IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i7p3014-d1622768.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing a Sustainability Reporting Framework for Construction Companies: Prioritization of Themes with Delphi Study Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Sinem Dağılgan

    (Faculty of Fine Arts and Architecture, Department of Architecture, Hasan Kalyoncu University, 27010 Gaziantep, Turkey
    Department of Architecture, Construction Management and Building Production Unit, Yıldız Technical University, 34349 İstanbul, Turkey)

  • Tuğçe Ercan

    (Department of Architecture, Construction Management and Building Production Unit, Yıldız Technical University, 34349 İstanbul, Turkey)

Abstract

In the contemporary business environment, there is an increasing demand for companies to disclose information regarding their corporate sustainability practices. An increasing number of construction companies transparently publish their sustainability practices through corporate sustainability reports under the headings of economic, environmental, social and governance. In the context of current practices, construction companies publish corporate sustainability reports by using different reporting frameworks, especially in areas beyond financial aspects, including standards established by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) as well as various legal obligations such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Standard (CSRS). This diversity makes it difficult to compare reported data and draw meaningful conclusions. Therefore, this research aims to simplify the reported information by reducing corporate sustainability themes to the most relevant ones for construction companies. Sustainability reporting frameworks and guidelines were examined through thematic analysis; then, the materiality and validity of sustainability themes for construction “companies were assessed using the Delphi analysis technique. Themes such as “Energy” in the environmental dimension, “Health and safety issues” in the social dimension, “Financial performance” in the economic dimension and “Board structure” in the governance dimension were identified as the corporate sustainability themes with the highest degree of impact, with an acceptable consistency ratio as a result of the analyses. As a result of the study, a reporting framework was developed consisting of a total of twenty-six themes for construction companies. The identification of material themes facilitates the integration of construction companies into the corporate sustainability reporting process and provides benefits for the innovation and sustainability of the sector

Suggested Citation

  • Sinem Dağılgan & Tuğçe Ercan, 2025. "Developing a Sustainability Reporting Framework for Construction Companies: Prioritization of Themes with Delphi Study Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-25, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:7:p:3014-:d:1622768
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/7/3014/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/7/3014/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olivier Boiral & Iñaki Heras-Saizarbitoria & Marie-Christine Brotherton, 2019. "Assessing and Improving the Quality of Sustainability Reports: The Auditors’ Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 703-721, March.
    2. Tseng, Ming-Lang & Wu, Kuo-Jui & Ma, Li & Kuo, Tsai Chi & Sai, Fuyume, 2019. "A hierarchical framework for assessing corporate sustainability performance using a hybrid fuzzy synthetic method-DEMATEL," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 524-533.
    3. Barnes, Stuart J. & Mattsson, Jan, 2016. "Understanding current and future issues in collaborative consumption: A four-stage Delphi study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 200-211.
    4. Lourdes Torres & Lara Ripoll & Vicente Pina & Patricia Bachiller, 2024. "Sustainability reporting from the preparers’ perspective in locally-owned public enterprises," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(8), pages 696-707, November.
    5. Yu, Ellen Pei-yi & Luu, Bac Van & Chen, Catherine Huirong, 2020. "Greenwashing in environmental, social and governance disclosures," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    6. Alexandre André Feil & Dusan Schreiber & Claus Haetinger & Virgílio José Strasburg & Claudia Luisa Barkert, 2019. "Sustainability Indicators for Industrial Organizations: Systematic Review of Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, February.
    7. Mozhdeh Rostamnezhad & Muhammad Jamaluddin Thaheem, 2022. "Social Sustainability in Construction Projects—A Systematic Review of Assessment Indicators and Taxonomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-23, April.
    8. Rob Gray, 2006. "Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organisational value creation?," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 19(6), pages 793-819, November.
    9. Ans Kolk, 2008. "Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: exploring multinationals' reporting practices," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(1), pages 1-15, January.
    10. Giacomo Manetti & Marco Bellucci, 2016. "The use of social media for engaging stakeholders in sustainability reporting," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 29(6), pages 985-1011, August.
    11. Robert G. Eccles & Michael P. Krzus & Sydney Ribot, 2015. "Meaning and Momentum in the Integrated Reporting Movement," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 27(2), pages 8-17, June.
    12. Olivier Boiral & David Talbot & Marie-Christine Brotherton & Iñaki Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2021. "Sustainability rating and moral fictionalism: opening the black box of nonfinancial agencies," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 34(8), pages 1740-1768, April.
    13. Ching-Hsin Wang & Yi-Chun Chen & Jovi Sulistiawan & Tat-Dat Bui & Ming-Lang Tseng, 2021. "Hybrid Approach to Corporate Sustainability Performance in Indonesia’s Cement Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-21, December.
    14. Mercedes Luque-Vílchez & Michela Cordazzo & Gunnar Rimmel & Carol A. Tilt, 2023. "Key aspects of sustainability reporting quality and the future of GRI," Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(4), pages 637-659, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Isabela Caroline de Sousa & Tiago F. A. C. Sigahi & Izabela Simon Rampasso & Jefferson de Souza Pinto & Lucas Gabriel Zanon & Walter Leal Filho & Rosley Anholon, 2024. "Analysis of the quality of sustainability reports published by Brazilian companies: An analytic hierarchy process‐grey clustering approach," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 4298-4314, September.
    2. Silvia Ruiz & Silvia Romero & Belen Fernandez‐Feijoo, 2021. "Stakeholder engagement is evolving: Do investors play a main role?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 1105-1120, February.
    3. Kameleddine B. Benameur & Mohamed M. Mostafa & Ahmed Hassanein & Mohammed Z. Shariff & Wasim Al-Shattarat, 2024. "Sustainability reporting scholarly research: a bibliometric review and a future research agenda," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 74(2), pages 823-866, June.
    4. Kosa Golić & Vesna Kosorić & Tatjana Kosić & Slavica Stamatović Vučković & Kosara Kujundžić, 2023. "A Platform of Critical Barriers to Socially Sustainable Residential Buildings: Experts’ Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-33, May.
    5. José Luis Vázquez-Burguete & Oscar Licandro & Luis Camilo Ortigueira-Sánchez & Patricia Correa, 2024. "Do Enterprises That Publish Sustainability Reports Have a Better Developed Environmental Responsibility and Are They More Transparent?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-21, July.
    6. Jannik Gerwanski & Othar Kordsachia & Patrick Velte, 2019. "Determinants of materiality disclosure quality in integrated reporting: Empirical evidence from an international setting," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 750-770, July.
    7. Chaoyuan She & Giovanna Michelon, 2023. "A governance approach to stakeholder engagement in sustainable enterprises—Evidence from B Corps," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 5487-5505, December.
    8. Roszkowska-Menkes, Maria & Aluchna, Maria & Kamiński, Bogumił, 2024. "True transparency or mere decoupling? The study of selective disclosure in sustainability reporting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    9. William R. Morgan, 2023. "Finance Must Be Defended: Cybernetics, Neoliberalism and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-21, February.
    10. Erli Dan & Jianfei Shen, 2022. "Establishment of Corporate Energy Management Systems and Voluntary Carbon Information Disclosure in Chinese Listed Companies: The Moderating Role of Corporate Leaders’ Low-Carbon Awareness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-28, February.
    11. Olivier Boiral & Marie‐Christine Brotherton & Léo Rivaud & David Talbot, 2022. "Comparing the uncomparable? An investigation of car manufacturers' climate performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 2213-2229, July.
    12. Xiulan Jiang & Yukun Li & Jun Yang & Sen Wang & Chunjia Han, 2024. "Host–Guest Interaction and Sustainable Consumption Behaviour on Sharing-Accommodation Platforms: Using a Big Data Analytic Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-22, June.
    13. Fiaz Ahmad Sulehri & Saba Sharif, 2022. "The Impact of Firm Sustainability on Firm Growth: Evidence from USA," Journal of Policy Research (JPR), Research Foundation for Humanity (RFH), vol. 8(2), pages 1-15, August.
    14. Xuan Chen & Liang Zhang, 2022. "Do negative environmental media reports increase environmental information disclosures? A comparative analysis based on political connections and market competition," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(6), pages 2480-2500, September.
    15. Patrycja Hąbek & Radosław Wolniak, 2016. "Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports: the case of reporting practices in selected European Union member states," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 399-420, January.
    16. Shi, Daqian & Lu, Shan & Fang, Ziwei, 2024. "The effect of executive green human capital on greenwashing," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    17. Isabel Miralles & Domenico Dentoni & Stefano Pascucci, 2017. "Understanding the organization of sharing economy in agri-food systems: evidence from alternative food networks in Valencia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 833-854, December.
    18. Zhang, Dongyang, 2023. "Does green finance really inhibit extreme hypocritical ESG risk? A greenwashing perspective exploration," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    19. Pietro Fera & Nicola Moscariello & Gianmarco Salzillo & Emilio Farina, 2025. "Towards the Regulation of Non‐Financial Reporting: The Impact on Environmental Disclosure Within the Oil and Gas Sector," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 4053-4067, May.
    20. Yinglin Wang & Leqi Chen & Jiaxin Zhuang, 2024. "Research on ESG Investment Efficiency Regulation from the Perspective of Reciprocity and Evolutionary Game," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 64(3), pages 1665-1695, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:7:p:3014-:d:1622768. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.