Accounting Triggers for the Recognition of Biological Assets within the Enterprise Security System
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58423/2786-6742/2026-12-206-221Keywords:
biological assets, recognition procedure, Identification Matrix, accounting triggers, accounting policy, physical characteristics, valuation hierarchy, enterprise securityAbstract
The subject of the research is the procedure for recognizing biological assets in the accounting system of agricultural enterprises as an instrumental basis for ensuring their comprehensive security. The purpose of the study is to substantiate a procedural model for the recognition of biological assets, which details the methodological aspects of their identification, documentary support, and the specifics of their reflection on accounts as a key foundation of the enterprise's internal (economic, financial, property) security management system.
The methodological basis of the research comprises general scientific and special cognitive methods. The application of systemic and regulatory-legal analysis allowed identifying methodological gaps in the implementation of standards (NAS 30, IAS 41). The use of the physiocratic approach made it possible to substantiate the role of physical characteristics of biological assets as primary value drivers. The matrix modeling method was applied to construct a unified algorithm for corresponding accounts, and structural-functional analysis was used to determine the impact of accounting procedures on risk prevention and strengthening the property and financial security of a business entity.
The existence of an "institutional gap" between the abstract requirements of standards and the practice of their implementation at the level of primary and analytical accounting has been proven. To overcome this problem, the Matrix of Identification and Reflection of the Recognition Procedure was developed, ensuring continuous synchronization of the biological cycle of assets with the enterprise's accounting register. The concept of "accounting triggers" is substantiated, according to which a change in the physical characteristics of assets (weight gain, vegetation phase) is considered a primary signal that requires fixation and triggers the procedure of accounting entries. The specifics of reflecting assets on accounts (21, 23, 16, 27, 710), depending on the modality of biological transformations (generation, metabolism, status change, commercialization, and disintegration) have been detailed. For practical implementation, it is proposed to enshrine a three-level hierarchy of valuation methods in the enterprise's accounting policy to mitigate the risks of subjectivity in the absence of an active market, as well as differentiated approaches to determining the unit of account (individual for long-term assets, group for current ones). The research results can be directly applied in the practical activities of accounting and financial departments of agricultural enterprises when forming the Accounting Policy Order, developing document flow schedules, and adapting the working chart of accounts.
The proposed methodological tools are appropriate for use in the internal control system to prevent biomass theft, minimize tax risks, and protect the property interests of owners. It has been established that the procedure for recognizing biological assets should not be reduced to a purely formal technical recording of value. The implementation of physical characteristics into the accounting recognition framework and the strict linkage of accounting triggers to relevant primary documents and accounting entries transform the accounting policy into an effective institutional mechanism. It is proven that such an approach not only guarantees the reliability of financial reporting but also forms a reliable protective barrier that ensures the property, financial, economic, and food security of an agricultural enterprise amidst modern economic challenges.
References
1. Ministry of Finance of Ukraine. (2005). National Accounting Standard (NAS) 30 “Biological Assets” (Order №790, November 18). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z1456-05 [in Ukrainian].
2. International Accounting Standards Board. (2016). International Accounting Standard 41 “Agriculture”. https://mof.gov.ua/storage/files/IAS-41_ukr_2016.pdf [in Ukrainian].
3. Dobrunik, T. P., Volchek, R. M., & Kubik, V. D. (2024). Accounting valuation of biological assets as a priority of relevant information support for the activities of agricultural enterprises. Economy and Society, 61. https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0072/2024-61-47 [in Ukrainian].
4. Kuzub, M., Zadniprovskyi, O., Romashko, O., Avhustova, O., & Shushakova, I. (2022). Comparative Analysis of Ukrainian and European Accounting Standards. Scientific Horizons, 25(1), 96–103. https://doi.org/10.48077/scihor.25(1).2022.96-103 [in English].
5. Havryk, O. Yu. (2021). Biological assets: economic interpretation and evaluation in the conditions of introduction of international financial reporting standards. Economy and the state, 2, 70–73. https://doi.org/10.32702/2306-6806.2021.2.70 [in Ukrainian].
6. Havryk, O. Yu. (2022). Features of using IFRS (IAS) 41 "Agriculture" in the practical activities of agricultural enterprises. Agrosvit, 15-16, 40–46. https://doi.org/10.32702/2306-6792.2022.15-16.40 [in Ukrainian].
7. Margasova, V., & Vdovenko, N. (2022). Basic methodological approaches to the accounting and control of costs in the formation of biological assets of crop and livestock breeding on the agricultural market. Economic analysis, 32(4), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.35774/econa2022.04.110 [in English].
8. Korohod, O., & Bykov, M. (2024). Internal control system in organic production: structure and functions. Economics and Business Management, 15(4), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.31548/economics/4.2024.09 [in Ukrainian].
9. Svynous, I. V., Havryk, O. Yu., Svynous, N. I., Prysiazhniuk, N. M., & Slobodeniuk, O. I. (2022). Organizational approaches to the formation of the internal audit system of business entities. Agrosvit, 19, 18–25. https://doi.org/10.32702/2306-6792.2022.19.18 [in Ukrainian].
10. Bodnar, O. (2021). Internal control of the quality of agricultural products. Economy and Society, 26. https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0072/2021-26-67 [in Ukrainian].
11. Demydenko, L., & Nakonechna, Yu. (2023). Financial stability of the agricultural sector of the economy of Ukraine under martial law. Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Economics, 1(222), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.17721/1728-2667.2023/222-1/6 [in Ukrainian].
12. Vasylishyn, S. I. (2020). Security dimension of accounting methodology for agricultural activity of Ukrainian enterprises. Agrosvit, 13-14, 66–71. https://doi.org/10.32702/2306-6792.2020.13-14.66 [in Ukrainian].
13. Ishchenko, Ya. P., & Serhieiev, Ya. S. (2024). Categorical framework and classification of biological assets under organic production. Economy and Society, 63. https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0072/2024-63-109 [in Ukrainian].
14. Zhuk, V. M. (Ed.). (2013). Fiziokratychna doktryna rozvytku bukhhalterskoho obliku. Kyiv: NSC “IAE”. [in Ukrainian].
15. Ministry of Finance of Ukraine. (2006). Methodological recommendations on accounting for biological assets (Order No. 1315, December 29). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/rada/show/v1315201-06 [in Ukrainian].
16. Ministry of Agrarian Policy of Ukraine. (2008). Methodological recommendations on the application of specialized forms of primary documents for accounting of biological assets (Order No. 73, February 21). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/rada/show/v0073555-08 [in Ukrainian].
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Olena Biriuk

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC License.
