SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 72

CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY IN CEO LETTERS: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND GOVERNANCE DIMENSIONS

CEO SÖYLEMLERİNDE KURUMSAL SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK: ÇEVRESEL, SOSYAL VE YÖNETİŞİM BOYUTLARINA YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ANALİZ

Pelin Karaca Kalkan(Ankara Bilim Üniversitesi)0000-0002-7951-6389
Pages
251–269
Publication Date
2026-01-19
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Findings reveal that CEOs predominantly emphasize social and environmental dimensions, whereas the governance dimension receives relatively less attention.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Increasing concerns about environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues such as ecological degradation, social inequality, and corporate governance challenges make the adoption and integration of sustainability practices at the organizational level critical, especially in emerging economies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:By employing content analysis on CEO messages from 28 companies listed on Türkiye’s BIST 30 index, the study identifies how these firms prioritize ESG dimensions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings reveal that CEOs predominantly emphasize social and environmental dimensions, whereas the governance dimension receives relatively less attention.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik · ÇSY · CEO Söylemleri

Abstract

Increasing concerns about environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues such as ecological degradation, social inequality, and corporate governance challenges make the adoption and integration of sustainability practices at the organizational level critical, especially in emerging economies. Drawing upon stakeholder theory and signaling theory, this study examines how senior executives of Turkish companies communicate their sustainability priorities through messages in annual reports. By employing content analysis on CEO messages from 28 companies listed on Türkiye’s BIST 30 index, the study identifies how these firms prioritize ESG dimensions. Findings reveal that CEOs predominantly emphasize social and environmental dimensions, whereas the governance dimension receives relatively less attention. Sector-based differences are also notable; manufacturing firms prioritize environmental aspects, while financial institutions primarily focus on social responsibilities. Moreover, critical governance components such as executive compensation and board diversity are underrepresented. This study highlights the role of CEO discourses in sustainability strategies among Turkish companies, providing comprehensive recommendations for practitioners and future research directions.

Özet

Ekolojik tahribat, toplumsal eşitsizlik ve kurumsal yönetişim sorunları gibi çevresel, sosyal ve yönetişim (ÇSY) konularının artması, gelişmekte olan ekonomilerde kurumlar düzeyinde sürdürülebilirlik uygulamalarının benimsenmesini ve iş süreçlerine entegrasyonunu kritik hale getirmektedir. Bu çalışma, paydaş teorisi ve imleşim teorisinden hareketle, Türk şirketlerinin üst düzey yöneticilerinin faaliyet raporu mesajlarında sürdürülebilirlik önceliklerini nasıl ilettiklerini içerik analizi yöntemiyle incelemektedir. Bu kapsamda, BIST 30 endeksindeki 28 şirketin CEO mesajları analiz edilerek, şirketlerin ÇSY boyutlarını nasıl önceliklendirdikleri belirlenmiştir. Bulgular, CEO söylemlerinde en fazla sosyal ve çevresel boyutların vurgulandığını, yönetişim boyutunun ise diğer boyutlara göre daha az yer aldığını ortaya koymaktadır. Sektörel farklılıklar da dikkat çekici olup, imalat sektörü çevresel konularda, finans sektörü ise sosyal konularda ön plana çıkmaktadır. Ayrıca yönetişim boyutundaki bazı kritik unsurların (üst düzey ücretlendirme ve yönetim kurulu çeşitliliği gibi) ihmal edildiği görülmektedir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki şirketlerde CEO söylemlerinin sürdürülebilirlik stratejilerindeki rolünü vurgulayarak uygulayıcılara ve gelecek çalışmalara yönelik kapsamlı öneriler sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kalkan, P. K. (2026). CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY IN CEO LETTERS: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND GOVERNANCE DIMENSIONS. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı: 72, 251–269. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1755849

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (49)

  1. Ahn, Y. (2022). A socio-cognitive model of sustainability performance: Linking CEO career experience, social ties, and attention breadth. Journal of Business Ethics, 175(2), 303-321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04651-w
  2. Alsayegh, M. F., Abdul Rahman, R., & Homayoun, S. (2020). Corporate economic, environmental, and social sustainability performance transformation through ESG disclosure. Sustainability, 12(9), 3910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093910
  3. Alshorman, S. A. A., & Shanahan, M. (2022). The voice of profit: exploring the tone of Australian CEO's letters to shareholders after the global financial crisis. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 27(1), 127-147. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-12-2020-0169
  4. Amernic, J. H., & Craig, R. J. (2004). 9/11 in the service of corporate rhetoric: Southwest airlines’ 2001 letter to shareholders. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 28, 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859904267121
  5. Amernic, J., & Craig, R. (2013). Leadership discourse, culture, and corporate ethics: CEO-speak at news corporation. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2), 379-394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1506-0
  6. An, Y., Davey, H., & Eggleton, I. R. (2011). Towards a comprehensive theoretical framework for voluntary IC disclosure. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12(4),571-585. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931111181733
  7. Arvidsson, S. (2023). CEO talk of sustainability in CEO letters: towards the inclusion of a sustainability embeddedness and value-creation perspective. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 14(7), 26-61. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2021-0260
  8. Arvidsson, S., & Sabelfeld, S. (2023). Adaptive framing of sustainability in CEO letters. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 36(9), 161–199. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-11-2019-4274
  9. Atan, R., Alam, M. M., Said, J., & Zamri, M. (2018). The impacts of environmental, social, and governance factors on firm performance: Panel study of Malaysian companies. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 29(2), 182-194. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-03-2017-0033
  10. Awa, H. O., Etim, W., & Ogbonda, E. (2024). Stakeholders, stakeholder theory and corporate social responsibility (CSR). International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-024-00094-y
  11. Barkemeyer, R., Comyns, B., Figge, F., & Napolitano, G. (2014). CEO statements in sustainability reports: Substantive information or background noise? Accounting Forum, 38(4), 287-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2014.07.002
  12. Buallay, A. (2019). Is sustainability reporting (ESG) associated with performance? Evidence from the European banking sector. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 30(1), 98-115. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2017-0149
  13. Chen, S., Song, Y., & Gao, P. (2023). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance and financial outcomes: Analyzing the impact of ESG on financial performance. Journal of Environmental Management, 345, Article 118829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118829
  14. Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011a). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419
  15. Connelly, B. L., Ketchen, D. J., & Slater, S. F. (2011b). Toward a “theoretical toolbox” for sustainability research in marketing. Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, 39(1), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0199-0
  16. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı. (2023). On İkinci Kalkınma Planı (2024-2028). https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/On-Ikinci-Kalkinma-Plani_2024-2028_11122023.pdf
  17. De Silva Lokuwaduge, C. S., & Heenetigala, K. (2017). Integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure for a sustainable development: An Australian study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(4), 438-450. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1927
  18. Diwan, H., & Amarayil Sreeraman, B. (2024). From financial reporting to ESG reporting: a bibliometric analysis of the evolution in corporate sustainability disclosures. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(6), 13769-13805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03249-2
  19. Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835-2857. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984
  20. Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2014). Effect of stakeholders’ pressure on transparency of sustainability reports within the GRI framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1748-5
  21. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192675
  22. Frösén, J., & Stewart, D. W. (2023). Marketing through the eyes of senior management: Insights from Fortune 500 reporting. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 31(1), 75-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2021.1994421
  23. Global Reporting Initiative. (2021). GRI Standards. https://www.globalreporting.org/how-to-use-the-gri-standards/gri-standards-english-language/
  24. Guthrie, J., Petty, R., & Ricceri, F. (2006). The voluntary reporting of intellectual capital: comparing evidence from Hong Kong and Australia. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(2), 254-271. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930610661890
  25. Hooghiemstra, R. (2010). Letters to the shareholders: A content analysis comparison of letters written by CEOs in the United States and Japan. The International Journal of Accounting, 45(3), 275-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2010.06.006
  26. Jonäll, K., & Rimmel, G. (2010). CEO letters as legitimacy builders: coupling text to numbers. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 14(4), 307-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/14013381011105975
  27. Josef, S., & Helena, C. (2022). Leadership and effectiveness: A content analysis of letters to shareholders during the financial crisis. International Journal of Business Communication, 59(3), 385-405. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488418804044
  28. Kılınç, Ö., & Arıcı, A. (2020). Yıllık Raporlarda Kurumsal Anlatı: Kurum Yöneticilerinin Mektuplarına Yönelik Bir Söylem Analizi. Ankara Üniversitesi İlef Dergisi, 7(1), 167-194. https://doi.org/10.24955/ilef.736324
  29. Kölbel, J. F., Busch, T., & Jancso, L. M. (2017). How media coverage of corporate social irresponsibility increases financial risk. Strategic Management Journal, 38(11), 2266-2284. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2647
  30. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
  31. Legendre, T. S., Ding, A., & Back, K. J. (2024). A bibliometric analysis of the hospitality and tourism environmental, social, and governance (ESG) literature. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 58, 309-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2024.01.003
  32. Li, T. T., Wang, K., Sueyoshi, T., & Wang, D. D. (2021). ESG: Research progress and future prospects. Sustainability, 13(21), 11663. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111663
  33. Liu, J., Hong, C., & Yook, B. (2022). CEO as “chief crisis officer” under COVID-19: A content analysis of CEO open letters using structural topic modeling. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 16(3), 444-468. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2022.2045297
  34. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 20-30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X013005020
  35. Mohammad, W. M. W., & Wasiuzzaman, S. (2021). Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) disclosure, competitive advantage and performance of firms in Malaysia. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2, Article 100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100015
  36. Na, H. J., Lee, K. C., Choi, S. U., & Kim, S. T. (2020). Exploring CEO messages in sustainability management reports: Applying sentiment mining and sustainability balanced scorecard methods. Sustainability, 12(2), 590. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020590
  37. Ngai, C. S. B., & Singh, R. G. (2014). Communication with stakeholders through corporate web sites: An exploratory study on the CEO messages of major corporations in Greater China. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 28(3), 352-394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651914524779
  38. Özsözgün Çalışkan, A., Esen, E., & Barkemeyer, R. (2021). Impression management tactics in the CEO statements of Turkish sustainability reports. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 30(4), 485–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12374
  39. Pálffy, Z., & Ablonczy-Mihályka, L. (2024). Cultural influence on sustainability discourse: A comparative analysis of CEO letters in the cosmetics and fashion industry. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(4), 2779-2792. https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i4.3796
  40. Patelli, L., & Pedrini, M. (2014). Is the optimism in CEO’s letters to shareholders sincere? Impression management versus communicative action during the economic crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1855-3
  41. Rahm, H., Sandell, N., & Svensson, P. (2020). Corporate dreams–appropriate aspirations and the building of trust in annual reports. Studies in Communication Sciences, 20(1), 77-91. https://doi.org/10.24434/j.scoms.2020.01.007
  42. Sang, S., Yan, A., & Ahmad, M. (2024). CEO Experience and Enterprise Environment, Social and Governance Performance: Evidence from China. Sustainability, 16(11), 4403. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114403
  43. Scheuerlein, J., Chládková, H., & Bauer, K. (2018). Transformational leadership qualities during the financial crisis-a content analysis of CEOs letter to shareholders. International Journal for Quality Research, 12(3), 551-572. https://doi.org/10.18421/IJQR12.03-01
  44. Searcy, C. (2016). Measuring enterprise sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(2), 120-133. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1861
  45. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-214850-7.50025-5
  46. Steurer, R., Langer, M. E., Konrad, A., & Martinuzzi, A. (2005). Corporations, stakeholders and sustainable development I: a theoretical exploration of business–society relations. Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 263-281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-7054-0
  47. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board. (2018). Annual Report 2018. https://www.sasb.org/knowledge-hub/annual-report-2018/
  48. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development (A/RES/70/1). United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
  49. Zhang, N., Yang, C., & Wang, S. (2024). Research progress and prospect of environmental, social and governance: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 447, Article 141489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141489