SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Öneri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 21 Sayı: 65

APPLYING MRP-WSCI FOR PROVINCIAL-LEVEL ASSESSMENT INTO SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING AWARENESS IN TÜRKİYE

TÜRKİYE’DE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK RAPORLAMASI BİLİNCİNİN İL DÜZEYİNDE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİNDE MRP-WSCI UYGULAMASI

Hasan Özçelik(Public Oversight Accounting and Auditing Standards Authority)0000-0002-5798-7788
Deniz Koçak(OSMANİYE KORKUT ATA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5893-0564
Ünal Eryılmaz(Ministry of National Education)0000-0002-9056-4963
Pages
211–230
Publication Date
2026-01-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Findings reveal that metropolitan provinces such as İstanbul perform significantly better compared to the surrounding provinces, and provincial asymmetries are quite pronounced.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Sustainability reporting has become a regulatory necessity under frameworks such as the European Sustainability Reporting Standards and the International Sustainability Standards Board’s global baseline standards.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using the survey data obtained from 694 auditors throughout Türkiye, three alternative composite indicators were created to capture provincial differences in a robust way and the sensitivity of these indicators to different aggregation logics were evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings reveal that metropolitan provinces such as İstanbul perform significantly better compared to the surrounding provinces, and provincial asymmetries are quite pronounced.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlaması · Denetim Yeterliliği · Bileşik Göstergeler

Abstract

Sustainability reporting has become a regulatory necessity under frameworks such as the European Sustainability Reporting Standards and the International Sustainability Standards Board’s global baseline standards. The audit profession has been facing increasing demands to ensure the reliability of environmental, social and governance disclosures. However, the level of readiness of auditors with these expectations is still not evenly distributed across provinces, especially in emerging economies. This study aims to fill an important gap in the literature by systematically evaluating provincial differences in awareness and competence levels related to sustainability reporting among independent auditors in Türkiye. Based on the developments in the field of composite indicators, the multiple reference point based on weak and strong composite indicators was used in the study. Using the survey data obtained from 694 auditors throughout Türkiye, three alternative composite indicators were created to capture provincial differences in a robust way and the sensitivity of these indicators to different aggregation logics were evaluated. Findings reveal that metropolitan provinces such as İstanbul perform significantly better compared to the surrounding provinces, and provincial asymmetries are quite pronounced. These differences indicate that there are serious deficiencies in sustainability literacy and audit readiness in areas outside the core provinces.

Özet

Sürdürülebilirlik raporlaması, Avrupa Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlama Standartları ve Uluslararası Sürdürülebilirlik Standartları Kurulu’nun küresel temel standartları gibi çerçeveler altında düzenleyici bir zorunluluk haline gelmiştir. Denetim mesleği ise çevresel, sosyal ve yönetişim açıklamalarının güvenilirliğini sağlamak için artan taleplerle karşı karşıya kalmıştır. Ancak, denetçilerin bu beklentilere hazır olma düzeyi, özellikle gelişmekte olan ekonomilerde, iller arasında hala eşit olarak dağılmamıştır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki bağımsız denetçiler arasında sürdürülebilirlik raporlamasıyla ilgili farkındalık ve yetkinlik düzeylerindeki il farklılıklarını sistematik olarak değerlendirerek literatürdeki önemli bir boşluğu doldurmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bileşik göstergeler alanındaki gelişmelere dayanarak, çalışmada zayıf ve güçlü bileşik göstergelere dayalı çoklu referans noktası kullanılmıştır. Türkiye genelinde 694 denetçiden elde edilen anket verileri kullanılarak, il farklılıklarını sağlam bir şekilde yakalamak için üç alternatif bileşik gösterge oluşturulmuş ve bu göstergelerin farklı toplama mantıklarına duyarlılığı değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, İstanbul gibi metropol illerin çevre illere kıyasla önemli ölçüde daha iyi performans gösterdiğini ve il asimetrilerinin oldukça belirgin olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu farklılıklar, merkez illerin dışında kalan bölgelerde sürdürülebilirlik okuryazarlığı ve denetime hazır olma konusunda ciddi eksiklikler olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özçelik, H., Koçak, D., Eryılmaz, Ü. (2026). APPLYING MRP-WSCI FOR PROVINCIAL-LEVEL ASSESSMENT INTO SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING AWARENESS IN TÜRKİYE. Öneri Dergisi, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 65, 211–230. https://doi.org/10.14783/maruoneri.1784217

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (34)

  1. Accountancy Europe. (2019). Interconnected standard setting for corporate reporting. https://www. accountancyeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/191220-Future-of-Corporate-Reporting.pdf
  2. Adams, C. A., & Frost, G. (2008). Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices. Accounting Forum, 32(4), 288-302.
  3. Almusalami, A., Alnaqbi, F., Alkaabi, S., Alzeyoudi, R., & Awad, M. (2025). Sustainability awareness in the UAE: A case study. Sustainability, 16(4), 1621.
  4. Barca, F., McCann, P., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2012). The case for regional development intervention: Place based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science, 52(1), 134-152.
  5. Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., & Brotherton, M. C. (2020). Professionalizing the assurance of sustainability reports: The auditors’ perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(2), 309-334.
  6. Bouyssou, D., & Pirlot, M. (2015). A note on the asymmetric part of an outranking relation. International Transactions in Operational Research, 22(5), 883-912.
  7. Cabello, J. M., Ruiz, F., & Pérez-Gladish, B. (2021). An alternative aggregation process for composite indexes: An application to the heritage foundation economic freedom index. Social Indicators Research, 153, 443 467.
  8. Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2007). An introduction to ‘benefit of the doubt’ composite indicators. Social Indicators Research, 82(1), 111-145.
  9. Eccles, R. G., & Krzus, M. P. (2014). The Integrated Reporting Movement: Meaning, Momentum, Motives, and Materiality. John Wiley & Sons.
  10. Freudenberg, M. (2003). Composite indicators of country performance: A critical assessment. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers. 2003/16, OECD Publishing.
  11. García-Sánchez, I. M., Raimo, N., Amor-Esteban, V., & Vitolla, F. (2023). Board committees and non-financial information assurance services. Journal of Management and Governance, 27(1), 1-42.
  12. Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M., & Torrisi, G. (2019). On the methodological framework of composite indices: A review of the issues of weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Social Indicators Research, 141(1), 61 94.
  13. Hazaea, S. A., Zhu, J., Khatib, S. F., Bazhair, A. H., & Elamer A. A. (2022). Sustainability assurance practices: A systematic review and future research agenda. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(4) 4843-4864.
  14. Hummel, K., Schlick, C., & Fifka, M. S. (2019). The role of sustainability performance and accounting assurors in sustainability assurance engagements. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(3), 733-757.
  15. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) (2023). Proposed international standard on sustainability assurance 5000: General requirements for sustainability assurance engagements and proposed conforming and consequential amendments to other IAASB standards. https://ifacweb.blob. core.windows.net/publicfiles/2023-08/IAASB-International-Standard-Sustainability-5000-Exposure Draft_0.pdf
  16. Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Kolk, A., & Perego, P. (2010). Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance statements: an international investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(3), 182-198.
  18. Kolm, S. J. (1976). Unequal Inequalities. Journal of Economic Theory, 12(3), 416-442.
  19. KPMG International (2023). Big shifts, small steps: Europe, Middle East and Africa Edition: Survey of sustainability reporting 2022. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/se/pdf/komm/2022/Global-Survey-of Sustainability-Reporting-2022.pdf
  20. Krasodomska, J., Michalak, J., & Świetla, K. (2020). Directive 2014/95/EU: Accountants’ understanding and attitude towards mandatory non-financial disclosures in corporate reporting. Meditari Accountancy Research, 28(5), 751-779.
  21. Munda, G. (2005). Measuring sustainability: A multi-criterion framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(1), 117-134.
  22. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., & Giovannini, E. (2005). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD Statistics Working Papers 2005/03. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2005/08/handbook-on constructing-composite-indicators_g17a16e3/533.411.815016.pdf
  23. Paruolo, P., Saisana, M., & Saltelli, A. (2013). Ratings and rankings: voodoo or science? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 176(3), 609-634.
  24. Perego, P., & Kolk, A. (2012). Multinationals’ accountability on sustainability: The evolution of third-party assurance of sustainability reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 173-190.
  25. Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2013). Do institutions matter for regional development? Regional Studies, 47(7), pp. 1034 1047.
  26. Ruiz, F., & Cabello, J. M. (2021). MRP-PCI: A Multiple reference point based partially compensatory composite indicator for sustainability assessment. Sustainability, 13(3), 1261.
  27. Ruiz, F., El Gibari, S., Cabello, J. M., & Gómez, T. (2020). MRP-WSCI: Multiple reference point based weak and strong composite indicators. Omega, 95, 102060.
  28. Saisana, M., & Tarantola, S. (2002). State-of-the-art report on current methodologies and practices for composite indicator development. Ispra, Italy: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen, Technological and Economic Risk Management Unit.
  29. Saltelli, A. (2007). Composite indicators between analysis and advocacy. Social Indicators Research, 81(1), 65-77.
  30. Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S. Campolongo, F., & Ratto, M. (2008). Sensitivity Analysis in Practice: A Guide to Assessing Scientific Models. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A. & Chua, W. F. (2009). Assurance on sustainability reports: an international comparison. The Accounting Review, 84(3), 937-967.
  31. Soras, E., Zounta, S., & Christopoulos, A. G. (2025). Auditors’ contribution in enhancing non-quantitative information quality. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18(4), 170.
  32. Terzi, S., Otoiu, A., Grimaccia, E., Mazziotta, M., & Pareto, A. (2021). Open issues in composite indicators: A starting point and a reference on some state-of-the-art issues. Roma: Roma TrE-Press.
  33. Velte, P. (2025). Audit quality and materiality disclosure quality in integrated reporting: The moderating effect of carbon assurance quality. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 32, 3785 3801.
  34. Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Zhou, D. Q. (2010). Weighting and aggregation in composite indicator construction: A multiplicative optimization approach. Social Indicators Research, 96(1), 169-181.