Greenwashing, ESG Fraud, and the Forensic Gap: A Bibliometric Mapping
グリーンウォッシング、ESG詐欺、およびフォレンジックギャップ：書誌計量マッピング (AI 翻訳)
Dien Ajeng Fauziah, Syafi’i Syafi’i, Khoirul Abidin, Bambang Hermanto
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本研究は、グリーンウォッシング、ESG詐欺、フォレンジック会計の交差点を書誌計量分析でマッピング。1,285件の論文を分析し、年35.22%の成長率で2032年にピークを迎えることを示す。フォレンジック会計が独立したテーマクラスターとして欠如しており、グリーンウォッシングが主にコミュニケーションの失敗として扱われていることを発見。5つの研究ギャップ（フォレンジック統合、因果メカニズム、一般化可能性、将来志向保証、検出方法論）を特定した。
English
This bibliometric study maps the intersection of greenwashing, ESG fraud, and forensic accounting using 1,285 articles (2007-2026). It reveals a 35.22% annual growth rate with projected peak by 2032. Critically, forensic accounting is absent as a distinct thematic cluster, with greenwashing treated primarily as communication failure rather than requiring investigative methodology. The study identifies five research gaps: forensic integration, causal mechanisms, generalizability, forward-looking assurance, and detection methodology, providing a roadmap from conceptual recognition to actionable forensic investigation.
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SSBJ基準の適用が進み、グリーンウォッシング対策が喫緊の課題となっている。本論文は、フォレンジック手法の欠如を体系的に示しており、日本の監査法人や規制当局が開示保証の高度化を検討する際の参考になる。
In the global GX context
As ISSB and CSRD mandate rigorous sustainability disclosures, this paper highlights a critical gap: the lack of forensic methods to detect greenwashing. It maps the literature and calls for integration of investigative approaches, relevant for global standard-setters and assurance providers seeking to enhance credibility of ESG claims.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides the first systematic mapping of greenwashing and forensic accounting research, identifying key gaps and future directions.
🏢実務担当者:Corporate sustainability and audit teams should note the absence of forensic detection methods in current practice, signaling a need for enhanced assurance capabilities.
🏛政策担当者:Regulators may consider requiring forensic elements in sustainability assurance to combat greenwashing effectively, as suggested by the gap identified.
📄 Abstract（原文）
The proliferation of ESG disclosures has been accompanied by rising concerns over greenwashing and sustainability-related fraud, yet the intellectual convergence of greenwashing, ESG fraud, and forensic accounting remains systematically unmapped. This study aims to map the intellectual structure, thematic evolution, and research frontiers at the intersection of sustainability misconduct and forensic accountability. Employing a Bibliometric, 1,285 Scopus-indexed journal articles published between 2007 and 2026 were analyzed using Biblioshiny. Techniques included performance analysis, keyword co-occurrence mapping, thematic mapping, and thematic evolution analysis. The co-occurrence network reveals four keyword clusters greenwashing and corporate legitimacy, corporate greenwashing in the green economy, ESG greenwashing and financing constraints, and governance and performance with the field demonstrating a 35.22% annual growth rate and projected peak output by 2032. Critically, forensic accounting remains conspicuously absent as a distinct thematic cluster, with the literature treating greenwashing primarily as a communication failure rather than a domain requiring investigative methodology. These findings empirically validate calls for integrative theoretical frameworks and define a future research agenda organized around five interconnected gaps: forensic integration, causal mechanisms, generalizability, forward-looking assurance, and detection methodology. The study provides the first data-grounded mapping of this interdisciplinary convergence, charting a pathway from the conceptual recognition of greenwashing toward actionable forensic investigation.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://ejournal.unwaha.ac.id/margin/article/download/7319/3218first seen 2026-07-16 06:07:29
🔔 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。