Journals / Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 74

Compliance with Turkish sustainability reporting standards: An empirical assessment of the Turkish banking sector

Türkiye sürdürülebilirlik raporlama standartları’na uyum düzeyi: Türk bankacılık sektörü üzerine ampirik bir değerlendirme

Elçin Dalkılıç(YOZGAT BOZOK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-5939-8584
Nurettin Özdemir(YOZGAT BOZOK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6101-3030
Pages
165–175
Publication Date
2026-08-31
🏛️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)

The findings indicate an average sectoral compliance rate of 80.5%, suggesting that Turkish banks generally achieved a high level of compliance in the first year of mandatory TSRS implementation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study empirically assesses the extent to which the Turkish banking sector complied with Turkish Sustainability Reporting Standards (TSRS 1 and TSRS 2) in their first year of mandatory application.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The 2024 sustainability reports of 12 Borsa Istanbul-listed banks were examined through content analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate an average sectoral compliance rate of 80.5%, suggesting that Turkish banks generally achieved a high level of compliance in the first year of mandatory TSRS implementation.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Türkiye Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlama Standartları · TSRS 1 · TSRS 2

Abstract

This study empirically assesses the extent to which the Turkish banking sector complied with Turkish Sustainability Reporting Standards (TSRS 1 and TSRS 2) in their first year of mandatory application. The 2024 sustainability reports of 12 Borsa Istanbul-listed banks were examined through content analysis. Compliance was measured using the Cooke disclosure index and a 19-item coding rubric covering governance, strategy, risk management, metrics and targets, and assurance. Each item was scored on a 0–2 scale, allowing the analysis to evaluate not only the presence of disclosures but also their quality and support through quantitative or verifiable information. The findings indicate an average sectoral compliance rate of 80.5%, suggesting that Turkish banks generally achieved a high level of compliance in the first year of mandatory TSRS implementation. However, rates ranging from 47.2% to 97.2% reveal considerable variation among reports prepared under the same framework. At the section level, independent assurance recorded the highest compliance rate (100%), whereas metrics and targets had the lowest (67.5%). Internal carbon pricing, sustainability-linked remuneration mechanisms, and quantitative disclosure of climate-related financial effects emerged as the main areas requiring improvement. Overall, banks largely fulfilled the qualitative and structural disclosure requirements, while reporting maturity remained limited in areas requiring concrete data, quantitative measurement, and policy instruments. As one of the first empirical examinations of the Turkish banking sector directly under TSRS 1 and TSRS 2, the study contributes to the literature by offering a structured assessment based on a transparent coding rubric to support comparative research.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türk bankacılık sektörünün Türkiye Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlama Standartları’na (TSRS 1 ve TSRS 2) ilk uygulama yılında ne ölçüde uyum sağladığını ampirik olarak değerlendirmektedir. Çalışmada BİST’te işlem gören 12 bankanın TSRS 1 ve TSRS 2 kapsamında hazırladığı 2024 yılı sürdürülebilirlik raporları içerik analizi yöntemiyle incelenmiştir. Uyum düzeyinin ölçülmesinde Cooke açıklama indeksi temel alınmış ve TSRS’nin yönetişim, strateji, risk yönetimi, metrik ve hedefler ile güvence boyutlarını kapsayan 19 maddelik bir kodlama rubriği oluşturulmuştur. Her madde 0–2 puan aralığında değerlendirilmiştir. Böylece analizde yalnızca açıklamanın yapılıp yapılmadığı değil, açıklamanın niteliği ve nicel ya da doğrulanabilir bilgiyle desteklenme düzeyi de dikkate alınmıştır. Bulgular, sektör genelinde ortalama uyum oranının %80,5 olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu oran, Türk bankacılık sektörünün zorunlu TSRS uygulamasının ilk yılında raporlama standartlarına uyum sağladığı şeklinde yorumlanabilir. Ancak uyum oranlarının %47,2 ile %97,2 arasında değişmesi, aynı raporlama çerçevesine göre hazırlanan raporlar arasında önemli farklılıklar bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Bölüm bazında en yüksek uyum bağımsız güvence boyutunda (%100) sağlanırken, en düşük uyum metrik ve hedefler bölümünde (%67,5) gerçekleşmiştir. Özellikle iç karbon fiyatlandırması, sürdürülebilirlik performansına bağlı ücretlendirme mekanizmaları ve iklimle bağlantılı finansal etkilerin nicel olarak raporlanması maddeleri gelişime açık alanlar olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Bulgular değerlendirildiğinde, TSRS’nin ilk uygulama yılında Türk bankacılık sektörünün nitel ve yapısal açıklama gerekliliklerini büyük ölçüde yerine getirdiği görülmektedir. Buna karşılık somut veri, nicel ölçüm ve politika aracı gerektiren alanlarda raporlama olgunluğu yeterli düzeye ulaşamamıştır. Bu yönüyle çalışma, TSRS 1 ve TSRS 2 kapsamında Türk bankacılık sektörünü doğrudan ele alan ve belirlenen kodlama rubriği doğrultusunda inceleyen ilk ampirik çalışmalardan biri olarak literatüre katkı sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dalkılıç, E., Özdemir, N., *, E. D. (2026). Compliance with Turkish sustainability reporting standards: An empirical assessment of the Turkish banking sector. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı: 74, 165–175. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.1949133

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (48)

  1. Akdoğan, M., U. (2024). Sürdürülebilirlik bilgilerinin raporlanmasında kullanılan raporlama çerçevelerine toplu bakış ve tek raporlama çerçevesine duyulan ihtiyaç - Güncel gelişmeler. Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış Dergisi, 24(72), 217-238. https://doi. org/10.55322/mdbakis.1448567
  2. Adu, D. A. (2022). Sustainable banking initiatives, environmental disclosure and financial performance: The moderating impact of corporate governance mechanisms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(5), 2365-2399. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3033
  3. Alharasis, E. E. (2025). Earnings management and the driving force behind sustainability reporting disclosure in the Jordanian banking industry. International Journal of Law and Management. Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJLMA-04-2025-0150
  4. Amidjaya, P. G., & Widagdo, A. K. (2020). Sustainability reporting in Indonesian listed banks: Do corporate governance, ownership structure and digital banking matter? Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 21(2), 231-247. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JAAR-09-2018-0149
  5. Andania, N. P., & Yadnya, I. P. (2020). The effect of sustainability report disclosure on banking company financial performance in Indonesia Stock Exchange. American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research, 4(1), 60-67.
  6. Attah-Botchwey, E., Soku, M. G., & Awadzie, D. M. (2022). Sustainability reporting and the financial performance of banks in Africa. Journal of Business, Economics and Finance, 11(1), 43-57. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2022.1551
  7. Aversa, D. (2023). Climate change and climate-related financial disclosures in the banking sector. Risk Governance & Control: Financial Markets & Institutions, 13(1), 70-94. https://doi.org/10.22495/rgcv13i1p6
  8. Bircan, N. G., & Özcan, İ. (2023). Sürdürülebilirlik raporlaması açısından UFRS S1 ve S2 taslak standartlarına uyum sürecinin değerlendirilmesi: BIST Sürdürülebilirlik 25 Endeksi işletmeleri üzerine bir araştırma. Muhasebe Enstitüsü Dergisi, (0)69, 24-43. https://doi.org/10.26650/MED.1253502
  9. Brescia, V., Degregori, G., Chmet, F., & Secinaro, S. (2026). Climate-related disclosure in European banking: Stakeholder capitalism between sustainability and financial imperatives. Business Strategy and the Environment, 35(1), 36-56. https://doi. org/10.1002/bse.70170
  10. Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & 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. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003
  11. Cooke, T. E. (1989) Disclosure in the corporate annual reports of Swedish companies, Accounting and Business Research, 19(74), 113-124, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0001 4788.1989.9728841
  12. Das, S. K., & Akter, P. (2026). Board composition, sustainability reporting, and the moderating role of a contextual issue: Evidence from an emerging country. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 33(2), 1832-1855. https://doi. org/10.1002/csr.70258
  13. Das, S. K., Rahman, M. K., & Roy, S. (2024). Does ownership type affect sustainability reporting disclosure? Evidence from an emerging market. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 21, 52-68. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-023-00180-w
  14. 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://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
  15. Dong, S., Xu, L., & McIver, R. P. (2023). Sustainability reporting quality and the financial sector: Evidence from China. Meditari Accountancy Research, 31(5), 1190-1214. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-05-2020-0899
  16. Ertan, Y. (2018). Türkiye’de sürdürülebilirlik raporlaması (2005-2017). Journal of Accounting and Taxation Studies, 11(3), 463-478. https://doi.org/10.29067/ muvu.410926
  17. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
  18. Gunawan, J., Permatasari, P., & Sharma, U. (2022). Exploring sustainability and green banking disclosures: A study of banking sector. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24, 11153-11194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01901-3
  19. Gümrah, A., & Büyükipekçi, S. (2019). Türkiye’de sürdürülebilirlik raporlaması: 2008 2017 yılları arası yayınlanmış sürdürülebilirlik raporlarının incelenmesi. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 21(2), 305-323. https://doi.org/10.31460/mbdd.521540
  20. 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. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
  21. Hanić, A., Jovanović, O., & Stevanović, S. (2021). Environmental disclosure practice in the Serbian banking sector. Management, 26(2), 115-144. https://doi.org/10.30924/ mjcmi.26.2.7
  22. Haniffa, R., & Hudaib, M. (2007). Exploring the ethical identity of Islamic banks via communication in annual reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(1), 97-116. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9272-5
  23. Harahap, H. M., Danut, Y., Aritonang, R., Yulita, W., Daniel, & Ramadhan, Y. (2024). Evaluation of the implementation of IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 in banking sector sustainability reporting for the 2023 period. Enrichment: Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 2(8), 663-667. https://doi.org/10.55324/enrichment. v2i8.215
  24. Hooks, J., & van Staden, C. J. (2011). Evaluating environmental disclosures: The relationship between quality and extent measures. The British Accounting Review, 43(3), 200-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2011.06.005
  25. Islam, M. A., Jain, A., & Thomson, D. (2016). Does the global reporting initiative influence sustainability disclosures in Asia-Pacific banks? Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 23(3), 298-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2016.1174625
  26. Islam, M. J. (2020). Sustainability reporting of banking companies in Bangladesh: A study on environmental aspect. Canadian Journal of Business and Information Studies, 2(2), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.34104/cjbis.020.035044
  27. Krasodomska, J. (2015). CSR disclosures in the banking industry: Empirical evidence from Poland. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(3), 406-423. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-02 2013-0019
  28. Kumari, A., Nagina, R., & Sheoran, V. (2024). Impact of sustainability reporting practices on financial performance: An empirical study of selected Indian banks. LIB PRO, 44(3), 7145-7154. https://doi.org/10.48165/bapas.2024.44.2.1
  29. Kuola, A. J. & Obasan, O. T.(2025). Sustainability reporting and quality of corporate disclosure in the Nigerian banking sector. Fane-Fane International Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(1), 80-96.
  30. Lamanda, G., & Tóth Vőneki, Z. (2024). Is ESG disclosure associated with bank performance? Evidence from the Visegrad Four countries. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 35(1), 201-219. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-02-2023-0064
  31. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  32. Liman, A. (2026). İklimle ilgili açıklamaların Türkiye sürdürülebilirlik raporlama standartları çerçevesinde analizi: BIST Sürdürülebilirlik 25 Endeksi işletmeleri örneği. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi, 19, 29-54. https://doi.org/10.29067/ muvu.1650671
  33. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002. tb00826.x
  34. Nandika, R. A., & Abidin, Z. (2025). The effect of sustainability report disclosure on profitability in banks. Devotion: Journal of Research and Community Service, 6(11), 1255–1269. https://doi.org/10.59188/devotion.v6i11.25577
  35. Naveenan, R. V., Loang, O. K., Iqbal, N., Suresh, G., & Shah, M. A. (2024). Analyzing corporate disclosure in Indian banks: Assessing compliance, corporate attributes, and performance implications. Cogent Economics & Finance, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.10 80/23322039.2023.2297589
  36. Nicolò, G., Zanellato, G., Esposito, B., & Tiron-Tudor, A. (2024). Cultural dimensions and sustainability disclosure in the banking sector: Insights from a qualitative comparative analysis approach. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(8), 8086–8101. https:// doi.org/10.1002/bse.3911
  37. Nobanee, H., & Ellili, N. (2016). Corporate sustainability disclosure in annual reports: Evidence from UAE banks: Islamic versus conventional. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55, 1336-1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.084
  38. Nwobu, O. A., Owolabi, A. A., & Iyoha, F. O. (2017). Sustainability reporting in financial institutions: A study of the Nigerian banking sector. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 22(S8), 1-15.
  39. Onggu, A. R., & Abidin, Z. (2023). Effect of sustainability report disclosure on banking company value. Journal of Business Management and Economic Development, 1(3), 394-405. https://doi.org/10.59653/jbmed.v1i03.186
  40. Özdemir, N. (2024). Güncel gelişmeler ekseninde sürdürülebilirlik raporlama sürecinin ve Türkiye sürdürülebilirlik raporlama standartlarının değerlendirilmesi. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 20(2), 444-458. https://izlik.org/JA63UJ59SW
  41. Platonova, E., Asutay, M., Dixon, R., & Mohammad, S. (2018). The impact of corporate social responsibility disclosure on financial performance: Evidence from the GCC Islamic banking sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 451-471. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-016-3229-0
  42. Serpeninova, Y., Lehenchuk, S., Zdyrko, N., Zakharov, D., & Podolianchuk, O. (2024). Revealing the contribution of corporate sustainability practices to financial performance: Case of BIST Sustainability 25 Index companies. Environmental Economics, 15(1), 118-129. https://doi.org/10.21511/ee.15(1).2024.10
  43. Street, D. L., & Gray, S. J. (2002). Factors influencing the extent of corporate compliance with International Accounting Standards: Summary of a research monograph. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 11(1), 51-76. doi.org/10.1016/ S1061-9518(02)00054-X
  44. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amr.1995.9508080331
  45. Triyani, M., & Siswanti, I. (2024). The effect of sustainability reporting disclosure, environment, social and governance rating, and digital banking transactions on firm value with financial performance as an intervening variable (Case study on commercial bank in Indonesia). Journal of Management and Economic Studies, 6(1), 17-37. https:// doi.org/10.26677/TR1010.2024.1380
  46. Uzun Kocamış, T., Kazan, G., & Güngör, A. (2026). The applicability of IFRS S1 and S2 in sustainability reporting in the energy sector: The case of Türkiye. Corporate Governance and Sustainability Review, 10(1), 18-29. https://doi.org/10.22495/ cgsrv10i1p2
  47. Xhindole, C., Tarquinio, L., & Sierra-García, L. (2025). Climate change and Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) reports: A comparison between Italy and Spain. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 21(7), 1-28. https://doi. org/10.1108/JAOC-05-2024-0172
  48. Zeytinoğlu, E., & Tumpach, M. (2023). Disclosure of sustainability information in banks: The case of Slovakia and Turkey. OPUS Journal of Society Research, 20(51), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.1153282