Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlamasında Önemliliğin Evrimi ve Çift Önemlilik Yaklaşımı: Bibliyometrik Bir Analiz

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, sürdürülebilirlik raporlamasında kritik bir kavram olan önemlilik konusundaki akademik literatürün 2009-2025 yılları arasındaki nicel ve entelektüel yapısını ve gelişim dinamiklerini kapsamlı bir bibliyometrik analiz yöntemiyle haritalandırmaktır. Analiz, konuya olan akademik ilginin özellikle son dönemde belirgin bir artışla yıllık %32,57 büyüme oranı sergilediğini ve yayınların ortalama yaşının yalnızca 3,2 yıl olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Literatürün en etkili çalışmaları, erken dönemde Eccles (2013) ve Manetti (2011) gibi yazarlar tarafından atılan teorik temellere dayanmaktadır. Coğrafi ve kurumsal analizler, araştırmaların ağırlıklı olarak İtalya ve İngiltere'nin başını çektiği Avrupa merkezli bir akademik gündem tarafından yönlendirildiğini göstermiştir. Entelektüel harita, alanın kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik uygulamaları, paydaş ilişkileri ve düzenleyici standartlar etrafında kümelenen üç ana ekol üzerine kurulu olduğunu kanıtlamıştır. Eş-dizimlilik ve trend konular analizleri, araştırmaların odağının geleneksel performans tartışmalarından hızla "çift önemlilik", "Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlama Direktifi" ve "Çevresel, Sosyal ve Yönetişim" gibi güncel ve ileriye dönük niş temalara kaydığını saptamıştır. Bu bulgular, alana dair mevcut bilgi boşluklarını belirlemekte ve gelecek araştırmalar için bu yeni düzenleyici ve çift yönlü önemlilik perspektiflerine odaklanılması gerektiğini önermektedir.

Keywords

• Önemlilik
• Çift Önemlilik
• Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlaması
• Bibliyometrik Analiz
• CSRD

The Evolution of Materiality in Sustainability Reporting and the Double Materiality Approach: A Bibliometric Analysis

Abstract

The main objective of this study is to map the quantitative and intellectual structure and the developmental dynamics of the academic literature on materiality-a critical concept in sustainability reporting-through a comprehensive bibliometric analysis method covering the years 2009-2025. The analysis reveals a clear recent surge in academic interest reflected in an annual growth rate of 32.57%, and an average publication age of only 3.2 years. The most influential works build on theoretical foundations established by early contributors such as Eccles (2013) and Manetti (2011). Geographic and institutional analyses indicate that the literature is largely shaped by a European-centric academic agenda, spearheaded by Italy and the United Kingdom. The intellectual map shows that the field is built upon three main schools of thought clustered around corporate sustainability practices, stakeholder relations, and regulatory standards. Co-occurrence and trending topic analyses determine that the research focus is rapidly shifting from traditional performance discussions towards current and forward-looking niche themes such as "double materiality", "Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive", and "Environmental, Social, and Governance" Taken together, these findings highlight current knowledge gaps and suggest that future research should focus on these new regulatory and double materiality perspectives.

Keywords

• Materiality
• Double Materiality
• Sustainability Reporting
• Bibliometric Analysis
• CSRD

References

1. Adams, C. A. ve McNicholas, P. (2007), Making a difference: sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(3), 382-402, doi: 10.1108/09513570710763754.
2. Adams, C. A., Alhamood, A., He, X., Tian, J., Wang, L., ve Wang, Y. (2021). The double-materiality concept. Application and issues.
3. Adams, C. A., ve Mueller, F. (2022). Academics and policymakers at odds: the case of the IFRS foundation trustees’ consultation paper on sustainability reporting. Sustainability accounting, management and policy journal, 13(6), 1310-1333.
4. Aria, M. ve Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics Journal, 11, 959–975. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
5. Aslancı, S. (2022). Araştırma sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme: Bı̇blı̇yometrı̇k bı̇r analı̇z. Scientific Educational Studies, 0-2. doi.org/10.31798/ses.1068633
6. Baumüller, J., ve Sopp, K. (2022). Double materiality and the shift from non-financial to European sustainability reporting: review, outlook and implications. Journal of applied accounting research, 23(1), 8-28.
7. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., ve Herrera, F. (2011). An approachfordetecting, quantifying, andvisualizingtheevolution of a researchfield: A practical applicationto the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002 .
8. CSRD, Directive (EU) 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, as regards corporate sustainability reporting, Official Journal of the European Union, L 322/15.

9. Delgado-Ceballos, J., Ortiz-De-Mandojana, N., Antolín-López, R., ve Montiel, I. (2022). Connecting the Sustainable Development Goals to firm-level sustainability and ESG factors: The need for double materiality. BRQ Business Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/23409444221140919 .
10. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N. ve Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296.
11. Dunfjäll, M. (2025). Materiality in transition: Challenges and opportunities in corporate sustainability reporting under the CSRD. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 1-15.
12. Edgley, C., Jones, M. J., ve Atkins, J. (2015). The adoption of the materiality concept in social and environmental reporting assurance: A field study approach. The British Accounting Review, 47(1), 1-18.
13. EFRAG. (2021). Project Task Force on preparatory work for the elaboration of possible EU nonfinancial reporting standards (PTF-NFRS). Proposals for a relevant and dynamic EU sustainability reporting standard-setting. Technical report, EFRAG.
14. European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG). (2023). ESRS Set 1. Retrieved from https://xbrl.efrag.org/e-esrs/esrs-set1-2023.html
15. EFRAG (2024). IG 1. Materiality Assessment Implementation Guidance, European Financial Reporting Advisory Group, Brussels, Retrieved from https://www.efrag.org/sites/default/files/sites/webpublishing/SiteAssets/IG%201%20Materia lity%20Assessment_final.pdf
16. ESRG (2022). ESRG 1 Double materiality conceptual guidelines for standard-setting. Working paper, European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), Draft version of conceptual guidelines.
17. European Commission (2019), Guidelines on reporting climate-related information, Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/finance/docs/policy/190618-climate-related-information-reportingguidelines_en.pdf .
18. European Commission (2023), Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2772 of 31 July 2023 supplementing Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards sustainability reporting standards, Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202302772.
19. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2022). Directive (EU) 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, as regards corporate sustainability reporting. Official Journal of the European Union, L 322.
20. Financial Accounting Standards Board. (1980). Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 2: Qualitative Characteristics of Accounting Information. Financial Accounting Standards Board, Conceptual Framework Document.
21. Frishkoff, P. (1970). An empirical investigation of the concept of materiality in accounting. Journal of Accounting Research, 116-129.
22. Gibassier, D. (2019). Materiality assessment: contribution to single or double materiality debate. Working paper, Audencia Business School, Nantes, France, available at: www . anc. gouv. fr/files/live/sites/anc/files/contributed/ANC/3.% 20Recherche/D_Etats% 20generaux/2020/Policy% 20papers/TR4_VE-paper-Delphine-Gibassier. pdf.
23. Global Reporting Initiative. (2013). G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines: Implementation Manual. Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Part of the G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines.
24. IFRS (2018) Amendment issued: IASB clarifies its definition of ‘material’. Available at: https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/ news/2018/10/iasb-clarifies-its-definition-of-material/
25. Jørgensen, S., Mjøs, A., ve Pedersen, L. J. (2021). Sustainability reporting and approaches to materiality: Tensions and potential resolutions. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 13(2), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-01-2021-0009
26. Li, K., Rollins, J., ve Yan, E. (2018). Web of Science use in published research and review papers 1997–2017: A selective, dynamic, cross-domain, content-based analysis. Scientometrics, 115(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11192-017-2622-5
27. Maqsood, M. S. (2025). Exploring synergies between Sustainability Awareness Framework (SusAF) and Double Materiality Assessment (DMA) (Unpublished master’s thesis). Lappeenranta–Lahti University of Technology (LUT), School of Engineering Science, Lappeenranta, Finland.
28. Messier Jr, W. F., Martinov‐Bennie, N., ve Eilifsen, A. (2005). A review and integration of empirical research on materiality: Two decades later. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 24(2), 153-187.
29. Mio, C. (2013). Materiality and assurance: Building the link. In Integrated reporting: Concepts and cases that redefine corporate accountability. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
30. Moroney, R., ve Trotman, K. T. (2016). Differences in auditors' materiality assessments when auditing financial statements and sustainability reports. Contemporary Accounting Research, 33(2), 551-575.
31. Mosca, T. (2020). A Phenomenological Study of Space and Environment on the Teaching and Leading Processes in Green Schools. Drexel University.
32. Ngu, S. B., ve Amran, A. (2018). Materiality disclosure in sustainability reporting: Fostering stakeholder engagement. Strategic Direction, 34(5), 1-4.
33. Oll, J., Spandel, T., Schiemann, F., ve Akkermann, J. (2025). The concept of materiality in sustainability reporting: from essential contestation to research opportunities. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 16(2), 321-350.
34. Öktem, B., ve Öktem, R. (2022). Sürdürülebilirlik raporlamasının IFRS kapsamında değerlendirilmesi: Uluslararası Sürdürülebilirlik Standartları Kurulu. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 44(2), 283-302.
35. Park, S. (2025). Single vs. Double Materiality in Nonfinancial Disclosure: A Methodological Framework for Measuring Equity Market Reactions.
36. Panfilo, S., Scarpa, F., ve Canestraro, N. (2025). Reporting for change: does the adoption of double materiality influence ESG risk management?. Management Decision.
37. Pizzi, S., Principale, S., ve De Nuccio, E. (2023). Material sustainability information and reporting standards. Exploring the differences between GRI and SASB. Meditari accountancy research, 31(6), 1654-1674.
38. Raith, D. (2023). The contest for materiality. What counts as CSR?. Journal of applied accounting research, 24(1), 134-148.
39. Reimsbach, D., Schiemann, F., Hahn, R., ve Schmiedchen, E. (2020). In the eyes of the beholder: Experimental evidence on the contested nature of materiality in sustainability reporting. Organization & Environment, 33(4), 624-651.
40. Santos, G., Marques, C. S. ve Ferreira, J. J. (2018). A look back over the past 40 years of female entrepreneurship: Mapping knowledge networks. Scientometrics, 115(2), 953–987.
41. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (2017). SASB Conceptual Framework. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, Original version of the conceptual framework, now maintained by the IFRS Foundation.
42. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (2022). Proposed Changes to the SASB Conceptual Framework & Rules of Procedure Bases for Conclusions &Invitation to Comment on Exposure Drafts, Exposure Draft: Proposed changes to conceptual framework.
43. Thompson, D. F. (2018). Bibliometric Analysis of Pharmacology Publications in the United States: A State-Level Evaluation. Journal of Scientometric Research, 7(3), 167-172. https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.7.3.27
44. UNCTAD. World Investment Report 2020 - International Production Beyond the Pandemic. 2020. Available at: https://unctad.org/webflyer/world-investment-report-2020 . US Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] (1999) SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin: No. 99 – Materiality.
45. Vianez, J., P., Gómez-Martínez, R., Prado ve Román, C., (2020). A Bibliometric Analysis Of Behavioural Finance With Mapping Analysis Tools, European Research on Management and Business Economics, Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 71-77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2020.01.001
46. Wu, S. R., Shao, C., ve Chen, J. (2018). Approaches on the screening methods for materiality in sustainability reporting. Sustainability, 10(9), 3233.
47. Zhong, S., Geng, Y., Liu, W., Gao, C., ve Chen, W. (2016). A bibliometric review on natural resource accounting during 1995–2014. Journal of Cleaner Production, 139, 122-132.
48. Zupic, I. ve Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization, Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472.