SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 34 Sayı: 1

EVALUATION OF FIRMS OPERATING IN THE TR33 REGION IN TERMS OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INNOVATION AND LABOR PRODUCTIVITY

TR33 BÖLGESİNDE FAALİYET GÖSTEREN FİRMALARIN BİLGİ VE İLETİŞİM TEKNOLOJİLERİ, İNOVASYON VE İŞGÜCÜ VERİMLİLİĞİ AÇISINDAN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Ayşegül Yıldız(KÜTAHYA DUMLUPINAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8036-9910
Sema Behdioğlu(KÜTAHYA DUMLUPINAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-4759-2088
Neslihan Çilesiz(KÜTAHYA DUMLUPINAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-1309-8660
Fadime Aksoy(BANDIRMA ONYEDİ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-0211-8304
Pages
538–558
Publication Date
2025-04-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Based on the survey results, it was found that factors such as export intensity, ICT usage, managerial effectiveness, and human capital have significant effects on labor productivity.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Rapid changes in information and communication technologies (ICT) are intensifying competition among firms, creating a need for innovative approaches to achieve sustainable success.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study evaluates the impact of various factors such as labor productivity, export intensity, ICT usage, human capital, and innovation on firms with R&D departments operating in Türkiye’s TR33 Region.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on the survey results, it was found that factors such as export intensity, ICT usage, managerial effectiveness, and human capital have significant effects on labor productivity.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:İşgücü Verimliliği · İnovasyon · Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi

Abstract

Rapid changes in information and communication technologies (ICT) are intensifying competition among firms, creating a need for innovative approaches to achieve sustainable success. This study evaluates the impact of various factors such as labor productivity, export intensity, ICT usage, human capital, and innovation on firms with R&D departments operating in Türkiye’s TR33 Region. The aim of the study is to examine the direct and indirect determinants of labor productivity using structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and to provide policy recommendations that can enhance firms' competitiveness. A management, Organization, and Innovation (MOI) Survey was conducted with 252 firms located in the TR33 Region (Manisa, Kütahya, Uşak, and Afyon provinces). Based on the survey results, it was found that factors such as export intensity, ICT usage, managerial effectiveness, and human capital have significant effects on labor productivity. The findings reveal the role of ICT and innovation activities in improving labor efficiency, offering insights into how firms can develop sustainable growth strategies.

Özet

Günümüzde bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinde (BİT) yaşanan hızlı değişimle birlikte, firmalar arasında rekabet artmakta ve sürdürülebilir başarı sağlamak için yenilikçi yaklaşımlara ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’nin TR33 Bölgesi’nde faaliyet gösteren Ar-Ge departmanına sahip firmalar işgücü verimliliği, ihracat yoğunluğu, BİT kullanımı, beşeri sermaye ve inovasyon gibi çeşitli faktörlerin etkisi altında değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmanın amacı, işgücü verimliliği üzerindeki doğrudan ve dolaylı belirleyicileri yapısal eşitlik modellemesi (PLS-SEM) ile incelemek ve firmaların rekabet gücünü artıracak politika önerileri sunmaktır. Araştırma kapsamında, TR33 Bölgesi’nde (Manisa, Kütahya, Uşak ve Afyon illeri) yer alan 252 firmaya yönetim, organizasyon ve inovasyon araştırması (MOI) anketi uygulanmıştır. Anket sonuçları ihracat yoğunluğu, BİT kullanımı, yönetim başarısı ve beşeri sermaye gibi faktörlerin işgücü verimliliği üzerindeki etkisinin anlamlı olduğunu göstermektedir. Elde edilen bulgular, BİT ve inovasyon faaliyetlerinin işgücü verimliliği üzerindeki etkilerini ortaya koyarak firmaların sürdürülebilir büyüme stratejileri geliştirmelerine katkı sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yıldız, A., Behdioğlu, S., Çilesiz, N., Aksoy, F. (2025). EVALUATION OF FIRMS OPERATING IN THE TR33 REGION IN TERMS OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INNOVATION AND LABOR PRODUCTIVITY. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 34 Sayı: 1, 538–558. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1483223

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (73)

  1. Aboal, D. & Tacsir, E. (2015). Innovation and productivity in services and manufacturing: The role of ICT investment. IDB Working Paper Series. No. IDB-WP-658.
  2. Alabayır, A. (2024). Ara malı ithalatı ve firma verimliliği ilişkisi, mikro ölçekli ampirik bir analiz. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 20(2), 321-338. https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.1421996
  3. Alam, K., Ali, MA., Erdiaw-Kwasie, M., Shahiduzzaman, M., Velayutham, E., Murray, PA. & Wiesner, R. (2022). Impact of ICTs on innovation and performance of firms: do start-ups, regional proximity and skills matter?. Sustainability, 14(10), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105801
  4. Álvarez, R. (2016). The Impact of R&D and ICT investment on innovation and productivity in Chilean firms. Inter-American Development Bank.
  5. Amadu, A. W. & Danquah, M. (2019). R&D, human capital and export behavior of manufacturing and service firms in Ghana. Journal of African Business, 20(3), 283-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2019.1581003
  6. Añón Higón, D. & Bonvin, D. (2022). Information and communication technologies and firms’ export performance. Industrial and Corporate Change, 31(4), 955-979. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtac017
  7. Arvanitis, S. & Loukis, E.N. (2009). Information and communication technologies, human capital, workplace organization and labour productivity: A comparative study based on firm-level data for Greece and Switzerland. Information Economics & Policy, 21(1), 43-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2008.09.002
  8. Audretsch, D.B. & Belitski, M. (2023). Evaluating internal and external knowledge sources in firm innovation and productivity: An industry perspective. R&D Management, 53(1), 168-192. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12556
  9. Aw, B. Y., Roberts, M.J. & Winston, T. (2007). Export market participation, investments in R&D and worker training, and the evolution of firm productivity. The World Economy, 30(1), 83-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2007.00873.x
  10. Bagci, K. (2010). Export diversification and productivity growth. European Trade Study Group, Retrieved, 5, 2015.
  11. Baldwin, J.R. & Gu, W. (2003). Export‐market participation and productivity performance in Canadian manufacturing. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne D'économique, 36(3), 634-657. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5982.t01-2-00006
  12. Bartelsman, E.J., Falk, M., Hagsten, E. & Polder, M. (2019). Productivity, technological innovations and broadband connectivity: firm-level evidence for ten European countries. Eurasian Business Review, 9(1), 25-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-018-0113-0
  13. Ben Khalifa, A. (2023). Impact of research and development (R&D) and information, and communication technology (ICT) on innovation and productivity evidence from Tunisian manufacturing firms. Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, 31(2), 341-361. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecot.12340
  14. Bhattacharya, P. & Rath, B.N. (2020). Innovation and Firm-level Labour Productivity: A Comparison of Chinese and Indian Manufacturing Based on Enterprise Surveys. Science, Technology and Society, 25(3), 465-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721820912902
  15. Billon, M., Marco, R., & Lera-Lopez, F. (2017). Innovation and ICT use in the EU: An analysis of regional drivers. Empirical Economics, 53, 1083-1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-016-1153-x
  16. Borghoff, T. (2011). The role of ICT in the globalization of firms. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 7(10), 1128.
  17. Brynjolfsson, E. & Hitt, L.M. (2003). Computing productivity: Firm-level evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 793–808. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465303772815736
  18. Bugamelli, M., & Pagano, P. (2004). Barriers to investment in ICT. Applied Economics, 36(20), 2275-2286. https://doi.org/10.1080/0003684042000270031
  19. Bulut, E. ve Çavuş, G. (2015). Liderlik, motivasyon ve ödüllendirme ilişkilerinin incelenmesinde kısmi en küçük kareler yol analizinin kullanılması. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 591-614.
  20. Campbell, B.A. & Banerjee, P.M. (2012). Knowledge complementarities: human capital management and R&D investment in high-technology firms. International Journal of Strategic Change Management, 4(3-4), 335-355. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSCM.2012.051865
  21. Ceccagnoli, M., Graham, S.J., Higgins, M.J. & Lee, J. (2010). Productivity and the role of complementary assets in firms’ demand for technology innovations. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(3), 839-869. http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/icc/dtq033
  22. Chadda S., Khalique F. & Parimoo D. (2020). Human capital management and organisational performance: A literature survey. A. Tripathi, N. Mathur, D. Narang & A. Varshney (Eds.), Industry 4.0 Global Transformational Changes in Business and Management (pp.428-440). Delhi: Bloomsbury.
  23. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research, 295(2), 295-336.
  24. Clerides, S. K., Lach, S. & Tybout, J. R. (1998). Is learning by exporting important? Micro-dynamic evidence from Colombia, Mexico, and Morocco. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(3), 903-947. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355398555784
  25. Cooke, P. & Morgan, K. (1994) The creative milieu: a regional perspective on innovation. R. Dodgson (Ed.), The handbook of industrial innovation. (pp 25–32). Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
  26. Crino, R. & Epifani, P. (2009). Export intensity and productivity. Development Working Papers, 271.
  27. Değer, S. (2021). Otomasyon teknolojisinin üretim süreçlerinde yarattığı değişim ve bu değişimin işgücü yapısı üzerindeki etkileri. Artuklu Kaime Uluslararasu İktisadi ve İdari Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(2), 135–164.
  28. Díaz-Chao, Á., Sainz-González, J. & Torrent-Sellens, J. (2015). ICT, innovation, and firm productivity: New evidence from small local firms. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1439–1444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.030
  29. Dolfsma, W. & Soete, L. (2006). Understanding the dynamics of a knowledge economy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  30. EBRD. (2009). Transition Report 2009. Transition in Crisis: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
  31. Elik, T. & Yaşa, A.A. (2021). AR-GE harcamaları ve politikalarında seçili ülkeler ve Türkiye karşılaştırması. Aydın İktisat Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 32–62. https://doi.org/10.53839/aifd.1004858
  32. Eren, E. (1982). İşletmelerde yenilik politikası: Kuram ve uygulamada yenilik. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Yayınları. (No. 2884).
  33. Fornell, C. & Bookstein, F.L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440-452. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151718
  34. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 328–388. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3150980
  35. Ghalandari, K. (2013). The effect of information and communication technology on export performance of Iranian firms. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 5(17), 4367-4372. http://dx.doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.5.4431
  36. Gogokhia, T. & Berulava, G. (2021). Business environment reforms, innovation, and firm productivity in transition economies. Eurasian Business Review, 11, 221–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-020-00167-5
  37. Grazzi, M. & Jung, J. (2015). ICT, innovation and productivity: evidence from Latin American firms. M. Grazzi & C. Pietrobelli (Eds). Firm Innovation and Productivity in Latin America and the Caribbean: The Engine of Economic Development. (pp. 103-135). Inter-American Development Bank.
  38. Gündoğan, N. ve Biçerli, M.K. (2003). Çalışma Ekonomisi. Açıköğretim Fakültesi Yayınları.
  39. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. & Tatham, H.A. (2009). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th Edition). Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River.
  40. Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T., Ringle C.M. & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.
  41. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19 (2), 139-151. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
  42. Hair JR, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications. Kindle Edition.
  43. Hall, B.H., Lotti, F. & Mairesse, J. (2013). Evidence on the impact of R&D and ICT investments on innovation and productivity in Italian firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 22(3), 300-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2012.708134
  44. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. & Sinkovics, R.R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. RR Sinkovics ve PN Ghauri (Eds.), New challenges to international marketing. (pp. 277-319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  45. Higón, D.A. (2012). The impact of ICT on innovation activities: Evidence for UK SMEs. International Small Business Journal, 30 (6), 684-699. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610374484
  46. Ifinedo, P. (2011). Internet/e-business technologies acceptance in Canada's SMEs: An exploratory investigation. Internet Research, 21 (3), 255-281. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241111139309
  47. Jorgenson, D.W., Ho, M.S. & Stiroh, K.J. (2008). A retrospective look at the US productivity growth resurgence. Journal of Economics Perspectives, 22 (1), 3–24.
  48. Karaata, S. (2012). Yenilik–yenileşim-inovasyon dünyasına bir yolculuk. İzmir: Ege Genç İşadamları Derneği.
  49. Kaya, B. (2008). İşyerinde verimlilik yönetimi. Erişim adresi: http://kurumsal.data.atilim.edu.tr/pdfs/080425_02pdf.
  50. Kaya, H. ve Gönel, F. (2024). ICT and export performance: Fırm-level evıdence from TÜRKİYE. Journal of Financial Politic & Economic Reviews/Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 61(668). 9-35.
  51. Kijek, T. & Kijek, A. (2019). Is innovation the key to solving the productivity paradox?. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 4(4), 219-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2017.12.010
  52. Laddha, Y., Tiwari, A., Kasperowicz, R., Bilan, Y. & Streimikiene, D. (2022). Impact of information communication technology on labor productivity: A panel and cross-sectional analysis. Technology in Society, 68, 101878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101878
  53. Lai, F.Y., Tang, H.C., Lu, S.C., Lee, Y.C. & Lin, C.C. (2020). Transformational leadership and job performance: The mediating role of work engagement. Sage Open, 10(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019899085
  54. López Rodríguez, J. & Serrano Orellana, B. (2020). Human capital and export performance in the manufacturing firms. Baltic Journal of Management, 15(1), 99-119. https:/doi.org/10.1108BJM-04-2019-0143
  55. Makanyeza, C. & Ndlovu, A. (2016). ICT usage and its effect on export performance: Empirical evidence from small and medium enterprises in the manufacturing sector in Zimbabwe. Botswana Journal of Business, 9(1), 21-36.
  56. Marín-García, A., Gil-Saura, I., Ruiz-Molina, M.E. & Berenguer-Contrí, G. (2021). The moderating effect of store format on the relationships between ICT, innovation and sustainability in retailing. Frontiers in Psychology, 12: 678991, 1-14.
  57. Minondo, A. (2014). The relationship between export status and productivity in services: A firm-level analysis for Spain. Bulletin of Economic Research, 66(1), 138-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/boer.12029
  58. Mubarik, M. S., Devadason, E. S. & Govindaraju, C. (2020). Human capital and export performance of small and medium enterprises in Pakistan. International Journal of Social Economics, 47(5), 643-662. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-03-2019-0198
  59. Mulliqi, A., Adnett, N. & Hisarciklilar, M. (2019). Human capital and exports: A micro-level analysis of transition countries. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 28(7), 775-800. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2019.1603319
  60. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2. baskı). NY: McGraw-Hill.
  61. Peneder, M. (2010). Technological regimes and the variety of innovation behaviour: Creating integrated taxonomies of firms and sectors. Research Policy, 39 (3), 323-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.010
  62. Rodriguez-Pose A. & Crescenzi, R. (2008) Research and development, spillovers, innovation systems, and the genesis of regional growth in Europe. Regional Studies, 42(1),51–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701654186
  63. Salimova, G., Ableeva, A., Galimova, A., Bakirova, R., Lubova, T., Sharafutdinov, A. & Araslanbaev, I. (2022). Recent trends in labor productivity. Employee Relations, 44(4), 785–802. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-03-2021-0111
  64. Shahnazi, R. (2021). Do information and communications technology spillovers affect labor productivity? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 59, 342–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2021.09.003
  65. Skorupinska, A.A. & Torrent Sellens, J. (2014). ICT, innovation and productivity: Evidence from Eastern European manufacturing firms (No. DWP14-003). IN3 Working Paper Series.
  66. Sultanova, G. & Naser, H. (2024). The impact of information and communication technologies on export diversification: Evidence from developing countries. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2024.2419406
  67. Torrent, J. & Díaz-Chao, A. (2014). ICT uses, innovation and SMEsproductivity: Modeling direct and indirect effects in small local firms. IN3 Working Paper Series WP14-001. Erişim adresi: http://journals.uoc.edu/index.php/in3-working-paper-series/ article/view/n-14-torrent-diaz/n14-torrent-diaz-en.
  68. Türedi, S. (2013). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin ekonomik büyümeye etkisi: Gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkeler için panel veri analizi. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Elektronik Dergisi, 4 (7), 298-322.
  69. Ünlü, F. (2022). Türkiye’de bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin işgücü verimliliği ve istihdam üzerindeki etkileri: ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımı. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, 72(2), 725–751. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2021-1091191
  70. Vinzi, V.E., Trinchera, L. & Amato, S. (2010). PLS path modeling: From foundations to recent developments and open issues for model assessment and improvement. VE Vinzi, WW Chin, J. Henseler ve H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications. (pp. 47-82). Springer.
  71. Yılmaz, A., Çelik, A. ve Ulukapı, H. (2015, 14-16 Mayıs). Çalışanların tinsel değerlere ilişkin algılarının iş stresi üzerindeki etkisinde birey-örgüt uyumunun aracılık rolü: Selçuk üniversitesi örneği. 23. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi, Muğla.
  72. Yılmaz, V. ve Kinaş, Y. (2021). Kısmi en küçük kareler yapısal eşitlik modellemesiyle mobil bankacılık kullanımının araştırılması. Gazi İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 7 (2), 133-149. https://doi.org/10.30855/gjeb.2021.7.2.004
  73. Zhu, F., Li, Q., Yang, S. & Balezentis, T. (2021). How ICT and R&D affect productivity? Firm-level evidence for China. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 34(1), 3468–3486. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1875861