Who's in and who's out? Reading stakeholders and priority issues from sustainability reports in Turkey

The study focuses on how Turkish corporations represent and prioritize stakeholders in sustainability reports over time. Sustainability reports serve as key communication tools signaling legitimacy, accountability, and commitment to social and environmental issues, yet stakeholder management remains complex and can create competing pressures. Prior Turkish studies largely examine single sectors or short time frames; comprehensive longitudinal analyses of stakeholder representation are rare. Framed by stakeholder salience (the degree to which managers prioritize competing stakeholder demands), the authors infer importance from the frequency of mentions. The central research question is: How have the stakeholders addressed in sustainability reports changed in the last 16 years? The purpose is to fill a gap in both stakeholder and sustainability reporting literature with a long-term perspective in a rapidly developing, stakeholder-oriented context like Turkey.

Reporting practices vary by national context and institutional frameworks. Globally, legal and governance developments (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley in the U.S., German Corporate Governance Code, India’s Companies Act 2013, EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive) and stock exchange initiatives have fostered sustainability disclosures. In Turkey (a civil law country), reforms since the early 2000s include the Capital Markets Board (CMB) Corporate Governance Principles (initially comply-or-explain, later mandatory aspects), IFRS-based disclosures, and Borsa Istanbul indices (Corporate Governance Index, Sustainability Index) that encourage transparency. The CMB’s 2018 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines align with GRI and other global standards; still, sustainability reporting remains largely voluntary, with adoption driven by regulation, public awareness, and civil society pressure. Conceptually, stakeholder identification is diverse and contested. Foundational works (Freeman’s stakeholder map; classifications by Avenarius; Harrison and John; WBCSD) propose broad lists, while typologies segment stakeholders as primary/secondary or internal/external. Debates persist over including the natural environment as a stakeholder. Prior Turkish evidence indicates customers, employees, investors, society, and environment as salient, with government and media less discussed. The study positions its longitudinal analysis against this backdrop to trace evolution in stakeholder salience and prioritized issues.

Design: Quantitative content analysis with inductive category development. Sample: 179 sustainability-related reports (including CSR, sustainable development, integrated) from 26 companies listed on both BIST Sustainability and BIST Corporate Governance indices, covering 2004–2019. Company codes include AEFES, AGHOL, AKSA, ARCLK, ASELS, ALBRK, AYGAZ, CCOLA, DOAS, ENJSA, ENKAI, EREGL, GARAN, GLYHO, HALKB, LOGO, MGROS, OTKAR, SISE, SKBNK, TAVHL, TOASA, TSKB, TUPRS, YKBNK, VESTL. Sectoral composition includes B2C (e.g., banks, food/beverage, vehicles) and B2B (e.g., chemicals, holding/investment, basic metals, defense). Procedure: All individuals, groups, institutions, and organizations mentioned as stakeholders were coded. Synonyms and variants (e.g., personnel/employee, client/customer) were reconciled through coder negotiation to improve intercoder agreement. MAXQDA was used to compute sums, frequencies, averages, and rankings, documenting all analysis steps. Categories were iteratively developed and validated in a feedback loop, then reduced to main categories. To assess substance versus window dressing, the latest available reports (2019) were examined for stakeholder engagement statements and materiality matrices; frequency analysis and weighted averages were used to analyze prioritized issues and their alignment with salient stakeholders. Measures: Number of stakeholders over time, classification into stakeholder groups, frequency of mentions by group/year, sectoral comparisons (B2B vs B2C), and distribution of material issues (social, environmental, economic, governance).

• Report types and volume: The label “Sustainability Report” was used in 76% of cases (since 2007). Integrated reporting was limited (≈6%). Report length ranged from 22 pages (2010) to 630 pages (2018), average 92 pages.
• Stakeholder counts: 152 terms mentioned; after deduplication, 102 unique stakeholders identified across 2004–2019. Mentions began with 12 stakeholders in 2004, rising to 56 (2009) and 59 (2017). Eight core stakeholders were consistently disclosed and increasingly addressed: employees, suppliers, NGOs, customers, society, public institutions, investors, and shareholders.
• Evolution of stakeholder list: New stakeholders appeared in waves (e.g., media and local community in 2007; regulators, universities in 2008; competitors, rating agencies, farmers, pressure groups in 2009; local authorities 2011; senior management, employee families, board/CEO 2012–2013; students, business world 2014; potential employees, scholarship students 2015; supply chain, sustainability reps 2016; tax institutions, third-party auditors 2017; bond investors, future generations 2018; ventures 2019).
• Group classification (16 groups): By frequency share, employees (25%), customers (16%), society (11%), suppliers (9%), sellers (8%), industry (6%), management (6%), education/research institutions (4%); low frequencies for civil society organizations, public institutions, media, investors, financial institutions, international organizations, competitors.
• Time trends: Employees became the most disclosed group, followed by customers. “Society” shifted from second most disclosed in 2007 to lower prominence later, as more specific subgroups emerged and customer salience increased post-2008. Post-2009, employees and customers clearly stood apart from other stakeholders.
• Priority (material) issues: 96% of latest reports included a materiality matrix. Overall distribution: social 51%, environmental 23%, economic 19%, governance 7%. Top issues (of 218 identified): occupational health and safety (8%), diversity and equal opportunity (7%), customer satisfaction (7%), climate change (6%), talent management (6%).
• Sectoral patterns: B2C industries produced 61% of stakeholder disclosures and emphasized customers, society, sellers, management, financial institutions, consultants. B2B industries emphasized employees, suppliers, industrial actors, education and research institutions, and civil society institutions. Competitors were least disclosed in both B2B and B2C.
• Alignment: Salient stakeholders (employees, customers, society, management) align with top material topics (OHS, diversity/equal opportunity, customer satisfaction, talent management), suggesting substantive reflection of stakeholder priorities.

The longitudinal analysis shows a clear rise in stakeholder breadth and a reordering of salience, directly addressing the research question of how stakeholder mentions have changed over 16 years. Employees and customers emerged as dominant stakeholders, aligning with material issues focused on worker well-being, diversity, talent, and customer satisfaction, indicating that reported salience maps onto strategic priorities rather than symbolic listing. The declining prominence of “society” after 2007, alongside the rise of customers, may reflect post-2008 economic pressures and the tendency to prioritize financial value creation. Socio-political events (e.g., 2013 Gezi events) and the later 2023 earthquakes highlight that stakeholder salience can fluctuate with external shocks; the power and visibility of civil society can re-emerge in crises, potentially reshaping future disclosures. Sectoral differences (B2C vs B2B) further contextualize salience, with visibility and stakeholder pressure higher in consumer-facing sectors. Limited attention to competitors, investors, and rating agencies suggests areas where Turkish reporting lags or where institutional pressures are weaker, warranting deeper inquiry. Overall, the findings underscore the evolving stakeholder landscape in Turkey’s sustainability reporting and its embedment in institutional, economic, and sectoral contexts.

The study contributes a comprehensive longitudinal mapping of stakeholder representation in Turkish sustainability reports, showing expansion from 12 to 102 unique stakeholders and classification into 16 groups. Employees, customers, and society have gained salience, with customers overtaking society since 2007. Material topics mirror salient stakeholders, emphasizing OHS, diversity/equal opportunity, customer satisfaction, climate change, and talent management. The work offers an evidence-based framework for policymakers and managers to understand stakeholder dynamics and prioritize engagement. Future research should: (1) broaden samples beyond index-listed firms; (2) conduct in-depth case studies and interviews to validate salience mechanisms; (3) compare across countries and cultural contexts; (4) examine underreported stakeholders (competitors, international organizations, investors, media, financial and public institutions); and (5) track post-crisis shifts in recognition of civil society and future generations.

• Sampling restricted to companies listed in both BIST Sustainability and BIST Corporate Governance indices, which may limit generalizability.
• Reliance on document-based content analysis of disclosed stakeholder mentions and materiality matrices; does not capture undisclosed practices or stakeholder perceptions.
• Potential coder interpretation bias mitigated but not eliminated through consensus procedures.
• Limited integrated reporting prevalence may constrain insights into integrated stakeholder-materiality linkages.