測れないものを測る？インド優良企業におけるESG格付の乖離：欧州サステナブルファイナンスへの比較的示唆

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

🔬研究者:ESG格付の方法論的乖離と規制環境要因を定量化した実証枠組みを提供する。

🏢実務担当者:国際格付のみに依存せず、複数格付と国内規制準拠評価を併用した開示戦略の必要性を示す。

🏛政策担当者:格付標準化・重要性ガイダンス・越境規制協調の設計に、印欧比較の具体的示唆を与える。

Environmental, social, and governance ratings increasingly shape capital allocation in both emerging and developed markets, yet their divergence across providers raises fundamental questions about their reliability as measurement instruments. Existing literature documents substantial disagreement among global rating agencies and attributes it to differences in scope, measurement, and weight. However, evidence from emerging markets with mandatory sustainability disclosure regimes remains limited, and the interaction between domestic regulator-aligned raters and international providers has not been systematically examined. This study addresses that gap by analysing ESG rating divergence among Nifty 100 constituents in India and deriving comparative insights for European sustainable finance regulation, with particular attention to the recently introduced Indian ERP framework and European Regulation 2024/3005. Using FY 2023–24 assessments from six rating agencies spanning domestic regulator-aligned, consensus-aggregation, performance-based, and risk-based methodologies, the study applies pairwise correlation analysis, cluster analysis, sector-level decomposition, and multivariate regression. Pairwise correlations range from − 0.758 to 0.703 with a mean of 0.119, far below the near-unity convergence observed in credit ratings. Raters cluster into three methodological regimes: a consensus-aggregation cluster, a performance-rating cluster, and a scale-separated risk-based cluster. Regression analysis confirms that firms covered by the domestic regulator-aligned rater exhibit significantly higher divergence, and the interaction between domestic rating and foreign coverage is highly significant, supporting an institutional-embedding interpretation. Sectoral divergence is non-uniform, highest in industrials, metals, and retail, and lowest in information technology services and insurance, where domestic and international materiality frameworks overlap most. Five methodological sources of divergence (scope, measurement, weight, normalisation, and temporal) are identified, and a fourth structural channel, regulatory-environment divergence, is proposed. Comparative evaluation of India’s ERP framework and European Regulation 2024/3005 identifies complementary strengths and shared gaps in standardisation, comparability, materiality guidance, enforcement, and cross-border coordination. ESG ratings do not yet function as interchangeable measurement instruments. For European investors with Indian blue-chip exposure, reliance on international providers alone yields incomplete assessments. The findings support bilateral regulatory cooperation between Indian and European authorities, standardised pillar-level disclosure, harmonised materiality guidance, and integrated reporting strategies for cross-jurisdiction issuers.

• semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-026-01473-xfirst seen 2026-10-01 05:41:47 · last seen 2026-10-02 05:45:48