SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 30

COMPARISON OF CORPORATE PHILANTHROPY AND VISION & LEADERSHIP IN TERMS OF CSR LEADING BUSINESSES

KURUMSAL HAYIRSEVERLİK İLE VİZYON & LİDERLİĞİN KSS ÖNCÜLÜĞÜNDEKİ İŞLETMELER AÇISINDAN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Tarik Ziyad Çelik(DICLE UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-8011-415X
Pages
898–917
Publication Date
2025-11-30
🏛️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)

The results show that Sabancı outperforms Koç in both Vision and Leadership and Corporate Philanthropy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the relationship between Vision and Leadership and Corporate Philanthropy levels by focusing on two important companies, Koç and Sabancı.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The main purpose of this study is to compare the Vision and Leadership and Corporate Philanthropy practices of these organizations and to examine the gender differences in their perceptions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results show that Sabancı outperforms Koç in both Vision and Leadership and Corporate Philanthropy.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kurumsal Hayırseverlik · Vizyon ve Liderlik · KSS

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between Vision and Leadership and Corporate Philanthropy levels by focusing on two important companies, Koç and Sabancı. The main purpose of this study is to compare the Vision and Leadership and Corporate Philanthropy practices of these organizations and to examine the gender differences in their perceptions. In order to collect data on the employees’ views on these corporate values, a survey was conducted with 267 participants selected through convenience sampling method. The results show that Sabancı outperforms Koç in both Vision and Leadership and Corporate Philanthropy. Furthermore, female participants consistently scored higher than male participants on both dimensions. This study contributes to the corporate social responsibility (CSR) and leadership literature, especially in the context of conglomerates in Turkey, and highlights the importance of leadership alignment with philanthropic activities. It provides valuable insights for managers who want to improve their companies’ CSR strategies and highlights the role of gender in shaping perceptions of corporate practices. The originality of this study is that it focuses on powerful conglomerates in an emerging market and examines gender differences in CSR and leadership assessments.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Vizyon ve Liderlik ile Kurumsal Hayırseverlik düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkiyi, iki önemli şirket olan Koç ve Sabancı'ya odaklanarak araştırmaktadır. Bu araştırmanın temel amacı, bu kuruluşların Vizyon ve Liderlik ile Kurumsal Hayırseverlik uygulamalarını karşılaştırmak ve algılarındaki cinsiyete dayalı farklılıkları incelemektir. Bu kurumsal değerlere ilişkin çalışanların görüşleri hakkında veri toplamak için, uygun örnekleme yöntemi ile seçilen 267 katılımcıyla bir anket yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar, Sabancı'nın hem Vizyon ve Liderlik hem de Kurumsal Hayırseverlik alanlarında Koç'tan daha iyi performans gösterdiğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca, kadın katılımcılar her iki boyutu da erkek katılımcılardan tutarlı bir şekilde daha yüksek puanlamışlardır. Bu çalışma, özellikle Türkiye’deki holdingler bağlamında kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk (KSS) ve liderlik literatürüne katkıda bulunmakta ve hayırseverlik faaliyetleriyle liderlik uyumunun önemini vurgulamaktadır. Şirketlerinin KSS stratejilerini geliştirmek isteyen yöneticiler için değerli içgörüler sunmakta ve kurumsal uygulamalara ilişkin algıları şekillendirmede cinsiyetin rolünü vurgulamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın özgünlüğü, gelişmekte olan bir pazardaki güçlü holdinglere odaklanması ve kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk ve liderlik değerlendirmelerinde cinsiyet farklılıklarını incelemesidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çelik, T. Z. (2025). COMPARISON OF CORPORATE PHILANTHROPY AND VISION & LEADERSHIP IN TERMS OF CSR LEADING BUSINESSES. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 30, 898–917. https://doi.org/10.53092/duiibfd.1712042

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (46)

  1. Akisik, O., & Gal, G. (2011). Sustainability in businesses, corporate social responsibility, and accounting standards: An empirical study. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 19(3), 304-324.
  2. Altunışık, R., Coşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S., & Yıldırım, E. (2010). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri, Sakarya Yayıncılık, 5. Basım. Sakarya
  3. Barnard, J. W. (1996). Corporate philanthropy, executives' pet charities and the agency problem. NYL Sch. L. Rev., 41, 114
  4. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17(1), 99-120.
  5. Bennedsen, M., Fan, J. P., Jian, M., & Yeh, Y. H. (2015). The family business map: Framework, selective survey, and evidence from Chinese family firm succession. Journal of Corporate Finance, 33, 212-226.
  6. Brown, W. O., Helland, E., & Smith, J. K. (2006). Corporate philanthropic practices. Journal of corporate finance, 12(5), 855-877.
  7. Buchholtz, A. K., Amason, A. C., & Rutherford, M. A. (1999). Beyond resources the mediating effect of top management discretion and values on corporate philanthropy. Business & Society, 38(2), 167–187.
  8. C. Chen, J., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. W. (2008). Corporate charitable contributions: A corporate social performance or legitimacy strategy? Journal of Business Ethics,
  9. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
  10. Cha, W., & Abebe, M. A. (2016). Board of directors and industry determinants of corporate philanthropy. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(5), 672-688.
  11. Cha, W., & Rew, D. (2018). CEO characteristics and corporate philanthropy in times of organizational crisis. Journal of General Management, 44(1), 44-55.
  12. Chen, J., Dong, W., Tong, Y., & Zhang, F. (2020). Corporate philanthropy and corporate misconduct: Evidence from China. International Review of Economics & Finance, 65, 17-31.
  13. Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2007). The promise of a managerial values approach to corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 345-359.
  14. Choi, S., Park, R. J., & Xu, S. (2023). The strategic use of corporate philanthropy: Evidence from bank donations. Review of Finance, 27(5), 1883-1930.
  15. Cuypers, I. R., Koh, P. S., & Wang, H. (2016). Sincerity in corporate philanthropy, stakeholder perceptions and firm value. Organization Science, 27(1), 173-188.
  16. Daniel, W. W. (1988). Applied nonparametric statistics (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.
  17. Eroğlu, G., & Aytaç, Ö. (2020). Hayırseverliğin değişen yüzü ve zenginlik: geleneksel hayırseverlikten stratejik/kurumsal hayırseverliğe. İnönü Üniversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1), 211-227.
  18. Fu, Y., & Qin, Z. (2021). Institutional cross-ownership and corporate philanthropy. Finance Research Letters, 43, 101996.
  19. Gao, Y., & Hafsi, T. (2025). What’s in it for me? CEO career disruption concern and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Research, 186, 115031.
  20. Gardberg, N. A., & Fombrun, C. J. (2006). Corporate citizenship: Creating intangible assets across institutional environments. Academy of management Review, 31(2), 329-346.
  21. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
  22. Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education.
  23. Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of management review, 30(4), 777-798.
  24. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of management review, 9(2), 193-206.
  25. Kalaycı, Ş. (2014). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Asil Yayın Dağıtım Ltd. Şti. 6. Baskı. Ankara, 426
  26. Lam, S. S., Hung, P. H. Y., & Choi, S. P. M. (2022). Corporate philanthropy and firm performance relationship–socio-political and government control effects. Asian Journal of Business and Accounting, 15(1).
  27. Leisinger, K. M., & Schmitt, K. (2011). Corporate responsibility and corporate philanthropy. United Nations Organization, 1-15.
  28. Li, X., Li, C., Wang, Z., Jiao, W., & Pang, Y. (2021). The effect of corporate philanthropy on corporate performance of Chinese family firms: The moderating role of religious atmosphere. Emerging Markets Review, 49, 100757.
  29. Ling, L., Luo, D., Li, X., & Pan, X. (2022). Looking good by doing good: CEO attractiveness and corporate philanthropy. China Economic Review, 76, 101867.q
  30. Marinetto, M. (1999). The historical development of business philanthropy: Social responsibility in the new corporate economy. Business History, 41(4), 1-20.
  31. Marquis C and Lee M (2013) Who is governing whom? Executives, governance, and the structure of generosity in large US firms. Strategic Management Journal 34(4): 483–497.
  32. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  33. Pan, Y., Weng, R., Xu, N., & Chan, K. C. (2018). The role of corporate philanthropy in family firm succession: A social outreach perspective. Journal of Banking & Finance, 88, 423-441.
  34. Porter, M. E. & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy. Harvard Business Review. 80(12), 56-68
  35. Rahbek Pedersen, E., & Neergaard, P. (2009). What matters to managers? The whats, whys, and hows of corporate social responsibility in a multinational corporation. Management Decision, 47(8), 1261-1280.
  36. Qu, S. (2024). Litigation risk and corporate philanthropy: A managerial perspective analysis. Finance Research Letters, 62, 105055.
  37. Schuyt, T. N. (2010). Philanthropy in European welfare states: a challenging promise?. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(4), 774-789.
  38. Shaw, B., & Post, F. R. (1993). A moral basis for corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 745-751.
  39. Stultz, j. E. (197). 'Madam Director', Directors and Boards 3(4), 6-19
  40. Wang, H., & Qian, C. (2011). Corporate philanthropy and financial performance: the roles of social expectations and political access. (2011). Academy of management journal, 54(6), 1159-1181.
  41. Wang, J., & Coffey, B. S. (1992). Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of business Ethics, 11, 771-778.
  42. Wei, J., Ouyang, Z., & Chen, H. A. (2018). CEO characteristics and corporate philanthropic giving in an emerging market: The case of China. Journal of Business Research, 87, 1-11.
  43. Werbel, J. D., & Carter, S. M. (2002). The CEO's influence on corporate foundation giving. Journal of Business Ethics, 40, 47-60
  44. Williams, R. J. (2003). Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 42, 1-10.
  45. Ying, L., Zhang, J., Zhu, J., & Gan, Y. (2024). Impact of corporate philanthropy on firm performance: The moderating role of board structure. Research in International Business and Finance, 72, 102535.
  46. Yu, H. C., & Kuo, L. (2021). Corporate philanthropy strategy and sustainable development goals. Sustainability, 13(10), 5655.