ESG格付の不一致、グリーンウォッシング認識、機関投資家の投資意思決定：開示品質と第三者保証の調整的役割

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a theoretical model for studying rating disagreement and investor behavior, with testable hypotheses.

🏢実務担当者:Highlights the importance of disclosure quality and third-party assurance to mitigate greenwashing perceptions and attract investment.

🏛政策担当者:Suggests that regulatory efforts to standardize ESG ratings and assurance could restore investor confidence.

The divergence of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings across major providers has created an unprecedented information challenge for institutional investors. Drawing on signaling theory, information asymmetry theory, and legitimacy theory, this study develops and proposes testing an integrated model examining how ESG rating disagreement influences institutional investment decisions through the dual mediating mechanisms of greenwashing perception and investor trust in ESG information. We further theorize that ESG disclosure quality and third-party assurance moderate these relationships by attenuating the uncertainty associated with rating divergence. Using a structured survey of 450 institutional investors across Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific, the proposed methodology employs Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to test seven hypotheses across direct, mediating, and moderating pathways. Grounded in the empirical observation that pairwise correlations across six major ESG rating providers average only 0.56—leaving nearly 70% of the variance unexplained—this study addresses a critical gap in understanding how rating disagreement propagates through investor cognition to shape capital allocation decisions. The paper contributes to the ESG literature by (1) providing the first integrated model linking rating disagreement to investment decisions through cognitive intermediaries, (2) identifying boundary conditions under which disclosure quality and assurance mitigate the adverse effects of rating confusion, and (3) offering actionable implications for regulators, rating agencies, and corporate sustainability practitioners seeking to restore investor confidence in ESG information.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.36713/epra28870first seen 2026-08-23 04:53:02
• semanticscholar https://cdn.eprapublishing.org/article/1787297764060-5.EPRA28870.pdffirst seen 2026-08-27 05:45:19 · last seen 2026-09-22 05:17:23