← 論文一覧に戻る

セクター構造と企業気候戦略：新興国における適応・緩和・両利き構成の類型論

Sectoral structure and corporate climate strategy: A typology of adaptation, mitigation and ambidextrous configurations in emerging economies (原題)

Y. Rizvi, Sumna Khan

International journal of business management📚 査読済 / ジャーナル2026-10-19#エネルギー転換経営インパクト: 資金調達対象セクター: cross_sector
DOI: 10.56879/ijbm.v5i4.165
原典: https://iessociety.org/index.php/IJBM/article/download/427/222
📄 PDF

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

本論文は、企業の脱炭素戦略の差異をセクター構造的属性（リスク曝露、資産寿命、制度的文脈）から説明するメゾレベル理論を提示する。52本の査読論文・12の機関報告書・22の企業開示を統合レビューし、インドを主対象に農業ビジネス・再エネ・重製造業を比較。適応型・変革的緩和型・両利き型の3類型を構築し、気候開示と実行動の乖離が検証済み気候パフォーマンスと金融・市場・規制の結びつきに依存すると論じる。

English

This integrative review explains variation in corporate climate strategy through meso-level sectoral structures—risk exposure, asset-cycle longevity and institutional context—rather than managerial cognition alone. Drawing on 52 studies, 12 institutional reports and 22 corporate disclosures (2021–2024), it compares agribusiness, renewable energy and heavy manufacturing, mainly in India, and derives three ideal types: Resilient Adapter, Transformative Mitigator and Ambidextrous Navigator. It proposes that the disclosure–action gap depends on how tightly verified climate performance is tied to finance, market opportunity, regulation and legitimacy.

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

日本企業のSSBJ・有報開示対応においても、開示と実行動の乖離は重要論点。セクター別の構造的制約から戦略類型を導く視点は、統合報告書での気候戦略の説得力ある説明枠組みとして示唆に富む。

In the global GX context

For global disclosure scholarship (TCFD/ISSB/CSRD), the paper reframes the disclosure–action gap as structurally contingent, arguing that verified performance must be tied to finance and regulation to close it—relevant to transition-finance and assurance debates, especially for emerging-market firms.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:セクター構造を気候戦略の説明変数とするメゾレベル類型論と検証可能な命題を提供する。

🏢実務担当者:自社セクターの構造的属性を踏まえ、開示と実行動の乖離を縮める戦略設計に活用できる。

🏛政策担当者:検証済み気候パフォーマンスを金融・規制と結びつける制度設計の重要性を示唆する。

📄 Abstract（原文）

Research on corporate climate strategy usually explains differences in decarbonisation through managerial cognition, leadership, capabilities or institutional pressure. This paper develops a complementary meso-level explanation: sectoral structural attributes, namely risk exposure profile, asset-cycle longevity and institutional context, filter macro-level climate pressures and condition the feasible set of firm-level responses. Using an integrative review that combines 52 peer-reviewed studies identified through Scopus and Web of Science, 12 institutional reports and 22 corporate disclosures (2021–2024), the study compares agribusiness, renewable energy and heavy manufacturing, with India as the principal context. It develops three ideal types. The Resilient Adapter is shaped by immediate physical risk and favours adaptation. The Transformative Mitigator is shaped by transition opportunity and climate-aligned capital and favours mitigation-led growth. The Ambidextrous Navigator is shaped by long-lived carbon-intensive assets and contested institutional pressure, and sustains legacy operations while investing selectively in low-carbon alternatives. Structural contingency theory supplies the fit logic, socio-technical transitions and institutional theory explain meso-level conditions, dynamic capabilities explain variation in execution, and configuration theory guides ideal-type construction. The paper proposes that the gap between climate disclosure and action varies with how closely verified climate performance is tied to finance, market opportunity, regulation and legitimacy, and it outlines Socio-Technical Transition Effectiveness as a provisional outcome framework. The study does not test causal relationships. It offers a context-sensitive typology, a set of propositions and an agenda for empirical research on corporate decarbonisation in emerging economies.

🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース

🔔 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。