The approved Business Public Capital Standard (BPCS) has become the foundation for the regulatory framework governing the preparation of public non-financial reporting. The purpose of the study is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the BPCS provisions in the context of accounting and statistical measurement of public capital and to substantiate directions for their integration into the public non-financial reporting system. The research is based on comparative legal, abstractlogical, systems, and statistical methods of data consolidation, grouping, and analysis of indicator structures. The authors systematize the genesis and legal status of the Standard, reveal its architecture based on a system of 95 indicators grouped into six thematic blocks, with differentiated requirements established for four reporting formats. The study compares the BPCS with major international standards in this field, taking into account their quantitative parameters. The institutional and regulatory framework is examined through the interrelation between the BPCS and the Bank of Russia’s Taxonomy project version 7.5.1.0, the requirements of the Moscow Exchange, and emerging support measures. The study establishes that more than half of the BPCS indicators rely on existing sources of accounting and statistical data: some are supported by federal statistical observation forms, while others are derived from corporate reporting data. Based on empirical evidence, the authors identify key implementation challenges and substantiate six interrelated areas for integrating the BPCS into the public non-financial reporting system, including methodological alignment of its indicators with the system of federal statistical observation and national accounts. The findings may be of practical value for regulators and the Standard coordinator in developing its methodological framework, as well as for preparers, auditors, and users of public non-financial reporting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
MAR'INA et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: