Yöneticilerin Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Kararlarında Etkili Olan Motivasyonlar

Yıl 2024, , 1708 - 1726, 17.12.2024

Emine Şardagı , Mesude Canan Ozturk

https://doi.org/10.32709/akusosbil.1237474

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, kurumsal teori ve paydaş teorisi temel alınarak kurumlarda sürdürülebilirlik kararlarının geliştirilmesinde etkili olan motivasyonları belirlemektir. Çalışmada bu amaca ulaşabilmek için öncelikle yapısal bir model oluşturulmuştur. Bu modelde kurumların çevrelerinden, organizasyon yapısından ve yönetim yapısından olmak üzere üç temel faktörün sürdürülebilirlik kararları üzerinde etkili olduğu belirlenmiştir. Çalışmada belirlenen faktörlerin sürdürülebilirliğin çevresel, ekonomik ve sosyal boyutuyla ilişkisini değerlendirmek için YEM analiz tekniği kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın verileri Türkiye’deki 4 ve 5 yıldızlı otellerdeki üst düzey 194 yöneticiden elde edilmiştir. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre, zorlayıcı ve normatif baskıların sürdürülebilirliğin üç boyutu üzerinde etkisi bulunurken; taklitçi baskılarda bu etkinin olmadığı belirlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte kaynak varlığı ve sürdürülebilirlik odaklı kültürün sürdürülebilirliğin üç boyutu üzerinde anlamlı etkisi bulunmasına rağmen; algılanan faydanın sadece ekonomik sürdürülebilirlik üzerinde etkisi olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Son olarak, sürdürülebilirliğe yönelik tutum ile sorumlu liderliğin çevresel ve sosyal sürdürülebilirlik üzerinde anlamlı etkisi bulunurken; ekonomik sürdürülebilirlik üzerinde etkisi olmadığı belirlenmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik, kurumsal teori, paydaş teorisi, sürdürülebilir kalkınma, yapısal eşitlik modeli (YEM)., Corporate sustainability, institutional theory, stakeholder theory, sustainable development, structural equation model (SEM).

The Motivations of Affecting Manager’s Decisions on Corporate Sustainability

Öz

The aim of this study is to determine the motivations which are effective in the development of sustainability decisions based on the institutional and stakeholder theories. In order to reach this aim, firstly a structural model has been formed. In this model, it has been determined that institutions are effective on the sustainability of the three basic factors as environmental, structural and managerial. The YEM analysis technique has been used in order to evaluate the relationship of the factors determined in the study with the size of environmental, economical and social sustainability. The data of the research has been obtained from 194 senior managers of 4 and 5 stars hotels in Turkey. According to the results of the research, while the coercive and normative pressures affect three dimensions of the sustainability; this affection has not existed on the mimetric pressures. However, although resource availability and sustainability-oriented culture affect the three dimensions of sustainability significantly; it has been determined that perceived benefit has an effect only on economic sustainability. Finally, sustainability-oriented attitude and responsible leadership have a significant impact on the environmental and social sustainability; it has been determined that there has not been such an impact on the economical sustainability

Anahtar Kelimeler

Corporate sustainability, institutional theory, stakeholder theory, sustainable development, structural equation model (SEM).

Kaynakça

• Abbett, E., Coldham, A. & Whisnant, R. (2010). Organizational culture and the success of corporate sustainability initiatives: An empirical analysis using the competing values framework. Doktora tezi. University of Michigan.
• Abdulaziz, N. A. A., Senik, R., Yau, F. S., San, O. T. & Attan, H. (2017). Influence of institutional pressures on the adoption of green initiatives. International Journal Of Economics and Management (IJEM), 11(S3), 939-967.
• Alshehhi, A., Nobanee, H. & Khare, N. (2018). The impact of sustainability practices on corporate financial performance: Literature trends and future research potential. Sustainability, 10(2), 494. Doi:10.3390/su10020494.
• Babiak, K. & Trendafilova, S. (2011). CSR and environmental responsibility: motives and pressures to adopt green management practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(1), 11-24. Doi:10.1002/csr.229.
• Caradonna, J. L. (2014). Sustaianability: A History. New York. Oxford University Press.
• Carpenter, V. L. & Feroz, E. H. (2001). Institutional theory and accounting rule choice: an analysis of four US state governments' decisions to adopt generally accepted accounting principles. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(7-8), 565-596. Doi: 10.1016/S0361-3682(00)00038-6.
• Collier, J. E.(2020). Applied structural equation modeling using AMOS. NY: Routledge.
• Dede, N. P. (2019). Dönüşümcü liderlik ve örgütsel bağlılık ilişkisinde lidere olan güvenin aracı rolü üzerine bir araştırma. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 7(4), 1923-1943. Doi:10.15295/bmij.v7i4.1250.
• Del Brío, J. Á. & Junquera, B. (2003). A review of the literature on environmental innovation management in SMEs: implications for public policies. Technovation, 23(12), 939–948. Doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00036-6.
• Dimaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 147-160. Doi: 10.2307/2095101
• Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, T., Hazen, B., Giannakis, M. ve Roubaud, D. (2017). Examining the effect of external pressures and organizational culture on shaping performance measurement systems (PMS) for sustainability benchmarking: Some empirical findings. International Journal of Production Economics, 193, 63-76. Doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.06.029.
• Epstein, M. J., Buhovac, A. R. & Yuthas, K. (2010). Implementing sustainability: The role of leadership and organizational culture. Strategic Finance, 91(10), 41.
• Essebro, L. (2020). Ensuring legitimacy trough CSR communication in the biobased sec tor. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Swedish: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
• Ferdous, A. S. (2010). Applying the theory of planned behavior to explain marketing managers’ perspectives on sustainable marketing. Journal of international consumer marketing, 22(4), 313-325. Doi: 10.1080/08961530.2010.505883
• Fraj‐Andrés, E., Martínez‐Salinas, E. & Matute‐Vallejo, J. (2009). Factors affecting cor porate environmental strategy in Spanish industrial firms. Business strategy and the Environment, 18(8), 500-514. Doi: 10.1002/bse.611
• Genç, R. (2017). The importance of communication in sustainability & sustainable strategies. Procedia Manufacturing, 8, 511-516. Doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.065.
• Gürbüz, S. (2019). Amos ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Günel, T. (2017). Kurumsal kuram perspektifinden kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik: İşletmelerin kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik raporlamaları üzerine bir uygulama. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara: Başkent Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J. & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463-487. Doi: 10.5465/amr.2012.0341.
• Hair, J. F. Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E.(2019). Multivariate data analysis, (8. Ed.). Cengage Learning EMEA.
• Han, Z., Wang, Q. & Yan, X. (2019). How responsible leadership motivates employees to engage in organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: A double-mediation model. Sustainability, 11(3), 605. Doi: 10.3390/su11030605.
• Herold, D. M. (2018). Demystifying the link between institutional theory and stakeholder theory in sustainability reporting. Economics, Management and Sustainability, 3(2), 6- 19. Doi: 10.14254/jems.2018.3-2.1
• Hörisch, J., Schaltegger, S. & Windolph, S. E. (2015). Linking sustainability related stakeholder feedback to corporate sustainability performance: an empirical analysis of stakeholder dialogues. International Journal of Business Environment, 7(2), 200 – 218. Doi:10.1504/IJBE.2015.069027.
• Islam, M. S., Tseng, M. L. & Karia, N. (2019). Assessment of corporate culture in sustai nability performance using a hierarchical framework and interdependence relations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 217, 676-690. Doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.259.
• Jang, Y.J. (2016). Top managers’ environmental values, leadership, and stakeholder engagement in promoting environmental sustainability in the restaurant industry. Graduate Theses. USA: Iowa State University.
• Javed, M., Rashid, M. A., Hussain, G. ve Ali, H. Y. (2020). The effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate reputation and firm financial performance: Moderating role of responsible leadership. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(3), 1395-1409. Doi:10.1002/csr.1892.
• Karagöz, Y. (2019). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri ve yayın etiği. Ankara: Nobel Dağıtım
• Khatter, A., White, L., Pyke, J. & McGrath, M. (2021). Stakeholders’ Influence on Environmental Sustainability in the Australian Hotel Industry. Sustainability, 13(3), 1351. Doi:10.3390/su13031351.
• Kornilaki, M. ve Font, X. (2019). Normative influences: How socio-cultural and industrial norms influence the adoption of sustainability practices. A grounded theory of Cretan, small tourism firms. Journal of Environmental Management, 230, 183-189. Doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.064.
• Krell, K., Matook, S. & Rohde, F. (2016). The impact of legitimacy-based motives on IS adoption success: an institutional theory perspective. Information & Management 53(6), 683–697. Doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.02.006.
• Kuter, N. & Ünal, H. E. (2009). Sürdürülebilirlik kapsamında ekoturizmin çevresel, ekonomik ve sosyo-kültürel etkileri. Kastamonu Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 146-156.
• Lamsam, N. (2020). Effect of corporate sustainability on corporate reputation and firm performance of companies in Thailand. Asian Social Science, 16(11), 31-40. Doi: 10.5539/ass.v16n11p31.
• Law, K. M. & Gunasekaran, A. (2012). Sustainability development in high-tech manufacturing firms in Hong Kong: Motivators and readiness. International Journal of Production Economics, 137(1), 116-125. Doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.022.
• Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q. & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS quarterly, 31(1), 59-87. Doi: 10.2307/25148781.
• Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 329-343. Doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9510-5.
• Maignan, I. & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497-514.
• Marcus, J., MacDonald, H.A. & Sulsky, L.M. (2015). Do personal values influence the propensity for sustainability actions? A policy-capturing study. J. Bus. Ethics, 127, 459–478. Doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-2032-4.
• Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A. & Walsh, J. P. (2007). Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Ann Arbor, 1001, 48109-1234.
• Masocha, R. & Fatoki, O. (2018). The impact of coercive pressures on sustainability practices of small businesses in South Africa. Sustainability, 10(9), 3032. Doi: 10.3390/su10093032.
• Moliner, M. Á., Monferrer, D., Estrada, M. & Rodríguez, R. M. (2019). Environmental sustainability and the hospitality customer experience: A study in tourist accommodation. Sustainability, 11(19), 5279. Doi: 10.3390/su11195279.
• Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179. Doi:10.2307/258610.
• Ouyang, Z., Cheng, P., Liu, Y. & Yang, R. (2019). Institutional drivers for corporate philanthropic activities in China: Mediating roles of top management participation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 244-255. Doi: 10.1002/csr.1796.
• Özen, Ş.(2015). Yeni kurumsal kuram: Örgütleri çözümlemede yeni ufuklar ve yeni sorunlar. A. Selami Sargut ve Ş. Özen (Ed.), Örgüt Kuramları. (3. Baskı), Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
• Patel, A. M., Xavier, R. J. & Broom, G. (2005). Toward a model of organizational legitimacy in public relations theory and practice. In Proceedings International Communication Association Conference, (s. 1-22), New York, USA.
• Păvăluc, C., Anichiti, A., Niţă, V. & Butnaru, G. I. (2020). Analysing the relationship between tourism development and sustainability by looking at the impact on the environment. A study on the European Union countries. CES Working Papers, 12(1), 1-19.
• Peters, J. & Simaens, A. (2020). Integrating sustainability into corporate strategy: A case study of the textile and clothing industry. Sustainability, 12(15), 6125. Doi: 10.3390/su12156125.
• Raab, C., Baloglu, S. & Chen, Y. S. (2018). Restaurant managers’ adoption of sustainable practices: An application of institutional theory and theory of planned behavior. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 21(2), 154- 171. Doi: 10.1080/15378020.2017.1364591.
• Raupp, J. (2011). The concept of stakeholders and its relevance for corporate social responsibi lity communication. Ø. Ihlen, J. L. Bartlett ve S. May (Ed.) The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility içinde (pp. 276-295). UK: John Wiley & Sons.
• Rivera, J. (2004). Institutional pressures and voluntary environmental behavior in developing countries: evidence from the Costa Rican hotel industry. Society and Natural Resources, 17(9), 779–797. Doi: 10.1080/08941920490493783.
• Roberts, S. & Tribe, J. (2008) Sustainability indicators for small tourism enterprises – An exploratory perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16:5, 575-594. Doi: 10.1080/09669580802159644.
• Roxas, B. & Coetzer, A.(2012). Institutional environment, managerial attitudes and envi ronmental sustainability orientation of small firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 461–476. Doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1211-z.
• Saeed, A., Jun, Y., Nubuor, S., Priyankara, H. & Jayasuriya, M.(2018). Institutional pres sures, green supply chain management practices on environmental and economic performance: A two theory view. Sustainability, 10 (5), 1517. Doi: 10.3390/su10051517.
• Sweeney L. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in Ireland: barriers and opportunities experienced by SMEs when undertaking CSR. Corporate Governance 7(4): 516–523.
• Wang, S., Li, J. & Zhao, D. (2018). Institutional pressures and environmental management practices: The moderating effects of environmental commitment and resource availability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(1), 52-69. Doi:10.1002/bse.1983.
• Wang, S., Wang, H. & Wang, J. (2019). Exploring the effects of institutional pressures on the implementation of environmental management accounting: Do top management support and perceived benefit work?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 233-243. Doi:10.1002/bse.2252.
• Windolph, S. E., Harms, D. & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Motivations for corporate sustainability management: Contrasting survey results and implementation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(5), 272-285. Doi: 10.1002/csr.1337.
• Weber, O. (2017). Corporate sustainability and financial performance of Chinese banks. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8(3), 358-385.
• WCED (1987). World Commission on Environment and Development. New York.: Oxford University Press.
• Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2015). Çok değişkenli istatistiklerin kullanımı. (Çev. B. Bıçak) Ankara: Nobel. Yu, Y. & Choi, Y. (2016). Stakeholder pressure and CSR adoption: The mediating role of organizational culture for Chinese companies, The Social Science Journal, 53:2, 226-234. Doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2014.07.006.
• Zhao, H. & Zhou, Q. (2019). Exploring the impact of responsible leadership on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: A leadership identity perspective. Sustainability, 11(4), 944. Doi:10.3390/su11040944.
• Zink, K. J., Steimle, U. & Fischer, K. (2008). Human factors, business excellence and corporate sustainability: differing perspectives, joint objectives. K.J. Zink (Ed.), Corporate sustainability as a challenge for comprehensive management içinde (pp. 3-18). Physica-Verlag HD.
• Zuo, W., Schwartz, M. S. & Wu, Y. (2017). Institutional forces affecting corporate social responsibility behavior of the Chinese food industry. Business & Society, 56(5), 705-737. Doi:10.1177/0007650315615855.