Türkiye’de Sosyal Girişimcilik Alanında Çoklu Kurumsal Mantıklar

Öz

Çalışmada, Türkiye’de sosyal girişimcilik alanındaki kurumsal baskıların, kurumsal baskılara verilen yanıtların ve çoklu kurumsal mantıkların araştırılması amaçlanmaktadır. Araştırmada, Türkiye’de sosyal girişimcilik alanındaki dokümanlardan edinilen veriler NVivo 12 nitel veri analizi programında analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, sosyal girişimcilik alanında yer alan aktörlerin sosyal girişimciliği tanımlarken hem sosyal faydanın sürdürülebilirliğine hem de finansal sürdürülebilirliğe vurgu yaptıklarını göstermektedir. Finansal sürdürülebilirlik ise daha çok ürün satışları ile sağlanmaktadır. Ayrıca Türkiye’de mevzuatta sosyal girişimcilerle ilgili yasal bir çerçevenin olmaması nedeniyle alandaki kurumsal baskıların zorlayıcı izomorfizm şeklinde gerçekleştiği görülmüştür. Sosyal girişimler zorlayıcı baskılara “uzlaşma stratejisi” ile yanıt vererek faaliyetlerini hem vakıf/dernek hem de şirket şeklinde hibrid bir yapı ile devam ettirmektedirler. Bu durum sosyal girişimcilik alanında çoklu mantıkların birlikte var olduğu gerçeğine işaret etmektedir. Alanda hakim olan mantıklardan biri “piyasa mantığı” iken bir diğeri de “sosyal amaç mantığı”dır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyal girişimcilik, kurum, kurumsal mantıklar, çoklu kurumsal mantıklar.

Multiple Institutional Logics in the Field of Social Entrepreneurship in Turkey

Öz

This study aims to investigate institutional pressures, responses to the conflicting demands of responses to institutional pressures and multiple institutional logics on the social entrepreneurship field in Turkey. The data of this study obtained from documents in the field of social entrepreneurship in Turkey is analyzed with NVivo 12 qualitative data analysis program. Results show that actors in the field of social entrepreneurship emphasize both sustainability of social benefit and financial sustainability when defining social entrepreneurship. Financial sustainability is mostly achieved through product sales. In addition, due to the lack of a legal framework in the legislation related to social entrepreneurs in Turkey, ınstitutional pressures in the field take place in the form of coercive isomorphism. Social enterprises respond to coercive pressures with a “compromise strategy” and carry on their activities with a hybrid structure both as a foundation/association and a company. This situation points out to the fact that multiple logics coexist in the field of social entrepreneurship. One of the logic prevailing in the field is "market" and the other is "social purpose".

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Social entrepreneurship, institution, institutional logics, multiple institutional logics.

Kaynakça

1. Agrawal, A. & Hockerts, K. (2013). Institutional Theory as a Fra- mework for Practitioners of Social Entrepreneurship. Social Inno- vation, April, 119-129.
2. Alter, S. K. (2003), Social Enterprise: A Typology of the Field Contextu- alized in LatinAmerica. Inter-American Development Bank Wor- king http://www.iadb.org/sds/doc/228070wc.socialenterprise.pdf. (Erişim: 02.07.2018). Washington DC,
3. Arnold, M. (2017). An Exploratory Case Study of Institutional Entrep- reneurship: The Social Enterprise Mark in the United Kingdom. Law and Political Science, 1-79.
4. Austin, J., Stevenson, H. & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). “Social and Com- mercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Differ ent, or Both?”, Entreprene- urship: Theory and Practice, 30, 1-22.
5. Battilana, J. & Dorado, S. (2010), “Building Sustainable Hybrid Organi- zations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.
6. Bjerregaard, T. & Jonasson, C. (2014). “Managing Unstable Institutional Contradictions: The Work of Becoming”, Organization Studies, 35(10), 1507–1536.
7. Bruton, G.D., Ahlstom, D. & Li, H.L. (2010). “Institutional Theory and Entrepreneurship: Where Are We Now and Where Do We Need to Move in the Future?”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Ap- ril 2010, 421-440.
8. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak Kılıç E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve De- mirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri, Pegem Akademi Yayınları, Ankara.

9. Dahlmann, F. ve Grosvold, J. (2017). “Environmental Managers and Institutional Work: Reconciling Tensions of Competing Institutio- nal Logics”, Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2), 263-291.
10. Dees, G. (2007). “Taking Social Entrepreneurship Seriously”, Soci- ety,44(3), 24-31.
11. DiMaggio, P. J. & Walter, W. P. (1983). “The Iron Cage Revisited: Insti- tutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizatio- nal Fields”, American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
12. Doherty, B., Haugh, H. & Lyon, F. (2014). “Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda”, International Jo- urnal of Management Reviews, 16, 417–436.
13. Dunn, M. B. & Jones, C. (2010). “Institutional Logics and Institutional Pluralism: the Contestation of Care and Science Logics in Medical Education, 1967-2005”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 114– 149.
14. Friedland, R. ve Alford, R. R. (1991). “Bringing Society Back In: Sym- bols, Practices and Institutional Contradictions”, In P. J. DiMaggio & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizatio- nal Analysis (pp. 232-263). University of Chicago Press.
15. Greenwood, R., Amalia M., D., Stan X. L. & José Céspedes, L. (2010). The Multiplicity of Institutional Logics and the Heterogeneity of Organizational Responses, Organization Science, 21(2), 521-539.
16. Greenwood, R., Reynard M., Kodeih, F., Miceletta E. R. & Lounbury, M. (2011). “Institutional Complexity and Organizational Respon- ses”, The Academy of Management Annals. 5(1), 317-371.
17. Greenwood, R. & Suddaby, R. (2006). “Institutional Entrepreneurship in Mature Fields: The Big Five Accounting Firm”, Academy of Ma- nagement Journal, 49, 27-48.
18. Haigh, N. & Hoffman, A. J. (2014). “The New Heretics: Hybrid Organi- zations and the Challenges They Present to Corporate Sustainabi- lity, Organization & Environment, 27(3), 223–241.
19. Haveman, H. A. & Rao, Hayagreeva (1997). “Structuring a Theory of Moral Sentiments; Institutional and Organizational Coe-volution in the Early Thrift Industry”, American Journal of Sociology, 102(6), 1606-1651.
20. Hoffman, A. J. (1999). “Institutional Evolution and Change: Environ- mentalism and the U.S. Chemical Industry”, Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 42, 351-371.
21. Jarzabkowski, P., Smets, M., Bednarek, R., Burke, G & Spee, P. (2013). “Institutional Ambidexterity: Leveraging Institutional Comp- lexity in Practice”, In Institutional Logics in Action, Part B (Eds.,) M. Lounsbury & E. Boxenbaum (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, (pp. 37-61). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
22. Jones, C., Livne-Tarandach, R. & Balachandra, L. (2010). “Rhetoric that Wins Clients: Entrapreneurial Firms Use of Institutional Logics when Competing for Resources”, Institutions and Entrepreneurship Research in the Sociology of Work, 21, 183–218.
23. Lounsbury, M. & Pollack, S. (2001). “Institutionalizing Civic Enga- gement: Shifting Logics and the Cultural Repackaging of Service- learning in US Higher Education “, Organization, 8(2), 319-339.
24. Mair, J. & Marti, I. (2006). “Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight”, Journal of World Business, 41, 36-44.
25. Nicolopoulou, K., Lucas, J., Tatlı, A., Karataş Özkan, M., Costanzo, L. A., Özbilgin, M. & Manville, G. (2014), Journal of Social Entreprene- urship, 0(0), 1-25.
26. Oliver, C. (1991). “Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes”, Academy of Management Review.16(1), 145-179.
27. Özseven, M., Danışman, A. ve Bingöl, A. S. (2014). “Dönüşüm mü, Değişim mi? Kamu Hastanelerinin Yönetiminde Yeni bir Kurum- sal Mantığa Doğru”, ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 41 (Ağustos), 119-150.
28. Pache, A. C. & Filipe, S. (2010). “When Worlds Collide: The Internal Dynamics of Organizational Responses to Conflicting Institutio- nal Demands”, Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455-476.
29. Purdy, J. M. ve Barbara, G. (2009). “Conflicting Logics, Mechanisms of Diffusion, and Multilevel Dynamics in Emerging Institutional Fi- elds”, Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 355-380.
30. Reay, T. & Hinings, C. R. (2009). “Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics”, Organization Studies, 30(6), 629-652.
31. Shipilov, A. V., Henrich, R. G.& Timothy, J. R. (2010). “When do Inter- locks Matter? Institutional Logics and the Diffusion of Multiple Corporate Governance Practices”, Academy of Management Journal. 53(4), 846-864.
32. Sims, L. & Yue, Gary (2016). “Collision of Three Worlds: Legitimacy of Social Enterprises from the Perspective of Collective Actors”, Malmö http://muep.mau.se/handle/2043/21442. Electronic Publishing,
33. Suddaby, R. & Greenwood, R. (2005). “Rhetorical Strategies of Legiti- macy”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 35-67.
34. Stormer, F. (2008). “The Logic of Contingent Work and Overwork”, Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 63(2), 343-358.
35. Thornton, P.H. (2002). “The Rise of the Corporation in a Craft Industry: Conflict and Conformity in Institutional Logics”, Academy of Ma- nagement Journal, 45(1), 81–101.
36. Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from Culture: Institutional Logics and Organizational Decisions, In Higher Education Publishing, Stan- ford University Press.
37. Thornton, P. H. & Ocasio, W. (1999). “Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Suc- cession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958-1990”, American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843.
38. Thornton, P. H., Jones, C. & Kury, K. W. (2005). “Institutional Logics and Institutional Change in Organizations: Transformation in Ac- counting, Architecture, and Publishing”, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, (Special Issue: Transformation in Cultural In- dustries).
39. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W. & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The Institutional logics Perspective: A new approach to culture, Structure, and Process, Oxford University Press, USA.
40. Townsend, D. M. & Hart, T. (2008). “Perceived Institutional Ambiguity and the Choice of Organizational Form in Social Entrepreneurial Ventures”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4), 685-700.
41. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yön- temleri, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara.
42. Zeyen, A. & Beckmann, M. (2011). “Social Entrepreneurship and Insti- tutional Logics: How Social Entrepreneurs use a Non-Profit/For - Profit-Organizational Mix to Deal with Multiple Institutional Lo- gics”, EGOS Conference, Jully 2011, 1-34.