ESG格付の不一致と財務リスク・企業価値の関係：英国・米国の証拠
ESG Rating Disagreement and Its Relationship with Financial Risk and Firm Value: Evidence from the United Kingdom and the United States (原題)
Mintari Yulianingsih
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
英米上場60社を対象に、Refinitiv・Bloomberg・S&PのESGスコアの不一致を標準偏差で定量化し、企業価値・リスクとの関係をパネル回帰で検証した。格付不一致は企業価値（Tobin's Q）と系統的リスク（ベータ）と正に有意に関連する一方、総リスク（ボラティリティ）との関係は有意でなかった。格付のばらつきは必ずしも悪材料ではなく、シグナリングと情報非対称性の枠組みを支持する結果だと結論づける。
English
Using 60 UK and US listed firms (2019–2023), the study quantifies ESG rating disagreement as the standard deviation of percentile-standardized scores from Refinitiv, Bloomberg, and S&P Global. Panel regressions show disagreement is positively and significantly associated with firm value (Tobin's Q) and systematic risk (beta), but not with total return volatility. The authors conclude rating divergence does not uniformly signal negative market outcomes, supporting signalling and information-asymmetry frameworks.
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基準の開示が本格化する日本では、格付会社間の評価差が投資家の資本コスト判断や統合報告書でのESG説明責任に直結する。複数格付を参照する日本企業・機関投資家にとって、不一致を「リスク」ではなく「情報環境の特性」として捉える視点を提供する。
In the global GX context
As ISSB/SSBJ-aligned disclosure expands, this paper speaks directly to the global debate on ESG rating divergence flagged by IOSCO and the EU's rating-provider regulation. It reframes disagreement as a signal of information asymmetry rather than a pure defect, relevant to investors and firms navigating multiple rating sources under CSRD and TCFD regimes.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:格付不一致を企業価値・ベータ・ボラティリティに同時に結びつけた実証枠組みは、ESG評価の情報非対称性研究の出発点になる。
🏢実務担当者:複数格付のばらつきを前提に、投資家向けESGコミュニケーションを一貫させ、格付差の説明を統合報告書で用意すべき。
🏛政策担当者:格付会社間の評価差は市場の情報環境の一部であり、開示標準化（SSBJ/ISSB）の進展が不一致をどう縮めるか注視が必要。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Background: The growing prominence of sustainable investing has amplified reliance on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings for guiding investment choices. Nevertheless, assessments of the same firm frequently vary among rating providers, generating uncertainty and informational imbalances. Objective: This study investigates the association between ESG rating disagreement, financial risk, and firm value, addressing the scarcity of evidence regarding how divergence in ratings concurrently relates to market-based risk indicators and corporate valuation. Methods: The analysis encompasses 60 firms listed in the United Kingdom and the United States over the 2019–2023 period. ESG scores obtained from Refinitiv Eikon, Bloomberg, and S&P Global are standardized through percentile rank transformation, and disagreement is quantified using the standard deviation of these standardized scores. Panel data regression models are applied to assess firm value proxied by Tobin’s Q, total risk proxied by stock return volatility, and systematic risk proxied by market beta. Results: ESG rating disagreement exhibits a positive and statistically significant relationship with both firm value and systematic risk, whereas its link with total risk lacks statistical significance. These outcomes suggest that heightened rating divergence may correspond to elevated corporate valuation and increased sensitivity to broad market fluctuations, without necessarily amplifying overall stock return volatility. Conclusion: The findings reveal ESG rating disagreement does not uniformly correspond to unfavorable market outcomes. The results lend support to the relevance of signalling and information asymmetry frameworks, offering practical insights for investors who consult multiple ESG rating sources and for corporate managers striving toward more coherent ESG communication.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://bustechno.polteksci.ac.id/index.php/jbt/article/download/816/425first seen 2026-10-10 05:56:02
🔔 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。