Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Develops a sustainability auditing framework in agricultural enterprises, suggesting improved resilience against risks.
State-owned agricultural enterprises face intensifying sustainability pressures, yet conventional Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) disclosures often mask site-specific operational risks. This study develops a Measurement–Reporting–Verification (MRV)-oriented sustainability internal audit framework for the General Directorate of Agricultural Enterprises (TIGEM) and pilots it across three enterprises (Ceylanpinar, Gozlu, and Karacabey). Utilizing a design-science approach, the model integrates 88 indicators derived from international frameworks (GRI, B Corp, IRIS+) and EU Green Deal requirements with a qualitative risk taxonomy. The results demonstrate that aggregate sustainability scores can obscure critical “Red Zone” risks. Ceylanpinar’s performance is severely constrained by an energy–water nexus (339.2 GWh irrigation demand vs. 263 mm rainfall), while Karacabey faces significant fossil fuel dependency and animal welfare challenges (9.2% calf mortality). Furthermore, the audit identifies tangible legal exposure in Ceylanpinar through 29 labor-related lawsuits linked to subcontracting. The study concludes that bridging the sustainability implementation gap requires a shift from symbolic disclosure to operationalized internal control. These findings provide a preliminary and context-specific roadmap for internal auditors to enhance institutional resilience against climate exposure and global carbo border adjustments (CBAM) in the agricultural sector.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yildirim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: