A RESEARCH ON SMEs IN TURKEY: SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT DESIGN PRACTICES AND ITS EFFECTS ON SMEs

Year 2022, Volume: 10 Issue: 4, 361 - 373, 30.12.2022

Kevser Yetim , H. Güçlü Yavuzcan

Abstract

Although it is known that 99.8% of the enterprises in Turkey are SMEs, it is seen in the past studies that, systematic sustainable product design practices were mostly handled by large companies. In this study, it is aimed to examine the awareness of sustainable product design in SMEs, the benefits of sustainable product design practices for SMEs and the problems and needs encountered in the process. In order to follow a systematical method to be conducted on the axis of Turkey, firstly companies were separated in two main classes in terms of consumer products and then categorized on a sectoral basis using the NACE classification system. Finally, cosmetics and cleaning industry, food industry and pharmaceutical industry were identified among fast-moving consumer goods category and electrics-electronics industry and furniture industry were identified among durable consumer goods category. Detailed interviews were conducted with 24 SMEs. Consequently, it was seen that companies consider sustainable design practices as long as they allow economic advantages. They implement sustainability practices mostly if they have a positive impact on the company's image and when the legislation creates a driving force on companies.

Keywords

Sustainability, Sustainable Product Design, SMEs

References

• Crul, M. (2003). Ecodesign in Central America. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Faculty of Design, Engineering and Production, Delft University of Technology. Delft.
• Crul, M., ve Diehl, J.C. (2006). Design for Sustainability: a practical approach for Developing Economies. Delft University of Technology, Paris: United Nations Environment Programme, 14-15.
• Crul, M., ve Diehl, J.C. (2008). Design for Sustainability (D4S): Manual and Tools for Developing Countries. Proceedings of the 7th Annual ASEE Global Colloquium on Engineering Education, Cape Town, 1-10.
• Gaziulusoy, İ. (2003). Implementations in relation to sustainable development in industry and industrial design profession: A case of Arçelik corporation. Unpublished Master‟s Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
• Gürakar, E., Şener, B., Diehl, J.C., and Keskin, D. (2008, November). Appreciation of Ecodesign within Turkish Production Industries. Paper presented at the ICOVACS 2008 International Conference on Value Chain Sustainability Proceedings, Izmir, Turkey.
• Selek, E. (2008). An inquiry into the attitudes of SMEs operating ın the turkish packaging industry towards sustainable design. Unpublished Master‟s Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Istanbul.
• Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2020). Newsletter, TÜİK 37548, T.C. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu Başkanlığı. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Kucuk-veOrta-Buyuklukteki-Girisim-Istatistikleri-2019-37548, Son Erişim Tarihi: 06.02.2022
• Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J., ve Krause, T.S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of management Review, 20(4), 874-907.
• Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with Forks: Tripple Bottom Line in 21 Century Businesses. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, 356-360.
• Moldan, B., Janoušková, S. ve Hák, T. (2012). How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets. Ecological Indicators, 17, 4-13.
• Eş, A. (2008). Sustainability and firm-level sustainability performance measurement. Unpublished Master Thesis, Abant İzzet Baysal University Institute of Social Sciences, Bolu.
• De Kruijf, H. A. M., ve Van Vuuren, D. P. (1998). Following sustainable development in relation to the north–south dialogue: ecosystem health and sustainability indicators. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 40(1-2), 4-14.
• Clikeman, P. M. (2004). Return of the socially conscious corporation: how can you reap the rewards of good corporate citizenry? Be one-and broadcast it!. Strategic Finance, 84(11), 22-27.
• Van Hemel, C., ve Cramer, J. (2002). Barriers and stimuli for ecodesign in SMEs. Journal of cleaner production, 10(5), 439-453.
• Kogut, B. (2003). Designing global strategies: comparative and competitive value-added chains. Sloan Management Review (pre-1986), 26(4).
• Deutz P., McGuire, M., ve Neighbour, G. (2013). Eco-design practice in the context of a structured design process: an interdisciplinary empirical study of UK manufacturers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 39, 117-128.
• Yüksel, H. (2008). An empirical evaluation of cleaner production practices in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(1), 50-57.
• Küçüksayraç, E. (2015). Design for sustainability in companies: strategies, drivers and needs of Turkey's best performing businesses. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 455-465.
• Yangil, F. M. (2015). Content analysis for sustainability reports within the scope of corporate sustainability: Top 100 industrial enterprises in Turkey. Journal of Business Studies, 7(3), 356-376.
• Eurostat European Commision (2008), NACE Rev. 2 – Statistical classification of economic activites in the European Community. Luxembourg.
• Ryan, C. (2009). ‘quick-start’ approach to D4S. M. Crul, J. C. Diehl, and C. Ryan (eds). Design for sustainability- A step-by-step approach. Delft University of Technology. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme. 46-49.