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。

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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Research Background .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Purpose of Research .................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Thesis Structure ........................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 3
2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility .................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 CSR in Banking Industry ..................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Measurement of CSR ........................................................................................... 8
2.2 MCDA ....................................................................................................................... 11
2.2.1 The TOPSIS Method .......................................................................................... 12
2.2.2 The PROMETHEE Method ............................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 16
3.1 Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Analytic Methods ...................................................................................................... 20
3.2.1 Weights .............................................................................................................. 20
3.2.2 The TOPSIS Method .......................................................................................... 21
3.2.3 The PROMETHEE Method ............................................................................... 22
3.2.4 Sensitivity Analyses ........................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ................................................................ 25
4.1 Ranking ..................................................................................................................... 25
4.1.1 The TOPSIS Method .......................................................................................... 25
4.1.2 The PROMETHEE Method ............................................................................... 28

4.2 Sensitivity Analyses .................................................................................................. 33
4.2.1 TOPSIS analysis on Weights ............................................................................. 33
4.2.2 PROMETHEE analysis on Weights................................................................... 38
4.3 Discussions ................................................................................................................ 41
4.4 Improvement Opportunities ...................................................................................... 44
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUDING REMARKS ............................................................................. 48
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 50
Appendix 1. ESG dimensions of CSR performance ................................................................ 58
Appendix 2. Steps for TOPSIS evaluation ............................................................................... 62
Appendix 3. Steps for PROMETHEE II evaluation ................................................................ 65
Appendix 4. Normalized decision matrix ................................................................................ 68
Appendix 5. Weighted normalized decision matrix ................................................................. 69
Appendix 6. Calculation of the separation measures ............................................................... 71
Appendix 7. Leaving flow, entering flow and net flow ........................................................... 72
Appendix 8. Sensitivity analysis on Threshold Values ............................................................ 74
Appendix 9. Materiality matrix example ................................................................................. 77

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Approaches used in previous studies to measure CSR performance. .......................... 9
Table 2. List of banks selected for this study. .......................................................................... 17
Table 3. Categories and sub categories of CSR ....................................................................... 18
Table 4. Original decision matrix............................................................................................. 19
Table 5. Weights used in this study. ........................................................................................ 21
Table 6. Scenarios to perform sensitivity analysis on TOPSIS ............................................... 23
Table 7. Scenarios to perform sensitivity analysis on PROMETHEE ..................................... 23
Table 8. The relative closeness and rank of the group. ............................................................ 27
Table 9. Generalized criteria for PROMETHEE implementation ........................................... 29
Table 10. Multi-criteria preference indices for Expert 1. ......................................................... 30
Table 11. Multi-criteria preference indices for Expert 2. ......................................................... 31
Table 12. Net flow and rank of the group. ............................................................................... 32
Table 13. Scenarios with changes in the criteria weights. ....................................................... 35
Table 14. Results of sensitivity analysis on TOPSIS. .............................................................. 37
Table 15. Results of sensitivity analysis on PROMETHEE .................................................... 39
Table 16. TOPSIS and PROMETHEE II rank. ........................................................................ 42
Table 17. Highest ranked banks ............................................................................................... 48
Table 18. Lowest ranked banks ................................................................................................ 49
Table 19. Type V preference function ..................................................................................... 65
Table 20. Normalized decision matrix ..................................................................................... 68
Table 21. Weighted normalized decision matrix for Expert 1. ................................................ 69
Table 22. Weighted normalized decision matrix for Expert 2. ................................................ 70
Table 23. Calculation of the separation measures. ................................................................... 71
Table 24. Leaving flow, entering flow and net flow for Expert 1. .......................................... 72
Table 25. Leaving flow, entering flow and net flow for Expert 2. .......................................... 73
Table 26. Scenarios with changes on thresholds. ..................................................................... 75
Table 27. Results of sensitivity analysis on thresholds. ........................................................... 76

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. TOPSIS results of sensitivity analysis. ..................................................................... 36
Figure 2. PROMETHEE results of sensitivity analysis. .......................................................... 40
Figure 3. Rank comparison for the TOPSIS and PROMETHE II methods. ............................ 43
Figure 4. Comparison against optimal solutions ...................................................................... 45
Figure 5. Van Lanschot materiality matrix .............................................................................. 77

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.
Carroll, A.B., (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business and Society, 38, 268-295.
Chu, T. C., and Lin, Y. C. (2009). An interval arithmetic based fuzzy TOPSIS model. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(8), 10870-10876. Clark, G., and Viehs, M., (2014). The implications of corporate social responsibility for investors: An overview and evaluation of the existing CSR literature. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2481877 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2481877
CSRHub website: https://www.csrhub.com (accessed on 2018.02.25) Dağdeviren, M. (2008). Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 19(4), 397-406.
Dahlsrud, A., (2008). How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: An Analysis of 37 Definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1-13. Eapen, S., (2018). Four Sustainability Management Trends and Opportunities in the Banking Sector [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.bsr.org/en/our-insights/blog-view/banking-sector-sustainability-csr-management-trends-and-opportunities
El Akremi, A., Gond, J. P., Swaen, V., De Roeck, K., & Igalens, J., (2015). How do employees perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. Journal of Management. Retrieved from http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/15556/1/EGSDI%20JOM%202015%20CRO%20VERSION.pdf Esteves, A. M. (2008). Mining and social development: Refocusing community investment using multi-criteria decision analysis. Resources Policy, 33(1), 39-47.
European Banking Federation, (2017). CSR - European banking sector best practices. Retrieved from https://www.ebf.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/csr-2008-00975-01-E.pdf Fatma, M., Rahman, Z., and Khan, I., (2014). Multi-item stakeholder based scale to measure CSR in the banking industry. International Strategic Management Review, 2(1), 9-20.
Fox, W. P., Ormond, B., and Williams, A. (2016). Ranking terrorist targets using a hybrid AHP–TOPSIS methodology. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation, 13(1), 77-93.
Fubon Financial Holdings Co., Ltd., (2017). 2016 Fubon Financial CSR Report. Retrieved from: https://www.fubon.com/financialholdings/citizenship/downloadlist/downloadlist/2016FubonCSRReportEN.pdf Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., and Jafarian, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 345-354. Goyal, K., and Joshi, V., (2011). A study of social and ethical issues in banking industry. International Journal of Economics and Research, 2(5), 49-57. Greco, S., Figueira, J., and Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer's International series. Guitouni, A., and Martel, J. M. (1998). Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. European Journal of Operational Research, 109(2), 501-521.
Hoang, Y., (2014). CSR in Banking Sector: A Literature Review and New Research Directions. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 2(11). Huang, I. B., Keisler, J., and Linkov, I. (2011). Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Science of the total environment, 409(19), 3578-3594.
Hyde K., Maier H., and Colby C., (2003). Incorporating uncertainty in the PROMETHEE MCDA Method. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 12(4-5), 245-259.
Indriyati, Surarso, B., and Sarwoko, E. (2013). Sensitivity Analysis of the AHP and TOPSIS Methods for the Selection of the Best Lecturer Base on the Academic Achievement. Seminar International Diponegoro University. 38-50.
Karabasevic, D., Paunkovic, J., and Stanujkic, D., (2016). Ranking of companies according to the indicators of corporate social responsibility based on SWARA and ARAS methods. Serbian Journal of Management, 11(1), 43-53. Khan, H., Halabi, A., and Samy, M., (2009). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: a study of selected banking companies in Bangladesh. Social responsibility journal, 5(3), 344-357. Kiliç, M., Kuzey, C., and Uyar, A., (2015). The impact of ownership and board structure on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting in the Turkish banking industry. Corporate Governance, 15(3), 357-374. Kolios, A., Mytilinou, V., Lozano-Minguez, E., and Salonitis, K. (2016). A comparative study of multiple-criteria decision-making methods under stochastic inputs. Energies, 9(7), 566. Lentner, C., Szegedi, K., and Tatay, T., (2015). Corporate social responsibility in the banking sector. Pénzügyi Szemle/Public Finance Quarterly, 60(1), 95-103.
Lin, C.-H., Yang, H.-L., and Liou, D.-Y., (2009). The impact of corporate social responsibility on financial performance: Evidence from business in Taiwan. Technology in Society, 31, 56-63. Macharis, C., Brans, J., and Mareschal, B. (1998). The GDSS PROMETHEE Procedure (A PROMETHEE-GAIA Based Procedure for Group Decision Support). Journal of Decision Systems, 7, 283-307.
Madrakhimova, F., (2013). Evolution of the Concept and Definition of Corporate Social Responsibility. Global Conference on Business and Finance Proceedings, 8(2), 113-118.
Maqbool, S., and Zameer, M., (2018). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: An empirical analysis of Indian banks. Future Business Journal, 4, 84-93.
Mareschal, B., (2012). How to choose the right preference function? Available from: http://www.promethee-gaia.net (accessed on 2018.04.17)
Mareschal, B., (2018). PROMETHEE-GAIA Statistics - 1823 papers. Available from: http://www.promethee-gaia.net/assets/promethee-stats.pdf (accessed on 2018.06.22)
Margolis, J., and Elfenbein, H., (2008). Doing well by doing good: Don’t count on it. Harvard Business Review, Financial Management.
Martínez, P., and Rodríguez del Bosque, I., (2013). Introduction to the academic perspectives of CSR measurement. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences (ILSHS), 2, 51-55.
McDonald, L.M. and Chia, H.L., (2011). Impact of corporate social responsibility initiatives on Taiwanese banking customers. International Journal of Bank Marketing. 29(1), 50-63. McDonald, L.M., (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in banking: what we know, what we don't know, and what we should know. In: The Routledge companion to financial services marketing. New York: Routledge Companions, 485-505.
McWilliams, A., and Siegel, D., (2000). Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Correlation or Misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 603-609. Mendoza, G. A., and Martins, H. (2006). Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. Forest ecology and management, 230(1-3), 1-22. Mocan, M., Rus, S., Draghici, A., Ivascu, L., and Turi, A., (2015). Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices on the Banking Industry in Romania. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 712-716. Mohr, L., Webb, D., and Harris, K., (2001). Do Consumers Expect Companies to be Socially Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying Behavior. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45-72.
Morrissey, A. J., and Browne, J. (2004). Waste management models and their application to sustainable waste management. Waste management, 24(3), 297-308.
Nadler, D., (2004). Building Better Boards. Harvard Business Review, Boards.
Narwal, M., (2007) "CSR Initiatives of Indian Banking Industry", Social Responsibility Journal, 3(4), 49-60. Ofori, D. F., S-Darko, M. D., and Nyuur, R. B. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Fact or fiction? A look at Ghanaian banks. Acta Commercii, 14(1), 1-11. Pamučar, D. S., Božanić, D., and Ranđelović, A. (2017). Multi-criteria decision making: An example of sensitivity analysis. Serbian Journal of Management, 12(1), 1-27. Paschetta, E., and Tsoukiàs, A. (2000). A real-world MCDA application: Evaluating software. Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, 9(5), 205. Pérez, A., Martínez, P., and Del Bosque, I. R. (2013). The development of a stakeholder-based scale for measuring corporate social responsibility in the banking industry. Service Business, 7(3), 459-481. Polychronidou, P., Ioannidou, E., Kipouros, A., Tsourgiannis, L., and Simet, G., (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility in Greek Banking Sector – An Empirical Research. Procedia Economics and Finance, 9, 193-199. Poovarasan,V., and Kaviyarasu, M., (2014). Sensitivity Analysis of TOPSIS Technique: An Approach to Archives Websites’ Performance Evaluation in Our Country with Interval Intuitionistic Fuzzy Information. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences, 13(8), 89-94. Rahdari, A., and Rostamy, A., (2015). Designing a general set of sustainability indicators at the corporate level. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 757-771.
Relano, F., and Paulet, E., (2012). Corporate responsibility in the banking sector: a proposed typology for the German case. International Journal of Law and Management, 54(5), 379-393. Rivera, J., Bigne, E., and Curras-Perez, R., (2016). Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility perception on consumer satisfaction with the brand. Spanish Journal of Marketing, 20, 104-114. Saeidi, S.P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. P., and Saaeidi, S. A. (2015). How does corporate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 341-350. Seuring, S. (2013). A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain management. Decision support systems, 54(4), 1513-1520.
Shih, H., Shyur, H., and Lee, E., (2007). An extension of TOPSIS for grouping decision making. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 45, 801-813.
Shih, H., Wang, C., Lee, E., (2004). A multiattribute GDSS for aiding problem-solving. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 39, 1397–1412. Sila, I., and Ceka, K., (2018). The Impact of Environmental, Social and Governance Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility on Economic Performance: Australian Evidence. Procedia Computer Science, 120, 797–804.
Sultana, A., and Kumar, A., (2012). Ranking of biomass pellets by integration of economic, environmental and technical factors. Biomass and Bioenergy. Tscheikner-Gratl, F., Egger, P., Rauch, W., and Kleidorfer, M. (2017). Comparison of multi-criteria decision support methods for integrated rehabilitation prioritization. Water, 9(2), 68.
Tzeng, G., and Huang J., (2011). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Van Lanschot, (2017). 2017-Corporate Social Responsibility Supplement. Retrieved from: https://www.vanlanschotkempen.com/media/2790/2017-csr-supplement-van-lanschot-kempen.pdf Van Marrewijk, M., (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of business ethics, 44(2-3), 95-105. Velasquez, M., and Hester, P. T. (2013). An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. International Journal of Operations Research, 10(2), 56-66. Viganò, F., and Nicolai, D., (2009). CSR in the European banking sector: evidence from a survey. R. Barth, & F. Wolff, Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe: Rhetoric and Realities, 95-108.
World Bank, (2004). “Focus on Sustainability 2004”. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ESSDNETWORK/Resources/481106-1129303936381/1777397-1129303967165/chapter4.html Wu, M., and Shen, C., (2013). Corporate social responsibility in the banking industry: Motives and financial performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(9), 3529-3547. Yalcin, N., Bayrakdaroglu, A., and Kahraman, C. (2012). Application of fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methods for financial performance evaluation of Turkish manufacturing industries. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1), 350-364. Yazir, Y. O., Matthews, C., Farahbod, R., Neville, S., Guitouni, A., Ganti, S., and Coady, Y. (2010, July). Dynamic resource allocation in computing clouds using distributed multiple criteria decision analysis. Cloud Computing (CLOUD), 2010 IEEE 3rd International Conference, 91-98. Yeung, S. (2011). The role of banks in corporate social responsibility. Journal of applied economics and business research, 1(2), 103-115.