Chinese liquor company management efficiency from a social responsibility perspective: a two stage dynamic directional distance function

Figures & data

Figure 1. Two-stage DEA model flowchart.

Source: Authors.

Table 1. Liquor company codes.

NO	DMU
1	GJGJ
2	JSY
3	JHJ
4	JZZJ
5	JGJ
6	LBGJ
7	LZLJ
8	MT
9	QQKJ
10	SXFJ
11	SDJY
12	SJF
13	SXNY
14	WWGF
15	WLY
16	YHGF
17	YLT
18	YJGJ

Source: Authors.

Figure 2. Labour (unit: people).

Source: Authors.

Figure 3. Fixed assets (unit: 10,000 CNY).

Source: Authors.

Figure 4. Revenue (unit: 1,000 CNY).

Source: Authors.

Figure 5. Intangible assets (unit: 1,000 CNY).

Source: Authors.

Figure 6. Net profit (unit: 1,000 CNY).

Source: Authors.

Figure 7. Poverty alleviation funding (unit: 10,000 CNY).

Source: Authors.

Figure 8. Wastewater treatment investment (unit: 1,000 CNY).

Source: Authors.

Table 2. Annual enterprise efficiencies.

NO	DMU	2016 efficiency	2017 efficiency	2018 efficiency	Average	Rank
1	GJGJ	1.0000	0.7283	0.2271	0.6518	10
2	JSY	0.6407	0.4414	0.8681	0.6501	11
3	JHJ	0.6264	0.5198	0.5004	0.5489	14
4	JZZJ	0.9635	1.0000	1.0000	0.9878	4
5	JGJ	0.6969	0.8434	0.1243	0.5549	13
6	LBGJ	1.0000	1.0000	0.0871	0.6957	9
7	LZLJ	0.7887	1.0000	1.0000	0.9296	6
8	MT	1.0000	1.0000	0.9390	0.9797	5
9	QQKJ	0.3260	1.0000	0.3394	0.5551	12
10	SXFJ	0.5297	0.6401	1.0000	0.7233	8
11	SDJY	0.1774	0.5008	0.5198	0.3993	16
12	SJF	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
13	SXNY	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
14	WWGF	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
15	WLY	0.8315	1.0000	0.6402	0.8239	7
16	YHGF	0.4701	0.5324	0.3690	0.4572	15
17	YLT	0.3854	0.2973	0.2444	0.3090	17
18	YJGJ	0.2782	0.1186	0.1576	0.1848	18

Source: Authors.

Table 3. Efficiencies in each stage.

NO	DMU	2016S1	2017S1	2018S1	Average	Rank	2016S2	2017S2	2018S2	Average	Rank
1	GJGJ	1.0000	0.5544	0.4319	0.6621	13	1.0000	0.9022	0.0222	0.6415	11
2	JSY	0.2814	0.8239	0.7362	0.6138	15	1.0000	0.0588	1.0000	0.6863	8
3	JHJ	1.0000	0.7202	1.0000	0.9067	8	0.2528	0.3194	0.0007	0.1910	15
4	JZZJ	0.9271	1.0000	1.0000	0.9757	6	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
5	JGJ	0.3937	0.7271	0.2406	0.4538	17	1.0000	0.9597	0.0079	0.6559	10
6	LBGJ	1.0000	1.0000	0.1565	0.7188	10	1.0000	1.0000	0.0177	0.6726	9
7	LZLJ	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1	0.5773	1.0000	1.0000	0.8591	7
8	MT	1.0000	1.0000	0.8779	0.9593	7	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
9	QQKJ	0.6481	1.0000	0.2789	0.6423	14	0.0040	1.0000	0.3998	0.4679	12
10	SXFJ	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1	0.0594	0.2801	1.0000	0.4465	13
11	SDJY	0.1437	1.0000	1.0000	0.7146	11	0.2112	0.0016	0.0396	0.0841	16
12	SJF	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
13	SXNY	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
14	WWGF	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
15	WLY	0.6631	1.0000	0.5556	0.7396	9	1.0000	1.0000	0.7247	0.9082	6
16	YHGF	0.6711	0.7508	0.7098	0.7106	12	0.2692	0.3139	0.0281	0.2037	14
17	YLT	0.7368	0.5185	0.4856	0.5803	16	0.0340	0.0760	0.0031	0.0377	18
18	YJGJ	0.3821	0.2309	0.2487	0.2872	18	0.1742	0.0062	0.0664	0.0823	17

Source: Authors.

Table 4. Labour efficiency score.

NO	DMU	2016 efficiency	2017 efficiency	2018 efficiency	Average	Rank
1	GJGJ	1.0000	0.7133	0.6033	0.7722	9
2	JSY	0.4392	0.7450	0.8481	0.6774	15
3	JHJ	1.0000	0.8373	1.0000	0.9458	7
4	JZZJ	0.1960	1.0000	1.0000	0.7320	14
5	JGJ	0.5650	0.8420	0.3879	0.5983	17
6	LBGJ	1.0000	1.0000	0.2707	0.7569	11
7	LZLJ	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
8	MT	1.0000	1.0000	0.9350	0.9783	6
9	QQKJ	0.7865	1.0000	0.4362	0.7409	13
10	SXFJ	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
11	SDJY	0.2513	1.0000	1.0000	0.7504	12
12	SJF	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
13	SXNY	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
14	WWGF	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
15	WLY	0.5673	1.0000	0.7144	0.7606	10
16	YHGF	0.8032	0.8577	0.8303	0.8304	8
17	YLT	0.7772	0.5271	0.6538	0.6527	16
18	YJGJ	0.3022	0.3752	0.3984	0.3586	18

Source: Authors.

Table 5. Wastewater treatment efficiency.

NO	DMU	2016 efficiency	2017 efficiency	2018 efficiency	Average
1	GJGJ	1.0000	0.7133	0.6033	0.7722
2	JSY	0.4392	0.9035	0.8481	0.7303
3	JHJ	1.0000	0.8373	1.0000	0.9458
4	JZZJ	0.2568	1.0000	1.0000	0.7523
5	JGJ	0.5650	0.8420	0.3879	0.5983
6	LBGJ	1.0000	1.0000	0.2707	0.7569
7	LZLJ	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000
8	MT	1.0000	1.0000	0.6939	0.8980
9	QQKJ	0.7865	1.0000	0.2822	0.6896
10	SXFJ	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000
11	SDJY	0.2513	1.0000	1.0000	0.7504
12	SJF	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000
13	SXNY	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000
14	WWGF	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000
15	WLY	0.7974	1.0000	0.7144	0.8373
16	YHGF	0.0833	0.8577	0.8303	0.5904
17	YLT	0.7390	0.6829	0.6538	0.6919
18	YJGJ	0.5530	0.3752	0.3984	0.4422

Source: Authors.

Table 6. Poverty alleviation efficiency.

NO	DMU	2016efficiency	2017efficiency	2018efficiency	Average
1	GJGJ	1.0000	0.9486	0.0435	0.6640
2	JSY	1.0000	0.1111	1.0000	0.7037
3	JHJ	0.4036	0.4841	0.0015	0.2964
4	JZZJ	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000
5	JGJ	1.0000	0.9795	0.0157	0.6651
6	LBGJ	1.0000	1.0000	0.0347	0.6782
7	LZLJ	0.7320	1.0000	1.0000	0.9107
8	MT	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000
9	QQKJ	0.0079	1.0000	0.5712	0.5264
10	SXFJ	0.1121	0.4376	1.0000	0.5166
11	SDJY	0.3487	0.0032	0.0763	0.1427
12	SJF	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000
13	SXNY	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000
14	WWGF	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000
15	WLY	1.0000	1.0000	0.8404	0.9468
16	YHGF	0.4242	0.4778	0.0546	0.3189
17	YLT	0.0658	0.1413	0.0062	0.0711
18	YJGJ	0.2967	0.0123	0.1246	0.1445

Source: Authors.

Table 7. Wastewater treatment and poverty alleviation efficiencies.

NO	DMU	Wastewater treatment Average	Rank	Poverty alleviation Average	Rank
1	GJGJ	0.7722	9	0.664	11
2	JSY	0.7303	13	0.7037	8
3	JHJ	0.9458	6	0.2964	15
4	JZZJ	0.7523	11	1	1
5	JGJ	0.5983	16	0.6651	10
6	LBGJ	0.7569	10	0.6782	9
7	LZLJ	1	1	0.9107	7
8	MT	0.898	7	1	1
9	QQKJ	0.6896	15	0.5264	12
10	SXFJ	1	1	0.5166	13
11	SDJY	0.7504	12	0.1427	17
12	SJF	1	1	1	1
13	SXNY	1	1	1	1
14	WWGF	1	1	1	1
15	WLY	0.8373	8	0.9468	6
16	YHGF	0.5904	17	0.3189	14
17	YLT	0.6919	14	0.0711	18
18	YJGJ	0.4422	18	0.1445	16

Source: Authors.

Table 8. Revenue efficiencies.

NO	DMU	2016efficiency	2017efficiency	2018efficiency	Average	Rank
1	GJGJ	1.0000	0.8178	0.7788	0.8655	12
2	JSY	0.7147	0.9191	0.8835	0.8391	13
3	JHJ	1.0000	0.7734	1.0000	0.9245	8
4	JZZJ	0.9648	1.0000	1.0000	0.9883	6
5	JGJ	0.7674	0.8799	0.7248	0.7907	16
6	LBGJ	1.0000	1.0000	0.5001	0.8334	14
7	LZLJ	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
8	MT	1.0000	1.0000	0.9425	0.9808	7
9	QQKJ	0.5000	1.0000	0.7350	0.7450	17
10	SXFJ	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
11	SDJY	0.7002	1.0000	1.0000	0.9001	9
12	SJF	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
13	SXNY	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
14	WWGF	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
15	WLY	0.8558	1.0000	0.8182	0.8913	10
16	YHGF	0.8588	0.8892	0.8733	0.8738	11
17	YLT	0.8837	0.8060	0.7954	0.8284	15
18	YJGJ	0.7640	0.7223	0.7269	0.7377	18

Source: Authors.

Table 9. Net profit efficiency score.

NO	DMU	2016efficiency	2017efficiency	2018efficiency	Average	Rank
1	GJGJ	1.0000	0.9534	0.6716	0.8750	10
2	JSY	1.0000	0.6800	1.0000	0.8933	8
3	JHJ	0.7280	0.7461	0.5870	0.6870	15
4	JZZJ	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
5	JGJ	1.0000	0.9803	0.6684	0.8829	9
6	LBGJ	1.0000	1.0000	0.5728	0.8576	11
7	LZLJ	0.8255	1.0000	1.0000	0.9418	7
8	MT	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
9	QQKJ	0.6675	1.0000	0.5786	0.7487	13
10	SXFJ	0.6801	0.7353	1.0000	0.8051	12
11	SDJY	0.7171	0.6670	0.6103	0.6648	18
12	SJF	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
13	SXNY	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
14	WWGF	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
15	WLY	1.0000	1.0000	0.8790	0.9597	6
16	YHGF	0.7324	0.7446	0.6730	0.7167	14
17	YLT	0.6743	0.6840	0.6674	0.6752	17
18	YJGJ	0.7078	0.6680	0.6818	0.6859	16

Source: Authors.

Table 10. Intangible assets efficiencies.

NO	DMU	2016efficiency	2017efficiency	2018efficiency	Average	Rank
1	GJGJ	1.0000	0.8912	0.6716	0.8543	11
2	JSY	1.0000	0.6800	1.0000	0.8933	6
3	JHJ	0.7280	0.7461	0.5780	0.6840	15
4	JZZJ	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
5	JGJ	1.0000	0.9803	0.6684	0.8829	9
6	LBGJ	1.0000	1.0000	0.6706	0.8902	7
7	LZLJ	0.6665	1.0000	1.0000	0.8888	8
8	MT	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
9	QQKJ	0.5637	1.0000	0.7692	0.7776	13
10	SXFJ	0.6801	0.7353	1.0000	0.8051	12
11	SDJY	0.7171	0.5595	0.5493	0.6086	17
12	SJF	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
13	SXNY	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
14	WWGF	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1
15	WLY	1.0000	1.0000	0.6039	0.8680	10
16	YHGF	0.5299	0.7446	0.6730	0.6492	16
17	YLT	0.5115	0.5188	0.5501	0.5268	18
18	YJGJ	0.7078	0.6680	0.6818	0.6859	14

Source: Authors.

Table 11. Poverty alleviation, net profit, and intangible asset efficiencies.

NO	DMU	Poverty Alleviation Average	Rank	Net Profit Average	Rank	Intangible Asset Average	Rank
1	GJGJ	0.664	11	0.8750	10	0.8543	11
2	JSY	0.7037	8	0.8933	8	0.8933	6
3	JHJ	0.2964	15	0.6870	15	0.6840	15
4	JZZJ	1	1	1.0000	1	1.0000	1
5	JGJ	0.6651	10	0.8829	9	0.8829	9
6	LBGJ	0.6782	9	0.8576	11	0.8902	7
7	LZLJ	0.9107	7	0.9418	7	0.8888	8
8	MT	1	1	1.0000	1	1.0000	1
9	QQKJ	0.5264	12	0.7487	13	0.7776	13
10	SXFJ	0.5166	13	0.8051	12	0.8051	12
11	SDJY	0.1427	17	0.6648	18	0.6086	17
12	SJF	1	1	1.0000	1	1.0000	1
13	SXNY	1	1	1.0000	1	1.0000	1
14	WWGF	1	1	1.0000	1	1.0000	1
15	WLY	0.9468	6	0.9597	6	0.8680	10
16	YHGF	0.3189	14	0.7167	14	0.6492	16
17	YLT	0.0711	18	0.6752	17	0.5268	18
18	YJGJ	0.1445	16	0.6859	16	0.6859	14

Source: Authors.

Table 12. From 2016 to 2018 CSR (poverty alleviation), overall efficiency and net profit efficiency correlation test.

	Overall efficiency	Net profit efficiency
2016 CSR	0.85995	0.98164
2017 CSR	0.93895	0.98213
2018 CSR	0.91687	0.93121

Source: Authors.