Gönüllü Taahhütlerden Zorunlu Düzenlemelere Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluğun Hukuki Niteliği AB, Birleşik Krallık ve Türkiye Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çalışma

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 31 Sayı: 2, 1413 - 1446, 07.01.2026

Erman Ekingen , İdil Nur Gürbüz Gökberk

https://doi.org/10.33433/maruhad.1792909

Öz

Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk esas olarak gönüllü, etik temelli bir fikir olarak görülmektedir. Genellikle bir şirketin topluma, ekonomiye ve çevreye karşı ahlaki bir yükümlülüğü olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Bu çalışma, kurumsal sosyal sorumluluğun gönüllü, etik temelli bir fikir olmaktan çıkıp şirketler için nasıl yasal yükümlülükler haline dönüştüğünü incelemektedir. Çalışma, Avrupa Birliği, Birleşik Krallık ve Türkiye’yi karşılaştırarak her bir hukuk sisteminin gönüllü kurumsal sosyal sorumluluğun kısıtlamalarıyla nasıl başa çıktığına ve sürdürülebilirlik, şeffaflık ve insan haklarının korunmasına yönelik küresel taleplere nasıl yanıt verdiğine odaklanmaktadır. Araştırma, öncelikle kurumsal sosyal sorumluluğun temel kavramlarını ve tarihini inceleyerek başlamaktadır. Hissedar önceliği ve menfaat sahipleri teorisi arasındaki tartışmayı ve küresel düzeyde sürdürülebilirlik yönetimine doğru hareketi özetlemektedir. Ardından, Avrupa Birliği’nin Gönüllü Olmayan Finansal Raporlama Direktifinden Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlama Direktifine ve Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Özenli Etki Değerlendirmesi Yönergesine uzanan gelişen düzenleyici modelini incelemektedir. Ayrıca, güçlü raporlama ve piyasa denetimi ile aydınlanmış hissedar değerini birleştiren Birleşik Krallık’ın karma yaklaşımını incelemektedir. Türkiye’nin parçalı ve çoğunlukla gönüllülük esas sistemi, Avrupa Birliği entegrasyonu ve yatırımcı beklentileri bağlamında değerlendirilmektedir. Çalışma, Türkiye için Avrupa Birliği standartlarına uyumlu kademeli bir reform stratejisi önererek sonuçlanmaktadır. Bu strateji, bağlayıcılık ile esnekliği dengelemeyi, yerli firmaların rekabet gücünü korurken sosyal ve çevresel sorumluluğu artırmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk , Kurumsal Yönetim , ESG , Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlaması , Yasallaşma , Uyum

The Legal Nature of Corporate Social Responsibility from Voluntary Commitments to Mandatory Regulations A Comparative Study of the EU, the UK, and Türkiye

Öz

Corporate Social Responsibility is mainly seen as a voluntary, ethics-based idea. It is often viewed as a company’s moral obligation to society, the economy, and the environment. This study looks into how Corporate Social Responsibility is changing from a voluntary, ethics-based idea to a set of legal obligations for companies. It compares the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Türkiye, focusing on how each legal system deals with the limitations of purely voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility and reacts to global demands for sustainability, transparency, and human rights protection. The research starts by exploring the basic concepts and history of Corporate Social Responsibility. It outlines the debate between shareholder primacy and stakeholder theory, as well as the global move toward sustainability governance. Next, it examines the European Union’s evolving regulatory model, from the Non-Financial Reporting Directive to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. It also analyse the United Kingdom’s mixed approach, which combines enlightened shareholder value with strong disclosure and market oversight. Türkiye’s disjointed and mostly voluntary system is evaluated in the context of European Union integration and investor expectations. This work wraps up by suggesting a gradual reform strategy for Türkiye that aligns with European Union standards. This strategy aims to balance enforceability with flexibility, helping domestic firms remain competitive while enhancing social and environmental responsibility.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Corporate Social Responsibility , Corporate Governance , ESG , Sustainability Reporting , Legalisation , Compliance

Kaynakça

• Ahern D, ‘Turning Up the Heat? EU Sustainability Goals and the Role of Reporting under the Non-Financial Reporting Directive’ (2016) 4 European Company and Financial Law Review 599-630.
• Aksoy AS, ‘The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility and Its Development in Türkiye’ (2023) 5(2) Şırnak University the Journal of Economic and Administrative Approaches 147-161.
• Anvarovich SI, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility under the UK Corporate Governance System’ (2023) 21 Eurasian Research Bulletin 120-125.
• Banu RA and Banerjee J, ‘Exploring the Legal Debate on Corporate Social Responsibility: Mandatory vs Voluntary CSR Approach’ (2023) 4(6) Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law 1058-1068.
• Bischof J, Dutzi A and Gros M, ‘Sustainability Reporting and Risk Governance’ (2022) 92 Journal of Business Economics 349-353.
• Borsa İstanbul (BIST), BIST Sustainability Index Basic Rules (2014), <https://www.borsaistanbul.com/files/bistsurdurulebilirlik-endeksi-temel-kurallari- 31122014.pdf> accessed 21 September 2025. Borsa İstanbul (BIST), Sustainability Guide for Companies (2020), <https://www.borsaistanbul.com/files/ Surdurulebilirlik_Rehberi_2020.pdf> accessed 21 September 2025.
• Capital Markets Law (Law No 6362, adopted 6 December 2012, published in Official Gazette No 28513, 30 December 2012).
• Carroll AB, ‘A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social Performance’ (1979) 4 Academy of Management Review 497-505.
• Carroll AB, ‘Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR: Taking Another Look’ (2016) 1 International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 3-12.
• Chih HL, Chih HH and Chen TY, ‘On the Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility: International Evidence on the Financial Industry’ (2010) 93 Journal of Business Ethics 115-135.
• Communiqué on Corporate Governance (II-17.1), published in Official Gazette No 28871, 3 January 2014. Companies Act 2006.
• Company Law Review, Modern Company Law for a Competitive Economy: Strategic Framework (London 1999). Dadush S, Schönfelder D and Streibelt M, What the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) Says About Contracts (Responsible Contracting Project Policy Brief, 8 July 2024), <https:// www.business- humanrights.org/documents/40318/RCP_Policy_Brief_CSDDDContracts_July_8_fin al.pdf 2> accessed 21 September 2025.
• Demirel Özdemir D, ‘Assessment of the Provisions of the European Union Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive No. 2024/1760 (CSDDD) within the Framework of the Concept of Corporate Sustainability’ (2024) 9(3) Regesta: Journal of Commercial Law 537-590.
• Desender KA, López-Puertas-Lamy M, Pattitoni P and Petracci B, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Cost of Financing—The Importance of the International Corporate Governance System’ (2020) 28(3) Corporate Governance: An International Review 207-234.
• Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 Amending Directive 2013/34/EU as Regards Disclosure of Non-Financial and Diversity Information by Certain Large Undertakings and Groups [2014] OJ L330/1.
• Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/ EU, as Regards Corporate Sustainability Reporting [2022] OJ L322/15.
• Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859 [2024] OJ L/202.
• Duque-Grisales E and Aguilera-Caracuel J, ‘Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Scores and Financial Performance of Multilatinas: Moderating Effects of Geographic International Diversification and Financial Slack’ (2021) 168(2) Journal of Business Ethics 315-334.
• Ding B, ‘The Legalisation of Corporate Social Responsibility in International Investment Agreements’ in Bäumler J et al (eds), European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2024, vol 15 (Springer, Cham 2025).
• Eccles RG, Ioannou I and Serafeim G, ‘The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance’ (2014) 60(11) Management Science 2835- 2857.
• Einhorn E, ‘The Nature of The Interaction Between Mandatory and Voluntary Disclosures’ (2005) 43(4) Journal of Accounting Research 593-621.
• European Parliament, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Its Implementation into EU Company Law (Study, 5 November 2020).
• Financial Reporting Council, UK Corporate Governance Code (2024).
• Germany, Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (Lieferkettensorgfaltsgesetz) (2021).
• Godfrey PC, Merrill CB and Hansen JM, ‘The Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholder Value: An Empirical Test of The Risk Management Hypothesis’ (2009) 30(4) Strategic Management Journal 425-445.
• Graafland J and Noorderhaven N, ‘Culture and Institutions: How Economic Freedom and Long-Term Orientation Interactively Influence Corporate Social Responsibility’ (2020) 51 Journal of International Business Studies 1034-1043.
• Grier N, ‘Enlightened Shareholder Value: Did Directors Deliver?’ (2014) Juridical Review 2, 95-111. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO 26000: Guidance on Social Responsibility (2010). Ioannou I and Serafeim G, ‘What Drives Corporate Social Performance? The Role of Nation- Level Institutions’ (2012) 43 Journal of International Business Studies 834-864.
• Johnston A, ‘The Shrinking Scope of CSR in UK Corporate Law’ (2017) 74 Washington and Lee Law Review 1001-1042.
• Leyens PC, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in European Union Law: Foundations, Developments, Enforcement’ in Anna Beckers and Gunther Teubner (eds), Globalisation of Corporate Social Responsibility and its Impact on Corporate Governance (Springer 2018) 157-176.
• Lin L, ‘The Global Rise of “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) in Corporate Legislation: Symbolic Expression or Substantive Action?’ (2025) <https://ssrn.com/abstract=5211797> accessed 21 September 2025.
• Marquis C and Toffel M, ‘The Globalization of Corporate Environmental Disclosure: Accountability or Greenwashing?’ (Harvard Business School Working Paper, No 11- 115, 2011).
• Mattingly JE and Berman SL, ‘Measurement of Corporate Social Action: Discovering Taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini Ratings Data’ (2006) 45(1) Business & Society 20-46.
• McWilliams A, Siegel DS and Wright PM, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications’ (2006) 43(1) Journal of Management Studies 1-18.
• Nicoara C and Kadile V, ‘The Potential of CSR Engagement in UK SMEs’ (2025) 6 Journal of the International Council for Small Business 157-174.
• OECD, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (2011, updated 2023).
• Özer I, Anonim Şirketlerde Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk (Adalet Yayınevi 2022).
• Pantazi T, ‘The Introduction of Mandatory Corporate Sustainability Reporting in the EU and the Question of Enforcement’ (2024) 25(1) European Business Organization Law Review 509-532.
• Ramos Muñoz D, ‘The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Everything, everywhere, all at once?’ (EUSFiL Research Working Paper Series, no 1, January 2025).
• Sergeeva N and Kapetanaki E, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility as a Strategic Narrative: The Cases of UK ProjectBased Organisations’ (2022) 3 Project Leadership and Society 1-11.
• Sönmez M, ‘The Importance of Institutional Social Responsibility and the Regulation in the Body of Current Law: The Comparison between European Union and Turkey’ (2015) XIX(3–4) Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 89-121.
• Sulu M, Anonim Ortaklıklarda Şirket Menfaati Kavramı (On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2019).
• Talbot L A, ‘Trying to Save the World with Company Law? Some Problems’ (2016) 36 Legal Studies 513-534. The Companies (Miscellaneous Reporting) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/860.
• Turkish Commercial Code (Law No 6102, adopted 13 January 2011, published in Official Gazette No 27846, 14 February 2011).
• United Nations, United Nations Global Compact (2000).
• United Nations, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework (2011).
• Vovolinis D, ‘The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD): A Deep Dive Analysis and Way Forward’ (31 July 2025), <https://ssrn.com/abstract=5377133> accessed 21 September 2025.
• Wang L and Li S, ‘Is Corporate Social Responsibility a Must or a Plus? The Role of National Culture’ (2025) 101 International Review of Economics & Finance 1-17.
• Wang L and Wang Y, ‘Is Corporate Social Responsibility More Valuable in Disrupted Industries?’ (2023) 49(10) Managerial Finance 1673-1690.
• Williams R, ‘Enlightened Shareholder Value in UK Company Law’ (2012) 35(1) UNSW Law Journal 360-377.
• Zimmer L and Swoboda B, ‘Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility Effects Across Nations – The Role of National Institutions’ (2023) 32 International Business Review 1-13.