SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK RAPORLAMASINDA PAYDAŞ KATILIMI VE ÖNEMLİLİK DEĞERLENDİRMESİ: KİMYA SEKTÖRÜNE YÖNELİK AMPİRİK BİR ÇALIŞMA

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı; Borsa İstanbul'da işlem gören kimya, ilaç, petrol, lastik ve plastik ürünleri alt sektörlerinde faaliyet gösteren ve kapsamlı sürdürülebilirlik verilerine erişilebilen şirketlerin 2022-2024 yılları arasındaki sürdürülebilirlik raporlamalarını paydaş katılımı ve önemlilik değerlendirmesi bağlamında içerik analizi yöntemiyle incelemektir. Çalışma kapsamında şirketlerin referans aldıkları raporlama standartları, benimsedikleri önemlilik yaklaşımları, önceliklendirdikleri Çevresel, Sosyal ve Yönetişim (ÇSY) konuları, paydaş grupları ve paydaş katılım yöntemleri sistematik olarak analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, şirketlerin çoğunlukla GRI (Global Reporting Initiative- Küresel Raporlama Girişimi) uyumlu raporlama yaptığını, entegre raporlama uygulamalarının görece büyük ölçekli şirketlerde yoğunlaştığını göstermektedir. Yıllar içinde finansal önemlilik yaklaşımından etki odaklı yaklaşıma geçiş ve çift önemlilik uygulamalarında belirgin bir artış tespit edilmiştir; söz konusu oranların 2022 yılında %0, 2023 yılında %15,4 ve 2024 yılında %61,5 düzeyinde gerçekleşmesi, bu dönüşümün giderek güçlendiğini göstermektedir. ESG ekseninde iş sağlığı ve güvenliği, insan hakları, sera gazı emisyonları ve atık yönetimi sürekli öncelikli konular olarak öne çıkarken; biyoçeşitlilik, çalışan bağlılığı, sürdürülebilir tedarik zinciri ile dijitalleşme gibi konuların ise yükselen bir trend sergilediği saptanmıştır. Paydaş katılımı süreçlerinde ise çalışanlar ve müşterilerin en çok dâhil edilen gruplar olduğu, ancak katılım yöntemlerinin ağırlıklı olarak anket ve tek yönlü bildirimlere dayandığı, derinlemesine diyalog yöntemlerinin sınırlı kaldığı belirlenmiştir. Çalışma kimya sektöründe raporlama olgunluğunun küresel düzenlemelere paralel olarak arttığını ve çift önemlilik perspektifinin güçlendiğini; ancak paydaş katılımının derinleştirilmesine ihtiyaç duyulduğunu göstermektedir. Düzenleyici dönüşümlerin önemlilik uygulamalarını belirleyici biçimde şekillendirdiği tespit edilmiş olup, şirketlerin raporların doğrulanabilirliğini artırma ihtiyacı vurgulanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlaması
• Önemlilik Değerlendirmesi
• Çift Önemlilik
• Paydaş Katılımı
• ÇSY

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışma herhangi bir kurum tarafından desteklenmemektedir.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışmanın hazırlanması ve yayımlanması sürecinde araştırma ve yayın etiği ilkelerine uyulmuştur.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND MATERIALITY ASSESSMENT IN SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine, through the content analysis method, the sustainability reporting practices between 2022 and 2024 of companies listed on Borsa Istanbul that operate in the chemical, pharmaceutical, petroleum, rubber, and plastic products subsectors and for which comprehensive sustainability data are accessible, within the context of stakeholder engagement and materiality assessment. Within the scope of the study, the reporting standards referenced by the companies, the materiality approaches they adopted, the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) issues they prioritized, their stakeholder groups, and their stakeholder engagement methods were systematically analyzed. The findings indicate that the companies predominantly prepared reports in compliance with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and that integrated reporting practices were concentrated among relatively large-scale companies. Over the years, a transition from the financial materiality approach to an impact-oriented approach and a marked increase in double materiality practices were identified; the fact that the relevant rates were 0% in 2022, 15.4% in 2023, and 61.5% in 2024 demonstrates that this transformation has progressively strengthened. In terms of ESG dimensions, occupational health and safety, human rights, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste management consistently emerged as priority issues, while issues such as biodiversity, employee engagement, sustainable supply chains, and digitalization were found to exhibit an increasing trend. With regard to stakeholder engagement processes, employees and customers were identified as the most frequently involved groups; however, it was determined that engagement methods were predominantly based on surveys and one-way notifications, while in-depth dialogue methods remained limited. The study demonstrates that reporting maturity in the chemical industry has increased in parallel with global regulations and that the double materiality perspective has strengthened; however, it also indicates a need to deepen stakeholder engagement. It was determined that regulatory transformations have decisively shaped materiality practices, and the need for companies to enhance the verifiability of their reports is emphasized.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sustainability Reporting
• Materiality Assessment
• Double Materiality
• Stakeholder Engagement
• ESG

Destekleyen Kurum

This study is not supported by any institution.

Etik Beyan

This study was conducted and published in accordance with the principles of research and publication ethics.

Kaynakça

1. AccountAbility. (2018). AA1000 AccountAbility Principles 2018. https://www.accountability.org/standards Adams, C. A., Alhamood, A., He, X., Tian, J., Wang, L., & Wang, Y. (2021). The double-materiality concept. Application and issues. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/media/jrbntbyv/griwhitepaper-publications.pdf
2. Azapagic, A., Millington, A., & Collett, A. (2004). Process design for sustainability: the case of vinyl chloride monomer. Sustainable Development in Practice: Case Studies for Engineers and Scientists, 201-249.
3. Bellucci, M., Simoni, L., Acuti, D., & Manetti. G. (2019). Stakeholder engagement and dialogic accounting: Empirical evidence in sustainability reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(5), 1467–1499.
4. Beske, F., Haustein, E. & Lorson, P.C. (2020). Materiality analysis in sustainability and integrated reports, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11 (1), 162-186.
5. Canlı, Ö., & Serçemeli, M. (2024). Sürdürülebilirlik raporlamasında önemlilik değerlendirme süreci: BIST şirketleri üzerine ampirik çalışma. Mali Çözüm Dergisi, 34, 125-158.
6. Çetin, Ç. K., Varan, S., & Fışkın, C. S. (2015). Sürdürülebilirlik raporlamasında paydaş katılımı: Türkiye’deki firmaların analizi. Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(1), 9-35.
7. De Faria, D. R. G., de Medeiros, J. L., & Araújo, O. Q. F. (2021). Sustainability assessment for the chemical industry: Onwards to integrated system analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 123966.
8. De Cristofaro, T., & Gulluscio, C. (2023). In Search of Double Materiality in Non-Financial Reports: First Empirical Evidence. Sustainability, 15(2), 924.

9. Dumay, J., Frost, G. & Beck, C. (2015), Material legitimacy, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 11(1), 2-23.
10. Eccles, R. G., Krzus, M. P., Rogers, J., & Serafeim, G. (2012). The need for sector‐specific materiality and sustainability reporting standards. Journal of applied corporate finance, 24(2), 65-71.
11. ESRG (2022). ESRG 1 Double materiality conceptual guidelines for standard-setting. Working paper, European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), Draft version of conceptual guidelines.
12. European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directive 2013/34/EU, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, as Regards Corporate Sustainability Reporting.
13. Farooq, M. B., Zaman, R., Sarraj, D., & Khalid, F. (2021). Examining the extent of and drivers for materiality assessment disclosures in sustainability reports. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 12(5), 965-1002.
14. Fasan, M., & Mio, C. (2017). Fostering stakeholder engagement: The role of materiality disclosure in integrated reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(3), 288-305.
15. Global Reporting Initiative (2021). Global reporting initiative, available at: www.globalreporting.org/information/about-gri/Pages/default.aspx.
16. Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability… and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting, organizations and society, 35(1), 47-62.
17. GRI (2013), G4 sustainability reporting guidelines, available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part1-Reporting-Principles-and-Standard-Disclosures.pdf.
18. GRI (2016), Questions about materiality and topic boundary, available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/questions-and-feedback/materiality-and-topic-boundary/.
19. Guix, M., Bonilla-Priego, M. J., & Font, X. (2018). The process of sustainability reporting in international hotel groups: An analysis of stakeholder inclusiveness, materiality and responsiveness. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(7), 1063-1084.
20. Guthrie, J., Petty, R., Yongvanich, K., & Ricceri, F. (2004). Using content analysis as a research method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting. Journal of intellectual capital, 5(2), 282-293.
21. Hess, D. (2008). The three pillars of corporate social reporting as new governance regulation: Disclosure, dialogue, and development. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(4), 447-482.
22. Hsu, C. W., Lee, W. H., & Chao, W. C. (2013). Materiality analysis model in sustainability reporting: A case study at Lite-On Technology Corporation. Journal of cleaner production, 57, 142-151.
23. IFAC (2015), Materiality in (IR). Guidance for the preparation of integrated reports - IFAC – November, available at: https://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/1315_MaterialityinIR_Doc_4a_Interactive.pdf.
24. IIRC (2013), The international framework, available at: https://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/13-12-08-THE-INTERNATIONAL-IR-FRAMEWORK-2-1.pdf.
25. IIRC, International Integrated Reporting Council (2021), International framework; https:// www.integratedreporting.org/resource/international-ir-framework/.
26. Jones, P., Comfort, D., & Hillier, D. (2016). Materiality in corporate sustainability reporting within UK retailing. Journal of Public Affairs, 16(1), 81-90.
27. Khan, A. H., Snow, S., Heiner, S., Hardgrove, R., Matthews, S., & Matthews, B. (2020). The politics of materiality: Exploring participatory design tools, methods & practices. DRS2020 Synergy, Brisbane, Australia.
28. Kolk, A. (2016). The social responsibility of international business: From ethics and the environment to CSR and sustainable development. Journal of world business, 51(1), 23-34.
29. KPMG (2014), Sustainable insight. The essentials of materiality assessment, available at: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/cn/pdf/en/2017/the-essentials-of-materiality-assessment.pdf.
30. Krippendorff, K. (2018), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, Sage Publications.
31. Lai, A., Melloni, G., & Stacchezzini, R. (2017). What does materiality mean to integrated reporting preparers? An empirical exploration. Meditari Accountancy Research, 25(4), 533-552.
32. Manetti, G. (2011). The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: empirical evidence and critical points. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 18(2), 110-122.
33. Manes-Rossi, F., Tiron-Tudor, A., Nicolò, G., & Zanellato, G. (2018). Ensuring more sustainable reporting in Europe using non-financial disclosure—De facto and de jure evidence. Sustainability, 10(4), 1162.
34. Mariappanadar, S., Maurer, I., Kramar, R., and Muller-Camen, M. (2022). Is it a sententious claim? An examination of the quality of occupational health, safety and well-being disclosures in global reporting initiative reports across industries and countries. International Business Review, 31(2), 101922.
35. Messier Jr, W. F., Martinov‐Bennie, N., & 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.
36. Mok, M. K., & Shen, G. Q. (2017). Value‐oriented Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainable Development: A Conceptual Framework. Future Challenges in Evaluating and Managing Sustainable Development in the Built Environment, 193-212.
37. Nowak, M., Baumüller, J., Hetfleisch, R., Schlund, S., & Martineau, S. (2024). Beyond Compliance-Towards Automated Double Materiality Analysis Under the CSRD Framework. In Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing (46-53). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
38. Oll, J., Spandel, T., Schiemann, F., & 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.
39. Papafloratos, T., Markidis, I., Kotzaivazoglou, I., & Fragidis, G. (2023). Sustainability Material Topics and Materiality Analysis in the Chemical Industry. Sustainability, 15(18), 14014.
40. Puroila, J., & Mäkelä, H. (2019). Matter of opinion: Exploring the socio-political nature of materiality disclosures in sustainability reporting. Accounting, auditing & accountability journal, 32(4), 1043-1072.
41. Rajeev, A., Pati, R. K., & Padhi, S. S. (2019). Sustainable supply chain management in the chemical industry: Evolution, opportunities, and challenges. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 149, 275–291.
42. Ruiz-Lozano, M., De Vicente-Lama, M., Tirado-Valencia, P., & Cordobes-Madueno, M. (2022). The disclosure of the materiality process in sustainability reporting by Spanish state-owned enterprises. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 35(2), 385-412.
43. Saenz, C. (2019). Creating shared value using materiality analysis: Strategies from the mining industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1351-1360.
44. Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. (2018). Business cases and corporate engagement with sustainability: Differentiating ethical motivations. Journal of business ethics, 147(2), 241-259.
45. SASB (2013), Conceptual Framework of the sustainability accounting standards board, available at: https://www.sasb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/SASB-Conceptual-Framework-Final-Formatted-10-22-13.pdf.
46. Stocker, F., Mascena, K., Manuela, C., Azevedo, A. C., Boaventura, J., & Maurícıo, G. (2019). Network theory of stakeholder influences: a revisited approach. Cadernos Ebape. br, 17, 673-688.
47. Şimşek, K., & Şimşek, O. (2025). Bankalarda sürdürülebilirlik raporlaması uygulamalarının raporlama çerçeveleri ve önemlilik bağlamında değerlendirilmesi. Uluslararası Yönetim iktisat ve işletme Dergisi, 21(2), 586-609.
48. Tan, F., & Dipendra, K. C. (2024). Tensions between materiality assessments and stakeholder engagements in Thai corporate sustainability leaders. Sustainability, 16(17), 7711.
49. Torelli, R., Balluchi, F., & Furlotti, K. (2020). The materiality assessment and stakeholder engagement: A content analysis of sustainability reports. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 470-484.
50. Unerman, J. (2000). Methodological issues‐Reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(5), 667-681.
51. Unerman, J., & Zappettini, F. (2014). Incorporating materiality considerations into analyses of absence from sustainability reporting. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 34(3), 172-186.
52. Vigneau, L., & Adams, C. A. (2023). The failure of transparency as self-regulation. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 14(4), 852-876.
53. World Economic Forum (2020), Embracing the new age of materiality. Harnessing the pace of change in ESG, available at: www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Embracing_the_New_Age_of_Materiallity_2020.pdf
54. Wu, S. R., Shao, C., & Chen, J. (2018). Approaches on the screening methods for materiality in sustainability reporting. Sustainability, 10(9), 3233.