Türk Yüklenici Firmaların Çevresel Performanslarının Analizi

Abstract

Yüklenici firmalar, çevresel performanslarını iyileştirerek çevre sorunlarının çözümüne katkı sağlamanın yanı sıra, maliyetlerini düşürmekte, böylece uluslararası pazarda rekabet avantajı sağlayabilmekte ve kar paylarını artırabilmektedir. Araştırmalar, çevresel performansı ölçme amacıyla kullanılan göstergelerin faaliyet ve hedeflere uygun seçilmesinin çevresel performans üzerindeki olumlu etkisine işaret etmektedir. Ancak yüklenici firmaların faaliyetlerine özgü, genel kabul görmüş ve kapsamlı bir çevresel performans ölçme yaklaşımı bulunmamaktadır. Araştırmada mülakatlar, alan çalışması ve vaka analizi içeren aşamalı bir yöntem ile yüklenici firmaların çevresel performans ölçümü için uygun göstergeler ağırlıklarıyla belirlenmiş ve bu göstergelere dayanarak Türk yüklenici firmaların çevresel performansları çeşitli yönleriyle analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları ışığında inşaat sektöründe çevresel performansın iyileştirilmesi için stratejiler önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• Çevresel performans,performans ölçümü,sürdürülebilir yapım,Türk yüklenici firmaları

Analysis of Environmental Performance of Turkish Contractors

Abstract

Improving their environmental performance enables contracting companies to decrease costs and increase their profit margins thus gaining competitive edge in international markets, besides contributing to improving of the environment. Research points to the necessity of selecting environmental performance indicators that are appropriate for the type of activities and the performance targets. Currently, however, no broadly accepted, comprehensive environmental performance assessment approach exists that is particularly suited to the activities of contractors. In this research, suitable indicators for the assessment of environmental performance of contractors and their relative weights have been determined through a staged-approach involving interviews, field surveys and case studies, and the environmental performances of the Turkish contractors are analyzed in various aspects based on these indicators. Strategies are proposed, in the light of the findings of the study, to ameliorate the environmental performance of the building industry.

Keywords

• Environmental performance,performance measurement,sustainable construction,Turkish contractors

References

1. Pearce, A., Ahn, Y. H., Sustainable Buildings and Infrastructure: Paths to the Future, Routledge, Oxford, UK, 2012.
2. Emanuel, R., Baker, K., Carbon Management in the Built Environment, Routledge, Oxford, UK, 2012.
3. Shen, L.Y., Tam, V.W.Y., Implementation of environmental management in the Hong Kong construction industry, International Journal of Project Management, 20, 7, 535–543, 2002.
4. Tam, V.W.Y., Tam C.M., Zeng, S.X., Chan, K.K., Environmental performance measurement indicators in construction, Building and Environment, 41, 2, 164–173, 2006.
5. Yao, H., Shen, L.Y., Hao, J., Yam, C.M., A fuzzy-analysis-based method for measuring contractors’ environmental performance, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 18, 4, 442–458, 2007.
6. Wong, P.S.P., Ng, S.T.T., Shahidi, M., Towards understanding the contractor's response to carbon reduction policies in the construction projects, International Journal of Project Management, 31, 7, 1042–1056, 2013.
7. Ekonomik Kalkınma ve İşbirliği Örgütü (OECD), Çevresel Performans İncelemeleri: Türkiye, http://www.oecd.org/env/country-reviews/42198785.pdf, 2008.
8. Jin, Z., Deng, F., Li, H., Skitmore, M., Practical Framework for Measuring Performance of International Construction Firms, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139, 9, 1154–1167, 2013.

9. Ball, J., Can ISO 14000 and eco-labelling turn the construction industry green?, Building and Environment, 37, 4, 421–428, 2002.
10. Morhardt, J.E., Baird, S., Freeman., K., Scoring Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reports Using GRI 2000, ISO 14031 and Other Criteria, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9, 4, 215–233, 2002.
11. Martin B.A., Creating value with proactive environmental strategies, Environmental Quality Management, 15, 2, 21–25, 2005.
12. Bekiroğlu, Ç., Erdil, O., Alpkan, L., Variables Perceived by Managers as Antecedents That Lead Firms to Environmental Management: An Empirical Research in the Turkish Construction Sector, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 101–122, 2011.
13. Schadewitz, H.J., Niskala, M., Communication via Responsibility Reporting and its Effect on Firm Value in Finland, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17, 2, 96–106, 2010.
14. Türkiye Müteahhitler Birliği (TMB), İnşaat Sektörü 2023 Vizyonu Raporu: Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri, http://www.tmb.org.tr/arastirma_yayinlar/TMB_insaat_sektoru_2023_vizyonu.pdf, 2011.
15. Türkiye Müteahhitler Birliği (TMB), İnşaat Sektörü Bildirgesi: Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri, http://www.tmb.org.tr/doc/file/bildirge_tmb.pdf, 2014.
16. İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası (İMO), Teknik ve Bilimsel Etkinlikler, http://www.imo.org.tr/resimler/ekutuphane/pdf/16074_35_50.pdf, 2014.
17. Türkiye İnşaat Malzemeleri Sanayicileri Derneği (İMSAD), Sürdürülebilirlik Raporu 2013, http://imsad.org/docs/rapor_surdurulebilirlik_05_2014.pdf, 2014.
18. TÜBİTAK, Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Kavramı ve Çevre, Vizyon 2023: Bilim ve Teknoloji Stratejileri Teknoloji Öngörü Projesi, Çevre ve Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Tematik Paneli, Ankara, Türkiye, 2003.
19. Clarkson, P.M., Overell, M.B., Chapple, L., Environmental Reporting and Its Relation to Corporate Environmental Performance, Abacus, 47, 1, 27–60, 2011.
20. Wu, J., The Antecedents of Corporate Social and Environmental Irresponsibility, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21, 5, 286–300, 2014.
21. Waddington, B. A., Moreland, K. A., Lillie, T., Performance Measurement Enhances Analytical Procedures, The CPA Journal, 71, 5, 50–51, 2001.
22. Strandesen, M., Poulse, P.B., Erdal, T., Schmidt, A., Comparable environmental indicators for companies, The Consumer Council at the Austrian Standards Institute, http://www.verbraucherrat.at/content/01-news/04-archiv-2007-2008/02-vergleichbare-betriebliche-umweltindikatoren/envindicators.pdf, 2008.
23. The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Joint ANEC / BEUC / ECOS / EEB position on Making EMAS a system of excellence - Going beyond EMS, http://www.ecostandard.org/wp-content/uploads/making_emas_a_system_of_excellence_-_going_beyond_ems.pdf, 2006.
24. Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Moving from performance measurement to performance management, Facilities, 20, 5-6, 217–223, 2002.
25. Isik, Z., Arditi, D., Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M., Impact of Resources and Strategies on Construction Company Performance, Journal of Management in Engineering, 26, 1, 9–18, 2010.
26. Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., Aouad, G., Performance Management in Construction: A Conceptual Framework, Construction Management and Economics, 19, 1, 85–95, 2001.
27. Bititci, U., Carrie, A., Turner, T., Integrated performance measurement systems: Structure and dynamics, Business Performance Measurement: Theory and Practice, Andy Neely (Ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2002.
28. Van Aken, E.M., Coleman, G.D., Building Better Measurement, Industrial Management, 44, 4, 28–33, 2002.
29. Bassioni, H.A., Price, A.D.F., Hassan, T.M., Building a conceptual framework for measuring business performance in construction: An empirical evaluation, Construction Management and Economics, 23, 5, 495–507, 2005.
30. Ofori-Kuragu, J. K ., Baiden, B. K., A conceptual benchmarking framework for world-class performance in Ghanaian construction firms, COBRA 2008, Dublin Institute of Technology, 2008.
31. McClements, S., Measuring Construction Performance, Rethinking Construction-Northern Ireland Centre. http://www.byggeevaluering.dk/db/files/rethinking_construction _2002.pdf, 2002.
32. Westlund, H., Measuring environmental impact on society in the EFQM system, Total Quality Management, 12, 1, 125-135, 2001.
33. Mbugua, L. M., A Methodology for Evaluating the Business Performance of UK Construction Companies, Doktora tezi, University of Wolverhampton, 2000.
34. Xiao, H., A comparative study of contractor performance based on Japanese, UK and US construction practice, Doktora tezi, University of Wolverhampton, 2002.
35. Chan, A. P. C., Scott, D. and Lam, E. W. M., Framework of success criteria for design/build projects, Journal of Management in Engineering, 18,3, 120–128, 2002.
36. Tekçe, I., Yüklenici İnşaat Firmaları için Çok Kriterli Performans Ölçme Modeli, Doktora Tezi, İTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 2010.
37. Uluatam, S., İnşaat Mühendisliğinde Enerji Verimliliği Dersi, Türkiye Mühendislik Haberleri 2011, 4, 468, 2011.
38. Bayram,Ş., Öcal, M.E., Oral, E.L., İnşaat Atıkları Kavramının Yasal Düzenlemesi ve Hazır Beton Tesislerinde Örnek Uygulama, TMMOB İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası, 6. İnşaat Yönetimi Kongresi, Bursa, 2011.
39. Gürgün, A.P., İleri, O.S., Türk İnşaat Firmalarının Yurtdışı Projelerde İşçi Sağlığı, İş Güvenliği ve Çevre Uygulamalarına Bakışı - Rusya Federasyonu Örneği, 3. İşçi Sağlığı ve İş Güvenliği Sempozyumu, Çanakkale, 2011.
40. İlter, D., Yılmaz, D., LEED Yeşil Bina Sertifika Sisteminde Yüklenicinin Rolü, 3. Proje ve Yapım Yönetimi Kongresi, Antalya, 2011.
41. Chih H.L., Chih H.H., Chen T., On the determinants of corporate social responsibility: International evidence on the financial industry, Journal of Business Ethics 93, 1, 115–135, 2010.
42. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO14000 Environmental management. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/management-standards/iso14000.htm
43. Henri, J.F., Journeault, M., Environmental performance indicators: An empirical study of Canadian manufacturing firms, Journal of Environmental Management, 87, 1, 165–176, 2008.
44. Costa, D. B., Formoso, C. T., A set of evaluation criteria for performance measurement systems in the construction industry, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 9, 2, 91–102, 2004.
45. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), G3 Report. https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/G3andG3-1/guidelines-online, 2014.
46. Jasch, C., Environmental performance evaluation and indicators, Journal of Cleaner Production, 8, 1, 79–88, 2000.
47. Thoresen J., Environmental performance evaluation-a tool for industrial improvement, Journal of Cleaner Production, 7, 5, 365–370, 1999.
48. Bennett M. James P., The evolution of integrated environmental performance evaluation and reporting at Baxter international in Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and Social Performance, Martin Bennett and Peter James (Eds), Greenleaf Publication, Sheffield, 253–282, 1999.
49. Bhatnagar, V., Evaluating corporate environmental performance in developing countries in Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and Social Performance, Martin Bennett and Peter James (Eds), Greenleaf Publication, Sheffield, 202–220, 1999.
50. Meyer R. D., Conducting environmental performance evaluation using environmental performance indicators, Clayton Group Services, 2001.
51. Wu D., Shen L.Y., Wang J.Y., Multi-hierarchy AHP calculation model for contractor’s environmental performance, Proceedings of 2001 CRIOCM international research symposium on development of construction management, 158–176, Shenzhen University, China, 2001.
52. Jasch C., Environmental performance evaluation and indicators, Journal of Cleaner Production 8, 1, 79–88, 2000;
53. Fellows, R., Liu, A., Research Methods for Construction, Blackwell Science, Oxford, 1997.
54. Czaja, R., Blair, J., Designing surveys: a guide to decisions and procedures, Pine Forge Press, London, 1996.
55. Roche Türkiye Kurumsal Sorumluluk Raporu http://www.rochekurumsalsorumluluk.com/2012/pdf/RKSR_Turkce_2012TR.pdf, 2012
56. European Foundation Quality Model, http://www.efqm.org/, 2015
57. Creswell, J.W., Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif., USA, 2003.
58. Özorhon, B., Demirkesen, S., Türk Müteahhitlik Hizmetlerinin Uluslararası Analizi, İMO Teknik Dergi, 421, 6831-6848, 2014.
59. İlter, D., Identification of the Relations between Dispute Factors and Dispute Categories in Construction Projects, International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 4, 1, 45–59, 2012.
60. Budayan, C., Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M.T., Investigation of Drivers and Modes of Differentiation in Turkish Construction Industry, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 20, 4, 345–364, 2013.
61. Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M.T., Budayan, C., Strategic Group Analysis in the Construction Industry, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135, 4, 288–297, 2009.
62. Sutrisna, M., Developing a knowledge based system for the valuation of variations in civil engineering works, Doktora Tezi, University of Wolverhampton, 2004.
63. Tan, Y., Shen, L., Yao, H., Sustainable construction practice and contractors’ competitiveness: A preliminary study, Habitat International, 35, 2, 225-230, 2011.
64. Rejc A., Slapnicar S., Corporate Performance Measurement Systems: Empirical Evidence of Determinants, Working papers-Research Center of the Faculty of Economics, Ljulijana, 2004.
65. Toller, S., Carlsson, A., Wadeskog, A., Miliutenko, S., Göra, F., Indicators for environmental monitoring of the Swedish building and real estate management sector, Building Research and Information, 41, 2, 146-155, 2013.
66. Shen , L., Lu, W., Yao, H., Wu, D., A computer-based scoring method for measuring the environmental performance of construction activities, Automation in Construction 14, 3, 297– 309, 2005.
67. Gluch, P., Gustafsson, M., Thuvander, L., Charting corporate greening: environmental management trends in Sweden, Building Research & Information, 42, 3, 318-329, 2013.
68. Yüksel İnşaat Sürdürülebilirlik Raporu, http://www.yuksel.net/yukselebilirlik2.pdf, 2013.
69. Carillion Sustainability Report, Today tomorrow together, http://sustainability2013.carillionplc.com/downloads/carillion-sr2013-full.pdf, 2013
70. Opoku, A., Fortune, C., Leadership in Construction Organizations and the Promotion of Sustainable Practices, Proceedings of Management and Innovation for a Sustainable Built Environment MISBE Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011.
71. Qi, G.Y., Shen, L.Y., Zeng, S.X., Jorge, O., The drivers for contractors’ green innovation: an industry perspective, Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 14, 1358-1365, 2010.
72. Tyteca, D., Carlens, J., Berkhout, F., Corporate Environmental Performance Evaluation: Evidence from the MEPI Project, Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 1-13, 2002.
73. Neely, A., Adams, C., Kennerly, M., Performance Prism: The Scorecard for Measuring and Managing Business Success, Prentice Hall, UK, 2002.
74. Olsthoorn, X., Tyteca, D., Wehrmeyer, W., Environmental indicators for business: a review of the literature and standardisation methods, Journal of Cleaner Production 9, 5, 453–463, 2001.
75. Costa D., Lima H., Formoso C.T., Performance Measurement Systems For Benchmarking in the Brazilian Construction Industry, CIB World Building Congress, Toronto, Canada, 2004.
76. Fuertes, A., Casals, M., Gangolells, M., Forcada, N., Macarulla, M., Roca, X., An Environmental Impact Causal Model for improving the environmental performance of construction processes, Journal of Cleaner Production, 52, 425-437, 2013.
77. Redshaw, B., Evaluating organisational effectiveness, Industrial and Commercial Training, 32, 7, 245-248, 2000.
78. McCabe, S., Benchmarking in Construction, Blackwell Science, London, 2001.
79. BRE, BREEAM International New Construction (NC). http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=293, 2015.
80. USGBC, LEED v.4, http://www.usgbc.org/LEED#v4, 2015.
81. Robertson, H. W., A construction company’s approach to business performance measurement, Total Quality Management, 8, 2-3, 254-255, 1997.
82. Ar, İ. M., The impact of green product innovation on firm performance and competitive capability: the moderating role of managerial environmental concern, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 62, 854 – 864, 2012.
83. Agyekum, K., Minimizing Materials Wastage at the Construction Stage of a Project Through the Implementation of Lean Construction, Doktora Tezi, Kwame University, 2012.
84. Kibert, C.J., Sustainable construction–green building design and delivery, John Wiley&Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ., USA, 2008.
85. Testa, F., Iraldo, F., Frey, M., The Effect of environmental regulation on firms’ competitive performance: The case of the building & construction sector in some EU regions, Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 9, 2136–2144, 2011.
86. Taisei Annual Report, Towards a Sustainable Society, http://www.taisei.co.jp/english/csr/annual_report_online2014/pdf/annual.pdf, 2014.
87. Işık,Z., A Conceptual Performance Measurement Framework for Construction Industry, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, ODTÜ, 2009.
88. Özorhon, B., Arditi, D., Dikmen, I., Birgönül, T., Toward a Multidimensional Performance Measrure for International Joint Ventures in Construction, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137,6, 403-411, 2011.
89. Leung vd., 2010; Mei-yung Leung1; Yee-Shan Chan2; and Alice Ming Lin Chong3 Chinese Values and Stressors of Construction Professionals in Hong Kong J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2010.136:1289-1298.
90. Dunn, S.C., Seaker, R.F., Waller, M.A., Latent variables in business logistics research: scale developpment and validation, Journal of Business Logistics, 15(2), 145-72, 1994.
91. Garver, M.S., Mentzer, J.T., Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity.” Journal of Business Logistics, 20(1), 33–57, 1999.
92. Nunnally, J., Psychometric Theory, MacFraw-Hill, NewYork, 1978.
93. Comrey, A.L., Lee, H.B., A first course in factor analysis, Psychology Press, NewJersey, 1992.
94. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E, Tatham, R.L, Black, W.C., Multivariate data analysis, Prantice-Hill, NewJersey, 1998.
95. Sarkis, J., Meade, L., Presley, A.R., Incorporating sustainability into contractor evaluation and team formation in the built environment, Journal of Cleaner Production, 31, 40–53, 2012.