DOUBLE MATERIALITY AND SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING IN THE TEXTILE AND APPAREL SECTOR

Öz

This paper provides a critically examine double materiality in the textile and apparel sector, an industry with significant environmental and social impacts. Double materiality refers to a dual assessment perspective in sustainability reporting that considers both the impacts of corporate activities on environmental and social systems (impact materiality) and the financial risks and opportunities that sustainability-related issues pose to firm value (financial materiality). With the introduction of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), double materiality has become a mandatory reporting principle. The paper compares ESRS with earlier frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), highlighting key convergences and divergences. Unlike descriptive reviews, this study provides a critical and comparative analysis and synthesizes textile and apparel sector specific material topics across these global frameworks. The originality of this article lies in its identification, mapping, and critical evaluation of the three major reporting standards, combined with a textile and apparel sector-focused synthesis of frameworks. To the best of our knowledge, no comparable study has specifically examined double materiality in the textile and apparel sector; this paper fills that gap through critical comparative analysis and synthesis across ESRS, GRI, and SASB.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Double Materiality
• Textile Industry
• Sustainability Reporting
• GRI
• SASB
• ESRS
• Sustainability

Destekleyen Kurum

There are no supporting organisations

Etik Beyan

In this article, the ethical use of artificial intelligence has been considered in line with the framework set by the Council of Higher Education (YÖK, 2024) in its publication “Ethical Guide for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Research and Publication Activities of Higher Education Institutions” and the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation - EU - 2024/1689) AI tools (ChatGPT, OpenAI GPT-4o model) were used exclusively for grammar checking, improving language clarity, and enhancing textual coherence. No conceptualization, critical insights, or original contributions of the study were generated by AI. All scientific content, analyses, interpretations, sector-specific topic identification, critical evaluations of ESRS–GRI–SASB frameworks, and the recommendations and conclusions presented in this paper are entirely the authors’ own work. The originality of this article lies in its textile and apparel industry - specific critical analysis and synthesis of reporting frameworks. These insights, analyses, and contributions are the result of the authors’ own intellectual effort, literature engagement, and professional expertise. After using AI tools, the authors carefully reviewed and edited the full manuscript and take complete responsibility for its content and accuracy.

Tekstil ve Hazırgiyim Sektöründe Çifte Önemlilik ve Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlaması

Öz

Bu makale, önemli çevresel ve sosyal etkileri olan bir sektör olan tekstil ve konfeksiyon sektöründe çifte önemliliği (Double Materiality) eleştirel bir bakış açısıyla incelemektedir. Çifte önemlilik, sürdürülebilirlik raporlamasında hem kurumsal faaliyetlerin çevresel ve sosyal sistemler üzerindeki etkilerini (etki önemliliği) hem de sürdürülebilirlikle ilgili konuların işletme değeri üzerinde oluşturduğu finansal risk ve fırsatları (finansal önemlilik) dikkate alan çift yönlü bir değerlendirme perspektifini ifade eder. Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlama Direktifi (CSRD) kapsamında Avrupa Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlama Standartları (ESRS) getirilmesiyle, çifte önemlilik zorunlu bir raporlama ilkesi haline gelmiştir. Makale, ESRS'yi Küresel Raporlama Girişimi (GRI) ve Sürdürülebilirlik Muhasebe Standartları Kurulu (SASB) gibi önceki çerçevelerle karşılaştırarak, temel benzerlikleri ve farklılıkları vurgulamaktadır. Standart derleme makalelerinden farklı olarak bu çalışma eleştirel ve karşılaştırmalı bir yaklaşım benimsemekte ve bu üç küresel çerçeveden tekstil ve hazır giyim sektörüne özgü önemlilik başlıklarını sentezlemektedir. Bu makalenin özgünlüğü, üç ana raporlama standardının tanımlanması, haritalandırılması ve eleştirel değerlendirilmesinin, sektör odaklı bir çerçeve senteziyle birleştirilmesinde yatmaktadır. Bilgimiz dahilinde, tekstil ve giyim sektöründe çift önemliliği özel olarak inceleyen benzer bir çalışma bulunmamaktadır; bu makale, ESRS, GRI ve SASB arasında eleştirel karşılaştırmalı analiz ve sentez yoluyla bu boşluğu doldurmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çifte Önemlilik
• Tekstil Sanayii
• Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlaması
• GRI
• SASB
• ESRS
• Sürdürülebilirlik

Destekleyen Kurum

Çalışmayı destekleyen bir kurum yoktur.

Etik Beyan

Bu makalede, yapay zekanın etik kullanımı, Yükseköğretim Kurulu'nun (YÖK, 2024) “Yükseköğretim Kurumlarında Üretken Yapay Zekânın Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Faaliyetlerinde Etik Kullanım Rehberi” adlı yayınında belirlediği çerçeve ve Avrupa Birliği'nin Yapay Zeka Yasası (Regülasyon - AB - 2024/1689) ile uyumlu olarak dikkate alınmıştır. Yapay zeka araçları (ChatGPT, OpenAI GPT-4o modeli) yalnızca dil bilgisi kontrolü, dil netliğini iyileştirme ve metinsel tutarlılığı artırma amacıyla kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın hiçbir kavramsallaştırması, eleştirel içgörüsü veya özgün katkısı yapay zeka tarafından üretilmemiştir. Bu makalede sunulan tüm bilimsel içerik, analizler, yorumlar, sektöre özgü konu belirlemeleri, ESRS–GRI–SASB çerçevelerinin eleştirel değerlendirmeleri ve öneriler ile sonuçlar tamamen yazarların kendi çalışmasıdır. Bu makalenin özgünlüğü, raporlama çerçevelerinin tekstil ve hazır giyim endüstrisi için , sektöre özgü eleştirel incelemesi ve sentezinde yatmaktadır. Bu içgörüler, analizler ve katkılar, yazarların kendi entelektüel çabalarının, literatürle etkileşimlerinin ve mesleki uzmanlıklarının bir sonucudur. Yapay zeka araçlarını kullandıktan sonra, yazarlar makalenin tamamını dikkatlice inceleyip düzenlemişlerdir ve içeriğinin ve doğruluğunun tüm sorumluluğunu üstlenmektedirler.

Kaynakça

1. Abhayawansa, S. (2022). Swimming against the tide: back to single materiality for sustainability reporting. Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal, 13(6), 1361–1385. https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-07-2022-0378
2. Adams, C. A., & Abhayawansa, S. (2021). Connecting the COVID-19 pandemic, environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing and calls for ‘harmonisation’ of sustainability reporting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 82, 102309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2021.102309
3. Adhikari, T. B., Sigsgaard, T., Kallestrup, P., & Kurmi, O. (2024). Reshaping the fabric of health: a call for improving the respiratory health of textile workers in low- and middle-income countries. European Respiratory Journal, 63(1), 2301803. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01803-2023
4. Akter, T., Protity, A. T., Shaha, M., Mamun, M. A., & Hashem, A. (2023). The Impact of Textile Dyes on the Environment. In Nanohybrid Materials for Treatment of Textiles Dyes (pp. 401–431). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3901-5_17
5. Alder, A. (2022). The materiality madness: why definitions matter. In The GRI Perspective: Vol. Issue 3 [Article]. https://www.globalreporting.org/media/r2oojx53/gri-perspective-the-materiality-madness.pdf
6. Ali, A., Qamer, S., Shahid, M., Tomkova, B., Khan, M. Z., Militky, J., Wiener, J., & Venkataraman, M. (2024). Micro- and Nanoplastics Produced from Textile Finishes: A Review. Langmuir. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.4c00552
7. Amin, H., Kadri, M. H., & Ahmad, R. a. R. (2024). The Influence of Sustainability Reporting in Enhancing Firm Value. Information Management and Business Review, 16(3(I)), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.22610/imbr.v16i3(i).3803
8. Amjad, A. I., & Kumar, R. (2022). Sustainable Production and Performance Analysis of Cotton Melange Fabrics. Journal of Natural Fibers, 19(15), 11831–11844. https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2022.2044963

9. Annapoorani, S. G. (2016). Social Sustainability in Textile Industry. In Textile science and clothing technology (pp. 57–78). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2639-3_4
10. Anner, M. (2020). Squeezing workers’ rights in global supply chains: purchasing practices in the Bangladesh garment export sector in comparative perspective. Review of International Political Economy, 27(2), 320–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1625426
11. Baumüller, J., & Sopp, K. (2022). Double materiality and the shift from non-financial to European sustainability reporting: review, outlook and implications. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 23(1), 8–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/jaar-04-2021-0114
12. Berg, J., Cooney, S., & Ananian, S. (2023). How to strengthen the institutions of work. World Employment and Social Outlook, 2023(2), 353–390. https://doi.org/10.1002/wow3.197
13. Busse, C., Schleper, M. C., Niu, M., & Wagner, S. M. (2016). Supplier development for sustainability: contextual barriers in global supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 46(5), 442–468. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpdlm-12-2015-0300
14. Chan, C. K., Lo, C. K., & Kan, C. (2024). A Systematic Literature Review for Addressing Microplastic Fibre Pollution: Urgency and Opportunities. Water, 16(14), 1988. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16141988
15. Chowdhury, D. S. (2017). Women’s Rights and Voice in the Ready-Made Garments Sector of Bangladesh: Evidence from Theory and Practice. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 18(2), 118–133. https://paperity.org/p/84288892/womens-rights-and-voice-in-the-ready-made-garments-sector-of-bangladesh-evidence-from
16. Correa-Mejía, D.A.,Correa-García, J.A. and García-Benau, M.A. (2024), "Analysis of double materiality in early adopters. Are companies walking the talk?", Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 299-329. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2023-0469
17. De Oliveira Neto, G. C., Pinto, L. F. R., De Silva, D., Rodrigues, F. L., Flausino, F. R., & De Oliveira, D. E. P. (2023). Industry 4.0 Technologies Promote Micro-Level Circular Economy but Neglect Strong Sustainability in Textile Industry. Sustainability, 15(14), 11076. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411076
18. Delaney, A., & Connor, T. (2016). Forced labour in the textile and garment sector in Tamil Nadu South India: Strategies for redress. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2889125_code2111116.pdf?abstractid=2889125&mirid=1
19. Delaney, A., & Tate, J. (2015). Forced Labour and Ethical Trade in the Indian Garment Industry. In Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks (pp. 244–255). https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137460417_18
20. Delgado-Ceballos, J., Ortiz-De-Mandojana, N., Antolín-López, R., & Montiel, I. (2023). Connecting the Sustainable Development Goals to firm-level sustainability and ESG factors: The need for double materiality. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 26(1), 2-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/23409444221140919
21. Devi, O. R., & Devi, L. J. (2024). Water Consumption and Microfibers: The Biggest Threat. In Climate Action Through Eco-Friendly Textiles (pp. 73–90). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-9856-2_6
22. Dhameliya, K., & Ambasana, C. (2023). Assessment of Wastewater Contaminants Caused by Textile Industries. Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology, 17(3), 1477–1485. https://doi.org/10.22207/jpam.17.3.09
23. Dhodhi, Gautam. "Double Materiality Assessment, Implications for the Oil and Gas Sector." Paper presented at the SPE International Health, Safety, Environment and Sustainability Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE, September 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/220418-MS
24. Dragomir, V. D., Dumitru, M., Chersan, I. C., Gorgan, C., & Păunescu, M. (2024). Double Materiality Disclosure as an Emerging Practice: The Assessment Process, Impacts, Risks, and Opportunities. Accounting in Europe, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2024.2339264
25. Dumitru, V., Chersan, I., & Gorgan, C. (2023). Early Disclosure of the Double Materiality Concept in a European Oil and Gas Company. New Trends in Sustainable Business and Consumption. https://doi.org/10.24818/basiq/2023/09/006.
26. Dutta, S., Adhikary, S., Bhattacharya, S., Roy, D., Chatterjee, S., Chakraborty, A., Banerjee, D., Ganguly, A., Nanda, S., & Rajak, P. (2024). Contamination of textile dyes in aquatic environment: Adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystem and human health, and its management using bioremediation. Journal of Environmental Management, 353, 120103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120103
27. EFRAG. (2024). EFRAG IG 1: Materiality Assessment Implementation Guidance.
28. Fashion and the circular economy. (2019, September 16). https://archive.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/explore/fashion-and-the-circular-economy
29. Filho, W. L., Perry, P., Heim, H., Dinis, M. a. P., Moda, H., Ebhuoma, E., & Paço, A. (2022). An overview of the contribution of the textiles sector to climate change. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.973102
30. Fukunishi, T., & Yamagata, T. (2014). Introduction: The Dynamism of the Garment Industry in Low-income Countries. In Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks (pp. 1–37). https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137383181_1
31. Garcia, V. S. G., De Freitas Tallarico, L., Rosa, J. M., Suzuki, C. F., Roubicek, D. A., Nakano, E., & Borrely, S. I. (2021). Multiple adverse effects of textile effluents and reactive Red 239 dye to aquatic organisms. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(44), 63202–63214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15115-7
32. Gauzès, J.-P., European Financial Reporting Advisory Group, & De Cambourg, P. (2021). FINAL REPORT PROPOSALS FOR A RELEVANT AND DYNAMIC EU SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING STANDARD-SETTING. https://www.efrag.org/sites/default/files/sites/webpublishing/SiteAssets/EFRAG%20PTF-NFRS_MAIN_REPORT.pdf
33. Global Reporting Initiative. (2021). A Short Introduction to the GRI Standards. https://www.globalreporting.org/media/wtaf14tw/a-short-introduction-to-the-gri-standards.pdf
34. Gomes, S., Pinho, M., & Lopes, J. M. (2023). From environmental sustainability practices to green innovations: Evidence from small and medium‐sized manufacturing companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(3), 1677–1687. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2657
35. GRI - GRI Standards. (2024). https://www.globalreporting.org/how-to-use-the-gri-standards/gri-standards-english-language/
36. GRI - Mission & history. (2022). Retrieved December 22, 2024, from https://www.globalreporting.org/about-gri/mission-history/
37. GRI - Sector Program. (2024). https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/sector-program/
38. Guo, Y., Zhu, L., Ye, X., Wang, X., Xu, Y., Qian, G., & Wang, L. (2023). Toxicity Impact Assessment of Nitrogen Oxide and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in China’s Textile Industry With Chemical Footprint Method. AATCC Journal of Research, 10(4), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/24723444231161744
39. Haque, M. N., & Liu, C. (2024). Trends and Forms of Greenwashing in the Fashion Industry: A Systematic Review. Bridging the Divide. https://doi.org/10.31274/itaa.17331
40. Islam, S. (2020). A Study on the Solutions of Environment Pollutions and Worker’s Health Problems Caused by Textile Manufacturing Operations. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.26717/bjstr.2020.28.004692
41. Kumar, K. A., Prasadini, P. P., Lakshmipathi, R., Trimurthulu, N., & Rao, G. R. (2017). Effect of Textile Sludge Application on Soil Microbial Properties. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 6(12), 2006–2012. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.612.230
42. Lacasse, K., & Baumann, W. (2004). The textile chain (from raw materials to finished goods). In Springer eBooks (pp. 70–83). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18898-5_3
43. Liu, T., Wang, X., Hu, Q., Deng, W., Zhang, Y., Ding, X., Fu, X., Bernard, F., Zhang, Z., Lü, S., He, Q., Bi, X., Chen, J., Sun, Y., Yu, J., Peng, P., Sheng, G., & Fu, J. (2016). Formation of secondary aerosols from gasoline vehicle exhaust when mixing with SO₂ Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 16(2), 675–689. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-675-2016
44. Magalhães, S., Paciência, D., Rodrigues, J. M. M., Lindman, B., Alves, L., Medronho, B., & Da Graça Rasteiro, M. (2024). Insights on Microplastic Contamination from Municipal and Textile Industry Effluents and Their Removal Using a Cellulose-Based Approach. Polymers, 16(19), 2803. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16192803
45. Mezzanotte, F. E. (2023). Corporate sustainability reporting: double materiality, impacts, and legal risk. Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 23(2), 633–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735970.2024.2319058
46. Michaelides, E. E. (2023). Decarbonization of the electricity generation sector and its effects on sustainability goals. Sustainable Energy Research, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40807-023-00080-1
47. Mio, C., Fasan, M., & Costantini, A. (2020). Materiality in integrated and sustainability reporting: A paradigm shift? Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(1), 306–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2390
48. Ng, A. W., Yorke, S. M., & Nathwani, J. (2022). Enforcing Double Materiality in Global Sustainability Reporting for Developing Economies: Reflection on Ghana’s Oil Exploration and Mining Sectors. Sustainability, 14(16), 9988. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14169988
49. Niinimäki, K., Peters, G., Dahlbo, H., Perry, P., Rissanen, T., & Gwilt, A. (2020). The environmental price of fast fashion. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1(4), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0039-9
50. Patra, A. K., & Pariti, S. R. K. (2022). Restricted substances for textiles. Textile Progress, 54(1), 1–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405167.2022.2101302
51. Pizzi, S., Caputo, F., & De Nuccio, E. (2024). Do sustainability reporting standards affect analysts’ forecast accuracy? Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal, 15(2), 330–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-04-2023-0227
52. Plakantonaki, S., Kiskira, K., Zacharopoulos, N., Chronis, I., Coelho, F., Togiani, A., Kalkanis, K., & Priniotakis, G. (2023). A Review of Sustainability Standards and Ecolabeling in the Textile Industry. Sustainability, 15(15), 11589. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511589
53. Publications Office of the European Union. (2023, December 22). C/2023/5303, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2772 of 31 July 2023 supplementing Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards sustainability reporting standards. Publications Office of the EU. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/98029000-a070-11ee-b164-01aa75ed71a1/
54. Qaisar, M. H., & Bilal, M. (2022). Energy Conservation in Processing Area of Textile Industry. 2022 5th International Conference on Energy Conservation and Efficiency (ICECE), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/icece54634.2022.9758967
55. Radhakrishnan, S. (2021). Circular Economy in Textiles and Fashion. In Environmental footprints and eco-design of products and processes (pp. 163–202). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3698-1_6
56. Radukić, S., Petrović-Ranđelović, M., & Kostić, Z. (2023). Implementation of the circular economy principles in the textile industry. Economics of Sustainable Development, 7(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5937/esd2301001r
57. Remmer, S., & Gilbert, D. U. (2019). Applying Materiality Assessment in Strategic Management: The Implicit Coating of the Materiality Lens. In CSR, sustainability, ethics & governance (pp. 267–291). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06014-5_13
58. Sodhi, J. S. (2024). Situation of Freedom of Association & Collective Bargaining in Factories in India & BD. INTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 08(09), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsrem37618
59. Subramaniam, S., Raju, N., Ganesan, A., Rajavel, N., Chenniappan, M., Stonier, A. A., Prakash, C., Pramanik, A., & Basak, A. K. (2024). Impact of cotton dust, endotoxin exposure, and other occupational health risk due to indoor pollutants on textile industry workers in low and middle- income countries. Journal of Air Pollution and Health. https://doi.org/10.18502/japh.v9i1.15080
60. Sukalova, V., & Ceniga, P. (2021). Gender equality management in modern company management in era of globalization. SHS Web of Conferences, 92, 07060. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20219207060
61. Sustainability Accounting Standard Apparel, Accessories & Footwear. (2023). In Sustainability Accounting Standard. https://d3flraxduht3gu.cloudfront.net/latest_standards/apparel-accessories-and-footwear-standard_en-gb.pdf
62. Szalacha, P. (2024). Double materiality implementation and its impact on sustainability reporting: Findings from Polish early adopter reports. ZTR, 48(4), 133-154. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0054.8692.
63. Uddin, M. A., Begum, M. S., Ashraf, M., Azad, A. K., Adhikary, A. C., & Hossain, M. S. (2023). Water and chemical consumption in the textile processing industry of Bangladesh. PLOS Sustainability and Transformation, 2(7), e0000072. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000072
64. Vänskä, A., Rauti, S., Heino, T., Carlsson, R., Mickelsson, S., & Särmäkari, N. (2024). Fair Data is the New Black: Online Shopping, Data Leaks, and Broadening the Understanding of Sustainable Fashion. Fashion Theory, 28(3), 305–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/1362704x.2024.2339251
65. Vlahović, M., Žarković, D., Đorđević, N., Mihajlović, S., Vlahović, M., & Vušović, N. (2024). An overview on the viable methods for textile wastewater treatment. 7th International Scientific Conference Contemporary Trends and Innovations in Textile Industry – CT&ITI 2024, 510–521. https://doi.org/10.5937/ct_iti24057v
66. Wang, X. (2013). The determinants of textile and apparel export performance in Asian countries [Thesis, Iowa State University]. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd
67. Yacout, D. M., El-Kawi, M. A., & Hassouna. (2014). Applying Energy Management in Textile Industry, Case Study: An Egyptian Textile Plant. International Energy Journal, 14(2). http://www.rericjournal.ait.ac.th/index.php/reric/article/view/1160/436