Global Reporting Initiative and its implementation in Bulgarian and Ukrainian enterprises

The activity of business organizations, mostly large multinationals, attracts the attention of an increasing part of the society. Such interest cannot be satisfied with the information provided in the traditional financial and accounting reports; as a result, due to the pressure of social expectatio...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Datum:	2016
1. Verfasser:	Nikolov, E.
Format:	Artikel
Sprache:	English
Veröffentlicht:	Інститут економіки промисловості НАН України 2016
Schriftenreihe:	Економічний вісник Донбасу
Schlagworte:	Management of Labour and Safety
Online Zugang:	https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/114924
Tags:	Tag hinzufügen Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Назва журналу:	Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Zitieren:	Global Reporting Initiative and its implementation in Bulgarian and Ukrainian enterprises / E. Nikolov // Економічний вісник Донбасу. — 2016. — № 4 (46). — С. 182–187. — Бібліогр.: 6 назв. — англ.

Institution

Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

id	nasplib_isofts_kiev_ua-123456789-114924
record_format	dspace
spelling	nasplib_isofts_kiev_ua-123456789-1149242025-02-09T22:22:46Z Global Reporting Initiative and its implementation in Bulgarian and Ukrainian enterprises Звітність з корпоративної соціальної відповідальності з використанням системи звітності GRI в Болгарії та Україні Отчетность по корпоративной социальной ответственности с использованием системы отчетности GRI в Болгарии и Украине Nikolov, E. Management of Labour and Safety The activity of business organizations, mostly large multinationals, attracts the attention of an increasing part of the society. Such interest cannot be satisfied with the information provided in the traditional financial and accounting reports; as a result, due to the pressure of social expectations, business organizations have started to publish non-financial information in the so called corporate social reports, also called sustainability reports or corporate society reports. Although they do not have regulated content, the Global Reporting Initiative has been adopted as a global reporting standard as of today. In this respect, the purpose of this article is to investigate GRI’s reporting structure among Bulgarian and Ukrainian business organizations on the basis of which it will outline the principal problematic areas as well as the existing differences among them. Діяльність бізнес-організацій і, насамперед, великих мультинаціональних корпорацій, викликає інтерес все більшої частини суспільства. Його не можна задовольнити за допомогою інформації, що міститься у традиційній бухгалтерській фінансовій звітності, у результаті чого під тиском суспільних очікувань господарські організації почали публікувати нефінансову інформацію в корпоративних соціальних звітах, які ще називають звітами про сталий розвиток або про корпоративне громадянство. Незважаючи на те, що вони не мають регламентованого вмісту, в якості глобального стандарту у звітності ствердилася структура Global Reporting Initiative. У зв'язку з цим мета цієї статті - дослідити поширення структури звіту GRI серед болгарських і українських бізнес-організацій і на цій базі окреслити основні проблемні сектори, а також виявити існуючі відмінності між ними. Деятельность бизнес-организаций и, прежде всего, крупных мультинациональных корпораций вызывает интерес все большей части общества. Его нельзя удовлетворить посредством информации, содержащейся в традиционной бухгалтерской финансовой отчетности, в результате чего под давлением общественных ожиданий хозяйственные организации начали публиковать нефинансовую информацию в корпоративных социальных отчетах, называемых еще отчетами об устойчивом развитии или о корпоративном гражданстве. Несмотря на то, что они не имеют регламентированного содержания, в качестве глобального стандарта в отчетности утвердилась структура Global Reporting Initiative. В этой связи цель настоящей статьи - исследовать распространение структуры отчета GRI среди болгарских и украинских бизнес-организаций и на этой базе очертить основные проблемные сектора, а также выявить существующие различия между ними. 2016 Article Global Reporting Initiative and its implementation in Bulgarian and Ukrainian enterprises / E. Nikolov // Економічний вісник Донбасу. — 2016. — № 4 (46). — С. 182–187. — Бібліогр.: 6 назв. — англ. 1817-3772 https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/114924 657:005.34:338.24(497.2+477) en Економічний вісник Донбасу application/pdf Інститут економіки промисловості НАН України
institution	Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
collection	DSpace DC
language	English
topic	Management of Labour and Safety Management of Labour and Safety
spellingShingle	Management of Labour and Safety Management of Labour and Safety Nikolov, E. Global Reporting Initiative and its implementation in Bulgarian and Ukrainian enterprises Економічний вісник Донбасу
description	The activity of business organizations, mostly large multinationals, attracts the attention of an increasing part of the society. Such interest cannot be satisfied with the information provided in the traditional financial and accounting reports; as a result, due to the pressure of social expectations, business organizations have started to publish non-financial information in the so called corporate social reports, also called sustainability reports or corporate society reports. Although they do not have regulated content, the Global Reporting Initiative has been adopted as a global reporting standard as of today. In this respect, the purpose of this article is to investigate GRI’s reporting structure among Bulgarian and Ukrainian business organizations on the basis of which it will outline the principal problematic areas as well as the existing differences among them.
format	Article
author	Nikolov, E.
author_facet	Nikolov, E.
author_sort	Nikolov, E.
title	Global Reporting Initiative and its implementation in Bulgarian and Ukrainian enterprises
title_short	Global Reporting Initiative and its implementation in Bulgarian and Ukrainian enterprises
title_full	Global Reporting Initiative and its implementation in Bulgarian and Ukrainian enterprises
title_fullStr	Global Reporting Initiative and its implementation in Bulgarian and Ukrainian enterprises
title_full_unstemmed	Global Reporting Initiative and its implementation in Bulgarian and Ukrainian enterprises
title_sort	global reporting initiative and its implementation in bulgarian and ukrainian enterprises
publisher	Інститут економіки промисловості НАН України
publishDate	2016
topic_facet	Management of Labour and Safety
url	https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/114924
citation_txt	Global Reporting Initiative and its implementation in Bulgarian and Ukrainian enterprises / E. Nikolov // Економічний вісник Донбасу. — 2016. — № 4 (46). — С. 182–187. — Бібліогр.: 6 назв. — англ.
series	Економічний вісник Донбасу
work_keys_str_mv	AT nikolove globalreportinginitiativeanditsimplementationinbulgarianandukrainianenterprises AT nikolove zvítnístʹzkorporativnoísocíalʹnoívídpovídalʹnostízvikoristannâmsistemizvítnostígrivbolgaríítaukraíní AT nikolove otčetnostʹpokorporativnoisocialʹnoiotvetstvennostisispolʹzovaniemsistemyotčetnostigrivbolgariiiukraine
first_indexed	2025-12-01T09:22:47Z
last_indexed	2025-12-01T09:22:47Z
_version_	1850297258040360960
fulltext	E. Nikolov 182 Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4(46), 2016 UDC 657:005.34:338.24(497.2+477) E. Nikolov, PhD (Economics), Assistant Prof., D. A. Tsenov Academy of Economics, Svishtov, Bulgaria GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN BULGARIAN AND UKRAINIAN ENTERPRISES Introduction Throughout the last years we have been observing a sustainable trend towards an increase in the number of enterprises which integrate new values in their strategic objectives and adopt a responsible policy regarding the development of society and preservation of the environ- ment. The thesis that such behavior has a negative im- pact on the financial results of the enterprise has evolved in its diametrical opposition and currently there domi- nates the opinion that the benefits of corporate social re- sponsibility (CSR) outweigh the accompanying ex- penses. Today, CSR has turned into a strategic business model leading to numerous positive effects, the most important of which is the increase of the innovation, sus- tainability and competitiveness of the enterprise. A key element of the whole CSR concept is the reporting of social responsibility, which has found expression in the development and announcement of the so called corpo- rate social reports, also known as sustainable develop- ment reports, corporate society reports or simply social reports. In contrast to financial reports, social reports do not have a normatively regulated structure; therefore, organizations decide by themselves what information to include in them. Nevertheless, more organizations aban- don this “freedom” and report their social responsibility through the regulated structure of the Global Reporting Initiative – GRI. In this respect, this article will aim to investigate the spread of GRI’s reporting structure in en- terprises in Bulgaria and Ukraine, and based on this, to outline the principal problem areas as well as the exist- ing differences. 1. Global Reporting Initiative The global reporting initiative (GRI) is a non-profit organization established in Boston (USA) in 1997. Cur- rently, its headquarters are in Amsterdam (Holland). The mission of the organization is to turn the reporting of sustainable development into a standard practice by providing advice and support to reporting organizations. For this purpose, in 1998 GRI establishes executive committee whose responsibility is to develop a guide- line for global reporting initiative. However, during their term, the executive committee members are also required to develop more than a guideline for reporting the impact of organizations on the environment. For this reason, the range is expanded and the reporting com- prises not only environmental, but also social, economic and managerial issues. This has resulted in the develop- ment of a structure for reporting sustainable develop- ment with guidelines for the reporting of its base. GRI’s structure is intended to serve as a standard for reporting the economic, environmental and social performance of organizations. It is directed towards all organizations re- gardless of their characteristics – size, industry or loca- tion. The most important element of the structure for re- porting sustainable development is the guidelines for re- porting. It comprises reporting principles, standard indi- cators for reporting and directions for preparing reports for sustainable development. The guidelines are not static; they are improved periodically in order to respond to the challenges and changes of the environment (see fig. 1). Fig. 1. Development of GRI’s reporting guidelines The first version of the guidelines is called G1 and is completed in 2000. After G1, the second generation of reporting guidelines appears; it is known as G2. It is presented during the World Meeting for Sustainable De- velopment in Johannesburg. The spread of the Global Reporting Initiative is stimulated by the start of the third generation of guidelines – G3 in 2006. Over 3,000 ex- perts of the business, civil society and workers’ organi- zations participate in its development. Sector-oriented guidelines for sustainable development reporting have also been developed in order to report the characteristics of individual industries. In 2011, GRI expands the G3 guidelines by including the performance of organiza- tions in terms of social and human rights. Thus G3.1 comes to being. In May 2013, GRI launches the fourth generation of its guidelines, called G4, which, since 2016 has been compulsory for all GRI reports, i.e., G3.1 is terminated. G4 comprises two major sections, namely, reporting principles and standard reporting. The first section comprises two groups of principles – for de- termining the content (inclusion of involved parties, context of sustainable development, materiality and G1 2000 G2 2002 G3 2006 G3.1 2011 G4 2013 GRI 2016 E. Nikolov 183 Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4(46), 2016 completeness) and for securing the quality of the report (balance sheet, comparability, accuracy, punctuality, clarity and reliability). The second section comprises 149 reporting indicators divided into two groups – gen- eral reporting (58 indicators) and specific reporting (91 indicators divided into three directions – economy, ecol- ogy and society) [1; 2]. In October 2016, the GRI G4 Guidelines have transitioned to GRI Sustainability Re- porting Standards (GRI Standards). They incorporate the key concepts and disclosures from the G4 Guide- lines (no new topics have been added, and key concepts and most disclosures from G4 carry through), but with a new and improved modular structure and format. The set of GRI Standards includes three universal standards applicable to all organizations (GRI 101, GRI 102 and GRI 103) and thirty-three topic-specific Standards, or- ganized into Economic, Environmental, and Social se- ries. Organizations select and use only the relevant topic-specific Standards, based on their material topics [3]. Fig. 2. Structural model of GRI Standards Source: Global Reporting Initiative The development of a corporate social report in compliance with GRI’s reporting structure is not an easy task. When this is done for the first time, it usually re- quires consultancy support, as well as the development of procedures for generating and collecting the neces- sary data, i.e., the introduction of social accounting in the organization because most of the necessary data is not available within the traditional financial and ac- counting reporting. In order to facilitate the reporting process, GRI has introduced two reporting levels – full and partial, as the latter comprises fewer reporting indi- cators and is recommended to organizations which re- port for the first time. The advantages of the structure of GRI reporting and its constant development transform it into a global standard for reporting corporate social responsibility, widely used by large, small and medium-sized organi- zations. As of the date of the current research (Decem- ber 2016), the GRI’s global database has 10,138 organ- izations which have published their social reports; these are leading enterprises from almost all industries, for ex- ample Adidas, Airbus, Boeing, BASF, Bayer, Pfizer, Daimler, Toyota, General Motors, Danone, Johnson & Johnson, Unilever, Allianz, HSBC, IKEA, LEGO, McDonald's, Nestlé, Kraft Foods, Philips, Royal Dutch Shell, Gazprom, Lukoil, Apple, Dell, Coca Cola, Pepsi Co, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Microsoft, Starbucks. The number of published reports is 37,429, of which 25,229 comply with the GRI’s reporting structure, or on aver- age 3.7 reports per organization, which is indicative of the existence of sustainability of reporting. We can point out as an indicative fact for the capacity and develop- ment of GRI the dynamics at which the number of or- ganizations which have published their CSR reports on the initiative’s website has increased (fig. 3). Fig. 3. Organizations which have published social reports on GRI’s website The figure clearly shows GRI’s dynamic develop- ment, which currently transforms it into the most used tool and global standard for CSR reporting. Bulgarian and Ukrainian enterprises must report those trends and keep abreast of them, still more if they want to be com- petitive on the global market. This is why the following chapter will investigate how GRI has penetrated the en- terprises in the two countries. 2. Adopting GRI’s structure for CSR reporting by enterprises in Bulgaria and Ukraine The practical research of the degree to which the GRI’s structure for reporting is adopted by enterprises 125 545 3080 10138 0 2 000 4 000 6 000 8 000 10 000 2001 2006 2011 2016 E. Nikolov 184 Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4(46), 2016 in Bulgaria and Ukraine is carried out by using the pub- lic information on GRI’s website, more particularly their Sustainability Disclosure Database. This database stores all social reports which have been uploaded on GRI’s website and integrates a set of tools for searching and filtering data which facilitates its use. By using this particular set of tools, we have iden- tified the Bulgarian and Ukrainian business organiza- tions which have published at least one social report in GRI’s database (see table 1). The table clearly shows that 10 Bulgarian and 21 Ukrainian enterprises (all of them are business organi- zations) published their CSR reports in the GRI’s Sus- tainability Disclosure Database as of December 2016. This number can simply be qualified as too small or ra- ther symbolic in comparison to other countries such as the USA (955 organizations), Germany (338 organiza- tions), France (259 organizations), Austria (210 organi- zations), Switzerland (208 organizations), Russia (132 organizations), Turkey (123 organizations), etc. Table 1 Bulgarian and Ukrainian organizations which have published social reports on GRI’s website № Company name Size 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 B ul ga ri a 1 Devnya Cement Large COP 2 DSK Bank Large G3 3 Postbank Large G3 G3 G3 √ √ 4 Nestle Bulgaria Large √ 5 Sopharma Large COP 6 BILLA Bulgaria Large G4 7 GLOBUL Large G3.1 G3.1 G3.1 G3.1 8 Telenor Bulgaria Large G4 9 VIVACOM Large G4 10 Yavlena SME COP U kr ai ne 1 ArcelorMittal Ukraine MNE G3 G3 G3 2 Astarta Large √ √ 3 BDO Ukraine Large √ √ 4 Carlsberg Ukraine Large √ 5 Coca-Cola Ukraine Large √ √ 6 Dneprospetsstal Large G3 √ √ 7 DTEK Large G3 G3 8 Ernst & Young Ukraine Large G4 G3 G3 G3 9 Galnaftogaz Large √ G3 √ 10 Kernel Large G4 11 KPMG Ukraine Large G3 12 Kyiv Star Large √ √ √ √ √ 13 Metinvest Large G3 14 Mondelez Ukraine MNE √ 15 Nemiroff Large COP 16 Obolon Large G4 G3.1 G3 G3 G3 G3 17 Platinum Bank Large G3 G3 G3 18 SCM Group MNE G3 19 Unicredit Bank Ukraine Large COP COP COP COP 20 ViDi Group Large √ 21 Volia Large COP Legend: √ - a social report which does not comply with GRI’s structure is published; COP – a social report which complies with the structure of UN Global Compact named Communication on Progress – COP is published; G3, G3.1 and G4 are guide- lines for GRI’s social responsibility reporting. Nearly all of the thirty-one business organizations presented in table 1 are part of large foreign, often mul- tinational companies. For them, CSR reporting is part of the managerial policy of the parent company, which along with the necessary know-how is transferred to the subsidiaries operating in Bulgaria and Ukraine. A very E. Nikolov 185 Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4(46), 2016 small number of business organizations which have published their CSR reports on the GRI’s website is of Bulgarian or Ukrainian ownership. The reasons for this fact can be sought in the insufficient information and the underestimation of the significance of GRI, as well as the lack of know-how for preparing the social report, still more in compliance with GRI’s structure. In confir- mation of the last observation, we can point out the fact that 6 (35%) out of 17 CSR reports published by Bul- garian business organizations are prepared by using a different structure. As regards Ukrainian business or- ganizations, the percentage is higher - 26 (52%) out of 50 published reports are based on a different structure. Most often, the reports which do not use GRI’s structure are prepared as a result of the organizations’ member- ship in UN Global Compact. This is the largest CSR global initiative, and it states that if an enterprise is to become a member, it shall meet the following 10 uni- versal criteria, merged into four categories [4]: Human Rights: Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally pro- claimed human rights; and Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses. Labour: Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; Principle 4: the elimi- nation of all forms of forced and compulsory labour; Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. Environment: Principle 7: Businesses should sup- port a precautionary approach to environmental chal- lenges; Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environ- mentally friendly technologies. Anti-Corruption: Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extor- tion and bribery. UN Global Compact has local structures in Ukraine and Bulgaria named local networks. As of the moment of the research, 49 Bulgarian and 56 Ukrainian enterprises are members of UN Global Compact. They shall report their progress by preparing specialized re- ports named COP – Communication On Progress [5]. It is namely such reports that have been published in the GRI’s database by three Bulgarian (Devnya Cement, Yavlena and Sopharma) and three Ukrainian (Nemiroff, Unicredit Bank Ukraine и Volia) enterprises. These re- ports are much easier to prepare as they contain only three compulsory elements: a statement by the chief ex- ecutive expressing continued support for the UN Global Compact and renewing the participant’s ongoing com- mitment to the initiative; a description of practical ac- tions the company has taken or plans to take to imple- ment the Ten Principles in each of the four areas (human rights, labour, environment, anti-corruption) and a measurement of outcomes. This is why these reports are difficult to equate with the reports corresponding to GRI’s structure in terms of quality and content. Corporate social responsibility, and in particular, its reporting shall not be discussed merely as a priority of large business organizations. It is just as important to small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why GRI’s reporting structure has been developed to be suitable for large, small and medium-sized enterprises. The data pre- sented in table 1, however, clearly shows that only one business organization belongs to the group of small and medium-sized enterprises (the Bulgarian real estate agency Yavlena, which published СОР for 2010). The rest are large business organizations, including multina- tionals. In contrast, 50 % of Austrian, 24 % of Turkish, 18 % of German, 11 % of Russian organizations, which published CSR reports in GRI’s Sustainability Disclo- sure Database, do not belong to the group of small and medium-sized enterprises. This data leads to the conclu- sion that the tools offered by GRI for reporting social responsibility are suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises, but the Bulgarian and Ukrainian business organizations of this group have no knowledge of them, underestimate their significance and/or have no capacity to realize them in practice. If there is a strong bond between the size of the en- terprise and reporting its social responsibility, then no such regularity can be found in terms of their industry belonging. As table 2 clearly shows, the enterprises which have published reports belong to various indus- tries and hardly a bond can be found between type of industry and reporting. Table 2 Industry belonging of enterprises Industry Bulgarian en- terprises (amount) Ukrainian en- terprises (amount) Metals Products - 3 Agriculture - 2 Food and Beverage 1 4 Mining - 1 Commercial Services - 2 Energy - 1 Telecommunications 3 2 Financial Services 2 2 Logistics - 1 Retailers 1 - Construction Materials 1 - Health Care Products 1 - Real Estate 1 - Other - 3 Total: 10 21 Corporate social responsibility is not a one-time act. It is a long-term, strategic concept, which means that it must be reported in a sustainable way. This shall not be a one-time act, the result of a momentary whim or the E. Nikolov 186 Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4(46), 2016 realization of a particular project. Similar to financial and social reporting, it must be regular, most often – an- nual. In this respect, the data of the empirical research is indicative of the lack of consistency and sustainability even for the small number of Bulgarian and Ukrainian enterprises, which have published CSR reports in GRI’s Sustainability Disclosure Database. The good example among Bulgarian companies regarding the sustainability of reporting is Globul – a telecommunication company which was acquired in 2014 by Telenor Bulgaria. The new owner continued the good practice of preparing and publishing a CSR report in compliance with GRI’s re- porting structure. The number of Ukrainian enterprises which demonstrate sustainability in the use of GRI’s re- porting structure is a little bit larger. They are three – namely, ArcelorMittal Ukraine, Ernst & Young Ukraine and Obolon, as the latter two have published the most reports in comparison to all others – six reports, one of which is for a period of two years. It is in terms of the time range of CSR reports that the first difference be- tween the two countries’ economic organizations can be detected. The usual practice for Ukrainian enterprises is the reporting for a period of two, three or more years (the Ukrainian enterprise ViDi Group has a five-year so- cial report) within a single CSR report, while Bulgarian business organizations avoid using such an approach. In this respect, we should point out that similar to financial reporting, social reporting on an annual basis is the best practice. Despite this, social reports encompassing a pe- riod of more than one year are preferable to the option not to have them prepared. Similar to financial reports, social reports (upon the request of the reporting organization) may be audited and endorsed by an independent expert – social auditor, through the so called external assurance. Thus the level of security is raised in order to guarantee the authenticity and comprehensiveness presented in the report. This is a widespread practice among Ukrainian enterprises. The analysis shows that 64 % of Ukrainian business organi- zations which have prepared CSR reports in compliance with GRI’s structure have had their reports audited by an external expert. To be precise, these are seven enter- prises, namely – ArcelorMittal Ukraine, Dnepro- spetsstal, DTEK, Kernel, Metinvest, Obolon and SCM Group. Those results can be determined as excellent, bearing in mind the performance of Bulgarian business organizations for which such a practice is rather an ex- ception. The data shows that only one Bulgarian enter- prise has had its social report endorsed by an external expert – the trade bank Postbank. Such results are diffi- cult to explain and even more difficult to defend. The main reason against external audit is to economize on funds. Despite this, we defend the thesis that similar to financial and accounting reports, social reports shall also be audited and endorsed by external experts. Thus the stakeholders’ trust is won, whereas the possibility of the appearance of pseudo-socially responsible compa- nies whose aim is to take advantage of the positive ef- fects of CSR without expending funds and making effort for achieving social aims decreases. On the basis of the data presented in this chapter, we can make the following conclusions:  Bulgarian and Ukrainian enterprises do not take advantage of the opportunities offered by GRI for cor- porate social responsibility reporting. The number of or- ganizations in the two countries which have published their social reports on GRI’s website can be defined as too limited. Still worse is their performance in terms of the use of GRI’s reporting structure.  Most of the Bulgarian and Ukrainian enter- prises which benefit from GRI’s reporting possibilities are of foreign ownership. Their CSR reporting is im- posed by the parent company, whereas the process is fa- cilitated by the transfer of the necessary know-how.  It is only large Bulgarian and Ukrainian busi- ness organizations that prepare social reports in compli- ance with GRI’s reporting structure. The small and me- dium-sized enterprises in the two countries remain par- ties in this global process, including their competitors from other countries.  No concentration of a large number of reporting enterprises within a single industry is observed. This means that industry belonging does not have a signifi- cant impact on the decision for CSR reporting through GRI’s possibilities.  The usual practice for the reporting enterprises from Ukraine is the preparation of social reports encom- passing a period of two, three or more years. Unlike them, Bulgarian organizations avoid adopting such an approach.  Ukrainian enterprises perform better than Bul- garian ones in one very important aspect of social re- porting, namely – external independent audit. The pre- dominant part of Ukrainian business organizations have had their reports audited, whereas only one Bulgarian organization has had this done. Conclusion Global Reporting Initiative is the first and the most widespread platform for preparing and publishing cor- porate social reports. Furthermore, today it is a global standard in the reporting of sustainability for organiza- tions regardless of their location, size and industry be- longing. Its constant improvement has transformed it into a preferred tool for unified social responsibility re- porting, which facilitates the process of preparing and communicating social reports. Despite the increasing, at that in a sustainable way, popularity of GRI, Bulgarian and Ukrainian enterprises stay away from this global process. The number of organizations from both coun- tries which have knowledge of and take advantage of GRI’s reporting possibilities remains relatively small. E. Nikolov 187 Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4(46), 2016 With a few exceptions, they are owned by foreign com- panies with an established practice of CSR reporting, which is transferred to their Bulgarian or Ukrainian sub- sidiaries. Those worrying conclusions are indicative of how Bulgarian and Ukrainian enterprises have fallen be- hind the global reporting trend, which cannot but have a negative impact on their innovation, sustainability and competitiveness, as well as a number of other positive effects stemming from CSR and its reporting [6]. References 1. G4 Sustainability reporting guidelines. Imple- mentation manual. Global Reporting Initiative. 2013. 266 p. 2. G4 Sustainability reporting guidelines. Re- porting principles and standard disclosures. Global Re- porting Initiative. 2013. 94 p.; 3. Buck, B., & Rein- hardt, C. (2016, October). The future of reporting. In- troducing the GRI Standards. Presentation, Retrieved from https://www.global reporting.org/; 4. The Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact, Retrieved from https://www.un globalcompact.org; 5. The Communi- cation on Progress (COP) in Brief, Retrieved from www.unglobalcompact.org/participation/report/cop; 6. Value of sustainability reporting. A study by EY and Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship, 2016. 30 p., Retrieved from www.ey.com. Ніколов Е. Б. Звітність з корпоративної соці- альної відповідальності з використанням сис- теми звітності GRI в Болгарії та Україні Діяльність бізнес-організацій і, насамперед, ве- ликих мультинаціональних корпорацій, викликає ін- терес все більшої частини суспільства. Його не можна задовольнити за допомогою інформації, що міститься у традиційній бухгалтерській фінансовій звітності, у результаті чого під тиском суспільних очікувань господарські організації почали публіку- вати нефінансову інформацію в корпоративних со- ціальних звітах, які ще називають звітами про ста- лий розвиток або про корпоративне громадянство. Незважаючи на те, що вони не мають регламентова- ного вмісту, в якості глобального стандарту у звіт- ності ствердилася структура Global Reporting Initiative. У зв'язку з цим мета цієї статті – дослідити поширення структури звіту GRI серед болгарських і українських бізнес-організацій і на цій базі окрес- лити основні проблемні сектори, а також виявити іс- нуючі відмінності між ними. Ключові слова: корпоративна соціальна відпо- відальність, соціальний звіт, звіт про сталий розви- ток, Глобальна Ініціатива Звітності, Стандарти Гло- бальної Ініціативи зі Звітності. Николов Е. Б. Отчетность по корпоративной социальной ответственности с использованием системы отчетности GRI в Болгарии и Украине Деятельность бизнес-организаций и, прежде всего, крупных мультинациональных корпораций вызывает интерес все большей части общества. Его нельзя удовлетворить посредством информации, со- держащейся в традиционной бухгалтерской финан- совой отчетности, в результате чего под давлением общественных ожиданий хозяйственные организа- ции начали публиковать нефинансовую информа- цию в корпоративных социальных отчетах, называ- емых еще отчетами об устойчивом развитии или о корпоративном гражданстве. Несмотря на то, что они не имеют регламентированного содержания, в качестве глобального стандарта в отчетности утвер- дилась структура Global Reporting Initiative. В этой связи цель настоящей статьи – исследовать распро- странение структуры отчета GRI среди болгарских и украинских бизнес-организаций и на этой базе очертить основные проблемные сектора, а также вы- явить существующие различия между ними. Ключевые слова: корпоративная социальная от- ветственность, социальный отчет, отчет об устойчи- вом развитии, Глобальная Инициатива Отчетности, Стандарты Глобальной Инициативы по Отчетности. Nikolov E. Global Reporting Initiative and its implementation in Bulgarian and Ukrainian enter- prises The activity of business organizations, mostly large multinationals, attracts the attention of an increas- ing part of the society. Such interest cannot be satisfied with the information provided in the traditional financial and accounting reports; as a result, due to the pressure of social expectations, business organizations have started to publish non-financial information in the so called corporate social reports, also called sustainability reports or corporate society reports. Although they do not have regulated content, the Global Reporting Initia- tive has been adopted as a global reporting standard as of today. In this respect, the purpose of this article is to investigate GRI’s reporting structure among Bulgarian and Ukrainian business organizations on the basis of which it will outline the principal problematic areas as well as the existing differences among them. Keywords: corporate social responsibility, social reporting, sustainability reporting, Global Reporting In- itiative, GRI Standards. Received by the editors: 17.10.2016 and final form 28.12.2016

Global Reporting Initiative and its implementation in Bulgarian and Ukrainian enterprises

Institution

Ähnliche Einträge