環境・社会・ガバナンス（ESG）報告の品質：系統的文献レビュー
Quality of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Reporting: A Systematic Literature Review (原題)
Jeanne Adelina Savitri, Yusnaini Yusnaini, Shelly Febriana Kartasari
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
PRISMA 2020に準拠した系統的文献レビューにより、2020〜2025年のESG開示品質研究を整理。研究関心は開示の「量」から完全性・重要性・透明性・正確性・信頼性といった「質」へと移行している。理論はステークホルダー理論や正当性理論が主流で、測定手法は依然として多様かつ非一貫。発展途上国・ASEAN地域のエビデンス不足が主要な研究ギャップとして指摘される。
English
A PRISMA 2020 systematic review of 2020–2025 research on ESG disclosure quality. The field has shifted from measuring disclosure quantity toward completeness, materiality, transparency, accuracy, and credibility. Stakeholder and legitimacy theories dominate; measurement approaches remain heterogeneous. Key gaps: no consensus on quality metrics and scarce evidence from developing countries and ASEAN.
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基準の導入や有報でのサステナビリティ開示義務化が進む日本では、「開示量」ではなく「開示品質」をどう定義・測定するかが実務上の焦点となる。本レビューは、統合報告書やTCFD対応の質的評価指標を設計する際の理論的・方法論的基盤を提供する。
In the global GX context
As ISSB standards are adopted worldwide and CSRD/SEC climate rules raise the bar, the shift from disclosure quantity to quality is central to global disclosure scholarship. This review maps the theoretical and methodological landscape, offering a foundation for consistent quality metrics that regulators and standard-setters can build on.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:ESG開示品質の定義・測定指標の非一貫性と理論的枠組みを俯瞰でき、今後の測定尺度開発の出発点となる。
🏢実務担当者:自社の統合報告書やサステナビリティ開示を「量」ではなく完全性・重要性・信頼性の観点で自己評価する際のチェックリストとして活用できる。
🏛政策担当者:開示品質の定義が確立していない現状を踏まえ、SSBJや有報開示の評価基準・保証制度を設計する際の論点整理に資する。
📄 Abstract（原文）
The quality of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) disclosure has received increasing attention alongside growing demands for corporate transparency and accountability to stakeholders. However, research on ESG disclosure remains inconsistent in defining and measuring disclosure quality, as some studies still use the level or quantity of disclosure as a proxy for quality. This study aims to analyze the development of research on ESG disclosure quality, identify the theories and research methods employed, examine approaches to measuring disclosure quality, and identify key findings and research gaps in the literature. This study employs a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The literature analyzed consists of academic articles published between 2020 and 2025, selected through identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion procedures based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The findings indicate that research on ESG disclosure quality has evolved from approaches focusing primarily on disclosure levels toward greater attention to completeness, materiality, transparency, accuracy, information depth, and disclosure credibility. Stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, institutional theory, agency theory, and signaling theory are among the most frequently used theoretical perspectives to explain ESG disclosure practices. Quantitative methods, particularly regression and panel data analysis, dominate the literature, while approaches to measuring disclosure quality remain heterogeneous across studies. The review also indicates that corporate governance mechanisms, firm characteristics, stakeholder pressure, regulatory requirements, and assurance are among the factors associated with ESG disclosure quality. The main research gaps concern the lack of consensus regarding the definition and measurement indicators of ESG disclosure quality, as well as the limited evidence from developing countries and the ASEAN region. This study provides a systematic mapping of the literature that can serve as a basis for developing more comprehensive and consistent measures of ESG disclosure quality in future research.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://e-journal.citakonsultindo.or.id/index.php/IJEVSS/article/view/6674first seen 2026-10-06 05:01:26
🔔 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。