Читать книгу Tourism Enterprise - David Leslie - Страница 27

This chapter addresses sustainable supply chain management (SSCM), which encompasses all the elements involved in the delivery of tourism products and services. As Eastham et al. (2001, p. xviii) expressed, it involves the:

co-ordination and integration of all activities in delivering a product from its initial primary source through to the consumer into a seamless process, thereby linking all partners in the chain internal and external to the organization.

More conceptually, supply-chain management can be defined as:

a philosophy of management that involves the management and integration of a set of selected key business processes from end user through original suppliers, that provides products, services and information that add value for customer and other stakeholders through the collaborative efforts of supply chain members (Ho et al., 2002 as cited in Mosselaer et al., 2012, p. 74).

Therefore in order to develop sustainability in the supply chain, all involved need to address their EP and adopt EM practice. Thus, in the case of a TO, for example, it is implicit that each component supplier of a tour, e.g. transportation, accommodation, travel agent, should be selected on the basis of their environmental policy and accredited related practices. The choice here of a TO is significant given that:

the supply chain approach offers a more clearly delineated context and framework for tour operators to pursue CSR policies and practices, implying that the degree of supply chain sustainability depends on the performance of all the components, the suppliers and their links with the supply chain (Mosselaer et al., 2012, p. 74).

Comprehensive guidelines on this have been promoted since the early 2000s, including not only who to choose but also how to develop better linkages with the local/regional economy and the community. The comprehensive scope of SSCM when interpreted and applied most positively in the context of tourism and sustainability reflects Eber’s (1992, p. 2) statement that ‘if tourism is to be truly beneficial to all concerned and sustainable in the long-term, it must be ensured that:

• resources are not over-consumed;

• natural and human environments are protected;

• tourism is integrated with other activities,

• it provides real benefits to the local communities;

• local people are involved and included in tourism planning and implementation; and

• cultures and people are respected.’

This view was echoed comparatively recently by Goeldner and Ritchie (2009). Furthermore, the ‘Pro-Poor Tourism’ lobby affirms the importance of SSCM, claiming that it played a key role in their efforts in the Gambia to alleviate poverty (see Goodwin and Bah, 2004); a counterpoint success to the all-inclusive resorts which developed, largely due to the influence of European Operators, as illustrated here by ACTSA:

One British tour operator offers an all-inclusive beach holiday to the Seychelles. You fly with a British airline and stay in a British owned hotel. Within the hotel resort there is a range of restaurants, bars and leisure facilities, so you may not spend any money outside the resort. People on this kind of holiday contribute virtually nothing to the local economy. The only local people who benefit are those directly employed in the resort. (2002, p. 2)

Such examples encapsulate the problems arising from tourism and development that have long been recognized (see Leslie, 2012a). Amongst the many responses to such problems noted in the 1990s, one of the most comprehensive as regards different stakeholders – government, agencies, business and NGOs – and potential solutions is that of the UNCSD (1999), which presents a comprehensive range of negative impacts and potential solutions on the part of tourism enterprise with many examples of good practice. However, the arguments propounded in support of SSCM, which have arisen in the wake of the advocacy of sustainability and climate change, are mainly propounded against a backdrop of the perceived negatives of tourism resort development often attributed to mass (traditional) tourism and rather conveniently laid at the feet of TOs.

Undoubtedly, TOs are very influential in terms of range and choice of opportunities and destinations – witness the rise in popularity of Spain in the 1970s, East Africa and Nepal in the 1990s, so too Thailand and the expansion of Pattaya and Phuket (Prosser, 1992). They are also often major stakeholders in many destinations and hold substantial influence in their development and growth (see Briasspoulis, 2003) and therefore to support furthering the aims of initiatives designed to address sustainability issues (see Budeanu, 2005; Font et al., 2008). As Carey et al. (1997) noted, it is not just their influence on destinations but also their ability to influence market trends and demand for new areas, arguing that they hold more influence than the marketing efforts of a destination. Allowing for scale, the scope of this influence is applicable to all TOs but may be far more manifest today in the niche markets of nature/eco/adventure tourism (NEAT), which increased by approximately 180% between 2006 and 2009 (Anon., 2011). As Leslie (2012b, p. 11) argued:

TOs, more than any other tourism agent, through creating and delivering holiday packages, hold substantial potential to influence the other enterprises involved in their tours and thus the importance of promoting and developing sustainability in managing the supply chain is stressed.

Moreover, larger tour operators are also often owners of airlines and hotels, as for example TUI Travel PLC which owns some 150 aeroplanes, over 3500 retail shops and hotel chains like Grecotel, Iberotel and Rui-hotels (Mosselaer et al., 2012, p. 74). Thus, more perhaps than ever they are well positioned to shape the tourist destination environment rather in the manner of an ‘eco-bubble’, whether this be the Costa Brava of Spain or subsequent ‘exotic’ resorts such as the Nusa Dua resort on Bali (Prosser, 1992). The idea of the eco-bubble is also evident in package tours to Europe designed for Americans; often the TOs involved will select American owned hotels, e.g. Sheraton, failing which they will select accommodation on the basis of whether it is tuned to the American market (Ritzer, 2000). However, the exemplar today of the eco-bubble is that of cruises (see Jaakson, 2004). In emerging destinations, development may largely reflect the mores of the major source markets; thus, as tourism supply expands so too does the economic impact of tourism, leading to a gradual and growing dependency on tourism activity, which is not then in tune with the cultural norms and values of the host population. Further, to subsequently then influence its development through their ability to influence tourist demand and thus tourist numbers for any particular destination; as such they have a strong negotiating position and potential to play off one destination against another. A position which is certainly aided by their role as major players in destination access and thus transportation, whether through their own operations or secondary suppliers, which also involves issues of sustainability (see Chapter 8).

It is in recognition of the major initiative to promote SSCM, and specific to this chapter, that the focus on tourism enterprises rests largely on TOs. This is not to imply that the study’s tourism enterprises are being ignored here or that SSCM is not applicable to them. But they are more in the background whilst they are also part of the supply chain in some cases, e.g. coach-based tours; and as a supplier of tourism products and services they should also be addressing SSCM. Second, and perhaps the more significant, is that comparatively few of the researched enterprises have the capacity to be considered as potential suppliers by most TOs. Furthermore, even when one considers the increasing number of people seeking to make their own travel and accommodation arrangements for their trips, TOs still ‘play a key role in directing tourism flows and coordinating supply chains, especially in the mainstream market’ (Mosselaer et al., 2012, p. 71). Yet in comparison with research involving hotels or transportation TOs have received little such attention (see Tepelus, 2005). This is perhaps surprising given their international scope and the fact that their products not only involve other major elements (e.g. transportation, hotels) but also that they are in the position to influence those suppliers as well as fitting the main dimensions of SSCM, which as presented by Manente et al. (1998) are:

• awareness of variety and complementarity of tourism attractions;

• creation of tourism products through integration/linkages;

• promotion of unique images; and

• strategies that are based on co-operation and synergy.

It is within this context that we can establish most pertinently the perceived ills attributed to tourism development, the negative impacts which are invariably noted in the context of destinations that are long haul flights from Europe/USA – the more exotic or romantic – that are far more likely to involve large enterprises. As such the enterprises portrayed in this study might well be considered as having very little to do with such problems. Even so, they are being encouraged to adopt ‘best practice’ as their national and international counterparts. The chapter thus brings to attention many of the aspects involved in addressing sustainability that were explored in the research and addressed in the following chapters. Thus the attention in these pages is on what SSCM involves, including consideration of potential influence on destinations and development, and its applicability/adoption primarily by TOs. Prior to this and by way of illustrating that SSCM is applicable to all tourism enterprises discussion first draws on those findings from the study to be most pertinent here, when considered in the context of other chapters (mainly Chapter 6), namely the purchasing patterns and practices of the enterprises in the study.