DOES SUSTAINABILITY REPORT ASSURANCE MATTER? SYMBOLIC VERSUS SUBSTANTIVE ESG GREENWASHING
サステナビリティ報告書の保証は重要か？象徴的対実質的ESGグリーンウォッシング (AI 翻訳)
(著者不明)
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本研究は、台湾の部分的義務開示の文脈において、サステナビリティ保証と機関投資家の圧力がグリーンウォッシングに与える影響を検証。2017～2023年のパネルデータ分析により、保証と機関所有がグリーンウォッシングを抑制し、ガバナンス品質がその効果を強化することを発見。ESG格付けと論争を用いた精緻なグリーンウォッシング尺度を提案し、任意保証市場への示唆を提供。
English
This study examines how sustainability assurance and institutional pressure affect greenwashing in Taiwan's partial mandatory disclosure context. Using panel data from 2017-2023, it finds that assurance and institutional ownership reduce greenwashing, and governance quality strengthens these effects. It introduces a refined greenwashing measure using ESG ratings and controversies, offering insights for regulators and investors in markets with voluntary ESG requirements.
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
日本でもサステナビリティ報告の任意保証が増えている中、本稿は保証とガバナンスがグリーンウォッシング抑制に有効であることを台湾データで示す。日本企業の開示実務やSSBJの基準策定にも示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
Globally, greenwashing is a key concern for regulators and investors. This paper provides evidence from an emerging market with partial mandatory disclosure, adding to the literature on assurance effectiveness. It highlights the role of governance quality in enhancing assurance benefits, relevant for global frameworks like ISSB and CSRD.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Useful for those studying greenwashing, assurance, and governance interactions in ESG disclosure contexts.
🏢実務担当者:Corporate sustainability teams can consider assurance and strong governance to enhance credibility of ESG reports, reducing greenwashing risk.
🏛政策担当者:Informs policy on mandatory assurance requirements and governance standards to improve ESG disclosure integrity.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Background: Greenwashing reduces the credibility of ESG disclosure by creating a gap between reported information and actual performance. Taiwan offers a relevant context because ESG disclosure is partially mandatory, while sustainability assurance is voluntary. This study investigates how sustainability assurance and institutional pressure influence greenwashing and whether governance quality strengthens these relationships. Method: This study uses panel data of non-financial firms listed on the TWSE and OTC markets from 2017 to 2023. Greenwashing is measured using standardized ESG ratings and ESG controversies, and a peer-relative measure based on Bloomberg and TEJ database is added for robustness. Findings: The results show that sustainability assurance and institutional ownership are negatively associated with greenwashing, suggesting that external verification and investor monitoring enhance the credibility of ESG reporting. Governance quality reinforces these effects, indicating that stronger governance structures respond better to external pressure and are less likely to engage in symbolic ESG practices. These results provide practical insight for regulators and investors in markets with partial or voluntary ESG requirements by showing which mechanisms can help reduce misleading ESG claims. Conclusion: Sustainability assurance, investor oversight, and governance quality jointly reduce opportunistic ESG practices. Novelty/Originality of this article: This study introduces a refined greenwashing measure using ESG ratings and controversies and provides rare evidence on how assurance and governance interact to reduce greenwashing in a partially mandatory disclosure context.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.7454/jaki.v23i1.2206first seen 2026-05-05 23:14:52
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。