Search results

The authors’ focus is on the way in which sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) discourses and practices emerge in the collaboration of multinational companies (MNCs) with the local hotels in developing country contexts. This paper aims to identify the prevailing institutional orders and logics that bring about CSR and sustainability discourse in tourism industry in Turkey. It also investigates how and to what extent the CSR and sustainability practices align with the local institutional logics and necessities.

Empirical evidence is generated through case studies covering Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. (Hilton), its Turkish subsidiary and a local hotel chain to ensure data triangulation. Primary data were collected through interviews with the executives of the selected case hotels, which was supported by extensive secondary data.

Some components of CSR and sustainability logics developed in the headquarters diffuse into local affiliate hotel, not all. Local affiliate hotels seek to acquire local legitimacy in their host environment, despite a standard format imposed by their headquarters. Local necessities and priorities translate themselves into such initiatives in a very limited way in the affiliates of the Hilton where there is mostly a top-down approach. Similar approach has also been observed in the case of the local hotel which is part of a family business group. Family’s values and family business headquarter shape the CSR and sustainability strategy and the logics reflecting the local component.

This paper addresses a theoretical and empirical gap by demonstrating the role of MNCs in the diffusion of sustainability and CSR practices, as acknowledged by Forcadell and Aracil (2017). The authors contribute to the critical writings about the positive impact of CSR and sustainability in the context of the MNCs and their subsidiaries, which is not substantiated due to limited empirical evidence. In addition to these contributions to the CSR and sustainability literatures in tourism and hospitality domains, the authors add to the institutional theory by demonstrating the link between institutional orders and institutional logics. They also show the multiplicity of logics that emanate from the differences of logics developed in the headquarters (centrally imposed) and local affiliate organizations (context-specific) and contribute to theory by highlighting tensions.

This study appeals to management teams and executives of hotels dealing with these issues of tailoring of CSR practices to local necessities. The authors do not only raise awareness of this consciousness but also demonstrate practical application of some of these strategies and prioritization by detecting market specificities and distinctive societal needs. Hotel managers should resist against the headquarter- or family business-driven uniform approach to CSR and sustainability and reflect on corporate policies through checking isomorphic tendencies. This entails being cognizant of local conditions and necessities and respond to them in a flexible and accommodating way. It involves engaging with a full spectrum of stakeholders, including the leadership in headquarters as well as local organizations (e.g. NGOs, suppliers, etc.) and other institutional forces (e.g. state) to align their sustainability and CSR practices with the locally dominant logics. Managers should be aware of certain logics governing CSR and sustainability practices; some of these logics might be constraining critical thinking and innovative practices.

Managers should be proactive in interpreting different institutional logics and process them through critical reflection and boundary spanning and mapping of new opportunities. Moreover, MNC hotel executives should be aware of the limitations of a blanket approach toward CSR and sustainability and increase their sensitivity toward local conditions.

Through this study, the authors are able to add further value to the critical writings about the positive contribution of CSR and sustainability in the context of the MNCs and their subsidiaries, which is not substantiated due to limited empirical evidence.

In this study, we aim to understand how the relationship between state and business elites and underlying power dynamics develop in the face of neoliberalism and globalization in a state-dependent context. For this purpose, we draw on a qualitative research with in-depth interviews with elites from 65 companies which are ranked among the 500 largest Turkish firms by the Istanbul Chamber of Industry. Major contribution of this work is that we illustrate how globalization or internationalization provides a limited tool for business elites to escape the domination of the state in a state-dependent context. The only exceptions to this rule of state domination among business elites are the elites who hold double citizenships and whose initial investment background is in a foreign country. This exceptional group of elites enjoyed higher latitude of action in their interactions with the state. For the rest, state remains as an influential mechanism of coercive power to which elites are subjected. Last but not least, in spite of the connections between business growth and the state, the business elites are generally distrustful of politics and politicians and this mistrust is manifested in different ways. Overall, we illustrate the significance of the historical context and turning points in accounting for the changing nature of the relationship between elites and the state in Turkey.

Historical and institutional influences on the backgrounds of business élites have received little attention despite the fact that they are closely related to corporate governance issues. The present study aims to examine the issue of continuity and change in the characteristics of the business élite over a period of some 60 years between 1923 and 1980 in Turkey, a late‐industrializing country, where significant changes have taken place in the politico‐economic environment of business and the context of industrial development has evolved from étatisme towards family‐dominated big business.

This paper attempts to substantiate the arguments on the institutional roots of business élite characteristics by drawing upon all previous studies conducted on Turkish business élites for the period 1923‐1980. For comparative purposes the study also makes reference to other élite groups in the country, namely, managers of state economic enterprise and upper echelons in the state bureaucracy.

Continuity and change in business élites seem to be closely related to alterations in the politico‐economic environment. For the “managerial” class, while business experience might have been most important in the early years of the republic, high‐level education has clearly been a pre‐condition in the latter period. High education level and political capital of “bureaucrat‐managers” may have eased one‐way flow of professionals from state to private sector, especially following the “ruralizing elections” in this state‐dependent context.

This paper thus especially aims to unravel the genesis and development of business professionals, a subgroup of business élites who have been neglected so far in Turkish management literature.

In this paper, we want to focus on the interactions of shareholder theory, stakeholder theory, institutional theory and agency theory in terms of corporate social responsibility. We will specifically study this issue in the context of commercial banks in the financial sector. Financial firms appear to be subject to strong technical and institutional pressures. They are also more opaque and subject to heavier regulation than their non‐financial counterparts. It appears that the application of agency‐based assumptions to the financial sector is inadequate in explaining corporate governance and related social responsibility practices. In this context, the structure of asymmetric information seems to be more complex and multi‐dimensional. It takes place first between the depositors, the bank and the regulatory authorities; second, between the shareholders, the bank and the regulatory authorities; last, between the borrowers, the managers and the regulatory authorities. These parties also constitute the firms’ stakeholders. In this respect, the state appears to be a major stakeholder and it is in a position to affect all other bank/stakeholder relations through its regulations and participation in the financial sector. These are the factors that intensify institutional pressures in this sector. The institutional embeddedness inherent in a special context is likely to affect stakeholder position and attitudes. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate the conflicting nature of being a stakeholder under institutional pressures and it articulates the factors that determine the behavior of the state as a stakeholder in shaping corporate social responsibility practices of firms.

The aim of this paper is to give an account of how the author aims to engage with his new appointment as co-editor-in-chief of the Society and Business Review (SBR) and to reflect on why an academic journal like the SBR is relevant – if not absolutely necessary.

By drawing on a synthesis of past publications in the journal, academic roots and editorial trends of the SBR are presented.

Three promising areas of research in the “business & society” field are identified for the future: monitoring the expansion of managerialism, analysing the role and impact of management education in society and conceptualising the politicisation of corporations.

Although these trends are promising and subjectively identified, the journal will obviously not restrict its scope to these three topics alone and will continue to welcome all submissions that fall into its mission statement.

This paper provides insights into how the editors evaluate not only articles but also special issue proposals and book reviews that are submitted to the SBR.

The purpose of this study is to showcase how entrepreneurial opportunities can be contextually formed differently for women entrepreneurs concerning their relationship with religion. This article reveals the multi-level and nuanced relationship between religiosity and entrepreneurship through a contextual lens by studying the interaction in a specific national country, Turkiye.

The study uses the life stories of 10 Turkish women entrepreneurs operating in Turkiye. Data were selected purposefully to conduct an in-depth analysis. Thematic content analysis with a discursive approach and deductive and inductive coding methods were performed.

The findings suggest that the relationship between religiosity and entrepreneurial opportunities is highly contextual and nuanced. Religiosity brings trust and provides access to religious networks which can lead to entrepreneurial opportunities, while leaving people outside of this network bereft of these benefits. The creation of a closed circle for its beneficiaries is a feature of a social network, yet the results show that contextual forces of politics and gender can lead women entrepreneurs outside of this religious network to limit their possibilities of accessing public funding and facilities based on their perceptions as well as negative experiences. It is also seen that religiosity at a certain level is necessary to operate in conservative settings and traditionally masculine business environments with patriarchal practices and norms, as well as due to the religious affinity of the ruling political party. However, because of perceptions and discursive meanings attached to religion and religiosity in the country, women entrepreneurs need to be cautious in expressing their religiosity and find a balance so that they are not seen as unprofessional, incompetent and unqualified as well as do not jeopardise their business due to a controversial religious affiliation.

This paper is of value as it studies religiosity from a contextual perspective enabling and constraining women entrepreneurs in their entrepreneurship in relation to gendered and political structures. In this way, it displays the multiple ways of limitation and support that religiosity can bring for them concerning entrepreneurial opportunities. Turkiye provides a rich context with its mixed religious and secular societal norms and values and neo-liberal institutions and policies to examine the so-far underexplored issue of religiosity in the field of entrepreneurship.