Analysis and Audit of Reporting on Sustainable Development for Trade Networks and Directions for Their Improvement

• Autorzy: Us Alla , Nazarova Karina

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.35784/preko.4032

Warianty tytułu

PL

Analiza i audyt sprawozdawczości zrównoważonego rozwoju dla sieci handlowych i kierunków ich doskonalenia

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In the modern world, the issue of achieving a sustainable economic development model is becoming more and more urgent. One of its components is compliance with the Goal of sustainable development by companies and verification by state authorities and independent auditors of companies in matters of environmental sustainability. Thus, consideration of modern methods of submission and audit of sustainable development reports (SDR), analysis of opportunities for their improvement becomes relevant. In this work, attention is paid to companies engaged in retail trade, taking into account the peculiarities that they face when submitting the SDR. The purpose of the research was to conduct an analysis of the most common methods of reporting on sustainable development and to develop an effective model (and recommendations for it) for auditing and analyzing sustainable development reporting. Modeling became the main method when writing the paper, taking into account the developed model of analysis and verification of the SDR. The article proposed a new model of verification of non-financial information in sustainability reporting and its graphical display in the audit report. On its basis, it becomes possible to build a new methodology for the audit of the SDR. In addition, the most common international methods of SDR were analyzed, namely the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). The authors concluded that the GRI is the most universal of the three, while the SASB is focused only on investors. IIRC, being similar to both described above, is an intermediate option. Nevertheless, submission according to the SASB system is the most effective for trade networks, taking into account the peculiarities of the functioning of this type of companies and the level of their influence on the external environment. The results of the conducted research and the data presented in the article make it possible to evaluate the modern methods of submitting financial statements in a new way and provide a basis for building new standards for the audit of these reports.

PL

We współczesnym świecie kwestia osiągnięcia modelu zrównoważonego rozwoju gospodarczego staje się coraz bardziej paląca. Jednym z jego elementów jest przestrzeganie przez przedsiębiorstwa Celów zrównoważonego rozwoju oraz weryfikacja przez organy państwowe i niezależnych audytorów przedsiębiorstw w zakresie zrównoważonego rozwoju środowiskowego. Tym samym istotne staje się rozważenie nowoczesnych metod składania i audytu raportów zrównoważonego rozwoju (SDR) oraz analiza możliwości ich doskonalenia. W niniejszej pracy zwrócono uwagę na przedsiębiorstwa zajmujące się handlem detalicznym, biorąc pod uwagę specyfikę, z jaką spotykają się przy składaniu SDR. Celem badania była analiza najpowszechniejszych metod raportowania zrównoważonego rozwoju oraz wypracowanie efektywnego modelu (i rekomendacji do niego) audytu i analizy raportowania zrównoważonego rozwoju. Modelowanie stało się główną metodą podczas pisania artykułu, uwzględniając opracowany model analizy i weryfikacji SDR. W artykule zaproponowano nowy model weryfikacji informacji niefinansowych w raportowaniu zrównoważonego rozwoju oraz ich graficzne przedstawienie w raporcie z audytu. Na jego podstawie możliwe staje się zbudowanie nowej metodyki badania SDR. Ponadto przeanalizowano najpopularniejsze międzynarodowe metody SDR, a mianowicie Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) oraz International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). Autorzy doszli do wniosku, że GRI jest najbardziej uniwersalną z całej trójki, podczas gdy SASB koncentruje się wyłącznie na inwestorach. IIRC, będąc podobny do obu opisanych powyżej, jest opcją pośrednią. Niemniej jednak złożenie według systemu SASB jest najbardziej efektywne dla sieci handlowych, biorąc pod uwagę specyfikę funkcjonowania tego typu firm i stopień ich wpływu na otoczenie zewnętrzne. Wyniki przeprowadzonych badań oraz dane zaprezentowane w artykule pozwalają w nowy sposób ocenić nowoczesne metody składania sprawozdań finansowych i dają podstawę do budowy nowych standardów badania tych sprawozdań.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

accounting; sustainability; retail trade companies; international audit; modeling

PL

księgowość; rozwój zrównoważony; firmy handlu detalicznego; audyt międzynarodowy; modelowanie

• Wydawca: Lublin University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Problemy Ekorozwoju
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: Vol. 18, nr 2
• Strony: 183--192
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 46 poz., fig., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Us Alla

• Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics, Department of Financial Analysis and Audit, Kyiv, Ukraine

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1462-7694

autor

Nazarova Karina

• Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics, Department of Financial Analysis and Audit, Kyiv, Ukraine

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5019-9244

Bibliografia

• 1. ACCOUNTABILITY.OTG, 2019, Assurance Standards, https://www.accountability.org/standards/.
• 2. AL-SHAER H., ZAMAN M., 2019, CEO compensation and sustainability reporting assurance: evidence from the UK, Journal of Business Ethics 158: 233-252, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3735-8.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3735-8
• 3. BARYSHNIKOVA O.M., 2016, Features of the organization of the system of verification of sustainable development reporting, Economy and State, 8: 131-140.
• 4. BOIRAL O., HERAS-SAIZARBITORIA I., BROTHERTON M., 2019, Assessing and improving the quality of sustainability reports: the auditors’ perspective, Journal of Business Ethics 155: 703-721, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3516-4.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3516-4
• 5. BUSCO C., CONSOLANDI C., ECCLES R.G., SOFRA E., 2020, A Preliminary Analysis of SASB Reporting: Disclosure Topics, Financial Relevance, and the Financial Intensity of ESG Materiality, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 22(2): 117-125, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3548849.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12411
• 6. CHEN H.S.Y., CHENG T.C.E., 2021, Shades of green: HOPF for standardized environmental performance indicators, Sustainable Resource Management 1: 241-271, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824342-8.00017-1.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824342-8.00017-1
• 7. CORPORATE REGISTER, 2021, Live charts, https://www.corporateregister.com/livecharts.
• 8. Decree 2012-557 on obligations regarding transparency on social and environmental disclosure by companies, 2012, https://cutt.ly/LV3VpG2.
• 9. Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups, 2014, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/95/oj.
• 10. ECCLES R.G., CHENG B., SALTZMAN D., 2010, The Landscape of Integrated Reporting, Bussines School, Harvard.
• 11. GAMKALO O.B., 2017, Non-Financial Reporting as an Instrument for Measuring the Social Activity of Domestic Enterprises, Statistics of Ukraine 4: 79-86.DOI: https://doi.org/10.31767/su.4(79).2017.04.10
• 12. GERWANSKI J., 2020, Does it pay off? Integrated reporting and cost of debt: European evidence, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 27(5): 2299-2319, https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1965.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1965
• 13. GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE, 2022, Standards, https://www.globalreporting.org/standard/.
• 14. GOVERNMENT OFFICIES OF SWEDEN, 2007, Guidelines for external reporting by state-owned companies, 2007, https://www.government.se/information-material/2007/12/guidelines-for-external-reporting-by-state-owned-companies/.
• 15. GRAY R., 2020, Current developments and trends in social and environmental auditing, reporting and attestation: a review and comment, International Journal of Auditing,4(3): 247-268, DOI: 10.1111/1099-1123.00316.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1099-1123.00316
• 16. HERZIG C., PIANOWSKI M., 2009, Business management, Wirtschaften im Unternehmen, Stuttgart.
• 17. International Integrated Reporting Council, 2022, https://www.iasplus.com/en-gb/resources/global-organisations/iirc.
• 18. International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3000, 2013, https://www.iaasb.org/publications/international-standard-assurance-engagements-isae-3000-revised-assurance-engagements-other-audits-or-0.
• 19. IOANNOU I., SERAFEIM G., 2011, The Consequences of Mandatory Corporate Sustainability Reporting, Harvard Business School Research Working Paper 11(100): 49-60.DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1799589
• 20. ISMAYILOV V.I., ALMASOV N.N., MUSAYEV N.S., SAMEDOVA A.Q., 2021, Influence of internal production conditions on the efficiency and competitiveness of enterprises, Future Business Journal 7(1): 40, https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-021-00086-5.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-021-00086-5
• 21. ISO, 2010, ISO-26000:2010 Guidance on social responsibility, https://www.iso.org/ru/standard/42546.html.
• 22. ISO, 2022, ISO 14000 Environmental management, https://www.iso.org/ru/iso-14001-environmental-management.html.
• 23. JONES P., COMFORT D., 2021, Leading European Retailers and the Sustainable Development Goals, Journal of Sustainability Research 3(1): e210001, https://doi.org/: 10.20900/jsr20210001.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20210001
• 24. KAYA I., 2017, Sustainability reporting assurance: a literature survey. Regional Studies on Economic Growth, Fi-nancial Economics and Management, Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, Springer, Cham, https://doi.org/: 10.1007/978-3-319-54112-9_3.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54112-9_3
• 25. KETNERS K., 2020, Spending review as essential part of public sector budgeting: Latvian experience, Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference Economic Science for Rural Development 53: 97-106.DOI: https://doi.org/10.22616/ESRD.2020.53.011
• 26. KOK P., VAN DER WIELE T., MCKENNA R., BROWN A.A., 2001, Corporate social responsibility audit within a quality management framework, Journal of Business Ethics 31: 285-297, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010767001610.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010767001610
• 27. KPMG, 2010, Corporate Governance Code King III, https://cutt.ly/IV3V4Ph.
• 28. KPMG, 2021, The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting, https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/ xx/pdf/2020/11/the-time-has-come.pdf.
• 29. LUEG K., LUEG R., 2021, Deconstructing corporate sustainability narratives: A taxonomy for critical assessment of integrated reporting types, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 26(6): 1785-1800, https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2152.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2152
• 30. MAKARENKO I., KRAVCHENKO O., OVCHAROVA N., ZEMLYAK N., MAKARENKO S., 2020, Standardiza-tion of audit reporting on sustainable development of companies, Agricultural and Resource Economics 6(2): 78-90.DOI: https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2020.06.02.05
• 31. MARTINKOVIC M., 2021, Development of the party system and the character of coalition governments in Slovakia in the years 2006-2016, Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Filosofiya-Sotsiologiya-Politologiya-Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy Sociology and Political Science 60: 194-205, https://doi.org/10.17223/1998863X/60/17.DOI: https://doi.org/10.17223/1998863X/60/17
• 32. MAZURYK O.V., 2015, Social audit as a modern diagnostic technology: theoretical and methodological principles of research, Bulletin of V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University 1148(34): 107-113.
• 33. MELNYK K.P., 2019, Formalization of the subject area of audit in terms of sustainable development, Problems of Theory and Methodology of Accounting, Control and Analysis 3(44): 34-39.DOI: https://doi.org/10.26642/pbo-2019-3(44)-34-39
• 34. MICHELON G., PATTEN D.M., ROMI A.N., 2019, Creating legitimacy for sustainability assurance practices: evi-dence from sustainability restatements, European Accounting Review 28(2): 395-422, https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180. 2018.1469424.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2018.1469424
• 35. MORIMOTO R., ASH J., HOPE C., 2005, Corporate social responsibility audit: from theory to practice, Journal of Business Ethics,62: 315-325, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-0274-5.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-0274-5
• 36. SAJ, 2007, SAJSA8000 Standard, https://sa-intl.org/programs/sa8000/.
• 37. SHERRY B., 2021, More Than Half of S&P Global 1200 Now Disclose Using SASB Standards, https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/09/22/2301122/0/en/More-Than-Half-of-S-P-Global-1200-Now-Disclose-Using-SASB-Standards.html.
• 38. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, 2022, https://www.sasb.org/.
• 39. TAIWAN STOCK EXCHANGE, 2021, Corporation Rules Governing the Preparation and Filing of Corporate Social Responsibility Reports by TWSE Listed Companies, https://cutt.ly/AV3Biio.
• 40. UN, 2020, Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.
• 41. VASILIEVA T., LIEONOV S., MAKARENKO I., SIRKOVSKA N., 2017, Sustainability information disclosure as an instrument of marketing communication with stakeholders: markets, social and economic aspects, Marketing and Management of Innovation 4: 350-357, https://doi.org/10.21272/MMI.2017.4-31.DOI: https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2017.4-31
• 42. VELTE P., 2021, Archival Research on Integrated Reporting: a Systematic Review of Main Drivers and the Impact of Integrated Reporting on Firm Value, Journal of Management and Governance 26: 997-1061, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-021-09582-w.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-021-09582-w
• 43. VOROBEY V., ZHUROVSKA I., 2021, Non-financial reporting: tools of socially responsible business, FOP O.M. Kostyuchenko, Kyiv.
• 44. WADDOCK S., SMITH N., 2000, Corporate Responsibility Audits: Doing Well by Doing Good, Sloan Management Review 41(2): 75-83.
• 45. YANG Y., ORZES G., JILA F., 2019, Does GRI Sustainability Reporting Pay Off? An Empirical Investigation of Publicly Listed Firms in China, Business & Society 60(7): 1738-1772, https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650319831632.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650319831632
• 46. ZEMLYAK N.V., SERPENINOVA Y.S., 2020, Methods of Reporting on Sustainable Development and its Audit, Educational and Scientific Institute of Business Technologies, Sumy.