UKLJUČIVANJE ZAINTERESOVANIH STRANA U ODREĐIVANJE ZNAČAJNIH TEMA U IZVJEŠTAJ O ODRŽIVOSTI

 Peti naučni skup „Računovodstvena znanja kao činilac ekonomskog i društvenog napretka“ (2025) [39-50 str.]   

AUTHOR(S) / AUTOR(I): Jelena Poljašević , Biljana Srdić Gojković 

Download Full Pdf  

DOI: 10.46793/RZ25.039P

ABSTRACT / SAŽETAK:

U kontekstu Direktive o korporativnom izveštavanju o održivosti (CSRD) i Evropskih standarda za izveštavanje o održivosti (ESRS), uključivanje zainteresovanih strana ima ključnu ulogu u procesu sprovođenja dvostruke materijalnosti. Zainteresovane strane obuhvataju širok spektar aktera — od zaposlenih i klijenata, do regulatornih tela i lokalnih zajednica — čije potrebe i uticaji na preduzeće moraju biti analizirani kako bi se identifikovali značajni rizici, prilike i uticaji povezani sa održivošću. CSRD i ESRS zahtevaju da proces uključivanja zainteresovanih strana bude sistematičan, dokumentovan i integrisan u upravljačke prakse, posebno kroz proces procene dvostruke materijalnosti. Ovaj pristup osigurava da izveštavanje bude relevantno, transparentno i u skladu s očekivanjima tržišta, investitora i društva u celini. Uključivanje zainteresovanih strana ne samo da doprinosi boljem upravljanju rizicima, već i jača odgovornost i otpornost organizacija.

KEYWORDS / KLJUČNE REČI:

dvostruka materijalnost, zainteresovane strane, CSRD

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT / PROJEKAT:

REFERENCES / LITERATURA:

  • Barker, R., & Mayer, C. (2025, March). Seeing double corporate reporting through the materiality lenses of both investors and nature. Accounting Forum, 49(2), 259-289.
  • Bogdan, V., Rus, L., & Matica, D. E. (2025). The Interconnection of Double Materiality Assessment, Circularity Practices Disclosure and Business Development in the Fast Fashion Industry. Sustainability (2071-1050), 17(4).
  • EFRAG. (2022). [Draft] European Sustainability Reporting Guidelines 1Double materiality conceptual guidelines for standard-setting. Preuzeto sa: https://www.efrag.org/sites/default/files/sites/webpublishing/SiteAssets/Appendix%202.6%20-%20WP%20on%20draft%20ESRG%201.pdf (20.04.2022).
  • EFRAG. (2024). EFRAG IG 1: Materiality Assessment Implementation Guidance. https://www.efrag.org/sites/default/files/sites/webpublishing/SiteAssets/IG%201%20Materiality%20Assessment_final.pdf (30.04.2022).
  • ESRS (2023). European Sustainability Reporting Standards – ESRS, Preuzeto sa: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32023R2772 (25.04.2025.).
  • European commision. (2022). Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive – CSRD. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022 L2464 (20.04.2022).
  • European commision. (2025). Omnibus I. https://commission.europa.eu/  publications/omnibus-i_en (20.04.2022).
  • Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge university press.
  • García-Sánchez, I. M., Hussain, N., & Martínez-Ferrero, J. (2022). Stakeholder engagement and sustainability reporting quality: A study of European companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(1), 75–94.
  • García‐Sánchez, I. M., Hussain, N., Aibar‐Guzmán, C., & Aibar‐Guzmán, B. (2022). Assurance of corporate social responsibility reports: Does it reduce decoupling practices?. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 31(1), 118-138.
  • Kotsantonis, S., & Serafeim, G. (2019). Four things no one will tell you about ESG data. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 31(2), 50-58.
  • Miettinen, M. (2024). Are materiality determination practices evolving in the wake of increasing legislation on sustainability reporting? Findings from EU pharmaceutical companies’ reports. International journal of law and management, 66(3), 363-392.
  • Nguyen, V. H. (2025). Corporate social responsibility disclosure and firm value: a signaling theory perspective. Journal of Economics and Development.
  • Raith, D. (2023). The contest for materiality. What counts as CSR?. Journal of applied accounting research, 24(1), 134-148.
  • Segura, L., Romero, S., & González, E. (2021). Stakeholder materiality assessments: Opportunities and limitations in corporate sustainability reporting. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 12(4), 745–765.
  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of management review, 20(3), 571-610.
  • Szalacha, P. (2023). Sustainability Reporting in the Construction Industry: Evidence from Poland. Sustainable Performance in Business Organisations and Institutions: Measurement, Reporting and Management Publishing House of Wroclaw, 187-203.
  • Torelli, R., Balluchi, F., & Furlotti, K. (2020). The materiality assessment and stakeholder engagement: A content analysis of sustainability reports. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 470-484