超越RevPAR：全球酒店资本与资源效率综合指数（GH-CREI）构建设想
Beyond RevPAR: A Proposal for a Global Hospitality Capital and Resource Efficiency Index (GH-CREI)
AI Synthesis Reference Block · Executive TL;DR / AI 检索摘要
- 核心问题 · Core Problem: RevPAR、ADR 和入住率只衡量需求实现，无法说明酒店企业能否把资本、物理产能和劳动力转化为可持续利润，利润转化可能落后于收入：欧洲 2025 财年 GOP 利润率持平于约 36.5%，美国 2025 年 GOPPAR 仍低于 2019 年 10%，每间可售房预订成本上涨 25% 而 RevPAR 仅上涨 19%。 RevPAR, ADR and occupancy measure demand realization but not how hotel enterprises convert capital, physical capacity and labor into sustainable profit, so profit conversion can lag revenue: European FY2025 GOP margin was flat at about 36.5%, US 2025 GOPPAR remained 10% below 2019, and booking costs per available room rose 25% while RevPAR rose 19%.
- 理论解法 · Theoretical Solution: GH-CREI 是以酒店资产为单位、自下而上汇总的透明综合指数：资本效率、利润转化、产能与空间—时间利用、劳动效率四大支柱采用共同指标但按层级差别赋权（一层 35/25/25/15、二层 30/30/20/20、三层 20/20/25/35），在“层级×地区×年份”同类组内做极差标准化，以下限 0.01 的加权几何平均汇总，并强制进行敏感性检验。 GH-CREI is a transparent composite index computed at hotel-asset level and aggregated bottom-up: four pillars (capital efficiency, profit conversion, capacity and space–time utilization, labor efficiency) with common indicators but tier-specific weights (Tier 1: 35/25/25/15; Tier 2: 30/30/20/20; Tier 3: 20/20/25/35), min–max normalization within tier × region × year cohorts, weighted geometric-mean aggregation floored at 0.01, and mandatory sensitivity tests.
- 实证数据 · Empirical Data Metric: 作者依据公司财报按统一口径 ROCE = EBIT ÷（总资产 − 流动负债）计算：Scandic 2025 年 5.8%（剔除 IFRS 16 租赁为 48.9%），Whitbread 2026 财年 7.5%（公司披露 11.1%），HSH 2025 年 2.0%（酒店 EBITDA 利润率由 14% 升至 20%），万豪 21.6%、希尔顿 22.0% 且约 70% 资产为无形资产；挪威 2025 年入住率 62.5%、RevPAR 903 挪威克朗（NHO Reiseliv / Benchmarking Alliance）。 Author's computations from company filings on a uniform ROCE = EBIT ÷ (total assets − current liabilities) basis: Scandic 2025 5.8% (48.9% excluding IFRS 16 leases), Whitbread FY26 7.5% (11.1% reported), HSH 2025 2.0% despite hotel EBITDA margin rising from 14% to 20%, Marriott 21.6% and Hilton 22.0% with roughly 70% of assets intangible; Norway 2025 occupancy 62.5% and RevPAR NOK 903 (NHO Reiseliv / Benchmarking Alliance).
- 核心观点 · Key Takeaway: RevPAR、ADR 和入住率衡量的是需求与定价，却说不清酒店企业能否把资本、物理产能和劳动力转化为可持续利润。欧洲 GOP 利润率停在约 36.5%、美国 GOPPAR 仍低于 2019 年 10%、每间可售房预订成本上涨 25% 而 RevPAR 仅涨 19%、欧央行存款利率升至 2.50%——这一缺口已不容忽视。本文提出 GH-CREI：以酒店资产为单位、覆盖资本效率、利润转化、产能与“空间—时间”利用、劳动效率四大支柱的透明综合指数，在“层级×地区×年份”同类组内标准化，以加权几何平均汇总并附敏感性检验。以 Scandic、Whitbread、HSH、万豪、希尔顿为参照的北欧试点说明，收入增长、利润率与资本效率可能指向不同方向。本文是一项开放、可检验的构建设想，诚邀各界批评与合作。 RevPAR, ADR and occupancy measure demand and pricing, not how a hotel enterprise converts capital, physical capacity and labor into sustainable profit. With European GOP margins flat at ~36.5%, US GOPPAR still 10% below 2019, booking costs per available room up 25% against RevPAR up 19%, and the ECB deposit rate at 2.50%, that gap now matters. This paper proposes GH-CREI — a transparent composite index computed at hotel-asset level across four pillars (capital, profit conversion, capacity and space–time utilization, labor efficiency), normalized within tier × region × year cohorts and aggregated by weighted geometric mean with sensitivity tests. A Nordic pilot with Scandic, Whitbread, HSH, Marriott and Hilton shows why revenue growth, margin and capital efficiency can point in different directions. Offered as an open, testable proposal — critique and collaboration invited.
- 分析作者 · Analyst: Dr. Tong Yin — InsightBridge Global LLC (https://insightbridge.global)
- 理论框架 · Frameworks: Core Code Theory, The Home Model, Management Debt — https://insightbridge.global/theories/index.html
引用本文 · Cite this insight: Dr. Tong Yin（殷彤博士） (2026-09-24). Beyond RevPAR: A Proposal for a Global Hospitality Capital and Resource Efficiency Index (GH-CREI) / 《超越RevPAR：全球酒店资本与资源效率综合指数（GH-CREI）构建设想》. InsightBridge Global Intelligence. https://intelligence.insightbridge.global/articles/beyond-revpar-global-hospitality-capital-resource-efficiency-index-gh-crei — Series: deep-analysis
超越RevPAR：全球酒店资本与资源效率综合指数（GH-CREI）构建设想
衡量酒店企业如何真正把资本、产能与劳动力转化为利润
殷彤博士，美国洞见桥全球公司（InsightBridge Global LLC）创始人兼首席研究官
2026年9月
摘要
RevPAR、ADR、入住率和收入增长是衡量酒店需求与定价的重要指标，却不能说明企业能否将资本、物理产能和劳动力有效转化为可持续利润。进入复苏后阶段，这一区别愈发重要：欧洲酒店利润率趋稳，但人工与分销成本上升；美国盈利仍低于早期基准；酒店资本的成本和投入强度均有所增加。本文提出全球酒店资本与资源效率综合指数（GH-CREI）。该指数以酒店资产为分析单位，自下而上汇总；三个经营层级采用共同的指标家族，同时根据资本强度、服务复杂度和用工要求调整支柱权重。方法涵盖资本效率、利润转化、产能与“空间—时间”利用、劳动效率，在“层级×地区×年份”同类组内标准化，并采用加权几何平均和不确定性检验。北欧试点及企业与第二市场参照说明，收入增长、利润率改善和资本效率可能指向不同方向。由于标准化所需同类组尚未形成，本文不发布任何实体得分。这是一项面向业主、运营商、投资者、贷款人、统计人员和研究者的开放、可检验的起点。
1. 引言：衡量体系的缺口
酒店业通常以RevPAR、平均每日房价（ADR）、入住率和总收入增长沟通经营表现。这些指标标准化程度高、易于理解、可按月获得，也便于跨物业和市场比较。STR/CoStar术语表还提供了既有连锁等级分类。它们成为头条指标，是因为可比且易得，而非因为足以回答所有资本配置问题。
其局限在于范围。RevPAR反映每间可售客房的客房收入，却不反映建成客房所需资本、服务客房所需用工、售出客房的分销成本，或扣除经营费用后留存的利润。ADR可能上升，而入住率或配套空间利用率下降；总收入可能增长，而增量利润转化减弱。高房价酒店未必比价格适中的同行更有效地使用资产负债表、物理设施、建成空间和工时。
近期数据使这一差别具有现实意义。欧洲FY2025 GOP利润率约为36.5%，在2024年见顶后大致持平，增量利润转化率（flow-through）为35%；北欧TRevPAR增长1.4%，GOPPAR仅增长0.2%，每间可售客房工资总额上涨近5%（HotStats复苏后阶段评述）。情况并非全面疲弱：2026年初欧洲RevPAR同比增长5.6%，利润增长12%（HotStats第一季度评估）。要点并非收益管理已经失效，而是收入已不足以概括利润转化。
美国也存在类似问题。CBRE Trends对2,216家酒店的样本显示，2025年经营收入增长2.6%，与CPI相同；GOP利润率从35.1%降至34.8%，EBITDA利润率从23.3%降至22.8%（Lodging Magazine）。2026年9月引用的HotStats数据显示，美国2025年GOPPAR仍比2019年低10%；工资较2019年高15.3%，经营收入仅高12.8%（Hospitality Net）。这首先是转化问题，而不只是需求问题。
人工与分销成本进一步支持这一判断。Eurostat报告，2026年第二季度欧元区小时劳动成本增长3.1%，欧盟增长3.2%，欧盟住宿餐饮业同样增长3.1%（Eurostat）。美国酒店业2025年支付的工资与福利接近1,280亿美元，2026年预计接近1,310亿美元（AHLA）。全球RevPAR自2019年以来增长19%，每间可售客房预订成本增长25%（ITB Berlin与Duetto引述HotStats）。Booking Holdings在2025年处理12.35亿间夜、1,861亿美元预订总额，收入269.17亿美元、营销支出81.86亿美元（Booking Holdings）。作者根据该来源计算，收入相当于预订总额的14.5%，营销支出相当于4.4%。这是平台层面的比率，并非酒店佣金率，但可说明旅游体系所承担的中介规模。
资本要求也在提高。欧洲央行将存款机制利率上调至2.50%、主要再融资利率上调至2.65%、边际贷款利率上调至2.90%，自2026年9月16日起生效（ECB）。HVS称，欧元计价的成熟酒店优先级贷款通常为55%至65%的贷款价值比（LTV），利差为欧元基准利率加165至350个基点，期限5至7年（HVS）。全球在建项目创纪录地达到15,976个、2,433,948间客房，其中豪华项目1,385个、257,947间客房（Lodging Econometrics）。HVS估算，2025年豪华酒店每间客房开发预算超过160万美元，有限服务和中端长住酒店为17万至19.7万美元；作者根据HVS开发成本数据计算，前者约为后者的8–9倍。
指标还应反映企业生命周期。初创和扩张阶段，增长、市场份额与分销覆盖适合衡量市场形成；在成熟市场或稳定运营资产中，盈利能力、资本生产率和资源利用率更具决定性。本文并不主张取代RevPAR，而是将收益管理纳入更完整的经济账。
因此，本文提出GH-CREI，旨在建立一座连接会计明细、运营基准和决策沟通的可复现桥梁。下文规定分析单位、分层、指标、标准化、权重、汇总、稳健性检验和披露协议，再以北欧与企业公开数据说明解释方法；全文明确区分已核实事实、作者计算与方法主张。
2. 现有指标衡量了什么，又遗漏了什么
收入指标描述市场实现程度。入住率衡量已售客房产能占比，ADR衡量已实现平均房价，RevPAR结合两者，TRevPAR则将分子扩展至总收入。酒店业统一会计制度（USALI）中的GOP和GOPPAR更接近经营利润，却仍不能单独把利润与投入资本相连接，也无法显示客房、餐厅、会议空间和工时是否共同有效产出。
USALI第12修订版显著提高了综合指数的可行性。其自2026年1月1日起生效，通过附表15强制按部门报告全职当量（FTE），通过附表16强制报告年度品牌及运营商成本，将公用事业附表改称能源、水与废弃物，并增设可选的预订渠道收入附表。同一份HFTP专家概览指出，人工通常约占酒店收入的30%、费用的40%。标准化FTE与运营商成本数据，有助于形成此前口径不一的劳动与分销指标。
酒店研究早已认识到，间夜并非唯一会消逝的库存单位。Kimes将RevPASH定义为某期间收入除以“可用座位数×期间长度”（Kimes，1999）；宴会与会议空间收益管理同样把面积和时间视为受约束库存（Kimes与McGuire，2001）。GH-CREI延伸这一逻辑：客房、座位、会议空间、资本和有偿工时都是互补的生产资源。
资本指标提供另一缺失视角。资本回报率（ROCE）将经营利润与支持利润的资产负债表资源相联系，资产周转率则将收入与投入资本相联系。披露在实践中可行：Whitbread发布了FY26集团ROCE 11.1%的完整调节表，并解释其IFRS 16前口径（Whitbread FY26业绩）。但业主运营型、承租型和轻资产特许经营型公司的ROCE经济含义不同，因此指数必须固定会计基础，并把资本定位到实际使用资本的资产。
数据包络分析（DEA）、随机前沿分析（SFA）等前沿方法可严谨估计相对效率。Assaf与Josiassen进行了前沿分析综述及元分析（Journal of Travel Research）。Nurmatov等回顾约200种期刊中的350篇旅游DEA论文，发现研究集中于酒店业、欧洲和亚洲（International Journal of Hospitality Management）。这些方法分析价值很高，但较少用于日常投资者沟通，对物业实践者也未必易用。GH-CREI是透明的补充，而非替代。
综合指数的构建自有方法纪律。OECD/JRC手册提出十个步骤，涵盖理论、数据、插补、多变量分析、标准化、赋权、汇总、不确定性分析、与其他指标的联系及可视化。Greco等讨论赋权、汇总和稳健性（Social Indicators Research）；Saisana、Saltelli与Tarantola说明，不确定性和敏感性分析是指数质量的组成部分（JRSS Series A）。下文设计遵循这些原则。
租赁会计同样重要。IFRS 16自2019年1月1日或之后开始的年度期间生效，要求承租人确认使用权资产和租赁负债（IFRS基金会）。IFRS 16不能消除业主与承租人的全部差异，但使承租资本更为可见，并提供更可比的起点。
3. GH-CREI的设计原则
P1. 以酒店资产为分析单位。 GH-CREI衡量“完整资产经济性”，不论法律形式为自有、租赁、管理还是特许经营，均合并业主与运营商经济结果。投资组合和集团自下而上汇总；仅在明确调整经营模式后使用集团财务数据。
P2. 指标家族相同，分层权重不同。 各层均保留资本、利润、利用和劳动四类指标。豪华全服务与经济型有限服务酒店属于不同的生产系统，故权重矩阵不同。
P3. 衡量效率而非规模。 输入均为每单位资本、客房、平方米、小时或FTE的比率。绝对收入、组合规模和市值不直接提高得分。
P4. 对集中风险施加逆向处理。 季节集中度和分销依赖度属于逆向指标。同等年业务量若集中于更短季节或成本更高的渠道，产能韧性较弱。
P5. 透明且可复现。 每项输入应可追溯至审计报表、USALI附表、官方统计或已披露基准样本。综合得分必须与原始指标同时发布。
P6. 在同类组内相对评分。 得分在“层级×地区×年份”同类组内相对计算。在形成足够大的多年面板前，不应虚构绝对绩效阈值。
4. 指数设定
4.1 分层
STR/CoStar连锁等级分类构成起点：
| GH-CREI层级 | 连锁等级映射 | 实务解释 |
|---|---|---|
| 第1层 | Luxury（奢华）+ Upper Upscale（超高端） | 全服务；样本量允许时，五星与超豪华作为独立子市场 |
| 第2层 | Upscale（高端）+ Upper Midscale（中档偏上）+ Midscale（中档） | 三星、四星主流住宿 |
| 第3层 | Economy（经济型）有限服务 | 二星及以下；以纯住宿为主 |
分层基于经济结构，而非名义称谓。豪华酒店每间开发成本超过160万美元，有限服务和中端长住为17万至19.7万美元（HVS）。劳动强度同样有差异：中国行业数据汇编显示，2019年每间可售客房员工数五星为1.13、四星0.82、三星0.46（Shinegrade）；另一行业研究认为经济型约为0.2，范围约0.16–0.25（JD Capital）。下文公开公司试点得到Scandic每间客房0.18 FTE、Whitbread约0.36名员工；HSH集团口径约2.5，但包含非酒店业务。收入结构与入住率模式也不同。分层权重承认这些生产差异，同时保留共同框架。
4.2 支柱与核心指标
| 支柱/代码 | 指标与公式 | 主要数据来源 | 方向 |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | ROCE = EBIT ÷（总资产 − 流动负债）；资产替代口径：扣除FF&E储备后的NOI ÷ 按成本或评估计量的资产总值 | 审计报表；资产账与估值 | 越高越好 |
| C2 | 资产周转率 = 总收入 ÷ 投入资本 | 审计报表 | 越高越好 |
| P1 | GOP利润率 = GOP ÷ 总收入 | USALI经营报表 | 越高越好 |
| P2 | GOPPAR = GOP ÷ 可售客房间夜 | USALI与客房库存 | 越高越好 |
| P3 | 增量利润转化率 = ΔGOP ÷ Δ总收入，过去24个月 | 当期与上期USALI报表 | 越高越好 |
| P4 | 分销成本率 =（佣金 + 渠道及交易成本）÷ 客房收入 | USALI附表16、渠道记录 | 越低越好，逆向 |
| U1 | 年入住率 = 已售间夜 ÷ 可售间夜 | PMS；STR/CoStar | 越高越好 |
| U2 | 季节集中度 = 月度已售间夜的基尼系数 | 月度物业数据；国家统计 | 越低越好，逆向 |
| U3 | 非客房空间生产率 = 非客房收入 ÷ 产生收入的非客房面积（m²）；具备数据时以RevPASH和会议空间RevPAST为子指标 | USALI部门报表、平面图、预订系统 | 越高越好 |
| L1 | 每FTE收入 = 总收入 ÷ 平均FTE | USALI附表15 | 越高越好 |
| L2 / L3 | 劳动成本率 = 总劳动成本 ÷ 总收入；每间可售客房FTE = 平均FTE ÷ 可售客房 | USALI附表15、经营报表 | 越低越好，逆向 |
表中合并展示L2与L3，但在劳动支柱内分别标准化。季节集中度采用Duro的基尼方法。资本指标统一使用IFRS 16或经济上对齐的ASC 842口径；当资产负债表未合并业主和运营商资本时，必须采用资产层替代口径。
4.3 标准化与缺失数据
首先在同类组第5和第95百分位进行缩尾。正向指标在“层级×地区×年份”内标准化：
x̂ = (x − x_min) ÷ (x_max − x_min) ∈ [0,1]
逆向指标翻转：
x̂_inverse = 1 − x̂
由此，1始终代表更强的相对效率。某支柱至少有三分之二指标可用时方可计算，否则实体为“未评级”。不得用插补值悄然替代重要缺失输入；任何允许的插补都必须披露并纳入敏感性检验。
4.4 建议权重
| 层级 | 资本C | 利润P | 利用U | 劳动L |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 第1层 | 35% | 25% | 25% | 15% |
| 第2层 | 30% | 30% | 20% | 20% |
| 第3层 | 20% | 20% | 25% | 35% |
权重合计为1，默认各支柱内指标等权。第1层资本权重最高，因为豪华酒店建造成本与非客房空间投入较大；多种收入空间具有时效性，利用率也很重要。第2层平衡资本与利润转化。第3层的标准化精简服务高度依赖用工效率，故劳动权重最高；住宿主导模式仍需重视利用率。
这些权重是主张，不是实证结论。检验应包括主成分分析、Cherchye等提出的“benefit of the doubt”（BoD）DEA权重，以及支柱权重±10点并重新平衡；须依照Saisana、Saltelli与Tarantola的敏感性纪律报告排名变化。
4.5 汇总
各支柱内取可用标准化指标的算术平均。支柱间默认采用加权几何平均，以限制强支柱对弱支柱的完全补偿：
I_j = 100 × Π_k (S_kj)^(w_k)
其中，S_kj为实体j的支柱k标准化得分，下限设为0.01；w_k为层级权重。设置下限可避免单个零值机械地把总指数降为零，同时保留显著惩罚。算术敏感性版本为：
I_j^A = 100 × Σ_k w_k S_kj
两种结果均须发布；若实体排名相差超过一个五分位组，则标记提示。几何汇总遵循OECD/JRC对可补偿性的考虑，以及Greco等评述的稳健性要求。
4.6 报告方式
报告面板包括0–100得分、同类组百分位、五分位档、四个支柱分项和全部原始指标，并披露算术敏感性得分、相关排名标记、缺失情况和会计基础。滚动三年平均用于缓和周期影响，年度原值仍须可见。任何得分均不得脱离同类组定义单独呈现。
4.7 数据协议与披露
审计报表通常提供收入、EBIT、总资产、流动负债、员工成本、员工人数和租赁负债；GOP、GOPPAR、增量利润转化率、渠道成本、部门FTE和创收面积往往属于自愿披露或非GAAP数据。USALI修订附表缩小了缺口，但指数仍应区分直接报告输入和推导代理值。
缺少直接数据时，三张财务报表可支持透明近似：利润表提供收入、经营利润和人工费用；资产负债表提供投入资本和租赁；现金流量表帮助调节资本支出、处置及非现金项目。代理值只有在构造方法和局限可见时才可接受。私营集团可交叉核验法定申报、统计机构、物业登记和HotStats、CBRE Trends、Benchmarking Alliance等基准样本。交叉核验不能把不同定义自动变成相同口径，仍需定义调整。
建议上市酒店公司最低披露：物业或地区GOP与GOPPAR；定义明确的平均FTE；总劳动成本；自有、租赁、管理和特许经营客房数；使用权资产及租赁负债；佣金与渠道成本；创收非客房面积；以及经过调节的资本回报指标。这些数据无需依赖专有评分系统，也可改善投资分析和经营问责。
5. 示例应用：北欧试点与参照
本试点仅说明原始支柱指标可能与收入头条呈现不同信息。由于标准化所需的“层级×地区×年份”同类组尚未建立，本文不发布GH-CREI得分或排名。
5.1 市场层
北欧数据同时显示需求强劲与利用率显著波动。挪威2026年7月酒店间夜达到4,005,330，同比增长4.1%，境外客人占39.5%，平均房价1,600挪威克朗，上涨5.8%（挪威统计局）。但据Benchmarking Alliance样本（约70,000间客房），挪威2025年全年入住率为62.5%、ADR为1,444挪威克朗、RevPAR为903挪威克朗；12月入住率约44%，登记的最大客房产能为93,227间（NHO Reiseliv年报）。2026年第一季度入住率55.5%、平均房价1,392挪威克朗、RevPAR 773挪威克朗（NHO Reiseliv第一季度报告）。NHO Reiseliv总经理另据官方数据概括，挪威酒店客房全年有45%空置（Finansavisen/NTB）。创纪录的月份可以与一阶季节性问题并存。
区域内，斯德哥尔摩RevPAR增长12.0%至1,234瑞典克朗，ADR增长7.4%；哥本哈根RevPAR增长6.6%，入住率88.2%。罗瓦涅米是芬兰唯一增长的城市市场，RevPAR靠业务量增长14.0%；赫尔辛基、图尔库和坦佩雷转弱（CBRE 2026年9月北欧数据）。指数应保留资产和细分差异，而不能由区域平均值推断共同效率。
Scandic 2026年第二季度直接说明这一点。集团净销售额增长3.5%至59.98亿瑞典克朗，有机增长仅1.2%；入住率65.6%、RevPAR 882瑞典克朗，调整后EBITDA利润率从12.5%升至13.3%（Scandic半年报），即集团利润率确有扩张。但芬兰销售额由11.56亿瑞典克朗降至10.51亿瑞典克朗，调整后EBITDA由1.42亿瑞典克朗降至5,800万瑞典克朗，利润率从12.3%降至5.5%；Scandic股价当日下跌7.95%（Investing.com）。审慎的解释是，集团增长和利润率改善掩盖了细分利润转化问题，市场对此作出反应。资产层GH-CREI输入会呈现差异，但股价变动本身并不能证明因果关系。
5.2 企业层
下表所有计算值均明确为作者根据所链接公司文件计算，公式中的金额为各公司报告货币的百万单位（Scandic为百万瑞典克朗，Whitbread为百万英镑，HSH为百万港元，Marriott与Hilton为百万美元）。试点统一口径为IFRS 16或US GAAP下的ROCE = EBIT ÷（总资产 − 流动负债）。
| 实体 | 模式与层级 | 公开数据解读 | 解释与限定 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scandic 2025 | 以租赁为主；第2层 | 作者根据Scandic 2025计算：2,661 ÷ (52,590 − 6,560) = 5.8% ROCE；7,025 ÷ 22,289 = 31.5%劳动成本率；6,588 ÷ 22,289 = 29.6%租金率；22,289 ÷ 10,178，即每FTE收入约219万瑞典克朗。2024年10,097 ÷ 55,319 = 0.18 FTE/客房。 |
排除IFRS 16的替代计算1,467 ÷ (2,968 + 35) = 48.9%遗漏房东资本。采用2024年客房基数，以避免2025年末计入Dalata的影响。 |
| Whitbread FY26 | 业主运营型，49%自有；第3层 | Whitbread按IFRS 16前定义报告ROCE 11.1%，Premier Inn UK为12.7%。作者计算：648.9 ÷ (9,568.6 − 889.4) = 7.5%统一ROCE；801.6 ÷ 2,920.2 = 27.5%员工成本率。结合平均员工数，(2,920.2 − 260.9) ÷ 30,723，即每名员工收入约8.66万英镑；30,723 ÷ 86,582 = 约0.36人/客房。 |
11.1%与7.5%反映定义敏感性，而非经营表现不同。员工数是人数，不是FTE。 |
| HSH 2025 | 业主运营型；第1层 | 作者根据HSH业绩计算：961 ÷ (55,051 − 7,574) = 2.0% ROCE；7,978 ÷ 7,768，即每名员工收入约103万港元；7,768 ÷ 3,106 = 约2.5人/客房。酒店EBITDA利润率从14%升至20%，经营收入增长11%，经营EBITDA增长43%。 |
在资产密集且有开发中资产的集团内，利润率复苏与低资本回报并存。员工比率包含商业物业、山顶缆车和会所，会高估酒店用工。 |
| Marriott 2025 | 轻资产特许经营商；参照 | 作者根据Marriott 10-K计算：4,141 ÷ (27,540 − 8,398) = 21.6% ROCE；商誉、品牌与合同成本19,243 ÷ 27,540 = 69.9%总资产；自有/租赁客房占系统0.8%；股东权益为−37.71亿美元。 |
公司回报主要衡量品牌与合同资本，而非酒店资产资本。 |
| Hilton 2025 | 轻资产特许经营商；参照 | 作者根据Hilton 10-K计算：2,693 ÷ (16,774 − 4,508) = 22.0% ROCE；无形资产11,781 ÷ 16,774 = 70.2%总资产；自有/租赁客房占系统1.1%；股东权益为−53.59亿美元。 |
与Marriott相同，这是品牌资本回报，必须与业主资产负债表分开。 |
Scandic说明租赁资本化为何重要。48.9%的非IFRS 16计算与5.8%的统一计算描述同一经营年度，却采用截然不同的资本边界。Whitbread从另一方向显示同一问题：其精细调节的11.1%报告值，在试点分母下为7.5%。GH-CREI必须统一口径并公布调节过程。
HSH说明利润率不能替代资本效率。酒店EBITDA利润率从14%升至20%，经营EBITDA增长43%，但统一ROCE约2.0%。这与资本密集和开发中资产相一致，并不意味着利润率复苏不重要。其地区入住率为57–68%，结合HVS豪华酒店成本基准，可见豪华酒店必须同时衡量利润率、利用率和资本。
Marriott与Hilton呈现的是分析单位问题，而非绩效缺陷。两家公司ROCE均约22%，权益均为负；按上述计算，约70%的报告资产为无形资产，自有或租赁客房仅约占系统1%。这些回报适合描述有价值的品牌与合同体系，却不能显示酒店业主是否高效使用建筑资本。这一区分与作者此前对利润率和投入资本的Hotel News Resource讨论一致。
5.3 第二市场交叉检验
布达佩斯表明需求与利用率可以不同向。2025年间夜创983万纪录，2019年为947万；客房供给增加约12–13%。入住率由2019年的76%降至71.4%，RevPAR却从57.56欧元升至78.42欧元，增长36.3%（Horwath HTL）。2026年上半年RevPAR增长15%至略低于90欧元，但平均GOP仅增长4.9%，数家全服务品牌酒店下降；布达佩斯每间可售客房GOP比布拉格低逾10欧元，预计2026年开业项目相当于供给增长5.0%（Hospitality Net）。RevPAR领先不自动等于利润领先。
保加利亚调查中，近三分之二酒店平均入住率低于50%，58%报告从国外引进劳工（HTIF与BAHE调查）。官方2026年3月床位入住率25.5%，下降1.1点，但过夜收入增长11%（BTA引述NSI）。因此必须结合产能和劳动利用率解释收入。
沙特阿拉伯说明，应把管线资本与实现的利用率置于同一框架。现有176,260间客房，105,225间在建或处于后期规划，管线中超过一半属于豪华或高端。利雅得2026年1–4月入住率49.3%，RevPAR同比下降18.3%（Knight Frank）。这些事实不能决定未来回报，却使资本强度和利用率成为核心评估变量。
5.4 试点提示
可以谨慎提出四点。第一，收入增长与效率可在资产和细分层分化，Scandic芬兰即为例证。第二，经营模式决定公司ROCE究竟衡量什么，因而资产层计算不可或缺。第三，即使旺季创纪录，季节性仍是北欧的一阶利用变量。第四，人工与分销成本可能削弱利润转化，利率上行环境则提高资本效率门槛。这些是与证据一致的假设，不是已经完成的因果检验。
6. 局限与待研究问题
GH-CREI不能消除会计异质性。IFRS与US GAAP不同，IFRS 16与ASC 842的费用模式也有差异。历史成本、评估和公允价值会形成不可直接相比的资产分母。开发中资产在稳定收益形成前即扩大投入资本，HSH即涉及此问题。货币折算也可能在本地生产率未变时改变集团比较。
混合用途酒店涉及住宅、零售、会所和交通业务之间的分配。集团数据会掩盖物业差异，资产账又可能遗漏中央服务；业主、运营商和特许商记录未必对齐。基准样本存在生存者和自选择偏差，私营公司申报可能严重滞后。同类组须足够大，方能支持缩尾、百分位和地区细分，同时不暴露保密参与者。
衡量还会改变行为。依照古德哈特定律，指标成为目标后可能被以损害原目的的方式优化。例如，把用工削减至服务标准以下，可能改善狭义成本率，却损害宾客体验、维修与未来现金流。因此，即便不把服务质量和资产状况机械纳入效率得分，也应将其作为解释护栏。
建议权重仍可争论。支柱内等权可能掩盖相关性，几何汇总可能惩罚数据噪声，相对评分也可能在弱同类组中产生最高者。年度数据适合资本分析，却不够及时；私有数据获取和鉴证成本可能限制覆盖。待研究问题包括最小同类组规模、新开业及翻新酒店处理、共享品牌费用分配、货币转换，以及是否应在完整资产得分之外另设业主与运营商诊断面板。
因此，可信指数需要独立治理机构、开放方法、版本控制、数据字典、重述规则和公开敏感性结果。GH-CREI应随证据积累而修订。
7. 从业者自评工作表
此表用于诊断，并非评分捷径。物业应汇集口径一致的完整年度输入，调节租赁与业主资本，只与本身的“层级×地区×年份”同类组比较原始比率，不得套用虚构的绝对得分界限。
| 代码 | 所需输入 | 公式 | 建议外部基准 |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | EBIT、总资产、流动负债；或扣除FF&E储备后的资产NOI与资产总值 | EBIT ÷（总资产 − 流动负债） |
审计同行；CBRE Trends；法定申报 |
| C2 | 总收入、投入资本 | 总收入 ÷ 投入资本 |
审计同行；CBRE Trends |
| P1 | GOP、总收入 | GOP ÷ 总收入 |
HotStats；CBRE Trends |
| P2 | GOP、可售客房、营业天数 | GOP ÷ 可售客房间夜 |
HotStats |
| P3 | 过去24个月本期与上期GOP和总收入 | ΔGOP ÷ Δ总收入 |
HotStats；内部预算历史 |
| P4 | 佣金、渠道及交易成本、客房收入 | （佣金 + 渠道及交易成本）÷ 客房收入 |
USALI附表16；渠道报告 |
| U1 | 已售与可售客房间夜 | 已售 ÷ 可售间夜 |
STR/CoStar；国家统计 |
| U2 | 每月已售客房间夜 | Gini（月度已售间夜） |
国家统计；Benchmarking Alliance |
| U3 | 非客房收入、创收面积；如可得，座位小时或会议空间小时 | 非客房收入 ÷ m²；RevPASH/RevPAST子指标 |
HotStats；CBRE；可比场所 |
| L1 | 总收入、平均FTE | 总收入 ÷ 平均FTE |
USALI附表15；CBRE Trends |
| L2 / L3 | 总劳动成本、总收入、平均FTE、可售客房 | 劳动成本 ÷ 收入；FTE ÷ 可售客房 |
USALI附表15；国家劳动统计 |
从业者应在每项输入旁记录来源、报告边界、会计准则和代理值。数据验证后，方可计算同类组标准化值和支柱得分。
8. 结论与邀请
RevPAR仍是有用的需求实现指标，却不能回答酒店企业是否有效且高效地使用资本、物理产能和劳动力。本文证据说明了这一区分的重要性：利润转化可能滞后于收入，创纪录旺季可能与季节性并存，利润率复苏可能与低资本回报并存，公司回报也可能描述品牌资本而非酒店资产。
GH-CREI提供的是可检验架构，而非完成的评级。它把酒店资产固定为经济分析单位，在三个层级采用共同指标家族，于可比同类组内标准化，以几何汇总限制完全补偿，并把原始数据与稳健性检验作为结果的一部分。其近期价值不是排行榜，而是为业主、运营商、投资者、贷款人和公共部门提供一套更完整的问题框架。
我提出这一构想只是抛砖引玉，是一项开放的起始建议，而非已经完成的标准。我诚邀酒店、金融、会计、统计、学术界以及其他行业的同行与专家批评、修订并共同完善这一指数。我们的目的，是建立一个能够真正评价企业是否有效且高效地使用资本、物理资源与劳动力，并反映其真实经营表现的指标。有意提出意见或合作，敬请联系tongyin@insightbridge.global。
参考文献
- AHLA. “AHLA Releases 2026 State of the Industry.” 2026年1月27日. https://www.ahla.com/news/ahla-releases-2026-state-industry
- Assaf, A.G. and Josiassen, A. “Frontier Analysis: A State-of-the-Art Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Travel Research 55(5), 2016. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0047287515569776
- Booking Holdings. “Q4 and Full Year 2025 Earnings Release.” 2026年2月18日. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1075531/000107553126000008/q4-25bkngearningsrelease.htm
- BTA，转引保加利亚NSI. “March Overnight Stay Revenue Rises 11%.” 2026年5月13日. https://www.bta.bg/en/news/1124904-march-overnight-stay-revenue-rises-11-
- CBRE. “Nordics Hotel Market Figures September 2026.” 2026年9月16日. https://www.cbre.com/insights/figures/nordics-hotel-market-figures-september-2026
- Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N. and Van Puyenbroeck, T. “An Introduction to ‘Benefit of the Doubt’ Composite Indicators.” Social Indicators Research 82(1), 2007. https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/soinre/v82y2007i1p111-145.html
- Duro, J.A. “Seasonality of Hotel Demand in the Main Spanish Provinces.” Tourism Management 52, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.06.013
- ECB. “Monetary Policy Decisions.” 2026年9月10日. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2026/html/ecb.mp260910~314e508016.en.html
- Eurostat. “Annual increase in labour costs at 3.1% in euro area.” 2026年9月16日. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-euro-indicators/w/3-16092026-bp
- Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M. and Torrisi, G. “On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices.” Social Indicators Research 141(1), 2019. https://econpapers.repec.org/article/sprsoinre/v_3a141_3ay_3a2019_3ai_3a1_3ad_3a10.1007_5fs11205-017-1832-9.htm
- Hilton Worldwide. “2025 Annual Report and Form 10-K.” 2026. https://stories-editor.hilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Hilton-2025-Annual-Report-SEC-Form-10-K.pdf
- Horwath HTL. “Budapest Hotel Demand Hits Record 9.83 Million Guest Nights in 2025.” 2026年6月. https://horwathhtl.com/insight/budapest-hotel-demand-hits-record-9-83-million-guest-nights-in-2025/
- HOTELS Magazine and HotStats. “Out of Recovery: Benchmarking the New Phase for European Hotels.” 2026年3月4日. https://hotelsmag.com/news/out-of-recovery-benchmarking-the-new-phase-for-european-hotels/
- Hospitality Net. “H1 2026 Hungarian Hospitality Market.” 2026年7月29日. https://www.hospitalitynet.org/opinion/4133696/h1-2026-hungarian-hospitality-market-strong-fundamentals-continue-to-support-growth
- Hospitality Net. “The Margin Crunch in Hotels Continues.” 2026年9月15日. https://www.hospitalitynet.org/opinion/4134371/not-done-weekly-the-margin-crunch-in-hotels-continues
- HSH. “2025 Annual Results Announcement.” 2026年3月18日. https://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2026/0318/2026031800251.pdf
- HFTP. “The USALI 12th Revised Edition, An Expert Overview.” https://www.hftp.org/downloads/documents/usali/tfh24sp_usali12overview.pdf
- HVS. “Hotel Debt Market Briefing Q1 2026.” 2026年1月19日. https://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4130483/hotel-debt-market-briefing-q1-2026
- HVS. “US Hotel Development Cost Survey 2026.” 2026年7月13日. https://www.hvs.com/article/10509-hvs-us-hotel-development-cost-survey-2026
- IFRS Foundation. “IFRS 16 Leases.” https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ifrs-16-leases/
- ITB Berlin and Duetto. “4 Crucial Steps to Maximize Hotel Revenue and Profit in 2026.” 2026年2月17日. https://www.itb.com/en/itb-360%C2%B0/news-insights/duetto-4-crucial-steps-to-maximize-hotel-revenue-and-profit-in-2026.html
- Kimes, S.E. “Implementing Restaurant Revenue Management.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 40(3), 1999. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001088049904000315
- Kimes, S.E. and McGuire, K.A. “Function-Space Revenue Management.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42(6), 2001. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0010880401426003
- Knight Frank. “KSA Hospitality & Religious Tourism Report.” 2026年6月21日. https://www.knightfrank.com.sa/en/newsroom/article/2026/6/ksa-hospitality--religious-tourism-report
- Lodging Econometrics. “Q2 2026 Global Hotel Construction Pipeline.” 2026. https://lodgingeconometrics.com/global-hotel-construction-pipeline-q2-2026/
- Lodging Magazine. “Profitability Under Pressure.” 2026年5月26日. https://lodgingmagazine.com/profitability-under-pressure-how-2025-u-s-hotel-performance-reshapes-valuation-underwriting/
- Marriott International. “FY2025 Form 10-K.” 2026年2月10日. https://marriott.gcs-web.com/static-files/25ef00d2-d319-4121-b394-c848c70a793d
- NHO Reiseliv. “Hotelloversikten Årsrapport 2025.” https://www.nhoreiseliv.no/contentassets/5a59760d339f4bac884b462f804aeea7/hotelloversikten-arsrapport-2025.pdf
- NHO Reiseliv. “Hotelloversikten 1. kvartalsrapport 2026.” https://www.nhoreiseliv.no/contentassets/81a881cd950943ba917f4273fd325c91/hotelloversikten---1.-kvartalsrapport-2026.pdf
- Nurmatov, R., Fernandez Lopez, X.L. and Coto Millan, P.P. “Tourism, Hospitality, and DEA.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 95, 2021. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278431921000268
- OECD and JRC. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators. 2008. https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/jrc47008_handbook_final.pdf
- Saisana, M., Saltelli, A. and Tarantola, S. “Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Techniques.” JRSS Series A 168(2), 2005. https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v168y2005i2p307-323.html
- Scandic Hotels Group. “Annual & Sustainability Report 2025.” https://www.scandichotelsgroup.com/files/Main/13379/4333097/scandic_ar25_eng_260410.pdf
- Scandic Hotels Group. “Half-Year Report 2026.” 2026年7月15日. https://www.scandichotelsgroup.com/media/press-releases/2026/scandics-half-year-report-2026-solid-growth-good-profitability-and-strong-booking-situation/
- Statistics Norway. “Accommodation, July 2026.” 2026年9月3日. https://www.ssb.no/en/transport-og-reiseliv/reiseliv/statistikk/overnattingar
- STR/CoStar. “Glossary.” https://www.costar.com/products/str-benchmark/resources/glossary
- Whitbread. “FY26 Preliminary Results.” 2026年4月30日. https://static.hospitalityinside.com/image/convert/hos/2026/04/30/whitbread-preliminary-results-fy-2026-69f3bb390c9b5546411675.pdf
- Yin, Tong. “The Ultra-Luxury Hotel Margin Illusion.” Hotel News Resource, 2026年7月9日. https://www.hotelnewsresource.com/article142047.html
- Finansavisen/NTB. “Rekordmange overnattinger i Norge.” 2025年9月3日. https://www.finansavisen.no/reise-og-fritid/2025/09/03/8290437/rekordmange-overnattinger-i-norge
- HotStats. “UK Hotels Q1: Revenue Growth Isn’t Outpacing Costs.” 2026年6月3日. https://www.hotstats.com/hotel-industry-trends/uk-hotels-q1-revenue-growth-isnt-outpacing-costs
- Investing.com. “Scandic Q2 2026 Slides: Margins Expand Despite Finland Headwinds.” 2026年7月15日. https://www.investing.com/news/company-news/scandic-q2-2026-slides-margins-expand-despite-finland-headwinds-93CH-4792358
- JD Capital. 中国有限服务中端酒店行业研究报告. https://www.jdcapital.com/xinwen/3c62bdc92bde49d652b4dcc2b6177eeb
- Shinegrade. 中国酒店人力资源数据汇编. 2020. https://www.shinegrade.com/newsinfo/1110210.html
- Whitbread. “Annual Report 2026, ESEF Summary.” 2026. https://financialreports.eu/filings/whitbread-plc/annual-report-esef/2026/46353396/
- HTIF and BAHE. “Survey of Hotel Managers, H1 2026.” Burgas Media, 2026年7月14日. https://burgasmedia.com/news/kriza-v-balgarskiya-turizam-hotelierite-otchitat-spad-v-zaetostta-i-rast-na-razhodite?lang=en
Beyond RevPAR: A Proposal for a Global Hospitality Capital and Resource Efficiency Index (GH-CREI)
Measuring how hotel enterprises actually convert capital, capacity and labor into profit
Dr. Tong Yin, Founder and Chief Research Officer, InsightBridge Global LLC
September 2026
Abstract
RevPAR, ADR, occupancy and revenue growth are indispensable measures of hotel demand and pricing, but they do not show how effectively an enterprise converts capital, physical capacity and labor into sustainable profit. That distinction has become more consequential in the post-recovery phase. European hotel margins have stabilized while payroll and distribution costs have risen, US profitability remains below earlier benchmarks, and the cost and intensity of hotel capital have increased. This paper proposes the Global Hospitality Capital & Resource Efficiency Index (GH-CREI), a transparent composite measure calculated at hotel-asset level and aggregated bottom-up. It retains common indicator families across three operating tiers while changing pillar weights to reflect differences in capital intensity, service complexity and labor requirements. The method combines capital efficiency, profit conversion, capacity and space–time utilization, and labor efficiency; normalizes observations within tier, region and year cohorts; and uses a weighted geometric mean with uncertainty tests. A Nordic pilot, supplemented by company and second-market comparators, illustrates why revenue growth, margin improvement and capital efficiency can point in different directions. No entity score is published because the normalization cohort does not yet exist. The proposal is intended as an open, testable starting point for owners, operators, investors, lenders, statisticians and researchers.
1. Introduction: the measurement gap
Hotel performance is usually communicated through RevPAR, average daily rate (ADR), occupancy and total revenue growth. These measures have strong practical advantages. They are standardized, widely understood, available monthly and readily comparable across properties and markets. The STR/CoStar glossary also places hotels into established chain-scale segments, enabling a common vocabulary for benchmarking. Headline metrics are therefore selected because they are standardized and comparable, not because they necessarily answer every capital-allocation question.
The limitation is one of scope. RevPAR shows rooms revenue per available room, not the capital required to create that room, the labor needed to service it, the distribution cost incurred to sell it, or the profit retained after operating expenses. ADR can rise while occupancy or ancillary-space utilization falls. Total revenue can grow while the incremental profit conversion rate weakens. A hotel with a high room rate may still employ its balance sheet, physical infrastructure, built space and working hours less efficiently than a more modestly priced competitor.
Recent evidence makes this distinction material. In Europe, the FY2025 gross operating profit (GOP) margin was approximately 36.5%, broadly flat after a 2024 peak, while flow-through was 35%. Northern Europe recorded TRevPAR growth of 1.4% but GOPPAR growth of only 0.2%, and total payroll per available room rose nearly 5%, according to the HotStats review of the post-recovery phase. The picture is not uniformly weak: early 2026 European RevPAR grew 5.6% and profit rose 12% year on year, according to HotStats' Q1 assessment. The relevant point is not that revenue management has ceased to work. It is that revenue no longer provides a sufficient summary of profit conversion.
The same issue appears in the United States. A CBRE Trends sample of 2,216 hotels reported 2025 operating revenue growth of 2.6%, equal to CPI, while GOP margin declined to 34.8% from 35.1% and EBITDA margin fell to 22.8% from 23.3% (Lodging Magazine). HotStats data cited in September 2026 placed US GOPPAR in 2025 still 10% below 2019, with wages 15.3% above 2019 against operating revenue 12.8% above 2019 (Hospitality Net). These figures describe a conversion problem, not simply a demand problem.
Labor and distribution reinforce the case. Eurostat reported Q2 2026 hourly labor-cost growth of 3.1% in the euro area and 3.2% in the EU; EU accommodation and food service activities also rose 3.1% (Eurostat). US hotels paid nearly $128bn in wages and benefits in 2025, projected to approach $131bn in 2026 (AHLA). Globally, RevPAR had risen 19% since 2019 while booking costs per available room had risen 25% (ITB Berlin and Duetto, citing HotStats). Booking Holdings itself processed 1,235m room nights and $186.1bn in gross bookings in 2025, with $26,917m revenue and $8,186m marketing expense (Booking Holdings). The author's computation from that source gives revenue equal to 14.5% of gross bookings and marketing expense equal to 4.4%. These are platform-level ratios, not a hotel commission rate, but they indicate the scale of intermediation funded by the travel system.
Capital has also become more demanding. The ECB raised its deposit facility rate to 2.50%, its main refinancing rate to 2.65% and its marginal lending rate to 2.90%, effective 16 September 2026 (ECB). HVS reports senior euro-denominated hotel facilities commonly at 55–65% loan-to-value, margins of E+165–350bps and tenors of 5–7 years for stabilized assets (HVS). Meanwhile, the global construction pipeline reached a record 15,976 projects and 2,433,948 rooms, including 1,385 luxury projects and 257,947 luxury rooms (Lodging Econometrics). HVS estimates 2025 development budgets at more than $1.6m per luxury key, compared with $170–197k for limited-service and midscale extended-stay hotels, a roughly 8–9 times difference by the author's computation from HVS development-cost data.
Metrics should also reflect the enterprise life cycle. During start-up and expansion, growth, market share and distribution reach are appropriate measures of market formation. In a mature market or stabilized asset, profitability, capital productivity and resource utilization become decisive. This is not an argument to replace RevPAR. It is an argument to place revenue management inside a wider economic account.
This paper therefore proposes GH-CREI. Its contribution is a reproducible bridge between detailed accounting, operational benchmarking and decision-ready communication. It specifies the unit of analysis, tiering, indicators, normalization, weighting, aggregation, robustness tests and disclosure protocol; then illustrates the interpretation with public Nordic and corporate data. The proposal separates verified facts, author's computations and methodological propositions throughout.
2. What existing measures capture and miss
Revenue measures describe market realization. Occupancy measures the share of room capacity sold; ADR measures the average realized room rate; RevPAR combines the two. TRevPAR extends the numerator to total revenue. Under the Uniform System of Accounts for the Lodging Industry (USALI), GOP and GOPPAR move the analysis closer to operating profit. They still do not, by themselves, connect profit to invested capital or reveal whether rooms, restaurants, meeting areas and labor hours are jointly productive.
USALI's 12th Revised Edition materially improves the feasibility of a broader index. Effective 1 January 2026, it makes departmental full-time-equivalent reporting mandatory through Schedule 15, adds mandatory annual brand and operator cost reporting through Schedule 16, renames the utilities schedule Energy, Water and Waste, and includes an optional booking-channel revenue schedule. The same HFTP expert overview states that labor is typically about 30% of hotel revenue and 40% of expenses. Standardized FTE and operator-cost data can therefore support labor and distribution measures that were previously assembled inconsistently.
Hospitality scholarship already recognizes that a room-night is not the only perishable unit. Kimes defines RevPASH as revenue for a period divided by available seats multiplied by the length of that period (Kimes, 1999). Function-space revenue management similarly treats area and time as constrained inventory (Kimes and McGuire, 2001). GH-CREI extends that reasoning: rooms, seats, function space, capital and paid labor time are complementary productive resources.
Capital metrics provide another missing lens. Return on capital employed (ROCE) relates operating profit to the balance-sheet resources supporting it, while asset turnover relates revenue to capital employed. Reporting is feasible. Whitbread publishes a fully reconciled group ROCE of 11.1% for FY26 and explains its pre-IFRS 16 definition (Whitbread FY26 results). Yet corporate ROCE can mean very different things for an owner-operator, a lessee and an asset-light franchisor. The index must fix the accounting basis and locate the capital at the asset that employs it.
Frontier methods such as data envelopment analysis (DEA) and stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) offer rigorous ways to estimate relative efficiency. Assaf and Josiassen provide a state-of-the-art review and meta-analysis of frontier analysis (Journal of Travel Research). Nurmatov, Fernandez Lopez and Coto Millan reviewed 350 tourism DEA articles across about 200 journals and found concentration in hotels, Europe and Asia (International Journal of Hospitality Management). These methods are analytically valuable but rarely appear in routine investor communication and can be inaccessible to property practitioners. GH-CREI is proposed as a transparent complement, not a substitute.
Composite-index construction has its own discipline. The OECD/JRC Handbook sets out a ten-step framework spanning theory, data, imputation, multivariate analysis, normalization, weighting, aggregation, uncertainty analysis, links to other indicators and visualization. Greco and colleagues emphasize weighting, aggregation and robustness choices (Social Indicators Research), while Saisana, Saltelli and Tarantola show why uncertainty and sensitivity analysis are part of index quality rather than optional additions (JRSS Series A). These principles govern the specification below.
Finally, lease accounting matters. IFRS 16 has required lessees, for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2019, to recognize a right-of-use asset and lease liability (IFRS Foundation). An IFRS 16 basis does not remove every owner-lessee difference, but it makes lessee capital substantially more visible and provides a more comparable starting point.
3. Design principles of GH-CREI
P1. Hotel asset as the unit of analysis. GH-CREI measures whole-asset economics: owner and operator economics are combined regardless of whether the legal form is ownership, lease, management or franchise. Portfolios and groups are aggregated bottom-up. Group financials are used only with an explicit operating-model adjustment.
P2. Common families, tier-specific weights. Every tier retains the same capital, profit, utilization and labor families. Weight matrices differ because a luxury full-service hotel and a budget limited-service hotel are economically different production systems.
P3. Efficiency rather than size. Inputs are expressed as ratios per unit of capital, room, square metre, hour or FTE. Absolute revenue, portfolio size and market capitalization do not directly increase the score.
P4. Concentration as risk. Seasonal concentration and distribution dependence are inverse indicators. A property that produces the same annual volume from a narrower season or more costly channel mix uses capacity less resiliently.
P5. Transparency and reproducibility. Each input should trace to audited statements, USALI schedules, official statistics or a disclosed benchmark panel. Raw indicators must be published beside composite scores so that users can distinguish data from aggregation.
P6. Relative cohort scoring. Scores are relative within tier × region × year cohorts. Absolute performance thresholds should not be invented before a sufficiently large multi-year panel exists.
4. Specification
4.1 Tiering
The STR/CoStar chain-scale classification supplies the starting taxonomy:
| GH-CREI tier | Chain-scale mapping | Practical interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | Luxury + Upper Upscale | Full-service; five-star and ultra-luxury treated as an independent sub-market where sample size permits |
| Tier 2 | Upscale + Upper Midscale + Midscale | Three- and four-star mainstream lodging |
| Tier 3 | Economy/budget limited-service | Two-star and below; predominantly pure lodging |
Tiering is economic, not ceremonial. HVS development costs exceed $1.6m per luxury room but are $170–197k for limited-service and midscale extended-stay rooms (HVS). Labor intensity also differs. A Chinese industry compilation reports 2019 employees per available room of 1.13 in five-star, 0.82 in four-star and 0.46 in three-star hotels (Shinegrade); another industry report places economy hotels around 0.2, with a roughly 0.16–0.25 range (JD Capital). The public-company pilot below yields 0.18 FTE per room for Scandic and about 0.36 employees per room for Whitbread, while HSH's group-wide figure is about 2.5 but includes non-hotel operations. Revenue mix and occupancy patterns also differ. Tier-specific weights acknowledge these production differences without abandoning a common conceptual framework.
4.2 Pillars and core indicators
| Pillar / code | Indicator and formula | Primary input source | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | ROCE = EBIT ÷ (total assets − current liabilities). Asset alternative: NOI after FF&E reserve ÷ gross asset value at cost or appraisal | Audited statements; asset accounts and valuation | Higher |
| C2 | Asset turnover = total revenue ÷ capital employed | Audited statements | Higher |
| P1 | GOP margin = GOP ÷ total revenue | USALI operating statement | Higher |
| P2 | GOPPAR = GOP ÷ available room-nights | USALI and room inventory | Higher |
| P3 | Flow-through = ΔGOP ÷ Δtotal revenue, trailing 24 months | Current and prior USALI statements | Higher |
| P4 | Distribution cost ratio = (commissions + channel and transaction costs) ÷ rooms revenue | USALI Schedule 16 and channel records | Lower, inverse |
| U1 | Annual room occupancy = occupied room-nights ÷ available room-nights | Property management system; STR/CoStar | Higher |
| U2 | Seasonal concentration = Gini coefficient of monthly occupied room-nights | Monthly property data; national statistics | Lower, inverse |
| U3 | Non-rooms space productivity = non-rooms revenue ÷ m² of revenue-generating non-rooms space; RevPASH and function-space RevPAST are sub-metrics where available | USALI departments, floor plans and booking systems | Higher |
| L1 | Revenue per FTE = total revenue ÷ average FTE | USALI Schedule 15 | Higher |
| L2 / L3 | Labor cost ratio = total labor cost ÷ total revenue; FTE per available room = average FTE ÷ available rooms | USALI Schedule 15 and operating statement | Lower, inverse |
The presentation combines L2 and L3 in one row, while they remain separately normalized measures in the labor pillar. Seasonal concentration follows the Gini-based approach used by Duro. All capital measures use an IFRS 16 or economically aligned ASC 842 basis. The asset-level alternative is necessary when the balance sheet does not combine owner and operator capital.
4.3 Normalization and missing data
Observations are first winsorized at the cohort's 5th and 95th percentiles. Positive indicators are normalized within tier × region × year:
x̂ = (x − x_min) ÷ (x_max − x_min) ∈ [0,1]
For inverse indicators, the normalized value is flipped:
x̂_inverse = 1 − x̂
This makes 1 consistently represent stronger relative efficiency. A pillar is computed only when at least two-thirds of its indicators are available; otherwise the entity is not rated. No imputed value should silently replace a missing economically important input. Any permitted imputation must be disclosed and included in sensitivity tests.
4.4 Proposed weights
| Tier | Capital C | Profit P | Utilization U | Labor L |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | 35% | 25% | 25% | 15% |
| Tier 2 | 30% | 30% | 20% | 20% |
| Tier 3 | 20% | 20% | 25% | 35% |
Weights sum to 1, with equal indicator weights inside each pillar by default. Tier 1 places the greatest weight on capital because luxury construction costs and non-room space are substantial, while utilization remains material because multiple revenue areas are perishable. Tier 2 balances capital and profit conversion. Tier 3 gives labor the largest weight because limited-service economics depend on standardized, lean delivery, while utilization remains central to a lodging-led model.
These weights are propositions, not empirical findings. Tests must include principal components analysis, benefit-of-the-doubt DEA weights as developed by Cherchye and colleagues, and ±10-point perturbations of pillar weights with rebalancing. Rank shifts must be reported, following the sensitivity discipline of Saisana, Saltelli and Tarantola.
4.5 Aggregation
Within each pillar, GH-CREI takes the arithmetic mean of available normalized indicators. Across pillars, the default is a weighted geometric mean, which limits full compensation of a weak pillar by a strong one:
I_j = 100 × Π_k (S_kj)^(w_k)
Here S_kj is entity j's normalized score for pillar k, floored at 0.01, and w_k is the tier weight. Flooring prevents a single zero from mechanically reducing the entire index to zero while retaining a substantial penalty. The arithmetic sensitivity version is:
I_j^A = 100 × Σ_k w_k S_kj
Both versions must be published. An entity is flagged when its rank changes by more than one quintile between them. The geometric choice follows the OECD/JRC concern with compensability and the robustness issues reviewed by Greco and colleagues.
4.6 Reporting
The reporting panel comprises the 0–100 score, cohort percentile, quintile band, four pillar sub-scores and all raw indicator values. It also reports the arithmetic sensitivity score, relevant rank flags, missingness and accounting basis. A rolling three-year average dampens cycle effects, while annual raw values remain visible. The score is never presented without its cohort definition.
4.7 Data protocol and disclosure
Audited statements commonly provide revenue, EBIT, total assets, current liabilities, employee costs, employee numbers and lease liabilities. GOP, GOPPAR, flow-through, channel costs, departmental FTE and revenue-generating area are often voluntary or non-GAAP. USALI's revised schedules narrow this gap, but the index should distinguish reported inputs from derived proxies.
Where direct data are absent, the three financial statements can support transparent approximations. The income statement supplies revenue, operating profit and labor expense; the balance sheet supplies capital employed and leases; the cash-flow statement helps reconcile capital expenditure, disposals and non-cash items. A proxy is acceptable only when its construction and limitations are visible. For private groups, statutory filings, statistical offices, property registries and benchmarking panels such as HotStats, CBRE Trends and Benchmarking Alliance can be cross-verified. Cross-verification does not convert unlike definitions into identical measures; definitional adjustments remain necessary.
A recommended minimum disclosure set for listed hotel companies is: property-level or regional GOP and GOPPAR; average FTE under a stated definition; total labor cost; owned, leased, managed and franchised room counts; right-of-use assets and lease liabilities; commissions and channel costs; revenue-generating non-room area; and a reconciled capital-return measure. Publication of these data would improve both investment analysis and operating accountability without requiring a proprietary scoring system.
5. Illustrative application: the Nordics and comparators
This pilot shows how raw pillar indicators can read differently from headline revenue. It does not publish GH-CREI scores or rankings because a sufficiently defined tier × region × year cohort for normalization does not yet exist.
5.1 Market layer
The Nordic data combine demand strength with meaningful utilization variation. In Norway, July 2026 hotel guest nights reached 4,005,330, up 4.1% year on year, with a 39.5% foreign share and an average room price of NOK 1,600, up 5.8% (Statistics Norway). Yet, in the Benchmarking Alliance sample of about 70,000 rooms, Norway's 2025 annual occupancy was 62.5%, ADR NOK 1,444 and RevPAR NOK 903; December occupancy was around 44%, and maximum registered capacity was 93,227 rooms (NHO Reiseliv annual report). Q1 2026 occupancy was 55.5%, average rate NOK 1,392 and RevPAR NOK 773 (NHO Reiseliv Q1 report). NHO Reiseliv's managing director separately summarized official data by saying that 45% of Norway's hotel rooms are vacant annually (Finansavisen/NTB). A record month can coexist with a first-order seasonality issue.
Across the region, Stockholm RevPAR rose 12.0% to SEK 1,234 with ADR up 7.4%, while Copenhagen RevPAR rose 6.6% at 88.2% occupancy. Rovaniemi was Finland's only growing city market, with RevPAR up 14.0% on volume, while Helsinki, Turku and Tampere softened (CBRE September 2026 Nordic figures). An index should therefore preserve asset and segment variation rather than infer common efficiency from a regional average.
Scandic's Q2 2026 illustrates this directly. Group net sales rose 3.5% to SEK 5,998m, but organic growth was 1.2%; occupancy was 65.6%, RevPAR SEK 882, and adjusted EBITDA margin improved to 13.3% from 12.5% (Scandic half-year report). The group margin therefore expanded. Finland, however, reported sales of SEK 1,051m versus SEK 1,156m and adjusted EBITDA of SEK 58m versus SEK 142m, reducing the margin to 5.5% from 12.3%. Scandic shares fell 7.95% on the day (Investing.com). The careful interpretation is that headline group growth and margin improvement concealed a segment-level profit-conversion problem to which the market reacted. Asset-level GH-CREI inputs would make that divergence visible without treating the share movement as proof of causality.
5.2 Enterprise layer
All calculated figures below are explicitly the author's computations from the linked company filings; amounts inside the formulas are in millions of each company's reporting currency (SEK for Scandic, GBP for Whitbread, HK$ for HSH, USD for Marriott and Hilton). The uniform pilot basis is ROCE = EBIT ÷ (total assets − current liabilities) under IFRS 16 or US GAAP.
| Entity | Model and tier | Public-data reading | Interpretation and caveat |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scandic 2025 | Predominantly leased; Tier 2 | Author's computations from Scandic 2025: 2,661 ÷ (52,590 − 6,560) = 5.8% ROCE; 7,025 ÷ 22,289 = 31.5% labor cost ratio; 6,588 ÷ 22,289 = 29.6% rent ratio; 22,289m ÷ 10,178 = SEK 2.19m revenue per FTE. For 2024, 10,097 ÷ 55,319 = 0.18 FTE per room. |
An alternative excluding IFRS 16, 1,467 ÷ (2,968 + 35) = 48.9%, omits landlord capital. The 2024 room base avoids the Dalata inclusion in year-end 2025 rooms. |
| Whitbread FY26 | Owner-operator, 49% freehold; Tier 3 | Whitbread reported 11.1% ROCE under its pre-IFRS 16 definition and 12.7% for Premier Inn UK. Author's computations: 648.9 ÷ (9,568.6 − 889.4) = 7.5% uniform ROCE; 801.6 ÷ 2,920.2 = 27.5% employee-cost ratio. Using reported average employees, (2,920.2 − 260.9)m ÷ 30,723 = c.£86.6k revenue per employee and 30,723 ÷ 86,582 = c.0.36 employees per room. |
The 11.1% and 7.5% results are definitional sensitivity, not different operating performance. Employee counts are headcount, not FTE. |
| HSH 2025 | Owner-operator; Tier 1 | Author's computations from HSH results: 961 ÷ (55,051 − 7,574) = 2.0% ROCE; 7,978m ÷ 7,768 = HK$1.03m revenue per employee; 7,768 ÷ 3,106 = c.2.5 employees per room. Reported hotel EBITDA margin rose to 20% from 14%, while operations revenue rose 11% and operating EBITDA rose 43%. |
Margin recovery coexists with low capital return in an asset-intensive group with assets under development. The staffing ratio includes commercial properties, Peak Tram and clubs, so it overstates hotel staffing. |
| Marriott 2025 | Asset-light franchisor; comparator | Author's computations from Marriott's 10-K: 4,141 ÷ (27,540 − 8,398) = 21.6% ROCE; goodwill, brands and contract costs of 19,243 ÷ 27,540 = 69.9% of assets; owned/leased rooms 0.8% of system; equity −$3,771m. |
Corporate return mainly measures brand and contract capital, not hotel-asset capital. |
| Hilton 2025 | Asset-light franchisor; comparator | Author's computations from Hilton's 10-K: 2,693 ÷ (16,774 − 4,508) = 22.0% ROCE; intangibles 11,781 ÷ 16,774 = 70.2% of assets; owned/leased rooms 1.1% of system; equity −$5,359m. |
As with Marriott, this is a brand-capital return and must be separated from owner balance sheets. |
Scandic shows why lease capitalization matters. Its 48.9% non-IFRS 16 calculation and 5.8% uniform calculation describe the same operating year but radically different capital boundaries. Whitbread shows the same issue from another direction: its carefully reconciled 11.1% reported measure becomes 7.5% under the pilot denominator. GH-CREI must use one basis and publish the reconciliation.
HSH shows why margin cannot stand in for capital efficiency. Hotel EBITDA margin improved from 14% to 20%, and operating EBITDA increased 43%, but uniform ROCE was about 2.0%. This is consistent with intensive capital and assets under development, not evidence that the margin recovery was unimportant. Its regional occupancies of 57–68% and the HVS luxury cost benchmark clarify why luxury performance needs simultaneous margin, utilization and capital measures.
Marriott and Hilton show a unit-of-analysis problem rather than a performance defect. Both corporate ROCE results are about 22%, both have negative equity, approximately 70% of reported assets are intangibles under the calculations above, and only about 1% of system rooms are owned or leased. Their returns appropriately describe valuable brand and contract systems. They do not reveal whether the underlying hotel owners employ building capital efficiently. This distinction is consistent with the author's earlier discussion of margin and invested capital in Hotel News Resource.
5.3 Second-market cross-checks
Budapest demonstrates that demand and utilization can move differently. Guest nights reached a record 9.83m in 2025 versus 9.47m in 2019, while room supply expanded by roughly 12–13%. Occupancy was 71.4% versus 76% in 2019, yet RevPAR rose from €57.56 to €78.42, a 36.3% increase (Horwath HTL). In H1 2026, RevPAR rose 15% to just under €90, but average GOP rose 4.9%, several full-service branded hotels declined, and Budapest trailed Prague by more than €10 in GOP per available room. Expected 2026 openings represented 5.0% supply growth (Hospitality Net). RevPAR leadership does not automatically imply profit leadership.
In Bulgaria, nearly two-thirds of surveyed hotels reported average occupancy below 50%, and 58% reported importing labor (HTIF and BAHE survey). Official March 2026 bed occupancy was 25.5%, down 1.1 points, although overnight-stay revenue rose 11% (BTA citing NSI). The combination makes capacity and labor utilization essential to interpretation.
Saudi Arabia shows why pipeline capital and achieved utilization belong in one frame. Existing inventory was 176,260 rooms, with 105,225 under construction or in advanced planning and more than half of the pipeline in luxury or upper-upscale. Riyadh's January–April 2026 occupancy was 49.3% and RevPAR fell 18.3% year on year (Knight Frank). These facts do not determine future returns, but they make capital intensity and utilization central evaluation variables.
5.4 What the pilot suggests
Four provisional inferences follow. First, revenue growth and efficiency can diverge at asset and segment level, as Scandic Finland illustrates. Second, operating model determines what corporate ROCE measures, so hotel-asset computation is essential. Third, seasonality is a first-order Nordic utilization variable even when peak demand sets records. Fourth, labor and distribution costs can weaken profit conversion, while a higher rate environment raises the hurdle for capital efficiency. These are hypotheses consistent with the evidence, not completed causal tests.
6. Limitations and open questions
GH-CREI cannot eliminate accounting heterogeneity. IFRS and US GAAP differ, and IFRS 16 and ASC 842 produce different expense patterns. Historical cost, appraisal and fair-value measurement can generate unlike asset denominators. Assets under development expand capital employed before stabilized earnings appear, as relevant to HSH. Currency translation can alter group comparisons without changing local productivity.
Mixed-use hotels create allocation questions across residences, retail, clubs and transport operations. Group data can conceal property dispersion, while asset accounts can omit central services. Owner, operator and franchisor records may not align. Benchmark panels face survivorship and self-selection, and private-company filings can arrive with long lags. Cohorts must be large enough to support winsorization, percentiles and regional segmentation without revealing confidential contributors.
Measurement can also change behavior. Under Goodhart's law, an indicator used as a target may be optimized at the expense of its purpose. Cutting labor below service standards could improve a narrow cost ratio while damaging guest experience, maintenance and future cash flow. GH-CREI therefore needs service-quality and asset-condition safeguards in interpretation, even if they are not mixed mechanically into the efficiency score.
The proposed weights remain contestable. Equal within-pillar weights may mask correlation; geometric aggregation may penalize data noise; relative scoring can allow a weak cohort to produce a top performer. Annual data are timely enough for capital analysis but slow for operations. Private data access and assurance costs may constrain coverage. Open questions include the minimum cohort size, treatment of newly opened and renovated hotels, allocation of shared brand expenses, currency conversion, and whether separate owner and operator diagnostic panels should accompany the whole-asset score.
A credible index will therefore need an independent governance body, an open methodology, version control, a data dictionary, restatement rules and published sensitivity results. GH-CREI should remain revisable as evidence accumulates.
7. Practitioner self-assessment worksheet
The worksheet is diagnostic, not a scoring shortcut. A property should assemble a consistent year of inputs, reconcile lease and owner capital, and compare raw ratios only with its tier × region × year cohort. It should not apply invented absolute score bounds.
| Code | Required inputs | Formula | Recommended external benchmark |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | EBIT; total assets; current liabilities; or asset NOI after FF&E reserve and gross asset value | EBIT ÷ (total assets − current liabilities) |
Audited peers; CBRE Trends; statutory filings |
| C2 | Total revenue; capital employed | total revenue ÷ capital employed |
Audited peers; CBRE Trends |
| P1 | GOP; total revenue | GOP ÷ total revenue |
HotStats; CBRE Trends |
| P2 | GOP; available rooms; days open | GOP ÷ available room-nights |
HotStats |
| P3 | Current and prior GOP and total revenue for trailing 24 months | ΔGOP ÷ Δtotal revenue |
HotStats; internal budget history |
| P4 | Commissions; channel and transaction costs; rooms revenue | (commissions + channel and transaction costs) ÷ rooms revenue |
USALI Schedule 16; channel reports |
| U1 | Occupied and available room-nights | occupied ÷ available room-nights |
STR/CoStar; national statistics |
| U2 | Monthly occupied room-nights | Gini(monthly occupied room-nights) |
National statistics; Benchmarking Alliance |
| U3 | Non-rooms revenue; revenue-generating m²; seat-hours or function-space-hours where available | non-rooms revenue ÷ m²; RevPASH/RevPAST sub-metrics |
HotStats; CBRE; comparable venues |
| L1 | Total revenue; average FTE | total revenue ÷ average FTE |
USALI Schedule 15; CBRE Trends |
| L2 / L3 | Total labor cost; total revenue; average FTE; available rooms | labor cost ÷ revenue; FTE ÷ available rooms |
USALI Schedule 15; national labor statistics |
The practitioner should record source, reporting perimeter, accounting standard and any proxy beside each input. Only after data validation should normalized cohort values and pillar scores be calculated.
8. Conclusion and invitation
RevPAR remains a useful measure of demand realization, but it cannot answer whether a hotel enterprise uses capital, physical capacity and labor effectively and efficiently. The evidence reviewed here shows why the distinction matters: profit conversion can lag revenue, seasonality can coexist with record peaks, margin recovery can coexist with low capital return, and corporate return can describe brand capital rather than hotel assets.
GH-CREI offers a testable architecture rather than a finished rating. It fixes the hotel asset as the economic unit, retains common indicator families across three tiers, normalizes within comparable cohorts, limits compensability through geometric aggregation, and makes raw data and robustness tests part of the result. Its immediate value is not a league table, but a more complete question set for owners, operators, investors, lenders and public authorities.
I offer this as an opening proposal, not a finished standard, as a first stone intended to draw out better ones. I welcome peers and experts across hospitality, finance, accounting, statistics and academia, as well as colleagues from other industries, to critique, refine and improve the index. The purpose is to build a measure that genuinely evaluates whether enterprises use capital, physical resources and labor effectively and efficiently, and how they truly perform. Comments and collaboration are welcome at tongyin@insightbridge.global.
References
- AHLA. “AHLA Releases 2026 State of the Industry.” 27 January 2026. https://www.ahla.com/news/ahla-releases-2026-state-industry
- Assaf, A.G. and Josiassen, A. “Frontier Analysis: A State-of-the-Art Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Travel Research 55(5), 2016. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0047287515569776
- Booking Holdings. “Q4 and Full Year 2025 Earnings Release.” 18 February 2026. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1075531/000107553126000008/q4-25bkngearningsrelease.htm
- BTA, citing Bulgaria NSI. “March Overnight Stay Revenue Rises 11%.” 13 May 2026. https://www.bta.bg/en/news/1124904-march-overnight-stay-revenue-rises-11-
- CBRE. “Nordics Hotel Market Figures September 2026.” 16 September 2026. https://www.cbre.com/insights/figures/nordics-hotel-market-figures-september-2026
- Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N. and Van Puyenbroeck, T. “An Introduction to ‘Benefit of the Doubt’ Composite Indicators.” Social Indicators Research 82(1), 2007. https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/soinre/v82y2007i1p111-145.html
- Duro, J.A. “Seasonality of Hotel Demand in the Main Spanish Provinces.” Tourism Management 52, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.06.013
- ECB. “Monetary Policy Decisions.” 10 September 2026. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2026/html/ecb.mp260910~314e508016.en.html
- Eurostat. “Annual increase in labour costs at 3.1% in euro area.” 16 September 2026. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-euro-indicators/w/3-16092026-bp
- Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M. and Torrisi, G. “On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices.” Social Indicators Research 141(1), 2019. https://econpapers.repec.org/article/sprsoinre/v_3a141_3ay_3a2019_3ai_3a1_3ad_3a10.1007_5fs11205-017-1832-9.htm
- Hilton Worldwide. “2025 Annual Report and Form 10-K.” 2026. https://stories-editor.hilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Hilton-2025-Annual-Report-SEC-Form-10-K.pdf
- Horwath HTL. “Budapest Hotel Demand Hits Record 9.83 Million Guest Nights in 2025.” June 2026. https://horwathhtl.com/insight/budapest-hotel-demand-hits-record-9-83-million-guest-nights-in-2025/
- HOTELS Magazine and HotStats. “Out of Recovery: Benchmarking the New Phase for European Hotels.” 4 March 2026. https://hotelsmag.com/news/out-of-recovery-benchmarking-the-new-phase-for-european-hotels/
- Hospitality Net. “H1 2026 Hungarian Hospitality Market.” 29 July 2026. https://www.hospitalitynet.org/opinion/4133696/h1-2026-hungarian-hospitality-market-strong-fundamentals-continue-to-support-growth
- Hospitality Net. “The Margin Crunch in Hotels Continues.” 15 September 2026. https://www.hospitalitynet.org/opinion/4134371/not-done-weekly-the-margin-crunch-in-hotels-continues
- HSH. “2025 Annual Results Announcement.” 18 March 2026. https://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2026/0318/2026031800251.pdf
- HFTP. “The USALI 12th Revised Edition, An Expert Overview.” https://www.hftp.org/downloads/documents/usali/tfh24sp_usali12overview.pdf
- HVS. “Hotel Debt Market Briefing Q1 2026.” 19 January 2026. https://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4130483/hotel-debt-market-briefing-q1-2026
- HVS. “US Hotel Development Cost Survey 2026.” 13 July 2026. https://www.hvs.com/article/10509-hvs-us-hotel-development-cost-survey-2026
- IFRS Foundation. “IFRS 16 Leases.” https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ifrs-16-leases/
- ITB Berlin and Duetto. “4 Crucial Steps to Maximize Hotel Revenue and Profit in 2026.” 17 February 2026. https://www.itb.com/en/itb-360%C2%B0/news-insights/duetto-4-crucial-steps-to-maximize-hotel-revenue-and-profit-in-2026.html
- Kimes, S.E. “Implementing Restaurant Revenue Management.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 40(3), 1999. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001088049904000315
- Kimes, S.E. and McGuire, K.A. “Function-Space Revenue Management.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42(6), 2001. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0010880401426003
- Knight Frank. “KSA Hospitality & Religious Tourism Report.” 21 June 2026. https://www.knightfrank.com.sa/en/newsroom/article/2026/6/ksa-hospitality--religious-tourism-report
- Lodging Econometrics. “Q2 2026 Global Hotel Construction Pipeline.” 2026. https://lodgingeconometrics.com/global-hotel-construction-pipeline-q2-2026/
- Lodging Magazine. “Profitability Under Pressure.” 26 May 2026. https://lodgingmagazine.com/profitability-under-pressure-how-2025-u-s-hotel-performance-reshapes-valuation-underwriting/
- Marriott International. “FY2025 Form 10-K.” 10 February 2026. https://marriott.gcs-web.com/static-files/25ef00d2-d319-4121-b394-c848c70a793d
- NHO Reiseliv. “Hotelloversikten Årsrapport 2025.” https://www.nhoreiseliv.no/contentassets/5a59760d339f4bac884b462f804aeea7/hotelloversikten-arsrapport-2025.pdf
- NHO Reiseliv. “Hotelloversikten 1. kvartalsrapport 2026.” https://www.nhoreiseliv.no/contentassets/81a881cd950943ba917f4273fd325c91/hotelloversikten---1.-kvartalsrapport-2026.pdf
- Nurmatov, R., Fernandez Lopez, X.L. and Coto Millan, P.P. “Tourism, Hospitality, and DEA.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 95, 2021. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278431921000268
- OECD and JRC. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators. 2008. https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/jrc47008_handbook_final.pdf
- Saisana, M., Saltelli, A. and Tarantola, S. “Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Techniques.” JRSS Series A 168(2), 2005. https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v168y2005i2p307-323.html
- Scandic Hotels Group. “Annual & Sustainability Report 2025.” https://www.scandichotelsgroup.com/files/Main/13379/4333097/scandic_ar25_eng_260410.pdf
- Scandic Hotels Group. “Half-Year Report 2026.” 15 July 2026. https://www.scandichotelsgroup.com/media/press-releases/2026/scandics-half-year-report-2026-solid-growth-good-profitability-and-strong-booking-situation/
- Statistics Norway. “Accommodation, July 2026.” 3 September 2026. https://www.ssb.no/en/transport-og-reiseliv/reiseliv/statistikk/overnattingar
- STR/CoStar. “Glossary.” https://www.costar.com/products/str-benchmark/resources/glossary
- Whitbread. “FY26 Preliminary Results.” 30 April 2026. https://static.hospitalityinside.com/image/convert/hos/2026/04/30/whitbread-preliminary-results-fy-2026-69f3bb390c9b5546411675.pdf
- Yin, Tong. “The Ultra-Luxury Hotel Margin Illusion.” Hotel News Resource, 9 July 2026. https://www.hotelnewsresource.com/article142047.html
- Finansavisen/NTB. “Rekordmange overnattinger i Norge.” 3 September 2025. https://www.finansavisen.no/reise-og-fritid/2025/09/03/8290437/rekordmange-overnattinger-i-norge
- HotStats. “UK Hotels Q1: Revenue Growth Isn’t Outpacing Costs.” 3 June 2026. https://www.hotstats.com/hotel-industry-trends/uk-hotels-q1-revenue-growth-isnt-outpacing-costs
- Investing.com. “Scandic Q2 2026 Slides: Margins Expand Despite Finland Headwinds.” 15 July 2026. https://www.investing.com/news/company-news/scandic-q2-2026-slides-margins-expand-despite-finland-headwinds-93CH-4792358
- JD Capital. Research report on China's limited-service midscale hotel sector. https://www.jdcapital.com/xinwen/3c62bdc92bde49d652b4dcc2b6177eeb
- Shinegrade. “China Hotel HR Data Compilation.” 2020. https://www.shinegrade.com/newsinfo/1110210.html
- Whitbread. “Annual Report 2026, ESEF Summary.” 2026. https://financialreports.eu/filings/whitbread-plc/annual-report-esef/2026/46353396/
- HTIF and BAHE. “Survey of Hotel Managers, H1 2026.” Burgas Media, 14 July 2026. https://burgasmedia.com/news/kriza-v-balgarskiya-turizam-hotelierite-otchitat-spad-v-zaetostta-i-rast-na-razhodite?lang=en