サステナビリティ報告と企業説明責任：会計学的視点
SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING AND CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY: AN ACCOUNTING PERSPECTIVE (原題)
Nida Garnida Fitrianti
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本稿は、サステナビリティ報告を会計・説明責任の枠組みで捉え、信頼性・比較可能性・ガバナンスの観点から検討する。OECDやIFRS財団等の政策資料と査読研究を統合した構造的レビューにより、開示量の増加が必ずしも説明責任の向上につながらないことを示す。指標の選択的利用や内部統制の弱さが資本配分や経営インセンティブと乖離する場合、長大な報告書はむしろ低パフォーマンスを覆い隠しうる。財務部門・取締役会・サステナビリティチーム向けの意思決定原則を提示する。
English
This article frames sustainability reporting as an accounting and accountability issue, emphasizing reliability, comparability, and governance. A structured narrative review integrating peer-reviewed research with OECD and IFRS Foundation sources finds that more disclosure does not automatically yield more accountability. Selective metrics, weak controls, and disconnection from capital-allocation and incentive decisions can let long reports obscure poor performance. It offers decision principles for finance functions, boards, and sustainability teams.
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基準の導入や有価証券報告書でのサステナビリティ開示義務化が進む日本では、開示情報の信頼性確保と内部統制の整備が喫緊の課題となる。本稿の会計学的視点は、日本企業が統合報告書や保証制度を設計する際の実務的指針を提供する。
In the global GX context
As ISSB standards are adopted worldwide and jurisdictions like Japan, the EU (CSRD), and others move toward mandatory climate disclosure, this paper speaks directly to the global debate on disclosure quality versus quantity. It reinforces that assurance, internal controls, and governance—not report length—are what make sustainability information decision-useful for investors and transition finance.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:開示の質と説明責任のメカニズムを整理した枠組みは、実証研究の仮説構築や境界条件の特定に有用。
🏢実務担当者:開示量を増やすだけでなく、指標の選択理由・内部統制・資本配分との連動を点検する実務チェックリストとして活用できる。
🏛政策担当者:開示義務化の効果を最大化するには、保証制度や内部統制要件の設計が鍵となることを示唆する。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Background: Sustainability reporting becomes an accounting issue when information is expected to be reliable, comparable and subject to governance. The shift from narrative corporate responsibility reports toward decision-useful disclosure increases the importance of definitions, boundaries, evidence and internal controls. Aims: This article examines the mechanisms that connect the topic to organizational or policy performance and identifies the conditions that make those mechanisms stronger or weaker. Research Method: A structured narrative review integrates peer-reviewed research with authoritative policy, statistical, and professional sources, including OECD (2024a); IFRS Foundation (2023b). Sources are coded by outcome, mechanism, boundary condition, and practical implication. Results and Conclusion: The synthesis indicates that outcomes are heterogeneous. More disclosure does not automatically create more accountability. Long reports can obscure weak performance if metrics are selectively chosen, poorly controlled or disconnected from the decisions that allocate capital and set management incentives. Six recurring themes show that implementation quality, information, capability, and institutional context frequently matter as much as the headline policy or technology. Contribution: The article offers an evidence-based framework for finance functions, boards and sustainability teams that translates the literature into decision principles without claiming primary data that were not collected.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://kisainstitute.com/index.php/kisainstitute/article/view/83first seen 2026-10-06 05:06:26
🔔 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。