Analyzing Corporate Sustainability Reports With Topsis Method: Evidence From Bist Sustainability Index

Abstract

In terms of businesses, the concept of sustainability is the sensitivity of a business that operates to make a profit to environmental and social issues. Sustainability in business activities and decision-making processes is expressed as taking into account environmental and social factors together with corporate governance principles. Therefore, in order to share sustainability information with stakeholders, businesses use integrated reports that include both financial and non-financial information together with sustainability reports as well as annual reports. Therefore, in this study, the activities of deposit, development and investment banks in the Sustainability Index of Borsa Istanbul between 2020 and 2022 are analyzed in terms of the three dimensions of corporate sustainability: environment, social and governance. Indicators related to environment, social and governance were determined to analyze sustainability performances. Information on the determined indicators was obtained from the annual reports, sustainability reports and integrated reports published by the enterprises and analyzed with the TOPSIS method. In addition, data on the indicators determined to analyze the economic situation of the enterprises in the specified period were obtained from the Turkish Banking Association.. Information on economic indicators was also analyzed using the TOPSIS method and it was also investigated whether there is a relationship between sustainability and economic indicators. As a result of the analysis, no statistically significant result was found between sustainability performance reports and economic indicators. In this context, as a result of the results obtained, suggestions were made for theoreticians and practitioners.

Keywords

• Sustainability
• Sustainability Reporting
• International Sustainability Reporting Standards

Kurumsal Sürdürülebı̇lı̇rlı̇k Raporlarının Topsis Yöntemı̇ İle Analı̇zı̇: Bist Sürdürülebı̇lı̇rlı̇k Endeksı̇ Araştırması

Abstract

İşletmeler açısından sürdürülebilirlik kavramı, kâr elde etmek için faaliyet gösteren bir işletmenin çevresel ve sosyal konularda hassas davranmasıdır. İşletme faaliyetlerinde ve karar süreçlerinde sürdürülebilirlik, kurumsal yönetim ilkeleri ile birlikte çevresel ve sosyal unsurların da dikkate alınması şeklinde ifade edilmektedir. Bu nedenle işletmeler, paydaşlarına sürdürülebilirlik ile ilgili bilgilerini paylaşmak için faaliyet raporlarının yanı sıra sürdürülebilirlik raporları ile hem finansal hem de finansal olmayan bilgilerin birlikte yer aldığı entegre raporları kullanmaktadırlar. Buradan hareketle, bu araştırmada Borsa İstanbul bünyesindeki Sürdürülebilirlik Endeksi’ndeki mevduat, kalkınma ve yatırım bankalarının 2020-2022 yılları arasındaki faaliyetleri kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik kavramın üç boyutu olan çevre, sosyal ve yönetim açısından incelenmiştir. Sürdürülebilirlik performansları incelenmek üzere çevre, sosyal ve yönetim ile ilgili göstergeler belirlenmiştir. Belirlenen göstergelere ilişkin bilgiler işletmelerin yayınlamış oldukları faaliyet raporları, sürdürülebilirlik raporları ve entegre raporlarından elde edilmiş olup TOPSIS yöntemi ile analiz edilmiştir. Ayrıca belirlenen dönemde işletmelerin ekonomik durumunu analiz etmek amacıyla belirlenen göstergelere ilişkin veriler Türk Bankalar Birliği’nden temin edilmiştir. Ekonomik göstergelere ilişkin bilgiler de TOPSIS yöntemiyle incelenip sürdürülebilirlik ile ekonomik göstergeler arasında bir ilişki olup olmadığı da araştırılmıştır. Yapılan analizler neticesinde sürdürülebilirlik performans raporları ve ekonomik göstergeler arasında istatistiki olarak anlamlı bir sonuç çıkmamıştır. Bu bağlamda, elde edilen sonuçlar neticesinde teorisyenlere ve uygulamacılara yönelik önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Keywords

• Sürdürülebilirlik
• Sürdürülebilir Raporlama
• Uluslararası Sürdürülebilir Raporlama Standartları

References

1. Abughniem, M. S., & Hamdan, A. (2019). Corporate sustainability as an antecedent to the financial performance: an empirical study. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 20. https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2019.20.2.03
2. Akarçay, Ç. (2014). Sürdürülebilirlik Muhasebesi Standartları Kurulu. Marmara Üniversitesi Öneri Dergisi, 11(42), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.14783/od.v11i42.5000065501
3. Al-Shaer, H. (2020). Sustainability reporting quality and post-audit financial reporting quality: Empirical evidence from the UK. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2355-2373. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2507
4. Bloomberg HT (2021, 14 July). Borsa İstanbul'da Garanti BBVA İklim Endeksi hayata geçirildi. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberght.com/borsa-istanbul-da-garanti-bbva-iklim-endeksi-hayata-gecirildi-2284339
5. Borsa İstanbul (2014). Şirketler için Sürdürülebilirlik Rehberi. Retrieved from https://www.borsaistanbul.com/tr/duyuru/3037/borsa-istanbuldan-sirketler-icin-surdurulebilirlik-rehberi
6. Buys, P., Oberholzer, M., & Andrikopoulos, P. (2011). An investigation of the economic performance of sustainability reporting companies versus non-reporting companies: A South African perspective. Journal of Social Sciences, 29(2), 151-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2011.11892965
7. Cai, X., & Zhang, H. (2021). Credit Risk Analysis and Evaluation of Internet Supply Chain Finance Listed Companies--Based on Structural Entropy Weight TOPSIS Method. In 9th Annual Meeting of Risk Analysis Council of China Association for Disaster Prevention, 191-196. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.210409.030
8. Carrot & Sticks (2023, September). Beyond Disclosure in ESG and Sustainability Policy. Retrieved from https://www.carrotsandsticks.net/

9. CDP (2022, 30 December). CDP Scoring Methodology Guiadance. Retrieved from https://www.cdp.net/en/scores/cdp-scores-explained
10. Chaharsooghi, S.K., & Ashrafi, M. (2014). Sustainable Supplier Performance Evaluation and Selection with Neofuzzy TOPSIS Method. International Scholarly Research Notices, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/434168
11. Cheng-Ru W., Chin-Tsai L., & Pei-Hsuan T. (2008). Financial Service of Wealth Management Banking: Balanced Scorecard Approach. Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 255-263. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2008.255.263
12. Ching H. Y., Gerab F., & Toste T. H. (2017). The Quality of Sustainability Reports and Corporate Financial Performance: Evidence From Brazilian Listed Companies. SAGE Open, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017712027
13. Deng, H., Yeh, C. H., & Willis, R. J. (2000). Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Computers & Operations Research, 27(10), 963-973. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0548(99)00069-6
14. Deweerdt, T., Caltabiano, K., & Dargusch, P. (2022). Original Research: How Will the TNFD Impact the Health Sector’s Nature-Risks Management?. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19(20), 13345. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013345
15. Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st-Century Business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37-51. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.3310080106
16. Eren, K., & Soba, M. (2011). Topsis Yöntemini Kullanarak Finansal Ve Finansal Olmayan Oranlara Göre Performans Değerlendirilmesi, Şehirlerarası Otobüs Sektöründe Bir Uygulama. Selçuk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 15(21), 23-40.
17. Erin, O., Adegboye, A., & Bamigboye, O.A. (2022). Corporate governance and sustainability reporting quality: evidence from Nigeria. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 13(3), 680-707. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-06-2020-0185
18. Eski, S. (2023). Entegre Raporlamanın Sürdürülebilirlik Muhasebesiyle Olan İlişkisine Bakış ve Türkiye’de Entegre Raporlama Çalışmalarının Değerlendirilmesi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 24(1) 127-140. https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1186814
19. European Counsil (2023). Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) supplementing Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards sustainability reporting standards, Annex 1. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=PI_COM%3AC%282023%295303
20. European Parliment (2002). 1606/2002 Sayılı Düzenleme. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002R1606
21. European Parliment & European Counsil (2022). Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022L2464
22. Gençoğlu Ü. G., & Aytaç A. (2016). Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Açısından Entegre Raporlamanın Önemi ve BİST Uygulamaları. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 72, 51-66. https://doi.org/10.25095/mufad.396719
23. Giner, B. & Luque-Vílchez, M. (2022). A commentary on the “new” institutional actors in sustainability reporting standard-setting: a European perspective, Sustainability Accounting. Management and Policy Journal, 13(6), 1284-1309. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-06-2021-0222
24. Global Reporting Initiative (2013). GRI G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Retrieved from https://respect.international/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/G4-Sustainability-Reporting-Guidelines-Implementation-Manual-GRI-2013.pdf
25. Global Reporting Initiative (2022, 4 July). About GRI – Mission & History. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org/about-gri/mission-history
26. Hayat, U., & Orsagh, M. (2015). Environmental, Social, and Governance Issues in Investing, CFA Institute.
27. Integrated Reporting (2021). Integrated Framework. Retrieved from https://integratedreporting.ifrs.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/InternationalIntegratedReportingFramework.pdf
28. International Integrated Reporting Council (2012). Integrated Reporting. Retrieved from https://integratedreporting.ifrs.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/IIRC-GOVERNANCE-2012-04.pdf
29. Karğın S., Aracı H., & Aktaş H. (2013). Entegre Raporlama: Yeni Bir Raporlama Perspektifi. Journal of Accounting and Taxation Studies, 6/1: 27-46.
30. Korga, S., & Aslanoğlu, S. (2022). Sürdürülebilirlik Performansı ile Finansal Performans İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 25(2), 633-645. https://doi.org/10.29249/selcuksbmyd.1114641
31. Korga, S., & Dirik, C. (2023). Geliştirilmiş entropi tabanlı TOPSİS yöntemiyle imalat sektöründe sürdürülebilirlik performansı ölçümü ve bir gösterge seti önerisi. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 15(1), 561-577. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2023.1604
32. Lin, W. (2022). Corporate Non-Financial Reporting in the UK: Diversions from the EU Sustainability Reporting Framework. Sustainability, 14(15), 9134. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159134
33. MHA (2023, 21 September). TNFD vs TCFD: Understanding the Key Differences. Retrieved from https://www.mha.co.uk/insights/tnfd-vs-tcfd
34. Mion, G., & Loza Adaui, C. R. (2019). Mandatory Nonfinancial Disclosure and Its Consequences on the Sustainability Reporting Quality of Italian and German Companies. Sustainability, 11(17), 4612, https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174612
35. Onay A. (2015). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma, kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik ve sürdürülebilirlik raporlaması. Elektronik Mesleki Gelişim ve Araştırma Dergisi, 3(3), 105-118
36. Önder, Ş. (2017). İşletme Karlılığına Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirliğin Etkisi: BİST’te Bir Uygulama. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 19(4), 937-956.
37. Özdarak, E. (2021). Impact of Corporate Sustainability Reporting on Firm Performance/Investor Decisions-Evidence from Turkey. Doktora Tezi, İstanbul, Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
38. Sarumpaet, S. (2006). The Relationship Between Environmental Performance and Financial Performance of Indonesion Companies. Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Keuangan, 7(2), 89-98. https://doi.org/10.9744/jak.7.2.pp.%2089-98
39. Sherman W. R. (2009). The Global Reporting Initiative: What Value is Added?. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 8(5), 9-22. https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v8i5.3132
40. Sultanoğlu B., & Özerhan Y. (2020). İklim Değişikliği Raporlaması: Türkiye’deki İşletmelerin Gönüllü Karbon Saydamlık Projesi (CDP) Açıklamaları. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 22, 178-181. https://doi.org/10.31460/mbdd.643332
41. Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (2022, 4 August). Supporters. Retrieved from https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/supporters/
42. The IFRS Foundation (2020, 30 September). IFRS Foundation Trustees consult on global approach to sustainability reporting and on possible Foundation role. Retrieved from https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2020/09/ifrs-foundation-trustees-consult-on-global-approach-to-sustainability-reporting/
43. The IFRS Foundation (2021, 8 March). IFRS Foundation Trustees announce strategic direction and further steps based on feedback to sustainability reporting consultation. Retrieved from https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2021/03/trustees-announce-strategic-direction-based-on-feedback-to-sustainability-reporting-consultation/
44. The IFRS Foundation (2022, 31 January). IFRS Foundation completes consolidation of CDSB from CDP. Retrieved from https://www.ifrs.org/content/ifrs/home/news-and-events/news/2022/01/ifrs-foundation-completes-consolidation-of-cdsb-from-cdp.html
45. The IFRS Foundation (2022, 24 March). IFRS Foundation and GRI to align capital market and multi-stakeholder standards to create an interconnected approach for sustainability disclosures. Retrieved from https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2022/03/ifrs-foundation-signs-agreement-with-gri/
46. The IFRS Foundation (2022, 8 November). ISSB at COP27: CDP to incorporate ISSB Climate-related Disclosures Standard into global environmental disclosure platform. Retrieved from https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2022/11/cdp-to-incorporate-issb-climate-related-disclosure-standard-into-global-environmental-disclosure-platform/
47. The IFRS Foundation (2022, 22 July). IFRS Foundation and VRF vote to approve consolidation from 1 July. Retrieved from https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2022/06/ifrs-foundation-and-vrf-vote-to- approve-consolidation-from-1-july/
48. The IFRS Foundation (2023, 3 January), Who uses IFRS Accounting Standards. Retrieved from https://www.ifrs.org/use-around-the-world/use-of-ifrs-standards-by-jurisdiction/
49. The IFRS Foundation (2023, 10 July). IFRS Foundation welcomes culmination of TCFD work and transfer of TCFD monitoring responsibilities to ISSB from 2024. Retrieved from https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2023/07/foundation-welcomes-tcfd-responsibilities-from-2024/
50. The IFRS Foundation (2023, 31 July). European Commission, EFRAG and ISSB confirm high degree of climate-disclosure alignment. Retrieved from https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2023/07/european-comission-efrag-issb-confirm-high-degree-of-climate-disclosure-alignment/
51. The IFRS Foundation (2023, 19 September). ISSB congratulates Task Force on Nature-related Financial Disclosures on finalised recommendations. Retrieved from https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2023/09/issb-congratulates-tnfd-on-finalised-recommendations/
52. The IFRS Foundation (2023). IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information. Retrieved from https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/ifrs-sustainability-standards-navigator/ifrs-s1-general-requirements/
53. The IFRS Foundation (2023). IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures. Retrieved from https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/ifrs-sustainability-standards-navigator/ifrs-s2-climate-related-disclosures/
54. The Sustainability Institute by ERM (2023, 14 October). Implementing the CSRD: Preparing for a new are of ESG Disclosure-What the EU Directive means for companies and how they should prepare for it. Retrieved from https://www.sustainability.com/thinking/implementing-the-corporate-sustainability-reporting-directive/
55. Thistlethwaite, J. (2015). The politics of experimentation in climate change risk reporting: the emergence of the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB). Environmental Politics, 24/6: 970-990. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1051325
56. Tolunay A., Akyol A. (2006). Kalkınma ve Kırsal Kalkınma: Temel Kavramlar ve Tanımlar. Türkiye Ormancılık Dergisi, 7/2: 116-127.
57. United Nations General Assembly (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf
58. Value Reporting Foundation (2023, 6 June), Retrieved from https://www.valuereportingfoundation.org/
59. Venanzi, D. (2013). Stakeholder Ratings and Corporate Financial Performance: Socially Responsible for What?. Corporate Ownership & Control, 10(4), 94-116. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2188859
60. Yavuz, V. A. (2010). Sürdürülebilirlik Kavramı ve İşletmeler Açısından Sürdürülebilir Üretim Stratejileri. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(14), 63-86.
61. Zanakis, S. H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., & Dublish, S. (1998). Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 107(3), 507– 529. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00147-1
62. Zapata, S., Alfredo, W., & Muñoz S. M. O. (2019). Analysis of meanings of the concept of sustainability. Sustainable Development, 27(1), 153-161. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1885
63. Zhang, X., Wang, C., Li, E., & Xu, C. (2014). Assessment model of ecoenvironmental vulnerability based on improved entropy weight method. The Scientific World Journal, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/797814