Обґрунтування найбільш релевантних бенчмарків у сфері звітування зі сталого розвитку: досвід України
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51599/is.2023.07.02.11Ключови думи:
звітність зі сталого розвитку, прозорість, цілі сталого розвитку, метод аналізу ієрархій.Абстракт
Мета. Мета статті – обґрунтування критеріїв оцінювання систем нефінансової звітності та обрання найбільш релевантних бенчмарків у сфері звітування зі сталого розвитку з урахуванням політичних та економічних особливостей України.
Результати. Статтю присвячено обранню системи звітування про сталий розвиток. На першому етапі авторами визначено набір альтернативних систем звітування про сталий розвиток (ISSB, ESRS, SEC, GRI і IIRC). Далі авторами обґрунтовано систему критеріїв оцінювання альтернатив, а саме: релевантність політичної концепції; відповідність планам повоєнного відновлення України; комплексність урахування ESG-критеріїв; важливість інкорпорації цілей сталого розвитку (ЦСР) як основи повоєнного відновлення та сталого розвитку країни в подальшому. Визначення найбільш релевантної системи звітування про сталий розвиток проводили шляхом методу аналізу ієрархій. Найкращою альтернативою є стандарт ESRS, який суттєво випереджає інші стандарти звітності за інтегральною оцінкою глобальних пріоритетів альтернатив. Такий висновок узгоджується з результатами емпіричного аналізу вказаних стандартів та законодавчо закріпленим курсом на повну європейську інтеграцію України.
Наукова новизна полягає в удосконаленні методичних заcад обрання релевантної системи звітування про сталий розвиток, які, на відміну від наявних, ураховують особливості національної економіки на політичної ситуації в Україні.
Практична цінність. Застосування найбільш релевантної системи звітування про сталий розвиток має суттєво збільшити прозорість національної економіки, що, своєю чергою, істотно підвищить інвестиційну привабливість підприємств і скоротить період післявоєнного відновлення.
Литература
План відновлення України. URL: https://recovery.gov.ua.
Tsalis T. A., Malamateniou K. E., Koulouriotis D., Nikolaou I. E. New challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2020. Vol. 27. Is. 4. Pp. 1617–1629. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1910.
Abela M. A new direction? The “mainstreaming” of sustainability reporting. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. 2022. Vol. 13. Is. 6. Pp. 1261–1283. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-06-2021-0201.
Hummel K., Jobst D. The current state of corporate sustainability reporting regulation in the European Union. Working Paper, 2022. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3978478.
Arianpoor A., Salehi M., Daroudi F. Nonfinancial sustainability reporting, management legitimate authority and enterprise value. Social Responsibility Journal. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2022-0374.
Stolowy H., Paugam, L. The expansion of non-financial reporting: An exploratory study. Accounting and Business Research. 2018. Vol. 48. Is. 5. Pp. 525–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2018.1470141.
Stolowy H., Paugam L. Sustainability reporting: is convergence possible? Accounting in Europe. 2023. Vol. 20. Is. 2. Pp. 139–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2023.2189016.
Luque-Vílchez M., Cordazzo M., Rimmel G., Tilt C. A. Key aspects of sustainability reporting quality and the future of GRI. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2023-0127.
Caputo F., Leopizzi R., Pizzi S., Milone V. The non-financial reporting harmonization in Europe: evolutionary pathways related to the transposition of the Directive 95/2014/EU within the Italian context. Sustainability. 2019. Vol. 12(1). 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010092.
Galant A., Cerne K. Non-financial reporting in Croatia: current trends analysis and future perspectives. Management. 2017. Vol. 12(1). Pp. 41–58. https://doi.org/10.26493/1854-4231.12.41-58.
Sierra-Garcia L., Garcia-Benau M. A., Bollas-Araya H. M. Empirical analysis of non-financial reporting by Spanish companies. Administrative Sciences. 2018. Vol. 8(3). 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8030029.
Makarenko I., Makarenko S. Multi-level benchmark system for sustainability reporting: EU experience for Ukraine. Accounting and Financial Control. 2022. Vol. 4. Is. 1. Pp. 41–48. https://doi.org/10.21511/afc.04(1).2023.04.
Sustainable Investing: fast forwarding its evolution. KPMG. URL: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/02/sustainable-investing.pdf.
Boulanger P.M., Bréchet T. Models for policy-making in sustainable development: the state of the art and perspectives for research. Ecological Economics. 2005. Vol. 55. Is. 3. Pp. 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.033.
Von Raggamby A., Rubik F. Sustainable development, evaluation and policy-making: theory, practise and quality assurance. Institute for Ecological Economy Research and the Ecologic Institute, 2012. 336 р. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781953525.
Using Models for Green Economy Policymaking. United Nations Environment Programme, 2014. 58 р. URL: https://www.un-page.org/static/2eb65e4ad79fdbecf183dff03d0bc9f7/2014-using-models-for-green-economy-policy-making-unep-models-ge-for-web.pdf.
Barbero Vignola G., Acs S., Borchardt S., Sala S. et al. Modelling for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): overview of JRC models. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2020. https://doi.org/10.2760/697440.
Mardani A., Jusoh A., Zavadskas E. K. Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications – two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Systems with Applications. 2015. Vol. 42. Is. 8. Pp. 4126–4148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.003.
Zavadskas E.K., Turskis Z. Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 2011. Vol. 17. No. 2. Pp. 397–427. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.593291.
Zimmer K., Fröhling M., Schultmann F. Sustainable supplier management – a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. International Journal of Production Research. 2016. Vol. 54. Is. 5. Pp. 1412–1442. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1079340.
Stojčić M., Zavadskas E.K., Pamučar D., Stević Ž. et al. Application of MCDM methods in sustainability engineering: a literature review 2008–2018. Symmetry. 2019. Vol. 11(3). 350. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11030350.
Dos Santos P.H., Neves S. M., Sant’Anna D. O., de Oliveira C. H. et al. The analytic hierarchy process supporting decision making for sustainable development: An overview of applications. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019. Vol. 212. Pp. 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.270.
Varsei M., Soosay C., Fahimnia B., Sarkis J. Framing sustainability performance of supply chains with multidimensional indicators. Supply Chain Management: an International Journal. 2014. Vol. 19. Is. 3. Pp. 242–257. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-12-2013-0436.
Luthra S., Govindan K., Kannan D., Mangla S. K. An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017. Vol. 140. Part 3. Pp. 1686–1698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078.
Jayawickrama H. M. M. M., Kulatunga A. K., Mathavan S. J. P. M. Fuzzy AHP based plant sustainability evaluation method. Procedia Manufacturing. 2017. Vol. 8. Pp. 571–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.073.
Azimifard A., Moosavirad S. H., Ariafar S. Selecting sustainable supplier countries for Iran’s steel industry at three levels by using AHP and TOPSIS methods. Resources Policy. 2018. Vol. 57. Pp. 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.01.002.
Mastrocinque E., Ramírez F. J., Honrubia-Escribano A., Pham D. T. An AHP-based multi-criteria model for sustainable supply chain development in the renewable energy sector. Expert Systems with Applications. 2020. Vol. 150. 113321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113321.
Ahmad S., Tahar R. M. Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: a case of Malaysia. Renewable Energy. 2014. Vol. 63. Pp. 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.10.001.
Haddad B., Liazid A., Ferreira P. A multi-criteria approach to rank renewables for the Algerian electricity system. Renewable Energy. 2017. Vol. 107. Pp. 462–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.01.035.
Wang Y., Xu L., Solangi Y. A. Strategic renewable energy resources selection for Pakistan: based on SWOT-Fuzzy AHP approach. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2020. Vol. 52. 101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101861.
Wu Y., Xu C., Zhang T. Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: a case in China. Energy. 2018. Vol. 147. Pp. 1227–1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.115.
Netto A. L., Salomon V. A., Barrios M. A. O., Florek-Paszkowska A. K. et al. Multiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry. International Transactions in Operational Research. 2021. Vol. 28. Is. 3. Pp. 1550–1572. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12871.
Mathiyazhagan K., Diabat A., Al-Refaie A., Xu L. Application of analytical hierarchy process to evaluate pressures to implement green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015. Vol. 107. Pp. 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.110.
Shen L., Muduli K., Barve A. Developing a sustainable development framework in the context of mining industries: AHP approach. Resources Policy. 2015. Vol. 46. Part 1. Pp. 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.10.006.
Szabo Z. K., Szádoczki Z., Bozóki S., Stănciulescu G. C. et al. An analytic hierarchy process approach for prioritisation of strategic objectives of sustainable development. Sustainability. 2021. Vol. 13(4). 2254. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042254.
Kaymaz Ç. K., Birinci S., Kızılkan Y. Sustainable development goals assessment of Erzurum province with SWOT-AHP analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2022. Vol. 24(3). Pp. 2986–3012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01584-w.
Brin P., Nehme M. Sustainable development in emerging economy: using the analytical hierarchy process for corporate social responsibility decision making. Journal of Information Technology Management. 2021. Vol. 13. Spec. is. Pp. 159–174. https://doi.org/10.22059/jitm.2021.80744.
Thanki S., Govindan K., Thakkar J. An investigation on lean-green implementation practices in Indian SMEs using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016. Vol. 135. Pp. 284–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.105.
Jurík L., Horňáková N., Šantavá E., Cagáňová D. et al. Application of AHP method for project selection in the context of sustainable development. Wireless Networks. 2022. Vol. 28. Pp. 893–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11276-020-02322-2.
Nejad M. C., Mansour S., Karamipour A. An AHP-based multi-criteria model for assessment of the social sustainability of technology management process: a case study in banking industry. Technology in Society. 2021. Vol. 65. 101602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101602.
Saaty T. L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 1977. Vol. 15. Is. 3. Pp. 234–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5.
Crawford G., Williams C. A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 1985. Vol. 29. Is. 4. Pp. 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(85)90002-1.
Dong Y., Zhang G., Hong W. C., Xu Y. Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method. Decision Support Systems. 2010. Vol. 49. Is. 3. Pp. 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.03.003.
Kumar N. V., Ganesh L. S. A simulation-based evaluation of the approximate and the exact eigenvector methods employed in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research. 1996. Vol. 95. Is. 3. Pp. 656–662.
References
Recovery plan for Ukraine (n.d.). Available at: https://recovery.gov.ua.
Tsalis, T. A., Malamateniou, K. E., Koulouriotis, D., & Nikolaou, I. E. (2020). New challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(4), 1617–1629. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1910.
Abela, M. (2022). A new direction? The “mainstreaming” of sustainability reporting. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 13(6), 1261–1283. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-06-2021-0201.
Hummel, K., & Jobst, D. (2022). The current state of corporate sustainability reporting regulation in the European Union. Working Paper. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3978478.
Arianpoor, A., Salehi, M., & Daroudi, F. (2023). Nonfinancial sustainability reporting, management legitimate authority and enterprise value. Social Responsibility Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2022-0374.
Stolowy, H., & Paugam, L. (2018). The expansion of non-financial reporting: an exploratory study. Accounting and Business Research, 48(5), 525–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2018.1470141.
Stolowy, H., & Paugam, L. (2023). Sustainability reporting: is convergence possible? Accounting in Europe, 20(2), 139–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2023.2189016.
Luque-Vílchez, M., Cordazzo, M., Rimmel, G., & Tilt, C. A. (2023). Key aspects of sustainability reporting quality and the future of GRI. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2023-0127.
Caputo, F., Leopizzi, R., Pizzi, S., & Milone, V. (2019). The non-financial reporting harmonization in Europe: evolutionary pathways related to the transposition of the Directive 95/2014/EU within the Italian context. Sustainability, 12(1), 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010092.
Galant, A., & Cerne, K. (2017). Non-financial reporting in Croatia: current trends analysis and future perspectives. Management, 12(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.26493/1854-4231.12.41-58.
Sierra-Garcia, L., Garcia-Benau, M. A., & Bollas-Araya, H. M. (2018). Empirical analysis of non-financial reporting by Spanish companies. Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8030029.
Makarenko, I., & Makarenko, S. (2022). Multi-level benchmark system for sustainability reporting: EU experience for Ukraine. Accounting and Financial Control, 4(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.21511/afc.04(1).2023.04.
KPMG (2020). Sustainable investing: fast forwarding its evolution. Available at: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/02/sustainable-investing.pdf.
Boulanger, P. M., & Bréchet, T. (2005). Models for policy-making in sustainable development: the state of the art and perspectives for research. Ecological Economics, 55(3), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.033.
Von Raggamby, A., & Rubik, F. (2012) Sustainable development, evaluation and policy-making: theory, practise and quality assurance. Institute for Ecological Economy Research and the Ecologic Institute. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781953525.
UNEP (2014). Using Models for Green Economy Policymaking. Available at: https://www.un-page.org/static/2eb65e4ad79fdbecf183dff03d0bc9f7/2014-using-models-for-green-economy-policy-making-unep-models-ge-for-web.pdf.
Barbero Vignola, G., Acs, S., Borchardt, S., Sala, S., Giuntoli, J., Smits, P., & Marelli, L. (2020). Modelling for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): overview of JRC models. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2760/697440.
Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2015). Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications – two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(8), 4126–4148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.003.
Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(2), 397–427. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.593291.
Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., & Schultmann, F. (2016). Sustainable supplier management – a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1412–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1079340.
Stojčić, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Mardani, A. (2019). Application of MCDM methods in sustainability engineering: a literature review 2008–2018. Symmetry, 11(3), 350. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11030350.
Dos Santos, P. H., Neves, S. M., Sant’Anna, D. O., de Oliveira, C. H., & Carvalho, H. D. (2019). The analytic hierarchy process supporting decision making for sustainable development: an overview of applications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.270.
Varsei, M., Soosay, C., Fahimnia, B., & Sarkis, J. (2014). Framing sustainability performance of supply chains with multidimensional indicators. Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, 19(3), 242–257.https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-12-2013-0436.
Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140(3), 1686–1698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078.
Jayawickrama, H. M. M. M., Kulatunga, A. K., & Mathavan, S. J. P. M. (2017). Fuzzy AHP based plant sustainability evaluation method. Procedia Manufacturing, 8, 571–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.073.
Azimifard, A., Moosavirad, S. H., & Ariafar, S. (2018). Selecting sustainable supplier countries for Iran’s steel industry at three levels by using AHP and TOPSIS methods. Resources Policy, 57, 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.01.002.
Mastrocinque, E., Ramírez, F. J., Honrubia-Escribano, A., & Pham, D. T. (2020). An AHP-based multi-criteria model for sustainable supply chain development in the renewable energy sector. Expert Systems with Applications, 150, 113321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113321.
Ahmad, S., & Tahar, R. M. (2014). Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: a case of Malaysia. Renewable Energy, 63, 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.10.001.
Haddad, B., Liazid, A., & Ferreira, P. (2017). A multi-criteria approach to rank renewables for the Algerian electricity system. Renewable Energy, 107, 462–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.01.035.
Wang, Y., Xu, L., & Solangi, Y. A. (2020). Strategic renewable energy resources selection for Pakistan: based on SWOT-Fuzzy AHP approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 52, 101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101861.
Wu, Y., Xu, C., & Zhang, T. (2018). Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: a case in China. Energy, 147, 1227–1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.115.
Netto, A. L., Salomon, V. A., Barrios, M. A. O., Florek-Paszkowska, A. K., Petrillo, A., & de Oliveira, O. J. (2021). Multiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry. International Transactions in Operational Research, 28(3), 1550–1572. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12871.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Diabat, A., Al-Refaie, A., & Xu, L. (2015). Application of analytical hierarchy process to evaluate pressures to implement green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.110.
Shen, L., Muduli, K., & Barve, A. (2015). Developing a sustainable development framework in the context of mining industries: AHP approach. Resources Policy, 46(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.10.006.
Szabo, Z. K., Szádoczki, Z., Bozóki, S., Stănciulescu, G. C., & Szabo, D. (2021). An analytic hierarchy process approach for prioritisation of strategic objectives of sustainable development. Sustainability, 13(4), 2254. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042254.
Kaymaz, Ç. K., Birinci, S., & Kızılkan, Y. (2022). Sustainable development goals assessment of Erzurum province with SWOT-AHP analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(3), 2986–3012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01584-w.
Brin, P., & Nehme, M. (2021). Sustainable development in emerging economy: Using the analytical hierarchy process for corporate social responsibility decision making. Journal of Information Technology Management, 13, spec. is., 159–174. https://doi.org/10.22059/jitm.2021.80744.
Thanki, S., Govindan, K., & Thakkar, J. (2016). An investigation on lean-green implementation practices in Indian SMEs using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 284–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.105.
Jurík, L., Horňáková, N., Šantavá, E., Cagáňová, D., & Sablik, J. (2022). Application of AHP method for project selection in the context of sustainable development. Wireless Networks, 28, 893–902 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11276-020-02322-2.
Nejad, M. C., Mansour, S., & Karamipour, A. (2021). An AHP-based multi-criteria model for assessment of the social sustainability of technology management process: A case study in banking industry. Technology in Society, 65, 101602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101602.
Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5.
Crawford, G., & Williams, C. (1985). A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29(4), 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(85)90002-1.
Dong, Y., Zhang, G., Hong, W. C., & Xu, Y. (2010). Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method. Decision Support Systems, 49(3), 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.03.003.
Kumar, N. V., & Ganesh, L. S. (1996). A simulation-based evaluation of the approximate and the exact eigenvector methods employed in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 656–662.
