The Business Model in Energy Sector Reporting—A Case Study from Poland: A Pilot Study

Abstract

The business model is understood as a way of generating revenue and creating value. This article aimed to define the framework and detailed characteristics of the business model in corporate reporting in the energy sector. The study also addressed the issue of value creation and examined the correlation between reporting information about the business model and the value of the enterprise, calculated using selected accounting measures. The research was conducted in 2021 on all listed companies in the energy sector included in the WIG20 index in 2019–2020. The research methodologies included critical analysis of the literature, analysis of the content of corporate publications, comparative analysis, analysis of phenomena and synthesis of results, Spearman’s rank correlations, and graphical data presentation. The originality of our research concerns directing attention to the disclosure and reporting of information about the business model in corporate reports in the energy sector in Poland. This is the first such study in Poland conducted on companies in the energy sector; therefore, it is treated by the authors as a pilot study. The results show that companies in the energy sector included in the WIG20 index do not disclose information about their business models in reports and the structure of published reports is very diverse, which makes it even more difficult to compare financial and non-financial data. Enterprises in the energy sector disclose financial and non-financial information in financial statements and the reports of the management board on the activities of the company and the capital group. The financial information disclosed by the companies most often included financial and productive capital. Energy companies are reluctant to disclose information about by-products and waste.

1. Introduction

In the past decade, there has been a huge amount of research related to the business model in terms of both management and accounting [1,2]. Especially in the last twenty years, the business model has become a popular topic in research and practice [1,2,3]. Many articles discuss the theoretical and practical aspects of creating a company’s business product in the context of increasing competition around the world [4,5,6]. Various aspects have been analyzed, for example, the impact of the company’s openness to stakeholders on the effectiveness of the company’s business model [7], the business model in agricultural enterprises [8], the relationship between knowledge orientation and business analytics capabilities in driving business [9], integrated management of multiple business models, and the strategic management of business model innovation [10].

This fact means that research on the business model has not been established based on economic research or management. The ambiguity of placing the business model in scientific research leads to a differentiated assessment of its usefulness and value creation architecture [11]. The business model is one of the most commonly used terms in strategic management and, more recently, in accounting [12,13,14]. Although the term was initially used in the context of e-commerce, its application is currently comprehensive and includes research in many sectors, such as energy, manufacturing, healthcare, and biotechnology [15,16,17,18,19]. The use of the business model concept has increased as researchers studying strategic management and the development of modern business forms, such as business groups, have begun to take an interest [20,21,22,23]. Integrated reporting is often combined with the concept of integrated thinking [24] in the context of creating a sustainable business model [25,26,27,28,29]. This is especially important for companies that have a significant impact on the environment, such as transport companies or energy operators. Each individual company, depending on its proximity and distance to impact on the environment, formulates its strategy, vision and mission, accounting policy, and business model. The energy sector is not isolated in the implementation of these activities. Entrepreneurs conducting business activity in the field of logistics services represent the group with the fastest reaction to changes taking place in the market, thus defining their own business model. In the case of enterprises in the energy sector, the business models are a combination of strategic orientation and technology, which is an essential element of achieving business goals and generating positive results from operations [30,31]. However, there is a noticeable gap in the research concerning integrated reporting on applied business models in this sector. A few studies have explored the value creation process of the low-cost carrier business model in the aerospace industry [32,33,34]. Another case study refers to research on the development of the sustainability habitus in the Arab Middle East (ME) using the example of a leader in the energy sector. In these studies, a comparative analysis of integrated reporting and environmental reporting was performed [35]. Ciubotariu et al. [36] suggested that based on sensitivity function value, sectors of activity such as transport, infrastructure, services, and trade have a higher sensitivity preference for IR (integrated reporting) due to quantification of the stakeholders’ interest in terms of performance-positive trend indexes.

In our research, we adopted the theoretical framework of the business model in terms of corporate accounting and financial reporting and related it to enterprises in the energy sector in Poland [37,38,39,40]. On 9 December 2013, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) released the first internationally recognized IR framework. IR is understood as “a process founded on integrated thinking that results in a periodic integrated report by an organization about value creation over time and related communications regarding aspects of value creation” [41]. In the literature, several theoretical papers explain why disclosing the business model could be useful in allowing investors to predict future earnings and cash flow [42,43,44,45,46]. Moreover, the business model is one of the most important elements in the strategy of communication between enterprises and current and potential investors. There are many approaches to the category of “business model,” among which is a link between economic theory and accounting valuation and thus with financial and non-financial reporting [18]. From a business model perspective, it is acknowledged that any asset can be utilized in different ways and that value creation, another concept key to IR, will ultimately vary between firms. The challenge at hand is the alignment of the financial perspective with the value proposition of the enterprise [14,32].

This paper contributes to the accounting literature as it provides evidence that the voluntary disclosure of macro components encounters many limitations related to the communication of the activities of the enterprise, especially in the case of environmental impact [47]. This was confirmed by research conducted in Russia on enterprises in the transport sector, which proved that there was a lack of transparency in communicating the activities and business models of these enterprises [48,49,50,51]. Our results are of interest not only to researchers but also to practitioners and standard setters. In particular, they highlight the importance of disclosing information concerning business models related to this sector in Poland in order to improve the usefulness of accounting [52,53,54,55,56].

Our research aimed to define the framework and detailed characteristics of the business model in corporate reporting in the energy sector. Our research was conducted on a sample of listed companies in the energy sector included in the WIG20 index for the years 2019–2020. We used disclosure maps proposed by CIMA and IIRC [32], which allowed us to conduct a detailed analysis of disclosures regarding the business models used.

The business model describes how ways of creating and delivering value can evolve as customer needs and preferences change [57]. It is a structure that provides information about the enterprise’s prospects. It can be assumed that the business model describes what the company offers to its customers, how it reaches them with the offer, how it maintains relations with them, what resources it engages, what actions it takes for this purpose, with whom it enters into a partnership and, consequently, how it achieves revenues [58,59,60].

Progressive changes, including the deregulation of markets, development of technology, provision of services, flow of information and communication, and coordination of markets and economies make the business model increasingly necessary for enterprises to achieve market success and a sustainable competitive advantage. It is a determinant of creating the value of an individual enterprise [61]. The value category can be considered from a broad perspective, both financial and non-financial. The key in the process of creating a business model by enterprises in the energy sector appears to be understanding the essence of this concept and the correct selection of components. It should be noted that it is difficult and rather impossible to clearly define the business model [62,63] as the definitions are numerous and include diverse elements.

This paper proceeds as follows. The “Related Literature” section reviews the literature on the topic investigated and describes our research hypotheses. The “Materials and Methods” section provides details about our sample selection strategy and research design. The “Results” section presents our research results, while the “Discussion” and “Conclusions” sections contain a discussion of the implications, limitations, and possible future developments of the research.

2. Related Literature

The topic of the business model has attracted the attention of researchers since the 1990s, which is primarily related to the development of new information and communication technologies and the phenomenon of globalization [61,62,63,64,65,66]. The essence of the business model is to explain how organizations create, deliver, and capture value [67,68,69,70,71]. The business model is perceived as a key factor for creating and maintaining a competitive advantage as well as achieving corporate financial results. Business models evolve as managers both introduce new ideas and adjust in response to external factors [1,2,3]. As research shows, it can also communicate the business logic of the enterprise to a wide group, such as shareholders [45]. This unique ability of the business model to communicate value has resulted in the fact that various accounting organizations [20,51,52,53,54] currently perceive it in terms of increasing the transparency and clarity of financial disclosures. Despite its undeniable advantages, the concept of the business model also has several important gaps, both cognitive and technical [55]. The cognitive gap refers to the lack of agreement on the unambiguous understanding of the term business model, which is the reason for the frequent development of a specific understanding of this term dependent on the academic center formulating it. In turn, the technical gap is generally expressed by the lack of guidance in the presentation of information within the business model. At the same time, the business model considered from the point of view of the economic theory of the company provides practical difficulties in the area of financial reporting measurement [72,73]. Sustainable business models strive to balance economic prosperity, social well-being, and environmental preservation in their operations and strategies [73].

In our article, based on the concept of a business model in corporate reporting, we have formulated the following research hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

Do companies in the energy sector use the business model concept in their reports?

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

How are business model disclosures identified in corporate reports in the energy sector?

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

Is the structure of the reports published by companies in the energy sector homogeneous or diversified, and do these reports allow for easy comparison of financial and non-financial data?

Hypothesis 4 (H4).

Do companies in the energy sector have specificities compared to other sectors?

Hypothesis 5 (H5).

Are there strong correlations between the disclosure of a business model’s information and the entity’s value?

In the IIRC framework structure, the term “business model” is defined as “a selected system composed of inputs, business activities, outputs, and outcomes, designed to create a specific value in the short, medium and long term” [50,68]. Reporting and disclosure in corporate reporting should answer the following question: What is the business model of a given organization and to what extent is it sustainable? The components, categories, and detailed characteristics of the business models are presented in Table 1.

The benefits of integrated reporting apply to many groups interested in creating corporate value, not only financial capital providers. It is proven that integrated reporting combines financial and non-financial reporting processes, paving the way for the transformation of the internal reporting system [74,75,76,77,78]. The process of creating corporate value depends to a large extent on the adopted business model understood as a “system of transforming inputs, through its business activities, into outputs and outcomes” [62]. Enterprises in the energy sector conduct business activities based on diverse business models [79]. The business model is a method of doing business that ensures further operation for the entity. It enables communication with stakeholders, which contributes to reflecting the true value of the company. The lack of complete information (e.g., non-financial) in an integrated report on the business model may lead to a distortion (underestimation) of the value of the economic entity. Enterprise value is also created through communication about the business model.

The business model is a method adopted by the company to increase and use resources, which is presented to customers with an offer of products and services; it is a conceptual tool containing elements and relationships between them. The business model describes how ways of creating and delivering value can evolve as customer needs and preferences change. An unambiguous definition of the business model is difficult and rather impossible because there are many concepts defining the business model, thus it is understood differently by economic units. The business model is often reported in an integrated report.

The business model should inform about the use of the resources by the enterprise in business activities, whereas the key elements of the business model include segments of stakeholders, business partners, customers, value propositions, customer communication channels, stakeholder relations, revenue streams, key resources, key success factors, key partnerships, and cost structure. The business model is built based on these assets shaping the so-called value dynamics. The business model is multidimensional; it is a unique combination of tangible and intangible assets aimed at maximizing the value of the organization.

A key issue, especially for enterprises in the energy sector, is non-financial reporting related to areas such as corporate social responsibility and environmental impact. This issue concerns the transparency of non-financial reporting [80,81,82,83,84]. As evidenced by previous research in Poland, the lack of compulsory environmental disclosure has discouraged managers from voluntarily disclosing such information [82,83,84,85,86]. However, the current discourse on business models highlights an increase in levels of disclosure of both financial and non-financial information [87,88,89,90]. In particular, relating non-financial reporting to value in the long term is problematic, taking into account intangible values that are not measured or communicated [90,91].

Communicating information about the business model and non-financial capital should be the next stage in the evolution of the company’s reporting and this type of disclosure should be carried out in a specific reporting format, called the integrated report [91,92]. However, there is currently a turbulent scientific discourse about the essence of understanding the business model, in terms of referring it to management paradigms, embedding it in the criterion of environmental impact, as well as cause-and-effect relationships and correlations between other ontological entities. The ambiguity of the definitions and the multiplicity of elements forming the business model structure stem, on the one hand, from the variability of the realities of running a business and their perception by decision-makers, and, on the other hand, from the evolution of concepts and theories explaining these processes and phenomena.

3. Materials and Methods

In our research, we used financial statements and reports of companies from the energy sector listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange (WSE). There are seven listed companies on the WSE. Table 2 presents the surveyed companies and additionally indicates the industries of each of the companies in the energy sector and the detailed scope of their activities. The leading activity of the studied companies was transport. The companies conducted diversified business activities related to the domestic market. Table 1 also indicates the business model disclosures analyzed in the reports.

The survey was conducted in 2021 based on financial and non-financial data available for 2019–2020. The layout and content of the study were subordinated to the implementation of the assumed purpose of the study. The authors used a pilot testing method and combined it with other methods, such as experiments and observational studies, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research questions. As a research method, we empirically analyzed the material, which allowed us to verify the research hypotheses posed. The methodology process involved several steps. The first step included a selection and review of the literature. This included identifying texts that were relevant to the research question or topic being studied. The authors also organized articles and identify patterns and connections between them. The next step was to combine the information from the texts to create a comprehensive understanding of the topic or research question. Finally, conclusions and interpretations were drawn.

This research approach is widely accepted in studies exploring capital information disclosures in business models [26]. It should be emphasized that the small research sample was conditioned by the small number of enterprises that currently publish comprehensive information about their business model. The business model disclosures were drawn from various reports as there is no single unified concept of business model reporting. We did not have comparable and extensive research on business model disclosures by the industry. Sometimes, the disclosures were fragmented, incomplete, and impossible to compare.

The study also addressed the issue of value creation and examined the correlation between reporting information about the business model and the value of the enterprise, which was calculated using selected accounting measures. As part of the current study, the interdependencies of the detailed components of the business model were examined—i.e., the correlation relationships that occurred between the sum of disclosures about the business model in selected components for the surveyed enterprises and the value of the enterprise, measured using selected accounting methods, achieved by these entities. These included total assets, financial results, and equity. Statistical analysis of the correlations was carried out based on the Spearman correlation method, i.e., coefficients were calculated for the ranks of variables. The argument for using this statistical method was the small size of the group; as this was a preliminary, pilot study that will be continued on a large group of entities this year. As an additional argument for choosing this statistical method, we also considered the fact that the correlation coefficients calculated for the ranks of variables showed any monotonic relationship, and the distribution of the research sample was not linear.

Among the surveyed companies, there were no significant differences in the structures of the reports in which the information about the business models was disclosed. Two of the seven companies in the energy sector listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange had not published current financial statements or non-financial reports for the years 2019–2020. One company, COM4, drew up an integrated report, while another one, COM3, reported the non-financial information of the capital group, and three companies disclosed information about the results of their activities in the consolidated financial statements and in the management board’s report on the activities of the company and the capital group (Table 3).

The study of the number of disclosures indicated that logistics companies most often report information about the input elements (capital), including mainly financial elements and business outcomes, both financial and non-financial. Slightly less often, enterprises disclose information about business activities (most commonly about planning, design, and risk). Some components of the business model were not disclosed in single cases—no data were reported in the period under review. A characteristic situation for the entire research sample was that the information highlighted in the components of the business model was at a similar level in 2019 and 2020. This was reflected in the score of the individual components (Table 4).

In the next stage of the study, detailed elements of the components of the business model and information regarding financial (numerical) disclosures were subjected to in-depth content analysis for all surveyed logistics companies (Table 4). It should be noted that the empirical data confirmed the dominant verbal nature of disclosures about the business model. There was a much greater number of financial (numerical) information disclosures in the surveyed logistics companies than those of a descriptive nature. The largest percentage of financial disclosures among the total information was recorded for the business activities component in 2019 (i.e., 74%), whereas the smallest percentage of financial disclosures was recorded for the business activities component in 2020 (i.e., 27%).

4. Results

In our research, we first collected the disclosures reported by logistics companies under four main components of the business model. For this purpose, the disclosure map proposed by CIMA and IIRC was used, according to which the business model consists of 4 components:

• Input elements, i.e., financial, productive, human, intellectual, natural, social, and relational capitals.

• Business activities, including planning, design, production, training, research and development, innovation, and relationship management.

• Outputs and results, including key products, key services, by-products, and waste.

• Outcomes, including customer satisfaction, profit/loss, return to shareholders, asset consumption, employment creation, employee development and engagement, improvement of living standards, environmental impact, licenses/certificates, and contribution to the local economy.

Within the indicated components of the business model, 22 types of disclosures were listed, which formed the basis for further analysis. The subject of the study included their descriptive form and disclosures expressed in a monetary measure. The analyses were carried out based on a study of the content of financial statements and reports available on the website of the Warsaw Stock Exchange.

The content analysis was primarily qualitative. Content analysis is defined as a research technique that allows obtaining reproducible and correct conclusions from texts in the context of their use. Its capabilities also concern the use of the quality index as a basis for searching for evidence that the item is or is not disclosed. Detailed results of the analyses are presented in Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6. For each of the selected parameters describing the business model, the following score was awarded: 1—when such information was disclosed by companies, 0—when there were no disclosures. As a result, the maximum number of points that a given company could be awarded was 22 for one year. In total, it was therefore possible for a company to obtain a maximum of 44 points for both analyzed years. Table 5 presents the results of analyses concerning the input elements, i.e., the capital of the business models of enterprises in the energy sector for the years 2019–2020.

When analyzing capital reporting among the seven companies surveyed, two did not include such information at all, as they did not publish any reports. One of the companies only disclosed information about their financial capital, whereas two companies disclosed information about all of their capital, but only for 2019. They had not yet published reports for 2020. One of the companies disclosed information about financial and productive capital and one enterprise disclosed information about all capital except data on natural and social capital.

In the area of reporting on business activities, companies made various disclosures, as shown in Table 6.

Two companies reported data for both years studied, while the other two had not yet published reports for 2020. Planning and production activities in a descriptive dimension were disclosed by two companies in both years and by one company in 2019. Risk was described by three companies over a period of two years and by two companies in 2019. Information about training, corporate research and development, and relationship management were included in the reports of only two companies in the energy sector and only in 2019. Diversification of services was reported by three companies, two of which disclosed information for 2019.

The output elements of the energy sector enterprises in the business models were also subject to significant variation, as shown in Table 7.

It is clear that companies in the energy sector are reluctant to disclose information about by-products, both in financial and descriptive terms. Disclosure of information about waste was at a similar level. Only one company disclosed such information. It can be presumed that in the case of typical service activities, such as logistics activities, these two categories were of negligible importance in the activities of these enterprises. However, the detailed scope of the activities carried out by some companies indicated that production activities or other service activities may have generated waste and by-products in some cases. This requires additional extended research.

Table 8 presents the output outcomes—the capital of the business models of enterprises in the energy sector for the years 2019–2020.

Of the five companies that published their reports, all of them disclosed information about the profit they achieved in 2019. There were no data reported for the two companies in 2020. Asset consumption was reported by three companies during the period under review, and the result of corporate research and development was only reported for one company. Information about employee development and employment creation was published by one energy sector enterprise in both years surveyed, while two companies disclosed these data for 2019. With regard to the information about the impact of the company’s activities on the natural environment and the level of customer satisfaction, such information was reported by only two companies in 2019.

It is recommended that the current status of the surveyed WIG20 index companies be reviewed, and integrated reporting should be implemented to disclose, in addition to financial information, non-financial information about corporate social responsibility. The results of the current study confirmed that the surveyed companies included in the WIG 20 index do not disclose information about their business model in annual statements/reports, and disclosures about the business model have a significant role in the value of the enterprise. This was confirmed in research conducted by Kannenberg and Schreck [46] and Jensen and Berg [47].

It is recommended that further research be conducted in this area and new hypotheses are put forward. For example, it should be explored whether larger enterprises, more developed entities with a stronger market position in which the size is scaled with the sum of their assets, use new tools for financial and non-financial reporting on the business model. It is worth continuing research into how small and medium-sized enterprises react and whether they see the need for change. Further research is necessary due to the development of integration of enterprise management systems with accounting systems. This provides new challenges for accountants and controllers and will determine the development of the accounting profession as it evolves into a creative profession.

5. Discussion

In conclusion, it should be noted that in the case of companies in the energy sector, there is no positive approach to reporting on the business model, including non-financial reporting. There is also a significant reduction in the narrative, which could have a negative connotation. Companies disclose mainly financial information in consolidated financial statements and corporate information in the management board’s report on activities. In these documents, non-financial information about the business model is limited, practically non-existent, a fact confirmed by our research (Hypothesis 1). Companies should use business models to explain how they generate revenue, create value for their customers, and plan to sustain their competitive advantage. The business model concept is also useful for energy companies to communicate their strategies to stakeholders, such as investors and regulators [47].

As part of the current research, interrelationships between the detailed components of the business model were also examined for the years 2019–2020—i.e., correlations between the sum of disclosures about selected components of the enterprise’s business model and the value of the enterprise, measured using selected accounting methods. These include total assets, financial results, and equity. Statistical analysis of the correlations was carried out based on the Spearman correlation method, i.e., coefficients were calculated for the ranks of the variables. The argument for using this statistical method was the small size of the group. The results of the dependence are presented in Table 9 and Table 10.

Table 9 shows Spearman’s rank correlations for the sum of disclosures of the specified components of the business models of the surveyed enterprises with the selected accounting methods of measuring value.

The overall impact of the considered components on the enterprise’s value against the background of the parameters published by the analyzed companies describing their financial situation indicated a statistically significant (with p-value < 0.05) relationship between the sum of assets and results and between the financial result and inputs and overall values of the components. At the same time, it should be noted that these relationships were only significant in 2019. In 2020, in each case, a decrease was observed in the strength of the relationship between the total value of the components and the financial situation of the company described by the parameters, such as total assets, financial result, or equity capital. In the case of total assets, there was also a change in the direction of the relationship from positive in 2019 to negative in 2020, while there was a substantially reverse change in the relationship from negative to positive in the case of the financial result (Hypothesis 2). Table 10 presents the correlations between pure financial disclosures. It should be noted that companies should include business model disclosures in the annual report, strategic plan, or sustainability report [93,94] There should be a separate section about the business model in reports or investor presentations. In this section, companies should explain how they generate revenue, create value for their customers, and plan to sustain their competitive advantage.

When examining the relationship between individual financial components and the financial parameters discussed, statistically significant relationships were only observed in 2019. These dependencies concerned the relationship between all the results and the sum of assets as well as the values of input elements and the financial result achieved by the examined companies. As in the case of the total components, there was a change in the direction of dependence in 2020 compared to 2019 for the relationship between individual components and the sum of assets and the financial result.

To sum up this stage of the research, our findings indicate that disclosures about the business model do not represent a significant value for the energy sector (Hypothesis 5). In disclosures about the business model, this sector does not perceive categories that create value for the enterprise. Studies have shown that companies that provide more detailed and transparent information about their business model in their financial reports tend to be viewed as more valuable by investors and other stakeholders (Hypothesis 5) [46,47,92]. Further research in this area should be carried out, taking into account the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and looking for determinants that contribute to this state of affairs. Generally, the structures of the annual reports and sustainability reports of companies in the energy sector can be quite diverse, making it difficult to compare financial and non-financial data across different companies. Some companies may provide detailed information about their environmental and social performance in their sustainability reports, while others may not (Hypothesis 3).

6. Conclusions

The business model has been identified by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) as a basic element of integrated reporting, and integrated reporting should focus on the business model of a given enterprise, including its resources, relationships, and financial and non-financial aspects. It was also found that investors promote the position that high-quality reporting describing an enterprise’s business model is essential in better understanding its performance, the impact of the external environment on the entity, and how entities create and “maintain” value. Our research allowed us to determine the framework, place, and detailed characteristics of the business model in corporate reporting in the energy sector.

Enterprises in the energy sector disclose financial and non-financial information in financial statements and reports of the management board on the activities of the company and the capital group. Only one company published an integrated report that included information about the business model (partial and only for 2019). Because these entities did not draw up integrated reports, they did not directly use the business model concept or indicate the characteristic components of the business model in their reports. Thus, the main objective of the study was achieved, i.e., we defined the framework, place, and detailed characteristics of the business model in corporate reporting in the energy sector. Our research recommends that the current state of companies in the energy sector in the WIG20 index be verified in order to implement integrated reports. Therefore, in addition to financial information, non-financial information regarding corporate social responsibility should be disclosed by these companies. This finding coincides with research conducted by ref. [95] recommending that sustainable business models should adopt the circular economy concept and report on biodiversity and extinction accounting in a more structured and mandatory way via producing integrated reports.

Companies in the energy sector most often disclose information about financial and productive capital. They rarely disclose information regarding the category of business activity, indicating mainly the risk related to the business they conduct. Companies in the energy sector are reluctant to disclose information about by-products and waste, both in financial and descriptive terms. In terms of results, the surveyed companies in the energy sector practically do not disclose information about the effects of research and development, employee development and employment creation, environmental impact, and customer satisfaction. Financial statements and the management board’s report on the company’s activities are obligatory documents legitimized by the Accounting Act. Therefore, it should be noted that the structure of the reports published by companies in the energy sector should be homogeneous to allow for easy comparison of financial data (Hypothesis 3). Companies in the energy sector have a diverse set of business models, for the generation and distribution of electricity, natural gas, oil exploration and production, and renewable energy projects, among others (Hypothesis 4) [93,94].

Our research shows that companies in the energy sector included in the WIG20 index do not disclose information about their business model in their annual reports. There is little descriptive content regarding the business model in the analyzed documents. This information is very important for making investment decisions by stock investors. The listed companies, in particular, should publish qualitative descriptive information in their reports. Emphasis on publishing relevant information about the business model would help to strengthen the knowledge and decision-making process of report recipients.

It should be emphasized that this was a pilot study, and the originality of this research is in focusing attention on the disclosure and reporting of information about the business model in corporate reports of the energy sector in Poland. This is the first such study in Poland conducted on companies in the energy sector; therefore it is treated by the authors as a pilot study. The research showed that companies in the energy sector included in the WIG20 index do not disclose information about the business model in their reports and the structure of the published reports is very diverse, making it even more difficult to compare financial and non-financial data. Therefore, it should be clearly emphasized that the results of the study, unfortunately, cannot be generalized. The main limitations of the study were the size of the research sample, despite focusing on the largest “list players” belonging to the WIG20 index in Poland, and the availability and quality of the financial and non-financial information about the business models presented in the reports of the energy companies and their indicated dispersion. The theoretical implication of the study includes the influence of the business model on the strategic and financial performance of companies. For example, a company that utilizes a decentralized business model may have a greater ability to respond quickly to changes in the market and adapt to new technologies, leading to improved performance. In practice, such companies may, for example:

• place a greater emphasis on metrics related to distributed energy resources and flexibility,

• focus more on traditional metrics, such as capacity factor and generation output.

Additionally, the choice of business model can also impact the regulatory environment in which energy companies operate, as different models may be subject to different rules and regulations. In terms of reporting, the business model can affect the level of transparency and disclosure of information to stakeholders, such as investors and regulators.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.S., M.W.-J., G.Z., A.L., R.W. and N.S.; Data curation, B.S., M.W.-J., G.Z., N.S. and A.L.; Formal analysis, B.S., M.W.-J., G.Z., A.L., R.W. and N.S.; Funding acquisition, B.S., M.W.-J., R.W., G.Z., A.L. and N.S.; Methodology, B.S., M.W.-J., G.Z., N.S., R.W. and A.L.; Project administration, B.S., M.W.-J., G.Z., A.L., R.W. and N.S.; Resources, B.S., M.W.-J., G.Z., A.L., R.W. and N.S.; Software, B.S., M.W.-J., G.Z. and A.L.; Supervision, B.S., M.W.-J., G.Z. and A.L.; Validation, B.S., G.Z., M.W.-J., A.L., R.W. and N.S.; Visualization, B.S., M.W.-J. and G.Z.; Writing—original draft, B.S., M.W.-J., G.Z., A.L., N.S. and R.W.; Writing—review and editing, B.S., M.W.-J., G.Z., A.L., R.W. and N.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The work was carried out as part of the statutory activity of the University of Szczecin, Cracow University of Economics, University of Lodz, Rzeszow University of Technology, and Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Tables

Table 1

Components, categories, and detailed characteristics of the business models.

Business Model Categories	Business Model Subcategories	Detailed Characteristics of Business Model Components
Input elements	Financial capitalProductive capitalIntellectual capitalHuman capitalNatural capitalSocial capital	Financing modelInfrastructureIntellectual property (knowledge, brands, patents)People (training, motivation)Raw materialsRelationships
Activity	Business activities	Research and developmentPlanning and designProduction and diversification of productsMaintenance servicesQuality controlRelationship managementMaintenance services
	Output elements	ProductsServicesWasteBy-products
Outcome	Financial capitalProductive capitalIntellectual capitalHuman capitalNatural capitalSocial capital	Profits/losses, return to shareholderAsset consumptionEffects of research and developmentCreation of employment, employee developmentEnvironmental impactCustomer satisfactionPhilanthropy

Source: Ref. [18], pp. 189–202.

Table 2

List of companies and reports in which financial and non-financial information was disclosed.

Enterprise/Company	Report
ELEKTROCIEPŁOWNIA BĘDZIN SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA (BDZ)	- Consolidated financial statements; - Report of the management board on the company’s activities
ENEA SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA (ENA)	- No published reports for 2019 and 2020; - Last consolidated financial statements were published for 2016
ENERGA SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA (ENG)	- Report on non-financial information of the capital group
PGE POLSKA GRUPA ENERGETYCZNA SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA (PGE)	- Integrated report
POLENERGIA SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA (PEP)	- Consolidated financial statements; - Report of the management board on the company’s activities
TAURON POLSKA ENERGIA SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA (TPE)	- Consolidated financial statements; - Report of the management board on the company’s activities
ZE PAK SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA (ZEP)	- No published reports for 2019 and 2020

Source: Study based on our own research.

Table 3

The number of disclosures on components of the business model of companies in the energy sector.

	Input Elements		Input Elements-OnlyFinancial		Business Activities		Business Activities-Only Financial		Output Results		Output Results-Only Financial Information		Outcomes		Outcomes-Only Financial Information		Total
	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020
BDZ	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	4	4	2	2	12	12
ENA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
ENG	6	0	3	0	5	0	2	0	1	0	1	0	4	0	2	0	24	0
PGE	6	0	3	0	6	0	3	0	4	0	2	0	4	0	2	0	30	0
PEP	2	2	1	1	3	3	2	2	1	1	1	1	2	2	1	1	13	13
TPE	4	4	2	2	2	1	2	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	1	1	17	15
ZEP	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
TOT	19	7	10	4	17	5	10	4	8	3	6	3	16	8	8	4	96	40

Source: Study based on our own research.

Table 4

The number of disclosures on components of the business model of companies in the energy sector—only financial information.

Disclosures	2019			2020
	Total	Only Financial Information		Total	Only Financial Information
		Number	% of Total Disclosures		Number	% of Total Disclosures
Input Elements
Financial capital	8	5	62.5	8	3	37.5
Productive capital	6	4	66.6	6	2	33.4
Intellectual capital	4	3	75	4	1	25
Human capital	4	3	75	4	1	25
Natural capital	2	2	100	2	0	0
Social and relational capital	2	2	100	2	0	0
Total input elements	26	19	73	26	7	27
Business Activities
Planning and design	5	3	60	5	2	40
Risk	8	5	62.5	8	3	37.5
Training	2	2	100	2	0	0
Research and development	2	2	100	2	0	0
Relationship management	2	2	100	2	0	0
Diversification of services	4	3	75	4	1	25
Total business activities	23	17	74	23	6	26
Output Elements
Products	1	1	100	1	0	0
Services	8	5	62.5	8	3	37.5
Waste	1	1	100	1	0	0
By-products	1	1	100	1	0	0
Total output elements	11	8	73	11	3	27
Outcomes
Profit/Loss	8	5	62.5	8	3	37.5
Asset consumption	6	3	50	6	3	50
Effects of research and development	2	1	50	2	1	50
Employee development and employment creation	4	3	75	4	1	25
Environmental impact	2	2	100	2	0	0
Customer satisfaction	2	2	100	2	0	0
Total outcomes	24	16	67	24	8	33

Source: Study based on our own research.

Table 5

Input elements—the capital of the business models of enterprises in the energy sector for the years 2019–2020.

	Capital
	Financial Capital		Production Capital		Intellectual Capital		Human Capital		Natural Capital		Social and Relational Capital
	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020
BDZ	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
ENA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
ENG	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0
PGE	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0
PEP	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
TPE	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0
ZEP	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Source: Study based on our own research.

Table 6

Business activities.

	Business Activities
	Planning and Design		Risk		Training		Research and Development		Relationship Management		Diversification of Services
	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020
BDZ	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
ENA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
ENG	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0
PGE	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0
PEP	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
TPE	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
ZEP	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Source: Study based on our own research.

Table 7

Output elements of enterprises in the energy sector for 2019–2020.

	Output Elements
	Products		Services		Waste		By-Products
	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020
BDZ	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0
ENA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
ENG	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0
PGE	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0
PEP	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0
TPE	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0
ZEP	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Source: Study based on our own research.

Table 8

Outcomes—the capital of the business models of enterprises in the energy sector for the years 2019–2020.

	Capital: Financial, Productive, Intellectual, Human, Natural, Social
	Outcomes
	Profit/Loss		Asset Consumption		Effects of Research and Development		Employee Development and Employment Creation		Environmental Impact		Customer Satisfaction
	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020
BDZ	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0
ENA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
ENG	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0
PGE	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0
PEP	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
TPE	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
ZEP	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Source: Study based on our own research.

Table 9

Spearman’s rank correlations for all disclosures.

Disclosure	Total Assets (PLN)		Financial Result		Equity Capital
	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020
Elements at the input	0.5857(0.2219)	−0.5429(0.2657)	−0.8714(0.0237)	−0.0286(0.9572)	0.3000(0.5635)	−0.2000(0.7040)
Business activities	0.7143(0.1108)	−0.3286(0.5249)	−0.7143(0.1108)	0.1857(0.7246)	0.6000(0.2080)	0.1286(0.8082)
Output effects	0.7143(0.1108)	−0.3143(0.5441)	−0.2857(0.5831)	0.2000(0.7040)	0.5571(0.2508)	0.0429(0.9358)
Results	0.8429(0.0351)	−0.2429(0.6429)	−0.3571(0.4871)	0.2714(0.6029)	0.5571(0.2508)	0.0429(0.9358)
Total	0.6000(0.2080)	−0.5429(0.2657)	−0.8286(0.0416)	−0.0286(0.9572)	0.3714(0.4685)	−0.2000(0.7040)

Source: Own study.

Table 10

Spearman’s rank correlations calculated for financial information.

Disclosure	Total Assets (PLN)		Financial Result		Equity Capital
	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020
Elements at the input	0.6286(0.1813)	−0.5000(0.3125)	−0.8286(0.0416)	0.0143(0.9786)	0.2857(0.5831)	−0.2143(0.6835)
Business activities	0.5429(0.2657)	−0.3286(0.5249)	−0.6000(0.2080)	0.1857(0.7246)	0.5429(0.2657)	0.1286(0.8082)
Output effects	0.7143(0.1108)	−0.3143(0.5441)	−0.2857(0.5831)	0.2000(0.7040)	0.5571(0.2508)	0.0429(0.9358)
Results	0.8429(0.0351)	−0.2429(0.6429)	−0.3571(0.4871)	0.2714(0.6029)	0.5571(0.2508)	0.0429(0.7662)

(In brackets the p-value for the Spearman’s coefficient significance test was given). Source: Own study.

References

1. Gambardella, A.; McGahan, A. Business-Model Innovation: General Purpose Technologies and their Implications for Industry Structure. Long Range Plan.; 2010; 43, pp. 262-271. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.009]

2. Debelak, D. Business Model Made Easy; McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2006; 240p.

3. Fox, S.; Vahala, P. Start-Ups as Adaptable Stable Systems Based on Synchronous Business Models. Systems; 2022; 10, 81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/systems10030081]

4. Henten, A.; Windekilde, I. Demand-Side Economies of Scope in Big Tech Business Modelling and Strategy. Systems; 2022; 10, 246. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/systems10060246]

5. Jablonski, A.; Jablonski, M. Business Models in Water Supply Companies-Key Implications of Trust. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2020; 17, 2770. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082770]

6. Sjödin, D.; Parida, V.; Jovanovic, M.; Visnjic, I. Value Creation and Value Capture Alignment in Business Model Innovation: A Process View on Outcome Based Business Models. J. Prod. Innov. Manag.; 2020; 37, pp. 158-183. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12516]

7. Pimenowa, O.; Pimenov, S.; Fyliuk, H.; Sitnicki, M.W.; Kolosha, V.; Kurinskyi, D. Sustainable Business Model of Modern Enterprises in Conditions of Uncertainty and Turbulence. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 2654. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15032654]

8. Ivashkiv, I.; Kupalova, H.; Goncharenko, N.; Andrusiv, U.; Streimikis, J.; Lyashenko, O.; Yakubiv, V.; Lyzun, M.; Lishchynskyi, I.; Saukh, I. Environmental Responsibility as a Prerequisite for Sustainable Development of Agricultural Enterprises. Manag. Sci. Lett.; 2020; 10, pp. 2973-2984. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.5.028]

9. Daradkeh, M. The Nexus between Business Analytics Capabilities and Knowledge Orientation in Driving Business Model Innovation: The Moderating Role of Industry Type. Informatics; 2023; 10, 19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/informatics10010019]

10. Franco, M.; Minatogawa, V.; Quadros, R. How Transformative Business Model Renewal Leads to Sustained Exploratory Business Model Innovation in Incumbents: Insights from a System Dynamics Analysis of Case Studies. Systems; 2023; 11, 60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/systems11020060]

11. Teece, D.J. Business Models, Business Strategy, and Innovation. Long Range Plan.; 2010; 43, pp. 172-194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003]

12. Bilan, Y. Increase Diversification Through Strengthened Enabling Environment for Entrepreneurship: A Focus on Skill Endowments and Export Orientation (Example of Hungary and Poland). Econ. Sociol.; 2009; 2, pp. 33-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2009/2-2/3]

13. Garetti, M.; Taisch, M. Sustainable manufacturing: Trends and research challenges. Prod. Plan. Control; 2012; 23, pp. 83-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2011.591619]

14. Mettler, M. Blockchain technology in healthcare: The revolution starts here. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 18th International Conference on E-Health Networking, Applications, and Services (Healthcom); Munich, Germany, 14–16 September 2016; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HealthCom.2016.7749510]

15. Di Carlo, E.; Fortuna, F.; Testarmata, S. Boundaries of the business model within business groups. J. Manag. Gov.; 2016; 20, pp. 321-362. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10997-015-9338-9]

16. Barnabè, F. Representing’ value creation: A combined approach of system dynamics and integrated reporting for the airline sector. Int. J. Appl. Syst. Stud.; 2016; 6, pp. 202-222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJASS.2016.079085]

17. Barnabè, F.; Giorgino, M.C. Integrating business model and strategy. Integrated Reporting: Concepts and Cases that Redefine Corporate Accountability; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2013; pp. 111-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02168-3_7]

18. Bek-Gaik, B.; Rymkiewicz, B. Business Model in the Organization Reporting-assessment Disclosure in the Management Commentary. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Finans. Rynk. Finans. Ubezpieczenia; 2017; 85, pp. 189-202. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18276/frfu.2017.1.85-17]

19. von Alberti-Alhtaybat, L.; Alhatabat, Z.; Al-Htaybat, K. Investigating the sustainability habitus: Insights from Aramex’s sustainability practices and reports. Meditari Account. Res.; 2020; 29, pp. 477-501. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-08-2019-0545]

20. Maniora, J. Is Integrated Reporting Really the Superior Mechanism for the Integration of Ethics into the Core Business Model? An Empirical Analysis. J. Bus. Ethics; 2017; 140, pp. 755-786. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2874-z]

21. Dameri, R.P.; Ferrando, P.M. Implementing integrated reporting to disclose intellectual capital in health organizations: A case study. J. Intellect. Cap.; 2021; 22, pp. 311-336. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIC-01-2020-0019]

22. Dameri, R.P.; Ferrando, P.M. Value creation disclosure: The international integrated reporting framework revisited in the light of stakeholder theory. Meditari Account. Res.; 2021; ahead-of-print [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-11-2020-1103]

23. Roslender, R.; Nielsen, C. Accounting for the value expectations of customers: Re-imagining the Integrated Reporting initiative. Crit. Perspect. Account.; 2020; 81, 102244. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102244]

24. Kurochkina, I.; Shuvalova, E.; Novozhilova, I. About Formation of the Integrated Reporting Performance in the Process of Building a Sustainable Business of Transport and Communication Companies. Procedia Eng.; 2017; 178, pp. 267-277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.113]

25. Abela, M. Paradise Lost: Accounting Narratives without Numbers. Account. Econ. Law Conviv.; 2020; 10, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ael-2019-0035]

26. Amit, R.; Zott, C. Value creation in e-business. Strateg. Manag. J.; 2001; 22, pp. 493-520. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.187]

27. Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers; John Wiley & Sons: Newyork, NY, USA, 2010; Volume 1.

28. Forge, S. Business models for the computer industry for the next decade. When will the fastest eat the largest?. Futures; 1993; 25, pp. 923-948. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90060-7]

29. Frehe, V.; Mehmann, J.; Teuteberg, F. Understanding and assessing crowd logistics business models–using everyday people for last mile delivery. J. Bus. Ind. Mark.; 2017; 32, pp. 75-97. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2015-0182]

30. Andreini, D.; Bettinelli, C.; Foss, N.J.; Mismetti, M. Innowacja modelu biznesowego: Przegląd literatury dotyczącej procesów. J. Manag. Gov.; 2022; 26, pp. 1089-1121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10997-021-09590-w]

31. Lew, G.; Sadowska, B.; Chudy-Laskowska, K.; Zimon, G.; Wójcik-Jurkiewicz, M. Influence of Photovoltaic Development on Decarbonization of Power Generation—Example of Poland. Energies; 2021; 14, 7819. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14227819]

32. Camilleri, M.A. Theoretical insights on integrated reporting: The inclusion of non-financial capitals in corporate disclosures. Corp. Commun.; 2018; 23, pp. 567-581. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-01-2018-0016]

33. Caputo, F.; Pizzi, S.; Ligorio, L.; Leopizzi, R. Enhancing environmental information transparency through corporate social responsibility reporting regulation. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2021; 30, pp. 3470-3484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2814]

34. Danaj, A.; Lazányi, K.; Bilan, Y. Perceptions and Implications of Immigration in France–Economic, Social, Political and Cultural Perspectives. Econ. Sociol.; 2018; 11, pp. 226-247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2018/11-3/14]

35. Casper, S.; Kettler, H. National institutional frameworks and the hybridization of entrepreneurial business models: The German and UK biotechnology sectors. Ind. Innov.; 2001; 8, pp. 5-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13662710120034383]

36. Ciubotariu, M.S.; Socoliuc, M.; Grosu, V.; Mihaila, S.; Cosmulese, C.G. Modeling the relationship between integrated reporting quality and sustainable business development. J. Bus. Econ. Manag.; 2021; 22, pp. 1531-1550. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2021.15601]

37. Castillo, V.E.; Bell, J.E.; Rose, W.J.; Rodrigues, A.M. Crowdsourcing Last Mile Delivery: Strategic Implications and Future Research Directions. J. Bus. Logist.; 2018; 39, pp. 7-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12173]

38. Christopher, M.; Lee, H. Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.; 2004; 34, pp. 388-396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030410545436]

39. Dumitru, M.; Dyduch, J.; Gușe, R.G.; Krasodomska, J. Corporate Reporting Practices in Poland and Romania–An Ex-ante Study to the New Non-financial Reporting European Directive. Account. Eur.; 2017; 14, pp. 279-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2017.1378427]

40. Hassan, A.; Elamer, A.A.; Lodh, S.; Roberts, L.; Nandy, M. The future of non-financial businesses reporting: Learning from the Covid-19 pandemic. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2021; 28, pp. 1231-1240. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.2145]

41. Ignatowski, R.; Sadowska, B.; Wójcik-Jurkiewicz, M. Oblicza Raportowania w Perspektywie Środowiskowej; Instytut Prawa Gospodarczego: Katowice, Poland, 2020.

42. Krasodomska, J.; Michalak, J.; Świetla, K. Directive 2014/95/EU: Accountants’ understanding and attitude towards mandatory non-financial disclosures in corporate reporting. Meditari Account. Res.; 2020; 28, pp. 751-779. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-06-2019-0504]

43. Krasodomska, J.; Zieniuk, P.; Kostrzewska, J. Reporting on Sustainable Development Goals in the European Union: What Drives Companies’ Decisions?. Compet. Rev.; 2022; 33, pp. 120-146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CR-12-2021-0179]

44. Krasodomska, J.; Zieniuk, P. Atestacja informacji niefinansowych: Podstawy teoretyczne, standardy i praktyki spółek działających w Europie Zachodniej i Wschodniej. Zesz. Teor. Rachun.; 2021; 45, pp. 53-74.

45. Mamcarczyk, M.; Popławski, Ł.; Zieniuk, P. Key Audit Matters in the Auditor’s Reports on the Example of European Mining Companies. Acta Montan. Slovaca; 2020; 25, pp. 453-465.

46. Kannenberg, L.; Schreck, P. Integrated Reporting: Bonn or Bane? A Review of Empirical Research on Its Determinants and Implications. J. Bus. Econ.; 2019; 89, pp. 515-567. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0922-8]

47. Jensen, J.C.; Berg, N. Determinants of Traditional Sustainability Reporting versus Integrated Reporting. An Institutionalist Approach. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2012; 21, pp. 299-316. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.740]

48. Szulc, M.; Zieniuk, P. The Disclosure of Events after the Reporting Period: The Example of Listed Companies from Selected European Countries. Zesz. Teor. Rachun.; 2020; 109, pp. 139-155. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0014.4345]

49. Eccles, R.G.; Serafeim, G.; Krzus, M.P. Market Interest in Nonfinancial Information. J. Appl. Corp. Financ.; 2011; 23, pp. 113-127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2011.00357.x]

50. European Financial Reporting Advisory Group Discussion Paper: Towards a Disclosure Framework for the Notes, Discussion Paper. Available online: https://www.efrag.org/Assets/Download?assetUrl=%2Fsites%2Fwebpublishing%2FSiteAssets%2F121015_Disclosure_Framework_-_FINAL1.pdf (accessed on 28 March 2022).

51. ICAEW Business Models in Accounting: The Theory of the Firm and Financial Reporting. 2010; Available online: https://www.icaew.com/technical/financial-reporting/information-for-better-markets/ifbm-reports/business-models-in-accounting-the-theory-of-the-firm-and-financial-reporting (accessed on 30 December 2010).

52. Jutla, D.; Bodorik, P.; Wang, Y. Developing Internet e-commerce benchmarks. Inf. Syst.; 1999; 24, pp. 475-493. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4379(99)00028-9]

53. Drożdż, W.; Kinelski, G.; Czarnecka, M.; Wójcik-Jurkiewicz, M.; Maroušková, A.; Zych, G. Determinants of Decarbonization—How to Realize Sustainable and Low Carbon Cities?. Energies; 2021; 14, 2640. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14092640]

54. Kaszyński, P.; Komorowska, A.; Zamasz, K.; Kinelski, G.; Kamiński, J. Capacity Market and (The Lack of) New Investments: Evidence from Poland. Energies; 2021; 14, 7843. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14237843]

55. Lisiński, M.; Sroka, W.; Brzeziński, P.; Jabłoński, A.; Stuglik, J. Application of Modern Management Concepts by Polish Companies-Analysis of Research Results. Organizacija; 2012; 45, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10051-012-0005-5]

56. Köhler, J.; Geels, F.W.; Kern, F.; Markard, J.; Onsongo, E.; Wieczorek, A.; Alkemade, F.; Avelino, F.; Bergek, A.; Boons, F. et al. An Agenda for Sustainability Transitions Research: State of the Art and Future Directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.; 2019; 31, pp. 1-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004]

57. Shakeel, J.; Mardani, A.; Chofreh, A.G.; Goni, F.A.; Klemeš, J.J. Anatomy of sustainable business model innovation. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 261, 121201. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121201]

58. Mucha-Kuś, K.; Sołtysik, M.; Zamasz, K.; Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K. Coopetitive Nature of Energy Communities—The Energy Transition Context. Energies; 2021; 14, 931. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14040931]

59. Jasiński, J.; Kozakiewicz, M.; Sołtysik, M. Determinants of Energy Cooperatives’ Development in Rural Areas—Evidence from Poland. Energies; 2021; 14, 319. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14020319]

60. Wójcik-Jurkiewicz, M.; Czarnecka, M.; Kinelski, G.; Sadowska, B.; Bilińska-Reformat, K. Determinants of Decarbonisation in the Transformation of the Energy Sector: The Case of Poland. Energies; 2021; 14, 1217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14051217]

61. Ramdani, B.; Binsaif, A.; Boukrami, E. Business model innovation: A review and research agenda. N. Engl. J.Entrep.; 2019; 22, pp. 89-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/NEJE-06-2019-0030]

62. Mucha-Kuś, K.; Czakon, W.; Sołtysik, M. Coopetitive Platform: Common Benefits in Electricity and Gas Distribution. Energies; 2021; 14, 7113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14217113]

63. Dyduch, W.; Chudziński, P.; Cyfert, S.; Zastempowski, M. Dynamic Capabilities, Value Creation and Value Capture: Evidence from SMEs under Covid-19 Lockdown in Poland. PLoS ONE; 2021; 16, e0252423. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252423]

64. Dobrowolski, Z.; Sułkowski, Ł. Business Model Canvas and Energy Enterprises. Energies; 2021; 14, 7198. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14217198]

65. Czarnecka, M.; Chudy-Laskowska, K.; Kinelski, G.; Lew, G.; Sadowska, B.; Wójcik-Jurkiewicz, M.; Budka, B. Grants and Funding for the Processes of Decarbonization in the Scope of Sustainability Development—The Case from Poland. Energies; 2022; 15, 7481. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15207481]

66. Ciołek, M.; Emerling, I.; Olejko, K.; Sadowska, B.; Wójcik-Jurkiewicz, M. Assumptions of the Energy Policy of the Country versus Investment Outlays Related to the Purchase of Alternative Fuels: Poland as a Case Study. Energies; 2022; 15, 1945. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15051945]

67. Toborek-Mazur, J.; Wójcik-Jurkiewicz, M. Multi-Energy Concern as an Example of the Implementation of Agenda 2030: Poland as a Case Study. Energies; 2022; 15, 1669. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15051669]

68. Vaska, S.; Massaro, M.; Bagarotto, E.M.; Dal Mas, F. The Digital Transformation of Business Model Innovation: A Structured Literature Review. Front. Psychol.; 2021; 11, 539363. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.539363] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33584396]

69. Toborek-Mazur, J.; Partacz, K.; Surówka, M. Energy Security as a Premise for Mergers and Acquisitions on the Example of the Multi-Energy Concern PKN Orlen in the Face of the Challenges of the 2020s. Energies; 2022; 15, 5112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15145112]

70. Morchain, D. Rethinking the framing of climate change adaptation. Knowledge, power, and politics. A Critical Approach to Climate Change Adaptation. Discourses, Policies, and Practices; Klepp, S.; Chavez Rodriguez, L. Routledge: New York, NY, USA, Oxon, UK, 2018; pp. 55-73.

71. Rosenzweig, C.; Solecki, W.D.; Hammer, S.A.; Mehrotra, S.S. Climate Change and Cities: First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011.

72. Simonet, G.; Fatorić, S. Does “adaptation to climate change” mean resignation or opportunity?. Reg. Environ. Chang.; 2016; 16, pp. 789-799. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0792-3]

73. Kaczmarek, J.; Kolegowicz, K.; Szymla, W. Restructuring of the Coal Mining Industry and the Challenges of Energy Transition in Poland (1990–2020). Energies; 2022; 15, 3518. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15103518]

74. Pietruszka-Ortyl, A.; Ćwiek, M.; Ziębicki, B.; Wójcik-Karpacz, A. Organizational Culture as a Prerequisite for Knowledge Transfer among IT Professionals: The Case of Energy Companies. Energies; 2021; 14, 8139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14238139]

75. Bielińska-Dusza, E.; Hamerska, M.; Żak, A. Sustainable Mobility and the Smart City: A Vision of the City of the Future: The Case Study of Cracow (Poland). Energies; 2021; 14, 7936. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14237936]

76. Sovacool, B.K. Reckless or righteous? Reviewing the sociotechnical benefits and risks of climate change geoengineering. Energy Strat. Rev.; 2021; 35, 100656. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2021.100656]

77. Sovacool, B.K.; Martiskainen, M.H.A.; Baker, L. Beyond cost and carbon: The multidimensional co-benefits of low carbon transitions in Europe. Ecol. Econ.; 2020; 169, 106529. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106529]

78. Lassini, U.; Lionzo, A.; Rossignoli, F. Does business model affect accounting choices? An empirical analysis of European listed companies. J. Manag. Gov.; 2016; 20, pp. 229-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10997-015-9321-5]

79. Marchet, G.; Melacini, M.; Sassi, C.; Tappia, E. Assessing efficiency and innovation in the 3PL industry: An empirical analysis. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl.; 2017; 20, pp. 53-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2016.1226789]

80. Melloni, G.; Stacchezzini, R.; Lai, A. The tone of business model disclosure: An impression management analysis of the integrated reports. J. Manag. Gov.; 2016; 20, pp. 295-320. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10997-015-9319-z]

81. Nielsen, C.; Lund, M.; Montemari, M.; Paolone, F.; Massaro, M.; Dumay, J. Business Models: A Research Overview; Routledge: London, UK, 2018.

82. Singleton-Green, B. Should financial reporting reflect firms’ business models? What accounting can learn from the economic theory of the firm. J. Manag. Gov.; 2014; 18, pp. 697-706. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10997-012-9240-7]

83. Di Tullio, P.; Valentinetti, D.; Nielsen, C.; Rea, M.A. In search of legitimacy: A semiotic analysis of business model disclosure practices. Meditari Account. Res.; 2020; 28, pp. 863-887. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-02-2019-0449]

84. Di Vaio, A.; Syriopoulos, T.; Alvino, F.; Palladino, R. Integrated thinking and reporting’ towards sustainable business models: A concise bibliometric analysis. Meditari Account. Res.; 2020; 29, pp. 691-719. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-12-2019-0641]

85. Veleva, V.; Bodkin, G. Corporate-entrepreneur collaborations to advance a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 188, pp. 20-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.196]

86. Siksnelyte-Butkiene, I.; Streimikiene, D. Sustainable Development of Road Transport in the EU: Multi-Criteria Analysis of Countries’ Achievements. Energies; 2022; 15, 8291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15218291]

87. Borys, T.; Bugdol, M.; Puciato, D. Barriers to achieving climate goals. An external context. Ekon. Sr. Econ. Environ.; 2022; 82, pp. 8-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.34659/eis.2022.82.3.476]

88. Ford, J.D.; Berrang-Ford, L.; Lesnikowski, A.; Barrera, M.; Heymann, S.J. How to track adaptation to climate change: A typology of approaches for national-level application. Ecol. Soc.; 2013; 18, 40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05732-180340]

89. Broniewicz, E.; Bukowska, J.; Godlewska, J.; Lulewicz-Sas, A.; Sidorczuk-Pietraszko, E. Climate change adaptation in ex-ante assessment of legal acts—A proposal of indicators for Poland. Econ. Environ.; 2022; 82, pp. 52-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.34659/eis.2022.82.3.525]

90. Romanowska, A.; Pangsy-Kania, S.; Budzyński, M.; Wierzbicka, K.; Prystrom, J. Determinants and effects of Poland’s road accidents in the context of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development–poviat level analysis for the years 2010–2019. Econ. Environ.; 2022; 82, pp. 173-193. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.34659/eis.2022.82.3.469]

91. Borys, G. Rough assessment of the consideration of spatial planning tools in the municipal plans for adaptation to climate change. An example of selected Polish cities. Econ. Environ.; 2022; 80, pp. 22-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.34659/eis.2022.80.1.427]

92. Aylett, A. Institutionalising the urban governance of climate change adaptation: Results of an international survey. Urban Clim.; 2015; 14, pp. 4-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.06.005]

93. Penarroya-Farell, M.; Miralles, F. Business Model Dynamics from Interaction with Open Innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.; 2021; 7, 81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010081]

94. Bartoszewicz, A.; Szczepankiewicz, E. Evolution of Energy Companies’ Non-Financial Disclosures: A Model of Non-Financial Reports in the Energy Sector. Energies; 2022; 15, 7667. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15207667]

95. Sinkovics, N.; Gunaratne, D.; Sinkovics, R.R.; Molina-Castillo, F. Sustainable Business Model Innovation: An Umbrella Review. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 7266. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13137266]