METHODOLOGY FOR ADAPTING NON-FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARDS TO THE TRANSPORT SECTOR
Abstract
This study aims to develop and provide a scientific rationale for a methodology to adapt international non-financial reporting standards to the specific conditions of the transport sector, taking into account its infrastructural characteristics, natural-monopoly elements, the role of the state, and its dependence on logistics networks. Research methodology. The objective set out in this article was achieved using the following research methods: generalisation, comparison, structural-functional analysis, and a systems approach. Results. The article defines the conceptual basis for the methodology of adapting non-financial reporting standards to the transport sector. It outlines the distinctive features of the transport sector and its dual nature, which influence the selection of non-financial indicators for non-financial reporting. The article argues that adapting non-financial reporting standards to the activities of transport enterprises is an important tool for enhancing transparency, accountability, and management efficiency in the context of growing demands for sustainable development. A methodological approach to the adaptation of standards is proposed, based on a combination of the principles of functional equivalence, dual materiality, and the supplementation of sector-specific standards, which allows for the specific characteristics of the transport sector to be taken into account and ensures the relevance of non-financial disclosure indicators. The key stages of adapting non-financial reporting standards have been identified, covering the identification of strategic objectives and resource provision; analysis of standard requirements and identification of gaps; adaptation of indicators and development of a methodology for their calculation; preparation and structuring of reports; and their subsequent analysis and improvement. Practical significance of the research findings. The practical implementation of the proposed methodological approaches will enable transport companies to establish an effective system for managing non-financial aspects, thereby helping to strengthen their competitiveness and promote sustainable development.
References
Фоміна О. В., Андросенко О. О. Управлінська звітність у забезпеченні ефективності діяльності логістичних підприємств. Економіка та суспільство. 2025. Вип. 72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0072/2025-72-9
Лемішовська О. С., Михайловський В. О. Управлінська звітність підприємства: теоретико-методичні аспекти та принципи формування. Менеджмент та підприємництво в Україні: етапи становлення та проблеми розвитку. 2023. № 1 (9). URL: https://surl.li/ppngld
Солодовник О., Гавриличенко І. Міжнародні системи нефінансової звітності з точки зору формування концепції сталого розвитку. Development Management. 2021. Т. 20, № 3. С. 8–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.57111/devt.19(3).2021.8-15
Деділова Т. В., Савойський О. Ю., Таценко О. В. Стратегічні драйвери розвитку підприємств автомобільного транспорту в контексті ESG-викликів. Проблеми та перспективи розвитку підприємництва. 2025. № 35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30977/PPB.2226-8820.2025.35.204
Milne M. J., Gray R. Whither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics. 2013. Vol. 118, No. 1. P. 13–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1543-8
Grewal J., Riedl E. J., Serafeim G. Market Reaction to Mandatory Nonfinancial Disclosure. Management Science. 2019. Vol. 65, No. 7. P. 3061–3084. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3099
Flammer C. Corporate Green Bonds. Journal of Financial Economics. 2021. Vol. 142, No. 2. P. 499–516. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.01.010
Kong L., Akbar M., Poulova P. The role of environment, social, and governance performance in shaping corporate current and future value: The case of global tech leaders. Sustainability. 2023. Vol. 15, No. 17. Art. 13114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713114
Almaqtari F. A., Elsheikh T., Tawfik O. I., Youssef M. A. E.-A. Exploring the impact of sustainability, board characteristics, and firm-specifics on firm value: A comparative study of the United Kingdom and Turkey. Sustainability. 2022. Vol. 14, No. 24. Art. 16395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416395
Chen L., Yuan T., Cebula R. J., Shuangjin W., Foley M. Fulfillment of ESG responsibilities and firm performance: A zero-sum game or mutually beneficial. Sustainability. 2021. Vol. 13, No. 19. Art. 10954. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910954
Kim B., Ko Y.-H. A business-driven ESG strategy: A case study of Hansol Paper in South Korea. Administrative Sciences. 2025. Vol. 15, No. 9. Art. 362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15090362
Pratama G. S., Serafina K., Sareng I. D., Ramadhan Y. Implementation challenges and impacts of IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 on sustainability reporting quality: A systematic review of the mining industry (2022–2024). International Journal of Accounting, Management, Economics and Social Sciences. 2025. Vol. 3, No. 1. P. 36–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61990/ijamesc.v3i1.449
Bolton P., Kacperczyk M. Do investors care about carbon risk?. Journal of Financial Economics. 2021. Vol. 142, No. 2. P. 517–549. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.008
Christensen H. B., Hail L., Leuz C. Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: Economic analysis and literature review. Review of Accounting Studies. 2021. Vol. 26, No. 3. P. 1176–1248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-021-09609-5
Berg F., Kölbel J. F., Rigobon R. Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance. 2022. Vol. 26, No. 6. P. 1315–1344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033
Fomina O. V., Androsenko O. O. (2025) Upravlinska zvitnist u zabezpechenni efektyvnosti diialnosti lohistychnykh pidpryiemstv [Management reporting in ensuring the efficiency of logistics enterprises]. Ekonomika ta suspilstvo, no. 72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0072/2025-72-9
Lemishovska O. S., Mykhailovskyi V. O. (2023) Upravlinska zvitnist pidpryiemstva: teoretyko-metodychni aspekty ta pryntsypy formuvannia [Management reporting of the enterprise: theoretical and methodological aspects and principles of formation]. Menedzhment ta pidpryiemnytstvo v Ukraini: etapy stanovlennia ta problemy rozvytku, no. 1 (9). Available at: https://surl.li/ppngld
Solodovnyk O., Havrylychenko I. (2021) Mizhnarodni systemy nefinansovoi zvitnosti z tochky zoru formuvannia kontseptsii staloho rozvytku [International non-financial reporting systems in the context of sustainable development concept formation]. Development Management, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 8–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.57111/devt.19(3).2021.8-15
Dedilova T. V., Savoyskyi O. Yu., Tatsenko O. V. (2025) Stratehichni draivery rozvytku pidpryiemstv avtomobilnoho transportu v konteksti ESG-vyklykiv [Strategic drivers of development of motor transport enterprises in the context of ESG challenges]. Problemy ta perspektyvy rozvytku pidpryiemnytstva, no. 35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30977/PPB.2226-8820.2025.35.204
Milne M. J., Gray R. (2013) Whither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 13–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1543-8
Grewal J., Riedl E. J., Serafeim G. (2019) Market reaction to mandatory nonfinancial disclosure. Management Science, vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 3061–3084. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3099
Flammer C. (2021) Corporate green bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 142, no. 2, pp. 499–516. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.01.010
Kong L., Akbar M., Poulova P. (2023) The role of environment, social, and governance performance in shaping corporate current and future value: The case of global tech leaders. Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 17, art. 13114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713114
Almaqtari F. A., Elsheikh T., Tawfik O. I., Youssef M. A. E.-A. (2022) Exploring the impact of sustainability, board characteristics, and firm-specifics on firm value: A comparative study of the United Kingdom and Turkey. Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 24, art. 16395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416395
Chen L., Yuan T., Cebula R. J., Shuangjin W., Foley M. (2021) Fulfillment of ESG responsibilities and firm performance: A zero-sum game or mutually beneficial. Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 19, art. 10954. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910954
Kim B., Ko Y.-H. (2025) A business-driven ESG strategy: A case study of Hansol Paper in South Korea. Administrative Sciences, vol. 15, no. 9, art. 362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15090362
Pratama G. S., Serafina K., Sareng I. D., Ramadhan Y. (2025) Implementation challenges and impacts of IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 on sustainability reporting quality: A systematic review of the mining industry (2022–2024). International Journal of Accounting, Management, Economics and Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 36–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61990/ijamesc.v3i1.449
Bolton P., Kacperczyk M. (2021) Do investors care about carbon risk? Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 142, no. 2, pp. 517–549. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.008
Christensen H. B., Hail L., Leuz C. (2021) Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: Economic analysis and literature review. Review of Accounting Studies, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1176–1248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-021-09609-5
Berg F., Kolbel J. F., Rigobon R. (2022) Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1315–1344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033
Copyright (c) 2026 Я.Я. Назаренко
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
