SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Aviation / 2026 / Volume: 10 Issue: 3

Institutional Anchors, Commitment Architecture, and Discursive Continuity: A Longitudinal Analysis of Turkish Airlines Sustainability Commitments, 2018-2024

Onur Dirlik(ESKİŞEHİR OSMANGAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-7045-0774
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-25
🏛️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 overall reported attainment rate was 75.4%, but it ranged from 84.5% for qualitative commitments to 75.0% for absolute quantitative targets and 33.3% for relative quantitative targets.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines how commitments in sustainability reports are shaped by institutional anchors, quantification, target difficulty, and longitudinal trajectories.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Seven Turkish Airlines sustainability reports covering 2018-2024 were analyzed through structured document analysis and directed content analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The overall reported attainment rate was 75.4%, but it ranged from 84.5% for qualitative commitments to 75.0% for absolute quantitative targets and 33.3% for relative quantitative targets.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018-2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Sustainability reporting · Institutional anchors · Commitment architecture

Abstract

This study examines how commitments in sustainability reports are shaped by institutional anchors, quantification, target difficulty, and longitudinal trajectories. Seven Turkish Airlines sustainability reports covering 2018-2024 were analyzed through structured document analysis and directed content analysis. The full dataset contains 153 forward-looking commitments; trajectory analysis covers 122 commitments whose outcomes could be observed in a subsequent report. Of the 58 commitments with an explicit external institutional anchor, 96.6% were qualitative, whereas 96.0% of the 50 quantitative commitments had no explicit external anchor. The overall reported attainment rate was 75.4%, but it ranged from 84.5% for qualitative commitments to 75.0% for absolute quantitative targets and 33.3% for relative quantitative targets. The raw attainment gap between coercively anchored and unanchored commitments fell from 25.3 to 19.2 percentage points when the comparison was restricted to qualitative commitments. Exploratory evidence indicates that cost-reducing commitments were more often quantified. Process traces also show that repetition alone does not establish stable measurement or institutional internalization. The findings suggest that institutional anchoring is most visibly associated with commitment architecture at the point of declaration, rather than with attainment alone. Conceptually, the study refines the decoupling argument by locating an earlier point of potential separation in commitment design and distinguishing an external institutional reference from a measurable threshold; the reported outcomes cannot establish a gap between actual practice and environmental impact.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dirlik, O. (2026). Institutional Anchors, Commitment Architecture, and Discursive Continuity: A Longitudinal Analysis of Turkish Airlines Sustainability Commitments, 2018-2024. Journal of Aviation, Volume: 10 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.30518/jav.2024449

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (52)

  1. Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364-381.
  2. Boiral, O. (2013). Sustainability reports as simulacra: A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1036-1071.
  3. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
  4. Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483-530.
  5. Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7-8), 639-647.
  6. Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 20(3), 372-393.
  7. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46.
  8. Cowper-Smith, A., & de Grosbois, D. (2011). The adoption of corporate social responsibility practices in the airline industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(1), 59-77.
  9. Dahlmann, F., Branicki, L., & Brammer, S. (2019). Managing carbon aspirations: The influence of corporate climate change targets on environmental performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(1), 1-24.
  10. Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10), 1027-1055.
  11. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
  12. European Commission. (n.d.). Reducing emissions from aviation. Retrieved August 23, 2026, from https://climate.ec.europa.eu/areas-action/transport-decarbonisation/reducing-emissions-aviation_en
  13. European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2003). Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community. Official Journal of the European Union, L 275, 32-46. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2003/87/oj
  14. European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2023). Regulation (EU) 2023/2405 on ensuring a level playing field for sustainable air transport, ReFuelEU Aviation. Official Journal of the European Union, L 2023/2405. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2405/oj
  15. Friedland, R. (2013). God, love, and other good reasons for practice: Thinking through institutional logics. In M. Lounsbury & E. Boxenbaum (Eds.), Institutional logics in action, Part A, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 39A, pp. 25-50. Emerald Group Publishing.
  16. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, pp. 232-263. University of Chicago Press.
  17. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317-371.
  18. 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.
  19. International Civil Aviation Organization. (n.d.). Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, CORSIA. Retrieved August 23, 2026, from https://www.icao.int/CORSIA
  20. Ioannou, I., Li, S. X., & Serafeim, G. (2016). The effect of target difficulty on target completion: The case of reducing carbon emissions. The Accounting Review, 91(5), 1467-1492.
  21. Karaman, A. S., Kilic, M., & Uyar, A. (2018). Sustainability reporting in the aviation industry: Worldwide evidence. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 9(4), 362-391.
  22. Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 215-233.
  23. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, 4th ed. SAGE.
  24. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691- 710.
  25. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587-604.
  26. Marquis, C., Toffel, M. W., & Zhou, Y. (2016). Scrutiny, norms, and selective disclosure: A global study of greenwashing. Organization Science, 27(2), 483-504.
  27. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
  28. 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.
  29. Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook, 2nd ed. SAGE.
  30. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145- 179.
  31. Public Oversight, Accounting and Auditing Standards Authority. (2023a). TSRS 1: General requirements for disclosure of sustainability-related financial information. https://www.kgk.gov.tr/SustainabilityDetailForm/11455/surdurulebilirlik-yayinlar
  32. Public Oversight, Accounting and Auditing Standards Authority. (2023b). TSRS 2: Climate-related disclosures. https://www.kgk.gov.tr/SustainabilityDetailForm/11455/surdurulebilirlik-yayinlar
  33. Public Oversight, Accounting and Auditing Standards Authority. (2023c). Board decision on the scope of application of the Turkish Sustainability Reporting Standards. Official Gazette, No. 32414, repeated issue. https://www.kgk.gov.tr/ContentAssignmentDetail/4937/
  34. Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493-511.
  35. Scott, W. R. (2008). Approaching adulthood: The maturing of institutional theory. Theory and Society, 37(5), 427-442.
  36. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities, 4th ed. SAGE.
  37. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
  38. Talbot, D., & Boiral, O. (2018). GHG reporting and impression management: An assessment of sustainability reports from the energy sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(2), 367-383.
  39. Tashman, P., Marano, V., & Kostova, T. (2019). Walking the walk or talking the talk: Corporate social responsibility decoupling in emerging market multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(2), 153-171.
  40. Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958-1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843.
  41. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to
  42. culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.
  43. Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(1), 22-39.
  44. Turkish Airlines. (2018). 2018 sustainability report.
  45. Turkish Airlines. (2019). 2019 sustainability report.
  46. Turkish Airlines. (2020). 2020 sustainability report.
  47. Turkish Airlines. (2021). 2021 sustainability report.
  48. Turkish Airlines. (2022). 2022 sustainability report.
  49. Turkish Airlines. (2023). 2023 sustainability report.
  50. Turkish Airlines. (2024). 2024 sustainability report.
  51. Wijen, F. (2014). Means versus ends in opaque institutional fields: Trading off compliance and achievement in sustainability standard adoption. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 302-323.
  52. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods, 6th ed. SAGE.