Читать книгу Tourism Enterprise - David Leslie - Страница 7

The emergent green agenda of the 1960s and its gradual morphological shift in the 1980s and early 1990s to sustainable development, now more generally termed sustainability, appears to have subtly changed in the 2000s to climate change. This shift in emphasis on the part of post-industrial nations to the more politically acceptable climate change (Leslie, 2009) has led to a loss of focus on the aims of sustainable development, i.e.

• to protect and improve the environment;

• to ensure economic security for everyone; and

• to create a more equitable and fairer society (Church and McHarry, 1999, p. 2).

Evidently far more attention is paid to greenhouse gases (GHG) with an accent on carbon emissions and carbon footprinting. This environmental agenda hardly needs rehearsing here given the breadth of discourse on such matters over the last 25 years, which has raised more questions than answers (see Ekins, 1986; WCED, 1987; Pearce, 1993; Jacobs, 1996; Johnson and Turner, 2003; Blowers and Hinchliffe, 2003; Connelly and Smith, 2003). As environmental concerns expanded then so pressure mounted

on industry to address the actual and potential contribution of their operations in contributing to environmental degradation and develop systems to assess the environmental performance of individual operations – enterprises (Welford and Starkey, 1996, p. xi).

Tourism has certainly not escaped such attention, particularly in the 1990s, leading to a plethora of conferences, myriad books and articles over the years (see Romeril and Hughes-Evans, 1979; Krippendorf, 1987; Harrison, 1992; Jenner and Smith, 1992; Smith and Eadington, 1992; Cater and Lowman, 1994; Hunter and Green, 1995; McCool and Moisey, 2001). Such an outcome was supported and furthered by the development of tourism as a field of study in its own right within academia since the 1980s. This largely coincided with the recognition of tourism as a tool for regional development in response to the decline of rural areas due to changing agricultural practices (Champion and Watkins, 1991) or the socio-economic problems arising from the decline of traditional industrial and manufacturing bases in urban areas, e.g. Glasgow (Leslie, 2001a). In many instances tourism was promoted and often grant funded by the government and notably so by the EU (Leslie et al., 1989; Leslie, 2011).

Sustainability, succinctly described as striving for social, environmental, economic and ethical responsibility (see Hall and Gossling, 2009), not surprisingly gained attention, albeit limited when considered in the overall context of such output. However, a key theme within such work was, and continues to be, that the development and impacts of tourism should not be detrimental to the physical environment and should be beneficial to the destination locality and communities involved. An agenda for tourism that first gained prominence in the 1980s; as Krippendorf (1987) argued, tourism enterprises should be more responsible – environmentally and also socially. A period during which we saw the rise of alternative tourism as tourism development and enterprises were slowly coming under more scrutiny. Furthermore that:

… the industry and tourists individually are being expected and required to shoulder more responsibility for the effects of travel and behaviour on host environments, both physical and human (Butler, 1995, p. 5).

This is well illustrated in the outcomes of the UK’s Tourism and Environment Task Force – set-up post the Brundtland Report, the renowned outcome of the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Stockholm Congress of 1987. The report listed four key areas:

• tourism business to develop ways to support rather than detract from the quality of the environment;

• promote respect of the environment;

• ensure staff are trained to consider the environment; and

• promote environmentally positive tourism.

The quintessential point to be made here is that much that can be done in response to the issues of sustainability, that is by way of reducing consumption of non-renewable resources, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and promoting positive economic and social impacts has been advocated for over 20 years (as previously noted) and, though to a much lesser extent, with specific examples of practices that tourism businesses can adopt (for example, see Middleton and Hawkins, 1993, 1994), the most substantive without doubt is InterContinental Hotel’s promotion of their environmental management system which subsequently became the International Hotels Environment Initiative (see Black, 1995). However, the wider dissemination of such advocacy by and large has been within the context of the greening of tourism policy (see Leslie, 2001a, 2002a) and conferences designed with the objective of promoting such policy, related initiatives and best practices, and within academia (for example, through learned journals and books). This largely escapes the attention and/or interest of most practitioners. That is ‘most’ in terms of the vast majority of owners/managers involved directly in the supply of tourism provision. Obviously there are exceptions but mainly such exceptions are leading representatives of national and multi-national enterprises, leading stakeholders and players in the tourism sector such as hotel chains, airlines and major tour operators.

These leading players established the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) in the early 1990s to represent their interests on the international stage, especially in the wake of the United Nations ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janiero, 1992. As they have since argued, there is a:

… need, now more than ever, for travel and tourism to be recognised as a vital part of the global economy, a view that has yet to be fully acknowledged by governments. (WTTC et al., 2002, p. 7)

and to reinforce their own role and vested interests went on to say that:

The inevitable transition to sustainable development gives the travel and tourism industry an opportunity to confirm itself as a solution, rather than a contributor to the economical, social and environmental challenges facing the future. (WTTC et al., 2002, p. 7)

Whilst many analysts would not support such high sentiments, there is some truth in such claims given that there is much tourism enterprises can do to reduce their environmental impacts. To some extent, and in its favour, the WTTC has been at the forefront of promoting ‘Sustainable Tourism’ and environmental management initiatives and practices; well illustrated by its ‘Local Agenda 21 for the Travel & Tourism Industry’ (WTTC et al., 1996). Professional associations in the sector have also advocated environmental management (EM) practices (see Bricker, 2009); for example, the HCIMA (now Institute of Hospitality (IH)) in ‘Hospitality’, the members’ journal (see Leslie, 2001b). Without the specific context of the latter, much of what is written focuses on developing countries and involves, by way of illustration, national and international companies; yet whilst these enterprises predominate in financial terms and influence at international and national levels they are hardly representative of tourism supply in terms of the number of enterprises involved.

Overall, the recognition (albeit in hindsight) of first the negative impacts of tourism, attributed predominantly to mass tourism and second, the promotion of the greening of tourism which involves:

… much greater awareness of the interconnectedness of the economic, the physical and social dimensions of the environment rather than just the physical or natural e.g. pollution and damage. (Leslie, 2005, p. 251)

As Millman (1989) argued in the late 1980s, travel organizations should develop more ‘sensitive forms of tourism’ which rather catalysed the categorisation of different manifestations of tourism consumption e.g. sustainable-, alternative-, green-, eco-, nature-(see Leslie, 2012a). The problem with this development is as Jay Appleton (1991) wryly put it:

Once we begin to categorise, we begin to moralize also, and before we know where we are we have set up a highly inflexible binary system of good and evil, right and wrong. There are no grey areas where there are green enthusiasts. (cited in Glyptis, 1995, p. 195)

In this instance it appears that ‘mass’ tourism was/is the ‘evil’ and the alternative categories the ‘good’. But this is misleading in that the ills attributed to tourism are not necessarily confined to or absent from these other forms of tourism consumption. Certainly they will vary according to the type of touristic activity and destination environment. More importantly given the context here of tourism enterprises and sustainability they have responsibility irrespective of the type and scale of tourism development for their own operations. The interpretation therefore that these other forms of tourism, i.e. not considered mass, are more aligned with the concepts and more so the practices promoted under the umbrella of sustainability is very much open to question. Especially when one considers that those tourism enterprises involved in what are considered to be mass tourism destinations are potentially better placed to respond to the imperatives of ‘greening tourism’ supply due to the presence of the very infrastructure essential to facilitate their adoption in the first instance. But whether in the popular ‘sand, sun and sea’ destinations of the world or on eco-trips in Kenya, these enterprises still consume resources, and generate waste and pollution, which is rather contrary to the view of times past that tourism is a ‘smokeless’ sector.

Attention to environmental pollution has been generally limited to enterprises in traditional industries, e.g. oil and chemical sectors, coal and steel. Yet, small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) invariably dominate numerically in terms of the number of firms operating in most sectors. Thus, whilst their impacts on the environment expressed in terms of consumption per unit may be negligible compared with national and international business operations in such sectors, cumulatively they might be considered the biggest consumer and thus the biggest polluter! As Hillary (2000) argued, SMEs account for around 70% of all pollution. The tourism sector is no different. Through the processes involved in the provision of products and services, which are largely fossil fuel dependent (Kelly et al., 2007; Mintel, 2007), tourism enterprises generate pollution and waste thereby placing additional burdens on the locality, the infrastructure and wider environment to handle these by-products. Of further significance is that these SMEs have gained little attention in research; be it past or present (see Leslie, 1995; Geiser and Crul, 1996; Buckley, 2007; Blanco et al., 2009; Thomas et al., 2011). An explanation for this is that small enterprises (which predominate in tourism and hospitality) hardly meet the standard models of business promulgated in business schools and the ways of managing a business be that in finance and accounting, marketing or, perhaps most notably in what is inappropriately termed ‘Human Resource Management’ in the business schools of so many universities. Compensating for this in many ways has been the rise in attention, especially over the last decade, to entrepreneurship. The latter is of particular significance given the EU’s initiative ‘responsible entrepreneurship’ (essentially Corporate Social Responsibility), which is seen as a way towards balancing the three pillars of sustainability which itself is considered by the EU to be a societal responsibility (EC, 2002). A further factor in the lack of attention to SMEs in tourism, especially in the UK, originally bespoke hospitality and tourism management degree programmes are now located in various guises of what in effect are general business management programmes. A shift away from vocational and operational knowledge and skills, especially in hospitality, is very much a function of ‘academic drift’ (Leslie, 1990) and maintaining student enrolments. A significant outcome of this is the lack of research into SMEs generally both past (Geiser and Crul, 1996) and present, especially in the context of the greening of small/micro tourism enterprises. In this context, ‘greening’ may well be interpreted as meaning at least ‘good environmental housekeeping, reducing energy consumption, saving water and minimising waste’ (Porritt, 1997, p. 32).

It is widely recognized that tourism supply overall comprises predominantly micro-businesses (defined as businesses employing ten or fewer persons), a low proportion of small enterprises (less than 50 employees) and, in comparative terms based on actual number of businesses, few enterprises which employ more than 50 persons. To illustrate, in the EU wherein tourism is considered to be the third largest economic sector, it is estimated to account for 40% of all international arrivals and has a total estimated tourism income of Ç266 billion approximately three quarters of which is attributed to EU residents (EC, 2010). Figures for the tourism enterprises in the EU show that there are 1.8m businesses employing a total of 9.7m people, which equates to 5.2% of the workforce. It is estimated to account for 5% GDP, which if linkages are included, rises to 10% of GDP and 12% of total employment. Over 90% of these enterprises, it is predominantly hotels and restaurants that are SME in size of which some 90% are micro-enterprises. Collectively, these tourism enterprises represent some 70–80% of the total number of SMEs in Europe and approximately 6.5% of attributed turnover (Leidner, 2004). Further, they have been considered to account for 99% of European tourism supply (Vernon et al., 2003). These tourism enterprises are now very much a focus within the more general area of the Enterprise Directorate. Thus, they are subject to the influence of EU policy instruments promoting the greening of enterprise. Witness the 6th European Action Plan that called specifically for enterprises to ‘go green’ by way of becoming more efficient in the use of resources and reducing waste (EC, 2001), as well as those instruments aimed at the promotion and development of SMEs (Leslie, 2011, p. 45). This is further affirmed through their argument for ‘… increased energy efficiency, partly through the implementation of environmental management systems in SMEs.’ (EC, 2008, p. 16). Interestingly, this greening has also been considered beneficial not only because of reducing GHG emissions but in generating jobs (Pratt, 2011). Furthermore, as Middleton argued:

At their best micro-businesses deliver most of what is special and appealing about destinations – vibrancy, personality, product quality and leading edge excellence – at their worst they represent most of what is worst in modern tourism, dragging down the destination image (2000, p. 1).

They are a vital part of rural localities and in many instances to the national economy. Undoubtedly they are important at the destination level but also when considered more widely, be that at regional, national or international level, their significance becomes all the more important; witness the oft-cited claim that tourism is the biggest global industry!

Individually these tourism SMEs may have little impact, but aggregated their energy consumption and waste becomes substantial and thus tourism per se is a major polluter, and largely unregulated (Leslie, 2007b). It is not difficult to concur with Blair and Hitchcock (2001) that in comparison with most other sectors of consumer services tourism overall has the most substantial negative impacts. Such argument also brings into contention the impacts of these enterprises in terms of their use and consumption of resources, and wider issues of sustainability. It has been argued that their: ‘actions impact daily upon sustainability issues’ (Becker et al., 1999, p. 1, cited in Leslie, 2007b, p. 93). As the OECD (2009) argued, it is the responsibility of the tourism business to ensure that the products offered have as little impact on the environment as possible. Furthermore, it has been argued that:

Conventional wisdom has it that small local business will have the greatest regard for the community environment but there is scant evidence to justify that. The opposite seems probable (EIU, 1993, p. 96).

It is a view which serves to reinforce the social dimension of sustainability and one which begs the question of whether such a critique is borne out by research into tourism SMEs. Essentially, tourism enterprises need to operate within the natural capacity of the destination. In other words there should be no diminution of the natural capital. The maintenance of this natural capital is not just a localized matter but global, for increasingly what happens ‘there’ affects ‘here’, and vice-versa, in what is now an increasingly globalized market. Addressing the overall impact of tourism therefore is more complex than, for example, simply considering the physical impact on the environment of a new hotel. At the same time they generate employment opportunities (Zientara, 2012), opportunities for entrepreneurs (Badulescu and Badulescu, 2012) and sociocultural benefits for many people within the host community (Scheyvens, 2002; Timothy, 2012) and support environmental initiatives (Leslie, 2009; Spenceley and Rylance, 2012). However, it also needs to be recognized that the potential pluses that can arise from tourism development and thus tourism enterprise are largely influenced by context and setting (for example, see Pleumarom, 2009, 2012).

What attention tourism enterprises have gained in the context of being ‘responsible’, thus to their environmental management systems (EMS), environmental performance (EP) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) in research papers, on close analysis often finds that they are based on national and/or multi-national corporations (N/MNCs), thus comparatively large hotels in the 3- to 5-star category. Rarely does such research evidence continuity over time by either the researchers involved and/or as regards the geographic area (for example, USA – Mensah 2004; Scanlon, 2007; Vietnam – Trung and Kumar, 2005; Sweden and Poland – Bohdanowicz, 2006; Spain – Rodriguez and Cruz, 2007; China/Hong Kong – Chan et al., 2005; Turkey – Erdogan and Baris, 2006. Alternatively, when such research does involve SMEs the attention given to the greening of small tourism enterprises is limited (for example, see Robinson et al., 2000; Hall et al., 2005; Thomas and Augustyn, 2007; Blanco et al., 2009; Hall and Gossling, 2009). Overall, this limited attention in research and its contribution therefore to educational programmes may go some way to explain the lack of attention within tourism studies to SMEs and vice versa. Yet it has been well argued that education is the key to making real progress in addressing sustainability issues. Irrespective of this, examples of best practice, albeit invariably of national/international companies in the tourism sector are not hard to find but these tend to be in specific publications such as the ‘Green Hotelier’, though far wider in scope the United Nations Environmental Programme’s (UNEP) publication ‘Our Planet’, and the Forum for the Future’s ‘Green Futures’ or more localized, for example the publications of ATLAS and with emphasis on SMEs and culture, Tourism Concern’s publication ‘In Focus’. Thus the substantive contributions of Hall et al (2005), Herremans (2006), Thomas and Augustyn (2007), Buckley (2009) and with a specific focus on SMEs and greening Leslie (2009, 2012b) are all the more valuable. In effect, there is a lack of research into SMEs per se, and even less into the EP, EM and CSR related practices of SMEs in tourism. Witness Carter et al.’s (2004) study, which drew extensively on articles from the 1990s, into the EP of accommodation in Australia, few of which were actually based on empirical research; a situation which has hardly changed since (see Tzschentke et al., 2008; Hall and Gossling, 2009; Chan and Hawkins, 2010; Garay and Font, 2012). As Shaw and Williams (2010, p. 86) so cogently expressed it: ‘despite considerable interest in issues of sustainable tourism there is limited information on the environmental practices of SMEs’. To which one may add, a lack of research into tourism SMEs more generally. It is undoubtedly recognition of such critique that lies at the heart of this text which is founded on extensive empirical research. This was initiated in the early 1990s, and although primarily focused on environmental performance, it provides substantive insights into the management and operational practices of these enterprises more generally.