意思決定に有用な自然関連報告：生物資産会計、生物多様性開示、ESG説明責任

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

🔬研究者:自然関連報告の品質評価・保証準備性を測る4条件の枠組みを、今後の実証研究の設計に活用できる。

🏢実務担当者:生物多様性・生物資産の開示を、生態学的根拠と保証可能性の観点から点検するチェックリストとして使える。

🏛政策担当者:TNFD・ISSB連動の自然関連開示基準や保証制度を設計する際、測定信頼性と生態学的妥当性の要件を検討する根拠になる。

Nature-related information is increasingly reported through financial statements, sustainability and integrated reports, ESG datasets, biodiversity-finance instruments, and conservation disclosures. This reflects the growing recognition that biological assets, ecosystem dependencies, biodiversity loss, and nature-related risks can affect valuation, stewardship, regulation, capital allocation, and cash-flow stability. However, greater reporting visibility does not necessarily produce decision-useful information. Biological assets may be measured without transparent valuation assumptions, biodiversity disclosed without ecological baselines or measurable outcomes, and ESG metrics presented as comparable despite weak links to the entity's specific ecological exposure. This article develops a conceptual framework for determining when nature-related reporting becomes decision-useful across biological asset accounting, biodiversity disclosure, and ESG accountability. It adopts a qualitative, interpretive design based on thematic synthesis of 155 published and institutional sources. Peer-reviewed journal articles formed the analytical core, supported, where relevant, by methodological literature, standards, frameworks, working papers, and reports. The analysis integrated research on IAS 41, biological asset valuation, biodiversity and conservation disclosure, ecological measurement, ESG and integrated reporting, biodiversity finance, governance, assurance, and disclosure analytics. The findings identify four mutually reinforcing conditions for decision usefulness. First, measurement credibility is required when reported values depend on biological transformation, fair-value judgment, inactive markets, valuation models, or biodiversity-risk estimates. Second, ecological validity is necessary where disclosures claim to represent biodiversity impacts, dependencies, conservation activities, or restoration outcomes. Third, governance, assurance, and regulatory anchoring are required to address managerial incentives, uncertain reporting boundaries, scientific complexity, and verification constraints. Fourth, analytical accessibility and stakeholder-use alignment are necessary to ensure that information is comparable, interpretable, and connected to actual decision needs. The article reframes nature-related reporting as a decision-usefulness conversion problem. Nature-related information becomes useful not merely when it is disclosed, measured, or standardized, but when biological and ecological phenomena are translated into credible, ecologically grounded, governed, and accessible knowledge. The framework supports future empirical research, reporting-quality assessment, assurance-readiness evaluation, and standard-setting.

• semanticscholar https://afj.org.ua/storage/pdf/1253-2026-3-pub.pdffirst seen 2026-10-06 05:24:05