ULUSAL KÜLTÜR BOYUTLARININ İŞLETMELERİN KURUMSAL SOSYAL SORUMLULUK ÇALIŞMALARINA ETKİSİ

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı ulusal kültür boyutlarının, işletmelerin kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk çalışmaları üzerindeki muhtemel etkisini incelemektir. Araştırmanın amacına ulaşmak için GLOBE Projesi ile Ulusal Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk Endeksinde yer alan altmış iki ülkeye ait veriler kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde IBM SPSS 22.0 programından faydalanılmıştır. Yapılan korelasyon ve regresyon analizleri sonucunda ulusal kültür boyutları ile ulusal kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk çalışmaları arasında bir ilişki olduğu ve ulusal kültürün KSS çalışmalarını etkilediği belirlenmiştir. Ulusal kültürün alt boyutlarından belirsizlikten kaçınma, girişkenlik, gelecek odaklılık ve kolektivizm II değişkenlerinin Ulusal Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk üzerinde önemli (anlamlı) bir yordayıcı etkisi olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Diğer değişkenler istatistiksel olarak önemli bir etkiye sahip değildir.

Keywords

• Kültür
• Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk
• GLOBE Projesi
• Ulusal Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk Endeksi

The Effect of National Cultural Dimensions on Corporate Social Responsibility of Businesses

Abstract

The main aim of this study was to examine the possible impact of the dimensions of national culture on the corporate social responsibility activities of businesses. In order to reach the purpose of the research, data from sixty-two countries listed in the GLOBE Project and National Corporate Social Responsibility Index were used. IBM SPSS 22.0 was used in the analysis of the data. As a result of the correlation and regression analyzes, it was determined that there is a relationship between the dimensions of national culture and national corporate social responsibility, and that national culture affects CSR activities. It has been revealed that the variables of uncertainty avoidance, assertiveness, future orientation and collectivism II, which are sub-dimensions of national culture, have a statistically significant predictive effect on national corporate social responsibility. Other dimensions of national culture do not have a statistically significant effect.

Keywords

• Culture
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• GLOBE Project
• National Corporate Social Responsibility Index

References

1. Agudo-Valiente, J. M., Garcés-Ayerbe, C. ve Salvador-Figueras, M. (2017). Corporate social responsibility drivers and barriers according to managers’ perception; evidence from Spanish firms. Sustainability, MDPI, 9(10), 1-24. doi:10.3390/su9101821
2. Amor-Esteban, V., García-Sánchez, I.M. ve Galindo-Villardón, M.P. (2017). Analysing the effect of legal system on corporate social responsibility (CSR) at the country level, from a multivariate perspective. Social Indicators Research, 140(1), 435-452. doi: 10.1007/ s11205-017-1782-2
3. Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporate behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967. doi:10.2307/20159343
4. Carroll, A. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505. doi: 10.2307/257850
5. Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38, 268–295. doi: 10.1177/000765039903800303
6. Carroll, A., Lipartito, K., Post, J. ve Werhane, P. (2012). Corporate responsibility: The American experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1177/0001839213518025
7. Cheney, G., J. Roper ve May, S. (2007). Overview. S. May, G. Cheney and J. Roper (Eds.). The debate over corporate social responsibility içinde (s.3-12). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Crane, A., ve Matten, D. (2004). Questioning the domain of the business ethics curriculum: Where the law ends or where it starts? Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 357-369. doi: 10.1007/s10551-004-1825-x

9. Cultural Influences on Leadership and Organizations: Project. (t.y.). GLOBE. The development and cross-cultural validation of scales measuring societal culture, organizational culture, and prototypical leader attributes. Wharton School, PA, in review. Erişim adresi:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43490722_Cultural_influences_on_leadership_and_organizations_Project_GLOBE
10. Cultural Influences on Leadership and Organizations: Project. (t.y.). GLOBE Project. Erişim adresi: https://globeproject.com/studies#overview.
11. Czinkota, M.R., ve Skuba, C.J. (2014). Contextual analysis of legal systems and their impact on trade and foreign direct investment. Journal of Business Research, 67, 2207–2211. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.01.005
12. Cetindamar, D., ve Husoy, K. (2007). Corporate social responsibility practices and environmentally responsible behavior: The case of The United Nations Global Compact. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 163–176. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9265-4
13. Demirbag, M., Wood, G., Makhmadshoev, D. ve Rymkevich, O. (2017). Varieties of CSR: Institutions and socially responsible behaviour. International Business Review, 26, 1064-1074. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.03.011
14. Dorfman, P., ve Howell, J. (1988). Dimension of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in international comparative management: A research annual, 127149.Erişimadresi:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233894930_Dimension_of_national_culture_and_effective_leadership_patterns_Hofstede_revisited
15. Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90-100. doi: 10.2307/41165746
16. Emerson, J. (2000). The nature of returns: a social capital markets inquiry into elements of investment and the blended value proposition. Harvard Business School Social Enterprise Series, 1(17). Erişim adresi: https://www.fi-compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/ the-nature-of-returns-a-social-capitla-market-inquiry-into-elements-of-investment-and-the-blended-value-proposition.pdf
17. Fortanier, F., Kolk, A. ve Pinkse, J. (2011). Harmonization in CSR reporting. Management International Review, 51, 665-696. doi:10.2307/41411001
18. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield: Pitman Publishing.
19. Gjølberg, M. (2009). Measuring the immeasurable? Constructing an index of CSR practices and CSR performance in 20 countries. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25, 10-22. doi: 10.1016/j.scaman.2008.10.003
20. Graves, A.W. (1986). Effects of direct instruction and metacomprehension training on finding main ideas. Learning Disabilities Research, 1, 90-100.
21. Gray, R., Owen, D. ve Maunders, K. (1987). Corporate social reporting. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.Erişimadresi:https://www.environmentandsociety.org/sites/default/files/key_docs/gray_3_1.pdf
22. Gugler, P., ve Shi, J. Y. J. (2009). Corporate social responsibility for developing country multinational corporations: Lost war in pertaining global competitiveness? Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 3-24. Erişim adresi: https://link.springer.com/article/ 10.1007/s10551-008-9801-5
23. Guthrie, J., ve Parker, L.D. (1989). Corporate social reporting: A rebuttal of legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 19(76), 343-352. doi: 10.1080/00014788.1989. 9728863
24. Guthrie, J., ve Parker, L.D. (1990). Corporate social disclosure practice: A comparative international analysis. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 3(1), 159-175. Erişim adresi: https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/corporate-social-disclosure-practice-a-comparative-international--2
25. Halkos, G., ve Skouloudis A. (2017). Revisiting the relationship between corporate social responsibility and national culture: a quantitative assessment. Management Decision, 55(3), 595-613. doi: 10.1108/MD-12-2016-0868
26. Hill, R. P., Ainscough, T., Shank, T. ve Manullang, D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and socially responsible investing: A global perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(2), 165-174. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9103-8
27. Ho, F. N., Wang, H. D., ve Vitell, S. (2012). A global analysis of corporate social performance: The effects of cultural and geographic environments. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(4), 423-433. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1047-y
28. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences. California: Sage Publication.
29. Holloway, J., Ingberman, D., ve King, R. (1999). An analysis of settlement and meritunder federal securities law: What will be the effect of the reform of 1995? Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 18(1), 1-30.
30. House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. ve Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37(1), 3-10. Doi: 10.1016/S1090-9516(01)00069-4
31. House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. ve Gupta, V., (2004). Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. USA: SAGE Publications. Erişim adresi: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=jacl
32. House, R. J., Quigley, N. R. ve Luque, M. S. (2010). Insights from Project GLOBE, International Journal of Advertising, 29(1), 111-139. doi: 10.2501/S0265048709201051.
33. Hunt, S. D., ve Vitell, S. M. (1993). The general theory of marketing ethics: A retrospective and revision. N. C. Smith and J. A. Quelch (Eds.). Ethics in marketing içinde (775-784). IL: Homewood Irwin.
34. Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 213-231. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9572-4
35. Jamali, D., ve Keshishian, T. (2009). Uneasy alliances: lessons learned from partnerships between businesses and NGOs in the context of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 277-295. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9708-1
36. Javidan, M., ve Dastmalchian, A. (2009). Managerial implications of the GLOBE Project: A study of 62 societies. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 47, 41-58. doi: 10.1177/ 1038411108099289
37. Javidan, M., ve House, R.J. (2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons from Project GLOBE. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 289–305. doi: 10.1016/S0090-2616(01)00034-1
38. Javidan, M., Stahl, G., Brodbeck, F. ve Wilderom, C. (2005). Cross-border transfer of knowledge: Cultural lessons from project GLOBE. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 59-76. Erişim adresi: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228803543_Javidan_M_Stahl_ G_K_Brodbeck_F_Wilderom_C_2005_Crossborder_transfer_of_knowledge_Cultural_lessons_from_project_GLOBE_Academy_of_Management_Executive_19_59-76
39. Kang, K.H., Lee, S. ve Yoo, C. (2016). The effect of national culture on corporate social responsibility in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(8), 1728-1758. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-08-2014-0415
40. Kanter, R.M. (1999). From spare change to real change: the social sector as beta site for business innovation. Harvard Business Review, 77(3), 122-123. Erişim adresi: https://hbr.org/ 1999/05/from-spare-change-to-real-change-the-social-sector-as-beta-site-for-business-innovation
41. Kolk, A., ve Pinkse, J. (2011). Harmonization in CSR Reporting. Management International Review, 51, 665-696. doi: 10.2307/41411001
42. KPMG International, (2015). The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting. Switzerland: International Cooperative. Erişim adresi: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/ xx/pdf/2017/10/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2017.pdf
43. Matten, D., ve Moon, J. (2008). Implicit and explicit CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 1-26. Erişim adresi: 10.5465/AMR.2008.31193458
44. Midttun A, Gautesen K. ve Gjølberg M. (2006). The political economy of CSR in Western Europe. Corporate Governance, 6, 369–385. doi: 10.1108/14720700610689496
45. Mohan, A. (2006). Global corporate social responsibilities management in MNCs. Journal of Business Strategies, 23(1), 9-32. doi: 10.54155/jbs.23.1.9-32
46. Mueller, K., Hattrup, K., Spiess, S., O. ve Lin-Hi, N. (2012). The effects of corporate social responsibility on employees’ affective commitment: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1186–1200. doi: 10.1037/a0030204
47. Newman, K. L. (1996). Culture and congruence: The fit between management practices and national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(4), 753. Erişim adresi: https://books.google.com.tr/Newman,K.L.Cultureandcongruence:Thefitbetweenmanagementpracticesandnationalculture
48. Olie, R. (1995). The 'culture' factor in personnel and organization policies. A. Harzing and V. R. J. London(Eds.) International human resource management: an integrated approach içinde (s(124-143). USA: Sage Publications.
49. Özkara, Z.U, ve Yazıcı, N. (2019). İşletmelerde sürdürülebilirliğin sağlanmasında iç denetimin yönetim fonksiyonu ile etkileşimi. G. Kurt ve S. Karacaer (Eds.). Denetimde seçme konular 2 içinde (s.137-152). Ankara, Gazi Kitabevi.
50. Peng, Y., ve Dashdeleg, A.U. (2014). National culture and firm’s CSR engagement: A cross-nation study. Journal of Marketing and Management, 5(1), 38-49. doi: 10.7763/IPEDR. 2012.V58. 9
51. Porter, M.E., ve Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77. Erişim adresi: https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value
52. Prahalad, C.K., ve Hart, S.L. (2002). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy+Business, 26, 54–67. doi: 10.19177/reen.v1e220081-23
53. Rangan, K., Chase, L.A. ve Karim, S. (2012). Why every company needs a CSR strategy and how to build it. Hbs Working Paper Series. Erişim adresi: https://www.hbs.edu/ris/ Publication%20Files/12-088.pdf
54. Ringov, D., ve Zollo, M. (2007). The impact of national culture on corporate social performance. Corporate Governance, 7, 476-485. doi: 10.1108/14720700710820551
55. Robertson, D., C. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and different stages of economic development: Singapore, Turkey, and Ethiopia. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(4), 617–633. Erişim adresi: https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014& context= lgst_papers
56. Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23-47. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999. tb00047.x
57. Segall, M. H., Lonner, W. J., ve Berry, J. W. (1998). Cross-cultural psychology as a scholarly discipline: On the flowering of culture in behavioral research. American Psychologist, 53(10), 1101–1110. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.10.1101
58. Skouloudis, A., Isaac, D. ve Evaggelinos, K. (2016). Revisiting the national corporate social responsibility index. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 23(1), 61-70. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2015.1099121
59. Sondergaard, M. (1994). Research note: Hofstede´s consequences – A study of reviews, citations and replications. Organization Studies, 15(3), 447-456. doi: 10.1177/ 017084069401500307
60. Steensma, K., Marino, L., ve Weaver, K. (2000). Attitudes toward cooperative strategies: a cross cultural analysis of entrepreneurs. Journal of Personality of International Business Studies, 31(4), 591-609 doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490924
61. Thanetsunthorn, N. (2015). The impact of national culture on corporate social responsibility: evidence from cross-regional comparison. Asian J Bus Ethics, 4, 35–56. Erişim adresi: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13520-015-0042-2
62. Tuna, A. A., Özkara, Z. U., ve Taş, A. (2019). Paydaş temelli kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması çalışması. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 263-285. doi: 10.26745/ahbvuibfd.542265
63. United Nations Industrial Development Organization, UNIDO, (2002). Corporate social responsibility: Implications for small and medium enterprises in developing countries. Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Erişim adresi: https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/200807/CSR__Implications_for_SMEs_in_Developing_Countries_0.pdf
64. Van-Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 95-105. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25075020?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
65. Welford, R., Chan, C. ve Man, M. (2008). Priorities for corporate social responsibility: A survey of businesses and their stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 52-62. doi: 10.1002/csr.166
66. Wotruba T.R. (1997). Industry self-regulation: A review and extension to a global setting. J Public Policy Mark. 16, 38-54. doi: 10.1177/074391569701600105
67. Zhao, L., Lee, J. ve Moon, S. (2019). Employee response to CSR in China: the moderating effect of collectivism. Personnel Review, 48(3), 839-863. doi: 10.1108/PR-05-2017-0146