative evidence from Latin America on the limitations of voluntary disclosure frameworks, relevant to global debates on mandatory climate disclosure standards like ISSB, CSRD, and SEC climate rules. It underscores that without enforcement, disclosure quality remains low, even when some data is reported, and calls for tailored capacity-building in emerging markets.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:The Carbon Integrity Index provides a standardized metric for disclosure quality that can be adapted and applied in other regions or longitudinal studies.
🏢実務担当者:Corporate sustainability teams in Latin America can use the findings to benchmark their disclosure against regional peers, especially in Scope 3 and uncertainty reporting.
🏛政策担当者:Regulators in emerging economies should note that voluntary frameworks produce low-quality convergence; national enforcement and capacity-building are essential for improving disclosure quality.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Although responsible for 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, Latin America faces disproportionate vulnerability to climate-related events, making the need for clear, transparent, and rigorous action critically urgent. Corporate disclosure practices across the region show high variability in transparency and methodological consistency, posing a substantial obstacle in evidence-based measures against climate change. This study provides the first multi-country assessment of the quality and rigor of carbon footprint disclosures in the Latin American context, analyzing 103 company reports across five countries (Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru) with the Carbon Integrity Index, a 10-indicator standardized metric quantifying the transparency of Scopes 1, 2, and 3 and uncertainty disclosures. Three distinct patterns emerged from the analysis. Although 83.5% of companies disclose some value-chain emission data, Scope 3 disclosure quality remains a systemic deficiency across the region (average 0.19–0.31) with uncertainty quantification nearly absent (94% non-disclosure). Median scores for all five countries cluster narrowly (2.65–4.20), independently of heterogenous governance frameworks. Finally, disclosure deficiencies appear uniform across sectors, suggesting structural rather than industry-specific barriers. These findings suggest that voluntary or international frameworks produce regional convergence at low quality levels, whereas adequate transparency requires differentiated capacity-building initiatives and national enforcement frameworks in emerging market contexts.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.3390/su18031339first seen 2026-05-05 22:14:56
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。