TÜRKİYE ALTERNATİF PERFORMANS ÖLÇÜTLERİ REHBERİ VE BİR UYGULAMA

Year 2021, , 205 - 226, 23.03.2021

Hakan Cavlak , Başak Ataman

https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.741775

Abstract

Geleneksel performans ölçütleri; paydaş taleplerinin değişmesi, daha fazla bilgi talebi gibi muhtelif sebeplerden dolayı zamanla yetersiz kalmıştır. Bu boşluğu alternatif performans ölçütleri olarak ifade edilen ölçütler doldurmuştur. ESMA, IOSCO, IFAC ve SEC gibi kuruluşlar son yıllarda alternatif performans ölçütleri konusunda yasal düzenlemeler oluşturmuşlar ve işletmelerin kullanımına sunmuşlardır. Türkiye’de de işletmeler alternatif performans ölçütü ifadesi kullanmadan bu kapsamda yer alan performans ölçütlerini faaliyet raporları ve yatırımcı sunumları başta olmak üzere muhtelif yerlerde kullanmaktadırlar. Uluslararası kurumların alternatif performans ölçütleri konusunda getirdiği yasal düzenlemeler ile birlikte sağlanan doğrulanabilirlik, tarafsızlık, tutarlılık ve şeffaflık ise henüz Türkiye’deki işletmeler için geçerli değildir. Bunun nedeni ise ölçütler konusunda herhangi bir düzenlemenin ulusal düzeyde yer almamasıdır. Bu alandaki boşluğun UFRS’lerin Türkiye’deki uygulaması gibi alternatif performans ölçütlerinin de uluslararası düzenlemelere paralel ulusal bir düzenleme ile giderilebileceği düşünülmektedir. Bu çalışmada, ulusal düzeydeki bu açıktan hareket edilmiş ve Türkiye için alternatif performans ölçütleri için bir ulusal rehber önerisi ve bir uygulama örneği sunulmuştur. Türkiye Alternatif Performans Ölçütleri Rehberi’nin gelecekte Türkiye’de konu hakkında yapılacak olan çalışmalara temel teşkil etmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Rehberde yer alan ve işletme paydaşlarına asgari düzeyde güvence sağlayan alternatif performans ölçütlerine ilişkin denetim kontrol listesinin ise uluslararası literatüre katkı sunması beklenmektedir.

Keywords

İşletme Performansı, Performans Ölçümü, Alternatif Performans Ölçütleri, Türkiye Rehberi

TURKISH GUIDELINES ON ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND AN APPLICATION

Abstract

Traditional performance measures used by corporations have been insufficient in time due to various reasons such as changing stakeholder demands, requesting more information. This insufficiency has been filled by alternative performance measures. Organizations such as ESMA, IOSCO, IFAC, and SEC have prepared legal regulations on alternative performance measures and made them available to businesses in recent years. Businesses in Turkey, use mainly alternative performance measures in their annual reports and investor presentations without alternative performance measures term. Legal regulations prepared by international institutions on alternative performance measures brought verifiability, objectivity, consistency, and transparency. This situation is not yet available for businesses in Turkey. This is because any regulation on alternative performance measures is not included at the national level. The gap in this field for Turkey is thought to be filled with national guidelines in line with international regulations. In this study, we present a national guideline recommendation for alternative performance measures for Turkey and an application accordingly. It is thought that the Turkish Guidelines on Alternative Performance Measures will form the basis for future studies on alternative performance measures. The audit checklist for alternative performance measures included in the Turkish Guidelines that provides minimum assurance to business stakeholders is expected to contribute to the international literature.

Keywords

Business Performance, Performance Measurement, Alternative Performance Measures, Turkish Guidelines

References

• Accounting Standards Board (AcSB). (2018). Draft Framework for Reporting Performance Measures: Enhancing the Relevance of Financial Reporting. Toronto.
• Akal, Z. (2011). İşletmelerde Performans Ölçüm ve Denetimi: Çok Yönlü Performans Göstergeleri. Ankara: Milli Prodüktivite Merkezi Yayınları.
• Bititci, U. S. (2015). Managing Business Performance: The Science and the Art. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
• Black, D. E., Christensen, T. E., Ciesielski, J. T., & Whipple, B. C. (2018). Non-GAAP Reporting: Evidence from Academia and Current Practice. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 45(3–4), 259–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12298
• Carder, B., & Ragan, P. (2005). Measurement Matters: How Effective Assessment Drives Business and Safety Performance. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press.
• Croner-i. (2018). CR Common Practices: Alternative Performance Measures (APMs). Manchester.
• Deloitte. (2016). IFRS in Focus – A Practical Guide: Alternative Performance Measures. London.
• Deloitte. (2017). Thinking Allowed: Non-GAAP and Alternative Performance Measures. London.
• Deloitte. (2019a). A Roadmap to Non-GAAP Financial Measures. New York.
• Deloitte. (2019b). Quarterly Financial Reporting Brief. Dublin.
• European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). (2015). “ESMA Guidelines on Alternative Performance Measures”. ESMA/2015/1415en.
• FRC Financial Reporting LAB. (2018). Reporting of Performance Metrics. London.
• International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). (2014). “International Good Practice Guidance: Developing and Reporting Supplementary Financial Measures - Definition, Principles and Disclosures”.
• Köseoğlu, M. A. (2005). Kamu İktsadi Teşebbüslerinde Performans Ölçümü. T.C. Başbakanlık.
• KGK. (2019). Finansal Raporlamaya İlişkin Kavramsal Çerçeve, TMS 1 Finansal Tabloların Sunuluşu, BOBİ FRS.
• KPMG LLP. (2018). “Non-GAAP Financial Measures (Issues In-Depth: SEC Rules and Regulations)”. New York.
• Lau, J., & Schweizer, A. (2016). IFRS News (PwC): Alternative Performance Measures - Better Described as “Profits before Unfortunate Debits”? London.
• Marr, Bernard. (2006). Strategic Performance Management: Leveraging and Measuring Your Intangible Value Drivers. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd..
• Mazars. (2016). Mazars AIAF Roundtable on the Use of Alternative Performance Measures: Report on the Panel Discussion. Milan.
• Melnyk, S. A., Bititci, U., Platts, K., Tobias, J., & Andersen, B. (2014). Is Performance Measurement and Management Fit for the Future? Management Accounting Research, 25(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.07.007
• Morrison & Foerster (International Financial Law Review). (2017). Non-GAAP Explained. New York.
• Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, K., Gregory, M., & Richards, H. (1996). Performance Measurement System Design: Should Process based Approaches be Adopted? International Journal of Production Economics, (46–47), 423–431.
• PCAOB. (2016). Report on Non-GAAP Financial Measures.
• Posner, C. (2018). Are Non-GAAP Financial Measures still Problematic? Retrieved March 16, 2019, from Cooley PubCo (Accounting and Auditing) website: https://cooleypubco.com/2018/08/06/non-gaap-financial-measures-still-problematic
• PwC. (2014). Corporate Performance: What do Investors Want to Know? (Powerful Stories through Integrated Reporting).
• Spitzer, D. R. (2007). Transforming Performance Measurement: Rethinking the Way We Measure and Drive Organizational Success. New York: AMACOM (American Management Association).
• The Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). (2016). “Statement on Non-GAAP Financial Measures”. FR05.
• Tremoliere, G., & Berthelot, M. (2014). Consultation Paper ESMA/2014/175 - ESMA Guidelines on Alternative Performance Measures. Paris.
• Vaessen, M. (2016). Non-GAAP Measures - Moving towards Global Transparency (KPMG). Amstelveen.
• U.S. SEC. (2018). Non-GAAP Financial Measures: Q&A of General Applicability.
• Zairi, M. (1994). Measuring Performance for Business Results. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1302-1