DEVELOPMENT OF INFORMATION SUPPORT FOR FISCAL RISK MANAGEMENT WITHIN CRISES

Abstract

Crisis phenomena, such as economic downturns, health emergencies and geopolitical conflicts, had a significant impact on the transparency of information support for public financial management processes and the development of digitalization of the economy.The objective of the study is to assess the current state of information support and transparency of the management of fiscal risks caused by state-owned enterprises' activities under uncertainty.Within the study, the existing international approaches to identifying and assessing fiscal risks are analyzed; the areas for improving information support for managing fiscal risks caused by the activities of state-owned enterprises in emergency situations are identified; the impact of digital finance development on mitigating fiscal risks caused by emergencies is assessed. Proposals to increase the transparency of public finances and create additional revenues to the state budget by the development of innovative technologies are substantiated.Implementation of fiscal and monetary policy measures to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and ensure sustainable post-pandemic recovery requires relevant financial information reflecting the country's financial position. A reliable source of such information is public financial and budgetary statements prepared by IPSAS and on an accrual basis. Given the negative impact of uncertainty caused by the coronavirus pandemic and war on the activities of state-owned enterprises, an important tool for improving the efficiency of fiscal risk management is the unification of approaches to establishing indicators for assessing relevant risks and providing information for their calculation. In response to lockdowns and social distancing measures during crises, citizens have increasingly relied on digital channels to access government services, pay taxes, and receive financial support. This has necessitated improved digital infrastructure and service delivery mechanisms.

Full text

ФІНАНСОВО-КРЕДИТНА ДІЯЛЬНІСТЬ: ПРОБЛЕМИ ТЕОРІЇ ТА ПРАКТИКИ
Том 6 (53), 2023
432
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
DEVELOPMENT OF INFORMATION SUPPORT
FOR FISCAL RISK MANAGEMENT WITHIN
CRISES
ABSTRACT
Crisis phenomena, such as economic downturns, health emergencies and geopolitical
conflicts, had a significant impact on the transparency of information support for public
financial management processes and the development of digitalization of the economy.
The objective of the study is to assess the current state of information support and
transparency of the management of fiscal risks caused by state-owned enterprises' ac-
tivities under uncertainty.
Within the study, the existing international approaches to identifying and assessing fis-
cal risks are analyzed; the areas for improving information support for managing fiscal
risks caused by the activities of state-owned enterprises in emergency situations are
identified; the impact of digital finance development on mitigating fiscal risks caused by
emergencies is assessed. Proposals to increase the transparency of public finances and
create additional revenues to the state budget by the development of innovative tech-
nologies are substantiated.
Implementation of fiscal and monetary policy measures to mitigate the impact of
COVID-19 and ensure sustainable post-pandemic recovery requires relevant financial
information reflecting the country's financial position. A reliable source of such infor-
mation is public financial and budgetary statements prepared by IPSAS and on an ac-
crual basis. Given the negative impact of uncertainty caused by the coronavirus pan-
demic and war on the activities of state-owned enterprises, an important tool for im-
proving the efficiency of fiscal risk management is the unification of approaches to es-
tablishing indicators for assessing relevant risks and providing information for their cal-
culation. In response to lockdowns and social distancing measures during crises, citizens
have increasingly relied on digital channels to access government services, pay taxes,
and receive financial support. This has necessitated improved digital infrastructure and
service delivery mechanisms.
Keywords: fiscal risks, state-owned enterprises, sustainable development, IFRS, digital
economy, economic security, transparency, public finance, taxation, legalization of
activity
JEL Classification: D21, D45, D89, F36, F29, G14, G18, G28, H10, Н56, H82, H84,
O17
INTRODUCTION
Crisis phenomena, such as economic downturns, health emergencies and geopolitical
conflicts, had a significant impact on the development of digitalization of the economy
and information support of public financial management (PFM) processes.
The crises highlighted the importance of efficient and transparent public financial man-
agement. E-governance initiatives, including digital platforms for managing public fi-
nances, have become more critical to ensuring timely disbursements, tracking expend-
itures, and maintaining transparency. The need for real-time data and analytics for ef-
fective crisis management and response has increased the importance of data and an-
alytics in both the public and private sectors. This emphasis on data-based decision-
making has become a catalyst for digitalization of various processes.
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
Yana Oliinyk
D.Sc. in Economics, Associate
Professor, Director of the Institute of
Postgraduate Education,
SESE the “Academy of Financial
Management”, Kyiv, Ukraine;
ORCID: 0000-0001-5895-282X
Maria Kucheriava
Candidate of Economy Sciences, Head
of the Center for the Implementation
of the Results of Financial and
Economic Research, SESE the
“Academy of Financial Management”,
Kyiv, Ukraine;
e-mail: piven_maria@ukr.net
ORCID: 0000-0003-2948-1234
(Corresponding author)
Liliia Korytnyk
D.Sc. in Economics, Chief Accountant,
SESE the “Academy of Financial
Management”, Kyiv, Ukraine;
ORCID: 0000-0002-7241-9324
Tetiana Dmytrenko
Candidate of Economy Sciences, Head
of International Finance and Financial
Security Department, SESE the
“Academy of Financial Management”,
Kyiv, Ukraine;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2632-2986
Olga Kuzminska
Candidate of Economy Sciences,
Associate Professor, Doctoral Student,
SESE the “Academy of Financial
Management”, Kyiv, Ukraine;
ORCID: 0000-0001-6625-7528
Konstantin Lagunov
PhD Student, SESE the “Academy of
Financial Management”, Kyiv, Ukraine;
ORCID: 0009-0008-4023-6823
Received: 19/10/2023
Accepted: 05/12/2023
Published: 31/12/2023
© Copyright
2023 by the author(s)
This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0

FINANCIAL AND CREDIT ACTIVITY: PROBLEMS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
Volume 6 (53), 2023
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
433
In response to global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are collaborating on data sharing and digital
solutions. This international collaboration has facilitated the sharing of best practices and technologies, leading to advances
in digitization and PFM processes.
Crisis phenomena acted as catalysts for the digitalization of the economy and the improvement of information support for
the management of state finances. They highlighted the importance of digital technologies, data-driven decision-making
and innovation in navigating and recovering from crises, as well as increasing the overall resilience of the economy and
government.
The instability of the global economic system causes unpredictability and uncertainty in the activities of its entities. The
functioning of enterprises in such conditions is always associated with the emergence of risks and threats of additional
losses. Such circumstances highlight the need to develop tools facilitating effective risk management under uncertainty.
Fiscal risk management at the micro and macro levels plays a crucial role among the mechanisms for ensuring the sus-
tainable activities of enterprises.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Over the past three decades, leading international and Ukrainian scientists have been widely studying the problems of
analysis and assessment of the impact of fiscal risks on both the performance of enterprises and the state budget execu-
tion.
The theoretical and methodological foundations of the emergence, classification, monitoring and assessment of fiscal risks
are covered in numerous scientific publications.
Thus, the authors Mourre G., and Reut A. (2019), based on a comparative analysis of data on the national accounts of the
EU member states, identify non-tax revenues as a significant source of fiscal risks in the EU.
A specific area of research in the field of fiscal risk management is the search for the place of this system in the architecture
of modern public finance management. The IMF researchers Cangiano M., Curristine T. R., and Lazare M. (2013) outline
the core elements of PFM and define their interdependence and areas of improvement in the context of the increasing
complexity of public finance management under contemporary geopolitical risks.
Modern challenges (COVID-19 pandemic, military conflicts), the impact of which is reflected in the effectiveness of PFM
management, and value chains, are also the subject of attention from the scientific community. In the study of researchers
Batini N., Lamperti F., Roventini A., and Loungani P. (2020) "Reducing Risk While Sharing IT: A Fiscal Recipe for the EU
at the Time of COVID-19" approaches to the distribution of fiscal risks associated with COVID-19 in the EU are highlighted.
The researchers propose several measures aimed at policy makers' response to the upheaval (Batini, et al. 2020).
In Ukraine, in the context of the unprecedented full-scale invasion of the aggressor, the issue of ensuring transparency
and accountability in the area of fiscal risk management is becoming increasingly relevant. Ukrainian scholars T. Iefymenko
(2022), S. Gasanov (2017), O. Ivanitska, T. Koshchuk (2020), L. Kozoriz (2020), O. Makarov, S. Arzhevitin (2022), study
the issues of forming an anti-crisis policy of fiscal regulation in the context of emergency events and operational activities.
The issues of PFM digitalization and virtual assets regulation are highlighted in studies of the following researchers: S.
Volosovych, A. Sholoiko, L. Shevchenko (2023), T. Hudima, V. Ustymenko, R. Dzhabrailov, O. Chernykh (2022) and others.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The objective of the study is to assess the current state of information support and transparency of the management of
fiscal risks caused by state-owned enterprises (SOEs) activities under uncertainty.
Achieving this objective caused the necessity to solve the following tasks:
▪ to study existing international approaches to the identification and assessment of fiscal risks;
▪ to analyze the information support for the assessment of fiscal risks caused by SOEs activities in Ukraine;
▪ to formulate directions for the development of the information support for managing fiscal risks caused by SOE
activities under emergency;
▪ to investigate the impact of the development of digital finance on the mitigation of fiscal risks caused by the course
of emergency situations (COVID-19, military aggression);

ФІНАНСОВО-КРЕДИТНА ДІЯЛЬНІСТЬ: ПРОБЛЕМИ ТЕОРІЇ ТА ПРАКТИКИ
Том 6 (53), 2023
434
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
▪ to formulate proposals for increasing the transparency of state finances and creating additional revenues for the state
budget through the development of the latest technologies.
METHODS
The following methods were used in the study:
▪ implementation analysis (to analyze the state of implementation of international requirements in the area of fiscal
risk management);
▪ comparative analysis (to assess the compliance of the national legislative framework with the IMF documents; anal-
ysis of information support for fiscal risk management);
▪ a dialectical method of cognition, which provides an analysis of financial phenomena and processes in their develop-
ment, interconnection and interdependence.
RESULTS
International experience in the area of managing fiscal risks arising from SOEs activities
If we consider the management of SOEs, in particular, the prevention of fiscal risks, as a process of creating and improving
the system of regulation of their functioning at the international level, such institutions are OECD, World Bank, the UN,
and IMF. International documents form the methodological basis for developing a strategy for managing fiscal risks caused
by SOEs activities.
Specific recommendations on how the state can more effectively fulfil its responsibilities as the owner of state-owned
companies are contained in OECD documents, in particular, the Guidelines on Corporate Governance in State-Owned
Enterprises (OECD, 2015). They were first developed in 2005, and updated in 2015 to reflect the changes that have
occurred since their adoption and reflect the experience of a growing number of countries.
In 2020, the OECD published a report entitled "Transparency and Disclosure Measures for State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs):
An Analysis of National Practices", which provides an overview of national practices to enhance disclosure and implement
consolidated reporting by examining relevant legislation, policies and practices applicable to SOEs in OECD countries, as
well as in developing and emerging market economies. It was developed as a discussion paper for a meeting of the Global
Knowledge Exchange Network on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises. It is based on research, supple-
mented by voluntary responses to a questionnaire on SOE transparency and disclosure measures developed by the OECD
Secretariat and sent to the countries participating in the survey. Twelve countries (Argentina, Brazil, India, Korea, Lithua-
nia, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Philippines, Sweden, and Vietnam) submitted responses (OECD, 2020).
In 2020, the OECD studied the impact of the restrictive measures imposed in most global economies to combat the COVID-
19 pandemic. Based on empirical modelling, it assessed the impact of the crisis and outlined steps that governments can
take to reduce the risks of such a crisis (OECD, 2020).
Different approaches to fiscal risk management and examples of best practices in response to COVID-19 are reflected in
the report "Best Practices in Fiscal Risk Management - Lessons from Selected OECD Countries" (OECD, 2020). This paper
contains case studies of fiscal risk management systems in Australia, Finland, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and the
United Kingdom. Approaches to the identification and measurement of fiscal risks in OECD countries are shown in Table 1.
Each of the countries surveyed recognizes fiscal risk identification as an obligation. The only differences are in the subor-
dination relationships and approaches to fiscal risk assessment.

FINANCIAL AND CREDIT ACTIVITY: PROBLEMS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
Volume 6 (53), 2023
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
435
Table 1. Identification and assessment of fiscal risks in OECD countries.
(Source: OECD, 2020)
Item
Description
Country
Identification of
risks
Entities identify fiscal risks in their areas of responsibility and are required to provide information to the
Ministry of Finance and the Treasury
Australia
Each central government agency is responsible for identifying, describing and monitoring its risks. Ministries
and funds report on state guarantees and pledges
Finland
Identification of fiscal risks is the responsibility of many entities, which are responsible for identifying and
monitoring the risks within their competence
Netherlands
The Treasury relies on four main ways to identify fiscal risks: its fiscal risk monitoring system, analysis of
previous risks, consultations with agencies, and review of budget negotiation protocols
New Zealand
Identification and assessment of risks related to the government's fiscal objectives is carried out by the Treas-
ury, which coordinates its work with other bodies responsible for specific sectoral risks
United Kingdom
Risk assessment
Entities identify and assess risks in the preparation of financial statements, and the Ministry of Finance con-
solidates risks. The Treasury analyzes the sensitivity of the main fiscal aggregates to changes in key macroe-
conomic forecasts and underlying assumptions
Australia
State guarantees as fiscal risks are measured at their nominal value. Other risks are not systematically meas-
ured
Finland
Macroeconomic and financial risks are assessed using alternative scenario analysis under unchanged policies
and stress tests
Netherlands
Each agency assesses its specific fiscal risks under the guidance and control of the Treasury. The Treasury
assesses general and balance sheet risks
New Zealand
The probability of the risk and its potential impact on both stocks and flows of public finances are assessed,
with particular attention to macroeconomic risks (arising from cyclical or structural changes in the economy)
and specific risks arising from certain sources, such as government guarantees
United Kingdom
The experience of OECD countries in fiscal risk management is summarized in Table 2. The fiscal risk management system
of the United Kingdom and Australia provides for the identification of fiscal risks based on the probability of their occurrence
and possible impact on budget execution. Finland mainly identifies internal fiscal risks from the introduction and imple-
mentation of government programs. New Zealand's fiscal policy is focused on identifying potential costs in the event of an
emergency to rebuild infrastructure. The experience of the UK shows that management is focused on those fiscal risks
that are characterized by the highest level of uncertainty about the timing and amount of costs, which are characterized
by the non-linear nature of forecasting and global negative consequences for the economies of the world (the COVID-19
pandemic, climate change, and public debt) (OECD, 2020).
Table 2. Approaches to fiscal risk management in OECD countries.
(Source: OECD, 2020)
Item
Description
Country
Prevention/mitigation of
consequences
Companies prevent and mitigate risks associated with their operations, contingent liabilities and assets
Australia
Each government organization is expected to prevent or mitigate its risks
Finland
The risk management policy for contingent liabilities sets an upper threshold and prevents the gov-
ernment from entering into new contingent liabilities unless there are compelling reasons to do so
Netherlands
Each department prevents and mitigates specific fiscal risks by adjusting priorities in the allocation of
funds, budget allocations, or policy choices
New Zealand
The government's strategy for managing fiscal risks consists of five steps: identifying the source,
magnitude, and probability of risk; disclosing risk; mitigating risk; making provisions for risks that
cannot be mitigated but have a relatively defined scope and time frame; and accounting for residual
risks.
United Kingdom
(continued on next page)

ФІНАНСОВО-КРЕДИТНА ДІЯЛЬНІСТЬ: ПРОБЛЕМИ ТЕОРІЇ ТА ПРАКТИКИ
Том 6 (53), 2023
436
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
Table 2.
Continued.
Item
Description
Country
Provision or reserve
A provision (reserve) is included in the annual Law on Appropriations, which can be used in case of
fiscal risk
Australia
The budget contains an unallocated contingency reserve and provisions for new policies that will be
included in any supplementary budget.
Finland
The Netherlands does not have any appropriations or reserves. Unforeseen expenses must be financed
by reallocating existing resources
Netherlands
The inter-budgetary reserve provides urgent financing. Departmental contingencies can also be used
to finance known expenditures that are uncertain at the time of final budget approval. In addition,
New Zealand has two long-term reserve funds: The Natural Disaster Fund and the Superannuation
Fund.
New Zealand
The budget contains a contingency reserve (2% of the previous year's budget) and a reserve to cover
unforeseen expenses and future expenditures that exceed the so-called spending limits (0.5% of the
department's spending limits). In some cases, a so-called special reserve is created (for example,
military operations in Afghanistan or winter floods)
United Kingdom
Fiscal policy
The fiscal strategy is aimed at ensuring fiscal sustainability and is therefore set with due regard to
broad fiscal risks. Current political commitments are aimed at a balanced budget and debt reduction
Australia
Fiscal risks are not formally taken into account when setting fiscal targets. The current fiscal targets
are a central government deficit of -0.5% of GDP in 2023 and a public debt-to-GDP ratio below 60%
of GDP.
Finland
The government conducts a trend-oriented fiscal policy, setting expenditure ceilings for the central
government, social contributions, and health care, as well as revenue thresholds to control the overall
tax burden
Netherlands
There are no legally established numerical fiscal rules, but the government is required by law to
publish its fiscal strategy. The results of fiscal stress tests were officially taken into account in deter-
mining the country's latest fiscal indicator
New Zealand
In the spring 2020 budget, it was announced that the Treasury would review the fiscal framework to
ensure that it is in line with the macroeconomic context while ensuring the sustainability of public
finance
United Kingdom
International practice shows that Australia and New Zealand have been leading the way in identifying and managing fiscal
risks since the 1990s. The fiscal risk management system in Australia is highly decentralized, emphasizing the role and
responsibility of departments and agencies in achieving the goals of transparent fiscal forecasts and good fiscal manage-
ment. The New Zealand system has similar features but is more centralized. New Zealand is also one of the first countries
to introduce stress testing of the state balance sheet and officially take its results into account in determining its fiscal
policy (OECD, 2020).
After the financial crisis of 2008, such countries as Finland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom developed their fiscal
risk management systems. In all three countries, the main goal was to maximize the protection of public finances from a
possible macroeconomic shock, as well as to manage future contingent liabilities, including guarantees that arose during
the previous crisis. These three countries, as well as New Zealand, have also begun to stress test public sector budget
items as part of their fiscal risk management framework.
The OECD countries have widely implemented the assessment of the effectiveness of their fiscal forecasting. It is worth
noting that the UK is the only country in the world where a detailed report on fiscal risks is prepared by an independent
fiscal council, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), to which the government publishes a response to explain the
manageability of fiscal risks. Thus, a large-scale phenomenon in OECD countries has become the disclosure of information
on fiscal risks at the stage of forming the country's state budget, where special attention is paid to forecasting, analyzing
and mitigating the impact on the country's economy (OECD, 2020) (Table 3).

FINANCIAL AND CREDIT ACTIVITY: PROBLEMS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
Volume 6 (53), 2023
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
437
Table 3. Disclosure of information on fiscal risks in OECD countries.
(Source: OECD, 2020)
Country
Disclosure mechanism
Australia
Fiscal risks are disclosed in the Risk Statement included in the Budget Strategy and the Medium-Term Economic and Fiscal Forecast.
Finland
The annual budget plan includes a summary of the general risks associated with the fiscal forecast. The review of risks and liabilities of
the central government, published voluntarily, provides a more complete picture of fiscal risks
Netherlands
Information on fiscal risks is provided together with medium-term forecasts and the annual budget (especially related to guarantees)
New Zea-
land
Semi-annual and pre-election Economic and Fiscal Reviews disclose general, specific and balance-sheet fiscal risks
United King-
dom
Fiscal risks are disclosed in the Fiscal Risk Report. Some risks to the medium-term projections are also mentioned in the Economic and
Fiscal Outlook, and sensitivity analysis of the long-term projections is presented in the Fiscal Sustainability Report
SOEs are the subject of attention from the World Bank. It provides technical assistance, and a wide range of financial
products, and helps countries apply innovative knowledge and solve the challenges they face. In its practice, the World
Bank supports the development of reforms of state-owned enterprises around the world. The support includes several SOE
reform initiatives to strengthen oversight and improve efficiency to improve governance, support the efficiency of financial
services, increase access to financial services, and more, all to improve development outcomes. Information on such
projects in Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tunisia is available on the World Bank's website.
Overcoming the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic has caused financial problems for companies around the world,
including many SOEs. In 2020, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) published a Note guiding whether and how govern-
ments should provide temporary exceptional financial assistance. The Note discusses the circumstances under which sup-
port may be provided, the main guidelines for the measures that may be used, and the need for accompanying governance
and supervisory reforms. The Note focuses on SOEs in Africa, but its principles and messages are applicable in other
regions (IMF, 2020).
Among the main recommendations, the IMF noted the need for governments to implement medium- and long-term re-
forms, in particular, in the areas of effective supervision of state-owned enterprises; financial transparency and accounta-
bility of SOEs; corporate governance; and updating the legal framework. In particular, one of the areas of SOEs reform is
to strengthen fiscal risk management through the gradual strengthening of the identification, management and disclosure
of such risks.
Challenges and opportunities for SOEs around the world are being studied by the UN. Recognizing that the private sector
has expanded significantly in the twenty-first century, while the public sector has shrunk, it is recognized that in some
countries state-owned enterprises remain an important source of employment and public resources. Under the auspices
of the UN, studies are being conducted to analyze how SOEs should operate in the current environment, considering the
constraints and challenges of globalization (World Bank, 2005).
In addition to intergovernmental organizations, the implementation of effective fiscal risk management is facilitated by the
application of many professional and international standards offering the algorithm of actions under specific circumstances.
The provisions of international standards include substantive and qualitative information on risk management (Table 4).
Table 4. International standards on risk management.
Standard
Author
Content
ISO 31000:2018 Risk manage-
ment - Principles and guidelines
ISO
The main standard for risk management. Contains principles and general guidance for identifying
and managing risks effectively. This standard provides a general understanding of how to develop,
implement and maintain an effective risk management system within an industry and an enter-
prise.
ISO 31073:2022 Risk manage-
ment — Vocabulary
The document defines common terms related to risk management faced by enterprises of all forms
of ownership.
Risk management standard
FERMA
Risk management is a central component of strategic enterprise and/or project management. The
document contains basic definitions and explains internal and external risk factors, risk manage-
ment processes, risk assessment methodology and technology. Also, the document contains rec-
ommendations for creating a risk management system at the enterprise
Enterprise Risk Management
Integrating with Strategy and
Performance
COSO
The document emphasizes the importance of considering risks both in strategy development and
performance management. The first part of the publication offers a view of current and evolving
concepts and applications of corporate risk management. The second part, the Framework, con-
sists of five easy-to-understand components that take into account different perspectives and oper-
ating structures; and help to improve strategies and decision-making.

ФІНАНСОВО-КРЕДИТНА ДІЯЛЬНІСТЬ: ПРОБЛЕМИ ТЕОРІЇ ТА ПРАКТИКИ
Том 6 (53), 2023
438
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
The mentioned standards contain certain differences, despite which, in the objectives and methods of risk management,
each standard determines the need for continuity of risk monitoring and control processes. These standards provide infor-
mation for decision-making based on the most rational approach to risk management. The application of the analyzed risk
management standards by domestic entities will ensure the following: assessment of risk management measures, identi-
fication of vulnerable and strong aspects of corporate risk management, reduction of the cost of preparing relevant reports,
determination of the need to make changes to the organizational structure of the enterprise and improvement of perfor-
mance indicators.
Thus, to date, a common system for monitoring and assessing fiscal risks has been developed at the international level,
and most countries have developed relevant legislation. International practice shows that the methodological foundations
of fiscal risk management differ, in particular in terms of identification, assessment, and forecasting. Given the above, the
Recommendation of the Council for Budgetary Governance (OECD, 2015), which suggests that governments and authori-
ties apply a common methodological framework for fiscal risk management, is becoming widely implemented. The Inter-
national Monetary Fund in its Fiscal Risk Analysis and Management (IMF, 2018), the World Bank in its Debt & Fiscal Risks
Toolkit (World Bank, 2023), and the OECD in its Best Practices for Managing Fiscal Risks (OECD, 2020) have developed
common approaches to identifying, assessing, and mitigating fiscal risks.
Therefore, in Ukraine, in the context of the course towards European integration, the main factor in implementing the
effective fiscal risk management of SOEs is the harmonization of domestic and foreign approaches in this area.
However, given that Ukraine's implementation of the fiscal risk assessment methodology was relatively recent (January
2018), there is a need to explore modern international approaches to fiscal risk management and to adapt them to the
challenges and threats caused by the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Based on the analysis of the studies of international organizations, it is proposed to classify fiscal risks caused by the
activities of SOEs as infrastructure risks; operational risks; economic risks; liquidity risks; communication risks; and per-
sonnel risks. The institutional framework was based on the IMF review Government Support to State-Owned Enterprises:
Options for Sub-Saharan Africa (IMF, 2020), OECD Business and Finance Outlook 2020: Sustainable and Resilient Finance
(OECD, 2020), World Bank review State-owned enterprises and COVID-19: Policy principles (World Bank, 2020) (Table 5).
Table 5. Classification of fiscal risks of SOEs and measures to manage them.
(Sources: (IMF, 2020; OECD, 2020; World Bank, 2020; OECD,
2020; AON, 2020))
Type of risk
Risk-management measures
Infrastructure risks
▪ check the readiness to provide services (produce goods);
▪ check the readiness and availability of appropriate resources to ensure remote work of the company's employees;
▪ assessment of possible problems that may be caused by the provision of remote workplaces;
▪ development of appropriate IT support;
▪ provision of a sufficient number of licenses for employees to access remote workplaces
Operational risks
▪ development of a plan of organizational measures for the implementation of key operational processes;
▪ supply chain risk management;
▪ providing the necessary resources for the implementation of processes that cannot be carried out remotely;
▪ development of plans to eliminate disruptions in the company's activities
Economic risks
▪ development of budget for each project aimed at ensuring the uninterrupted activities of the entity;
▪ development of a plan for covering the current liabilities
Liquidity risks
▪ deferred tax payments;
▪ provision of financial assistance from the government to cover debt obligations;
▪ obtaining government assistance in the form of guarantees for bank loans
Communication
risks
▪ developing and managing communication with employees, partners, suppliers, public authorities and the community
Personnel risks
▪ clarification of job descriptions and functional responsibilities of entities' departments;
▪ development of an employee health safety policy, especially in the context of the spread of infectious diseases;
▪ development of an anti-crisis management plan for the enterprise, including relations with counterparties

FINANCIAL AND CREDIT ACTIVITY: PROBLEMS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
Volume 6 (53), 2023
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
439
According to the study, governments around the world have used SOEs to overcome crises, including the COVID-19
pandemic. For example, state-owned utilities provide water and electricity, including in some cases at subsidized prices
and allow for deferred payments. However, some SOEs may face significant financial difficulties during the crisis, raising
the question of state support. Governments may decide to intervene to provide liquidity or resolve solvency problems of
strategic SOEs. At the same time, governments of low-income economy countries with a lack of resources and weak
budgets will find it difficult to provide financial support to their SOEs. Support should also be well-designed and focused
on the current crisis.
Supporting SOEs in times of crisis provides an opportunity to accelerate existing or introduce new structural reforms to
improve their governance and performance. Reports by international organizations such as the IMF and the OECD highlight
crucial measures to mitigate the impact of fiscal risks and ensure the stability of SOEs under economic uncertainty (Table
6).
Table 6. International experience in the area of SOEs' fiscal risk management.
(Sources: (IMF, 2020; OECD, 2020))
Tools
Optional measures
Description
Strengthening cash
flows of SOEs with
immediate impact
on the budget
Deferred payment of
taxes and social secu-
rity contributions
mitigate the pressure on the liquidity of SOEs at a low cost, as the government can reimburse the
taxes later when the temporary shock from COVID-19 passes. However, in the interim period, the
government loses revenue. Such measures are usually applied to sectors of the economy, not just to
SOEs.
Subsidies
may be granted to compensate for higher costs associated with the implementation of political man-
dates or when companies face greater financial difficulties (risk of insolvency)
Strengthening the
balance sheet of
SOEs
Capital injections
may be better than regular subsidies to overcome financial difficulties caused by shocks. This is espe-
cially relevant in the context of mixed ownership, as they allow the state to participate more in future
recovery through dividends. However, the initial expenses may be too high for fiscally constrained
governments or involve increased public borrowing
Debt/equity swap
may be an option if the main source of financial pressure on SOEs is the burden of debt service.
However, the government's debt and debt service costs will increase.
Simplification of
borrowing for
SOEs
Government guaran-
tees for borrowings of
SOEs
the least pressure on current public finances. Guarantees should be temporary and limited
Lending to SOEs
This includes government borrowing directly from the market and lending to SOEs. In some cases,
this may mean a lower cost of borrowing for the company than the option of using state guarantees
Loans from state-
owned banks
state-owned banks can be used to provide support to SOEs. If these operations lead to losses for
state-owned banks, this will result in lower dividends for the government or the need to refinance
them
Attracting private
investors
Governments can attract strategic investors to SOEs (inject capital; providing experience in corporate governance)
In Ukraine, the task of governmental fiscal risk management of SOEs is complicated by the extensive system of bodies
that manage the activities of SOEs. The management of state-owned objects provides for the execution by the Cabinet of
Ministers of Ukraine and its authorized bodies, other entities defined by the Law "On Management of State-Owned Objects"
of the powers to exercise the rights of the state as the owner of such objects related to their ownership, use and disposal,
within the limits defined by the legislation of Ukraine, to meet state and public needs (Law of Ukraine, dated 22.07.2020).
The relations between the government as the owner and the management of state property are carried out through
authorized bodies. Legally established managers of state property are:
▪ the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine; the central executive body responsible for the formation and implementation of
state policy in the field of state property management;
▪ ministries, other executive authorities and governmental collegial bodies (hereinafter referred to as authorized man-
agement bodies);
▪ the State Property Fund of Ukraine; bodies that support the activities of the President of Ukraine, the Verkhovna
Rada of Ukraine and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine;
▪ bodies managing state property under the powers defined by certain laws;

ФІНАНСОВО-КРЕДИТНА ДІЯЛЬНІСТЬ: ПРОБЛЕМИ ТЕОРІЇ ТА ПРАКТИКИ
Том 6 (53), 2023
440
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
▪ state economic associations, state holding companies, other state economic organizations, SOEs, institutions, organ-
izations or business entities, 100 per cent of shares are owned by the state or another business entity (100 per cent
of shares are owned by the state);
▪ National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, sectoral academies of sciences (Law of Ukraine, dated 22.07.2020).
In total, 85 entities are managing state-owned objects in Ukraine. Among them, there is no single centralized body re-
sponsible for the professional management of state assets. The functions of formulating and implementing the policy in
the field of state property management are performed by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which, in particular, deter-
mines the state property management objects and management functions; the Ministry of Economy as the central execu-
tive body that ensures the formation and implementation of state policy in the field of state property management.
The national system of state property management is recognized as inefficient. According to the OECD experts, Ukraine
"does not have a single specialized and centralized ownership structure responsible for the ongoing professional manage-
ment of state assets. Instead, there are a large number of owners of different ranks (85 at the central government level
alone) and, worse, several different bodies with the power to interfere in the operations and business of enterprises. They
function as autonomous control centres, unable to implement a nationally coordinated property policy and combine several
roles, such as exercising property rights, formulating state policy, and regulating and protecting the interests of commu-
nities that consume the products and services of state-owned enterprises. This situation creates conflicts of interest,
competing goals, and favourable conditions for corruption. It also impairs management, productivity, control, and account-
ability. It is therefore recommended that Ukraine move towards fully centralized ownership of state-owned enterprises
and ensure that any institution assigned this role is composed of qualified professionals and protected from undue inter-
ference" (OECD, 2018).
Management of fiscal risks arising from the activities of SOEs in the context of the application of international accounting
and reporting standards
As noted above, until recently, there was no fiscal risk assessment system for SOEs in Ukraine. Due to the absence of an
assessment methodology and authorities responsible for this, the capacity to analyze the impact of SOEs on the budget was
extremely low. Therefore, there was a need to create institutional preconditions for improving the efficiency of managing
budget vulnerabilities by developing a mechanism for public disclosure of information on fiscal risks. After all, the identifica-
tion of fiscal risks by raising awareness and information allows us to justify measures to reduce them.
The relevant institutional framework for identifying and assessing fiscal risks was formed in 2018 when the Cabinet of
Ministers approved the Methodology for Assessing Fiscal Risks Associated with the Activities of Public Sector Entities (here-
inafter - the Methodology). The Ministry of Finance of Ukraine is designated as the executive body responsible for such
assessment (CMU Resolution, dated 11.01.2018).
The following entities are involved in the process of assessing fiscal risks associated with the activities of public sector
entities: business entities; governing bodies for each business entity; the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine; and the State
Fiscal Service of Ukraine.
The Methodology is generally consistent with the IMF's approach to fiscal risk assessment. At the same time, as part of
the challenges posed by the uncertainty of recent years, governments around the world are taking rapid fiscal and mone-
tary policy measures to offset the impact of COVID-19 and ensure a sustainable post-pandemic recovery. Such decisions
must be based on reliable financial information that accurately reflects the country's financial position. In this regard,
public financial and budgetary reporting, prepared using international public sector accounting standards (on an accrual
basis), is considered the most appropriate source of such data. For example, the World Bank's document "Government
Financial Reporting in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic" (World Bank, 2020), explains how governments can use existing
financial reporting systems during the pandemic while identifying opportunities for further development in the post-pan-
demic recovery phase. The World Bank has provided its view on the possible impact of the pandemic on governments'
financial activities, position and cash flows.
This IMF document complements the COVID-19 Intervention Assessment Tool developed by the International Federation
of Accountants (IFAC) and the Zurich University of Applied Sciences in partnership with the International Public Sector
Accounting Standards Board (IFAC, 2020). It is aimed at defining a methodological framework for assessing the economic
impact of current and intended policy decisions. It uses public sector accounting and reporting data and the so-called
"balance sheet" approach to assess the impact of COVID-19. The reliability and validity of the information obtained, as
well as the qualitative level of its comparability, depends on the implementation of International Public Sector Accounting

FINANCIAL AND CREDIT ACTIVITY: PROBLEMS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
Volume 6 (53), 2023
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
441
Standards (IPSAS) and accrual-based accounting by countries. The "balance sheet" approach provides a comprehensive
view of fiscal policymaking from the perspective of the government's financial statements.
A few countries with strong accrual-based financial reporting, such as New Zealand, are better positioned to use the
balance sheet approach and identify the impact of COVID-19. However, given the urgency of the recovery phase of the
COVID-19 pandemic, governments should make efforts to provide more useful, timely, and reliable financial information
for decision-making using the existing accounting system. At the same time, governments need to accelerate public sector
accounting reforms to implement accrual-based accounting systems that comply with IPSAS.
Thus, a factor that ensures the effective activities of SOEs within uncertainty should be the formation of an effective fiscal
risk management system based on the identification, assessment and analysis of fiscal risks, as well as the selection and
implementation of fiscal risk mitigation tools based on international experience. Information support for the assessment
and analysis of fiscal risks is crucial.
A reliable source of information for making effective fiscal decisions at any level of government is accounting and reporting
data, based on international standards.
Thus, an important aspect that requires further study is the information support for the assessment and analysis of fiscal
risks (CMU Resolution, dated January 11, 2018). Since the Methodology was developed in 2018, i.e., before the crisis, it
is necessary to review the information support for fiscal risk assessment within the international practice. The study is
based on the IMF methodology: State-owned enterprises stress test tool (SOE-ST); SOE Health Check Tool; COVID-19
Stress Test. Table 7 shows the results of a comparative analysis of the IMF indicators (for assessing fiscal risks) and
information support for their determination in accordance with the Ukrainian reporting infrastructure.
Table 7. Information Support for the Assessment of Fiscal Risks Arising from the Activities of SOEs within the IMF Methodolog y. Note:
*- by the requirements of Ukrainian legislation in the field of accounting and reporting.
Group of indicators
Indicators
Calculation
Source*
State-owned enterprises stress test tool (SOE-ST)
SOEs profitability indica-
tors
1. ROA Using Net
Income
Net income/Average
value of assets
Statement of financial results (Statement of comprehensive income):
p. 2000
Balance sheet (statement of financial position): p. 1125
2. ROE Using Net
Income
Net Income/ Average Eq-
uity
Statement of financial results (statement of comprehensive income):
p. 2350/2355, 2000
Balance sheet (statement of financial position): p. 1125
SOEs liquidity and lev-
erage indicators
3. Non-current
Liabilities to
Assets
Long-term liabilities/As-
sets
Balance sheet (statement of financial position): p.1300, p.1595
4. Current Ratio
Current assets/Current li-
abilities
Balance sheet (statement of financial position): p.1195, p.1695
SOEs expenditures and
their efficiency indica-
tors
5. Ratio of labour
costs to net
income
Labour costs/Net income
Statement of financial results (Statement of comprehensive income):
p. 2000, p. 2505
6. Profitability of
labour costs
Net income/Personnel ex-
penses
Statement of financial results (Statement of comprehensive income):
2000, p.2505
SOE Health Check Tool
SOEs profitability indica-
tors
1. Net profit margin
Net profit (loss) / Net
sales revenue * 100%
Statement of financial results (Statement of comprehensive income):
2000, p. 2350/2355
2. Operating profit
margin
Operating profit / Sales
revenue
Statement of financial results (Statement of comprehensive income):
2000, p. 2190/2195
3. Return on working
capital
Net profit / Current assets
Statement of financial results (Statement of comprehensive income):
p. 2350
Balance sheet (statement of financial position): p. 1195
4. ROE
Net Profit/Average Equity
Statement of financial performance (Statement of comprehensive in-
come): p. 2000
Balance sheet (statement of financial position): p. 1495 (pp. 3, 4)
5. ROA
Net profit/Average assets
Statement of financial performance (Statement of comprehensive in-
come): 2000
Balance sheet (statement of financial position): p. 1300 (pp. 3, 4)
6. Cost recovery
Current assets/current lia-
bilities
Balance sheet (statement of financial position): p. 1195, p. 1695
(continued on next page)

ФІНАНСОВО-КРЕДИТНА ДІЯЛЬНІСТЬ: ПРОБЛЕМИ ТЕОРІЇ ТА ПРАКТИКИ
Том 6 (53), 2023
442
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
Table 7.
Continued.
Group of indicators
Indicators
Calculation
Source*
SOEs solvency indica-
tors
1. Debt to equity
Liabilities/Equity
Balance sheet (statement of financial position): p. 1495, p. 1595, p.
1695
2. Debt to assets
Liabilities/Assets
Balance sheet (statement of financial position): p. 1300, p. 1595, p.
1695
3. Debt to EBITDA
(Long-term + Current lia-
bilities) / (Operating profit
+ Depreciation + Amorti-
zation)
Balance sheet (Statement of financial position): p. 1012, p. 1595, p.
1695
Statement of financial results (Statement of comprehensive income):
p. 2190, p. 2515
4. Debt coverage
Current assets / Current
liabilities
Balance sheet (Statement of financial position): p.1195, p.1695
5. Interest coverage
ratio (ICR)
EBIT / Interest expense
EBIT = Net income + In-
terest expense + Taxes -
Non-operating income
Statement of financial results (Statement of comprehensive income):
p. 2350, p. 2250, p. 2200, p. 2220, p. 2240, p. 2300
SOEs liquidity indicators
1. Current Ratio
Current assets / Current
liabilities
Balance sheet (statement of financial position): p.1195, p.1695
2. Quick ratio
(Cash and cash equiva-
lents + Current financial
investments + Current
accounts receivable) /
Current liabilities
Balance sheet (Statement of financial position): p. 1165, p. 1160,
1125, p. 1130, p. 1695
3. Creditor turnover
days
Net profit / Average an-
nual accounts payable
Statement of financial results (Statement of comprehensive income):
p. 2000
Balance sheet (statement of financial position): p.1595, p.1695
4. Debtor turnover
days
Net profit / Average an-
nual amount of accounts
receivable
Statement of financial results (Statement of comprehensive income):
2000
Balance sheet (Statement of financial position): p.1040, p.1125,
p.1130, p.1155
COVID-19 Stress Test
▪ analysis of the need
for external borrowings
-
Comparison of the com-
pany's cash balance and
debt (current and long-
term)
Balance sheet (statement of financial position): p.1595, p.1695
Statement of cash flows: p. 3195, p. 3295, p. 3395, p. 3415
▪ ability to cover debts
Interest coverage ra-
tio (ICR)
EBIT/Interest expense
EBIT = Net income + In-
terest expense + Taxes -
Non-operating income
Statement of financial results (Statement of comprehensive income):
p. 2350, p. 2250, p. 2200, p. 2220, p. 2240, p. 2300
▪ solvency
1) Debt to equity
Liabilities/Equity
Balance sheet (Statement of financial position): p. 1495, p. 1595, p.
1695
2) Debt to assets
Liabilities/Assets
Balance sheet (statement of financial position): p. 1300, p. 1595, p.
1695
3) Debt to EBITDA
(Long-term + Current lia-
bilities) / (Operating profit
+ Depreciation + Amorti-
zation)
Balance sheet (Statement of financial position): p. 1012, p. 1595, p.
1695
Statement of financial results (Statement of comprehensive income):
p. 2190, p. 2515
4) Debt coverage
Current assets / Current
liabilities
Balance sheet (Statement of financial position): p.1195, p.1695
5) Interest cover-
age ratio (ICR)
EBIT / Interest expense
EBIT = Net income + In-
terest expense + Taxes -
Non-operating income
Statement of financial results (Statement of comprehensive income):
p. 2350, p. 2250, p. 2200, p. 2220, p. 2240, p. 2300
The comparative analysis of the indicators of fiscal risk assessment in Ukraine with the IMF methodology showed that our
country has created the appropriate preconditions for the formation of high-quality and comparable data for decision-
making at the macro level. This provides the information background for forecasting the impact of uncertainty (coronavirus
pandemic, war, climate change) on state budget revenues. At the same time, the issue of information support for man-
agement needs in terms of assessing the impact of the non-financial impact of SOEs (environmental, social, and institu-
tional impact) on the probability of fiscal risks remains unsolved.
Even though IFRS form the methodological basis for the formation of information support for the management of SOEs in
most countries, there is a practice of establishing requirements for additional disclosure of information for SOEs based on

FINANCIAL AND CREDIT ACTIVITY: PROBLEMS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
Volume 6 (53), 2023
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
443
the requirements set in legislation. In particular, in Sweden and the United Kingdom, there are special instructions for
SOEs on financial disclosure. In Sweden, according to the document "Guidelines for External Reporting by State-Owned
Enterprises", state-owned enterprises are required to publish sustainability reports. As for the UK, the obligation to prepare
sustainability reports is imposed not only on non-financial public corporations but also on all entities in the general gov-
ernment sector (OECD, 2020).
Given the above, we suggest for purposes of assessment and analysis of SOEs fiscal risks when preparing a management
report (sustainability reporting), to provide the comparative information for each indicator (financial and non-financial).
Using this approach and the classification of fiscal risks proposed in this study (see Table 5), we have compiled a list of
indicators that characterize the impact of uncertainty on the performance of state-owned enterprises (Table 8).
Table 8. List of indicators for SOEs fiscal risks' assessment under special conditions (COVID -19 pandemic, war).
Types of risks
Indicators characterizing the impact of uncertainty on the activities of SOEs caused by the:
the COVID-19 pandemic
War in Ukraine
Operational risks
Economic risks
Liquidity risks
1. The amount of credit resources attracted by the
company during the COVID-19 pandemic, thousand
UAH
2. Amount of expenses for investment projects that were
temporarily suspended due to the pandemic, thousand
UAH
3. Amount of costs incurred to ensure the digitalization of
business processes at the enterprise in the context of
countering the spread of COVID-19, thousand UAH
1. Expenditures on investment projects suspended as a result of
martial law, thousand UAH.
2. The amount of credit resources attracted by the company
during martial law, thousand UAH.
3. Change in cash flows during martial law compared to the pre-
war period, thousand UAH.
4. Costs associated with the destruction (partial or complete) of
fixed assets as a result of the war, thousand UAH.
5. Costs associated with disruption of supply chains, thousand
UAH.
6. Expenses related to the elimination of the consequences of
natural disasters caused by the war, thousand UAH.
Infrastructure risks
1. Water consumption, thousand m3, thousand UAH
2. Energy consumption, thousand m3, thousand UAH
1. Expenditures related to the liquidation of the consequences of
natural disasters caused by the war, thousand UAH.
2. Total area of destroyed/partially destroyed buildings as a result
of the war, m2.
3. Total area of land plots owned/leased by the enterprise that is
subject to long-term restoration, ha.
Personnel risks
1. The incidence of COVID-19 among employees, units.
2. Amount of sick leave expenses incurred during the
COVID-19 pandemic, thousand UAH.
3. The amount of costs incurred to create safe working
conditions in the context of countering COVID-19,
thousand UAH.
4. Amount of expenses related to payment of fines for
inadequate working conditions in the context of
countering COVID-19, thousand UAH.
5. Amount of expenses incurred for additional health
insurance for employees (life insurance), thousand
UAH.
6. Duration of remote work of employees in the context of
COVID-19, hours per week.
1. Expenses for sick leave paid during martial law, thousand UAH.
2. Expenses incurred to create safe working conditions, thousand
UAH.
3. Expenses incurred for additional health insurance of employees
(life insurance), thousand UAH.
4. Expenses for humanitarian aid and charity, thousand UAH.
5. Staff reduction ratio, %.
6. Number of cases of injuries at the workplace caused by the war,
units.
Communication
risks
1. Number of confirmed cases of corruption during the period, units.
2. Amount of fines paid for corruption-related court cases during the period, thousand UAH.
The application of this list of indicators by SOEs is aimed at strengthening the fiscal risk management system. This will
ensure the effective supervision of SOEs, their accountability and transparency, as the disclosure of these indicators allows
assessing of the uncertainty's impact on their performance. It should be noted that these indicators can be disclosed as
part of the information produced by the current Ukrainian accounting and reporting infrastructure. The advantage of the
suggested list of indicators is the simple calculation and availability of information for disclosure (financial reporting, man-
agement report, sustainability report, statistical reporting, etc.).

ФІНАНСОВО-КРЕДИТНА ДІЯЛЬНІСТЬ: ПРОБЛЕМИ ТЕОРІЇ ТА ПРАКТИКИ
Том 6 (53), 2023
444
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
Management of fiscal risks caused by the development of digital finance and the latest technologies in emergency situations
New technologies have enabled governments to automate various financial processes such as payments, accounting, and
auditing. Such digitization of fiscal operations leads to increased efficiency, and reduced probability of errors, delays, and
fraud. By minimizing operational risks, governments can focus resources on dealing with the economic challenges caused
by COVID-19.
The transparent nature of blockchain technology has allowed governments to track the flow of funds with greater accuracy.
By using the assets, governments can enhance their ability to track financial transactions related to COVID-19 relief efforts
and the course of military disasters, such as the virtual aggression of the russian federation against Ukraine. The imple-
mentation of such traceability ensures the reduction of risks associated with misallocation of funds, mismanagement, or
diversion.
The legalization of the crypto market, which began with the implementation of international anti-money laundering and
countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) standards, has allowed governments to diversify their investment portfo-
lios, reducing their reliance on traditional financial instruments that have been hit hard by the economic downturn caused
by COVID-19. Such diversification mitigated fiscal policy risks by providing alternative sources of revenue and mitigating
the impact of market volatility.
As determined by the voluntary self-assessment, the public sector demonstrates a clear commitment to the adoption and
implementation of the revised FATF standards. 32 of the 54 FATF-style Regional Body (FSRB) jurisdictions reported having
AML/CFT regulations in place for virtual asset trading service providers (VASPs), 13 having regulations, which are under
development, and another 5 jurisdictions have current or potential VASP bans (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Public sector: implementation by governments of crypto-regulatory norms against money laundering and terrorist financing.
(Source: CipherTrace Cryptocurrency Intelligence, 2021)
Traditional financial systems often involve numerous intermediaries, increasing complexity and potential vulnerability.
Through the implementation of digital tools, governments should optimize their financial operations by eliminating inter-
mediaries, reducing transaction costs and minimizing the risks associated with the involvement of third parties, which will
contribute to the optimization of costs in public finances.
Virtual assets (VA) have unique technological properties that provide pseudo-anonymous and anonymous transactions,
fast cross-border transfer of value and impersonality of business relations. These properties can enhance a variety of
financial products and services, such as trade finance, cross-border payments and regulation of financial instruments.
Traditional financial institutions have recognized these benefits. For example, a survey by the Bank for International Set-
tlements among 63 central banks showed that most of them were considering the possibility of issuance to support central
banks regarding BA in 2018 (Yatsyk & Shvets, 2020). VA market adoption is increasing worldwide. Number of BAs with a
market capitalization of at least USD 1 million. US increased from 30 to approximately 1,000 between 2015 and 2020, and
the total market capitalization of all VAs is approaching USD 300 billion (Mishchenko, 2021).
Recent advances in digital technology enable financial institutions to more efficiently analyze large volumes of structured
and unstructured data and more effectively identify patterns and trends. Data collection and collaborative analytics help
32
31
30
19
18
15
8
3
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
An AML/CFT regime exists for VASPs
An oversight body for VASP
Licensing or registration
Public register licensed or registered VASPs
Jurisdiction rules apply on VASP non-residents
Availability of VASP on-site inspection
VASP sanctions for lack of compliance
Prohibition of VASP activities
regulation is created adjustment available

FINANCIAL AND CREDIT ACTIVITY: PROBLEMS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
Volume 6 (53), 2023
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
445
financial institutions to understand, assess and mitigate economic security risks, resulting in easier, more dynamic and
efficient identification of such activities, reducing false positives, allowing the private sector to comply in a timely and less
burdensome manner. It can also prevent criminals from exploiting information gaps as they interact with multiple domestic
and international financial services, each with limited and partial visibility into transactions. However, it may negatively
affect the protection of personal and fundamental rights. Therefore, it is extremely important that any exchange of infor-
mation takes place in compliance with national and international data protection and privacy laws.
The introduction of the latest technologies improves the level of security of the state, namely digital finance infrastructure
often requires robust security measures, including encryption and distributed storage systems. By applying this technology,
the government can reduce the risks of cyber threats and data leakage, ensuring the integrity and confidentiality of its
fiscal policies during periods such as COVID-19 and military actions (European Parliament, 2023).
Digital assets and blockchain technology facilitate decentralized systems that are inherently resistant to manipulation or
unauthorized change (UNDP Overview report). By using these technologies, governments can build trust between citizens
and international partners, reducing the risks associated with fiscal policy decisions in uncertain times.
DISCUSSION
Information support for fiscal risk assessment is quite broad. Financial statements remain the main source of information.
However, under current conditions in Ukraine (the coronavirus pandemic and war), the range of fiscal risks caused by the
activities of SOEs has increased. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the impact of these factors caused by emergencies
and uncertainty on the SOEs' activities performance.
This approach is widely used in international practice. Thus, during and after the coronavirus pandemic, the international
professional community has repeatedly noted in several documents the need for public authorities to focus on the reporting
indicators of enterprises that characterize the impact of uncertainty on their activities, in particular: World Health Organi-
zation (2020), Monitoring and Evaluation Framework; IOSCO/OR/02/2020 dated 29.05.2020 Statement on Importance of
Disclosure about COVID-19; UN framework for the immediate socio-economic response to COVID-19 (2020); Summary of
Covid-19 Financial Reporting Considerations (IFAC, 2020).
International professional organizations in the field of accounting, reporting and corporate governance are focusing their
efforts on developing a methodological basis for disclosure of information on sustainable development by enterprises
(including SOEs). Examples of such initiatives include:
▪ the updated edition of the 2022 UNCTAD Guidance on Core Indicators for Sustainability and SDG Impact Reporting;
▪ a document issued within the framework of the World Economic Forum "Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism. Towards
Common Metrics and Consistent Reporting of Sustainable Value Creation". This document defines the main areas
and indicators of disclosure of information on the non-financial side of companies' activities (proposed metrics). The
indicators have been organized into four pillars (Pillars) - Governance, Planet, People and Prosperity - which are
aligned with the main elements of the SDGs (World, Economic Forum, 2020).
At the same time, since 2014, Ukraine has been experiencing military aggression. This caused the high risks of filling the
state budget. Under these conditions, the importance of the quality of information support for management, analysis and
assessment of fiscal risks caused by SOEs activities is growing. This poses the need to identify and formulate a list of
financial and non-financial indicators. The basis for such work is proposed to be the areas of disclosure in the management
report introduced in Ukraine, as defined by the Order of the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine No. 982 dated 07.12.2018 "On
Approval of the Methodological Recommendations for Preparing a Management Report". In addition, the source of infor-
mation may be the sustainability report in the case of implementation of the requirements of EU Directive 2022/2464 of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive
2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU on corporate sustainability reporting. The proposed ap-
proach will create the prerequisites for further development of information support for decision-making at the macro-level.
This will help to improve the efficiency of fiscal risk management and overcome the consequences of military aggression
(Iefymenko et al., 2022).
Considering that Ukraine is on the European democratic path, the need to revise the legislation in the financial system in
terms of the introduction of digital finance is absolutely necessary for the effective development of the economic and IT
spheres.

ФІНАНСОВО-КРЕДИТНА ДІЯЛЬНІСТЬ: ПРОБЛЕМИ ТЕОРІЇ ТА ПРАКТИКИ
Том 6 (53), 2023
446
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
The introduction of an effective market of virtual assets in our country is currently one of the important tasks of the political
and financial system of the country, taking into account their popularity in Ukraine and the need in wartime for settlements
with foreign counterparties. An effective legal system will not only maintain a leading position in the IT sector on the global
market but also the development of the financial and economic system as a whole. Since the European Union is the world's
third largest economy, regulatory decisions are more likely to have a major impact on other countries, including Ukraine.
Therefore, the study and implementation of its legislative initiatives, such as the Directive on the regulation of the crypto-
asset market and ensuring the security of cyberspace, which are part of the Digital Finance Strategy of the European
Commission, is an important step towards bringing Ukraine closer to a democratic safe space.
CONCLUSIONS
OECD countries apply a common ideology in managing fiscal risks. The last can be described as protecting public finances
from a possible macroeconomic shock. This allows it to be used as a reliable risk management tool in the context of the
COVID-19 pandemic and the development of the global economy. However, there are several differences in approaches
to forecasting and mitigating the negative impact of uncertainty on the PFM due to the specifics of domestic legislative
regulation and response to macroeconomic challenges and threats; financial stability; availability and size of unallocated
budget reserves; and the extent of existing government guarantees.
International experience shows that the implementation of effective risk management is facilitated by the application of
professional and international standards that offer an algorithm of actions under certain circumstances. Such standards
provide an information basis for a rational approach to risk management, and can also be used to make decisions on
identified risks or to make a choice between several options.
Implementation of fiscal and monetary policy measures to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and ensure a sustainable post-
pandemic recovery requires relevant financial information reflecting the country's financial position. A reliable source of
such information is public financial and budgetary statements prepared by international public sector accounting standards
and on an accrual basis.
Given the negative impact of the uncertainty caused by the coronavirus pandemic and the war on the activities of state-
owned enterprises, an important tool for improving the efficiency of fiscal risk management is the unification of approaches
to establishing indicators for assessing relevant risks and providing information for their calculation. In this context, regu-
lating the preparation of sustainable development reports by SOEs and establishing a unified list of indicators characterizing
the impact of uncertainty on economic performance will expand and strengthen the information base for assessing and
analyzing fiscal risks at the state level.
Promising areas for further research in the area of creating powerful information support for managing fiscal risks caused
by the activities of SOEs are the scientific substantiation of the methodology for preparing sustainability reporting.
In response to lockdowns and social distancing measures during crises, citizens have increasingly relied on digital channels
to access government services, pay taxes, and receive financial support. This has necessitated improved digital infrastruc-
ture and service delivery mechanisms.
The legalization of new economic sectors related to the development of digital finance, on the one hand, often stimulates
innovation and entrepreneurship. As traditional business models are disrupted, new digital startups and technological
innovations emerge, fuelling the growth of the digital economy. On the other hand, with an effective fiscal policy, the
legalization of new markets contributes to the increase of revenues to the state budget of the country and accelerates the
growth rate of the economy in post-war times.
The COVID-19 pandemic and the military aggression of the russian federation against Ukraine presented an unprecedented
dual crisis, necessitating the development of a comprehensive anti-crisis fiscal regulation policy.
The overall goal of government fiscal risk management in Ukraine during the war is to ensure the stability of the country's
economy and finances and maintain financial independence and readiness for military defence.
Prospective areas of further research in the field of economic development of Ukraine are the scientific justification of fiscal
policy and methodology regarding the activities of new sectors of the digital economy and the introduction of reforms in
financial management, the fight against corruption to increase the efficiency of financial management in crisis conditions.

FINANCIAL AND CREDIT ACTIVITY: PROBLEMS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
Volume 6 (53), 2023
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
447
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conceptualization:
Yana Oliinyk
Data curation:
Maria Kucheriava, Liliia Korytnyk, Tetiana Dmytrenko, Olga Kuzminska, Konstantin Lagunov
Methodology:
Yana Oliinyk
Resources:
Maria Kucheriava, Liliia Korytnyk, Tetiana Dmytrenko, Olga Kuzminska, Konstantin Lagunov
Supervision:
Yana Oliinyk
Validation:
Yana Oliinyk
Investigation:
Maria Kucheriava, Liliia Korytnyk, Tetiana Dmytrenko, Olga Kuzminska
Visualization:
Tetiana Dmytrenko
Writing – review & editing:
Yana Oliinyk, Olga Kuzminska
Writing – original draft:
Maria Kucheriava, Liliia Korytnyk, Tetiana Dmytrenko, Konstantin Lagunov
FUNDING
The article was prepared within the framework of the project "Fiscal and Monetary Security of the National Economy in
the Conditions of Global Challenges and Threats Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic" of the National Research Fund of
Ukraine (Project registration number: 2020.01/0546). Project executor: SESE "The Academy of Financial Management".
REFERENCES
1. AON (2020).
COVID-19 Risk Management: 5 key
questions your organization needs to answer
.
https://www.aon.com/getmedia/b625fe6f-f392-
4671-bdf8-ddf92473c864/Managing-And-Mitigating-
Risk-COVID-19.aspx
2. Batini, N., Lamperti, F., Roventini, A., & Loungani, P.
(2020). Reducing Risk While Sharing It: A Fiscal
Recipe for The EU at the Time of COVID-19.
IMF
Working Papers, 181, 11-22.
https://doi.org/10.5089/9781513551920.001
3. Cangiano, M., Curristine, T. R., & Lazare, M. (2013).
Public Financial Management and Its Emerging
Architecture.
IMF, 2013.
4. Ciphertrace (2021).
Cryptocurrency Crime and Anti-
Money Laundering Report.
https://ciphertrace.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/05/CipherTrace-
Cryptocurrency-Crime-and-Anti-Money-Laundering-
Report-May-2021-051221b.pdf
5. COSO (2017).
Enterprise Risk Management.
Integrating with Strategy and Performance
.
https://www.coso.org/Shared%20Documents/2017-
COSO-ERM-Integrating-with-Strategy-and-
Performance-Executive-Summary.pdf
6. Cyber security management best practices.
UNDP
overview report.
https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/
migration/ua/Report_on_Cybersecurity_04.pdf
7. European Commission (2020).
Proposal for a
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on Markets in Crypto-assets, and amending
Directive (EU) 2019/1937
. https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020PC0593
8. European Parliament (2023).
European Commission
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council on digital operational resilience for
the financial sector and amending Regulations (EC)
No 1060/2009, (EU) No 648/2012, (EU) No 600/2014
and (EU) No 909/2014
.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/docum
ent/EPRS_BRI(2022)739221
9. FATF (2023).
Recommendations 15: New
technologies.
https://www.fatf-
gafi.org/en/publications/fatfrecommendations/docum
ents/fatf-recommendations.html
10. Federation Of European Risk Management
Associations. (n.d.).
https://www.ferma.eu/app/uploads/2011/11/a-risk-
management-standard-english-version.pdf
11. Gasanov, S. (2017). Fiscal risks and fiscal targeting
in the system of public finance management under
institutional uncertainty.
RFI Scientific papers, 2, 5-
24.
http://npndfi.org.ua/docs/NP_17_02_005_uk.pdf
12. Hudima, T., Ustymenko, V., Dzhabrailov, R., &
Chernykh, O. (2022). Features of Legal Regulation of
Virtual Assets in Ukraine: De-Facto Vs De-Jure.

ФІНАНСОВО-КРЕДИТНА ДІЯЛЬНІСТЬ: ПРОБЛЕМИ ТЕОРІЇ ТА ПРАКТИКИ
Том 6 (53), 2023
448
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
Financial and Credit Activity Problems of Theory and
Practice, 5
(46), 137–148.
https://doi.org/10.55643/fcaptp.5.46.2022.3844
13. Iefymenko, T. (2022). Anti-Crisis Fiscal Adjustment
under the Conditions of Martial Law and Post-War
Recovery in Ukraine.
Public Governance,
Administration and Finances Law Review, 7(1), 21–
37
. https://doi.org/10.53116/pgaflr.2022.1.2
14. IFAC (2020).
COVID-19 Intervention Assessment
Tool
. https://www.ifac.org/knowledge-
gateway/supporting-international-
standards/discussion/covid-19-intervention-
assessment-tool
15. IFAC (2020).
Summary of Covid-19 Financial
Reporting Considerations.
https://www.ifac.org/knowledge-
gateway/supporting-international-
standards/discussion/summary-covid-19-financial-
reporting-considerations
16. IMF (2018).
Fiscal Risk Analysis and Management
Fiscal Affairs Dept
.
https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/97814843
31859/ch04.xml
17. IMF (2020).
Government Support to State-Owned
Enterprises: Options for Sub-Saharan Africa
.
https://blog-pfm.imf.org/pfmblog/2020/07/-
government-support-to-state-owned-enterprises-
options-for-sub-saharan-africa-.html
18. IMF (2020).
Government Support to State-Owned
Enterprises: Options for Sub-Saharan Africa.
https://blog-pfm.imf.org/pfmblog/2020/07/-
government-support-to-state-owned-enterprises-
options-for-sub-saharan-africa-.html
19. IMF (2021).
Global Corporate Stress Tests – Impact
of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Policy Responses.
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/202
1/08/06/Global-Corporate-Stress-Tests-Impact-of-
the-COVID-19-Pandemic-and-Policy-Responses-
462555
20. IMF (2021).
State-Owned enterprise Health check
tool.
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/fiscal-
policies/Fiscal-Risks/Fiscal-Risks-Toolkit/Fiscal-Risks-
Toolkit-SOE-HCT
21. IMF (2021).
State-owned enterprises stress test tool
(SOE-ST).
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/fiscal-
policies/Fiscal-Risks/Fiscal-Risks-Toolkit/Fiscal-Risks-
Toolkit-SOE-ST
22. International Organization for Standardization
(2018).
ISO 31000:2018 Risk management -
Principles and guidelines.
https://www.iso.org/ru/search.html?q=Risk%20man
agement
23. International Organization for Standardization
(2022).
ISO 31073:2022 Risk management —
Vocabulary.
https://www.iso.org/ru/search.html?q=Risk%20man
agement
24. IOSCO (2020).
IOSCO Statement on Importance of
Disclosure about COVID-19.
https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD
655.pdf
25. Ivanytska, O., & Koschuk, T. (2020). Fiscal risk
management in conditions of the COVID-19
pandemic.
Finance of Ukraine, 7
, 47-61.
https://doi.org/10.33763/finukr2020.07.047
26. Kozoriz, L. (2020). Fiscal risks minimizing under
macroeconomic shocks: international experience.
Investytsiyi: praktyka ta dosvid
,
24, pp. 72–81.
https://doi.org/10.32702/2306-6814.2020.24.72
27. Law of Ukraine “On Management of State Property
Objects” dated 22.07.2020, No. 185-V.
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/185-16#Text.
28. Makarov, O., & Arzhevitin, S. (2022). Virtual Assets
and Monetary Policy.
Financial and Credit Activity
Problems of Theory and Practice, 5
(46), 8–18.
https://doi.org/10.55643/fcaptp.5.46.2022.3877
29. Mishchenko, V., Naumenkova, S., & Mischenko, S.
(2021). Central bank digital currency: the future of
institutional changes in the banking sector.
Finance
of Ukraine, 2, 26-48.
https://doi.org/10.33763/finukr2021.02.026
30. Mourre, G., & Reut, A. (2019). Non-tax revenue in
the European Union: A source of fiscal risk.
International Tax and Public Finance, 26,
198–223.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10797-
018-9498-z
31. OECD (2015).
Guidelines on Corporate Governance
of State-Owned Enterprises.
https://state-owned-
enterprises.worldbank.org/report/oecd-guidelines-
corporate-governance-state-owned-enterprises-
2015-edition-0
32. OECD (2015).
Recommendation of the Council for
Budgetary Governance
.
https://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/Recommendati
on-of-the-Council-on-Budgetary-Governance.pdf
33. OECD (2020).
Best Practices for Managing Fiscal
Risks
.
https://one.oecd.org/document/GOV/PGC/SBO(2020
)6/En/pdf

FINANCIAL AND CREDIT ACTIVITY: PROBLEMS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
Volume 6 (53), 2023
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
449
34. OECD (2020).
Business and Finance Outlook 2020:
Sustainable and Resilient finance.
https://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/sites/5ad33666-
en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/5ad3366
6-en#section-d1e13306
35. OECD (2020).
Corporate sector vulnerabilities during
the Covid-19 outbreak: Assessment and policy
responses
. http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-
responses/corporate-sector-vulnerabilities-during-
the-covid-19-outbreak-assessment-and-policy-
responses-a6e670ea/
36. OECD (2020).
Managing Fiscal Risks Case studies of
Australia, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and
the United Kingdom.
https://one.oecd.org/document/GOV/PGC/SBO(2020
)7/En/pdf
37. OECD (2020).
Transparency and Disclosure Practices
of State-Owned Enterprises and their Owners
.
http://www.oecd.org/corporate/transparency-
disclosure-practices-soes.pdf
38. OECD (2018).
Report Anti-Corruption Reforms in
Ukraine: Preventing and Combating Corruption in
State-Owned Enterprises.
http://www.spfu.gov.ua/userfiles/files/OECD-ACN-
Ukraine-4th-Round-Bis-Report-SOE-Sector-2018-
UKR.pdf
39. Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On
Approval of the Methodology for Assessing Fiscal
Risks Associated with the Activities of Public Sector
Economic Entities” dated 11.01.2018, No. 7.
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/7-2018-
%D0%BF#Text
40. UN (2020).
A UN framework for the immediate socio-
economic response to COVID-19.
https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/un_frame
work_report_on_covid-19.pdf
41. UNCTAD (2022).
Guidance on Core Indicators for
Sustainability and SDG Impact Reporting.
https://unctad.org/system/files/official-
document/diae2022d1_en.pdf
42. Volosovych, S., Sholoiko, A., & Shevchenko, L.
(2023). Cryptocurrency Market Transformation
During Pandemic COVID-19.
Financial and Credit
Activity Problems of Theory and Practice, 1
(48),
114–126.
https://doi.org/10.55643/fcaptp.1.48.2023.3949
43. World Bank (2005).
Public Enterprises: Unresolved
Challenges and New Opportunities
. https://state-
owned-enterprises.worldbank.org/report/public-
enterprises-unresolved-challenges-and-new-
opportunities
44. World Bank (2016).
Transparency and disclosure
measures for state-owned enterprises (SOEs):
Stocktaking of national practices
. https://state-
owned-
enterprises.worldbank.org/report/transparency-and-
disclosure-measures-state-owned-enterprises-soes-
stocktaking-national
45. World Bank (2020).
Government Financial Reporting
in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic
. URL:
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/cor
e/bitstreams/6b6bc4b8-2f38-5355-acb9-
fdbb136405d9/content
46. World Bank (2020).
State-owned enterprises and
Covid-19: Policy principles
. URL:
https://blogs.worldbank.org/psd/state-owned-
enterprises-and-covid-19-policy-principles
47. World Bank (2022).
Debt & Fiscal Risks Toolkit
. URL:
https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/debt-
toolkit/fiscal-risk
48. World Economic Forum (2020).
Measuring
Stakeholder Capitalism Towards Common Metrics
and Consistent Reporting of Sustainable Value
Creation.
URL:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_IBC_Measuring
_Stakeholder_Capitalism_Report_2020.pdf
49. World Health Organization (2020).
Monitoring and
Evaluation Framework.
URL:
https://www.who.int/docs/default-
source/coronaviruse/who-ncov-me-framework-
web.pdf?sfvrsn=656e430f_1&download=true
50. Yatsyk, T., Shvets, V. (2020). Cryptoassets as an
emerging class of digital assets in the financial
accounting.
Economic Annals-XXI, 183(5-6), 106-
115.
https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V183-10

ФІНАНСОВО-КРЕДИТНА ДІЯЛЬНІСТЬ: ПРОБЛЕМИ ТЕОРІЇ ТА ПРАКТИКИ
Том 6 (53), 2023
450
DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.53.2023.4219
Олійник Я., Кучерява М., Коритник Л., Дмитренко Т., Кузьмінська О., Лагунов К.
ФОРМУВАННЯ ІНФОРМАЦІЙНОГО ЗАБЕЗПЕЧЕННЯ УПРАВЛІННЯ ФІСКАЛЬНИМИ РИЗИКАМИ
В УМОВАХ КРИЗ
Кризові явища, такі як економічні спади, надзвичайні ситуації в царині охорони здоров’я й геополітичні конфлікти,
мали значний вплив на посилення прозорості інформаційного забезпечення процесів управління державними фі-
нансами (Public Financial Management, PFM) та розвиток цифровізації економіки.
Метою дослідження є оцінювання поточного стану інформаційної забезпеченості та прозорості процесу управління
фіскальними ризиками, зумовленими діяльністю державних підприємств, в умовах невизначеності.
У рамках дослідження проаналізовано існуючі міжнародних підходи до ідентифікації та оцінки фіскальних ризиків;
визначено напрями вдосконалення інформаційного забезпечення управління фіскальними ризиками, зумовленими
діяльністю державних підприємств в умовах надзвичайних ситуацій; досліджено вплив розвитку цифрових фінансів
на пом'якшення фіскальних ризиків, зумовлених перебігом надзвичайних ситуацій і сформульовано пропозиції щодо
підвищення транспарентності державних фінансів та створення додаткових надходжень до державного бюджету
шляхом розвитку новітніх технологій.
Реалізація заходів фіскальної та монетарної політики для нівелювання впливу COVID-19 і сталого постпандемічного
відновлення вимагає релевантної фінансовій інформації, яка достовірно відображає фінансовий стан країни. Надій-
ним джерелом для надання такої інформації є державна фінансова й бюджетна звітність, складена з використанням
міжнародних стандартів бухгалтерського обліку в державному секторі та за методом нарахування. В умовах нега-
тивного впливу невизначеності, спричиненої пандемією коронавірусної хвороби, війни, на діяльність державних
підприємств важливим інструментом підвищення ефективності управління фіскальними ризиками є уніфікація під-
ходів до встановлення індикаторів оцінки відповідних ризиків та інформаційного забезпечення їх розрахунку. У
відповідь на карантинні заходи COVID-19 і заходи соціального дистанціювання під час криз громадяни все більше
покладаються на цифрові канали для доступу до державних послуг, сплати податків і отримання фінансової підт-
римки. Це зумовило потребу в удосконаленні цифрової інфраструктури та механізмів надання послуг.
Ключові слова: фіскальні ризики, державні підприємства, сталий розвиток, МСФЗ, цифрова економіка, економічна
безпека, прозорість, державні фінанси, оподаткування, легалізація діяльності
JEL Класифікація: D21, D45, D89, F36, F29, G14, G18, G28, H10, Н56, H82, H84, O17