Biyoçeşitliliğin Muhasebeleştirilmesinde Yeni Bir Sınır: ESG Raporlama Çerçevelerine Yönelik Sosyo-Ekonomik Bir Eleştiri ve Ekolojik Borç Yaklaşımının Potansiyeli

Öz

Amaç - Bu çalışma, güncel ESG biyoçeşitlilik raporlama çerçevelerinin doğayı ekonomik ve finansal sistemler içinde görünür, karşılaştırılabilir ve yönetilebilir kılma hedefini ne ölçüde gerçekleştirebildiğini incelemektedir. Yöntem - Araştırma, ölçüm sosyolojisi ve yeni kurumsalcı teoriye dayanan eleştirel nitel bir yaklaşım benimsemektedir. GRI, TNFD ve ESRS E4 başta olmak üzere temel biyoçeşitlilik raporlama çerçeveleri analiz edilmiştir.. Bulgular – Biyoçeşitlilik; karmaşıklığı, yerelliği ve geri döndürülemezliği nedeniyle finansal raporlamanın standartlaştırma mantığına direnç gösteren bir sınır nesnesi olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Mevcut çerçeveler çoğunlukla etkili ekolojik korumadan ziyade kurumsal meşruiyeti destekleyen bir “anlatılmış biyoçeşitlilik” üretmektedir. Sonuç – Çalışma, CARE modelinden esinlenen ekolojik borç yaklaşımını önermektedir. Ekosistemlerin korunmasını muhasebe sistemlerinde bir yükümlülük olarak tanımlayan bu yaklaşım, ekolojik hesap verebilirlik ve sürdürülebilirlik yönetişimi için daha güçlü bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Biyoçeşitlilik muhasebesi; ESG raporlaması; kurumsal meşruiyet; CARE modeli; ekolojik borç. JEL Kodları: M41; Q51; Q56; Q57; G34.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyoçeşitlilik muhasebesi
• ESG raporlaması
• kurumsal meşruiyet
• CARE modeli
• ekolojik borç

The Accounting Frontier of Biodiversity: A Socio-Economic Critique of ESG Reporting Frameworks and the Promise of Ecological Debt

Öz

Purpose – This article examines whether contemporary ESG biodiversity reporting frameworks can fulfill their stated objective of making nature visible, comparable, and governable within economic and financial systems. Methodology – The study adopts a critical qualitative approach grounded in the sociology of quantification and neo-institutional theory. It analyzes the main biodiversity reporting frameworks, including GRI, TNFD, and ESRS E4. Findings – Biodiversity emerges as a boundary object whose complexity, locality, and irreversibility challenge the standardization logic required by financial reporting. Existing frameworks tend to produce a form of “narrated biodiversity” that primarily serves institutional legitimacy rather than effective ecological stewardship. Conclusions – The article argues for a shift toward an ecological debt perspective inspired by the CARE model. By recognizing ecosystem maintenance obligations within accounting systems, this approach offers a more robust framework for ecological accountability and sustainability governance Keywords: Biodiversity accounting; ESG reporting; institutional legitimacy; CARE model; ecological debt. JEL Codes: M41; Q51; Q56; Q57; G34.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biodiversity accounting
• ESG reporting
• institutional legitimacy
• CARE model
• ecological debt

Kaynakça

1. Alkemade, R., van Oorschot, M., Miles, L., Nellemann, C., Bakkenes, M., & ten Brink, B. (2009). GLOBIO3: A framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystems, 12(3), 374–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-009-9229-5
2. Aksoy Hazır, Ç. (2024). Determinants of sustainability reporting practice in Türkiye. Marmara University Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, Sustainability and Green Economics Special Issue, 36–58. https://doi.org/10.14780/muiibd.1461075
3. Atkinson, G., & Pearce, D. W. (1993). Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: An indicator of weak sustainability. Ecological Economics, 8(2), 103–108. 10.1016/0921-8009(93)90039-9
4. Aubertin, C., & Vivien, F.-D. (1998). Les enjeux de la biodiversité. Economica. Boiral, O. (2013). Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1036–1071. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2012-00998
5. Boiral, O., & Henri, J.-F. (2017). Is Sustainability Performance Comparable? A Study of GRI Reports of Mining Organizations. Business and Society, 56(2), 283-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315576134
6. Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2013). Agonizing over engagement: SEA and the “death of environmentalism” debates. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2012.09.001
7. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris, Le Seuil. https://shs.cairn.info/revue-raisons-politiques-2002-3-page-199a?lang=fr
8. Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., & Dirzo, R. (2017). Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(30), E6089–E6096. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704949114

9. Çelik, S., Yavan, S., & Çimen, G. (2026). Unveiling structural patterns of global budget transparency using advanced machine learning and explainable artificial intelligence frameworks. Economics of Governance, 27, Article 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10101-026-00365-3
10. Celle, S. (2023). L’évaluation d’impact social, un mythe rationnel révélateur des reconfigurations territoriales de l’ESS. 22èmes Rencontres du RIUESS, Avignon, France.
11. Chaplais-Chouvier, C., Marmorat, S., & Postaire, M. (2024). Quand l’institution comptable semble inébranlable face à l’Anthropocène : Une enquête auprès des professionnels comptables français. Revue française de gestion, 315(2), 165-187. https://doi.org/10.1684/rfg.2024.13
12. Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.003
13. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
14. Daly, H. E. (1990). Sustainable development: From concept and theory to operational principles. Population and Development Review, 16(Suppl.), 25–43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2808061
15. Dasgupta, P. (2021). The economics of biodiversity: The Dasgupta review. HM Treasury.
16. David, B. (2022). Du changement climatique au « reporting climat » : entre connaissances scientifiques et réponses des entreprises aux attentes de la société (Thèse de doctorat, Université de Montpellier). https://theses.hal.science/tel-04083702v1/file/DAVID_2022_archivage.pdf
17. Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435852
18. Desrosières, A. (2003). Les qualités des quantités. Courrier des statistiques, (105–106), 51–63. https://www.paris21.org/sites/default/files/2283.pdf
19. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://www.ics.uci.edu/~corps/phaseii/DiMaggioPowell-IronCageRevisited-ASR.pdf
20. EFRAG. (2023). Draft European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). European Financial Reporting Advisory Group. https://www.efbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Praesentation_EFRAG.pdf
21. Ekins, P. (2003). Identifying critical natural capital. Ecological Economics, 44(2–3), 277–292. 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00278-1
22. Feger, C., & Mermet, L. (2021). Innovations comptables pour la biodiversité et les écosystèmes : une typologie axée sur l’exigence de résultat environnemental. Comptabilité Contrôle Audit, Tome 27(1), 13-50. https://doi.org/10.3917/cca.271.0013.
23. Global Reporting Initiative. (2021). GRI Standards. Global Sustainability Standards Board. https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/
24. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.04.006
25. Haji, A. A., & Anifowose, M. (2016). The trend of integrated reporting practice in South Africa: ceremonial or substantive? Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 7(2), 190–224. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-11-2015-0106
26. Hanley, N., & Perrings, C. (2019). The economic value of biodiversity. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 11(1), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-093946
27. Hopwood, A. G. (2009). Accounting and the environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3–4), 433–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.03.002
28. Hufty, M. (2001). La gouvernance internationale de la biodiversité. Études internationales, 32(1), 5–29. : https://doi.org/10.7202/704254ar
29. Lamotte, M. (1994). À propos de la biodiversité. Courrier de l’environnement de l’INRA, 24, 05–12. https://hal.science/hal-01206169/
30. Leakey, R., & Lewin, R. (1995). The sixth extinction: Patterns and the future of humankind. Doubleday.
31. Le Guyader, H. (2008). La biodiversité : un concept flou ou une réalité scientifique ? Courrier de l’environnement de l’INRA, 55, 7–26. https://hal.science/hal-01198600v1/file/C55Leguyader.pdf
32. Levrel, H. (2007). Quels indicateurs pour la gestion de la biodiversité ? Institut français de la biodiversité.
33. Maris, V. (2011). De la nature aux services écosystémiques : une commodification de la biodiversité. EcoRev’, (38), 19–23. 10.3917/ecorev.038.0019
34. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
35. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085149000000001
36. Monnin, A., Landivar, D., & Bonnet, E. (2021). Qu’est-ce que la redirection écologique ? Horizons publics, (Hors-série), printemps 2021.
37. Musseau-Milesi, P. (2025). Les défis d’une redirection écologique de la comptabilité. Revue Œconomia Humana, 2(1), 72–82. https://edition.uqam.ca/revue-oeconomia-humana/article/view/3246 Natural Capital Coalition. (2016). Natural Capital Protocol. Capitals Coalition. https://capitalscoalition.org/capitals-approach/
38. Nugnes, P., & Doublet, C. (2025). Reporting de durabilité : rendre opérationnelle une construction théorique. Mémoire, Mines Paris PSL. https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-05299967/document
39. Ostrom,E. (1992) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, 32 NAT. RES. J. 415. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol32/iss2/6
40. Polanyi, K. (1983). La grande transformation. Gallimard. https://lirsa.cnam.fr/medias/fichier/polanyihtml__1262962770199.html
41. Power, M. (1997). The audit society Rituals of Verification. Oxford University Press. Richard, J., & Rambaud, A. (2021). Philosophie d’une écologie anticapitaliste : Pour un nouveau modèle de gestion écologique. Presses de l’Université Laval.
42. Roberts, L., Hassan, A., Elamer, A., & Nandy, M. (2021). Biodiversity and extinction accounting for sustainable development: A systematic literature review and future research directions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), 705–720. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2649
43. Rochfeld, J., Cornu, M., & Martin, G. (2021). L’échelle de communalité (Rapport de recherche n° 17-34). GIP Mission de recherche Droit et Justice.
44. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
45. Supiot, A. (2015). La gouvernance par les nombres : Cours au Collège de France (2012-2014). Fayard. https://doi.org/10.3917/pro.349.0090
46. Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. (2023). Recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. TNFD. https://tnfd.global/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Recommendations_of_the_Taskforce_on_Nature-related_Financial_Disclosures_September_2023.pdf
47. Vigo-Cogueto, C., & Feger, C. (2023). Testing the potential of the "Ecosystem-Centred Accounting Framework" as a support for collective environmental commitments: insights from three case studies in Camargue. 7th French Conference on Social and Environmental Accounting Research (CSEAR), Montpellier. https://hal.science/hal-04246177