REKABET EDEN KURUMSAL MANTIKLAR VE ÖRGÜTLERİN KURUMSAL SOSYAL SORUMLULUKLARI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE PAYDAŞ ETKİLERİ

Yıl 2022, Sayı: Özel Sayı, 72 - 99, 29.09.2022

Gizem Aras Beger

https://doi.org/10.35408/comuybd.1142572

Öz

Örgütler birbirinden farklı kurumsal düzenleri gerektiren çoklu mantıkların mevcut olduğu bir alanda faaliyetlerini gerçekleştirmekte ve bunları örgütsel uygulama-süreç ve çıktılarına yansıtmaktadırlar. Ancak bu mantık çokluğu, birbiri ile çelişebilen talepleri sebebi ile farklı örgütsel reçeteler sunmaktadır. Örgütsel sonuçlar üzerinde önemli etkileri göz önüne alındığında, bu mantıkların örgütlerde nasıl tezahür ettiği kritik önem taşımaktadır. Literatürde özellikle bu tarz etkilerin karmaşıklık düzeyi yüksek ve kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk (KSS) dinamiklerinin henüz tam olarak keşfedilemediği gelişmekte olan ülkelerde daha belirgin olduğu belirtilmektedir. Bu sebeple çalışmanın amacı, örgütlerin çeşitli kurumsal mantıkların etkisi altında ne tür KSS yönelimlerini hangi yollarla geliştirdiklerini keşfetmektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda geliştirilen KSS tipolojisine dayalı bir araştırma modeli oluşturulmuştur. Modeli test etmek için gerçekleştirilen anket çalışması sonuçlarına göre; ticari mantığın daha çok şirketsel fayda, sosyal mantığın daha çok toplumsal faydaya götürdüğü ortaya konmuştur. Ancak her iki mantığın birlikte var olması durumuna ilişkin, paydaşların zıt kutuplar arasında aracılık ederek örgütlerin birleşik faydalar, yani hem şirketsel hem de toplumsal faydalar sağlayabilmelerini mümkün kıldığı tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kurumsal Mantıklar, Paydaşlar, Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk

Teşekkür

Bu çalışma Prof. Dr. Duygu TÜRKER, Yaşar Üniversitesi-İşletme Bölümü, danışmanlığında yürütülen doktora tezinden türetilmiştir. Yazar, bu çalışma sırasında rehberlik ettiği için tez danışmanına en derin teşekkürlerini sunar.

STAKEHOLDER EFFECTS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPETING INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS AND ORGANIZATIONS’ CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Öz

Organizations carry out their activities in an area where there are multiple logics
that require different institutional orders and reflect these to their organizational
practices-processes and outcomes. However, this logic multiplicity presents different
organizational prescriptions due to their conflicting demands. Given their
significant impacts on organizational outcomes, how these logics manifest in
organizations is critical. In the literature, it is stated that such effects are more
evident in developing countries where the level of complexity is high and the
dynamics of corporate social responsibility (CSR) have not yet been fully explored.
For this reason, the aim of the study is to discover how and what kind of CSR
behaviors organizations develop under the influence of various institutional logics.
A research model based on a proposed CSR typology was developed for this
purpose. According to the results of the survey conducted to test the model; it has
been revealed that commercial logic leads to more business benefits, and social
logic leads to more societal benefits. However, regarding the coexistence of both
logics, it has been determined that multiple stakeholders mediate between opposite
poles, making it possible for organizations to provide combined benefits, that is,
both business and societal benefits. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Institutional Logics, Stakeholders, Corporate Social Responsibility

Kaynakça

• Airike, P. E., Rotter, J. P., & Mark-Herbert, C. (2016). Corporate motives for multi-stakeholder collaboration–corporate social responsibility in the electronics supply chains. Journal of cleaner production, 131, 639-648.
• Alford, R. R., & Friedland, R. (1985). Powers of theory: Capitalism, the state, and democracy. Cambridge University Press.
• Angus-Leppan, T., Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2010). Leadership styles and CSR practice: An examination of sensemaking, institutional drivers and CSR leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), 189-213.
• Ararat, M. (2004). Social responsibility in a state dependent system. In A. Habisch, J. Jonker, M. Wegner, & R. Schmidpeter (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility across Europe (pp. 247–261). Berlin: Springer.
• Badulescu, A., Badulescu, D., Saveanu, T., & Hatos, R. (2018). The relationship between firm size and age, and its social responsibility actions—Focus on a developing country (Romania). Sustainability, 10(3), 805.
• Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122-136.
• Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2005). An inductive typology for corporate social responsibility. In Academy of Management Proceedings (No. 1, pp. C1-C6). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
• Battilana, J., Besharov, M., & Mitzinneck, B. (2017). On hybrids and hybrid organizing: A review and roadmap for future research. The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism, 2, 133-169.
• Baumann-Pauly, D., Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2016). Managing institutional complexity: A longitudinal study of legitimacy strategies at a sportswear brand company. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 31-51.
• Besharov Marya L. & Smith Wenfy K. (2014). Multiple Institutional Logics in Organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implicatıons. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364-381.
• Bocquet, R., & Mothe, C. (2011). Exploring the relationship between CSR and innovation: A comparison between small and largesized French companies. Revue Sciences de Gestion, (80), 101-119.
• Carrigan, M., McEachern, M., Moraes, C., & Bosangit, C. (2017). The fine jewellery industry: Corporate responsibility challenges and institutional forces facing SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(4), 681-699.
• Christiansen, L. H., & Lounsbury, M. (2013). Strange brew: Bridging logics via institutional bricolage and the reconstitution of organizational identity. In Institutional logics in action, part B. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Czarniawska, B. (1997). Narrating the organization: Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Fairclough, S., & Micelotta, E. R. (2013). Beyond the family firm: Reasserting the influence of the family institutional logic across organizations. In Institutional logics in action, part B. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Fornell. C. and Larcker. D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
• Glynn, M. A., & Raffaelli, R. (2013). Logic pluralism, organizational design, and practice adoption: The structural embeddedness of CSR programs. In Institutional Logics in Action, Part B. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Golob, U., Turkel, S., Kronegger, L., & Uzunoglu, E. (2018). Uncovering CSR meaning networks: A cross-national comparison of Turkey and Slovenia. Public relations review, 44(4), 433-443.
• Govindan, K., Kannan, D., & Shankar, K. M. (2014). Evaluating the drivers of corporate social responsibility in the mining industry with multi-criteria approach: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Journal of cleaner production, 84, 214-232.
• Graafland, J., & Van de Ven, B. (2006). Strategic and moral motivation for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (22), 111-123.
• Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 317–371.
• Hair Jr. J. F.. Hult. G. T. M.. Ringle. C.. & Sarstedt. M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
• Hair. J.F., Black. W.C., Babin. B.J., and Anderson. R.E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis. Seventh Edition, Essex: Pearson.
• Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers' personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of business ethics, 50(1), 33-44.
• Hovring, C. M., Andersen, S. E., & Nielsen, A. E. (2018). Discursive tensions in CSR multi-stakeholder dialogue: A Foucauldian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(3), 627-645.
• Hovring, C. M. (2017). Caught in a communicative catch‐22? Translating the notion of CSR as shared value creation in a Danish CSR frontrunner. Business Ethics: A European Review, 26(4), 369-381.
• Jamali, D., Jain, T., Samara, G., & Zoghbi, E. (2020). How institutions affect CSR practices in the Middle East and North Africa: A critical review. Journal of World Business, 55(5), 101127.
• Jamali, D., Karam, C., Yin, J. and Soundararajan, V. (2017). Csr Logics in Developing Countries: Translation, Adaptation and Stalled Development. Journal of World Business, 52(3), 343-359.
• Jamali, D., Lund-Thomsen, P. & Jeppesen, S. (2017a). SMEs and CSR in developing countries. Business & Society, 56(1), 11-22.
• Jamali, D., & Karam, C. (2016). CSR in developed versus developing countries: A comparative glimpse. In Örtenblad A (Ed.), Research handbook on corporate social responsibility in context. Elgar: Cheltenham, UK.
• Jamali, D., & Neville, B. (2011). Convergence versus divergence of CSR in developing countries: An embedded multi-layered institutional lens. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(4), 599-621.
• Jamali, D., Zanhour, M., & Keshishian, T. (2009). Peculiar strengths and relational attributes of SMEs in the context of CSR. Journal of business Ethics, 87(3), 355-377.
• Jamali, D., Safieddine, A. M., & Rabbath, M. (2008). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and interrelationships. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(5), 443-459.
• Jenkins, H. (2004). A critique of conventional CSR theory: An SME perspective. Journal of General Management, 29(4), 37-57.
• Kang, N., & Moon, J. (2012). Institutional complementarity between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: A comparative institutional analysis of three capitalisms. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1), 85-108.
• Karam, C. M., & Jamali, D. (2017). A cross-cultural and feminist perspective on CSR in developing countries: Uncovering latent power dynamics. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 461-477.
• Looser, S. U. (2019). Intrinsic and extrinsic corporate social responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• Looser, S., & Wehrmeyer, W. (2015). Stakeholder mapping of CSR in Switzerland. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(4), 780-830.
• Montabon, F., Pagell, M., & Wu, Z. (2016). Making sustainability sustainable. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 52(2), 11-27.
• Morgan, G., Hirsch, P., & Quack, S. (2015). Elites on trial: introduction. In Elites on Trial. United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Morsing, M., & Perrini, F. (2009). CSR in SMEs: do SMEs matter for the CSR agenda? Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(1), 1-6.
• Morsing, M., & Spence, L. J. (2019). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication and small and medium sized enterprises: The governmentality dilemma of explicit and implicit CSR communication. Human Relations, 72(12), 1920-1947.
• Mullins, D., Czischke, D., & van Bortel, G. (2012). Exploring the meaning of hybridity and social enterprise in housing organisations. Housing Studies, 27(4), 405–417.
• Pache, A., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 972-1001.
• Perrini, F. (2006). SMEs and CSR theory: Evidence and implications from an Italian perspective. Journal of business ethics, 67(3), 305-316.
• Pfeffer, J. (2005). Changing mental models: HR's most important task. Human Resources Management, 44(2), 123-128.
• Rodriguez Bolivar, M. P., Garde Sanchez, R., & Lopez Hernandez, A. M. (2015). Managers as drivers of CSR in state-owned enterprises. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(5), 777-801.
• Schaltegger, S., & Hörisch, J. (2017). In search of the dominant rationale in sustainability management: legitimacy-or profit-seeking?. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 259-276.
• Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: categories and interactions. Business strategy and the environment, 20(4), 222-237.
• Schneider, A. (2015). Reflexivity in sustainability accounting and management: Transcending the economic focus of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(3), 525-536.
• Smith, W. K., Besharov, M. L., Wessels, A. K., & Chertok, M. (2012). A paradoxical leadership model for social entrepreneurs: Challenges, leadership skills, and pedagogical tools for managing social and commercial demands. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 463-478.
• Tanimoto, K. (2019). Do multi-stakeholder initiatives make for better CSR?. Corporate Governance. The International Journal of Business in Society, 19(4), 704-716.
• Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford University Press on Demand.
• Turker, D. (2015). An analysis of corporate social responsibility in the Turkish business context. In Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe, (pp. 483-499). Cham, Springer.
• Vallaster, C., Kraus, S., Kailer, N., & Baldwin, B. (2019). Responsible entrepreneurship: Outlining the contingencies. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(3), 538-553.
• Vallentin, S. and Morsing, M. (2008). Social responsibility in Danish SMEs: mapping the territory. In Morsing, M., Vallentin, S. and Hildebrandt, S. (Eds.), CSR in SMEs (pp. 8-36). Copenhagen: Børsen Forlag.
• Visser, W. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility in Developing Countries. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon and D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 473-503). Oxford University Press.
• Yamak, S., Ergur, A., Karatas‐Ozkan, M., & Tatli, A. (2019). CSR and leadership approaches and practices: a comparative inquiry of owners and professional executives. European Management Review, 16(4), 1097-1114.
• Zhao, E. Y., & Lounsbury, M. (2016). An institutional logics approach to social entrepreneurship: Market logic, religious diversity, and resource acquisition by microfinance organizations. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(6), 643-662.