表演的透明性を超えて：デジタル技術、ガバナンス条件、ボランタリーカーボン市場の正当性危機
Beyond performative transparency: digital technology, governance conditions, and the legitimacy crisis of the Voluntary Carbon Market (原題)
Yiming Zhang
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
ボランタリーカーボン市場（VCM）は衛星監視やブロックチェーン、デジタルMRVで信頼回復を図るが、本論文は情報経済学の観点からこれを疑問視する。デジタル検証は真正・不正プロジェクト双方の検証可能記録の作成コストを下げるため、透明性向上が自動的に信頼性向上にはつながらない。国際VCM、EU ETS、中国CCERの比較分析により、データガバナンスの独立性、誤報告への責任、質への需要という三条件が同時に成立する場合にのみ信頼できる市場シグナルが生まれると論じる。
English
The Voluntary Carbon Market relies on satellite monitoring, blockchain registries, and digital MRV to rebuild trust after a credibility crisis. Drawing on information economics, this paper argues that digital verification lowers the cost of producing verifiable records for genuine and fraudulent projects alike, so transparency alone does not ensure credibility. Comparing the international VCM, EU ETS, and China's CCER, it finds trustworthy signals require three governance conditions together: independent data governance, enforceable liability for misreporting, and genuine buyer demand for quality.
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J-クレジット制度の品質保証とデジタル化が進む中、本論文の「透明性だけでは信頼は回復しない」という主張は、制度設計・第三者検証・責任規定の整備を検討する政策担当者や企業のカーボンクレジット調達戦略に直接示唆を与える。SSBJ開示やScope3削減目標とクレジット利用の整合性を考える上でも重要。
In the global GX context
As ISSB, CSRD, and TCFD frameworks push companies to disclose carbon credit use, this paper warns that digital transparency tools alone cannot fix VCM legitimacy. It offers a governance-condition framework relevant to ICVCM, Article 6, and emerging compliance markets, and adds comparative evidence from the EU ETS and China's CCER to global carbon market scholarship.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:情報経済学と比較制度分析を組み合わせ、デジタルMRVの限界とガバナンス条件を理論化した枠組みは、炭素市場・開示研究に新たな分析視角を提供する。
🏢実務担当者:カーボンクレジット調達やオフセット戦略において、デジタル検証ツールの導入だけでなく、発行主体のガバナンスと責任体制をデューデリジェンスで確認すべき根拠となる。
🏛政策担当者:J-クレジットやアジアの炭素市場設計において、データガバナンスの独立性、誤報告への法的責任、質への需要創出の三条件を同時に整備する必要性を示唆する。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Faced with a credibility crisis, the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) increasingly relies on satellite monitoring, blockchain registries, and digital MRV to strengthen transparency and rebuild trust. This paper questions that approach. Information economics holds that signals distinguish quality only when costly to falsify, but digital verification lowers the cost of producing verifiable records for genuine and fraudulent projects alike, so more transparency does not automatically mean more credibility. The paper argues that trustworthy market signals depend on three governance conditions holding at once, data governance independent of commercial interests, enforceable liability for misreporting, and genuine buyer demand for quality. Using a Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD), it compares the international VCM under the Integrity Council, the EU ETS, and China's relaunched Certified Emission Reduction (CCER) mechanism, with within-case analysis through process tracing. All three cases use comparable digital tools, and in all three the party being verified pays for verification, so technology and payment structure function as controls and the real variation lies in governance conditions. First, the key discretion over how many credits are issued lies in setting the counterfactual, which cannot be directly measured, so improving measurement accuracy does not resolve the core problem. Second, liability constrains this discretion, and its presence shows through whether an auditable ledger exists, that is, whether the gap between what should have been sanctioned and what actually was can be calculated. When the three conditions fail to hold together, more abundant and continuous data still produces performative transparency rather than structural integrity.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.54254/2977-5701/2026.37218first seen 2026-09-22 04:38:53
🔔 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。