Sustainability Reporting and Corporate Reputation in Turkey

Abstract

The purpose of this quantitative research s to measure the quality of sustainability reports of reputable companies in Turkey to understand the dynamics of the relation between report quality and reputation. A total of 68 reports from 25 corporations published between 2015-2017 formed the sample of the research. To measure the quality of the reports content analysis was applied. This research portrayed the qualities of sustainability reports of the corporations with the highest reputation scores in the Turkish business context. The most preferred report title is “Sustainability Report”, but a limited number of “Integrated Report” and “Corporate Social Responsibility Report” were also found. The findings show that sectoral differences play an important role in sustainability reporting. All these corporations were not all Turkish corporations, but also multinationals. This comparison uncovers the fact that the practices of multinational companies are not a driving force for Turkish corporations. Social performance reporting appears to be a practice exclusively pertaining to listed corporations. Although it is difficult to create any direct link between reporting quality and reputation in the Turkish context, it is possible to argue that highly reputed corporations provide higher quality sustainability reports.

Keywords

• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Sustainability Reports
• Corporate Reputation
• Quality of Information
• Reputable Companies

Türkiye'de Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlaması ve Kurumsal İtibar

Öz

Yapılan nicel çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye'deki itibarlı şirketlerin sürdürülebilirlik raporlarının kalitesini ölçerek raporun kalitesi ile kurumsal itibar arasındaki ilişkinin dinamiklerini açıklamaktır. Araştırmanın örneklemini 2015-2017 yılları arasında 25 şirketin yayımladığı toplam 68 sürdürülebilirlik raporu oluşturmaktadır. Raporların kalitesini ölçmek için uygulanan içerik analizi tekniği ile Türkiye'nin iş bağlamında itibar puanı en yüksek olan şirketlerin sürdürülebilirlik raporlarının nitelikleri ifade edilmiştir. Raporlarda en çok tercih edilen rapor başlığı “Sürdürülebilirlik Raporu” olmuştur, ancak sınırlı sayıda da olsa “Entegre Rapor” ve “Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk Raporu” adlandırmaları da mevcuttur. Bulgular, sürdürülebilirlik raporlamasında sektörel farklılıkların önemli bir rol oynadığını göstermektedir. Araştırmaya dahil edilen şirketler salt Türk şirketleri değil, aynı zamanda çok uluslu şirketlerdir. Şirketlerarası yapılan karşılaştırmada, çokuluslu şirketlerin uygulamalarının Türk şirketleri için bir itici güç olmadığı gerçeğini ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Sosyal performans raporlaması, özellikle borsa şirketlerine ait bir uygulamadır. Ancak Türkiye bağlamında raporlama kalitesi ile itibar arasında doğrudan bir bağlantı kurmak zor olsa da, yüksek itibarlı şirketlerin daha kaliteli sürdürülebilirlik raporları sunduğunu iddia etmek mümkündür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk
• Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk,
• Kurumsal İtibar
• Bilgi Kalitesi
• İtibarlı Şirketler

Kaynakça

1. AA1000. (2018). Accountability Principles 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.accountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/AA1000_ACCOUNTABILITY_PRINCIPLES_2018_Single_Pages.pdf
2. Aktaş Yamanoğlu, M. (2010). CSR Initiatives of Private Sector Companies in Turkey: Main Approaches, Issues and Motivations. İletişim Araştırmaları, 8(1), 95-110.
3. Akyıldız, F. (2012). Comparative Corporate Social Responsibility in the United Kingdom and Turkey. In Aras, G. and Crowther, D. (Ed.), Business Strategy and Sustainability (Developments in Corporate Governance and Responsibility) (pp. 115-153). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2043-0523(2012)0000003018
4. Ararat, M., ve Göcenoğlu, C. (2005). Drivers for Sustainable Corporate Responsibility, Case of Turkey. Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/TR/Downloads/Drivers_for_Sustainable_Corporate_Responsibility_C%20(2).pdf
5. Baviera-Puig, A., Gómez-Navarro, T., García-Melón, M., ve García-Martínez, G. (2015). Assessing the Communication Quality of CSR Reports: A Case Study on Four Spanish Food Companies. Sustainability, 7(8), 1-22.
6. Berelson, B.R. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. New York: Free Press.
7. Brown, S., ve Hillegeist, S.A. (2007). How disclosure quality affects the level of information asymmetry. Review of Accounting Studies, 12(2–3), 443–477.
8. Buchholz, R. A., ve Rosenthal, S. B. (2005). Toward a Contemporary Conceptual Framework for Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 137-148.

9. CBM. (2005). Corporate Governance Principles Capital Markets Board of Turkey. Retrieved from: http://www.cmb.gov.tr/Sayfa/Dosya/84
10. Chen, S., ve Bouvain, P. (2009). Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of corporate responsibility reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 299-317.
11. Chrisman, J., Chua, J. H., Kellermanns, F., ve Chang E. (2007). Are Family Managers Agents or Stewards? An Exploratory Study in Privately Held Family Firms. Journal of Business Research, 60(11), 1030-1038.
12. Clarkson, P.M, Li, Y., Richardson, G.D., ve Vasvari, F.P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting. Organizations and Society, 33(4/5), 303–327.
13. Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.
14. Connelly, B.L., Certo, S.T., Ireland, R.D., ve Reutzel, C.R. (2011a). Signaling theory: a review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39-67.
15. Daub, C.-H. (2007). Assessing the Quality of Sustainability Reporting: An Alternative Methodological Approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(1), 75-85.
16. Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., ve Donaldson L. (1997) Toward a Stewardship Theory of Management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20-48.
17. Dutta, S. (2012). Triple bottom line reporting: An Indian perspective. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(2), 652-659.
18. Ellen, P.S., Webb, D.J., ve Mohr, L.A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 34(2), 147–157.
19. Fabrizi, M., Mallin, C., ve Michelon, G. (2014). The Role of CEO's Personal Incentives in Driving Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), 311-326.
20. Garcia-Toreaa, N., Fernandez-Feijooa, B., ve de la Cuesta, M. (2016). Board of director’s effectiveness and the stakeholder perspective of corporate governance: Do effective boards promote the interests of shareholders and stakeholders? Business Research Quarterly, 19, 246-260.
21. Godos-Díez, J. L., Ferández-Gago, R., ve Martínez-Campillo, A. (2011). How Important Are CEOs to CSR Practices? An Analysis of the Mediating Effect of the Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 531-548.
22. Gözütok-Ünal, N. (2018). Müthiş hareket. Retrieved from: https://www.capital.com.tr/is-dunyasi/arastirmalar/muthis-hareket-3-3-22.
23. GRI. (2019). Sustainability Disclosure Database. Retrieved from: https://database.globalreporting.org/search/
24. Hahn, R., ve 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, 5-12.
25. Hill, C.W.L., ve Jones, T.M. (1992). Stakeholder‐Agency Theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131-154.
26. ISO 26000. (2019). ISO 26000 Social Responsibility. Retrieved from: https://www.iso.org/iso-26000-social-responsibility.html
27. KPMG. (2017). The road ahead - The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017. Retrieved from: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2017/10/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2017.pdf
28. Kolk, A. (2010). Trajectories of Sustainability Reporting by MNCs. Journal of World. Business, 45, 367-374.
29. Lock, I., ve Seele, P. (2016). The credibility of CSR (corporate social responsibility) reports in Europe. Evidence from a quantitative content analysis in 11 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 122, 186-200.
30. Martínez-Ferrero, J., Ruiz-Cano, D., ve Garcia-Sanchez, I. M. (2015). The Causal Link Between Sustainable Disclosure and Information Asymmetry: The Moderating Role of the Stakeholder Protection Context. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 319-332.
31. Michelon, G. (2011). Sustainability disclosure and reputation: A comparative study. Corporate Reputation Review, 14(2), 79–96.
32. Mousa, G. A., ve Hassan, N. T. (2015). Legitimacy Theory and Environmental Practices: Short Notes. International Journal of Business and Statistical Analysis, 2(1), 41-53.
33. Odriozola, M. D., ve Baraibar-Diez, E. (2017). Is Corporate Reputation Associated with Quality of CSR Reporting? Evidence from Spain. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24, 121–132.
34. Odriozola, M. D., Martín, A., ve Luna, L. (2015). The relationship between labor social responsibility practices and reputation. International Journal of Manpower, 36(2), 236–251.
35. Odaman, S. (2004). Effects and Possible Problems of Compulsory Labor Replacement of Law No. 4857. Paper presented at TÜSİAD-KalDer, 13th National Quality Congress. Istanbul, Turkey, 24-25 November, 2004.
36. OECD. (2017). OECD Corporate Governance Factbook. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/OECD-Corporate-Governance-Factbook-2017.pdf
37. Omran, M. A., ve Ramdhony, D. (2015). Theoretical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: A Critical Review. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting, 5(2), 38-55.
38. Reynolds, M., ve Yuthas, K. (2008). Moral Discourse and Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 47–64.
39. Shapiro, S.P. (2005). Agency Theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 263-284.
40. TISK. (2014). İşveren Örgütleri için Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk (KSS) Rehberi. Retrieved from: https://www.tisk.org.tr/tr/e-yayinlar/340_isveren_orgutleri_icin_ku/pdf_340_isveren_orgutleri_icin_ku.pdf
41. Tomak, S. (2014). Corporate Reputation and Financial Performance of Firms in Turkey. Niğde Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 7(1), 289-303.
42. Verrecchia, R.E. (1983). Discretionary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5, 179–194.
43. WBCSD. (2019). Reporting Matters. Retrieved from: https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Redefining-Value/External-Disclosure/Reporting-matters
44. Yongvanich, K., ve Guthrie, J. (2006). An Extended Performance Reporting Framework for Social and Environmental Accounting. Journal of Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(5), 309-321.