Читать книгу Tourism Enterprise - David Leslie - Страница 28

SSCM is not a recent initiative, gaining considered attention in the 1990s though more in the context of general business, which led to recognition that much more could be done. As Welford et al. (1999) argued there is a need for closer links between supply and demand and integration in suppliers. Projects were designed to encourage and promote good environmental practice on the part of suppliers, for example, ‘The Green Supply Chain Network’ and ‘Project Acorn’ both of which included in their aims a focus on SMEs (EC, 2000). It was at this time that SSCM came to be recognized by the World Tourism Organization (WTO), who in partnership with other agencies such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and UNESCO, led the establishment of the Tour Operators Initiative (TOI) in 2000 and the promotion of SSCM under the umbrella of CSR since 2001 (Gordon, 2002). By 2004 it had 23 members worldwide though the majority are based in Europe. The first iteration of this introduced SSCM and included indicators to facilitate reporting by TOs and comparability between TOs (it also advocated raising consumer awareness of sustainability) (see Tables 3.1 and 3.2). This is far more comprehensive than solely SSCM. Essentially it is a framework for all aspects of sustainability seen to be applicable to TOs and thus encompasses CSR (see Chapter 4) and EMS (see Chapter 5). This development coincides with the Association of Independent Tour Operators’ ‘Responsible Tourism Guidelines’ established in 2001. As the then Chairman argued, the organization realises that members need to recognize and address their responsibilities and concern for the environment, thus the promotion of conservation, minimizing of pollution and respect for local culture (Miles, 2001). On such a basis one may well ask what have they been doing previously given this was first highlighted in the 1960s! It is also another ecolabel and, according to Goodwin, accredited members therefore are seen to be meeting ‘globally recognized corporate sustainable development standards’ (Goodwin, 2005, p. 1). That such promotion and guidance is seen to be necessary is well conveyed in Tearfund’s (2002, p. 5) report:

With few notable exceptions, tourism has been one of the slowest industries to adopt corporate social responsibility practices. Research in 2001 by Tearfund revealed that of 65 tour companies, only half has responsible tourism policies – many of these were so brief as to be virtually meaningless.

Table 3.1. Locating SSCM in the context of business operations. (Adapted from GRI, 2002, pp. 10–16.)

Business operations	Areas encompassed
Product management and development	Includes actions related to the choice of the destination as well as the type of services to be included (e.g. the use of train versus plane) (nine indicators)
Internal management	Labour practices; health and safety; training and education; materials; waste; reflects all the operations and activities that take place in the headquarters or country offices (e.g. use of office supplies, production brochures, direct employment) (nine indicators)
Sub-division of Internal management	Criteria
Internal operations management	Building design and construction services; building materials, suppliers; real estate agents and rental services
Obtaining office space	Water supply and waste water disposal services; energy suppliers; waste disposal services;
Daily business processes	Telecommunication and IT services; suppliers of office equipment, furniture, paper and other supplies; cleaning services; catering services; gardening/landscape services; couriers; vehicle renting and parking services; management and financial consultants; PR and communication agencies; financial institutions
Supply chain management	Addresses actions related to the selection and contracting of service providers (16 indicators)
Customer relations	Summarizes the actions taken to deal with customers, not only with regards to the responsibility to serve them and reply to their comments, but also the opportunity to provide information and raise consumer awareness regarding sustainability (seven indicators)
Co-operation with destinations	Partnerships; community development; philanthropy and charitable donations: includes all activities and decisions related to destinations that tour operators make beyond the production and delivery of their holiday packages. This mainly includes efforts made by tour operators to engage in dialogues with destination operators about the impacts of tour packages, and philanthropic activities (six indicators)

Table 3.2. Indicators for supply chain management. (Adapted from GRI, 2002, pp. 12–14.)

Indicator	Description
1	Describe the supply chain management policy, objectives and targets on environmental, social and economic performance.(State the use if supplier prioritization and screening criteria.)
2	Describe processes through which suppliers, by type, are consulted during development and implementation of the supply chain management policy, described in 1.
3	Describe issues identified through supplier consultation and actions to address them.
4	Describe processes through which suppliers, by type, are engaged in the implementation of the supply chain management policy, described in 1. (Processes include: one way (e.g. questionnaires), two-way communication (e.g. information exchange), active co-operation (e.g. supplier training), rewards and recognition for high performers.)
5	State joint actions taken with suppliers, by type, to support improvements in suppliers own environmental and social performance.
6	Describe progress in achieving objectives and targets related to supply chain policy.
7	Indicate percentage of suppliers, by type, subject to supply chain management policy.
8	Indicate percentages of suppliers, by type, subject to supply chain policy that have a published sustainability policy, implemented a sustainability management system and/or have a staff person with management responsibility for corporate sustainability.
9	State types of information requested from suppliers, by type, on their:• Environmental practices and performance. Include: materials, water, energy, purchasing, solid waste, hazardous waste, effluents, emissions, transport, land-use and biodiversity.• Social practices and performance. Include: community and staff development, indigenous and tribal people’s rights, formal employment contracts, social security, working conditions according to ILO Convention 172, equal treatment, non-discrimination, recognition of independent trade unions and application of collective bargaining agreements, health and safety committees, policy excluding child labour as defined by ILO, programmes to combat commercial sexual exploitation of children, and to combat and mitigate the social impacts of HIV/AIDS.
10	Indicate percentage of suppliers, by type, subject to supply chain management policy that provided requested information.
11	Indicate percentage of suppliers, by type, subject to supply chain management policy whose environmental, social and economic performance has been reported.Through for example:• suppliers declaration;• spots checks by reporting organization;• environmental and social audits;• certification schemes (including eco labels); and• third party verification (state if verifier is accredited, and by whom).
12	State actions taken by the reporting organization in response to suppliers reported performance (as per 11), by type of suppliers. (Include incentives and rewards.)
13	State actions to inform suppliers of customers’ requirements.
14	State contracting policy and how it is communicated to suppliers. (Include negotiating terms and conditions for payment, cancelation and compensation of contracts with suppliers.)
15	Describe joint initiatives with suppliers to improve environmental, social and economic conditions in destinations.
16	State benefits for the reporting organization from implementing the sustainable chain policy.

Their report also noted on the basis of their survey that holidaymakers would prefer a TO with an environmental policy and promoted responsible tourism guidelines, a finding that suggests a change in attitude to that of 2 years earlier when, as noted by Welford et al. (1999, p. 175), there was ‘no great demand from the tourists themselves for the greening of the supply function.’ Further to these initiatives, comprehensive and well-illustrated guidelines to aid TOs engage with and develop SSCM were introduced in 2004 (TOI and CELB, 2004). Here our primary concern is SSCM, which involves most aspects of the business and, as shown in Table 3.2, many aspects of a supplier’s business practices and related areas such as destination development and the involvement of local communities.

It is no coincidence that the attention of the TOI to SSCM closely follows the establishment, with the support of the UNEP, of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in 2002 as an independent non-profit organization. Their guidelines, first developed in 1999,

set out the principles and indicators that organizations can use to measure and report (including structure and contents thereof) their economic, environmental and social performance (Visser, 2009, p. 172).

In effect, these reports are recognized as CSR/sustainability reports. Amongst the sector-specific supplements are guidelines for TOs, including performance indicators, which were established in partnership with the TOI, UNEP and the World Tourism Organization (WTO); reputedly based on the life cycle of the holiday product. Early leaders to adopt these guidelines and who have been formally reporting on their sustainability practices since 2003 are TUI, which includes First Choice Holidays, and Kuoni Travel. These guidelines are certainly extensive as shown in Table 3.1, which draws attention to many of the elements involved in an EMS (see Chapter 5), and quite detailed as the sub-section detail on ‘Internal Operations Management’ in the main category Internal Management further illustrates. Further detail on SSCM is subsequently presented in Table 3.2.

The IH&RA also contributed to the development of these guidelines and whilst supporting they noted that it ‘maintains the importance of establishing limits to which hospitality operators can be asked to report to tour operators.’ (Anon., 2003, p. 48). It is not just ‘how much to report’ but also, as Charlton and Howell (1992) identified, there is the problem of establishing the boundary lines along the supply chain. If, for example, a coach tour is supplied, what is the starting point? Is this where the customer joins the coach or should it include the selection of the coach vehicle itself? If it is a package tour sold by a travel agent, does the supply chain include the possibility of the customer being transferred from home to the airport? Does it also mean that the contractor also considered the environmental credentials of any organization acting as a sub-agent within any element of their supply chain? To a degree this appears to be the case in that TOs are being encouraged, for example, by the WTO and ETOA, to adopt an EMS and also to encourage their suppliers to adopt such practices. Equally, the opposite is also true in that companies seeking to negotiate rates for their business and, to a lesser extent, individual customers may start asking about an enterprise’s environmental policy.

As with most business systems there is not only a need for effective liaison with staff and suppliers but also the community who should be part and parcel of the procurement process; a key point to achieving success in SSCM as noted by the British Airport Authority (BAA), a relatively early leader in this field. BAA ‘see SSCM as very much part of their aim to reduce the consumption and emissions which result from our business practices’ (Howell, 2000, p. 10). They see it very much as a continuous process that includes a major element of trust and integrity on the part of suppliers and, as such, there are advantages to working with fewer rather than more suppliers.

Further recognition that SSCM is applicable to all tourism enterprises are the guidelines produced specifically for hotels that to varying degrees are applicable to all tourism and hospitality enterprise. These guidelines include the following advice and benefits:

Advice:

• ‘sourcing more products and services locally to encourage local business, provide “authenticity” and cut down on transport costs;

• sourcing products with less environmental impact in their manufacture, use and disposal;

• buying products in bulk and reusing packaging;

• importing only “fair trade” products; and

• ensuring that suppliers adhere to safe and ethical working practices.’ (Anon., 2006, p. 1).

This advice certainly appears appropriate on first consideration and all the more so for national and international hotel companies who will have procurement policies and quite probably departments with a specific remit for sourcing supplies. But this does include potential contradictions that become all the more apparent when considered in terms of application to small and micro tourism enterprises; for example between sourcing locally and bulk buying. Advice supported by Gossling et al. (2011) who argue in environmental impact terms that bulk production and distribution may be a better option than production, for example, of bread within a hospitality kitchen or, though to a lesser extent, a local bakery. There is also the matter of purchasing fair trade goods but what of availability and cost? These are issues that all relate to support for local suppliers and so forth, which are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.

Benefits:

• ‘a destination with more local colour and more to do – creating a market advantage for new and repeat business;

• the potential for lower operating costs through more efficient use of energy and water resources and reduced waste;

• risk reduction by avoiding suppliers with a doubtful track record on environmental and social issues;

• better relationships with suppliers giving improved loyalty and service;

• a better relationship with the community whose economy you are supporting;

• increased security of supply of the goods or service through long-term contracts and a better negotiating position (i.e. through increased purchasing power); and

• the ability to demonstrate to all your stake-holders the importance you place in sustainability issues’ (Anon., 2006, p. 1).

These benefits are widely applicable and in some ways would be achievable at the expense of alternative suppliers such as those involved in local produce and products (see Chapter 6). On the plus side however, we can also add such potential benefits as fostering innovation, enhanced company profile and gaining a competitive advantage. They also echo the positives of relationship marketing, which is not just about relationships with customers but should include building good working relationships with suppliers, which should achieve many if not all of these benefits. In effect, irrespective of sustainability this is just good management practice and as such could be reasonably expected of all enterprises (see Budeanu, 2009). In part this is apparent in major influential factors in supply chain management drawn from general practice in the hospitality sector. Namely, that suppliers are generally not selected on a short-term basis but rather on value for money, continuity and general consistency and convenience. Managers do not wish to be changing suppliers often. A problem with such criteria for TOs is whether they will commit to longer-term relationships involving some degree of trust and loyalty. Furthermore, given the pressure on costs, a ‘fair deal’ may be less likely in those situations where there are other potential suppliers or a similar destination available. Also, should a TO or other enterprise in the tourism supply change a long-standing supplier who meets most SSCM criteria but lacks a formalized EP and an accredited EMS? As Mosselaer et al. (2012, p. 75) argue:

The CSR performance of different suppliers poses several challenges. Many of the ‘grassroots’ suppliers in developing countries lack the capacity and ability to implement advanced techniques for waste management and pollution control. Dismissing them in favour of more environmentally friendly and often more wealthy suppliers would be unsustainable from a socio-economic perspective.

Such a situation is well exemplified by Jones (1999) who drew attention to the provision for hire by irresponsible operators of quad bikes and four-wheel driving which were damaging the local, relatively undisturbed fragile environment. Blame for this was largely attributed to local enterprises that were not controlling the users as to where they could go. Whilst there were a number of ways considered to resolve the problem, one solution proposed was to restrict supply to the large tour operators who were seen to control their customers much better. In general this is one of the major difficulties with SSCM and therefore it is all the more important that third-party suppliers are selected with due care and, as Holland (2012, p. 121–122) argues, with the potential for ‘working closely with the suppliers to improve their input and performance in all the components of the holiday.’