IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/areint/322720.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transparency of agriculture companies: rationale of responsible investment for better decision making under sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Makarenko, Inna
  • Plastun, Alex
  • Mazancovа, Jana
  • Juhaszova, Zuzana
  • Brin, Pavlo

Abstract

Purpose. The purpose of the article – to explore transparency under sustainability among agricultural companies in Ukraine (company “Kernel”) and the Czech Republic (company “Agrofert”) with further recommendations and implications related to reporting. Methodology / approach. Qualitative estimations of sustainability transparency are based on Sustainability Transparency Index (STI) calculations. Methodology of this index is based on binary estimations of a number of transparency criterions including links to sustainability information; existence of sustainable development policy; availability of sustainability and SDG reports; disclosure according to ESG criteria and specifics SDGs as well as other relevant goals related to SDG and sustainable development. Results. Sustainability transparency from 2016 till 2019 in Agrofert and Kernel was almost the same. But since 2019 after Kernel introduced a number of steps to increase its transparency the situation has changed dramatically. STI index has increased from 32 in 2019 to 80 in 2021. STI values for Agrofert were unchanged in 2020 (the latest available period of analysis). As a result, Kernel’s financial results and indicators have demonstrated significant improvement both absolute and relative. For example, net profit increased by more than 1000 %, investment cash-flow by 100 %, ROE – by 500 % and ROIC by 140 %. Originality / scientific novelty. New empirical results based on qualitative estimations of sustainability transparency for the agriculture companies from different countries are provided. Current study covers the existing research gap, proved by bibliometric analysis tool, for instance in pure academic discussion in measurement, comparison and benchmarking of agricultural companies’ transparency for the responsible investment purpose. Recommendations for sustainability transparency improvement are proposed. They are intended on better perception of sustainability ideology and incorporation of ESG/SDG criterion by agriculture companies in Ukraine and especially Czech Republic, levelling the informational asymmetry and moral risks for their investors and create better investment rationale for decision making under sustainability. Practical value / implications. The most efficient steps include the following ones: development and implementation of sustainability policy; emergence of specific reports based on ESG criteria; implementation of SDGs in activity of the company with further prioritization of these criteria within two groups. Further study in this field might be devoted to sustainability transparency comparison for agriculture companies in different branch in Ukraine and Czech Republic. Spreading the scope and sample of research allows making cross-industries STI benchmarking analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Makarenko, Inna & Plastun, Alex & Mazancovа, Jana & Juhaszova, Zuzana & Brin, Pavlo, 2022. "Transparency of agriculture companies: rationale of responsible investment for better decision making under sustainability," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 8(2), June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:areint:322720
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.322720
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/322720/files/3_Makarenko_article.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.322720?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johanna Gisladottir & Sigurbjörg Sigurgeirsdottir & Kristín Vala Ragnarsdóttir & Ingrid Stjernquist, 2021. "Economies of Scale and Perceived Corruption in Natural Resource Management: A Comparative Study between Ukraine, Romania, and Iceland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-26, June.
    2. Kristoffer Francisco & David Swanson, 2018. "The Supply Chain Has No Clothes: Technology Adoption of Blockchain for Supply Chain Transparency," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-13, January.
    3. Gardner, T.A. & Benzie, M. & Börner, J. & Dawkins, E. & Fick, S. & Garrett, R. & Godar, J. & Grimard, A. & Lake, S. & Larsen, R.K. & Mardas, N. & McDermott, C.L. & Meyfroidt, P. & Osbeck, M. & Persson, 2019. "Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 163-177.
    4. Kamble, Sachin S. & Gunasekaran, Angappa & Gawankar, Shradha A., 2020. "Achieving sustainable performance in a data-driven agriculture supply chain: A review for research and applications," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 179-194.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yuriy Bilan & Yaryna Samusevych & Serhiy Lyeonov & Marcin Strzelec & Iryna Tenytska, 2022. "The Keys to Clean Energy Technology: Impact of Environmental Taxes on Biofuel Production and Consumption," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-22, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Teck Ming Tan & Jari Salo, 2023. "Ethical Marketing in the Blockchain-Based Sharing Economy: Theoretical Integration and Guiding Insights," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(4), pages 1113-1140, April.
    2. Julia Francesca Wünsche & Fredrik Fernqvist, 2022. "The Potential of Blockchain Technology in the Transition towards Sustainable Food Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-15, June.
    3. Heldt, Lisa & Beske-Janssen, Philip, 2023. "Solutions from space? A dynamic capabilities perspective on the growing use of satellite technology for managing sustainability in multi-tier supply chains," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    4. Houssein Hellani & Layth Sliman & Abed Ellatif Samhat & Ernesto Exposito, 2021. "On Blockchain Integration with Supply Chain: Overview on Data Transparency," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-23, July.
    5. Zulkaif Ahmed Saqib & Luo Qin & Rashid Menhas & Gong Lei, 2023. "Strategic Sustainability and Operational Initiatives in Small- and Medium-Sized Manufacturers: An Empirical Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-20, April.
    6. Vincenzo Varriale & Antonello Cammarano & Francesca Michelino & Mauro Caputo, 2021. "Sustainable Supply Chains with Blockchain, IoT and RFID: A Simulation on Order Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-23, June.
    7. Emilia Vann Yaroson & Soumyadeb Chowdhury & Sachin Kumar Mangla & Prasanta Kumar Dey, 2024. "Unearthing the interplay between organisational resources, knowledge and industry 4.0 analytical decision support tools to achieve sustainability and supply chain wellbeing," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 342(2), pages 1321-1368, November.
    8. Panagiotis Trivellas & Georgios Malindretos & Panagiotis Reklitis, 2020. "Implications of Green Logistics Management on Sustainable Business and Supply Chain Performance: Evidence from a Survey in the Greek Agri-Food Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-29, December.
    9. Jiangning Cao & Yasir Ahmed Solangi, 2023. "Analyzing and Prioritizing the Barriers and Solutions of Sustainable Agriculture for Promoting Sustainable Development Goals in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-22, May.
    10. Tuğçe Taşkıner & Bilge Bilgen, 2021. "Optimization Models for Harvest and Production Planning in Agri-Food Supply Chain: A Systematic Review," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-27, August.
    11. Osterhoudt, Sarah & Galvin, Shaila Seshia & Graef, Dana J. & Saxena, Alder Keleman & Dove, Michael R., 2020. "Chains of Meaning: Crops, commodities, and the ‘in-between’ spaces of trade," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    12. Zhao, Xiaofei & Wang, Ping & Pal, Raktim, 2021. "The effects of agro-food supply chain integration on product quality and financial performance: Evidence from Chinese agro-food processing business," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    13. Jack Ryan A. Isahac, 2024. "“Attitudes Toward Sustainable Agriculture Concepts and Practices Among Students of School of Agriculture of Sulu State Collegeâ€," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(8), pages 1292-1313, August.
    14. Nematollahi, Mohammadreza & Tajbakhsh, Alireza & Mosadegh Sedghy, Bahareh, 2021. "The reflection of competition and coordination on organic agribusiness supply chains," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    15. Carina Mueller & Christopher West & Mairon G. Bastos Lima & Bob Doherty, 2023. "Demand-Side Actors in Agricultural Supply Chain Sustainability: An Assessment of Motivations for Action, Implementation Challenges, and Research Frontiers," World, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-20, September.
    16. Chen, Xia & Miraz, Mahadi Hasan & Gazi, Md. Abu Issa & Rahaman, Md. Atikur & Habib, Md. Mamun & Hossain, Abu Ishaque, 2022. "Factors affecting cryptocurrency adoption in digital business transactions: The mediating role of customer satisfaction," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    17. Kedar Shiralkar & Arunkumar Bongale & Satish Kumar & Ketan Kotecha & Chander Prakash, 2021. "Assessment of the Benefits of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Adoption on Downstream Supply Chain Performance of the Retail Industry," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-13, November.
    18. Esteve Nadal-Roig & Lluís Miquel Plà-Aragonès & Víctor Manuel Albornoz, 2023. "Supply Chains: Planning the Transportation of Animals among Facilities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-14, January.
    19. Mahmoona Khalil & Kausar Fiaz Khawaja & Muddassar Sarfraz, 2022. "The adoption of blockchain technology in the financial sector during the era of fourth industrial revolution: a moderated mediated model," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 2435-2452, August.
    20. Ren, Yi-Shuai & Ma, Chao-Qun & Chen, Xun-Qi & Lei, Yu-Tian & Wang, Yi-Ran, 2023. "Sustainable finance and blockchain: A systematic review and research agenda," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Financial Economics;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:areint:322720. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://are-journal.com/are .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.