A Qualitative Research on Municipalities’ Social Responsibility Practices in Izmir City

Öz

The purpose of this study was to analyze the social responsibility practices of municipalities in Izmir City. Since the main purpose was to analyze different social responsibility practices of municipalities; two municipalities from urban districts, Karabaglar and Bornova, and two municipalities from rural districts, Kemalpasa and Seferihisar, were selected for qualitative research by using maximum variation sampling technique. The aim was to represent the social responsibility practices of municipalities chosen, not to generalize the findings to all municipalities in Izmir City. The technique of semi-structured interviewing was used to gather profound information regarding municipalities’ social responsibility practices. One municipal official from each municipality who works for managing social responsibility practices was chosen for the interview. While data obtained from the research was analyzing, direct quotations that reflect the interviewees’ opinions were used. According to the findings; it was found that municipalities conducted social responsibility practices regarding social support, health, education, culture, environment, and animals. It was recommended to municipalities that they should improve their social responsibility practices in order to ensure social welfare. Only four municipalities of total thirty municipalities in Izmir City were included to the research. The other municipalities’ social responsibility activities may be examined in further research within the scope of constituting a general social responsibility plan for Izmir City. This research contributes to the literature because it represents the social responsibility practices implemented by the municipalities in Izmir City

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Social Responsibility
• Municipality
• Local Government
• Interview
• Turkey

İzmir İlindeki Belediyelerin Sosyal Sorumluluk Çalışmaları ile İlgili Nitel Bir Araştırma

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, İzmir ilindeki belediyelerin sosyal sorumluluk çalışmalarını incelemektir. Ana amaç, belediyelerin farklı sosyal sorumluluk faaliyetlerini incelemek olduğu için; İzmir merkez ilçelerinden iki belediye, Karabağlar ve Bornova, ve dış ilçelerinden iki belediye, Kemalpaşa ve Seferihisar, maksimum çeşitlilik örnekleme tekniği ile nitel araştırma için seçilmiştir. Amaç; elde edilen bulguları İzmir’deki tüm belediyeler için genellemek değil, seçilen belediyelerin sosyal sorumluluk faaliyetlerini göstermektir. Belediyelerin sosyal sorumluluk çalışmaları ile ilgili detaylı bilgi toplamak için yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme tekniği kullanılmıştır. Her belediyeden sosyal sorumluluk çalışmaları ile ilgili çalışan bir görevli ile görüşülmüştür. Araştırmadan elde
edilen veriler analiz edilir iken görüşülen kişilerin düşüncelerini yansıtan doğrudan alıntılar kullanılmıştır. Bulgulara göre; belediyelerin sosyal destek, sağlık, eğitim, kültür, çevre ve hayvanlar ile ilgili sosyal sorumluluk faaliyetleri düzenledikleri ortaya çıkmıştır. Belediyelere sosyal refahın sağlanması için sosyal sorumluluk faaliyetlerini geliştirmeleri tavsiye edilmiştir. Araştırmaya İzmir’in otuz belediyesinden sadece dört tanesi dahil edilmiştir. İzmir ili için genel bir sosyal sorumluluk planı oluşturulması kapsamında, diğer belediyelerin sosyal sorumluluk faaliyetleri gelecek araştırmalarda incelenebilir. Bu araştırma, İzmir ilindeki belediyeler tarafından yürütülmüş olan sosyal sorumluluk çalışmalarını gösterdiği için literatüre katkıda bulunmaktadır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyal Sorumluluk
• Belediye
• Yerel Yönetim
• Görüşme
• Türkiye

Kaynakça

1. Akdogan, Y. (2002). Ulusal soruna yerel çözüm: Sosyal belediyecilik. Eminönü Bülteni, Istanbul.
2. Argenti, P. A. (2004). Collaborating with activists: How Starbucks works with NGOs. California Management Review, 47 (1), 91-116.
3. Batu, E. S., Kırcaali-İftar, G., & Uzuner, Y. (2004). Özel gereksinimli öğrencilerin kaynaştırıldığı bir kız meslek lisesindeki öğretmenlerin kaynaştırmaya ilişkin görüş ve önerileri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 5 (2) 33-50.
4. Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row.
5. Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge University Press
6. Britten, N. (1995). Qualitative research: qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ (British Medical
7. Journal), 311(6999), 251-253.
8. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of management review, 4(4), 497-505.

9. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
10. Carroll, A. B. & A. K. Buchholtz. (2008). Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management. Mason, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
11. Chaudhary, N. K. (2009). Facilitators & Bottlenecks of Corporate Social Responsibility. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), 386-395.
12. Cicek, Ş.E. (2010). Türkiye’de belediyelerin sosyal hizmet ve sosyal yardım politikaları: Batı Akdeniz örneği, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Kamu Yönetimi Anabilim Dalı Doktora Tezi.
13. Crowther, D. & Aras, G. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility. http://bookboon.com/en/defining- corporate-social-responsibility-ebook [Accessed on 05.06.2014].
14. Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1-13.
15. Davey, K. (2011). Local Government in Critical Times: Policies for Crisis, Recovery and a Sustainable Future. Council of Europe: France.
16. Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2(3), 70-76.
17. Dey, I. (2003). Qualitative data analysis: A user friendly guide for social scientists. Routledge.
18. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8-19.
19. Es, M. (2007). Kentsel Yoksulluğun Azaltılmasında Sosyal Belediyeciliğin Rolü. Yerel Siyaset Dergisi, 1(3), 45-52.
20. European Commission (EC) (2013). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Enlargement Strategies, Turkey Progress Report, [Accessed on 05.06.2014].
21. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2013/package/brochures/turkey_2013.pdf
22. Eweje, G. (2007). Multinational oil companies' CSR initiatives in Nigeria: The scepticism of stakeholders in host communities. Managerial Law, 49(5/6), 218-235.
23. Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.
24. Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, The New York Times Magazine.
25. Frynas, J. G. (2005). The false developmental promise of Corporate Social Responsibility: evidence from multinational oil companies. International affairs, 81(3), 581-598. General Directorate of Local Authorities http://www.migm.gov.tr/en/PDF/Municipalities.pdf [Accessed on 27.03.2015]. (2011). Local Authorities in Turkey.
26. Gullupunar, H. (2010). Halkla İlişkilerde Sosyal Sorumluluk İlkesi: Kamu Kuruluşları Yaklaşımı Bakımından Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi Uygulama Örnekleri. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Elektronik Dergisi, 1(1), 31-54
27. Gunal, V. A. (2013). Merkezi Yönetim-Belediye İlişkileri'nde Antalya Büyükşehir Belediyesi Örneği. Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi,5(1).
28. Heal, G. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: An economic and financial framework. The Geneva papers on risk and insurance-Issues and practice, 30(3), 387-409.
29. Karaman, Z. T. (2010). Democratic Gains in Public Administration at Local Level in Terms of CSR: Theory and Practice-Based Approaches at Izmir Metropolitan City, Turkey. In Professionals' Perspectives of Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 319-344). Springer: Berlin Heidelberg.
30. Khan, H. U. Z., Halabi, A. K., & Samy, M. (2009). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: a study of selected banking companies in Bangladesh. Social responsibility journal, 5(3), 344-357.
31. Kolk, A. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility in the Coffee Sector: The Dynamics of MNC Responses and Code Development. European Management Journal, 23(2), 228-236.
32. Kotler, P. & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Provincial Law on Special
33. Administration. (2005). No. 5302, Article 3,
34. http://www.migm.gov.tr/en/Laws/Law5302_SpecialProvincialAdmin_2010-12-31_EN_rev01.pdf
35. [Accessed on 27.03.2015].
36. Mahalli İdareler Genel Müdürlüğü (2014). 2013 yılı Mahalli İdareler Genel Faaliyet Raporu, Ankara,http://www.migm.gov.tr/Dokumanlar/2013_MAHALLI_IDARELER_GENEL_FAALIYE T_RAPORU.pdf [Accessed on 27.03.2015].
37. Maloni, M. J., & Brown, M. E. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain: an application in the food industry. Journal of business ethics, 68(1), 35-52.
38. Manne, H. & Wallich, H. C. (1972). The modern corporation and social responsibility. Washington D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
39. Maxwell, J. A. (2008). Designing a qualitative study. The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, SAGE, Los Angeles, 214-46.
40. Metropolitan Municipality Law. (2004). N. 5216.
41. http://www.migm.gov.tr/en/Laws/Law5216_MetropolitanMunicipalities_2010-12-31_EN_rev01.pdf [Accessed on 07.04.2015].
42. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (2002). The Qualitative Researcher's Companion. London: Sage.
43. Municipality Law. (2005). No. 5393, Article 3,
44. http://www.migm.gov.tr/en/Laws/Law5393_Municipality_2010-12-31_EN_rev01.pdf[Accessed on 27.03.2015].
45. Narwal, M. (2007). CSR initiatives of Indian banking industry. Social Responsibility Journal, 3(4), 49-60.
46. Oates, W.E. (1972). Fiscal Federalism. Harcourt Brace: New York.
47. Ozdemir, M. (2010). Nitel veri analizi: Sosyal bilimlerde yöntembilim sorunsalı üzerine bir çalışma.
48. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(1), 323-343.
49. Ozdora-Aksak, E. (2015). An analysis of Turkey's telecommunications sector's social responsibility practices online. Public Relations Review.
50. Pasamehmetoglu, A., Ozdora-Aksak, E., & Atakan-Duman, S. (2014), CSR as a Strategic Tool for Gaining Legitimacy: Mapping CSR Activities among Turkey’s Largest Corporations. Proceedings of World Business and Social Science Research Conference, 14 - 16 April 2014, Hotel Crowne Plaza Republique, Paris, France, ISBN: 978-1-922069-47-4.
51. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (pp. 169-186). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
52. Perez, A. & del Bosque, I. R. (2012). The role of CSR in the corporate identity of banking service
53. providers. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(2), 145-166.
54. Poolthong, Y., & Mandhachitara, R. (2009). Customer expectations of CSR, perceived service quality and brand effect in Thai retail banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 27(6), 408-427.
55. Pope, C., Ziebland, S., & Mays, N. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data. BMJ (British Medical Journal), 320(7227), 114-116.
56. Rani, G. & Hooda, K. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility: Review of Literature, International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research, 2 (6).
57. Schröder, M. J., & McEachern, M. G. (2005). Fast foods and ethical consumer value: a focus on McDonald's and KFC. British Food Journal, 107(4), 212-224.
58. Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing science, 34(2), 158-166.
59. Shah, A. & Shah, S. (2006). The New Vision of Local Governance and the Evolving Roles of Local Governments. Local Governance in Developing Countries ed. A. Shah pp. 1-46. Washington D.C: World Bank.
60. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications, Inc. The 1982 Constitution of the http://global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf [Accessed on 27.03.2015]. Republic of Turkey. Article 127.
61. Toprak, Z. (2013a). Türkiye’nin İdari Yapılanmasında Yerel Yönetimler ve Felsefesi. Yerel Yönetimler Sempozyumu: Güncel Sorunlar Işığında Türkiye’de Yerel Yönetimler, Yenimahalle Belediyesi, ODTÜ ve TUİÇ düzenlemesi, 21-22 Şubat, Ankara.
62. Toprak, Z. (2013b). Yerel yönetimler ve sivil toplum. Ortadoğu ve Sivil Toplum Diyalogu Çalıştayı (6-7 Nisan), Gaziantep.
63. Turkstat, 2014, http://rapory.tuik.gov.tr/19-03-2015-23:34:01-1835346098527271677226442178.html [Accessed on 19.03.2015].
64. Valax, M. (2012). Beyond McDonald's CSR in China: Corporation perspective and report from case studies on a damaged employment reputation. Asian Business & Management, 11(3), 347-366.
65. Vidovich, L. (2003). Methodological framings for a policy trajectory study, in Qualitative educational research in action: Doing and reflecting, Eds: O'Donoghue, T., & Punch, K., pp. 70-96, Routledge.
66. Vural, B. A. & Oksuz, B. (2009). Kurumsal Web Siteleri Araciliğiyla Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk Iletişimi: Türkiye’deki Gsm Operatörlerine Yönelik Bir Araştirma. Journal of Yaşar University, 4(13), 2043-2061.
67. Weber, M. (2008). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A company-level measurement approach for CSR. European Management Journal, 26(4), 247-261.
68. Yildirim, A. & Simsek, H. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık: Ankara.
69. Yuksel, F., Bozkurt, F. G. & Guven, A. (2006). Yerel Yönetimlerde Etik Çerçevesinde Sosyal Sorumluluk Bilinci: Tokat Belediyesi Uygulaması, Siyasette ve Yönetimde Etik Sempozyumu.