AICPA保証基準案が直面する重要性のパラドックス
Proposed AICPA Attestation Standards Navigate a Materiality Paradox (原題)
Ed Esposito
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
GRI・ESRS・IFRSの重要性概念の相違が、報告企業と保証実務者に「重要性のパラドックス」を生じさせている。本稿は影響重要性・財務重要性・二重重要性を比較し、AICPAの持続可能性保証基準案が質的・量的開示および業務重要性をどう扱うかを検討する。投資家志向のIFRS基準が財務報告・保証の重要性概念と最も整合的だと論じ、CFOの枠組み選択とCPAの限定的・合理的保証業務への示唆を示す。
English
Divergent materiality concepts across GRI, ESRS and IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards create a "materiality paradox" for reporters and assurance providers. The article compares impact, financial and double materiality, and examines how the AICPA's proposed sustainability attestation standards address qualitative, quantitative and performance materiality, including the shift from a reasonable-user to an intended-user perspective. It argues IFRS's investor focus aligns most closely with established financial reporting and attestation materiality, with implications for CFO framework choice and CPA assurance engagements.
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基準の確定と保証制度の設計が進む日本にとって、二重重要性と限定的保証の実務整理は時宜にかなう。特に有報・統合報告書での枠組み選択と、監査法人が担う保証範囲の設計に直接示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
As ISSB standards are adopted worldwide and CSRD's double materiality collides with IFRS's investor focus, this piece maps the assurance-side consequences. It speaks directly to the emerging global debate over how limited and reasonable assurance can be operationalized under competing materiality regimes.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:重要性概念の相違が保証判断に与える影響を整理する枠組みとして参照できる。
🏢実務担当者:CFO・開示担当は枠組み選択と保証範囲の設計時に、重要性の定義差を事前に確認すべき。
🏛政策担当者:SSBJ・保証制度の設計において、意図された利用者概念と業務重要性の整合を検討する材料になる。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Sustainability reporting frameworks apply different materiality concepts, creating challenges for reporting entities and assurance practitioners. This article examines the “materiality paradox” arising from the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards, European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), and IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards, and considers how the AICPA’s proposed sustainability attestation standards address these differences. It compares impact materiality, financial materiality, and double materiality, emphasizing how intended users’ information needs shape reporting and assurance judgments. The discussion explores proposed requirements concerning qualitative disclosures, quantitative disclosures, and performance materiality, together with the implications of shifting from a reasonable-user perspective to an intended-user perspective. The article argues that the investor focus of IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards offers closer alignment with established financial reporting and attestation materiality concepts. It concludes by outlining considerations for CFOs selecting sustainability reporting frameworks and CPAs planning limited or reasonable assurance engagements.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.67283/cpapub-c34cdaf6first seen 2026-10-12 05:22:25 · last seen 2026-10-14 05:52:45
🔔 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。