TÜRKİYE’DEKİ İMALAT İŞLETMELERİNİN SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİR İNOVASYON FAALİYETLERİ

Yıl 2021, , 185 - 201, 30.07.2021

Eyüp Çalık

https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.739778

Cited By: 6

Öz

Amaç: İmalat işletmelerinin, sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedefi doğrultusunda rekabet avantajını sürdürebilmek ve daha verimli çalışabilmek için sürdürülebilir inovasyon faaliyetlerine kaynak ayırmaları gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’deki imalat işletmelerinin sürdürülebilir inovasyon faaliyetlerinin genel durumunu ortaya koymaktır.

Yöntem: İmalat işletmelerinin sürdürülebilir inovasyon faaliyetleri, literatür temelli bir model üzerinden ele alınarak ekonomik, çevresel ve toplumsal sürdürülebilirlik boyutları, ürün ve süreç inovasyon türleri açısından sektörlere ve firma büyüklüklerine göre karşılaştırılmıştır. Bu karşılaştırma, imalat firmalarından web tabanlı bir anket yoluyla elde edilen 454 geçerli veri üzerinden basit ortalama yöntemi kullanılarak, ortalama puanlar üzerinden renk ölçeği yardımıyla yapılmıştır.

Bulgular: İmalat firmalarının genelde süreç inovasyonu faaliyetlerine daha fazla odaklandığı görülmüştür. Sektörel olarak ise plastik sektörünün ön plana çıktığı, elektrik-elektronik imalatçılarının sürdürülebilir inovasyon faaliyetleri konusunda daha geride bulunduğu belirlenmiştir. Diğer yandan, firma ölçeği büyüdükçe sürdürülebilir inovasyon faaliyetlerinin artmakta olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Son olarak, sürdürülebilirlik boyutları açısından bakıldığında ise toplumsal boyut faaliyetlerinin daha yüksek değere sahip olduğu bulunmuştur.

Özgünlük: Türkiye’deki imalat firmalarının sürdürülebilir ürün ve süreç inovasyonu faaliyetlerini saha verilerine dayalı olarak model temelli inceleyen ilk araştırmadır. Elde edilen sonuçlar, imalat firmalarının bulundukları sektörlerin durumunu görmeleri yanı sıra imalat sanayii ile ilgili politika yapıcılar ve aracı kurumlar tarafından politika geliştirmek amacıyla kullanılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sürdürülebilir İnovasyon, Faaliyetler, İmalat, Sektör, Ölçek

SUSTAINABLE INNOVATION ACTIVITIES of MANUFACTURING FIRMS in TURKEY

Öz

Purpose: Manufacturing enterprises should allocate resources for sustainable innovation activities in order to maintain their competitive advantage in sustainable development target. This study aims to reveal an overall state of sustainable innovation activities of manufacturing firms in Turkey.

Methodology: Sustainable innovation activities of manufacturing enterprises are handled on a literature based model and compared according to sectors and firm sizes in terms of economic, environmental and social sustainability dimensions, product and process innovation types. This comparison was made using the simple averaging method of 454 valid data obtained from manufacturing companies through a web based questionnaire, using the color scale over the average scores.

Findings: The findings indicate that manufacturing companies generally focus more on process innovation activities. Moreover, it has been observed that the plastic sector is more prominent while the electrical and electronic manufacturers are behind in terms of sustainable innovation activities. Furthermore, sustainable innovation activities increase as the company scale grows. Finally, in terms of sustainability dimensions, it is seen that the social dimension has a higher score.

Originality: It is the first model and data-based research that reveals the general picture of sustainable product and process innovation activities of manufacturing companies in Turkey. These results can be used by manufacturing companies to see the state of their sectors as well as by policy makers and intermediary institutions related to the manufacturing industry.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sustainable Innovation, Activities, Manufacturing, Sector, Scale

Kaynakça

• AÇIKALIN, N. ve KAYABAŞI, A. (2019), İşletmelerin Sürdürülebilir İnovasyon Faaliyetleri: Pazarlama Bakış Açısıyla Nitel Bir İnceleme, Pazarlama Teorisi ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, 5 (2), 191-220.
• ARUNDEL, A. ve KEMP R. (2009), Measuring Eco-innovation, UNI-MERIT Research Memorandum, Maastricht, The Netherlands, https://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/consumption-innovation/43960846.pdf, (Erişim tarihi:10.02.2019).
• BASSO, L. F. C., SANTOS D. F. L., KIMURA H. ve BRAGA A. C. S. (2013), Eco-Innovation in Brazil: The Creation of an Index, The Business & Management Review, 4 (1), 2-17.
• CALIK, E. ve BADURDEEN F. (2016), A Measurement Scale to Evaluate Sustainable Innovation Performance in Manufacturing Organizations, Procedia CIRP, 40, 449-454.
• CHEN, Y.S. (2008), The Driver of Green Innovation and Green Image: Green Core Competence, Journal of Business Ethics, 81 (3), 531-543.
• CHEN, Y. S., CHANG C. H. ve WU F. S. (2012), Origins of Green Innovations: The Differences between Proactive and Reactive Green Innovations, Management Decision, 50 (3), 368-398.
• CHEN, Y.S., LAI, S. B. ve WEN C. T. (2006), The Influence of Green Innovation Performance on Corporate Advantage in Taiwan, Journal of Business Ethics, 67 (4), 331-339.
• CHENG, C. C. ve SHIU E. (2012), Validation of A Proposed Instrument for Measuring Eco-Innovation: An Implementation Perspective, Technovation, 32 (6), 329-344.
• CHIOU, T. Y., CHAN, H. K., LETTICE, F. ve CHUNG, S. H. (2011), The Influence of Greening The Suppliers and Green Innovation on Environmental Performance and Competitive Advantage in Taiwan, Transportation Research Part E, 47, 822-836.
• CILLO, V., PETRUZZELLI, A. M., ARDITO, L. ve DEL GIUDICE, M. (2019), Understanding Sustainable Innovation: A Systematic Literature Review, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26 (5), 1012-1025.
• ÇALIK, E. (2021), İmalat İşletmelerinin Sürdürülebilir Süreç İnovasyonu (SSİ) Faaliyet ve Sonuçlarının PLS-SEM ile Değerlendirilmesi, İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, Journal of Busıness Research-Turk, 13 (1), 67-82.
• DELMAS, M. A. ve PEKOVIC, S. (2018), Corporate Sustainable Innovation and Employee Behavior, Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 1071-1088.
• DONG, Y., WANG, X., JIN, J., QIAO Y. ve SHI, L. (2014), Research on Effects of Eco-innovation Types and Regulations on Firms’ Ecological Performance: Empirical Evidence from China, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 34, 78-98.
• EDEŞ, U. ve ÇALIK, E. (2020), İmalat İşletmelerinin Sürdürülebilir Süreç İnovasyon Performansının Ölçümü için Ölçek Geliştirme, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 9 (2), 1-24.
• GARCÍA-GRANERO, E. M., PIEDRA-MUÑOZ L. ve GALDEANO-GÓMEZ E. (2018), Eco-Innovation Measurement: A Review of Firm Performance Indicators, Journal of Cleaner Production, 191, 304-317.
• GUNARATHNE, N. (2019), Sustainable Innovation Measurement; Approach and Challenges, Innovation for Sustainability. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 233-251.
• GÜRLEK, M. ve TUNA M. (2018), Reinforcing Competitive Advantage through Green Organizational Culture and Green Innovation, The Service Industries Journal, 38 (7-8), 467-491.
• IRANMANESH, M., ZAILANI, S., MOEINZADEH, S. ve NIKBIN, D. (2017), Effect of Green Innovation on Job Satisfaction of Electronic and Electrical Manufacturers’ Employees Through Job Intensity: Personal Innovativeness as Moderator, Review of Managerial Science, 11 (2), 299-313.
• KETATA, I., SOFKA, W., ve GRIMPE C. (2015), The Role of Internal Capabilities and Firms’environment for Sustainable Innovation: Evidence for Germany, R&D Management, 45 (1), 60–75.
• KÜÇÜKOĞLU, M. T. (2018), The Mediating Role of Green Organizational Culture between Sustainability and Green Innovation: A Research in Turkish Companies, Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 6 (1), 64-85.
• LI, Y. ve HUANG J.W. (2017), The Moderating Role of Relational Bonding in Green Supply Chain Practices and Performance, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 23 (4), 290-299.
• LOPEZ-VALEIRAS, E., GOMEZ-CONDE, J. ve NARANJO-GIL D. (2015), Sustainable Innovation, Management Accounting and Control Systems, and International Performance, Sustainability, 7 (3), 3479-3492.
• MALETIČ, M., MALETIČ, D., DAHLGAARD, J. J., DAHLGAARD-PARK, S. M., ve GOMIŠČEK, B. (2016), Effect of Sustainability-Oriented Innovation Practices on The Overall Organisational Performance: An Empirical Examination, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 27 (9-10), 1171-1190.
• OECD ve EUROSTAT (2005), Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition, The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities, Paris.
• PEKER, İ., AR, İ. ve BAKİ, B. (2019), Lojistik Firmalarının Çevresel Yenilik Performanslarının Bulanık ÇKKV Yaklaşımı ile Değerlendirilmesi, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 8 (2), 1-20.
• SAEIDI, S. P., OTHMAN, M. S. H., SAEIDI, P. ve SAEIDI, S. P. (2018), The Moderating Role of Environmental Management Accounting Between Environmental Innovation and Firm Financial Performance, International Journal of Business Performance Management, 19 (3), 326-348.
• SHUAIB, M., SEEVERS, D., ZHANG, X., BADURDEEN, F., ROUCH, K. E. ve JAWAHIR, I. S. (2014), Product Sustainability Index (ProdSI)-A Metricsbased Framework to Evaluate the Total Life-cycle Sustainability of Manufactured Products, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18 (4), 491-507.
• TUMELERO, C., SBRAGIA, R. ve EVANS S. (2019), Cooperation in R&D and Eco-innovations: The Role in Companies’ Socioeconomic Performance, Journal of Cleaner Production, 207, 1138–1149.
• UNITED NATIONS, (2015), Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication, (Erişim tarihi: 15.10.2020).
• VARADARAJAN, R. (2017), Innovating for Sustainability: A Framework for Sustainable Innovations and a Model of Sustainable Innovations Orientation, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (1), 14-36.
• WEIDNER, K., NAKATA, C. ve ZHU, Z. (2020), Sustainable Innovation and the Triple Bottom-Line: A Market-Based Capabilities and Stakeholder Perspective, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 29 (2), 141-161.
• WONG, S. K. S. (2013), Environmental Requirements, Knowledge Sharing and Green Innovation: Empirical Evidence from The Electronics Industry in China, Business Strategy and the Environment, 22, 321-338.
• WORLD COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT (WCED), (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford University, Oxford.
• WU, G. C. (2017), Effects of Socially Responsible Supplier Development and Sustainability-Oriented Innovation on Sustainable Development: Empirical Evidence from SMEs, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24 (6), 661–675.
• YİĞİT, S. (2014), İnovasyonun Çevreci Yüzü ve Türkiye, Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21 (1) 251-265.