Why hotels give to charity: Interdependent giving motives

International Journal of Hospitality Management 86 (2020) 102430

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhm

Why hotels give to charity: Interdependent giving motives a

b,

Chien-Pang Lin , Chi-Mei Emily Wu *, Jen-Hsin Tsai a b c

c

T

Department of Finance, Chang Jung Christian University, Tainan, Taiwan, ROC Department of Restaurant, Hotel and Institutional Management, Fu Jen Catholic University, New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC Shinkong Insurance Co., Ltd, Tainan, Taiwan, ROC

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: AHP and DEMATEL Critical motives Hotel giving Interdependence Relative importance

Previous studies assume that the motives behind corporate giving (CG) are independent, ignoring possible interactions and probably resulting in less accurate analyses. Therefore, this study uses analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) techniques to evaluate the relative importance and the interdependence of the critical motives behind hotel giving in Taiwan. This study presents three findings: (1) giving motives are highly interdependent; (2) economic motive is a cause; philanthropic and ethical motives belong to effect group; and (3) the philanthropic motive (0.368) is the most important, followed by economic (0.340) and ethical (0.292) motives. In short, hotels have a higher propensity to moral values in CG but without losing sight of their financial performance. Moreover, the economic outcome of CG is the core motive. Not only does it directly influence CG; it also indirectly affects CG through the other two effect motives.

1. Introduction Economic development and inequality, intense market competition, and rising social demands have driven businesses to integrate corporate social responsibility (CSR) into their values (Brammer and Millington, 2008; Gautier and Pache, 2015). Firms are thus thoughtful and realistic in offering mutual benefits to business and society through socially responsive activities (Carroll, 1991; Liket and Simaens, 2015). At the top of the CSR pyramid (Carroll, 1991) is corporate giving (CG): the managerially discretionary act of firms donating a portion of their profits or resources to charity. CG is an important social and strategic behavior in business (Porter and Kramer, 2002; Simon, 1995). When effective, CG can enhance corporate financial and social performance (Brammer and Millington, 2008; Lev et al., 2010; Liket and Simaens, 2015; Porter and Kramer, 2002; Wang et al., 2008). Previous studies have identified various reasons motivating CG, such as economic considerations and competition (Navarro, 1988; Wang et al., 2008), managerial self-interest (Brown et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2010), religious (Du et al., 2014; Edmondson and Carroll, 1999), or stakeholder management (Brammer and Millington, 2008; Wang and Qian, 2011). Studies have used linear or multiple regression analyses to examine the impact of one or more motives on the CG decision. These motives are significant in explaining CG behavior within a specific group of companies or industries (Gautier and Pache, 2015; Liket and

⁎

Simaens, 2015). However, these studies assume that the motives are independent of each other, without comparing them or looking for interactions. It is highly possible that the motives of CSR are not mutually exclusive (Schwartz and Carroll, 2003). Without understanding of the interactions among giving motives in term of their relative importance and causal relationship, it is impossible to assess their influence on CG decision-making and the impact of a firm’s CG on business and society accurately. Specifically, without assessing how one motive affects and is affected by others, the cause-effect relationship among motives is absent in CG decision-making. This lack of information may lead to the overvaluing of motives that have little effect on others or the undervaluing of motives that have a strong effect on others. The information of interdependent relationship among giving motives is essential to formulate appropriate CG tactics and strategies. It is significant in maximizing the impacts of CG on a hotel’s financial and social performance and is fully relevant to CSR. However, this relationship among CG motives has not been studied. This study therefore assesses the relative importance of and causal relationship among the critical motives driving CG. CG is a multi-dimensional and multi-stakeholder business decision. When engaging in CG, firms need to balance the demands of their community, customers, employees, environment, managerial insiders, regulatory and government authorities, shareholders, and others. CG

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.-P. Lin), [email protected] (C.-M.E. Wu), [email protected] (J.-H. Tsai).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102430 Received 28 February 2019; Received in revised form 10 November 2019; Accepted 14 November 2019 0278-4319/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

International Journal of Hospitality Management 86 (2020) 102430

C.-P. Lin, et al.

may also be motivated by reasons such as altruism, ethical norms and values, firm image and reputation, risk reduction, religious, societal expectations and pressures, stakeholder management, and the desire for a sustainable environment. To maximize the impact of CG on business and society, firms need to consider all factors that affect or are affected by their CG practices. Therefore, CG could be considered a problem of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) for firms to meet the value and moral objectives of their internal and external stakeholders. MCDM is a systematic analysis commonly used to solve decisionmaking problems with multiple attributes. It is a branch of operations research and widely used in business management, operations research, and other fields. MCDM analysis quantifies the subjective judgments of experts (Sara et al., 2015). Its process typically comprises defining the objective, selection of criteria, specification of alternatives, applying a suitable mathematical algorithm, and ranking and selecting an optimal alternative (Lee and Yang, 2018). Despite the application of MCDM analysis in many fields, to the best of our knowledge, few studies have applied MCDM analysis to examine subjects related to CG. Since CG is a multi-dimensional and multi-stakeholder business decision, this study uses the MCDM technique to handle complex CG decisions. In MCDM, the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) developed by Saaty (1980) can help to assess the relative importance of critical factors in decision making. The Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) developed by Gabus and Fontela (1976) can facilitate the identification of casual relationship among critical factors by classifying them as causes and effects. Therefore, this study combines AHP and DEMATEL to assess the relative importance of and cause-effect relationship among critical motives behind hotel giving. Understanding this interaction relationship can both clarify the systematic structure of hotel giving decision-making and help firms to formulate appropriate CG programs.

In the hospitality and tourism literature, few studies have examined why firms make donations to charity (Chen and Lin, 2015b; de-MiguelMolina et al., 2018). Fenclova and Coles (2011) suggested that low-fare airlines used CG strategically to increase sales growth and profits by enhancing employee morale and customer loyalty. In the Korean hotel industry, codes of ethics positively influenced CG, and CG was significantly related to employee engagement (Lee et al., 2014). Chen and Lin (2015b) indicated that both agency cost and economic factors were significant drivers of hospitality philanthropy in Taiwan. For hotels in Spain, CG was driven by altruistic and religious reasons (de-MiguelMolina et al., 2018). In addition, Wang et al. (2018) pointed out that community-related causes were significant in explaining CG of tourism attraction firms in China. In other disciplines, Brown et al. (2006) identified that agency cost motive most influenced CG. However, Lin et al. (2017) and Navarro (1988) suggested that economic motive outweighed agency cost motive in explaining CG engagement. Furthermore, Cowan et al. (2013) indicated that CG was significantly associated with both agency cost and economic motives. They also pointed out that cultural distance was an important motive in manufacturing firms that did and did not make overseas donations. In addition, insurance-like protection (or riskaverse behavior) gave business a strong incentive to sustain their corporate performance by CG practices (Brown et al., 2006; Du et al., 2014; Godfrey, 2005). Aside from these motives, other reasons may affect the CG decision. For instance, religion is significant and positive in explaining the giving behavior of Chinese listed corporations (Du et al., 2014). Edmondson and Carroll (1999) found that ethical, religious, and philanthropic justifications are important in large Black-owned business enterprises. Tax and government policy can also affect the amount of CG (Webb, 1994). Marquis and Lee (2013) showed a significant negative impact of local tax on charitable giving. Brown et al. (2006) found that regulations and laws had a positive but not significant impact on CG. Furthermore, with growing social expectations and public scrutiny and increased market competition, firms were both altruistic and strategic in practicing CG (Gan, 2006). Wang and Qian (2011) showed a positive impact of political connections on CG for listed firms in China. Taking all of this evidence into account, we can safely conclude that altruistic, managerial self-interest (i.e. agency cost), economic, ethical, legal, political, and religious motives and/or addition to pressure from competitors may affect the managerial discretion of CG decisions. These studies have statistically tested the link between CG and its possible motives by using simple or multiple linear regression analysis and provided valuable insight into CG behavior. Although they can point out whether or not one or more possible motives are significant in explaining CG, they cannot explain complex CG decisions completely and precisely. On the other hand, based on empirical evidence, expert judgment, and theory of CG, MCDM methods can provide an effective systematical analysis that takes a variety of quantitative and qualitative attributes into account simultaneously. In addition, previous studies (e.g. Edmondson and Carroll, 1999) conducted surveys that directly ask respondents to assess the influence of a motive on CG based on Likert-type scales. Alternatively, MCDM methods can help to derive the relative impact of motives on giving decisions indirectly by asking group experts to evaluate the relative importance of one motive to others (i.e. pairwise comparison). Such a pairwise comparison technique not only improves the evaluation effectiveness but also mitigates the social desirability bias. For that reason, the MCDM technique is appropriate to evaluate the multi-dimensional and multi-stakeholder decision making of hotel giving. In MCDM, the AHP method is capable of evaluating the relative importance of motives behind hotel CG and the DEMATEL method can help to identify the cause-effect relationship among them. Moreover, the interactions among CG motives have not been evaluated. Therefore, this study uses the combined AHP and DEMATEL method to assess the interaction relationship.

2. Literature review Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the responsibility of business for its impacts on owners/shareholders, other stakeholders, and society (European Commission, 2011). CSR affects and is affected by a firm’s internal and external stakeholders. To meet various demands of their stakeholders and society, firms should incorporate consumer, ethical, environmental, human rights, and social concerns with their business operations and core strategies in initiating and implementing CSR (European Commission, 2011). Given that, CSR seems to involve economic and social considerations. Furthermore, from a specific perspective, Carroll (1991) and Schwartz and Carroll (2003) point out that CSR comprises economic, ethical, legal, and philanthropic aspects. As a specific aspect of CSR, corporate charitable giving is at managerial discretion and not required by law. Many studies have examined the impact of various motives on CG according to agency cost, value enhancement, or stakeholder theories (Brammer and Millington, 2004, 2008; Brown et al., 2006; Cowan et al., 2013; Liket and Simaens, 2015; Lin et al., 2017; Navarro, 1988). While agency cost theory proposes that managerial insiders may pursue their personal interests through discretionary giving at the cost of shareholders (Brown et al., 2006), value enhancement theory suggests that the purpose of CG is to create value for shareholders (Navarro, 1988; Wang et al., 2008). Stakeholder theory considers CG a managerial decision involving the moral and value objectives of a firm and its stakeholders (Brammer and Millington, 2008; Roberts, 1992; Wang and Qian, 2011). A firm’s CG decision makers thus need to balance the demands of internal and external stakeholders, who include creditors, customers, employees, interest groups, investors, managerial insiders, shareholders, suppliers, the public, and governmental bodies. As board members, managers, and shareholders affect or are affected by a firm’s CG, they are stakeholders in CG decisions. Therefore, both agency cost and value enhancement theories of CG could be considered forms of stakeholder theory. 2

International Journal of Hospitality Management 86 (2020) 102430

C.-P. Lin, et al.

Table 1 The 9-point Saaty’s scale. Source: Saaty (1980).

Table 3 Random consistency index. Source: Saaty (1991).

Intensity of importance on an absolute scale

Definition

Order of matrix (n)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 3 5 7 9 2, 4, 6, 8

Equal importance (EQI) Moderate importance of one motive over another (MI) Essential or strong importance (SI) Very strong importance (VSI) Extreme importance (EI) Intermediate value between two adjacent judgments

Random index (RI )

0.00

0.00

0.58

0.90

1.12

1.24

1.32

1.41

1.45

1.49

where aij are positive elements of the pairwise comparison matrix, i, j = 1, 2, ..., n , and n is the number of critical factors. The matrix satisfies the reciprocal property aij = 1/ aji and the diagonal elements are equal to 1. Step 3. Calculate the relative importance of the factors. After constructing the positive reciprocal matrices, the eigenvalue (Wi ) is computed by using the normalization of the geometric mean of the rows (NGM). The NGM is calculated as

3. Research methodology To evaluate the interdependency of motives behind CG, this study assesses the relative importance of and the cause-effect relationship among the critical motives by combining AHP and DEMATEL. AHP facilitates evaluating and prioritizing the motives. DEMATEL helps to identify the cause-effect relationship among these motives. AHP and DEMATEL are described as follows.

Wi = (

AHP (Saaty, 1980) is an effective operations management method applied in the manufacturing, political, social, and other fields. It simplifies complex decisions with several conflicting criteria. Complex unstructured decisions are placed into a linear hierarchical structure, thus making it possible to arrive at a consensus on selection of the most important criteria (Govindan et al., 2014). The method is summarized as follows (Saaty, 1980; Sara et al., 2015; Vaidya and Kumar, 2006). Step 1. State the goal and identify the critical factors. This study assesses the factors (i.e. motives) driving CG. Following a detailed literature review and expert judgements, the critical factors that influence the multi-dimensional and multi-stakeholder decision of CG are identified. These subjective factors are used to convert complex giving decisions into a numeric systematic structure. Step 2. Assemble the reciprocal pairwise comparison matrices. This step compares each critical factor with all other factors in terms of relative importance based on Saaty’s 9-point scale (Table 1). Key questions of the pairwise comparison survey is shown in Table 2. A pairwise comparison matrix A is then formulated for computing the importance of each factor among critical factors and is defined as

A = [aij]n × n =

a12 1

1/ a1n 1/a2n

1

aij ) n /

n i=1 (

n j =1

1

aij ) n

(2)

(3)

CR = CI /RI

CI = (

max

n ) (n

1)

(4)

where CI denotes consistency index, RI represents the random consistency index (Table 3) which is the index of a pair-wise comparison matrix randomly generated according to the number of factors, and 0.1, the consistency for the max is the maximum eigenvalue. If CR pairwise comparison matrix is acceptable (Saaty, 1991), indicating that decisions are based on the normalized values. Otherwise, the results are inconsistent and the AHP procedure must be repeated until the CR value is satisfied (Saaty, 1991; Vaidya and Kumar, 2006). 3.2. The DEMATEL method The DEMATEL method (Gabus and Fontela, 1976) is widely used to solve complex decisions with interacting factors (Zhu et al., 2011). This method can ascertain the interdependence among the interacting factors that are important in a decision by showing how one factor affects or is affected by the others (Lin, 2013). In other words, it is capable of identifying and visually presenting the direction and strength of direct and indirect causal relationship among factors (Sara et al., 2015). The main steps of DEMATEL are described as follows (Gabus and Fontela, 1976; Sara et al., 2015; Tzeng et al., 2007).

a1n a2n 1

j=1

Based on the importance for each factor, the relative importance of all critical factors can be ranked. Step 4. Check the consistency ratio (CR ). To ensure that the pairwise comparison matrix is consistent, CR is computed as follows.

3.1. The AHP method

1 1/a12

n

(1)

Table 2 Key questions of the pairwise comparison survey.

Note: aEQI (1:1) = equal importance, MI (3:1) = moderate importance, SI (5:1) = essential or strong importance, VSI (7:1) = very strong importance, and EI (9:1) = extreme importance of motive X over motive Y. b MI (1:3) = moderate importance, SI (1:5) = essential or strong importance, VSI (1:7) = very strong importance, and EI (1:9) = extreme importance of motive Y over motive X. 3

International Journal of Hospitality Management 86 (2020) 102430

C.-P. Lin, et al.

Step 1. Construct the initial average matrix ( X ). According to the literature review and expert judgments, this study identifies the critical factors (i.e. motives) behind CG. Hotel experts are then asked to indicate the level of direct influence of each factor on all others by ranking them on a scale from 0 to 3: 0 = no influence, 1 = low influence, 2 = moderately influence, and 3 = high influence. Let X h denote the direct matrix suggested by the hth respondent, where, h = 1, 2, ... , t . The initial average matrix X can then be derived and represented as

X=

t h=1

Xh

t=

0 x12 x21 0

x1n a2n

xn1 xn2

0

xijh

,

(Lee and Yang, 2018). As a result, the size of expert panel is indefinite in MCDM studies. The explanatory ability of MCDM applications strongly relies on expert experience, previous empirical evidences, and theory of objective. Especially, in AHP analysis, expert experience and knowledge capable of interpreting and assessing relevant attributes of objective play a significant role. A group of five to seven decision-makers is considered the most effective for making group decisions (Ding et al., 2019; Robbins and Coulter, 2012; Yetton and Bottger, 1983). Hwang and Lin (2012) suggested that a group of 10 to 15 appropriate experts was suitable to make a MCDM decision. In practice, the size of expert panel is usually required to exceed 10 experts at least (Lee and Yang, 2018). CG is significantly related to firm size (Amato and Amato, 2012). Moreover, compared with small and medium-sized hotels, larger and more luxurious hotels contribute more to charity (Gard McGehee et al., 2009). Therefore, this study focuses on the giving behavior of five-star hotels. The data source is the 14 listed hotel companies and other 65 five-star hotels reported in Taiwan Tourism Bureau (https://admin. taiwan.net.tw/) and scholars in the hospitality management field. Through several contacts by email and phone, 43 of about 250 experts in hotel CG and charitable foundation agreed to the questionnaire. These experts are managers serving in hotel CG or charitable foundations and scholars managing university fundraising or/and public affairs. They are key stakeholders in hotel CG and have experience and knowledge to evaluate motives behind hotel CG. The detailed profiles of the experts are shown in Table 4. An expert questionnaire is constructed for data collection. It is kept as simple as possible to depict the concise structure of motives that drive CG. Lastly, after several rounds of questionnaire survey, the qualified anonymous responses of the group experts were then used in the combined AHP and DEMATEL analysis.

0 (5)

where x ij are elements of matrix X and x ij 0 . Step 2. Calculate the normalized direct influence matrix (D ). Matrix D can be obtained by normalizing matrix X and is computed as

D = X × S,

S = 1 max

1 i n

n j=1

x ijandi,j = 1, 2,…,n

(6)

Step 3. Derive the total relation matrix (T ). Total relation matrix T demonstrates direct and indirect influence between each pair of factors. It is equal to the direct influence matrix (D ) plus the indirect influence matrix (ID ), where I is the identity matrix. The matrix T can be calculated as

T = [tij]n× n =

k=1

D k = D (I

D ), and lim D k = [0]n × n k

(7)

Matrix T can extract interdependence from the factors. Let [ri ]n × 1 denote the vector representing the sum of elements of each row of matrix T . It is calculated as

r = rn × 1 = [

n j=1

tij]n × 1

(8)

Element ri shows the sum of both direct and indirect impacts of factor i on all other factors. Similarly, let [cj ]1 × n be the vector representing the sum of elements of each columns of matrix T . It is computed as

c = cn× 1 = [

n i=1

tij]1/ × n

4.2. Identify the critical giving motives to build the AHP hierarchy In AHP analysis, criteria selection and hierarch building heavily

(9)

Table 4 Profiles of the group experts. Source: Expert inputs.

Element ci reveals the sum of both direct and indirect impacts that factor i is affected by the other factors. On the one hand, (ri + ci ) denotes the strength of influences that factor i affects and is affected by ci ) signifies the the other factors. On the other hand, the difference (ri casual relationship, showing the net effect of factor i on the other factors. If ri ci > 0 , factor i is classified as net cause group, otherwise factor i is belonged to net effect group if ri ci < 0 . Step 4. Set a threshold value and identify the causal relationship. The threshold value is used to construct the causal relationship map by using it to filter the minor effects from the total influence matrix T . It is obtained by computing the average of all the elements in the matrix T (Lee et al., 2008). Each element (tij ) in the matrix T provides information about how one factor interacts with another. Only if the values of the elements are greater than the threshold value, the elements are selected to build the cause-effect relationship map by plotting the values of (r + c , r c ) in the map.

Number

Basic information

Distribution

Number of experts

Percentage

1

Age

21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Total

2 11 21 9 43

4.65 % 25.58 % 48.84 % 20.93 % 100.00 %

2

Education

High school University Graduate school Total

6 15 22 43

13.95 % 34.88 % 51.16 % 100.00 %

3

Experience

Above 21 years 16-20 years 11-15 years 6-10 years 5 years Total

12 2 14 10 5 43

27.91 % 4.65 % 32.56 % 23.26 % 11.63 % 100.00 %

4

Gender

Female Male Total

16 27 43

37.21 % 62.79 % 100.00 %

5

Official title

General manager Assistant general manager Senior manager Manager Academic professional Total

11 8 13 1 10 43

25.58 % 18.60 % 30.23 % 2.33 % 23.26 % 100.00 %

4. Empirical study and results This section consists of collecting the data, identifying the critical giving motives, and evaluating the interdependency of motives driving CG by combined AHP and DEMATEL method. 4.1. Data collection In MCDM methods, selecting experts and expert panel size is quite subjective. As well, there is no theoretical and empirical rationale on whether analysis results would be much better along with panel size 4

International Journal of Hospitality Management 86 (2020) 102430

C.-P. Lin, et al.

depend on experience and knowledge of group experts, empirical evidence, and theories of objective. The fundamental steps to build a decision hierarchy involve clarifying the decision problem, dividing the problem into possible attributes, selecting valid attributes, and setting up the decision hierarchy (Lee and Yang, 2018). To select the valid criteria, there are two major approaches: (1) literature review and expert judgment; and (2) a pre-survey. Both approaches are capable of identifying a variety of valid criteria. However, considerable detail and false selections may shift analysis results. According to previous literature and information revealed in hotel reports and websites, this study screened out nine possible motives of hotel CG. To avoid the over-counting problem that overvalues a particular motive, this study removes legal, pressure from competitors, and stakeholder management motives. The legal motive was deleted because CG is at managerial discretion, not required by law, and might simply be driven by a desire to reduce the amount of taxes owed. Pressure from competitors was also removed because it is highly possible to be motivated by market competition, which is closely associated with economic considerations. In addition, stakeholder management was deleted, as it needs to take economic and ethical demands of shareholders, other stakeholders, and society into account, Finally, six possible motives were selected: economic, ethical, agency cost, philanthropic, political, and religious. An expert questionnaire was then designed. Before running the AHP and DEMATEL questionnaire, a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire was administered to reach a consensus on the selection of valid criteria among group experts. The questionnaire treats the motives as independent factors and has no pair-wise comparisons among them; in contrast, AHP evaluation performs pairwise comparisons and DEMATEL assessment tests whether or not the motives are interdependent. Therefore, a Likert-scale questionnaire not only helps to identify critical motives but also assists with comparing their importance with the relative importance obtained from AHP evaluation. In the Likert-scale questionnaire, the experts were asked why five-star hotels in Taiwan give to charity, instead of why they make hotel CG decision, and to assess the motives with the following anchors: 1 = not important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = important, and 5 = very important. They were also asked to add any other motives. According to the level of importance of possible motives measured, the results can help to reduce the risk of omitting critical motives and to remove insignificant motives. After several contacts, 43 valid responses were collected and evaluated. The lowest-scoring motives were deleted: agency cost (2.395), politics (2.186), and religion (2.140). As shown in Fig. 1, the final three highest-scoring critical motives were economic (EM, 2.930), ethical (ETM, 3.651), and philanthropic (PM, 4.407). Corporate charitable giving is a specific aspect of CSR. Although removing the legal motive, the result is in line with Carroll’s (1991) widely accepted conceptual model showing that social responsibility of business comprises philanthropic, ethical, legal, and economic components. It is also consistent with the three-domain approach of CSR

(Schwartz and Carroll, 2003) in which the three core domains are economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities in which philanthropic aspect falls under the ethical and/or economic domains.” Specifically, on the one hand, CG can be used to create value for firms by introducing competitive advantages such as customer loyalty and employee morale (Brammer and Millington, 2008; Wang et al., 2008). On the other hand, CG depends on the discretionary profits or available funding resources (Brown et al., 2006; Cowan et al., 2013). Accordingly, economic motive is the fundamental attribute of CG (Gautier and Pache, 2015; Liket and Simaens, 2015). Ethical motive also drives firms to become involved in CG (Gautier and Pache, 2015; Lee et al., 2014). It reveals norms, obligation, values, and unwritten laws expected and imposed by society. The philanthropic motive is voluntary in nature to promote welfare of others or goodwill (Edmondson and Carroll, 1999; Liket and Simaens, 2015). In other words, it is an altruistic concern for human welfare that society desires. Among the three motives, economic payoff is fundamental. Philanthropy is the most discretionary motive and is not expected in an ethical sense. In short, when initiating and implementing CG, hotels could reach their economic objectives, meet ethical obligations and norms, and act in a philanthropic way simultaneously. 4.3. Evaluate the interdependent motives driving hotel giving The following comprises AHP evaluation to identify the relative importance of CG motives and DEMATEL evaluation to ascertain the cause-effect relationship among CG motives. 4.3.1. Evaluate the relative importance of the critical motives: AHP analysis A two-layer hierarchical structure of hotel CG decision is constructed (Fig. 1). Layer 1 shows the goal of evaluating the relative importance of critical motive on hotel giving. To derive the relative importance of critical motives via pair-wise comparisons, the experts were asked to evaluate why five-star hotels in Taiwan give to charity based on Saaty’s 9-point scale. The critical motives are presented in Layer 2. Following the evaluation procedure of AHP mentioned in the research methodology, the rank of critical motives in term of their relative importance is computed. As shown in Table 5, the relative importance for philanthropic motive is 0.368, followed by economic (0.340) and ethical (0.292). In addition, after calculating the maximum eigenvalue ( max ) and the consistency index (CI ) of each pair-wise comparison matrix, the value of consistency ratio CR CR for each matrix assessed by the 43 experts is smaller than 0.1, indicating that the consistency of each pairwise comparison matrix is acceptable. 4.3.2. Assess the interdependence among the critical motives: DEMATEL analysis After applying AHP, the cause-effect relationship among motives is determined by using DEMATEL method. Table 6 shows the total direct/ indirect influence matrix based on the evaluation procedure of DEMATEL mentioned in the research methodology. The matrix represents

Fig. 1. The critical motives behind hotel giving. Note: 1 = not important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = important, and 5 = very important. 5

International Journal of Hospitality Management 86 (2020) 102430

C.-P. Lin, et al.

Based on the values of r + c and r c for each motive, this study plots the cause-effect map (Fig. 2). The map reveals concise cause-effect relationship among the motives after filtering out the insignificant effect with the threshold value, measured as the average of all the elements within the total influence matrix T . The direction of the influence is represented by an arrow. According to Fig. 2, economic motive (EM) influences ethical motive (ETM) and philanthropic motive (PM) while the effect motives (ETM and PM) influence each other.

Table 5 The raking order of critical motives in term of their relative importance. Source: AHP analysis. Critical motives

Relative importance weights

Ranking order

EM ETM PM

0.340 0.292 0.368

2nd 3rd 1st

Note: Economic motive (EM), Ethical motive (ETM), and Philanthropic motive (PM).

5. Discussion and implications

Table 6 The total direct/indirect influence matrix T . Source: DEMATEL analysis.

This section discusses the results of combined AHP and DEMATEL evaluation and their managerial implications.

Critical motives

EM

ETM

PM

Sum of columns (r )

EM ETM PM Sum of rows (c)

2.521 2.547 2.500 7.568

3.257 2.668 2.934 8.859

3.611 3.272 2.877 9.761

9.389 16.956 8.486 17.345 8.312 18.073 Threshold value = 2.910

r+c

r

c

5.1. Discussion As revealed in the result of Likert-scale questionnaire, group experts perceive that hotels engage in CG mainly for philanthropic motives (4.407), followed by ethical (3.651), and economic (2.930) motives. Both philanthropic and ethical motives are more important than the economic motive, suggesting that moral values seem to dominate economic objectives in hotel CG. The result is different from previous findings that either economic or agency cost motive individually explained CG behavior (Brown et al., 2006; Navarro, 1988). It is also different from previous evidence that both economic and agency cost motives are main CG drivers (Chen and Lin, 2015b; Cowan et al., 2013). One possible explanation for the difference is that previous studies examined the impact of only one or more giving motives because of the limitation of multiple regression analysis or using quantitative data while CG is a multi-stakeholder and multi-dimensional business decision. On the other hand, AHP and DEMATEL methods used in the current study involve both quantitative and qualitative attributes and are capable of selecting and evaluating key motives in complex giving decision explicitly and systematically. The results of the Likert-scale questionnaire and previous empirical evidence are based on the assumption that all CG motives are independent and do not compare the motives with each other (i.e. pairwise comparison). If there are interactions among the motives, it is highly possible that their results may be over- or underestimated. Therefore, to understand why hotels give to charity, this study

1.821 −0.372 −1.449

Note: Economic motive (EM), Ethical motive (ETM), and Philanthropic motive (PM).

the influence of each motive in the left column on the others in the top row of the table. For instance, 3.257 represents the influence of economic motive (EM) on ethical motive (ETM). On the one hand, the value of r + c indicates the total influence that each critical motive affects and is affected by the others, representing the total influence of each motive on the entire decision system (i.e. the total influence matrix T ). The ranking of critical motives in terms of the r + c value is philanthropic (18.073), ethical (17.345), and economic (16.956). On the other hand, the value of r c identifies how one motive affects or is affected by the others. In other words, the value of r c can be used to classify the motives into a cause group and an effect group, showing their causal relationship. As shown in Table 6, economic motive belongs to the cause group as its corresponding r c value (1.821) is positive while effect group is comprised of ethical (-0.372) and philanthropic (-1.449) motives because their corresponding r c value is negative.

Fig. 2. The causal relationship map of critical motives behind hotel CG. Note: Economic motive (EM), Ethical motive (ETM), and Philanthropic motive (PM). 6

International Journal of Hospitality Management 86 (2020) 102430

C.-P. Lin, et al.

examines the relative importance of and the causal relationship among CG motives by combining the AHP and DEMATEL methods. According to the results of AHP analysis, among the three critical motives, philanthropy has the highest relative importance (0.368) or ranking, followed by economic (0.340), and ethical (0.292) motives. This ranking is different from that of the Likert-scale questionnaire in which the importance of economic motive is underestimated while ethical and philanthropic motives are overestimated. Nor is this ranking consistent with Edmondson and Carroll’s (1999) finding that among large Black-owned businesses, the economic outcome was the most important motive of CG, followed by ethical and philanthropic motives. A plausible explanation for the difference may be that their study used a Likert-scale questionnaire and measured the absolute importance of giving motives, which may lead to the problem of over- or underestimate. Similarly, based on regression analysis to test some giving motives, other previous studies (Brammer and Millington, 2008; Cowan et al., 2013; Du et al., 2014; Lev et al., 2010; Lin et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2008, 2018; Wang and Qian, 2011) treated the giving motives as independent variables, and their regression test results could be biased. On the other hand, the current study employed the AHP method and performed pairwise comparison to estimate CG motives’ relative importance systematically. Therefore, the possibility of over- or underestimate is reduced. It is also possible that the nature and trend of CG evolves from value enhancement to stakeholder relationship management. While the three motives are similar in relative importance, philanthropic and ethical motives represent together about 0.660 of prominence, indicating that economic outcome of CG is perceived as less important than moral values. In other words, not only do hotels have a higher propensity toward social performance in CG but also do not neglect the financial performance. It suggests that hotels adopt a balanced CG approach that incorporates the values and moral objectives of hotels and their stakeholders. Accordingly, the CG of listed hotels in Taiwan seem motivated to meet the expectations and needs of both business and society. In addition, the hotels can initiate and implement CG along with the ranking to meet the demands of specific stakeholders such as profit-oriented shareholders or socially conscious customers. Thus, the ranking can help hotels to develop and manage CG programs to satisfy specific business or social objectives. As revealed in the results of DEMATEL analysis, economic motive is classified as a cause with the highest r c value (1.821) while ethical and philanthropic motives belong to the effect group as their r c value is -0.372 and -1.449, respectively. Economic motive influences philanthropic and ethical motives and the two effect motives influence each other. Specifically, the economic motive directly influences CG and indirectly influences it through the other two motives. Ethical (Philanthropic) motive directly influences CG and indirectly influences it by way of philanthropic (ethical) motive. According to the results of DEMATLE analysis, the motives behind hotel CG closely interact with each other. The DEMATEL technique is one of the best instruments for systematically analyzing the cause-effect relationships among the evaluation criteria of complex decision-making problems (Lin and Tzeng, 2009; Wu and Lee, 2007). However, previous studies on CG tended to scrutinize the impacts of one or more motives by using regression analysis, and the explanatory power of their empirical results seemed to be small (Chen and Lin, 2015b). A reasonable explanation for the low explanatory power may be that these studies treated the motives as independent variables and only examined some selected motives. Therefore, it is highly recommended that future studies on CG and CSR should take the causal relationship into account. Economic outcome is the core motive behind hotel CG. Although it is ranked second in relative importance, its value (0.340) is similar to that of philanthropic motive (0.368). Further, economic motive influences ethical and philanthropic motives. Overall, CG can contribute to sales growth and profits (Lev et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2008). Profitable firms are willing to give more to charity to enhance their financial

performance (Brammer and Millington, 2008; Chen and Lin, 2015a). Due to the cause-effect relationship among motives, the economic outcome of CG improves social performance by strengthening CG engagement and ethical and philanthropic motives. Compared with the other two motives, the ethical motive has the lowest relative importance and is an effect. It directly influences CG and indirectly influences it by affecting philanthropic motive. It is reasonable since ethical norms and values are closely associated with corporate social activities (Schwartz and Carroll, 2003). A firm’s ethics development and management cultivate its moral obligations to society. Ethical norms and values thus encourage CG engagement (Lee et al., 2014; Wood, 1991). In addition, as Sims (1991) noted, a business’ high ethical standards could ensure compliance with the law, managerial professionalism, and public trust, which are socially desired and related to managerial discretion of CG. Therefore, ethics has a positive effect on hotel CG (Lee et al., 2014; Wood, 1991). Among the three critical motives, philanthropy has the highest relative importance and belongs to effect group. Like ethical motive, the philanthropic motive directly influences CG and indirectly influences it by affecting the ethical motive. The possible explanation is that CG are likely to correlate strongly with ethical activities and might simply be driven by economic interests to enhance financial performance (Schwartz and Carroll, 2003). Furthermore, one scholar managing university fundraising and public affairs claims that some hotels care about the social impact of their charitable giving preferentially, especial for helping vulnerable group, over economic purpose. On the other hand, a financial manager of a hotel chain indicates that charitable giving of some hotels is mainly driven by the desires to pay less in taxes and to differentiate their hotels’ brand, both of which are highly related to economic concern. Accordingly, being profitable, philanthropic, and ethical is the main feature of hotel CG. 5.2. Implications According to the ranking of the relative importance, the most highly ranked motives are valuable in CG initiation and implementation. Focusing on highly ranked motives can meet current hotels’ objectives and demands of society. Because CG can cultivate a firm’s image and reputation, the firm’s main stakeholders, e.g. consumers, creditors, employees, managerial insiders, stockholders, suppliers, and the community, are likely to be confident of being related to such a positive firm and thus quite willing to cooperate with it (Brammer and Millington, 2008; Brown et al., 2006; Gautier and Pache, 2015; Liket and Simaens, 2015; Wang et al., 2008). However, to encourage stakeholder cooperation, a hotel’s internal and external stakeholders must be informed about the moral values of its CG practices. Therefore, when engaging in CG, hotels should increase their CG awareness level and practice their giving programs in a highly ethical and philanthropic manner, instead of just focusing on economic outcomes. Another proper approach would be to establish a long-term strategic partnership with longstanding and respected nonprofit organizations (de-Miguel-Molina et al., 2018). Such an approach would benefit both the hotels and the nonprofits by reaching hotels’ economic, ethical, and philanthropic objectives. The information of a cause-effect relationship among key motives helps to develop and manage competitive CG programs. CG could be considered as a strategic form of moral capital investment to create firm value (Gautier and Pache, 2015; Porter and Kramer, 2002). It is capable of increasing firm financial performance by conveying a socially responsible image to promote a variety of competitive advantages such as customer loyalty (Brammer and Millington, 2008; Lev et al., 2010; Liket and Simaens, 2015) and employee morale (Brown et al., 2006; Greening and Turban, 2000; Navarro, 1988; Wang et al., 2008). To realize the core motive (i.e. the economic outcome of CG), hotels may focus on customer satisfaction and loyalty, as they are directly and significantly related to sales revenue and profits. 7

International Journal of Hospitality Management 86 (2020) 102430

C.-P. Lin, et al.

Table 7 The giving practices of the 14 listed hotel companies in Taiwan.

Note: H1, H2, H3,……, and H14 represent hotel companies listed in Taiwan Stock Exchange.

A positive image conveyed by CG can differentiate a firm’s brand (Lev et al., 2010; Liket and Simaens, 2015) and thus induce social conscious customers to increase their demand for the firm’s services and/or products or their willingness to pay premium prices (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Lev et al., 2010). Indeed, CG has a positive impact on customer satisfaction and loyalty and is thus capable of creating value for a firm (Brammer and Millington, 2008; Gautier and Pache, 2015; Lev et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2008). In view of that, listed hotels in Taiwan could give more to charity to differentiate themselves from those with lower CG to the target consumer to reap the benefits of consumer satisfaction and loyalty (Brammer and Millington, 2008). However, to improve customer perception, attitude, and purchase intensity, potential social conscious customers must be aware of the ethical and philanthropic vales of hotel CG. Accordingly, with effective and continuous CG disclosure, the mutually beneficial use of a firm’s resources and core competencies to bring business and social benefits would be a wise move for CG differentiation to be successful. How do hotels give to charity in line with their critical motives? According to 2018 annual reports of 14 listed hotel companies in Taiwan, among their six main giving CG practices (Table 7), community affairs are the most-reported giving practice. Cause-related marketing, seriousness of social need, and sustainable environmental practices are placed second, followed by events and festivals, and education and technology. Among the CG practices, community affairs and seriousness of social need are possible to be driven mainly by ethical norms and philanthropy while cause-related marketing and events and festivals are likely to be motived mainly by the desire of pursuing economic payoff. Table 7 also shows that hotels allocate their charitable donations among a mix of giving practices. In this way, they can integrate one or more critical giving motives into business operations and strategies such as production, marketing, and distribution to meet the value and moral demands of their internal and external stakeholders. Accordingly, a diversified approach would be an appropriate giving practice for hotels. In addition, each key motive has its own distinctive characteristics and specific influence on hotels and their stakeholders. When initiating and implementing CG, hotels may focus on one specific motive in a high priority to reach specific business or/and social objectives. Indeed, CG has a positive effect on a firm’s financial performance (Brammer and Millington, 2008; Lev et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2008). Increased financial performance will have a direct impact on CG and an indirect impact on it through ethical and philanthropic motives that are associated with social performance. As a result, the impact of economic outcome of CG on giving engagement, financial performance, and social performance is strengthened. Overall, focusing on highly ranked motives (i.e. philanthropic, economic, and ethical) and realizing the cause motive (i.e. economic) can help to achieve the value and moral objectives of hotels and their stakeholders. It will maximize CG’s impact on business and society.

their hotels and stakeholders. However, initiating and implementing effective CG is difficult for hotels because of its complex nature and the variety of motives. Although the motives are likely to be interdependent, previous studies have treated them as independent factors. The literature can identify whether the motives are important or not, but it cannot ascertain their relative importance or to identify interactions among therm. To date, the relative importance of and cause-effect relationship among the motives have not been examined. To fill that research gap, this study examines the interactions by using the combined AHP and DEMATEL method. The results of AHP analysis indicate that the three critical motives, in descending order of relative importance, are philanthropic, economic, and ethical, showing a balanced CG approach that takes values and moral considerations into account. Highly ranked motives are significant in meeting the expectations and demands of hotels and stakeholders. Hoteliers should use the ranking to enhance the effectiveness of giving practices. According to the results of DEMATEL analysis, the economic motive belongs to the cause group; ethical and philanthropic motives fall into the effect group. The economic motive affects ethical and philanthropic motives while the two effect motives influence each other, indicating that CG motiving are in close interaction. Specifically, the economic motive directly influences CG and indirectly influences it through ethical and philanthropic motives. Ethical (Philanthropic) motive directly influences CG and indirectly influences it through philanthropic (ethical) motive. Hotels should continually realize and refine the cause motives to make best use of CG. Indeed, understanding and utilizing the relative importance of and interdependence among critical motives can help hotels to sustain CG while maximizing its impact on financial and social performance. CG is a specific aspect of CSR. Identifying and clarifying the interactions among the motives driving CG is essential not only to CG decision-making but also to the understanding of CSR behavior. Although this study provides a deep insight into CG as well as CSR, it has some limitations. First, this study focuses on the CG of listed hotel companies and five-star hotel groups in Taiwan, a newly industrialized country. The same findings may not be applicable to medium-sized and small hotels. As Amato and Amato (2012) noted, firm size had a cubic impact on retailer philanthropy measured as the ratio of charitable contributions to total receipts. Large and small retailers make larger donations than do medium-sized retailers. Hence, the critical CG motives and their relative importance and interdependence are likely to vary by hotel size. To offer a comparative assessment and reach a consensus, researchers can conduct similar systematic evaluation on small and medium-sized hotels. Second, emerging and developed countries could be expected to differ in business, cultural, economic, ethical, legal, agency cost, political, religious, social, and other factors (Chen and Lin, 2015b; Lin et al., 2017). It is highly possible that critical CG motives and the importance of and interdependence among them might vary from developed to emerging countries. For instance, although this study does not consider the religious motive, it plays a significant role in CG engagement for hotels in Spain (de-Miguel-Molina et al., 2018), Chinese listed corporations (Du et al., 2014), and large Black-owned businesses in the

6. Conclusion and future research CG is a multi-dimensional and multi-stakeholder business behavior related to corporate financial and social performance. When they practice CG, hoteliers need to meet the values and moral objectives of 8

International Journal of Hospitality Management 86 (2020) 102430

C.-P. Lin, et al.

U.S. (Edmondson and Carroll, 1999). Therefore, according to the distinctive CG behavior and business environment in other developed and/ or emerging countries, identifying and incorporating religious or other CG motives into the combined AHP and DEMATEL method would be worthy of future research. Third, this study focused on the interactions among critical giving motives, pointed out their relative importance on CG decision, and depicted a concise causal relationship among them. However, in addition to economic, ethical, and philanthropic motives, future studies could integrate and organize a variety of potential giving attributes in terms of motives, determinants, and practices into the hierarchy analysis to provide a detailed process of hotel giving decision-making. This can further enhance our understanding of the complex behavior of hotel giving as well as facilitate CG management and development. Last, the combined AHP and DEMATEL technique outweighs other traditional methods in assessing the relative importance of and interdependence among the evaluation criteria of the complex decision problem. However, as group decision-making of experts plays a vital role in interpreting and assessing relevant attributes of objective, future research should review the number of group experts and their experience and knowledge to ensure the validity of the evaluation. In addition, setting a new threshold value for DEMATEL analysis may provide alternative insights into the causal relationship because the cause-effect relationship map strongly relies on the threshold value set.

Geneva, Switzerland. Gan, A., 2006. The impact of public scrutiny on corporate philanthropy. J. Bus. Ethics 69 (3), 217–236. Gard McGehee, N., Wattanakamolchai, S., Perdue, R.R., Onat Calvert, E., 2009. Corporate social responsibility within the US lodging industry: an exploratory study. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 33 (3), 417–437. Gautier, A., Pache, A.C., 2015. Research on corporate philanthropy: a review and assessment. J. Bus. Ethics 126 (3), 343–369. Godfrey, P.C., 2005. The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: a risk management perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 30 (4), 777–798. Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D., Haq, A.N., 2014. Barriers analysis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147, 555–568. Greening, D.W., Turban, D.B., 2000. Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Bus. Soc. 39 (3), 254–280. Hwang, C.L., Lin, M.J., 2012. Group Decision Making Under Multiple Criteria: Methods and Applications Vol. 281 Springer Science and Business Media. Lee, P.T.W., Yang, Z., 2018. Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Maritime Studies and Logistics. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. Lee, Y.C., Yen, T.M., Tsai, C.H., 2008. Using importance-performance analysis and decision making trial and evaluation laboratory to enhance order-winner criteria-a study of computer industry. Inf. Technol. J. 7 (3), 396–408. Lee, Y.K., Choi, J., Moon, B.Y., Babin, B.J., 2014. Codes of ethics, corporate philanthropy, and employee responses. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 39, 97–106. Lev, B., Petrovits, C., Radhakrishnan, S., 2010. Is doing good good for you? How corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strateg. Manage. J. 31 (2), 182–200. Liket, K., Simaens, A., 2015. Battling the devolution in the research on corporate philanthropy. J. Bus. Ethics 126 (2), 285–308. Lin, C.L., Tzeng, G.H., 2009. A value-created system of science (technology) park by using DEMATEL. Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (6), 9683–9697. Lin, C.P., Chen, M.H., Wang, J., Tian, L., 2017. Corporate giving in Taiwan: agency cost theory vs. value enhancement theory. Asia Pacific Bus. Rev. 23 (1), 135–151. Lin, R.J., 2013. Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply chain management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 32–39. Marquis, C., Lee, M., 2013. Who is governing whom? Executives, governance, and the structure of generosity in large US firms. Strateg. Manage. J. 34 (4), 483–497. Navarro, P., 1988. Why do corporations give to charity? J. Bus. 65–93. Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., 2002. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 80 (12), 56–68. Roberts, R.W., 1992. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: an application of stakeholder theory. Account. Org. Soc. 17 (6), 595–612. Robbins, S.P., Coulter, M., 2012. Management. PT, England. Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mcgraw-Hill International. Saaty, T.L., 1991. Some mathematical concepts of the analytic hierarchy process. Behaviormetrika 18 (29), 1–9. Sara, J., Stikkelman, R.M., Herder, P.M., 2015. Assessing relative importance and mutual influence of barriers for CCS deployment of the ROAD project using AHP and DEMATEL methods. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 41, 336–357. Schwartz, C.A.B., Carroll, A.B., 2003. Corporate social responsibility: a three-domain approch. Bus. Ethics Q. 13 (4), 503–530. Simon, F.L., 1995. Global corporate philanthropy: a strategic framework. Int. Mark. Rev. 12 (4), 20–37. Sims, R.R., 1991. The institutionalization of organizational ethics. J. Bus. Ethics 10 (7), 493–506. Tzeng, G.H., Chiang, C.H., Li, C.W., 2007. Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Syst. Appl. 32 (4), 1028–1044. Vaidya, O.S., Kumar, S., 2006. Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 169 (1), 1–29. Wang, C., Xu, H., Li, G., 2018. The corporate philanthropy and legitimacy strategy of tourism firms: a community perspective. J. Sustain. Tour. 1–18. Wang, H., Choi, J., Li, J., 2008. Too little or too much? Untangling the relationship between corporate philanthropy and firm financial performance. Org. Sci. 19 (1), 143–159. Wang, H., Qian, C., 2011. Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: the roles of stakeholder response and political access. Acad. Manag. J. 54 (6), 1159–1181. Webb, N.J., 1994. Tax and government policy implications for corporate foundation giving. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 23 (1), 41–67. Wood, D.J., 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Acad. Manag. Rev. 16 (4), 691–718. Wu, W.W., Lee, Y.T., 2007. Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert Syst. Appl. 32 (2), 499–507. Yetton, P., Bottger, P., 1983. The relationships among group size, member ability, social decision schemes, and performance. Org. Behav. Hum. Perform. 32 (2), 145–159. Zhang, R., Zhu, J., Yue, H., Zhu, C., 2010. Corporate philanthropic giving, advertising intensity, and industry competition level. J. Bus. Ethics 94 (1), 39–52. Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.H., 2011. Evaluating green supply chain management among Chinese manufacturers from the ecological modernization perspective. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 47 (6), 808–821.

Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for assistance with the manuscript. Financial support for this research project is provided by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (Grant No.: MOST 107-2410-H-309-010-). References Amato, L.H., Amato, C.H., 2012. Retail philanthropy: firm size, industry, and business cycle. J. Bus. Ethics 107 (4), 435–448. Bhattacharya, C.B., Sen, S., 2003. Consumer–company identification: a framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. J. Mark. 67 (2), 76–88. Brammer, S., Millington, A., 2004. The development of corporate charitable contributions in the UK: a stakeholder analysis. J. Manag. Stud. 41 (8), 1411–1434. Brammer, S., Millington, A., 2008. Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strateg. Manage. J. 29 (12), 1325–1343. Brown, W.O., Helland, E., Smith, J.K., 2006. Corporate philanthropic practices. J. Corp. Financ. 12 (5), 855–877. Carroll, A.B., 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus. Horiz. 34 (4), 39–48. Chen, M.H., Lin, C.P., 2015a. The impact of corporate charitable giving on hospitality firm performance: Doing well by doing good? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 47, 25–34. Chen, M.H., Lin, C.P., 2015b. Understanding corporate philanthropy in the hospitality industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 48, 150–160. Cowan, A., Huang, C.H., Padmanabhan, P., Wang, C.H., 2013. The determinants of foreign giving: an exploratory empirical investigation of US manufacturing firms. Int. Bus. Rev. 22 (2), 407–420. de-Miguel-Molina, B., de-Miguel-Molina, M., Segarra-Oña, M., Peiró-Signes, A., 2018. Why and how hotel groups in luxury segments give back to their communities. Int. J. Tour. Res. 20 (1), 100–114. Ding, J.F., Kuo, J.F., Shyu, W.H., Chou, C.C., 2019. Evaluating determinants of attractiveness and their cause-effect relationships for container ports in Taiwan: users’ perspectives. Marit. Policy Manag. 46 (4), 466–490. Du, X., Jian, W., Du, Y., Feng, W., Zeng, Q., 2014. Religion, the nature of ultimate owner, and corporate philanthropic giving: evidence from China. J. Bus. Ethics 123 (2), 235–256. Edmondson, V.C., Carroll, A.B., 1999. Giving back: an examination of the philanthropic motivations, orientations and activities of large black-owned businesses. J. Bus. Ethics 19 (2), 171–179. European Commission, 2011. A Renewed EU Strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. Accessed 9 July 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/ corporate-social-responsibility_en. Fenclova, E., Coles, T., 2011. Charitable partnerships among travel and tourism businesses: perspectives from low‐fares airlines. Int. J. Tour. Res. 13 (4), 337–354. Gabus, A., Fontela, E., 1976. The DEMATEL Observer. Battelle Geneva Research Center,

9