運用多準則決策分析台灣銀行業企業社會責任績效之研究

An Evaluation on the CSR performance of Taiwan's Banking Industry using Multi-Criteria Analyses

艾依達(Aida Evangelina Alvarado)

指導教授 ： 時序時

淡江大學/商管學院/商管學院經營管理全英語碩士學位學程/碩士(2018年)

https://doi.org/10.6846/TKU.2018.00475

摘要

銀行業被認為是提升企業社會責任（corporate social responsibility, CSR）的關鍵行為者，因為它們有能力通過其產品和服務影響其客戶和其他公司，而且相對於其它行業別是表現較差者。本研究在藉由常用的多準則決策分析（multi-criteria decision analysis, MCDA）方法來評估台灣銀行業的企業社會責任績效。
本研究選擇Preference Ranking Organization Methods for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE II) 以及 Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) 兩方法進行分析。蒐集15家台灣銀行與其它歐美一些頂級銀行的環境、社會和公司治理（environmental, social and corporate governance, ESG）資料為分析對象。
分析結果顯示，此15家銀行在 TOPSIS和PROMETHEE II 兩方法的評估結果排序相近，並且這在銀行排名差異不明顯。對於主要準則權重變化的敏感度分析，並沒有產生顯著不同的排序，因而推斷這些排名是穩定的。根據以上MCDA方法分析結果，我們可以得出結論：台灣銀行的企業社會責任表現明顯低於資料中歐美頂級銀行的表現，因而這些表現優良銀行多個面向的指標可以作為台灣銀行績效改善的參考。

關鍵字

企業社會責任 ； 銀行業 ； 多準則決策分析 ； 群體決策 ； 敏感度分析 ； 績效改善

並列摘要

The banking industry is considered as a key actor to enhance corporate social responsibility (CSR) since they have the ability to influence their customers and other companies through their products and services, and achieve relatively poor performance compared to other industries. This study aims to evaluate CSR performance of the banking industry in Taiwan through multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods.
Preference Ranking Organization Methods for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE II) and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methods were selected to perform the analysis. The environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) data of fifteen banks in Taiwan and some top-performed banks from different continents is collected and analyzed.
Findings show that both, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE II, generate close rankings and ranking differences, among the banks by the two methods, are considered as insignificant. Sensitivity analyses on weight changes of major criterion do not provide significantly different rankings which are regarded as stable rankings. Based on the rankings obtained from above MCDA methods, we can also conclude that Taiwan-based banks have a significantly lower CSR performance than the top-performed banks from our dataset. We consider that using top CSR performing banks as a guidance to implement better CSR initiatives could help as a starting point to find improvement opportunities for the Taiwanese banks, especially in the lowest performing CSR criteria like resource management and board activities and its functions.

並列關鍵字

Corporate Social Responsibility ； Banking Industry ； Multi-criteria decision analysis ； Group decision ； Sensitivity analysis ； Performance improvement

參考文獻

REFERENCES

Afful-Dadzie, E., Oplatková, Z. K., and Nabareseh, S. (2015). Selecting start-up businesses in a public Venture capital financing using Fuzzy PROMETHEE. Procedia Computer Science, 60, 63-72. Ali, I., Rehman, K. U., Ali, S. I., Yousaf, J., and Zia, M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility influences, employee commitment and organizational performance. African journal of Business management, 4(12), 2796-2801. Athawale, V. M., and Chakraborty, S. (2010, January). Facility location selection using PROMETHEE II method. In Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on industrial engineering and operations management (pp. 9-10). Bangladesh Dhaka. Baltussen, R., and Niessen, L. (2006). Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost effectiveness and resource allocation, 4(1), 14.

Brammer, S., Millington, A., and Rayton, B., (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resources Management, 18(10), 1701-1719. Brans, J. P., and Vincke, P. (1985). Note—A Preference Ranking Organization Method: (The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making). Management science, 31(6), 647-656.

Brans, J., Vinckle, P., and Mareschal, B., (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24, 228-238. Capelle-Blancard, G., and Petit, A., (2017). The weighting of CSR dimensions: One size does not fit all. Business & Society, 56(6), 919-943.

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