Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AVOIDANCE

Yıl 2024, , 217 - 232, 29.01.2024
https://doi.org/10.55322/mdbakis.1335514

Öz

Corporate governance is an environment of fairness, transparency, accountability, and responsibility that creates a synergy for all shareholders, stakeholders, the public, and management teams. Its origin is based on the principle of separation of ownership and control in organizations. Through its application, companies build trust in their stakeholders. Since Berle and Means published their seminal book "The Modern Corporation and Private Property" in 1932, separating ownership and control into different hands has been prioritized and has become one of the most critical issues. The increasing importance of corporate governance principles and the endeavour of company compliance take the attention of academicians and practitioners. The paper will challenge the compliance of Turkish companies in an emerging market context through three concepts of isomorphism and discuss reputation and legitimacy under the neo-institutional umbrella. The idea behind the discussion is to focus on the dark side of "like-governed companies" and question their intentions. Meanwhile, a theoretical model for evaluating corporate governance compliance and a theoretical model for steering corporate governance compliance will be presented. The paper will examine the avoided corporate governance principles through qualitative data analysis. Findings indicate that Turkey's largest firms' compliance reports are tools for managing corporate governance as a ceremonial feature that priorities must guide to gain prestige and legitimacy in society.

Kaynakça

  • Aguilera, R., & Haxhi, I. (2019). Comparative Corporate Governance in Emerging Markets. R. Grosse, & K. Meyer içinde, The Oxford handbook of management in emerging markets (s. 185-217). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3196357
  • Aksom, H., & Tymchenko, I. (2020). How institutional theories explain and fail to explain organisations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 1223-1252. doi:10.1108/JOCM-05-2019-0130
  • Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2018). Neo-Institutional Theory and Organization Studies: A Mid-Life Crisis? Organization Studies, 1-20. doi:10.1177/0170840618772610
  • Ararat, M., & Orbay, H. (2006). Corporate Governance in Turkey; Implications for investments and growth. Background Paper for Turkey's Investment Climate Assessment 2006 (s. 1-49). İstanbul: TEPAV.
  • Ararat, M., Claessens, S., & Yurtoglu, B. (2020). Corporate governance in emerging markets: A selective review and an agenda for future research. Emerging Markets Review, 2-25. doi:10.1016/j.ememar.2020.100767
  • Baron, D. (2015). Foreword. T. Lawton, & T. Rajwani içinde, Routledge Companions in Business, Management and Accounting (s. 1-3). London: Routledge.
  • Berle Jr, A., & Means, G. (1932). The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York: The MacMillan Company.
  • Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. (2017). Isomorphism, Diffusion and Decoupling: Concept Evolution and Theoretical Challenges. R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. Lawrence, & R. Meyer içinde, The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (s. 77-97). London: SAGE Publications ltd. doi:10.4135/9781446280669.n4
  • Cadbury, S. (2000). The Corporate Governance Agenda. Corporate Governance, 7-15. doi:10.1111/1467-8683.00175
  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell , W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational fields. P. DiMaggio, & W. Powell içinde, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (s. 63-82). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organisational Fields. American Sociological Review, 147-160.
  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). Introduction. P. DiMaggio, & W. Powell içinde, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (s. 1-40). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Duygulu, O. (2020, 8). Corporate Governance in Turkey, 2000-2018: A Process Study of Translation. İstanbul: Sabancı University.
  • Fombrun, C. (2012). The Building Blocks of Corporate Reputation: Definitions, Antecedents, Consequences. T. Pollock, & M. Barnett içinde, The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Reputation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199596706.013.0005
  • Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of management Journal, 233-258. doi:10.2307/256324
  • Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional Isomorphism and Public Sector Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 283–307. doi:10.1093/jopart/muh028
  • Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1989). Mimetic Processes Within an Interorganizational Field: An Empirical Test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 454-479. doi:10.2307/2393153
  • Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T., & Meyer, R. (2017). The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  • Grosse, R., & Meyer, K. (2019). Introduction to Managing in Emerging Markets. R. Grosse, & K. Meyer içinde, The Oxford handbook of management in emerging markets (s. 3-34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kostova, T., & Marano, V. (2019). Institutional Theory Perspectives on Emerging Markets. R. Grosse , & K. Meyer içinde, The Oxford Handbook of Management in Emerging Markets (s. 99-125). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190683948.013.5
  • Krenn, M. (2016). Convergence and divergence in corporate governance: An integrative institutional theory perspective. Management Research Review, 1447-1471. doi:10.1108/MRR-05-2014-0103 Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalised organisations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 340-363.
  • Mizruchi, M., & Fein, L. (1999). The Social Construction of Organizational Knowledge: A Study of the Uses of Coercive, Mimetic, and Normative Isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 653-683. doi:10.2307/2667051
  • Öcal, N. (2021). Türkiye’de Kurumsal Yönetim. E. Kadıoğlu içinde, Kurumsal Yönetim: Gelişimi, Teorileri ve Uygulamaları (s. 218-263). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
  • OECD. (2015). G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264236882-en
  • Okan, E. E., & Uğurlu, E. (2022). Corporate governance rating in Turkey: Investigaiton of scores of firms. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 451-473.
  • Özen, Ş. (2007). Yeni kurumsal kuram: Örgütleri çözümlemede yeni ufuklar ve yeni sorunlar. A. S. Sargut, & Ş. Özen içinde, Örgüt Kuramları (s. 237-331). 2010: İmge.
  • Shrivastava, P., & Addas, A. (2014). The impact of corporate governance on sustainability performance. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 21-37. doi:10.1080/20430795.2014.887346
  • SPK. (2021, 1 9). Capital Markets Board of Turkey. https://www.cmb.gov.tr/ adresinden alındı
  • SPK, & EBRD. (2020). Capital Markets Board of Turkey Corporate Governance Monitoring Report 2019. Ankara: Capital Markets Board of Turkey.
  • Suchman, M. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 571-610. doi:10.2307/258788
  • Turnbull, S. (1997). Corporate Governance: Its scope, concerns and theories. Corporate Governance, 180-205. doi:10.1111/1467-8683.00061
  • Verhezen, P., & Morse, P. (2009). Consensus on governance principles? Journal of International Business Ethics, 84-101.

KURUMSAL YÖNETİMDEN KAÇINMA

Yıl 2024, , 217 - 232, 29.01.2024
https://doi.org/10.55322/mdbakis.1335514

Öz

Kurumsal yönetim, adillik, şeffaflık, hesap verebilirlik ve sorumluluk ilkeleriyle örgütlenmiş bir dünyada tüm hissedarlar, menfaat sahipleri, kamuoyu ve yönetim ekipleri için sinerji yaratan bir uygulama bileşimidir. Kökeni, kuruluşların mülkiyetinin ve kontrolünün ayrılması ilkesine dayanmaktadır. Bu uygulama sayesinde şirketler tüm paydaşları nezdinde güven inşa etmektedirler. Adolf Berle ve Gardiner Means'in 1932 yılında yayınladığı başyapıtları “Modern Şirket ve Özel Mülkiyet” ile mülkiyet ve kontrol fonksiyonlarının farklı erklerde bulunması hususu önceliklenmiş ve en kritik konulardan biri olmuştur. Kurumsal yönetim ilkelerinin artan önemi ve şirketlerin bu ilkelere uyum sağlama çabaları akademisyenlerin ve uygulayıcıların ilgisini çekmektedir. Makale, gelişmekte olan bir ekonominin parçası konumundaki Türk şirketlerinin kurumsal yönetim ilkelerine uyumunu, Yeni Kurumsal Kuram’ım şemsiyesi altında, kurumsal eşbiçimliliğin üç kavramı aracılığıyla sorgulayacak, meşruiyet ve itibar yönetimi üzerinden tartışacaktır. Tartışmanın ana fikri, kurumsal yönetim ilkelerine uyumdan kaçınılan, karanlıkta kalan bir tarafa odaklanmak ve ilkelere uyuyor(muş) gibi görünen şirketlerin amaçlarını sorgulamaktır. Bununla birlikte kurumsal yönetim ilkelerine olan uyumu değerlendirmek ve kurumsal yönetimin yönlendirilmesine dair teorik birer model sunulacaktır. Metodolojik olarak kurumsal yönetime uyumdan kaçınılan ilkelerine odaklanılacak ve nitel veri analizi yöntemi uygulanacaktır. Türkiye'nin en büyük firmalarının uyum raporlarındaki bulgular, kurumsal yönetimin, firmaların önceliğine göre toplumda itibar ve meşruiyet kazanmak için yönlendirilen törensel bir araç olarak yönetildiğini göstermektedir.

Kaynakça

  • Aguilera, R., & Haxhi, I. (2019). Comparative Corporate Governance in Emerging Markets. R. Grosse, & K. Meyer içinde, The Oxford handbook of management in emerging markets (s. 185-217). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3196357
  • Aksom, H., & Tymchenko, I. (2020). How institutional theories explain and fail to explain organisations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 1223-1252. doi:10.1108/JOCM-05-2019-0130
  • Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2018). Neo-Institutional Theory and Organization Studies: A Mid-Life Crisis? Organization Studies, 1-20. doi:10.1177/0170840618772610
  • Ararat, M., & Orbay, H. (2006). Corporate Governance in Turkey; Implications for investments and growth. Background Paper for Turkey's Investment Climate Assessment 2006 (s. 1-49). İstanbul: TEPAV.
  • Ararat, M., Claessens, S., & Yurtoglu, B. (2020). Corporate governance in emerging markets: A selective review and an agenda for future research. Emerging Markets Review, 2-25. doi:10.1016/j.ememar.2020.100767
  • Baron, D. (2015). Foreword. T. Lawton, & T. Rajwani içinde, Routledge Companions in Business, Management and Accounting (s. 1-3). London: Routledge.
  • Berle Jr, A., & Means, G. (1932). The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York: The MacMillan Company.
  • Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. (2017). Isomorphism, Diffusion and Decoupling: Concept Evolution and Theoretical Challenges. R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. Lawrence, & R. Meyer içinde, The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (s. 77-97). London: SAGE Publications ltd. doi:10.4135/9781446280669.n4
  • Cadbury, S. (2000). The Corporate Governance Agenda. Corporate Governance, 7-15. doi:10.1111/1467-8683.00175
  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell , W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational fields. P. DiMaggio, & W. Powell içinde, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (s. 63-82). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organisational Fields. American Sociological Review, 147-160.
  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). Introduction. P. DiMaggio, & W. Powell içinde, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (s. 1-40). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Duygulu, O. (2020, 8). Corporate Governance in Turkey, 2000-2018: A Process Study of Translation. İstanbul: Sabancı University.
  • Fombrun, C. (2012). The Building Blocks of Corporate Reputation: Definitions, Antecedents, Consequences. T. Pollock, & M. Barnett içinde, The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Reputation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199596706.013.0005
  • Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of management Journal, 233-258. doi:10.2307/256324
  • Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional Isomorphism and Public Sector Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 283–307. doi:10.1093/jopart/muh028
  • Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1989). Mimetic Processes Within an Interorganizational Field: An Empirical Test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 454-479. doi:10.2307/2393153
  • Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T., & Meyer, R. (2017). The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  • Grosse, R., & Meyer, K. (2019). Introduction to Managing in Emerging Markets. R. Grosse, & K. Meyer içinde, The Oxford handbook of management in emerging markets (s. 3-34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kostova, T., & Marano, V. (2019). Institutional Theory Perspectives on Emerging Markets. R. Grosse , & K. Meyer içinde, The Oxford Handbook of Management in Emerging Markets (s. 99-125). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190683948.013.5
  • Krenn, M. (2016). Convergence and divergence in corporate governance: An integrative institutional theory perspective. Management Research Review, 1447-1471. doi:10.1108/MRR-05-2014-0103 Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalised organisations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 340-363.
  • Mizruchi, M., & Fein, L. (1999). The Social Construction of Organizational Knowledge: A Study of the Uses of Coercive, Mimetic, and Normative Isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 653-683. doi:10.2307/2667051
  • Öcal, N. (2021). Türkiye’de Kurumsal Yönetim. E. Kadıoğlu içinde, Kurumsal Yönetim: Gelişimi, Teorileri ve Uygulamaları (s. 218-263). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
  • OECD. (2015). G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264236882-en
  • Okan, E. E., & Uğurlu, E. (2022). Corporate governance rating in Turkey: Investigaiton of scores of firms. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 451-473.
  • Özen, Ş. (2007). Yeni kurumsal kuram: Örgütleri çözümlemede yeni ufuklar ve yeni sorunlar. A. S. Sargut, & Ş. Özen içinde, Örgüt Kuramları (s. 237-331). 2010: İmge.
  • Shrivastava, P., & Addas, A. (2014). The impact of corporate governance on sustainability performance. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 21-37. doi:10.1080/20430795.2014.887346
  • SPK. (2021, 1 9). Capital Markets Board of Turkey. https://www.cmb.gov.tr/ adresinden alındı
  • SPK, & EBRD. (2020). Capital Markets Board of Turkey Corporate Governance Monitoring Report 2019. Ankara: Capital Markets Board of Turkey.
  • Suchman, M. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 571-610. doi:10.2307/258788
  • Turnbull, S. (1997). Corporate Governance: Its scope, concerns and theories. Corporate Governance, 180-205. doi:10.1111/1467-8683.00061
  • Verhezen, P., & Morse, P. (2009). Consensus on governance principles? Journal of International Business Ethics, 84-101.
Toplam 32 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular İşletme
Bölüm Araştırma Makaleleri
Yazarlar

Özgür Şıvan Şahinoğlu 0000-0002-3441-3941

Aykut Arslan 0000-0001-5689-3918

Yayımlanma Tarihi 29 Ocak 2024
Gönderilme Tarihi 31 Temmuz 2023
Kabul Tarihi 18 Eylül 2023
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2024

Kaynak Göster

APA Şahinoğlu, Ö. Ş., & Arslan, A. (2024). KURUMSAL YÖNETİMDEN KAÇINMA. Muhasebe Ve Denetime Bakış, 23(71), 217-232. https://doi.org/10.55322/mdbakis.1335514