Employees’ Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility: A Focus Group Study in Izmir City

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 39, 68 - 74, 29.10.2015

Secil Ugur Emel Yarımoglu

https://doi.org/10.19168/jyu.62482

Cited By: 1

Öz

The aim of this research is to examine how white collar employees working at the Izmir offices of large-sized international companies in Turkey understand and interpret Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) concept. Focus group interview as one of the techniques of qualitative research method was used in this study. The focus group interview that was conducted with eight businesspeople brought out their opinions into light, and thus more profound data regarding CSR was collected and also localized accounts of personal views and experiences were presented. The primary findings of the research were grouped into seven categories: Selection of the CSR activity; Reason(s) for conducting a CSR activity; CSR and being an ethical business; CSR training; CSR and company image; CSR, a matter of budget; CSR, a matter of spending time or money. On the other hand, "CSR-related words and phrases" and "motivations and concerns behind CSR activities" werealso elicited as secondary findings of the research. There were three limitations in the study: the research was conducted only in Izmir city, there was only one focus group, and the participants were all from international companies. To be able to gain a deeper understanding about the issue and then compare the views of different groups of employees on CSR, further research is suggested

Anahtar Kelimeler

Corporate Social Responsibility, Focus group, Employees, Turkey

Çalışanların Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluğa Bakışları: İzmir İlinde Bir Odak Grup Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı; Türkiye’deki büyük ölçekli uluslararası firmaların İzmir şubelerinde çalışan beyaz yakalı çalışanların, Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk (KSS) kavramını nasıl anladıklarını ve yorumladıklarını incelemektir. Bu çalışmada, nitel araştırma yöntemi tekniklerinden biri olan odak grup görüşmesi kullanılmıştır. Sekiz çalışan ile yapılan odak grup görüşmesi sonucunda; bu çalışanların kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk hakkındaki düşünceleri öğrenilmiş, ve böylece KSS ile ilgili daha kapsamlı veri toplanılmış ve ayrıca kişisel görüş ve tecrübeler yerel seviyede gösterilmiştir. Araştırmadan elde edilen birincil bulgular yedi gruba ayrılmıştır: KSS faaliyetinin seçimi; KSS faaliyeti yürütülmesi için neden(ler); KSS ve etik bir işletme olmak; KSS eğitimi; KSS ve işletme imajı; bir bütçe meselesi olarak KSS; zaman veya para harcama yönünden KSS. Diğer yandan, “KSS ile ilişkili kelime ve terimler” ve “KSS faaliyetlerinin arkasındaki motivasyon ve endişeler” ikincil bulgular olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Çalışmada üç kısıt bulunmaktadır: araştırma sadece İzmir ilinde yapılmıştır, sadece bir odak grup kullanılmıştır, katılımcıların hepsi uluslararası firmalardan gelmiştir. Bu konu hakkında daha derin bilgi edinebilmek ve farklı çalışan gruplarının KSS hakkındaki düşüncelerini kıyaslayabilmek için, gelecek araştırmalar tavsiye edilmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk, Odak Grup, Çalışanlar, Türkiye

Kaynakça

• Akgeyik, T. (2010). İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi Boyutuyla Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk: (Bir Alan Araştırması). Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları Dergisi, 52, 65-106.
• Bauman, C. W., & Skitka, L. J. (2012). Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee satisfaction. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 63-86.
• Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row.
• Brammer, S., He, H., & Mellahi, K. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility, Employee Organizational Identification, and Creative Effort The Moderating Impact of Corporate Ability. Group & Organization Management, 1-30.
• Butler, S. (1996). Child protection or professional self-preservation by the baby nurses? Public health nurses and child protection in Ireland. Social Science and Medicine, 43(3), 303-314.
• Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of management review, 4(4), 497-505.
• Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
• Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional construct. Business & society, 38(3), 268-295.
• Chaudhary. N. K. (2009). Facilitators & Bottlenecks of Corporate Social Responsibility. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), 386-395.
• Cho, J. & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative research, 6(3), 319- 340.
• D’Amato, A., Henderson, S., & Florence, S. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Business: A guide to Leadership Tasks and Functions. North Carolina: CCL Press.
• Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities?. California Management Review, 2(3), 70-76.
• Dawkins, C. E., Jamali, D., Karam, C., Lin, L., & Zhao, J. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility and Job Choice Intentions A Cross-Cultural Analysis.Business & Society, 1-35.
• Dhanesh, G. S. (2014). CSR as Organization–Employee Relationship Management Strategy A Case Study of Socially Responsible Information Technology Companies in India. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(1), 130-149.
• George, W. R. (1990). Internal Marketing and Organisational Behaviour: A Partnership in Developing Customer-Conscious Employees at Every Level. Journal of Business Research, 20(1), 63-70.
• Gocenoglu, C. & Onan, I. (2008). Türkiye’de Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk. Avrupa Komisyonu.
• Grönroos, C. (1981). Internal Marketing-An Integral Part of Marketing Theory, Ed. J. H. Donnelly and W. R. George, Marketing of Services, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 236-238.
• Idowu, S. O. (2009). The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (pp. 11-35). In Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility. Eds: Idowu, S. O. & Filho, W. L., Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
• Idowu, S. O. & Papasolomou, I. (2007). Are the corporate social responsibility matters based on good intentions or false pretences? An empirical study of the motivations behind the issuing of CSR reports by UK companies. Corporate Governance, 7(2), 136-147.
• Ilic, D. K. (2010). İşletmelerin Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk Düzeylerinin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Literatür Taraması. Ege Academic Review, 10(1), 303-318.
• Krueger, R. A. & Casey, M. A. (1994). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. California: Sage Publications.
• Lee, Y. K., Lee, K. H., & Li, D. X. (2012). The impact of CSR on relationship quality and relationship outcomes: A perspective of service employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 745-756.
• Lee, C. K., Song, H. J., Lee, H. M., Lee, S., & Bernhard, B. J. (2013a). The impact of CSR on casino employees’ organizational trust, job satisfaction, and customer orientation: An empirical examination of responsible gambling strategies. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 406-415.
• Lee, E. M., Park, S. Y., & Lee, H. J. (2013b). Employee perception of CSR activities: Its antecedents and consequences. Journal of business research, 66(10), 1716-1724.
• Malhotra, N. K. (2014). Essentials of Marketing Research: A Hands-On Orientation. Pearson Education.
• Manne, H. & Wallich, H. C. (1972). The modern corporation and social responsibility. Washington D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
• McGuire, J. W. (1963). Business and society. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of management review, 26(1), 117-127.
• Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. California: Sage Publications.
• Mueller, K., Hattrup, K., Spiess, S. O., & Lin-Hi, N. (2012). The effects of corporate social responsibility on employees' affective commitment: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1186.
• Orcan, M. (2007). Yoksullukla Mücadelede Kurumsal Sosyal sorumluluk (KSS) Kampanyaları. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 9(2), 27-37.
• Ozdemir, H. (2009). Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluğun Marka İmajına Etkisi. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(15), 57-72.
• Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications Inc.
• Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Thornton, M. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). Applicants' and Employees' Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility: The Moderating Effects of First‐Party Justice Perceptions and Moral Identity. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 895-933.
• Sasser, W. E. & S. P. Arbeit. (1976). Selling Jobs in the Service Sector. Business Horizons, 19(3), 61- 65.
• Stewart, D. W. & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. California: Sage Pub.
• Turban, D. B. & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658-672.
• Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411-427.
• Vlachos, P., Theotokis, A. & Panagopoulos, N. (2010). Sales-force reactions to corporate social responsibility: attributions, outcomes and the mediating role of trust. Industrial Marketing Management. 39 (7), 1207–1218.
• Yamak, S. (2007). Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk Kavramının Gelişimi. İstanbul: Beta Basım.