Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

The effects of corporate governance mechanisms on shared board membership profiles in Turkish business groups

Year 2019, Issue: 54, 160 - 192, 31.12.2019

Tülay İlhan , Tarhan Okan , Merve Özden

https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.492615
Cited By: 2

Abstract

The effects of corporate governance
mechanisms on shared board membership profiles in Turkish business groups at
subsidiary levels are examined to understand the management of business groups
in this study. In this research, the effects of ownership concentration studied
as corporate governance bodies and the structures of boards on the number of
shared board memberships and their profiles are scrutinized by taking into
consideration a bunch of control variables. In this regard, secondary data
obtained from 53 subsidiaries belonging to 10 business groups in years of 2011
and 2014 are used, determined by judgmental sampling. As the results of
analyses are evaluated as a whole, it is found out that the size of board of
directors and the ratio of internal members affect shared board membership
positively, whereas the ratio of female members influences it negatively.
However, contrast to related literature, there is no the effect of the
concentrated ownership on interlocking directoriates. 

Keywords

Interlocking Directorates Business Groups Ownership Concentration Board Structures

References

  • ATAAY, Aylin; (2008), “Aile İşletme Gruplarında Karşılıklı Kenetlenmiş Yönetim Kurulları: İMKB 100 Şirketlerinden Bulgular”, Tamer Koçel (Ed.), 3. Aile islemeleri Kongre Kitabı, İstanbul: İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Yayınları, ss. 19–31.
  • BAYCAN, Nadire Ç. ve Fatih SEMERCİÖZ; (2013), “Kaynak Bağımlılığı Yaklaşımı Temelinde, İMKB-100 Endeksindeki Şirketlerde Varolan Ortak Yönetim Kurulu Üyeliklerine Bir Bakış”, Kemal Demirci ve diğerleri (Ed.), 21. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık Eğitim Danışmanlık Tic. Ltd. Şti., ss. 565–575.
  • BUĞRA, Ayşe ve Behlül ÜSDİKEN; (1995), “Societal variations in state-dependent organizational forms: The South Korean chaebol and Turkish holding company”, Emot (European Management and Organization in Transition) Workshop, Helsinki: Finland.BUNTİNG, David and Jeffery BARBOUR; (2008), “Interlocking Directorates in Large American Corporations, 1896–1964”, The Business History Review, 45(3), pp. 317–335.
  • BURT, Ronald S.; (2006), “İnterlocking Directorates Behind the S&P Indices”, InternetAddress: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/ronald.burt/research/files/IDS&P.pdf Date Of Access: 05.07.2016.
  • BÜYÜKÖZTÜRK, Ş.; (2009), Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı, Onuncu Baskı, Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • CHAFİK, Kammoun and Boujelbene YOUNES; (2012), “Relationship between C.E.O Ownership and the Debt”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(6), pp. 56.
  • ÇOLPAN, Aslı M. and Takashi HİKİNO; (2008), “Türkiye’nin Büyük Şirketler Kesiminde İşletme Gruplarının İktisadi Rolü ve Çeşitlendirme Stratejileri”, Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt 8, Sayı 1–2, ss. 23–58.
  • DAİLY, Catherine M. and Dan R. DALTON; (1993), “Board of Directors Leadership and Structure: Control and Performance Implications ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17, pp. 65–81.
  • DAİLY, Catherine M. and other; (1996), “Boards of Directors: A Review and Research Agenda” Journal of Management, 22, pp. 409–438.
  • DEMİRAĞ, İstemi ve Mehmet SERTER; (2003), “Ownership Patterns and Control in Turkish Listed Companies”, Corporate Governance, 11(1), pp.40–51.
  • DENİS, Diane K. and John J. MCCONNELL; (2001), “International Corporate Governance”, Purdue Ciber Working Papers, Internet Address: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=ciberwp Date Of Access: 11.03.2016.
  • DİCLE, I.A. ve G. TURGUT; (2003), “A Longitudinal Study of Interlocking Directorates of the Companies Quoted in Istanbul Stock Exchange between 1996–2001”, Delener, N. ve Chao C.-N. (Ed.) Gbata Proceedings Book.
  • DİRLİK, Serkan (2014b), “Türkiye’deki İşletme Gruplarının Uluslararasılaşması: Çoklu Örnek Olay Araştırması”, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Muğla: Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • GÖKŞEN, Nisan. S.; (2015), Makrokurumsal Bakış Açısı: Bir Değerlendirme, A.S. Sargut ve Ş. Özen (Ed.), Örgüt Kuramları, 3. Baskı içinde ss. 331–378, Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
  • GULATİ, Ranjay and James D. WETPHAL; (1999), “Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3), pp. 473–506.
  • HEEMSKERK, Eelke M.; (2013), “The Social Field of the European Corporate Elite:A Network Analysis of Interlocking Directorates Among Europe’s Largest Corporate Boards ”, Global Networks, 11(4), pp. 440–60.
  • İLHAN, T.; (2005), “Uluslararası Ortak Girişimlerde Şirket İçi Tutarlılık ve Yerel Eşbiçimlilik Baskılarını Yönetmede Farklılaşan Stratejik İnsan Kaynakları Uygulamalarının Rolü”, Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(2), ss.81–119.
  • İLHAN-NAS, T.; T. OKAN; E. TATOĞLU; M. DEMİRBAĞ and K. W. GLAİSTER; (2018a), “The Effects of Ownership Concentration and Institutional Distance on the Foreign Entry Ownership Strategy of Turkish MNEs.”, Journal of Business Research, 93, pp. 173–183.
  • İLHAN-NAS, T.; T. OKAN; E. TATOĞLU; M. DEMİRBAĞ; G. WOOD; and K. W. GLAİSTER; (2018b), “Board Composition, Family Ownership, Institutional Distance and the Foreign Equity Ownership Strategies of Turkish MNEs.”, Journal of World Business, 53, pp. 862–879.
  • JENSEN, Michael C. and William H. MECKLİNG; (1976), “Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), pp. 305–359.
  • KARAEVLİ, Ayşe; (2008), “Türkiye’deki İşletme Gruplarında Çeşitlendirme Stratejilerinin Evrimi”, Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1-2), ss.85-107.
  • KARASU, R.; (2013), “6102 Sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu ile Anonim Şirketlerde Kurumsal Yönetim ile ilgili Getirilen Yenilikler ”, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(2), ss. 33–60.
  • KELLER, Hansueli and other; (2006), “Board Characteristics and Involvement in Strategic Decision Making: Evidence From Swiss Companies”, Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), pp. 1201–1226.
  • KHU−KPMG-T−DEIK−VCC (Kadir Has University, KPMG Turkey, the Foreign Economic Relations Board, Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment); (2011), “Turkish Multinationals Steady On Their Course Despite Crisis, Survey Finds”, Internet Address: http://sites.khas.edu.tr/EMGP/report.html, Date of Access: 11.11.2018.
  • KOCA, M. A.; (2015), “İşletme Gruplarında Çeşitlenme ve Bilgi Alanı Yönetimi: Türkiye Örneği” Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara: Başkent Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • KULA, Veysel; (2005), “The Impact of the Roles, Structure and Process of Boards on Firm Performance: evidence from Turkey”, Corporate Governance: An İnternational Review, 13(2), pp. 265–276.
  • KULA,Veysel and Ekrem TATOĞLU; (2006), “Board Process Attributes and Company Performance of Family–Owned Businesses in Turkey”, Corporate Governance, 6(5), pp. 624–634.
  • LESTER, Richard H. and Albert A CANNELLA; (2006), “Interorganizational Familiness: How Family Firms Use Interlocking Directorates to Build Community-Level Social Capita” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), pp. 755–775.
  • LİNS, Karl V.; (2003), “Equity Ownership and Firm Value in Emerging Markets,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 38(1), pp. 159–184.
  • MAK, Y.T. and M.L. ROUSH; (2000), “Factors Affecting the Characteristics of Boards of Directors: An Empirical Study of New Zealand Initial Public Offering Firms”, Journal of Business Research, 47(2), pp. 147–159, Internet Address: http://directory.umm.ac.id/Data%20Elmu/jurnal/J-a/Journal%20Of%20Business%20Research/Vol47.Issue3.2000/5226.pdf, Date of Access: 13.03.2016.
  • MAMAN, Daniel; (1999), “Research Note: Interlocking Ties within Business Groups in Israel - A Longitudinal Analysis, 1974–1987”, Organization Studies, 20(2), pp. 323 –339.
  • MCDONALD, Michael L. and other; (2008), “What Do They Know? The Effects of Outside Director Acquisition Experience of Firm Acquisition Performance”, Strategic Management Journal, 29(11), pp. 1155–1177.
  • MERT, Kübra; (2012), “Türkiye’deki İşletme Gruplarının Uluslararasılaşma Motivasyonunun Lokasyon ve Giriş Stratejisi Üzerindeki Etkisi ”, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Trabzon: Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • MİKKELSON, Wayne H. and Richard.S. RUBBACK; (1985), “An Empirical Analysis of the Interfirm Equity Investment Process,” Journal of Financial Economics, 14(4), pp. 523 –53.
  • MİZRUCHİ, Mark S.; (1996), “What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research oninterlocking directorates.” Annual Review of Sociology 22, pp. 271–298.
  • MURRAY, Georgina; (2000), “Interlocking directorates Australia and New Zealand Comparisons”, Julie Henderson and other (Ed.), Australian Sociological Association (TASA) 2000 Conference, Flinders Üniversity, pp. 01–16.
  • OKAN, T.; S. SARI ve T. İLHAN–NAS; (2014), “Yönetim Kurulu Yapısı ile Finansal Performans Arasındaki İlişkide Uluslararası Çeşitlenmenin Aracılık Etkisi ”, İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi İşletme İktisadı Enstitüsü Yönetim Dergisi, 25(77), ss. 39 – 78.
  • OKAN, T.; (2017), Finans ve Muhasebe Fonksiyonları, İşletme, 2. Baskı içinde ss. 399–456, İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım A.Ş.
  • OKAN, T.; E. KOPARAN ve T. İLHAN–NAS; (2016), “Yönetim Kurulu Çeşitliliği ve Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk Söylemleri Arasındaki İlişki: Kurumsal Çevrenin Moderatör Etkisi ”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 71(2), ss. 465–516.
  • ÖZDAMAR, K.; (2002), Paket Programlar ile İstatistiksel Veri Analizi 1, Üçüncü Baskı, Eskişehir: Kaan Kitabevi.
  • PALEPU, K.; (1985), “Diversification Strategy, Profit Performance and the Entropy Measure ” Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), pp. 239–255.
  • PLESSİS, Jean J. D. and Ingo SAENGER; (2007), “The General Meeting And The Managemet Borad As Company Organs”, German corporate Governance İn International And European Contex, pp. 37–64.
  • SALVAJ, Erica and other; (2008), “Family Firms and the Contingent Value of Board Interlocks: the Spanish Case”, Family Values and Value Creation, pp. 236–259.
  • SALVAJ, Erica and Juan Pablo COUYOUMDJİAN; (2013), “Interlocked, Business Groups and the State in Chile (1970-2010)”, Journal Business History, 58(1), pp. 129–148.
  • SANTOS, Liza R. and other; (2009), “Board Interlocking in Brazil: Directors’ participation in multiple companies and its effect on firm value” CEG (Center for Corporate Governance Research) Working Paper Series, 003/2009.
  • SARAÇ, Mehmet; (2002),“An Emprical Analysis of Corporate Ownership Structure in Turkish Manufacturing Sector.” 6th European Business History Association Annual Congress, Helsinki, http://homes.ieu.edu.tr/~aduman/econ424/turkish%20corporate%20ownership.pdf, Date of Access: 18.05.2016.
  • SCHELLENGER, Michael H. and other; (1989), “Board of Director Composition, Shareholder Wealth and Dividend Policy”, Journal of Management, 15(3), pp. 457–467.
  • SELEKLER–GÖKŞEN, Nisan ve Abdülmecit KARATAŞ; (2008), “Board Structure and Performance in an Emerging Economy: Turkey”, International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 4(2), pp. 132–147.
  • SELEKLER–GÖKŞEN, Nisan ve Özlem YILDIRIM–ÖKTEM; (2008), “The impact of board characteristics on the internationalization of business group affiliates”, Bogaziçi Journal, 22(1), pp. 53–71.
  • SELEKLER–GÖKŞEN, Nisan ve Özlem YILDIRIM–ÖKTEM; (2009), “Countervailing Institutional Works: Corporate Governance in Turkish Family Business Groups,” Journal of Management and Governance, 13(3), pp. 193–213.
  • ŞENALP, Gürsan M. ve Özgür ÖZTÜRK; (2014), “Interlocking Directorates and Capitalist Class Formations in Turkey: A Study on the Listed Firms in Istanbul Stock Exchange and Istanbul Chamber of Industry (ISO 500),” Paper to be Presented to the ISA XVIII. World Congress of Sociology, 13–19 July, Yokohama, Japan.
  • SPK; (2004, 24 Haziran), “İstanbul Menkul Kıymetler Borsası Kotasyon Yönetmeliği”, Resmi Gazete, Sayı: 25502.
  • ÜSDİKEN, Behlül; (2008), Türkiye’de işletme grupları: “Özel sayıya giriş”, Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1–2), ss. 5–21.
  • TİAN, Jenny J. and Chung-Ming LAU; (2001), “Board Composition, Leadership Structure and Performance in Chinese Shareholding Companies”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Management, 18(2), pp. 245–263.
  • Türk Ticaret Kanunu; (2011, 14 Şubat), “Kanun No: 6102”, Resmi Gazete, Sayı: 27846.
  • ULUSAN, H. ve İ. DOĞAN; (2008), “Muhasebe Politikası Seçimi: Pozitif Muhasebe Teorisi ve Ekonomik Belirleyiciler – Ampirik Bir Çalışma”, H.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(1), ss.229–254.
  • ÜSDİKEN, Behlül ve Özlem YILDIRIM–ÖKTEM; (2008), “Kurumsal ortamda değişim ve büyük aile holdingleri bünyesindeki şirketlerin yönetim kurullarında “icrada görevli olmayan” ve “bağımsız” üyeler”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 41(1), ss. 43–71.
  • WAGNER, Joun A. And other; (1998), “Board Composition and Organizational Performance: Two Studies of Insider/Outsider Effects”, Journal of Management Studies, 35(5), pp. 655–677.
  • YAPRAK, Atilla and other; (2007), “How do business groups function and evolve in emerging markets? The case of Turkish business groups”, Advances in International Marketing, 17, pp. 275–294.
  • ZAHRA, Shaker A. and John A. PEARCE; (1989), “Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model”, Journal of Management, 15(2), pp. 291–334.
  • ZAHRA, Shaker A. and John A. PEARCE; (1992), “Board Composition from a Strategic Contingency Perspective”, Journal of Management, 29(4), pp. 411–438.
  • https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sic_manual.htmlhttp://www.iso500.org.tr/www.kap.gov.tr Erişim Tarihi: 28.07.2016.

Türk işletme gruplarında kurumsal yönetişim mekanizmalarının ortak yönetim kurulu üye profilleri üzerindeki etkileri

Year 2019, Issue: 54, 160 - 192, 31.12.2019

Tülay İlhan , Tarhan Okan , Merve Özden

https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.492615
Cited By: 2

Abstract

Bu çalışma ile işletme
gruplarının yönetimini daha iyi anlamak adına kurumsal yönetişim
mekanizmalarının Türk işletme gruplarında yaygın olarak görülen ortak yönetim
kurulu üye profilleri üzerindeki etkileri, bağlı kuruluşlar düzeyinde
incelenmeye çalışılmaktadır. Çalışmada, kurumsal yönetişim mekanizmaları olarak
ele alınan sahiplik yoğunlaşmasının ve yönetim kurulu yapılarının ortak yönetim
kurulu üyelerinin sayıları ve profilleri üzerindeki etkileri, bir dizi kontrol
değişkeni dikkate alınarak irdelenmektedir. 
Bu anlamda, kasıtlı örnekleme yöntemi ile belirlenen 10 işletme grubunun
53 bağlı kuruluşunun 2011 ve 2014 yıllarına ait elde edilen ikincil
verilerinden yararlanılmaktadır. Analiz sonuçları genel olarak değerlendirildiğinde,
yönetim kurulu büyüklüğünün ve iç üye oranının ortak yönetim kurulu üyeliğini
olumlu yönde etkilediği, kadın üye oranının ise olumsuz yönde bir etki
yarattığı görülmektedir. Bununla birlikte, ilgili yazının aksine, sahiplik
yoğunlaşmasının herhangi bir etkisine rastlanılmamıştır.

Keywords

Ortak Yönetim Kurulu Üyelikleri İşletme Grupları Sahiplik Yoğunlaşması Yönetim Kurulu Yapıları

References

  • ATAAY, Aylin; (2008), “Aile İşletme Gruplarında Karşılıklı Kenetlenmiş Yönetim Kurulları: İMKB 100 Şirketlerinden Bulgular”, Tamer Koçel (Ed.), 3. Aile islemeleri Kongre Kitabı, İstanbul: İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Yayınları, ss. 19–31.
  • BAYCAN, Nadire Ç. ve Fatih SEMERCİÖZ; (2013), “Kaynak Bağımlılığı Yaklaşımı Temelinde, İMKB-100 Endeksindeki Şirketlerde Varolan Ortak Yönetim Kurulu Üyeliklerine Bir Bakış”, Kemal Demirci ve diğerleri (Ed.), 21. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık Eğitim Danışmanlık Tic. Ltd. Şti., ss. 565–575.
  • BUĞRA, Ayşe ve Behlül ÜSDİKEN; (1995), “Societal variations in state-dependent organizational forms: The South Korean chaebol and Turkish holding company”, Emot (European Management and Organization in Transition) Workshop, Helsinki: Finland.BUNTİNG, David and Jeffery BARBOUR; (2008), “Interlocking Directorates in Large American Corporations, 1896–1964”, The Business History Review, 45(3), pp. 317–335.
  • BURT, Ronald S.; (2006), “İnterlocking Directorates Behind the S&P Indices”, InternetAddress: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/ronald.burt/research/files/IDS&P.pdf Date Of Access: 05.07.2016.
  • BÜYÜKÖZTÜRK, Ş.; (2009), Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı, Onuncu Baskı, Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • CHAFİK, Kammoun and Boujelbene YOUNES; (2012), “Relationship between C.E.O Ownership and the Debt”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(6), pp. 56.
  • ÇOLPAN, Aslı M. and Takashi HİKİNO; (2008), “Türkiye’nin Büyük Şirketler Kesiminde İşletme Gruplarının İktisadi Rolü ve Çeşitlendirme Stratejileri”, Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt 8, Sayı 1–2, ss. 23–58.
  • DAİLY, Catherine M. and Dan R. DALTON; (1993), “Board of Directors Leadership and Structure: Control and Performance Implications ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17, pp. 65–81.
  • DAİLY, Catherine M. and other; (1996), “Boards of Directors: A Review and Research Agenda” Journal of Management, 22, pp. 409–438.
  • DEMİRAĞ, İstemi ve Mehmet SERTER; (2003), “Ownership Patterns and Control in Turkish Listed Companies”, Corporate Governance, 11(1), pp.40–51.
  • DENİS, Diane K. and John J. MCCONNELL; (2001), “International Corporate Governance”, Purdue Ciber Working Papers, Internet Address: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=ciberwp Date Of Access: 11.03.2016.
  • DİCLE, I.A. ve G. TURGUT; (2003), “A Longitudinal Study of Interlocking Directorates of the Companies Quoted in Istanbul Stock Exchange between 1996–2001”, Delener, N. ve Chao C.-N. (Ed.) Gbata Proceedings Book.
  • DİRLİK, Serkan (2014b), “Türkiye’deki İşletme Gruplarının Uluslararasılaşması: Çoklu Örnek Olay Araştırması”, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Muğla: Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • GÖKŞEN, Nisan. S.; (2015), Makrokurumsal Bakış Açısı: Bir Değerlendirme, A.S. Sargut ve Ş. Özen (Ed.), Örgüt Kuramları, 3. Baskı içinde ss. 331–378, Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
  • GULATİ, Ranjay and James D. WETPHAL; (1999), “Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3), pp. 473–506.
  • HEEMSKERK, Eelke M.; (2013), “The Social Field of the European Corporate Elite:A Network Analysis of Interlocking Directorates Among Europe’s Largest Corporate Boards ”, Global Networks, 11(4), pp. 440–60.
  • İLHAN, T.; (2005), “Uluslararası Ortak Girişimlerde Şirket İçi Tutarlılık ve Yerel Eşbiçimlilik Baskılarını Yönetmede Farklılaşan Stratejik İnsan Kaynakları Uygulamalarının Rolü”, Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(2), ss.81–119.
  • İLHAN-NAS, T.; T. OKAN; E. TATOĞLU; M. DEMİRBAĞ and K. W. GLAİSTER; (2018a), “The Effects of Ownership Concentration and Institutional Distance on the Foreign Entry Ownership Strategy of Turkish MNEs.”, Journal of Business Research, 93, pp. 173–183.
  • İLHAN-NAS, T.; T. OKAN; E. TATOĞLU; M. DEMİRBAĞ; G. WOOD; and K. W. GLAİSTER; (2018b), “Board Composition, Family Ownership, Institutional Distance and the Foreign Equity Ownership Strategies of Turkish MNEs.”, Journal of World Business, 53, pp. 862–879.
  • JENSEN, Michael C. and William H. MECKLİNG; (1976), “Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), pp. 305–359.
  • KARAEVLİ, Ayşe; (2008), “Türkiye’deki İşletme Gruplarında Çeşitlendirme Stratejilerinin Evrimi”, Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1-2), ss.85-107.
  • KARASU, R.; (2013), “6102 Sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu ile Anonim Şirketlerde Kurumsal Yönetim ile ilgili Getirilen Yenilikler ”, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(2), ss. 33–60.
  • KELLER, Hansueli and other; (2006), “Board Characteristics and Involvement in Strategic Decision Making: Evidence From Swiss Companies”, Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), pp. 1201–1226.
  • KHU−KPMG-T−DEIK−VCC (Kadir Has University, KPMG Turkey, the Foreign Economic Relations Board, Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment); (2011), “Turkish Multinationals Steady On Their Course Despite Crisis, Survey Finds”, Internet Address: http://sites.khas.edu.tr/EMGP/report.html, Date of Access: 11.11.2018.
  • KOCA, M. A.; (2015), “İşletme Gruplarında Çeşitlenme ve Bilgi Alanı Yönetimi: Türkiye Örneği” Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara: Başkent Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • KULA, Veysel; (2005), “The Impact of the Roles, Structure and Process of Boards on Firm Performance: evidence from Turkey”, Corporate Governance: An İnternational Review, 13(2), pp. 265–276.
  • KULA,Veysel and Ekrem TATOĞLU; (2006), “Board Process Attributes and Company Performance of Family–Owned Businesses in Turkey”, Corporate Governance, 6(5), pp. 624–634.
  • LESTER, Richard H. and Albert A CANNELLA; (2006), “Interorganizational Familiness: How Family Firms Use Interlocking Directorates to Build Community-Level Social Capita” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), pp. 755–775.
  • LİNS, Karl V.; (2003), “Equity Ownership and Firm Value in Emerging Markets,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 38(1), pp. 159–184.
  • MAK, Y.T. and M.L. ROUSH; (2000), “Factors Affecting the Characteristics of Boards of Directors: An Empirical Study of New Zealand Initial Public Offering Firms”, Journal of Business Research, 47(2), pp. 147–159, Internet Address: http://directory.umm.ac.id/Data%20Elmu/jurnal/J-a/Journal%20Of%20Business%20Research/Vol47.Issue3.2000/5226.pdf, Date of Access: 13.03.2016.
  • MAMAN, Daniel; (1999), “Research Note: Interlocking Ties within Business Groups in Israel - A Longitudinal Analysis, 1974–1987”, Organization Studies, 20(2), pp. 323 –339.
  • MCDONALD, Michael L. and other; (2008), “What Do They Know? The Effects of Outside Director Acquisition Experience of Firm Acquisition Performance”, Strategic Management Journal, 29(11), pp. 1155–1177.
  • MERT, Kübra; (2012), “Türkiye’deki İşletme Gruplarının Uluslararasılaşma Motivasyonunun Lokasyon ve Giriş Stratejisi Üzerindeki Etkisi ”, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Trabzon: Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • MİKKELSON, Wayne H. and Richard.S. RUBBACK; (1985), “An Empirical Analysis of the Interfirm Equity Investment Process,” Journal of Financial Economics, 14(4), pp. 523 –53.
  • MİZRUCHİ, Mark S.; (1996), “What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research oninterlocking directorates.” Annual Review of Sociology 22, pp. 271–298.
  • MURRAY, Georgina; (2000), “Interlocking directorates Australia and New Zealand Comparisons”, Julie Henderson and other (Ed.), Australian Sociological Association (TASA) 2000 Conference, Flinders Üniversity, pp. 01–16.
  • OKAN, T.; S. SARI ve T. İLHAN–NAS; (2014), “Yönetim Kurulu Yapısı ile Finansal Performans Arasındaki İlişkide Uluslararası Çeşitlenmenin Aracılık Etkisi ”, İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi İşletme İktisadı Enstitüsü Yönetim Dergisi, 25(77), ss. 39 – 78.
  • OKAN, T.; (2017), Finans ve Muhasebe Fonksiyonları, İşletme, 2. Baskı içinde ss. 399–456, İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım A.Ş.
  • OKAN, T.; E. KOPARAN ve T. İLHAN–NAS; (2016), “Yönetim Kurulu Çeşitliliği ve Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk Söylemleri Arasındaki İlişki: Kurumsal Çevrenin Moderatör Etkisi ”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 71(2), ss. 465–516.
  • ÖZDAMAR, K.; (2002), Paket Programlar ile İstatistiksel Veri Analizi 1, Üçüncü Baskı, Eskişehir: Kaan Kitabevi.
  • PALEPU, K.; (1985), “Diversification Strategy, Profit Performance and the Entropy Measure ” Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), pp. 239–255.
  • PLESSİS, Jean J. D. and Ingo SAENGER; (2007), “The General Meeting And The Managemet Borad As Company Organs”, German corporate Governance İn International And European Contex, pp. 37–64.
  • SALVAJ, Erica and other; (2008), “Family Firms and the Contingent Value of Board Interlocks: the Spanish Case”, Family Values and Value Creation, pp. 236–259.
  • SALVAJ, Erica and Juan Pablo COUYOUMDJİAN; (2013), “Interlocked, Business Groups and the State in Chile (1970-2010)”, Journal Business History, 58(1), pp. 129–148.
  • SANTOS, Liza R. and other; (2009), “Board Interlocking in Brazil: Directors’ participation in multiple companies and its effect on firm value” CEG (Center for Corporate Governance Research) Working Paper Series, 003/2009.
  • SARAÇ, Mehmet; (2002),“An Emprical Analysis of Corporate Ownership Structure in Turkish Manufacturing Sector.” 6th European Business History Association Annual Congress, Helsinki, http://homes.ieu.edu.tr/~aduman/econ424/turkish%20corporate%20ownership.pdf, Date of Access: 18.05.2016.
  • SCHELLENGER, Michael H. and other; (1989), “Board of Director Composition, Shareholder Wealth and Dividend Policy”, Journal of Management, 15(3), pp. 457–467.
  • SELEKLER–GÖKŞEN, Nisan ve Abdülmecit KARATAŞ; (2008), “Board Structure and Performance in an Emerging Economy: Turkey”, International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 4(2), pp. 132–147.
  • SELEKLER–GÖKŞEN, Nisan ve Özlem YILDIRIM–ÖKTEM; (2008), “The impact of board characteristics on the internationalization of business group affiliates”, Bogaziçi Journal, 22(1), pp. 53–71.
  • SELEKLER–GÖKŞEN, Nisan ve Özlem YILDIRIM–ÖKTEM; (2009), “Countervailing Institutional Works: Corporate Governance in Turkish Family Business Groups,” Journal of Management and Governance, 13(3), pp. 193–213.
  • ŞENALP, Gürsan M. ve Özgür ÖZTÜRK; (2014), “Interlocking Directorates and Capitalist Class Formations in Turkey: A Study on the Listed Firms in Istanbul Stock Exchange and Istanbul Chamber of Industry (ISO 500),” Paper to be Presented to the ISA XVIII. World Congress of Sociology, 13–19 July, Yokohama, Japan.
  • SPK; (2004, 24 Haziran), “İstanbul Menkul Kıymetler Borsası Kotasyon Yönetmeliği”, Resmi Gazete, Sayı: 25502.
  • ÜSDİKEN, Behlül; (2008), Türkiye’de işletme grupları: “Özel sayıya giriş”, Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1–2), ss. 5–21.
  • TİAN, Jenny J. and Chung-Ming LAU; (2001), “Board Composition, Leadership Structure and Performance in Chinese Shareholding Companies”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Management, 18(2), pp. 245–263.
  • Türk Ticaret Kanunu; (2011, 14 Şubat), “Kanun No: 6102”, Resmi Gazete, Sayı: 27846.
  • ULUSAN, H. ve İ. DOĞAN; (2008), “Muhasebe Politikası Seçimi: Pozitif Muhasebe Teorisi ve Ekonomik Belirleyiciler – Ampirik Bir Çalışma”, H.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(1), ss.229–254.
  • ÜSDİKEN, Behlül ve Özlem YILDIRIM–ÖKTEM; (2008), “Kurumsal ortamda değişim ve büyük aile holdingleri bünyesindeki şirketlerin yönetim kurullarında “icrada görevli olmayan” ve “bağımsız” üyeler”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 41(1), ss. 43–71.
  • WAGNER, Joun A. And other; (1998), “Board Composition and Organizational Performance: Two Studies of Insider/Outsider Effects”, Journal of Management Studies, 35(5), pp. 655–677.
  • YAPRAK, Atilla and other; (2007), “How do business groups function and evolve in emerging markets? The case of Turkish business groups”, Advances in International Marketing, 17, pp. 275–294.
  • ZAHRA, Shaker A. and John A. PEARCE; (1989), “Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model”, Journal of Management, 15(2), pp. 291–334.
  • ZAHRA, Shaker A. and John A. PEARCE; (1992), “Board Composition from a Strategic Contingency Perspective”, Journal of Management, 29(4), pp. 411–438.
  • https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sic_manual.htmlhttp://www.iso500.org.tr/www.kap.gov.tr Erişim Tarihi: 28.07.2016.
There are 62 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Tülay İlhan 0000-0002-6264-7948

Tarhan Okan 0000-0003-0368-5837

Merve Özden

Publication Date December 31, 2019
Acceptance Date May 23, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019 Issue: 54

Cite

APA İlhan, T., Okan, T., & Özden, M. (2019). Türk işletme gruplarında kurumsal yönetişim mekanizmalarının ortak yönetim kurulu üye profilleri üzerindeki etkileri. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi(54), 160-192. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.492615

Cited By

Ortak Yönetim Kurulu Üyeliği ile Firma Performansı Arasındaki İlişkide Yönetim Kurulu Çeşitliliğinin Moderatör Etkisi
Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.20979/ueyd.1288214
THE EFFECT OF CHANGES IN THE OWNERSHIP AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COMPANIES DUE TO FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS ON THE COST OF DEBT: APPLICATION ON BIST MANUFACTURING
Fiscaoeconomia
Murat BERBEROĞLU
https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.792411

Ethical Principles and Ethical Guidelines

The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences places great emphasis on publication ethics, which serve as a foundation for the impartial and reputable advancement of scientific knowledge. In this context, the journal adopts a publishing approach aligned with the ethical standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is committed to preventing potential malpractice. The following ethical responsibilities, established based on COPE’s principles, are expected to be upheld by all stakeholders involved in the publication process (authors, readers and researchers, publishers, reviewers, and editors).

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
Make decisions on submissions based on the quality and originality of the work, its alignment with the journal's aims and scope, and the reviewers’ evaluations, regardless of the authors' religion, language, race, ethnicity, political views, or gender.
Respond to information requests from readers, authors, and reviewers regarding the publication and evaluation processes.
Conduct all processes without compromising ethical standards and intellectual property rights.
Support freedom of thought and protect human and animal rights.
Ensure the peer review process adheres to the principle of double-blind peer review.
Take full responsibility for accepting, rejecting, or requesting changes to a manuscript and ensure that conflicts of interest among stakeholders do not influence these decisions.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
Submitted works must be original. When utilizing other works, proper and complete citations and/or references must be provided.
A manuscript must not be under review by another journal simultaneously.
Individuals who have not contributed to the experimental design, implementation, data analysis, or interpretation should not be listed as authors.
If requested during the review process, datasets used in the manuscript must be provided to the editorial board.
If a significant error or mistake is discovered in the manuscript, the journal’s editorial office must be notified.
For studies requiring ethical committee approval, the relevant document must be submitted to the journal. Details regarding the ethical approval (name of the ethics committee, approval document number, and date) must be included in the manuscript.
Changes to authorship (e.g., adding or removing authors, altering the order of authors) cannot be proposed after the review process has commenced.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Accept review assignments only in areas where they have sufficient expertise.
Agree to review manuscripts in a timely and unbiased manner.
Ensure confidentiality of the reviewed manuscript and not disclose any information about it, during or after the review process, beyond what is already published.
Refrain from using information obtained during the review process for personal or third-party benefit.
Notify the journal editor if plagiarism or other ethical violations are suspected in the manuscript.
Conduct reviews objectively and avoid conflicts of interest. If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review.
Use polite and constructive language during the review process and avoid personal comments.
Publication Policy
The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences is a free, open-access, peer-reviewed academic journal that has been in publication since 1981. The journal welcomes submissions in Turkish and English within the fields of economics, business administration, public finance, political science, public administration, and international relations.

No submission or publication fees are charged by the journal.
Every submitted manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer review process and similarity/plagiarism checks via iThenticate.
Submissions must be original and not previously published, accepted for publication, or under review elsewhere.
Articles published in the journal can be cited under the Open Access Policy and Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is given.
The journal is published three times a year, in April, August, and December. It includes original, high-quality, and scientifically supported research articles and reviews in its listed fields. Academic studies unrelated to these disciplines or their theoretical and empirical foundations are not accepted. The journal's languages are Turkish and English.

Submissions are first subject to a preliminary review for format and content. Manuscripts not meeting the journal's standards are rejected by the editorial board. Manuscripts deemed suitable proceed to the peer review stage.

Each submission is sent to at least two expert reviewers. If both reviews are favorable, the article is approved for publication. In cases where one review is positive and the other negative, the editorial board decides based on the reviews or may send the manuscript to a third reviewer.

Articles published in the journal are open access and can be cited under the Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is made.