Reconstruction: Key to Social Responsibility Risk Assessment for Tourism Investment Projects†

Chen Lv; Xiaoyan Li

doi:10.2991/jracr.k.210111.002

Download article (PDF)

Next Article In Issue>

Volume 11, Issue 1, April 2021, Pages 1 - 9

Reconstruction: Key to Social Responsibility Risk Assessment for Tourism Investment Projects†

Authors

Chen Lv¹^{, 2}, Xiaoyan Li²^{, *}^,

¹China Tourism Academy, Room 319, Block 2, Guanghua Chang’an Building 7 Jianguomennei Ave., Dongcheng District, Beijing 100005, China

²School of Tourism, Taishan University, 525 Dongyue Street, Tai’an City, Shandong Province, Tai’an 271000, China

^†

Supported by: Social science planning project of Shandong Province (Digital Shandong special project) (20CSDJ62); China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Project (2017M620958).

^*Corresponding author. Email: 348566634@qq.com

Corresponding Author

Xiaoyan Li

Received 16 September 2020, Accepted 7 January 2021, Available Online 5 February 2021.

DOI: 10.2991/jracr.k.210111.002 How to use a DOI?
Keywords: Tourism investment; social responsibility risk; reconstruction
Abstract: The strategy of investing large-scale tourism projects abroad has become one of the most important strategies for China to help developing countries to improve their people’s livelihood, provide assistance and practice China’s international responsibility. The proposal and implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative (B&R for short) provides an opportunity for the rapid development of China’s large-scale tourism investment project abroad. Current research on investment risks mainly focuses on economic ones, while social responsibility risk is far less discussed. There are even fewer risk studies based on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility, not to mention a systematic evaluation and quantitative analysis of social responsibility risk of B&R large-scale tourism investment project abroad. Based on the six core subjects and 35 issues listed in ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility, with the method of the analytic hierarchy process, this paper fixes and sorts the evaluation indexes of social responsibility risk, so as to reconstruct the assessment for social responsibility risk of large-scale tourism investment project abroad. This assessment consists of three first-level value dimensions, nine second-level value dimensions and 21 third-level value dimensions. The results show: in the social responsibility risk assessment for B&R large-scale tourism projects abroad, stress should be put not only on project implementation and project selection, but also on project follow-up management. Among the 21 third-level dimensions, top 10 dominant indexes are listed in turn as follows: dispute treatment, 0.0727, community environment 0.0610, education and awareness 0.0529, community participation 0.0499, skills and technology 0.0426, union organizations 0.0193, vulnerable groups 0.0168, respect for property rights 0.0163, ecological restoration 0.0160, and work environment condition 0.0156.
Copyright: © 2021 The Authors. Published by Atlantis Press B.V.
Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

1. INTRODUCTION

Large-scale tourism investment abroad refers to the economic behavior of undertaking large-scale tourism investment projects abroad under the guidance of the host country or region government, with foreign tourism enterprise group as the main body. Characterized by large investment scale, long cycle and complex social influence, it has important use function and great social significance. In recent years, Chinese enterprises have invested more than $100 billion in 10 large-scale tourism projects abroad. The strategy of investing large-scale tourism projects abroad has become one of China’s important strategies to help developing countries improve their people’s livelihood, provide assistance and fulfill its international responsibilities [1]. The proposal and implementation of the Belt and Road (B&R) Initiative provides an opportunity for the rapid development of China’s large-scale tourism investment project abroad. In 2017, Dalian Wanda Group invested as much as $10 billion in Malaysia’s Dama City tourism investment project and India’s Haryana Industrial City project. In Paris, China invested more than 3 billion euros in a large-scale cultural tourism project. However, the loss rate is as high as 90% and the losses run into hundreds of billions of dollars. The $3.6 billion Bahamas resort project conducted by China State Construction Engineering Group Co. Ltd., which would have been completed in 2015, went bankrupt due to labor issues. A 180-million-dollar project in Cancun, Mexico, went bankrupt in 2014 as a result of environmental problems of mangroves and the protection of bird homes. These failures make the complex problem of risks of Chinese large-scale investment project abroad once again a hot topic and a global challenge theoretically and practically.

Current research on investment risks mainly focuses on the economic ones, while social responsibility risk is far less discussed. Domestic evaluation of social responsibility risk is mainly based on the perspective of enterprises rather than the B&R large-scale tourism investment abroad. There are even fewer systematic and quantitative analysis studies of social responsibility risk of B&R large-scale tourism investment project abroad based on International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 26000. According to the six core subjects of ISO 26000, human rights, labor practices, the environment, fair operating practices, consumer issues and community involvement and development, combined with the background of the B&R and the current national conditions of China, this paper develops and innovates the social responsibility risk assessment of B&R large-scale tourism investment project abroad by identifying the essential dimensions to lower investment risks and sorting the key dimensions so as to promote the sustainable development of B&R large-scale tourism investment project abroad.

2. DIMENSIONS OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY RISK ASSESSMENT

2.1. The Connotation and Evaluation of Social Responsibility Risk Assessment

Risk generally refers to the uncertainty that is inconsistent with the expected goal, including the uncertainty of the occurrence of events, the uncertainty of losses, as well as the uncertainty of both occurrence possibility and loss degree. Social responsibility risk of investment projects refers to the uncertainty of the future investment income due to the failure to fulfill the social responsibility during the implementation process and the follow-up management of the investment project. Investors may take the risk of income loss, or even the loss of principal, which is mainly manifested as natural risk, social risk, economic risk, technical risk, humanistic risk and cultural risk, etc. (Table 1).

Perspectives	Experts and scholars
Uncertainty of occurrence of events	Willett (1901), Mowbray (1995), Williams (1985), Knight (2003)
Uncertainty of loss	Rosenb (1972a and b), Haynes (1985)
Possibility of occurrence and loss degree	Williams (1993), Tumer (1992), Shuzhen Zhu (2002)

Source: According to the relevant data collation.

Table 1

Connotation of investment risks

2.2. Dimensions of Social Responsibility Risk Assessment

Ghosh and Jintanapakanont [2] applied the method of factor analysis to identify key risk factors in engineering projects. Huseby and Skogen [3] incorporated decision-making behavior uncertainty into the risk evaluation indexes of investment projects. Jiang et al. [4] adopted the method of fuzzy clustering and fuzzy similarity to evaluate the risks of investment projects. Irene Hall et al. [5] studied the impact of 3215 emergencies on investment projects in the United States from 1990 to 1992. Malone et al. [6] considered shared dependency, flow dependency, co-dependency and the interdependence among them as the dominant factors of complex risks of investment project. According to the fuzzy set theory, Knight and Fayek [7], Lee and Daniel [8], Lin and Chen [9], Sadiq and Husain [10], Motawa et al. [11], incorporated cost risk, safety risk, bidding risk, environmental risk and project change risk into investment project evaluation. Su and Wang [12] pointed out the influence of environment on investment decisions. Jia [13] insisted that top-level decision of the government have a great impact on investment projects. Han et al. [14], Zhou and Ren [15], Huang and Tang [16] believed that social responsibility affected the direction of investment projects. Meng et al. [17], Zheng [18], Lin [19], Wang et al. [20], Zhou and Yu (2005) [21], Hong and Li [22], Hu et al. [23], Zhou and Wang [24] etc. regarded energy consumption, local residents’ demands, carbon emissions, performance, emergency and income inequality as the key dominant factors of investment projects. Feng and Zhang [25] designed the risk assessment indexes of agricultural investment projects from the perspectives of external environmental risks, technological risks and internal risks of enterprises. Li [26] used the balanced scorecard method to design the index system of complex risk assessment of engineering projects. The above experts and scholars mainly conducted research from the perspective of economic risks.

In terms of social responsibility risk, Sun et al. [27] conducted the research from the point of institutional quality, green innovation and energy efficiency and energy policy (Table 2). Sun et al. [28] studied the environmental sustainability performance of South Asia. Yang and Chen (2020) [29], Lv and Ge (2020) [30], studied social responsibility risks of investment abroad from the perspectives of lacking environmental awareness, improper handling of labor relations, conflicts with local residents, and the environment. Zhang et al. (2016) [31], analyzed the risks faced by Chinese investment in foreign infrastructure projects based on the environment of the host country, complexity of infrastructure projects and stakeholders. Li (2016) [32] analyzed the risk of foreign investment from five dimensions of politics, management, culture, law and nature. Pu (2015) [33] analyzed the risks of Chinese railway enterprises’ foreign investment projects from the perspectives of politics, economy and society. Yang and Pi (2019) [34] believed that China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment faced risks of politics, terrorism, nationalism, policies and laws, exchange rate, cultural conflicts and other aspects. Other scholars and enterprises have studied China’s foreign large-scale investment projects, including social responsibility risks of some large-scale tourism investment projects from different perspectives, such as, Huang (2011) [35] and Wang (2013) [36], from the perspective of respects for human rights, Feng (2005) [37] and Wang (2005) [38] from the point of consumers’ issues, Wanhua Group, Shan Dong province, from the angle of fair operating practices, and He (1995) [39], Zhao (2005) [40], Jiang (2009) [41], and Zhang (2013) [42] etc. from the point of environmental protection. However, in terms of social responsibility risks, the above researches are carried out only from a certain aspect or angle without a systematic research based on any international standards of social responsibility, let alone a social responsibility risk assessment for the B&R large-scale tourism investment projects abroad. Therefore, based on the standards of ISO 26000, the six core subjects, namely human rights, labor practice, environment, fair operation practice, consumer issues, community and development are incorporated as the dimensions of social responsibility risk assessment of the B&R large-scale tourism investment projects abroad.

Representative authors/organizations	Factors for assessment
Robins	Philanthropy, pricing issues, employee relations, resource protection, product quality
Drucker (1992) [43]	Employees, community, clients
The FTSE Social Responsibility Index	Stakeholder, environment, labor in supply chain, human rights, climate change and anti-bribery
American Economic Priorities	The status of women, charitable giving, military contracts, the status of people of color, information disclosure, animal testing, environmental records, community service, South Africa, nuclear power, and so on
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001)	Information dissemination, general policy, environment, labour relations, consumer rights and interests, combating bribery, science and technology, competition and taxation
Mallin et al. (2014) [44]	Social responsibility information disclosure index, etc.
China Textile Industry Association (2005)	Labour contracts, management systems, forced labour, child labour, pay and benefits, working hours, discrimination, sexual harassment and abuse, trade unions and collective bargaining, and occupational safety and health
Li [45]	Human rights protection, labor rights and interests, social responsibility management, public welfare and business ethics
China Business Council for Sustainable Development (2007)	Human rights, resource conservation and ecological protection, competition and cooperation, employees, environmental performance, products and services, cultural diversity, community building and public welfare, and public relations
State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council of China (2008)	Adhering to honest and lawful business practices, continuously improving profitability, effectively improving product quality and service, strengthening resource conservation and environmental protection, advancing independent innovation and technology, ensuring production safety, safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of employees, and participating in public welfare programs

Source: According to the relevant data collation.

Table 2

Typical social responsibility assessment dimensions

3. ISO 26000 GUIDANCE ON SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

The standard of ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility is the first relatively unified international social responsibility standard in the world. Since the 1990s, the concept of social responsibility has set off a great wave and pushed the development of global social responsibility movement. At first, only corporate social responsibility for enterprises was proposed, namely, the production regulations of enterprises. The International Labor Organization is committed to promoting international labor standard; based on 10 Principals of Global Compact, the United States established the United Nations Global Compact Office and the Social Accountability International; in 1997, the American civil society organization issued the social responsibility standard of third-party certification (SA8000), Guide to Sustainable Development Reporting (latest version G3) and global reporting initiative, etc. (see Table 3). However, all the above standards and guidance target narrowly and have certain limitations. How to uniformly define social responsibility, especially how to practice and measure social responsibility has become a common research subject for the international community. At the request of the committee on consumer policy, ISO 26000, an international social responsibility standard, was developed by the Technical Management Bureau and the plan of ISO 26000 project was carried out in 2005. After 5 years’ formulation and having reached a consensus between developed and developing countries and among various stakeholders involving more than 90 countries and more than 40 international and regional organizations for social responsibility, ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility was officially promulgated by the ISO on November 1, 2010 (see Table 4 for details).

Norms	Countries using the standard	Contents
SO14000 (1996)	More than 130 countries and regions use it, thus making it a recognized standard for global quality and environmental management systems	17 elements involving environmental policy, planning, fact and operation, inspection and corrective measures and management review
SA8000 (1997)	2919 organizations covering 65 industries of 62 countries; Top ten countries and regions of certification: India, China, Italy, Brazil, Pakistan, Vietnam, Spain, Romania, Taiwan China, Philippines	Child labour, health and safety, forced labour, discrimination, freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, remuneration, disciplinary measures, management systems and working hours
UN Global Compact (1999)	With 8700 businesses in more than 130 countries, it is the world’s largest voluntary social responsibility initiative	10 principles of global consensus in the fields of human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption
OECD Guidelines for Transnational Corporations (2000)	Signed up by 34 governments, and gradually promoted globally	General policy, information disclosure, labour relations, environment, fight against bribery, consumer interests, science and technology, competition and taxation, etc.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2000)	By November 2014, 20,881 GRI reports had been released	Beyond environment, it expands the reporting framework to society, environment, economy and governance areas

Source: According to the relevant data collation.

Table 3

Representative international norms of social responsibility

Stages	Time	Contents
Stage 1	2001	An ISO subordinate, Consumer Policy Committee (COPOLCO) submitted an application to the council. The application was approved and a Strategic Advisory Group was established.
	2002	COPOLCO presented a feasibility report on the standardization of social responsibility to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Council.
	2003	ISO set up a special strategy advisory group to develop social responsibility standards.
Stage 2	2004	Technical Management Bureau (TMB) of ISO decided to launch the project of ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility.
	2005	ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility working group was established, and they held the first meeting. The development of ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility was officially initiated.
	2008	The expert group submitted the ISO 26000 project proposal and draft to the Committee of Social Responsibility, and the committee draft was formed after a second discussion.
	2010	The draft was amended by the countries and stakeholders involved in the formulation of ISO 26000, and the draft of international standard was confirmed, only to be approved.
	2010	ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility Standards were officially released.

Source: According to the relevant data collation.

Table 4

Formulating process of ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility

As a key definition of ISO 26000, social responsibility is defined as “responsibility of an organization for the impact of its decisions and activities on society and the environment, through transparent and ethical behaviour that contributes to sustainable development, including health and the welfare of society, takes into account the expectations of stakeholders, is in compliance with applicable law and international norms of behavior, and is integrated throughout the organization and practised in its relationships.” ISO 26000 mainly focuses on organizational governance and involves six core subjects and 35 issues (see Table 5 for details).

Core subjects	Issues	Dimensions extracted in this paper
Human rights A₂₁	Due diligence	Due diligence A₂₁₁
	Human rights risk situations	Due diligence A₂₁₁
	Avoidance of complicity	Handling of complaints A₂₁₂
	Resolving grievances	Handling of complaints A₂₁₂
	Discrimination and vulnerable groups	Vulnerable groups A₂₁₃
	Civil and political rights	Vulnerable groups A₂₁₃
	Economic, social and cultural rights	Economic, social and cultural rights A₂₁₄
	Fundamental principles and rights at work	Economic, social and cultural rights A₂₁₄
Labour practices A₂₂	Employment and employment relationships	Employment and employment relationships A₂₂₁
	Social dialogue	Employment and employment relationships A₂₂₁
	Conditions of work and social protection	Conditions of work and social protection A₂₂₂
	Health and safety at work	Conditions of work and social protection A₂₂₂
	Human development and training in the workplace	Human development and training in the workplace A₂₂₃
The environment A₂₃	Prevention of pollution	Prevention of pollution A₂₃₁
	Sustainable resource use	Sustainable resource use A₂₃₂
	Climate change mitigation and adaptation	Global warming A₂₃₃
	Protection of the environment, biodiversity and restoration of natural habitats	Ecological restoration A₂₃₄
Fair operating practices A₂₄	Promoting social responsibility in the value chain	Promoting social responsibility in the value chain A₂₄₁
	Anti-corruption	Political responsibility awareness A₂₄₂
	Responsible political involvement	Political responsibility awareness A₂₄₂
	Fair competition	Fair competition A₂₄₃
	Respect for property rights	Respect for property rights A₂₄₄
Consumer issues A₃₁	Protecting consumers’ health and safety	Fundamental rights of consumers A₃₁₁
	Consumer data protection and privacy
	Access to essential services
	Consumer service, support, and complaint and dispute resolution	Handling of disputes A₃₁₂
	Fair marketing, factual and unbiased information and fair contractual practices	Handling of disputes A₃₁₂
	Education and awareness	Education and awareness A₃₁₃
	Sustainable consumption	Education and awareness A₃₁₃
Community involvement and development A₃₂	Community involvement	Community involvement A₃₂₁
	Wealth and income creation	Community environment A₃₂₂
	Education and culture
	Health
	Employment creation and skills development	Technology development A₃₂₃
	Technology development and access
	Social investment

Source: ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility.

Table 5

ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility

4. SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY RISK ASSESSMENT AND POSITIONING OF B&R LARGE-SCALE TOURISM INVESTMENT PROJECT ABROAD

4.1. The Hierarchy Model of Social Responsibility Risk Assessment

Theoretically speaking, the construction of an evaluation index system should be carried out from three levels: overall design, application operation and a clear goal. Similarly, the principles for constructing a comprehensive evaluation index system for social responsibility risks should also be considered from these three aspects. While the overall design of the assessment is supposed to be scientific, systematic, comprehensive and complete, and reasonably reflect the social responsibilities of the investment project from all aspects, the indicators selected in every level the system need to be measurable, attainable and comparable, so as to facilitate the application and operation of indicators in assessment. In addition, the indicator system should be future-oriented, sustainable and forward-looking, in order to guide the improvement of the sustainable development capacity of investment projects.

Due to geopolitics, the host country’s political environment and monopoly of Chinese large tourism investment project abroad, there are huge social responsibility risks in investing abroad. China Railway Construction’s bid for a high-speed rail line in Mexico and Cosco Group’s bid for a 67% stake in Greece’s Piraeus Port failed due to the factional conflicts and regime change in Mexico and Greek. The reason why Japan has relatively fewer social responsibility risks in large investment projects abroad is that Japanese enterprises carry out international cooperation with developed countries or host countries of the investment. Zhang et al. (2014) [46] studied the influence of host behavior on social responsibility risk of China’s large investment projects abroad, and the results showed that geopolitics and political environment of the host country is one of the main factors for the social responsibility risk of China’s investment. Therefore, this paper incorporates international cooperation and joint development, domestic political risks and geopolitical environment of the host country into the indexes of social responsibility risks of the B&R large-scale tourism investment projects abroad. What is more, according to the 21 third-level dimension indicators extracted from the six core subjects and 35 issues listed in ISO 26000, this paper constructs three first-level indicators including project selection, project implementation and project follow-up management. Therein, project selection consists of international collaborative development, domestic political environment and regional political environment of the host country. Human rights, labor practice, environment and fair operation practice are included in project implementation, and consumer issues, community involvement and development included in project follow-up management. Therefore, the hierarchy model of social responsibility risk assessment for the B&R large-scale tourism investment project abroad is constructed with three first-level value dimensions, nine second-level value dimensions and 21 third-level value dimensions.

4.2. Weight and Consistency Test of Social Responsibility Risk Indicators

4.2.1. Weight measurement and consistency test of stratified target in decision-making target

According to the characteristics and evaluation requirements of social responsibility risk assessment of the B&R large-scale tourism investment projects abroad, this paper adopts the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate the social responsibility risk assessment index. Five experts in the field of tourism investment risks were invited to score the importance (1–9) of each value dimension.

According to the judgment matrix of the impact degree of projects selection, project implementation and project follow-up management, as proposed in the assessment, the maximum eigenvalue λ_max equals 3.0120, and the weight on the reconstructed social responsibility risk assessment is 1.0, the Consistency Ratio (CR) = 0.0115 < 0.1. The normalized weight vectors corresponding to the maximum eigenvalues are presented in Table 6. From the weight vector column, it can be seen that the weight of project selection on reshaping the social responsibility risk assessment is 47.93%, showing that project selection is the dominant factor of the social responsibility risk. Project follow-up management accounts for 30.68% and project implementation for 21.39%, both playing considerable roles, between which project follow-up management has a stronger influence on the social responsibility risk of investment project.

Reshaping risk indexes	A₁	A₂	A₃	Weight vector W
Project selection A₁	1	5/2	7/5	0.4793
Project implementation A₂	2/5	1	7/9	0.2139
Project follow-up management A₃	5/7	9/7	1	0.3068
λ_max= 3.0120, CR = 0.0115 < 0.1
Weight on the overall target 1.0

CR, consistency ratio.

Table 6

Stratified target judgment matrix in decision-making target

4.2.2. Weight measurement and consistency test of stratified target indexes

Based on the assessment constructed above, weight measurement and consistency of the stratified targets in the alternative plan are tested respectively. Weight of each index in the stratified target is calculated and the consistency is tested. (1) Project selection A₁. According to the judgement matrix, the maximum eigenvalue is 3.010, and its weight on the reconstructed social responsibility risk assessment is 0.4793. (2) Project implementation A₂. According to the judgement matrix, the maximum eigenvalue is 4.0554, and the weight is 0.2139. (3) Project follow-up management A₃. According to the judgement matrix, the maximum eigenvalue is 2.0000, and the weight is 0.3068. Three stratified target judgment matrices and the normalized weight vector corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue are presented in Table 7.

A₁	A₁₁	A₁₂	A₁₃	W	A₂	A₂₁	A₂₂	A₂₃	A₂₄	W	A₃	A₃₁	A₃₂	W
A₁₁	1	1	6/5	0.3539	A₂₁	1	4/5	8/9	6/5	0.2399	A₃₁	1	1	0.5
A₁₂	1	1	8/9	0.3202	A₂₂	5/4	1	7/9	7/9	0.2327	A₃₂	1	1	0.5
A₁₃	5/6	9/8	1	0.3259	A₂₃	9/8	9/7	1	4/5	0.2589	–	–	–	–
–	–	–	–	–	A₂₄	5/6	9/7	5/4	1	0.2685	–	–	–	–
λ_max= 3.010, CR = 0.0096 < 0.1					λ_max= 4.0554, CR = 0.0208 < 0.1						λ_max= 2.000, CR = 0.0000 < 0.1
Weight on the overall target 0.4793					Weight on the overall target 0.2139						Weight on the overall target 0.3068

CR, consistency ratio.

Table 7

Stratified target judgment matrices

4.2.3. Weight measurement and consistency test of indexes in the alternative plan

The reconstructed assessment of the social responsibility risk of the B&R large-scale tourism investment project abroad includes a total of 21 three-level value dimensions, and the corresponding index judgment matrix is shown in Table 8. In this paper, the maximum eigenvalue vector is calculated by integral method.

(1)

Normalization of column elements in the judgment matrix. The general term of elements is h˜ij=hij∑1nhij(i,j=1,2,⋯,n) .
(2)

Sum of rows in the judgment matrix w˜i=∑1nh˜ij(i,j=1,2,⋯,n) .
(3)

Normalizing the vector w˜i . wi=w˜i∑1nw˜j(i,j=1,2,⋯,n) . w = (w₁, w₂,...,w_n)^T, the approximate solution of all eigenvectors.
(4)

The maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix: λmax=∑1n(Hw)inwi .

A₂₁

A₂₁₁

A₂₁₂

A₂₁₃

A₂₁₄

W

A₂₂

A₂₂₁

A₂₂₂

A₂₂₃

W

A₂₃

A₂₃₁

A₂₃₂

A₂₃₃

A₂₃₄

W

A₂₁₁

1

5/6

9/8

5/4

0.2554

A₂₂₁

1

6/5

4/3

0.3874

A₂₃₁

1

4/5

6/5

3/4

0.2281

A₂₁₂

6/5

1

1/3

7/5

0.2124

A₂₂₂

5/6

1

8/9

0.3130

A₂₃₂

5/4

1

7/5

8/9

0.2765

A₂₁₃

8/9

3

1

6/5

0.3283

A₂₂₃

3/4

9/8

1

0.2997

A₂₃₃

5/6

5/7

1

4/5

0.2057

A₂₁₄

4/5

5/7

5/6

1

0.2039

–

A₂₃₄

4/3

9/8

5/4

1

0.2897

λ_max= 4.2262, CR = 0.0847 < 0.1

λ_max= 3.0055, CR = 0.0053 < 0.1

λ_max= 4.0076, CR = 0.0029 < 0.1

Weight on the overall target 0.0513

Weight on the overall target 0.0498

Weight on the overall target 0.0554

A₂₄

A₂₄₁

A₂₄₂

A₂₄₃

A₂₄₄

W

A₃₁

A₃₁₁

A₃₁₂

A₃₁₃

W

A₃₂

A₃₂₁

A₃₂₂

A₃₂₃

W

A₂₄₁

1

5/4

1

7/9

0.2470

A₃₁₁

1

1/2

2/5

0.1809

A₃₂₁

1

4/5

6/5

0.3253

A₂₄₂

4/5

1

7/9

7/8

0.2136

A₃₁₂

2/1

1

9/5

0.4740

A₃₂₂

5/4

1

7/5

0.3974

A₂₄₃

1

9/7

1

6/7

0.2548

A₃₁₃

5/2

5/9

1

0.3451

A₃₂₃

5/6

5/7

1

0.2774

A₂₄₄

9/7

8/7

7/6

1

0.2846

–

λ_max= 4.0125, CR = 0.0047 < 0.1

λ_max= 3.0735, CR = 0.0707 < 0.1

λ_max= 3.0005, CR = 0.0005 < 0.1

Weight on the overall target 0.0574

Weight on the overall target 0.1534

Table 8

Judgment matrices of targets in the alternative plan

5. RECONSTRUCTING AND POSITIONING THE WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE BELT AND ROAD LARGE-SCALE TOURISM INVESTMENT PROJECTS ABROAD

The final weight distribution of social responsibility risk assessment for the large-scale tourism investment projects abroad is shown in Figure 1. The weights of the stratified targets (project selection A₁, project implementation A₂ and project follow-up management A₃) on the decision-making target (social responsibility risk assessment for investment projects) are 0.4793, 0.2139 and 0.3068 respectively. The weights of the sub-layers in the stratified targets are indicated as follows: international collaborative development 0.1696, host domestic political environment 0.1535, host geographic political environment 0.1562, human rights 0.0513, labor practice 0.0498, environment 0.0554, fair operation practice 0.0574, consumer issues 0.1534, community involvement and development 0.1534. In the alternative plan, the dominant indexes are listed in turn as follows: the index of vulnerable group, a sub-layer to human rights, accounts for 0.068, labor organization, sub-layer to labor practice, 0.0193, ecological restoration to the environmental 0.0161, fair operation practice to respect for property rights 0.0163, dispute handling to consumer issues 0.0727, and community environment to community participation and development 0.0610, thus it can be seen that the top 10 dominant indexes in the third level are: dispute handling 0.0727, community environment 0.0610, education and awareness 0.0529, community involvement 0.0499, skills and technology 0.0426, trade union 0.0193, vulnerable groups 0.0168, respect for property rights 0.0163, ecological restoration 0.0160 and working conditions 0.0156. Since the second-level indicators (A₁₁, A₁₂, and A₁₃) are not sub-divided, project management after the completing the project bears significantly high social responsibility risks, far higher than the risks during the project construction. Therefore, under the premise of cautious selection of projects, more focus should be laid on preventing the social responsibility risks in the follow-up operation and management of the B&R large-scale tourism investment projects abroad.

6. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Traditional economic risks are no longer the dominant risks for China’s large-scale tourism investment abroad. Instead, social responsibility risks, such as labor conflict, environmental factors, cultural risks, community involvement and development, and educational awareness have taken the place in the B&R large-scale tourism investment projects abroad. If corresponding social responsibility risks cannot be effectively handled, safety of China’s B&R large-scale tourism investment projects abroad may be threatened. With the promulgation and implementation of ISO 26000, social responsibility standards have become a tool for some countries to carry out green barriers and it has been an irreversible international trend for enterprises to take social responsibility with economic globalization. Therefore, it is particularly urgent and significant to study the social responsibility risk of China’s B&R large-scale tourism investment projects abroad based on ISO 26000. It is also an urgent need to establish a forward-looking and scientific social responsibility risk assessment mechanism in the current practice of social responsibility risk management. The theoretical contribution of this paper is to propose the assessment mechanism of social responsibility risks in China’s large-scale tourism investment, further stressing the importance of management in not only project implementation, but also in project selection and project follow-up.

Based on the six core subjects, namely human rights, labor practices, the environment, fair operating practices, the consumers and community involvement and development, and 35 issues listed in ISO 26000, this paper reconstructs a social responsibility risk assessment for the B&R large-scale tourism investment projects abroad and positions each index according to their weight on the principle of being scientific and systematic, complete and comprehensive, measurable, comparable, sustainable and forward-looking (Xiao, 2016) [47]. The assessment consists of three first-level value dimensions, namely project selection, project implementation and project follow-up management; nine second-level value dimensions including international cooperation and joint development, domestic political environment of host country, regional political environment of host country, etc.; and 21 third-level value dimensions including indicators of due diligence, complaints processing, vulnerable groups, and economic, social and cultural rights.

(1)
It is an important subject to quantify the social responsibility risks, to reconstruct the comprehensive evaluation system and thus to identify each evaluation index according to ISO 26000. Social responsibility risk assessment has become an essential part to select, assess and reduce social responsibility risks in the B&R large-scale tourism investment projects abroad.
(2)
According to the reconstructed social responsibility risk assessment, the management and supervision of social responsibility risks of project investment should be strengthened. In the whole process of large tourism investment project management, the social responsibility risk of project selection is increasingly highlighted. In the first-level index of project selection (A₁), the importance of international cooperative development, domestic political environment of the host country, and regional political environment of the host country should be emphasized so as to strengthen the management of social responsibility. In the first-level index of project implementation (A₂), social responsibility is to be fulfilled from four aspects: human rights, labor practice, the environment and fair operating practices; while in the third-level index of project follow-up management (A₃), social responsibility is to be practiced from the perspectives of consumer issues and community involvement and development. Therefore, based on the ISO 26000 international standard, conducting whole-process management in B&R large-scale tourism investment projects abroad is of great significance to reduce social responsibility risks and facilitate reinvestment so as to realize the sustainable development of the B&R large-scale tourism investment projects abroad.

There are some limitations in this paper. Firstly, instead of adopting a comprehensive method to elaborate the research, we use only the method of AHP to construct the assessment mechanism of social responsibilities risks. Secondly, it is necessary to further verify the validity of the reconstructed assessment in corresponding cases, which we fail to do due to lack of space. The next step is to further verify the scientificity and rationality of the comprehensive assessment of social responsibility risks constructed in this paper.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTION

In writing this paper, based on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility, CL proposes the key points of social responsibility risk assessment for the Belt and Road large-scale tourism investment project abroad. With the method of analytic hierarchy process, XL positions and sorts the indicators of social responsibility risk assessment, and reconstructs the assessment for the Belt and Road large-scale tourism investment project abroad.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Chen Lv (1981-), male, born in Jining, Shandong province. Doctor of Economics, professor of Taishan University and post-doctor of China Tourism Academy. Main research interests: industrial upgrading, industrial policy and tourism investment risk, etc.

Xiaoyan Li (1988-), female, born in Huize, Yunnan Province. Master of Arts, associate professor of Taishan University. Research interests: tourism safety and tourism culture.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

As a phased achievement, this paper owes to the support of the Talent Introduction and Education Project of Youth Innovation Team in Colleges and Universities of Shandong Province (Tourism Investment Risk and Management Innovation Team) (95), Social science planning project of Shandong Province (Digital Shandong special project) (20CSDJ62) and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Project (2017M620958).

REFERENCES

[1]C Lv and HC Lin, Dynamic monitoring and decision making system for large-scale foreign investment projects, Reform, Vol. 5, 2016, pp. 89-100. (in Chinese).

[2]S Ghosh and J Jintanapakanont, Identifying and assessing the critical risk factors in an underground rail project in Thailand: a factor analysis approach, Int J Project Manage, Vol. 22, 2004, pp. 633-43.

[3]AB Huseby and S Skogen, Dynamic risk analysis: the Dynrisk concept, Int J Project Manage, Vol. 10, 1992, pp. 160-4.

[4]W Jiang, L Deng, L Chen, J Wu, and J Li, Risk assessment and validation of flood disaster based on fuzzy mathematics, Prog Nat Sci, Vol. 19, 2009, pp. 1419-25.

[5]H Irene Hall, V Ramana Dhara, PA Price-Green, and WE Kaye, Surveillance for emergency events involving hazardous substances – United States, 1990-1992, Surveill Summar, Vol. 43, 1994, pp. 1-6.

[6]TW Malone, K Crowston, J Lee, B Pentland, C Dellarocas, G Wyner, et al., Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook for organizational processes, Manag Sci, Vol. 45, 1999, pp. 296-454.

[7]K Knight and AR Fayek, Use of fuzzy logic for predicting design cost overruns on building project, J Constr Eng Manage, Vol. 128, 2002, pp. 503-12.

[8]S Lee and WH Daniel, Predictive tool for estimating accident risk, J Constr Eng Manage, Vol. 129, 2003, pp. 431-6.

[9]CT Lin and YT Chen, Bid/no-bid:decision-making – a fuzzy linguistic approach, Int J Project Manage, Vol. 22, 2004, pp. 585-93.

[10]R Sadiq and T Husain, A fuzzy-based methodology for an aggregative environmental risk assessment: a case study of drilling waste, Environ Model Softw, Vol. 20, 2005, pp. 33-46.

[11]IA Motawa, CJ Anumba, and A El-Hamalawi, A fuzzy system for evaluating the risk of change in construction projects, Adv Eng Softw, Vol. 37, 2006, pp. 583-91.

[12]JJ Su and XM Wang, The spatial-temporal evolution characteristics and driving factors of China’s tourism investment structure benefit, Geogr Geo-inform Sci, Vol. 36, 2020, pp. 117-24.

[13]K Jia, Government public investment, social investment and economic and social development, J Southwest Minzu Univ (Human Soc Sci), Vol. 31, 2010, pp. 138-41. (in Chinese).

[14]PC Han, L Xue, and WJ Wang, Corporate innovation, social responsibility and corporate value — a case study of small and medium-sized enterprises, Forum Sci Technol China, 2020, pp. 93-9. (in Chinese).

[15]SP Zhou and JZ Ren, Corporate social responsibility management theory and practice in China, J Chinese Acad Govern, Vol. 66, 2010, pp. 38-41. (in Chinese).

[16]XJ Huang and LX Tang, Political association, equity financing and the change of the raised funds, Soft Sci, Vol. 26, 2012, pp. 123-6. (in Chinese).

[17]B Meng, F Li, and Y Yang, Research on the evaluation of corporate social responsibility in transportation industry based on circular correction, Sci Res Manage, Vol. 41, 2020, pp. 174-84. (in Chinese).

[18]YX Zheng, Don’t be blind in energy conservation and emission reduction, Study Pract, 2011, pp. 24-32. (in Chinese).

[19]ZM Lin, An imperative trend of the transformation and upgrading of the Chinese economy, Econ Rev J, 2014, pp. 17-22. (in Chinese).

[20]YN Wang, ZJ Li, and BR Zhang, The influencing factors and mechanism of social responsibility of transnational corporations under “One Belt And One Road”, Econ Probl, 2020, pp. 82-90. (in Chinese).

[21]ShH Cong, W Zhou, and N Yu, Formulating indicators for the evaluation of public expenditure performance, Finance Trade Econ, 2005, pp. 37 97-41.

[22]XJ Hong and JC Li, A review of the polarization measurement method and the polarization of Chinese residents’ income, Econ Res J, 2007, pp. 139-53. (in Chinese).

[23]B Hu, L Shen, and J Gong, The market value effect of social responsibility of China’s listed tourism enterprises: from the perspective of marketing strategy analysis, Tour Tribune, 2006, pp. 35-42. (in Chinese).

[24]JQ Zhou and TS Wang, Foreign direct investment, economic growth and CO2 emissions, J Beijing Inst Technol (Soc Sci Ed), 2014, pp. 30-8. (in Chinese).

[25]Z Feng and SD Zhang, Research on the dynamic evaluation of risk index and risk coefficient of agricultural high-tech project investment, Sci Technol Manage Res, Vol. 14, 2010, pp. 88-90. (in Chinese).

[26]L Li, Design of performance evaluation index of public works project based on balanced Scorecard method, Soc Sci, 2007, pp. 168-70. (in Chinese).

[27]H Sun, BK Edziah, C Sun, and AK Kporsu, Institutional quality, green innovation and energy efficiency, Energy Policy, Vol. 135, 2019. 111002.

[28]H Sun, M Mohsin, M Alharthi, and Q Abbas, Measuring environmental sustainability performance of South Asia, J Clean Prod, Vol. 251, 2019. 119519.

[29]Zh Yang and J Chen, Innovation and governance of corporate social responsibility in the digital and intelligent era, J Shanghai Univ of Finance Econ, Vol. 22, 2020, pp. 33-51. (in Chinese).

[30]WQ Lv and XF Ge, Social capital theory and community tourism operators’ social responsibility, Thinking, Vol. 46, 2020, pp. 156-164. (in Chinese).

[31]ShB Zhang, QB Yang, and YW Zhang, The risk management of infrastructure investment projects, Int Project Contracting and Labour Service, 2016, pp. 74-75. (in Chinese).

[32]YW Li, A rational approach to the influence of TPP on China: opportunities, challenges and countermeasures, Contemporary Econ, 2016, pp. 10-13. (in Chinese).

[33]Y Pu, Analysis of the risk factors of Chinese railway enterprises’ foreign investment and countermeasures, Business, 2015, pp. 160. (in Chinese).

[34]HR Yang and JC Pi, The analysis of corporate social responsibility in the vertical market structure, Mod Econ Sci, Vol. 41, 2019, pp. 97-107. (in Chinese).

[35]ZhX Huang, For the hundreds-arces demolition project, People’s Political Scene, 2011, pp. 48. (in Chinese).

[36]LF Wang, The human rights policy of China’s overseas investment enterprises, Human Rights, 2013, pp. 37-40. (in Chinese).

[37]F Feng, A brief analysis of consumer group litigation——On the protection of consumers in anti unfair competition law, Contemporary Manager, 2005, pp. 236-237. (in Chinese).

[38]B Wang, X Zhou, and Ch Yang, On consumer problem and its harmfulness, Soc Sci Yunan, 2005, pp. 62-67. (in Chinese).

[39]JW He, Market demand and product quality strategy, Acad Res, 1995, pp. 43-45. (in Chinese).

[40]XB Zhao, Deepen the enterprise environment research and improve the enterprise management level, Wuhan Univ J (Philosophy Soc Sci), 2005, pp. 437. (in Chinese).

[41]FX Jiang, Academic record of the track of reform and development, Jianghai Acad J, 2009, pp. 20-21. (in Chinese).

[42]XQ Zhang, Interpretation of outdoor heat resource wells for water source heat pump system wells, Green building, Vol. 5, 2013, pp. 41-42. (in Chinese).

[43]PF Drucker, Management: tasks, responsibilities, practices, China Machine Press, Beijing, 2007.

[44]M Fabrizi, C Mallin, and G Michelon, The role of CEO’s personal incentives in driving corporate social responsibility, J Business Ethics, Vol. 124, 2014, pp. 311-326.

[45]LQ Li, A theoretical and empirical study on corporate social responsibility evaluation, South China J Econ, 2006, pp. 105-18.

[46]XT Zhang, YJ Zheng, and YS Yue, Heterogeneity of the impact of host country’s government behavior on Chinese enterprises’ overseas investment decision—based on the perspective of enterprise size, Acad Forum, Vol. 37, 2014, pp. 30-36. (in Chinese).

[47]HJ Xiao, A study on the reform of corporate governance of public-policy-related state-owned enterprises, Reform of Econ Sys, 2016, pp. 5-11. (in Chinese).

Download article (PDF)

Next Article In Issue>

Journal: Journal of Risk Analysis and Crisis Response
Volume-Issue: 11 - 1
Pages: 1 - 9
Publication Date: 2021/02/05
ISSN (Online): 2210-8505
ISSN (Print): 2210-8491
DOI: 10.2991/jracr.k.210111.002 How to use a DOI?
Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

Cite this article

ris enw bib

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Chen Lv
AU  - Xiaoyan Li
PY  - 2021
DA  - 2021/02/05
TI  - Reconstruction: Key to Social Responsibility Risk Assessment for Tourism Investment Projects†
JO  - Journal of Risk Analysis and Crisis Response
SP  - 1
EP  - 9
VL  - 11
IS  - 1
SN  - 2210-8505
UR  - https://doi.org/10.2991/jracr.k.210111.002
DO  - 10.2991/jracr.k.210111.002
ID  - Lv2021
ER  -

download .riscopy to clipboard