Journals / International Journal of Arts and Social Studies / 2024 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 13

A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON SUSTAINABILITY ACTIVITIES IN PUBLIC BANKING

KAMU BANKACILIĞINDA SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK FAALİYETLERİ ÜZERİNE NİTEL BİR İNCELEME

Esra İşbilen Duru(İSTANBUL GEDİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GEDİK MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0003-2936-6957
Ahmet Erkasap(İSTANBUL GEDİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6239-1700
Pages
140–168
Publication Date
2024-12-31
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 data were subjected to content analysis using the MAXQDA programme and the approaches of public banks to the three main sustainability themes of economic, environmental and social sustainability were examined comparatively.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In Schumpeter's words, the current system, which operates through ‘the process of destructive destruction, which is the basic fact of capitalism’, causes increasing economic, social and ecological losses every day.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It is observed that banks, which are important building blocks of the financial system, carry out activities that focus on sustainability and define their relations with stakeholders in the financial ecosystem through sustainability concepts in their integrated reports.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The data were subjected to content analysis using the MAXQDA programme and the approaches of public banks to the three main sustainability themes of economic, environmental and social sustainability were examined comparatively.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sürdürülebilirlik · Kurumsal İtibar · Yeni Kurumsal Kuram

Abstract

In Schumpeter's words, the current system, which operates through ‘the process of destructive destruction, which is the basic fact of capitalism’, causes increasing economic, social and ecological losses every day. The main problems that can be listed as climate crisis, problems of access to clean water, loss of biodiversity, chemical pollution, deforestation and land degradation in the environmental dimension; violation of the right to live in a safe and fair area, gender inequality, income inequality, problems of access to education and health services in the social dimension; sectoral imbalances, inability to manage domestic and foreign debts, social and environmental negative impacts created by business outputs in the economic dimension show that the current perspective cannot be made operational and that a ‘new way out’ is needed. It is observed that banks, which are important building blocks of the financial system, carry out activities that focus on sustainability and define their relations with stakeholders in the financial ecosystem through sustainability concepts in their integrated reports. In this study, the tendencies of banks in this direction are scrutinised in terms of commercial public banks, and their approaches to the three main sustainability themes of economic, environmental and social sustainability are examined comparatively. In this context, an answer to the question ‘which sustainability issue(s) do public banks focus on and carry out their sustainability activities?’ was sought. The study was designed as a qualitative study and the integrated reports of Halkbank, Vakıfbank and Ziraat banks, which are public banks in Turkey, constituted the data source of the study. The data were subjected to content analysis using the MAXQDA programme and the approaches of public banks to the three main sustainability themes of economic, environmental and social sustainability were examined comparatively.

Özet

Schumpeter’in ifadesiyle “kapitalizmin temel gerçeği olan yıkıcı yıkım süreci” ile işleyen mevcut sistem her geçen gün artan ekonomik, toplumsal ve ekolojik kayıplara neden olmaktadır. Çevresel boyutta iklim krizi, temiz suya erişim sorunları, biyoçeşitlilik kaybı, kimyasal kirlilik, ormansızlaşma ve arazi bozunumu; sosyal boyutta güvenli ve adil bir alanda yaşam hakkının ihlali, cinsiyet eşitsizliği, gelir eşitsizliği, eğitime ve sağlık hizmetlerine erişim sorunları; ekonomik boyutta sektörel dengesizlikler, iç ve dış borçların yönetilememesi, işletme çıktılarının yarattığı sosyal ve çevresel olumsuz etkiler olarak sıralanabilecek başlıca sorunlar mevcut perspektifle işlerliğin sağlanamadığını, “yeni bir çıkış yolu”na ihtiyaç duyulduğunu göstermektedir. Finansal sistemin önemli yapıtaşları olan bankaların da sürdürülebilirliği odaklarına aldıkları faaliyetler yürüttükleri, entegre raporlarında finansal ekosistem içerisindeki paydaşları ile olan ilişkilerini sürdürülebilirlik kavramları üzerinden de tanımladıkları görülmektedir. Araştırmada bankaların bu yöndeki eğilimleri, ticari kamu bankaları açısından mercek altına alınmış, üç temel sürdürülebilirlik teması olan ekonomik, çevre ve sosyal sürdürülebilirliğe yaklaşımları karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmiştir. Bu bağlamda, “kamu bankaları hangi sürdürülebilirlik konusunu/konularını odağa alarak sürdürülebilirlik faaliyetlerini yürütmektedirler?” sorusuna yanıt aranmıştır. Çalışma nitel bir çalışma olarak tasarlanmış olup, Türkiye’deki kamu bankaları olan Halkbank, Vakıfbank ve Ziraat bankalarının entegre raporları araştırmanın veri kaynağını oluşturmuştur. Veriler MAXQDA programından yararlanılarak içerik analizine tabi tutularak oluşturulan temalarla kamu bankalarının üç temel sürdürülebilirlik teması olan ekonomik, çevre ve sosyal sürdürülebilirliğe yaklaşımları karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Duru, E. İ., Erkasap, A. (2024). A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON SUSTAINABILITY ACTIVITIES IN PUBLIC BANKING. International Journal of Arts and Social Studies, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 13, 140–168. https://ajindex.com/articles/1493595

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (36)

  1. Altieri, M. A. (1995). Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. Westview Press.
  2. Baker, S. (2006). Sustainable development. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
  3. Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039
  4. Costanza, R., Daly, H. E., & Bartholomew, J. A. (1991). Goals, agenda, and policy recommendations for ecological economics. In R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability (pp. 1-20). Columbia University Press.
  5. Daly, H. E. (1991a). Steady-state economics: Second edition with new essays. Island Press.
  6. Daly, H. E. (1991b). Towards an environmental macroeconomics. Land Economics, 67(2), 255-259. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146418
  7. Epstein, M. J., & Buhovac, A. R. (2014). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  8. Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M.,. & Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337-342. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452
  9. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 31(5), 437-440. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-31.5.437
  10. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy–A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757-768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
  11. Glasson, J., Therivel, R., & Chadwick, A. (2013). Introduction to environmental impact assessment (4th ed.). Routledge.
  12. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2014). G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines: Implementation manual. Global Reporting Initiative.
  13. Halk Bankası. (2021). Entegre raporu 2021. https://www.halkbank.com.tr/entegre-raporu-2021
  14. Harris, J. M. (2000). Basic principles of sustainable development. Global Development and Environment Institute Working Paper (No. 00-04). Tufts University.
  15. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245
  16. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways. World Meteorological Organization.
  17. Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet. Earthscan.
  18. Kawachi, I., Subramanian, S. V., & Kim, D. (Eds.). (2008). Social capital and health. Springer.
  19. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth. Universe Books.
  20. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press.
  21. Mutlu, A. (2006). Küresel kamusal mallar bağlamında sağlık hizmetleri ve çevre kirlenmesi: Üretim, finansman ve yönetim sorunları. Maliye Dergisi, 150, 53-78.
  22. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
  23. Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing.
  24. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E.,. & Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472-475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
  25. Rogers, P. P., Jalal, K. F., & Boyd, J. A. (2008). An introduction to sustainable development (2nd ed.). Earthscan.
  26. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
  27. Sovacool, B. K. (2009). The cultural barriers to renewable energy and energy efficiency in the United States. Technology in Society, 31(4), 365-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2009.10.009
  28. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M.,. & Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
  29. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations.
  30. Vakıfbank. (2021). Entegre raporu 2021. https://www.vakifbank.com.tr/entegre-raporu-2021
  31. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone. Penguin Books.
  32. Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27(2), 151-208. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006884930135
  33. Ziraat Bankası. (2021). Entegre raporu 2021. https://www.ziraatbank.com.tr/entegre-raporu-2021
  34. Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M.,. & Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337-342. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452
  35. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E.,. & Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472-475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
  36. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M.,. & Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855