1. DergiPark
  2. Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi
  3. Arşiv
  4. Cilt 9, Sayı 1
Yıl 2018, Cilt 9 , Sayı 1, Sayfalar 17 - 37 2018-01-31

CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPT, STRATEGICAL IMPORTANCE AND MEASURING SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE: A LITERATURE REVIEW
KURUMSAL SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK KAVRAMI, STRATEJİK ÖNEMİ VE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERFORMANSI ÖLÇÜMÜ

Gönenç Dalgıç Turhan [1] , Tutku Özen [2] , Raif Serkan Albayrak [3]

Öz

Corporate sustainability concept is defined as a development in the natural movement of institutionalization rather than being a brand new paradigm by being associated and discussed with its predecessors. Explanations derived from different organizational theories are used in order to understand the role of corporate sustainability in corporate strategic decision-making processes, and the empirical work carried on the subject was compiled in this conceptual framework. Critical indicators of sustainability performance measurement were presented using sustainability reports. In these two perspectives this article contributes to the literature in two respects; first evidence form organizational theories about strategical aspects of corporate sustainability are demonstrated and second, critical indicators for measurement of corporate sustainability are discussed.

Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik kavramı; öncülleri ile ilişkilendirilip tartışılarak yepyeni bir paradigma olmaktan ziyade kurumsallaşmanın doğal deviniminde bir gelişme olarak tanımlandı. Kurumsal stratejik karar verme süreçlerinde kurumsal sürdürülebilirliğin yerini anlamak için farklı örgüt kuramlarından açıklamalar getirildi, literatürde bu konuda yapılan ampirik çalışmalar bu kavramsal çerçevede derlendi. Sürdürülebilirlik raporları kullanılarak sürdürülebilirlik performansı ölçümüne dair kritik göstergeler sunuldu. Makale sürdürülebilirliğin stratejik önemine yönelik literatürde iki önemli kuramsal boşluğu doldurmaya katkı sağlamaktadır.

Kaynakça

  • Alexander, G. J., & Buchholz, R. A. (1978). Corporate social responsibility and stock market performance. Academy of Management journal, 21(3), 479-486.
  • Altuntaş, C., Türker, D. (2012). Sürdürülebilir Tedarik Zincirleri: Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlarının İçerik Analizi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(3), 39-64.
  • Ameer, R., & Othman, R. (2012). Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: A study based on the top global corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(1), 61-79.
  • Aras, G., & Crowther, D. (2009). Corporate sustainability reporting: a study in disingenuity?. Journal of business ethics, 87(1), 279-288.
  • Artiach, T., Lee, D., Nelson, D., & Walker, J. (2010). The determinants of corporate sustainability performance. Accounting & Finance, 50(1), 31-51.
  • Arlow, P., & Gannon, M. J. (1982). Social responsiveness, corporate structure, and economic performance. Academy of Management Review, 7(2), 235-241.
  • AtKisson, A. (1996). Developing indicators of sustainable community: lessons from sustainable Seattle. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16(4), 337-350.
  • Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of management Journal, 28(2), 446-463.
  • Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 93-103.
  • Barnett, M. L. (2016). The Business Case for CSR: A Critique and an Indirect Path Forward. Business & Society (forthcoming).
  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17(1), 99-120.
  • Becchetti, L., Di Giacomo, S., & Pinnacchio, D. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and corporate performance: evidence from a panel of US listed companies. Applied Economics, 40(5), 541-567.
  • Borsa İstanbul (2014). Şirketler İçin Sürdürülebilirlik Rehberi, İstanbul. http://www.borsaistanbul.com/data/kilavuzlar/surdurulebilirlik-rehberi.pdf
  • Borsa İstanbul (2015). BIST Sürdürülebilirlik Endeksi Araştırma Metodolojisi, İstanbul. http://www.borsaistanbul.com/duyurular/2016/03/07/bist-surdurulebilirlik-endeksi-arastirma-metodolojisinde-degisiklik
  • Bromiley, P. & Marcus, A. (1989). The deterrent to dubious corporate behavior: Profitability, probability and safety recalls. Strategic management journal, 10(3), 233-250.
  • Brickley, J. A., Smith Jr, C. W., & Zimmerman, J. L. (2002). Business ethics and organizational architecture. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(9), 1821-1835.
  • Callens, I., & Tyteca, D. (1999). Towards indicators of sustainable development for firms: a productive efficiency perspective. Ecological Economics, 28(1), 41-53.
  • Carter, C. R., Kale, R., & Grimm, C. M. (2000). Environmental purchasing and firm performance: an empirical investigation. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 36(3), 219-228.
  • Chami, R., Cosimano, T. F. and Fullenkamp, C. (2002) Managing Ethical Risk: how investing in ethics adds value, Journal of Banking and Finance, 26, 1697–1718
  • Cheung, A. W. K. (2011). Do stock investors value corporate sustainability? Evidence from an event study. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(2), 145-165.
  • Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of management review, 20(1), 92-117.
  • Cochran, P. L., & Wood, R. A. (1984). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of management Journal, 27(1), 42-56.
  • Curran, M. M., & Moran, D. (2007). Impact of the FTSE4Good Index on firm price: An event study. Journal of environmental management, 82(4), 529-537.
  • Daub, C. H. (2007). Assessing the quality of sustainability reporting: an alternative methodological approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(1), 75-85.
  • Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The accounting review, 86(1), 59-100.
  • Diesendorf, M. (2000). Sustainability and sustainable development.Sustainability: The corporate challenge of the 21st century, 2, 19-37.
  • Domini, A. L., & Kinder, P. D. (1986). Ethical investing. Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
  • Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business strategy and the environment, 11(2), 130-141.
  • Elkington, J. (2004). Enter the triple bottom line. The triple bottom line: Does it all add up, 11(12), 1-16.
  • Farcaş, T.V. (2015). The Development of Corporate Reporting over Time: From a Traditional System to an Integrated System. Audit Financer, 13(124), 106-113.
  • Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard–linking sustainability management to business strategy.Business strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 269-284.
  • Figge, F., Hahn, T. (2004). Sustainable value added—measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Ecological economics, 48(2), 173-187.
  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing.
  • Gallego, I. (2006). The use of economic, social and environmental indicators as a measure of sustainable development in Spain. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13(2), 78-97.
  • Giddings, B., Hopwood, B. ve O’Brien, G. (2002). Environment, Economy and Society: Fitting Them Together Into Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development, 10(4), 187–196.
  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), 2011. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3.1-Guidelines-Incl-Technical-Protocol.pdf Erişim tarihi:20.08.2016.
  • Global trends in sustainability reporting regulation and policy, Carrots and Sticks (http://carrotsandsticks.blis.cc/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Carrots-Sticks-2016.pdf) Erişim tarihi: 27.09.2016
  • Gray, R. (2000). Current developments and trends in social and environmental auditing, reporting and attestation: a review and comment. International Journal of Auditing, 4(3), 247-268.
  • GRI Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlaması Kılavuzları (2014). G4 Uygulama El Kitabı. https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Turkish-G4-Part-Two.pdfErişim tarihi: 20.08.2016
  • Farcaş, T.V. (2015). The Development of Corporate Reporting over Time: From a Traditional System to an Integrated System. Audit Financer, 13(124), 106-113.
  • Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard–linking sustainability management to business strategy.Business strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 269-284.
  • Figge, F., Hahn, T. (2004). Sustainable value added—measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Ecological economics, 48(2), 173-187.
  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing.
  • Gallego, I. (2006). The use of economic, social and environmental indicators as a measure of sustainable development in Spain. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13(2), 78-97.
  • Giddings, B., Hopwood, B. ve O’Brien, G. (2002). Environment, Economy and Society: Fitting Them Together Into Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development, 10(4), 187–196.
  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), 2011. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3.1-Guidelines-Incl-Technical-Protocol.pdf Erişim tarihi:20.08.2016.
  • Global trends in sustainability reporting regulation and policy, Carrots and Sticks (http://carrotsandsticks.blis.cc/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Carrots-Sticks-2016.pdf) Erişim tarihi: 27.09.2016
  • Gray, R. (2000). Current developments and trends in social and environmental auditing, reporting and attestation: a review and comment. International Journal of Auditing, 4(3), 247-268.
  • GRI Sürdürülebilirlik Raporlaması Kılavuzları (2014). G4 Uygulama El Kitabı. https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Turkish-G4-Part-Two.pdfErişim tarihi: 20.08.2016
  • Griffin, J. J., Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business & Society, 36(1), 5-31.
  • Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5-21.
  • Halme, M., Niskanen, J. (2001). Does corporate environmental protection increase or decrease shareholder value? The case of environmental investments. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(4), 200-214.
  • Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. The Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 56-67.
  • Herremans, I. M., Akathaporn, P., & McInnes, M. (1993). An investigation of corporate social responsibility reputation and economic performance. Accounting, organizations and society, 18(7), 587-604.
  • Herzig, C., & Schaltegger, S. (2006). Corporate sustainability reporting. An overview. In Sustainability accounting and reporting (pp. 301-324). Springer Netherlands.
  • IFC (2012, a). Policy on Environmental and Social Sustainability - 2012 Edition
  • IFC (2012, b). Access to Information Policy - 2012 Edition
  • IFC (2012, c). IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability - Effective January 1, 2012
  • IIRC, (2013), “ER Uluslararası Çerçevesi”, s:1-35
  • Imada, A. S. (2008). Achieving sustainability through macroergonomic change management and participation. In Corporate sustainability as a challenge for comprehensive management (pp. 129-138). Physica-Verlag HD.
  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. http://www.paca-online.org/cop/docs/Kaplan+Norton_Balanced_Scorecard_-_3_articles.pdf#page=36
  • Karğın, S., Aracı, H., Aktat, H. (2013). Entegre Raporlama: Yeni Bir Raporlama Perspektifi. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamalari Dergisi (MUVU)/Journal of Accounting & Taxation Studies (JATS), 6(1), 27-46.
  • Kamu Gözetimi Kurumu, www.kgk.gov.tr, (01.01.2013), https://www.kgk.gov.tr/contents/files/Pdf/Duyuru_Metni_TMS_Uygulama_Kapsami.pdf. Erişim tarihi:20.09.2016.
  • Knoepfel, I. (2001). Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index: a global benchmark for corporate sustainability. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 8(1), 6-15.
  • Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik, http://www.kurumsalsurdurulebilirlik.com. Erişim tarihi: 17.10.2016
  • Lee, K. H., Saen, R. F. (2012). Measuring corporate sustainability management: A data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 219-226.
  • Lo, S. and Sheu, H. (2007), “Is Corporate Sustainability a Value-Increasing Strategy for Business?”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 345-358.
  • López, M. V., Garcia, A., & Rodriguez, L. (2007). Sustainable development and corporate performance: A study based on the Dow Jones sustainability index. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(3), 285-300.
  • Lourenço, I. C., Branco, M. C., Curto, J. D., & Eugénio, T. (2012). How does the market value corporate sustainability performance?. Journal of business ethics, 108(4), 417-428.
  • Lozano, R. (2013). Are companies planning their organisational changes for corporate sustainability? An analysis of three case studies on resistance to change and their strategies to overcome it. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(5), 275-295.
  • Lu, W., & Taylor, M. E. (2015). Which Factors Moderate the Relationship between Sustainability Performance and Financial Performance? A Meta-Analysis Study. Journal of International Accounting Research, 15(1), 1-15.
  • McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of management Journal, 31(4), 854-872.
  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of management review, 26(1), 117-127.
  • Morhardt, J. E., Baird, S., & Freeman, K. (2002). Scoring corporate environmental and sustainability reports using GRI 2000, ISO 14031 and other criteria. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9(4), 215-233.
  • Moskowitz, M. (1972). Choosing socially responsible stocks. Business and Society Review, 1(1), 71-75.
  • Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic management journal, 18(9), 697-713.
  • Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J. D. (2001). Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta-analytic review. Business & Society, 40(4), 369-396.
  • Özçelik, F. (2013). Sürdürülebilirlik Performans Karnesi. Journal of Yaşar University, 8(30), 4985-5008.
  • Özmehmet, E. (2008). Dünyada ve Türkiye de sürdürülebilir kalkınma yaklaşımları. Journal of Yaşar University, 3(12), 1853-1876.
  • Pamukçu, F. (2011). Finansal Raporlama ile Kamuyu Aydınlatma ve Şeffaflıkta Kurumsal Yönetimin Önemi. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 50, 133-148.
  • Pätäri, S., Jantunen, A., Kyläheiko, K., & Sandström, J. (2012). Does sustainable development foster value creation? Empirical evidence from the global energy industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(6), 317-326.
  • Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. (1996). The association between corporate social-responsibility and financial performance: The paradox of social cost. Journal of business Ethics, 15(3), 321-357.
  • Perrini, F., & Tencati, A. (2006). Sustainability and stakeholder management: the need for new corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(5), 296-308.
  • Pojasek, R. B. (2007). A framework for business sustainability. Environmental Quality Management, 17(2), 81-88.
  • Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view. California management review, 45(1), 6-28.
  • Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainable development (1987–2005): an oxymoron comes of age. Sustainable development, 13(4), 212-227.
  • Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic management journal, 23(12), 1077-1093.
  • Roman, R. M., Hayibor, S. and Agle, B. R. (1999), “The relationship between social and financial performance”, Business and Society, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 109-125.
  • Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A., & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability:: literature review and research options. European Management Journal, 23(1), 27-36.
  • Takala, T., & Pallab, P. (2000). Individual, collective and social responsibility of the firm. Business ethics: A european review, 9(2), 109-118.
  • Thorpe, J., & Prakash-Mani, K. (2003). Developing value: The business case for sustainability in emerging markets. Greener Management International, (44), 17.
  • Tukker, A. (2004). Eight types of product–service system: eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet. Business strategy and the environment, 13(4), 246-260.
  • Ullmann, A. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms. Academy of management review, 10(3), 540-557.
  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic management journal, 303-319.
  • Wagner, M., & Schaltegger, S. (2003). How does sustainability performance relate to business competitiveness?. Greener Management International, (44), 5-17.
  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 5(2), 171-180.
  • Williams, S. (1999). UK ethical investment: A coming of age. The Journal of Investing, 8(2), 58-75.
  • Windolph, S. E. (2013). Motivations, Organizational Units, and Management Tools. Taking Stock of the Why, Who, and How of Implementing Corporate Sustainability Management (Doctoral dissertation, Universitätsbibliothek der Leuphana Universität Lüneburg).
  • Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229-267.
  • World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University.
  • Zink, K. J. (2007). From total quality management to corporate sustainability based on a stakeholder management. Journal of Management History, 13(4), 394-401.

Ayrıntılar

Konular Sosyal
Yayınlanma Tarihi Ocak 2018
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Yazar: Gönenç Dalgıç Turhan
Ülke: Turkey

Yazar: Tutku Özen
Ülke: Turkey

Yazar: Raif Serkan Albayrak
Ülke: Turkey
Tarihler

Yayımlanma Tarihi : 31 Ocak 2018

Kaynak Göster

Bibtex @derleme { esam304155, journal = {Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi}, issn = {1309-887X}, eissn = {2149-0465}, address = {}, publisher = {Ege Üniversitesi}, year = {2018}, pages = {17 - 37}, doi = {10.18354/esam.304155}, title = {KURUMSAL SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK KAVRAMI, STRATEJİK ÖNEMİ VE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERFORMANSI ÖLÇÜMÜ}, key = {cite}, author = {Dalgıç Turhan, Gönenç and Özen, Tutku and Albayrak, Raif Serkan} }
APA Dalgıç Turhan, G , Özen, T , Albayrak, R . (2018). KURUMSAL SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK KAVRAMI, STRATEJİK ÖNEMİ VE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERFORMANSI ÖLÇÜMÜ . Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi , 9 (1) , 17-37 . DOI: 10.18354/esam.304155
MLA Dalgıç Turhan, G , Özen, T , Albayrak, R . "KURUMSAL SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK KAVRAMI, STRATEJİK ÖNEMİ VE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERFORMANSI ÖLÇÜMÜ" . Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi 9 (2018 ): 17-37 <https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/esam/article/304155>
Chicago Dalgıç Turhan, G , Özen, T , Albayrak, R . "KURUMSAL SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK KAVRAMI, STRATEJİK ÖNEMİ VE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERFORMANSI ÖLÇÜMÜ". Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi 9 (2018 ): 17-37
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - KURUMSAL SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK KAVRAMI, STRATEJİK ÖNEMİ VE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERFORMANSI ÖLÇÜMÜ AU - Gönenç Dalgıç Turhan , Tutku Özen , Raif Serkan Albayrak Y1 - 2018 PY - 2018 N1 - doi: 10.18354/esam.304155 DO - 10.18354/esam.304155 T2 - Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 17 EP - 37 VL - 9 IS - 1 SN - 1309-887X-2149-0465 M3 - doi: 10.18354/esam.304155 UR - https://doi.org/10.18354/esam.304155 Y2 - 2017 ER -
EndNote %0 Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi KURUMSAL SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK KAVRAMI, STRATEJİK ÖNEMİ VE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERFORMANSI ÖLÇÜMÜ %A Gönenç Dalgıç Turhan , Tutku Özen , Raif Serkan Albayrak %T KURUMSAL SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK KAVRAMI, STRATEJİK ÖNEMİ VE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERFORMANSI ÖLÇÜMÜ %D 2018 %J Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi %P 1309-887X-2149-0465 %V 9 %N 1 %R doi: 10.18354/esam.304155 %U 10.18354/esam.304155
ISNAD Dalgıç Turhan, Gönenç , Özen, Tutku , Albayrak, Raif Serkan . "KURUMSAL SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK KAVRAMI, STRATEJİK ÖNEMİ VE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERFORMANSI ÖLÇÜMÜ". Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi 9 / 1 (Ocak 2018): 17-37 . https://doi.org/10.18354/esam.304155
AMA Dalgıç Turhan G , Özen T , Albayrak R . KURUMSAL SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK KAVRAMI, STRATEJİK ÖNEMİ VE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERFORMANSI ÖLÇÜMÜ. ESAM. 2018; 9(1): 17-37.
Vancouver Dalgıç Turhan G , Özen T , Albayrak R . KURUMSAL SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK KAVRAMI, STRATEJİK ÖNEMİ VE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERFORMANSI ÖLÇÜMÜ. Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi. 2018; 9(1): 17-37.
IEEE G. Dalgıç Turhan , T. Özen ve R. Albayrak , "KURUMSAL SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK KAVRAMI, STRATEJİK ÖNEMİ VE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERFORMANSI ÖLÇÜMÜ", Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, c. 9, sayı. 1, ss. 17-37, Oca. 2018, doi:10.18354/esam.304155
Makalenin Yazarları
Gönenç Dalgıç Turhan [1]
Tutku Özen [2]
Raif Serkan Albayrak [3]
Makale Gönder
Arşiv
Editör Kurulu
İletişim