KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 12 Issue: 1

Relationship Between Firm Sustainability Performance and Its Labor Productivity: An Empirical Study on Turkish Firms

Utku Şendurur(AĞRI İBRAHİM ÇEÇEN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, İŞLETME BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-8303-4315
Şekip Yazgan(AĞRI İBRAHİM ÇEÇEN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-1006-668X
Ömer Yalçınkaya(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1210-2405
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2025-03-31
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

In this context, the widespread use of sustainability reporting, the economic, social, and environmental reflection of the concept of sustainable development at the firm level, would enable firms to operate as sensitive and solution-producing entities to the problems of society and increase their competitiveness and profitability with the increase in labor productivity.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study aims to empirically investigate the relationships of economic, social, and environmental sustainability, calculated based on the scoring system in the United Nations Environment Program Sustainability Criteria report, on labor productivity.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:For this purpose, the relationships of the economic, social, and environmental sustainability scores of 32 firms in Türkiye in the 2015-2019 period on labor productivity are analyzed econometrically with the Multilevel Mixed Regression Model (MMR).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In this context, the widespread use of sustainability reporting, the economic, social, and environmental reflection of the concept of sustainable development at the firm level, would enable firms to operate as sensitive and solution-producing entities to the problems of society and increase their competitiveness and profitability with the increase in labor productivity.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2015-2019 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Labor productivity · Sustainability · multilevel mixed regression

Özet

This study aims to empirically investigate the relationships of economic, social, and environmental sustainability, calculated based on the scoring system in the United Nations Environment Program Sustainability Criteria report, on labor productivity. For this purpose, the relationships of the economic, social, and environmental sustainability scores of 32 firms in Türkiye in the 2015-2019 period on labor productivity are analyzed econometrically with the Multilevel Mixed Regression Model (MMR). The findings obtained in all models estimated in the study show that the economic, social, and environmental sustainability scores of 32 firms operating in Türkiye have a positive and statistically significant relation with labor productivity during the study period. In this context, the widespread use of sustainability reporting, the economic, social, and environmental reflection of the concept of sustainable development at the firm level, would enable firms to operate as sensitive and solution-producing entities to the problems of society and increase their competitiveness and profitability with the increase in labor productivity.

Abstract

This study aims to empirically investigate the relationships of economic, social, and environmental sustainability, calculated based on the scoring system in the United Nations Environment Program Sustainability Criteria report, on labor productivity. For this purpose, the relationships of the economic, social, and environmental sustainability scores of 32 firms in Türkiye in the 2015-2019 period on labor productivity are analyzed econometrically with the Multilevel Mixed Regression Model (MMR). The findings obtained in all models estimated in the study show that the economic, social, and environmental sustainability scores of 32 firms operating in Türkiye have a positive and statistically significant relation with labor productivity during the study period. In this context, the widespread use of sustainability reporting, the economic, social, and environmental reflection of the concept of sustainable development at the firm level, would enable firms to operate as sensitive and solution-producing entities to the problems of society and increase their competitiveness and profitability with the increase in labor productivity.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Şendurur, U., Yazgan, Ş., Yalçınkaya, Ö. (2025). Relationship Between Firm Sustainability Performance and Its Labor Productivity: An Empirical Study on Turkish Firms. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume: 12 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1377488

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (64)

  1. Bachoo, K., Tan, R., & Wilson, M. (2013). Firm value and the quality of sustainability reporting in Australia. Australian Accounting Review, 23(1), 67-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2012.00187.x
  2. Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S1), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150912
  3. Barrymore, N., & Sampson, R. (2021). ESG performance and labor productivity: Exploring whether and when ESG affects firm performance. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2021, No.1, P. 13997). Academy of Management.
  4. Bartel, A. (1994). Productivity gains from the implementation of employee training programs. Industrial Relations, 33(4), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232X.1994.tb00349.x
  5. Bartlett, B. D. (2012). The effect of corporate sustainability reporting on firm valuation. CMC Senior Theses. Paper 489.
  6. Ching, H. Y., Gerab, F., & Toste, T.H. (2017). The quality of sustainability reports and corporate financial performance: Evidence from Brazilian listed firms. SAGE Open, 7(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/215824401771202
  7. Choi, J. (1999). An investigation of the initial voluntary environmental disclosures made in Korean semi-
  8. annual financial reports. Pacific Accounting Review, 11(1), 73-102.
  9. Cowen, S., Ferreri, L., & Parker, L. (1987). The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: A typology and frequency based analysis. Accounting Organizations and Society, 12(2), 111-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(87)90001-8
  10. Delmas, M. A., & Pekovic, S. (2013). Environmental standards and labor productivity: Understanding the mechanisms that sustain sustainability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 230-252. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1827
  11. Dunne, P., & Hughes, A. (1994). Age, size, growth and survival: UK firms in the 1980s. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 42, 115–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/2950485
  12. Ece, O., & Sarı, S. S. (2020). Relationship Between Corporate Sustainability Reporting and Firm Efficiency, Productivity, and Profitability and Firm Value: Evidence from Turkey. Academic Studies in Economics and Administrative Sciences (pp.83-113), Cetinje-Montenegro: Ivpe.
  13. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone Publishing Limited.
  14. Engin, E. & Akgöz, B.E. (2013). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik çerçevesinde kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk kavramının değerlendirilmesi. Selçuk İletişim, 8(1), 85-94.
  15. Eriksson, C., & Jacoby, S. (2003). The effects of employer networks on workplace innovation and training. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 56(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.2307/3590935
  16. Eski, S. (2023). Overview of the relationship of integrated reporting with sustainability accounting and evaluation of integrated reporting studies in Türkiye, Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 24(1), 127-140. https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1186814
  17. Fallahi, F., Sojoodi, S., & M. Aslaninia, N. (2010). Determinants of labor productivity in manufacturing firms of Iran: Emphasizing on labor education and training. MPRA Paper No. 27699.
  18. Fombrun, C. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Harvard Business School Press.
  19. Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, 39(3), 254–280. ttps://doi.org/10.1177/00076503000390030
  20. Hackston, D., & Milne, M. (1996). Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand firms. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9(1), 77-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513579610109987
  21. Heal, G. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: An economic and financial framework. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance. Issues and Practice, 30(3), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.gpp.2510037
  22. Ho, L., & Taylor, M. (2007). An empirical analysis of triple bottom line reporting and its determinates: Evidence from United States and Japan. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 18(2), 123- 150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-646X.2007.01010.x
  23. Horwath, D. D. (2017). CSR reporting practices of Hungarian banks. International Journal of Engineering and Management Sciences (IJEMS), 2(3), 70-81. https://doi.org/10.21791/IJEMS.2017.3.7
  24. Hox, J., Moerbeek, M., & Van de Schoot, R. (2018). Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications (Third Edition), Routledge.
  25. Jensen, J., McGuckin, R., & Stiroh, K. (2001). The impact of vintage and survival on productivity: Evidence from cohorts of U.S. Manufacturing plants. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 323–332.
  26. Jones, K., & Alabaster, T. (1999). Critical analysis of corporate environmental reporting scoring systems. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 1(1), 27-66.
  27. Jordan, M., Chen, L., & Singh, R. (2021). Technological innovation and its effects on workforce productivity in sustainable organizations. International Journal of Technology and Management, 28(3), 112-130.
  28. Kasbun, N. F., Teh, B. H., & Ong, T. S. (2017). Sustainability reporting and financial performance of Malaysian public listed firms. Institutions and Economies, 8(4), 78-93.
  29. Kouamé, W. A., & Tapsoba, S. J. A. (2019). Structural reforms and firms’ productivity: Evidence from developing countries. World Development, 113, 157-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.09.005
  30. Kurt, S., & Kurt, U. (2015). Innovation and labor productivity in BRICS countries: Panel causality and Co- integration. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1295–1302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.296
  31. Lannelonguel, G., Gonzalez, B. J., & Quiorz, I. (2017). Environmental management and labor productivity: The moderating role of capital intensity. Journal of Environmental Management, 190, 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.051
  32. Laskar, N. (2018). Impact of corporate sustainability reporting on firm performance: An empirical examination in Asia. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 12(4), 571-593. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-11-2016-0157
  33. Lichtenberg, F. R. (1981) Training, Tenure, and Productivity (May 1981). NBER Working Paper No. w0671.
  34. Loh, L., Thomas, T., & Wang, Y. (2017). Sustainability reporting and firm value: Evidence from Singapore-listed firms. Sustainability, 9(11), 2112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112112
  35. Lynch, L. M., & Black, S. E. (1998). Beyond the incidence of employer-provided training. ILR Review, 52(1), 64-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979399805200104
  36. Ma, Y., Zhang, Q., & Yin, H. (2020). Environmental management and labor productivity: The moderating role of quality management. Journal of Environmental Management, 255, 109795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109795
  37. Medoff, J. L. (1982). Formal training and labor productivity. Harvard University.
  38. Nnamani, J. N., Onyekwelu, U. L., & Kevin, U.O. (2017). Effect of sustainability accounting and reporting on financial performance of firms in Nigeria brewery sector. European Journal of Business and Innovation Research, 5(1), 1-15.
  39. Norris, S., & O'Leary, J. (2020). Sustainable development and workforce efficiency: An in-depth analysis of organizational impact. Journal of Business Sustainability, 15(4), 456-478.
  40. Önder, Ş. (2018). Impact of Sustainability performance of company on its financial performance: An empirical study on Borsa Istanbul (BİST). Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (56), 115-127.
  41. Papadogonas, T., & Voulgaris, F. (2005). Labor productivity growth in Greek manufacturing firms. Operational Research, 5(3), 459-472. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02941131
  42. Patten, D. (1992). Intra-Industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory. Accounting Organizations and Society, 17(5), 471- 475. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(92)90042-Q
  43. Pfeffer, J., & Langton, N. (1993). The effect of wage dispersion on satisfaction, productivity, and working collaboratively: Evidence from College and University Faculty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 382–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393373
  44. Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98(4), 829–872.
  45. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–69. PMID: 12510538.
  46. Reddy, K. & Gordon, L. (2010). The effect of sustainability reporting on financial performance: An empirical study using listed firms. Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 6(2), 19-42.
  47. Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1077–1093. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.274
  48. Sala, H., & Silva, J. I. (2013). Labor productivity and vocational training: Evidence from Europe. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 40(1), 31-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1970766
  49. Sánchez, P. E., & Benito-Hernández, S. (2015). CSR policies: Relationships on labor productivity in Spanish micro and small manufacturing firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(4), 705-724. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24702900
  50. Schreck, P. (2011). Reviewing the business case for corporate social responsibility: New evidence and analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0867-0
  51. SDR (2022). Sustainable development report 2022 from crisis to sustainable development: The SDGs roadmap to 2030 and beyond. Cambridge University Press.
  52. Şendurur, U., & Karacaer, S. (2017). Üçlü sorumluluk raporlaması: BIST 100 endeksi üzerinde bir araştırma. Ulakbilge, 5(12), 897-930. https://doi.org/107816/ulakbilge-05-12-19
  53. Stevens, J. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (Fifth Edition), Routledge.
  54. Stray, S., & Ballantine, J. A. (2000). Sectoral comparison of corporate environmental reporting and disclosure. Eco-Management and Auditing, 7(4), 165-177.
  55. Stuebs, M. T., & Sun, L. (2010). Business reputation and labor efficiency, productivity, and cost. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0464-7
  56. Suttipun, M. (2012). Triple bottom line reporting in annual reports: A case study of firms listed on the stock exchange of Thailand (SET). Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, 4(1), 69- 92.
  57. Swarnapali, R. M. N. C., & Le, L. (2018). Corporate sustainability reporting and firm value: Evidence from a developing country. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 10(4), 69-78.
  58. UNEP/SustainAbility. (1996). Engaging stakeholders. The benchmark survey: The second international progress report in company environmental reporting. London.
  59. Van Het Hof, S. (2009). Türkiye’de kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk üçgeni: Şirketler, toplum ve toplum kuruluşları. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Halkla İlişkiler Bölümü. TUBİTAK.
  60. Vilanova, M., Lozano, J., & Arenas, D. (2009). Exploring the nature of the relationship between CSR and competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9812-2
  61. Woo, C., Chung, Y., Chun, D., Han, S., & Lee, D. (2014). Impact of green innovation on labor productivity and its determinants: An analysis of the Korean manufacturing industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23, 567–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1807
  62. Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 50–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00274.x
  63. Wu, M. (2006). Corporate social performance, corporate financial performance, and firm size: A meta-analysis. Journal of American Academy of Business, 8(1), 163–171.
  64. Zwick, T. (2004). Employee participation and productivity. Labor Economics, 11, 715–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2004.02.001