測定が争われるとき：ESG格付の乖離、企業の財務報告行動、そしてエビデンス基盤の妥当性—体系的文献レビュー

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

🔬研究者:ESG格付と財務報告の因果関係を扱う際、格付の内生性とプロバイダー選択への感応度を検証する必要性を示す。

🏢実務担当者:格付乖離が自社の開示・監査対応に与える影響を理解し、開示の量より質を高める戦略の重要性を認識できる。

🏛政策担当者:ESG格付の透明性・比較可能性に関する規制を検討する際、格付と企業報告の相互依存性を考慮すべき根拠を提供する。

ESG rating providers assessing the same firm in the same year reach materially different conclusions. Six reviews since 2024 have synthesised what that divergence does to capital markets; what it does to firms’ own financial reporting and audit behaviour, and to the credibility of research using ESG ratings, has not been reviewed. Following PRISMA 2020, this review identifies studies linking an ESG rating imperfection to a financial reporting, disclosure or audit outcome, pairs bibliometric mapping with a thematic synthesis, and appraises each study for how far its inference survives the choice of provider. Fifty-five studies qualified. Among those whose direction of estimation could be coded, more estimate the effect of reporting on divergence than the reverse, and the disclosure evidence and the audit evidence sit on opposite arms of that distinction, so pooling them as consequences of divergence misdescribes most of them. The apparent conflict between findings that disclosure is associated with more disagreement and findings that it is associated with less can be reconciled once disclosure quantity is separated from disclosure quality. The evidence is almost entirely associational. None of the 46 studies whose design could be assessed attains a low inference risk on the review’s coding, and three do on an independent second coding: a low rating is rare and contested, because the field models divergence carefully and then treats it as exogenous to the reporting with which the same literature finds it to co-vary. A reporting standard for ESG-based accounting research follows.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs14100262first seen 2026-10-01 04:51:39