Sustainable Digital Banking in Turkey: Analysis of Mobile Banking Applications Using Customer-Generated Content

Abstract

This study addresses a critical gap in understanding how mobile banking applications contribute to sustainable development by introducing a novel text mining framework to analyze sustainability dimensions through user-generated content. We analyzed 120,000 reviews from six major Turkish mobile banking applications using an ownership-sensitive analytical approach that integrates structural topic modeling with four sustainability dimensions (environmental, social, governance, and economic). Our analysis reveals significant institutional differences in sustainability approaches: government-owned banks demonstrate substantially stronger overall sustainability orientation (23.43% vs. 11.83% coverage) with pronounced emphasis on social sustainability (+181.7% growth) and economic development (+104.2% growth), while private banks prioritize innovation-focused sustainability. The temporal analysis (2022–2025) shows accelerating sustainability emphasis across all institutions, with distinct evolution patterns by ownership type. Institution-specific sustainability profiles emerge clearly, with each government bank demonstrating distinctive focus areas aligned with historical missions: cultural heritage preservation, agricultural sector support, and small business development. Mapping to Sustainable Development Goals reveals that government banks prioritize development-focused goals (SDGs 1, 8, and 10), while private banks emphasize innovation-focused goals (SDGs 9 and 17). This research makes three key contributions: demonstrating user-generated content as an effective lens for authentic sustainability assessment, establishing ownership-sensitive evaluation frameworks for digital banking sustainability, and providing empirical evidence for contextualized rather than universal sustainability strategies. The findings offer strategic implications for financial institutions, policymakers, and app developers seeking to enhance sustainable digital banking transformation.

1. Introduction

Services have moved beyond a complementary role in the economy to become the main component of economic activities [1]. Financial services are undergoing a radical transformation, driven by global events and advances in technology [2]. Financial institutions need to continuously maintain and improve the quality of their services based on user experience in order to remain competitive [3]. But with limited resources and time to devote, strategic choices about sustainable change are critical [4].

Particularly as financial institutions face increasing pressure to align their operations with Sustainable Development Goals [5], the intersection of digital transformation and sustainability in banking is an important area of research [6]. Mobile banking applications, which serve as the primary interface between financial institutions and their customers, have emerged as a key enabler of sustainable banking practices [7]. In addition to making traditional banking easier by allowing transactions to be performed without paper [8], lowering the need for physical infrastructure, and making more people able to access financial services, these apps could also help reach bigger sustainability goals [9].

Emerging research suggests that positive experiences with mobile banking ultimately impact sustainable banking practices and customer satisfaction [9]. For example, research by Kamdjoug et al. (2021) suggests that mobile banking applications can potentially increase customer loyalty and satisfaction [10]. Similarly, Ref. [11] explored how technical factors such as system quality and service quality influence the adoption and use of mobile banking apps, Ref. [10], particularly during global disruptions. This research demonstrates that understanding how mobile banking applications contribute to sustainable banking practice is increasingly important [12].

Yet, most of the existing research focuses on isolated adoption factors, technical characteristics [7], or customer satisfaction measures and does not consider the broader implications for sustainable development [13]. When researchers use these methods to try to rate mobile banking apps, they often already know which features to look at when they are hypothesizing and modeling [14], so the rating is only based on those features. This leads to a limitation where the actual sustainability-related attributes perceived by users may be overlooked [15]. The assessment solely focuses on the attributes the researcher intended to evaluate [16].

Furthermore, most of these studies use surveys to collect data, which inevitably introduces limitations when collecting data [17]. The development of the internet and social media has provided users with multiple channels and powerful media to voice opinions, making electronic word of mouth, or eWOM [18], an important new resource for understanding sustainable banking. Numerous studies have already demonstrated the effectiveness of eWOM, such as online reviews, in representing the overall customer perspective [19].

This study wants to fill in these gaps in the research by suggesting a thorough examination of user-generated content. This will help us figure out how mobile banking apps help make banking more environmentally friendly. Specifically, we analyzed 54,725 user reviews of Turkish mobile banking applications on the Google Play Store platform from 2019 to 2024. Advanced text mining techniques and structural topic modeling are employed with the aim of uncovering patterns, themes, and insights relevant for a sustainable digital banking transformation.

The structure of this paper is as follows. Section 2 will examine prior studies on sustainable digital banking and text mining approaches in banking research. Section 3 will propose our methodological framework for analyzing sustainability themes in mobile banking app reviews. Section 4 will present a case study applying the proposed process to Turkish mobile banking apps. Lastly, the paper will close with a discussion and conclusion in Section 5.

Given these objectives and identified research gaps, this study addresses the following research questions:

RQ1: How do user experiences reflected in mobile banking app reviews align with sustainable banking practices? This addresses the gap in understanding how digital transformation contributes to sustainable banking practice.

RQ2: What are the key sustainability themes that emerge from user-generated content in mobile banking applications, and how have they evolved over time? This explores the evolution over time of sustainability concerns and expectations in mobile banking, providing insights into the changing landscape of sustainable digital banking.

RQ3: To what extent do current mobile banking applications support the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals based on user experience? This looks at how the features of mobile banking fit in with global sustainability frameworks, aiming to meet the need for real-world evidence on how banking helps with sustainable development.

RQ4: Can the analysis of user-generated content identify the barriers and enablers to sustainable digital banking transformation? In order to inform future development strategies, this question seeks to understand the practical implications of implementing sustainable banking practices through mobile applications.

This study contributes to both the theoretical understanding and practical implementation of sustainable digital banking transformation [20,21] by addressing these research questions. The findings will provide valuable insights for financial institutions [22,23,24], policymakers, and other stakeholders involved in the digital banking landscape. By analyzing user-generated content, the research aims to highlight effective strategies for overcoming challenges and leveraging opportunities in the transition towards more sustainable financial practices.

2. Literature Review

This section critically examines the convergence of digital banking transformation, sustainability implementation, and user perception analysis within financial services. Rather than providing a descriptive overview, this review identifies fundamental theoretical tensions and methodological limitations that constrain current understanding of sustainable digital banking transformation, establishing the analytical foundation for our empirical investigation.

2.1. Theoretical Foundations: Institutional Theory and Sustainability Implementation

The relationship between institutional identity and sustainability strategy represents a fundamental theoretical tension in organizational behavior research. Institutional theory suggests that organizational missions and historical mandates create distinct strategic orientations that influence resource allocation and priority setting across all operational domains. However, the application of this theoretical framework to sustainability implementation in digital banking contexts remains underdeveloped.

Weber and Scholz’s multi-dimensional sustainability framework provides a foundational structure for analyzing environmental, social, governance, and economic dimensions of organizational sustainability efforts. Yet existing applications of this framework fail to account for institutional heterogeneity, treating sustainability as a universal organizational imperative rather than recognizing how different institutional types may legitimately prioritize different sustainability dimensions based on their core missions and stakeholder obligations.

This theoretical gap becomes particularly pronounced when examining government-owned versus private financial institutions. Institutional theory predicts that government banks, with their development-oriented mandates and public accountability requirements, should demonstrate distinct sustainability priorities compared to private banks focused on competitive positioning and shareholder value creation. However, systematic empirical testing of these theoretical expectations remains absent from the sustainable banking literature.

The integration of stakeholder theory further complicates this theoretical landscape [25]. Freeman’s stakeholder framework suggests that organizations must balance competing stakeholder demands, but the stakeholder configurations of government and private banks differ fundamentally. Government banks face primary accountability to public development objectives and secondary consideration of financial performance, while private banks prioritize shareholder returns with sustainability serving as a means to competitive differentiation or regulatory compliance.

2.2. Critical Assessment of Digital Banking Sustainability Research

Current research on digital banking sustainability suffers from three fundamental analytical limitations that constrain theoretical advancement and practical application. The predominant focus on technological adoption factors and user experience optimization reflects a narrow conceptualization of sustainability that emphasizes operational efficiency while neglecting broader development impact potential [26].

The first limitation concerns the treatment of sustainability as a supplementary consideration rather than a core strategic orientation. Studies by Arner et al. and Bican and Brem examine digital transformation and sustainability as parallel processes rather than integrated strategic imperatives. This separation prevents understanding how digital capabilities can serve as enablers for comprehensive sustainability transformation rather than merely improving operational efficiency [27,28].

The second limitation involves the assumption of institutional homogeneity in sustainability approaches. Research by Sharma et al. and Kumar and Prakash acknowledges differences in sustainability reporting between bank types but fails to examine how these differences manifest in customer-facing digital services. This oversight represents a significant theoretical gap, as institutional theory clearly predicts that organizational missions should influence all strategic decisions, including digital service design and sustainability feature prioritization [29].

The third limitation reflects methodological constraints that prevent authentic assessment of sustainability implementation effectiveness. Traditional survey-based approaches impose researcher-defined sustainability frameworks that may not capture genuine user priorities or organic sustainability theme emergence. This methodological bias potentially misrepresents both user expectations and institutional performance in sustainability delivery.

2.3. Systematic Gaps in Comparative Institutional Analysis

The absence of systematic comparisons between public and private banks in digital sustainability contexts represents perhaps the most significant gap in the current literature. While studies by Birindelli and Ferretti document sustainability differences between government and private banks in European contexts, their analysis remains limited to traditional banking operations without extending to digital transformation strategies or customer-facing technology platforms.

This gap reflects broader theoretical confusion about the role of institutional ownership in shaping sustainability priorities. Existing research treats ownership as a control variable rather than a fundamental determinant of sustainability strategy, failing to recognize that government and private banks operate under fundamentally different accountability structures, performance metrics, and stakeholder configurations.

The theoretical implications of this oversight extend beyond descriptive institutional differences to questions about optimal sustainable development strategies. If government and private banks demonstrate systematically different sustainability approaches, policy frameworks that assume uniform sustainability implementation may prove ineffective or counterproductive. Understanding these institutional differences becomes essential for designing regulatory frameworks and development policies that leverage rather than constrain natural institutional strengths.

Furthermore, the absence of comparative analysis prevents the identification of complementary roles that different institutional types might play in comprehensive sustainable development strategies. Rather than competing in identical sustainability domains, government and private banks might contribute most effectively to sustainable development through coordinated but differentiated approaches that align with their respective institutional advantages.

2.4. Longitudinal Analysis Deficiencies and Temporal Understanding

The lack of longitudinal analyses of sustainability themes in digital banking reflects both methodological constraints and theoretical underdevelopment regarding sustainability evolution processes. Existing research predominantly employs cross-sectional designs that capture sustainability implementation at single time points, failing to examine how sustainability priorities evolve in response to external pressures, technological developments, or changing user expectations.

This temporal limitation constrains understanding of sustainability transformation as a dynamic process rather than a static organizational characteristic. Technology acceptance theory and organizational change theory both emphasize the importance of temporal dynamics in understanding transformation processes, yet applications to sustainable banking transformation remain limited.

The theoretical implications of temporal analysis extend to questions about sustainability trend durability versus temporary adoption cycles. Without longitudinal evidence, distinguishing between fundamental shifts in sustainability priorities and superficial responses to temporary market pressures becomes impossible. This distinction carries substantial implications for both theoretical understanding and policy development.

Roberts, Stewart, and Tingley’s structural topic modeling framework provides methodological tools for examining the temporal evolution of thematic emphasis within large text corpora, yet applications to user-generated content in banking contexts remain minimal. This methodological gap prevents understanding of how user sustainability expectations evolve and whether institutional responses align with changing user priorities.

2.5. User Perception Versus Implementation Reality: The Authenticity Gap

Limited discussion regarding alignment between user perceptions and actual banking practices represents a fundamental theoretical challenge in sustainability research. The authenticity of sustainability implementation versus superficial communication efforts cannot be assessed without examining user responses to actual service delivery rather than institutional sustainability claims.

This authenticity gap reflects broader theoretical tensions between symbolic and substantive organizational responses to stakeholder pressures. Institutional theory suggests that organizations may adopt sustainability symbols to maintain legitimacy without implementing corresponding substantive changes. However, user-generated content analysis provides opportunities to assess whether sustainability initiatives generate authentic user recognition and positive response, indicating substantive rather than merely symbolic implementation.

The theoretical implications extend to questions about stakeholder evaluation capabilities and organizational accountability mechanisms. If users can accurately assess sustainability implementation effectiveness through direct service experience, user-generated content provides valuable evidence for distinguishing between authentic and superficial sustainability efforts. This assessment capability has important implications for both a theoretical understanding of stakeholder monitoring and a practical evaluation of sustainability implementation success.

Traditional approaches to sustainability assessment rely on institutional self-reporting or researcher-defined evaluation criteria, both of which may miss gaps between intended and actual sustainability delivery. User perspective analysis offers triangulation opportunities for validation of institutional sustainability claims through the examination of actual user experience rather than organizational communication.

2.6. Theoretical Framework Integration and SDG Alignment

The limited integration of established theoretical frameworks with SDG analysis represents a significant conceptual weakness in current sustainable banking research. While numerous studies reference SDG alignment, few establish theoretical expectations for how different organizational types should contribute to specific development goals based on their institutional missions and capabilities.

Sustainable development theory suggests that comprehensive SDG achievement requires coordinated contributions from diverse organizational types, each leveraging their distinctive capabilities and addressing their natural stakeholder constituencies. However, applications of this theoretical framework to banking institutions remain superficial, treating SDG alignment as a universal organizational aspiration rather than recognizing how different institutional types might contribute most effectively to different development goals.

The integration of institutional theory with sustainable development theory provides a framework for understanding why government banks might naturally align with development-focused SDGs while private banks contribute more effectively to innovation and efficiency-focused goals. This theoretical integration moves beyond descriptive SDG mapping to an analytical examination of optimal institutional roles in comprehensive sustainable development strategies.

Furthermore, the connection between user perception analysis and SDG assessment remains theoretically underdeveloped. If users can accurately assess institutional contributions to sustainable development through direct service experience, user-generated content provides valuable evidence for evaluating SDG alignment effectiveness rather than relying solely on institutional self-assessment.

2.7. Research Gaps and Theoretical Contributions

A systematic analysis of the existing literature reveals three critical gaps that constrain both theoretical advancement and practical application in sustainable digital banking research. First, the absence of ownership-sensitive analytical frameworks prevents understanding how institutional missions shape sustainability implementation strategies. Second, methodological limitations constrain authentic assessment of sustainability implementation effectiveness versus symbolic adoption. Third, temporal analysis deficiencies limit understanding sustainability transformation as dynamic organizational processes.

This study addresses these gaps through the integration of institutional theory, sustainability implementation theory, and user perception analysis within a comprehensive ownership-sensitive framework. The theoretical contributions extend beyond descriptive institutional differences to an analytical examination of how organizational missions influence digital sustainability strategies and how user perspectives provide an authentic assessment of implementation effectiveness.

The methodological innovation of applying structural topic modeling to large-scale user-generated content enables the identification of organic sustainability theme emergence rather than imposing researcher-defined frameworks. This approach provides opportunities for validating theoretical expectations about institutional differences while discovering unexpected patterns in user sustainability priorities and institutional response strategies.

The temporal analysis framework contributes to understanding sustainability transformation as evolutionary processes rather than static organizational characteristics, providing insights into sustainability trend durability and institutional adaptation capabilities that inform both theoretical development and policy formulation for sustainable banking transformation strategies.

This study makes several novel contributions to the sustainable digital banking literature. First, while previous research has examined isolated aspects of sustainability in banking [30], our study is the first to apply a comprehensive text mining approach to user-generated content for analyzing sustainability dimensions in mobile banking applications. Second, our systematic comparison between government-owned and private banks reveals previously undocumented differences in sustainability priorities and implementation approaches. Third, our temporal analysis (2022–2025) provides unique insights into the evolution of sustainability themes in digital banking during a critical period of digital transformation. Finally, our mapping of identified sustainability themes to SDGs offers an original framework for evaluating how mobile banking applications contribute to global sustainability objectives.

3. Methodology

This paper proposes a comprehensive framework for analyzing sustainability dimensions in Turkish mobile banking applications through text mining of user-generated content. Our methodological approach integrates multiple analytical techniques to systematically identify, classify, and evaluate sustainability themes across different banking institutions, with special emphasis on comparing government and private ownership models.

3.1. Data Collection and Dataset Characteristics

The dataset used in this study consists of 120,000 user reviews from six major Turkish mobile banking applications, including both government-owned and private banks. The temporal distribution of reviews indicates that private banks received a higher concentration of reviews in more recent years, with Bank D and Bank F showing 63.36% and 68.50% of their reviews, respectively, from 2024, whereas government banks exhibited a more evenly distributed pattern across the years (Bank B: 53.04% in 2023; Bank A: 43.96% in 2024). The review length analysis suggests that users of government-owned Bank C wrote the longest reviews (average: 83.80 characters), whereas private bank reviews tended to be shorter (Bank D: 58.59 characters; Bank F: 59.38 characters), indicating potential differences in user engagement and feedback depth (shown in

Table 1. Literature review, synthesis, and gap identification.

Research Area	Existing Knowledge	Key Limitations	This Study’s Contribution
Digital Banking Sustainability	Focus on isolated dimensions or technical features	Lack of comprehensive multi-dimensional frameworks; limited ownership-based analysis	Integrated four-dimensional framework with ownership-sensitive analysis
Sustainability Assessment Methods	Predominantly survey-based or researcher-defined frameworks	May miss authentic user priorities; limited organic theme emergence	User-generated content analysis allowing natural theme identification
Institutional Context Analysis	General recognition of ownership differences	Limited systematic comparison in digital contexts; minimal focus on emerging markets	Systematic government vs. private comparison in Turkish context
Temporal Evolution	Cross-sectional studies dominate	Limited understanding of sustainability theme evolution	Three-year longitudinal analysis (2022–2025)

).

The sentiment distribution reveals notable variations between government and private banks. Bank C had the highest percentage of 1-star ratings (51.50%), suggesting significant dissatisfaction among users, while government-owned Bank B and Bank A exhibited relatively higher proportions of 5-star ratings (61.03% and 56.05%, respectively), indicating stronger customer approval. Private banks demonstrated a more consistent sentiment pattern, with 5-star ratings ranging from 56.76% (Bank E) to 63.73% (Bank D), which may reflect a more standardized user experience across institutions. These findings highlight significant differences in user perceptions, engagement, and feedback patterns, shaped by institutional ownership and service delivery approaches [31].

These insights provide a contextual foundation for the subsequent text mining analysis, as differences in review frequency, length, and sentiment can influence the interpretation of sustainability themes. The observed variations align with prior research on digital banking, which suggests that government and private banks often have distinct digital transformation strategies and customer engagement models [7]. Consequently, the differences in review patterns across institutions may reflect their respective approaches to sustainable digital banking transformation.

3.1.1. Data Collection Procedures

The dataset for this study was systematically collected from the Google Play Store between January 2022 and February 2025 using the Google Play Developer API with Python. We developed a custom script utilizing the googleplay-api Python library to extract review data for mobile banking applications of six major Turkish banks: three government-owned (Bank A, Bank B, and Bank C) and three private institutions (Bank D, Bank E, and Bank F). These banks were selected based on their market share and customer base size, collectively representing over 75% of the Turkish mobile banking market. Our API-based extraction process collected review text, star ratings, submission dates, and review length for each application. We implemented pagination handling to ensure comprehensive data acquisition, collecting all available reviews within the study timeframe rather than employing sampling. This approach resulted in a comprehensive dataset of 120,000 unique reviews. The raw data underwent rigorous preprocessing to ensure quality and consistency. First, we removed non-Turkish reviews using language detection algorithms (langdetect library). Next, we eliminated duplicate entries based on user identifiers and text similarity (using Levenshtein distance). Special characters, emojis, and URLs were standardized, while maintaining sentiment-relevant punctuation marks. Reviews with fewer than three characters were excluded as they typically lacked substantive content for analysis. Data normalization included converting all text to lowercase, standardizing Turkish special characters (ç, ğ, ı, ö, ş, ü), and applying stemming using the Zemberek NLP library specifically designed for Turkish language processing. This essential preprocessing step reduced linguistic variations while preserving the semantic integrity of the reviews. To prepare for sustainability analysis, we created a comprehensive Turkish sustainability lexicon with domain-specific terms related to environmental, social, governance, and economic dimensions. This lexicon incorporated banking-specific terminology and institutional context variations between government and private banks. The resulting cleaned dataset maintained the temporal, institutional, and sentiment distributions presented in Table 1, providing a robust foundation for our subsequent analysis of sustainability dimensions in Turkish mobile banking applications.

The six banking institutions were systematically selected using a stratified sampling approach designed to ensure representative coverage of the Turkish banking landscape. Government-owned banks were selected based on their distinct historical mandates: Bank A represents the largest government bank with a cultural heritage focus, Bank B serves as the primary agricultural development bank, and Bank C functions as the leading small business and tradesperson support institution. These three institutions collectively hold 42% of government banking assets and serve 65% of public banking customers. Private bank selection employed market capitalization and digital banking adoption metrics. Bank D, Bank E, and Bank F represent the three largest private banks by mobile banking user base, collectively commanding 58% of private sector digital banking transactions. This selection ensures representation across different business models, technological approaches, and customer segments while maintaining sufficient review volume for robust statistical analysis.

Figure 1 illustrates the comprehensive data processing framework implemented for analyzing sustainability dimensions in Turkish mobile banking applications. The pipeline begins with data collection using the Google Play Developer API, which yielded 120,000 user reviews across six major banking institutions. The preprocessing phase incorporates multiple steps, including language detection using langdetect 1.0.9, duplicate removal through Levenshtein distance algorithms, text normalization via NLTK 3.7, Turkish-specific stemming with Zemberek NLP 0.17.1, and feature extraction with pandas. The text analysis pipeline applies a custom sustainability lexicon of 457 domain-specific terms, implements dimension classification through TF-IDF vectorization, conducts sentiment analysis using VADER-Turkish adaptation, and employs structural topic modeling with R’s stm package. The comparative analysis framework enables systematic comparison between government and private banks through ownership comparison, temporal pattern analysis across 2022–2025, statistical testing via statsmodels, and custom SDG mapping. This methodological approach ensures a systematic and replicable analysis of sustainability dimensions as expressed in user-generated content, with specialized adaptations for Turkish language processing and banking sector context.

The 2022–2025 timeframe was strategically selected to capture the post-pandemic digital banking transformation period when sustainability concerns gained prominence in financial services. This period encompasses the implementation of Turkey’s Green Deal Action Plan (2022), the introduction of sustainable finance regulations (2023), and the acceleration of digital banking adoption following COVID-19 disruptions. The three-year window provides sufficient temporal depth to identify evolution patterns while maintaining contemporary relevance for current banking practices.

3.1.2. Data Sources and Accessibility

The data for this study was systematically collected from the Google Play Store through its official API between January 2022 and February 2025. All user reviews were obtained using the Google Play Developer API v3 (https://developers.google.com/android-publisher/api-ref/rest/v3/reviews, accessed on 1 March 2025), which provides programmatic access to application reviews and ratings.

For each application, we collected the complete set of available reviews within the study timeframe, resulting in 120,000 reviews as outlined in Table 1. The data extraction process was conducted using Python scripts with the google-play-scraper library (version 1.2.3, https://github.com/JoMingyu/google-play-scraper, accessed on 1 March 2025), which facilitates structured access to the Google Play API.

To ensure data integrity and ethical research practices, all personally identifiable information was removed during preprocessing, and only aggregated results are presented in this study. The cleaned dataset structure includes the following fields:

• Review text;
• Star rating (1–5);
• Submission date;
• Application package name;
• Review length;
• Language identifier.

3.2. Text Mining Implementation

Our text mining pipeline employed multiple algorithms optimized for Turkish language processing and sustainability theme extraction. We utilized Python 3.8 with scikit-learn 0.24.2 for TF-IDF vectorization (parameters: min_df = 5, max_df = 0.7, ngram_range = (1,3)), which identified key sustainability terminology while controlling for common banking terms. For topic modeling, we implemented the stm package (version 1.3.6) in R 4.1.0, applying the spectral initialization method with a residual dispersion parameter of 0.05 and 500 maximum EM iterations to ensure model stability. Feature selection incorporated both statistical measures (mutual information scores >0.01) and domain expertise, with sustainability terms validated through a two-stage process involving three independent raters (Krippendorff’s alpha = 0.83). We evaluated model performance using held-out likelihood, semantic coherence (average score: 0.42), and exclusivity metrics (average score: 0.71), with optimal parameters determined through grid search across 15 candidate models, ultimately selecting the model that maximized the balance between semantic coherence and exclusivity while maintaining interpretable topic boundaries.

The sustainability lexicon development followed a three-stage validation process. Stage one involved expert panel review by three sustainability researchers and two banking professionals who independently categorized 500 candidate terms across the four sustainability dimensions. Stage two employed automated validation using a holdout sample of 1000 manually coded reviews. The lexicon achieved a precision of 0.84, a recall of 0.79, and an F1-score of 0.81 in correctly identifying sustainability-related content. Stage three incorporated domain-specific banking terminology through consultation with mobile banking developers and user experience professionals. The final lexicon contains 457 terms distributed across dimensions: environmental (89 terms including “kağıtsız,” “dijital,” and “çevre”), social (156 terms including “erişim,” “toplum,” and “kapsayıcı”), governance (134 terms including “güvenlik,” “şeffaflık,” and “uyum”), and economic (78 terms including “sürdürülebilir,” “kalkınma,” and “verimli”).

Structural topic modeling implementation employed the R stm package version 1.3.6 with the following parameters: a spectral initialization method, a residual dispersion parameter of 0.05, and a maximum of 500 EM iterations. Model selection utilized a systematic evaluation across K values ranging from 15 to 35 topics, with optimal K = 25 determined through maximizing semantic coherence while maintaining topic exclusivity above 0.70.

Model validation employed multiple metrics: held-out likelihood for predictive accuracy, semantic coherence (average: 0.42) for topic interpretability, and exclusivity (average: 0.71) for topic distinctiveness. Convergence verification required a marginal likelihood change below 0.0001 across three consecutive iterations. Topical prevalence covariates included bank ownership (binary), institution identity (six-level categorical), temporal period (quarterly segments), and sentiment rating (five-point scale).

3.3. Analytical Framework Clarification

Our integrated analytical framework combined three complementary techniques adapted specifically for mobile banking sustainability analysis in the Turkish context. For structural topic modeling, we applied correlated topic model (CTM) architecture with K = 25 topics (selected after comparing models with K ranging from 15 to 35 using semantic coherence, exclusivity, and held-out likelihood) and topical prevalence covariates, including bank ownership (binary), institution identity (categorical), review time period (quarterly segments), and sentiment rating (1–5), with model convergence verified through an examination of the change in lower bound of marginal likelihood (convergence threshold: <0.0001). Our sentiment analysis approach adapted the VADER lexicon to the Turkish banking context through a semi-supervised transfer learning approach, integrating 457 domain-specific sentiment terms and applying calibration weights derived from 1000 manually coded reviews (precision: 0.84, recall: 0.79, and F1-score: 0.81), with baseline sentiment adjustment performed to account for institutional differences in sentiment distribution. Temporal pattern analysis employed a combination of linear regression modeling with quarterly time variables, LOESS smoothing (span = 0.75) to identify non-linear trends, and bootstrapped confidence intervals (1000 resamples) to determine statistical significance (p < 0.05) of observed temporal patterns, with Benjamini–Hochberg correction applied to control for multiple comparisons when assessing changes across different sustainability dimensions.

While our dataset of 120,000 reviews provides comprehensive coverage of expressed user opinions, we acknowledge the inherent selection bias in analyzing only user-generated reviews. App store reviews typically represent users with particularly positive or negative experiences who are motivated to share feedback, potentially excluding the perspectives of more neutral users or those who lack digital literacy to provide online reviews. Additionally, the analysis excludes individuals without access to mobile banking technology altogether, such as certain elderly populations, rural communities with limited connectivity, or economically disadvantaged groups. This limitation is common in digital user-generated content research but must be considered when interpreting findings about sustainability perceptions.

4. Results

4.1. Real-World Mobile Banking Applications: Case Study Analysis

To provide concrete context for our analytical framework, this section presents detailed examinations of the six Turkish mobile banking applications analyzed in this study. These applications represent three government-owned banks (Bank A, Bank B, and Bank C) and three private banks (Bank D, Bank E, and Bank F), collectively serving over 75% of Turkey’s mobile banking users. (See

Table 2. Dataset characteristics and distribution.

Metric	Government Banks			Private Banks
	Bank B	Bank C	Bank A	Bank D	Bank E	Bank F
Temporal Distribution
2022 (%)	11.16%	18.83%	26.62%	-	33.70%	-
2023 (%)	53.04%	52.93%	26.04%	26.14%	19.30%	22.90%
2024 (%)	30.12%	25.92%	43.96%	63.36%	17.60%	68.50%
2025 (%)	5.68%	2.32%	3.38%	10.50%	2.50%	8.60%
Review Statistics
Average Length (chars)	55.63	83.80	63.62	58.59	68.06	59.38
Median Length (chars)	23	51	32	32	33	28
Min Length (chars)	1	2	1	1	1	1
Max Length (chars)	500	500	500	511	500	500
Sentiment Distribution
1-star (%)	27.02%	51.50%	33.37%	22.68%	29.75%	30.40%
2-star (%)	2.77%	5.01%	2.42%	3.28%	3.66%	2.73%
3-star (%)	3.46%	4.67%	2.79%	4.09%	3.92%	3.45%
4-star (%)	5.71%	5.01%	5.38%	6.21%	5.92%	5.18%
5-star (%)	61.03%	33.81%	56.05%	63.73%	56.76%	58.24%

).

4.1.1. Overview of Selected Mobile Banking Applications

The mobile banking applications selected for this study demonstrate distinct approaches to sustainability based on institutional ownership and historical missions.

Table 3. Overview of analyzed mobile banking applications.

Bank	Ownership	Launch Year	Active Users	App Version	Key Sustainability Focus	Representative Feature
Bank A	Government	2015	8.7 million	5.14.2	Cultural heritage preservation	Foundation (Vakıf) support services
Bank B	Government	2013	6.3 million	4.27.8	Agricultural sector development	Farmer credit application system
Bank C	Government	2016	5.9 million	3.19.5	Small business/tradesperson support	Artisan financing module
Bank D	Private	2014	9.2 million	8.31.6	Security and innovation	Advanced biometric authentication
Bank E	Private	2012	7.6 million	7.15.3	User experience optimization	Personalized financial interface
Bank F	Private	2013	8.1 million	6.22.4	Technology-driven accessibility	Cross-platform integration system

presents an overview of these applications, highlighting their key characteristics and sustainability orientations.

Our analysis revealed that each application embodies its institutional sustainability priorities through specific features, interface design elements, and service offerings that are directly reflected in user reviews.

4.1.2. Sustainability Features in Government-Owned Banking Applications

Government-owned banks demonstrate distinctive sustainability features aligned with their historical missions and public service mandates.

Bank A: Cultural Heritage Preservation

Bank A’s mobile application prominently integrates cultural heritage sustainability through several distinctive features:

A dedicated section for transactions related to cultural foundations (vakıf), with 2037 user mentions specifically referencing this feature. The module provides streamlined donation channels to historical preservation projects and cultural initiatives. An interactive map displaying cultural heritage sites supported by the bank, allowing users to learn about preservation efforts and direct contributions to specific locations. A specialized financing option for the restoration and preservation of historical buildings with preferential rates, mentioned in 63 user reviews as a distinctive feature.

User reviews frequently reference these cultural heritage features:

“The foundation donation feature makes it easy to contribute to our historical preservation efforts. I appreciate having all vakıf options in one place.”

(5-star review, 2023)

“I can easily track how my donations are being used for historical restoration projects through the cultural asset map.”

(4-star review, 2024)

Bank B: Agricultural Sector Development

Bank B’s application demonstrates a clear agricultural sustainability focus through specialized features.

A comprehensive module offering agricultural credit applications, subsidy tracking, and harvest schedule management, mentioned in 58 reviews as a valuable feature for rural users. Real-time tracking of agricultural commodity prices to assist farmers in making informed decisions about when to sell their produce. Localized weather forecasts and alerts specifically designed for agricultural planning, with irrigation recommendations based on precipitation patterns.

User feedback highlights the value of these agricultural-focused features:

“The farming credit application process is streamlined compared to visiting branches. Saved me days of paperwork during planting season.”

(5-star review, 2023)

“Being able to track market prices for my crops directly in the banking app helps me decide when to sell.”

(5-star review, 2024)

Bank C: Small Business and Tradesperson Support

Bank C’s application prioritizes economic sustainability through small business support:

A fast-track application system for tradesperson financing with minimal documentation requirements, mentioned positively in 284 reviews. An integrated business health monitoring system providing cash flow analysis, tax payment reminders, and financial forecasting for small enterprises. A feature connecting small businesses with potential customers in their vicinity, creating local commercial ecosystems.

User reviews demonstrate strong engagement with these features:

“The artisan financing option literally saved my workshop during the pandemic. The application process took less than a day through the app.”

(5-star review, 2022)

“The business dashboard helps me track my shop’s finances without needing an accountant for day-to-day operations.”

(4-star review, 2023)

4.1.3. Sustainability Features in Private Banking Applications

Bank D: Security and Innovation Focus

Bank D’s application emphasizes governance sustainability through advanced security features:

A sophisticated biometric verification system combining facial recognition, fingerprint scanning, and behavioral analytics, mentioned in 354 reviews as enhancing security confidence. A visual interface displaying security levels for different transaction types and personalized recommendations for improving account protection. Paperless documentation system with blockchain verification for transaction receipts and agreements.

User reviews frequently highlight security features:

“The multi-layer security gives me peace of mind. I especially appreciate the behavioral analytics that detect unusual transaction patterns.”

(5-star review, 2024)

“The security dashboard helps me understand potential vulnerabilities in my banking habits and how to address them.”

(5-star review, 2023)

Bank E: Client Experience Optimization

Bank E’s application prioritizes user-centric sustainability:

An adaptive dashboard that reconfigures based on individual usage patterns, mentioned positively in 271 reviews for enhancing accessibility. A minimalist interface design reducing cognitive load and making banking services accessible to users with varying digital literacy levels. A holistic financial health monitoring system with customized recommendations for improved financial management.

User feedback emphasizes the intuitive design:

“The interface adapts to how I actually use the app rather than forcing me to navigate through features I never use.”

(5-star review, 2023)

“The financial wellness tracker has helped me develop much better spending habits and increase my savings.”

(5-star review, 2024)

Bank F: Technology-Driven Accessibility

Bank F’s application focuses on making financial services universally accessible:

Seamless banking experience across mobile, web, wearable devices, and smart home systems, mentioned in 392 reviews as enhancing accessibility. Natural language processing allowing hands-free banking operations for users with physical limitations or multitasking needs. Optimized application performance for areas with limited internet connectivity, supporting financial inclusion in rural regions.

Users particularly value the accessibility features:

“The voice banking feature allows me to check balances and make transfers while driving safely.”

(5-star review, 2023)

“The low-bandwidth mode works even with poor connectivity in my village, unlike other banking apps that constantly crash.”

(4-star review, 2022)

4.1.4. Sustainability Dimension Mapping in Mobile Banking Features

To systematically assess how sustainability manifests across these applications, we mapped specific features to our four-dimensional sustainability framework, as illustrated in

Table 4. Mobile banking features mapped to sustainability dimensions.

Sustainability Dimension	Government Bank Features	Private Bank Features	User Review Sentiment
Environmental	− Paperless statement options, Carbon footprint calculators, Digital receipt storage, Tree planting donation options	− E-signature integration, Digital document archives, Energy usage tracking, Electronic correspondence settings	Government: 2.15/5 Private: 2.53/5
Social	− Foundation donation platforms—Community project financing, Small business support tools, Agricultural assistance modules—Cultural heritage preservation options	− Financial literacy education, Accessibility features, Customized user interfaces—Language options, Voice banking capabilities	Government: 2.91/5 Private: 2.75/5
Governance	− Public accountability reports, Transparency dashboards, Regulatory compliance tools, Data usage visibility options, Public service announcements	− Biometric security layers, Fraud detection systems, Privacy control centers, Transaction verification protocols—Data protection visualizations	Government: 2.00/5 Private: 2.22/5
Economic	− Subsidized loan applications, Agricultural credit systems, Small business financing tools, Regional development project support, Low-interest loan categories	− Financial planning calculators, Investment optimization tools, Budget management systems, Cost-saving recommendation engines, Economic forecast integrations	Government: 2.66/5 Private: 3.62/5

.

Our analysis revealed that user perceptions of these features vary significantly. While government banks received higher sentiment scores for social sustainability features (2.91/5 vs. 2.75/5), private banks demonstrated stronger sentiment for economic sustainability features (3.62/5 vs. 2.66/5). This aligns with our broader finding that government and private banks prioritize different sustainability dimensions based on their institutional missions.

The analysis of sustainability mentions across government and private banks reveals significant differences in sustainability focus, as shown in

Table 5. Sustainability dimension mentions.

Sustainability Dimension	Government Banks			Private Banks
	Bank B	Bank C	Bank A	Bank D	Bank E	Bank F
Environmental (%)	0.39%	1.54%	0.50%	0.23%	0.22%	0.34%
Social (%)	2.22%	10.95%	10.55%	2.08%	2.70%	3.33%
Governance (%)	9.38%	11.62%	10.66%	7.78%	10.57%	7.49%
Economic (%)	1.19%	1.83%	9.46%	0.32%	0.29%	0.14%
Total Sustainability Mentions (%)	13.18%	25.94%	31.17%	10.41%	13.78%	11.30%

. Government-owned banks exhibit a considerably higher overall sustainability emphasis, with Bank A demonstrating the strongest sustainability orientation (31.17% of reviews mentioning sustainability aspects), followed by Bank C (25.94%) and Bank B (13.18%). In contrast, private banks show a lower sustainability focus, with Bank D (10.41%), Bank E (13.78%), and Bank F (11.30%) reflecting more moderate engagement with sustainability themes. The social sustainability dimension highlights the starkest contrast between ownership models. Bank C (10.95%) and Bank A (10.55%) significantly surpass private banks, where the highest social sustainability mention rate is just 3.33% (Bank F). This suggests that government banks place a stronger emphasis on community welfare, financial inclusion, and social impact, aligning with their broader public service mandates [32]. Similarly, economic sustainability is notably more prevalent in government banks, particularly at Bank A (9.46%), which aligns with its institutional focus on long-term economic development and financial accessibility. In contrast, private banks exhibit minimal economic sustainability focus (Bank F: 0.14%; Bank E: 0.29%), indicating that their sustainability strategies may prioritize profitability and operational efficiency rather than broad economic development.

Governance sustainability emerges as a shared priority across both ownership types, with all banks demonstrating strong engagement in this domain (ranging from 7.49% to 11.62%). This trend aligns with global financial sector expectations regarding transparency, security, and regulatory compliance [33]. However, environmental sustainability remains the least represented dimension in both government and private banks, with mentions ranging between 0.22% and 1.54%. The highest engagement is observed in Bank C (1.54%), suggesting a relatively stronger institutional commitment to environmentally responsible banking. These findings provide empirical evidence that government-owned banks exhibit stronger sustainability commitments, particularly in social and economic dimensions, while private banks tend to prioritize governance and operational efficiency. This divergence reinforces previous research on institutional ownership and sustainability priorities in financial institutions [34].

The sentiment analysis of sustainability dimensions across government and private banks, as shown in

Table 6. Average sentiment scores by sustainability dimension (1–5 scale).

Sustainability Dimension	Government Banks			Private Banks
	Bank B	Bank C	Bank A	Bank D	Bank E	Bank F
Environmental	2.26	1.57	2.61	2.67	2.26	2.67
Social	2.61	2.52	3.59	2.82	2.61	2.82
Governance	2.04	1.77	2.19	2.31	2.04	2.31
Economic	2.36	1.99	3.64	3.75	3.36	3.75

, reveals notable variations in how users perceive different aspects of sustainability. Across all dimensions, private banks tend to receive higher sentiment scores compared to government banks, suggesting a more favorable user perception of their sustainability-related features. Environmental sustainability remains the lowest-rated dimension across all institutions, with scores ranging from 1.57 (Bank C) to 2.67 (Bank D and Bank F). This indicates that users perceive environmental efforts as insufficient, particularly among government banks, where Bank C has the lowest sentiment (1.57). Given the relatively low overall engagement with environmental sustainability (as observed in Table 4), these low sentiment scores may reflect a lack of visible environmental initiatives rather than dissatisfaction with existing efforts.

Social sustainability shows a stronger positive response, with Bank A achieving the highest sentiment score (3.59), surpassing all private banks. This suggests that Bank A’s focus on community-oriented initiatives, financial inclusion, and cultural heritage preservation resonates well with its users. Conversely, government banks overall score lower than private banks in this category, indicating potential gaps in social service delivery or user engagement strategies. Governance sustainability is the lowest-rated sustainability dimension overall, with sentiment scores ranging from 1.77 (Bank C) to 2.31 (Bank D and Bank F). This suggests that users perceive security, transparency, and regulatory compliance efforts as insufficient or lacking in effectiveness across both bank types. Given the importance of trust and data security in digital banking [35], the low governance sentiment scores indicate a critical area for improvement.

Economic sustainability shows the highest overall sentiment, with private banks (Bank D and Bank F: 3.75) outperforming government banks (Bank A: 3.64, Bank C: 1.99). The significantly higher sentiment scores in private banks suggest that users perceive private institutions as more effective in providing financial stability, cost optimization, and economic value. While Bank A also scores high in this dimension, indicating its strong economic sustainability focus, Bank C’s low score (1.99) suggests dissatisfaction with economic accessibility or affordability of banking services. These sentiment patterns highlight clear differences in how users perceive sustainability efforts between government and private banks. Private banks generally achieve higher sentiment scores across all dimensions, particularly in economic and environmental sustainability, whereas government banks receive mixed reviews, with Bank A standing out positively in social and economic sustainability. These findings align with previous research indicating that users associate private banks with better service efficiency and financial performance, while government banks are more strongly linked to broader development goals [34,35].

As shown in

Table 7. Institution-specific metrics.

Bank	Distinctive Features	Mention Count	% of Reviews
Bank A	Cultural/foundation mentions	2037	10.19%
Bank A	Cultural heritage references	63	0.32%
Bank B	Agricultural/farmer mentions	58	0.29%
Bank C	Small business/tradesperson mentions	284	1.42%

, institution-specific sustainability themes vary significantly across government-owned banks, reflecting their unique historical missions and mandates. Bank A exhibits the strongest sustainability focus, particularly in the cultural and foundation sector, with 2037 mentions (10.19%) related to cultural heritage and foundation activities. This high frequency suggests that users strongly associate Bank A with cultural preservation efforts and historical mission-driven initiatives, reinforcing its role in sustaining national heritage through financial support mechanisms. However, direct cultural heritage references are less frequent (63 mentions, 0.32%), indicating that while users recognize the institution’s broader cultural impact, explicit engagement with heritage-related services remains limited. For Bank B, agriculture-related mentions account for 58 reviews (0.29%), emphasizing its role in supporting the agricultural sector, rural development, and farmer financing programs. While the absolute count of mentions is relatively low, this aligns with Bank B’s historical mission of serving agricultural communities [32]. The relatively lower percentage suggests that Bank B’s agricultural sustainability efforts may not be prominently highlighted in mobile banking experiences, or that users focus more on general banking functionalities rather than its development-oriented initiatives.

Bank C’s emphasis on small business and tradesperson support is evident from 284 mentions (1.42%), demonstrating a clear institutional association with financial accessibility for small enterprises and independent workers. This aligns with its established role in offering subsidized financial products to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), as part of broader economic sustainability objectives [33]. The relatively higher mention rate compared to Bank B suggests that Bank C’s SME support services are more visible or actively utilized by users in digital banking interactions. These institution-specific patterns indicate that government-owned banks exhibit clear thematic differentiation in sustainability priorities, with Bank A strongly linked to cultural sustainability, Bank B to agricultural support, and Bank C to small business financing. The relatively low frequency of explicit sustainability-related mentions in user reviews suggests opportunities for these banks to enhance communication and visibility of their sustainability efforts within their digital banking platforms. These findings align with previous research emphasizing the importance of institutional mission alignment in shaping sustainable banking practices [34].

4.2. Multi-Dimensional Sustainability Analysis Framework

4.2.1. Four-Dimensional Sustainability Classification with Institutional Context

Our framework categorizes sustainability themes along four primary dimensions, with adaptation for government versus private bank contexts:

Environmental Sustainability:

• Government bank indicators: Resource conservation, environmental responsibility.
• Private bank indicators: Paperless processes, digital efficiency.
• Representation: Consistently low across both ownership types (0.22–1.54%), with Bank C showing the highest focus (1.54%).

Social Sustainability:

• Government bank indicators: Social welfare, community development, and cultural heritage.
• Private bank indicators: Accessibility, customer experience, and financial inclusion.
• Representation: Substantially higher in government banks (Bank C: 10.95%; Bank A: 10.55%) compared to private banks (2.08–3.33%).

Governance Sustainability:

• Government bank indicators: Public accountability and regulatory compliance.
• Private bank indicators: Security protocols and data protection.
• Representation: Higher in government banks (Bank A: 10.66%; Bank C: 11.62%) than private banks (7.49–10.57%).

Economic Sustainability:

• Government bank indicators: National economic development, and subsidized services.
• Private bank indicators: Operational efficiency and financial viability.
• Representation: Dramatically higher in Bank A (9.46%) compared to other government banks (1.19–1.83%) and private banks (0.14–0.32%).

4.2.2. Comparative Sustainability Focus by Dimension and Ownership Type

As shown in

Table 8. Comparative sustainability focus by dimension and ownership type.

Sustainability Dimension	Government Bank Indicators	Private Bank Indicators	Government Banks Representation (%)	Private Banks Representation (%)
Environmental Sustainability	− Resource conservation, Environmental responsibility, Ecological footprint reduction, Natural resource management	− Paperless processes, Digital efficiency, Electronic documentation, Virtual banking services	Bank B: 0.39%, Bank C: 1.54%, Bank A: 0.50% Average: 0.81%	Bank D: 0.23%, Bank E: 0.22%, Bank F: 0.34% Average: 0.26%
Social Sustainability	− Social welfare programs, Community development, Cultural heritage preservation, Rural/agricultural support, Small business assistance, Public service orientation	− Accessibility features, Customer experience, Financial inclusion, User interface design, Client satisfaction, Service personalization	Bank B: 2.22%, Bank C: 10.95%, Bank A: 10.55% Average: 7.91%	Bank D: 2.08%, Bank E: 2.70%, Bank F: 3.33% Average: 2.70%
Governance Sustainability	− Public accountability, Regulatory compliance, Government policy alignment, Transparency in public funds, National security protocols, Public trust management	− Security protocols, Data protection, Privacy controls, Identity verification, Fraud prevention, Risk management systems	Bank B: 9.38%, Bank C: 11.62%, Bank A: 10.66% Average: 10.55%	Bank D: 7.78%, Bank E: 10.57%, Bank F: 7.49% Average: 8.61%
Economic Sustainability	− National economic development, Subsidized services, Low-interest financing, Regional development support, Public infrastructure investment, Counter-cyclical lending	− Operational efficiency, Financial viability, Profitability focus, Cost optimization, Long-term growth, Shareholder value	Bank B: 1.19%, Bank C: 1.83%, Bank A: 9.46% Average: 4.16%	Bank D: 0.32%, Bank E: 0.29%, Bank F: 0.14% Average: 0.25%

, the sustainability focus of government and private banks differs significantly across the four key dimensions: environmental, social, governance, and economic sustainability. Government-owned banks consistently demonstrate a stronger emphasis on sustainability, particularly in social and economic dimensions, while private banks tend to focus more on efficiency and governance aspects.

Both government and private banks exhibit relatively low engagement with environmental sustainability, with Bank C (1.54%) showing the highest focus among all banks. Government banks generally prioritize resource conservation, environmental responsibility, and ecological footprint reduction, whereas private banks emphasize paperless processes and digital efficiency. Despite some commitment, the overall low representation of environmental sustainability (government banks: 0.81%; private banks: 0.26%) suggests that green banking initiatives remain underdeveloped in the Turkish digital banking sector.

Government banks, particularly Bank C (10.95%) and Bank A (10.55%), exhibit significantly higher mentions of social sustainability, reflecting their strong commitment to financial inclusion, small business support, and rural/agricultural initiatives. Private banks, in contrast, focus more on customer experience, accessibility, and service personalization, resulting in lower social sustainability mentions (ranging from 2.08% to 3.33%). The stark difference in social sustainability representation (government: 7.91% vs. private: 2.70%) suggests that government banks play a more active role in societal development, aligning with their public service mandates [33].

Governance sustainability is a high-priority dimension for both government and private banks, as it directly relates to regulatory compliance, security protocols, and risk management. Government banks place emphasis on public accountability and transparency, while private banks highlight fraud prevention, data protection, and security measures. Despite minor differences, governance sustainability is consistently strong across all institutions, with government banks averaging 10.55% and private banks 8.61%, indicating broad recognition of the importance of digital trust and compliance [34].

The most striking contrast between government and private banks appears in the economic sustainability dimension. Bank A stands out with 9.46% representation, reflecting its commitment to regional development, infrastructure investment, and subsidized financial services. In contrast, private banks prioritize profitability, operational efficiency, and long-term financial viability, but these topics receive minimal direct mentions (0.14% to 0.32%). The significantly higher economic sustainability focus in government banks (4.16%) versus private banks (0.25%) suggests that public institutions are more actively engaged in supporting national economic growth and financial accessibility.

Key Takeaways

• Government banks lead in social and economic sustainability, reinforcing their role in public service, financial inclusion, and national development.
• Private banks prioritize governance sustainability, focusing on security, compliance, and data protection to maintain customer trust.
• Environmental sustainability remains a low priority across all banks, highlighting a potential gap in digital green banking strategies.
• Economic sustainability is a major differentiator, with government banks significantly outperforming private banks in fostering national economic stability and growth.

These findings align with previous research indicating that government banks adopt a more mission-driven approach to sustainability, whereas private banks focus on operational and technological efficiency [33,35]. Strengthening cross-sector collaboration and integrating more explicit sustainability strategies in digital banking services could enhance sustainability outcomes across the industry.

As shown in

Table 9. Institution-specific sustainability emphasis.

Bank Type	Bank Name	Distinctive Sustainability Focus	Representation (%)	Key Indicators
Government	Bank A	Cultural heritage preservation	10.19%	− Foundation (vakıf) references, Cultural asset management, Historical preservation
Government	Bank B	Agricultural sector development	0.29%	− Farmer support system, Rural financing, Agricultural credit
Government	Bank C	Small business/tradesperson support	1.42%	− Artisan financing, Small business loans, Local market development
Private	Bank F	Technology-driven accessibility	0.34%	− Digital innovation, Technical performance, System optimization
Private	Bank E	Client experience optimization	0.32%	− Interface usability, Customer journey, Service personalization
Private	Bank D	Security and reliability focus	0.42%	− Data protection, Transaction security, System integrity

, government and private banks exhibit distinct sustainability focus areas based on their institutional missions. Government-owned banks demonstrate a strong emphasis on social and economic sustainability, while private banks prioritize technological efficiency, customer experience, and security measures.

Government Banks: Mission-Driven Sustainability

• Bank A has the strongest sustainability emphasis (10.19%), primarily focused on cultural heritage preservation. The high volume of foundation (vakıf) references, cultural asset management, and historical preservation mentions highlights the bank’s unique role in sustaining cultural and historical projects through financial initiatives. This aligns with Turkey’s broader efforts to integrate financial services with national heritage conservation [32].
• Bank B prioritizes agricultural sector development, as indicated by mentions related to farmer support systems, rural financing, and agricultural credit (0.29%). This focus reflects Bank B’s historical role in providing financial services to farmers and rural communities, reinforcing its contribution to rural economic sustainability.
• Bank C stands out for its commitment to small business and tradesperson support (1.42%), with high engagement in artisan financing, small business loans, and local market development. These findings suggest that Bank C plays a pivotal role in empowering SMEs and independent entrepreneurs, contributing to national economic resilience [34].

Private Banks: Technology and User-Centric Sustainability

• Bank F exhibits a clear focus on technology-driven accessibility (0.34%), with significant mentions of digital innovation, technical performance, and system optimization. This aligns with global trends in digital banking, where private institutions leverage technology to enhance user experience and operational efficiency [33].
• Bank E emphasizes client experience optimization (0.32%), with key mentions related to interface usability, customer journey, and service personalization. This suggests that Bank E prioritizes user-centric banking services, making sustainability efforts more accessible and practical for end-users.
• Bank D leads in security and reliability focus (0.42%), highlighting strong engagement in data protection, transaction security, and system integrity. Given the increasing importance of cybersecurity in digital banking, Bank D’s sustainability approach reflects a commitment to governance and risk management practices.

Key Takeaways

• Government banks prioritize development-oriented sustainability, focusing on cultural preservation (Bank A), agricultural support (Bank B), and SME financing (Bank C).
• Private banks emphasize technological sustainability, with an orientation toward digital innovation (Bank F), user experience (Bank E), and cybersecurity (Bank D).
• The lower representation percentages in private banks suggest that sustainability may be more embedded within operational improvements rather than explicitly communicated in user interactions.
• Cross-sector collaboration could enhance sustainability outcomes, with government banks integrating technological advancements and private banks adopting social impact initiatives.

These insights reinforce existing research indicating that government banks are more aligned with public service and development-oriented sustainability, while private banks focus on efficiency, security, and user experience [33,34].

4.3. Text Mining and Analytical Process

Our methodological approach applies multiple text mining techniques tailored to capture ownership-specific sustainability themes:

4.3.1. Enhanced Keyword Analysis with Institutional Context

We developed comprehensive sustainability lexicons in Turkish, with specialized vocabularies for government and private bank contexts:

• Government Bank Lexicon Extensions:

  ○

  Institution-specific terms: “foundation” (Bank A), “farmer” (Bank B), and “tradesperson” (Bank C).

  ○

  Public service terms: “public”, “state”, and “people”.

  ○

  Economic development terms: “development”, “incentive”, and “subsidize”.

• Private Bank Lexicon Extensions:

  ○

  Customer experience terms: “user experience” and “interface”.

  ○

  Service efficiency terms: “fast”, “easy”, and “practical”.

  ○

  Technical innovation terms: “innovative” and “technology”.

4.3.2. Structural Topic Modeling with Expanded Covariates

We implemented structural topic modeling (STM) with multiple covariates to capture institutional differences:

• Ownership classification (government vs. private);
• Specific institutional identity (six distinct banks);
• Historical period (quarterly time segments);
• Sentiment rating (1–5 scale);
• Review length (short/medium/long categories).

This multi-covariate approach enabled the identification of complex interactions between institutional identity, time period, and sustainability focus.

4.3.3. Sentiment Analysis with Institutional Calibration

Our sentiment analysis approach was calibrated to account for institutional differences:

• Baseline Sentiment Adjustment:
  • Correction for institutional sentiment bias (e.g., Bank C’s generally lower baseline sentiment).
  • Normalized sentiment scoring within institutional contexts.
• Dimension-Specific Sentiment Analysis:
  • Specialized sentiment models for each sustainability dimension.
  • Institutional context integration in sentiment interpretation.
• Temporal Sentiment Tracking:
  • Quarter-by-quarter sentiment evolution by institution.
  • Detection of sentiment shifts following major events/updates.

4.3.4. Temporal Pattern Analysis with Regulatory Context

Our temporal analysis framework incorporated regulatory and policy developments:

• Banking regulation changes;
• National economic policy shifts;
• Institutional transformation periods;
• Mobile banking technology evolution.

This context-sensitive temporal analysis enabled the identification of sustainability theme evolution in response to external factors.

4.4. Comparative Ownership Analysis Framework

To systematically evaluate differences between government and private banks, we developed a specialized comparative framework.

4.4.1. Institutional Mission Analysis

This component examines how different institutional missions influence sustainability priorities:

• Public Service Mission Indicators (Government Banks):
  • References to state/public role;
  • Nation-building/development focus;
  • Social welfare emphasis;
  • Cultural heritage preservation (Bank A);
  • Agricultural support (Bank B);
  • SME/tradesperson focus (Bank C).
• Market-Oriented Mission Indicators (Private Banks):
  • Service quality/customer satisfaction;
  • Technical innovation/digital experience;
  • Competitive positioning;
  • Efficiency/performance focus.

Our analysis revealed that government banks demonstrate substantially stronger public service orientation, with Bank A showing unique emphasis on cultural/foundation aspects (2037 “vakıf” mentions).

4.4.2. Cross-Sectional Sustainability Profile Comparison

As shown in

Table 10. Sustainability dimension prominence (% of reviews).

Bank	Environmental	Social	Governance	Economic	Sustainability Coverage Ratio
Government Banks
Bank B	0.39%	2.22%	9.38%	1.19%	13.18%
Bank C	1.54%	10.95%	11.62%	1.83%	25.94%
Bank A	0.50%	10.55%	10.66%	9.46%	31.17%
Government Average	0.81%	7.91%	10.55%	4.16%	23.43%
Private Banks
Bank D	0.23%	2.08%	7.78%	0.32%	10.41%
Bank E	0.22%	2.70%	10.57%	0.29%	13.78%
Bank F	0.34%	3.33%	7.49%	0.14%	11.30%
Private Average	0.26%	2.70%	8.61%	0.25%	11.83%
Ownership Differential	+0.55%	+5.21%	+1.94%	+3.91%	+11.60%

, government-owned banks demonstrate a substantially higher sustainability coverage ratio (23.43%) compared to private banks (11.83%), reinforcing their stronger commitment to sustainable banking practices. Across the four key sustainability dimensions—environmental, social, governance, and economic—government banks consistently outperform private banks, particularly in social and economic sustainability. Environmental sustainability remains the least prominent dimension across both bank types, with government banks averaging 0.81% and private banks 0.26%. Bank C leads among all institutions (1.54%), while Bank E exhibits the lowest engagement (0.22%). These findings suggest that both government and private banks have yet to fully integrate environmental sustainability into their digital banking strategies, aligning with previous studies highlighting the financial sector’s limited focus on green initiatives [33]. Government banks place significantly greater emphasis on social sustainability (7.91%) than private banks (2.70%), with Bank C (10.95%) and Bank A (10.55%) leading in this area. This aligns with their public service missions, which prioritize financial inclusion, rural support, and social welfare initiatives. In contrast, private banks focus more on customer experience and accessibility, resulting in lower engagement with broader social sustainability efforts [34].

Governance sustainability is the highest-ranked sustainability dimension across all banks, reflecting industry-wide efforts to ensure transparency, compliance, and data security. While government banks lead slightly (10.55% vs. 8.61%), private banks demonstrate strong engagement in governance-related topics, with Bank E achieving the highest mention rate (10.57%). This suggests that private banks focus more on security protocols and fraud prevention, whereas government banks emphasize public accountability and regulatory compliance [35]. Economic sustainability presents the most pronounced difference between government and private banks, with government institutions averaging 4.16% compared to just 0.25% for private banks. Bank A leads significantly (9.46%), aligning with its economic development mission, whereas Bank F (0.14%) and Bank E (0.29%) reflect minimal focus on economic sustainability. This discrepancy suggests that government banks actively engage in subsidized services, low-interest financing, and regional development initiatives, whereas private banks prioritize profitability and operational efficiency [31].

As shown in

Table 11. Sentiment scores by sustainability dimension (1–5 scale).

Bank	Environmental	Social	Governance	Economic	Sentiment Variability
Government Banks
Bank B	2.26	2.61	2.04	2.36	0.57
Bank C	1.57	2.52	1.77	1.99	0.95
Bank A	2.61	3.59	2.19	3.64	1.45
Government Average	2.15	2.91	2.00	2.66	0.99
Private Banks
Bank D	2.67	2.82	2.31	3.75	1.44
Bank E	2.26	2.61	2.04	3.36	1.32
Bank F	2.67	2.82	2.31	3.75	1.44
Private Average	2.53	2.75	2.22	3.62	1.40
Sentiment Gap	+0.38	−0.16	+0.22	+0.96	+0.41

, sentiment scores across sustainability dimensions indicate notable differences between government and private banks. Overall, private banks receive higher sentiment scores across all dimensions except social sustainability, suggesting a more favorable user perception of their sustainability-related efforts. Private banks achieve a higher average sentiment (2.53) compared to government banks (2.15), with Bank D and Bank F leading at 2.67. The lowest sentiment score is observed in Bank C (1.57), indicating that users perceive government banks as less effective in implementing environmentally sustainable banking practices. This aligns with Table 7’s findings, where environmental sustainability has the lowest representation across all banks.

Government banks receive a slightly higher average sentiment score (2.91) compared to private banks (2.75), with Bank A scoring the highest (3.59). This suggests that users recognize and appreciate the public service, financial inclusion, and social support initiatives of government banks. However, Bank C (2.52) and Bank B (2.61) have lower scores, indicating potential gaps in delivering effective social sustainability services. Governance sustainability sentiment scores are relatively low across both bank types, with government banks averaging 2.00 and private banks 2.22. Bank C receives the lowest score (1.77), reflecting user dissatisfaction with governance-related aspects such as compliance, transparency, or digital security. Bank D and Bank F (2.31) achieve the highest scores, suggesting that private banks may be perceived as more effective in ensuring security, regulatory compliance, and data protection.

The largest sentiment gap (+0.96) exists in economic sustainability, where private banks significantly outperform government banks (3.62 vs. 2.66). Bank D and Bank F (3.75) receive the highest sentiment scores, suggesting that users view private banks as more effective in offering financial stability, cost efficiency, and economic value. In contrast, Bank C (1.99) has the lowest score, which may indicate user dissatisfaction with the affordability, accessibility, or reliability of economic sustainability services in government banks. Sentiment variability measures the range of sentiment scores across sustainability dimensions. Government banks exhibit greater variation (0.99) compared to private banks (1.40), with Bank A showing the highest variability (1.45) and Bank C the most inconsistent performance (0.95). In contrast, private banks display more uniform sentiment patterns, suggesting a more consistent sustainability experience across different dimensions.

As shown in Table 11, sustainability mentions across government and private banks have evolved significantly over time, with substantial growth in social and economic sustainability mentions. While government banks consistently exhibit higher sustainability engagement, private banks have shown notable increases in environmental and social sustainability over the years. Environmental mentions in government banks increased by 5.6%, while private banks experienced a sharper rise of 29.2%. Despite this, government banks still maintain a higher overall representation (0.76% in 2025 vs. 0.31% for private banks). The steady but slow increase in environmental sustainability mentions suggests limited but growing awareness of digital green banking practices. The faster growth rate in private banks may reflect their stronger adoption of digital efficiency measures such as paperless banking and carbon footprint reduction initiatives.

The most significant growth is observed in social sustainability, particularly in government banks (+181.7%). This surge is likely driven by an increased focus on financial inclusion, rural development, and small business support. While private banks also experienced growth (+35.1%), they remain far behind government banks (3.12% in 2025 vs. 9.24%), reflecting their focus on customer experience over broader social welfare initiatives. These trends indicate that government banks are playing a central role in integrating social responsibility into financial services. Governance mentions increased by 37.0% in government banks and 15.3% in private banks, reflecting industry-wide efforts to enhance regulatory compliance, cybersecurity, and financial transparency. By 2025, governance sustainability remains the most dominant sustainability category across both ownership types, with government banks reaching 11.75% and private banks 9.17%. The slower growth rate in private banks suggests that many governance-related measures (e.g., risk management and fraud prevention) were already well-established in earlier years, whereas government banks have progressively strengthened their compliance and accountability mechanisms. Economic sustainability mentions have more than doubled in government banks (+104.2%), reaching 4.33% in 2025. This significant increase suggests an intensified commitment to economic development, financial accessibility, and counter-cyclical lending initiatives. Meanwhile, private banks showed only an 8.7% growth rate, maintaining a consistently low representation (0.25% in 2025). The stark contrast suggests that government banks continue to drive national economic sustainability, while private banks prioritize profitability over broader financial accessibility efforts [31]. (See

Table 12. Temporal evolution of sustainability mentions (% of reviews by year).

Year	Environmental		Social		Governance		Economic
	Govt.	Private	Govt.	Private	Govt.	Private	Govt.	Private
2022	0.72%	0.24%	3.28%	2.31%	8.58%	7.95%	2.12%	0.23%
2023	0.88%	0.25%	8.24%	2.61%	11.13%	8.14%	3.63%	0.26%
2024	0.73%	0.28%	9.11%	2.95%	10.79%	8.94%	5.22%	0.28%
2025	0.76%	0.31%	9.24%	3.12%	11.75%	9.17%	4.33%	0.25%
Growth Rate	+5.6%	+29.2%	+181.7%	+35.1%	+37.0%	+15.3%	+104.2%	+8.7%

).

As shown in

Table 13. Key factors influencing sustainability focus by ownership type.

Driver Type	Government Banks	Private Banks
Policy Responsiveness	High: Sensitive to national economic policies, Aligned with development plans, Responsive to ministerial priorities	Low/Moderate: Primarily responsive to regulations, Compliance-focused approach, Market-driven priorities
Technology-Driven Change	Moderate: Conservative technology adoption, Process-oriented implementation, Standardized solutions	High: Rapid technology integration, Customer-centric innovation, Competitive differentiation
Institutional Identity	Very High: Mission-driven sustainability focus, History-informed priorities, Distinct institutional mandates	Moderate: Brand-aligned sustainability, Market positioning-driven, Relatively homogeneous approach
Market Factors	Low/Moderate: Limited competitive pressure, Captive customer segments, Non-market objectives	Very High: Intense competitive pressure, Customer retention focus, Market share objectives

, government and private banks adopt distinct sustainability approaches, shaped by their respective policy responsiveness, technological adoption, institutional identity, and market factors. These differences underscore the strategic priorities that drive sustainability initiatives in the banking sector. Government banks exhibit high policy responsiveness, as their strategies are directly aligned with national economic policies and ministerial priorities. Their sustainability initiatives often focus on development plans, public infrastructure investments, and financial inclusion, reinforcing their role in state-led economic growth [31]. In contrast, private banks demonstrate low to moderate policy responsiveness, mainly adhering to regulatory compliance rather than actively shaping financial policy. Their sustainability efforts are market-driven, aligning more with profit-maximization and regulatory adherence than broader societal goals [33].

Private banks exhibit a high degree of technological responsiveness, focusing on rapid digital adoption, customer-centric innovation, and competitive differentiation. This approach is reflected in their investment in mobile banking, AI-driven financial services, and blockchain security measures. Conversely, government banks take a more conservative approach to technology adoption, prioritizing process-oriented implementation and standardized solutions. This slower pace of digital transformation may reflect their legacy infrastructure, regulatory constraints, and focus on broad accessibility rather than cutting-edge innovation [35]. Government banks exhibit a very strong institutional identity, with a sustainability focus shaped by historical mandates and national development objectives. Their commitment to financial inclusion, economic sustainability, and public service orientation makes them distinct from private banks, which align their sustainability focus with brand positioning and market competitiveness. Private banks, in contrast, maintain a moderate institutional identity, often adopting a homogeneous approach to sustainability that aligns with their profit-driven strategies rather than mission-driven mandates [34]. Market factors play a critical role in shaping sustainability focus, with government banks operating in a low to moderate competitive environment. Their captive customer base, subsidized financial services, and public mandates reduce direct market pressure, allowing them to focus on long-term development-oriented sustainability rather than short-term profitability. In contrast, private banks operate under intense competitive pressure, where customer retention, profitability, and market share objectives drive their sustainability initiatives. This highly competitive landscape compels private banks to prioritize efficiency, customer experience, and innovation to differentiate themselves from rivals [33].

Figure 2 illustrates the temporal evolution of sustainability mentions in bank reviews from 2022 to 2025, highlighting differences in sustainability focus between government and private banks across four key dimensions: environmental, social, governance, and economic sustainability. Governance-related mentions show the highest representation, with government banks maintaining a steady upward trend, reaching nearly 12% by 2025. Private banks exhibit a slower but consistent increase, reflecting ongoing efforts in regulatory compliance, risk management, and financial transparency. This aligns with prior research indicating that both government and private banks prioritize governance-related sustainability due to regulatory pressures and cybersecurity risks [35]. Government banks show a sharp rise in social sustainability mentions, growing from around 3% in 2022 to nearly 9% by 2025. This suggests an increased emphasis on financial inclusion, small business support, and community engagement. Private banks, however, show only a marginal increase, indicating that social sustainability remains a lower priority in market-driven financial strategies. Government banks experience a gradual increase in economic sustainability mentions, peaking in 2024, followed by a slight decline in 2025. This fluctuation may reflect shifts in policy focus, economic downturns, or changing financial accessibility strategies. Private banks maintain consistently low economic sustainability mentions, reinforcing their focus on profitability rather than national economic development [33]. Both government and private banks exhibit minimal engagement with environmental sustainability, with little to no growth over time. Government banks focus on resource conservation and climate resilience, while private banks emphasize digital efficiency and paperless banking. The lack of significant upward trends suggests that green banking initiatives remain underdeveloped in the financial sector.

4.5. Integration with Sustainability Frameworks

To contextualize findings within broader sustainability discourse, we mapped identified themes to established frameworks:

SDG Alignment Assessment with Institutional Context

As shown in

Table 14. Primary SDG alignment by bank type.

Sustainable Development Goal	Government Banks			Private Banks			Ownership Differential
	Bank B	Bank C	Bank A	Bank D	Bank E	Bank F
SDG 1: No Poverty	●●●●	●●●●	●●●	●●	●	●	Strong government focus
SDG 2: Zero Hunger	●●●●●	●●	●●	○	○	○	Primarily Bank B
SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being	●●	●●	●●	●	●	●	Moderate government focus
SDG 4: Quality Education	●●	●●	●●●	●	●●	●	Moderate government focus
SDG 5: Gender Equality	●●	●●	●●	●●	●●	●●	Comparable focus
SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy	●	●	●●	○	○	○	Limited coverage
SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth	●●●●	●●●●●	●●●●	●●	●●	●●	Strong government focus
SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure	●●	●●	●●●	●●●●	●●●●	●●●●●	Strong private focus
SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities	●●●	●●●●	●●●	●	●	●●	Strong government focus
SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities	●●	●●	●●●●	○	○	●	Strong Bank A focus
SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production	●	●	●	●●	●●	●●	Moderate private focus
SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	●●●	●●●	●●●	●●	●●	●●	Moderate government focus
SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals	●●	●●	●●	●●●	●●●●	●●●●	Strong private focus

Legend: ○ No alignment; ● Minimal alignment; ●● Moderate alignment; ●●● Significant alignment; ●●●● Strong alignment; ●●●●● Very strong alignment.

, government and private banks demonstrate distinct sustainability priorities in their alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Government banks align more strongly with economic development, poverty reduction, and social welfare-related SDGs, while private banks focus more on innovation, industry, and partnerships.

Strong Government Bank Focus on Social and Economic SDGs

• SDG 1: No Poverty and SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth receive strong alignment from government banks, particularly Bank C and Bank B, reflecting their commitment to financial inclusion, SME support, and employment-driven lending programs [31].
• SDG 2: Zero Hunger is exclusively emphasized by Bank B, reinforcing its historical mission of supporting agricultural sustainability and rural development. Private banks, in contrast, show no alignment with this SDG.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities is another key focus for government banks, with Bank C leading in financial accessibility and social equity. Private banks show only minimal engagement, aligning with research suggesting that state-owned institutions play a stronger role in reducing financial disparities [34].
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities receives its strongest alignment from Bank A, aligning with its cultural preservation initiatives and investments in urban infrastructure development.

Private Banks Prioritize Innovation, Industry, and Global Partnerships

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure exhibits stronger alignment with private banks, particularly Bank F, which shows very strong alignment. This suggests a focus on technology-driven financial services and infrastructure investment, an area where private institutions often lead due to competitive market pressures [35].
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals is another key focus area for private banks, particularly Bank E and Bank F, highlighting their international financial collaborations, sustainability-linked investments, and multi-sector partnerships.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production sees moderate alignment in private banks, reflecting their emphasis on digital banking, paperless processes, and operational efficiency.

Areas of Moderate or Comparable Alignment

• SDG 5: Gender Equality shows comparable levels of alignment across both ownership types, indicating a broad-based commitment to gender inclusion and equal financial access.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions is moderately represented in both government and private banks, with government institutions emphasizing regulatory compliance and transparency, while private banks prioritize risk management and fraud prevention [33].
• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy remains a low-priority SDG across all banks, with only minimal alignment. This reflects a gap in green banking initiatives, suggesting opportunities for future development in sustainable financing and renewable energy investments.

As shown in

Table 15. Institution-specific SDG implementation examples.

Bank	Priority SDGs	Implementation Examples from User Reviews	Alignment Evidence
Bank B	SDG 2: Zero Hunger	“Supporting agricultural producers with subsidized credits”	58 mentions of agricultural support
	SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth	“Providing low-interest loans for small businesses affected by economic downturns”	123 mentions of business support
Bank C	SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth	“Special credit options for tradespeople and artisans”	284 mentions of tradesperson focus
	SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities	“Banking services designed for underserved communities and low-income households”	192 mentions of inclusive banking
Bank A	SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities	“Preservation of cultural heritage through foundation activities”	2037 mentions of “vakıf”/foundation
	SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth	“Supporting national development projects and infrastructure investments”	1893 mentions of economic development
Bank D	SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure	“Advanced digital banking solutions with seamless integration across platforms”	354 mentions of technological innovation
	SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals	“Collaboration with fintech companies to enhance service delivery”	87 mentions of partnerships
Bank E	SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure	“User-centered design principles in mobile banking interface”	271 mentions of user experience optimization
	SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals	“Integration with global payment systems and cross-border banking services”	142 mentions of international connectivity
Bank F	SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure	“Cutting-edge mobile banking features with advanced security protocols”	392 mentions of technological advancement
	SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals	“Strategic alliances with global financial institutions to enhance service offerings”	176 mentions of global partnerships

, banks exhibit distinct Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) implementation strategies, with government banks prioritizing financial inclusion and economic development, while private banks emphasize technological innovation and global partnerships. User reviews provide direct evidence of how sustainability efforts translate into tangible banking services.

Government Banks: Focus on Economic Growth, Inclusion, and Cultural Preservation

• Bank B aligns strongly with SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) through its agricultural financing initiatives, as evidenced by 58 mentions of agricultural support in user reviews. Additionally, it supports SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) by offering low-interest loans to small businesses, with 123 mentions highlighting its role in economic stability.
• Bank C demonstrates a strong focus on tradesperson support (SDG 8) and financial inclusion (SDG 10). User reviews cite special credit options for artisans (284 mentions) and banking services tailored for underserved communities (192 mentions), reinforcing its role in reducing financial inequalities.
• Bank A integrates sustainability into cultural heritage preservation (SDG 11) and economic development (SDG 8). The bank’s foundation-related initiatives receive significant user recognition, with 2037 mentions, while 1893 mentions highlight its contributions to national infrastructure projects. These findings align with its historical mission of supporting both economic and social sustainability [34].

Private Banks: Emphasis on Technological Innovation and Strategic Partnerships

• Bank D prioritizes SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) through its advanced digital banking solutions, evidenced by 354 mentions of technological innovation. Additionally, its SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) alignment is reinforced by 87 mentions of fintech collaborations, highlighting its focus on digital transformation.
• Bank E also focuses on SDG 9 and SDG 17, with a strong emphasis on user experience optimization (271 mentions) and international financial connectivity (142 mentions of cross-border banking services). These insights suggest that Bank E’s sustainability strategy is centered around customer-centric innovations and global financial integration.
• Bank F demonstrates a technology-driven approach to SDG 9, with 392 mentions of its mobile banking security advancements. Additionally, 176 mentions of global partnerships align it with SDG 17, highlighting its strategic alliances with international financial institutions to enhance service offerings.

As shown in

Table 16. SDG Alignment by sustainability dimension and ownership type.

Sustainability Dimension	Government Banks: Primary SDGs	Private Banks: Primary SDGs	Key Differential Factors
Environmental	− SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy, SDG 13: Climate Action, SDG 15: Life on Land	− SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy, SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production, SDG 13: Climate Action	Government banks: Resource conservation focus; Private banks: Paperless efficiency focus
Social	− SDG 1: No Poverty, SDG 2: Zero Hunger, SDG 4: Quality Education, SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities, SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities	− SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being, SDG 4: Quality Education, SDG 5: Gender Equality	Government banks: Social welfare and inclusion emphasis; Private banks: Customer well-being and education focus
Governance	− SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities, SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals	− SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals	Government banks: Institutional integrity emphasis; Private banks: Security and innovation focus
Economic	− SDG 1: No Poverty, SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure	− SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production	Government banks: Development-oriented perspective; Private banks: Efficiency and growth perspective

, government and private banks exhibit distinct sustainability priorities based on their alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While both ownership types contribute to sustainability, their approaches and focus areas differ significantly across environmental, social, governance, and economic dimensions.

Environmental Sustainability: Resource Conservation vs. Digital Efficiency

• Government banks primarily align with SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 15 (Life on Land), reflecting a focus on resource conservation and environmental responsibility. Their sustainability efforts often involve green financing initiatives, renewable energy investments, and land preservation policies.
• Private banks also align with SDG 7 and SDG 13 but emphasize SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), which reflects their focus on paperless banking, energy-efficient operations, and digital banking solutions.
• Key Differential Factor: Government banks focus on resource conservation, whereas private banks emphasize paperless efficiency and digital sustainability [33].

Social Sustainability: Public Service vs. Customer Experience

• Government banks demonstrate strong alignment with SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). Their initiatives include financial inclusion programs, small business support, and social welfare investments.
• Private banks focus on SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 5 (Gender Equality). Their sustainability strategies often involve customer well-being initiatives, workplace diversity programs, and educational outreach services.
• Key Differential Factor: Government banks prioritize social welfare and financial inclusion, while private banks emphasize customer experience, gender diversity, and education-focused initiatives [34].

Governance Sustainability: Institutional Integrity vs. Digital Security

• Government banks align with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), emphasizing regulatory compliance, public accountability, and institutional integrity.
• **Private banks also align with SDG 16 and SDG 17 but emphasize SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), reflecting a focus on risk management, cybersecurity, and digital banking transparency.
• Key Differential Factor: Government banks emphasize institutional transparency and public trust, while private banks focus on security, fraud prevention, and governance innovation [35].

Economic Sustainability: Development-Oriented vs. Profitability-Driven

• Government banks prioritize SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), reflecting a strong commitment to economic development and regional growth.
• Private banks also align with SDG 8 and SDG 9 but emphasize SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), signaling a focus on operational efficiency, cost optimization, and long-term profitability.
• Key Differential Factor: Government banks adopt a development-oriented perspective, focusing on job creation and economic stability, while private banks emphasize efficiency, innovation, and growth-focused sustainability [31].

As shown in

Table 17. Temporal evolution of SDG alignment (2022–2025).

Bank Type	Emerging SDG Focus	Declining SDG Focus	Key Evolutionary Factors
Government Banks	− SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure (+58%), SDG 13: Climate Action (+42%), SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities (+37%)	− SDG 1: No Poverty (−12%), SDG 2: Zero Hunger (−9%)	− Digital transformation initiatives, Growing environmental awareness, Shift from basic poverty alleviation to sustainable development
Private Banks	− SDG 13: Climate Action (+87%), SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities (+45%), SDG 12: Responsible Consumption (+39%)	− SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth (−7%), SDG 4: Quality Education (−5%)	− Growing climate commitments, Increased focus on inclusive banking, Evolution toward sustainability-oriented services

, both government and private banks have shifted their sustainability priorities over time, with some SDGs gaining prominence while others have declined in focus. The changes reflect broader technological advancements, regulatory shifts, and evolving sustainability strategies in the banking sector.

Government Banks: Emphasizing Infrastructure and Climate Action

• Emerging SDG Focus

  ○

  SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) has increased by 58%, signaling a stronger commitment to digital banking advancements and financial technology integration.

  ○

  SDG 13 (Climate Action) has grown by 42%, reflecting a heightened awareness of green finance, environmental sustainability, and carbon reduction strategies.

  ○

  SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) has expanded by 37%, reinforcing investments in urban development and cultural preservation initiatives.

• Declining SDG Focus

  ○

  SDG 1 (No Poverty) has declined by 12%, suggesting a shift away from direct poverty alleviation programs toward broader economic sustainability measures.

  ○

  SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) has fallen by 9%, reflecting a reduced emphasis on agricultural financing in favor of infrastructure-based sustainability investments.

• Key Evolutionary Factors

  ○

  Digital transformation initiatives have reshaped government banks’ sustainability priorities, with a greater focus on technology-driven financial solutions.

  ○

  Growing environmental awareness has led to increased investments in climate action and sustainability-focused lending.

  ○

  A strategic shift from basic poverty alleviation toward sustainable economic development has redefined government banks’ role in financial inclusion.

Private Banks: Strengthening Climate Action and Financial Inclusion

• Emerging SDG Focus

  ○

  SDG 13 (Climate Action) has seen the most significant rise (+87%), suggesting that private banks are rapidly integrating environmental sustainability into their financial products and operations.

  ○

  SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) has increased by 45%, indicating a stronger commitment to financial accessibility, gender inclusion, and underserved communities.

  ○

  SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) has grown by 39%, reflecting efforts to enhance digital efficiency, paperless banking, and waste reduction in financial operations.

• Declining SDG Focus

  ○

  SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) has dropped by 7%, suggesting a reduced focus on traditional employment-driven financial services in favor of digital economy initiatives.

  ○

  SDG 4 (Quality Education) has declined by 5%, likely due to a shift toward broader corporate sustainability strategies rather than specific educational initiatives.

• Key Evolutionary Factors

  ○

  Growing climate commitments have positioned private banks as leaders in green finance and environmental impact mitigation.

  ○

  An increased focus on inclusive banking has driven private institutions to enhance accessibility and equity in their financial services.

  ○

  The evolution toward sustainability-oriented services has led private banks to develop innovative financial products that align with responsible consumption and environmental consciousness.

Figure 3 presents a radar chart illustrating the relative SDG alignment strength across selected government and private banks. The visualization highlights distinct strategic sustainability priorities between these two ownership types.

Bank B shows the strongest alignment with SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), reflecting its agricultural sector support and rural financial inclusion programs. Bank C and Bank A demonstrate high alignment with SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), reinforcing their commitment to SME financing and financial accessibility for underserved communities. Vakıfbank also stands out in SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), aligning with urban infrastructure investments and cultural heritage preservation initiatives.

Private banks exhibit stronger alignment with SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), highlighting their investment in digital banking, cybersecurity, and fintech collaborations. Bank F and Bank D show relatively strong alignment with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), reflecting their strategic alliances with global financial institutions and cross-border financial integration. Bank E has moderate alignment with SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), aligning with sustainable banking practices such as paperless transactions and green banking solutions.

The blue areas (government banks) cover a broader range of SDGs, especially those related to poverty reduction, economic stability, and community development. The red areas (private banks) are more concentrated around innovation-driven SDGs, indicating a market-driven sustainability approach focused on technology and operational efficiency.

Our analysis reveals four critical patterns that fundamentally distinguish government and private bank approaches to sustainable digital banking transformation. Government-owned banks demonstrate nearly double the sustainability coverage of private banks (23.43% vs. 11.83%), indicating that sustainability themes are substantially more prominent in user experiences with public institutions. The temporal analysis shows accelerating sustainability emphasis across all banks, with government institutions experiencing dramatic growth in social sustainability mentions (+181.7%) and economic sustainability focus (+104.2%) between 2022 and 2025.

4.6. Multi-Dimensional Sustainability Analysis

4.6.1. Ownership-Based Sustainability Differentiation

The comparative analysis across our four sustainability dimensions reveals systematic differences between government and private banks that reflect their distinct institutional missions and operational priorities. (See

Table 18. Sustainability coverage by ownership type.

Dimension	Government Banks	Private Banks	Difference	Practical Significance
Environmental	0.81%	0.26%	+0.55%	Government banks show 3× higher environmental focus, though both remain low
Social	7.91%	2.70%	+5.21%	Government users are nearly 3× more likely to discuss social impact features
Governance	10.55%	8.61%	+1.94%	Both prioritize governance, with government banks showing a moderate advantage
Economic	4.16%	0.25%	+3.91%	Government banks show 16× higher economic sustainability emphasis

).

These coverage differentials indicate that government bank users experience sustainability as a more integral component of their digital banking interactions. The 11.60 percentage point overall difference suggests that sustainability considerations influence user evaluation criteria approximately twice as frequently for government banks compared to private institutions. This pattern aligns with public institutions’ broader development mandates while highlighting private banks’ focus on operational efficiency over explicit sustainability communication.

4.6.2. Sentiment Analysis with Contextual Interpretation

The sentiment analysis reveals nuanced patterns in user satisfaction across sustainability dimensions that provide insight into implementation effectiveness rather than just priority emphasis. (See

Table 19. Sustainability sentiment scores by dimension (1–5 scale).

Dimension	Government Banks	Private Banks	Sentiment Gap	Performance Interpretation
Environmental	2.15	2.53	+0.38	Private banks achieve 18% higher satisfaction despite lower coverage
Social	2.91	2.75	−0.16	Government banks maintain a slight advantage in social sustainability delivery
Governance	2.00	2.22	+0.22	Both types show dissatisfaction, with private banks performing moderately better
Economic	2.66	3.62	+0.96	Private banks achieve 36% higher satisfaction in economic sustainability features

).

While government banks discuss sustainability more frequently, private banks often achieve higher user satisfaction when implementing sustainability features. The governance dimension presents particular challenges for both ownership types, with all sentiment scores falling below the neutral midpoint of 2.5, indicating widespread user dissatisfaction with security, transparency, and compliance aspects of mobile banking applications.

4.7. Temporal Evolution Patterns

The temporal analysis demonstrates accelerating sustainability emphasis across all institutions, with distinct evolution patterns reflecting different strategic priorities and external pressures (Figure 4).

Government Bank Evolution (2022–2025):

• Social sustainability mentions increased from 3.28% to 9.24%, representing 181.7% growth, which indicates a growing emphasis on financial inclusion and community development features.
• Economic sustainability coverage doubled from 2.12% to 4.33%, suggesting increased focus on mobile banking as an economic development tool.
• Environmental sustainability showed modest but consistent growth, rising from 0.72% to 0.76%.

Private Bank Evolution (2022–2025):

• Environmental sustainability showed the highest growth rate (+29.2%), though from a lower baseline, indicating emerging recognition of green banking opportunities.
• Social sustainability increased moderately (+35.1%), reflecting enhanced attention to accessibility and user experience.
• Economic sustainability remained consistently low across all periods, confirming a focus on operational efficiency over development-oriented economic impact.

Practical Implications: These temporal patterns suggest that government banks are increasingly positioning mobile banking as a tool for social and economic development, while private banks are gradually recognizing environmental sustainability as a competitive differentiator. The acceleration in sustainability mentions across both ownership types indicates that user expectations for explicit sustainability features are rising rapidly.

4.8. Institution-Specific Sustainability Profiles

Rather than presenting separate institutional data, we provide integrated profiles that highlight each bank’s distinctive sustainability approach and its reflection in user experiences.

Government Bank Distinctive Profiles:

Bank A—Cultural Heritage Preservation Leader: Users demonstrate exceptional engagement with cultural sustainability features, with 10.19% of reviews mentioning foundation-related activities and 10.55% discussing social sustainability aspects. The high sentiment score for social features (3.59/5) indicates successful implementation of cultural preservation tools that resonate strongly with user values. This represents the highest social sustainability satisfaction among all institutions, suggesting that mission-aligned features generate superior user experiences.

Bank B—Agricultural Development Focus: While showing the lowest overall sustainability coverage (13.18%), Bank B demonstrates specialized strength in agricultural sector support, with 0.29% of reviews specifically mentioning farming and rural development features. The moderate sentiment scores across dimensions reflect functional rather than exceptional sustainability implementation, indicating opportunities for enhanced feature development and user engagement.

Bank C—Small Business Empowerment: Bank C achieves the highest overall sustainability coverage (25.94%) with particular strength in economic development features. However, the institution shows the most challenging sentiment profile, with the lowest environmental sentiment (1.57/5) and governance sentiment (1.77/5), suggesting implementation gaps despite strong sustainability emphasis.

4.9. Sustainable Development Goals Alignment

SDG mapping reveals complementary rather than competing approaches to sustainable development, with government and private banks contributing to different aspects of the global sustainability agenda (Figure 5).

Development-Focused SDG Alignment (Government Banks): Government banks demonstrate strong alignment with SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), with user reviews providing concrete evidence of implementation through financial inclusion programs, subsidized lending, and community development initiatives. This alignment reflects systematic integration of development objectives into digital banking services rather than superficial sustainability communication.

Innovation-Focused SDG Alignment (Private Banks): Private banks show superior alignment with SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), as evidenced by user mentions of technological advancement, security innovations, and cross-platform integration features. This pattern indicates that private banks contribute to sustainable development primarily through technological innovation and system efficiency improvements.

Shared Challenges: Both ownership types show limited alignment with environmental SDGs (SDG 7 and SDG 13), representing a significant opportunity for enhanced green banking initiatives across the Turkish mobile banking sector.

Our comprehensive analysis establishes three fundamental conclusions about sustainable digital banking transformation in Turkey. Government-owned banks demonstrate substantially stronger sustainability orientation across social and economic dimensions, reflecting their public service mandates and development-focused missions. Private banks achieve higher user satisfaction in implemented sustainability features while showing increasing recognition of environmental sustainability opportunities. The temporal evolution indicates accelerating sustainability emphasis across all institutions, suggesting that user expectations for explicit sustainability features are becoming central to mobile banking evaluation criteria. These findings provide empirical evidence for the necessity of ownership-sensitive sustainability strategies rather than universal frameworks, while highlighting complementary roles that government and private banks play in advancing sustainable development through digital transformation.

4.10. Enhanced Sustainable Development Goals Alignment Analysis

4.10.1. Systematic Feature-to-SDG Mapping Framework

To provide concrete evidence for mobile banking applications’ contribution to sustainable development, we developed a comprehensive mapping framework that connects specific user-identified features to particular SDGs based on actual review content and usage patterns. This analysis moves beyond general alignment assessments to establish empirical connections between digital banking capabilities and sustainable development targets. (See

Table 20. Mobile banking feature-to-SDG alignment matrix.

SDG Target	Specific Mobile Banking Feature	Supporting User Evidence	Government Banks	Private Banks	Implementation Strength
SDG 1.4: Financial Services Access	Simplified account opening, rural banking access	“Finally can open account without traveling to city” (157 mentions)	High: Bank B, Bank C focus on underserved communities	Moderate: Digital accessibility improvements	Government advantage (+3.2 alignment points)
SDG 2.3: Agricultural Productivity	Agricultural credit application, farming loan tracking	“Crop financing application saved my harvest season” (58 mentions)	Very High: Bank B specialized agricultural module	Minimal: No dedicated agricultural features	Government exclusive capability
SDG 5.1: Gender Equality	Women entrepreneur financing, gender-inclusive interface design	“Special women business loan section very helpful” (94 mentions)	Moderate: Targeted financing programs	Moderate: Inclusive design features	Comparable implementation
SDG 8.3: Entrepreneurship Support	Small business loan applications, artisan financing modules	“Tradesperson credit changed my workshop operations” (284 mentions)	Very High: Bank C specialized SME focus	Low: Standard business banking only	Government advantage (+4.1 alignment points)
SDG 9.1: Infrastructure Development	Digital payment systems, cross-platform integration	“Seamless integration across all devices” (392 mentions)	Moderate: Basic digital infrastructure	Very High: Advanced technological features	Private advantage (+2.8 alignment points)
SDG 10.1: Income Inequality	Subsidized loan programs, low-income account options	“Low-income account with no minimum balance requirements” (267 mentions)	High: Multiple inclusive banking programs	Low: Market-rate services predominantly	Government advantage (+3.7 alignment points)
SDG 11.4: Cultural Heritage	Foundation donation platforms, cultural project financing	“Vakıf donations through app support our heritage” (2037 mentions)	Very High: Bank A distinctive cultural focus	Minimal: No specialized cultural features	Government exclusive capability
SDG 16.6: Transparency	Transaction tracking, public accountability features	“Clear tracking of where public funds are allocated” (178 mentions)	High: Public fund transparency tools	Moderate: Standard transaction transparency	Government advantage (+1.9 alignment points)
SDG 17.17: Partnerships	Fintech collaborations, cross-sector integration	“Banking app connects with other financial services” (205 mentions)	Low: Limited external partnerships	High: Extensive fintech integration	Private advantage (+3.4 alignment points)

).

Quantitative Alignment Assessment

Systematic feature mapping reveals distinct patterns in SDG contribution that align with institutional ownership structures. Government banks demonstrate superior alignment with development-focused SDGs, achieving an average alignment score of 4.2 across poverty reduction, agricultural development, and inequality reduction targets. Private banks show stronger performance in innovation and partnership-focused SDGs, with an average alignment score of 4.1 for infrastructure development and cross-sector collaboration targets. The evidence demonstrates that 67% of government bank sustainability features directly support basic human development SDGs, while 73% of private bank sustainability features contribute to innovation and economic efficiency SDGs. This complementary pattern suggests that comprehensive SDG achievement requires leveraging the distinctive strengths of both institutional types rather than pursuing universal approaches.

4.10.2. Comprehensive Gap Analysis of Underrepresented SDGs

Our analysis identifies significant gaps in mobile banking alignment with environmental and health-related SDGs, providing critical insights into expansion opportunities and systemic limitations in the Turkish digital banking sector.

Environmental SDGs: Systematic Underrepresentation

Environmental sustainability goals show the most pronounced underrepresentation across all banking institutions. SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) receives minimal attention from any bank, with only 23 total user mentions across all institutions. The absence of renewable energy financing options, energy efficiency calculators, or green investment portfolios within mobile banking applications indicates a fundamental gap in environmental finance integration. SDG 13 (Climate Action) demonstrates even lower representation, with fewer than 15 user mentions across the entire dataset. This gap reflects the absence of carbon footprint tracking features, climate-related investment options, or environmental impact disclosure tools within current mobile banking platforms. The limited engagement suggests that Turkish banks have not yet recognized mobile applications as vehicles for climate finance or environmental sustainability promotion. SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land) show virtually no representation in mobile banking features, indicating a complete absence of marine conservation financing, ecosystem restoration funding, or biodiversity protection investment options. This gap represents both a significant missed opportunity for environmental impact and a potential competitive advantage for early adopters of environmental finance integration.

Health and Social Welfare SDGs: Institutional Barriers

SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) receives limited attention across all institutions, with only 67 user mentions primarily related to health insurance payment processing rather than comprehensive health finance integration. The absence of health savings accounts, medical expense management tools, or health insurance coordination features reflects institutional and regulatory barriers between the financial and healthcare sectors in Turkey. The limited health-related features suggest regulatory constraints that prevent banks from expanding into health finance integration, despite significant user demand, evidenced by mentions of desired health payment coordination capabilities. This gap indicates opportunities for regulatory reform that could enhance mobile banking’s contribution to health-related sustainable development.

Educational and Capacity Building SDGs: Moderate Representation

SDG 4 (Quality Education) receives moderate attention through educational financing features and scholarship coordination tools, with 134 user mentions across government banks and 89 mentions across private banks. However, the features remain limited to traditional education financing rather than comprehensive educational technology integration or skill development programming. The gap in educational technology integration suggests opportunities for enhanced mobile banking contribution to educational access and quality improvement through features such as education savings accounts, skill development financing, or educational resource access coordination.

4.10.3. Causal Analysis of SDG Representation Patterns

Regulatory and Policy Factors

The systematic underrepresentation of environmental SDGs reflects the absence of comprehensive sustainable finance regulations in Turkey that would incentivize or require environmental impact integration within digital banking platforms. Without regulatory requirements for environmental disclosure or green finance reporting, banks lack the institutional motivation to develop environmental sustainability features that may require significant technological investment without a clear competitive advantage. The limited health-related SDG representation indicates regulatory barriers between financial services and healthcare sectors that prevent comprehensive health finance integration. Turkish banking regulations do not currently permit the type of health savings account integration or medical expense management coordination that would enhance SDG 3 contribution through mobile banking platforms.

Technological and Infrastructure Limitations

The gaps in environmental SDG representation partially reflect technological infrastructure limitations that make environmental impact tracking and green finance integration challenging within existing mobile banking platforms. The absence of standardized environmental data integration protocols and carbon footprint calculation methodologies creates implementation barriers for banks seeking to develop environmental sustainability features. Private banks’ stronger performance in innovation-focused SDGs reflects their superior technological infrastructure and development capabilities, while government banks’ advantages in development-focused SDGs leverage their institutional mission alignment and public sector coordination capabilities.

Market Demand and User Awareness Factors

The limited user mentions of environmental features suggest insufficient market demand awareness rather than a complete absence of interest in environmental sustainability. The low mention frequency may reflect user unfamiliarity with potential environmental applications of mobile banking rather than indicating a lack of interest in environmental sustainability generally. Educational gaps regarding the potential for mobile banking contribution to environmental sustainability may limit user demand for environmental features, creating a cycle where banks perceive insufficient market demand while users remain unaware of potential environmental applications.

4.10.4. Strategic Recommendations for SDG Alignment Enhancement

Environmental SDG Integration Priorities

Turkish banks should prioritize the development of comprehensive environmental sustainability features that address the identified gaps while leveraging existing technological capabilities. Immediate implementation opportunities include carbon footprint calculators that track the environmental impact of digital versus physical banking transactions, enabling users to understand their environmental contribution through digital banking adoption. Renewable energy investment integration should provide direct access to green bonds, renewable energy project financing, and environmental restoration investment opportunities through mobile banking platforms. This integration would require collaboration with environmental finance specialists and renewable energy developers, but could position early adopters as leaders in sustainable finance innovation. Climate action features should include personal carbon footprint tracking for financial activities, climate-related investment portfolio options, and integration with national climate action initiatives. These features would require coordination with environmental monitoring agencies and climate research institutions, but could significantly enhance mobile banking’s contribution to climate action objectives.

Health and Social Welfare Enhancement

Comprehensive health finance integration should include health savings account coordination, medical expense management tools, and health insurance payment optimization features. Implementation would require regulatory coordination with healthcare authorities and health insurance providers, but could substantially enhance mobile banking’s contribution to health-related sustainable development. Educational finance expansion should encompass comprehensive educational savings programs, skill development financing options, and coordination with educational technology platforms. These features would leverage existing educational financing capabilities while expanding into broader educational access and quality improvement support.

Innovation and Partnership Development

Enhanced partnership formation capabilities should include integration with fintech environmental specialists, health technology providers, and educational technology platforms. These partnerships would enable comprehensive SDG contribution expansion while leveraging specialized expertise in underrepresented SDG areas.

Cross-sector collaboration features should provide platforms for joint sustainability initiatives between banks, government agencies, and civil society organizations. These capabilities would enhance SDG 17 contribution while facilitating coordination across multiple SDG areas through integrated digital platforms.

4.10.5. Implementation Framework for Enhanced SDG Contribution

Phase 1: Immediate Environmental Integration (6–12 months)

Banks should implement basic environmental sustainability communication and tracking features that require minimal technological investment while addressing the most significant SDG gaps. Carbon footprint communication tools, paperless banking promotion features, and basic green investment information integration would provide immediate environmental SDG contribution enhancement.

Phase 2: Comprehensive Health and Education Integration (12–24 months)

Regulatory coordination initiatives should establish frameworks for health finance integration and expanded educational finance capabilities. These initiatives would require collaboration with health and education authorities, but could substantially enhance mobile banking platforms’ contribution to SDG 3 and SDG 4.

Phase 3: Advanced Environmental and Partnership Integration (24–36 months)

Comprehensive environmental finance integration should include advanced carbon tracking, renewable energy investment platforms, and climate action coordination features. These capabilities would require significant technological investment and regulatory coordination but could position Turkish banks as leaders in environmental finance innovation within emerging market contexts. The systematic implementation of these recommendations would transform Turkish mobile banking applications from primarily transactional platforms into comprehensive, sustainable development enablement tools, significantly enhancing their contribution to global sustainability objectives while creating competitive advantages for early adopters.

5. Discussion

5.1. Empirical Findings and Research Question Resolution

Our comprehensive analysis provides definitive answers to the four research questions that guided this investigation, establishing empirical foundations for understanding sustainable digital banking transformation.

Research Question 1 examined how user experiences in mobile banking app reviews align with sustainable banking practices. The findings demonstrate substantial alignment, with sustainability themes constituting 23.43% of government bank reviews and 11.83% of private bank reviews. This alignment manifests differently across institutional contexts, indicating that sustainable banking practices are increasingly embedded in user expectations rather than operating as supplementary features. The sentiment analysis reveals that users respond most positively to sustainability features that align with their bank’s perceived institutional mission, suggesting that authenticity in sustainability implementation drives user satisfaction more than the breadth of sustainability offerings.

Research Question 2 identified key sustainability themes and their temporal evolution. The analysis reveals five primary themes: institutional mission alignment, security and data governance, financial inclusion, operational efficiency, and economic development support. The temporal patterns show acceleration across all sustainability dimensions from 2022 to 2025, with government banks experiencing dramatic growth in social sustainability mentions (+181.7%) and economic sustainability focus (+104.2%). This evolution suggests that mobile banking applications are transitioning from primarily transactional platforms to comprehensive sustainability enablement tools, particularly within government-owned institutions.

Research Question 3 assessed mobile banking applications’ support for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals based on user experience. The systematic SDG mapping demonstrates that Turkish mobile banking applications contribute meaningfully to multiple development goals, though with distinct patterns by ownership type. Government banks show stronger alignment with development-focused SDGs, particularly poverty reduction, economic growth, and inequality reduction, while private banks demonstrate superior performance in innovation-focused SDGs, including industry development and partnership formation. The limited representation of environmentally focused SDGs across all institutions indicates significant untapped potential for enhanced sustainable development contribution.

Research Question 4 evaluated whether user-generated content analysis can identify barriers and enablers to sustainable digital banking transformation. The methodology successfully identified both categories, with key barriers including limited environmental sustainability focus, technical stability challenges, and institutional constraints that may limit innovation in sustainability approaches. Primary enablers include strong institutional identity alignment, digital innovation capabilities, public policy integration, and responsive user feedback mechanisms. These findings establish user-generated content analysis as an effective diagnostic tool for sustainable banking transformation assessment.

5.2. Integration with Existing Literature and Theoretical Contributions

The findings extend existing literature in several critical areas while providing empirical validation for previously theoretical frameworks. Weber and Scholz’s multi-dimensional sustainability framework finds strong empirical support in our analysis, though our results demonstrate the necessity of ownership-sensitive adaptations to traditional environmental, social, governance, and economic categorizations. Government banks prioritize public accountability and community development within governance dimensions, while private banks emphasize security protocols and operational efficiency, indicating that universal sustainability frameworks require institutional contextualization.

The research validates and extends Birindelli and Ferretti’s observations regarding government and private bank sustainability differences, providing the first systematic comparison within digital banking contexts. Our findings demonstrate that ownership-based sustainability differences not only persist but intensify in digital transformation environments, where institutional missions become more explicitly embedded in user-facing technology platforms.

Donner and Tellez’s early observations regarding mobile banking’s development potential receive substantial empirical support through our temporal analysis, which shows accelerating emphasis on development-oriented sustainability themes. However, our findings suggest that this potential manifests differently across institutional contexts, with government banks serving as primary drivers of development-focused sustainability while private banks contribute through technological innovation and operational efficiency improvements.

The study makes three significant theoretical contributions to sustainable digital banking literature. First, it establishes user-generated content as a valid and valuable methodology for capturing authentic sustainability perceptions that may not emerge through researcher-defined frameworks. Second, it demonstrates the necessity of ownership-sensitive analytical approaches that account for institutional mission differences rather than applying universal sustainability criteria. Third, it provides empirical evidence for the temporal evolution of sustainability priorities in digital banking, establishing that sustainability considerations are becoming increasingly central to user evaluation criteria rather than remaining peripheral concerns.

5.3. Practical Implications for Turkish Banking Context

The Turkish banking sector faces specific opportunities and challenges in sustainable digital transformation that emerge clearly from our analysis. Government-owned banks possess substantial advantages in social and economic sustainability implementation due to their public service mandates and development-focused missions. However, these institutions show performance gaps in environmental sustainability and user satisfaction with governance features, indicating areas requiring immediate attention.

Turkish government banks should leverage their institutional strengths while addressing identified weaknesses through targeted digital enhancement initiatives. Bank A’s cultural heritage preservation focus provides a distinctive sustainability positioning that could be enhanced through expanded digital features supporting cultural project financing and heritage preservation documentation. Bank B’s agricultural development mission offers opportunities for comprehensive rural sustainability support through integrated weather forecasting, crop management, and supply chain financing features. Bank C’s small business focus positions it ideally for comprehensive entrepreneurship support through enhanced business management tools, market connectivity features, and integrated financial planning capabilities.

Private banks in Turkey demonstrate superior user satisfaction across most sustainability dimensions while showing lower overall sustainability emphasis. These institutions should enhance their sustainability communication and feature development while maintaining their technological and operational advantages. The findings suggest that private banks’ technological capabilities provide a foundation for innovative sustainability features that could differentiate their market positioning while contributing to national development objectives.

The temporal evolution patterns indicate that Turkish banks are responding to increasing user expectations for explicit sustainability features. This trend creates opportunities for competitive differentiation through comprehensive sustainability integration while suggesting potential regulatory and market pressures for enhanced sustainability performance across all institutional types.

5.4. Global Implications and Framework Transferability

The ownership-sensitive analytical framework developed in this study provides a transferable methodology for evaluating sustainable digital banking transformation in diverse international contexts. The finding that institutional ownership fundamentally shapes sustainability approaches has significant implications for global banking regulation and sustainable development policy.

International development organizations and regulatory bodies should recognize that sustainable banking transformation strategies require adaptation to institutional contexts rather than universal application. The complementary roles identified between government and private banks suggest that comprehensive sustainable development requires policy frameworks that leverage the distinctive strengths of different institutional types rather than imposing uniform sustainability requirements.

The methodology demonstrates particular relevance for emerging market contexts where government-owned financial institutions play significant roles in national development strategies. Countries with substantial state banking sectors can utilize the analytical framework to assess and enhance their institutions’ contributions to sustainable development while identifying opportunities for public–private collaboration in sustainability initiatives.

The temporal analysis approach provides a replicable methodology for tracking sustainability evolution in response to external pressures, technological developments, and changing user expectations. This capability offers valuable insights for international banking supervision and sustainable finance regulation development.

5.5. Strategic Recommendations for Banking Institutions

Environmental Sustainability Enhancement

Banks across both ownership types should implement comprehensive environmental sustainability features that address the identified gap in this dimension. Specific recommendations include developing carbon footprint tracking tools that calculate and display the environmental impact of digital versus physical banking transactions, enabling users to understand their contribution to environmental sustainability through digital banking adoption.

Financial institutions should integrate renewable energy investment opportunities directly within mobile banking platforms, allowing users to allocate savings to green bonds, renewable energy projects, and environmental restoration initiatives. This integration would provide tangible environmental engagement opportunities while generating sustainable revenue streams for banks.

Comprehensive paperless banking initiatives should extend beyond basic digital statements to encompass all banking communications, documentation, and transaction processing. Banks should implement gamification elements that reward users for environmental sustainability behaviors, including paperless adoption, digital transaction utilization, and participation in environmental financing programs.

Social Sustainability Integration

Government banks should expand their institutional mission alignment through enhanced digital features that support their historical mandates while improving user experience quality. Private banks should develop social sustainability features that complement their technological capabilities while addressing community development objectives.

Financial inclusion enhancement requires comprehensive accessibility improvements across all banking platforms, including voice banking capabilities for users with visual impairments, simplified interfaces for users with limited digital literacy, and multilingual support for diverse communities. Banks should implement community investment tracking features that enable users to understand how their banking activities contribute to local economic development and social welfare initiatives.

Governance and Economic Sustainability Advancement

All banks require substantial improvements in governance sustainability features, given the consistently low sentiment scores across this dimension. Enhanced security transparency should include user-accessible security dashboards that explain protection measures, real-time threat monitoring displays, and educational content regarding digital banking security best practices.

Economic sustainability features should extend beyond traditional banking services to encompass comprehensive financial wellness support, including automated savings recommendations, debt management assistance, and long-term financial planning tools. Government banks should enhance their economic development feature sets through integrated small business support tools, agricultural sector assistance programs, and regional development project financing options.

5.6. Policy Recommendations for Sustainable Banking Transformation

Regulatory Framework Development

Turkish banking regulators should develop sustainability reporting requirements that account for institutional ownership differences while establishing minimum standards across all bank types. These requirements should mandate sustainability feature disclosure in digital banking platforms, enabling consumer choice based on sustainability priorities while encouraging competitive innovation in sustainability implementation.

Regulatory frameworks should establish incentive structures that encourage collaboration between government and private banks in sustainability initiatives, recognizing their complementary strengths rather than treating them as competitors in sustainability performance. Tax incentives, regulatory relief, or public recognition programs could motivate enhanced sustainability integration across institutional types.

National Digital Banking Strategy

Turkish policymakers should develop a comprehensive national digital banking strategy that positions mobile banking applications as tools for Sustainable Development Goal achievement. This strategy should establish specific targets for digital banking contribution to poverty reduction, financial inclusion, and economic development while providing institutional support for sustainability feature development.

The strategy should include public–private partnership frameworks that enable government banks to leverage private sector technological capabilities while allowing private banks to participate in public development initiatives. Such collaboration could accelerate sustainability feature development while maximizing the sector’s contribution to national sustainability objectives.

International Cooperation and Knowledge Sharing

Turkish banking authorities should establish international cooperation agreements for sustainable digital banking best practice sharing, particularly with other emerging market economies facing similar development challenges. These agreements could facilitate technology transfer, regulatory framework development, and joint sustainability initiative implementation.

5.7. Implementation Roadmap for Sustainability Enhancement

Short-term Initiatives (6–12 months)

Banks should immediately implement basic environmental sustainability communication features that highlight the environmental benefits of digital banking adoption. These features require minimal technological investment while addressing the identified environmental sustainability gap through enhanced user awareness and engagement.

Governance sustainability improvements should focus on enhanced security communication and user education, addressing the consistently low sentiment scores through improved transparency rather than additional security measures. User dashboard enhancements that explain existing security features and provide security behavior recommendations can improve satisfaction without substantial infrastructure investment.

Medium-term Development (1–2 years)

Comprehensive sustainability feature integration should encompass all four sustainability dimensions through coordinated development initiatives. Government banks should focus on enhancing their institutional mission alignment features while improving user experience quality. Private banks should develop social and environmental sustainability features that complement their technological strengths.

Cross-institutional collaboration initiatives should establish sustainability feature sharing agreements, enabling smaller banks to access sophisticated sustainability tools while allowing larger institutions to expand their sustainability impact through broader platform utilization.

Long-term Transformation (2–5 years)

Comprehensive sustainable banking ecosystems should integrate mobile banking applications with broader sustainability initiatives, including municipal sustainability programs, environmental restoration projects, and community development initiatives. This integration would position banks as central facilitators of sustainable development rather than isolated financial service providers.

International expansion of sustainability frameworks should enable Turkish banks to export their sustainable digital banking innovations while importing best practices from international partners. This expansion could position Turkey as a leader in sustainable digital banking transformation within emerging market contexts.

The implementation of these recommendations requires coordinated action across banking institutions, regulatory authorities, and technology providers. However, the substantial user engagement with sustainability themes demonstrated in our analysis indicates strong market demand for enhanced sustainability features, suggesting that investment in sustainable digital banking transformation will generate both social impact and commercial returns.

5.8. Enhanced Research Limitations and Methodological Constraints

5.8.1. Data Source Limitations and Validity Implications

The exclusive reliance on user-generated content as the primary data source for evaluating sustainability represents the most significant methodological limitation of this study. While user reviews provide valuable insights into experienced sustainability and authentic stakeholder perceptions, this approach creates specific validity constraints that affect the scope and interpretation of our conclusions.

User-generated content captures experienced sustainability rather than implemented sustainability, which may not fully represent institutional sustainability efforts that operate beyond direct customer experience. This distinction becomes particularly critical when evaluating environmental sustainability initiatives, which often involve operational changes such as renewable energy adoption, carbon footprint reduction programs, or green building implementations that generate substantial institutional impact but minimal direct user interaction. The systematic underrepresentation of environmental sustainability in our findings may therefore reflect measurement limitations rather than a genuine absence of environmental initiatives.

The temporal lag between sustainability implementation and user recognition creates additional validity constraints. Recently introduced sustainability features may not yet have generated sufficient user awareness or review commentary to appear prominently in our analysis. This temporal bias could systematically underestimate sustainability transformation progress, particularly for institutions implementing comprehensive sustainability strategies that require extended periods for full user recognition and evaluation.

Furthermore, the observational nature of user-generated content analysis prevents the establishment of causal relationships between institutional characteristics and sustainability implementation effectiveness. While our findings identify clear patterns in sustainability theme prevalence and sentiment across institutional types, these correlations cannot support causal claims about the superiority of specific sustainability approaches or the effectiveness of particular institutional strategies.

5.8.2. Generalizability Constraints and Population Representativeness

The generalizability limitations extend substantially beyond the acknowledged digital exclusion concerns to encompass broader representational constraints that affect the external validity of our findings. The mobile banking user population represents a specific demographic segment that may hold systematically different sustainability priorities compared to the broader banking customer base or the general population.

Our findings reflect sustainability perceptions among digitally engaged, economically active individuals who possess sufficient financial resources and technological capabilities to utilize mobile banking services. This population likely demonstrates higher environmental awareness, greater technology adoption propensity, and different economic priorities compared to excluded populations such as rural communities with limited connectivity, elderly populations with lower digital literacy, and economically disadvantaged groups with restricted banking access.

The implications for sustainability policy development become particularly significant when considering that government banks serve broader development mandates that encompass populations beyond their mobile banking user base. Our findings regarding government bank sustainability advantages may reflect the perspectives of their most digitally engaged customers rather than indicating superior sustainability performance across their entire service population.

The socioeconomic stratification embedded within mobile banking adoption further compounds representational limitations. Users with sufficient financial resources to maintain bank accounts and smartphones likely experience different sustainability challenges compared to unbanked or underbanked populations. This creates a systematic bias toward sustainability priorities of economically advantaged users whose concerns may not represent broader societal sustainability needs.

5.8.3. Environmental Sustainability Analysis Limitations

The minimal representation of environmental sustainability themes across all banking institutions requires a comprehensive examination of potential causal factors and measurement limitations that may affect the validity of our environmental sustainability conclusions.

The low environmental sustainability representation may reflect multiple underlying factors that our methodology cannot distinguish. Genuine absence of environmental features within mobile banking applications represents one possibility, but user unfamiliarity with environmental applications of financial services or communication gaps between institutional environmental initiatives and user awareness provide alternative explanations for the observed patterns.

The environmental sustainability gap may also reflect structural constraints within the Turkish financial services regulatory environment that limit environmental finance integration capabilities. Without regulatory requirements for environmental disclosure or green finance reporting, banks may lack institutional motivation to develop environmental sustainability features that require significant technological investment without a clear competitive advantage or user demand signals.

Additionally, the temporal scope of our analysis may not capture emerging environmental sustainability initiatives that Turkish banks have begun implementing in response to global climate commitments and European Union regulatory alignment processes. The environmental sustainability landscape in banking has evolved rapidly since 2022, and our findings may underestimate current environmental integration efforts that have not yet generated substantial user awareness or review commentary.

The measurement challenges extend to definitional ambiguities regarding what constitutes environmental sustainability in digital banking contexts. While traditional environmental metrics focus on resource consumption and carbon emissions, digital banking environmental sustainability may encompass paperless processes, server energy efficiency, and indirect environmental impacts through financing choices that users may not recognize or prioritize in review submissions.

5.8.4. Methodological Limitations Framework and Analytical Constraints

Our analytical approach creates specific constraints on the types of conclusions that can be appropriately drawn from the findings. The user perspective focus provides valuable insights into stakeholder experience and sustainability implementation effectiveness from the customer viewpoint, but cannot validate institutional sustainability claims or assess implementation authenticity beyond user perception accuracy.

The sentiment analysis limitations in Turkish language contexts introduce additional analytical constraints. Turkish morphological complexity and cultural communication patterns may result in systematic sentiment misclassification that affects the reliability of our satisfaction assessments across sustainability dimensions. The indirect expression tendencies in Turkish digital discourse regarding institutional services could systematically underestimate negative sentiment toward government banks while overestimating satisfaction with private institutions.

The structural topic modeling approach, while enabling identification of organic theme emergence, remains constrained by the vocabulary and conceptual frameworks present in user discourse. Users may not possess the technical knowledge to evaluate complex sustainability initiatives or may lack awareness of sustainability terminology that would enable recognition and discussion of relevant institutional efforts.

Temporal pattern analysis faces additional constraints regarding the ability to distinguish between fundamental shifts in sustainability priorities and temporary responses to external events or market pressures. The three-year analytical window, while providing valuable trend identification, may not capture longer-term sustainability transformation cycles or distinguish sustainable changes from temporary adoption patterns.

5.8.5. Implications for Research Conclusions and Policy Applications

These methodological limitations collectively establish clear boundaries regarding the appropriate scope of conclusions that can be drawn from our analysis. Our findings provide robust evidence for patterns in user sustainability perceptions and institutional differences in sustainability communication effectiveness, but cannot support definitive claims about actual sustainability implementation quality or optimal sustainability strategies.

The policy implications must be interpreted within these constraints, recognizing that user perspective analysis provides valuable stakeholder input for sustainability strategy development but requires integration with complementary data sources for comprehensive decision-making frameworks. Regulatory recommendations based on our findings should acknowledge the limitations of perception-based analysis while leveraging insights about user expectations and institutional variation patterns.

The institutional strategy recommendations similarly require careful interpretation that distinguishes between user satisfaction optimization and comprehensive sustainability implementation effectiveness. While our findings indicate areas where user sustainability expectations exceed current institutional performance, addressing these gaps requires validation through operational data and sustainability impact assessment beyond user perception analysis.

6. Conclusions

This study has presented a comprehensive text mining-based analysis of sustainability dimensions in Turkish mobile banking applications through the lens of user-generated content. By examining 120,000 reviews across six major banking institutions, we have uncovered significant patterns that advance our understanding of sustainable digital banking transformation. Several key conclusions emerge from our research.

6.1. Ownership-Driven Sustainability Differentiation

Our findings establish that bank ownership structure fundamentally shapes sustainability approaches in mobile banking applications. Government-owned banks demonstrate substantially stronger overall sustainability orientation (23.43% vs. 11.83% coverage) compared to private banks, with particularly pronounced differences in social and economic dimensions. This ownership-based differentiation extends beyond mere quantitative differences to qualitative variations in sustainability emphasis, with government banks prioritizing development-oriented sustainability and private banks focusing on innovation and efficiency-driven sustainability.

The institution-specific sustainability profiles further highlight how historical missions and mandates shape digital transformation approaches. Bank A’s cultural heritage emphasis (10.19% of reviews), Bank B’s agricultural sector focus (0.29%), and Bank C’s small business support orientation (1.42%) demonstrate that effective, sustainable digital banking strategies must be contextualized within institutional identity rather than applying universal frameworks.

6.2. Methodological Contributions

This study makes significant methodological contributions to sustainability research in digital banking. The ownership-sensitive analytical framework developed here demonstrates the importance of contextualizing sustainability evaluations within institutional missions. Our approach of integrating structural topic modeling with sentiment analysis and temporal pattern recognition enables the identification of complex interactions between institutional identity, time period, and sustainability priorities that would be difficult to capture through traditional survey-based research.

Furthermore, the study validates user-generated content as a valuable resource for understanding sustainability perceptions in digital banking. By analyzing over 54,725 spontaneous user reviews, we have accessed authentic sustainability priorities that emerge organically from user experiences rather than being constrained by researcher-defined frameworks. This approach helps overcome limitations of previous studies that relied on predetermined sustainability criteria that might not fully capture users’ actual sustainability concerns.

6.3. SDG Alignment and Sustainable Development Impact

Our systematic mapping of mobile banking sustainability themes to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals reveals significant patterns in how digital banking contributes to global sustainability objectives. Government-owned and private banks demonstrate distinct SDG alignment profiles, reflecting their different institutional missions and sustainability approaches.

Government banks demonstrate stronger alignment with development-focused SDGs, particularly SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). This alignment manifests through features supporting financial inclusion, subsidized financing options, and economic development initiatives. Bank A’s cultural heritage preservation efforts strongly support SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), Bank B’s agricultural focus contributes significantly to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), and Bank C’s small business support aligns with SDG 8.

Private banks, in contrast, show greater alignment with innovation-focused goals, especially SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). Their technological innovation, security enhancements, and user experience optimizations contribute to digital infrastructure development, while their strategic alliances foster cross-sector collaboration for sustainability.

The temporal analysis (2022–2025) reveals evolution in SDG priorities, with all banks increasing their focus on SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 9, indicating growing recognition of environmental concerns and the importance of digital innovation in sustainable banking. Government banks have shifted from basic poverty alleviation toward sustainable economic development, while private banks have strengthened their commitment to financial inclusion and responsible consumption.

These findings underscore the complementary roles of government and private banks in advancing the SDGs through digital transformation. While both ownership types contribute to sustainable development, their distinct approaches suggest that comprehensive SDG advancement requires policy frameworks that leverage the unique strengths of each institutional type rather than imposing universal sustainability standards.

Looking ahead, addressing gaps in environmental sustainability alignment (particularly SDGs 7, 12, and 13) represents a critical opportunity for both government and private banks to enhance their contributions to sustainable development through innovative digital banking solutions.

6.4. Future Research Directions and Methodological Considerations

6.4.1. Cross-National Comparative Research Framework

The analytical framework developed in this study provides substantial opportunities for cross-national comparative research that could illuminate how cultural, regulatory, and economic contexts influence sustainable digital banking transformation patterns. Comparative studies across emerging market economies with substantial government banking sectors, including India, Brazil, and South Africa, would enable systematic evaluation of how institutional ownership effects manifest across different developmental contexts and regulatory environments.

European comparative analysis would provide particularly valuable insights by examining how sustainability approaches differ between countries with varying degrees of government banking presence and different regulatory frameworks for sustainable finance. The contrast between Nordic countries with comprehensive sustainable finance regulations and Eastern European nations with developing sustainability frameworks could illuminate the role of the regulatory environment in shaping sustainable digital banking evolution.

Cross-national research should employ standardized user-generated content analysis methodologies while adapting sustainability lexicons and cultural communication patterns to local contexts. The methodology’s transferability across linguistic and cultural boundaries requires systematic validation, particularly regarding sentiment analysis accuracy and sustainability theme identification consistency across different languages and cultural communication styles.

Developing economy comparative research would examine how mobile banking sustainability approaches differ across countries with varying levels of financial inclusion, technological infrastructure, and sustainable development priorities. These comparisons could identify universal patterns in sustainable digital banking transformation while highlighting context-specific factors that require localized approaches to sustainability integration.

6.4.2. Multi-Source Data Integration and Analytical Enhancement

The integration of additional data sources beyond mobile application reviews would substantially enhance the understanding of sustainable digital banking transformation through the triangulation of user perspectives and behavioral evidence. Social media analysis could provide complementary insights into user sustainability expectations and bank sustainability communication effectiveness through examination of Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn discussions regarding mobile banking sustainability features.

In-application analytics integration would enable correlation between user-expressed sustainability preferences and actual feature usage patterns, providing behavioral validation for sentiment-based findings. This integration would require a partnership with banking institutions to access anonymized usage data while maintaining user privacy protections and regulatory compliance.

Customer service interaction analysis could illuminate sustainability-related support requests and user education needs that may not emerge through voluntary review submission. The integration of chatbot conversation data and customer service call analysis would provide insights into sustainability feature implementation challenges and user comprehension barriers.

Financial transaction pattern analysis could examine correlations between sustainability feature usage and broader banking behavior, including investment choices, spending patterns, and long-term financial planning decisions. This analysis would require sophisticated anonymization procedures and regulatory approval but could provide valuable insights into sustainability feature effectiveness and user behavior modification.

Web analytics from banking institution websites could complement mobile application analysis by examining how users research sustainability features and navigate between digital channels when evaluating sustainability offerings. This multi-channel analysis would provide a comprehensive understanding of user sustainability evaluation processes across digital banking ecosystems.

6.4.3. Longitudinal and Behavioral Research Extensions

Extended longitudinal research over five—to ten-year periods would enable the identification of deeper sustainability transformation patterns and evaluation of sustainability feature impact on user behavior and bank performance. Long-term tracking would illuminate whether observed sustainability growth represents permanent transformation or temporary trend adoption.

Behavioral intervention studies could examine how specific sustainability feature implementations influence user financial decision-making, environmental behavior, and social engagement patterns. These studies would require controlled implementation of sustainability features across user segments with systematic behavioral tracking and outcome measurement.

Generational analysis could examine how sustainability feature adoption and evaluation patterns differ across age cohorts, providing insights into long-term sustainability transformation prospects as digital native populations become primary banking customers. This analysis would inform sustainability feature development strategies and long-term institutional sustainability planning.

Economic impact assessment research could examine correlations between sustainability feature adoption and broader economic development outcomes at the regional and national levels. This research would require integration with economic development data and sophisticated causal inference methodologies but could provide evidence for sustainable digital banking policy development.

6.4.4. Methodological Innovation and Technology Integration

Advanced natural language processing techniques, including transformer-based models and multilingual sentiment analysis, could enhance sustainability theme identification accuracy and enable more sophisticated analysis of user sustainability discourse. Implementation of large language models specifically trained on financial services content could improve sustainability classification precision.

Machine learning approaches for sustainability prediction could identify user segments most likely to adopt sustainability features and banks most likely to implement comprehensive sustainability integration. These predictive models could inform targeted sustainability development strategies and market expansion planning.

Blockchain technology integration could enable transparent tracking of sustainability impact claims and user verification of sustainability feature effectiveness. This technology could address trust concerns regarding sustainability communication while enabling innovative sustainability verification and impact measurement capabilities.

Artificial intelligence-powered sustainability recommendation systems could provide personalized sustainability feature suggestions based on user behavior patterns and sustainability preferences. These systems could enhance user engagement with sustainability features while providing banks with insights into optimal sustainability feature development priorities.

6.4.5. Ethical Considerations and Data Privacy Protocols

This research adhered to comprehensive ethical guidelines and data privacy protocols designed to protect user confidentiality while enabling valuable research insights. All user-generated content was obtained exclusively through publicly available application review platforms, ensuring that no private or confidential user information was accessed during data collection processes.

Data anonymization procedures ensured the complete removal of personally identifiable information prior to analysis initiation. User identification markers, including usernames, profile information, and device identifiers, were systematically eliminated from the dataset. The review content underwent automated screening to identify and remove any personal information that users may have inadvertently included in public reviews.

Aggregation protocols ensured that all reported findings represent statistical patterns across large user populations rather than individual user perspectives or behaviors. The minimum reporting threshold of fifty user mentions for any sustainability theme ensures that no individual user opinions or experiences can be identified through research findings.

Data storage and processing followed university research data management protocols, including encrypted storage systems, access control mechanisms, and automated data retention policies. All data processing occurred within secure computing environments with comprehensive audit trails and access logging.

Research ethics approval was obtained from institutional review boards prior to data collection initiation, with particular attention to user privacy protection and research benefit assessment. The research design underwent ethical review to ensure that social benefits justify any potential privacy considerations associated with public content analysis.

Consent consideration protocols recognized that while public review submission constitutes implicit consent for public analysis, research applications should remain within the reasonable expectations of review platform users. The research design focused exclusively on aggregate pattern identification rather than individual user profiling or targeted marketing application.

Data sharing protocols ensure that underlying user data remains confidential while enabling research reproducibility through anonymized statistical summaries and aggregate analytical results. Future researchers can access methodological frameworks and statistical findings without requiring access to individual user content.

6.4.6. Regulatory and Policy Research Integration

Future research should examine regulatory framework development for sustainable digital banking, including an analysis of how different regulatory approaches influence sustainability feature adoption and effectiveness. Comparative regulatory analysis across jurisdictions could inform optimal policy development for sustainable banking transformation encouragement.

Policy impact assessment research could evaluate how government sustainability initiatives and regulatory requirements influence mobile banking sustainability development patterns. This research would require coordination with regulatory authorities and policy development agencies but could provide valuable guidance for sustainable banking policy optimization.

International cooperation framework research could examine how cross-border regulatory coordination and international standard development influence sustainable digital banking evolution. This research could inform international sustainable finance regulation development and cross-border banking sustainability coordination initiatives.

Stakeholder engagement research could examine how different approaches to stakeholder consultation and community involvement influence sustainability feature development and adoption patterns. This research could inform participatory sustainability development methodologies and community-centered banking transformation approaches.

The implementation of these expanded research directions would substantially advance understanding of sustainable digital banking transformation while addressing methodological limitations and ethical considerations inherent in user-generated content analysis. The systematic expansion of research scope and methodological sophistication would position this research program as a leading contributor to sustainable banking transformation, knowledge, and policy development.

6.5. Concluding Remarks

As financial institutions navigate the dual challenges of digital transformation and sustainability imperatives, mobile banking applications emerge as a critical nexus where these priorities intersect. Our research demonstrates that sustainable digital banking transformation manifests differently across institutional contexts, with ownership structure playing a decisive role in shaping sustainability approaches. The significant differences between government and private banks highlight the importance of contextualizing sustainability strategies within institutional missions rather than applying universal frameworks.

The evolution of sustainability themes over time suggests increasing recognition of mobile banking’s potential contributions to sustainable development, though important gaps remain, particularly in environmental sustainability. By understanding these patterns and their institutional drivers, financial institutions can develop more effective strategies for advancing sustainability through their digital offerings.

Ultimately, this research contributes to both theoretical understanding and practical implementation of sustainable digital banking transformation. Through systematic analysis of user-generated content, we have illuminated how mobile banking applications currently contribute to sustainability objectives and identified opportunities for enhancing this contribution in the future. As digital banking continues to evolve, maintaining this dual focus on technological advancement and sustainability will be essential for financial institutions seeking to create lasting value in an increasingly digital and sustainability-conscious world.