Journal of Risk Analysis and Crisis Response

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, *, ORCID
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
https://doi.org/10.2991/jracr.k.210111.002How 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
Avoidance of complicity Handling of complaints A212
Resolving grievances
Discrimination and vulnerable groups Vulnerable groups A213
Civil and political rights
Economic, social and cultural rights Economic, social and cultural rights A214
Fundamental principles and rights at work
Labour practices A22 Employment and employment relationships Employment and employment relationships A221
Social dialogue
Conditions of work and social protection Conditions of work and social protection A222
Health and safety at work
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
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
Education and awareness Education and awareness A313
Sustainable consumption
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 λmax 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
λmax= 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
λmax= 3.010, CR = 0.0096 < 0.1 λmax= 4.0554, CR = 0.0208 < 0.1 λmax= 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. (1)

    Normalization of column elements in the judgment matrix. The general term of elements is h˜ij=hij1nhij(i,j=1,2,,n) .

  2. (2)

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

  3. (3)

    Normalizing the vector w˜i . wi=w˜i1nw˜j(i,j=1,2,,n) . w = (w1, w2,...,wn)T, the approximate solution of all eigenvectors.

  4. (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
λmax= 4.2262, CR = 0.0847 < 0.1 λmax= 3.0055, CR = 0.0053 < 0.1 λmax= 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
λmax= 4.0125, CR = 0.0047 < 0.1 λmax= 3.0735, CR = 0.0707 < 0.1 λmax= 3.0005, CR = 0.0005 < 0.1
Weight on the overall target 0.0574 Weight on the overall target 0.1534 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.

Figure 1

Weight distribution in the reconstructed social responsibility risk assessment for the Belt and Road large-scale tourism investment project 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. (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. (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).
[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).
[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).
Journal
Journal of Risk Analysis and Crisis Response
Volume-Issue
11 - 1
Pages
1 - 9
Publication Date
2021/02
ISSN (Online)
2210-8505
ISSN (Print)
2210-8491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2991/jracr.k.210111.002How to use a DOI?
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/).

Cite this article

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Chen Lv
AU  - Xiaoyan Li
PY  - 2021
DA  - 2021/02
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  - https://doi.org/10.2991/jracr.k.210111.002
ID  - Lv2021
ER  -