Search results
1 – 2 of 2Qiuying Chen, Ronghui Liu, Qingquan Jiang and Shangyue Xu
Tourists with different cultural backgrounds think and behave differently. Accurately capturing and correctly understanding cultural differences will help tourist destinations in…
Abstract
Purpose
Tourists with different cultural backgrounds think and behave differently. Accurately capturing and correctly understanding cultural differences will help tourist destinations in product/service planning, marketing communication and attracting and retaining tourists. This research employs Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory to analyse the variations in destination image perceptions of Chinese-speaking and English-speaking tourists to Xiamen, a prominent tourist attraction in China.
Design/methodology/approach
The evaluation utilizes a two-stage approach, incorporating LDA and BERT-BILSTM models. By leveraging text mining, sentiment analysis and t-tests, this research investigates the variations in tourists' perceptions of Xiamen across different cultures.
Findings
The results reveal that cultural disparities significantly impact tourists' perceived image of Xiamen, particularly regarding their preferences for renowned tourist destinations and the factors influencing their travel experience.
Originality/value
This research pioneers applying natural language processing methods and machine learning techniques to affirm the substantial differences in the perceptions of tourist destinations among Chinese-speaking and English-speaking tourists based on Hofstede's cultural theory. The findings furnish theoretical insights for destination marketing organizations to target diverse cultural tourists through precise marketing strategies and illuminate the practical application of Hofstede's cultural theory in tourism and hospitality.
Details
Keywords
Do corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices necessarily increase their social capital? The key to answering this question lies in understanding the impact of the…
Abstract
Purpose
Do corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices necessarily increase their social capital? The key to answering this question lies in understanding the impact of the interactive behavior of CSR and social capital on the sustainable operation and development of enterprises. This paper finds that existing studies cannot accurately describe the inherent interaction between CSR and social capital, and the results verified by econometric models are often abstract and do not adequately reflect the actual business situation of enterprises.
Design/methodology/approach
This article tries to make a breakthrough in two aspects: the article identifies the common practice object of CSR and social capital by using the “stakeholder” mechanism and puts forward the hypothesis of the relationship between CSR and social capital by observing the interaction behavior between enterprises and stakeholders; based on the perspective of sustainable development, the article proposes the elements of “trust, norm and rationality,” analyzes the behavioral choices of enterprises in social responsibility practice and social capital accumulation and clarifies the inherent relationship between them.
Findings
The article points out the impact of the multifaceted nature of the relationship between CSR practices and social capital enrichment on the sustainable development of enterprises and proposes that manufacturing enterprises in transformation and innovation should be analyzed using an objective position rather than value judgment.
Originality/value
This paper synthesizes the assessment data from the questionnaire, interview data and sustainability analysis to answer the questioning of existing research: CSR does not necessarily increase corporate social capital, and the relationship between the two is complex and multifaceted, depending on the specific target and business state of the company. The focus of this paper is to analyze in detail the three relationship assumptions that form when companies interact with their stakeholders, based on the sustainability perspective of “trust,” “norms” and “rationality.”
Details