Corporate Sustainability Reporting and Analysis of Sustainability Reports in Turkey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial reports are the most important sources of information for financial information users. Investors, lenders, and other creditors use financial information in their decision making process. Therefore, governmental bodies of financial reporting have mandated disclosing of some financial reports (statement of financial position, statement of comprehensive income, and statement of changes in equity) for public interest. It has been stated that besides financial information, non-financial information is also important for the users. It is clear that financial information contributes better decisions making when it is supported by non-financial information. Non-financial reports inform stakeholders (e.g., investors, employees, customers, and non-governmental organizations) and the general public about the firm’s activities involving environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. In this study we have discussed elements of corporate sustainability reporting and detected sustainability reports of selected public firms in Turkey. Sustainability reports of nine firms have been analyzed based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) indicators. The results show that selected firms’ sustainability reports fulfill requirements related to Part I and Part II, “Profile Disclosures” and “Disclosures on Management Approach”, which is mostly consistent with their reports’ application level. However, it is hard to say the same thing for Part III. In fact, firms’ sustainability reports fail to consistently disclose “Performance Indicators”.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it