ÇAĞRI TOPAL

810

Risk toplumunda meşruiyet sorunu ve örgütsel riskin meşrulaştırılması

Bu çalışma, kapitalist risk toplumu bağlamında, insan ve çevre sağlığına yönelik örgütsel risklerin, risklerin kaynağı olan özel şirketlerin, ve riskleri denetlemekle yükümlü kamu kurumlarının, risk ve çevresel etki değerlendirme toplantıları yoluyla meşrulaştırılması sürecini incelemektedir. Çalışmanın kuramsal çerçevesini, Habermas’ın (1975) meşruiyet, Beck’in (1992) risk, ve örgüt yazınında örgütsel aktörlerin risk anlamlandırma süreçlerini meşruiyet temelinde inceleyen çalışmalar oluşturmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, Kanada’nın Edmonton şehrinde, özel bir şirketçe açılmak istenen ve oldukça zehirli bir gaz içeren bir petrol kuyusunun yarattığı risklerin incelendiği risk değerlendirme toplantısı çalışma alanı olarak seçilmiş, bu toplantıya katılan şirket yöneticileri, kamu kurum temsilcileri, ve vatandaş gruplarının toplantıya yükledikleri anlamlar çözümlenmiştir. Çözümleme, tarafsızlığı, özel çıkarlardan bağımsızlığı, ve genel kamu yararını temsil ettiği düşünülen yasallık ve bilimsellik çerçevelerinin, toplantıların katılım ve bilgi üretim çerçevesi olarak kullanıldığını ve meşruiyetin bu çerçeveler üzerinden başarılmaya çalışıldığını göstermiştir. Fakat toplantılarda, şirketler ve kamu kurulları arasında, önce yasallık sonra bilimsel uzmanlık temellerinde doğan görece genel ve soyut ortak anlam çerçeveleri, vatandaşların ortak ve kişisel kaygıları temelinde doğan görece yerel ve somut anlam çerçevesiyle bir karşıtlık oluşturmakta, vatandaşların karşıt risk anlamlarının zemini daralmaktadır. Dolayısıyla, vatandaş katılımını kurumsal hale getiren risk değerlendirme toplantıları gibi kamusal düzeneklerin, riskin sorunsallaştırılmasından çok meşrulaştırılmasına hizmet ettikleri sonucuna varılmıştır.

Legitimacy problem in risk society and legitimating organizational risk

This study examines the process of legitimation of health and environmental risks created by business organizations, of business organizations themselves, and of governmental institutions responsible for monitoring those organizations, through the help of risk and environmental assessment meetings such as public hearings and inquiries within the context of capitalist risk society. The theoretical framework of the study includes the works of Habermas (1975) on legitimacy crisis and Beck (1992) on risk society, and organizational literature exploring organizational actors’ construction of risk meanings on the basis of legitimacy. Accordingly, the study looks into a public hearing into an oil well project of a private business company in Edmonton, Canada. The projected oil well contains a highly toxic gas, which might be fatal for the residents living in the neighboring area as well as for the natural environment and the hearing focuses on the associated risks. The study provides an analysis and description of the meanings of the hearing participants on the hearing itself, the participants being the representatives of the company, of the governmental institutions including the hearing board and the municipality of Edmonton, and the local resident groups and landowners. The analysis shows that legitimacy attempts are built on the use of the regulatory and scientific frameworks, which supposedly represent impartiality, detachment from individual interests, and general public good, as the framework of participation and knowledge production in the hearing. However, there is a contrast between the common meaning framework of the company and the governmental institutions, which is grounded in the relatively general and abstract meanings of regulations and scientific-expert knowledge, and the framework of the residents and landowners, which is grounded in the relatively local and concrete meanings of common and personal concerns. Due to this contrast, the alternative risk meanings of the residents and landowners as ordinary citizens have little ground to be heard. Therefore, the study argues that institutional mechanisms like risk assessment meetings and public hearings and inquiries, which formalize and allow citizen participation in decision making on risky business projects, legitimate rather than problematize organizational risks.
PDF

___

  • AINSWORTH, S. ve HARDY, C. (2012), “Subjects of Inquiry: Statistics, Stories, and the Production of Knowledge”, Organization Studies, 33-12, 1693-1714.
  • ALBERTA ENERGY (AE) (2014), General Natural Gas Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.energy.alberta.ca/NaturalGas/742.asp. Ekim 2014’te erişildi.
  • ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD (AEUB) (2005a), Hearing Proceedings for a Well Licence, Petrofund Corp., Armisie Field, Application no 1365474, Calgary.
  • ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD (AEUB) (2005b), Decision for a Well Licence, Petrofund Corp., Armisie Field, Application no 1365474, Calgary.
  • ALBERTA UTILITIES COMMISSION (AUC) (2012), AUC Public Hearings, Calgary.
  • BECK, U. (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
  • BECK, U. (1994), “The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive Modernization”, Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition, and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, Ed. U. Beck, A. Giddens, ve S. Lash, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 1-55.
  • BECK, U. (1999), World Risk Society, Polity Press, Malden, Mass.
  • BECK, U. ve HOLZER, B. (2007), “Organizations in World Risk Society”, International Handbook of Organizational Crisis Management, Ed. C. M. Pearson, C. Roux-Dufort, ve J. A. Clair, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 3-24.
  • BUCK, C. D. (2013), “Post-environmentalism: An Internal Critique”, Environmental Politics, 22-6, 883-900.
  • BROWN, A. D. (2000), “Making Sense of Inquiry Sensemaking”, Journal of Management Studies, 37-1, 45-75.
  • BROWN, A. D. (2003), “Authoritative Sensemaking in a Public Inquiry Report”, Organization Studies, 25-1, 95-112.
  • BUTTNY, R. (2010), “Citizen Participation, Metadiscourse, and Accountability: A Public Hearing on a Zoning Change for Wal-Mart”, Journal of Communication, 60, 636-659.
  • CASTEL, R. (1991), “From Dangerousness to Risk” In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Eds. G. Burchell, C. Gordon, ve P. Miller, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 281-298.
  • DURANT, D. (2009), “Radwaste in Canada: A political Economy of Uncertainty”, Journal of Risk Research, 12-7/8, 897-919.
  • ELLIOT, D. ve MACPHERSON, A. (2010), “Policy and Practice: Recursive Learning from Crisis”, Group and Organization Management, 35-5, 572-605.
  • ELLIOT, D. ve SMITH, D. (2006), “Cultural Readjustment after Crisis: Regulation and Learning from Crisis within the UK Soccer Industry”, Journal of Management Studies, 43-2, 289-317.
  • FOREMAN, C. H. (1998), The Promise and Peril of Environmental Justice, Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C.
  • FOUCAULT, M. (1980), “Two Lectures”, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, Ed. C. Gordon, The Harvester Press, New York, pp. 78-108.
  • FOUCAULT, M. (1988), “Politics and Reason”, Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interview and Other Writings, 1977-1984, Ed. L. D. Kritzman, Routledge, New York, pp. 57-85.
  • FOUCAULT, M. (2003), “The Subject and Power”, The Essential Foucault: Selections from the Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984, Ed. P. Rabinow ve N. Rose, The New Press, New York, pp. 126-144.
  • GEPHART, R. P. (1992), “Sensemaking, Communicative Distortion, and the Logic of Public Inquiry Legitimation”, Industrial and Environmental Crisis Quarterly, 6-2, 115-135.
  • GEPHART, R. P. (1993), “The textual Approach: Risk and Blame in Disaster Sensemaking”, Academy of Management Journal, 38-6, 1465-1514.
  • GEPHART, R. P. (1997), “Hazardous Measures: An Interpretive Textual Analysis of Quantitative Sensemaking during Crises”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 18, 583-622.
  • GEPHART, R. P. (2007), “Crisis Sensemaking and the Public Inquiry”, International Handbook of Organizational Crisis Management, Ed. C. M. Pearson, C. Roux-Dufort, ve J. A. Clair, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 123-160.
  • GEPHART R. P. ve PITTER, R. (1993), “The Organizational Basis of Industrial Accidents in Canada”, Journal of Management Inquiry, 2-3, 238-252.
  • GEPHART, R. P ve PITTER, R. (1995), “Textual Analysis in Technology Research: An Investigation of the Management of Technology Risk”, Technology Studies, 2-2, 325-356.
  • GEPHART, R. P., STEIER, L., ve LAWRENCE, T. B. (1990), “Cultural Rationalities in Crisis Sensemaking: A Study of a Public Inquiry into a Major Industrial Accident”, Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 4, 27-48.
  • GLASER, B. G. (1978), Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA. GLASER, B. G. ve STRAUSS, A. L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.
  • HABERMAS, J. (1975), Legitimation Crisis, Beacon Press, Boston.
  • HABERMAS, J. (1979), Communication and the Evolution of Society, Beacon Press, Boston. HABERMAS, J. (1989), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • HABERMAS, J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. JOHNSTON, R., PATTIE, C., ve ROSSITER, D. (2013), “Local Inquiries or Public Hearings: Changes in Public Consultation over the Redistribution of UK Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries”, Public Administration, 91-3, 663-679.
  • KEELING, A. (2001), “The Rancher and the Regulators: Public Challenges to Sour-gas Industry Regulation in Alberta, 1970-1994”, Writing off the Rural West, Ed. R. Epp ve D. Whitson, The University of Alberta Press and Parkland Institute, Edmonton, pp. 279-300.
  • LUPTON, D. (1999), Risk, Routledge, New York. MACNAGHTEN, P. (2006), “Environment and Risk”, Beyond the Risk Society: Critical Reflections on Risk and Human Security, Ed. G. Mythen ve S. Walklate, Open University Press, New York, pp. 132-146.
  • MAGDOFF, F. ve FOSTER, J. F. (2011), What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know about Capitalism: A Citizen’s Guide to Capitalism and the Environment, Monthly Review Press, New York.
  • MILBY, T. H. ve BASELT, R. C. (1999). “Hydrogen Sulphide Poisoning: Clarification of Some Controversial Issues”, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 35, 192-195.
  • NEWELL, P. (2012), Globalization and the Environment: Capitalism, Ecology, and Power, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.
  • NIKIFORUK, A. (2002), Saboteurs: Wiebo Ludwig’s War against Big Oil, Macfarlane Walter and Ross, Toronto.
  • PATTERSON, R. (2010), “A Great Dilemma Generates Another Great Transformation: Incompatibility of Capitalism and Sustainable Environments”, Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 74-83.
  • PERROW, C. (1984), Normal Accidents: Living with High-risk Technologies, Basic Books, New York.
  • PERROW, C. (2006), “Culture, Structure, and Risk” Risk Society and the Culture of Precaution, Ed. I. K. Richter, S. Berking, ve R. Muller-Schmid, Palgrave MacMillan, New York, pp. 47- 58. RESMİ GAZETE (2013), Çevresel Etki Değerlendirmesi Yönetmeliği, Ankara.
  • RICHARDSON, B. ve CURWEN, P. (1995), “Do Free-market Governments Create Crisis-ridden Societies?”, Journal of Business Ethics, 14-7, 551-560.
  • ROBERTS, G. K. (2007), “Modes of Environmental Activism”, Environmental Politics, 16-4, 677- 682.
  • SEIS, M. (2001), “Confronting the Contradiction: Global Capitalism and Environmental Health”, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 42, 123-144.
  • SHRIVASTAVA, P. (1995), “Ecocentric Management for a Risk Society”, Academy of Management Review, 20-1, 118-137.
  • SPICER, A. (2005), “The Political Process of Inscribing a New Technology”, Human Relations, 58- 7, 867-890.
  • SWEEZY, P. M. (2004), “Capitalism and the Environment”, Monthly Review, 86-93.
  • TOPAL, Ç. (2009), “The Construction of General Public Interest: Risk, Legitimacy, and Power in a Public Hearing”, Organization Studies, 30-2-3, 277-300.
  • YOUNG, N. ve LISTON, M. (2010), “(Mis)managing a Risk Controversy: The Canadian Salmon Aquaculture Industry’s Responses to Organized and Local Opposition”, Journal of Risk Research, 13-8, 1043-1065.
ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 1010-9935
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 3 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2018
  • Yayıncı: ODTÜ İİBF
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Consumers' attitude to and choice of store brands in fashion apparel: Role of gender and shopping style

Kemal KURTULUŞ, Zeynep ERTEKİN ÖZDAMAR

Bireycilik ve zaman duyarlılığı çeşitliliğinin grup içi çatışmaya etkileri

İPEK METE, FERİDE PINAR ACAR

Ulaştırma sektörü ve hanehalkı enerji tüketiminde alternatif enerji kullanımının emisyon ve ekonomik etkileri

Reyhan ÖZEŞ, Selim ÇAĞATAY

Reassessing the heterogeneity hypothesis in unemployment dynamics

HAKAN ULUCAN, Hakan Ercan, Semih TÜMEN

Risk toplumunda meşruiyet sorunu ve örgütsel riskin meşrulaştırılması

ÇAĞRI TOPAL