ESG REPORTING IN UKRAINE’S AGRICULTURAL SECTOR: EMPIRICAL INSIGHTS AND PATHWAYS TO INTEGRATION WITH THE FSDN

Introduction. As a result of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine’s agricultural sector has entered a state of deep systemic crisis. Damage to production and logistics infrastructure, labour shortages due to population displacement, loss of access to agricultural land, and disruptions to supply chains and export operations have created unprecedented challenges for the sector’s functioning. At the same time, Ukraine was granted candidate status for accession to the European Union and committed to implementing the European Green Deal. One of the key instruments of this policy is the introduction of mandatory non-financial reporting by the CSRD, the EU Taxonomy, and the ESRS standards. Thus, Ukrainian agricultural enterprises face a dual challenge: ensuring transparency and compliance with European reporting standards under the difficult war and post-war recovery conditions. Purpose. The article aims to analyse the readiness of Ukrainian agricultural enterprises to implement ESG reporting in the context of post-war recovery, the “green” transformation, and European integration. The study covers two components: empirical findings from interviews with company executives and chief accountants regarding sustainability practices and reporting barriers, as well as a comparative analysis of Ukrainian statistical, environmental, and tax reporting against the indicators of the FSDN system. Methods. The research methodology is based on semi-structured interviews with 30 executives and chief accountants of agricultural enterprises from 18 regions of Ukraine. The interviews were conducted between April and July 2024. Thematic grouping and quantitative analysis made it possible to identify the main barriers and drivers for implementing ESG reporting. Additionally, a comparative analysis was carried out between the indicators of Ukrainian reporting and the corresponding FSDN indicators, classified into environmental, economic, and social dimensions. Results. The results of the study showed that many Ukrainian agricultural enterprises are in fact implementing ESG practices, particularly in the area of sustainable soil management; however, these practices are rarely formalised in official reporting. The main reasons for avoiding non-financial reporting include the absence of regulatory requirements, low levels of digital integration, lack of professional expertise, and distrust in state institutions. The war, mobilisation, and risks – particularly those related to land turnover – also act as constraining factors. At the same time, economic incentives such as access to financing and entry into sales markets remain the primary motivating factors for reporting. The comparative analysis with the FSDN framework revealed partial alignment of Ukrainian reporting forms (59.5%), with a high level of coverage for economic indicators but low coverage for environmental and social indicators. The most significant gaps concern data on emissions, biodiversity, energy consumption, certification, social integration, and worker well-being. Conclusion. The further development of ESG reporting in Ukraine’s agricultural sector should be based on harmonisation with the European FSDN system, considering national specificities. Expanding the coverage of environmental and social indicators, standardising reporting formats, and establishing a unified digital framework for data collection and transmission by the FAIR principles is necessary. Key prerequisites include strengthening institutional capacity, supporting training programs, introducing independent auditing, and linking non-financial reporting to access to finance and markets. The formalisation of non-financial information and its reflection in ESG reports should become a regulatory requirement and a component of enterprises’ competitive business strategy under wartime economic conditions. This will not only enhance transparency and investment attractiveness of Ukraine’s agribusiness sector but also ensure its full integration into the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy and the financial mechanisms of the “green” recovery.