Rationale for the most relevant benchmarks in the field of sustainable development reporting: the experience of Ukraine
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51599/is.2023.07.02.11Keywords:
sustainable development reporting, transparency, sustainable development goals, Analytical Hierarchy Process.Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of the article is to substantiate the criteria for evaluation of non-financial reporting systems and to select the most relevant benchmarks of sustainable development reporting, taking into account the political and economic characteristics of Ukraine.
Results. The article is devoted to the selection of a sustainable development reporting system. At the first stage, the authors identified a set of alternative sustainable development reporting systems (ISSB, ESRS, SEC, GRI and IIRC). Further, the authors substantiated the system of criteria for evaluating alternatives, namely: the relevance of the political concept; compliance with Ukraine's post-war reconstruction plans; comprehensive consideration of ESG criteria; the importance of the incorporation of the SDG. Determination of the most relevant system of sustainable development reporting is carried out by the Analytical Hierarchy Process. As it was culculated, the best alternative is the ESRS standard, which is significantly ahead of other reporting standards by an integrated assessment of the global priorities of alternatives. This conclusion is consistent with the results of the empirical analysis of the specified standards and the legally established course for the full European integration of Ukraine.
Scientific novelty consists in the improvement of methodological bases for the selection of the most relevant system of sustainable development reporting, which, unlike the existing ones, takes into account the peculiarities of the national economy and the political situation in Ukraine.
Practical value. Application of the most relevant system of sustainable development reporting should essentially increase the transparency of the national economy, which will significantly increase the investment attractiveness of enterprises and shorten the period of post-war recovery.
References
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.
