サステナビリティ報告に対するステークホルダーの認識：GRIとSASB利用者の比較研究
Stakeholders’ Perception of Sustainability Reports: A Comparative Study of GRI And SASB Users (原題)
O. P. Okeke
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本研究は、GRIとSASB（現ISSB）に基づくサステナビリティ報告に対するステークホルダーの認識を比較。米国・EU・ナイジェリアの投資家・NGO・従業員・規制当局への調査と報告書の内容分析により、非投資家はGRIの包括性を、投資家はSASBの意思決定有用性を評価することを示した。二重報告の推奨と、ISSB S1/S2とGRIの整合性が実務に示唆を与える。
English
This study compares stakeholder perceptions of GRI vs SASB sustainability reports using surveys and content analysis. Non-investors favor GRI for comprehensiveness; investors prefer SASB for decision-usefulness. Dual reporting aligned with ISSB S1/S2 and GRI is recommended for legitimacy and capital-market efficiency.
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
日本ではSSBJ開示が始まり、GRIとISSBの使い分けが実務課題。本研究成果は、投資家と非投資家のニーズに応える二重報告の根拠を提供し、有報・統合報告書の作成に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
Globally, the ISSB standards are being adopted alongside GRI. This study provides empirical evidence on how different stakeholders value GRI vs SASB, supporting dual-reporting strategies and informing the ongoing convergence of disclosure frameworks.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides empirical evidence on stakeholder perceptions of GRI vs SASB, useful for disclosure research.
🏢実務担当者:Informs corporate sustainability reporting strategy, especially dual-reporting decisions.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights stakeholder preferences that can guide regulatory alignment of GRI and ISSB.
📄 Abstract（原文）
The proliferation of sustainability reporting frameworks has intensified debate over which standards best serve stakeholder information needs. Using stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory, this study compares stakeholder perceptions of reports prepared under the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) versus the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB, now part of ISSB). A mixed-methods survey of 384 institutional investors, NGOs, employees, and regulators across the US, EU, and Nigeria was combined with content analysis of 120 reports from 2021 2024. Findings indicate that GRI-based reports are perceived as more comprehensive and useful by non-investor stakeholders due to their impact-materiality focus and broad social disclosures. SASB-based reports are rated higher by investors for decision-usefulness, comparability, and financial materiality. When firms use both, stakeholders report greater trust but also complexity. The study confirms that “financial and sustainability materiality are driven by different purposes”, and recommends a dual-reporting approach aligned with ISSB S1/S2 and GRI for legitimacy and capital-market efficiency.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.56201/wjfir.v10.no6.2026.pg1.8first seen 2026-08-22 05:07:21
🔔 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。