SOCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: AN EVALUATION OF AIBs LOCATED IN BURSA IN THE CONTEXT OF FACEBOOK SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM

Öz

CSOs are critical actors in terms of economic, social, cultural and political activities. The externality they have created makes important contributions to the development and change of society in various aspects. From the industrial point of view, it is observed that the participation of entrepreneurs and professionals in the Associations of Industrialists and Businessmen (AIBs) is gradually increasing. However, as a CSO, it remains unclear to what extent AIBs are effective and to what rate they create social benefits. In this context, this study aims to analyse the social impacts of the AIBs located in Bursa. In this study, the effectiveness levels of the AIBs were analysed using qualitative research methods via the Facebook social media platform. For this purpose, the Facebook accounts of the 97 AIBs located in Bursa were reviewed, a total of 31,663 posts were analysed, and the posts were coded according to various categories. In addition, data on critical codes were also recorded and used as evidence in evaluations. The most remarkable finding of the study is that AIBs are far from trying to influence society strongly in the "economy" category, which can be expressed as the reason for their existence. On the other hand, the findings reveal that AIBs intend to influence society mainly through education, information, and stakeholder relations management.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Social Impact
• Associations of Industrialists and Businessmen
• Social Media
• Facebook
• Effectiveness in Civil Society Organizations

Kaynakça

1. Abdülmecid, M. (2020). Sivil toplum örgütlerinin sosyal medya kullanımı: World Uyghur Congress Facebook sayfası örneği. Yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi.
2. Akçadağ, E. (2011). Avrupa Birliği sürecinde kamu diplomasisi faaliyetlerinde sivil toplum kuruluşlarının rolü. Politika Dergisi, 1-15.
3. Aksu, O. (2013). Türkiye’de sivil toplum örgütlerinin sosyal medya kullanım analizi: Hiv/aids konusunda bir durum çalışması. Yüksek lisans tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi.
4. Aleakhue, I., & Segiru, S. (2018). Global journal of humansocial science: H interdisciplinary type: Double blind peer reviewed. International Research Journal, 18(6), 13-20.
5. Anheier, H. (2000). Managing non-profit organizations: Towards a new approach. LSE Research Online Documents on Economics, 1-21.
6. Arena, M., Azzone, G., & Bengo, I. (2015). Performance measurment for social enterprises. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organization, (26)2, 649-672. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11266-013-9436-8
7. Arslan, E. (2022). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 51, 395-407. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1116878
8. Aslan, M., & Kaya, G. (2004). 1980 sonrası Türkiye’de siyasal katılımda sivil toplum kuruluşları. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 5(1), 213-223.

9. Aydın, B. (2019). Sivil toplum kuruluşlarının sosyal medya içeriklerinde gönüllülük faaliyetlerinin değerlendirilmesi: Deniztemiz Derneği örneği.Yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi.
10. Başkale, H. (2016). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlik, güvenirlik ve örneklem büyüklüğünün belirlenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 9(1), 23-28.
11. Bendaş, K. (2022). Dijitalleşen dünyada medyanın dönüşümü: Geleneksel medyadan yeni medyaya geçiş ve Türkiye’de internet haberciliği. Anasay. 6(22), 373-396.
12. Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35, 317–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pubrev.2009.05.002
13. Bozkanat, E. (2020). Sivil toplum kuruluşlarının sosyal medyada ilişki kurma ve iletişim stratejileri: Yeşilay Türkiye Facebook sayfası örneği. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, 7(1), 149-168. https://doi.org/10.17680/ erciyesiletisim.595111
14. Bozkurt, C., & Sadedil, S. N. (2021). Medya ve toplumsal bellek: Toplumsal olayların hatırlanması çerçevesinde sosyal medya ve geleneksel medyanın karşılaştırılması. Yeni Yüzyıl’da İletişim Çalışmaları Dergisi, (2)2, 61-79.
15. Brengarth, L. B., & Mujkic, E. (2016). Web 2.0: How social media applications leverage nonprofit responses during a wildfire crisis. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 589-596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.010
16. Burdge, R. J., & Vanclay, F. (1996). Social impact assessment: A contribution to the state of the art series. Impact Assessment, 14(1), 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/07349165.1996.9725886
17. Carman, J. (2007). Evaluation practice among communitybased organisations: Research into the reality. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(1), 60-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214006296245
18. Clark, C., Rosenweig, W., Long, D., & Olsen, S. (2004). Double bottom line project report: Assessing social impact in double bottom line ventures [Working paper]. The Rockefeller Foundation. https://escholarship.org/content/qt80n4f1mf/qt80n4f1mf_noSplash_d7b877830b866dbf76da4b51adc93cb0. pdf?t=krnk3u.
19. Creswell, J. W. (2016). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (Çev. M.Bütün, S. B. Demir, M. Aydın, A. Budak, İ. Budak, G. Hacıömeroğlu, S. Ünal, T. Özsevgeç, A. Bacanak, A.Bakla, O. Birgin ve Y. Dede). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
20. Çiftçi, D. (2020). Sivil toplum örgütleri ve dijital dönüşümler: Kuzey Kıbrıs kadın sivil toplum kuruluşları üzerine bir inceleme. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, 7(1), 451-472. http://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.578496
21. Danışman, A. (1997). Türkiye’deki sanayici ve iş adamları derneklerinin yönetim ve organizasyon sorunlarının tespit ve çözümüne ilişkin bir araştırma. Yüksek lisans tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi.
22. Dunn, B., & Mathews, S. (2001). The pursuit of excellence is not optional in the voluntary sector, it is essential. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, (14)3, 121-125. https://doi.org/10.1108/09526860110391595
23. Eroğlu, S., & Bektaş, O. (2016). STEM eğitimi almış fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin STEM temelli ders etkinlikleri hakkındaki görüşleri. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(3), 43-67. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.4c3s3m
24. Freudenburg, W. R. (1986). Social impact assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 451–478. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.002315
25. Gezon, L.L. (2014). Who wins and who loses? Unpacking the “local people” concept in ecotourism: a longitudinal study of community equity in Ankarana, Madagascar. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(5), 821-838. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.847942
26. Gilligan, C., & Golden, L. (2009). Re-branding social good: Social profit as a new conceptual framework. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 13(2), 97-117.
27. Greenberg, J., & MacAulay, M. (2009). NPO 2.0? Exploring the web presence of environmental nonprofit organizations in Canada. Global Media JournalCanadian Edition, 2(1), 63-88.
28. Grieco, C., Michelini, L., & Iasevoli, G. (2015). Measuring value creation in social enterprises: A cluster analysis of social impact assessment models. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1173–1193. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0899764014555986
29. Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2013). Tweeting social change: How social media are changing nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, XX(X), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012471585
30. Hadad, S., & Gauca, O. D. (2014). Social impact measurement in social entrepreneurial organizations. Management and Marketing, 9(2), 117–134.
31. Hall, M., & O’Dwyer, B. (2017). Accounting, nongovernmental organizations and civil society: The importance of nonprofit organizations to understanding accounting, organizations and society. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 63, 1-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2017.11.001
32. Haski-Leventhal, D., & Mehra, A. (2016). Impact measurement in social enterprises: Australia and India. Social Enterprise Journal, (12)1, 78-103. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-05-2015-0012
33. Hoefer, R. (2000). Accountability in action: Program evaluation in nonprofit human service agencies. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11(2), 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.11203
34. Ihm, J. (2015). Network measures to evaluate stakeholder engagement with nonprofit organizations on social networking sites. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 1-3.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.06.018
35. Kağızman, T. (1998). Çukurova bölgesi sanayici ve iş adamları dernekleri (SİAD) üyelerinin temel değerleri ile kişisel ve kurumsal özellikleri arasındaki ilişki. Yüksek lisans tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi.
36. Kalkavan, H. (2020). Sivil toplumun 10 yılı. İlke Yayınları.
37. Kanter, B., & Fine, A. (2010). The networked nonprofit connecting with social media to drive change (1. Baskı). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
38. Klochikhin, E. A. (2012). Linking development and innovation: What does technological change bring to the society? European Journal of Development Research, 24(1), 41-55. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2011.20
39. Kocollari, U., & Lugli, E. (2020). Social accounting at work: An analysis of social impact measurement models. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, (16)1, 31-43. https://doi.org/10.17265/1548-6583/2020.01.003
40. Komito, L., & Bates, J. (2009). Virtually local: Social media and community among polish nationals in Dublin. Aslib Proceedings, 61(3), 232-244. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910959790
41. Kongar, E. (1991). Sivil toplum ve kültür. (Ed.) Y. Fincancı, Sivil Toplum (ss. 109-114). İstanbul: TÜSEV Yayınları.
42. Krippendorff, K. (1989). Content analysis. (Ed.) E. Barnouw, G. Gerbner, W. Schramm, T. L. Worth, L. Gross, International Encyclopedia of Communication (ss. 403-407). New York: Oxford University Press.
43. Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343–356. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.4.343
44. Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information,community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x
45. Maas, K., & Liket, K. (2011). Social impact measurement: Classification of methods. (Ed.) In R. Burritt, S. Schaltegger, M. Bennett, T. Pohjola, & M. Csutora, Environmental management accounting and supply chain management (ss. 71–202). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
46. Mostashari, A. (2005). An introduction to nongovernmental organizations (NGO) management. Iranian Studies Group, 1-18.
47. Mushtaque, A., Chowdhury, R., & Mosley, P. (2004). The social impact of microfinance. Journal of International Development, 16, 291-300. https://doi.org/10.1002/ jid.1087
48. Mütügil Yalçın, A., Güner, D., & Kisbu Sakarya, Y. (2016).Türkiye’de sivil toplum kuruluşlarının sosyal etki ölçümleme algısı ve pratiği. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(58), 849-865.
49. Nicolopoulou, K., Karatas-Ozkan, M., Vas, C., & Nouman, M. (2017). An incubation perspective on social innovation: The London Hub – a social incubator. R and D Management, 47(3), 368-384. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12179
50. Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., & Latane, B. (1990). From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review, 97(3), 362–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.362
51. Onyx, J. (2014). Social impact, a theoretical model. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-18.
52. Öztürk, C., & Şardağı, E. (2018). Kurumsal kimlik aracı olarak Facebook: Türkiye’deki sivil toplum kuruluşları (STK) üzerine bir değerlendirme. İletişim, 28, 116-141. https://doi.org/10.16878/gsuilet.436038
53. Pawluczuk, A., Webster, G., Smith, C., & Hall, H. (2019). The social impact of digital youth work: What are we looking for. Media and Communication, 7, 59-68. https://doi.org/ 10.17645/mac.v7i2.1907
54. Perrini, F., & Vurro, C. (2013). La valutazione degli impatti sociali: Approccie strumenti applicativi. Milan: Egea Spa.
55. Rakhmatullayeva, D., Khajiyeva, A., Kakizhanova, T., &Boluspayev, S. (2020). Study of the social impact of investment activities of foreign companies on the development of society: A review and analysis. The 1st International Conference on Business Technology for a Sustainable Environmental System, (1-10. ss.). Kazakhstan.
56. Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., & Newbert, S. L. (2019). Social impact measurement: Current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 82–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717727718
57. Rinaldo, H. (2010). Getting started in social impact measurement: A guide to choosing how to measure social impact. The Guild, Middlesex University, Southampton University. https://www.oneeastmidlands.org.uk/sites/default/files/library/Getting%20started%20in%20social%20impact%20 measurement.pdf.
58. Saatçioğlu, E. (2017). Sivil toplum örgütlerinin sosyal medya kullanımları: Greenpeace Türkiye Facebook sayfası örneği. Selçuk İletişim, 10(1), 158-187. https://doi.org/10.18094/josc.330941
59. Santos, F. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–17.
60. Seo, H., Kim, J. Y., & Yang, S. (2009). Global activism and new media: A study of transnational NGOs. Online Public Relations, Public Relations Review, 2(35), 123–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.02.002
61. Siemieniako, D., Kubacki, K., & Mitręga, M. (2021). Interorganisational relationships for social impact: A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research, 132, 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.026
62. Sigala, M. (2016). Learning with the market: A market approach and framework for developing social entrepreneurship in tourism and hospitality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(6), 1245-1286. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2014-0285
63. Silsüpür, Ö., & Övüç, M. (2022). Kadına yönelik şiddete karşı toplumsal farkındalık yaratma ve kamuoyu oluşturma aracı olarak sosyal medya: Kadın sivil toplum kuruluşları üzerine bir araştırma. Uluslararası Medya ve İletişim Araştırmaları Hakemli Dergisi, 5(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.33464/mediaj.997282
64. Şardağı, E. (2017). Sosyal medyada kurumsal kimlik: Türkiye’deki vakıf ve derneklerin Twitter kullanımının değerlendirmesi. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(3), 338-362. https://doi.org/10.12780/ usaksosbil.348958
65. Teegen, H., Doh, J. P., & Vachani, S. (2004). The importance of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in global governance and value creation: An international business research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(6), 463-483. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400112
66. Thomson, D. (2010). Exploring the role of funders’performance reporting mandates in nonprofit performance measurement. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 611-629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764009360575
67. Vanclay, F. (2003). International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(1), 5-12. https://doi.org/0.3152/147154603781766491
68. Vona Kurt, E. (2021). Sağlık iletişimi ve sosyal medya: Sivil toplum kuruluşlarının Twitter kullanımı üzerine bir değerlendirme. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19, 89-109. https://doi.org/10.18026/ cbayarsos.649858
69. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (9. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
70. Yerasimos, S. (2000). Sivil toplum, Avrupa ve Türkiye. (Ed.) S. Yerasimos ve diğerleri, Türkiye’de Sivil Toplum ve Milliyetçilik (ss. 13-23). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
71. Zippala, G., & Lyons, M. (2009). Recent approaches to measuring social impact in the third sector: An overview [Working paper]. Centre for Social Impact. https://www.eval.ru/book_files/Zappala_Recent%20approaches%20to%20measuring%20social%20impact%20in%20the%20Third%20sector_135.pdf.
72. Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35, 102-106. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.006
73. Wichmann, A. (2017). Participating in the World Gymnaestrada: An expression and experience of community. Leisure Studies, 36(1), 21-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2015.1052836