35 Yıllık Sosyal Sorumluluk Araştırmalarının Analizi: Yüksek Lisans ve Doktora Tezlerinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Sosyal sorumluluk kavramının kapsam alanı hem kurumsal düzeyde hem de akademide net olmadığından kavramın sınırlarını belirlemek oldukça güçtür. Bu konuya açıklık getirebilmek, çalışmaların tematik dağılımına ve literatür yapısına ilişkin açıklamalar yapabilmek için Türkiye’de son 35 yılda sosyal sorumluluk konusunda yazılan lisansüstü tezler bibliyometrik analiz ve içerik analizi teknikleriyle incelenmiştir. Sosyal sorumluluk kavramının merkezinde işletme literatürünün olması, lisansüstü tezlerin %90’ının Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü’nde ve %40’ının İşletme Ana Bilim Dalı’nda yazılmasını açıklamaktadır. Çalışmaların başlıkları arasında önemli bir kümeyi Türkiye özelinde özel sektöre ilişkin sosyal sorumluluk uygulamalarının markaya/kurum imajına, kurumsal itibara, etik değerlere ve finansal performansa etkisi ve ilişkisi oluşturmaktadır. Kurum paydaşlarından en fazla çalışma tüketicilerin satın alma davranışları ile çalışanların kuruma bağlılık ilişkisine yöneliktir. Sektör konusunda ise turizm ve bankacılık sektörlerine özel ilgi gösterilmiş, ancak diğer sektörler yeterince araştırılmamıştır. Ayrıca sivil toplum kuruluşları, gönüllülük, uluslararası standartlar gibi konular çok sınırlı sayıda çalışılmıştır. En sık atıf yapılan yazarlar listesinde yer alan A.B. Carroll, hem en sık atıf alan ilk üç makalenin yazarı olarak hem de diğer yazarlarla arasında oldukça belirgin bir farkla sıralamada birinci sırada yer alarak tek baskın yazar olarak bulgulanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyal Sorumluluk
• Lisansüstü Tezler
• Bibliyometrik Analiz
• Başlık Analizi
• Anahtar Kelime Analizi

Analysis of 35 Years of Social Responsibility Research: Examination of Master and Doctoral Theses

Öz

Since the scope of social responsibility is not clear both at the institutional level and the academy, it is difficult to determine its limits. In order to clarify this issue, explain the thematic distribution, and structure of the literature social responsibility theses written in Turkey in the last 35 years are analyzed by bibliometric analysis and content analysis. The fact that business literature is at the center of the concept social responsibility explains that 90% of the theses are written in the Institute of Social Sciences, and 40% in the Business Department which is also reflected in the theses titles. The strongest cluster of studies focuses on social responsibility practices in the Turkish private sector regarding brand and corporate image, reputation, ethical values, and financial performance. Most of the stakeholder studies are about consumer buying behavior and employee loyalty relationship. Special attention has been paid to the tourism and banking sectors, other sectors have not been adequately researched. Non-governmental organizations, volunteering, and international standards have been studied in a limited number. A.B.Carroll, is the dominant author, both as the author of the top three most cited articles, and the first in the ranking with a distinct difference from other authors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Social Responsibility
• Master and Doctoral Theses
• Bibliometric Analysis
• Title Analysis
• Keyword Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Agudelo, M. A., Jóhannsdóttir, L. ve Davidsdottir, B. (2019). A literature review of the history and evolution of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 4, 1-23.
2. Aguinis, H. ve Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932-968.
3. Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L. ve Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open, 9(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575
4. Arıkan, R. (2017). Araştırma yöntem ve teknikleri. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
5. Avrupa Komisyonu. (2001). Green paper – Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. Brussels, Commission of the European Communities. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0366en01.pdf adresinden 25 Temmuz 2020 tarihinde alınmıştır.
6. Avrupa Komisyonu. (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, 25.10.2011, COM (2011) 681 final.
7. Bartolacci, F., Caputo, A. ve Soverchia, M. (2020). Sustainability and financial performance of small and medium sized enterprises: A bibliometric and systematic literature review. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29, 1297-1309.
8. Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Free Press.

9. Berle, A. A. (1931). Corporate powers as powers in trust. Harvard Law Review, 44(7), 1049.
10. Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibility of the businessman. Harper and Row.
11. Boyraz, M., Kabakulak, A. ve Mutlu, A. S. (2020). Hazırlanmakta olan turizm konulu lisansüstü tezlerin veri görselleştirme tekniği ile bibliyometrik analizi: 2006-2020 yılları örneği. Türk Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 1434-1453.
12. Britannica. (2020). Sherman Antitrust Act. https://www.britannica.com/event/Sherman-Antitrust-Act adresinden 26 Aralık 2020 tarihinde alınmıştır.
13. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business Society, 38, 268-295.
14. Carroll, A. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is on a sustainable trajectory. Journal of Defence Management, 5(2), 1-2.
15. Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. ve Siegel, D. S. (2008). The corporate social responsibility agenda. A. Crane, D. Matten, A. McWilliams, J. Moon ve D. S. Siegel (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility içinde (s. 3-15), Oxford University Press.
16. Dabi, Y., Darrigues, L., Katsahian, S., Azoulay, D., De Antonio, M. ve Lazzati, A. (2016). Publication trends in bariatric surgery: A bibliometric study. Obesity Surgery, 26(11), 2691-2699.
17. Dabic, M., Colovic, A., Lamotte, O., Painter-Morland, M. ve Brozovic, S. (2016). Industry-specific CSR: Analysis of 20 years of research. European Business Review, 28, 250-273.
18. Dahlsrud, A. (2006). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1–13.
19. De Bakker, F. G., Groenewegen, P. ve Den Hond, F. (2005). A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business & Society, 44(3), 283-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650305278086
20. Feng, Y., Zhu, Q. ve Lai, K. (2017). Corporate social responsibility for supply chain management: A literature review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 158, 296-307.
21. Fernández-Cano, A., Torralbo, M. ve Vallejo, M. (2004). Reconsidering Price’s model of scientific growth: An overview. Scientometrics, 61(3), 301-321. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:scie.0000045112.11562.11
22. Frynas, J. G. ve Stephens, S. (2014). Political corporate social responsibility: Reviewing theories and setting new agendas. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1-27.
23. Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02019306
24. Ghobadian, A., Money, K. ve Hillenbrand, C. (2015). Corporate responsibility research: Past—present—future. Group & Organization Management, 40(3), 271-294.
25. Gomez, L. (2014). The Importance of university social responsibility in Hispanic Amerıia: A responsible trend in developing countries. G. Eweje (Ed.), Critical Studies on corporate responsibility, governance and sustainability, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
26. Google Akademik. (2021). Social responsibility. https://scholar.google.com.tr/scholar?q=%22social+responsibility%22&hl=tr&as_sdt=0,5 adresinden 16 Ocak 2021 tarihinde alınmıştır.
27. He, Q. (1999). Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis. Library Trends, 48(1), 133-59.
28. Heald, M. (1970). The social responsibilities of business: Company and community 1900–1960. Pr. of Case Western Reserve Univ.
29. Ji, Y., Tao, W. ve Rim, H. (2020). Mapping corporate social responsibility research in communication: A network and bibliometric analysis. Public Relations Review, 46, 101963, 1-16.
30. Kenton, W. (2020). Robber Barons. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/robberbarons.asp#:~:text=A%20robber%20baron%20is%20a%20term%20used%20frequently%20in%20the,Cornelius%20Vanderbilt%2C%20and%20John%20D adresinden 26 Aralık 2020 tarihinde alınmıştır.
31. Lisée, C., Larivière, V. ve Archambault, É. (2008). Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1776-1784. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20888
32. Lockett, A., Moon, J. ve Visser, W. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in management research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of ınfluence. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 115-136.
33. Low, M. ve Siegel, D. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of employee-centred corporate social responsibility research in the 2000s. Social Responsibility Journal, 16, 691-717.
34. Lulewicz-Sas, A. (2017). Corporate social responsibility in the light of management science – bibliometric analysis. Procedia Engineering, 182, 412-417.
35. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Methods in Various Disciplines I: Psychology, 1(2), 1-10.
36. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S. ve Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1-18.
37. Mullerat, R. (2013). Corporate social responsibility: A European perspective. The Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, 13(6), 1-22.
38. Ortiz-Avram, D., Domnanovich, J., Kronenberg, C. ve Scholz, M. (2018). Exploring the integration of corporate social responsibility into the strategies of small- and medium-sized enterprises: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201, 254-271.
39. Price, D. (1963). Little science, big science. Columbia University Press.
40. Sajjad, A. ve Eweje, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility in Pakistan: current trends and future directions. G. Eweje (Ed.), Corporate social responsibility and sustainability: Emerging trends in developing economies içinde (s. 163-187). Bingley, Emerald.
41. Sarkar, S. ve Searcy, C. (2016). Zeitgeist or chameleon? A quantitative analysis of CSR definitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1423-1435.
42. Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30, 83-106.
43. Stefano, F. D., Bagdadli, S. ve Camuffo, A. (2018). The HR role in corporate social responsibility and sustainability: A boundary‐shifting literature review. Human Resource Management, 57, 549-566.
44. Vázquez-Carrasco, R. ve López-Pérez, M. E. (2013). Small & medium-sized enterprises and Corporate Social Responsibility: A systematic review of the literature. Quality & Quantity, 47, 3205-3218.
45. Waddock, S. A. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and the progress of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, 109, 5-42.
46. Wang, X., Chen, L., Wenli, M. ve Zhichao, F. (2015). The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics, 103, 555–564.
47. Yaşın, C., Çetin, M. ve Sönmez, B. (2017). Halkla ilişkiler alanındaki doktora tezleri üzerinden Türkiye ve ABD’de bilimsel bilginin gelişiminin analizi. Selçuk İletişim, 10(1), 454-480.
48. Ye, N., Kueh, T., Hou, L., Liu, Y. ve Yu, H. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of corporate social responsibility in sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 272, 1-15.
49. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (8. Baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
50. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı. (2020). Tez merkezi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ adresinden 31 Aralık 2020 tarihinde alınmıştır.
51. Zupic, I. ve Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472.