Strategic Language Use in Sustainability Reporting: An Empirical Study

Abstract

This study examines the sector-specific linguistic strategies utilized by large Italian firms, emphasizing the relationship between language, corporate governance procedures, and sustainability initiatives. This research employs a content analysis of 210 sustainability reports (SRs) from 203 corporations, categorizing firms into seven industry-specific clusters and examining how various sectors communicate sustainability activities. The research utilizes language game theory to determine if the vocabulary employed in SRs promotes a uniform comprehension of sustainability activities and aids stakeholders in assessing company sustainability plans. Key findings indicate a substantial disparity in the terminology employed across various businesses, underscoring the fragmentation and sector-specific focus in SR procedures. The research reveals sector-specific linguistic techniques that influence the discourse on sustainability, illustrating how language is deliberately employed to correspond with each sector’s objectives and governance frameworks. This research enhances academic literature by incorporating language game theory into SR analysis, revealing the influence of sector-specific language on sustainability narratives. It also underscores the issues associated with positive framing and the potential for greenwashing, wherein optimistic rhetoric may compromise the integrity and trustworthiness of SRs. The results necessitate standardized reporting systems to improve the comparability and accountability of systematic reviews across various sectors.

1. Introduction

Governance for sustainability includes the organizational frameworks, rules, and practices that facilitate the incorporation of sustainable principles into company operations [1,2]. Companies are progressively mandated to implement robust governance processes that integrate sustainability, conform to global frameworks like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and include stakeholders in cooperative initiatives. These measures are essential for guaranteeing openness and accountability in corporate sustainability initiatives. Recent studies indicate an increasing academic emphasis on sustainability reporting (SR), demonstrating significant growth in research from 2000 to 2022, marking a transition from ‘paucity’ to ‘saturation’ stages [3].

Prior research has shown that corporate governance processes, sustainability efforts, and SR are closely interconnected. Robust and efficient governance systems enhance firms’ ability to establish achievable sustainable objectives while ensuring transparent and thorough disclosure [4,5,6]. Integrating sustainable principles into governance frameworks allows companies to improve the credibility and dependability of their responsible business practices [7,8,9]. Clear communication of sustainability objectives, initiatives, and results is essential for satisfying stakeholder expectations, enhancing the quality of revealed information, and promoting responsibility [10]. Consequently, companies exhibiting robust governance and a commitment to sustainability are anticipated to convey their initiatives proficiently to their stakeholders.

Companies convey their commitment to sustainability due to the increasing demand from stakeholders for more openness about environmental and social matters [11]. Nonetheless, sustainability reporting is not invariably motivated by a sincere dedication to sustainability. In many instances, SRs are generated due to social pressures, rendering such reporting seem ‘necessary’ or ‘standard practice’ [12], regardless of the company’s commitment to sustainable measures. SR may also be pivotal in advancing certain financially motivated goals or preserving the existing state of affairs [13]. O’Dwyer [14] emphasizes that SR is susceptible to managerial capture, wherein managers construe sustainability promises to better line with business objectives—such as increasing shareholder wealth—rather than promoting broader societal and environmental aims. Moreover, evidence indicates that corporate responses to sustainability challenges frequently stem from shareholder activism [15] and managerial discretion [16] rather than from an authentic commitment to improving corporate accountability [17].

An examination of the SRs’ quality reveals that the information supplied by companies is frequently fragmented, heterogeneous, multimodal, and seldom standardized. The reports need comprehensive analysis to be converted into mechanisms that efficiently reveal the value generated by firms, therefore functioning as effective governance instruments. The organization, substance, and language of systematic reviews are critical in academic discourse. The terminology companies utilize to articulate their sustainability initiatives has elicited apprehensions over the genuineness of their dedication to sustainable practices [18,19,20].

The problem of SR substance and language is particularly significant, as rising legislative requirements in several jurisdictions compel companies to embrace sustainable business practices, although disclosure mainly remains optional. Even when SR is obligatory, no mandated format or terminology frequently exists. Consequently, firms can articulate their sustainability commitments in diverse manners. Thus far, companies have predominantly depended on voluntary reporting standards, such as those established by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), which provides frameworks for executing sustainability reporting practices [21].

Despite the progress in sustainability disclosure, previous research highlights significant variability in how companies communicate their sustainability commitments, often revealing inconsistencies and ambiguities in language use [22,23]. For instance, while some reports use language that conveys sustainability efforts, others rely on general terms that lack specificity, raising concerns about greenwashing and the genuine commitment to sustainable practices [14]. This variability in language is partly due to differing sectoral priorities, regulatory pressures, and stakeholder expectations, which shape how sustainability narratives are crafted in various industries [23]. However, research on the influence of sector-specific language strategies in SR remains limited, particularly in understanding how these strategies affect alignment with global sustainability goals like the SDGs [24].

This study aims to contribute to filling this gap by examining SR efficacy as a corporate governance instrument, specifically addressing the following research question and subsequent sub-research questions:

RQ.

How do companies across various sectors strategically employ language in SRs?

RQa.

How does language in SRs help stakeholders assess corporate sustainability initiatives?

RQb.

How does language in SRs correspond with current sustainability concepts, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development?

To answer the research question, this study builds upon Wittgenstein’s Language Game Theory [25]. This theoretical perspective argues that language is a social activity governed by context-specific rules that describe reality and influence behaviors and perceptions. In each “language game”, words gain meaning based on their use within a particular setting, aligning language with specific social purposes. This theory underscores how language can convey information and guide actions, highlighting its strategic role in shaping understanding and fostering shared interpretations within a community. In this view, companies often use optimistic language to highlight positive sustainability efforts, sometimes leading to greenwashing by downplaying challenges [26,27,28].

Under the lens of this theory, this study examines the SRs of 203 large Italian companies to investigate the language used. These firms are identified as “sustainability leaders” according to the Lab24 Sustainability Rating 2023. This rating, developed by Il Sole 24 Ore (the most influential Italian newspaper in business, management, and economics) in partnership with Statista, highlights companies recognized for their high levels of sustainability disclosure. Regulatory shifts, improvements in corporate governance, and heightened public concern for social and environmental issues, especially over the past two decades, have all contributed to SR’s rapid evolution in Italy, making the country an ideal setting for this study.

Initially, SR was limited to large multinational companies influenced by international standards. Following the 2001 adoption of Legislative Decree 231, which introduced corporate responsibility requirements, Italian companies began adopting more structured social and environmental reporting practices. Additionally, SMEs constitute the Italian socio-economic backbone, distinguishing its SR approach. In fact, unlike other countries where SRs are driven primarily by large corporations, in Italy, SMEs have increasingly embraced sustainability into their legacy and long-term resilience strategies. Furthermore, SRs in Italy largely remain within voluntary disclosure, as there is no uniform requirement for SMEs to adhere to the rigorous standards mandated for larger firms.

The paper is structured in the following manner: The following section presents the literature review, which focuses on the relevance of SR as a governance tool able to shape stakeholder perceptions of sustainability initiatives. In this context, specific attention is paid to the composition and production of SRs through the lens of language game theory. The subsequent section includes the materials and methods, detailing the research context, sample, and methodologies employed. The result section details the content analysis and the identified clusters. Finally, the discussion and conclusion sections clarify the study’s contributions, implications, and limitations.

2. Study Background

2.1. Corporate Governance and Sustainability Reporting

Corporate governance is essential for integrating sustainability into business operations. Studies continuously demonstrate that companies with adequate governance frameworks are more inclined to implement sustainable practices and attain superior environmental and social outcomes [2,29,30]. Governance for sustainability incorporates sustainability considerations into a company’s decision-making frameworks and organizational architectures, harmonizing commercial objectives with broader societal and environmental obligations. This integration is essential for organizations to address global frameworks like the SDGs.

Several theories establish a basis for comprehending this connection. Stakeholder theory [31,32] emphasizes the necessity of including diverse stakeholder groups (e.g., shareholders, employees, and local communities) to achieve sustainable outcomes. Given the increasing demands for transparency, recent bibliometric studies emphasize stakeholder involvement as one of the major theme areas in SR research [3]. Quantitative content analysis has been extensively employed to examine corporate stakeholder engagement via SR, providing insights into how governance structures promote transparency [33]. Agency theory posits that robust governance systems, like openness and accountability, alleviate possible conflicts between managers and shareholders, assuring alignment in sustainability [34]. Resource dependence theory asserts that firms dependent on external resources are motivated to implement sustainable practices to preserve legitimacy and secure access to these resources [35].

Governance mechanisms, including board independence, establishment of sustainability committees, and SR, are crucial in fostering transparency and accountability. Kolk and Perego [30] assert that these processes favor corporate governance and sustainability, as demonstrated by enhanced environmental performance. Voluntary sustainability disclosures enhance openness by enabling external entities to evaluate a company’s performance on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) matters [36]. Such disclosures alleviate information asymmetry and enhance stakeholder participation [37]. Standardizing sustainability reporting processes, promoted by frameworks such as GRI, has improved governance by offering uniform criteria for performance evaluation [38]. Machado et al. [39] analyzed the transparency of materiality analysis in GRI-based SRs, highlighting that while companies claim adherence to materiality principles, the actual disclosure of materiality-related details remains inconsistent. Their findings suggest that organizations often lack comprehensive and transparent stakeholder engagement practices, affecting the reported sustainability information’s reliability. The study advocates for more standardized approaches to enhance materiality analysis in sustainability reporting.

Despite the increasing significance of SR, experts raise questions about its efficacy in improving openness and accountability. Adams and Larrinaga-González [13] contend that SRs frequently serve instrumental functions, meeting legal or social expectations instead of delivering a genuine representation of sustainable practices. Crane and Glozer [27] contend that SR is often employed for impression management, wherein firms prioritize enhancing favorable images above providing substantial facts regarding environmental and social performance. Montiel [28] and Schwartz and Carroll [40] articulate similar apprehensions, indicating that organizations frequently provide disjointed and contradictory information regarding their sustainability initiatives. Pombinho et al. [41] focus on the readability of SRs, examining how syntactic complexity and impression management can obscure information. They argue that many reports are crafted to maintain legitimacy by managing stakeholder impressions, sometimes at the expense of clarity and transparency. This results in challenges for stakeholders attempting to assess true sustainability impacts, as readability remains low across many reports.

2.2. The Role of Language and the Language Game Theory in Sustainability Reporting

Language significantly influences stakeholder communication and shapes perceptions of sustainability initiatives in SR. Discourse analysis, as illustrated by Fairclough [42], highlights the necessity of examining language in business communication due to its influence on perceptions and behavior. Wittgenstein’s language game theory [25] offers insights by positing that language not only describes but also influences actions. This theory highlights the relationship between language and action, positing that language influences actions and behaviors instead of simply reflecting them.

In language game theory, context is crucial for effective communication, as the meaning of words is contingent upon the specific language game being employed. Language games involve activities governed by specific rules, and comprehension is essential for participating in related actions. Words acquire meaning through their association with actions, and the use of language in specific contexts affects individual behavior accordingly. Language functions as a mechanism for communication and coordination, enabling individuals to articulate intentions, organize activities, and collaborate efficiently.

The theory posits that language constructs social reality by allowing individuals to express understanding, define roles, and establish norms. Using a common language enhances collaborative efforts in social settings, enabling the articulation of ideas, beliefs, and values that can sway and shape behaviors. Language serves as both a reflection of actions and a strategic tool for achieving desired outcomes.

Research on language games in management studies confirms that the fundamental purpose of the managerial language is to enable practical action. Managers are interested in shaping the functioning of the environment in which they operate instrumentally to their ends. Consequently, the language they use to communicate creates a framework in which organizational life is shaped and reshaped. In this view, companies communicate their sustainability objectives, principles, and initiatives through specific and well-defined language.

Laskin and Nesova [26] investigated the employment of optimistic language in SRs, demonstrating that firms frequently highlight the favorable elements of their sustainability initiatives while minimizing the associated obstacles. Applying positive framing may result in greenwashing when corporations portray themselves as more environmentally responsible than they actually are [43]. The deliberate employment of language in SRs can conceal the disparity between a company’s rhetoric and its genuine sustainability practices, prompting inquiries over the transparency and accountability of these documents. Content analysis has demonstrated efficacy in discovering language tactics, as seen in Weber [44], which emphasizes the capacity of quantitative analysis to reveal underlying message techniques.

Studies indicate that the language employed in SRs differs throughout industries and mirrors distinct company agendas. Vocabulary-based methodologies [45] propose that businesses employ specific terminology and expressions to influence stakeholder perceptions, frequently synchronizing their language with industry or sector norms. For instance, energy corporations may prioritize “emissions reduction”, whereas financial services institutions highlight “ethical investment” [26]. This sector-specific terminology can lead to discrepancies in SR, complicating performance comparisons among companies [46]. Research, including the study by Kolk and Perego [47], corroborates this perspective, illustrating that firms across various industries frequently emphasize distinct sustainability themes, resulting in sector-specific linguistic clusters.

2.3. Sustainability Reporting as a Communication Instrument

SR functions as a mechanism for revealing environmental and social performance while also serving as a communication and stakeholder involvement tool. Companies utilize SRs to convey their environmental commitments while also leveraging these documents strategically to influence stakeholders’ attitudes [48]. The impression management theory [49] posits that organizations may utilize SR to bolster their reputation and cultivate trust with stakeholders, regardless of whether the disclosed information is partial or selective.

Coombs and Holladay [50] contend that SRs frequently serve as instruments for stakeholder management to foster favorable connections and alleviate possible hazards. Sustainability disclosures may emphasize favorable representations and accomplishments while overlooking companies’ problems or failures [51,52,53]. This selective disclosure can affect perceptions of a company’s sustainability performance, especially when reports prioritize readily quantifiable indicators like energy efficiency while neglecting more intricate topics such as social equity [54]. Content analysis is an effective technique for discerning communication strategies, offering a quantitative means to reveal trends in how businesses construct their sustainability narratives [55].

2.4. Standardization and Authenticity in Sustainability Reporting

A primary difficulty in SR is the absence of standards, giving companies considerable latitude in reporting practices. Although voluntary standards, such as those established by the GRI, offer a framework for sustainability reporting, the lack of obligatory regulations leads to uneven and sometimes incomparable reports [21]. The absence of uniformity hinders stakeholders from evaluating and contrasting organizations’ sustainability initiatives.

Implementing compulsory reporting standards, exemplified by the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) in Europe, seeks to resolve these concerns by mandating that big corporations furnish uniform and comparable sustainability data. Ortiz and Martinez [46] contend that organizations may practice selective disclosure to emphasize their strengths while downplaying their faults, even within standardized frameworks. Adams and Larrinaga-González [13] assert that without enhanced governmental monitoring, SR will predominantly serve as a public relations instrument rather than an authentic representation of business sustainability initiatives.

A thorough review of current literature reveals critical gaps that demand further investigation. Although research emphasizes the role of language in crafting sustainability narratives, there still needs to be empirical evidence on the impact of sector-specific linguistic strategies on stakeholder perceptions of sustainability reports. Moreover, the influence of perception management on sustainability reporting practices across different sectors remains underexplored, as does the role of standardized reporting frameworks in enhancing the transparency and comparability of sustainability disclosures.

This study addresses these gaps, providing valuable insights into how language, governance structures, and reporting standards collectively shape stakeholder perceptions and contribute to a deeper understanding of authenticity, transparency, and reputation management in sustainability reporting.

3. Material and Methods

This article examines whether the language employed in SRs conforms to a standardized comprehension of sustainability actions, successfully conveying organizations’ endeavors to establish and attain sustainable objectives. This also evaluates whether the communication allows readers to evaluate organizations’ sustainability efforts. The study employed a gap analysis approach to discern discrepancies between the academic comprehension of sustainability and its actual application in business, namely in Italy. Companies convey their viewpoints on sustainability to external and internal stakeholders via formal papers such as SRs, strategies, or declarations. The research assessed how enterprises of varying sizes, goals, and industries understand and communicate sustainability. Additionally, it assessed the alignment of these conceptualizations with contemporary sustainability concepts, particularly the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [56].

Quantitative content analysis was utilized to evaluate the articulation and communication of sustainability within the operational frameworks of current sustainability leaders in Italy. As Krippendorff [55] and Guthrie and Abeysekera [33] emphasize, content analysis is an effective technique for deriving significant patterns from extensive collections of company reports.

The sample for this study was drawn from the “Sustainability Leaders 2023” list published by Lab24, comprising 240 Italian businesses recognized by Il Sole 24 Ore and Statista for their sustainability based on sustainability disclosures [57]. Focusing on this database offered several advantages. Firstly, numerous companies on the list must comply with Legislative Decree 254/2016 regarding non-financial information (NFI) disclosure. Secondly, the ranking issuers had already vetted the documents, ensuring high disclosure quality. Finally, the voluntary involvement of these companies indicates their commitment to transparency in sustainability reporting. The study concentrated on 203 large companies with revenues exceeding EUR 100 million, spanning 16 sectors. This focus on larger companies is based on the assumption that their disclosure level is likely higher than that of smaller firms, which may not provide as-detailed SRs.

A comprehensive analysis of essential terminology and phrases in official SRs, accessible on the chosen firms’ websites, was performed. The main goals of this phase were to ascertain the particular elements of sustainability prioritized by each business and to underscore the disparities across different industries.

The analytical features of https://voyant-tools.org/ (accessed on 3 October 2023) were employed to ascertain the maximum permissible quantity of this service’s top 59 keywords from each SR. Voyant Tools, a prominent instrument in content analysis, is recognized for its capacity to uncover meaningful language patterns from extensive textual datasets [44]. The English- and Italian-language SRs were evaluated separately. To maintain consistency across the content analysis phases, selected English keywords were immediately integrated into subsequent analyses. Meanwhile, Italian keywords were first extracted and subsequently translated into English. According to established protocols in cross-linguistic research, the forward-backward translation method was utilized to guarantee translation precision [58].

The gathered data underwent purification through the elimination of numerals, articles, interrogative terms, prepositions, and commonly reiterated yet extraneous words, including “year(s)”, “group”, “s.p.a.”, “total”, “figure”, “table”, “appendix(ces)”, “Italy”, “Italian”, “data”, “euro”, “million”, “billion”, “report”, “company”, “bank”, “financial”, “statement”, “global”, “consolidated” and so on. Terms formerly in plural form were converted to singular (e.g., “plant”, “customer”, “activity”, “risk”). Furthermore, suffixes were eliminated. Data cleansing is a crucial phase in content analysis to guarantee that the outcomes represent authentic patterns rather than extraneous noise, as highlighted by Neuendorf [59].

Voyant Tool was also used to identify phrases closely related to fundamental sustainability ideas. Terms exhibiting a Pearson’s correlation coefficient of 0.85 or above were classified as significantly correlated with “sustainability” and “sustainable” in English, as well as “sostenibilità” and “sostenibili(e)” in Italian. Subsequent data cleansing involved eliminating articles, numerals, question marks, prepositions, and non-existent words. Plural forms were singularized, and suffixes were similarly eliminated. This strategy corresponds with current quantitative language research techniques, where strong correlations indicate significant conceptual connections [44].

General word statistics for each examined company area were produced utilizing https://countwordsfree.com/ (accessed on 3 October 2023). The subsequent step employed a theme clustering methodology leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) to categorize sectors according to industry-specific keywords and connections. The objective was to discern prevalent themes and topics across several sectors. Clustering approaches, including the k-means algorithm, have been effectively utilized in prior research [60] to reveal patterns in text-based data, providing a detailed comprehension of thematic trends across many sectors. Precise word matches were not essential, permitting a more abstract and adaptable representation of information. Sectors exhibiting analogous theme attributes were categorized utilizing the k-means clustering technique.

Finally, the keywords linked to each cluster were aligned with the SDGs of the 2030 Agenda based on their thematic significance. The SDGs associated with keywords frequently found in industry discussions were categorized as “most presented”. “Well presented” SDGs pertain to those in which keywords were employed meaningfully and pertinently. To assess theme deficiencies in the SDGs, concepts that were infrequently referenced or not fully addressed were classified as “less presented”. This technique is consistent with prior research employing thematic clustering and gap analysis to analyze corporate sustainability disclosures [47]. This methodology elucidated how industries engage with and tackle several SDGs by integrating frequency analysis, contextual evaluation, and thematic gap identification.

4. Results

4.1. Content Analysis of Sustainability Reports: Italy in Focus

Regarding the Italian sustainability rating [57], the nation’s five foremost sustainable industries in 2023 were Energy, Procurement and Raw Materials, Banks, Industrial Products and Components, Finished Products and Consumer Goods, and Food and Beverages (see Figure 1 for a comprehensive breakdown). Italian scores closely align with global sustainability trends, except for the telecommunications and pharmaceutical sectors, which are in the top 10 of the Global 100 ranking of the most sustainable enterprises globally [61]. These industries rank 15th and 21st in Italy, respectively. ERG Spa and Intesa Sanpaolo, two Italian firms, have attained distinguished positions, ranking 54th and 59th in this global assessment.

Table A1. Top 50 keywords by sectors.

	Sector	CLUSTER 1: FINANCIAL AND RISK MANAGEMENT			CLUSTER 2: HEALTH AND WELL-BEING MANAGEMENT		CLUSTER 3: PRODUCT-CENTRIC SUSTAINABILITY
Rating		Banks	General Services and Insurance	Financial Services, Investment Holding, ad Asset Management	Beauty, Personal Care, and Healthcare	Catering and Ho.re.ca	Finished Products and Consumer Goods	Fashion	Retail, Wholesale and E-commerce
1		risk	risk	risk	environment	environment	environment	material	customer
2		management	management	management	employees	people	management	product	management
3		activity	employees	activity	energy	sustainability	energy	activity	activity
4		sustainability	activity	employees	sustainability	business	sustainability	environment	products
5		environment	customer	sustainability	activity	customer	employees	management	risk
6		employees	development	business	development	development	production	sustainability	sustainability
7		service	investment	training	emissions	employees	products	business	training
8		corporate	sustainability	development	management	energy	safety	risk	employees
9		impact	training	environment	material	food	training	safety	environment
10		sustainable	value	work	production	health	business	training	safety
11		development	corporate	corporate	products	management	health	employees	work
12		training	people	governance	sustainable	safety	development	production	emissions
13		business	social	service	business	waste	social	work	health
14		customer	sustainable	energy	corporate	activity	waste	development	service
15		work	work	information	governance	catering	activity	suppliers	social
16		products	information	social	health	consumption	work	emissions	suppliers
17		value	insurance	value	impact	control	material	social	value
18		governance	business	emissions	materials	impact	product	value	actions
19		social	environment	impact	packaging	performance	risk	waste	business
20		information	life	people	process	products	suppliers	corporate	corporate
21		clients	policy	process	product	risk	emissions	health	development
22		emissions	products	stakeholders	quality	service	information	information	energy
23		process	service	sustainable	suppliers	social	people	chain	governance
24		board	economic	women	training	supply	sustainable	compliance	material
25		climate	health	board	waste	sustainable	water	impact	people
26		initiatives	safety	compliance	beauty	training	consumption	sustainable	plan
27		people	control	health	board	value	economic	energy	product
28		plan	emissions	material	brand	work	process	order	sales
29		policy	governance	safety	care	area	quality	people	waste
30		support	model	strategy	climate	areas	value	scope	brand
31		credit	process	support	community	assets	chain	supply	clients
32		energy	board	topics	compliance	capital	compliance	water	community
33		loans	capital	directors	cosmetics	cash	human	board	compliance
34		clientele	change	suppliers	directors	chain	impacts	customer	consumption
35		compliance	climate	assessment	economic	change	materials	economic	control
36		administration	energy	capital	information	clients	board	quality	information
37		economic	evaluation	change	performance	compliance	corporate	stores	passion
38		framework	impact	climate	professional	costs	customer	topics	project
39		green	initiatives	control	project	culture	governance	brand	quality
40		health	market	economic	research	decree	impact	climate	remuneration
41		model	network	growth	safety	directors	responsible	directors	scope
42		portfolio	personnel	performance	taxonomy	distribution	directors	fashion	sustainable
43		project	premiums	plan	topics	district	model	human	territory
44		reporting	projects	policy	water	economic	order	impacts	topics
45		cash	protection	products	work	emilia	performance	process	approach
46		control	responsible	reporting	addition	exchange	scope	project	area
47		enterprises	skills	responsible	analysis	future	stakeholders	support	assets
48		investment	strategy	scope	assessment	growth	supply	women	awareness
49		issues	taxonomy	security	benefit	host	innovation	analysis	board
50		level	women	term	biodiversity	ideas	paper	consumption	building
	Sector	CLUSTER 4: ENERGY AND WASTE MANAGEMENT				CLUSTER 5: HIGH-TECH MANAGEMENT		CLUSTER 6: FOOD AND BEVERAGES MANAGEMENT	CLUSTER 7: ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Rating		Energy, Procurement, and Raw Materials	Industrial Products and Components	Transportation, Logistics, and Automotive Supply Chain	Chemistry, Pharmaceuticals, Waste Disposal, and Recycling	Technology and IT	Telecommunications and Media	Food and Beverages	Engineering and Construction
1		energy	risk	management	environment	management	service	product	management
2		management	management	activity	activity	risk	activity	sustainability	risk
3		service	activity	emissions	management	activity	sustainability	management	activity
4		activity	employees	risk	employees	business	business	quality	business
5		value	environment	development	sustainability	safety	development	environment	environment
6		sustainability	safety	safety	development	work	employees	safety	energy
7		development	sustainability	sustainability	products	development	management	materials	development
8		business	development	business	safety	employees	people	production	emissions
9		emissions	production	employees	water	environment	risk	sustainable	employees
10		employees	emissions	environment	emissions	training	emissions	chain	safety
11		safety	energy	service	energy	information	environment	emissions	value
12		plant	waste	governance	health	process	social	impact	work
13		water	business	energy	production	sustainability	training	suppliers	sustainability
14		work	health	passengers	quality	health	customer	activity	health
15		risk	training	process	value	service	digital	employees	information
16		waste	work	railway	waste	compliance	energy	energy	social
17		sustainable	products	training	business	emissions	governance	people	construction
18		training	material	value	material	energy	health	supply	material
19		environment	suppliers	work	risk	suppliers	information	waste	project
20		corporate	process	climate	suppliers	value	impacts	health	rate
21		consumption	sustainable	compliance	topics	corporate	network	value	service
22		customer	value	control	training	customer	protection	food	suppliers
23		health	compliance	dimension	work	material	safety	packaging	training
24		network	information	European	corporate	people	sustainable	risk	waste
25		quality	water	health	plants	performance	corporate	training	assets
26		stakeholders	control	independent	process	products	suppliers	water	board
27		electricity	directors	index	product	social	work	work	climate
28		people	economic	information	project	systems	analysis	business	economic
29		plan	performance	issues	scope	analysis	board	development	people
30		social	board	methodology	service	consumption	compliance	community	plant
31		control	materials	model	climate	economic	consumption	material	production
32		distribution	product	network	impact	human	economic	social	projects
33		governance	topics	people	materials	objectives	initiatives	consumption	sustainable
34		production	consumption	performance	patients	policy	material	information	systems
35		suppliers	impacts	personnel	sustainable	processes	order	project	transport
36		territory	social	production	women	product	public	support	water
37		transition	systems	project	care	production	time	approach	areas
38		balance	code	scope	community	quality	women	process	capital
39		climate	corporate	social	compliance	sustainable	areas	rights	cash
40		economic	human	sustainable	consumption	waste	content	scope	changes
41		impact	impact	system	diseases	actions	directors	standards	compliance
42		system	people	systems	economic	assessment	financial	system	costs
43		change	processes	taxonomy	information	board	future	animal	equity
44		impacts	quality	train	initiatives	capital	human	brand	impact
45		information	scope	transport	medical	change	inclusion	coffee	income
46		material	supply	waste	operational	code	model	commitment	infrastructure
47		objectives	change	water	order	corruption	plan	compliance	introduction
48		resources	customer	airports	people	digital	process	customer	liabilities
49		board	resources	amount	plant	evaluation	project	human	materials
50		directors	rights	analysis	recovery	governance	radio	initiatives	operating

and

Table A2. Top 50 words correlated to ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable’ by sectors.

	Sector	CLUSTER 1: FINANCIAL AND RISK MANAGEMENT			CLUSTER 2: HEALTH AND WELL-BEING MANAGEMENT		CLUSTER 3: PRODUCT-CENTRIC SUSTAINABILITY
Rating		Banks	General Services and Insurance	Financial Services, Investment Holding, and Asset Management	Beauty, Personal Care, and Healthcare	Catering and Ho.re.ca	Finished Products and Consumer Goods	Fashion	Retail, Wholesale and E-commerce
1		social	report	goal	achieve	boost	brand	stakeholder	financial
2		economy	increase	communication	appointments	career	climate	ecosystems	agenda
3		financial	global	participate	coming	csrd	towels	biodiversity	economic
4		loan	stakeholders	capital	directive	action	compact	chief	business
5		loans	bodies	climate	element	agenda	cover	committee	global
6		environment	corporate	corporate	financial	agro	critical	definition	report
7		governance	environment	country	integrate	alongside	development	economy	statement
8		integration	finance	governance	long	analysis	expansion	encourage	strengthening
9		positive	inflationary	meeting	plan	appraisal	goals	extending	academy
10		bond	materiality	nations	ability	approximately	materials	financial	achievement
11		challenges	shareholders	open	actions	aside	modern	forms	actions
12		commitment	social	pillar	actively	associates	paper	global	community
13		company	amount	policy	addresses	assortment	path	meetings	consistent
14		current	annual	rating	affairs	attraction	plastic	pollution	credit
15		dedicated	assembly	academy	affect	available	promise	priority	delegated
16		disclosure	climatic	activity	agency	aware	range	subsidiary	distinctiveness
17		energy	company	agreements	agenda	axes	rolls	advisory	distributed
18		equipment	equileap	analysis	align	balance	SDGs	agencies	electric
19		green	estate	approach	alongside	benefit	absorbency	agenda	eligible
20		high	financial	areas	analysis	biodiversity	accountability	aligned	emerged
21		impact	future	association	annual	boundary	adaptation	ambitious	environment
22		indicator	impact	assurance	annually	branding	affect	analysts	ethical
23		investments	information	best	anthony	built	agenda	approved	ethics
24		promote	interest	board	appreciation	cafr	aligned	benefit	executive
25		purchase	mission	brand	aspects	cages	all-purpose	capital	fair
26		support	organization	business	assessing	campaigns	alliance	characterized	goal
27		ambition	policies	check	assigned	campus	anti	circular	government
28		articulates	reduction	compact	assisted	capita	area	civil	group
29		automatic	strong	confirm	authorized	catalog	articles	clear	growing
30		choices	year	considered	availability	cattolica	ascent	climate	increase
31		criteria	accounting	contribute	awards	centered	avoid	collecting	innovative
32		cultural	advice	digitalised	benefit	certified	aware	commission	institutions
33		decisions	agricultural	economic	bollati	characterizes	bottle	commitment	involvement
34		delegated	aids	eligible	build	clarity	Britain	concept	loans
35		directed	aligned	employment	cash	class	business	conferences	materiality
36		expected	alimentary	engagement	certified	closer	capex	consolidated	mechanisms
37		facilitated	approach	entrusted	chain	coaching	challenges	consumerlab	mutual
38		finance	approved	environment	chairman	coca	chamomile	continuation	objectives
39		goals	approximately	evidence	change	coffee	change	contributes	oversight
40		good	award	inclusion	collaborators	cola	chemicals	distributed	payments
41		group	basis	isae	combat	combined	chips	document	pillar
42		guide	benchmark	letter	committee	commission	choose	drivers	place
43		inclusion	billions	management	compensation	commitment	class	ecodesign	plan
44		incorporate	board	methodological	competitor	compact	color	executive	press
45		indefinite	bonus	optimise	comprises	conference	commitments	expression	principles
46		issuers	branches	parent	considered	conviction	compliance	extension	promote
47		legislative	broadcasters	partnerships	constant	cooking	confirmed	girls	reduce
48		lending	business	periodic	consultation	corruption	corruption	held	releases
49		linked	character	presented	contribute	database	customer	hope	responsibility
50		management	China	president	core	decree	definition	indicated	responsible
	Sector	CLUSTER 4: ENERGY AND WASTE MANAGEMENT				CLUSTER 5: HIGH-TECH MANAGEMENT		CLUSTER 6: FOOD AND BEVERAGES MANAGEMENT	CLUSTER 7: ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Rating		Energy, Procurement, and Raw Materials	Industrial Products and Components	Transportation, Logistics, and Automotive Supply Chain	Chemistry, Pharmaceuticals, Waste Disposal, and Recycling	Technology and IT	Telecommunications and Media	Food and Beverages	Engineering and Construction
1		global	report	economic	environment	company	environment	Italy	environment
2		report	environment	international	activity	environment	materiality	environment	activity
3		stakeholders	social	report	biodiversity	contribute	balance	distribute	business
4		innovation	stakeholder	associations	business	goal	growth	business	climate
5		organization	climate	attention	criteria	nations	SDGs	stakeholder	association
6		shareholders	governance	clear	footprint	ethics	activity	chain	chain
7		strategic	materiality	environmentally	absences	climate	adaptation	community	stakeholders
8		agenda	SDGs	guidelines	activated	create	adopts	footprint	strategy
9		balance	strategy	main	ammendante	development	aligned	goals	commitment
10		board	activity	published	balance	documents	cluster	integrity	company
11		communities	chain	stakeholder	brand	economic	decrease	mass	energy
12		ethics	change	adaptation	certificate	operate	economic	material	fight
13		governance	committee	addressing	chain	practices	essential	network	integrity
14		SDGs	company	assembly	change	sustainable	financial	operational	materiality
15		change	drafting	audits	climate	work	gigabyte	range	organization
16		commitment	efficient	capex	committee	agenda	goals	administrations	practices
17		corporate	eligible	capitalized	contractors	analysis	governance	alcoholic	rating
18		economic	employed	consolidated	contributes	born	involvement	althesys	ratings
19		financial	financing	council	cycle	commitment	listening	aperitif	social
20		materiality	matrix	decision	distributed	consolidated	machine	avourings	achievement
21		mission	mission	describe	ecosystems	energy	major	brands	achieving
22		appointed	mitigation	disturbances	eligible	future	note	brillante	active
23		auditors	participation	dnsh	excluded	global	oriented	ccsd	adequate
24		business	product	eligible	group	innovation	planet	centers	aimed
25		context	public	energy	internal	matrix	revenues	choices	aligned
26		contribute	23sit	expenditure	manager	report	social	company	applications
27		create	absolute	features	marine	access	stakeholders	concerned	aspect
28		developing	accelerate	feel	perspective	achieve	analysis	concretely	chamber
29		directors	achieving	forward	promote	awareness	approach	consultant	change
30		external	administration	given	rating	beginning	approval	country	children
31		footprint	affairs	goals	recycled	challenges	aware	credit	commerce
32		future	aims	impacts	register	change	biodiversity	cristiana	committed
33		growth	aligned	intention	represented	community	company	development	compact
34		identified	ambitious	manufacture	research	consideration	context	digestive	consequences
35		international	analysts	mapping	score	continuous	disclosure	director	context
36		neutrality	annexes	member	screening	creation	document	economic	corporate
37		objectives	antitrust	mobility	simple	distributed	exercise	edition	culture
38		ratings	approach	nations	social	economy	identification	effervescent	cyber
39		rights	approving	natural	stakeholders	evolution	identified	engagement	diseases
40		social	barbieri	negligible	supply	impacts	inclusion	ethics	edition
41		accessible	behavior	opex	absolute	place	international	expectations	emissions
42		administration	benchmark	outcome	academic	prescriptions	italia	farming	ethics
43		administrative	circuit	output	acceptance	promote	limited	foothills	federation
44		advisory	clear	perspective	accounting	pursue	neutral	generations	fire
45		alternate	combine	pillars	acquisition	recalled	offered	gingerino	footprint
46		analysis	commitment	play	acromegaly	stakeholders	published	identifying	generated
47		benchmark	common	probability	action	supply	purpose	importance	generations
48		body	community	quality	adaptation	achievement	results	inclusive	global
49		carbon	competence	reconfirmation	address	ambassador	significant	induced	goal
50		chain	concentrate	regular	administration	anticipate	specific	industry	green

include the content analysis findings, specifically highlighting keywords and sustainability linkages identified in 210 sustainability papers from 203 organizations across 16 business sectors from Figure 1. The analyzed papers included several types of SRs, given as follows: consolidated non-financial statements, integrated yearly reports, green bond reports, sustainability strategies, and other pertinent company data. The documents were accessible on official websites or sent to the authors upon request.

Fiorini International Italia was the only firm among 203 that did not submit any SR through any accessible means. Of the resources analyzed, 28.00% were solely available in Italian, lacking an English counterpart. This was particularly evident in industries such as Energy, Procurement, and Raw Materials (44.44%), Banking (42.31%), Technology and IT (36.36%), General Services and Insurance (50.00%), Retail, Wholesale, and E-commerce (33.33%), and Chemistry, Pharmaceuticals, Waste Disposal, and Recycling (37.50%). This discovery seems surprising, particularly given the worldwide orientation of several firms that often customize their communication for a more expansive, frequently global, audience.

Figure 2 (left) illustrates the 50 most utilized terms by sustainability leaders in Italy (see Table A1 in the Appendix A for further data). The terms “work, training, sustainability, management, health, environment, energy, employees, development, business, and activity” are prevalent throughout all 16 sectors. Additionally, prevalent terms encompass “safety, risk, people, information, and emissions” (identified in 15 of 16 industries), along with “value, social, and compliance” (14 of 16 sectors). “Economic” is a keyword in 13 of the 16 industries. Simultaneously, the terms “waste, suppliers, process, material, impact, corporate, and board” are prevalent in 12 of 16 sectors. “Service and customer” are prominent in 11 out of 16 sectors, whereas “products, production, governance, and consumption” are significant terms in 10 out of 16 industries.

Figure 2 (right) presents a word cloud including 50 phrases that exhibit a robust association with the terms “sustainability” and “sustainable”, shown by a Pearson’s correlation coefficient of no less than 0.85 (see Table A2 in the Appendix A for further details). The phrases “environment and stakeholders” (present in 10 of 16 sectors), “goal” (9 of 16 industries), “business” (8 of 16 sectors), and “social, financial, economic, company, commitment, climate, change, and Agenda” (7 of 16 industries) represent the most frequently identified linguistic associations. Other noticeable terms in the word cloud include “report, materiality, global, chain, analysis, aligned, and governance.” Additional terminology associated with the cloud includes “ethics, eligible, activity, SDGs, promote, footprint, energy, distributed, corporate, contribute, compact, community, committee, biodiversity, balance, approach, and adaptation.” Perspective-oriented terms such as “mission”, “future”, “challenges”, and “achievement” are infrequent, occurring in just 3 out of 16 sectors.

4.2. Thematic Business Clustering and Sustainable Alignment

The thematic clustering across sixteen corporate sectors identified seven coherent clusters with a common sustainability approach. Keywords and sustainability associations from the SRs of each cluster were subsequently correlated with the relevant SDGs according to their thematic significance.

Table 1. Keywords’ relevance to SDGs across clusters.

Cluster	Industry	SDGs in Focus
		Most Presented	Well Presented	Not Explicitly Addressed
1. Financial and Risk Management	- Banks - General Services and Insurance - Financial Services, Investment Holding, and Asset Management	3, 5, 8, 12, 13	9, 16, 17	1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15
2. Health and Well-being Management	- Beauty, Personal Care, and Healthcare - Catering and Ho.re.ca	3, 8, 12	2, 9, 13, 17	1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16
3. Product-Centric Sustainability	- Finished Products and Consumer Goods - Fashion - Retail, Wholesale and E-commerce	8, 9, 12	10, 13, 17	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16
4. Energy and Waste Management	- Energy, Procurement, and Raw Materials - Industrial Products and Components - Transportation, Logistics, and Automotive Supply Chain - Chemistry, Pharmaceuticals, Waste Disposal, and Recycling	3, 6, 7, 8, 12	9, 13, 17	1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16
5. High-tech Management	- Technology and IT - Telecommunications and Media	7, 8, 12	9, 13, 17	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16
6. Food and Beverages Management	- Food and Beverages	6, 7, 8, 12	2, 9, 11, 13, 17	1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14, 15, 16
7. Engineering and Construction Management	- Engineering and Construction	7, 8, 9, 12	11, 13	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17

Notes: SDGs are based on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, specifically SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequality), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), SDG 15 (Life on Land), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

delineates the industries’ approaches to the different SDGs based on the language employed in their SRs.

Cluster 1: Financial and Risk Management focuses on ESG factors and risk management, encompassing Banks, General Services and Insurance, Financial Services, Investment Holding, and Asset Management (Figure 3, left). Keywords such as “climate, emissions, environment, and initiatives” underscore alignment with SDG 13 and reflect a comprehensive understanding of environmental concerns. “Sustainability, employees, training, and development” corresponds with decent employment and economic growth under SDG 8 and underscores the dedication to ethical corporate practices. Furthermore, acknowledging social ramifications, articulated through terms such as “social, impact, health, safety, women, and men”, aligns with Sustainable Development Goals 3 and 5. Integrating sustainability with corporate principles, corporate responsibility, and company strategy aligns with responsible consumption and production as outlined in SDG 12. “Corporate, business, information, board, support, and investment” signifies SDG 9. The cluster’s focus on “compliance, control, and governance” aligns with SDG 16. The mention of “customers, clients, and stakeholders” as a sign of interconnectedness with the broader ecosystem aligns with the partnerships for SDG 17.

An examination of phrases closely associated with “sustainability” and “sustainable” elucidated other aspects of the cluster’s sustainability strategy (Figure 3, right). ESG, SDGs, and SFDR are intricately connected to the responsible corporate practices outlined in sustainability guidelines. The apparent association between “sustainability” and “report, disclosure, and rating” underscores the need for transparency across all clusters. The terms “financial”, “finance”, and “economic” highlight the relationship between sustainable development and financial strategies.

Cluster 2: Health and Well-being Management emphasizes resource management, employee welfare, and environmental sustainability within the Beauty, Personal Care and Healthcare, and Catering and Ho.re.ca sectors (Figure 4, left). Keywords closely associated with SDG 12 encompass “environment, sustainability, energy, and waste”, signifying a dedication to reducing the ecological footprint of company operations. Workforce development and safety are prioritized under “employees, training, and safety” (SDG 3). Furthermore, the cluster aligns with SDG 9, indicating a growing acknowledgment of the interconnection of supply chains, manufacturing processes, and product creation. “Customer, service, quality, and performance” underscores the importance of fulfilling customer expectations by providing products and services that adhere to high-quality standards (SDG 8). “Suppliers and supply” are referenced in conjunction with “risk, governance, and compliance.” This indicates the significance of a responsible and accountable supply chain, which may denote an emphasis on SDG 17 in conjunction with the preceding phrases. The additional keywords “food, consumption, and catering” for the Catering and Ho.re.ca business emphasize food-related elements, encompassing consumption trends, catering services, and regulatory adherence aligned with SDG 2.

The prevalent utilization of phrases such as “plan, element, ecosystem, and directive” with “sustainability” within sustainability associations indicates a substantial emphasis on meticulous preparation and execution (Figure 4, right). The phrases “reputation, pillars, and materiality” are widely employed, highlighting the need to establish a durable reputation grounded in responsibility and materiality. The phrases “financial, disclosures, certified, and CSRD” emphasize a dedication to openness.

Cluster 3: Product-Centric Sustainability, as denoted by its name, focuses on product-oriented sustainability, environmental stewardship, and staff welfare (Figure 5, left). It encompasses the Finished Products and Consumer Goods, Fashion, Wholesale, and E-commerce sectors. Keyword analysis highlights material selection, waste reduction, and energy efficiency in industrial processes, concentrating on responsible resource utilization (SDG 12). The same SDG is tackled with a significant focus on “consumption, sustainability, and compliance.” Aligned with SDG 8, the terms “training, safety, and health” emphasize a commitment to creating a secure and healthy workplace. Moreover, emphasizing social concerns (“social, people, women, and men”) underscores the significance of diversity and inclusiveness in the workplace, hence mitigating inequality (SDG 10). The mention of “governance, directors, and board” pertains to SDG 17 and signifies an acknowledgment of the necessity for robust leadership and governance frameworks to steer sustainability initiatives. Furthermore, “environment and emissions” align with SDG 13, while “production, process, supply, order, impacts, project, model, stores” connect to SDG 9.

Cluster 3’s sustainability-related terminology (Figure 5, right) reveals a consistent emphasis on “financial, agenda, stakeholders, SDGs, business, brand, and global”, highlighting the importance of stakeholder engagement, alignment with the SDGs, and the integration of sustainability into core business practices while establishing sustainable brand identities. The terms “responsible, priorities, innovative, goals, and plan” underscore a dedication to ethical corporate practices and a forward-thinking, objective-driven strategy for sustainability.

Cluster 4: Energy and Waste Management encompasses the following sectors: Energy, Procurement and Raw Materials, Industrial Products and Components, Transportation, Logistics and Automotive Supply Chain, Chemistry, Pharmaceuticals, Waste Disposal, and Recycling. The keyword analysis (Figure 6, left) indicates that the cluster emphasizes personnel development, energy efficiency, and environmental management. The focus is on reducing environmental effects and safeguarding employee health using phrases such as “environment”, “climate”, “safety”, “risk”, and “emissions”. These objectives are closely linked to Sustainable Development Goals 3, 7, and 13. In adherence to SDGs 6 and 12, emphasis is placed on waste management, water utilization, and product quality. The cluster utilizes the phrases “employees, work, economic, training, social, economic, and stakeholders” to underscore corporate responsibility for equitable employment and economic advancement (SDG 8).

In alignment with SDG 17, the focus on “governance, compliance, stakeholders, board, and control” underscores the importance of stakeholder interests and robust governance structures. Furthermore, the inclusion of “business, development, innovation, production, process, taxonomy, network, and systems” indicates a holistic approach to sustainability that encompasses strategic planning, collaboration, and the optimization of processes in alignment with SDG 9. Sustainable organizations emphasize a progressive methodology that promotes innovation and strategic planning, particularly when phrases such as “innovation”, “strategic”, “mission”, and “efficiency” are significantly associated with “sustainability” (Figure 6, right). “Report and ESG” emphasizes sustainability reporting and compliance with ESG requirements, similar to the preceding clusters.

Cluster 5: High-tech Management. The telecommunications and media sectors, technology, and IT are integrated into the swiftly developing High-Tech Cluster 5. Figure 7 (left) demonstrates the strategic prioritization of environmental responsibility, staff development, and risk management in the study of sustainability documents. The keywords “environment, emissions, energy, waste, economic, consumption, and value” signify an understanding of company operations’ economic and environmental consequences and the necessity for responsible resource utilization, aligning closely with SDGs 7, 12, and 13. The terms “customer, service, suppliers, and stakeholders” illustrate the enduring robust ties that underpin SDG 17. The emphasis on “employees, development, training, safety, health, social, people, and women” underscores the cluster’s dedication to worker welfare, aligning with SDG 8.

Utilizing words such as “digital, governance, corporate, systems, network, and initiatives” in correlation with “sustainability” signifies the comprehension of how technology can facilitate sustainable business practices and the need for effective corporate governance. This corresponds with SDG 9 and exemplifies the cluster’s commitment to sustainable innovation. An examination of sustainability associations (Figure 7, right) corroborates this conclusion, indicating that terms such as “innovation”, “future”, and “technology” are closely linked to “sustainability”, implying a forward-looking strategy for fostering a more sustainable future. There is a significant focus on ethical business practices and corporate environmental responsibility, with terminology such as “company, environmental, nations, goals, and ethics” commonly employed.

The final two clusters are distinct from the rest and encompass only a single industry.

Cluster 6: Food and Beverage Management sustainability documentation indicates a prioritization of environmental sustainability, supply chain management, and product quality (Figure 8, left). The alignment between SDG 12 and the cluster’s dedication to waste minimization, sustainable resource utilization, and emission reduction is evident. Training and occupational health and safety are prioritized, reflecting a commitment to employee welfare and the advancement of SDG 8. Furthermore, emphasizing resource efficiency and minimizing environmental effects, particularly with “water consumption, packaging, and energy”, aligns with Sustainable Development Goals 6 and 7. The phrases “recycled”, “plastic”, and “quality” associated with “sustainability” underscore eco-friendly packaging alternatives and product excellence, reflecting a consciousness of the environmental repercussions of packaging materials (Figure 8, right).

The cluster’s focus on “environment and emissions” corresponds with SDG 13, reflecting a commitment to addressing climate-related challenges (Figure 8, right). The focus on “production, materials, packaging, and energy” promotes industrial innovation and sustainability, therefore promoting SDG 9. Moreover, the recurrent mention of “food” aligns with Sustainable Development Goal 2, which focuses on ensuring food security. SDG 17 underscores the importance of cooperation and partnerships: “support, project, initiatives, stakeholders, and goals.” The phrases “local, farming, integrity, and community”, when associated with “sustainability”, denote a commitment to enhancing local communities and sustainable agricultural practices (SDG 11).

Cluster 7: Engineering and Construction Management sustainability documents highlight the industry’s commitment to risk management, environmental stewardship, and sustainable business practices (Figure 9, left). The sector frequently uses terminology such as “work, safety, health, and employees”, underscoring the need to enhance workplace safety and promote employee development (SDG 8). Social issues are examined, emphasizing their impact on communities and the transparency of information (SDG 11). The cluster’s commitment to sustainable practices under SDG 12 is seen in waste minimization, efficient resource utilization, and educational programs. The environmental effect of building, including emissions and water use, corresponds with Sustainable Development Goals 7 and 13. Cluster 7 acknowledges the significance of sustainable supply chains and the delivery of sustainable services, contributing to SDG 9. The phrases “strategy”, “stakeholders”, and “ESG” are commonly associated with sustainability (Figure 9, right). This underscores the sector’s commitment to developing strategic sustainability programs, engaging stakeholders, and maintaining ESG standards.

5. Discussion

This study was guided by clearly articulated research questions. General findings reveal that companies strategically employ language in SRs to align their sustainability narratives with sector-specific goals, governance frameworks, and stakeholder expectations. This study analyzes SRs using language game theory, offering insights into the dual role of language in SRs as both descriptive and performative, which influences stakeholder perceptions and behaviors within the context of the “language game” of SR.

5.1. RQ. How Do Companies Across Various Sectors Strategically Employ Language in SRs?

The findings indicate that companies across different sectors strategically adapt the language in SRs to meet their respective industries’ specific requirements and objectives. Wittgenstein’s language game theory asserts that language operates according to context-dependent rules that influence interpretation and meaning. In the context of SRs, language serves as a mechanism for corporations to construct narratives that align with their sector’s regulatory environment, risk profiles, and sustainability priorities. For instance, the Financial and Risk Management sector (Cluster 1) uses terminology that underscores compliance, governance, and risk management, employing terms like “compliance”, “risk”, and “governance” to convey a sense of monitoring and accountability. This strategic language selection resonates with stakeholders who prioritize regulatory compliance and stability. In contrast, the Energy and Waste Management sector (Cluster 4) emphasizes terms like “energy”, “emissions”, and “environment”, thereby presenting a narrative of environmental stewardship and efficiency consistent with the sector’s operational focus on pollution control and resource management. The language employed in SRs in each case creates a sector-specific sustainability narrative consistent with the “rules” of the industry’s language game.

5.1.1. Sub-Question RQa. How Does Language in SRs Help Stakeholders Assess Corporate Sustainability Initiatives?

The findings highlight that the language used in SRs serves as a strategic instrument for impression management and is crucial in shaping stakeholders’ perceptions of a company’s commitment to sustainability. Companies can match their sustainability objectives with stakeholder interpretations by articulating sustainability initiatives in sector-relevant language. Language game theory posits that the meaning of words is derived from their application within specific contexts. In this context, SRs serve as communicative frameworks that guide stakeholders’ comprehension of corporate sustainability goals. The language employed in SRs reflects an organization’s sincere and profound commitment to sustainable practices for its stakeholders.

For example, sectors facing substantial regulatory oversight or environmental implications may employ language highlighting transparency and accountability, thereby strengthening a narrative of responsible governance. Nevertheless, this strategic framing can also result in greenwashing, as optimistic rhetoric may mask the real performance gaps, influencing stakeholder views and hiding underlying issues. This strategic language utilization is consistent with impression management theory, which posits that organizations develop SRs to inform and improve their reputation and mitigate risk perceptions.

5.1.2. Sub-Question RQb. How Does Language in SRs Correspond with Current Sustainability Concepts, Including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development?

The results elucidate that the language used in SRs reflects differing levels of alignment with contemporary sustainability frameworks, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Language game theory posits that the use of language within particular social contexts shapes the meaning of terms. This is illustrated by companies selectively emphasizing certain SDGs based on sector relevance and stakeholder expectations. For instance, the Financial and Risk Management sector focuses on SDGs related to governance and economic growth, specifically SDGs 3, 5, 8, 12, and 13. In contrast, the Energy and Waste Management sector often highlights SDGs concerning environmental protection and climate action, specifically SDGs 6, 7, 12, and 13. This selective focus allows each sector to align its sustainability narrative with operational goals while connecting with widely acknowledged globally recognized sustainability concepts.

Additionally, examining SDG coverage in SRs identifies certain shortcomings that require addressing. While specific SDGs, including SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), receive minimal attention from one cluster, others, such as SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), and SDG 15 (Life on Land), are entirely unaddressed. The inconsistency in SDG coverage may be ascribed to several variables, such as stakeholder expectations, company objectives, and the contextual significance of certain SDGs across different sectors.

For instance, SDG 1 may not be a significant priority for Italian enterprises owing to the nation’s relatively low poverty levels. Nonetheless, the inadequate presence of SDGs 4 and 5, emphasizing excellent education and gender equality, is particularly alarming. The SDGs are fundamental to sustainable development since inclusive communities, high-quality education, and gender equality are crucial for fostering innovation, promoting economic growth, and ensuring enduring sustainability. The omission of these SDGs from several sustainability reports indicates that Italian firms may be overlooking the chance to tackle structural challenges such as workforce diversity, educational access, and gender disparities in the workplace. Many firms disclose data for men and women separately; however, these figures frequently do not adequately address gender equality issues. Likewise, while firms often provide information regarding “training”, this does not always indicate a superior level of education or tackle broader educational inequities within the workforce. Thus, the sector-specific focus on different SDGs creates a fragmented sustainability narrative across industries, challenging the comparability of SRs and their effectiveness in addressing the holistic goals of the 2030 Agenda.

The study results emphasize the need for a standardized SR vocabulary to improve the transparency and credibility of sustainability narratives and promote cross-sector comparability. Language is influenced by contextual rules, as demonstrated by language game theory. The current state of SRs hinders the stakeholders’ ability to objectively evaluate and compare sustainability commitments due to enormous variations in standards across industries. Standardizing the SR language would help stakeholders better understand and evaluate the corporate contributions to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by integrating these sector-specific language games into a more consistent framework.

This investigation illustrates that sustainability narratives are strategically aligned with stakeholder expectations, sector-specific agendas, and global sustainability frameworks through SR terminology. The application of language game theory in this investigation improves understanding of the use of language for conveying information and shaping social reality within the realm of business sustainability. This observation highlights the importance of standardized reporting to ensure that sustainability narratives are transparent, comparable, and accurately reflect corporate contributions to sustainable development.

6. Conclusions

This study enhances our understanding of how sector-specific linguistic strategies in SRs shape corporate sustainability narratives to align with governance frameworks and operational objectives. The findings reveal that language in SRs is far from neutral; instead, it is deliberately crafted to reflect each sector’s environment, governance processes, and stakeholder expectations. By strategically using language to highlight achievements and downplay challenges, companies tailor their SRs to create sector-aligned narratives that resonate with stakeholders and meet industry-specific objectives.

6.1. Scholarly Contributions

The study’s insights apply to specific industries and provide a foundation for cross-sector learning and adaptation. Companies in all sectors can benefit from examining how other industries structure their sustainability narratives, learning from approaches that effectively engage stakeholders and reflect authentic sustainability commitments. For instance, sectors less focused on environmental stewardship could adopt some language strategies of the Energy and Waste Management sector to enhance transparency on environmental issues. In contrast, highly regulated industries might adopt practices from the Financial and Risk Management sector to enhance narratives on compliance and governance.

This study contributes to the academic literature by integrating language game theory into the examination of SRs, offering a new lens to understand the strategic use of language in shaping stakeholder perceptions of sustainability. This theoretical application highlights how language in SRs reflects and actively constructs sustainability narratives, aligning with specific governance frameworks and stakeholder priorities. The study demonstrates that sector-specific language strategies are deeply embedded in how companies frame their sustainability initiatives, introducing a new dimension to understanding corporate sustainability beyond conventional metrics.

Additionally, the study’s empirical identification of seven industrial clusters provides evidence of diverse approaches to sustainability, offering a nuanced view of the relationship between governance structures and SR language. This knowledge can inform future research on how language strategies evolve across sectors as they adapt to new sustainability challenges and regulatory requirements. The study also addresses the risk of greenwashing, noting that while optimistic language may temporarily enhance stakeholder perceptions, it risks undermining trust if stakeholders perceive a misalignment between SR narratives and actual corporate practices.

6.2. Practical Implications

The study underscores the need for companies to adopt more transparent and balanced reporting practices. SRs should reflect successes and challenges in sustainability initiatives to build genuine stakeholder trust. Overly optimistic or selective language can erode credibility and compromise stakeholder engagement if perceived as insincere or greenwashing. For companies, this means broadening their SR focus to authentically address social and environmental issues pertinent to the SDGs beyond just the core aspects prioritized in each sector.

Regulatory bodies and standard-setting organizations should establish more stringent SR guidelines to enhance comparability and accountability across sectors. Such standardization would enable stakeholders to assess and compare sustainability performance more effectively, fostering transparency and trust. Policymakers might also mandate that SRs cover a comprehensive set of SDGs, incorporating social themes like education and gender equality alongside environmental goals, thereby promoting a more holistic sustainability framework across industries. This approach will motivate corporations to engage more meaningfully with sustainability concerns that cut across sectors.

Additionally, the findings have substantial implications for corporate governance. SRs are commonly regarded as tools for promoting corporate responsibility and transparency, yet selective language and optimistic framing can reduce their effectiveness. For sectors under significant public scrutiny, such as Energy and Finance, using language to shape stakeholder perceptions—rather than providing a complete picture of sustainability efforts—may compromise the SRs’ value as governance instruments. Companies may miss opportunities to foster sustainable practices and enhance stakeholder engagement by focusing solely on achievements and minimizing challenges.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study is limited to Italian companies, which may restrict the generalizability of its findings to other cultural and regulatory contexts. Italy provides a critical case study due to its established corporate governance frameworks and active engagement in sustainability practices. However, future studies should broaden the scope to examine firms from other regions and assess the consistency of these language strategies in different contexts.

Future research should also explore the evolution of SR language strategies over time. Longitudinal studies could provide valuable insights into how sustainability communication adapts to changing regulations, stakeholder expectations, and emerging sustainability issues. Experimental studies may further examine the impact of various linguistic strategies on stakeholder confidence and perceptions of corporate commitment to sustainability.

Subsequent research could also delve into the tangible impacts of SRs on corporate governance and stakeholder engagement. While this study focused on language use within SRs, future research might examine how SRs influence corporate behavior and stakeholder assessments, thus enriching our understanding of the role of SRs in advancing sustainability within governance practices.