Tourism Enterprise. David Leslie

hotel sector as demonstrated by Blanco et al.’s (2009) discussion of the case of Scandic Hotels. This company was in financial difficulties in the early 1990s but managed to overcome the problems and subsequently prosper, which is largely attributed to a substantive change in orientation involving the greening of the business and the development of an environmental programme including substantial attention to SSCM involving the imposition of environmental conditions on suppliers. But whilst evidently a very positive outcome for Scandic, their major suppliers gained a competitive advantage to the disadvantage of other potential suppliers. The company launched their acclaimed ‘Suppliers Declaration’ which aimed to progress sustainable production and sourcing involving 30 of its largest suppliers in 2003 (Anon., 2006). Also in the hotel category Hilton International have introduced a global supply monitoring system. One conclusion to be drawn from these and similar steps in SSCM is to what extent such a process is actually counter to localized suppliers both in terms of selection of accommodation on the part of TOs and in the suppliers to those operations.

      As regards the major TOs, a leading example is TUI, arguably the largest TO in the EU, which since 2010 has been working towards having all of its suppliers accredited with its Travelife award through due auditing procedures. This initiative includes promoting the introduction of an EMS in its partner hotels, relationships with the local community and ensuring good working conditions for their employees (TUI, 2010, p. 2). That they can pursue such a policy is testament to their size and extensive operations, also in terms of the numbers of bedspaces required for their tours but also the importance of continuity of demand. To some extent, the initiative is also driven by arguments that their customers increasingly appear to expect their tour operator not only to provide quality and value-for-money but also seek to safeguard the environment and maintain social sustainability. In part, such argument is supported by Choat’s (2004) study reporting on a survey of tourists, which found that 60% think big tour operators produce superficial holidays and 80% stated that tour operators have a responsibility for the local environment and culture (also see Leslie, 2012c). Conversely major TOs in Europe have argued that there is little actual consumer demand for them to be more proactive (Budeanu, 2005). At the other end of the TO enterprise spectrum are the small TOs, some of which are undoubtedly sensitive to potential negative impacts arising from their operations and not just recently (see Whinner, 1996). In the case of adventure tours for example, problems that have arisen include the negative impacts of accommodation operations, which is particularly problematic in rural areas, such as deforestation, as well as litter and sanitation, exacerbated by increasing pressures to accommodate more tourists, and effects on flora and fauna (see Nepal, 2000; Bedding, 2000). Such problems have not gone unnoticed by various TOs in the adventure tour market as Holland (2012, p. 124) attests, for example:

      Explore Worldwide are encouraging teahouse owners to use paraffin stoves and not to provide hot water showers for guests. Attention is also given to the potential for alternative energy sources such as the use of solar panels but they are expensive to introduce and very unlikely to be found in accommodation in remote towns and villages in response to which a number of operators have provided financial support to enable changes in operations such as popular African lodges in Botswana and Namibia, which now utilise solar power for provision of electricity and low energy bulbs.

      Such actions might well be attributed to SSCM but it may also be, and probably all the more so, driven by the values and attitudes of the owners/managers of these small enterprises which is well demonstrated by Spenceley and Rylance (2012) in their discussion of wildlife-based tourism in Africa. A potential problem though is that a buoyant market will attract other operators, albeit small, leading to many enterprises in the locality which might just be more damaging than if but a few larger operators were managing supply. However the development of nature tourism in many areas of Africa has been acclaimed; for example, in Kenya in the 1990s/early 2000s due to the revival of game reserves and improved provision for tourists and quality of offering. In various cases this did involve local communities and their participation, e.g. Meru National Park, Masai Mara or Amboseli, a safari camp in Tsavo, also the Sarara Lodge run by the Namunyak Wildlife Conservation Trust. The local community has a 50% stake in the business in Namunyak (see Jackman, 1999 and 2000; also Spenceley, 2008 and Spenceley and Rylance, 2012). Such examples illustrate that participation of the local community in tourism development needs to be integrated in the process rather than just consultative, and in that process ‘stressing the use of more empowering participatory measures that give factual evidence to the communities’ (Zimmermann, 2006, p. 121–122, cited in Schiler, 2008). The involvement of TOs in funding conservation projects in lesser-developed localities has been noted but due to their significance as major role players in destinations they also can have substantial influence on government to address threats to flora and fauna, as Psarikidou (2008) discussed in the case of the sea turtles of Crete and their beach nesting sites. TUI is largely credited as a major influence in persuading the government to take the necessary actions to protect the species and the quality of the environment; albeit their actions held valuable PR opportunities.