Bir Halkla İlişkiler Aracı Olarak Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk: Sosyal Refah için Araç mı Amaç mı?

Abstract

Öz

Dünya çapında en çok ciro yapan şirketlere bakıldığında bu şirketlerin gelişmiş ülkelerde faaliyet gösterdiği

görülür ancak nasıl bir ironidir ki bu şirketler faaliyet gösterdikleri topraklarda üretimde yetersizlik ve gelir

dağılımında eşitsizlik problemine çözüm getirmekte çoğunlukla başarısız olmaktadır. Özünde, şirketlerin kuruluş

amacı topluma katkı sağlamaktır; şirketler, fakirliği azaltmada ve yaşam standardını yükseltmede toplumların

güçlü kaynaklarıdır. İki anahtar slogan olan ‘herkes için üretim’ ve ‘gelir dağılımında eşitlik’ kurumsal sosyal

sorumluluk (KSS) kavramının temelini oluşturur. Değişen rekabet anlayışıyla sürdürülebilirliğin gittikçe önem

kazandığı global toplumda şirketler; ekonomik, çevresel ve sosyal performans yönetim politikalarını hesap

verilebilirlik, şeffaflık ve sürdürülebilirlik ilkeleri doğrultusunda sergilemek durumundadırlar. Kurumların

sosyal sorumluluk projelerini artan bir hızla hayata geçirme gayretlerine tanık olsak da kavram için ne bir

üniversal tanım ne de uygulamalara yönelik bir standart vardır. Günümüz piyasası sosyal refahı arttırmaya

yönelik çalışmaları ödüllendirmektedir; bu da, işletmeler arasında kendini bu alanda en iyi göstermek için

yarış başlatmıştır. Bu yarışı konu alan en popüler argüman ise KSS çalışmalarının araç mı yoksa amaç mı

olduğudur. Bu çalışma literatürde yer alan teorileri, model, öneri ve eleştirileri detaylarıyla ele alıp sosyal ve

ekonomik hedeflerin birbirinden ayrı mı yoksa farklı mı olduğunu irdelemeyi ve KSS için kapsamlı bir tanım

önermeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

• Kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk,Halkla ilişkiler,KSS,KSS Araç,KSS Amaç

Corporate Social Responsibility As a Public Relations Tool: A Medium or Cause For Social Welfare

Abstract

Abstract

When one takes a look at global companies with the biggest revenues, it is striking to see that despite they

operate in developing countries they mostly fail to offset the dynamics triggering insufficient production

and unequal distribution of income. Fundamentally, the founding purpose of a company is to provide for

the society in which they operate; firms serve pivotal importance in reducing poverty and increasing the

life standard for the communities they serve. ‘Production for all’ and ‘equity in the distribution of income’ are

two slogans forming the foundation of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) concept. As sustainability

is increasingly growing in importance in the face of dynamic competition and changing mindsets of the

global society, companies are expected to present their economic, environmental and social management

performance in accordance with the principals of accountability, transparency and sustainability. Since the

last decade, though corporations seem to be on a rush to carry out a variety of CSR projects, the concept

still lacks a universal definition and the practice lacks standardization. Now that today’s business ecosystem

champions practices with a focus on elevating standard of living for members of the society, a start has

begun among companies to present themselves as the best in giving back to the society what they have

taken back. The most popular argument encapsulating this race presents itself as whether CSR practices is

a medium or a cause. By presenting a detail review of the theories, models, propositions and critiques on

CSR practices found in literature, this paper intends to present a definition for the CSR concept and illustrate

that social and economic objectives are not so different as highlighted by the arguments surrounding

contemporary CSR practices.

Keywords

• Corporate social responsibility,CSR,Public relations,CSR medium,CRS cause

References

1. Aras, G., & Crowther, D. 2008. Governance and sustainability: An investigation into the relationship between corporate governance and corporate sustainability, Management Decision, 46(3), 433-448.
2. Ackoff, R. L. 1999. Re-creating the Corporation: A Design of Organizations for the 21st Century. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Andriof, J. & McIntosh, M. 2001, Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship. Sheffield: Greenleaf.
4. Barnard, C. I. 1968. The Functions of the Executive (Vol. 11). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. 2004. Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives, California management review, 47(1), 9-24.
6. Bowen, H. R. 1953. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
7. Carr, A. 1968. Is business bluffing ethical, Harvard Business Review, 143, 155.
8. Carroll, A. B. 1979. A Three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance, Academy of Management Review 4(4), 503.

9. Carroll, A. B. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders, Business horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
10. Carroll, A. B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct, Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295.
11. Carroll, A. B. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: A historical perspective. In: Epstein MJ, Hanson KO (Eds.) The accountable corporation: Corporate social responsibility, (3rd ed., 3-30). Westport, CT: Praeger.
12. Carroll, A. B. 2008. A history of corporate social responsibility: Concepts and practices, The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility, 19-46.
13. Chen, J. C., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. W. 2008. Corporate charitable contributions: A corporate social performance or legitimacy strategy?, Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 131-144.
14. Clark, J.M. 1939. Social Control of Business. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
15. Cochran, P. L., & Wood, R. A. 1984. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance, Academy of management Journal, 27(1), 42-56.
16. Coelho, P. R., McClure, J. E., & Spry, J. A. 2003. The social responsibility of corporate management: A classical critique, American journal of business, 18(1), 15-24.
17. Davis, K. 1960. Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities?, California management review, 2(3), 70-76.
18. Davis, K. 1967. Understanding the social responsibility puzzle, Business Horizon Winter, 45–50.
19. Doane, D., & Abasta-Vilaplana, N. 2005. The myth of CSR, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 3(3), 22-29.
20. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications, Academy of management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
21. Drucker, P. F. 2008. The five most important questions you will ever ask about your organization (Vol. 90). San Francisco, C.A: John Wiley & Sons.
22. Eberstadt, N.N. 1973. What history tells us about corporate social responsibility, Business and Society Review, 7, 76–81.
23. Eels, Richard. 1956. Corporate Giving in a Free Society. New York, NY: Harper Elkington, J., Hailes, J., & Makower, J. 1990. The Green Consumer. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
24. Frederick, W. C. 1960. The growing concern over business responsibility, California management review, 2(4), 54-61.
25. Frederick, W. C. 1994. From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business-and-society thought, Business & Society, 33(2), 150-164.
26. Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective. Boston, M.A: Pitman.
27. Freeman, R. E. 1994. The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions, Business ethics quarterly, 409-421.
28. Freeman, R. E. 1999. Divergent stakeholder theory, Academy of management review, 24(2), 233-236.
29. Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. 1990. Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation, Journal of behavioral economics, 19(4), 337-359.
30. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Friedman, M. 1962. Capitalism and freedom: With the assistance of Rose D. Friedman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32. Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, New York Times Magazine, September 13: 32-33, 122-124.
33. Fishman, R. J., Heal, G. M. & Nair, V. B. 2005. Preliminary Draft. Corporate social responsibility: Doing well by doing good? Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania.
34. Harjoto, M. A., & Jo, H. 2007. Why do firms engage in corporate social responsibility? (Working Paper). Santa Clara, CA: Santa Clara University.
35. Hay, R., & Gray, E. 1974. Social responsibilities of business managers, Academy of Management Journal, 17(1), 135-143.
36. Heald, M. 1957. Management’s responsibility to society: The growth of an idea, Business History Review, 31: 375–84.
37. Heald, M. 1970. The social responsibilities of business: Company and community,1900-1960. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University Press.
38. Henderson, D. 2005. The role of business in the world of today, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 17(3), 30-32.
39. Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what’s the bottom line?, Strategic management journal, 22(2), 125-139.
40. Hur, W. M., Kim, H., & Woo, J. 2014. How CSR leads to corporate brand equity: Mediating mechanisms of corporate brand credibility and reputation, Journal of Business Ethics,125(1), 75-86.
41. Jensen, M. 2001. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function, European Financial Management. 7. 297 - 317. 10.1111/1468-036X.0015
42. Jhawar, N., & Gupta, S. 2017. Frameworks of corporate governance in BRICS, Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 7(8), 277-284.
43. Johnson, H. L. 1971. Business in contemporary society: Framework and issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
44. Jones, T. M. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics, Academy of management review, 20(2), 404-437.
45. Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory, Academy of management review, 24(2), 206-221.
46. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. 2008. Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
47. Kreps, T. J. 1940. Measurement of the social performance of business. In An investigation of concentration of economic power for the temporary national economic committee (Monograph No. 7). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
48. Laffer, A. B., Coors, A., & Winegarden, W. 2004. Does corporate social responsibility enhance business profitability? Laffer Associates.
49. Lantos, G. P. 2001. The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility, Journal of consumer marketing, 18(7), 595-632.
50. Lee, M. D. P. 2008. A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead, International journal of management reviews, 10(1), 53-73.
51. Levitt, T. 1958. The dangers of social-responsibility, Harvard business review, 36(5), 41-50.
52. Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. 2002. Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations, Journal of International Business Studies,33(3), 497-514.
53. Martinuzzi, A., Krumay, B., & Pisano, U. 2011. Focus CSR: The new communication of the EU commission on CSR and national CSR strategies and action plans, (Vienna: ESDN European Sustainable Development Network,, Quarterly Report No, 23, December), available online at https://www.sd-network.eu/quarterly%20 reports/report%20files/pdf/2011-December-The_New_Communication_of_the_EU_Commission_on_ CSR_and_National_CSR_strategies.pdf
54. McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. 1988. Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance, Academy of management Journal, 31(4), 854-872.
55. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective, Academy of management review, 26(1), 117-127.
56. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications, Journal of management studies, 43(1), 1-18.
57. Melo, T., & Garrido‐Morgado, A. 2012. Corporate reputation: A combination of social responsibility and industry, Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 19(1), 11-31.
58. Muirhead, S.A. 1999. Corporate contributions: the view from 50 years. New York, NY: The Conference Board.
59. Ni, A., & Van Wart, M. 2015. Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing Well and Doing Good. In Building Business-Government Relations (pp. 175-196). Routledge.
60. Oğuz, İ. 2015. Osmanlı Midillisi’ndeki şahıs vakıflarının amaçlarına dair, Journal of History School, 21, 263-300. Persons, O. 2012. Incorporating corporate social responsibility and sustainability into a business course: a shared experience, Journal of Education for Business, 87(2), 63-72.
61. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. 2002. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy, Harvard business review, 80(12), 56-68.
62. Prior, D., Surroca, J., & Tribó, J. A. 2008. Are socially responsible managers really ethical? Exploring the relationship between earnings management and corporate social responsibility, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(3), 160-177.
63. Reich, R. 2008, “The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility”, University of California, Berkeley, Goldman School Working Paper SeriesGSPP08-003, ssrn.com/abstract=1213129. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1213129
64. Sarıkaya, M., & Akarca, Y. 2011. Kurumsal sosyal sorumlulukta ölçüm teknikleri, Denetişim, (8), 60-67.
65. Selekman, B. 1959. A Moral Philosophy for Business. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
66. Sethi, S. P. 1975. Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework, California management review, 17(3), 58-64.
67. Smith, A. 1759. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Ed. Knud Haakonssen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68. Smith, A. 1937. The Wealth of Nations. New York, NY: Modern Library.
69. Sternberg, E. 1997. The defects of stakeholder theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5(1), 3-10.
70. Şimşek, M. 1986. Osmanlı cemiyetinde para vakıfları üzerinde münakaşalar, Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 207-220.
71. Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. 1997. Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees, Academy of management journal, 40(3), 658-672.
72. Türker, D. Altuntaş Vural, C. 2016. Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk ve Hayırseverlik in S. Hoştut ve S.D. Van Het Hof (Eds.) Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumlulukta Güncel Yönelim ve Yaklaşımlar. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
73. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. 1997. The corporate social performance–financial performance link, Strategic management journal, 18(4), 303-319.
74. Wang, H., Choi, J., & Li, J. 2008. Too little or too much? Untangling the relationship between corporate philanthropy and firm financial performance, Organization Science, 19(1), 143-159
75. Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. 1985. The evolution of the corporate social performance model, Academy of management review, 10(4), 758-769.
76. Werhane, P. H., & Freeman, R. E. 1999. Business ethics: the state of the art, International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(1), 1-16.
77. Windsor, D. 2001. The future of corporate social responsibility, The international journal of organizational analysis, 9(3), 225-256.
78. Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited, Academy of management review, 16(4), 691-718.
79. Wren, D. A. 2005. The history of management thought. John Wiley & Sons.
80. Zerk, J. A. 2006. Multinationals and corporate social responsibility: Limitations and opportunities in international law(Vol. 48). CA: Cambridge University Press.