SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sürdürülebilir Mühendislik Uygulamaları ve Teknolojik Gelişmeler Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms in the Context of Climate Change Mitigation

İklim Değişikliği ile Mücadele Kapsamında Sınırda Karbon Uygulamaları

Yasemin Özliman Farımaz(İZMİR BAKIRÇAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0503-7932
Melih Soner Çeliktaş(Ege Üniversitesi Güneş Enerjisi Enstitüsü)0000-0003-0597-5133
Pages
109–119
Publication Date
2025-12-12
🏛️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)

This highlights the need for the cement sector, which is expected to be competitive, to accelerate its preparations for the green transition phase and to elaborate its reporting efforts.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The European Union (EU), like the rest of the world, has made reducing greenhouse gas emissions a high priority since they represent a significant danger in the fight against climate change.
📊
Key Findings & Data:An examination of the data reveals that carbon emission targets are often set in percentage terms rather than absolute values.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This highlights the need for the cement sector, which is expected to be competitive, to accelerate its preparations for the green transition phase and to elaborate its reporting efforts.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yeşil Mutabakat · Sürüdürülebilir Kalkınma · Karbon Vergisi

Abstract

The European Union (EU), like the rest of the world, has made reducing greenhouse gas emissions a high priority since they represent a significant danger in the fight against climate change. To lessen the threat posed by the climate issue, the European Union (EU) introduced the European Green Deal. Non-EU nations are subject to an obligation under the Green Deal's Border Carbon Adjustment Mechanism (BCDM). Research is being done to find out what hazards this presents for our nation and how it will affect EU exports, which make up a sizable portion of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This study explores the preparedness of the Turkish cement sector for the transition process. An examination of the data reveals that carbon emission targets are often set in percentage terms rather than absolute values. Initial and target values are not clearly stated, necessitating greater transparency and increased numerical data content in reports. This highlights the need for the cement sector, which is expected to be competitive, to accelerate its preparations for the green transition phase and to elaborate its reporting efforts.

Özet

İklim değişikliği ile mücadele kapsamında büyük bir tehdit oluşturan sera gazları salımı, dünya genelinde olduğu gibi Avrupa Birliği’nin (AB) de öncelikli gündem maddeleri arasında yer almaktadır. Avrupa Birliği (AB), iklim krizi tehdidini etkisiz hale getirebilmek için Avrupa Yeşil Mutabakatı çalışmalarının başlatmıştır. Yeşil mutabakata tabii olan Sınırda Karbon Düzenleme Mekanizması (SKDM) AB dışındaki ülkeler için bir yükümlülük getirmektedir. Ekonomik açıdan büyük bir paya sahip olan AB ihracatını nasıl etkileyeceğine, ülkemiz açısından nasıl bir risk teşkil edeceğine dair çalışmalar yapılmaktadır. Bu çalışma kapsamında Türkiye’de Çimento sektörünün geçiş sürecine ne kadar hazırlıklı olduğu araştırılmıştır. Veriler incelendiğinde; karbon salımı hedefleri çoğunlukla mutlak değerler üzerinden değil, oransal (yüzdelik) ifadelerle belirlenmiş olup, başlangıç ve hedef değerleri net olarak verilmediği, raporların daha şeffaf olması ve sayısal veri içeriğinin artması zorunluluğu görülmüştür. Bu durumda rekabetçi düzeyde olması beklenen çimento sektörünün yeşil geçiş aşaması için hazırlıklarını hızlandırması ve raporlandırma çalışmalarını detaylandırma gerekliliği göze çarpmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Farımaz, Y. Ö., Çeliktaş, M. S. (2025). Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms in the Context of Climate Change Mitigation. Sürdürülebilir Mühendislik Uygulamaları ve Teknolojik Gelişmeler Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.51764/smutgd.1727740

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (65)

  1. Aggarwal, V. K., & Reddie, A. W. (2021). Economic Statecraft in the 21st Century: Implications for the Future of the Global Trade Regime. World Trade Review, 20(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147474562000049X
  2. Bağrıaçık, R., Budak, A., Fakültesi …, E. O.-M.-M., & undefined 2013. (2013). Türkiye Çimento Sektöründeki Rekabet Analizi. Dergipark.Org.Tr, 28(1), 89–99.
  3. Barcelo, L., Kline, J., Walenta, G., & Gartner, E. (2014). Cement and carbon emissions. Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions, 47(6), 1055–1065. https://doi.org/10.1617/S11527-013-0114-5/TABLES/5
  4. Bayat, T., Ozsalman, E., & Derindag, O. F. (2025). Evaluating export vulnerability through import demand elasticity in carbon border adjustment contexts: A focus on Türkiye. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 32(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/S11356-024-35861-8
  5. Bayer, P., & Aklin, M. (2020). The European Union Emissions Trading System reduced CO2 emissions despite low prices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(16), 8804–8812. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.1918128117/SUPPL_FILE/PNAS.1918128117.SAPP.PDF
  6. Birpınar, M. E. (2022). KÜRESEL SORUN: İKLİM DEĞİŞİKLİĞİ “GELİŞİMİ, ULUSLARARASI MÜZAKERELER VE TÜRKİYE. Çevre Şehir ve İklim Dergisi, 1(1), 20–36.
  7. Böhringer, C., Fischer, C., Rosendahl, K. E., & Rutherford, T. F. (2022). Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments. Nature Climate Change 2022 12:1, 12(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01250-z
  8. Borocz, M., Horvath, B., Herczeg, B., & Kovacs, A. (2015). Greener cement sector and potential climate strategy development between 2015-2030 (Hungarian case study). APSTRACT: Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, 09(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.226128
  9. Çağatay, B. (2021). TÜRKİYE’DE ÇİMENTO SEKTÖRÜNE İLİŞKİN GELECEK TAHMİNLERİ; KÜRESEL TİCARET VE MAKROEKONOMİK DEĞİŞKENLER IŞIĞINDA YENİ POLİTİKALAR. Dergipark.Org.Tr, 4(8), 95–115.
  10. Cekinir, S., Ozgener, O., & Ozgener, L. (2022). Türkiye’s energy projection for 2050. Renewable Energy Focus, 43, 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.REF.2022.09.003
  11. Cho, B. K., Jung, H., Chung, J. B., & Song, C. K. (2024). Implications of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism on South Korean industries: Challenges and policy recommendations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 444, 141278. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2024.141278
  12. Čular, M., Dmitrović, V., & Benković, S. (2024). Nonfinancial disclosure using GRI standards: Empirical findings of Croatian and Serbian. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 29(2), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.30924/MJCMI.29.2.3
  13. Curran, L., & Carrasco-Farré, C. (2024). Leveraging natural language processing techniques to explore the potential impact of the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Journal of International Business Policy, 7(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1057/S42214-024-00185-4/TABLES/7
  14. Dimitris Tsarouhas. (2024). Non-Resident Senior Research Fellow, Turkey Programme, ELIAMEP Turkey’s “Green” Transformation and the CBAM: Challenges and Opportunities. www.eliamep.gr
  15. Ediger, V., & Berk, I. (2023). Future availability of natural gas: Can it support sustainable energy transition? Resources Policy, 85, 103824. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESOURPOL.2023.103824
  16. Erdogdu, E. (2025). The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: Opportunities and Challenges for Non-EU Countries. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/WENE.70000
  17. Filipović, S., Lior, N., & Radovanović, M. (2022). The green deal – just transition and sustainable development goals Nexus. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112759
  18. Gerbeti, A. (2021). Market Mechanisms for Reducing Emissions and the Introduction of a Flexible Consumption Tax. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 22(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40171-021-00283-9/FIGURES/3
  19. Global Carbon Atlas. (n.d.). Carbon Emissions—Global Carbon Atlas. https://globalcarbonatlas.org/emissions/carbon-emissions/
  20. Grimm, S. (2024). The Multinational Development Policy Dialogue-KAS in Brussels. www.kas.de
  21. Gültekin, A., Ramyar, K., Üniversitesi, D., Fakültesi, M., Bölümü, M., Üniversitesi, E., Anahtar, T., Öz, K., Harç, G., & Kürü, M. (2024). FARKLI KÜR YÖNTEMLERİYLE ÜRETİLEN GEOPOLİMER HARÇLARIN BAZI DURABİLİTE ÖZELLİKLERİNİN ÇİMENTO HARÇLARIYLA KIYASLANMASI. Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi, 12(4), 821–834. https://doi.org/10.21923/JESD.1473561
  22. Gültekin, R. (2022). Avrupa Birliği Sınırda Karbon Düzenlemesi ve Türkiye Açısından Bir Değerlendirme. Balkan and Near Eastern Journal of Social Sciences Balkan ve Yakın Doğu Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8.
  23. Hassan, A., Wright, A., & Struthers, J. (2013). Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) Scores and the Level of Disclosure on Climate Change Related Activities: An Empirical Investigation of the FTSE 100 Companies (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 3322035). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3322035
  24. Hedberg, C. J., & Malmborg, F. V. (2003). The Global Reporting Initiative and corporate sustainability reporting in Swedish companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 10(3), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/CSR.38
  25. Hossain, A., Bose, S., & Shamsuddin, A. (2025). Do integrated report readability and tone convey value relevant information? International evidence. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 21(3), 100488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2025.100488
  26. IEA. (2023). Cement – Analysis—IEA. https://www.iea.org/reports/cement-3
  27. Ikonen, P., Kerola, E., & Vilmi, L. (2019, November 12). The trade war has significantly weakened the global economy [Journal article]. 123456789/16399. https://publications.bof.fi/handle/10024/50708
  28. İMER-ERTUNGA, E., & SEYHUN, Ö. K. (2022). SINIRDA KARBON DÜZENLEME MEKANİZMASI VE TÜRKIYE’NİN İHRACATINA OLASI ETKİLERİ. Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 13(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.18354/ESAM.1119230
  29. Janjua, A. B. (2024). Analysis of Semiconductor Competition as New Dimension of Super-Power Rivalry Between US and China. Pakistan Social Sciences Review, 8(2), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.35484/pssr.2024(8-II-S)26
  30. Kajaste, R., & Hurme, M. (2016). Cement industry greenhouse gas emissions – management options and abatement cost. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 4041–4052. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.07.055
  31. KAP. (2025). https://www.kap.org.tr/
  32. Katcharava, K. (2024). Green Transition in the Eastern Partnership Under the framework of European Green Deal and the lessons from the Western Balkans. [PhD Thesis].
  33. Khan, I., Fujimoto, Y., Uddin, M. J., & Afridi, M. A. (2023). Evaluating sustainability reporting on GRI standards in developing countries: A case of Pakistan. International Journal of Law and Management, 65(3), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-01-2022-0016/FULL/PDF
  34. Kızıltan, B., & Doğan, D. U. (2021, June). Çimento Sektöründe Karbon Ayak İzlerinin Raporlanması Amacıyla Bir Çerçeve Önerisi. In Çağ University Journal of Social Sciences (Vol. 18, Issue 1, pp. 40–58). Cag University. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cagsbd/issue/63182/959750
  35. Li, N., Ma, D., & Chen, W. (2015). Projection of Cement Demand and Analysis of the Impacts of Carbon Tax on Cement Industry in China. Energy Procedia, 75, 1766–1771. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2015.07.457
  36. Li, Y. (2024). The impact of environmental humidity on the mechanical property and microstructure of magnesium silicate hydrate cement. Construction and Building Materials, 425, 135966. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2024.135966
  37. Luciani, L., Cruz, J., Ballestin, V., & Mselle, B. D. (2024). Exploring Flexibility Potential of Energy-Intensive Industries in Energy Markets. Energies 2024, Vol. 17, Page 3052, 17(12), 3052. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN17123052
  38. Magacho, G., Espagne, E., & Godin, A. (2024). Impacts of the CBAM on EU trade partners: Consequences for developing countries. Climate Policy, 24(2), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2200758
  39. Matsumura, E. M., Prakash, R., & Vera-Muñoz, S. C. (2014). Firm-Value Effects of Carbon Emissions and Carbon Disclosures. The Accounting Review, 89(2), 695–724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50629
  40. Matsuo, N. (2025). A Proposal to Create a Single Global Cap-and-Trade Scheme to Ensure a Ceiling on Gross CO2 Emissions below a Pre-set Allowable Carbon Budget. https://doi.org/10.31223/X5DT59
  41. Mazzarano, M., & Borghesi, S. (2024). Searching for a Carbon Laffer Curve: Estimates from the European Union Emissions Trading System. Metroeconomica, 75(4), 398–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/MECA.12458
  42. Mert, E., Aksu, M., & Celiktas, M. S. (2025). Projections of global energy transition models in the wake of industrial revolution and climate change policies. Clean Energy Science and Technology, 3(1), 273–273. https://doi.org/10.18686/CEST273
  43. Molek-Kozakowska, K. (2024). The hybrid discourse of the ‘European Green Deal’: Road-mapping economic transition to environmental sustainability (almost) seamlessly. Critical Discourse Studies, 21(2), 182–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2023.2197607
  44. Naranjo Tuesta, Y., Crespo Soler, C., & Ripoll Feliu, V. (2021). Carbon management accounting and financial performance: Evidence from the European Union emission trading system. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(2), 1270–1282. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2683
  45. Özdemir, H., & Köse, M. (2024). KARBON VERGİSİ, EMİSYON TİCARET SİSTEMİ VE SINIRDA KARBON DÜZENLEMESİ: TÜRKİYE AÇISINDAN DEĞERLENDİRMELER. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(3), 518–541. https://doi.org/10.53443/ANADOLUIBFD.1464955
  46. Parrilli, M. D., Balavac-Orlić, M., & Radicic, D. (2023). Environmental innovation across SMEs in Europe. Technovation, 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHNOVATION.2022.102541
  47. Rimmel, G. (2025). Integrated Reporting. In Accounting for Sustainability (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  48. Schaffer, L. M. (2024). Who’s afraid of more ambitious climate policy? How distributional implications shape policy support and compensatory preferences. Environmental Politics, 33(4), 567–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2023.2247818
  49. Schlacke, S., Wentzien, H., Thierjung, E. M., & Köster, M. (2022). Implementing the EU Climate Law via the ‘Fit for 55’ package. Oxford Open Energy, 1. https://doi.org/10.1093/OOENERGY/OIAB002 SPK. (2023, November). Borsada İşlem Gören Şirketlerin Yükümlülükleri.
  50. Szabó, L., Hidalgo, I., Ciscar, J. C., & Soria, A. (2006). CO2 emission trading within the European Union and Annex B countries: The cement industry case. Energy Policy, 34(1), 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2004.06.003
  51. T. C. Ticaret Bakanlığı. (2023). Avrupa Birliği Emisyon Ticaret Sistemi Bilgi Notu. T.C. Ticaret Bakanlığı.
  52. T.C. Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı. (2021). https://www.sanayi.gov.tr/plan-program-raporlar-ve-yayinlar/sektor-raporlari/mu0102011404
  53. T.C. Ticaret Bakanlığı. (2023). Dış Ticaret Veri Bülteni Ekim 2023. T.C. Ticaret Bakanlığı. The European Green Deal—European Commission. (2024). https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
  54. Thivierge, V. (2020). Carbon pricing and competitiveness pressures: The case of cement trade. Canadian Public Policy, 46(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.3138/CPP.2017-074
  55. Tunçez, F. D., Bölümü, E. Y., Fakültesi, İ. ve İ. B., & Üniversitesi, K. K. (2021). Sürdürülebilir Çimento Üretiminde Çevre Yönetimi Yasal Bileşenleri. Ulusal Çevre Bilimleri Araştırma Dergisi, Sayı, 4(1), 41–56.
  56. Türkiye İhracatçılar Meclisi. (2024). Yıllık İhracat Raporu. https://tim.org.tr/tr/yillik-ihracat-raporu Turner, K., Race, J., Alabi, O., Katris, A., & Swales, K. (2023). The relationship between a ‘polluter pays’ approach to carbon capture, regional policy and ‘just transition’ employment agendas. Climate Policy, 23(3), 366–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2110031
  57. Wang, F., Harindintwali, J. D., Yuan, Z., Wang, M., Wang, F., Li, S., Yin, Z., Huang, L., Fu, Y., Li, L., Chang, S. X., Zhang, L., Rinklebe, J., Yuan, Z., Zhu, Q., Xiang, L., Tsang, D. C. W., Xu, L., Jiang, X., … Chen, J. M. (2021). Technologies and perspectives for achieving carbon neutrality. The Innovation, 2(4), 100180. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.XINN.2021.100180
  58. Weko, S., Eicke, L., Marian, A., & Apergi, M. (2020). The Global Impacts of an EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. https://doi.org/10.2312/IASS.2020.055
  59. Wettestad, J. (2011). EU Emissions Trading: Achievements and Challenges. Toward a Common European Union Energy Policy, 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230119819_5
  60. Wróblewska, M., & Zmitrowicz, M. (2024). Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism as proposed EU regulation to combat climate change. https://doi.org/10.2478/9788367405331-030
  61. Xu, G., Huang, Z., Jiang, M., & Rehman, H. U. (2024). “Gray” Prediction of Carbon Neutral Pathways in the G7 Economies by 2050. Applied Energy, 373, 123924. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2024.123924
  62. Yıldız, H., Köprücü, Y., & Şengül, S. (2024). Assessing competition in the Turkish cement industry: Insights from the Boone indicator. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/JEAS-10-2023-0280/FULL/PDF
  63. Zayats, O. І. (2020). TRADE AND COMPETITIVE COOPERATION OF THE EU WITH THE MAJOR INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATION GROUPINGS. Аctual Problems of International Relations, 1(143), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.17721/apmv.2020.143.1.57-68
  64. Zhang, L., & Shi, Y. (2025). A dynamic multi-objective optimization model for inner-industry carbon responsibility allocation based on carbon tax and carbon offsets accounting. Applied Energy, 377, 124571. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2024.124571
  65. Čular, M., Dmitrović, V., & Benković, S. (2024). Nonfinancial disclosure using GRI standards: Empirical findings of Croatian and Serbian. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 29(2), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.30924/MJCMI.29.2.3