ESG中心企業は不正行為を行うのか？
DO ESG-CENTRIC FIRMS ENGAGE IN FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES? (原題)
Saeid Homayoun, Zabihollah Rezaee, Z. Szántó
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
2003〜2019年の12,295社・年次観測を用い、環境・社会パフォーマンス、ガバナンス、サステナビリティ報告、外部保証とESG論争スコアの関係を分析。環境・社会とガバナンスは正相関し、いずれも論争スコアと負相関、交互作用も負となる。ただし論争スコアの方向性ゆえ負の係数は論争の少なさを意味せず、格付け・開示信頼性・実際の行為を区別する必要性を強調する。
English
Using 12,295 firm-year observations (2003–2019), including 3,952 sustainability reports and 1,056 assured reports, the study examines links among environmental/social performance, governance, reporting, assurance, and ESG controversy scores. Environmental/social and governance performance correlate positively and both associate negatively with controversy scores, with a negative interaction. The authors caution that scoring direction means negative coefficients do not prove fewer controversies, and stress distinguishing ratings, disclosure credibility, and actual conduct.
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
SSBJ基準・統合報告書でのESG格付け活用が進む日本企業に対し、格付けスコアと実態・開示信頼性を混同しない姿勢を促す。保証取得の意味を再考する材料となる。
In the global GX context
Speaks directly to global debates on ESG ratings integrity, greenwashing, and assurance credibility under CSRD/ISSB, warning that controversy scores and disclosure quality are not interchangeable with actual conduct.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:ESG格付けと実進行為の乖離を扱う実証研究の設計・解釈上の注意点を提供する。
🏢実務担当者:ESG格付けや保証取得を対外的メッセージとする際、実態との整合を確認する重要性を示す。
🏛政策担当者:ESG格付け・保証制度の設計でスコアの意味と方向性の透明化を求める根拠になる。
📄 Abstract（原文）
This study examines the relationships among environmental and social performance, corporate governance, sustainability reporting, external assurance, and ESG controversy scores. The reported sample contains 12,295 firm-year observations for 2003–2019, including 3,952 sustainability reports and 1,056 assured reports. Environmental and social performance is positively associated with governance performance across the reported specifications. Governance and environmental and social performance are negatively associated with ESG controversy scores, and their interaction is also negative. Reporting and assurance further condition these relationships. Under the provider’s conventional scoring direction, higher controversy scores indicate more favorable controversy performance; the negative coefficients therefore do not demonstrate fewer controversies. The evidence highlights the need to distinguish sustainability ratings, disclosure credibility, and observed conduct. The regressions establish associations, not causal effects or findings of fraud. Interpretation remains conditional on confirming the historical data fields, transformations, sample construction, and estimation procedures.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.54318/czf.2026.sh.002first seen 2026-10-22 05:47:17 · last seen 2026-11-06 05:45:18
🔔 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。