Sürdürülebilirlik ve Finansal Raporlamada Etki Temelli Yaklaşıma Geçiş

Year 2025, Volume: 10 Issue: Özel Sayı, 194 - 215, 31.10.2025

Ayşenur Tarakcıoğlu Altınay , Barış Sardoğan

https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.1813830

Abstract

Bu makale, Avrupa Birliği Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlama Direktifi (CSRD) kapsamında raporlama yapan ilk 100 şirketin örnekleminden yola çıkarak sürdürülebilirlik ve finansal muhasebedeki paradigma değişimini analiz etmektedir. Finansal odaklı raporlamadan etki temelli açıklamalara geçişten yola çıkan çalışma, ESRS tarafından geliştirilen önemlilik ve çift önemlilik kavramlarının kullanımına odaklanmaktadır. Bu erken benimseyenlerin dünya uygulamalarını inceleyerek, araştırma aynı zamanda şirketlerin karşılaştığı kalıpları ve zorlukları ve kurumsal raporlama için ESG hususlarıyla ilgili daha geniş stratejik etkileri ortaya koymaktadır. Bulgular, çift önemlilik yorumunda önemli bir çeşitlilik olduğunu ortaya koymuş ve bu da düzenleyici kılavuzlara rağmen tutarlılık ve karşılaştırılabilirlik eksikliğini göstermektedir. Analiz ayrıca şeffaflığı, paydaşların güvenini ve sürdürülebilir değer yaratmayı artırmak için uyumlaştırılmış standartların önemini vurgulamaktadır. Klasik finansal raporlama ile etki temelli sürdürülebilirlik raporlamasını uyumlu hale getiren bu çalışma, CSRD ESRS çağında şirketlerin raporlamasıyla ilgilenen araştırmacılar, düzenleyiciler, standart belirleyiciler, profesyoneller ve uygulayıcılar için çıkarımlar sunmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma, CSRD raporlamasının erken benimsenmesinin kurumsal hesap verebilirliği, karar alma süreçlerini ve uzun vadeli ESG etkilerinin ölçülmesini nasıl şekillendirdiğine dair daha derin bir anlayışa katkıda bulunmaktadır.

Keywords

Sürdürülebilirlik , Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Direktifi , Avrupa Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlama Standartları , Çevresel Sosyal ve Yönetimsel , Enerji Sektörü

The Transition to an Impact-Based Approach in Sustainability and Financial Reporting

Abstract

This paper analyzes the paradigm shift in sustainability and financial accounting on a sample of the first 100 companies reporting under the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Drawing on the shift from financial-focused reporting to impact-based disclosures, the study concentrates on the use of materiality and double materiality concepts developed by ESRS. Through a review of the world practices in these early adopters, the research also elicits patterns and challenges that firms face, as well as wider strategic implications involved with ESG considerations for corporate reporting. It emerged from the findings that there is considerable diversity in double materiality interpretation, indicating a lack of consistency and comparability despite regulatory guidance. The analysis also highlights the importance of harmonized standards to increase transparency, trust from stakeholders, and sustainable value creation. By harmonizing between classical financial and the impact-based sustainability reporting, this study delivers implications for researchers, regulators, as well as standard setters and professionals and practitioners interested in companies’ reporting in the age of CSRD ESRS. Ultimately, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of how early adoption of CSRD reporting shapes corporate accountability, decision-making processes, and the measurement of long-term ESG impacts.

Keywords

Sustainability , Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive , European Sustainability Reporting Standards , Environmental Social and Governance , Energy Sector

References

• Albuquerque, F., Gomes, M. and Barreiro Rodrigues, M.A. (2024). What material topics by ESG dimensions can be found within the materiality matrix from the European entities’ sustainability reports? Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2369212. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2369212
• ALLEA. (2023). The European code of conduct for research integrity (Rev. ed.). Berlin: All European Academies.
• Aprile, R., Alexander, D. and Doni, F. (2023). Enhancing the materiality principle in integrated reporting by adopting the General Systems Theory. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(5), 2219–2233. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2479
• Belidan, M. and Baghad, H. (2024). Navigating materiality in sustainability reporting: A scoping review of single and double materiality approaches. ZTR, 48(4), 11-32. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0054.8687.
• Beyne, J. and Moratis, L. (2025). A material world: How can materiality assessments be used to define organizational sustainability priorities, while taking into account the United Nations' SDGs? Corporate Governance, 25(1), 47–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-03-2023-0106
• Ciavatta, D. (2024). Hegel’s aesthetics of materiality. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 309(3), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.3917/rip.309.0053.
• Correa-Mejía, D.A., Correa-García, J.A. and García-Benau, M.A. (2024). Analysis of double materiality in early adopters. Are companies walking the talk? Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 15(2), 299-329. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2023-0469
• De Cristofaro, T. and Gulluscio, C. (2023). In search of double materiality in non-financial reports: first empirical evidence. Sustainability, 15(2), 924. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020924
• Deegan, C. (2002). The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures: A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435852
• DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-3322(00)17011-1
• Dragomir, V.D., Dumitru, M., Chersan, I.C., Gorgan, C. and Păunescu, M. (2024). Double materiality disclosure as an emerging practice: The assessment process, impacts, risks, and opportunities. Accounting in Europe, 22(1), 103–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2024.2339264
• Eriandani, R. and Winarno, W.A. (2024). ESG risk and firm value: The role of materiality in sustainability reporting. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.12776/qip.v28i2.2019
• Festa, M.M., Holderness Jr, D.K., Jones, M.M. and Riley Jr, R.A. (2024b). The unintended consequences of audit materiality disclosures on whistleblowing intentions. Accounting Horizons, 38(4), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.2308/HORIZONS-2022-198
• Festa, M.M., Jones, M.M. and Witz, P.D. (2024a). Auditor materiality disclosures and investor trust: How to address conditional risks of disclosure mandates. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 36(2), 47–70. https://doi.org/10.2308/BRIA-2023-010
• Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gromis di Trana, M., Fiandrino, S., Tonelli, A. and Devalle, A. (2024). The interplay between stakeholder engagement and sustainability materiality assessment: A circular perspective. Social Responsibility Journal, 20(10), 2100-2118. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-04-2024-0234
• Hahn, T. and Figge, F. (2011). Beyond the bounded instrumentality in current corporate sustainability research: Toward an inclusive notion of profitability. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 325-345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0911-0
• Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L. and Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 297-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2047-5
• Huang, Y., Li, N., Zhang, J. and Zhou, X. (2024). The economic consequences of heightened materiality uncertainty: An auditing perspective. The Accounting Review, 99(4), 225-249. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2021-0716
• Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. USA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
• Kuu-Park, G., Kohtala, C., Juntunen, J. K. and Hyysalo, S. (2024). Materiality in community energy innovation: A systematic literature review of hands-on material engagement in energy transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 114, 103616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103616.
• Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J. and Bracken, C.C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002
• Michelon, G., Pilonato, S. and Ricceri, F. (2019). CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33, 59-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.10.003
• Miettinen, M. (2024). Are materiality determination practices evolving in the wake of increasing legislation on sustainability reporting? Findings from EU pharmaceutical companies’ reports. International Journal of Law and Management, 66 (3): 363–392. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-09-2023-0221
• Neuendorf, K. (2017). The content analysis guidebook. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc.,
• Nielsen, C. (2023). ESG reporting and metrics: From double materiality to key performance indicators. Sustainability, 15(24), 16844. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416844
• Oll, J., Spandel, T., Schiemann, F. and 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. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2024-0296
• Pozzoli, M., Paolone, F., de Nuccio, E. and Tiscini, R. (2024). Does financial materiality judgement matter in reporting intellectual capital? A systematic literature review and future research trends. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 25(7), 87-108. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-03-2024-0083
• Schaltegger, S., Hörisch, J. and Freeman, R. E. (2017). Business cases for sustainability: A stakeholder theory perspective. Organization & Environment, 32(3), 191-212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026617722882
• Schiehll, E. and Kolahgar, S. (2025). Common ownership and investor-focused disclosure: Evidence from ESG financial materiality. Business Strategy and the Environment, 34(1), 497–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4002
• Setia, N., Abhayawansa, S., Joshi, M. and Wasantha Pathiranage, N. (2024). Shifting perspectives: unveiling the dual nature of sustainability materiality in integrated reports. Meditari Accountancy Research, 32(4), 1291-1323. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-08-2023-2128
• Shen, S., Xie, J., Fujii, H., Keeley, A. R. and Managi, S. (2025). Does environmental materiality matter to corporate financial performance: Evidence from 34 countries. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 32(2), 2390–2411. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.3062
• Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010
• Suchman, M.C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
• Szalacha, P. (2024). Double materiality implementation and its impact on sustainability reporting: Findings from Polish early adopter reports. ZTR, 48(4), 133-154. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0054.8692
• Tan, F. and Dipendra, K.C. (2024). Tensions between materiality assessments and stakeholder engagements in Thai corporate sustainability leaders. Sustainability, 16(17), 7711. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177711
• Tang, KS. and Cooper, G. (2025). The role of materiality in an era of generative artificial intelligence. Science & Eduation, 731–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00508-0
• Wood, D.J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691-718. https://doi.org/10.2307/258977
• Xie, J., Tanaka, Y., Keeley, A.R., Fujii, H. and Managi, S. (2023). Do investors incorporate financial materiality? Remapping the environmental information in corporate sustainability reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(6), 2924–2952. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2524