From global goals to local action: Mapping CSR–SDG alignment in a commercial port

Abstract

Ports occupy a strategic position in global trade, serving as critical nodes that keep the world's supply chains moving. At the same time, they face mounting pressure to align with broader international sustainability frameworks, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Yet despite this growing expectation, little research has explored how commercial ports actually incorporate these global sustainability agendas into their corporate social responsibility (CSR) portfolios. Corporate Citizenship and Stakeholder Theory provide a useful lens for understanding this tension between economic performance and societal responsibility. From this conceptual foundation, this research investigates how a major commercial port translates global sustainability goals into localized CSR practices. To investigate this, the study focuses on MIP (Mersin International Port) through a single-case study design, applying a structured SDG-based content analysis to a longitudinal dataset of the port's CSR initiatives. Each activity is systematically coded across several dimensions, including SDG alignment, stakeholder focus, implementation type, and geographic scope. Rather than treating SDG alignment as a reporting exercise, the study examines whether it reflects strategic prioritization. In this sense, the analysis moves beyond surface-level compliance to uncover the underlying strategic logic shaping CSR decision-making in commercial port contexts. The study contributes to the literature by offering a replicable framework for evaluating CSR–SDG coherence in commercial ports.

Keywords

• corporate social responsibility
• port sustainability
• sustainable development goals
• corporate citizendhip and stakeholder theory
• Mersin international port

Küresel Hedeflerden Yerel Uygulamaya: Ticari Bir Limanda KSS-SKA Uyumunun Haritalandırılması

Abstract

Limanlar, küresel ticarette stratejik bir konuma sahip olup dünya tedarik zincirlerinin işleyişini sağlayan kritik düğüm noktalarıdır. Bununla birlikte limanlar, Birleşmiş Milletler Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amaçları (SKA) gibi uluslararası sürdürülebilirlik çerçeveleriyle uyum sağlama yönünde giderek artan bir baskı ile karşı karşıyadır. Ancak bu beklentinin artmasına rağmen, ticari limanların bu küresel sürdürülebilirlik gündemlerini kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk (KSS) portföylerine nasıl dahil ettiklerini inceleyen çalışmalar literatürde oldukça sınırlıdır. Kurumsal Vatandaşlık ve Paydaş Teorisi, ekonomik performans ile toplumsal sorumluluk arasındaki bu gerilimi anlamak için önemli bir kavramsal çerçeve sunmaktadır. Bu kavramsal temelden hareketle, bu araştırma büyük ölçekli bir ticari limanın küresel sürdürülebilirlik hedeflerini yerel KSS uygulamalarına nasıl dönüştürdüğünü incelemektedir. Bu amaçla çalışma, tekli vaka çalışması tasarımı çerçevesinde Mersin Uluslararası Limanı’nı (MIP) ele almakta ve limanın KSS uygulamalarına ait uzunlamasına bir veri setine SKA temelli yapılandırılmış bir içerik analizi uygulamaktadır. Her bir faaliyet; SKA uyumu, paydaş odaklılık, uygulama türü ve coğrafi kapsam gibi çeşitli boyutlar açısından sistematik olarak kodlanmıştır. Bu çalışma, SKA uyumunu yalnızca bir raporlama pratiği olarak ele almak yerine bunun stratejik bir önceliklendirmeyi yansıtıp yansıtmadığını incelemektedir. Bu bağlamda analiz, yüzeysel uyum değerlendirmelerinin ötesine geçerek ticari liman bağlamında KSS karar alma süreçlerini şekillendiren stratejik mantığı ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, ticari limanlarda KSS–SKA uyumunun değerlendirilmesine yönelik tekrarlanabilir bir analitik çerçeve sunarak literatüre katkı sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

• Kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk
• liman sürdürülebilirliği
• sürdürülebilir kalkınma amaçları
• kurumsal vatandaşlık ve paydaş teorisi
• Mersin uluslararası limanı

References

1. Acciaro, M., Ghiara, H., Cusano, M.I. (2014). Energy management in seaports: A new role for port authorities. Energy Policy, 71, 4-12.
2. Akkoyunlu, G., Kalyoncuoğlu, S. (2014). İşletmelerin kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk çalışmalarının marka algısı üzerine etkisinin değerlendirilmesi. Niğde Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(3), 125-144.
3. Akpan, W. (2008). Corporate citizenship in the Nigerian petroleum industry: A beneficiary perspective. Development Southern Africa, 25(5), 497-511.
4. Alamoush, A.S., Ballini, F., Ölçer, A.I. (2020). Ports' technical and operational measures to reduce greenhouse gas emission and improve energy efficiency: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 160, 111508.
5. Alamoush, A.S., Ballini, F., Ölçer, A.I. (2021). Revisiting port sustainability as a foundation for the implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs). Journal of Shipping and Trade, 6(1), 19.
6. Almeida, F., Okon, E. (2026). The ports' approach to achieving the United Nations sustainable development goals. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 37(1), 149-168.
7. Awa, H.O., Etim, W., Ogbonda, E. (2024). Stakeholders, stakeholder theory and corporate social responsibility (CSR). International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 9(1), 11.
8. Barberi, S., Sambito, M., Neduzha, L., Severino, A. (2021). Pollutant emissions in ports: a comprehensive review. Infrastructures, 6(8), 114.

9. Batalha, E., Chen, S.L., Pateman, H., Zhang, W. (2023). Defining a social role for ports: Managers’ perspectives on whats and whys. Sustainability, 15(3), 2646.
10. Boesso, G., Favotto, F., Michelon, G. (2015). Stakeholder prioritization, strategic corporate social responsibility and company performance: further evidence. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 22(6), 424-440.
11. Bucak, U. (2016). Green performance criteria and sustainable port concept: A comparative analysis. Master's thesis. Dokuz Eylul University, İzmir, Türkiye.
12. Buonomano, A., Del Papa, G., Giuzio, G.F., Palombo, A., Russo, G. (2023). Future pathways for decarbonization and energy efficiency of ports: Modelling and optimization as sustainable energy hubs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 420, 138389.
13. Burla, L., Knierim, B., Barth, J., Liewald, K., Duetz, M., Abel, T. (2008). From text to codings: Intercoder reliability assessment in qualitative content analysis. Nursing Research, 57(5), 340-346.
14. Çalışkan, A. (2022). Seaports participation in enhancing the sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 379, 134715.
15. Campbell, J.L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., Pedersen, O.K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and reliability and the advantages of a negotiated agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294-320.
16. Chinh, B., Zade, H., Ganji, A., Aragon, C. (2019, May). Ways of qualitative coding: A case study of four strategies for resolving disagreements. In Extended abstracts of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-6).
17. Chang, Y.T., Song, Y., Roh, Y. (2013). Assessing greenhouse gas emissions from port vessel operations at the Port of Incheon. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 25, 1-4.
18. Chen, C., Lam, J.S.L. (2018). “Sustainability and interactivity between cities and ports: a two-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 944-961.
19. Coleman, M.L., Ragan, M., Dari, T. (2022). Intercoder Reliability for Use in Qualitative Research and Evaluation. Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory & Research, 49(2), 67-81.
20. Cui, Q. (2017), “Environmental efficiency measures for ports: an application of RAM-tobit-RAM with undesirable outputs”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 551-564, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2017.1319982.
21. Cunha, D.R., Pereira, N.N., de Santana Porte, M., Campos, C.R. (2024). Sustainability practices for SDGs: a study of Brazilian ports. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(4), 9923-9944.
22. García-Onetti, J., Scherer, M.E., Asmus, M.L., Sanabria, J.G., Barragán, J.M. (2021). Integrating ecosystem services for the socio-ecological management of ports. Ocean & Coastal Management, 206, 105583.
23. Gedik, Y. (2020). Kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk: tanımları, tarihi, teorileri, boyutları ve avantajları üzerine kuramsal bir çerçeve. Haliç Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(2), 265-304.
24. Gonçalves, A., de Aguiar Dutra, A.R., de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., Dutra, A. (2025). Ports and Climate Change: A Systematic Review Aligned With the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainable Development.
25. Iris, Ç., Lam, J.S.L. (2019). A review of energy efficiency in ports: Operational strategies, technologies and energy management systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 112, 170-182.
26. Jansen, M., Van tulder, R., Afrianto, R. (2018), “Exploring the conditions for inclusive port development: the case of Indonesia”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 924-943.
27. Lehner, O.M., Harrer, T., Quast, M. (2019). Building institutional legitimacy in impact investing: Strategies and gaps in financial communication and discourse. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 20(4), 416-438.
28. Lépineux, F. (2005). Stakeholder theory, society and social cohesion. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 5(2), 99-110.
29. Li, L., Zhong, M., Ma, X., Zhao, H., Safdar, M., Chuwang, D.D., Zhang, Z. (2024). Optimal planning of renewable energy infrastructure for ports under multiple design scenarios considering system constraints and growing transport demand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 477, 143827.
30. López-Morales, J.S., Huerta-Estévez, A., Andrade-Estrada, M.G., Zarrabal-Gutiérrez, C.G. (2020). Corporate social responsibility in ports of Latin America. Marine Economics and Management, 3(1), 13-26.
31. Madueno, J., Jorge, M., Conesa, I., Martinez-Martinez, D. (2016). Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Competitive Performance in Spanish SMEs: Empirical Evidence from a Stakeholders Perspective, Business Research Quarterly, 19(1), 55-72.
32. Merk, O., Bagis, O. (2013). The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: The Case of Mersin, Turkey.
33. Mersin International Port (MIP), (2026). Mersin International Port, Sürdürülebilirlik, Sosyal Sorumluluk. Accessed Date: 05.03.2026, https://www.mersinport.com.tr/tr/surdurulebilirlik/ss-liste/sosyal-sorumluluk/56/0/0.
34. Notteboom, T.E., Haralambides, H.E. (2020). Port management and governance in a post-COVID-19 era: quo vadis? Maritime Economics & Logistics, 22(3), 329-352.
35. Notteboom, T., Haralambides, H. (2023). Seaports as green hydrogen hubs: advances, opportunities and challenges in Europe. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 25(1), 1-27.
36. Notteboom, T., Van Der Lugt, L., Van Saase, N., Sel, S., Neyens, K. (2020). The role of seaports in green supply chain management: Initiatives, attitudes, and perspectives in Rotterdam, Antwerp, North Sea Port, and Zeebrugge. Sustainability, 12(4), 1688.
37. Olson, D.J. (2017). Public port accountability: a framework for evaluation. In Urban Ports and Harbor Management (pp. 307-331). Routledge.
38. Puig, M., Wooldridge, C., Darbra, R.M. (2014). Identification and selection of environmental performance indicators for sustainable port development. Marine pollution bulletin, 81(1), 124-130.
39. Rodrigues, K.T., Ensslin, S.R. (2024). Environmental performance evaluation in ports: a literature review and future research guidelines. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 26(2), 241-260.
40. Saxena, A., Ramaswamy, M., Beale, J., Marciniuk, D., Smith, P. (2021). Striving for the United Nations (UN) sustainable development goals (SDGs): what will it take?. Discover Sustainability, 2(1), 20.
41. Shen, J., Gao, W., Lu, J., Li, F., Feng, X. (2025). Sources, calculation methods, and reduction strategies for GHG emissions at ports: current status and future trends. Frontiers in Marine Science, 12, 1542255.
42. Türkistanlı, T.T., Özispa, N., Tuğdemir Kök, G., Özdemir, Ü., Pehlivan, D. (2025). Exploring research trends on climate change: Insights into port resilience and sustainability. Sustainability, 17(8), 3542.
43. Valor, C. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship: Towards corporate accountability. Business & Society Review (00453609), 110(2).
44. Vega-Muñoz, A., Salazar-Sepulveda, G., Espinosa-Cristia, J.F., Sanhueza-Vergara, J. (2021). How to measure environmental performance in ports. Sustainability, 13(7), 4035.
45. Verschuur, J., Koks, E.E., Hall, J.W. (2022). Ports’ criticality in international trade and global supply-chains. Nature communications, 13(1), 4351.
46. Vitellaro, F., Satta, G., Parola, F., Buratti, N. (2022). Social media and CSR communication in European ports: the case of Twitter at the Port of Rotterdam. Maritime Business Review, 7(1), 24-48.
47. Warhurst, A. (2001). Corporate citizenship and corporate social investment. Journal of corporate citizenship, 1(1), 57-73.Abbey, L., Glover-Amengor, M., Atikpo, M.O., Atter, A., Toppe, J. (2017). Nutrient content of fish powder from low value fish and fish byproducts. Food Science and Nutrition, 5(3): 374-379. doi:10.1002/fsn3.402.