SUSTAINABILITY REPORT CONTENT QUALITY: A STUDY ON BIST SUSTAINABILITY INDEX

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 20 - MODAV 15. Uluslararası Muhasebe Konferansı Özel Sayısı, 334 - 357, 27.12.2018

Abdurrahman Gümrah , Şükran Güngör Tanç

Öz

Sustainability reporting is becoming more widespread in our country as it is in the whole world. Profit or pursuing a very institutions and adopted by the institutions and global basis in sustainability reporting standards issued GRI qualified report on the information the characteristics of balance, accuracy, comparability, clarity, indicate temporal consistency and reliability. The purpose of working in this context is to compare the published sustainability reports with the GRI’s quality criteria and to compare the quality of the content. Sustainability reports of the 10 firms in the Stock Exchange Istanbul Sustainability Index published in 2014 and 2015 have been examined. The information contained in the reports by content analysis method in the study was scored separately in terms of the report qualities of the GRI and the score was calculated in terms of 6 different quality components of each report. The findings and years the company has tried to determine the quality of the content of sustainability reports published in Turkey on the basis of comparison.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sustainability Report, Report Quality, GRI

SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK RAPORLARININ İÇERİK KALİTESİ: BİST SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK ENDEKSİNDE BİR UYGULAMA

Öz

Sürdürülebilirlik raporlaması, tüm dünyada olduğu gibi ülkemizde de giderek yaygınlaşmaktadır. Kar amacı gütsün yada gütmesin bir çok kurum ve kuruluş tarafından kabul edilmiş ve küresel bazda sürdürülebilirlik raporlaması standartları yayınlayan GRI nitelikli raporda yer alan bilgilerin özelliklerini denge, doğruluk, karşılaştırılabilirlik, netlik, zamansal tutarlılık ve güvenilirlik olarak belirtmektedir. Çalışmanın amacını sürdürülebilirlik raporlarının GRI’nin söz konusu nitelik kriterlerine göre incelenmesi ve içerik kalitesi açısından karşılaştırılması oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada Borsa İstanbul Sürdürülebilirlik Endeksinde yer alan 10 firmanın 2014 ve 2015 yıllarında yayınlamış olduğu sürdürülebilirlik raporları incelenmiştir. Çalışmada içerik analizi yöntemiyle raporlarda yer alan bilgiler GRI’nin söz konusu rapor nitelikleri açısından ayrı ayrı puanlanmış ve her bir raporun 6 ayrı kalite bileşeni açısından puanı hesaplanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular yıllar bazında karşılaştırılarak Türkiye’de yayınlanan sürdürülebilirlik raporlarının içerik kalitesi tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlaması, Rapor Kalitesi, GRI

Kaynakça

• Amran, A., S.P. Lee ve S. S. Devi. 2014. “The Influence of Governance Structure and Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility Toward Sustainability Reporting Quality”, Business Strategy & the Environment, 23(4), 217–235.
• Bayoud, N. S., M. Kavanagh ve G. Slaughter. 2012. “Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure and Corporate Reputation in Developing Countries: The Case of Libya”, Journal of Business and Policy Research, 7(1), 131–160.
• Boiral, O., I. Heras-Saizarbitoria ve M. C. Brotherton. 2017. “Assessing and Improving the Quality of Sustainability Reports: The Auditors’ Perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics.
• Brockett, A. ve R. Zabihollah. 2012. Corporate Sustainability: Integrating Performance and Reporting, John Wiley & Sons.
• Clarkson, P. M., Y. Li, G. D. Richardson ve F. P. Vasvari. 2008. “Revisiting the Relation Between Environmental Performance and Environmental Disclosure: An Empirical Analysis”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 303–327.
• Deegan, C., M. Rankin ve J. Tobin. 2002. “An Examination of the Corporate Social and Environmental Disclosures of BHP from 1983‐1997: A Test of Legitimacy Theory”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 312–343.
• Dincer, B. 2011. “Do the Shareholders Really Care about Corporate Social Responsibility?”, International Journal of Business & Social Science, 2(10).
• Dubravka, K. 2017. “Sustainability Reporting Quality: The Analysis of Companies in Croatia”, Journal of Accounting & Management, 7(1), 1–13.
• Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Marshall: Pitman.
• Gençoğlu, Ü. G. ve A. Aytaç. 2016. “Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Açısından Entegre Raporlamanın Önemi ve BIST Uygulamaları”, Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, Ekim(72), 51–66.
• Gray, R., J. Bebbington ve C. A. Adams. 1996. Accounting & Accountability: Changes And Challenges In Corporate Social And Environmental Reporting. London: Prentice Hall.
• Hąbek, P. ve R. Wolniak. 2016. “Assessing The Quality Of Corporate Social Responsibility Reports: The Case Of Reporting Practices In Selected European Union Member States”, Quality & Quantity, 50(1), 399–420.
• Higgins, C. ve B. Coffey. 2016. “Improving How Sustainability Reports Drive Change: A Critical Discourse Analysis”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 18–29.
• Jennifer, M., M., G. I. ve C. Beatriz. 2015. “Effect of Financial Reporting Quality on Sustainability Information Disclosure”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(1), 45–64.
• Krippendorff, K. 1995. “On the Reliability of Unitizing Continuous Data”, Sociological Methodology, 25, 47–76.
• Kurapatskie, B. ve N. Darnall. 2013. “Which Corporate Sustainability Activities are Associated with Greater Financial Payoffs?”, Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(1), 49–61.
• Leonidou, C. N., C. S. Katsikeas ve N. A. Morgan. 2013. “Greening’’’ The Marketing Mix: Do Firms Do It and Does It Pay Off?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2),151–170.
• Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle ve D. J. Wood. 1997. “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts”, The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
• Owen, D. 2008. “Chronicles Of Wasted Time?: A Personal Reflection On The Current State Of, And Future Prospects For, Social And Environmental Accounting Research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(2), 240–267.
• Peri, A. ve M. Marki. 2013. “The Impact of Social Responsibility Vision and Strategy on Successful Corporate Operations”, Managing Global Transitions, 11(1), 27–40.
• Romolini, A., S. Fissi ve E. Gori. 2015. “Quality Disclosure in Sustainability Reporting: Evidence From Universities”, Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 11(44),196–218.
• Thijssens, T., L. Bollen ve H. Hassink. 2016. “Managing sustainability reporting: many ways to publish exemplary reports”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 86–101.
• Ullmann, A. A. 1985. “Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationships Among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance of U.S. Firms”, Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540–557.
• Yanık, S. ve İ. Türker. 2012. “Sürdürülebilirlik ve Sosyal Sorumluluk Raporlamasındaki Gelişmeler (Tümleşik Raporlama)”, İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, (47), 291–308.