Evaluation of Corporate Sustainability Reports: Sustainability Research in the Turkish Banking Sector

Year 2022, , 82 - 98, 31.12.2022

Sibel Kahraman Ak , Hasan Türedi

https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.1152642

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The aim of this thesis study is to ensure the sustainability of the Turkish banking sector by considering the environmental, economic and social effects of different practices still existing in human rights, working conditions, management structure, health, safety, education, governance, energy consumption and financial functions of banks operating in Turkey. For this purpose, the corporate sustainability performance of the banks operating in Turkey and included in the BIST sustainability index, published between 2017-2019, is measured in comparison with the multidimensional corporate sustainability approach and evaluated according to the measurement results. Thus, it will be possible to determine how much the banks that have adopted the corporate sustainability approach have developed their corporate sustainability understanding and the level they have reached. It is very important to reveal the economic, environmental and social effects of banks operating in Turkey, which voluntarily accept to be included in the BIST sustainability index, due to the ability of banks to influence and even direct all sectors. In addition, data that are not included in the reviewed sustainability reports but are expected to be disclosed will also be specified. The corporate sustainability performance of the banks, which are the subject of the review, was evaluated using the TOPSIS method, which is one of the multi-criteria decision-making methods.

Keywords

Corporate sustainability, corporate governance, TOPSIS analysis, Integrated reporting

References

• Aracı, H., Filiz , Y. (2016) “Şeffaflık ve Hesap Verilebilirliğin Sağlanmasında Sürdürülebilirlik Raporları: BIST Sürdürülebilirlik Endeksindeki Şirketlerin Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlarının İncelenmesi”, Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 18(1)
• Aras, G., & Sarıoğlu, G. U. (2015). Kurumsal raporlamada yeni dönem: Entegre raporlama. TÜSİAD Yayını, 21, 85
• Doane, D., & MacGillivray, A. (2001).” Economic Sustainability: The Business of Staying in Business”, New Economics Foundation, 1-52
• Doğru, B. (2016) “100 Maddede Sürdürülebilirlik Rehberi”, İstanbul: İş Dünyası ve Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Derneği (SKD).
• Drucke, P. F. (1994) “Post-Capitalist Society “, New York: Routledge.
• Duran, B. (2018) “Sürdürülebilirlik Kavramının Önemi, Karşılaşılan Sorunlar ve Şirketlerin Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlarının İncelenmesi”, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara: Başkent Üniversitesi.
• Durmuş, A. H., Emin, A. M., & Mustafa, İ. (2015) “Finansal Tablolar Analizi”, İstanbul: İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Yayını.
• Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002) “Beyond The Business Case For Corporate Sustainability. Business Strategy And The Environment”, 1(2), 130-141.
• Gençoğlu, Ü. G., & Aytaç, A. (2016) “Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Açısından Entegre Raporlamanın Önemi ve BIST Uygulamaları”, Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi(72), 51-66.
• Ghosh, D.N. (2011) “Analytic Hierarchy Process & TOPSIS Method to Evaluate Faculty Performance in Engineering Education” , Dipendra Nath Ghosh et al UNIASCIT, 1(2), 63-70.
• Giovannoni, E., & Fabietti, G. (2013) “What is sustainability? A Review Of The Concept and Its Applications”, Integrated Reporting, 21-40.
• Günel, T. (2017) “Kurumsal Kuram Perspektifinden Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik: İşletmelerin Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlamaları Üzerine Bir Uygulama”, (Master's thesis, Başkent Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü)
• Güner, U. (2020) “Çevresel Sürdürülebilirlik”, Edirne: Google Books. https://www.environmentalscience.org/sustainability
• Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981) “Methods For Multiple Attribute Decision Making. In Multiple Attribute Decision Making”, Springer, Pp. 58-191. Berlin, Heidelberg.
• Mason, M. (2020, 04 14). “What Is Sustainability and Why Is It Important? ”, Environmental Science: https://www.environmentalscience.org/sustainability
• Olson, D. L. (2004) “Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models”, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 40(7-8), 721-727.
• Özdemir, A. İ., & SEÇME, N. Y. (2009) “Iki Aşamali Stratejik Tedarikçi Seçiminin Bulanik Topsis Yöntemi İle Analizi”, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(2), 79-112
• Sümeyra, U. Z. U. N., & Kazan, H. (2016) “Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemlerinden AHP TOPSIS ve PROMETHEE Karşılaştırılması: Gemi İnşada Ana Makine Seçimi Uygulaması”, Journal of Transportation and Logistics, 1(1), 99-113.
• Varcan Başkaya, A. (2018) “Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik, Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlaması ve Finansal Raporlama İlişkisi İçin Örnek Çalışma”, Master's Thesis, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
• Williams, A. (2015) “A Global Index of İnformation Transparency and Accountability”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 43(3), 804-824.