SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2022 / Sayı: Özel Sayı

STAKEHOLDER EFFECTS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPETING INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS AND ORGANIZATIONS’ CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES

REKABET EDEN KURUMSAL MANTIKLAR VE ÖRGÜTLERİN KURUMSAL SOSYAL SORUMLULUKLARI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE PAYDAŞ ETKİLERİ

Gizem ARAS BEGER
Pages
72–99
Publication Date
2022-09-29
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)

According to the results of the survey conducted to test the model; it hasbeen revealed that commercial logic leads to more business benefits, and sociallogic leads to more societal benefits.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Organizations carry out their activities in an area where there are multiple logicsthat require different institutional orders and reflect these to their organizationalpractices-processes and outcomes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Given theirsignificant impacts on organizational outcomes, how these logics manifest inorganizations is critical.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results of the survey conducted to test the model; it hasbeen revealed that commercial logic leads to more business benefits, and sociallogic leads to more societal benefits.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kurumsal Mantıklar · Paydaşlar · Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk

Abstract

Organizations carry out their activities in an area where there are multiple logicsthat require different institutional orders and reflect these to their organizationalpractices-processes and outcomes. However, this logic multiplicity presents differentorganizational prescriptions due to their conflicting demands. Given theirsignificant impacts on organizational outcomes, how these logics manifest inorganizations is critical. In the literature, it is stated that such effects are moreevident in developing countries where the level of complexity is high and thedynamics of corporate social responsibility (CSR) have not yet been fully explored.For this reason, the aim of the study is to discover how and what kind of CSRbehaviors organizations develop under the influence of various institutional logics.A research model based on a proposed CSR typology was developed for thispurpose. According to the results of the survey conducted to test the model; it hasbeen revealed that commercial logic leads to more business benefits, and sociallogic leads to more societal benefits. However, regarding the coexistence of bothlogics, it has been determined that multiple stakeholders mediate between oppositepoles, making it possible for organizations to provide combined benefits, that is,both business and societal benefits.

Özet

Örgütler birbirinden farklı kurumsal düzenleri gerektiren çoklu mantıkların mevcut olduğu bir alanda faaliyetlerini gerçekleştirmekte ve bunları örgütsel uygulama-süreç ve çıktılarına yansıtmaktadırlar. Ancak bu mantık çokluğu, birbiri ile çelişebilen talepleri sebebi ile farklı örgütsel reçeteler sunmaktadır. Örgütsel sonuçlar üzerinde önemli etkileri göz önüne alındığında, bu mantıkların örgütlerde nasıl tezahür ettiği kritik önem taşımaktadır. Literatürde özellikle bu tarz etkilerin karmaşıklık düzeyi yüksek ve kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk (KSS) dinamiklerinin henüz tam olarak keşfedilemediği gelişmekte olan ülkelerde daha belirgin olduğu belirtilmektedir. Bu sebeple çalışmanın amacı, örgütlerin çeşitli kurumsal mantıkların etkisi altında ne tür KSS yönelimlerini hangi yollarla geliştirdiklerini keşfetmektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda geliştirilen KSS tipolojisine dayalı bir araştırma modeli oluşturulmuştur. Modeli test etmek için gerçekleştirilen anket çalışması sonuçlarına göre; ticari mantığın daha çok şirketsel fayda, sosyal mantığın daha çok toplumsal faydaya götürdüğü ortaya konmuştur. Ancak her iki mantığın birlikte var olması durumuna ilişkin, paydaşların zıt kutuplar arasında aracılık ederek örgütlerin birleşik faydalar, yani hem şirketsel hem de toplumsal faydalar sağlayabilmelerini mümkün kıldığı tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BEGER, G. A. (2022). STAKEHOLDER EFFECTS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPETING INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS AND ORGANIZATIONS’ CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, Sayı: Özel Sayı, 72–99. https://ajindex.com/articles/711529

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Airike, P. E., Rotter, J. P., & Mark-Herbert, C. (2016). Corporate motives for multi-stakeholder collaboration–corporate social responsibility in the electronics supply chains. Journal of cleaner production, 131, 639-648.
  2. Alford, R. R., & Friedland, R. (1985). Powers of theory: Capitalism, the state, and democracy. Cambridge University Press.
  3. Angus-Leppan, T., Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2010). Leadership styles and CSR practice: An examination of sensemaking, institutional drivers and CSR leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), 189-213.
  4. Ararat, M. (2004). Social responsibility in a state dependent system. In A. Habisch, J. Jonker, M. Wegner, & R. Schmidpeter (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility across Europe (pp. 247–261). Berlin: Springer. Badulescu, A., Badulescu, D., Saveanu, T., & Hatos, R. (2018). The relationship between firm size and age, and its social responsibility actions—Focus on a developing country (Romania). Sustainability, 10(3), 805. Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122-136.
  5. Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2005). An inductive typology for corporate social responsibility. In Academy of Management Proceedings (No. 1, pp. C1-C6). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management. Battilana, J., Besharov, M., & Mitzinneck, B. (2017). On hybrids and hybrid organizing: A review and roadmap for future research. The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism, 2, 133-169.
  6. Baumann-Pauly, D., Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2016). Managing institutional complexity: A longitudinal study of legitimacy strategies at a sportswear brand company. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 31-51. Besharov Marya L. & Smith Wenfy K. (2014). Multiple Institutional Logics in Organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implicatıons. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364-381.
  7. Bocquet, R., & Mothe, C. (2011). Exploring the relationship between CSR and innovation: A comparison between small and largesized French companies. Revue Sciences de Gestion, (80), 101-119.
  8. Carrigan, M., McEachern, M., Moraes, C., & Bosangit, C. (2017). The fine jewellery industry: Corporate responsibility challenges and institutional forces facing SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(4), 681-699.
  9. Christiansen, L. H., & Lounsbury, M. (2013). Strange brew: Bridging logics via institutional bricolage and the reconstitution of organizational identity. In Institutional logics in action,