STAKEHOLDER RELATIONSHIPS OF ISE 50 FIRMS IN TERMS OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: A CORPORATE PERSPECTIVE OF STAKEHOLDER THEORY

Year 2012, Volume: 23 Issue: 71, 83 - 99, 08.03.2012

Enis Hemedoğlu , Fetullah Evliyaoğlu , Cem Arslantaş

Abstract

Bu ara trmada, 2011 ylnn ilk çeyre inde MKB-50 endeksinde yer alan irketlerin kurumsal yönetim ilkeleri açsndan payda larla ili kileri incelenmi tir. htiyaç duyulan bilgiler irketlere ait internet sitelerinden ve kamuya açklanan raporlardan toplanm , ula lan veriler kümülatif ve tanmlayc istatistikler aracl yla anlamlandrlm tr. Ara trma kapsamnda payda lara yönelik irket politikas, üst yönetimin payda larn katlmn destekleme, irketin insan kaynaklar politikas, mü teriler ve tedarikçilerle ili kiler, etik ilkeler ve kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk konular incelenmi tir. MKB-50 firmalarnn genel olarak kurumsal yönetim ilkelerine uygunlukta yeterli olmadklar, ancak etik ilkeler, kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk politikas, insan kaynaklar politikas ve mü teri memnuniyetini sa layc mekanizmalar kriterlerinde MKB-50 firmalar kurumsal yönetim ilkelerine uygun olduklar tespit edilmi tir.

Keywords

Kurumsal yönetim, paydaş teorisi, paydaş ilişkileri, İMK50 endeksi

STAKEHOLDER RELATIONSHIPS OF ISE 50 FIRMS IN TERMS OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: A CORPORATE PERSPECTIVE OF STAKEHOLDER THEORY

Abstract

In this study, the stakeholder relationships of firms listed in ISE50 index in the first quarter of 2011 are analyzed according to corporate governance principles. The necessary information is obtained from firms websites and publicly announced reports, and acquired information is processed and used for cumulative and descriptive statistics. Corporate policy relating to stakeholders, support for stakeholders participation in top management, corporates human resources policy, relationships with customers and suppliers, ethical principles, and corporate social responsibility subjects are analyzed, and in general, ISE50 firms are insufficient for conformity of corporate governance principles, however, criteria such as ethical principles, corporate social responsibility, human resources policy and mechanisms for maintaining customer satisfaction, ISE50 firms have sufficient compliance. 

Keywords

Corporate governance, stakeholder theory, stakeholder relations, ISE50 index

References

• Abe, N. and Shimizutani, S. (2007). Employment Policy and Corporate Governance-An Empirical Comparison of the Stakeholder and the Profit-Maximization Model. Journal of Comperative Economics, vol.35, pp.346-368.
• Alexander, C.S., Miesing, P. and Parsons, A.L. (2005). How Important are Stakeholder Relationships?. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, vol.4, pp.1-7.
• Ayuso, S., Rodriguez, M.A., Garcia, R. and Arino, M.A. (2007). Maximizing Stakeholders' Interests: An Empirical Analysis of the Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Governance. Working Paper (WP no 670), IESE Business School University of Navarra, Barcelona.
• Benn, S., Dunphy, D. and Martin, A. (2009). Governance of Environmental Risk: New Approaches to Managing Stakeholder Involvement. Journal of Environmental Management, vol.90, pp.1567-1575.
• Bryson, J.M., Patton, M.Q. and Bowman, R.A. (2011). Working with Evaluation Stakeholders: A Rationale, Step-Wise Approach and Toolkit. Journal of Evaluation and Program Planning, vol.34, pp.1-12.
• CMB - Capital Markets Board of Turkey, (2005). Kurumsal Yönetim lkeleri. Istanbul, 2. basım.
• Christopher, J. (2010). Corporate Governance – A Multi-Theoretical Approach to Recognizing the Wider Influencing Forces Impacting on Organizations. Journal of Critical Perspectives on Accounting, vol.21, pp.683-695.
• Clement, R.W. (2005). The Lessons from Stakeholder Theory for U.S. Business Leaders. Journal of Business Horizons, vol.48, pp.255-264.
• Corporate Governance Association of Turkey and Deloitte, (2007). Kurumsal Yönetim Nedir?. Istanbul.
• Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review, vol.20(1), pp.65-91.
• Dönmez, D. and Çevik, . (2010).
• letmelerde Yeniliklerin Kayna ı Olarak Payda
• Diyalogları: Seyahat Acentaları Üzerine Nitel Bir Ara tırma. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal
• Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı.24, ss.189-202.
• Freeman, R.E. (1994). The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, vol.4(4), pp.409-421.
• Galai, D. and Wiener, Z. (2008). Stakeholders and the Composition of the Voting Rights of the Board of Directors. Journal of Corporate Finance, vol.14, pp.107-117.
• Haspeslagh P. (2010). Corporate Governance and the Current Crisis. Corporate Governance vol.10(4), pp.375-377.
• Heath, J. and Norman, W. (2004). Stakeholder Theory, Corporate Governance and Public Management: What Can the History of State-Run Enterprises Teach Us in the Post- Enron Era?. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 53, pp.247-265.
• IFC – International Finance Corporation, (2010). Corporate Governance Manual. 2nd ed., Washington, D.C.
• Iskander, M.R. and Chamblou, N. (2000). Corporate Governance: A Framework for Implementation. World Bank Group, Washington, D.C.
• Jurgens M., Berthon P., Papania L. and Shabbir A. H. (2010). Stakeholder Theory and Practice in Europe and North America: The Key to Success Lies in a Marketing Approach. Industrial Marketing Management vol.39, pp.769–775.
• Kim, S., Park, J.H. and Wertz, E.K. (2010). Expectation Gaps Between Stakeholders And Web-Based Corporate Public Relations Efforts: Focusing on Fortune 500 Corporate Web Sites. Journal of Public Relations Review, vol.36, pp.215-221. Koçel, T. (2010).
• letme Yöneticili i: Yönetim ve Organizasyon, Organizasyonlarda
• Davranı , Klasik, Modern, Ça da ve Güncel Yakla ımlar. 12. basım. Beta Basım- Yayım. Istanbul.
• Kolk, A. and Pinkse, J. (2006). Stakeholder Mismanagement and Corporate Social Responsibility Crises. European Management Journal, vol.24(1), pp.59-72.
• Laplume, A.O., Sonpar, K. and Litz, R.A. (2008). Stakeholder Theory: Reviewing A Theory That Moves Us. Journal of Management, vol.34(6), pp.1152-1189.
• La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanez, F., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. (2000). Investor Protection and Corporate Governance. Journal of Financial Economics, vol.58, 3-27.
• Lim, G., Ahn H. and Lee H. (2005). Formulating Strategies for Stakeholder Management: A Case-Based Reasoning Approach. Expert Systems with Applications, vol.28, pp.831– 840.
• Morck R. K. and Steier L. (2003). A History of Corporate Governance Around the World: Family Business Groups to Professional Managers. University of Chicago Press.
• OECD, (2004). OECD Principles of Corporate Governance.
• Ostergaard, C., Schindele, I. and Vale, B. (2009). Social Capital and the Viability of Stakeholder-Oriented Firms: Evidence from Norwegian Savings Banks. Norges Bank Working Paper, Norway.
• Reed, M.S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C.H. and Stringer, L.C. (2009). Who’s in and Why? A Typology of Stakeholder Analysis Methods for Natural Resource Management. Journal of Environmental Management, vol.90, pp.1933-1949.
• Shao, G. (2010). The Effects of Board Structure on Media Companies' Performance: A Stakeholder Perspective. Journal of Media Business Studies, vol.7(3), pp.1-16.
• Smudde, P.M. and Courtright, J.L. (2011). A Holistic Approach to Stakeholder Management: A Rhetorical Foundation. Public Relation Review, vol.37(2), pp.137-144.
• Steurer, R. (2006). Mapping Stakeholder Theory Anew: From The 'Stakeholder Theory of the Firm' to Three Perspectives on Business-Society Relations. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol.15, pp.55-69.
• Svendsen, A.C., Boutilier, R.G., Abbott, R.M. and Wheeler, D. (2001). Measuring the Business Value of Stakeholder Relationships: Part One. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. Toronto.
• Ülgen, H. & Mirze, S.K. (2010). letmelerde Stratejik Yönetim. 5. basım. Beta Basım- Yayım. Istanbul.
• Welp, M., Leinert, A.V., Kleemanni S.S. and Jaeger, C.C. (2006). Science-Based Stakeholder Dialogues: Theories and Tools. Journal of Global Environmental Change, vol.16, pp.170-181.