Value-Driven Corporate Social Responsibility in Ports/Limanlarda Değer Odaklı Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines Corporate Social Responsibility concern at seaports where merely the “environmental” dimension takes the most part in the shipping and port literature and aims to present an overview of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) implementations of selected seaports in Europe. CSR variables for ports are extracted by the detailed analysis of specific CSR reports, annual and sustainability reports of selected ports. The paper demonstrates how the port organisations develop CSR applications in order to remain competitive in the global scale and this is executed by scanning the ports within the focus of the study according to the CSR-related dimensions (environmental, economic, social, stakeholder, ethical, philanthropic/voluntariness). Porter’s Value Chain approach is adopted and a conceptual model encompassing value-driven CSR implementations at ports was developed. The value-driven CSR approach based on the strategies of the ports serves as a comprehensive tool to enlighten both the practitioners and the academics in the assessment of strategic and value-driven CSR practises. Research results indicate that, port authorities emphasize stakeholder and community engagement, voluntary participation on educational, cultural and sports activities and ethical values like transparency by reporting, integrity and honesty.

Özet

Bu çalışma ile denizcilik ve limancılık yazınında daha çok çevresel boyutları üzerinde durulan kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk konusu ele alınmakta ve Avrupa’daki seçilmiş deniz limanlarının kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk uygulamalarının belirlenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Limanların yıllık raporları, kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk (KSS) raporları ve sürdürülebilirlik raporları analiz edilerek limanlar için kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk değişkenleri ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Çalışma ile liman örgütlerinin küresel boyutta rekabet edebilmeleri için gerçekleştirdikleri KSS uygulamaları sunulmakta ve seçilen limanlar analiz edilerek KSS boyutlarına (çevresel, ekonomik, sosyal, paydaşlara ilişkin, etik, hayırseverlik/gönüllülük) göre uygulamaları listelenmektedir. Çalışmada, Porter’ın Değer Zinciri yaklaşımı benimsenmiş ve limanlar için değer-odaklı kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk uygulamalarını kapsayan kavramsal bir model geliştirilmiştir. Limanların stratejilerine dayalı olan değer odaklı kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk yaklaşımı, limanların stratejik ve değer yönlü KSS uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesinde gerek akademisyenlerin gerekse uygulayıcıların yararlanabilecekleri kapsamlı bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Araştırma sonuçlarında, liman yönetimlerinin daha çok liman paydaşlarının sorumluluğu, eğitimsel, kültürel ve sportif faaliyetlerde gönüllülük ve dürüstlük, raporlamada şeffaflık gibi etik değerler üzerinde durduğu ortaya çıkmıştır.

Keywords

• Port, Corporate Social Responsibility, Value Chain, Sustainability

LİMANLARDA DEĞER ODAKLI KURUMSAL SOSYAL SORUMLULUK

Abstract

Bu çalışma ile denizcilik ve limancılık yazınında daha çok çevresel boyutları üzerinde durulan kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk konusu ele alınmakta ve Avrupa’daki seçilmiş deniz limanlarının kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk uygulamalarının belirlenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Limanların yıllık raporları, kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk (KSS) raporları ve sürdürülebilirlik raporları analiz edilerek limanlar için kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk değişkenleri ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Çalışma ile liman örgütlerinin küresel boyutta rekabet edebilmeleri için gerçekleştirdikleri KSS uygulamaları sunulmakta ve seçilen limanlar analiz edilerek KSS boyutlarına (çevresel, ekonomik, sosyal, paydaşlara ilişkin, etik, hayırseverlik/gönüllülük) göre uygulamaları listelenmektedir. Çalışmada, Porter’ın Değer Zinciri yaklaşımı benimsenmiş ve limanlar için değer-odaklı kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk uygulamalarını kapsayan kavramsal bir model geliştirilmiştir. Limanların stratejilerine dayalı olan değer odaklı kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk yaklaşımı, limanların stratejik ve değer yönlü KSS uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesinde gerek akademisyenlerin gerekse uygulayıcıların yararlanabilecekleri kapsamlı bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Araştırma sonuçlarında, liman yönetimlerinin daha çok liman paydaşlarının sorumluluğu, eğitimsel, kültürel ve sportif faaliyetlerde gönüllülük ve dürüstlük, raporlamada şeffaflık gibi etik değerler üzerinde durduğu ortaya çıkmıştır

Keywords

• Liman, Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk, Değer Zinciri, Sürdürülebilirlik

References

1. Adams, M., Quinoez, P., Pallis, A. & Wakeman, T. (2009). Environmental issues in port competitiveness (Atlantic Gateway Research Initiative Working Paper no.7). Halifax: Dalhousie University.
2. Andersen, M and Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14(2), 75-86.
3. Ashridge Centre for Business and Society (2005). Catalogue of CSR activities: A broad overview. http://www.eogs.dk/graphics/publikationer/CSR/AshridgeEnglish.pdf. (Date of Access: 13.01.2013).
4. Bichou, K. & Gray, R. (2005). A critical review of conventional terminology for classifying seaports. Transportation Research Part A, 39(1), 75-92.
5. Carbone, V. & De Martino, M. (2003). The changing role of ports in supply-chain management: An empirical analysis. Maritime Policy and Management 30(4), 305- 320.
6. Carroll, A.B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. The Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
7. Carroll, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39-48.
8. Carter, C.R. (2004). Purchasing and social responsibility: A replication and extension. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 40(4), 4-16.

9. Carter, C.R. & Jennings, M.M. (2002a). Social responsibility and supply chain relationships. Transportation Research Part E, 38(1), 37-52.
10. Carter, C.R. & Jennings, M.M. (2002b). Logistics social responsibility: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Logistics, 23(1), 145-180.
11. Carter, C.R. & Jennings, M.M. (2004). The role of purchasing in corporate social responsibility: A structural equation analysis. Journal of Business Logistics, 25(1), 145-186.
12. Copenhagen Malmö Port. (2012a). Annual Report 2011. http://www.cmport.com/en/corporate/finance/annual-reports. (Date of Access: 13.01.2013).
13. Copenhagen Malmö Port (2012b). Corporate Social Responsibility http://www.cmport.com/en/corporate/csr (Date of Access: 13.01.2013).
14. Covil, C. (2012). SuPort: Appraising port sustainability, greening the research fleet workshop. Durham, http://www.unols.org/meetings/2012/green_workshop/GW_ap17_SuPort_Arup.pdf (Date of Access: 06.06.2012).
15. Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1-15.
16. De Martino, M. & Morvillo, A. (2008). Activities, resources and inter-organizational relationships: key factors in port competitiveness. Maritime Policy and Management, 35(6), 571-589.
17. Denktaş-Şakar, G. & Karataş-Çetin, Ç. (2012). Port sustainability and stakeholder management in supply chains: A framework on resource dependence theory. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 28(3), 301-319.
18. Donaldson J. & Fafaliou, I. (2003). Business ethics, corporate social responsibility and corporate governance: a review and summary critique. European Research Studies Journal, 6(1–2), 97-117.
19. Dooms, M. & Verbeke, A. (2007). Stakeholder management in ports: a conceptual framework integrating insights from research in strategy, corporate social responsibility and port management. 17th IAME Annual Conference 2007, July 4-6, 2007, Athens.
20. Dooms, M., Macharis, C. & Verbeke, A. (2004). Proactive stakeholder management in the port planning process: empirical evidence from the Port of Brussels. (European Regional Science Association Conference Papers ersa04p271) http://www-sre.wu-wien.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa04/PDF/271.pdf. (Date of Access: 10.07.2012).
21. Dooms, M., Verbeke, A. & Haezendonck, E. (2012). Stakeholder management and path dependence in large-scale transport infrastructure development: The port of Antwerp case (1960–2010). Journal of Transport Geography, 27(1), 14-25.
22. Dublin Port Company. (2012). Master Plan 2012-2040. http://www.dublinport.ie/Masterplan. (Date of Access: 13.01.2013).
23. ESPO/European Sea Ports Organisation. (2003). Environmental Code of Practice. http://www.espo.be/images/stories/Publications/codes_of_practice/ESPOEnvironmentalCodeofPractice2004.pdf. (Date of Access: 10.01.2013).
24. ESPO/European Sea Ports Organisation. (2010). Code of conduct for societal integration of ports, http://www.ks-bedrift.no/PageFiles/709/ESPO%20om%20havner%20og%20lokalsamfunn.pdf (Date of Access: 1.01.2013).
25. ESPO/European Sea Ports Organisation. (2012). European Port Performance Dashboard. http://pprism.espo.be/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=sWk5lsdRFI8%3D&tabid=3555. (Date of Access: 06.01.2013).
26. ESPO/European Sea Ports Organisation. (2013). ESPO awards 2012. http://www.espo.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=81. (Date of Access: 06.01.2013).
27. European Commission. (2001). Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibilities. COM (2001) 366 final, Brussels. http://www.csr-in-commerce.eu/data/files/resources/717/com_2001_0366_en.pdf. (Date of Access: 12.02.2012).
28. European Commission (2011). A Renewed EU Strategy 2011-2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility. COM (2011) 681 final, Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:en:PDF. (Date of Access: 11.02.2013).
29. Forth Ports. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility. http://www.forthports.co.uk/ports/aboutus/csr/ (Date of Access: 07.01.2013).
30. Goldsby, T.J. & Stank, T.P. (2000). World class logistics performance and environmentally responsible logistics practices. Journal of Business Logistics, 21(2), 187-208.
31. HHLA/Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG. (2012a). Annual Report 2011. http://hhla.de/en/publications/financial-publications.html (Date of Access: 10.01.2013).
32. HHLA/Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG. (2012b). Sustainability Report 2011. http://hhla.de/en/sustainability/overview.html?no_cache=1 (Date of Access: 10.01.2013).
33. Hildebrand, D., Sen, S. & Bhattacharya, C.B. (2011). Corporate social responsibility: A corporate marketing perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 45(9), 1353-1364.
34. Hill, R.P., Stephens, D. & Smith. I. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: An examination of individual firm behavior. Business and Society Review, 108(3): 339-364.
35. Ilyas, R.M., Banwet, D.K. & Shankar, R. (2006). Value chain relationship-a strategy matrix. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 7(2): 56-72.
36. Lu, C., Shang, K. & Lin, C. (2012). Identifying sustainability criteria for international ports. International Forum on Shipping, Ports and Airports 2012, May 27-29, 2012, Hong Kong.
37. Magala, M. (2008). Modelling opportunity capture: a framework for port growth. Maritime Policy and Management, 35(3): 285-311.
38. Maignan, I., Hillebrand, B. & McAlister, D. (2002). Managing socially-responsible buying: How to integrate non-economic criteria into the purchasing process. European Management Journal, 20(6): 641-648.
39. Maloni, M.J. & Brown, M.E. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain: An application in the food industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 68: 35-52.
40. McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26 (1):117-127.
41. Meehan, J., Meehan, K. & Richards, A. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: The 3C-SR Model. International Journal of Social Economics, (5/6): 386-398.
42. Mullins, L.J. (2002). Management and organisational behaviour, London: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
43. Normann, R. & Ramirez, R. (1993). From value chain to value constellation: designing interactive strategy. Harvard Business Review, 71(4):65-77.
44. Notteboom, T. & Winkelmans, W. (2002). Stakeholder relations management in ports: dealing with the interplay of forces among stakeholders in a changing competitive environment. IAME Annual Conference 2002, November
45. -15, 2002, Panama.
46. Panapanaan, V. M., Linnanen, L., Karvonen, M.M. & Phan, V.T. (2003). Roadmapping corporate social responsibility in Finnish companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 133-148.
47. Port Center Network. (2012). The Port of Genoa winner of the 2012 ESPO award. http://www.portcenternetwork.org/blog/2012/11/12/the-port-of-genoa-winner-of-the-2012-espo-award/ (Date of Access: 16.09.2013).
48. Port of Algeciras. (2012). Annual Report 2011. http://webserver.apba.es (Date of Access: 10.01.2013).
49. Port of Cork. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility Policy Statement 2008. http://www.portofcork.ie/index.cfm/page/corporatesocialresponsibility (Date of Access: 09.01.2013).
50. Port of Felixstowe. (2012a). Community Report. http://www.portoffelixstowe.co.uk/publications/ (Date of Access: 10.01.2013).
51. Port of Felixstowe. (2012b). Environmental Report 2011-2012 http://www.portoffelixstowe.co.uk/publications/ (Date of Access: 10.01.2013).
52. Port of Felixstowe. (2012c). Health & Safety- Environment-Community. http://www.portoffelixstowe.co.uk/ (Date of Access: 10.01.2013).
53. Port of Ghent. (2013). Annual Report 2012. http://www.portofghent.be/file_uploads/12683.pdf (Date of Access: 11.09.2013).
54. Port of Gothenburg. (2012a). Annual Report 2011. http://www.portofgothenburg.com/Documents/PDF-bank/Engelska%20filer/The_Port_of_Gothenburg_2011.pdf (Date of Access: 20.12.2012).
55. Port of Gothenburg. (2012b). Sustainable Port. http://www.portofgothenburg.com/About-the-port/Sustainable-port/ (Date of Access: 20.12.2012).
56. Port of Leixeos. (2013). Corporate social responsibility. from http://www.apdl.pt/en_US/header (Date of Access: 15.09.2013).
57. Port of Lisbon. (2008). Best practice report and sustainability report. http://www.portodelisboa.pt. (Date of Access: 18.12.2012).
58. Port of Piraeus. (2012a). Social responsibility. http://www.olp.gr/en/the-port-of-piraeus/social-responsibility. (Date of Access: 15.12.2012).
59. Port of Piraeus. (2012b). Environmental protection. http://www.olp.gr/en/nature-protection. (Date of Access: 15.12.2012).
60. Port of Rotterdam. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility Summary Report 2008. http://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/Port-authority/corporate-social-responsibility/Pages/csr-reports.aspx (Date of Access: 20.12.2012).
61. Port of Rotterdam. (2012). Annual Report 2011. http://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/Port-authority/finance/annual-report/Documents/annual_report.pdf (Date of Access: 20.12.2012).
62. Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
63. Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
64. Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.
65. Robinson, R. (2002). Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the new paradigm. Maritime Policy and Management, 29(3), 241-255.
66. Salam, M.A. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in purchasing and supply chain. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 355-370.
67. Schwarz, M.S. & Carroll, A.B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: a three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503-530.
68. Van Marrewijk M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 95-105.
69. Verhoeven, P. (2011). European port governance, report of an inquiry into the current governance of European seaports. (The ESPO Fact Finding Report), Brussels:
70. European Sea Ports Organisation.
71. Vitsounis, T.K & Pallis, A.A. (2012). Creating value in seaports: Port value chains and the role of interdependencies. (Eds.: Dong-Wook Song & Photis Panayides). Maritime Logistics, Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.155-174.
72. Winkelmans, W. & Notteboom, T. (2007). Port master planning: Balancing stakeholders’ interests. (Eds.: In Krzysztof Dobrowolski & Janusz Zurek) The Reality and Dilemmas of Globalization, Gdansk: The Foundation of the Development of Gdansk University, pp.395-408.