SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 22 Sayı: 3

Women Employees and Gender Equality in Sustainability Reporting: A WEPs-Based Qualitative Content Analysis of BIST Sustaınability Index Companies

SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK RAPORLAMASINDA KADIN ÇALIŞANLAR VE TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYET EŞİTLİĞİ: BIST SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK ENDEKSİ ŞİRKETLERİNİN WEPs TEMELLİ NİTEL İÇERİK ANALİZİ

Engin Yurdasever(Ordu Üniversitesi)0000-0002-3853-2032
Pages
1450–1476
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️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)

The findings indicate that the content is predominantly concentrated in the themes of “measurement and reporting” and “non-discrimination,” displaying an overall increasing trend over the five-year period, with notable variations across sectors.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to examine the types of content related to women employees and gender equality included in corporate sustainability reports, to reveal how this content has evolved over time and across sectors, and to assess whether such disclosures reflect a strategic managerial priority or a corporate legitimacy-oriented discourse within the framework of Stakeholder Theory, with particular attention to the relationship between discourse and practice.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Accordingly, the study analyzes the sustainability reports published between 2020 and 2024 by five companies included in the BIST Sustainability Index and operating in different sectors (Enerjisa, Enka, Otokar, Şişecam, and Turkish Airlines).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that the content is predominantly concentrated in the themes of “measurement and reporting” and “non-discrimination,” displaying an overall increasing trend over the five-year period, with notable variations across sectors.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlaması · Cinsiyet Eşitliği · Kadının Güçlenmesi Prensipleri (WEPs)

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the types of content related to women employees and gender equality included in corporate sustainability reports, to reveal how this content has evolved over time and across sectors, and to assess whether such disclosures reflect a strategic managerial priority or a corporate legitimacy-oriented discourse within the framework of Stakeholder Theory, with particular attention to the relationship between discourse and practice. Accordingly, the study analyzes the sustainability reports published between 2020 and 2024 by five companies included in the BIST Sustainability Index and operating in different sectors (Enerjisa, Enka, Otokar, Şişecam, and Turkish Airlines). The research adopts a content analysis, one of the qualitative research methods; the data were coded using the MAXQDA software, and the resulting sub-codes were classified under themes structured around the seven principles of the United Nations Women’s Empowerment Principles (WEPs). The findings indicate that the content is predominantly concentrated in the themes of “measurement and reporting” and “non-discrimination,” displaying an overall increasing trend over the five-year period, with notable variations across sectors. However, while quantitative indicators and formal policies are extensively emphasized, more comprehensive and transformative practices remain limited. In this respect, the study contributes to the literature by jointly highlighting prevailing trends and structural limitations in the empowerment of women employees within sustainability reporting, offering evidence from the Turkey context.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, işletmelerin sürdürülebilirlik raporlarında kadın çalışanlar ve toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğine yönelik hangi içeriklerin yer aldığını incelemek, bu içeriklerin yıllar itibariyle ve sektörler arasında nasıl değiştiğini ortaya koymak ve Paydaş Teorisi çerçevesinde söz konusu içeriklerin stratejik bir yönetim önceliğini mi yoksa kurumsal meşruiyet odaklı bir söylemi mi yansıttığını, söylem ve eylem arasındaki ilişki bağlamında değerlendirmektir. Bu doğrultuda çalışmada, BIST Sürdürülebilirlik Endeksi’nde yer alan ve farklı sektörlerde faaliyet gösteren beş şirketin (Enerjisa, Enka, Otokar, Şişecam ve THY) 2020–2024 yılları arasında yayımladıkları sürdürülebilirlik raporları incelenmiştir. Araştırma, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden biri olan içerik analiziyle yürütülmüş, veriler MAXQDA programı kullanılarak kodlanmış ve elde edilen alt kodlar, BM Kadının Güçlenmesi Prensipleri’nin (WEPs) yedi prensibi temel alınarak oluşturulan temalar altında sınıflandırılmıştır. Bulgular, içeriklerin ağırlıklı olarak “ölçüm ve raporlama” ile “ayrımcılığın önlenmesi” temalarında yoğunlaştığını, son beş yılda genel bir artış eğilimi gösterdiğini ve bu eğilimin sektörler arasında farklılaştığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bununla birlikte şirketlerin bu alanı büyük ölçüde ölçülebilir göstergeler ve kurumsal politikalar üzerinden ele aldığı, buna karşılık daha bütüncül ve dönüştürücü uygulamaların sınırlı kaldığı görülmektedir. Çalışma bu yönüyle sürdürülebilirlik raporlarında kadın çalışanların güçlendirilmesine ilişkin mevcut eğilimleri ve yapısal sınırları birlikte ele alarak, literatüre Türkiye bağlamında katkı sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yurdasever, E. (2026). Women Employees and Gender Equality in Sustainability Reporting: A WEPs-Based Qualitative Content Analysis of BIST Sustaınability Index Companies. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, Cilt: 22 Sayı: 3, 1450–1476. https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.1899581

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (92)

  1. Adams, C. A. (2017). Conceptualising the contemporary corporate value creation process. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(4), 906–931. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2016-2529
  2. Adams, C. A., Muir, S. & Hoque, Z. (2014). Measurement of sustainability performance in the public sector. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 5(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-04-2012-0018
  3. Adıgüzel, H. & Ergen, A. (2025). Corporate sustainability reporting and its influence on brand value: A sectoral analysis of top brands in an emerging market. Sustainability, 17(22), 10108. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172210108
  4. Akdoğan, N. & Umut Doğan, D. (2023). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedeflerinden 5 no’lu toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği hedefine ulaşmada Türkiye’de sürdürülebilirlik raporu düzenleyen işletmelerin 2020 ve 2021 yılı beyanlarının incelenmesi ve sonuçların değerlendirilmesi. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 25(MODAVICA Özel Sayısı), 219-240.
  5. Alshehhi, A., Nobanee, H. & Khare, N. (2018). The impact of sustainability practices on corporate financial performance: Literature trends and future research potential. Sustainability, 10(2), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020494
  6. Aras, G. & Crowther, D. (2008). Governance and sustainability: An investigation into relationship between corporate governance and corporate sustainability. Management Decision, 46(3), 433-448. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740810863870
  7. Axjonow, A., Ernstberger, J. & Pott, C. T. (2018). The impact of corporate social responsibility disclosure on corporate reputation: A non-professional stakeholder perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 429-450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3225-4
  8. Babiak, K. & Trendafilova, S. (2011). CSR and environmental responsibility: Motives and pressures to adopt green management practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.229
  9. Bartley, T. (2005). Corporate accountability and the privatization of labor standards: Struggles over codes of conduct in the apparel industry. Research in Political Sociology, 14, 211–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-9935(05)14007-8
  10. Birleşmiş Milletler Kalkınma Programı (UNDP) (2019). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma için küresel hedefler: Alt Hedefler Kılavuzu. https://www.kureselamaclar.org/wp-content/uploads/SKH-AciklamaliAltHedeflerKilavuzu.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 05.01.2026
  11. Buallay, A., Hamdan, R., Barone, E. & Hamdan, A. (2022). Increasing female participation on boards: Effects on sustainability reporting. International Journal of Finance and Economics, 27(1), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2141
  12. Borsa İstanbul (BIST) (2025). BIST Pay Endeksleri-Sürdürülebilirlik. https://www.borsaistanbul.com/endeksler/bist-pay/surdurulebilirlik sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 27.12.2025
  13. Cavero-Rubio, J. A., Collazo-Mazón, A. & Amorós-Martínez, A. (2019). Public recognition of gender equality in the workplace and its influence on firms’ performance. Women’s Studies International Forum, 76, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2019.102273
  14. Cazeri, G. T., Rampasso, I. S., Filho, W. L., Quelhas, O. L. G., Serafim, M. P. & Anholon, R. (2021). Gender wage gaps in Brazilian companies listed in the Ibovespa Index: A critical analysis. Sustainability, 13(12), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126571
  15. Chauvey, J.-N., Giordano-Spring, S., Cho, C. H. & Patten, D. M. (2015). The normativity and legitimacy of CSR disclosure: Evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 789-803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2114-y
  16. Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., Patten, D. M. & Roberts, R. W. (2015). CSR disclosure: The more things change…? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(1), 14–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2013-1549
  17. Clikeman, P. M. (2004). Return of the socially conscious corporation. Strategic Finance, 85(10), 22-27.
  18. Cooper, E. (2017). Corporate social responsibility, gender, and ceo turnover. Managerial Finance, 43(5), 528–544. https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-02-2016-0049
  19. Cornwall, A. & Rivas, A. M. (2015). From “gender equality and women’s empowerment” to global justice: Reclaiming a transformative agenda for gender and development. Third World Quarterly, 36(2), 396–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1013341
  20. Coron, C. (2020). What does “gender equality” mean? social representations of gender equality in the workplaceamong French workers. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 39(8), 825–847. https://doi.org/10.1108/eDi-06-2019-0185
  21. Cotter, D. A., Hermsen, J. M., Ovadia, S. & Vanneman, R. (2001). The glass ceiling effect. Social Forces, 80(2), 655–681. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2001.0091
  22. Czaja-Cieszyńska, H. (2025). Gender diversity in sustainability reports: Evidence from Poland. Krakow Review of Economics and Management Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego W Krakowie, 1(1007), 189-204. https://doi.org/10.15678/krem.13660
  23. Dang, H. M. (2025). Gender equality in Vietnam labour law: A critique toward sustainable development. Masculinities and Social Change, 14(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.17583/mcs.14102
  24. Dempere, J. & Abdalla, S. (2023). The impact of women’s empowerment on the corporate environmental, social, and governance (esg) disclosure. Sustainability, 15(10), 8173. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108173
  25. Dias, A., Rodrigues, L. L. & Craig, R. (2016). Global financial crisis and corporate social responsibility disclosure. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(4), 654-671. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-01-2016-0004
  26. Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91. https://doi.org/10.2307/258887
  27. 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
  28. Faisal, F., Hapsari, M. A., Joseph, C. & Pramono Sari, M. (2024). Sustainable development goals on gender equality disclosure practices of Indonesian companies. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2362423
  29. Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S. & Ruiz-Blanco, S. (2014). Women on boards: Do they affect sustainability reporting?. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21, 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1329
  30. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
  31. Galdiero, C., Maltempo, C., Marrapodi, R. & Martinez, M. (2024). Gender Diversity: An Opportunity for Socially Inclusive Human Resource Management Policies for Organizational Sustainability. Social Sciences, 13(3), 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13030173
  32. Gray, R. H., Kouhy, R. & Lavers, S. (1995a). Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies: A methodological note. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 8(2), 78-101. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579510086812
  33. Gray, R., Kouhy, R. & Lavers, S. (1995b). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579510146996
  34. Grosser, K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and gender equality: Women as stakeholders and the European Union sustainability strategy. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(3), 290–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2009.01564.x
  35. Grosser, K. & Moon, J. (2008). Developments in company reporting on workplace gender equality?: A corporate social responsibility perspective. Accounting Forum, 32(3), 179-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2008.01.004
  36. Grosser, K. & Moon, J. (2019). CSR and feminist organization studies: Towards an integrated theorization for the analysis of gender issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(2), 321-342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3510-x
  37. Gutiérrez-Fernández, M. & Fernández-Torres, Y. (2020). Does gender diversity influence business efficiency? An analysis from the social perspective of CSR. Sustainability, 12(9), 3865. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093865
  38. Gül Şenkardeş, C. (2022). Gendered discourses produced within the corporate sustainability context: An analysis on Türkiye. Istanbul University Journal of Women’s Studies, 24, 183-202. https://doi.org/10.26650/iukad.2022.1054148
  39. Hahn, R. & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
  40. Hahn, R. & Lülfs, R. (2014). Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-Oriented sustainability reporting: A qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(3), 401-420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1801-4
  41. Harrison, J. & Wicks, A. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(1), 97–124. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq20132314
  42. Haynes, M., & Murray, A. (2017). Sustainability as a lens to explore gender equality. In P. M. Flynn, K. Haynes, & M. A. Kilgour (Eds.), Integrating gender equality into business and management education: Lessons learned and challenges remaining (pp. 55–80). London, England: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351285766
  43. Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Boiral, O. & Testa, F. (2023). Circular economy at the company level: An empirical study based on sustainability reports. Sustainable Development, 31(4), 2307–2317. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2507
  44. Hörisch, J., Freeman, R. E. & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Applying stakeholder theory in sustainability management: Links, similarities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual framework. Organization & Environment, 27(4), 328-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614535786
  45. Hsieh, H. F. & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
  46. ILO (2022). The gender gap in employment: What’s holding women back?. https://webapps.ilo.org/infostories/en-gb/stories/employment/barriers-women#intro sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 05.01.2026
  47. ILO (2023). World employment and social Outlook: Trends 2023. https://www.ilo.org/publications/flagship-reports/world-employment-and-social-outlook-trends-2023 sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 02.01.2026
  48. Iqbal, A., Hassan, S., Mahmood, H. & Tanveer, M. (2022). Gender equality, education, economic growth and religioustensions nexus in developing countries: A spatial analysis approach. Heliyon, 8(11), e11394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11394
  49. Kabeer, N. (1999). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Development and Change, 30(3), 435–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00125
  50. Kabeer, N. (2016). Gender equality, economic growth, and women’s agency: The “endless variety” and “monotonous similarity” of patriarchal constraints. Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, 22(1), 295-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2015.1090009
  51. Kanze, D., Conley, M. A., Okimoto, T. G., Phillips, D. J. & Merluzzi, J. (2020). Evidence that investors penalize female founders forlack of industry fit. Science Advances, 6(48), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd7664
  52. Karakaplan Özer, E. (2023). Gender bias in workplaces: A scoping review of the factors leading the gender bias. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 19(1), 106-122. https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.1192218
  53. Kızıltan Işık, B. (2025). Cinsiyet eşitliği ve sürdürülebilir gelecek: Politikadan pratiğe SKH 5. BAYÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(16), 67-87.
  54. Kolk, A. (2004). A decade of sustainability reporting: Developments and significance. International Journal of Environmental and Sustainable Development, 3(1), 51-64. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESD.2004.004688
  55. Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
  56. Locke, R. M. & Romis, M. (2010). The promise and perils of private voluntary regulation: Labor standards and work organization in two Mexican garment factories. Review of International Political Economy,17(1), 45–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290902893230
  57. Lyon, T. P. & Maxwell, J. W. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and the environment: A theoretical perspective. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2(2), 240–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1011793
  58. Manita, R., Bruna, M. G., Dang, R. & Houanti, L. (2018). Board gender diversity and ESG disclosure: Evidence from the USA. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 19(2), 206–224. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-01-2017-0024
  59. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Art. 20. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089
  60. Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2778293
  61. Michelon, G., Pilonato, S. & Ricceri, F. (2015). CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33, 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.10.003
  62. Miles, K. (2011). Embedding gender in sustainability reports. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 2(1), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/20408021111162164
  63. Milne, M. J. & Adler, R. W. (1999). Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 12(2), 237-256. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579910270138
  64. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247
  65. Monteiro, A. P., Cepêda, C. & da Silva, A. F. (2024). Does the workforce and sustainability reports strengthen the relationship between gender diversity and sustainability performance reporting?. Administrative Sciences, 14(6), 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14060105
  66. Nurrunnahar, F., & Nikolaidou, F. (2023). Gender equality in sustainability reporting: The current state of Swedish state-owned companies (Master’s thesis). Lund University.
  67. OECD (2025). OECD economic surveys: Türkiye 2025. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-economic-surveys-turkiye-2025_d01c660f-en.html sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2025
  68. Ojeda, L., Ginieis, M. & Papaoikonomou, E. (2025). Gender equality in sustainability reporting: A systematic literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 32(2), 2710-2727. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.3089
  69. Oliveira, M. C., Júnior, M. S. R., De Oliveira Lima, S. H. & De Freitas, G. A. (2018). The influence of the characteristics of the national business system in the disclosure of gender-related corporate social responsibility practices. Administrative Sciences, 8(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8020014
  70. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L. & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403-441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024003910
  71. Özsözgün Çalışkan, A. (2012). Sürdürülebilirlik raporlaması. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi, 5(1), 41-68.
  72. Paludi, M. I. (2023). Measuring and reporting development goals and gender equality in business. In M. I. Paludi & M. E. Funes (Eds.), Businesses’ contributions to Sustainable Development Goal 5: Gender equality across B Corps in Latin America and the Caribbean. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited.
  73. Pekkan, N. Ü. (2024). Cinsiyet eşitliği politikalarının yönetim stratejilerine yansımaları: Beş yıllık bir sürecin analizi. Yönetim ve Örgüt Tarihi Dergisi, 3(1), 1-18.
  74. Petroia, A. & Stegarescu, A. (2023, 22-23 September). Women’s empowerment principles: Benefits and success stories. Annual International Scientific Conference Competitiveness and Innovation in The Knowledge Economy, Chisinau, Moldova.
  75. Rao, A. & Kelleher, D. (2005). Is there life after gender mainstreaming?. Gender & Development, 13(2), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552070512331332287
  76. Scott, D. & Morrison, M. (2005). Key ideas in educational research. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
  77. Shygun, M. & Bezverkhyi, K. (2026). Sustainability reporting as a tool for corporate social responsibility. European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 10(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejosdr/17274
  78. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basic of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  79. Stubbs, W., Higgins, C. & Milne, M. (2013). Why do companies not produce sustainability reports?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(7), 456-470. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1756
  80. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
  81. Şeker, C. & Çınar, D. (2025). Gender equality and ethical leadership as catalysts for sustainable organizational performance. Uluslararası Sosyal Siyasal ve Mali Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5(2), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.70101/ussmad.1697932
  82. TÜİK & UN Women Türkiye (2024). Türkiye’de istatistiklerle kadın 2024. https://www.tuik.gov.tr/media/announcements/istatistiklerle_kad%C4%B1n2024.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 30.12.2025
  83. UN Women (2017). Kadının Güçlenmesi Prensipleri (WEPs) Uygulama Rehberi. https://www.globalcompactturkiye.org/uploads/files/shares/WEPs_Rehber.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 26.12.2025
  84. UN Women (2019). Gender equality and inclusive growth: Economic policies to achieve sustainable development. https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2019/Gender-equality-and-inclusive-growth-en.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 05.01.2026
  85. UN Women & ILO (2020). Empowering women at work: Company policies and practices for gender equality. https://www.weps.org/sites/default/files/2020-10/Empowering%20Women%20at%20Work-2020%20Report.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 05.01.2026
  86. UN Women Türkiye & UN Global Compact Türkiye (2017). Kadının güçlenmesi prensipleri (WEPs) uygulama rehberi. https://www.globalcompactturkiye.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/WEPs_Rehber.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 22.12.2025
  87. UN Women & UN Global Compact (2011). Kadınların güçlenmesi prensipleri: Eşitlik iş demektir. https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2011/10/WomensEmpowermentPrinciples-tr%20pdf.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 02.01.2026
  88. United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 04.01.2026
  89. Velasco-Balmaseda, E., de Celis, I. L-R. & Izaguirre, N. E. (2024). Corporate social responsibility as a framework for gender equality: Mapping of gender equality standards for sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(3), 1905–1920. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2673
  90. Wahyuningrum, I. F. S., Oktavilia, S. & Utami, S. (2022). The effect of company characteristics and gender diversity on disclosures related to sustainable development goals. Sustainability, 14(20), 13301. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013301
  91. World Economic Forum (2023). Global gender gap report 2023. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2023.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 02.01.2026
  92. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.