4 Categories of international regulation and control of relevance to the travel and tourism industry

Box 7.4 Categories of international regulation and control of relevance to the travel and tourism industry

1 Agreements which deal with the right to free time and a safe environment as an aspect of human rights (e.g. the Stockholm Declaration, 1972).

2 Agreements documenting the environmental impacts of travel and tourism (e.g. Manila Declaration, 1980) – these are now being addressed more directly in inter- national agreements such as the Alpine Convention and the Antarctic Treaty.

3 General environmental policy dealing with specific emission, pollution and ozone layer issues which have implications for the environmental practices of some travel and tourism companies – e.g. Protocol for the Prevention of Marine Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft (1978); International Civil Aviation Organisation’s Rules (1986) limiting aircraft emissions of smoke, unburnt hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen.

4 Policies developed for specific areas, such as the Mediterranean Basin, the Great Lakes and Antarctica as a reaction to general environmental damage and in which tourism is or could be a major issue – e.g. the Barcelona Convention (1978), the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (1986).

5 Regulatory and self-regulatory global policies developing as a result of the Rio Summit, intended to respond to the new ethic for sustainable living and to ensure that growth remains within Earth’s capacity – e.g. Agenda 21; the Climate Convention.

6 Emerging self-regulation within travel and tourism corporations – usually imple- mented on a self-interest, voluntary basis, although it may have implications for membership of some organisations.

Source: Hawkins and Middleton (1993: 165)

184 • The industry

The areas of the industry affected most by this struggle are those which can be exter- nalised in the industry’s accounting procedures, where the industry has an impact upon the environment, society, culture and other factors which are not costed financially.

It is self-evident that regulation of the activities of different branches of the industry constrains these activities. In the eyes of the industry and under the doctrine of the ‘free market’ (see Chapters 2 and 9), constraints on these activities are for the worse. They inhibit competition and consequent price reductions, they create ‘unnecessary’ bureau- cracy, they cause delays, they may alienate those who work in the industry, and they stifle its performance and effectiveness.

But without these constraints, the industry is free to pursue profits with no regard to the external costs, the negative impacts on the environment, the culture, or the society. It is also free to use its voluntary attempts at self-regulation as a public relations exer- cise or marketing ploy. And without official, non-industry based monitoring and inspec- tion, it can deceive its consumers into believing that its operations are environmentally friendly or ethically sound.

Of course, it is not as simple a problem as stated by these two distinct and polarised camps. The issue may be more fairly and faithfully represented by a continuum of views between the two. But, as McKercher points out, ‘In a free market system, such a diverse and highly unregulated industry as tourism will likely continue to defy most efforts to limit its expansion’ (1993: 11). The diversity which McKercher talks of refers to the highly fragmented nature of the industry already noted. He adds that ‘Effective control measures can only occur through integrated programmes that incorporate federal, state and local legislation’ (1993: 11). Any attempt to regulate such an industry, however, would have to

be clearly targeted unless it is to attract justified criticism from industry members. At the same time, this fragmentation of the industry is one of the factors which permits operators within it a certain inconsistency. When government tries to regulate the oper- ations of private companies, there are few industries in which it is allowed to do so without vociferous opposition from companies which vigorously uphold the benefits of voluntary self-regulation. When tourism companies are asked about the industry’s responsibilities, on the other hand, their answers are somewhat at variance with their attitudes to regulation. As a Tourism Concern/WWF study of a number of companies showed: ‘All operators stated that national governments had some responsibility, and nearly 60 per cent of operators said that governments had total responsibility. This view was echoed by travel agents, carriers and hotels’ (Forsyth, 1996: 31). This clearly points to the need for some form of authorised regulation rather than voluntary self-regulation.

The Green Globe scheme, launched in 1994 by the WTTC, is an international environ- mental management and awareness programme designed to encourage travel and tourism companies, whatever their size, sector or location, to make a commitment to continuous environmental improvement. It offers achievement awards, training, networking, publi- cations, advisory and information services, branding and marketing assistance.

Membership is granted on an annual basis to companies which declare their commitment to environmental improvement and show progress in achieving their stated objectives. . . . it is expected that . . . Green Globe will be one of the principal ways by which the discerning tourist will choose a holiday company or destination in future.

(United Nations Environment and Development UK Committee, 1994: 7)

The establishment of Green Globe by the WTTC was seen by the proponents of self- regulation as helpful because:

The industry • 185

it enabled tourism companies to seek advice on environmental matters from experts who also understood the travel trade . . . Furthermore, such progress had been achieved, by and large, without the intervention of outside bodies. This demonstrated the commitment of the tourism industry to sustainable tourism.

(Forsyth, 1996: 6) As Brian Wheeller points out: ‘what they [the WTTC] do, they do very well, indeed

excellently. The quality of their high profile publicity is what one would expect from such a professional body’ (1996: 15). But as he also argues, the WTTC represents busi- ness interests which advocate the message ‘no outside regulation, we can regulate ourselves’, and who are acting, not altruistically, but only in the immediate interests of their members.

13111 Noel Josephides, managing director of Sunvil Holidays and chairman of the AITO Trust, supports this view of Green Globe:

the underlying reason for its launch is to prevent, by having in place a self- regulatory system, any government interference in the workings of the industry. There is no doubt that the large global players recognise the increasingly harmful impact the industry is having on the environment, which is now exciting considerable interest and anxiety amongst the media and inevitably the regulators. They also know that this unwelcome interest will interfere with the current freedom and market dominance they enjoy. If they have the Green Globe scheme in place before too many questions are asked, they will be able to hide behind the façade of self-regulation.

(1994: 10) Under the headline of ‘Greenwash Contradictions’, Tourism Concern reported on the

launch of Green Globe (1994a: 13). It pointed to the contradiction between Green Globe’s advocacy for companies of sound environmental principles through self- regulation and the WTTC’s lobbying and promotion of the needs to expand travel infra- structure, liberalise policies to encourage growth in the industry, and remove physical, bureaucratic and fiscal barriers to travel.

It is perhaps too easy to interpret the WTTC’s wholesale encouragement of self- regulation as promoted cynically, purely in self-interest and in pursuit of short-term profits. It could also be interpreted as a genuine attempt to help the industry adapt to what may become environmentally essential regulation. The former interpretation suggests that business is simply trying to avoid the inevitable; the second that it is prescient in trying to adapt to it.

Whether government legislation would really help to reduce the uneven and unequal nature of tourism development may be debatable (see Chapter 9). But self-regulation led by bodies such as the WTTC and the WTO/OMT, whose stated aims are the promo- tion of the tourism industry rather than its restraint, is likely to lead to policies which further the pursuit of profits in a business world where profit maximisation and capital accumulation is the logic of economic organisation.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR)

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a specific application of the notion of environ- mental and social auditing to business practice, a technique which has recently been adopted by a number of companies and promoted by NGOs such as Tear Fund and Fair

11111 Trade in Tourism, an off-shoot of the UK’s Tourism Concern. The International Business

186 • The industry

Leaders Forum (IBLF) has also established a CSR Forum to promote the technique among its members.

Tearfund explains CSR in the following terms: ‘Once there was just the financial bottom line. Now, companies recognise they must be accountable for the way they affect people, the community and the environment – the new triple bottom line’ (2002: 10). It further suggests that the trend towards CSR is inexorable, although the New

Economics Foundation reports that while a third of FTSE 1 companies issue environ- mental reports, only 4 per cent produce fully verified reports (2000). But given the fact that CSR is such a recent phenomenon, perhaps these figures can be taken as an indi- cation of rising significance rather than as showing a lack of importance. Comparative figures for the end of the 2000 decade will hopefully be revealing in this sense.

As the term suggests, CSR is very much the preserve of corporations, those compa- nies large enough and wealthy enough to fund departments which monitor and report on their environmental, social and community impacts. Despite this, the technique is strongly promoted by Fair Trade in Tourism which suggests that the technique of CSR emerged in the late 1990s out of NGO efforts to create ‘a more equitable international trade system’ (2002). This consistent aim of many NGOs may be highly laudable and justifiable, but Bradshaw et al. have summed up the general perception within civil society that ‘years of lobbying has not changed the structure of the world economy nor the ideology of its ruling institutions on the alternative views of development advocated by NGOs’ (2000).

Nevertheless, the possibility of changing management practice through CSR exists, and Fair Trade in Tourism suggests that: ‘Experience in a range of business sectors shows that CSR and ethical trade practice can be put into action without jeopardising profit levels and share prices; indeed, they can actually enhance these. The tourism industry has an excellent opportunity to take this on board’ (Fair Trade in Tourism Network, 2002). At various points in this book, and particularly in this chapter, we have already noted the possibility that exists for companies to promote such actions as CSR as public relations activities designed to enhance their image without necessitating a fundamental change in practice – a practice commonly referred to as ‘greenwash’. To adopt such a perspective on all such efforts without investigative research would clearly

be overly cynical and we would not recommend such an approach here. Enough cases of ‘greenwash’, however, have been highlighted to temper vigorous enthusiasm for CSR and similar techniques.