KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 33 Sayı: 3

Karbon Vergilendirmesini Stratejik Yönetim Olarak Yeniden Düşünmek: Mintzberg'in On Okulundan Elde Edilen Bulgular

Rethinking Carbon Taxation as Strategic Management: Insights from Mintzberg’s Ten Schools

Yunus Furuncu(KOCAELİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7488-365X
Sayfa
677–695
Yayın Tarihi
2026-09-21
🏛️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)

Bulgular, karbon vergilerinin yalnızca mali mekanizmalar olarak değil, kurumsal kapasiteler, siyasi müzakere, kültürel değerler, öğrenme dinamikleri ve çevresel zorunluluklar tarafından şekillendirilen stratejik araçlar olarak işlev gördüğünü ortaya koymaktadır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışma, Mintzberg'in on düşünce okulunu analitik çerçeve olarak kullanarak, stratejik yönetim perspektifinden karbon vergisi politikalarını değerlendirmektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Hem kuralcı yaklaşımları (tasarım, planlama ve konumlandırma) hem de tanımlayıcı bakış açılarını (girişimci, bilişsel, öğrenme, güç, kültürel, çevresel ve yapılandırma) içeren bu okullar, karbon vergisi stratejilerinin nasıl tasarlandığını, uygulandığını ve zaman içinde nasıl uyarlandığını çok boyutlu bir şekilde anlamayı sağlamaktadır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgular, karbon vergilerinin yalnızca mali mekanizmalar olarak değil, kurumsal kapasiteler, siyasi müzakere, kültürel değerler, öğrenme dinamikleri ve çevresel zorunluluklar tarafından şekillendirilen stratejik araçlar olarak işlev gördüğünü ortaya koymaktadır.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Karbon Vergisi · Stratejik Yönetim · Mintzberg'in Düşünce Okulları

Özet

Bu çalışma, Mintzberg'in on düşünce okulunu analitik çerçeve olarak kullanarak, stratejik yönetim perspektifinden karbon vergisi politikalarını değerlendirmektedir. Hem kuralcı yaklaşımları (tasarım, planlama ve konumlandırma) hem de tanımlayıcı bakış açılarını (girişimci, bilişsel, öğrenme, güç, kültürel, çevresel ve yapılandırma) içeren bu okullar, karbon vergisi stratejilerinin nasıl tasarlandığını, uygulandığını ve zaman içinde nasıl uyarlandığını çok boyutlu bir şekilde anlamayı sağlamaktadır. Çalışma, başta İsviçre, Kanada, İsveç, Almanya ve Avrupa Birliği olmak üzere seçilmiş politika raporları ve akademik çalışmaları nitel içerik analiziyle incelemekte; gerekli görülen yerlerde Finlandiya, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ve Endonezya gibi karşılaştırmalı örneklere de yer vermektedir. Bulgular, karbon vergilerinin yalnızca mali mekanizmalar olarak değil, kurumsal kapasiteler, siyasi müzakere, kültürel değerler, öğrenme dinamikleri ve çevresel zorunluluklar tarafından şekillendirilen stratejik araçlar olarak işlev gördüğünü ortaya koymaktadır. Tasarım ve planlama odaklı mantıklar olgun politika sistemlerinde baskınken, öğrenme, güç ve kültürel yönelimler uyarlanabilir veya tartışmalı bağlamlarda daha belirgindir. Bu çalışma, stratejik yönetim teorisini iklim yönetişimi araştırmalarıyla bütünleştirerek, stratejik düşüncenin çevre politikası tasarımını nasıl şekillendirdiğini anlamak için yeni bir kavramsal çerçeve sunmakta ve tutarlı ve bağlama duyarlı karbon fiyatlandırma sistemleri arayan politika yapıcılar için pratik bilgiler sağlamaktadır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Karbon Vergisi; Stratejik Yönetim; Mintzberg'in Düşünce Okulları; İklim Yönetişimi; Nitel İçerik Analizi JEL Sınıflandırması: M10; Q54; Q58; H23

Abstract

This study evaluates carbon tax policies from the perspective of strategic management, employing Mintzberg’s ten schools of thought as the analytical framework. These schools-comprising both prescriptive approaches (design, planning, and positioning) and descriptive perspectives (entrepreneurial, cognitive, learning, power, cultural, environmental, and configuration)-offer a multidimensional understanding of how carbon taxation strategies are conceived, implemented, and adapted over time. Using qualitative content analysis, the study primarily examines policy reports and academic studies from Switzerland, Canada, Sweden, Germany, and the European Union, while also drawing on supplementary comparative examples from Finland, the United States, and Indonesia, where relevant. The findings reveal that carbon taxes operate not merely as fiscal mechanisms but as strategic instruments shaped by institutional capacities, political negotiations, cultural values, learning dynamics, and environmental imperatives. Design- and planning-oriented logics dominate in mature policy systems, while learning, power, and cultural orientations are more evident in adaptive or contested contexts. By integrating strategic management theory with climate governance research, this study contributes a novel conceptual framework for understanding how strategic thinking shapes environmental policy design and provides practical insights for policymakers seeking coherent and context-sensitive carbon pricing systems. Key Words: Carbon Taxation; Strategic Management; Mintzberg’s Schools of Thought; Climate Governance; Qualitative Content Analysis JEL Classification: M10; Q54; Q58; H23

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Furuncu, Y. (2026). Karbon Vergilendirmesini Stratejik Yönetim Olarak Yeniden Düşünmek: Mintzberg'in On Okulundan Elde Edilen Bulgular. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, Cilt: 33 Sayı: 3, 677–695. https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.1870772

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (47)

  1. Ali, M., & Varoğlu, M. A. (2021). Revisiting the Mintzberg, Lawrence, and Lorsch theories about organisational structure, strategy, and environmental dynamism from the perspective of small firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 34(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.1880003
  2. Andersson, J. J. (2019). Carbon taxes and CO₂ emissions: Sweden as a case study. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 11(4), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170144
  3. Ansari, S. M., Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2010). Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.45577876
  4. Babaoglan, E. (2015). Strategic planning in education in Turkey. Educational Planning, 22(2), 35–40. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1208590.pdf
  5. Barnard, B., & Sibeko, M. S. (2020). Visionary leadership and entrepreneurial vision within entrepreneurship. The IUP Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 17(2), 48–91. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3807761
  6. Bellora, C., & Fontagné, L. (2023). EU in search of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. Energy Economics, 123, 106673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106673
  7. Best, R., Burke, P. J., & Jotzo, F. (2020). Carbon pricing efficacy: Cross-country evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 77, 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00436-x
  8. Brisbois, M. C., & Cantoni, R. (2025). Coping with decarbonisation: An inventory of strategies from resistance to transformation. Global Environmental Change, 90, 102968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2025.102968
  9. Carattini, S., Kallbekken, S., & Orlov, A. (2019). How to win public support for a global carbon tax. Nature, 565(7739), 289–291. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00124-x
  10. Carlson, D. A. (1996). Cognitive models of strategic management. IEEE Computer Society Press.
  11. De Boe, G., Swaen, V., & Lamensch, M. (2024). Greening corporate practices: A review of tax and subsidy influence on pro-environmental behaviors across industries. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 38 (3). 523–547. https://doi.org/10.1108/jocm-12-2023-0553
  12. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
  13. Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2021). Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act: Annual report 2021. Government of Canada.
  14. European Commission. (2021). EU Emissions Trading System(EU ETS)and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.
  15. European Commission. (2019). European Green Deal: A roadmap for making the EU’s economy sustainable and climate-neutral by 2050. European Commission. Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
  16. Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4),1180–1198. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586092
  17. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.590299
  18. IEA. (2021). Finland 2021: Energy policy review. International Energy Agency.
  19. IEA. (2022). Germany 2022: Energy policy review. International Energy Agency.
  20. IPCC. (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  21. James-Gordon, Y., Young, A., & Bal, J. (2003). External environmental forces affecting e-learning providers. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 21(3), 168–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500310474984
  22. Jordan, A., Huitema, D., van Asselt, H., Rayner, T., & Berkhout, F. (Eds.). (2015). Climate change policy in the European Union: Confronting the dilemmas of mitigation and adaptation? Cambridge University Press.
  23. Köseoglu, M. A., Okumus, F., Dogan, I. C., & Law, R. (2019). Intellectual structure of strategic management research in the hospitality management field: A co-citation analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 78, 234–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.09.006
  24. Lan, T., & Tao, R. (2024). Research on the inhibitory effect of the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism on carbon leakage. Sustainability, 16(17), 7429. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177429
  25. Li, A., & Maani, K. (2011). Dynamic decision making, learning, and mental models. International Conference of the System Dynamics SocietyProceedings of the 29th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society
  26. Mealy, P., & Teytelboym, A. (2020). Economic complexity and the green economy. Research Policy, 49(8), 103948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103948
  27. Meung, H. (2024). Entrepreneurial leadership in education: Fostering innovation and creativity. Journal of Asian Multicultural Research for Educational Study, 4(3), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.47616/jamres.v4i3.458
  28. Mintzberg, H. (1990). The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250110302
  29. Mintzberg, H. (1987). The strategy concept I: Five Ps for strategy. California Management Review, 30(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165263
  30. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (2005). Strategy safari: A guided tour through the wilds of strategic management (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
  31. OECD. (2022). Effective carbon rates 2022: Pricing carbon emissions through taxes and emissions trading. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/35d04b7b-en
  32. Ohlhorst, D. (2015). Germany’s energy transition policy between national targets and decentralized responsibilities. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 12(4), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2015.1125373
  33. Opata, C. N., Sarbah, A., Nusenu, A. A., & Tetteh, S. (2017). The cultural school of strategic formulation (strategy formulation based on social interactions, beliefs and traditions). Open Journal of Business and Management, 5(2), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2017.52029
  34. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press. Quaye, I., Osei, A., Sarbah, A., & Abrokwah, E. (2015). The applicability of the learning school model of strategy formulation (strategy formulation as an emergent process). Open Journal of Business and Management, 3(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2015.32014
  35. Rosen, S. M., & Conner, J. (2021). Negotiating power: How youth organizers recast the debate about school reform. Journal of Community Psychology, 49(8), 3017–3032. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22286
  36. Sarbah, A., & Otu-Nyarko, D. (2014). An overview of the design school of strategic management (strategy formulation as a process of conception). Open Journal of Business and Management, 2(3), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2014.23029
  37. Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Hansen, E. G. (2016). Business models for sustainability: Origins, present research, and future avenues. Organization & Environment, 29(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615599806 Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243
  38. Stavins, R. N. (2020). The future of U.S. carbon-pricing policy. Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, 1, 8–64. https://doi.org/10.1086/706792
  39. Sun, M., Vortia, M. P., Xiao, G., & Yang, J. (2025). Carbon policies and liner speed optimization: Comparisons of carbon trading and carbon tax combined with the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 13(2), 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13020204
  40. Teece, D. J., Peteraf, M. A., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. California Management Review, 58(4), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13
  41. UBA (Umweltbundesamt). (2021). National emissions trading in Germany(nEHS). Federal Environment Agency. van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., Angelsen, A., Baranzini, A., Botzen, W. J. W., Carattini, S., Drews, S., … Schmidt, R. C. (2020). A dual-track transition to global carbon pricing. Climate Policy, 20(9), 1057–1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1797618
  42. Wang, J. (2022). The EU Green Deal as a model of environmental diplomacy. Environmental Politics, 31(4), 628–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1969678
  43. Whittington, R. (2020). What is strategy-and does it matter? (3rd ed.). Cengage Learning.
  44. World Bank. (2021). State and trends of carbon pricing 2021. World Bank Publications. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1837-4
  45. Wu, T.-J., Wu, Y. J., Tsai, H.-T., & Li, Y. (2017). Top management teams’ characteristics and strategic decision-making: A mediation of risk perceptions and mental models. Sustainability, 9(12), 2265. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122265
  46. Zhai, Y.-M., Sun, W.-Q., Tsai, S.-B., Wang, Z., Zhao, Y., & Chen, Q. (2018). An Empirical Study on Entrepreneurial Orientation, Absorptive Capacity, and SMEs’ Innovation Performance: A Sustainable Perspective. Sustainability, 10(2), 314. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020314
  47. Zhong, J., & Pei, J. (2022). Beggar thy neighbor? On the competitiveness and welfare impacts of the EU’s proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism. Energy Policy, 162, 112802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112802