Organisational metamorphosis: Tracing sustainability integration through sentiment evolution in corporate reporting in Turkish companies

Balcioglu, Yavuz Selim; Merter, Abdullah Kürşat Article Organisational metamorphosis: Tracing sustainability integration through sentiment evolution in corporate reporting in Turkish companies Amfiteatru Economic Provided in Cooperation with: The Bucharest University of Economic Studies Suggested Citation: Balcioglu, Yavuz Selim; Merter, Abdullah Kürşat (2025) : Organisational metamorphosis: Tracing sustainability integration through sentiment evolution in corporate reporting in Turkish companies, Amfiteatru Economic, ISSN 2247-9104, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Vol. 27, Iss. 70, pp. 1052-1068, https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2025/70/1052 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/328035 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ AE Organisational Metamorphosis: Tracing Sustainability Integration Through Sentiment Evolution in Corporate Reporting in Turkish Companies 1052 Amfiteatru Economic ORGANISATIONAL METAMORPHOSIS: TRACING SUSTAINABILITY INTEGRATION THROUGH SENTIMENT EVOLUTION IN CORPORATE REPORTING IN TURKISH COMPANIES Yavuz Selim Balcıoğlu1 and Abdullah Kürşat Merter 2* 1)Dogus University, Istanbul, Turkey 2)Gebze Technical University, Kocaeli, Turkey Please cite this article as: Balcıoğlu, Y.S. and Merter, A.K., 2025. Organisational Metamorphosis: Tracing Sustainability Integration through Sentiment Evolution in Corporate Reporting in Turkish Companies. Amfiteatru Economic, 27(70), pp. 1052-1068. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2025/70/1052 Article History Received: 28 March 2025 Revised: 25 April 2025 Accepted: 28 June 2025 Abstract This study examines the evolution of sentiment in the sustainability reports of Turkish companies from 2014 to 2023, serving as an indicator of organisational change in response to shifting sustainability regulations. A longitudinal sample of corporate sustainability reports was subjected to sentiment analysis and linguistic pattern recognition, encompassing three distinct regulatory periods. By comparing the tone and language across these periods, the study investigates how companies adapt their sustainability communication strategies under increasing institutional pressures. The study is grounded in organisational change theories and regulatory response models. It sheds light on whether heightened disclosure requirements and global sustainability norms have driven substantive shifts in corporate narrative or merely superficial compliance. The analysis reveals notable changes in sentiment, with an overall trend toward more optimistic and assertive sustainability disclosures over time. These linguistic adaptations correspond to key regulatory milestones. The findings suggest a gradual internalisation of sustainability principles, reflecting organisational learning and strategic legitimisation efforts. The findings contribute to the extant literature on corporate sustainability reporting by linking textual sentiment trends to institutional change dynamics, offering a rare developing-country perspective. The insights are particularly relevant for stakeholders and policymakers seeking to understand and enhance the impact of sustainability reporting in emerging economies. Keywords: sustainability reporting, sentiment analysis, organisational change, institutional theory, ESG, legitimacy JEL Classification: M14, Q56, G38 * Corresponding author, Abdullah Kürşat Merter – e-mail: [email protected].tr This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2025 The Author(s). Sustainability Reporting: Catalyst for Organisational and Professional Change AE Vol. 27 • No. 70 • August 2025 1053 Introduction The practice of corporate sustainability reporting has become a pivotal mechanism for organisational accountability and stakeholder communication in the contemporary business landscape (Hahn and Kühnen, 2013; KPMG, 2020). The increasing number of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosures can be attributed to mounting pressure from investors, regulators, and civil society for greater transparency regarding corporate impacts (Cho, Roberts and Patten, 2010; Ioannou and Serafeim, 2019b). Nevertheless, a fundamental tension persists between symbolic and substantive reporting practices. While certain organisations employ sustainability reports as a means of managing their public image, utilising optimistic rhetoric without implementing corresponding operational changes (Boiral, 2013; Hummel and Schlick, 2016), others demonstrate authentic commitment through balanced, data-driven disclosures that acknowledge both achievements and shortcomings (Stubbs and Higgins, 2014). This dichotomy gives rise to critical questions concerning the efficacy of regulatory interventions in transforming corporate communication from ceremonial compliance to authentic organisational change (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Christensen, Morsing and Thyssen, 2013). The Turkish context is a unique laboratory for examining this transformation process. As an emerging economy straddling Europe and Asia, Türkiye has undergone significant regulatory evolution in sustainability reporting, particularly following the implementation of EUinspired non-financial disclosure requirements (Gümrah, Tanc and Tanc, 2019; Yavuz et al., 2025). Turkish companies experienced mounting institutional pressures between 2014 and 2023, encompassing mandatory reporting obligations for specific sectors, adherence to international frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), and increased scrutiny from both domestic and international stakeholders (Aluchna, Roszkowska-Menkes and Kamiński, 2022). This regulatory trajectory mirrors global trends while reflecting local institutional dynamics, thus rendering Türkiye an ideal setting to investigate how companies in developing markets adapt their sustainability communication strategies under evolving regulatory regimes (Rahman Belal and Owen, 2007; Ferguson et al., 2016). Despite the growing scholarly attention to sustainability reporting, significant gaps remain in understanding how corporate narratives evolve under regulatory pressure, particularly in emerging economies. Firstly, there is a paucity of longitudinal evidence on sentiment evolution in contexts experiencing regulatory intensification outside Western markets (Muckó, 2021; Kassier, 2024). Secondly, a paucity of comparative analysis examines how language usage varies across different ESG dimensions within the same institutional environment (Hahn et al., 2015; Du and Yu, 2021). Thirdly, there is a paucity of research on how firm-level characteristics, such as size, industry, and international exposure, influence divergent reporting pathways when facing identical regulatory pressures (Oliver, 1991; Farooq and De Villiers, 2019). These disparities are especially evident in emerging economies, where institutional logics may differ from those observed in developed markets, and sustainability reporting practices are still in a state of development (Hamza and Jarboui, 2021). The present study addresses these gaps by examining the evolution of sustainability reporting sentiment among Turkish companies from 2014 to 2023, employing a mixed-methods approach that combines large-scale sentiment analysis with qualitative linguistic pattern recognition. The primary objective of this study is to determine whether fluctuations in report sentiment are indicative of authentic organisational metamorphosis or merely sophisticated AE Organisational Metamorphosis: Tracing Sustainability Integration Through Sentiment Evolution in Corporate Reporting in Turkish Companies 1054 Amfiteatru Economic impression management techniques. The present study aims to investigate three research questions: (1) How has sentiment in Turkish corporate sustainability reports evolved over different regulatory periods? (2) Do different sustainability topics show distinct sentiment evolution patterns? Thirdly, it is necessary to identify the firm-level characteristics that influence adaptation patterns in sustainability reporting. By analysing 433 sustainability reports across three regulatory periods, it is possible to trace how companies navigate the transition from voluntary to mandatory disclosure. This in turn reveals whether regulatory requirements catalyse substantive organisational change or simply produce more sophisticated corporate storytelling. The findings contribute to institutional theory by demonstrating how regulatory pressures translate into organisational transformation through multiple pathways, while offering practical insights for policymakers and practitioners in emerging economies. 1. Literature review The academic discourse on sustainability reporting has evolved significantly over the past two decades, incorporating institutional theory, legitimacy theory, and organisational change perspectives (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Rahman Belal and Owen, 2007). While early research emphasised voluntary reporting driven by stakeholder pressures and legitimacy considerations (Hahn and Kühnen, 2013; Ferguson et al., 2016), focus has shifted towards formal regulations and international standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), which increasingly mandate detailed Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) metrics in annual reports (Ioannou and Serafeim, 2019b). This shift is indicative of two interrelated phenomena. Firstly, there has been an increase in external scrutiny. Secondly, there has been an emerging consensus that robust sustainability reporting is essential for responsible governance (Aluchna, Roszkowska-Menkes and Kamiński, 2022). Theoretical discourse distinguishes between symbolic and substantive reporting. Symbolic reporting projects have been shown to utilise optimistic, generic language to enhance legitimacy without the need for operational changes (Cho, Roberts and Patten, 2010; Boiral, 2013). In contrast, substantive reporting features meticulous, data-driven disclosures addressing both achievements and shortcomings (Stubbs and Higgins, 2014). This distinction assumes particular significance in contexts of regulatory pressure, as firms are compelled to augment the volume of ESG information while concurrently refining its specificity, tone, and technical complexity (Cho, Roberts and Patten, 2010; Muckó, 2021). Consequently, sentiment analysis has emerged as a valuable approach for distinguishing genuine organisational shift from sophisticated impression management (Reustlen and Stawinoga, 2024). The evolution of regulatory mandates has been shown to precipitate alterations in the manner of reporting, with mandatory requirements frequently inducing a transition from superficial statements to more structured frameworks in corporate disclosures (Ioannou and Serafeim, 2019a; Aluchna, Roszkowska-Menkes and Kamiński, 2022). In Turkey, policy shifts have resulted in the production of more comprehensive ESG disclosures, incorporating industryspecific metrics and aligning with the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) standards (Gümrah, Tanc and Tanc, 2019). Globally, researchers have observed similar patterns: The implementation of South Africa's mandatory integrated reporting has been demonstrated to enhance strategic connectivity (Ahmed Haji and Anifowose, 2017). In contrast, Poland has exhibited a steady progression in accordance with European directives (Kryk and Kożuch, Sustainability Reporting: Catalyst for Organisational and Professional Change AE Vol. 27 • No. 70 • August 2025 1055 2024). However, regulatory robustness in itself is incapable of eradicating symbolic tendencies, since disclosure heterogeneity remains persistent (Kassier, 2024). The nature of the industry and the characteristics of the firm further influence the reporting process. It has been demonstrated that larger, internationally exposed companies are leading the adoption of ESG practices due to the scrutiny of stakeholders, the availability of resources, and the pressure from global investors (Farooq and De Villiers, 2019; Grassa et al., 2024). In contrast, smaller firms tend to produce selective disclosures (Rahman Belal and Owen, 2007). Highimpact sectors provide detailed environmental and governance metrics under stringent oversight (Khan et al., 2020), while service industries emphasise social dimensions (Subramaniam et al., 2023). Cross-cultural variations have been demonstrated to influence rhetorical strategies employed in the context of future goals and current achievements (Van der Waal, 2024; Yavuz et al., 2025). Table no. 1 summarises key empirical studies examining sustainability reporting evolution across different contexts and methodological approaches. The table reveals a progression from early impression management studies (Cho, Roberts and Patten, 2010; Boiral, 2013) to more recent investigations of regulatory impacts and sentiment evolution (Muckó, 2021; Kassier, 2024), highlighting the methodological shift toward quantitative content and sentiment analyses. These studies collectively demonstrate that, while regulatory pressures drive reporting improvements, the transformation from symbolic to substantive disclosure remains uneven across contexts. Table no. 1. Review of empirical studies on sustainability reporting sentiment and language evolution Author(s) Period Context Method Key Findings Cho, Roberts and Patten (2010) 2002 U.S. firms (S&P 500) Content analysis (DICTION) Poor environmental performers use more optimistic language for impression management Boiral (2013) 2007 Global energy/mining firms Counteraccounting analysis 90% of negative events omitted from GRI reports, creating "hyperreality" Hahn and Kühnen (2013) 19992011 Global Literature review (178 articles) Identified gaps in reporting quality, stakeholder perception, and regulatory impact research Ferguson et al. (2016) 20012010 Five countries Discursive analysis Companies increasingly use linguistic strategies to shift climate responsibility Ioannou and Serafeim (2019b) 20072012 China, Denmark, Malaysia, SA Difference-indifferences Mandatory ESG disclosure increases quality and firm value (Tobin's Q) Farooq and De Villiers (2019) 2014 Australia/NZ (30 firms) Qualitative interviews Four-phase institutionalisation process through sustainability managers' work Gümrah, Tanc, and Tanc, (2019) 2016 13 Turkish firms GRI-G4 scoring model Significant variation in first-time reporters' disclosure quality Dong, Xu, and McIver (2021) 20072016 China financial sector Longitudinal content analysis Evolution through emerging (2007-09), developing (2010), greening stages (2011-16) AE Organisational Metamorphosis: Tracing Sustainability Integration Through Sentiment Evolution in Corporate Reporting in Turkish Companies 1056 Amfiteatru Economic Author(s) Period Context Method Key Findings Kassier (2024) 20162021 SA multinationals Content analysis Persistent business-centric framing; no shift toward regenerative approaches Muckó (2021) Post2017 102 EU firms Sentiment analysis Positive sentiment correlates with performance; larger firms avoid negative language Recent inquiries employ quantitative content analyses, sentiment analyses, and mixed methods to capture language variations and thematic emphasis, exposing regional differences including Western investor impacts in Bangladesh (Rahman Belal and Owen, 2007), integrated reporting establishment in South Africa (Ahmed Haji and Anifowose, 2017), and GRI adoption in Turkish banking (Gümrah, Tanc and Tanc, 2019). Despite convergences, distinguishing superficial legitimacy attempts from enduring change remains challenging, necessitating nuanced longitudinal research examining sentiment evolution. The literature provides compelling, yet incomplete, accounts of reporting transformation from symbolic to substantive narratives. This study builds on these insights by examining Turkish companies under shifting regulations to determine whether sentiment trends reflect genuine progress or refined impression management, contributing empirical evidence on sustainability-driven organisational metamorphosis. 2. Methodology This research employs a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative sentiment analysis with qualitative linguistic examination to analyse sustainability reports from Turkish companies over three distinct regulatory periods. The methodology follows a systematic sixstep framework designed to comprehensively capture organisational change through sentiment evolution. 2.1. Data collection and sampling We analysed sustainability reports from publicly listed Turkish companies spanning the years 2014-2023. The dataset comprises 433 sustainability reports distributed across three regulatory periods: pre-2016 (43 reports), 2016-2018 (83 reports), and 2019-2023 (307 reports). This distribution reflects the increasing adoption of sustainability reporting practices following regulatory developments, particularly the implementation of the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive and its subsequent integration into Turkish regulatory frameworks. All reports were collected from official company websites and the Public Disclosure Platform (KAP) to ensure authenticity and consistency. 2.2. Analysis framework Our methodological approach consisted of six interconnected analytical steps. First, we established a temporal framework by dividing the nine-year study period into three distinct phases based on key regulatory developments: pre-2016 as the baseline period prior to formal implementation of the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive, 2016-2018 as the early adoption phase following initial regulatory changes, and 2019-2023 as the maturation phase as reporting practices evolved under established frameworks. This temporal segmentation enabled systematic comparative analysis across regulatory transition points. Sustainability Reporting: Catalyst for Organisational and Professional Change AE Vol. 27 • No. 70 • August 2025 1057 2.3. Sentiment analysis procedures We conducted a comprehensive document-level sentiment analysis on the entire corpus of sustainability reports using multiple complementary techniques. We calculated overall polarity scores (-1 to +1 scale) using three distinct sentiment analysis algorithms: standard polarity analysis, Turkish language-optimised sentiment analysis, and TextBlob sentiment analysis. Additionally, we quantified positive and negative word frequencies in each report, computed positive-to-negative word ratios, and classified overall sentiment orientation. To ensure comparability across reports of varying lengths, we normalised all frequency metrics per 100,000 characters. Each report received composite sentiment scores that were then aggregated by period to identify temporal trends. We also performed targeted topic-specific sentiment analysis on text segments related to four key sustainability dimensions: environmental management and practices, social responsibility and stakeholder relations, corporate governance and compliance, and climate change mitigation and adaptation. This analysis involved identifying topic-specific text segments using keyword recognition and contextual analysis, calculating sentiment metrics for each topic dimension, comparing sentiment evolution across topics to identify differential adaptation patterns, and tracking topic-specific terminology frequency and distribution. A total of 1,080 topic-specific segments were analysed across the 433 reports, providing granular insight into how sentiment evolved differently across sustainability dimensions. 2.4. Comparative and linguistic analysis We conducted comparative analysis to identify how company characteristics influenced sentiment evolution patterns. We grouped companies by industry sector, size, and international exposure, calculated aggregate sentiment metrics for each group across all periods, identified distinctive adaptation patterns that emerged across different company types, and analysed correlations between company characteristics and sentiment evolution trajectories. This approach revealed four distinct adaptation patterns (Early Adapters, Rapid Transformers, Delayed Adapters, and Volatile Reporters) that demonstrated how organisational characteristics influenced the nature and pace of adaptation. Additionally, we analysed specific linguistic markers indicative of organisational change across three dimensions: aspirational language (terms related to goals, commitments, future plans, visions, and strategies), implementation language (terms describing concrete actions, achievements, completed initiatives, and measured outcomes), and organisational language (terms referring to sustainability governance structures, roles, committees, and responsible parties). For each dimension, we calculated normalised frequency scores (occurrences per 10,000 words), tracked the evolution of linguistic markers across time periods, computed ratios between different language types, and identified emergence of new organisational terminology. This linguistic analysis provided evidence of the transition from aspirational sustainability commitments to concrete implementation and formal organisational structures. 2.5. Regulatory response assessment We examined how companies specifically responded to regulatory requirements through analysis of sentiment in compliance-focused report sections, comparison of preand postregulation linguistic patterns, identification of adaptation indicators including report comprehensiveness, standardisation, and formalisation, and assessment of the relationship AE Organisational Metamorphosis: Tracing Sustainability Integration Through Sentiment Evolution in Corporate Reporting in Turkish Companies 1058 Amfiteatru Economic between regulatory developments and reporting evolution. This step enabled us to distinguish between superficial compliance and substantive organisational change in response to regulatory requirements. 2.6. Analytical tools and validation The analysis employed several complementary analytical tools including custom Python scripts for sentiment extraction and linguistic pattern recognition, Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques optimised for Turkish language analysis, statistical analysis software for comparative assessment, and visualisation tools for pattern identification and trend analysis. To ensure reliability and validity, we implemented several validation measures: multiple sentiment analysis algorithms to triangulate findings, manual verification of a representative sample (15%) of sentiment classifications, inter-coder reliability testing for topic classification (Cohen’s κ = 0.87), statistical significance testing for identified patterns and trends, and expert review of linguistic marker categorisation. This comprehensive methodological approach allowed us to systematically trace organisational change through sentiment evolution, revealing how companies adapted to sustainability reporting requirements across different regulatory periods. 3. Results This section presents our empirical findings organised according to the three research questions that guide this study. We systematically examine sentiment evolution patterns, topic-specific variations, and company adaptation characteristics. 3.1. Addressing RQ1: evolution of sentiment across regulatory periods Our first research question examined how sentiment in Turkish corporate sustainability reports evolved across different regulatory periods. Table no. 2 presents the key sentiment metrics tracked across the three periods. Table no. 2. Evolution of document-level sentiment metrics across three regulatory periods (2014-2023) Sentiment Metric Pre-2016 2016-2018 2019-2023 Overall Change Overall Polarity 0.5134 0.5189 0.4702 -8.4% Turkish Polarity 0.6943 0.7027 0.6410 -7.7% TextBlob Polarity 0.0913 0.0899 0.0718 -21.4% Positive-to-Negative Word Ratio 7.07 8.15 5.94 -16.0% The findings reveal a clear evolutionary pattern. During the early regulatory period (20162018), companies maintained their positive tone while slightly increasing positive language (+1.1% in polarity). However, the mature regulatory period (2019-2023) witnessed a significant shift toward more balanced reporting, with overall polarity declining by 8.4%. This moderation in sentiment occurred simultaneously with a doubling of report length, suggesting companies moved from brief, promotional reports to comprehensive, balanced disclosures. Sustainability Reporting: Catalyst for Organisational and Professional Change AE Vol. 27 • No. 70 • August 2025 1059 Figure no. 1 illustrates the year-by-year sentiment trajectory, revealing that the most significant shifts occurred in 2020 and 2021, when polarity scores declined by 5.8% and 10.5%, respectively. This timing correlates with both the maturation of reporting requirements and global challenges, including the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrating how external pressures combined with regulatory evolution to reshape corporate communication. Figure no. 1. Document-level sentiment evolution (2014-2023) The positive-to-negative word ratio provides additional insight into this transformation. Companies initially responded to regulations by emphasising positive achievements (ratio increased from 7.07 to 8.15), but later adopted more balanced language acknowledging both successes and challenges (ratio declined to 5.94). This pattern directly addresses RQ1 by demonstrating that sentiment evolution followed a non-linear path: initial regulatory response maintained promotional tone, while sustained regulatory pressure led to more substantive, balanced reporting. 3.2. Addressing RQ2: topic-specific sentiment patterns Our second research question investigated whether different sustainability topics showed distinct sentiment evolution patterns. Table no. 3 reveals both similarities and important differences across the four key sustainability dimensions. Table no. 3. Sentiment evolution by sustainability topic dimension across regulatory periods Topic Pre-2016 2016-2018 2019-2023 Overall Change Environmental 0.4697 0.5270 0.5012 +6.71% Social 0.5534 0.5921 0.5673 +2.51% Governance 0.3369 0.3897 0.3862 +14.63% Climate 0.4489 0.5311 0.5137 +14.44% All topics followed a similar trajectory — improvement during 2016-2018 followed by slight moderation — but with notable variations in magnitude. Climate disclosures showed the most dramatic initial improvement (+18.31%), suggesting companies prioritised climate communication when first adapting to regulations. Governance topics, despite starting with the lowest sentiment scores, achieved the second-highest overall improvement (+14.63%), indicating increased attention to sustainability governance structures. AE Organisational Metamorphosis: Tracing Sustainability Integration Through Sentiment Evolution in Corporate Reporting in Turkish Companies 1066 Amfiteatru Economic References Ahmed Haji, A. and Anifowose, M., 2017. Initial trends in corporate disclosures following the introduction of integrated reporting practice in South Africa. Journal of Intellectual Capital, [e-journal] 18(2), pp.373-399. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-01-2016-0020. Aluchna, M., Roszkowska-Menkes, M. and Kamiński, B., 2023. From talk to action: the effects of the non-financial reporting directive on ESG performance. Meditari Accountancy Research, [e-journal] 31(7), pp.1-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/ MEDAR-122021-1530. Boiral, O., 2013. Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, [e-journal] 26(7), pp.1036-1071. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2012-00998. Cho, C.H., Michelon, G. and Patten, D.M., 2012. Impression Management in Sustainability Reports: An Empirical Investigation of the Use of Graphs. Accounting and the Public Interest, [e-journal] 12(1), pp.16-37. https://doi.org/10.2308/apin-10249. Cho, C.H., Roberts, R.W. and Patten, D.M., 2010. The language of US corporate environmental disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, [e-journal] 35(4), pp.431-443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.10.002. Christensen, L.T., Morsing, M. and Thyssen, O., 2013. CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, [e-journal] 20(3), pp.372-393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413478310. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp.147-160. Dong, S., Xu, L. and McIver, R., 2021. China’s financial sector sustainability and “green finance” disclosures. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, [ejournal] 12(2), pp.353-384. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2018-0273. Du, S. and Yu, K., 2021. Do Corporate Social Responsibility Reports Convey Value Relevant Information? Evidence from Report Readability and Tone. Journal of Business Ethics, [e-journal] 172(2), pp.253-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04496-3. Farooq, M.B. and De Villiers, C., 2019. Understanding how managers institutionalise sustainability reporting: Evidence from Australia and New Zealand. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, [e-journal] 32(5), pp.1240-1269. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2017-2958. Ferguson, J., Sales De Aguiar, T.R. and Fearfull, A., 2016. Corporate response to climate change: language, power and symbolic construction. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, [e-journal] 29(2), pp.278-304. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-092013-1465. Grassa, R., ElHout, R., Rafiee, R., Hassan, O.Y. and Al Suwaidi, S.H., 2024. Do companies benefit from publishing sustainability-integrated reports? Evidence from the United Arab Emirates. Management & Sustainability: An Arab Review. [e-journal] https://doi.org/10.1108/MSAR-05-2024-0032. Gümrah, A., Tanc, S.G. and Tanc, A., 2019. Scoring of sustainability reports with GRI-G4 economic, environmental, and social performance indicators: A research on the companies preparing sustainability report in Türkiye. In: H. Öztürk, H. Dincer and Ü. Sustainability Reporting: Catalyst for Organisational and Professional Change AE Vol. 27 • No. 70 • August 2025 1067 Hacioglu eds., 2019. Accounting, finance, sustainability, governance & fraud: Theory and application. Bingley: Emerald Publishing, pp.201-220. Hahn, R. and 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, [e-journal] 59, pp.5-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005. Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L. and Figge, F., 2015. Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: Towards an Integrative Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, [e-journal] 127(2), pp.297-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2047-5. Hamza, S. and Jarboui, A., 2022. CSR or social impression management? Tone management in CSR reports. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, [e-journal] 20(3/4), pp.599-617. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-04-2020-0115. Hummel, K. and Schlick, C., 2016. The relationship between sustainability performance and sustainability disclosure – Reconciling voluntary disclosure theory and legitimacy theory. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, [e-journal] 35(5), pp.455-476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2016.06.001. Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G., 2019a. Corporate sustainability: A strategy? Harvard Business School Accounting & Management Unit Working Paper, 19-065. Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G., 2019b. The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting. In: A. McWilliams, D.S. Siegel, G. Korschun and D. Rupp eds., 2019. The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: Psychological and organizational perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kassier, L., 2024. Identifying transitions in corporate sustainability reporting: a content analysis of JSE/FTSE multinational sustainability reports from 2016 to 2021. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, [e-journal] 9(1), article no. 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-024-00099-7. Khan, H., Bose, S., Mollik, A. and Harun, H., 2020. Green washing or authentic effort? An empirical investigation of the quality of sustainability reporting by banks. Accounting Forum, [e-journal] 44(4), pp.277-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01559982.2020.1807440. KPMG, 2020. The KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2020. KPMG International. https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/11/the-kpmg-survey-of-sustainabilityreporting-2020.html [Accessed 15 December 2024]. Kryk, B. and Kożuch, M., 2024. EU regulations on reporting sustainable development as a determinant of limiting the environmental pressure of chemical enterprises in Poland. Economics and Environment, [e-journal] 88(1), article no. 695. https://doi.org/10.34659/eis.2024.88.1.695. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B., 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), pp.340-363. Muckó, P., 2021. Sentiment analysis of CSR disclosures in annual reports of EU companies. In: R.J. Howlett, L.C. Jain and K. Matsuo eds., 2021. Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information & Engineering Systems. Cham: Springer, pp.514-523. Oliver, C., 1991. Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. The Academy of Management Review, [e-journal] 16(1), pp.145-179. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 258610. AE Organisational Metamorphosis: Tracing Sustainability Integration Through Sentiment Evolution in Corporate Reporting in Turkish Companies 1068 Amfiteatru Economic Rahman Belal, A. and Owen, D.L., 2007. The views of corporate managers on the current state of, and future prospects for, social reporting in Bangladesh: An engagement‐based study. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, [e-journal] 20(3), pp.472-494. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570710748599. Reustlen, S. and Stawinoga, M., 2024. Do internationally operating companies act in a socially sustainable manner? An empirical comparison of disclosure regarding employee matters and human rights matters. Sustainability Nexus Forum, [e-journal] 32(1), article no. 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550-024-00556-8. Stubbs, W. and Higgins, C., 2014. Integrated Reporting and internal mechanisms of change. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, [e-journal] 27(7), pp.1068-1089. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2013-1279. Subramaniam, N., Akbar, S., Situ, H., Ji, S. and Parikh, N., 2023. Sustainable development goal reporting: Contrasting effects of institutional and organisational factors. Journal of Cleaner Production, [e-journal] 411, article no. 137339. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2023.137339. Van Der Waal, J., 2024. Comparing Corporate Sdg Reporting: Multi-year, Multi-region Analysis via Topic Modeling. SSRN Electronic Journal. [e-journal] https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4837716. Yavuz, M.S., Tatlı, H.S., Bozkurt, G. and Öngel, G., 2025. Does ESG performance have an impact on financial performance? Evidence from Türkiye. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, [e-journal] 11(2), pp.90-113. https://doi.org/ 10.7341/20252112.