AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ HAVACILIK SEKTÖRÜ SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK RAPORLAMALARINDA ÖNEMLİLİK VE ÇİFTE ÖNEMLİLİK

Öz

Bu çalışma, Avrupa Birliği Mevzuatı çerçevesinde havacılık sektöründe faaliyet gösteren 1000 ve üstü çalışana sahip havayolu şirketlerinin sürdürülebilirlik raporlarında önemlilik ve çifte önemlilik değerlendirmelerini analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada 1000 ve üstü çalışana sahip havayolu şirketlerinin seçilme nedeni, Avrupa Birliği’nin (AB) Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlama Direktifi (CSRD) ve bununla uyumlu hale getirilen Avrupa Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlama Standartları (ESRS) kapsamında hangi şirketlerin raporlama yükümlülüğü altında olacağı belirlenirken çalışan sayısının önemli bir eşik olarak kullanılmasıdır. 1000 çalışan eşiği, AB mevzuatında şirketin büyüklüğünü ve sürdürülebilirlik etkilerinin önem düzeyini göstermek için kullanılan bir sınırdır. Bu eşik, ESRS yükümlülüklerinin önce büyük ölçekli şirketlere uygulanmasını, ardından daha küçük ölçekli şirketlere yayılmasını sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada nitel içerik analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, çifte önemliliğin kavramsal düzeyde farkındalığının arttığını ancak ertelemelerin de etkisiyle uygulamaya tam olarak yansımadığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Havacılık sektörü
• önemlilik
• çifte önemlilik
• sürdürülebilirlik raporlaması
• CSRD
• ESRS

MATERIALITY AND DOUBLE MATERIALITY IN EUROPEAN UNION AVIATION SECTOR SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING

Öz

This study aims to analyse materiality and double materiality assessments in the sustainability reports of airlines with 1,000 or more employees operating in the aviation sector within the framework of European Union legislation. The reason for selecting airlines with 1,000 or more employees is that the number of employees is used as an important threshold when determining "which companies will be subject to reporting obligations" under the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the European Sustainability Reporting Standard (ESRS), which has been made compatible with it. The 1,000-employee threshold is a limit used in EU legislation to indicate a company's size and the significance of its sustainability impacts. This threshold aims to ensure that ESRS obligations are first applied to large-scale companies and then extended to smaller-scale companies. A qualitative content analysis method was used in the study. The findings reveal that awareness of double materiality has increased at a conceptual level, but has not been fully reflected in practice, partly due to delays.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Aviation sector
• materiality
• double materiality
• sustainability reporting
• CSRD
• ESRS

Kaynakça

1. Adams, C. A., Alhamood, A., He, X., Tian, J., Wang, L., & Wang, Y. (2021). The double-materiality concepts. Application and issues. Global Reporting Initiative.
2. Alhaddi, H. (2017). Materiality assessment in sustainability reporting: Case study of the airline industry (Master’s thesis). Dominican University of California. [ProQuest Dissertations Publishing]
3. Belidan, M. A., & Baghad, H. (2024). Navigating materiality in sustainability reporting: A scoping review of single and double materiality approaches. Theoretical Accounting Journal, 48(4), 11-32. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0054.8687
4. Bux, C., Geatti, P., Sebastiani, S., Del Chicca, A., Giungato, P., Tarabella, A., & Tricase, C. (2025). Toward an Experimental Common Framework for Measuring Double Materiality in Companies. Sustainability, 17, 6518. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146518
5. De Cristofaro, T., & Gulluscio, C. (2023). In Search of Double Materiality in Non-Financial Reports: First Empirical Evidence. Sustainability, 15, 924. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020924
6. Dragomir, V. D., Dumitru, M., Chersan, I. C., Gorgan, C., & Paunescu, M. (2025). Double materiality disclosure as an Emerging Practice: The Assessment Process, Impacts, Risks, and Opportunities. Accounting in Europe, 22(1), 103-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2024.2339264
7. Dunfjäll, M. (2025). Materiality in transition: Challenges and Opportunities in Corporate Sustainability Reporting under the CSRD. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2025.10016
8. European Commission. (2022). Commission Delegated Regulation supplementing Directive 2013/34/EU as regards sustainability reporting standards (ESRS). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu

9. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2021). GRI 1: Foundation 2021. Amsterdam: GRI.
10. Gualandris, J., Kalchschmidt, M., & Legenvre, H. (2019). Sustainability reporting, materiality, and accountability assessment in the airport industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(8), 1424–1440. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2320
11. Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
12. https://www.dnv.com/services/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive-cs3d--231990/ (Access Date: 10.07.2025)
13. https://www.pwc.lu/en/sustainable-finance/a-year-of-esg/cs3d.html (Access Date: 10 July 2025)
14. Karagiannis, A., Apostolopoulos, C., & Apostolopoulos, V. (2022). Sustainability reporting in the airline industry: Current literature and future research avenues. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 109, 103420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103420
15. KPMG. (2022). The KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2022. Retrieved from https://home.kpmg
16. Macuda, M., & Kobiela-Pionnier, K. (2025). The double materiality principle and the sustainability reporting practices of Polish listed companies from the WIG30 Index. Theoretical Accounting Journal, 49(2), 63–97. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0055.1487
17. Mähönen, J., & Palea, V. (2024). Analysing Double Materiality Through the Lens of the European Political Constitution: Implications for Interoperability and Standards-Setting. Nordic & European Company Law Working Paper. No: 24-03.
18. Mezzanotte, F. E. (2024). Examining the Reasons for Impact Materiality in EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting. European Business Law Review, 35(7), 925–946.
19. Nguyen, T., & Zillén, L. (2023). Life cycle assessment in aviation: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Journal of Air Transport Management, 109, 102398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2023.102398
20. Öztürk, M., Koc, M., & Yüksel, A. (2022). Strategies to mitigate carbon emissions for sustainable aviation: A literature review and future research agenda. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 30, 721–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.01.002
21. Panfilo, S., Scarpa, F., & Canestraro, N. (2025). Reporting for change: does the adoption of double materiality influence ESG risk management? Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2024-2436
22. Park, S. Y., & Gursoy, D. (2018). Strategic CSR for airlines: Does materiality matter? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(4), 2050–2073. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2016-0300
23. Reuter, M., & Messner, M. (2015). Lobbying on the integrated reporting framework: An analysis of comment letters to the 2013 consultation draft. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(3), 365–402. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2013-1392
24. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). (2018). SASB Standards: Infrastructure – Airlines. Retrieved from https://www.sasb.org
25. United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). (2021). Business ambition for 1.5°C: Responding to the climate crisis. Retrieved from https://www.unglobalcompact.org