Risk Management as a Key Element of ESG Reporting under the CSRD Directive from a Supply Chain Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15611/pn.2024.5.03Keywords:
ESG, directive CSRD, directive CSDD, risk, supply chainAbstract
Aim: The purpose of this article is to present key aspects of ESG risk management and the requirements arising from the entry into force of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) from the perspective of supply chain participants.
Methodology: To address these questions, the article reviews the available literature on the topic and employs a desk research method, including an analysis of legal acts, industry reports, and previous studies on the implementation of ESG rules. Additionally, face-to-face interviews were conducted with sustainability experts and representatives of companies subject to mandatory reporting under the CSRD.
Results: The findings indicate that companies are taking various measures to comply with the new regulations, but the scale of implementation varies depending on the industry, company size, and level of ESG awareness. Key challenges include the high cost of implementation, the lack of clear interpretive guidelines, and the necessity to collect and report detailed sustainability data. At the same time, companies recognize several benefits, such as improved corporate image, increased attractiveness to investors, and optimization of internal processes.
Implications and recommendations: Based on the results, several recommendations were formulated to support companies in adapting to the new ESG and CSRD requirements. Key actions include the development of ESG monitoring and risk management systems, standardization of reporting processes, and enhanced collaboration among supply chain participants in sharing best practices. Of particular importance is the implementation of modern digital tools that facilitate data collection and analysis while minimizing the administrative burden associated with reporting.
Originality/value: This article provides an update on the impact of the CSRD on ESG risk management in the supply chain. The study incorporates both a theoretical perspective and practical experiences of companies, making it a valuable resource for managers, business analysts, and decision-makers responsible for implementing sustainability strategies.
References
Agami, N., Saleh, M. i Rasmy, M. (2012). Supply Chain Performance Measurement Approaches: Review and Classification. Joms, 1(20). https://doi.org/10.5171/2012.872753
Atkins, B. (2020). ESG History & Status. Pobrano 20 sierpnia 2024 z https://issuu.com/bajacorp/docs/esg_history___status
Baid, V. i Jayaraman, V. (2022). Amplifying and Promoting the “S” in ESG Investing: The Case for Social Responsibility in Supply Chain Financing. Mf, 48, 1279-1297. https://doi.org/10.1108/mf-12-2021-0588
Barbosa de, A. S., Bueno da Silva, L., de Souza, V. F. i Morioka, S. N. (2021). Integrated Management Systems: Their Organizational Impacts. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell, 33, 794-817. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2021.1893685
Bohdanowicz, L. i Aluchna, M. (2023). Determinanty dokonań polskich spółek publicznych w zakresie ESG. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 67(4).
Borralho, M., Hernández-Linares, R., Gallardo-Vázquez, D. i Choban de Sousa Paiva, I. (2022). Environmental, Social and Governance Disclosure’s Impacts on Earnings Management: Family versus Non-Family Firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 379(1), 134603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134603
Bravi, L., Santos, G., Pagano, A. i Murmura, F. (2020) Environmental Management System According to ISO 14001:2015 as a Driver to Sustainable Development. CorpSoc Responsib Environ Manag, 27, 2599-2614. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1985
Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Acad Manag Dorfleitner, G., Halbritter, G. i Nguyen, M. (2015). Measuring the Level and Risk of Corporate Responsibility – An Empirical Rev, 20, 92-117. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271994
Comparison of Different ESG Rating Approaches. Journal of Asset Management, 16, 450-466.
Esquer-Peralta J., Velazquez, L. i Munguia, N. (2008). Perceptions of Core Elements for Sustainability Management Systems (SMS). Manag Decis, 46, 1027-1038. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740810890195
Font, X., Walmsley, A., Cogotti, S. i Mccobbes, L. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility: The Disclosure–Performance Gap. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1544-1553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.02.012
Freundlieb, M. i Teuteberg, F. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting – A Transnational Analysis of Online Corporate Social Responsibility Reports by Market-Listed Companies: Contents and Their Evolution. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2013.052117
Friede, G., Busch, T. i Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and Financial Performance: Aggregated Evidence from More Than 2000 Empirical Studies. J. Sustain. Finance Invest., 5(4), 210-233.
Grzesik, K. (2023). Przywództwo w kontekście zrównoważonego rozwoju przedsiębiorstwa. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 67(4).
Guthrie, J. i Farneti, F. (2008). GRI Sustainability Reporting by Australian Public Sector Organizations. Public Money and Management, 28, 361-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9302.2008.00670.x
Ioannou, I. i Serafeim, G. (2017). The Consequences of Mandatory Corporate Sustainability Reporting. Harvard Business School Research Working Paper, 11-100.
Jackson, G., Bartosch, J., Avetisyan, E., Kinderman, D. i Steen Knudsen, J. (2020), Mandatory Non-financial Disclosure and Its Influence on CSR: An International Comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 162, 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04200-0
Jahmane, A. i Brahim, G. (2020). Corporate Social Responsibility, Financial Instability and Corporate Financial Performance: Linear, Non-Linear and Spillover Effects – The Case of the CAC 40 Companies. Finance Res. Lett., 34(101483).
Jayachandran, S., Kalaignanam, K. i Eilert, M. (2013). Product and Environmental Social Performance: Varying Effect on Firm Performance. Strat. Mgmt. J., 34(10), 1255-1264. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2054
Jouber, H. (2021). Is the Effect of Board Diversity on CSR Diverse? New Insights from One-Tier vs Two-Tier Corporate Board Models. Corporate Governance, 21(1), 23-61.
Khoury, R. E., Nasrallah, N., Harb, E. i Hussainey, K. (2022). Exploring the Performance of Responsible Companies in G20 during the COVID-19 Outbreak., J. Clean. Prod., 354(131693).
Kinderman, D. (2019). The Challenges of Upwards Regulatory Harmonization: The Case of Sustainability Reporting in the UE. Regulation & Governance, 14(4), 674-697.
Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social Accountability and Corporate Greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253-261. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022962719299
Li, Z., Feng, L., Pan, Z. i Sohail, H. M. (2022). ESG Performance and Stock Prices: Evidence from the COVID-19 Outbreak in China. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun., 9(1), 242.
Nishitani, K., Nguyen, T. B. H., Trinh, T. Q., Wu, Q. i Kokubu, K. (2021). Are Corporate Environmental Activities to Meet Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Simply Greenwashing? An Empirical Study of Environmental Management Control Systems in Vietnamese Companies from the Stakeholder Management Perspective. J Environ Manage, (296). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113364
Oczyp, P. i Mikiewicz, M. (2023). Strategie ESG według najnowszych wytycznych i regulacji. Pobrano ze strony: https://kpmg.com/pl/pl/blogs/home/posts/2023/05/strategie-esg-wedlug-najnowszych-wytycznych-i-regulacji-esgblog.html
Porter, M. E. i Kramer, M. R. (2011). The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review, , 89(1/2), 62-67.
Raport 2023. (b.d.). Global Supply Chain Risk Report. Can Supply Chains Withstand Another Global Disruption Crisis? WTW Global Supply Chain Survey.
Raport Deloitte 2024. (2024a). Deloitte Central Europe Private Equity Confidence Survey.
Raport Deloitte 2024. (2024b). ESG in M&A Trends Survey.
Raport Deloitte. (b.d.). Deloitte TPRM Survey 2022.
Raport EL&SCS. (2023). European Logistics & Supply Chain Sustainability Report 2023.
Raport ESG. (b.d.). Raport koszty i wyzwania ESG, 2023. Polskie Stowarzyszenie ESG.
Samelak, J. (2014). Ramy koncepcyjne zintegrowanego sprawozdania jako formy raportowania CSR. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego We Wrocławiu, 314, 155-165.
Sardanelli, D., Bittucci, L., Mirone, F. i Marzioni, S. (2022). An Integrative Framework for Supply Chain Rating: From Financialbased to ESG-based Rating Models. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 1(20). https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2022.2069557
Venkatesh, G. (2010). Triple Bottom Line Approach to Individual and Global Sustainability. Problemy Ekorozwoju – Problems of Sustainable Development, 5(2).
Wang, S., Li, J. i Zhao, D. (2018). Institutional Pressures and Environmental Management Practices: The Moderating Effects of Environmental Commitment and Resource Availability. Bus Strateg Environ, 27, 52-69. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1983
Zhang, Y., Ruan, H., Tang, G. i Tong, L. (2021) Power of Sustainable Development: Does Environmental Management System Certification Affect a Firm’s Access To Finance? Bus Strateg Environ, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2839
Zieliński, D. (2023). ESG a wyzwania dekarbonizacyjne przedsiębiorstw działających w Polsce. Studia BAS, 2(74), 127-143.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Sabina Wyrwich-Płotka, Iwona Pisz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
