SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 28 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı

Evaluating environmental score reliability through disclosure- and action-oriented criteria: An integrated CRISUS, MACONT and MARA analysis

Söylem ve eylem odaklı kriterler aracılığıyla çevresel skor güvenilirliğinin değerlendirilmesi: Bütünleşik CRISUS, MACONT ve MARA analizi

Koray Yapa(UŞAK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1421-7927
Deniz Sevinç(ANADOLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6223-9450
Aykut Yakar(ANADOLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5277-6789
Pages
333–348
Publication Date
2026-10-21
🏛️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)

These findings demonstrate that reported environmental scores should not be read in isolation, but instead evaluated alongside their underlying operational components.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Composite environmental scores combine diverse aspects of corporate policies, commitments, and performance, but the resulting rankings may fail to fully reflect firms’ positions across the underlying criteria.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To address this limitation, we draw on 2023–2024 LSEG Data & Analytics metrics for constituents of the BIST Sustainability 25 Index, evaluating whether reported environmental score rankings align with criteria- based rankings built on selected disclosure- and action-oriented indicators.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings demonstrate that reported environmental scores should not be read in isolation, but instead evaluated alongside their underlying operational components.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2023–2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:CRISUS · MACONT · MARA

Abstract

Composite environmental scores combine diverse aspects of corporate policies, commitments, and performance, but the resulting rankings may fail to fully reflect firms’ positions across the underlying criteria. To address this limitation, we draw on 2023–2024 LSEG Data & Analytics metrics for constituents of the BIST Sustainability 25 Index, evaluating whether reported environmental score rankings align with criteria- based rankings built on selected disclosure- and action-oriented indicators. Utilizing reported environmental scores as a baseline, the empirical design applies the CRISUS method to compute objective criterion weights, followed by MACONT and MARA algorithms to generate firm rankings. Consistency between the benchmark and multi-criteria outcomes is assessed via normalized score proximity and absolute rank differences. Objective weighting assigns the largest weights to action-oriented metrics in both years, showing that operational indicators— specifically emission intensity change, energy use per revenue, and waste recycling—account for the sharpest cross-firm variation. Rather than revealing systematic divergence across the board, consistency between composite scores and criteria-based rankings fluctuates by firm and year. These findings demonstrate that reported environmental scores should not be read in isolation, but instead evaluated alongside their underlying operational components.

Özet

Bileşik çevresel skorlar, şirketlerin politikalarına, taahhütlerine ve performanslarına ilişkin çeşitli boyutları bir araya getirmektedir; ancak bu skorlar sonucunda oluşan sıralamalar, şirketlerin altta yatan kriterler karşısındaki konumlarını tam olarak yansıtmayabilir. Bu sınırlılığı ele almak amacıyla çalışmada, BIST Sürdürülebilirlik 25 Endeksi şirketlerine ait 2023–2024 dönemi LSEG Data & Analytics göstergelerinden yararlanılarak, raporlanan çevresel skor sıralamalarının seçilmiş açıklama ve eylem odaklı göstergeler temelinde oluşturulan kriter bazlı sıralamalarla uyumlu olup olmadığı değerlendirilmektedir. Raporlanan çevresel skorların referans olarak kullanıldığı ampirik tasarımda, nesnel kriter ağırlıklarının hesaplanması için CRISUS yöntemi; şirket sıralamalarının oluşturulması için ise MACONT ve MARA algoritmaları uygulanmaktadır. Referans sıralama ile çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden elde edilen sonuçlar arasındaki tutarlılık, normalize edilmiş skor yakınlığı ve mutlak sıra farkları aracılığıyla değerlendirilmektedir. Nesnel ağırlıklandırma sonuçları, her iki yılda da en yüksek ağırlıkların eylem odaklı göstergelere verildiğini ortaya koymakta; özellikle emisyon yoğunluğundaki değişim, gelir başına enerji kullanımı ve atıkların geri dönüşümü gibi operasyonel göstergelerin şirketler arasındaki en belirgin farklılaşmayı açıkladığını göstermektedir. Bulgular, genel olarak sistematik bir ayrışmaya işaret etmekten ziyade, bileşik skorlar ile kriter bazlı sıralamalar arasındaki tutarlılığın şirketlere ve yıllara göre değiştiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu sonuçlar, raporlanan çevresel skorların tek başına değerlendirilmemesi, bunun yerine skorların altında yatan operasyonel bileşenlerle birlikte ele alınması gerektiğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yapa, K., Sevinç, D., Yakar, A. (2026). Evaluating environmental score reliability through disclosure- and action-oriented criteria: An integrated CRISUS, MACONT and MARA analysis. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı, 333–348. https://doi.org/10.33707/akuiibfd.1971900

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (41)

  1. Adalar, İ., & Işık, Ö. (2025). Criterion importance based on Sum of Squares (CRISUS): A novel objective weighting method and its implementation in multidimensional sustainability performance measurement. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 59(2), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.24818/18423264/59.2.25.13
  2. Akbaş, H. E. (2014). Company characteristics and environmental disclosure: An empirical investigation on companies listed on Borsa Istanbul 100 Index. The Journal of Accounting and Finance, (62), 145–164.
  3. Akbaş, H. E., & Canikli, S. (2019). Determinants of voluntary greenhouse gas emission disclosure: An empirical investigation on Turkish firms. Sustainability, 11(1), Article 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010107
  4. Aytekin, A., & Korucuk, S. (2026). An application on evaluating the elements of sustainability performance in port operations using MCDA methods. In Ž. Stević, O. Prentkovskis, M. Kostadinović, & A. Danilevičius (Eds.), New horizons of transport and communications 2025 (pp. 356–368). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032- 14078-4_32
  5. Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315–1344. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033
  6. Borsa Istanbul. (2025). BIST Sustainability 25 Index constituent information. Borsa İstanbul. https://www.borsaistanbul.com/en/index/xsd25
  7. Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483–530. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.684462
  8. Chatterji, A. K., Durand, R., Levine, D. I., & Touboul, S. (2016). Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers. Strategic Management Journal, 37(8), 1597–1614. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2407
  9. 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
  10. CMB. (2021). Sürdürülebilirlik ilkeleri uyum çerçevesi. Capital Markets Board of Türkiye. https://spk.gov.tr/data/63a17b1a8f95db0fa40e3309/sürdürülebilirlik%20ilkeleri%20uyum%20cercevesi.pdf
  11. Flammer, C. (2021). Corporate green bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 499–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.01.010
  12. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
  13. Ghitti, M., Gianfrate, G., & Palma, L. (2024). The agency of greenwashing. Journal of Management and Governance, 28, 905–941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-023-09683-8
  14. Gligorić, M., Gligorić, Z., Lutovac, S., Negovanović, M., & Langović, Z. (2022). Novel hybrid MPSI–MARA decision- making model for support system selection in an underground mine. Systems, 10(6), 248. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10060248
  15. Görçün, Ö. F., Tirkolaee, E. B., Aytekin, A., & Korucuk, S. (2024). Sustainability performance assessment of freight transportation modes using an integrated decision-making framework based on m-generalized q- neutrosophic sets. Artificial Intelligence Review, 57, Article 121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10751-0
  16. Hoang, P.-D., Nguyen, L.-T., & Tran, B.-Q. (2024). Assessing environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance of global electronics industry: An integrated MCDM approach-based spherical fuzzy sets. Cogent Engineering, 11(1), 2297509. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2023.2297509
  17. Hyatt, D. G., & Berente, N. (2017). Substantive or symbolic environmental strategies? Effects of external and internal normative stakeholder pressures. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(8), 1212–1234. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1979
  18. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405x(76)90026-x
  19. Kalash, I. (2020). Environmental disclosure: Determinants and effects on financial performance? An empirical evidence from Turkey. Sosyoekonomi, 28(46), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2020.04.05
  20. Kartal, M. T., Kılıç Depren, S., Pata, U. K., Taşkın, D., & Şavlı, T. (2024). Modeling the link between environmental, social, and governance disclosures and scores: The case of publicly traded companies in the Borsa Istanbul Sustainability Index. Financial Innovation, 10, Article 80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-024-00619-1
  21. Korucuk, S., Aytekin, A., Görçün, Ö. F., & Tirkolaee, E. B. (2026). Evaluating the sustainability performance of urban transport systems with a spherical fuzzy hybrid model. Expert Systems with Applications, 316, Article 131368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2026.131368
  22. Loko, A. G. S., & Schiehll, E. (2025). ESG policy–practice decoupling: A measurement framework and empirical validation. Sustainability, 17(3), Article 1203. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031203
  23. London Stock Exchange Group. (2024). Environmental, social and governance scores from LSEG. LSEG Data & Analytics.
  24. Lopez-de-Silanes, F., McCahery, J. A., & Pudschedl, P. C. (2019). ESG performance and disclosure: A cross- country analysis. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 2020, 217–241. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3506084
  25. Lubloy, Á., Keresztúri, J. L., & Berlinger, E. (2025). Quantifying firm-level greenwashing: A systematic literature review. Journal of Environmental Management, 373, 123399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123399
  26. Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2011). Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(1), 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00282.x
  27. Marquis, C., Toffel, M. W., & Zhou, Y. (2016). Scrutiny, norms, and selective disclosure: A global study of greenwashing. Organization Science, 27(2), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1039
  28. Mashayekhi, B., Asiaei, K., Rezaee, Z., Jahangard, A., Samavat, M., & Homayoun, S. (2024). The relative importance of ESG pillars: A two-step machine learning and analytical framework. Sustainable Development, 32(5), 5404–5420. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2979
  29. 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
  30. Moussa, T., Kotb, A., & Helfaya, A. (2022). An empirical investigation of U.K. environmental targets disclosure: The role of environmental governance and performance. European Accounting Review, 31(4), 937–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2021.1890173
  31. Papa, M., Wieczorek-Kosmala, M., Losa, A., & Swałek, A. (2024). The impact of ESG regulation on environmental decoupling: An exploratory study on Polish listed companies. Sustainability, 16(17), Article 7309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177309
  32. Public Oversight Accounting and Auditing Standards Authority. (2024). Türkiye Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlama Standartları uygulama kapsamına ilişkin kurul kararı.
  33. Ratti, S., Dell’Agostino, L., Arena, M., & Azzone, G. (2025). Environmental commitment: Do firms walk the talk? An exploratory study of Italian listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 32(4), 5167–5189. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.3224
  34. Sauerwald, S., & Su, W. (2019). CEO overconfidence and CSR decoupling. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 27(4), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12279
  35. Saygılı, E., Arslan, S., & Birkan, A. O. (2022). ESG practices and corporate financial performance: Evidence from Borsa Istanbul. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(3), 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2021.07.001
  36. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010
  37. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
  38. Sun, Y., Tao, Q., Wang, D., & Zhang, W. (2025). Corporate ESG decoupling and R&D investment. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 75, 102278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2024.102278
  39. Treepongkaruna, S., Au Yong, H. H., Thomsen, S., & Kyaw, K. (2024). Greenwashing, carbon emission, and ESG. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(8), 8526–8539. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3929
  40. Wen, Z., Liao, H., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2020). MACONT: Mixed aggregation by comprehensive normalization technique for multi-criteria analysis. Informatica, 31(4), 857–880. https://doi.org/10.15388/20-INFOR417
  41. Yu, E. P., Luu, B. V., & Chen, C. H. (2020). Greenwashing in environmental, social and governance disclosures. Research in International Business and Finance, 52, 101192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2020.101192