Читать книгу Tourism Enterprise - David Leslie - Страница 29

As the foregoing discussion implies, commitment to SSCM presents a conundrum for these small/micro tourism enterprises and thus it is not surprising to find that attention to the environmental policies of suppliers is still very much in its infancy outside of national and international hotel groups (see Bohdanowicz and Zientara, 2012). Though there are initiatives within the EU that specifically focus on SMEs (see Leslie, 2011) but with little sign of impact thus far (for example, see Kucerova, 2012; Lebe and Zupan, 2012). That none of the enterprises (with one exception) indicated that they had an SSCM policy is perhaps surprising given the number of enterprises who were members of the GTBS and others which were part of a national hotel group. This is not perhaps to be unexpected given Barrow and Burnett’s (1990) study of many small companies that found few had such a policy. Albeit this was 10 years before the findings of 2001, there is little evidence to indicate there has been progress since. A number of respondents’ comments from the 2011 population provide a sense of why this is the case:

• ‘We send our laundry out to a laundry company and what they do with it I don’t know. I suppose they will be environmentally friendly but I don’t know.’ (The supposition here might well be correct given that Fishers Services Ltd (includes a laundry service) claim they are amongst the most efficient and environmentally aware companies in their industry in the United Kingdom.)

• ‘Our brochure print goes to an external contractor; how they source paper is not really our concern.’

• ‘According to company policy we should check the environmental policy of suppliers right down the chain, make sure that their processes are not harmful, but at the end of the day there has to be a balance between economics, profitability and the environment.’

There was just one enterprise (a restaurant in the 2001 population) in the whole study that indicated that it did consider the environmental policies of its suppliers. Unfortunately perhaps it was not possible due to anonymity to check the accuracy of that detail. However, a similar study into SMEs on a smaller scale and involving a higher proportion of large enterprises, is that of Kucerova (2012). This research found just one hotel, notably ISO 14001 accredited, that sought to establish if a supplier had an environmental policy; favouring those who could demonstrate appropriate accreditation. This hotel, compared with the other operations in the study, was identified as providing the highest standard of services, a finding which rather supports the view that those owners who are most concerned about their operations and the environment/sustainability are also customer oriented. Even so, this outcome that few, if any of these tourism enterprises have adopted an SSCM is not unexpected given that Barrow and Burnett’s (1990) study into SMEs in general business found that less than 10% had such a policy though it is recognized that such policies are far more likely to be found in N/MNCs in the hospitality sector and also tour operators (see page 44).

However, the sole criterion for suppliers in SSCM is not whether or not they have an EP. As noted earlier, it is more complex than this. An important factor is whether or not supplies can be sourced locally; generally the favoured sustainability option. As Hall et al. (2003, p. 26) argued:

… the development of strong local food identities and sustainable food systems has substantial potential to grow, with tourism playing a significant role in this process.

As Chapter 6 addresses local produce and local products, the focus here is on the more general purchasing practices of the study’s enterprises, thereby providing insights into their typical supply chains. In general, the purchasing patterns of the rural enterprises tend to be from suppliers based within the area and predominantly from ‘local’ outlets. For example:

• Dry goods for catering operations are sourced from major catering supply companies which operate in the region.

• The majority of enterprises (excluding BBs and GHs) purchase prepacked portioned items such as butter, jams and sugar, as well as coffee sachets for guest accommodation. This is for convenience of service, especially in premises with busy food and beverage operations during the day.

• Comparatively few source local produce and local products from small producers in their locality.

• Restaurants and cafes in rural areas are more likely to purchase fresh produce from local stores and local producers, with many respondents noting that such suppliers will deliver to the enterprise contrary to the views of other respondents on this matter.

• The cleaning materials for the majority of self-catering operations not managed by an agency are purchased from local stores, usually a supermarket i.e. potentially lowest cost price.

In terms of the purchasing spend of these enterprises by far the majority is accounted for by major regional suppliers. However the majority of the enterprises did indicate that they favour and would prefer to purchase local produce and products. The key point here being ‘prefer’ rather than actually do. Yet, as Spenceley and Rylance (2012, p. 139) argue:

… supporting the community or society which the tourism businesses operate within is important for strengthening the efficiency of their supply chains for both employees and fresh produce, increasing the number of quality activities available to tourists enabling them to spend more locally, as well as improving the security of the tourism establishment.

Further supporting such argument, as noted in Table 2.1, is the significant proportion of visitor spend attributed to food and beverage services and shopping, e.g. souvenirs and gifts; for example purchases from A & C outlets which in the LDNP account for approximately 80% of the sales of the producers of A & C living in the area. These areas are also identified as a facet of tourism supply chains (see Tapper and Font, 2004). The research into this area found that many of the food producing enterprises showed an awareness of the sources of their purchases; as a number of interviewees said: ‘ingredients are bought locally but not produced locally’. One in four of the cafe managers said they purchase their ingredients from local wholesalers but were vague as to the primary source. As regards arts and crafts artisans, it was interesting to identify that the majority considered their biggest competition was not from other producers but ‘imported’ similar, cheaper products, a view confirmed by two retail outlets who affirmed they stock very few (or no) local products due to the prices involved; as the managers noted: ‘we buy in bulk to gain much lower prices; we do not favour local artists as it costs more to stock their products’. However, the majority of outlets offered a different perspective, as the following quotes from managers demonstrate:

• ‘Local paintings sell better than others, a lot of the products are bought by locals.’

• ‘Lots of local art exhibits sold, sales very good.’

In addition, as one retailer remarked: ‘We do not buy locals’ work; we display items and take some commission.’ This is a practice that can also be adopted by tourism enterprises whereby in liaison with the artisans they offer to display appropriate items for sale in their own premises on a commission basis. A small number of the arts/crafts producers did work on this basis with some of the hotels and restaurants though again this was evidently practised far more by rural enterprises than their urban counterparts i.e.:

Data set	2001	2011
Arts displayed for sale	30%	15%
Local products in service	18%	10%