SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİR KURUMSAL MARKA KAVRAMI VE BİST SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK ENDEKSİ’NDEKİ FİRMALARIN SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİR KURUMSAL MARKA UYGULAMALARI ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 24, 385 - 416, 01.12.2019

Zeynep Arslan

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik ve kurumsal marka entegrasyonu ile meydana gelen sürdürülebilir kurumsal marka kavramının, BİST Sürdürülebilirlik Endeksi’ne tabi firmaların sürdürülebilirlik raporlarındaki ifadelerden yola çıkarak, ne ölçüde uygulandığının ortaya çıkarılmasıdır. Çalışma kapsamında BİST Sürdürülebilirlik Endeksi’nden seçilen 11 firmanın sürdürülebilir kurumsal marka uygulama sürecinde ne durumda olduğu, vizyon, kültür ve imaj çerçevesinde ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Bunun için öncelikle NVivo 11 programı aracılığıyla 11 firmaya ait sürdürülebilirlik raporunun, kurumsal marka kapsamında 72, sürdürülebilirlik kapsamında ise 54 olmak üzere 126 alt unsura node göre kodlanarak tematik içerik analizi yapılmış ve daha sonra “R” programında Semantik Ağ Analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgulara göre firmaların sürdürülebilirlik raporlarını bir pazarlama malzemesi olarak kullandığı, bu raporlarda paydaşları nezdinde meşrulaşmak adına çeşitli imaj unsurlarından yararlandıkları ve bu imaj unsurlarının B2B ve B2C faaliyet gösteren firmalara göre farklılık gösterdiği saptanmıştır. Ayrıca firmaların sürdürülebilirliği kurumsal markalama sürecine entegre ederken çalışanların süreçlere katılımına özel önem vermeleri gerektiği saptanmıştır. Daha önce sürdürülebilir kurumsal marka kavramı konusunda bir uygulama yapılmamış olması ve kavramın uygulaması noktasına bir temel oluşturması için bu araştırmada geniş bir örneklem ve veri kaynağı olarak yalnızca sürdürülebilirlik raporlarına odaklanılmıştır. Bu raporlarda, firmaların sürdürülebilirlik ile ilgili faaliyetleri hakkındaki beyanatları, onların tamamen bu şekilde olduklarını göstermemektedir. Bu, araştırmanın kısıtı olarak belirtilebilir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kurumsal marka, kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik, sürdürülebilir kurumsal marka, kurumsal teori, meşruluk

SUSTAINABLE CORPORATE BRAND CONCEPT AND A RESEARCH ON SUSTAINABLE CORPORATE BRAND APPLICATIONS OF COMPANIES IN THE BİST SUSTAINABILITY INDEX

Öz

The purpose of this study is to reveal the extent the sustainable corporate brand concept is applied which is composed of corporate sustainability and corporate brand, on the basis of expressions in sustainability reports of companies in the BIST Sustainability Index. The status of 11 companies, which are selected from BİST Sustainability Index, in terms of sustainable corporate brand implementation process are revealed pursuant to vision, culture and image within the scope of the study. To manage this, sustainability reports of 11 companies are coded in 126 nodes – 72 in terms of corporate brands and 54 in terms of sustainability – via NVivo 11 program; thematic content analysis is performed and then Semantic Network Analysis is executed in “R” program. Findings revealed that companies benefit from sustainability reports as marketing materials, use various image elements in order to legitimize them in the eye of their stakeholders, and these image elements differ depending on B2B and B2C companies. Besides, it is determined that companies need to place importance in participation of employees in processes while integrating sustainability into corporate branding phase. This research focuses solely on sustainability reports as a large sample and a source of data, since the previously sustainable corporate brand concept has not been applied and is the basis for the implementation of the concept. In these reports, the statements of companies about their sustainability-related activities do not show that they are all that way. This can be specified as a constraint on the research

Anahtar Kelimeler

Corporate brand, corporate sustainability, sustainable corporate brand, ınstitutional theory, legitimacy

Kaynakça

• Abratt, R., ve Kleyn, N. (2012). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate reputations: reconciliation and Integration. European Journal of Marketing, 7/8 (40), 1048-1063.
• Akkerman, R., Farahani, P. ve Grunow, M. (2010). Quality, safety and sustainability in food distribution: a review of quantitative operations management approaches and challenges, Springer Verlag, 863-904.
• Apaydın, F. (2009). Kurumsal teori ve işletmelerin kurumsallaşması. C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 10 (1), 1-22.
• Azapagic, A. (2003). Systems Approach to Corporate Sustainability: a General Management Framework. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 81, 303-316.
• Balmer, J. (2001). Corporate identity, corporate branding, and corporate marketing: seeing through the fog. European Journal of Marketing, 35 (3/4), 248- 291.
• Balmer, M., Powell, S., ve Greyser, S. (2011). Explicating Ethical Corporate Marketing. Insights from the BP Deepwater Horizon Catastrophe: the Ethical Brand that Exploded and then Imploded. Journal of Business Ethics, 102 (1), 1-49.
• Barrow, M. (2013, Agust 30). Optimising the Value Chain: survival of the fittest https://www.carbontrust.com/news/2013/08/optimising-the-value-chain- survival- fittest/ (erişim tarihi: 10.01.2016).
• Baumgartner, R., ve Ebner, D. (2010). Corporate sustainability strategies: Sustainability Profiles and Maturity Levels. Journal of Sustainable Development, 76-89.
• Belz, F. M., ve Riediger, B. (2009). Marketing Strategies in the Age of Sustainable Development: Evidence from the Food Industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19 (7), 401-416.
• Berrone, P., Gelabert, L., ve Fosfuri, A. (2009). The IImpact of Symbolic and Substantive Actions on Environmental Legitimacy. IESE Business School, 1-28.
• Berth, N. (2011). The importance of being seen to be Green: an empirical investigation of Green Marketing Strategies in Business-to-Business organizations. Auckland University of Technology, Master Thesis.
• Bibri, M. (2008). Corporate Sustainability/CSR Communications ve Value Creation: A Marketing Approach. Karlskrona, Sweden.
• Braun, V., ve Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. y.Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77-101.
• Bronn, P., ve Vironi, A. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and cause-related marketing: An overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20 (2), 207- 222.
• Bulduklu, Y. (2015). Kurumsal Vatandaşlığın Kurum İmajı. Selçuk Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 17 (1), 1-20.
• Buysse, K., ve Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (5), 453- 470.
• Carroll, A. B. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizon, 1-20.
• Christiansen, L., ve Askegaard, S. (2001). Corporate identity and corporate image revisited – a semiotic perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 35 (3/4), 292-315.
• Collins, J., ve Porras, J. (1991). Organizational Vision and Visionary Organizations, California Management Review, 50(2):117-137.
• Dalhammar, C., Machacek, E., Bundgaard, A., Zacho, K., ve Remmen, A. (2014). Addressing Resource Efficiency Through the Ecodesing Directive: A Review of Opportunities and Barriers. Nordon.
• Dean, T., Fowler, D., ve Miller, A. (1995). Organizational adaptations for ecological sustainability: A resource-based examination of the competitive advantage hypothesis. Department of Management, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
• De Chernatony, L. (2001). Would a Brand Smell any Sweeter by a Corporate Name? Corporate Reputation Review, 1-31.
• Deloitte, C. f. (2012). 2012 Deloitte Energy Conference Solving the Energy Equation: Demand, Supply, and Infrastructure. Conference Report, May 21-22, 2012, Washington, D.C.
• Denison, D.R; Mishra, A.K. (1995). Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and Effectiveness, Organızatıon Scıence, 6 (2), 204-223.
• Dimaggio, P. J., ve Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147-160.
• Dow Jones Sustainability Index, D. (2016). Corporate Sustainability. http://www. sustainability-indices.com/sustainability-assessment/.
• Drieger, P. (2013). Semantic Network Analysis as a Method for Visual Text Analytics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 79, 4-17.
• Dyllick, T., ve Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the Business Case for Corporate Sustainaility. Business Strategy and Environment, 11 (2), 130-141.
• Einwiller, S. ve Will, M. (2002) ‘ Towards An Integrated Approach to Corporate Branding –an Empirical Study ’, Corporate Communications, 7 (2), 100 – 110.
• EY ve the Boston College Center, E. (2013). Value of Sustainability Reporting. Boston College Carroll School of Management.
• Freeman, L. (1984). Turning a profit from mathematics: The case of social networks. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 10, 343-360.
• Gottlieb, J., ve Sanzgiri, J. (1996). Towards an Ethical Dimension of Decision Making in Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 15 (12), 1275-1285.
• Gupta, S. ve Kumar, V. (2013). Sustainability as Corporate Culture of a Brand for Superior Performance. Journal of World Business, 48 (3), 311-320.
• Güleç, Ş. N. (2016). Kurum İmajı, Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Uzaktan Eğitim Merkezi.
• Gürsakal, N. (2009). Semantik ağ Analizi: Pajek Ucinet ve Gmine Uygulamalı. Bursa: Dora.
• Gray, R., Kouhy, R., ve Lavers, S. (1995). “Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting Auditing ve Accountability Journal, 8 (2), 47-77.
• Hanneman, R. A., ve Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to Social Network Methods. University of California, Riverside.
• Hanson, D., ve Stuart, H. (2001). Failing the Reputation Management Test: The Case of BHP, the Big Australian. Corporate Reputation Review, 4 (2), 128-143.
• Hatch, M., ve Schult, M. (1997). Relations between Organizational Culture, Identity and Image. European Journal of Marketing, 31 (5/6), 356-365.
• Hatch, M., ve Schultz, M. (2001). Bringing The Corporation Into Corporate Branding. Submitted to European Journal of Marketing, 1-27.
• Hatch, M., ve Schultz, M. (2003). Bringing the corporation into corporate branding. European Journal of Marketing, 37 (7/8), 1041-1064.
• Harris, F., ve Chernatony, L. (2001). Corporate branding and corporate brand performance. European Journal of Marketing, 3/4 (35), 441-456.
• Hart, S. (1995). A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm. Academic Management Review, 20, 986-1014.
• Hart, S., ve Dowell, G. (2011). A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm: Fifteen Years After. Journal of Management, 37, 1464-1479.
• Head, L. (2016). New B2B Insights: Sustainability is table stakes, renewable energy is the new “shiny object”. Shelto Group.
• Hedberg, C., ve Malmborg, V. (2003). The Global Reporting Initiative and Corporate Sustainability Reporting in Swedish Companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 10, 153-164.
• Herzig, C., & Schaltegger, S. (2006). Corporate Sustainability Reporting. An Owerview. S. Schaltegger, M. Bennett, & R. Burritt içinde, Sustainability Accounting and Reporting (s. 301-324). Springer.
• Hoejmose, S., Brammer, S., ve Andrew, M. (2012). “Green” supply chain management: The role of trust and top management in B2B and B2C Market. / Industrial Marketing Management, 41, 609-620.
• Homburg, C., Stierl, M. ve Bornemann, T. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility in Business-to-Business iViarkets: How Organizational Customers Account for Supplier Corporate Social Resposibility Engagement. Journal of Marketing, Cilt 77, 54-72.
• Howard, S. (1998). Corporate Image Management: A Marketing Discipline for the 21st Century. Sigapore: Butterworth-Hinemann.
• Jennings, P.D.; Zandbergen, P.A. (1995).Ecologically Sustainable Organizations An Institutional Approach, The Academy of Management Review, 20 (4), 1015-1052.
• Jones, R. (2010). Corporate branding: The role of vision implementing the corporate brand. Innovative Marketing, 6 (1), 44-57.
• Jun, J., ve Lee, H. (2007). Cultural Differences in Brand Designs and Tagline Appeals. International Marketing Review, 24 (1), 474-491.
• Knox, S. (2011). Sustainability and corporate brand. https://www.som.cranfield. ac.uk/s/Think-Cranfield-2011/Sustainability-and-the-corporate-brand, (Erişim tarihi: 10.10.2016)
• Konar, S., ve Cohen, M. (2001). Does the Market Value Environmental Performance. The Review of Economic And Statistics, 83 (2), 281-289.
• Larsen, M. H. (2000). Managing the Corporate Story. M. Schultz, M. Hatch, ve M. H. Larsen içinde, The Expressive Organisation (s. 196-207). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lawer, C., ve Knox, S. (2004). Reverse-market Orientation and Corporate Brand Development. Working series, Cranfield University School of Management.
• Leitch, S., ve Richarson, N. (2003). Corporate branding in the new economy. European Journal of Marketing, 37 (7/8), 1065-1079.
• Lindgreen, A., Xu, Y., Maon, F., ve Wilcock, J. (2012). Corporate social responsibility brand leadership: a multiple case study. European Journal of Marketing, 46 (7/8), 965-993.
• Low, G., ve Menter, J. (2011). The Future of Sustainability Leadership Why you must act TODAYto achieve sustainability leadership Tomorrow. https:// www.fmi.org/docs/sustainability/futureofsustainabilityleadership0611. pdf?sfv rsn=2: FMI Foundation.
• Lynch, J., ve de Chernatony, L. (2004). The Power of Emotion: Brand Communication in Business-to Business Markets. Brand Management, 11
• Marzec, M. (2007). Telling the corporate story: vision into action. Journal of Business Strategy, 28 (1), 26-36.
• McDonnell, M. (2012). Good Firms, Good Targets: The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility, Reputation, and Activist Targeting. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-30.
• McKinstry, S. (1996). Designing the annual reports of Burton plc from 1930 to 1994. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21 (1), 89-111.
• Morris, T., ve Goldsworthy, S. (2008). Creating a socially responsible image. Public Relations for Asia (s. 139-142). içinde Palgrave Macmillan UK.
• Nathan, M. (2010). ‘Lighting tomorrow with today’: towards a (strategic). Int. J. Sustainable Strategic Management, 2 (1), 29-40.
• Nielsen (2015). Green Generation: Millenials Say Sustainability is a Shopping Priority, http://www.nielsen.com/id/en/insights/news/2015/green-generation- millennials-say-sustainability-is-a-shopping-priority.html (erişim tarihi: 20.10.2016).
• Okay, A. (2005) “Kurum Kimliği”, Kapital Medya Yayınevi, İstanbul.
• Opoku, R., Abratt, R., ve Benedixe, M. (2007). Communicating Brand Personality: Are the Websites Doing the Talking for Food SMEs? Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 10 (4), 262-274.
• Otubanjo, O., Abimbola, T., ve Amujo, O. (2010). Conceptualising the notion of corporate brand covenant. Journal of Product ve Brand Management, 19 (6), 410–422.
• Peloza, J. (2012). Sustainability: How Stakeholder Perceptions Differ From Corporate Reality. California management review, 74-97.
• Peltekoğlu, F. B. (2012). Kurumsal İletişim Sürecinde İmajın Yeri. İstanbul Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/ article-file/21286 (erişim tarihi: 20.05.2018).
• Pitt, L., Opoku, R., Hultman, M., Abratt, R., ve Spyropoulou, S. (2007). What I say About Myself: Communication of Brand Personality by African Countries. Tourism Management, 28 (3), 835-844.
• Porter, M. E., ve Kramer, M. (2006). “Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 1-13.
• Porter, M. E., ve Linde, C. V. (1995). Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate. Harward Business Review, 73, 120-134.
• Preston, A. (1996). Imaging Annual Reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21 (1), 113-137.
• Ratnayake, R., ve Liyanage, J. (2009). Asset integrity management: Sustainability in action. International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management, 2
• Reinhardt, F. (1994). Environmental Product Differentiation: Implications for Corporate Strategy. California Management Review, 40, 43-73.
• Roca, L., ve Searcy, C. (2012). An Analysis of Indicators Disclosed in Corporatesustainability reports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20, 103- 118.
• Roche, C. (2011). Network Analysis of Semantic Web Ontologies. Standford University, 1-13.
• Roper, S. and Fill, C. (2012). Corporate Reputation, Brand and Communication. Harlow,Essex: Pearson.
• Rowley, T., ve Berman, S. (2000). A Brand New Brand of Corporate Social Performance. Business Society, 39 (4), 397-418.
• Ruhnau, B. (2000). Eigenvector-centrality — a node-centrality? Social Networks, 22, 357-365.
• Schwartz, M., ve Carroll, A. (2008). Integrating and unifying competing and complementary frameworks. The search for a common core in the business and society field. Business Society, 47, 148-186.
• Scott, W. (1987). The Adolescence of Institutional Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 493-511.
• Souiden, N., Kassim, N., ve Hong, H. (2006). The effect of corporate branding dimensions on consumers’ product evaluation A cross-cultural analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 40 (7/8), 825-845.
• Spear, S., ve Roper, S. (2013). Using corporate stories to build the corporate brand: an impression management perspective. Journal of Product ve Brand Management, 22 (7), 491 - 501.
• Sriramesh, K., ve White, J. (2005). Toplum kültürü ve halkla ilişkiler. J. Gunig içinde, Halkla İlişkiler ve İletişim Yönetiminde Mükemmellik (s. 237-269). İstanbul: Rota Yayınları.
• Stiller, Y., ve Daub, C. (2007). Paving the Way for Sustainability Communication: Evidence from a Swiss Study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 474-486.
• Stone, P., Dunphy, D., Marshall, S., ve Ogilvie, D. (1966). The General Inquirer: A Computer Approach to Content Analysis. Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press.
• Stranberg, C. (2009). The Role Of Human Resource Management In Corporate Social Responsibility: Issue Brief And Roadmap.Strandberg Consulting.
• Stuart, H. (2011). An identity-based approach to the sustainable corporate brand. Corporate Communications: An International Journal (16), 139-149.
• Szekely, N., ve vom Brocke, J. (2017). What can we learn from corporate sustainability reporting? Deriving propositions for research and practice from over 9,500 corporate sustainability reports published between 1999 and 2015 using topic modelling technique pdf. Institute of Information Systems, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Principality of Liechtenstein, 12 (4), 1-27.
• Swait, J., Erdem, T. (2002). The Effects of Temporal Consistency of Sales Promotions and Availability on Consumer Choice Behavior, Journal of Marketing Research, 39(3),304-320.
• Tanaka, K., Takahashi, M., ve Tsuda, K. (2013). Comparison of Centrality Indexes in Network Japanese Text Analysis. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 3 (1), 37-42.
• Tilt, C. (1994). The Influence of External Pressure Groups on Corporate Social Disclosure: Some Empirical Evidence. Accounting Auditing ve Accountability Journal, 7 (4), 47-72.
• UN (United Nations), (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. HYPERLINK “http://www.un- documents.net/our-common-future.pdf”http://www.un-documents.net/our- common-future.pdf (erişim tarihi: 04 02, 2015).
• Urde, M. (2003). Core based corporate brand building. European Journal of Marketing, 37 (7/8), 1017-1040.
• Vallaster, C., ve de Chernatony, L. (2006). Internal brand building and structuration: the role of leadership. European Journal of Marketing, 40 (7/8), 761- 784.
• Van Rekom, J. (2002), “Manifestations in behavior versus perceptions of identity: convergence or not?”, in Soenen, G. and Moingeon, B. (Ed), Corporate and Organizational Identities, Routledge, London, ss. 91-114.
• Vertandix (2013), Link Sustainability to Corporate Branding, https://www. environmentalleader.com/2013/04/link-sustainability-to-corporate- branding-verdantix-say/ (erişim tarihi: 03.02.2015).