KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Journal of Aviation / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 2

The Impact of Environmental Sustainability on Financial Performance in Airline Companies Based on Legitimacy Theory

Emrah Koparan(Amasya Üniversitesi)0000-0001-9131-9794
Fatma Çıtak(AMASYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3276-4796
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2025-06-28
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

At the same time, as a result of the study, it was determined that the ranking made by Skytrax was also considered outside the financial performance variable and that the awards given as a result of this ranking were a legitimacy tool.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between environmental sustainability discourses and financial performance of companies operating in the aviation industry within the framework of legitimacy theory.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:In this context, it was investigated whether environmental sustainability discourses have a direct relationship with financial performance.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:At the same time, as a result of the study, it was determined that the ranking made by Skytrax was also considered outside the financial performance variable and that the awards given as a result of this ranking were a legitimacy tool.
🔬Tür:Research Article
📍Kapsam:2024 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Sustainability Performance · Aviation Industry · Financial Performance

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between environmental sustainability discourses and financial performance of companies operating in the aviation industry within the framework of legitimacy theory. Legitimacy theory suggests that businesses seek to gain legitimacy by aligning their actions with social norms and values. In this context, it was investigated whether environmental sustainability discourses have a direct relationship with financial performance. The sample of the study consists of the top 30 airline companies in the Skytrax 2024 ranking. The annual and sustainability reports of these companies were examined using the content analysis method and the obtained data were subjected to statistical tests and correlation and regression analyses were performed. The analysis results show that there is no significant relationship between financial performance and sustainable environmental discourse performance. This finding, in line with legitimacy theory, reveals that environmental sustainability discourses are used as part of corporate legitimacy and reputation strategies rather than gaining financial gain. At the same time, as a result of the study, it was determined that the ranking made by Skytrax was also considered outside the financial performance variable and that the awards given as a result of this ranking were a legitimacy tool.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Koparan, E., Çıtak, F. (2025). The Impact of Environmental Sustainability on Financial Performance in Airline Companies Based on Legitimacy Theory. Journal of Aviation, Volume: 9 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.30518/jav.1692375

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (57)

  1. Abdi, Y., Li, X., & Càmara-Turull, X. (2020). Impact of sustainability on firm value and financial performance in the air transport industry. Sustainability, 12(23), 9957.
  2. Abdi, Y., Li, X., & Càmara-Turull, X. (2022). Exploring the impact of sustainability (ESG) disclosure on firm value and financial performance (FP) in airline industry: the moderating role of size and age. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(4), 5052-5079.
  3. Acar, M., Durmaz, Ş. & Coşgunaras, Ş. N. (2021). A Research on Financial and Non-Financial Determinants of Sustainability Performance: BIST Sustainability Index Case. Journal of Accounting and Taxation Studies, 14(1), 129-160.
  4. Akdoğan, N. & Tenker, N. (2007). Financial Statements and Financial Analysis Techniques. 13th ed., Gazi Kitabevi, Ankara, Türkiye.
  5. Aldowaish, A., Kokuryo, J., Almazyad, O., & Goi, H. C. (2022). Environmental, Social, and Governance Integration into the Business Model: Literature Review and Research Agenda. Sustainability, 14(5), 2959.
  6. Araújo, R. A. de M., Kaczam, F., Lucena, W. G. L., da Silva, W. V., & da Veiga, C. P. (2023). Environmental innovation and corporate sustainability: Evidence‑based systematic literature review. Technological Sustainability, 3(2), 212–231.
  7. Ay, Z., Seçme, Z. O., Topcu, N. (2023). How Does Sustainability Performance Affect the Financial Performance of Airline Companies During the Covid-19 Pandemic? Journal of Business Research, 15(2), 988-1002.
  8. Aydıngülü Sakalsız, S., Şahin, S. & Kısakürek, M. (2025). Does Environmental, Social, and Governance Sustainability Improve Financial Performance? A Nonlinear Panel Data Analysis on Industrial Firms in G20 Countries. Fiscaoeconomia, 9(1), 415-451.
  9. Bahçeci Başarmak, H. I., & Görmez, K. (2019). Sustainable Development Vs. Ecological Thought. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 10(17), 2299-2323.
  10. Barbosa, L. B., Carneiro, J., Costa, C., De Beule, F., Goldszmidt, R., & Macedo-Soares, T. D. (2021). Environmental Sustainability Strategy and International Performance: A Review of Literature and a Conceptual Model. The Multiple Dimensions of Institutional Complexity in International Business Research, 375-397.
  11. Belli, A., & Çelik, Z. E. (2022). Example Of Sustainable Environmental: Slow Cities in Turkey (Cittaslow). Journal of Individual & Society, 12(1), 63-89.
  12. Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management review, 36(1), 151-179.
  13. Bolayır, S., & Eroğlu, İ. (2024). Sustainable Development in Türkiye. The Sakarya Journal of Economics, 13(1), 1-22.
  14. Bäckström, S. & Karlsson, J. (2015). Corporate sustainability and financial performance - The influence of board diversity in a Swedish context. Master Thesis Uppsala University.
  15. Carli, R., Dotoli, M., Pellegrino, R., & Ranieri, L. (2013). Measuring and managing the smartness of cities: A framework for classifying performance indicators. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1288-1293.
  16. Cavlak, H. (2021). Efficiency, Effectiveness, Productivity, Profitability, Performance: A Conceptual Framework and Comparison. Journal of Research in Business, 6(1), 99–126.
  17. Chung, K. H., & Pruitt, S. W. (1994). A Simple Approximation of Tobin’s q. Financial Management, 23(3), 70–74.
  18. Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures–a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282-311.
  19. Delen, D., Kuzey, C. and Uyar, A. (2013). Measuring firm performance using financial ratios: A decision tree approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 40, 3970–3983.
  20. Doğukanlı, H. & Borak, M. (2020). The Effect of Sustainability on Firm Performance: Evidence from Borsa Istanbul. Eskişehir Osmangazi University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 15(1), 81-94.
  21. Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122-136.
  22. Düzer, M. (2018). Effect of Disclosures on Sustainability Performance Indicators on Financial Performance. Doctoral Thesis. Anadolu Üniversity
  23. Elkington, J., & Rowlands, I. H. (1999). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Alternatives Journal, 25(4), 42.
  24. Emir, S. & Kıymık, H. (2021). Evaluation of The Effect of Sustainability Level on Financial Performance: A Study in Borsa İstanbul. Journal of Accounting and Tax Studies, 14(1), 101-128.
  25. Esteban-Sanchez, P., Cuesta-Gonzalez, M. de la & Paredes-Gazquez, J. D. (2017). Corporate social performance and its relation with corporate financial performance: international evidence in the banking industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 1102–1110.
  26. Fahmi, F. M., Azmi, N. F. R., & Tuan Mat, T. Z. (2022). Corporate Characteristics and Sustainability Reporting: From the Lens of the Legitimacy Theory. Asia-Pacific Management Accounting Journal, 17(2).
  27. Geng, Y., & Doberstein, B. (2008). Developing the Circular Economy in China: Challenges and Opportunities for Achieving 'leapfrog development. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 15(3), 231-239.
  28. Geng, Y., Fu, J., Sarkis, J., & Xue, B. (2012). Towards a national circular economy indicator system in China: an evaluation and critical analysis. Journal of cleaner production, 23(1), 216-224.
  29. Global Reporting Initiative. (2021). GRI Standards. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org.
  30. Goodland, R. (1995). The concept of environmental sustainability. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 1-24.
  31. Hu, Y., Chen, S., Shao, Y. & Gao, S. (2018). CSR and firm value: evidence from China. Sustainability, 10(12), 1-18.
  32. In, S. Y., Lee, Y. J., & Eccles, R. G. (2024). Looking back and looking forward: A scientometric analysis of the evolution of corporate sustainability research over 47 years. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(3), 2225-2259.
  33. İlter, B. (2022). Corporate Social Responsibility Practices as a Tool of Organizational Legitimacy: The Case of Koza Mining. ODU Journal of Social Science, 12(3), 1777-1814.
  34. Jha, M. K. & Rangarajan, K. (2020). Analysis of corporate sustainability performance and corporate financial performance causal linkage in the Indian context. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 5(10).
  35. Kendirli, S., Çıtak, F., & İşleyen, A. (2021). Determination Of The Financial Performance Using TOPSIS Method: Application in BIST Electric Gas and Steam Companies. Third Sector Social Economic Review, 56(4), 2321- 2334.
  36. Kılıç, M., Gurler, H. E., Kaya, A., & Lee, C. W. (2022). The Impact of Sustainability Performance on Financial Performance: Does Firm Size Matter? Evidence from Turkey and South Korea. Sustainability, 14(24), 16695.
  37. Moullin, M. (2007). Performance measurement definitions: Linking performance measurement and organisational excellence. International journal of health care quality assurance, 20(3), 181-183.
  38. Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (2005). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International journal of operations & production management, 25(12), 1228-1263.
  39. Ohaka, J. & Obi, H. I. (2021). Sustainability Reporting and Corporate Performance: Evidence from Listed Companıes in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Management Sciences, 22(1), 190-206.
  40. Oncioiu, I., Petrescu, A.-G., Bîlcan, F.-R., Petrescu, M., Popescu, D.-M., & Anghel, E. (2020). Corporate Sustainability Reporting and Financial Performance. Sustainability, 12(10), 4297.
  41. Orazayeva, A., & Arslan, M. (2022). CSR and financial performance in the airline industry: moderating effects of the airline type, government ownership and COVID-19. International Journal of Electronic Finance, 11(3), 219-235.
  42. Özdarak, E. (2021). Impact of Corporate Sustainability Reporting on Firm Performance/Investor Decisions-Evidence from Turkey. Master Thesis. Marmara Üniversity.
  43. Önder, Ş. (2017). Corporate Sustainability Effect on Firm Profitability: An Application in BİST. The World of Accounting Science, 19(4), 937-95.
  44. Papathanasiou, J., Ploskas, N., Papathanasiou, J., & Ploskas, N. (2018). Topsis (pp. 1-30). Springer International Publishing.
  45. Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainable Development (1987–2005): An Oxymoron Comes of Age. Sustainable Development, 13(4), 212-227.
  46. Ren, L., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., & Sun, Z. (2007). Comparative analysis of a novel M-TOPSIS method and TOPSIS. Applied Mathematics Research eXpress,
  47. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., et al. (2009). Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32.
  48. Stewart, G. B. (1991). The Quest for Value: A Guide for Senior Managers. New York, NY: Harper Business.
  49. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
  50. Şen, H., Kaya, A. & Alpaslan, B. (2018). A Historical and Current Perspective on Sustainability. The Ekonomik Yaklasim, 29(107), 77-101.
  51. Şişman, M. E., & Çankaya, S. (2021). The Effect of Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) Data on the Financial Performance of Firms: A Study on the Airline Industry. Journal of Çukurova University Faculty of Economicsand Administrative Sciences, 25(1), 73-91.
  52. Tıraş, H. H. (2012). Sustainable Development and Environment: An Examine in Theory. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 2(2), 57-73.
  53. Taouab, O., & Issor, Z. (2019). Firm performance: Definition and measurement models. European Scientific Journal, 15(1), 93-106.
  54. United Nations (UN). (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations.
  55. Uygurtürk, H., & Korkmaz, T. (2012). The Determination of Financial Performance with TOPSIS Multiple Criteria Decision Makıng Method: An Application on Basic Metal Industry Enterprises. Eskişehir Osmangazi University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 7(2), 95-115.
  56. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our Common Future (Brundtland Report). Oxford University Press.
  57. Yang, K., Zhang, T., & Ye, C. (2024). The Sustainability of Corporate ESG Performance: An Empirical Study. Sustainability, 16(6), 2377.