SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1

CORPORATE STRATEGIC BEHAVIORS DURING THE EU ACCESSION PROCESS: EVIDENCE FROM A TURKISH FIRM

AB ÜYELİK SÜRECİNDE KURUMSAL STRATEJİK DAVRANIŞLAR: TÜRKİYE'DEN BİR VAKA ANALİZİ

Osman Kurter(KARABUK UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-7581-1316
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-03-23
DOI
—
🏛️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 findings reveal that corporate strategic decisions are driven by an emergent theory of profitability, which is determined by the dynamic interaction of four main constructs of market environment, competition, trade barriers, and the cost of doing business.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the strategic behaviors and actions of a corporation during Turkiye’s formal accession negotiations with the European Union (EU).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The findings reveal that corporate strategic decisions are driven by an emergent theory of profitability, which is determined by the dynamic interaction of four main constructs of market environment, competition, trade barriers, and the cost of doing business.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results suggest that corporations in transitional economies act as dynamic entities that factor in free trade agreements and common market integration into their long-term strategic models to maintain competitiveness in a more globalized environment.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:: Örgütsel Davranış · Stratejik Yönetim · Avrupa Birliği-Türkiye İlişkileri

Abstract

This study examines the strategic behaviors and actions of a corporation during Turkiye’s formal accession negotiations with the European Union (EU). Utilizing a qualitative Grounded Theory methodology, the research uses the Karamehmet Marble and Travertine Corporation (KMTC) as a case study to understand how firms adapt to macro-structural changes in their market environments. The findings reveal that corporate strategic decisions are driven by an emergent theory of profitability, which is determined by the dynamic interaction of four main constructs of market environment, competition, trade barriers, and the cost of doing business. The study demonstrates that while the 1996 Customs Union (CU) entry of Türkiye had a profound impact on Turkish corporations by removing industrial tariffs, the ongoing EU accession process continues to influence strategic planning through regulatory alignment and market expectations. The results suggest that corporations in transitional economies act as dynamic entities that factor in free trade agreements and common market integration into their long-term strategic models to maintain competitiveness in a more globalized environment.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye'nin Avrupa Birliği (AB) ile yürüttüğü resmi katılım müzakereleri sürecinde bir kurumun kurumsal stratejik davranışlarını ve hamlelerini incelemektedir. Nitel bir araştırma metodunu kullanan araştırma, Temellendirilmiş Kuram (Grounded Theory) metodolojisi kullanarak, firmaların pazar ortamlarındaki makro-yapısal değişikliklere nasıl uyum sağladığını anlamak için Karamehmet Mermer ve Traverten İşletmeleri'ni (KMTC) bir vaka çalışması olarak ele almaktadır. Bulgular, kurumsal stratejik kararların; pazar ortamı, sektörel rekabet, ticari engeller ve iş yapma maliyetleri olmak üzere dört ana yapının dinamik etkileşimi tarafından belirlenen, bir karlılık teorisi tarafından yönlendirildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, 1996 Gümrük Birliği'nin (GB) ticari vergileri kaldırarak Türk şirketleri üzerinde derin bir etki yarattığını, devam eden AB katılım müzakere sürecinin ise düzenleyici uyum ve pazar beklentileri aracılığıyla stratejik planlamayı ciddi bir şekilde etkilemeye devam ettiğini göstermektedir. Sonuçlar, geçiş ekonomilerindeki şirketlerin, küreselleşen bir ortamda rekabet güçlerini korumak için serbest ticaret anlaşmalarını ve ortak pazar entegrasyonlarını uzun vadeli stratejik modellerine dahil eden dinamik yapılar olarak hareket ettiklerini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kurter, O. (2026). CORPORATE STRATEGIC BEHAVIORS DURING THE EU ACCESSION PROCESS: EVIDENCE FROM A TURKISH FIRM. Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1. https://ajindex.com/articles/1484260

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (40)

  1. Adam, A., & Moutos, T. (2008). The trade effects of the EU–Turkey customs union. The World Economy, 31(5), 685–700.
  2. Akgüngör, S., & Falcioğlu, P. (2005). European integration and regional specialization patterns in Turkey’s manufacturing industry. Dokuz Eylül University Discussion Paper Series, 5(01), 2–17.
  3. Balun, B., Kurter, O., & Dinçay, İ. H. (2023). Göç yönetimi ve göçlerin Türkiye'deki sosyoekonomik yaşama etkilerine ilişkin akademisyen görüşleri. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 58(1), 877–900.
  4. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
  5. Belke, A. (2004). Turkey and the EU: On the costs and benefits of integrating a small but dynamic economy. Intereconomics, 39(6), 288–292.
  6. Brülhart, M. (2000). Economic geography, industry location and trade: The evidence. The World Economy, 21(6), 775–801.
  7. Case, K. E., & Fair, R. C. (2002). Principles of economics (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  8. Czinkota, M. R., & Ronkainen, I. A. (2001). Best practices in international business. Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers.
  9. Çelenk, A. A. (2016). Accession negotiations and the new EU strategy of Turkey: A critical assessment. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (47), 85–99.
  10. Davutoğlu, A. (2008). Turkey’s foreign policy vision: An assessment of 2007. Insight Turkey, 10(1), 77–96.
  11. De Vreese, C. H., van der Brug, W., & Hobolt, S. B. (2012). Turkey in the EU? How cultural and economic frames affect support for Turkish accession. Comparative European Politics, 10(2), 218–235.
  12. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
  13. Elveren, A. Y., & Kar, M. (2005). Turkey’s economic integration into the EU: Challenges and opportunities (Working Paper No. 2005-10). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah, Department of Economics.
  14. EU Council. (1993). Conclusion of the presidency (SN 180/1/93, Rev 1). Copenhagen, Denmark.
  15. European Commission. (2004). The structural challenges facing candidate countries (Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey): A comparative perspective (No. 11). Brussels, Belgium: Economic Policy Committee.
  16. European Commission. (2010). EU candidate and pre-accession countries economic quarterly (Cat. No. KC-AO-10-002-EN-N). Brussels, Belgium: Economic Policy Committee.
  17. Flam, H. (2004). Turkey and the EU: Politics and economics of accession. CESifo Economic Studies, 50(1), 171–210.
  18. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2006). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
  19. Glazar, O., & Strielkowski, W. (2009). Turkey and the European Union: Possible incidence of the EU accession on migration flows (Working Paper No. 15/2009). IES.
  20. Gönençer, E. (2008). Development of corporate governance in the European Union and in Turkey as a candidate country. Retrieved from http://www.iehei.org/bibliotheque/memoires2008/GONENCER.pdf
  21. Grove, A. S. (1996). Only the paranoid survive: How to exploit the crisis points that challenge every company. New York, NY: Doubleday.
  22. Keegan, W. J., & Green, M. C. (2003). Global marketing (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  23. Kurter, O. (2010). Strategic moves and behaviors of a corporation while Turkey negotiates accession into the European Union (Doctoral dissertation). Argosy University, Schaumburg, IL. (ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global)
  24. Kurter, O. (2025a). The use of artificial intelligence for decision-making process for strategic management. OPUS: Journal of Society Research, 22(2), 203.
  25. Kurter, O. (2025b). The impact of strategic intelligence on enhancing creativity and organizational excellence. Uluslararası Bankacılık Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1), 1–24.
  26. Lin, Y., & Forrest, D. (2008). Economic yoyos and never-perfect value systems. Kybernetes, 37(1), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684920810851050
  27. Müftüler-Baç, M. (2025). A fragile relationship: Turkey and the European Union moving beyond membership with external differentiated integration. West European Politics, 48(5), 1186–1215.
  28. Müftüler-Baç, M., & Gürsoy, Y. (2010). Is there a Europeanization of Turkish foreign policy? Turkish Studies, 11(3), 405–427.
  29. Ömürgönülşen, U., & Doig, A. (2012). Why the gap? Turkey, EU accession, corruption, and culture. Turkish Studies, 13(1), 7–25.
  30. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  31. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York, NY: Free Press.
  32. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  33. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
  34. Thompson, A. A., & Strickland, A. J. (2001). Strategic management: Concepts and cases (12th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
  35. Togan, S. (2004). Turkey: Toward EU accession. The World Economy, 27(7), 1013–1045.
  36. Turan, İ., Akçay, E. Y., & Kanat, S. (2019). An overview to Turkey-EU relations during the Justice and Development Party period. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 10(25), 658–666.
  37. Uğur, M. (2008). Turkish economic policy under AKP government: An assessment. Biblioteca della Libertà, 43(191), 1–15.
  38. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
  39. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York, NY: Free Press.
  40. Yıldız, U. B. (2017). How can Turkey protect its interests in the European Union? The role of the European People’s Party. Bilge Strateji, 9(17), 59–83.