SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK RAPORLARININ KURUMSAL MARKA BAKIŞ AÇISI İLE ANALİZİ: ARÇELİK ÖRNEĞİ

Year 2019, Volume: 21 Issue: 2, 467 - 492, 26.06.2019

Zeynep Arslan , Raif Serkan Albayrak

https://doi.org/10.16953/deusosbil.421050

Abstract

Çalışmada, bir sürdürülebilirlik raporu örneği kullanılarak,
kurumsal marka kavramlarının sürdürülebilirlik unsurlarıyla nasıl
ilişkilendirildiği tartışılmıştır. Araştırmanın kurumsal
sürdürülebilirliğe ilişkin değişkenleri, BİST Sürdürülebilirlik Endeksi’ne dâhil
olma kriterlerini temel alan 54 adet unsurdan oluşmaktadır. Kurumsal markaya
ilişkin değişkenler ise, Hatch ve Schultz’un (2003) vizyon, kültür ve imaj
modelini temel alan 51 adet unsurdan oluşmaktadır. Buna göre, Arçelik
firmasının 2015 yılına ait kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik raporu, ilk adımda toplam
105 unsura göre kodlanarak tematik içerik analizi yapılmış, bu analiz sonunda
ortaya çıkan kavramlar arası yakınlık ilişkileri Semantik Ağ Analizi
kullanılarak görselleştirilmiş ve kümeleme analizine tabii tutulmuştur. Analiz
sonucunda 3 adet bulgu ortaya çıkmıştır. İlki; Arçelik’in sürdürülebilirlik
raporunda, sürdürülebilirliğin ekonomik-sosyal boyutu ile çalışanları odak
noktaya aldığı, sürdürülebilirliğin uygulamasını öncelikle onlar üzerinde
gerçekleştirdiği ve çalışanlar vasıtasıyla diğer çoklu paydaşlara ulaşmakta
olduğudur. İkincisi, sürdürülebilirliğin çevresel ve ekonomik boyutları ile
müşteriler ve tedarikçilerin yakın ilişkide kullanılmasıdır. Sonuncusu,
çalışanlar ve tedarikçiler arasında etik algı, müşterilere karşı ise çevreye
duyarlı imaj oluşturmanın amaçlandığıdır. Bu çalışmanın alan yazına iki katkısı
bulunmaktadır. Birincisi, sürdürülebilirlik raporlarının önceden belirlenen bir
perspektiften (kurumsal marka) incelenmesi ve ikincisi kavram frekansları
yerine analizde kavramlar arası ilişkilerin kullanılmasıdır. 

Keywords

Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik, Kurumsal Marka, Kurumsal İmaj, Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlaması, Semantik Ağ Analizi, Kavramsal Haritalama

ANALYSIS OF SUSTAINABILITY REPORTS WITH CORPORATE BRAND PERSPECTIVE: EXAMPLE OF ARÇELİK

Abstract

In
this study, the conceptual relationship of corporate brand concepts with
sustainability aspects are investigated within a sustainability report. The concept list
on corporate sustainability consists of 54 aspects based on the criteria for
inclusion in the BIST Sustainability Index. The concept list on
corporate brand consist of 51 aspects based on the vision, culture and image
model of Hatch and Schultz (2003). First, the corporate
sustainability report of Arçelik was coded using a total of 105 aspects and the
thematic content analysis was made. Then, co-occurrence relationship of concepts is displayed as networks and concept
clusters are found using Semantic Network Analysis. We report three main
findings. First; with the economic-social dimension of sustainability, Arçelik
places its employees at the focal point, implementing sustainability on them
first, and reaching out to multiple stakeholders through employees. Latter, the environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and
customers and suppliers are closely related. Finally, it is aimed to create an ethical perception between
employees and suppliers and an environmentally friendly image to customers.
This research has two contributions to the literature on analysis of
sustainability reports: first, it specifies a certain perspective (corporate
brand) in the analysis of
reports and second, it proposes to analyze conceptual relationships rather than
the frequency of concepts.

Keywords

Corporate Sustainability, Corporate Brand, Corporate Image, Sustainability Reporting, Semantic Network Analysis, Conceptual Mapping

References

• ACCA (2016). Mapping the sustainability reporting landscape: Lost in the right direction?, Brussels, http://www.accaglobal.com/content/dam/ ACCA_Global/Technical/sus/21%20June%202016%20event%20REPORT%20final.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 15.01.2018)
• Afjei, S. M. (2015). A content analysis of sustainability dimensions in annual reports. Florida International University, FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
• Apaydın, F. (2008). Kurumsal teori ve işletmelerin kurumsallaşması. Journal of Academic Studies, 10(37).
• Arslan, Z. (2017), Sürdürülebilirlik ve kurumsal marka entegrasyonunda sürdürülebilir kurumsal marka kavramı ve yansımaları. Yaşar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmış Doktora Tezi.
• Backhaus, K., Stone, B., & Heiner, K. (2002). Exploring the relationship between corporate social performance and employer attractiveness.
• Business & Society, 41 (3), 292-318.
• Balmer, J. (2001). Corporate identity, corporate branding, and corporate marketing: Seeing through the fog. European Journal of Marketing, 35 (3/4), 248- 291.
• Balmer, J. (2003). Corporate brands: what are they? what of them? European Journal of Marketing, 7/8 (37), 972-997.
• Balmer, J., & Gray, E. (2003). Corporate brands: what are they? what of them? European Journal of Marketing, 37 (7/8), 972-997.
• Belz, F. M., & Riediger, B. (2009). Marketing Strategies in the age of sustainable development: evidence from the food industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19 (7), 401-416.
• Bendixen, M., & Abratt, R. (2007). Corporate identity, ethics and reputation in supplier–buyer relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(1), 69-82.
• Bertels, S., S, Papania, L., Papania, D., & Graves, S. (2010). Embedding sustainability in organizational culture, a systematic review of the body of knowledge. Network for Business Sustainability.
• Biraghi, S., & Gambetti, R. (2013). Corporate branding: where are we? A systematic communication-based inquiry. Journal of Marketing Communications, 21 (4), 260-283.
• Blombäck, A., & Scandelius, C. (2013). Corporate heritage in CSR communication: a means to responsible brand image?. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,18(3), 362-382.
• Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research. London: Sage Publication.
• Boiral, O. (2013). Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1036-1071.
• Brown, T., & Dacin, P. (1997). The company and the product: corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 1 (61), 68-84.
• Cable, D., & Graham, M. (2000). The determinants of job seekers' reputation perceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (8), 929-947.
• Christiansen, L., & Askegaard, S. (2001). Corporate identity and corporate image revisited – a semiotic perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 35 (3/4), 292-315.
• Clauset, A., Newman, M. E., & Moore, C. (2004). Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical review E, 70(6), 066111.
• Closs, D. J., Speier, C., & Meacham, N. (2011). Sustainability to support end to-end value chains: the role of supply chain management. Journal of Academic Marketing Science, 19 (1), 101-116.
• Corporaal, S., & vanRiemsdijk, M. (2014). Attractive work for generation Y: young job seekers preferences for job and organizational characteristics. Saxion University of Applied Sciences, 1-18.
• Csardi G, Nepusz T. (2006) The igraph software package for complex network research, InterJournal, Complex Systems 1695. http://igraph.org
• Dauvergne, P., & Lister, J. (2012). Big brand sustainability: Governance prospects and environmental limits. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 36-45.
• De Chernatony, L., & Dall'Olmo Riley, F. (1998). Defining a" brand": Beyond the literature with experts' interpretations. Journal of Marketing Management, 14 (5), 417-443.
• Denison, D.R; Mishra, A.K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness, Organızatıon Science, 6 (2), 204-223.
• Ditlev Simonsen, C. D., & Midttun, A. (2011). What motivates managers to pursue corporate responsibility? A survey among key stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(1), 25-38.
• Elkington, J. (1999). Triple bottom-line reporting: Looking for balance. AUSTRALIAN CPA, 69, 18-21.
• Frankental, P. (2001). Corporate social responsibility–a PR invention?. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(1), 18-23.
• Gill, D. L., Dickinson, S. J., & Scharl, A. (2008). Communicating sustainability: A web content analysis of North American, Asian and European firms. Journal of Communication Management, 12(3), 243-262.
• Guthrie, J., & Farneti, F. (2008). GRI sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organizations. Public Money and Management, 28(6), 361-366.
• Güleç, Ş. N. (2016). Özel hastane tercihinde kurumsal imajın rolü üzerine teorik ve uygulamalı bir çalışma (Doctoral dissertation, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü).
• Hatch, M., & Schultz, M. (2001). Bringing the corporation ınto corporate branding. Submitted to European Journal of Marketing, 1-27.
• Hatch, M., & Schultz, M. (2003). Bringing the corporation into corporate branding. European Journal of Marketing, 37 (7/8), 1041-1064.
• Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15 (9), 1277-1288.
• Klettner, A., Clarke, T., & Boersma, M. (2014). The governance of corporate sustainability: Empirical insights into the development, leadership and ımplementation of responsible business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics , 122, 145-165.
• Leitch, S., & Richarson, N. (2003). Corporate branding in the new economy. European Journal of Marketing, 37 (7/8), 1065-1079.
• McKinstry, S. (1996). Designing the annual reports of Burton plc from 1930 to 1994. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21 (1), 89-111.
• Ogden, S., & Clarke, J. (2005). Customer disclosures, impression management and the construction of legitimacy: Corporate reports in the UK privatised water industry. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(3), 313-345.
• Peloza, J. (2012). Sustainability: how stakeholder perceptions differ from corporate reality. California Management Review, 74-97.
• Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. (2006). “Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 1-13.
• R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/ (Erişim Tarihi: 20.09.2017).
• Roca, L., & Searcy, C. (2012). An analysis of ındicators disclosed in corporatesustainability reports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20, 103-118.
• Schaltegger, S., & Herzig, C. (2006). Corporate sustainability reporting – an overview. S. Schaltegger, M. Bennett, & R. Burritt içinde, Sustainability Accounting and Reporting. Dordrecht: Springer Publishing.
• Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative science quarterly, 493-511.
• Souiden, N., Kassim, N., & Hong, H. (2006). The effect of corporate branding dimensions on consumers’ product evaluation A cross-cultural analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 40 (7/8), 825-845.
• Stranberg, C. (2009). The role of human resource management ın corporate social responsibility: ıssue brief and roadmap.Strandberg Consulting.
• Şahin, Z., Çankaya, F., & Yılmaz, Z. (2016). Content analysis of sustainability reports: a practice in turkey. In 7th European Business Research Conference, 15-16.
• Turban, D., & Keon, T. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: Demography and turnover in top management groups. An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Pschology, 78, 184-193.
• UN (United Nations), (1987). Report of the World Commission on environment and development: Our common future. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 04.02.2015).