TÜRKİYE’DEKİ TOP 50 FORTUNE FİRMALARININ KURUMSAL WEBSİTELERİNDE ENGELLİ İÇERİĞİ
Loading...
Date
2018
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Open Access Color
OpenAIRE Downloads
OpenAIRE Views
Abstract
Engellilik konusunda dünya genelinde artan farkındalık neticesinde Türkiye’deki örgütlerin değerlerini normlarını ve davranışlarını bu doğrultuda gözden geçirdikleri varsayılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada meşruiyetini koruma niyetinde olan özellikle de yüksek gelirli firmalar dikkate alınarak Türkiye’nin en iyi 50 Fortune firmasının web sitelerinin engelli kavramına ilişkin içeriğinde benzerlik ve farklılıkları ortaya çıkarmak amaçlanmıştır. Web sitesi içerikleri içerik analizi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlara bakıldığında firmalar ‘tesislerdeki fiziksel koşullar’ ‘engelli ve çalışan eğitimi’ ‘ürünler’ ‘hizmet alabilme koşulları’ ve ‘bağışlar’ konularına ağırlık vermişlerdir. Bazı sektörlerde firma web sitelerinin benzer içerikleri paylaştığı görülmektedir ancak genel olarak farklılıklar benzerliklerden fazladır. Firmaların engellilere yönelik yasal zorunlulukları uygulamadaki yetersizliği de sonuçlarda tartışılmıştır. Bu açıdan yapılan çalışma mevcut anlayışı ortaya koyarken olası iyileştirme alanlarını da vurgulamaktadır.
Description
ORCID
Keywords
Sosyal Çalışma-İşletme-Eğitim- Özel, Sosyal Çalışma, İşletme, Eğitim, Özel
Fields of Science
Citation
Bell D. & Heitmueller A. (2009). The disability discrimination act in the UK: Helping or\r\nhindering employment among the disabled? Journal of Health Economics 28 (2) 465-\r\n480.Ball P. Monaco G. Schmeling J. Schartz H. & Blanck P. (2005). Disability as diversity in\r\nfortune 100 companies. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 23 97-121.Blair M. M. (2004). The great pension grab: Comments on Richard Ippolito bankruptcy and\r\nworkers. Washington University Law Quarterly 82 1305.Branco M. C. & Rodrigues L. L. (2006). Communication of corporate social responsibility\r\nby Portuguese banks: A legitimacy theory perspective. Corporate Communications: An\r\nInternational Journal 11 (3) 232-248.Briggs B. S. & Saas C. (2016). Websites and mobile applications: Do they comply with title\r\nIII of the Americans with disabilities act? Florida Bar Journal September 1.Bundon A. & Clarke L. H. (2015). Unless you go online you are on your own: Blogging as a\r\nbridge in para-sport. Disability & Society 30 (2) 185-198.Callison C. (2003). Media relations and the internet: How Fortune 500 company web sites\r\nassist journalists in news gathering. Public Relations Review 29 29-41.Deephouse D. L. (1996). Does isomorphism legitimate? The Academy of Management Journal\r\n39 (4) 1024-1039.De Villiers C. & Alexander D. (2014). The institutionalization of corporate social responsibility\r\nreporting. The British Accounting Review 46 (2) 198-212.DiMaggio P. J. & Powell W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism\r\nand collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociology Review 147-160.Ellis K. & Kent M. (2011). Disability and new media. New York: Routledge.\r\nEngelliler Hakkında Kanun (2005). Kanun No: 5378 Resmi Gazete 5 (44).Frank J. (2008 January). Web accessibility for the blind: Corporate social responsibility\r\nor litigation avoidance? Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on\r\nSystems Science USA.Freeman R. E. (1984). Strategic management a stakeholder approach. Pitman Boston.\r\nGabel S. L. Reid D. Pearson H. Ruiz L. & Hume-Dawson R. (2016). Disability and\r\ndiversity on CSU websites: A critical discourse study. Journal of Diversity in Higher\r\nEducation 9 (1) 64-80.General Directorate of Services for People with Disabilities and Elderly People (2016).\r\nEngelli ve yaşlı bireylere ilişkin istatistiki bilgiler engelli ve yaşlı hizmetleri genel\r\nmüdürlüğü istatistik bülteni. Retrieved February 03 2017 from http://eyh.aile.gov.tr/\r\ndata/56179f30369dc5726c063e73/B%C3%BClten_Temmuz2016.pdfGoggin G. & Newell C. (2003). Digital disability: The social construction of disability in new\r\nmedia. Amyland: Rowman and Littlefield.Greenwood R. & Hinings C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bridging\r\ntogether the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review 21 (4)\r\n1022-1054.Gutierrez C. F. & Windsor J. C. (2005). An evaluation of Fortune 500 company home pages\r\nfor disability-access. International Journal of Electronic Business 3 (2) 137-153.Harrison J. S. & Freeman R. E. (1999). Stakeholders social responsibility and performance.\r\nAcademy of Management Journal 42 (5) 479-485.Huang Z. & Cappel J. J. (2012). A comparative study of website usability practices of Fortune\r\n500 versus INC. 500 companies. Information Systems Management 29 (2).İşkur - Turkish Labor Agency (2015). 2015 yılında engellilerin engel gruplarına göre\r\ndağılımı. Retrieved February 02 2017 from http.//www.iskur.gov.tr/kurumsalbilgi/\r\nistatistikler.aspxJones S. L. & DeGrow D. (2011). Fortune 500 homepages: Design trends. IEEE Transactions\r\non Professional Communication 54 (1).Jones S. L. (2015). A re-examination of Fortune 500 homepage design practices. IEEE\r\nTransactions on Professional Communication 58 (1).Kim S. Park J. H. & Wertz E. K. (2010a). Expectation gaps between stakeholders and webbased\r\ncorporate public relations efforts: Focusing on Fortune 500 corporate web sites.\r\nPublic Relations Review 36 (3) 215-221.Kim D. Nam Y. & Kang S. (2010). An analysis of corporate environmental responsibility\r\non the global corporate web sites and their dialogic principles. Public Relations Review\r\n36 (3) 285-288.Knuz M. Ratliff J. M. Blankenbuehler M. & Bard T. (2014). A preliminary examination\r\nof sustainable disclosures on Fortune 500 company websites. Academy of Strategic\r\nManagement Journal 13 (1) 1.Lee I. (2005). E-recruiting: Categories and analysis of Fortune 100 career web sites. In T.\r\nTorres-Coronas & M. Arias-Oliva (Eds.) e-Human resources management: Managing\r\nknowledge people (pp. 86-100). Hershey PA: IGI Global.Levy J. M. Jessop D. J. Rimmerman A. & Levy P. H. (1992). Attitudes of Fortune 500\r\ncorporate executives toward the employability of persons with severe disabilities: A\r\nnational study. Mental Retardation 30 (2) 67-75.Liu C. & Arnett P. K. (2002). Raising a red flag on global WWW privacy policies. Journal of\r\nComputer Information Systems 43 (1) 117-127.Liu C. Arnett K. P. Capella L. & Beauty B. (1997). Web sites of the Fortune 500 companies:\r\nFacing customers through home pages. Information and Management 31 (1) 335-345.Moore M. (2013). Disability global conflicts and crises. Disability & Society 28 (6) 741-743.Pate J. R. Ruihley B. J. & Mirabito T. (2014). Displaying disability: A content analysis of\r\nperson-first language on NCAA Bowl Championship Series college athletic department\r\nwebsites. Journal of Applied Sport Management 6 (1).Patten D. M. (1991). Exposure legitimacy and social disclosure. Journal of Accounting and\r\nPublic Policy 10 297-308.Perry M. L. & Bodkin C. D. (2002). Fortune 500 manufacturer web sites: Innovative marketing\r\nstrategies of cyberbrochures? Journal of Promotion Management 31 (2) 133-144.Podlas K. (2015). Website accessibility and the Americans with disabilities act. Journal of\r\nInternet Law 19 (5) 3-16.Quevedo-Puente E. Fuente-Sabate J. M. & Delgado-Garcia J. B. (2007). Corporate social\r\nperformance and corporate reputation: Two interwoven perspectives. Corporate\r\nReputation Review 10 (1) 60-72.Republic of Turkey Ministry of Family and Social Policy (2014). 2002-2013 development\r\nand disability in Turkey: A report of the last decade. Retrieved Feb. 13 2017 from\r\nhttp://eyh.aile.gov.tr/data/549d6891369dc5abbc92cc7e/bm_kitapcigi_ingilizce_\r\ntumu_23.05.2014.pdfRomano N. C. (2002). Customer relationship management for the web-access challenged:\r\nInaccessibility of Fortune 250 business web sites. International Journal of Electronic\r\nCommerce 7 (2) 81-117.Seale J. K. (2007). Strategies for supporting the online publishing activities of adults with\r\nlearning difficulties. Disability & Society 22 (2) 173-186.Suarez M. (2003). Scientific representation: against similarity and isomorphism. International\r\nStudies in the Philosophy of Science 17 (3) 225-244.Suchman M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy\r\nof Management Review 20 571-610.Tas S. & Bozyaka G. (2012). Avrupa Birliğine uyum sürecinde Türkiye’de uygulanan\r\nistihdam politikaları. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi IIBF Dergisi 2 (1)\r\n151-176.TUIK - Turkish Statistical Institute (2015). Dünya nüfus günü haber bülteni. Retrieved\r\nFebruary 04 2017 from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=18617USDL - United States Department of Labor (n.d.). Americans with disabilities act. Retrieved\r\nNovember 02 2016 from https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/disability/adaWeb Accessibility Initiative – WAI (2017). Web accessibility initiative. Retrieved January 07\r\n2017 from https://www.w3.org/WAI/World Health Organization & The World Bank (2011). World report on disability. Retrieved\r\nNovember 21 2016 from http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.\r\npdf.Young J. & Foot K. (2005). Corporate e-cruiting: The construction of work in Fortune 500\r\nrecruiting web sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11 (1) 44-71.Zhao J. J. Truell A. D. & Alexander M. W. (2006). User-interface design characteristics of\r\nFortune 500 B2C e-commerce sites and industry differences. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal\r\n48 (1) 43-55.
WoS Q
Scopus Q
Source
Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi
Volume
14
Issue
1
Start Page
163
End Page
186
Collections
