TSRS-Aligned Sustainability Reporting in Turkey’s Agri-Food Sector: A Qualitative Content Analysis Based on GRI 13 and the SDGs

Abstract

Sustainability in the agri-food sector has become a cornerstone of global efforts to combat climate change, ensure food security through climate-smart agriculture, and strengthen economic resilience. Sustainability reporting within agri-food systems has gained increasing regulatory significance with the introduction of mandatory frameworks such as the Turkish Sustainability Reporting Standards (TSRSs). This article searches for the sustainability reports of agri-business firms listed in BIST in Turkey. Although TSRS reporting is not yet mandatory for the agribusiness sector, this study examines the first TSRS-aligned sustainability reports published by eight agri-food companies, excluding the retail sector. The analysis assesses how effectively these reports address sector-specific environmental and social challenges defined in the GRI 13 Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fishing Sector Standard and their alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Using a structured content analysis approach, disclosure patterns were examined at both thematic and company levels. The findings indicate that TSRS-aligned reports place strong emphasis on environmental and climate-related disclosures, particularly emissions, climate adaptation and resilience, water management, and waste. In contrast, agro-ecological and land-based impacts—such as soil health, pesticide use, and ecosystem conversion—are weakly addressed. Economic disclosures are predominantly framed around climate-related financial risks and supply chain traceability, while social reporting focuses mainly on occupational health and safety, employment practices, and food safety, with limited attention to labor and equity issues across the broader value chain. Company-level results reveal marked heterogeneity, with internationally active firms demonstrating deeper alignment with GRI 13 requirements. From an SDG alignment perspective, high levels of coverage are observed across all companies for SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation). By contrast, SDGs critical to agro-ecological integrity and social equity—namely SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 15 (Life on Land)—are weakly represented or entirely absent. Overall, the results suggest that while TSRS-aligned reporting enhances transparency in climate-related domains, it achieves only selective alignment with the SDG agenda. This underscores the need for a stronger integration of sector-specific sustainability priorities into mandatory sustainability reporting frameworks.

1. Introduction

The agrifood sector occupies a central position in sustainability debates due to its direct links with food security, climate change, natural resource use, and social equity [1]. Agribusiness activities contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions while exerting substantial pressure on land, water, soil, and biodiversity, rendering sustainability challenges in agrifood systems inherently multidimensional [1,2]. Consequently, sustainability concerns in this sector extend beyond climate mitigation to include agroecological integrity, value-chain governance, and social justice considerations [3].

In recent years, sustainability reporting has increasingly been shaped by regulatory developments and the harmonization of reporting frameworks emphasizing climate-related risks and financial materiality [4]. These frameworks have strengthened disclosures related to climate impacts, environmental management practices, and sustainability-related financial risks, thereby improving comparability and accountability across firms [5]. However, prior research highlights that such approaches may insufficiently capture sector-specific environmental and social impacts in land-based and value-chain-intensive sectors such as agrifood [6].

In Türkiye, the introduction of the Turkish Sustainability Reporting Standards (TSRSs) represents a major regulatory milestone aligned with international sustainability reporting developments [7]. TSRS places strong emphasis on climate-related disclosures and sustainability-related financial information, reflecting a predominantly climate- and risk-oriented reporting logic [7,8]. From a theoretical perspective, this study is anchored in the distinction between impact materiality, as emphasized in the GRI framework, and financial materiality, which underpins TSRS-aligned reporting. While impact materiality prioritizes an organization’s environmental and social impacts on ecosystems, communities, and value chains, financial materiality focuses on sustainability issues that are likely to affect firm value and risk exposure. Accordingly, TSRS-oriented reporting is expected to amplify disclosures related to climate risks and financially material environmental issues, while potentially downplaying agroecological impacts, biodiversity, food security, and social equity topics that are central to agrifood systems. The observed disclosure patterns are interpreted through this materiality lens. From a theoretical perspective, the observed disclosure patterns can be interpreted through the lens of institutional theory. Institutional theory suggests that firms tend to align their reporting practices with dominant regulatory requirements in order to secure legitimacy and manage compliance pressures. Accordingly, the climate- and financial-materiality–oriented structure of TSRS is expected to encourage selective disclosure patterns and uneven SDG alignment, with greater emphasis on themes closely linked to regulatory expectations.

These theoretical expectations are particularly relevant for the agrifood sector, which exhibits structural characteristics that challenge climate- and financial-materiality–driven reporting frameworks. Many of the most critical sustainability impacts in agrifood systems—including soil degradation, pesticide use, biodiversity loss, food security, and social equity across value chains—are long-term, place-based, and only indirectly reflected in firm-level financial performance [1,9]. As a result, reporting frameworks that primarily prioritize climate-related financial materiality risk systematically under-represent agroecological and social dimensions that are central to sectoral sustainability [9].

The Global Reporting Initiative’s GRI 13 Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fishing Sector Standard was developed specifically to address these limitations by defining sector-specific material topics relevant to agrifood systems [10]. GRI 13 emphasizes agroecological impacts, land use, value-chain social risks, and food-system resilience, offering a sector-sensitive complement to general-purpose sustainability reporting frameworks. From a sustainable development perspective, the extent to which sustainability reports capture these sector-specific dimensions is also expected to influence how companies align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Existing studies demonstrate that corporate sustainability reporting often aligns selectively with the SDGs, prioritizing climate- and operations-related goals while providing more limited coverage of goals related to social equity, food systems, and terrestrial ecosystems [11,12].

Against this background, an important research gap emerges regarding how climate- and financial-materiality–oriented reporting frameworks perform in sector-specific contexts such as agrifood. In particular, it remains unclear whether TSRS-aligned sustainability reports adequately capture the sector-specific material topics emphasized under GRI 13, or whether they generate systematic thematic imbalances that shape selective alignment with the SDGs.

Accordingly, this study is guided by the following research questions:

• RQ1: Do TSRS-aligned sustainability reports in the agrifood sector reflect the sector-specific material topics defined under GRI 13, or do they exhibit an imbalance favoring climate- and financially material themes?
• RQ2: How do these disclosure patterns shape company-level alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly with respect to selective engagement across different SDGs?

To address these questions, the study empirically examines TSRS-aligned sustainability reports published by eight agrifood companies operating in Türkiye through a qualitative content analysis grounded in the GRI 13 framework and mapped against the SDGs. By explicitly linking TSRS-oriented reporting practices with sector-specific materiality and SDG alignment, this study contributes to the literature on sustainability reporting, regulatory convergence, and sectoral materiality. The findings provide early evidence on the strengths and limitations of TSRS in capturing agrifood sustainability challenges and offer insights relevant for both policymakers and practitioners concerned with the integration of national reporting standards and sector-specific global frameworks.

2. Methods

2.1. Research Design

This study adopts a qualitative content analysis research design to systematically examine sustainability disclosures presented in TSRS-aligned sustainability reports of agri-food companies operating in Türkiye. Qualitative content analysis is a well-established methodological approach that enables the systematic classification of textual data using a predefined coding framework, ensuring comparability across documents while preserving contextual meaning [13,14].

This approach is particularly appropriate for sustainability reporting research, given the narrative-driven, heterogeneous, and company-specific nature of sustainability disclosures. Prior studies demonstrate that qualitative content analysis provides a robust and replicable methodological foundation for assessing the scope, depth, and thematic orientation of ESG and sustainability disclosures across firms and sectors [15,16]. Accordingly, this study is designed as a qualitative and analytically structured investigation aimed at evaluating the extent to which TSRS-based reporting reflects sector-specific sustainability dimensions in the agri-food sector.

2.2. Sample Selection

Sustainability reports were identified through a systematic search of publicly accessible sources, including the corporate websites of agri-food companies operating in Türkiye and the official website of the Public Oversight, Accounting and Auditing Standards Authority (KGK). The search focused on reports explicitly declaring alignment with the Turkish Sustainability Reporting Standards (TSRSs) and covering the 2024 reporting period. The keywords “TSRS”, “Turkish Sustainability Reporting Standards”, “Agri-food Sustainability Report 2024”, and “TSRS-aligned sustainability reporting” were used. Reports were included if they were publicly available, explicitly TSRS-aligned, related to agri-food companies excluding the retail sector, and covered the same reporting period to ensure comparability. Using these criteria, eight TSRS-aligned sustainability reports were identified [17]. At the time of data collection, these reports represented the full population of publicly available TSRS-aligned agri-food sustainability reports during the initial implementation phase. The study therefore adopts an exploratory and in-depth analytical approach rather than aiming at statistical generalization.

To preserve academic neutrality, avoid highlighting any specific brand, and ensure comparability, these companies have been anonymized and coded as C1–C8 in the analysis. The production-based characteristics of the sampled companies, including subsector, approximate size, international exposure, and position within the agri-food value chain, are summarized in

Table 1. Production-based profile of the sampled agri-food companies.

Company	Sub-Sector	Approximate Size	International Exposure	Position in Value Chain
C1	Agro-based food processing	Medium-sized	Export-oriented (EU & regional markets)	Agricultural raw material processing → food manufacturing
C2	Industrial food processing	Large	Export-oriented (Europe, Middle East, Asia)	Food processing and industrial manufacturing
C3	Industrial beverage manufacturing	Large	Multinational (operations in multiple countries)	Beverage production, bottling, and large-scale distribution
C4	Dairy processing and manufacturing	Medium-sized	Predominantly domestic, limited exports	Raw milk procurement → dairy processing
C5	Fermentation-based beverage manufacturing	Large	Multinational production and sales	Agricultural inputs → fermentation → beverage manufacturing
C6	Fermentation-based beverage manufacturing	Medium-to-large	Export-oriented (global markets)	Agricultural inputs → fermentation → beverage manufacturing
C7	Industrial food manufacturing	Large	Export-oriented (100+ countries)	Agricultural inputs → food manufacturing → branded products
C8	Food service operations	Large	Primarily domestic, limited international	Food service

. The sample represents the full population of TSRS-aligned agri-food sustainability reports available during the initial implementation phase of TSRS. Similar sampling approaches have been widely employed in sustainability reporting studies evaluating newly introduced standards and regulatory transitions [18,19].

2.3. Coding Framework

A deductive coding framework was developed based on the GRI 13 Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fishing Sector Standard, which explicitly defines sector-specific material sustainability topics relevant to agri-food systems [20]. GRI 13 was selected as the analytical reference framework due to its emphasis on agro-ecological, social, and value-chain–related impacts that are often under-represented in general-purpose sustainability reporting standards.

Based on GRI 13, a total of 37 disclosure themes were identified and operationalized at the company–theme level, forming the basis for the ordinal assessment of disclosure depth. These themes were grouped into four main dimensions:

• Economic dimension (5 themes).
• Social dimension (13 themes).
• Environmental dimension (8 themes).
• Agrifood sector–focused themes (11 themes).

This predefined and theory-driven thematic structure enhances conceptual clarity, ensures cross-document comparability, and supports methodological transparency by clearly linking sector-specific materiality to the applied coding framework. The use of deductive coding schemes grounded in recognized sector standards is consistent with prior content analyses of agri-food sustainability reporting [21,22].

2.4. Coding Procedure and Reliability

In this study, the unit of analysis is defined at the company–theme level. For each company report, disclosures were evaluated separately for each theme to ensure conceptual consistency between the coding framework and the reported results. Repeated textual references to the same theme within a single report were not treated as independent observations, thereby preventing artificial inflation of disclosure intensity.

To ensure coding reliability, a representative subset of the dataset was independently coded by a second coder with expertise in sustainability reporting and agrifood systems. The validation subset comprised approximately 20% of the total company–theme coding units, selected using a stratified sampling approach to ensure balanced representation across the economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Both coders applied the same predefined codebook and the same ordinal scoring scheme.

Inter-coder agreement was assessed using Cohen’s kappa for binary coding decisions and weighted Cohen’s kappa for the ordinal scoring scheme, which is appropriate for ordered categorical data. Kappa coefficients above 0.80 were considered indicative of strong inter-coder reliability [23,24], and the observed level of agreement was high (κ = 0.90). In cases of disagreement, the relevant themes were jointly revisited, decision rules were clarified through discussion, and coding was finalized once consensus was achieved.

• To capture disclosure depth, a three-point ordinal scale was applied as follows:
• 0 = no disclosure related to the theme;
• 1 = partial, narrative, or policy-level disclosure without evidence of implementation or performance measurement;
• 2 = comprehensive disclosure including policies, practices, targets, or performance indicators.

The use of ordinal coding scales to assess disclosure depth is well established in sustainability reporting research [15,16].

Where multiple references to the same theme appeared within a single report, the highest applicable score was assigned, reflecting the maximum level of disclosure achieved by the company. This approach is commonly used to capture overall disclosure capacity rather than the frequency of statements [13,19].

2.5. Data Transformation and Analysis

This study applies a two-level analytical approach. First, for comparative analysis and SDG alignment, the unit of analysis is defined at the company–theme level. Each company is evaluated once per GRI 13 theme using an ordinal scoring scheme (0–2), and repeated mentions of the same theme within a single report are not treated as independent observations. Where multiple references to a theme occur, the highest applicable score is assigned.

Second, to examine thematic disclosure intensity, the analysis additionally considers textual disclosure segments. A disclosure is operationally defined as a distinct textual segment (sentence, paragraph, or table entry) that substantively addresses a specific GRI 13 theme. When a report discusses the same theme in multiple, non-identical contexts (e.g., policy statements, risk assessments, or performance data), each segment is counted as a separate disclosure. These counts are used exclusively for thematic distribution analysis and do not affect company-level scoring.

Accordingly, tables reporting the “Number of Disclosures” present the distribution of textual disclosure segments within each dimension (economic, social, and environmental). Percentages are calculated as the proportion of disclosure segments attributed to each theme relative to the total number of disclosures identified within the same dimension. This distinction ensures methodological consistency between the defined unit of analysis and the reported results.

Following ordinal coding, the results were transformed into a binary disclosure structure to calculate disclosure frequencies and company-level coverage rates. This transformation facilitates comparative analysis across firms and themes and has been widely applied in studies examining sustainability disclosure prevalence and SDG alignment [25,26]. The potential loss of granularity associated with binary aggregation was taken into account during the interpretation of results.

The coded data were synthesized into disclosure matrices, frequency tables, and comparative analyses at both theme and company levels. In addition, sustainability disclosures were mapped against the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to assess company-level SDG coverage patterns. Sustainability disclosures were mapped to the SDGs following a predefined approach consistent with the GRI–UN Global Compact SDG Action Platform, which is explicitly documented as a mapping protocol in Appendix A. This analytical approach is consistent with prior studies investigating SDG integration in corporate sustainability reporting [27,28].

For clarity and replicability, the analytical metrics used in this study—disclosure depth (ordinal), thematic disclosure count, and SDG coverage (binary)—and their corresponding outputs are summarized in

Table 2. Metric map linking analytical metrics to outputs.

Metric	Definition	Scale	Analytical Purpose	Outputs Using this Metric
Disclosure depth	Degree to which a GRI 13 theme is addressed by a company	Ordinal (0–2)	Firm-level comparison and assessment of disclosure depth	Tables 4, 6, 8 and 10
Thematic disclosure count	Frequency of distinct textual disclosure segments addressing a given theme across all reports	Count (n)	Assessment of thematic disclosure intensity and distribution	Tables 3, 5 and 7
SDG coverage	Presence or absence of SDG-related disclosures derived from thematic analysis	Binary (0–1)	Evaluation of company-level SDG alignment	Table 11

. This table explicitly links each metric to the relevant analyses and tables (Tables 3–11) reported in the Section 3.

3. Results and Discussion

This section provides a holistic assessment of TSRS-aligned sustainability reporting practices of eight agrifood companies operating in Türkiye, based on a GRI 13–aligned qualitative content analysis. The findings are discussed with explicit reference to Tables 3–11 and are situated within the broader academic literature on sustainability reporting, sector-specific disclosures, and SDG alignment. By systematically linking a standardized disclosure framework with clearly defined analytical metrics (disclosure depth, thematic disclosure counts, and SDG coverage) and a transparent coding and reliability procedure, the study moves beyond descriptive reporting and offers a replicable approach for evaluating thematic disclosure quality in the agribusiness context.

3.1. Economic Dimension

Table 3 presents how GRI 13 economic themes are reflected in sustainability reports prepared in compliance with the Türkiye Sustainability Reporting Standards (TSRSs). The findings reveal a clear differentiation in the visibility and emphasis of economic themes across the analyzed reports, indicating that TSRS alignment does not result in a uniform treatment of sector-specific economic issues.

A total of 389 economic-related disclosures were identified, indicating a non-uniform distribution across themes. The most prominent theme is supply chain traceability (30.85%), highlighting traceability as the dominant economic focus within TSRS-aligned agrifood sustainability reporting. This finding suggests that traceability has become a central pillar of economic sustainability in agrifood value chains, extending beyond operational control to encompass transparency, risk management, and trust-building mechanisms. Previous studies consistently emphasize the critical role of traceability systems in enhancing food safety, sustainability performance, and accountability throughout agrifood supply chains [29,30]. The strong emphasis observed in this study therefore aligns closely with the prevailing direction of agrifood sustainability research and practice.

The second most frequently reported theme is public policy (25.96%) (Table 3), reflecting the strong orientation of TSRS-compliant reporting toward regulatory compliance, legal frameworks, and engagement with public authorities. This result is consistent with findings from systematic reviews of agrifood sustainability reporting, which indicate that economic disclosures in this sector are often framed around policy commitments and regulatory alignment rather than outcome-based performance metrics [31,32]. Accordingly, while TSRS-aligned reports demonstrate substantial coverage of public policy–related economic issues, the depth of disclosure in terms of measurable impacts and targets remains relatively limited.

Anti-corruption (19.82%) represents the third most prominent economic theme, suggesting that agrifood companies generally acknowledge ethical principles, codes of conduct, and compliance mechanisms within their sustainability reports. However, the disclosures under this theme are largely policy-oriented, with comparatively little emphasis on implementation outcomes, monitoring systems, or quantitative indicators. This observation mirrors earlier findings that economic and governance-related sustainability disclosures in the agrifood sector tend to be less developed than environmental disclosures and are frequently declarative in nature [21]. As such, the results point to an ongoing gap between formal commitments and evidence-based reporting in relation to anti-corruption practices.

In contrast, economic inclusion (13.37%) and anti-competitive behavior (10.03%) emerge as the least represented themes within the economic dimension (Table 3). These findings indicate that TSRS-aligned reporting practices prioritize mandatory, traceability-driven, and risk-oriented economic topics, while placing less emphasis on the structural and long-term economic sustainability aspects emphasized by GRI 13. In particular, issues such as inclusive value creation, support for small-scale producers, equitable market participation, and fair competition receive limited attention. The literature on agrifood sustainability highlights that long-term economic resilience depends not only on compliance and transparency, but also on inclusive economic relationships and balanced value distribution across the supply chain [31,33]. The limited representation of these themes therefore reflects a structural reporting gap that has been widely documented in previous studies.

The results indicate that TSRS 2024–compliant sustainability reports address certain GRI 13 economic themes—most notably supply chain traceability and public policy—relatively strongly, while failing to achieve balanced and comprehensive coverage across all economic dimensions (Table 3). These findings suggest that agrifood sustainability reporting under TSRS is increasingly shaped by transparency, traceability, and regulatory compliance considerations, whereas more transformative elements of economic sustainability, such as inclusiveness and fair competition, remain marginal. Consequently, beyond corroborating existing literature, this study provides sector-specific empirical evidence highlighting the areas in which TSRS-based reporting converges with and diverges from the broader economic sustainability vision articulated by GRI 13.

Table 3. Analysis of GRI 13 Standards in the Economic Dimension. Number of Disclosures refers to the total count of distinct textual disclosure segments addressing each theme. Percentages are calculated relative to the total number of disclosure segments within the same dimension.

Economic Theme	Number of Disclosures	Percentage of Disclosures (%)
Anti-corruption	77	19.82
Economic inclusion	52	13.37
Anti-competitive behavior	39	10.03
Supply chain traceability	120	30.85
Public policy	101	25.96
Total	389	100.00

Table 3. Analysis of GRI 13 Standards in the Economic Dimension. Number of Disclosures refers to the total count of distinct textual disclosure segments addressing each theme. Percentages are calculated relative to the total number of disclosure segments within the same dimension.

Economic Theme	Number of Disclosures	Percentage of Disclosures (%)
Anti-corruption	77	19.82
Economic inclusion	52	13.37
Anti-competitive behavior	39	10.03
Supply chain traceability	120	30.85
Public policy	101	25.96
Total	389	100.00

Table 4 presents a company-level assessment of TSRS-aligned sustainability reports in terms of their coverage of economic themes defined under GRI 13 (Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fishing Sectors). While all reports included in the analysis are formally prepared in compliance with the Türkiye Sustainability Reporting Standards (TSRSs), the findings demonstrate that TSRS alignment does not necessarily ensure comprehensive or balanced coverage of sector-specific GRI economic indicators.

Companies with a larger international operational scope and more advanced corporate structures—most notably C3 and C7 exhibit the highest overall performance across the GRI 13 economic themes. C3 provides comprehensive disclosures on anti-corruption, economic inclusion, supply chain traceability, and anti-competitive behavior, indicating the adoption of a more mature and systematic sustainability reporting approach. This finding is consistent with the literature showing that multinational agrifood companies tend to develop more advanced reporting practices due to higher regulatory pressure, greater global supply chain complexity, and stronger stakeholder expectations. C7, in turn, stands out as the only company offering comprehensive disclosures on anti-competitive behavior, reflecting a stronger awareness of market conduct issues that are explicitly emphasized within the GRI 13 framework.

In contrast, agrifood companies that primarily operate at the national level—namely C1, C2 and C8—remain largely confined to partial and narrative-level disclosures across most economic themes. Although these firms include general policy statements related to anti-corruption, economic inclusion, supply chain traceability, and public policy, they provide limited evidence in terms of implementation practices, measurable targets, or performance indicators. This pattern suggests that TSRS-oriented reporting remains predominantly compliance- and declaration-driven for a substantial share of companies.

Table 4. Company-level distribution of GRI 13 economic disclosures in TSRS-compliant sustainability reports.

Company	Anti-Corruption	Economic Inclusion	Anti-Competitive Behavior	Supply Chain Traceability	Public Policy
C1	1	1	0	1	1
C2	1	1	0	1	1
C3	2	2	1	2	1
C4	2	1	0	2	1
C5	2	1	0	2	1
C6	2	1	0	2	1
C7	2	1	2	2	1
C8	1	1	0	1	1

Coding scale: 0 = no disclosure; 1 = partial or narrative disclosure; 2 = comprehensive, systematic, and GRI-aligned disclosure.

Table 4. Company-level distribution of GRI 13 economic disclosures in TSRS-compliant sustainability reports.

Company	Anti-Corruption	Economic Inclusion	Anti-Competitive Behavior	Supply Chain Traceability	Public Policy
C1	1	1	0	1	1
C2	1	1	0	1	1
C3	2	2	1	2	1
C4	2	1	0	2	1
C5	2	1	0	2	1
C6	2	1	0	2	1
C7	2	1	2	2	1
C8	1	1	0	1	1

Coding scale: 0 = no disclosure; 1 = partial or narrative disclosure; 2 = comprehensive, systematic, and GRI-aligned disclosure.

At the company level, supply chain traceability emerges as the most consistently and comparatively well-reported economic theme. C4, C5, and C6 provide more detailed disclosures on supplier management, traceability systems, and value chain oversight. This finding indicates that the TSRS emphasis on traceability and value chain transparency aligns most closely with the economic themes of GRI 13 in this particular area.

By contrast, economic inclusion and, more notably, anti-competitive behavior represent the weakest reported themes across the majority of firms. Economic inclusion is generally limited to broad statements concerning employment, local sourcing, or social contributions, with C3 being the only company providing comprehensive disclosures in this domain. Disclosures related to anti-competitive behavior are largely absent or restricted to generic statements of legal compliance, with the exception of C7. This pattern indicates that TSRS-aligned reporting does not sufficiently incentivize the disclosure of structural market conduct issues and fair competition practices as envisaged under GRI 13.

Company-level analysis reveals marked differences in how economic sustainability is operationalized within TSRS-aligned reporting, particularly regarding the integration of climate-related financial risks and analytical depth.

C2 adopts a risk-based and financially oriented approach, assessing economic impacts primarily through EBITDA-focused materiality under the TSRS 2 framework. This perspective explicitly recognizes climate risks as sources of direct financial exposure, reflecting a precautionary sustainability strategy. C1, by contrast, addresses the economic dimension mainly through governance and risk management disclosures, with comparatively limited financial scenario depth.

C5 demonstrates the most advanced integration of climate risk into economic analysis, employing EBITDA-based thresholds alongside a cash flow–oriented assessment of both transition and physical risks. This approach distinguishes C5 as one of the few companies moving beyond compliance toward financially grounded economic sustainability reporting. At C8, economic disclosures emphasize operational risk, but exhibit lower levels of forward-looking financial analysis. C4 similarly frames economic sustainability largely through governance and strategic alignment, with climate-related financial impacts addressed only marginally.

These findings highlight substantial heterogeneity in the depth of financial materiality across companies. While TSRS provides a common reporting baseline, only companies with more developed financial risk assessment and governance structures translate climate risks into robust, forward-looking economic analyses. This pattern underscores the limitations of TSRS compliance in achieving full alignment with the sector-specific economic expectations articulated under GRI 13.

At the company level, the results further demonstrate that compliance with TSRS does not, in itself, ensure full and balanced alignment with GRI 13 economic themes. Although TSRS-oriented reports show relatively consistent performance in regulation- and transparency-driven areas such as supply chain traceability and public policy engagement, they remain limited with respect to longer-term and more transformative dimensions of economic sustainability, including inclusive value creation and fair competition. The stronger alignment observed among firms with international operations and more advanced sustainability governance structures further highlights the decisive role of firm size and governance maturity in shaping the depth and quality of sustainability reporting.

3.2. Social Dimension

Table 5 illustrates the extent to which sustainability reports prepared in compliance with the Türkiye Sustainability Reporting Standards (TSRSs) address the social themes defined under GRI 13. The findings indicate that, although social themes achieve broader coverage compared to economic themes, there is a clear imbalance across social indicators, reflecting selective disclosure patterns.

Table 5. Analysis of GRI 13 Standards in the Social Dimension. Number of Disclosures refers to the total count of distinct textual disclosure segments addressing each theme. Percentages are calculated relative to the total number of disclosure segments within the same dimension.

Social Theme	Number of Disclosures	Percentage of Disclosures (%)
Non-discrimination & equal opportunity	39	10.05
Employment practices	57	14.69
Food safety	48	12.37
Animal health & welfare	10	2.58
Food security	29	7.47
Freedom of association & collective bargaining	25	6.44
Occupational health & safety	74	19.07
Local communities	45	11.60
Living income & living wage	17	4.38
Child labor	16	4.12
Forced or compulsory labor	14	3.61
Rights of Indigenous Peoples	9	2.32
Land and resource rights	5	1.29
Total	388	100.00

Table 5. Analysis of GRI 13 Standards in the Social Dimension. Number of Disclosures refers to the total count of distinct textual disclosure segments addressing each theme. Percentages are calculated relative to the total number of disclosure segments within the same dimension.

Social Theme	Number of Disclosures	Percentage of Disclosures (%)
Non-discrimination & equal opportunity	39	10.05
Employment practices	57	14.69
Food safety	48	12.37
Animal health & welfare	10	2.58
Food security	29	7.47
Freedom of association & collective bargaining	25	6.44
Occupational health & safety	74	19.07
Local communities	45	11.60
Living income & living wage	17	4.38
Child labor	16	4.12
Forced or compulsory labor	14	3.61
Rights of Indigenous Peoples	9	2.32
Land and resource rights	5	1.29
Total	388	100.00

A total of 388 social-related disclosures were identified, revealing a highly uneven thematic distribution. The most prominent theme is occupational health and safety (19.07%), followed by employment practices (14.69%), food safety (12.37%), and local communities (11.60%). This pattern indicates that TSRS-aligned social reporting in the agri-food sector is strongly oriented toward workplace safety, labor management, and consumer-facing risks, which are generally characterized by clearer regulatory frameworks and higher auditability.

The dominance of occupational health and safety is consistent with empirical evidence showing that social sustainability reporting in the agri-food sector prioritizes indicators that are operationally measurable and embedded in formal management systems [34]. Studies focusing on ESG risk management in agri-food companies similarly highlight occupational safety and workforce-related risks as the most institutionalized components of the social pillar, reflecting their direct links to operational continuity and liability exposure [18]. In this respect, the strong representation of occupational health and safety in TSRS-aligned reports suggests a convergence between national reporting requirements and internationally recognized risk-based social disclosure practices.

Employment practices and non-discrimination and equal opportunity (10.05%) are also relatively well represented, indicating that companies emphasize workforce governance, equality policies, and human resources frameworks. However, prior sectoral analyses suggest that such disclosures often remain policy-oriented, with limited integration of outcome-based indicators related to wage adequacy, job security, or career progression [19]. The results presented in Table 3 support this observation, as higher-level employment disclosures coexist with notably weaker coverage of living income and living wage indicators.

Food safety (12.37%) emerges as a central social theme, reflecting the reputational and regulatory salience of product quality and consumer protection in the agri-food sector. This finding aligns with previous research demonstrating that food safety is consistently framed as a core social responsibility issue, closely linked to brand trust and market access [34,35]. In contrast, food security (7.47%) receives substantially less attention, despite being a key sector-specific social concern under GRI 13. This imbalance mirrors findings in the broader literature, which note that corporate sustainability reporting tends to emphasize controllable, firm-level issues (such as food safety) over systemic challenges related to access, affordability, and long-term resilience of food systems [19,36].

A particularly critical gap is observed in rights-based and value-chain–wide social themes. Disclosures related to living income and living wage (4.38%), child labor (4.12%), forced or compulsory labor (3.61%), rights of Indigenous Peoples (2.32%), and land and resource rights (1.29%) remain marginal. This pattern is consistent with sectoral studies showing that agri-food companies face persistent challenges in operationalizing and reporting on social risks that extend beyond direct operations into complex and geographically dispersed supply chains [18,22]. Empirical evidence further indicates that issues such as land tenure, Indigenous rights, and fair income distribution are often under-reported due to data limitations, governance complexity, and weaker regulatory enforcement mechanisms [21,22].

Overall, the comparison with the literature suggests that TSRS-aligned sustainability reports achieve stronger alignment with GRI 13 social themes where regulatory compliance, operational risk management, and internal governance dominate, including occupational health and safety, employment practices, and food safety. In contrast, transformative and equity-oriented social dimensions emphasized by GRI 13—such as living income, labor rights across the supply chain, Indigenous Peoples’ rights, and land and resource governance—remain weakly integrated into reporting practices. As also highlighted in recent systematic reviews, this imbalance limits the analytical depth and sector relevance of social sustainability reporting in the agri-food sector [19].

Taken together, these findings indicate that the interaction between TSRS and the GRI 13 social framework remains largely implicit rather than systematic. While TSRS provides a solid foundation for standardized and compliance-driven social disclosures, it does not sufficiently incentivize companies to address the sector-specific, value-chain-wide social impacts that are central to GRI 13. Consequently, the social dimension of sustainability reporting in the agri-food sector remains partial and uneven, underscoring the need for a more explicit integration of GRI 13 social indicators into TSRS-based reporting practices.

Table 6 presents a company-level assessment of social sustainability disclosures in TSRS-aligned sustainability reports, evaluated against the social themes defined under GRI 13.

Table 6. Company-level distribution of GRI 13 social disclosures in TSRS-compliant sustainability reports.

Company	ND & EO	EP	FS	AHW	FSec	FA & CB	OHS	LC	LI & LW	CL	FL	RIP	LRR
C1	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	1	0	0	0	0	0
C2	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	1	0	0	0	0	0
C3	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2	1	1	1	0	0
C4	1	1	2	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
C5	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2	1	1	1	1	1
C6	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2	1	1	1	0	0
C7	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
C8	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	1	0	0	0	0	0

ND & EO: Non-discrimination & equal opportunity, EP: Employment practices, FS: Food safety, AHW: Animal health & welfare, FSec: Food security, FA & CB: Freedom of association & collective bargaining, OHS: Occupational health & safety, LC: Local communities, LI & LW: Living income & living wage, CL: Child labor, FL: Forced labor, RIP: Rights of Indigenous Peoples, LRR: Land & resource rights.

Table 6. Company-level distribution of GRI 13 social disclosures in TSRS-compliant sustainability reports.

Company	ND & EO	EP	FS	AHW	FSec	FA & CB	OHS	LC	LI & LW	CL	FL	RIP	LRR
C1	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	1	0	0	0	0	0
C2	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	1	0	0	0	0	0
C3	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2	1	1	1	0	0
C4	1	1	2	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
C5	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2	1	1	1	1	1
C6	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2	1	1	1	0	0
C7	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
C8	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	1	0	0	0	0	0

ND & EO: Non-discrimination & equal opportunity, EP: Employment practices, FS: Food safety, AHW: Animal health & welfare, FSec: Food security, FA & CB: Freedom of association & collective bargaining, OHS: Occupational health & safety, LC: Local communities, LI & LW: Living income & living wage, CL: Child labor, FL: Forced labor, RIP: Rights of Indigenous Peoples, LRR: Land & resource rights.

Company-level analysis reveals substantial heterogeneity in social sustainability disclosures across TSRS-aligned agri-food companies when evaluated against the GRI 13 social framework. Overall, disclosures are strongest in themes closely linked to internal operations, regulatory compliance, and workforce management, while value-chain–wide human rights and equity-related issues remain weakly represented.

C3 and C5 demonstrate the most comprehensive social disclosure profiles, with broad coverage of non-discrimination, employment practices, food safety, freedom of association, occupational health and safety, and local communities. Among the sample, C5 is the only company addressing Indigenous Peoples’ rights and land and resource rights, indicating a wider recognition of sector-specific social risks emphasized by GRI 13. C6also shows relatively strong performance in workforce- and governance-related themes, though disclosures on rights-based issues remain limited.

In contrast, C1, C2, C8, C4, and C7 exhibit predominantly narrative and compliance-oriented disclosures, with consistent attention to food safety and occupational health and safety, but little to no engagement with living income and wage, child labor, forced labor, or land-related rights. This pattern suggests a narrow interpretation of social sustainability focused primarily on direct operations.

Overall, the findings indicate that TSRS-aligned social reporting achieves only partial alignment with GRI 13, performing well in compliance-driven areas while remaining limited in addressing transformative, rights-based social dimensions across the agri-food value chain. The stronger alignment observed among companies with international operations and more developed sustainability governance structures underscores the importance of company size and governance maturity in shaping the depth and scope of social sustainability disclosures.

3.3. Environmental Dimension

The distribution of environmental disclosures in TSRS-aligned agri-food sustainability reports evaluated against the GRI 13 environmental themes (Table 7) indicates that reporting is strongly concentrated on emissions (23.04%), climate adaptation and resilience (19.80%), water and effluents (19.02%), and waste management (17.35%). This pattern suggests that environmental reporting in the agri-food sector is predominantly shaped by climate-related and resource-efficiency considerations, reflecting areas where regulatory pressure, standardized indicators, and monitoring frameworks are most firmly established. Similar patterns have been observed in international assessments of food supply chains, which identify greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, and waste generation as the most visible and consistently reported environmental pressures [37].

Table 7. Analysis of GRI 13 Standards in the Environmental Dimension. Number of Disclosures refers to the total count of distinct textual disclosure segments addressing each theme. Percentages are calculated relative to the total number of disclosure segments within the same dimension.

Environmental Theme	Number of Disclosures	Percentage of Disclosures (%)
Water and effluents	194	19.02
Waste	177	17.35
Emissions	235	23.04
Climate adaptation and resilience	202	19.80
Biodiversity	102	10.00
Soil health	48	4.71
Natural ecosystem conversion	35	3.43
Pesticide use	27	2.65
Total	1020	100.00

Table 7. Analysis of GRI 13 Standards in the Environmental Dimension. Number of Disclosures refers to the total count of distinct textual disclosure segments addressing each theme. Percentages are calculated relative to the total number of disclosure segments within the same dimension.

Environmental Theme	Number of Disclosures	Percentage of Disclosures (%)
Water and effluents	194	19.02
Waste	177	17.35
Emissions	235	23.04
Climate adaptation and resilience	202	19.80
Biodiversity	102	10.00
Soil health	48	4.71
Natural ecosystem conversion	35	3.43
Pesticide use	27	2.65
Total	1020	100.00

In contrast, environmental themes directly associated with land-based and ecosystem-specific impacts—including soil health (4.71%), natural ecosystem conversion (3.43%), and pesticide use (2.65%)—remain marginal within TSRS-oriented disclosures. This imbalance indicates that while TSRS-aligned reporting effectively captures globally standardized environmental risks, it provides limited visibility into sector-specific environmental pressures that are central to agricultural sustainability under GRI 13. The GRI 13 framework explicitly emphasizes pesticide use, ecosystem conversion, and soil degradation as critical impact pathways in agriculture, aquaculture, and fisheries, highlighting the importance of these themes for a comprehensive sectoral assessment [20].

Falkenberg et al. [38] highlight that aspects such as biodiversity, circular economy, and sector-specific environmental priorities remain under-reported in sustainability reports, even where regulatory frameworks exist.

The relatively high prominence of water and effluents is consistent with the literature, which shows that water-related disclosures in the agricultural sector are increasingly driven by regulatory requirements, stakeholder expectations, and material risk considerations. However, empirical studies also indicate persistent challenges related to the comparability and depth of water sustainability disclosures, particularly in linking water use metrics to local hydrological contexts [39]. In this respect, the strong representation of water-related themes in Table 5 suggests an emphasis on measurable and auditable indicators, rather than on location-specific water stress or cumulative watershed impacts.

By contrast, the low level of disclosure related to pesticide use and soil health stands in sharp contrast to the growing body of scientific evidence documenting their environmental significance. Numerous studies have demonstrated that agricultural pesticides exert widespread adverse effects on soil invertebrates and ecosystem functioning, underscoring the need for more systematic risk assessment and reporting in this area [40]. Similarly, recent reviews highlight the value of microbiological indicators as sensitive and integrative measures of soil health, while also noting that such indicators remain largely absent from corporate sustainability reporting practices [41]. Taken together, these findings suggest that the limited attention given to pesticides and soil health in TSRS-aligned reports reflects not only reporting preferences but also structural challenges in monitoring, data availability, and indicator standardization.

The level of disclosure related to biodiversity (10.00%) occupies an intermediate position between climate- and resource-focused themes and land-based environmental impacts. Lozano [42] critically argues that prevailing sustainability reporting frameworks tend to fragment sustainability into discrete environmental, social, and economic dimensions, thereby failing to capture the systemic and interdependent nature of sustainability challenges. This limitation is particularly pronounced in the agrifood sector, where production systems are intrinsically linked to biodiversity, soil health, water resources, and ecosystem services. Under GRI 13, biodiversity loss is closely linked to land-use change, pesticide application, and ecosystem degradation. The observed separation between biodiversity disclosures and those related to pesticide use and ecosystem conversion therefore points to a fragmented treatment of ecological impacts, rather than an integrated assessment of biodiversity pressures across the agricultural value chain [20].

Overall, the findings indicate that TSRS-aligned environmental reporting achieves strong alignment with GRI 13 in climate-related and resource management themes, while remaining partial and uneven with respect to ecosystem- and land-based environmental dimensions. This pattern mirrors trends observed in other dimensions of sustainability reporting, where compliance-driven and globally standardized indicators dominate, whereas sector-specific and transformative environmental challenges—such as soil degradation, pesticide impacts, and ecosystem conversion—remain weakly integrated, as highlighted in prior critiques of fragmented sustainability reporting frameworks [42]. Recent evidence from the agri-food sector further suggests that such compliance-oriented reporting dynamics, reinforced by emerging regulatory regimes, often prioritize data availability and standardization over value-chain-level ecological impacts [43]. Consequently, while TSRS provides a robust foundation for environmental disclosure, its interaction with the GRI 13 environmental framework remains largely implicit rather than systematic, limiting the analytical depth and sector relevance of environmental sustainability reporting in the agri-food sector.

Table 8 presents a company-level comparison of environmental disclosures in TSRS-aligned sustainability reports, assessed against the environmental themes of GRI 13. The results reveal a clear pattern of convergence in climate- and resource-related themes, alongside substantial divergence in ecosystem- and land-based environmental dimensions.

Across the entire sample, water management, waste, and emissions are consistently addressed at a high level. All companies report comprehensively on water and emissions, and with few exceptions on waste, reflecting strong regulatory alignment and the availability of standardized, quantifiable indicators. Similarly, climate adaptation and resilience are prominently reported by most companies, underscoring the centrality of climate-related risks within TSRS-aligned environmental reporting.

In contrast, biodiversity shows moderate differentiation across companies. While C3, C5, C6, and C7 demonstrate broader engagement with biodiversity-related disclosures, other companies—such as C4 and C8—provide only limited or no coverage. This variation suggests that biodiversity considerations are more likely to be integrated by companies with larger operational scale, international exposure, or more developed environmental governance structures.

The most pronounced disparities emerge in soil health, natural ecosystem conversion, and pesticide use, which represent the weakest environmental themes across the sample. Only C7 provides comprehensive coverage across all three themes, while C5, C3, and C6 offer partial engagement. In contrast, several companies—including C4, C2, and C8—do not address these themes at all. This pattern indicates that TSRS-aligned reporting remains highly effective for climate- and efficiency-oriented environmental risks, but considerably less effective in capturing location-specific, land-based, and agro-ecological impacts that are central to the GRI 13 environmental framework.

Table 8. Company-level distribution of GRI 13 environmental disclosures in TSRS-compliant sustainability reports.

Company	Water	Waste	Emissions	Climate A&R	Biodiversity	Soil	NEC	Pesticides
C1	2	2	2	2	1	1	0	0
C2	2	2	2	2	1	0	0	0
C3	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	0
C4	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	0
C5	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	1
C6	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	0
C7	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1
C8	2	2	2	1	1	0	0	0

Table 8. Company-level distribution of GRI 13 environmental disclosures in TSRS-compliant sustainability reports.

Company	Water	Waste	Emissions	Climate A&R	Biodiversity	Soil	NEC	Pesticides
C1	2	2	2	2	1	1	0	0
C2	2	2	2	2	1	0	0	0
C3	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	0
C4	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	0
C5	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	1
C6	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	0
C7	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1
C8	2	2	2	1	1	0	0	0

Overall, the company-level analysis confirms that TSRS compliance leads to a high degree of standardization in climate, water, and emissions reporting, while producing heterogeneous and often limited outcomes in ecosystem-related dimensions such as soil degradation, ecosystem conversion, and pesticide impacts [44,45]. Companies with broader sustainability governance and international operations exhibit stronger alignment with GRI 13’s environmental expectations, whereas others remain focused on operationally bounded and compliance-driven disclosures. The findings indicate that TSRS supports consistent reporting on climate and resource use, but remains limited in capturing the agro-ecological impacts emphasized by GRI 13.

3.4. Agrifood Sector-Focused Themes

Table 9 presents the extent to which sustainability reports prepared in compliance with the Türkiye Sustainability Reporting Standards (TSRSs) address themes defined under Agrifood Sector-Focused Codes. The results reveal a differentiated pattern in which certain agrifood-related themes are widely reported, while others are not addressed within the scope of TSRS-aligned disclosures.

Before interpreting these results, it is important to acknowledge the methodological scope of TSRS as defined by the Public Oversight, Accounting and Auditing Standards Authority (KGK). TSRS is primarily designed as a general-purpose sustainability reporting framework, focusing on the disclosure of sustainability-related risks and opportunities with potential financial effects (TSRS 1) and climate-related disclosures (TSRS 2) [17]. As widely discussed in the sustainability reporting literature, such general frameworks tend to prioritize comparability, auditability, and financial materiality, rather than sector-specific or place-based sustainability attributes [16]. Consequently, agrifood-specific themes that are not explicitly defined as disclosure requirements within TSRS may remain unreported, not due to firm-level neglect, but because they fall outside the methodological boundaries of the standard.

Within this context, the results show that sustainable agriculture and small producers are the most consistently reported themes, appearing in all analyzed sustainability reports. This indicates that TSRS-aligned reporting readily accommodates agrifood narratives linked to responsible sourcing, supplier integration, and continuity of agricultural production. Similar patterns have been documented in open-access studies, which show that agrifood sustainability reporting frequently emphasizes supply-chain governance and producer inclusion due to their relevance for risk management and value-chain stability [46,47].

Table 9. Analysis of Agrifood Sector-Focused Codes.

Agrifood Theme	Number of Disclosures	Percentage of Disclosures (%)
Certificate	64	20.51
Sustainable agriculture	58	18.59
Cooperative	18	5.77
Woman entrepreneur	16	5.13
STEM	14	4.49
Palm oil	41	13.14
Small producer	27	8.65
Good agriculture	49	15.71
Woman farmer	13	4.17
Native seed	8	2.56
Geographical indication product	4	1.28
Total	312	100.00

Table 9. Analysis of Agrifood Sector-Focused Codes.

Agrifood Theme	Number of Disclosures	Percentage of Disclosures (%)
Certificate	64	20.51
Sustainable agriculture	58	18.59
Cooperative	18	5.77
Woman entrepreneur	16	5.13
STEM	14	4.49
Palm oil	41	13.14
Small producer	27	8.65
Good agriculture	49	15.71
Woman farmer	13	4.17
Native seed	8	2.56
Geographical indication product	4	1.28
Total	312	100.00

The certificate theme also exhibits a high reporting frequency. This suggests that companies rely heavily on certification schemes, standards, and third-party assurance mechanisms to communicate sustainability performance in agrifood value chains. Prior research highlights that certification is often favored in sustainability reporting because it enhances credibility, facilitates comparability, and aligns well with audit-oriented reporting frameworks [48]. The prominence of certification in TSRS-aligned reports is therefore consistent with the standard’s emphasis on verifiable and comparable disclosures.

Themes such as cooperatives, good agricultural practices, and palm oil appear at moderate levels. Their selective inclusion indicates that producer organization, farm-level practices, and commodity-specific sustainability concerns are acknowledged, but not systematically embedded across all reports. This uneven treatment is consistent with findings from agrifood governance literature, which show that the visibility of such themes depends on supply-chain structure, transaction costs, and the degree of stakeholder pressure faced by firms [47,48].

Lower reporting frequencies are observed for women entrepreneurs, women farmers, and STEM-related themes, suggesting that gender inclusion and innovation-oriented aspects of agrifood sustainability are not yet mainstreamed within TSRS-aligned sustainability disclosures. This finding is noteworthy given the substantial open-access evidence demonstrating that women’s participation in agriculture is closely linked to productivity, resilience, and sustainable transformation of food systems [49]. The limited representation of these themes implies that TSRS-aligned reporting may understate socially transformative dimensions of agrifood sustainability.

The most striking result concerns native seed and geographical indication products, which are not addressed in any of the analyzed reports. However, in line with the methodological considerations outlined above, this absence should not be interpreted as a deliberate omission by reporting firms. Rather, it reflects the fact that TSRS does not explicitly define sector-specific indicators related to seed sovereignty, local varieties, or product origin [17]. From a sectoral perspective, this represents a significant limitation, as open-access FAO studies emphasize that native seeds and geographical indications play a critical role in biodiversity conservation, territorial development, cultural heritage, and long-term sustainability of agrifood systems [36]. Their non-appearance in TSRS-aligned reports therefore points to a framework-level gap, rather than firm-level non-compliance.

The results indicate that TSRS-aligned sustainability reporting is most compatible with agrifood themes that are standardized, governance-oriented, and easily verifiable, such as sustainable agriculture, certification, and small-producer integration. In contrast, place-based, cultural, and biologically grounded themes, including native seeds and geographical indications, may remain unreported because they are not explicitly operationalized within the TSRS framework. This finding supports broader arguments in the sustainability reporting literature that general-purpose standards require sector-specific guidance or complementary indicator sets to adequately capture the full materiality of sectors such as agrifood [16,48].

The company-level distribution presented in Table 8 indicates that the treatment of agrifood sector–specific themes in TSRS-compliant sustainability reports varies considerably across firms. The findings show that certification, sustainable agriculture, and good agricultural practices emerge as common focal areas across all companies, suggesting that reporting is predominantly framed around production processes and quality assurance. In contrast, disclosures related to cooperative structures, engagement with small producers, and supply chain inclusiveness are addressed by only a limited number of firms, indicating that a value chain–based sustainability approach has not yet been systematically embedded in reporting practices.

Table 10 further reveals that themes directly associated with social inclusion and biodiversity—such as women entrepreneurs, women farmers, native seeds, and geographical indications—are largely neglected across the sample. This pattern suggests that sustainability reporting in the agrifood sector continues to prioritize corporate compliance and risk management over sector-specific social and ecological priorities. Moreover, the selective reporting of issues linked to global supply chains (e.g., palm oil) by only certain firms highlights that environmental and social risks are disclosed in a strategic and company-specific manner rather than through a comprehensive sector-wide perspective. According to Table 8, C5 emerges as the most prominent firm due to its relatively more holistic reporting approach, which integrates production-related, supply chain, and social dimensions; nevertheless, it is notable that none of the companies systematically incorporate transformative themes such as native seeds, geographical indications, or women farmers.

Overall, the evidence presented in Table 10 demonstrates that while TSRS-compliant sustainability reports in the agrifood sector exhibit a relatively consistent focus on environmental and production-oriented issues, they remain limited in their integration of local production systems, social inclusiveness, and ecosystem-based priorities. This indicates that sustainability reporting in the sector has yet to achieve a holistic and transformative agrifood perspective and continues to reflect a predominantly compliance-driven orientation.

Table 10. Company-level distribution of Agrifood Sector-Focused Codes in TSRS-compliant sustainability reports.

Company	Certificate	Sustainable Agriculture	Cooperative	Woman Entrepreneur	STEM	Palm Oil	Small Producer	Good Agriculture	Woman Farmer	Native Seed	Geographical Indication
C1	2	2	1	0	0	0	2	2	0	0	0
C2	2	2	1	1	0	2	1	2	0	0	0
C3	2	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	0
C4	2	1	0	0	0	0	2	1	0	0	0
C5	2	2	1	0	1	0	2	2	1	0	0
C6	2	2	0	0	1	0	2	2	0	0	0
C7	2	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0
C8	2	2	0	0	0	0	1	2	0	0	0

Table 10. Company-level distribution of Agrifood Sector-Focused Codes in TSRS-compliant sustainability reports.

Company	Certificate	Sustainable Agriculture	Cooperative	Woman Entrepreneur	STEM	Palm Oil	Small Producer	Good Agriculture	Woman Farmer	Native Seed	Geographical Indication
C1	2	2	1	0	0	0	2	2	0	0	0
C2	2	2	1	1	0	2	1	2	0	0	0
C3	2	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	0
C4	2	1	0	0	0	0	2	1	0	0	0
C5	2	2	1	0	1	0	2	2	1	0	0
C6	2	2	0	0	1	0	2	2	0	0	0
C7	2	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0
C8	2	2	0	0	0	0	1	2	0	0	0

4. Alignment of Sustainability Disclosures with the Sustainable Development Goals

As presented in Table 11, company-level SDG coverage varies markedly among TSRS-compliant firms. The SDG alignment reported here reflects binary coverage rather than substantive depth and should therefore be interpreted as indicative of symbolic visibility or early-stage engagement, rather than the effectiveness of corporate contributions. C5 exhibits the highest level of alignment, covering 15 out of 17 SDGs (88.2%), which indicates a comprehensive sustainability approach encompassing environmental, social, and governance dimensions. C3 follows with a coverage rate of 82.4%, while C2 (76.5%) and C6 (70.6%) also demonstrate relatively broad SDG engagement. In contrast, C1 and C4 each address 47.1% of the SDGs, and C7 reaches a moderate coverage level (52.9%). These firms primarily focus on operational and environmental SDGs, with more limited integration of social and institutional goals. C8 records the lowest SDG coverage (35.3%), reflecting a sustainability strategy largely oriented toward core operational practices rather than upstream agricultural or socially oriented SDGs. Overall, the results in Table 9 suggest that SDG coverage under the TSRS framework is strongly influenced by firm characteristics such as sectoral positioning, value chain complexity, and international exposure. While TSRS-compliant reporting supports substantial SDG alignment for some firms, the observed heterogeneity highlights the need for more targeted guidance to promote a more balanced integration of SDGs across different business models.

Table 11. SDG Coverage (%) across TSRS-Aligned Agrifood Sustainability Reports.

Company	Covered SDGs (n)	SDG Coverage (%)
C1	8	47.1
C2	13	76.5
C3	14	82.4
C4	8	47.1
C5	15	88.2
C6	12	70.6
C7	9	52.9
C8	6	35.3

Table 11. SDG Coverage (%) across TSRS-Aligned Agrifood Sustainability Reports.

Company	Covered SDGs (n)	SDG Coverage (%)
C1	8	47.1
C2	13	76.5
C3	14	82.4
C4	8	47.1
C5	15	88.2
C6	12	70.6
C7	9	52.9
C8	6	35.3

The SDG coverage matrix in Table 11 demonstrates a clear concentration of disclosures around a limited set of sustainability goals, alongside notable gaps in social and institutional dimensions. SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 13 (Climate Action) achieve 100% coverage, indicating that all firms address these goals in their TSRS-compliant sustainability reports. This uniformity reflects the strong alignment between TSRS reporting requirements and operational, environmental management, and climate-related issues, which are typically supported by established metrics, targets, and regulatory expectations. However, the content analysis conducted by Vallet-Bellmunt [50] in the Spanish food retail sector demonstrates that, although SDG 12 is widely referenced in corporate sustainability reports, the scope and depth of related disclosures remain limited. The findings indicate that companies primarily concentrate on production-oriented and internal operational issues—such as resource efficiency, waste management, and energy consumption—within the scope of SDG 12, while largely neglecting transformative elements, including circular economy practices, the promotion of sustainable consumption, and the steering of consumer behavior. Moreover, the study reveals that the cross-cutting role of SDG 12 in relation to other Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 2, SDG 13, and SDG 15, is insufficiently reflected in reporting practices, with inter-goal synergies remaining largely implicit.

In contrast, SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) exhibits the lowest coverage rate (37.5%, Table 10), highlighting a systematic weakness in governance-related disclosures beyond baseline compliance. Similarly, SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) show only 50% coverage, suggesting that poverty alleviation and inequality reduction are not consistently embedded within corporate sustainability strategies. These findings indicate that socially oriented SDGs remain secondary to operational and environmental priorities in current TSRS-aligned reporting practices.

Agriculture- and land-related goals display an intermediate pattern. As shown in

Table 12. SDG Coverage Matrix and Coverage Rates across TSRS-Compliant Firms.

SDG	Description	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	C8	SDG Coverage (%)
SDG 1	No Poverty	0	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	50.0
SDG 2	Zero Hunger	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	0	62.5
SDG 5	Gender Equality	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	62.5
SDG 6	Clean Water and Sanitation	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	100.0
SDG 8	Decent Work and Economic Growth	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	100.0
SDG 10	Reduced Inequalities	0	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	50.0
SDG 12	Responsible Consumption and Production	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	100.0
SDG 13	Climate Action	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	100.0
SDG 15	Life on Land	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	0	62.5
SDG 16	Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	37.5

SDG coverage is assessed using a binary metric (1 = covered; 0 = not covered) based on the presence of SDG-related disclosures identified through the thematic analysis.

, SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 15 (Life on Land) reach 62.5% coverage, largely driven by firms with direct agricultural sourcing and production activities. This pattern underscores the influence of sectoral characteristics on SDG engagement, as firms operating closer to agricultural value chains tend to demonstrate stronger alignment with food security and land stewardship objectives [51].

Overall, the distribution presented in Table 12 suggests that while TSRS-compliant sustainability reports exhibit strong convergence around environment- and operations-oriented SDGs, the integration of social justice, institutional governance, and inclusive development goals remains limited and uneven. This imbalance points to a potential reporting gap and indicates that future refinements of the TSRS framework could benefit from more explicit guidance and indicators related to socially and institutionally oriented SDGs, thereby supporting a more balanced and holistic sustainability narrative.

The SDG coverage patterns reported in Table 12 are broadly consistent with prior studies on corporate sustainability reporting. Existing research shows that firms predominantly emphasize SDG 6, SDG 8, SDG 12, and SDG 13, as these goals are closely linked to operational efficiency, environmental management, and regulatory compliance [25,26]. The universal coverage of these SDGs in the present study therefore reflects established reporting practices rather than a TSRS-specific effect.

In contrast, the limited coverage of SDG 16 and the moderate representation of SDG 1 and SDG 10 align with earlier findings indicating that social justice– and governance-related SDGs remain less systematically integrated into corporate disclosures [27,28]. The persistent under-representation of these goals can be interpreted in light of structural incentives embedded in financially oriented, risk-focused reporting architectures. Sustainability reporting research shows that corporate SDG engagement tends to concentrate on goals that are easier to integrate, measure, and link to firm-level risk management and performance, while broader social and institutional goals are less systematically disclosed due to challenges in quantification and accountability beyond the firm boundary. In the early implementation phase of TSRS—where climate-related risk disclosure and financial materiality are strongly emphasized and reinforced by regulatory and capital-market pressures—these incentives plausibly shift reporting attention toward climate- and operations-linked SDGs, leaving goals related to poverty, inequality, and institutions comparatively marginal in disclosure practice [52,53,54].

The intermediate coverage of SDG 2 and SDG 15 further supports evidence that engagement with agriculture- and land-related SDGs is strongly shaped by sectoral characteristics and value-chain exposure [21].

The SDG alignment patterns identified in this study are closely linked to the sector-specific gaps observed in the GRI 13 analysis and can be further interpreted in light of the Global Reporting Initiative’s guidance on integrating the SDGs into sustainability reporting. According to GRI, the visibility of SDG contributions in corporate reports depends not only on their relevance but also on the extent to which related topics are operationalized within reporting standards and disclosed by companies. While GRI 13 explicitly emphasizes land use, labor rights, and agroecological impacts as material topics for the agri-food sector, these themes are less consistently reported under climate- and financial-materiality–oriented reporting logics. As a result, SDGs that are strongly linked to these themes—particularly SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 15 (Life on Land)—remain weakly represented in the SDG mapping results. This pattern reflects a structural alignment between the disclosure priorities incentivized by TSRS-aligned reporting and the SDG targets that become visible through GRI-based SDG mapping, rather than a lack of relevance of these SDGs to the agri-food sector itself [55].

5. Conclusions

This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of the first set of sustainability reports prepared in alignment with TSRS 2024 in the agrifood sector, assessed through the sector-specific requirements of GRI 13 across the economic, social, and environmental dimensions. By jointly examining theme-level distributions and detailed company-level analyses, the study offers early empirical evidence on how TSRS-based reporting, during its initial implementation phase, exhibits patterns of alignment with material sustainability impacts and risk profiles characteristic of agrifood value chains.

The findings indicate that, consistent with the first-cycle nature of TSRS reporting, disclosures are predominantly concentrated in areas related to environmental management, climate risk, and regulatory compliance. However, the depth and thematic balance of disclosures vary markedly across firms, and these differences are closely associated with structural characteristics such as firm size, level of international exposure, and position within agrifood value chains. Companies with large-scale operations and high international exposure—particularly C3, C5, C6, and C7—demonstrate higher disclosure intensity in the environmental dimension, reflecting stronger regulatory, market, and reputational pressures in international contexts. In these reports, economic sustainability is increasingly framed through climate-related financial impacts and financial materiality considerations rather than conventional financial performance indicators.

By contrast, companies with a predominantly domestic operational focus and limited international exposure—such as C1, C2, C4, and C8—tend to adopt more narrowly scoped and operationally bounded reporting approaches. Their disclosures emphasize environmental impacts directly linked to operational continuity, particularly water management, energy use, and climate-related physical risks, while economic and social dimensions are addressed more selectively, often through governance narratives and qualitative statements. The limited use of quantitative social indicators reflects both the early stage of adaptation to TSRS requirements and the comparatively lower regulatory and stakeholder pressures associated with domestic market orientation.

Among the analyzed companies, C5 and C7 stand out due to their systematic integration of financial materiality thresholds, EBITDA-based climate impact analyses, and explicit differentiation between transition and physical climate risks. These firms occupy central positions in internationally integrated value chains and branded product markets, which contributes to greater disclosure depth in the environmental and economic dimensions. At the same time, in certain cases—most notably C7—the social dimension remains structurally constrained due to TSRS scope exemptions and the definition of value-chain boundaries, illustrating how standard-specific scope definitions and firm positioning jointly shape the thematic balance of sustainability disclosures.

Taken together, these results indicate that compliance with TSRS—particularly during the initial implementation phase—does not automatically ensure comprehensive or balanced alignment with the sector-specific material topics defined under GRI 13. While TSRS provides a robust and standardized baseline for climate- and environment-focused reporting, its current interaction with GRI 13 remains largely implicit, resulting in uneven coverage of value-chain–based, rights-oriented, and agroecological sustainability challenges that are central to the agrifood sector. These findings carry several implications that can be summarized as follows:

- Theoretical implications, the results demonstrate that differences between financial materiality and sector-specific impact materiality are directly reflected in disclosure outcomes within the agrifood sector. Climate- and financial-risk–oriented reporting logics appear less effective in capturing long-term, place-based, and socially embedded sustainability impacts, particularly in land-based and value-chain-intensive production systems.

- From a regulatory standpoint, the analysis suggests that TSRS-aligned reporting could be strengthened through clearer guidance on the integration of sector-specific material topics relevant to agrifood systems, without altering the framework’s core climate- and risk-oriented structure. More explicit reference points for agroecological indicators (such as soil health, biodiversity impacts, and pesticide use) and social value-chain indicators (including smallholder inclusion and upstream labor conditions) would enhance sectoral coverage and improve the substantive relevance of disclosures. In this respect, the introduction of a limited set of mandatory social indicators for high-impact sectors could help address the persistent under-representation of social sustainability dimensions.

- At the level of corporate reporting practice, the findings highlight the limitations of relying solely on TSRS-aligned disclosures. Complementing TSRS with sector-specific standards such as GRI 13 can support a more balanced representation of sustainability impacts across environmental, social, and value-chain dimensions, particularly as reporting practices evolve beyond initial compliance cycles.

- With respect to SDG alignment, the observed selective coverage of SDGs indicates that clearer guidance explicitly linking sector-specific material topics to relevant SDG targets could help reduce symbolic alignment and foster a more integrated and substantively grounded sustainability narrative in the agrifood context.

Overall, this study provides early evidence on both the strengths and limitations of TSRS in addressing the multidimensional sustainability challenges of the agrifood sector. A stronger and more explicit integration between national sustainability reporting standards and sector-specific global frameworks is likely to enhance the depth, comparability, and decision usefulness of sustainability reporting, thereby supporting longer-term, impact-oriented transitions in agrifood systems.