Integration of product quality and safety indicators into companies’ non-financial reporting under ESRS standards
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33216/1998-7927-2025-297-11-118-127Keywords:
non-financial reporting, commodity science, product quality, product safety, sustainable development, data verifiability, environmental and social disclosuresAbstract
The article substantiates the theoretical and methodological foundations for integrating commodity-science indicators of product quality and safety into companies’ non-financial reporting in accordance with the requirements of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). It demonstrates that current approaches to non-financial reporting focus primarily on regulatory compliance, the assessment of double materiality, and the organisation of data flows, whereas the product dimension remains fragmented and largely narrative. A critical review of academic works on ESRS, non-financial reporting, and commodity science made it possible to identify the lack of a systematic methodological approach to incorporating product quality and safety indicators into the structure of environmental and social disclosures. The dominant approaches and their limitations are generalised, and “entry points” for product-related data within disclosures of impacts, risks, and management practices are determined, showing the shift from the statement “certified” to measurable and verifiable indicators. Commodity-science indicators are systematised in terms of their relevance to materiality, comparability, and verifiability requirements for non-financial information; groups of indicators that can form the evidence base for disclosures are outlined, as well as parameters that require harmonisation of measurement methods and aggregation for external reporting. Priority is given to indicators of product safety, compliance with standards, and traceability as those with the strongest evidential value, while it is shown that indicators of physicochemical quality and production stability require agreed rules for comparability. A conceptual approach to integrating commodity-science indicators into ESRS-based non-financial reporting is proposed; it involves standardising the data structure, building an evidence base and ensuring traceability through linkage to primary quality and safety control documents, aggregating technical parameters, and embedding the indicators into the disclosure logic of impacts, risks, and managerial decisions. The practical implementation of the proposed approach can enhance the informativeness, transparency, and analytical value of non-financial reporting, reduce the risk of formalistic reporting, and strengthen key stakeholders’ trust in product quality and safety data.
References
1. Leal Filho W., Wall T., Williams K., Pimenta Dinis M. A., Fernandez Martin R. M., Mazhar M., Gatto A. European sustainability reporting standards: An assessment of requirements and preparedness of EU companies. Journal of Environmental Management. 2025. Vol. 380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.125008.
2. Raimo N., L’Abate V., Sica D., Vitolla F. Integrated reporting and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive: bridging the gap or growing apart? Management Decision. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2024-2408
3. Солодовнік О., Майданник О. Підходи до оцінки суттєвості у звітності про сталий розвиток згідно з міжнародними та європейськими стандартами. Економіка та суспільство. 2024. № 63. С. 240-247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0072/2024-63-83.
4. Солодовнік О.О. Інституційні засади та досвід запровадження нефінансового звітування компаній в ЄС. Інфраструктура ринку. 2023. Вип. 71. С. 265-270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/infrastruct71-46
5. Дмитренко О.М., Вітер С.А. Обліково-аналітичні аспекти формування нефінансової звітності українськими компаніями. Облік і фінанси. 2020. №2 (88). С. 18-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33146/2307-9878-2020-2(88)-18-28.
6. Надейко М., Хілуха О. Нефінансова звітність як інструмент управління соціальною відповідальністю. Вісник Львівського університету. Серія економічна. 2020. Вип. 59. С. 88-98. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30970/ ves.2020.59.0.5909.
7. Grunert K.G. Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics. 2005. Vol. 32(3). P. 369-391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurrag/jbi011.
8. Luning P. A., Marcelis W. J., Jongen W. M. F. Food quality management: A techno-managerial approach. Wageningen Academic Publishers. 2002. URL: https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/ 328982.
9. Van der Spiegel M., Luning P.A., Ziggers G.W., Jongen W.M.F. Towards a conceptual model to measure effectiveness of food quality systems. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2003. Vol. 14(10). P. 424-431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(03)00058-X.
10. Unnevehr L.J., Jensen H.H. The economic implications of using HACCP as a food safety regulatory standard. Food Policy. 1999. Vol. 24(6). P. 625-635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(99)00074-3.
11. Trienekens J., Zuurbier P. Quality and safety standards in the food industry: Developments and challenges. International Journal of Production Economics. 2008. Vol. 113(1). Р. 107-122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.02.050.
12. Bánáti D. Consumer response to food scandals and crises. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2011. Vol. 22(2-3). Р. 56-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2010.12.007.
13. Codex Alimentarius Commission. General principles of food hygiene CXC 1-1969. FAO/WHO. URL: https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/codex-texts/codes-of-practice/en/.
14. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9001:2015 Quality management systems – Requirements. URL: https://www.iso.org/standard/ 62085.html.
15. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 22000:2018 Food safety management systems – Requirements for any organization in the food chain. URL: https://www.iso.org/standard/ 65464.html.
