Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Corporate Social Responsibility Performance-Evaluation Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process-Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Model

  • Published:
Wireless Personal Communications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The widely held opinion that firms should undertake corporate social responsibility (CSR) sometimes conflicts with profit maximization, which is a primary motivation for firms. CSR performance-evaluation may resolve this conflict. Taking real estate firm as an example, this study build a CSR performance-evaluation index system that includes economic performance, business ethics, environmental protection and social contribution based on stakeholder theory and symbiosis theory. This study combines the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) method to propose an improved analytic hierarchy process-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (AHP-FCE) algorithm. Improved by the personality-trait theory, the algorithm is used in the CSR performance-evaluation model. This research may provide a useful opinion based on which the public may choose predictive indexes for assessment of CSR, and conduct accurate supervision at all levels of CSR. The AHP-FCE model proposed in this research applies widely in the evaluation of CSR performance.

This is a preview of subscription content,log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The data of heng company mainly come from the information announced by the company.

References

  1. Bonacchi, M. (2009).Corporate social responsibility: Readings and cases in a global context. London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. (2019).Corporate social responsibility: Readings and cases in a global context. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Sheldon, O. (1923).The philosophy of management. London: Sir I. Pitman & Sons Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bowen, H. R. (2013).Social responsibilities of the businessman. Iowa: University of Iowa Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.Academy of Management Review,4, 497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kreng, V. B., & Huang, M.-Y. (2011). Corporate social responsibility: Consumer behavior, corporate strategy, and public policy.Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,39, 529–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility.Academy of Management Review,32, 946–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dhaliwal, D., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The roles of stakeholder orientation and financial transparency.Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,33, 328–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. KPMG. (2015).KPMG’s 2015 corporate social responsibility report: China survey results (pp. 1–6).

  10. Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and “the corporate objective revisited.”Organization Science,15, 364–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Abzug, R., & Webb, N. J. (1996). Rational and extra-rational motivations for corporate giving: Complementing economic theory with organization science.The New York Law School Law Review,41, 1035.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Campbell, L., Gulas, C. S., & Gruca, T. S. (1999). Corporate giving behavior and decision-maker social consciousness.Journal of Business Ethics,19, 375–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen, C. M., & Delmas, M. (2011). Measuring corporate social performance: An efficiency perspective.Production and Operations Management,20, 789–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Waddock, S. (2002). Learning from experience: The United Nations global compact learning forum.Journal of Corporate Citizenship,2003, 51–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Huang, Z., & Zhang, W. (2017). Blue book on corporate social responsibility-China corporate social responsibility research report. Social Sciences Literature Press.

  16. Zhong, M., Xu, R., Liao, X., & Zhang, S. (2019). Do CSR ratings converge in China? A comparison between RKS and Hexun scores.Sustainability,11, 3921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rahdari, A. H. (2016). Developing a fuzzy corporate performance rating system: A petrochemical industry case study.Journal of Cleaner Production,131, 421–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wood, D.J. Measuring corporate social performance: A review.International journal of management reviews2010,12, 50–84 %@ 1460–8545.

  19. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units.European Journal of Operational Research,2, 429–444.

    Article MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2007).Modeling data irregularities and structural complexities in data envelopment analysis. New York: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Liu, L., & Zhan, X. (2019). Analysis of financing efficiency of Chinese agricultural listed companies based on machine learning.Complexity,2019, 1076–2787.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests.Machine Learning,45, 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nie, X. (2006). Group multiple attribute decision making method and its application.Journal of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,38(4), 524–528.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process.European Journal of Operational Research,48, 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Li, W., Ye, Y., Hu, N., Wang, X., & Wang, Q. (2019). Real-time warning and risk assessment of tailings dam disaster status based on dynamic hierarchy-grey relation analysis.Complexity,2019, 1076–2787.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Huang, G., Sun, S., & Zhang, D. (2018). Safety evaluation of construction based on the improved AHP-grey model.Wireless Personal Communications,103, 209–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fu, J., & Zhang, L. (2012). Green marketing performance evaluation of circular economy based on AHP and BP neural network model.Science and Technology Management Research,2012, 222–227.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hu, B. (2010).The basis of fuzzy theory. Wuhan: Wuhan University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cai, Z., & Guo. (2018). Application of multi-factor fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method based on analytic hierarchy process in patent transformation.Journal of Nanjing University of Technology (Natural Science Edition), 42(4).

  30. Shinde, D. D., & Prasad, R. (2018). Application of AHP for ranking of total productive maintenance pillars.Wireless Personal Communications,100, 449–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang, Y. F. (2011). Network security assessment of AHP and SYM combination.Computer Simulation,28(3), 182–185.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wei, H., Wang, M., Song, B., Wang, X., & Chen, D. (2018). Study on the magnitude of reservoir-triggered earthquake based on support vector machines.Complexity,2018, 1076–2787.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Chen. (2002). Effects of personality traits on information processing in different cognitive tasks. (Doctoral dissertation, South China Normal University).

  34. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model.Annual Review of Psychology,41, 417–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Chen, Z. (2001). On the behavioral genetic orientation of individual psychological differences.Journal of South China Normal University, 31–35.

  36. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray’s needs and the five-factor model.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,55, 258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Li, W., Xu, G., Xing, Q., & Lyu, M. (2019). Application of improved AHP-BP neural network in CSR performance evaluation model.Wireless Personal Communications,111, 2215–2230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hoi, C. K., Wu, Q., & Zhang, H. (2013). Is corporate social responsibility (CSR) associated with tax avoidance? Evidence from irresponsible CSR activities.The Accounting Review,88, 2025–2059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Schrand, C. M., & Beverly, R. W. (2000). Strategic benchmarks in earnings announcements: The selective disclosure of prior-period earnings components.The Accounting Review,75, 151–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Li, Q., Luo, W., Wang, Y., & Wu, L. (2013). Firm performance, corporate ownership, and corporate social responsibility disclosure in China.Business Ethics: A European Review,22, 159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhong, M., Xu, R., Liao, X., & Zhang, S. (2019). Do CSR ratings converge in China? A comparison between RKS and Hexun scores.Sustainability,11, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance.California Management Review,25, 88–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Xu, G., & Zhou, X. (2002). Research on enterprise symbiosis strategic performance evaluation model.Nankai Management Review,11(5), 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Shen, Y., & Xu, G. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and its ‘causes and consequences’.Journal of Guizhou University of Finance and Economics, 101–110.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Number 71472088.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Xiaolingwei 200, Nanjing, 210094, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China

    Wenqin Li, Guanghua Xu, Dongdong Zuo & Jiali Zhu

Authors
  1. Wenqin Li

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guanghua Xu

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dongdong Zuo

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jiali Zhu

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

This paper is the result of cooperation between the authors. GX designed the research and wrote the sections of the manuscript based on the literature review. WL contributed to the research and designed the evaluation system. DZ and JZ wrote other sections of the manuscript. The authors have reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version of the document.

Corresponding author

Correspondence toWenqin Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, W., Xu, G., Zuo, D.et al. Corporate Social Responsibility Performance-Evaluation Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process-Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Model.Wireless Pers Commun118, 2897–2919 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-021-08161-4

Download citation

Keywords

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Advertisement

[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp