Sustainability reporting and assurance practices in agribusiness: a comparative institutional analysis of Ukraine and Germany

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides an empirical framework for comparing sustainability reporting institutionalization across countries with different regulatory environments.

🏢実務担当者:Offers actionable steps for agribusiness firms to embed double materiality and prepare for independent assurance under ISSA 5000.

🏛政策担当者:Highlights regulatory gaps and capacity-building needs for aligning national reporting with EU standards, applicable to non-EU countries.

Purpose. The aim of the study is to assess the institutionalisation of sustainability reporting and assurance practices in the agricultural sectors of Ukraine and Germany through the conceptual lenses of legitimacy, institutionalisation, and political economy, and to determine the opportunities for their harmonisation with international and European standards, particularly the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), and International Standard on Sustainability Assurance (ISSA) 5000. Methodology. The methodological basis of the research is a comparative analysis of non-financial reporting by 14 agro-industrial enterprises in Ukraine and Germany. The study relies on the analysis of corporate reports, the legal framework of the EU and Ukraine, as well as international assurance standards, specifically ISAE 3000 and ISSA 5000. The study employs qualitative methods, including content analysis of reports, case studies, institutional and regulatory analysis. Results. The results show that Ukrainian agro-industrial enterprises demonstrate a low level of integration of the double materiality principle in sustainability reporting, limited coverage of non-financial indicators, and high risks of greenwashing due to the absence of independent data verification. Only a few companies have switched to CSRD reporting with a double materiality assessment procedure. In contrast, German companies have already adapted their reporting systems to CSRD and ESRS, ensuring greater transparency and audit verification. The study identifies structural preconditions for transitioning to independent assurance in Ukraine: harmonisation of corporate and state reporting, alignment with ISAE 3000/ISSA 5000 requirements, enhancement of staff competencies, and institutionalisation of ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) committees. Originality. This is the first systematic empirical comparison of sustainability reporting and assurance practices in the agro-industrial sectors of Ukraine and Germany, identifying a structural disconnect between corporate ESG disclosures and state reporting forms, and proposing a hybrid adaptive model for transitioning to reasonable assurance auditing under wartime conditions – a context absent from existing literature. Practical implications. The findings provide actionable guidance for Ukrainian enterprises on embedding double materiality and strengthening internal ESG data controls, as well as for auditors on shifting toward evidence-based assurance under ISAE 3000 and ISSA 5000. This, in turn, reduces greenwashing risks and enhances reporting credibility for international investors.

• semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2026.12.02.06first seen 2026-07-03 05:40:08