Yeni Bir Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Endeksi: İstanbul Örneği

Year 2022, Volume: 31 Issue: 2, 281 - 303, 08.11.2022

Uğur Arcagök Çiğdem Arıcıgil Çilan

https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1100849

Abstract

Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik literatürü büyük ölçüde küresel temelli analizlere odaklanmış ve genellikle yerel temelli analizleri incelemeyi göz ardı etmiştir. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, yerel yönetimlerin kurumsal sürdürülebilirliğini ölçmektir. Bu araştırmada, dünyanın en önemli metropollerinden biri olan İstanbul ilindeki ilçe belediyelerine dayalı bir kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik endeksi geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Genel Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Endeksi hesaplamasında toplam 48 değişken kullanılmıştır (sosyal boyut 26 değişken, ekonomik boyut 15 değişken, çevresel boyut 7 değişken). Endeks, genel kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik endeksini içeren 3 alt endeksten (sosyal, ekonomik ve çevresel) oluşmaktadır. Sosyal boyut 6 alt başlıkta, ekonomik boyut 5 alt başlıkta ve çevresel boyut 4 alt başlıkta incelenmiştir. Sonuçlar, İstanbul belediyelerinin düşük ekonomik ve çevresel sürdürülebilirlik endeks skoru elde ettiğini göstermektedir. Karar vericiler, kendi belediyeleri için genel kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik endeksi sonuçlarını değerlendirebilecek ve alt endeksler ile güçlü ve zayıf yönleri gözlemleyebileceklerdir. Endeksin geliştirilme sürecinde, İstanbul ilindeki 39 ilçe belediyesinden alınan verilere Eksik Gözlem Analizi, Kümeleme Analizi, Temel Bileşenler Analizi ve Bileşik Endeks Hesaplama yöntemleri uygulanmıştır.

Keywords

Göstergeler, Çok Değişkenli Analiz, Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik, Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma ve Belediye Sürdürülebilirliği

A New Institutional Sustainability Index Regarding Local Governments: The Case of Istanbul

Abstract

The literature on institutional sustainability has largely focused on global-based analysis, and it has generally ignored to examine local-based analyses. The main purpose of this study was to measure the institutional sustainability of local governments. In this research, the intention was to develop an institutional sustainability index based on the district municipalities in the province of Istanbul, which is one of the most significant metropolises in the world. A total of 48 variables were used in the calculation of the General Institutional Sustainability Index (social dimension with 26 variables, economic dimension with 15 variables, and environmental dimension with 7 variables). The index consists of 3 sub-indexes comprising the general institutional sustainability index. The social dimension was examined in 6 sub-dimensions, the economic dimension in 5 sub-dimensions, and the environmental dimension in 4 sub-dimensions. The results indicate that Istanbul municipalities achieved low economic and environmental sustainability index scores. Decision-makers will be able to assess the general institutional sustainability index results for their own municipalities and to observe strong and weak aspects with the sub-indexes. In the process of developing the index, missing value analysis, cluster analysis, principal component analysis, and the composite index calculation methods were applied to data from 39 district municipalities in the province of Istanbul.

Keywords

Indicators, Multivariate Analysis, Institutional Sustainability, Sustainable Development and Municipality Sustainability, Göstergeler, Çok Değişkenli Analiz, Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik, Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma ve Belediye Sürdürülebilirliği

References

• Adelle, C., & Pallemaerts, M. (2009). Sustainable Development Indicators–Overview of Relevant FP-funded Research and Identification of Further Needs. Europen Comission, Brussels. Accessed april 7, 2020 https://ieep.eu/uploads/articles/attachments/56c02cbc-42b3-411d-97e4-812889aac8ed/sdi_review.pdf?v=63664509721
• Ayres, R. U., & Simonis, U. E. (1994). Industrial metabolism: Restructuring for sustainable development. United Nations University Press
• Biesbroek, G. R., Swart, R. J., Carter, T. R., Cowan, C., Henrichs, T., Mela, H., ... & Rey, D. (2010). Europe adapts to climate change: comparing national adaptation strategies. Global environmental change, 20(3), 440-450. tps://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.03.005
• CoventryAgenda21, (2008). Accessed January 28, 2020, http://www.cwn.org.uk/agenda21/coventry/indicators/environmental/index.html
• Delas, V., Nosova, E., & Yafinovych, O. (2015). Financial security of enterprises. Procedia Economics and Finance, 27, 248-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00998-3
• Dillard, J., Dujon, V., & King, M. C. (Eds.). (2008). Understanding the social dimension of sustainability. Routledge. Routledge Books
• Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business strategy and the environment, 11(2), 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323
• European Commision- Social Protection Committee, Isg Work Programme. (2019) Accessed may 5, 2020, https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=830&langId=en
• Ferrarini, A., Bodini, A., & Becchi, M. (2001). Environmental quality and sustainability in the province of Reggio Emilia (Italy): using multi-criteria analysis to assess and compare municipal performance. Journal of Environmental Management, 63(2), 117-131. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2001.0465
• González-García, S., Rama, M., Cortés, A., García-Guaita, F., Núñez, A., Louro, L. G., ... & Feijoo, G. (2019). Embedding environmental, economic and social indicators in the evaluation of the sustainability of the municipalities of Galicia (northwest of Spain). Journal of Cleaner Production, 234, 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.158
• Gryglewicz, S. (2011). A theory of corporate financial decisions with liquidity and solvency concerns. Journal of financial economics, 99(2), 365-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2010.09.010
• Gutowska, J., Śleszyński, J., & Grodzinska-Jurczak, M. (2012). Selecting sustainability indicators for local community–Case Study of Milanówek Municipality, Poland. Problemy Ekorozwoju–Problems of Sustainable Development, 7(2), 77-86. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2133977 https://www.oecd.org/env/indicators-modelling-outlooks/37551205.pdf
• Imperatives, S. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future. Accessed Feb, 10. Accessed January 7, 2020, from http://www.askforce.org/web/Sustainability/Brundtland-Our-Common-Future-1987-2008.pdf
• Levett, R. (1998). Sustainability indicators—integrating quality of life and environmental protection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 161(3), 291-302. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-985X.00109
• Mascarenhas, A., Coelho, P., Subtil, E., & Ramos, T. B. (2010). The role of common local indicators in regional sustainability assessment. Ecological indicators, 10(3), 646-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.11.003
• McKenzie, S. (2004). Social sustainability: towards some definitions. HawkeResearch Institute, Magill, South Australia
• McMahon, S. K. (2002). The development of quality of life indicators—a case study from the City of Bristol, UK. Ecological Indicators, 2(1-2), 177-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-160X(02)00039-0
• Myšková, R., & Hájek, P. (2017). Comprehensive assessment of firm financial performance using financial ratios and linguistic analysis of annual reports. Journal of International Studies, volume 10, issue: 4. doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2017/10-4/7
• OECD, (1991). Environmental indicators, a preliminary set. OECD, Paris. Accessed june 7, 2020,
• Onions, C. T. (ed.). (1964). The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon.
• Remmen, A. (2007). Life cycle management: a business guide to sustainability. UNEP/Earthprint.
• Sauer, D. A. (1997). The impact of social-responsibility screens on investment performance: Evidence from the Domini 400 Social Index and Domini Equity Mutual Fund. Review of Financial Economics, 6(2), 137-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1058-3300(97)90002-1
• Scipioni, A., Mazzi, A., Mason, M., & Manzardo, A. (2009). The Dashboard of Sustainability to measure the local urban sustainable development: The case study of Padua Municipality. Ecological indicators, 9(2), 364-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.05.002
• Stavins, R. N., Wagner, A. F., & Wagner, G. (2003). Interpreting sustainability in economic terms: dynamic efficiency plus intergenerational equity. Economics Letters, 79(3), 339-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(03)00036-3
• TURKSTAT, (2020) Population statistics, National Statistics Institute of Turkey. Accessed april 5, 2020, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=The-Results-of-Address-Based-Population-Registration-System-2020-37210&dil=2
• Wiersum, K. F. (1995). 200 years of sustainability in forestry: lessons from history. Environmental management, 19(3), 321-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02471975
• Yuan, W., James, P., Hodgson, K., Hutchinson, S. M., & Shi, C. (2003). Development of sustainability indicators by communities in China: a case study of Chongming County, Shanghai. Journal of Environmental management, 68(3), 253-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00