Divergence of ESG ratings: Methodological sources and data quality
ESG格付けの乖離：方法論的源泉とデータ品質 (AI 翻訳)
E. Vetoshkina, A. A. Terentev
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、ESG格付けの乖離が測定指標、テーマ範囲、集計方法の差異に起因する構造的なものであることを示す。また、ロシアのESG格付け市場の特殊性と2022年以降の国際的枠組みへの参加制約を明らかにする。結論として、ESG指標の類型化と評価方法の透明性向上、非財務データの品質改善が必要とされる。
English
This paper demonstrates that the divergence of ESG ratings is structural, stemming from differences in indicator measurement, thematic coverage, and aggregation mechanisms. It identifies specificities of the Russian ESG market and institutional constraints on participation in global ESG frameworks after 2022. The authors call for a typology of ESG instruments, increased transparency of methodologies, and improved quality of non-financial data.
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
ロシアのESG格付け市場の特殊性を分析しており、日本企業が国際的なESG枠組みに参加する際の課題と共通点がある。特に、評価方法の透明性と非財務データの品質向上が日本のGX開示にも示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
This paper contributes to the global debate on ESG rating divergence—a key issue for investors and regulators under frameworks like TCFD and ISSB. The Russian case highlights how institutional constraints (e.g., sanctions) can disrupt global ESG integration, offering lessons for disclosure infrastructure resilience.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:ESG格付けの乖離要因を体系的に整理した研究として、方法論比較やデータ品質の研究に有用。
🏢実務担当者:自社のESG評価におけるスコアの解釈や、格付け機関への対応方針策定に参考となる。
🏛政策担当者:ESG格付けの規制や開示基準の策定において、乖離の構造的理解と透明性向上の必要性を示す。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Subject. Indices and ESG ratings as elements of the financial market infrastructure, methodological and institutional reasons for discrepancies in ESG assessments between providers. Objectives. Identifying the causes of divergence in ESG ratings and indexes, as well as the limitations that hinder their proper use in investment, regulatory, and research practice. Methods. Methods of logical analysis, typologization, and systematization were used. Results. It has been shown that the divergence of ESG ratings is of a structural nature and is mainly due to differences in the measurement of indicators, thematic coverage, and aggregation mechanisms. It has been established that aggregated ESG scores cannot be considered as universal indicators of sustainability. The specifics of the Russian ESG ratings market have been identified, and institutional constraints on the participation of Russian companies in global ESG frameworks after 2022 have been revealed. Conclusions. A typology of ESG instruments is necessary, and it is required to increase the transparency of assessment methodologies and the quality of non-financial data. An important task is the development of disclosure standards and external assurance of ESG information.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.24891/fubysrfirst seen 2026-05-15 18:58:23
🔔 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。