Utilization of DEMATEL and WINGS Method in Field of Corporate Social Responsibility

Transcription

1 Utilization of DEMATEL and WINGS Method in Field of Corporate Social Responsibility Štěpánka Staňková * ABSTRACT Corporate Social Responsibility has become an integral part of many organizations. The CSR concept can be generally understood as a willing obedience of responsible behavior and social engagement at regional, state and global level, as well. A broad thematic range of the CSR concept interconnecting a large quantity of scientific fields and expert opinions leads to a terminological disunity resulting in many various definitions. An exact measurement is a very questionable and difficult task. The main goal of this paper is to compare applications of DEMATEL and WINGS method used for the CSR performance measurement, identify possible relations among selected CSR activities from a managerial point of view according to results of those methods and determine key factors of successful CSR strategy for banking organizations. Both methods belong to multiple-attribute decision-making methods (MADM methods) that are based on a usage of pairwise comparisons. Results show that the economic field is the most important factor, while safety, ethical codes, ecological innovations, management and certifications, and employee welfare belong to the key CSR criteria. Key words: Corporate Social Responsibility; Multiple-attribute decision-making methods; DEMATEL; WINGS. JEL classification: M14, L21 Business activities, trading and permanent competing have become essential components of human society. Shortly after the end of the Second World War, economists from all over the world started to contemplate various economic aspects of how to increase production together with the simultaneous possibility of an improvement of living standards. The idea of maintaining an appropriate economic performance that should be universally beneficial for the whole society was very popular in these times because the impacts of this opinion could positively affect the decreasing level of economic criminality, frauds and discrimination. On the other hand, the portfolio of various products and services could grow together with the minimization of health and safety risks of the employees and consumers, as well. The following topics, such as environmental protection, research and development together with education, should be considered by every company. In 1953 the American economist called Howard R. Bowen (Horrigan, 2010) introduced his book named Social Responsibilities of Businessman that served as a source of inspiration for the title of the special study named Corporate Social Responsibility (in short CSR). Specialized research centers focusing on the exploration and the examination of this dynamically developing field have gradually emerged. Moreover, organizations supporting and promoting the sustainable and responsible entrepreneurship have been established This paper is supported by Student Grant Competition of the Faculty of Economics, VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava (project registration number: SP2016/123; Advanced MADM Methods and Application of Choquet Integrals, Ordinal, and Fuzzy Approaches in Business Administration and Management ). All support is greatly acknowledged and appreciated. * Ing. Mgr. Štěpánka Staňková, doctoral student Affiliation: VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava, Faculty of Economics, Sokolská třída 33, Ostrava; stepanka.stankova@vsb.cz; Czech Republic

2 worldwide. For example, European Business Ethics Network, International Business Leaders Forum and CSR Europe belong to the most popular ones at global level. The issues of CSR have become the important topics of international conferences and discussions. Generally, the CSR concept could be understood as a voluntary commitment of various organizations to following the principles of the responsible behavior and the social engagement. The CSR should be practiced not only in particular companies but it should be applied globally in every business item participating in production, distribution, marketing, selling and disposal. A broad thematic range of the CSR concept integrating a large quantity of scientific fields and expert opinions lead to a terminological disunity resulting in many various definitions. Considering these circumstances and facts, an exact measurement of CSR activities is a very questionable and difficult task. The main goal of this paper is to compare results of DEMATEL and WINGS method applied in the field of CSR in order to identify possible relations among selected CSR criteria from a managerial point of view and determine key factors of a successful CSR strategy for banking organizations. Both methods are mathematically based on a usage of pairwise comparisons and they can be suitably used as multiple-attribute decision-making tools. To overcome a subjectivity following from an individual expert s opinion a group of five knowledgeable persons was involved in a numerical appraisal of the selected elements. A theoretic part of this paper is focused on more detailed characteristic of the CSR concept, its basis and contemporary possibilities of CSR measurement tools. The application of both methods is minutely described in a methodical section. Finally, the obtained results are discussed and summarized. Theoretical basis of Corporate Social Responsibility and overview of basic evaluation methods In connection with the development of various definitions and characteristics of the CSR concept it is necessary to mention two most elaborated and quoted theories that, in fact, polarize opinions of these issues. The stockholder theory proposes that there is the only one social responsibility: to use resources to support profit maximizing business activities but without breaking the law, deceptions or frauds. On the other hand, every business organization should respect ethical conventions and encourage beneficial social results. This theory was introduced by Milton Friedman in 1970 and represents a narrow conception of CSR that is focused on the owners as investors who carry a risk of a lack of success. Owners are the ones who make key decisions but they also have to entrust their managers with the power to support profit maximization (see Garriga and Melé, 2004; Horrigan, 2010; Lee, 2008). In 1984 Richard Edward Freeman presented the stakeholder theory as his critical reaction to Friedman s work. It claims that diverse interests of all stakeholders: employees, suppliers, customers, trade unions, local communities, NGOs, financial institutions etc. should be taken into consideration, as well. The stakeholders could include individuals or they could form groups that are positively or negatively influenced by the business activities. The stakeholders, however, could similarly affect organizations and their goals (Lee, 2008). The stakeholder model of CSR represents a shift from theoretically based models to more practical ones. The stakeholder model deals with the problem of measurement based on identifying and defining positions and functions of stakeholders in relation to one another (for further details see Clarkson, 1995). This mutual dependence, following the stakeholder theory, is evident for example in the Green Paper (2001) by European Commission describing CSR as a concept

3 whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis. What CSR means nowadays has been examined and presented in literature reviews such as Garriga and Melé (2004); Lee (2008); Lindgreen and Swaen (2010); Aguinis and Glavas, (2012). Based on a content analysis of 37 CSR definitions according to Dahlsrud (2008), stakeholders, voluntariness, economic, environmental and social dimensions are considered to be characteristic features of the CSR concept. Contemporary authors such as Coombs and Holladay (2012), Horrigan (2010), Kunz (2012) are familiar with a triple-bottom-line concept presented also by the European Union that includes three basic domains of interest: Profit, Planet and People. The profit domain stands for economic characteristic. A responsible organization conducts business transparently, respects Corporate Governance rules, ethical marketing policies and ethical codes, pays attention to quality, innovations or safety and is universally beneficial to its community. Corporate donations or employee volunteering programs are supported as well. The planet domain symbolizes environmental dimension of business. An environmentally sustainable organization uses environment-friendly technologies, supports their development and reduces its environmental impacts. The people domain represents a social dimension. A responsible organization also fully respects human rights, occupational health standards and is fair in relation to its stakeholders. Principles of diversity management focusing mainly on women, handicapped people, ethnic minorities and seniors together with rules of work-life balance are taken for granted. An organization looks after dismissed employees to find a new job. Various retraining courses or career consultancy possibilities are provided for free. According to the research carried out by Aguinis and Glavas (2012) a number of articles dealing with CSR and business ethics issues published in academic journals has greatly accelerated since 1970s. Together with an increasing interest in CSR new directions of future research has been specified, e. g. measurement and testing of CSR, analyses of relation between CSR and financial performance of an organization, implementation of the CSR concept within a field of marketing, organizational behavior, HRM, information systems etc. The level of a systematic assessment of CSR activities in organizations is dependent on individual understanding of the CSR principles by owners, managers and employees, together with their internal explanations of the necessity of a permanent implementation, monitoring and a regular evaluation of this above-standard commitment. Publicly presented CSR results could be considered as an opportunity to gain a competitive advantage, however, especially small organizations operating regionally take a responsible conduct of business for granted. There are several possibilities to evaluate CSR activities: a special audit, a certification or a quality mark. All these tools used for measurement of the corporate social responsibility performance differ in their methodologies, complexity and range of a suitable application in various business sectors or organization structures. Nowadays, socially responsible investing is considered to be an emerging trend, represented by diverse sustainability indices. Their main deficiency is connected with the fact that only the world s largest companies whose stocks are marketable in global stock markets are tracked. A separate category of evaluation tools is represented by non-financial reporting initiatives based on a regular publication of CSR reports that could be used as a communication medium informing about the CSR progress as well as managerial instrument providing a survey of CSR results (for detailed information see Kašparová and Kunz, 2013; Pavlík and Bělčík, 2010; White, 2009). Regardless of the legal form of the organizations it is possible to apply a content analysis to evaluate or mutually compare CSR activities mentioned in CSR reports, internet pages and presentations. Practical examples of CSR evaluation possibilities and tools are given in Chart 1.

4 Chart 1: Summary of CSR evaluation tools and methods Certification/ Guidance Specialization Organization AA 1000 Evaluation of CSR principles application AccountAbility ISO 14001, ISO Environmental management system International Organization for Standardization ISO Guidance on reliable CSR strategy International Organization for Standardization Quality Label Appraisal of CSR strategy complexity from stakeholders point Forum Ethibel of view CSR Evaluation Methodology Specialization Organization International Standard for Measuring Corporate Corporate community investment London Benchmarking Group Community Investment Sustainability Indices Specialization Organization Ethibel Sustainability Index CSR performance evaluation of the Forum Ethibel Dow Jones Sustainability world s largest companies whose Indices stocks are marketable in global stock S&P Dow Jones Indices FTSE4Good markets London Stock Exchange Group Non-financial Reporting Specialization Organization G4 Guidelines CSR reporting methodology and forms Global Reporting Initiative Source: own adaptation according to Forum Ethibel (2015); Global Reporting Initiative (2015); ISO (2015); S&P Dow Jones Indices (2016) Research methodology Weighted Influence Non-linear Gauge System method (in short WINGS) is in fact an extended and revised form of DEMATEL method. In comparison with DEMATEL, in case of WINGS method importance of criteria is taken into consideration and numerically appraised (Values describing strengths of criteria are inserted into the main diagonal of initial evaluating k k X x.). Subsequent mathematical procedure is similar to DEMATEL (see matrix ij Michnik, 2013; Michnik, 2014; Michnik and Adamus-Matuszyńska, 2015). The original versions of both methods require deterministic inputs that are basically considered too simplifying for various reasons. The most used concept that involves uncertainty into decision-making models and problems is called a fuzzification (i.e. an extension of crisp numbers by fuzzy sets), see Zadeh (1978). In that case, fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy WINGS methods are recommended. DEMATEL method Decision-making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory method (in short DEMATEL) was originally developed by Fontela and Gabus (1976) to analyse complex problems. It is a mathematical procedure suitable for a determination of interrelations between criteria (factors) and subsequently it is used for an identification of a subset containing the effective criteria (factors) only. In comparison with the traditional methods such as Analytic hierarchy process assuming that criteria are independent, DEMATEL focuses on a depiction of causal relations among the elements of a considered system through an impact relation map (IRM)

5 and an evaluation of influences between criteria (Klozíková and Dočkalíková, 2014). DEMATEL is based on pairwise comparisons and is comprised of these following steps: Firstly, a group of m experts are supposed to assess a degree of a direct influence of criterion i on criterion j denoted as xi j using the scale 0 ; 4. Value 0 means no influence, number 1 goes with an insignificant influence, 2 a medium influence, 3 a strong influence and 4 a very strong influence. Assuming n criteria, an n x n non-negative matrix k k X x, where k is a number of experts is constructed for each expert and is denoted as participating in evaluation processes, while ij 1 k m. Thus, X 1, X 2, X 3,, X m are the A matrices from m experts. To aggregate opinions from m experts, the average matrix has to be computed according to a formula: a 1 m m k ij i x 1 ij, (1) aij = element of the average matrix A, m = number of experts, xij k = element of the evaluation matrix of k-th expert. Secondly, the normalized initial direct relation matrix D d ij has to be calculated: D A, where (2) 1 1 min,. n n max a j ij max a j ij i 1 j 1 Thirdly, the total - relation matrix T has to be derived from the equation (3): D 1 T D I, (3) D I = the direct relation matrix, = the identity matrix. The sum of rows and the sum of columns in the total relation matrix T are represented by vectors r and c: n r i 1 t n j 1 ij n1 r, (4) c n c j 1 n tij n i 1 1, (5) ri = the sum of i-th row in the matrix T, cj = the sum of j-th column in the matrix T. The ri shows a total (direct and indirect) effect of criterion i on the other criteria. Similarly, cj indicates a total (direct and indirect) effect received by criterion j from the other criteria. In addition, when i = j, ri c j denotes the total effects given and received by a criterion i. It indicates a degree of importance that element i plays in the whole system. On the other hand, ri c j means the net effect that criterion i contributes to the system. If ri c j is positive, element i is a net cause that affects the other criteria. If ri c j is a ij

6 negative, element i is a net receiver (result) that is influenced by the other criteria (Shieh, Wu and Huang, 2010; Tzeng, Chiang and Li, 2007). Fourthly, a threshold value has to be set in order to filter out minor effects. In doing so, only the effects exceeding the threshold value will be chosen and shown in a diagraph called IRM. The threshold value could be either estimated by the experts or computed as the average of the elements in matrix T (Lee et al., 2013). Utilization of DEMATEL and WINGS method in Corporate Social Responsibility For scientific purposes, a hierarchical network respecting the main goal connected with a determination of key factors of a successful CSR strategy was created. Fields were chosen according to the triple-bottom-line definition of CSR while each one was described by three criteria. An overview of the elements together with short descriptions is provided in Chart 2. The following step was to compare pairwise and evaluate using a scale from 0 to 4 possible relations between the CSR fields (C1 C3) and then relations between groups of the criteria (C11 C13; C21 C23; C31 C33) together with importance of each field and criterion. To overcome a subjectivity following from an individual expert s opinion a group of five academics and non-academic was involved in a relations and importance appraisal of the elements. Each expert had to fill his or her judgments in matrices individually. Based on matrices containing experts opinions the average matrices A were computed according to the formula (1). Then matrices D and T were calculated and threshold values were set as the average of the elements in the matrices T. Finally, and values of the fields and criteria were interpreted and compared.

7 Chart 2: Overview of selected CSR fields and criteria C1: ECONOMIC FIELD C2: ENVIRONMENTAL FIELD C3: SOCIAL FIELD C11: Safety C12: Transparent reporting C13: Ethical codes C21: Ecological innovations C22: Recycling C23: Eco management and certifications C31: Employee welfare C32: Corporate donations C33: Employee volunteering and engagement Overall safety, socially responsible investing, distribution of information for customers and clients Regular publication of financial and non-financial reports, audit of these reports Usage of ethical codes, updating and ways of their forming Support of innovative ideas and projects, R&D Separation of waste materials, waste management, waste minimization ISO and ISO norms, various quality labels, environmental audits, high-quality products and services Employee benefits, flexible working hours, ethical lines, above-standard medical care, ergonomically friendly workspace, etc. Financial and non-financial corporate donations, corporate foundations and endowment funds Support of employee volunteering projects and payroll giving initiatives Source: Coombs and Holladay (2012); Horrigan (2010); Kunz (2012) Results For the CSR fields (C1 C3) the threshold values D = and = were computed. According to ri c j values meaning a sum of given and received effects (an overall importance) the CSR fields can be ordered as follows: C1 > C3 > C2. The economic field (C1) is considered to be the most important one, while the environmental field (C2) is the least important field in that case. Based on ri c j values the environmental field (C2) and social field (C3) are net causes, whereas the economic field (C1) is a net receiver. For detailed information see Chart 3 and Chart 4. According to the results of both methods, the economic field (C1) and social field (C3) are mutually dependent. It means they affect each other. What is more, the environmental field (C2) influences the economic criteria (C1). Based on calculations of DEMATEL method the social field (C3) is in relation with the environmental criteria (C2). According to WINGS method, there are significant loops at the economic (C1) and social field (C3). W

8 Chart 3: Matrix T for CSR fields and overview of direct and indirect effects - DEMATEL CSR Fields Economic Environmental Social (ri + cj) (ri - cj) Economic 0,0886 0,1364 0,2812 1,1173-0,1049 Environmental 0,2476 0,0449 0,1478 0,8236 0,0569 Social 0,2748 0,2020 0,0848 1,0755 0,0479 Chart 4: Matrix T for CSR fields and overview of direct and indirect effects - WINGS CSR Fields Economic Environmental Social (ri + cj) (ri - cj) Economic 0,2801 0,0898 0,2171 1,2488-0,0749 Environmental 0,1782 0,1236 0,0916 0,7439 0,0430 Social 0,2036 0,1371 0,2071 1,0635 0,0319 For the economic field (C11 C13) the threshold values D = and W = were calculated. According to ri c j values for DEMATEL method depicting an overall importance, the economic criteria can be ordered as follows: C11 > C13 > C12. For WINGS method the economic criteria can be ordered like this: C11 > C12 > C13. The criterion concerning overall safety (C11) is considered to be the most important one. The positions of the remaining criteria are interchanged. Based on ri c j values ethical codes (C13) are net causes, whereas the criterion dealing with safety (C11) is a net receiver. The criterion linked to transparent reporting (C12) is appraised differently. In accordance with DEMATEL computations it is a net receiver, whereas for WINGS method it comes out as a net cause. For detailed information see Chart 5 and Chart 6. The results of DEMATEL method indicate a strong mutual dependency among the selected criteria. Safety (C11) is in relation with transparent reporting (C12) and ethical codes (C13), and vice versa. What is more, ethical codes (C13) affect a level of transparent reporting initiatives (C12). According to WINGS method there are significant loops at the criteria dealing with an overall safety (C11) and transparent reporting (C12). Chart 5: Matrix T for economic criteria and overview of direct and indirect effects - DEMATEL Economic field C11 C12 C13 (ri + cj) (ri - cj) Safety (C11) 0,0890 0,1675 0,1885 1,1395-0,2494 Transparent reporting (C12) 0,2856 0,0509 0,0914 0,8634-0,0076 Ethical codes (C13) 0,3198 0,2170 0,0624 0,9415 0,2570

9 Chart 6: Matrix T for economic criteria and overview of direct and indirect effects - WINGS Economic field C11 C12 C13 (ri + cj) (ri - cj) Safety (C11) 0,2309 0,1256 0,1443 1,1924-0,1910 Transparent reporting (C12) 0,2242 0,1738 0,0592 0,9122 0,0021 Ethical codes (C13) 0,2366 0,1557 0,1458 0,8873 0,1889 W For the environmental criteria (C21 C23) the threshold values D = and r values for DEMATEL method = were calculated. According to i c j depicting an overall importance, the environmental criteria can be ordered as follows: C22 > C21 > C23. For WINGS method the environmental criteria can be ordered like this: C21 > C22 > C23. The criterion dealing with environmental management and certifications (C23) is the least important criterion in that case. The positions of the remaining criteria are interchanged. Based on ri c j values environmental innovations (C21) together with eco management and certifications (C23) are net causes, whereas recycling (C22) is a net receiver. For details see Chart 7 and Chart 8. According to the results of both methods, ecologic innovations (C21) are in relation with recycling initiatives (C22), while environmental management and certifications (C23) have an influence on the level of eco innovations (C21). The results of DEMATEL method show a mutual dependency among ecologic innovations (C21) and eco management and certifications (C23). According to WINGS method, loops are visible at each environmental criterion. Chart 7: Matrix T for environmental criteria and overview of direct and indirect effects - DEMATEL Environmental field C21 C22 C23 (ri + cj) (ri - cj) Eco innovations (C21) 0,0574 0,3611 0,1424 0,9707 0,1511 Recycling (C22) 0,1215 0,0678 0,1806 1,0419-0,3021 Eco management and certifications (C23) 0,2309 0,2431 0,0574 0,9117 0,1511

10 Chart 8: Matrix T for environmental criteria and overview of direct and indirect effects - WINGS Environmental field C21 C22 C23 (ri + cj) (ri - cj) Eco innovations (C21) 0,2428 0,2642 0,0908 1,0892 0,1065 Recycling (C22) 0,0809 0,1833 0,1255 0,9926-0,2130 Eco management and certifications (C23) 0,1676 0,1552 0,1784 0,8960 0,1065 For the social criteria (C31 C33) the threshold values D = and W = were computed. According to ri c j values for DEMATEL method depicting an overall importance, the social criteria can be ordered as follows: C33 > C32 > C31. For WINGS method the social criteria can be ordered like this: C31 > C32 > C33. Corporate donations (C32) are placed on the second place. The positions of the remaining criteria are interchanged. Based on ri c j values employee welfare (C31) is a net cause, whereas corporate donations (C32) and employee volunteering programs (C33) are net receivers. For detailed information see Chart 9 and Chart 10. Based on the results of both methods, employee welfare (C31) affects the level of corporate donations (C32) and employee volunteering (C33). Corporate donations (C32) and employee volunteering programs (C33) are mutually dependent on each other. It means they are in a reciprocal relation. According to WINGS method, there are significant loops at the criteria dealing with employee welfare (C31) and corporate donations (C32). Chart 9: Matrix T for social criteria and overview of direct and indirect effects - DEMATEL Social field C31 C32 C33 (ri + cj) (ri - cj) Employee welfare (C31) 0,0531 0,2368 0,2669 0,8847 0,2289 Corporate donations (C32) 0,1073 0,0688 0,2433 0,9789-0,1400 Employee volunteering (C33) 0,1675 0,2538 0,0872 1,1058-0,0890

11 Chart 10: Matrix T for social criteria and overview of direct and indirect effects - WINGS Social field C31 C32 C33 (ri + cj) (ri - cj) Employee welfare (C31) 0,2221 0,1727 0,1902 1,0040 0,1659 Corporate donations (C32) 0,0755 0,2005 0,1740 1,0026-0,1025 Employee volunteering (C33) 0,1214 0,1794 0,1547 0,9743-0,0634 Conclusion The main goal of this paper is to compare results of DEMATEL and WINGS method applied in the field of CSR in order to identify possible relations among selected CSR criteria from a managerial point of view and determine key factors of a successful CSR strategy for banking organizations. First, a hierarchical network respecting the main goal was created. Fields were chosen according to the triple-bottom-line definition of CSR while each one was specified by the three sub-criteria. Then a group of five knowledgeable persons was asked to rate possible relations among the elements. As Michnik (2013) mentions in WINGS method importance of each element (criterion) is taken into consideration that may result in a different final ranking of criteria and identified relations in comparison with results of DEMATEL method. Different ranking of sub-criteria was found out in the economic, environmental, and social field. According to the results of both methods, categorization of net causes and net results was the same except the economic criterion connected with transparent reporting (C12). Based on the results of both methods, the economic field (C1) is considered to be the most important factor according to a sum of given and received effects at the first hierarchical level. What is more, the economic field is a net receiver influenced by the rest of the CSR fields. At the second hierarchical level the criteria concerning safety (C11) and ethical codes (C13) is regarded to be the most important economic sub-criteria. Within the environmental field ecological innovations (C21) that are also net causes play an important role. Finally, the criterion connected with employee welfare (C31) represents the most important element from the social field because it is a net cause. A mutually dependent relation exists among criteria dealing with corporate donations (C32) and employee volunteering programs (C33). According the results of both methods safety, ethical codes, ecological innovations, management and certifications, and employee welfare represent key factors of a successful CSR strategy for banking organizations. It is assumed that the obtained results might be different for other business sectors (e.g. for manufacturing, industrial or educational organizations different relations might by determined). For a further analysis, it is recommended to explore differences between business sectors in the Czech Republic and the other countries as well.

12 References: [1] Aguinis, H. - Glavas, A. (2012): What We Know and Don't Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 2012, 38, 4, p doi: / [2] Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995): A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 1995, 20, 1, p [3] Commission of the European Communities. (2001): Green Paper Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. [Online] Available at: [cited ]. [4] Coombs, W. - Holladay, S. (2012): Managing corporate social responsibility: communication approach. Malden, Wiley-Blackwell, [5] Dahlsrud, A. (2008): How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2008, 15, 1, p doi: /csr.132 [6] Fontela, E. - Gabus, A. (1976): The DEMATEL Observer. Geneva: Battelle Geneva Research Center, [7] Forum Ethibel. (2015): Ethibel Sustainability Index. [online] Available at: [cited ]. [8] Garriga, E. - Melé, D. (2004): Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 2004, 53, 1/2, p doi: /b:busi [9] Global Reporting Initiative. (2015): GRI and Sustainability Reporting. [online] Available at: [cited ]. [10] Horrigan, B. (2010): Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century: Debates, models and practices across government, law and business. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, [11] International Organization for Standardization. (2015): ISO Social Responsibility. [online] Available at: [cited ]. [12] Kašparová, K. Kunz, V. (2013): Moderní přístupy ke společenské odpovědnosti firem a CSR reportování. Praha, Grada Publishing, [13] Klozíková, J. - Dočkalíková, I. (2014): Corporate Governance Rating: Synthesis of Rating Models of Corporate Governance with Utilization Methods AHP and DEMATEL. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance (ECMLG 2014). Zagreb, ACPI publishing, p , [14] Kunz, V. (2012): Společenská odpovědnost firem. Praha, Grada Publishing, [15] Lee, H., Tzeng, G., Yeih, W., Wang, Y. - Yang, S. (2013): Revised DEMATEL: Resolving the Infeasibility of DEMATEL. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2013, 37, 10-11, p doi: /j.apm [16] Lee, M. P. (2008): A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2008, 10, 1, p doi: /j x [17] Lindgreen, A. - Swaen, V. (2010): Corporate Social Responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2010, 12, 1, p doi: /j x

13 [18] Michnik, J. (2013): Weighted Influence Non-linear Gauge System (WINGS) An analysis method for the systems of interrelated components. European Journal of Operational Research, 2013, 228, 3, p doi: /j.ejor [19] Michnik, J. (2014): Multiple Criteria Choice of R&D Organization with the Aid of Structural Methods. Multiple Criteria Decision Making, 2014, 9, p [20] Michnik, J. Adamus-Matuszyńska, A. (20015): Structural Analysis of Problems in Public Relations. Multiple Criteria Decision Making, 2015, 10, p [21] Pavlík, M. Bělčík, M. (2010): Společenská odpovědnost organizace CSR v praxis a jak s ním dál. Praha, Grada Publishing, [22] S&P Dow Jones Indices. (2016): Dow Jones Sustainability World Index. [online] Available at: [cited ]. [23] Shieh, J., Wu, H. - Huang, K. (2010): A DEMATEL method in identifying key success factors of hospital service quality. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2010, 23, 3, p doi: /j.knosys [24] Tzeng, G., Chiang, C. - Li, C. (2007): Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications, 2007, 32, 4, p doi: /j.eswa [25] White, G. B. (2009): Sustainability Reporting: Managing for Wealth and Corporate Health. New York, Business Expert Press, [26] ZADEH, L. A. (1978): Fuzzy Sets as a Basis for a Theory of Possibility. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1978, 1, p