Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: the case study of Ukrainian public agricultural companies

Oleh Pasko; Tetiana Marenych; Olena Diachenko; Inna Levytska; Inna Balla

doi:10.51599/are.2021.07.01.04

Oleh Pasko Sumy National Agrarian University http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6275-5885
Tetiana Marenych Kharkiv Petro Vasylenko National Technical University of Agriculture http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8502-1884
Olena Diachenko Sumy National Agrarian University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4514-509X
Inna Levytska National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3739-6662
Inna Balla State Agrarian and Engineering University in Podilia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5041-9801

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2021.07.01.04

Keywords: agricultural economics, stakeholder engagement, sustainability reporting, sustainability reporting assurance, content analysis.

Abstract

Purpose. The paper aims at finding out how significantly stakeholders are consulted and involved by preparers, Ukrainian publicly-listed agricultural companies, while compiling sustainability reporting (SR) and by assurance providers, during assurance processes of SR. The paper’s main research question may be formulated as follows ‘How deeply stakeholders are involved at Ukrainian agricultural companies in the preparation of their sustainability reporting and assurance?’

Methodology / approach. The study utilizes widely used techniques in this field content analysis of sustainability reports based on suggested coding rules which in turn grounded in the leading literature. Authors use a multidimensional coding system (with a maximum score of 12 points) which consists of three elements and offers an aggregate assessment of the information disclosure of the involvement of stakeholders in sustainability reporting. Also authors base on frameworks for classification of the stakeholders’ engagement level into three levels (information, response and involvement strategies). The paper’s sample although tiny, only five years/company observations, is comprehensive since it includes all Ukrainian agricultural companies presented in GRI SDD database one of the largest databases of its kind. To analyze only the latest relevant experience, authors have limited the report type to the latest GRI modification – GRI Standards. As a result of five steps in the sample formation process, it is equal to 3 companies that produced 5 reports in the period between 2017 and 2019 years.

Results. While the used coding structure allowed for a maximum of 12 points, the analysed reports were able to reach only half of this as one report earned 7, one – 6 and the rest was marked with 5 points. From the three companies from our sample frontrunner is Astarta Holding. Astarta Holding excels in materiality relevance (4 points) and is the only company assured its sustainability report. Authors find that the engagement strategy of the companies being analyzed mostly consists of action intended to inform (level 1) as well as consult and support stakeholders (level 2), whilst deep involvement strategy (level 3) is being almost neglected. In regards to focus, we find that the most cited stakeholders in engagement actions are on level 1 employees, consumers and suppliers. Consumers also alongside authorities and local communities are the most cited stakeholders on the level of response strategy, whereas the authorities are the single stakeholders' group being honoured to be treated on the highest third level. The authors’ general impression is that for the most part legitimacy theory is the best theory to explain the behaviour of compilers of reports from the sample because mostly management uses rhetorical tools to cover its activities, while the reporting itself lacks specifics about negative externalities. For authors, it looks like an exercise in self-legitimization. It appears that the companies studied has not yet fully performed the transfer from ‘stakeholder management’ to ‘stakeholder engagement’. It is the authors’ understanding that all this has roots in the very perverted perception of sustainability reporting as a continuation of financial reporting although it is not. In financial reporting, materiality is defined internally as a percentage of some indicators in the balance sheet and/or statement of financial performance, in sustainable reporting, materiality is not only important in the assurance, but it is a cornerstone in the preparation of SR itself.

Originality / scientific novelty. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first that extends the analysis the stakeholders’ engagement in the sustainability reporting to the Ukrainian agricultural companies, thus shedding some light on that unexplored (underexplored) practice.

Practical value / implications. First, sustainability reporting practices in Ukraine is in its infancy, and therefore any shortcomings identified will be a guide to action to adjust these approaches in the future. Secondly, our analysis can also be seen as the dissemination of best practices. The companies we have chosen are pioneers in this matter, so they can at the same time be considered as role models for others, but taking into account the experience gained by them. Besides, in addition to companies, our findings can be useful for regulators and public authorities alike in terms of adjusting the approach to regulating this area.

References

1. Abeydeera, S., Tregidga, H. and Kearins, K. (2016), Sustainability reporting – more global than local? Meditari Accountancy Research, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 478–504. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-09-2015-0063.
2. AccountAbility (2020), Dynamic materiality: the emerging trend shaping the future of sustainability strategy and reporting, available at: https://www.accountability.org/insights/dynamic-materiality-the-emerging-trend-shaping-the-future-of-sustainability-strategy-and-reporting.
3. Andriof, J. and Waddock, S. (2017), Unfolding stakeholder engagement in Unfolding stakeholder thinking, 1 st ed, Routledge, London, pp. 19–42. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351281881-2.
4. ASTARTA Holding (2019), Annual report 2018, available at: https://sdd-pdf.s3.amazonaws.com/report-pdfs/2019/f9851ded08a643146377d13bfef9997e.pdf? AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJZQ4KYD2D35QKCDA&Expires=1604238437&Signature=tcWjUXklq2Yiycq4f%2BFCog2suyk%3D.
5. ASTARTA Holding (2020), Sustainability report 2019, available at: https://database.globalreporting.org/reports/77548/download-report-pdf.
6. ASTARTA Holding (no date), Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP), available at: https://astartaholding.com/files/uploads/1de54f3b422f91bb6c0c180008df459a.pdf.
7. De Beelde, I. and Tuybens, S. (2015), Enhancing the credibility of reporting on corporate social responsibility in Europe. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 190–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1814.
8. Bepari, M. K. and Mollik, A. T. (2016), Stakeholders’ interest in sustainability assurance process. Managerial Auditing Journal, vol. 31, no. 6/7, pp. 655–687. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-06-2015-1208.
9. Boiral, O. and Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. (2020), Sustainability reporting assurance: creating stakeholder accountability through hyperreality? Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 243, 118596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118596.
10. Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. and Brotherton, M.-C. (2019), Assessing and improving the quality of sustainability reports: the auditors’ perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 155, no. 3, pp. 703–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3516-4.
11. Bouten, L., Everaert, P., Van Liedekerke, L., De Moor, L. and Christiaens, J. (2011), Corporate social responsibility reporting: a comprehensive picture? Accounting Forum, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2011.06.007.
12. Brown, J. and Dillard, J. (2014), Integrated reporting: on the need for broadening out and opening up. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 1120–1156. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2013-1313.
13. Craig-Lees, M. (2001), Sense making: Trojan horse? Pandora’s box? Psychology and Marketing, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 513–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.1019.
14. Cramer, J., Jonker, J. and van der Heijden, A. (2004), Making sense of corporate social responsibility’. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-1903-0.
15. Dienes, D., Sassen, R. and Fischer, J. (2016), What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic review. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 154–189. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2014-0050.
16. Gable, C. and Shireman, B. (2005), Stakeholder engagement: a three-phase methodology. Environmental Quality Management, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.20044.
17. Gioia, D. A. and Chittipeddi, K. (1991), Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120604.
18. GSSB (2016), GRI 101: FOUNDATION 2016, аvailable at: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center.
19. Gürtürk, A. and Hahn, R. (2016), An empirical assessment of assurance statements in sustainability reports: smoke screens or enlightening information? Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 136, pp. 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.089.
20. Guthrie, J. and Abeysekera, I. (2006), Content analysis of social, environmental reporting: what is new? Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1108/14013380610703120.
21. Hahn, R. and Kühnen, M. (2013), Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 59, pp. 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005.
22. Herremans, I. M., Nazari, J. A. and Mahmoudian, F. (2016), Stakeholder Relationships, Engagement, and Sustainability Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 138, no. 3, pp. 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2634-0.
23. Johnson, M., Redlbacher, F. and Schaltegger, S. (2018), Stakeholder engagement for corporate sustainability: a comparative analysis of B2C and B2B companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 659–673. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1484.
24. Kernel Holding (2019), Annual Report 2019, аvailable at: https://sdd-pdf.s3.amazonaws.com/report-pdfs/2019/0f7ddc9891c8fb8ee13e3e46eaaaf60d.pdf? AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJZQ4KYD2D35QKCDA&Expires=1604238615&Signature=GPHo%2BfGj0kd0J7A3UxZY%2FAp679A%3D.
25. KPMG (2013), The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2013, available at: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2013/12/corporate-responsibility-reporting-survey-2013.pdf.
26. KPMG (2017), The road ahead. The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2017, аvailable at: https://assets.kpmg/ content/dam/kpmg/be/pdf/2017/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2017.pdf.
27. Manetti, G. (2011), The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: empirical evidence and critical points. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.255.
28. Manetti, G. and Toccafondi, S. (2012), The role of stakeholders in sustainability reporting assurance. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1044-1.
29. Mensah, J. (2019), Sustainable development: meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, vol. 5, no. 1, 1653531. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1653531.
30. MHP (2018), Non-financial report 2017, available at: https://sdd-pdf.s3.amazonaws.com/report-pdfs/2018/fa7e8b657c12308cc3fcbe8b16ef6b73.pdf? AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJZQ4KYD2D35QKCDA&Expires=1604238880&Signature=6udBzVmTVZ0bJcEaDerhNVq7Uho%3D.
31. MHP (2020), Non-financial report 2019, available at: https://sdd-pdf.s3.amazonaws.com/report-pdfs/2020/4e3d73b95d5d350d80f8892ff2683ea4.pdf? AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJZQ4KYD2D35QKCDA&Expires=1604238797&Signature=zLe5wmNhHYXoRdNhIYvOLy%2Fkews%3D.
32. Moratis, L. and Brandt, S. (2017), Corporate stakeholder responsiveness? Exploring the state and quality of GRI-based stakeholder engagement disclosures of European firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1408.
33. Moroney, R. and Trotman, K. T. (2016), Differences in auditors’ materiality assessments when auditing financial statements and sustainability reports. Contemporary Accounting Research, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 551–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12162.
34. Morsing, M. and Schultz, M. (2006), Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business ethics: a European review, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x.
35. O’Dwyer, B. and Owen, D. (2007), Seeking stakeholder-centric sustainability assurance. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, no. 25, pp. 77–94. https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2007.sp.00009.
36. Parker, L. D. (2005), Social and environmental accountability research: a view from the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 842–860. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570510627739.
37. Perego, P. and Kolk, A. (2012), Multinationals’ accountability on sustainability: the evolution of third-party assurance of sustainability reports. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1420-5.
38. Puroila, J. and Mäkelä, H. (2019), Matter of opinion: exploring the socio-political nature of materiality disclosures in sustainability reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1043–1072. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-11-2016-2788.
39. Edgley, C. R., Jones, M. J. and Solomon, J. F. (2010), Stakeholder inclusivity in social and environmental report assurance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 532–557. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571011041615.
40. Safari, M. and Areeb, A. (2020), A qualitative analysis of GRI principles for defining sustainability report quality: an Australian case from the preparers’ perspective. Accounting Forum, vol. 44, is. 4, pp. 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2020.1736759.
41. Salvador, R., Barros, M. V., do Prado, G. F. et al. (2021), Knowledge and technology transfer in sustainability reports: fomenting stakeholder engagement for sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 28, is. 1, pp. 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2046.
42. Sierra-García, L., Zorio-Grima, A. and García-Benau, M. A. (2015), Stakeholder engagement, corporate social responsibility and integrated reporting: an exploratory study. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 22, is. 5, pp. 286–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1345.
43. Stocker, F., de Arruda, M. P., de Mascena, K. M. C. and Boaventura, J. M. G. (2020), Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: a classification model. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 27, is. 5, pp. 2071–2080. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1947.
44. Torelli, R., Balluchi, F. and Furlotti, K. (2020), The materiality assessment and stakeholder engagement: a content analysis of sustainability reports. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 27, is. 2, pp. 470–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1813.