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.’
The Study Enterprises
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