Insights, analysis, and legal updates from our dedicated team.
This article summarizes the reporting obligations and legal risks arising from Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions for companies. Proper classification of emissions is critical not only for technical accuracy, but also for regulatory compliance, contractual liability, and supply chain management.
1. Introduction: The Role of Standardization in Carbon Reporting The rapid development of regulatory frameworks aimed at combating climate change on a global scale has fundamentally transformed how companies manage their environmental impacts. Today, companies are expected not only to measure their greenhouse gas emissions but also to present this data using internationally recognized, comparable, and verifiable methodologies. Particularly for companies operating in Türkiye and engaged in international trade, carbon reporting obligations are becoming increasingly decisive. In particular, the European Union Green Deal, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), and sustainable finance regulations have effectively rendered the presentation of carbon data through non-standard methods obsolete. Within this framework, carbon reporting has evolved from being merely an environmental obligation into a determining factor for commercial continuity, access to finance, and international competitiveness. This transformation elevates carbon management from a technical activity to a core component of compliance, risk management, and corporate governance.
In insurance law, the institution of loss adjusters plays a central role in determining the existence and scope of damage. In practice, loss adjuster reports are often regarded as decisive evidence in the resolution of disputes; therefore, the authority responsible for appointing the adjuster and the procedure followed are directly related to the right to a fair trial and the balance of proof. In this context, the Regulation on the Appointment of Insurance Loss Adjusters, prepared pursuant to Article 22 of the Insurance Law No. 5684 and published in the Official Gazette dated 12 February 2026 and numbered 33166, has introduced a significant structural transformation in the adjuster appointment system.
The management of carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions has evolved from being merely an operational issue for companies into a strategic area that must be assessed within the scope of board oversight, corporate governance principles, and the legal liability of executives. Particularly with ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) criteria becoming decisive in investment decisions, carbon management is now considered one of the non-delegable responsibilities of corporate governing bodies.
This study examines the transformation of the carbon footprint from a mere environmental indicator into a factor generating legal, financial, and strategic consequences for companies. Within the framework of the Paris Agreement, the European Green Deal, and key EU regulations (CBAM, CSRD, EU ETS), it analyzes the evolution of carbon management into a compliance obligation and evaluates the current and emerging legal landscape under Turkish law. The study aims to demonstrate how the carbon footprint has become a verifiable and liability-triggering corporate data point with significant implications for corporate governance, contractual relations, and commercial activities.
Article 1 of the Additional Provisions of the Condominium Law No. 634 stipulates that “any disputes arising from the implementation of this Law shall be resolved by civil courts of peace.” According to the well-established case law of the 20th and 18th Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, the determination of the competent court is of critical importance in actions for annulment of objection filed following objections to enforcement proceedings initiated for the collection of common expense claims (such as maintenance fees, heating expenses, maintenance and repair costs, etc.). When judicial precedents and the framework of the Condominium Law No. 634 are evaluated together, it is observed that Civil Courts of Peace are competent in such disputes regardless of the amount in controversy. Pursuant to Article 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, matters concerning jurisdiction are related to public order, and therefore must be examined ex officio by courts at every stage of the proceedings.
