Empirical Study on Social Responsibility Evaluation of Listed Hotels Based on
Set Pair Analysis
Zhong Wang1, Lan Hu1, Ying-wen Deng2
1
School of Business Administration, Hunan University, ChangSha , China
(wangzhonghc@hotmail.com, hulan19880701@126.com, denyinwen@163.com)
Abstract - Social responsibility problems of Listed Hotels
have increasingly attract social concerns in their business
processes. From the view of the investors ,this paper
constructs an indicator system of social responsibility
evaluation for listed hotels, then provides and analyzes an
empirical study with the set pair analysis model. Finally, we
give our suggestions for the results.
Key Words - corporate social responsibility, indicator
system, listed hotels, set pair analysis
corresponding decision and taking the ideal concrete
action[1]. Joseph McGuire (1963) thought it is too narrow
to only consider economic and legal responsibility,
corporate social responsibility should include more
widely content [2]. Carroll (1991) broadened the
dimensions of corporate social responsibility, which
should include economic, legal, moral and charity
responsibility [3]. It seemed to Adams (2004) that
corporate social responsibility included the quality
management, environment management, brand effect and
consumer loyalty, etc [4].
I. INTRODUCTION
B. Review on Domestic Research
Recently, the hotel industry has got great
successes guided by collectivizing and international
development. As the leading companies of the hotel
industry, listed hotels have achieved rapid development.
In 1993, Jin Jiang Hotels was listed and got a good start in
listing of hotel industry. Then hotels all over the country
concentrated competitive resources to list. However, a
series of social responsibility problems appeared in the
business processes. For example, increasing employees’
work hours and intensity opposed to their unreasonable
income, infringing consumer interests, evading tax and so
on. All these reflect listed hotels lack the cognition of
social responsibility and manage passively to social
responsibility performance. In addition, listed hotels’
sustainable development is also influenced. Therefore, it
is meaningful to do empirical research on social
responsibility evaluation of listed hotels.
Our country is among the latecomers to the
research of corporate social responsibility. Yuan Jia Fang
(1990)is the earliest scholar defined the concept of
corporate social responsibility. Qu Xiao Hua (2003)
thought that it was the different stakeholders’ positive
reaction in business processes, here stakeholders included
the staff, our business partners, consumers, community
and country[5]. Zhou Zu Cheng (2005) believed that the
objects of corporate social responsibility include each
related stakeholder. Meanwhile, corporate social
responsibility included not only economic responsibility
but also moral and legal responsibility[6]. Zhang Jian Tong
(2007) thought enterprises should pursue the value of all
stakeholders’ [7].
More and more scholars combine corporate
social responsibility and stakeholder theory to study
problems [8][9][10][11][12].
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
The concept of social responsibility arose in the
beginning of the twentieth century, many domestic and
foreign scholars read corporate social responsibility from
different angles, which greatly enriched the connotation
and extension of social responsibility.
A. Review on Foreign Research
Bowen (1953) defined social responsibility as
their goals and values requirements in the society which
enterprises followed when they making relevant policy,
____________________
Support Fund: National Natural Science Foundation of China/ Surface
project (71172195/G021501); Key Support Project of Teachers’
Scientific Research Innovation in Hunan University (11HDSK208); Soft
Science Research Project of Changsha (899216030).
III. METHODOLOGY
On the basis of review on corporate social
responsibility, this section firstly we will choose listed
hotels as research objects, secondly, attempt to establish a
scientific and reasonable social responsibility evaluation
indicator system, thirdly, determine the indicator weight
by AHP method and then introduce the empirical analysis
model--set pair analysis model.
A. The Construction and Weight of Social Responsibility
Evaluation Indicator System
We also choose stakeholder theory as the
theoretical basis when we establish the social
responsibility evaluation indicator system for listed
hotels, which is the same as the scholars’ before. In this
paper, firstly, we invite college professors and senior
managers who work in the relevant field to do
questionnaire survey. Secondly, we do discrimination
analysis and correlation analysis on the basis of received
questionnaires’ indicator data. Finally, we establish a
scientific and reasonable social responsibility evaluation
indicator system which is classified into investors layer,
government layer, employees layer, environment layer,
customers layer, suppliers layer and charity layer. Each
layer contains several indicators, it tatals 28. Then, we use
AHP method to establish the weight of social
responsibility evaluation indicator system for listed
hotels. Because of space limitations, here we don’t list
specific 28 indicators and their weight data.
which is not taking weight into consideration. In the
matrix Q, a ij represents the ratio of d ij / d 0 j
B. the Construction of Set Pair Analysis Model
In the matrix R , ai (i  1,2,, n) means the
same degree of the ith listed hotel’ social responsibility
compared to the ideal scheme’s. According to the value of
the a i of the R , we sort the selected listed hotels from
Set pair analysis theory is put forward in 1989
by scholar Zhao Ke Qin[13], which is used to analyze
certainty and uncertainty relations.
(1) The basic thoughts of the set pair analysis.
Now we suppose in a certain problem background (set to
W), two sets form a set pair H = (A, B), which have N
characters but no weight differences. We suppose S is the
number of identical characters of N, P is the number of
opposing characters of N, the rest F = N-S-P is the
number of not completely identical and opposing
characters. Then we use S/N, F/N and P/N which is the set
pair H in the background of W to represent the same
degree, the different degree, the opposing degree[14]. If we
use μ(W) represent the relation degree, then we can refer
to the follow expression (1):
S F
P
 (W )   i  j (1)
N N
N
i is the difference degree coefficient, value [-1,
1], j = 1, for opposition degree.
(2) The construction of an evaluation matrix[15].
We suppose evaluation sets include M1,M2,…,Mn listed
hotels, then we use C1,C2, …,Cm to represent evaluation
indicators and dij(i=1,2,…,n;j=1,2, …,m) to represents the
value of indicator. Meanwhlie, I1 and I2 mean efficiency
indicator (the bigger the better) and cost indicator(the
smaller the better), so we establish the social
responsibility evaluation matrix H in the expression (2):
 d 11 d 12  d 1n 
d
d 22  d 2 n 
H   21
(2)
 


 


d m1 d m 2  d mn 
We select the optimal value of the indicators
from the evaluation matrix H to constitute an ideal
T
scheme vector M0= d 01  d 0 j  d 0m . In the


vector, d0j means the optimal value of the indicator j of the
listed hotels. We compare those indicator dij of the matrix
H to those indicator d0j of the ideal scheme vector, then we
can get an same degree matrix Q in the expression (3),
 a11
a
Q   21
 

a m1
 a1n 
 a 2 n 
(3)


 

a m 2  a mn 
(3) The construction of an evaluation model.
According to the weight W of indicator system and the
same degree matrix Q, we can get an same degree matrix
R in the expression (4), which is taking weight into
consideration.
R  W * Q  (a1 , a 2 ,  , a n ) (4)
a12
a 22
great to little, which is positively related with a i .
(4) The construction of an multilevel evaluation
model. A two levels set pair analysis evaluation model are
got in the expression (5) by dividing the indicator set
C  C1 , C2 ,, Cm  .
1 * a1 

 *a 
R0  W * Q  W *  2 2  (5)




n * an 
W means the weights of the factors of
C / P  C1 , C2 ,, Cn  , for example, Wi means the
weight of the
k th factor. Q, Qi mean the same degree
matrix of C / P, Ci , which are not taking weight into
consideration. R0 means the same degree matrix of
C / P, Ci , which is taking weight into consideration.
Ⅳ. EMPIRICAL STUDY
In the front part, we introduced the researched
objects, discussed the theory method and the model which
will be took. Now, in this part, evaluation indicator
system and set pair analysis model will be applied to
selected appropriate samples.
A. Introduction of Samples and Data Source
The sample selection follows the principles of
data availability, efficiency and reliability. And eventually
9 listed hotels are selected from all over the country. They
are Dongfang Hotel (000524), Xindu Hotel (000033),
Huatian Hotel (000428),Jinjiang Shares (600754), Xi’an
Diet (000721), Science Town (000975), Wanhaowanjia
(600576), Jinling Hotel (601007), Quan Ju De (002186).
Sample data derive from the Annual Report of Listed
Hotels, Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchange
Websites, Security and Financial Website Reports and so
on. In this paper,we will select the 9 listed hotels’ social
responsibility evaluation indicator data from 2008 to
Table Ⅰ
The first layer comprehensive evaluated results
Results
Xindu
Hotel
Huatian
Hotel
Dongfang
Hotel
Xi’an
Diet
Science
Town
Quan Ju
De
Wanhao
wanjia
Jinjiang
Shares
Jinling
Hotel
B1
0.2409
0.5287
0.1644
0.3937
0.2459
0.6561
0.3873
0.5697
0.3531
B2
0.1598
0.0361
0.1644
0.1453
0.0627
0.6719
0.3281
0.0000
0.6719
B3
0.2719
0.5237
0.3427
0.3481
0.6587
0.4604
0.1794
0.3733
0.2896
B4
0.9105
0.3657
0.3496
0.2373
0.7410
0.6654
1.0000
0.4821
0.6555
B5
0.2682
0.2626
0.0306
0.4423
0.2080
0.5832
0.2795
0.3242
0.2443
B6
0.3251
0.5795
0.2304
0.2908
0.9892
0.3857
0.2421
0.6699
0.3652
B7
0.0129
0.2207
0.3014
0.0943
0.0127
0.2045
1.0000
0.0000
0.0204
Results
Xindu
Hotel
Table Ⅱ
The second layer comprehensive evaluated results
Huatian
Dongfang
Xi’an
Science
Quan Ju
Hotel
Hotel
Diet
Town
De
B
0.3802
0.5488
0.2427
0.4334
2010, then choose the average as the final indicator value.
Due to limited space, we won’t list specific data.
B. Empirical Results Analysis
According to the introduction of the set pair
analysis model and its operation steps, we use the original
indicator data to construct the first level evaluation
matrix H B1 , , H B 7 , then combine with the indicator
weight W1 ,,W7 , finally, caculate the first
comprehensive evaluated results, which is shown in the
table Ⅰ.
According to the first layer comprehensive
evaluated results in table Ⅰ, we caculate the second layer
comprehensive evaluated results, which is shown in the
table Ⅱ.
From the table Ⅰ and Ⅱ, listed hotels’ social
responsibilities which perform to investors, environment,
employees, suppliers, government, customers and charity
are different. The total score falling on the interval of
0.7,1 is the Quan Ju De. The total score of
Wanhaowanjia, Huatian Hotel, Jinjiang Shares, Jinling
Hotel and Science Town are fall on the interval of
[0.5,0.7) .The total score falling on the interval of
[0.3,0.5) are Xi’an Diet and Xindu Hotel. Dongfang
Hotel’s total score is the lowest, which is in the interval of
[0,0.3) .
(1) In the interval of 0.7,1 : In all the samples,
Quan Ju De has the highest social responsibility total
evaluation score of 0.7857 in performing social
responsibility as a whole. Especially the input relative
strength in investors, environment, government, is the
largest of the sample. Checking the original data, it is
known that Quan Ju De performs well in making profit
for shareholders, using its own capital’ efficiency,
0.5002
0.7857
Wanhao
wanjia
Jinjiang
Shares
Jinling
Hotel
0.5512
0.5483
0.5298
designating and implementing enterprise environmental
protection plans and detailed rules, abiding by relevant tax
laws and regulations and contributing to the government.
So it is the one that is worthy of imitation.
(2) In the interval of [0.5,0.7) : This is the most
numerous interval. Wanhaowanjia’s social responsibility
total evaluation score is far ahead of others in performing
social responsibility to suppliers and the charity. But it is
badly behind others in performing social responsibility to
employees. The reason was that the rate of its employees’
salary increase is a negative value for three years during
the research period. Huatian Hotel performs social
responsibility smoothly to stakeholders. Jinjiang Shares
performs social responsibility badly to the environment
and the charity. Jinling Hotel performs very well in social
responsibility to the environment, which keeps up with
Quan Ju De. But Jinling Hotel’s interest in the charity is
not enough. Science Town stresses on employees’ income
and development, customers’ benefit, so it performs well
in social responsibility to employees and customers.
(3) In the interval of [0.3,0.5) : Xi’an Diet and
Xindu Hotel fall on this interval. They perform social
responsibility badly to stakeholders. Looking back upon
the original data, Xi’an Diet has the bad ability to
suppliers’ payment, so it is difficult to perform social
responsibility to suppliers. Although Xindu Hotel’s each
score is not at the back of a lengthy queue, its evaluation
result is on the low side. Listed hotels in this level should
strengthen the social responsibility consciousness and
perform the social responsibility actively.
(4) In the interval of [0,0.3) : Only Dongfang
Hotel falls on. It has the total evaluation score of 0.2427,
the weakest one in performing social responsibility in all
samples, especially to suppliers, the government and
customers. Looking back upon its original data, it is not
hard to find that its indicators such as making profit for
shareholders, using its own capital’ efficiency,
designating and implementing enterprise environmental
protection plans and detailed rules, the rate of the sales
growth are always in the nagtive states. All these show
that Dongfang Hotel should need change its development
programs to improve its market competition advantage.
Ⅴ. CONCLUSIONS
Form the view of the investors, this paper
constructs a normative and reasonable indicator system of
social responsibility evaluation for listed hotels based on
the stakeholder theory, then analyzes an empirical study
with the set pair analysis model. The final empirical
results show that most of the listed hotels’ performance in
social responsibility in our country is not enough in the
background of the further promotion of sustainable
development. Therefore, listed hotels should take active
measures to improve the effect of social responsibility
performance. Firstly, listed hotels should strengthen social
responsibility consciousness and foster employees’ social
responsibility. Secondly, listed hotels should improve the
social responsibility report and other information
disclosed mechanism, in order to provide information
evidence for listed hotels to evaluate their social
responsibility performance effect. Finally, relevant
departments can implement policy to standardize and
guide social responsibility goals of listed hotels, so that
they will be more conscious to consider performing social
responsibility to stakeholders during the operation
process.
REFERENCES
[1] Howard R Bowen. Social responsibility of the business. New
York: Harper, 1953.
[2] McGuire, Joseph W. Business and Society. New York:
McGraw-Hill,1963,pp.20.
[3] Carroll A B. The Pyramid of Corporate Social
Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of
Organizational
Stakeholders.
Business
Horizons,1991,20(4):pp.39-48.
[4] Adams C. Corporate Social Responsibility: Why Business
Should Act Responsibly and Be Accountable. Australian
Accounting Review,2004,14(3):pp.31-39.
[5] Qu Xiaohua.the interaction research between corporate
social responsibility evolution and enterprise benign
behavior
and
reaction,
Modernization
of
Management,2003,5:pp.13-16. (Chinese)
[6] Zhou Zucheng. Enterprise ethics.Bei Jing: Tsinghua
University Press, 2005,pp.41. (Chinese)
[7] Zhang Jiantong,Zhu Lilong. Correlation study between
corporate social responsibility and performance. Economic
Management of East China, 2007(7):pp.94-97. (Chinese)
[8] Ye Chengang,Cao Bo.The construction of corporate social
responsibility evaluation system. Finance and Accounting
Monthly,2008,(6):pp.41-44. (Chinese)
[9] Jawahar, I.M., and McLaughlin, Gary L., “Toward a
Descriptive Stakeholder Theory: An Organizational Life
Cycle Approach”, Academy of Management Review, 2001,
26(3):pp.398.
[10] Wood, Donna J., and Jones, Raymond E., “Stakeholder
Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical Research
on Corporate Social Performance”, International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 1995, 3(3):pp. 229.
[11] Yao Haixin, Lu Zhiqiang, Li Honghu, corporate social
responsibility on the shareholder wealth : An empirical
study on corporate social responsibility effect to
shareholder
wealth,
Journal
of
Northeastern
University,2007, 4:pp.315-320. (Chinese)
[12] Cornell B, Shapiro A C. Corporate stakeholders and
corporate finance. Financial Management, 1987, 16(1):pp.
5-14.
[13] Zhao Keqin. Set pair analysis and preliminary
application.Hang Zhou: Zhejiang science and Technology
Press,2000:pp.1-10. (Chinese)
[14] Du Zongmin,The bid evaluation method of construction
project based on the set pair analysis, Sichuan
building,2011(1):pp.237-238. (Chinese)
[15] Xiao Zhenhong,Hu Yunquan,Comprehensive evaluation of
the target enterprise based on the theory of set pair,
Statistics and decision,2008(6):pp.183-185.(Chinese)