Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
Table of contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Problem statement ......................................................................................................................1
1.2 Method ........................................................................................................................................2
1.3 Delimitation ................................................................................................................................2
1.3 Empirical data .............................................................................................................................2
2. Corporate social responsibility in theory .................................................................................... 3
2.1 What is corporate social responsibility? .....................................................................................3
2.2 The evolution of corporate social responsibility ........................................................................4
2.3 The pyramid of corporate social responsibility ..........................................................................5
2.4 Stakeholders................................................................................................................................7
2.5 The triple bottom line .................................................................................................................8
2.6 Why engage in corporate social responsibility ...........................................................................9
3. Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry................................................. 10
3.1 Corporate social responsibility in TUI Travel Plc ....................................................................10
3.1.1 Carbon management ..................................................................................................... 11
3.1.2 Destinations................................................................................................................... 12
3.1.3 Our colleagues .............................................................................................................. 14
3.1.4 Our customers ............................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Corporate social responsibility in Thomas Cook Group Plc ....................................................16
3.2.1 Our customers ............................................................................................................... 16
3.2.2 Our employees .............................................................................................................. 18
3.2.3 Our suppliers ................................................................................................................. 19
3.2.4 Our environment ........................................................................................................... 20
3.2.5 Our communities ........................................................................................................... 21
4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 22
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 25
0
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
1. Introduction
The way we do business today is changing. Not just in terms of customer demands and habits,
but also in terms of new technology, emerging markets and knowledge about the impacts of
business on society. There is a call for more sustainable business practices where the
corporations do not just care about the short-term objectives and the creation of value, but also
about the long-term effects of business. By integrating responsible business practices, the
corporations can create economic, environmental and social value. Thus, corporate social
responsibility is gaining a footing in many corporations, especially big and multinational
corporations, in order to create a better image and a higher competitiveness to be more attractive
to employees, shareholders, customers and potential investors.
The tourism industry is one of the world’s largest industries and international
tourist arrivals grew with 7% in 2010. Around 50 of the world’s least developed countries rely
heavily on the tourism industry for economic development and for raising the living standards
(TUI Travel Plc 2011a). However, the tourism industry has both negative and positive impacts
on the society. It is a big contributor to carbon emissions, especially from aviation,
accommodation and ground transport. Also, it can leave local communities and destinations in an
even more deprived situation, if business is carried out in the wrong manner. The annual holiday
is equal to relaxation, consumption and luxury to a bigger or lesser degree to a lot of people and I
find it interesting to discover how corporate social responsibility and sustainable behaviour is
incorporated in such a unique industry. My hypothesis is that the tourism industry is a unique
type of business and therefore, a unique approach to corporate social responsibility in the tourism
industry must be needed.
1.1 Problem statement
In this thesis, I will look into corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry with a
view to analysing and identifying the actions and approaches tour operators take in order to
conduct business in a sustainable and responsible way. My drive for writing this thesis is that a
lot of literature is concerned with what businesses should do, but there is very little research, data
and analysis on what businesses are actually doing in practice (O’Riordan & Fairbrass 2008, p.
749).
1
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
1.2 Method
Firstly, I will explain the concept of corporate social responsibility to establish what the term
actually means today. Then I will use three of the classic approaches to corporate social
responsibility to look into the nature of corporate social responsibility in theory. First, I will
explain Archie Carroll’s pyramid of corporate social responsibility and the four different types of
responsibilities that a business has. Then, I will explain Edward Freeman’s stakeholder theory
and assess the importance of stakeholders in relation to a corporation and finally, I will explain
John Elkington’s triple bottom line theory. These three approaches will provide the theoretical
framework in order to analyse corporate social responsibility practices in the British tourism
industry.
1.3 Delimitation
The British tourism industry is a broad area and it is too extensive for this analysis. Therefore, I
have chosen to emphasize on package tours to international destinations. Consequently, I will not
deal with domestic tourism in any form or with sale of flight tickets only or accommodation
only. My focus will be on the two biggest tour operators in the United Kingdom, namely TUI
Travel Plc and Thomas Cook Group Plc. TUI Travel Plc is the world’s biggest tour operator and
it covers more than 200 different brands. The biggest and best known brands in the United
Kingdom are Thompson and First Choice (TUI Travel Plc 2011b). Thomas Cook Group Plc is
the second biggest tour operator in the United Kingdom and the brand name is Thomas Cook
(Thomas Cook Group Plc 2010a). The two tour operators account for more than half the market
shares on the British travel market (Euromonitor International 2010, p. 2).
1.3 Empirical data
Both tour operators are public limited companies and therefore they are obliged to publish their
annual financial reports. Furthermore, both TUI Travel Plc and Thomas Cook group Plc choose
to publish an annual sustainability report. The two sustainability reports along with any other
publicly available material from the websites of the two tour operators will be the foundation of
the analysis and the mapping of corporate social responsibility initiatives in the British tourism
industry.
2
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
2. Corporate social responsibility in theory
2.1 What is corporate social responsibility?
Corporate social responsibility has existed for decades, but it still remains an elusive term for
academics as well as for business managers and stakeholders. There is significant disagreement
about the interpretation of the term and the range of definitions seems to be equal to the various
perceptions held by theorists and individuals (O’Riordan and Fairbrass 2008, pp. 746-747). The
terminology has shifted from social responsibility of business to corporate social responsibility.
Also, there are many closely related terms, for instance corporate social performance, corporate
accountability, stakeholder management, corporate sustainability and many more. It becomes a
little confusing when the same terminology is used for different approaches and with different
meanings. Consequently, corporate social responsibility does not mean the same thing to
everyone. To some it means legal responsibilities, to others it means ethical responsibilities and
still to others it is equal to charitable contributions (Garriga and Melé 2004, pp. 51-52). The
British organisation Business in the Community has made shifts in its terminology more than
once to be more accurate in their language. First it changed from corporate social responsibility
to corporate responsibility, because the word “social” only put emphasis on the charitable
character and not on the economic and environmental aspect of the term. However, it turned out
that businesses in the United States of America considered corporate responsibility to be the
same as corporate governance and consequently, Business in the Community changed its
terminology again. Now Business in the Community uses the term responsible business to
signify how a sustainable business aims to operate overall (Business in the Community 2011).
For the purpose of this thesis, I will use the definition on corporate social
responsibility offered by the government’s Department of Trade and Industry in the United
Kingdom:
“...the management of an organisation’s total impact upon both its immediate stakeholders and
upon the society within which it operates. CSR is not simply about whatever funds and expertise
companies choose to invest in communities to help resolve social problems... it is about the
integrity with which a company governs itself, fulfils its mission, lives by its values, engages
with its stakeholders, measures its impacts and reports on its activities” (Clement-Jones 2005, p.
8).
To sum up, corporate social responsibility can be interpreted in many ways. Today
the term is used to describe the overall way in which a company conducts business. In other
3
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
words, it covers both the economic, social and environmental aspect of a business’
responsibilities.
2.2 The evolution of corporate social responsibility
Corporate social responsibility and the business practices associated with it is not a new
phenomenon. Traditions of corporate philanthropy date back to the Victorian era in the United
Kingdom. The families in head of businesses tried to improve the living standards of its
employees and enhance the local communities (Clement-Jones 2005, pp. 5-6). In the last 50
years, corporate social responsibility has grown and gone through quite some change. In the past,
it was often seen as a public policy matter where the governments made the laws and policies
that corporations were expected to adhere to. In other words, any business was free to focus on
the bottom line as long as it adhered to the existing legislation. This rather simplistic and naive
view is completely outdated and today, it is argued that corporate leaders should take a more
proactive role in moving ahead of the minimal standards required by law (Morrison 2006, pp.
460-461). The corporate social responsibility practices have changed over time as well. The
philanthropic initiatives, such as giving charities, is a rather passive approach to corporate social
responsibility and today there is support for a more active approach, where the businesses
involve a range of stakeholders (Clement-Jones 2005, p. 6). Actually, theorists argue that only
the corporations have the resources and reach to achieve sustainability. Therefore corporations
are strongly encouraged to engage in corporate social responsibility beyond the framework of the
law (Adams, Frost and Webber 2004, p. 17).
Today, the incorporation of corporate social responsibility in the business strategy
is still on the voluntary part of each company, despite suggestions that compulsory reporting
might come into force. It is therefore up to the companies to show how important corporate
social responsibility is to them. The current situation gives the responsible companies a chance to
increase their competitiveness and to be more attractive to potential investors (Clement-Jones
2005, p. 9). The lack of legislation within the field of corporate social responsibility calls for a
self-regulating behaviour from the companies. However, several international organisations have
formulated guidelines and recommendations aimed at the companies. For instance, the
International Labour Organisation has written a set of ethical rules on the companies’ treatment
of employees. The European Union has presented a Green Paper on how it can encourage
companies to act responsibly and the United Nations has formulated a Global Compact that
contains 10 principles for human rights, environment, anti-corruption etc. In short, there are
4
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
multiple guidelines and recommendations for how a responsible company should act, but very
little legislation (Djursø and Neergaard 2006, pp. 30-31).
To sum up, corporate social responsibility practices have changed over the last 50
years and it has moved up the agenda. It is still voluntary whether a company engages in
corporate social responsibility or not, but it is strongly encouraged by several international
organisations.
2.3 The pyramid of corporate social responsibility
According to Archie Carroll, corporate social responsibility must embrace the entire business’
responsibilities and he argues that it is constituted by four kinds of social responsibilities:
economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic. The four categories are depicted as a pyramid with
the economic responsibilities at the bottom of the pyramid and the philanthropic responsibilities
at the top of the pyramid. The economic responsibilities are the foundations of a business
organisation and the primary incentive for entrepreneurship. The principal role of a business is to
produce and sell goods or services to the customers and to make a profit. If a company fails to
make an acceptable profit, there is no need or reason to engage in any of the other
responsibilities. The next step in the pyramid is the legal responsibilities and has to do with the
“social contract” between the business and society. Any business is expected to pursue its
economic mission within the framework of the law and accordingly, the legal responsibilities are
all the laws and regulations formulated by the government. The economic and legal
responsibilities are the first two steps in the pyramid of corporate social responsibility and in
coexistence they are seen as the fundamental rules for doing business. The next step of the
pyramid is the ethical responsibilities and those have to do with what it right, just and fair. The
ethical responsibilities show a concern for what the consumers, employees, shareholders,
stakeholders and the community in general regard as fair. The ethical responsibilities often
reflect a higher standard of performance than that required by law and they may also be seen as
new emerging values and norms that society expects a business to meet. Thus, the legal and
ethical responsibilities are in a constant interplay, as ethical values may become the basis of new
legislation. Moreover, the ethical responsibilities are constantly evolving in line with society’s
expectations to business. The last step of the pyramid is the philanthropic responsibilities.
Philanthropy is the corporate actions that show society that the business is a good corporate
citizen. It includes engaging in programmes for human welfare or education, charitable activities
and welfare in the local community. Philanthropy is voluntary on the part of the business even
5
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
though there are often expectations about commitment from the society. Ethical and
philanthropic responsibilities are closely connected, but one aspect distinguishes the two: The
philanthropic responsibilities are not expected to be fulfilled and a corporation is not regarded as
unethical if it does not engage in philanthropy. The opposite is the case with the ethical
responsibilities (Carroll 1991, pp. 40-42).
The pyramid of corporate social responsibility is made up of the above mentioned
four components and the distinction of the four types of responsibility makes it easier to
understand a corporation’s responsibilities towards society. But it is important to emphasize that
a business is expected to fulfil all types of responsibilities and that corporate social responsibility
entails simultaneous fulfilment (Carroll and Buchholtz 2003, pp. 40-41).
Archie Carroll’s pyramid of corporate social responsibility represents a stakeholder
model. Stakeholders will be introduced later in chapter 2.4. Each of the four components
addresses different stakeholders depending on their priorities and the way they are affected by
the business. For instance, the economic responsibilities have the greatest importance to owners
and employees, who are directly affected. The ethical responsibilities affect a wider range of
stakeholders, but especially customers and employees and the philanthropic responsibilities are
important to the local community (Carrol and Buchholtz 2003, p. 41).
In short, Archie Carroll argues that there are four responsibilities for a business
towards society and he stresses that the four areas of responsibilities must be fulfilled
simultaneously before corporate social responsibility can be successful. Also, the four
6
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
components of the pyramid of corporate social responsibility represent the different types of
expectations that stakeholders have to a business.
2.4 Stakeholders
The parties concerned with a corporation’s performance are not just the ones directly affected by
the actions of the corporation. Various other groups, organisations and individuals in society are
interested in and concerned with a corporations performance (Fauzi, Svensson and Rahman
2010, p. 1352). Therefore, it is natural to look at these groups from a stakeholder view when
discussing corporate social responsibility.
R. Edward Freeman is the founding father of the stakeholder theory and he defines
stakeholders as “any group or individuals who can affect, or is affected by the achievement of
the organizations objectives” (Djursø and Neergaard 2006, p. 26). Stakeholders are often divided
into two categories, namely primary stakeholders and secondary stakeholders. The primary
stakeholders are those directly affected by or affecting the company, e.g. investors, employees,
suppliers and customers. The secondary stakeholders, in contrast, are those in society that are
affected either directly or indirectly by the company’s decisions. This group includes the local
community, the media, social pressure groups and local and foreign governments (Fauzi et al.
2010, p. 1352). The stakeholders have their own, often conflicting, interests in a corporation and
sometimes they make coalitions to put pressure on the company to meet certain demands. Thus,
if organised, the stakeholders are both legitimate and powerful (Carroll 1991, p. 43). Therefore, a
corporation is likely to be expected to satisfy one or more demands from its stakeholders to be
perceived as a good corporate citizen (Fauzi et al. 2010, p. 1352). Especially big, multinational
corporations are under pressure from its stakeholders to be more responsible when conducting
their business operations. Therefore, stakeholders’ opinions should be a matter of significant
managerial interest (O’Riordan & Fairbrass 2008, p. 746).
It is a challenge for any company to identify all its stakeholders and to determine
the level of influence that each group or organisation has on the company’s actions and
decisions. It is necessary to acknowledge that all stakeholders, whether they are acting formally,
informally, individually or collectively, are a key element in the company’s external
environment. Furthermore, it is important to realise that the stakeholders can easily affect the
company, both negatively and positively. Therefore, it is crucial that the company identifies to
whom it is responsible and how far that responsibility reaches (O’Riordan and Fairbrass 2008, p.
747).
7
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
It is up to each individual company to decide whether it wants to invest in
corporate social responsibility, but one with a positive attitude towards corporate social
responsibility will acknowledge that the success of the company may depend on its compliance
and engagement. Two theorists argue that there are three modes of engagement with
stakeholders: The first mode is “compliance”, where expenditures to corporate social
responsibility are perceived as the cost of doing business. The second mode is “strategic”, where
corporate social responsibility is seen as an investment in the future and competences of the
company. The third mode is “forced”, where corporate social responsibility is seen as a tax
imposed by external stakeholders. Both the compliance mode and the forced mode may weaken
the company’s position in the competitive landscape because such an attitude can weaken the
ability to create and implement a strategic advantage. Consequently, the positive outcomes of
corporate social responsibility may fail to take place (Freeman et al. 2010, p. 244).
To sum up, stakeholder dialogue is of great importance to an effective corporate
social responsibility strategy. Any business should take the time and effort to identify its
stakeholders, their claims and their legitimacy, because an effective stakeholder dialogue can
positively influence the image and success of the company.
2.5 The triple bottom line
John Elkington presented in the 1990s a metaphor that challenges corporations to deliver the
triple bottom line, which is constituted of economic prosperity, environmental quality and social
equity. First of all, this means that the role of the corporation has changed from being solely
about creating profit for its shareholders to acting as a good corporate citizen, who also cares
about the social and environmental aspects of doing business (Adams et al. 2004, p. 17). But it
also calls for more accountability and transparency. It is a common view that the business sector
shall contribute to social prosperity in the long term and that the triple bottom line can help
corporations report on their sustainability practices. Although there are no mandatory reporting
requirements in the United Kingdom, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index has reported on
corporations’ increased interest for and participation in sustainability reporting (Adams et al.
2004, p. 23).
The triple bottom line approach can be related to the stakeholder approach to
corporate social responsibility as it can group the range of issues that the stakeholders are
concerned with. Large multinational corporations have many stakeholders with many different
claims, thus stakeholders have each their issue that they are concerned with and these issues can
8
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
be categorized by the three dimensions of the triple bottom line: economic, social and
environmental. However, it is not enough just to be aware of the stakeholders’ claims and to try
to adjust the business process according to them, it is also necessary for a corporation to be
accountable to its stakeholders in order to be sustainable (Henriques 2004, p. 27).
Accountability is about giving an account of something to someone who has an
interest in it and traditionally, accountability was about the company reporting on its financial
performance to its shareholders. But, as John Elkington’s triple bottom line theory suggests,
today it is not sufficient to report just on the economic dimension of business. The tendency is
full transparency and reporting on all aspects of the business and its activities to the stakeholders
(Henriques 2004, pp. 27-28).
At first, accountability seems as a social phenomenon, because it is about relation
between the company and its stakeholders. But the different groups of stakeholders have
different concerns, some with social issues, others with environmental issues and still others with
economic issues, and therefore it is not possible to define accountability as part of just the social
dimension of the triple bottom line. Thus, accountability is an integral part of all three
dimensions, even though accountability itself is a social value (Henriques 2004, p. 28).
To sum up, the triple bottom line theory works with the assumption that a
corporation has two additional bottom lines besides the economic, namely the social bottom line
and the environmental bottom line. The triple bottom line is a useful reporting tool that gives the
corporation the possibility of accountability and transparency towards its stakeholders.
2.6 Why engage in corporate social responsibility
I have now explained what corporate social responsibility is and treated some of the theories that
define the term and the practices associated with it. But why do business managers choose to
engage in corporate social responsibility in the first place? According to theorists, there are three
main reasons for spending time and money on integrating corporate social responsibility in the
business strategy: the instrumental, the institutional and the emotional reason. If a company
engages in corporate social responsibility for instrumental reasons, it does so because the
management expects it to strengthen the company’s image and competitiveness and eventually it
will reduce the company’s costs. If a company on the other hand engages in corporate social
responsibility for institutional reasons, then it illustrates that the company considers it to be its
duty and that it is expected from it. In other words, there are demands and claims from the
company’s stakeholders. The third reason for engaging in corporate social responsibility is the
9
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
emotional reason. This has to do with a company’s own perception of doing what is right, just
and fair (Djursø and Neergaard 2006, p. 25). However, not all business managers share the
enthusiasm. Some sceptics remain very critical towards corporate social responsibility. They
argue that the trend thoroughly undermines the very foundations of business and that the only
responsibility a company has, is to make as much money as possible for its shareholders.
Furthermore, some perceive it as a case of pure PR manipulation (Clement-Jones 2005, p. 8).
The current business climate is positive for corporate social responsibility and
research shows that an integration of responsible practises in the business strategy is vital to the
overall corporate performance. One of the drivers of corporate social responsibility is naturally
the bottom line effect. By integrating a responsible element in the business strategy can both
increase share prices and reduce costs. Also, it can lower a company’s equity risk premium,
which further increases the share prices. A responsible profile can also help the company retain
and motivate a talented workforce, which increases the company’s competitiveness.
Furthermore, it is argued that a company’s reputation is directly linked to its financial outcome.
First of all, consumers have a more positive image of a company when it does something good
for the world and it increases customer loyalty. But it also makes the company a lot more
interesting to potential investors (Clement-Jones 2005, pp. 8-13).
To sum up, it seems that the sceptic have been proved wrong. Corporate social
responsibility can increase the financial outcome and increase its attractiveness to investors. It
can also give the company a better image and make it more competitive and finally it can create
customer loyalty and employee commitment.
3. Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
3.1 Corporate social responsibility in TUI Travel Plc
TUI Travel Plc (hereafter referred to as TUI Travel) was formed in September 2007 by a merger
of First Choice Holidays Plc and the Tourism Division of TUI AG and it is the world’s biggest
tour operator today with more than 200 brands. The most considerable brands on the British
market are First Choice and Thomson (TUI Travel Plc 2011b). There is only very little
information on corporate social responsibility to be found on the websites of First Choice and
Thomson. First Choice, at www.firstchoice.co.uk, does not provide any details to its customers
about corporate social responsibility, there are only a few press releases on sustainability, but no
detailed or easy accessible information. Thomson, at www.thomson.co.uk, does not provide any
10
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
detailed information on corporate social responsibility either, but it does, however, give its
customers a choice when they are booking their holiday. In the description of the hotels, some of
them are marked with a gold, silver or bronze award and it is only awarded to hotels that
demonstrate advanced sustainability practices, continuing improvement and active
communication on their progress. But if you click your way to the website of the group, TUI
Travel, then you can find a lot of information about sustainable development and the full
sustainable development report from 2009 (TUI Travel Plc 2011c). Since the formation of TUI
Travel, responsible leadership has been a priority to increase the positive impacts and minimise
the negative impacts that tourism has on the community (TUI Travel Plc 2009, pp. 2-5). TUI
Travel’s vision is “Making Travel Experiences Special” and more than 40 full time workers aim
for that purpose. TUI Travel focuses on four areas of priority within corporate social
responsibility, namely carbon management, destinations, colleagues and customers (TUI Travel
Plc. 2009, pp. 4-9). Each of the four priorities will be analysed below.
3.1.1 Carbon management
TUI Travel is keen on preparing for a future in a low carbon society. Travel and tourism account
for 5% of global CO2 emissions and climate changes is a strategic and emerging risk in the
tourism industry. Consequently, TUI Travel moves ahead of the standards required by law and
places itself in advance of likely mandatory carbon reporting in the United Kingdom and the
European Union by reporting on carbon emissions and by expressing its year on year targets
(TUI Travel Plc 2009, pp. 11-16). TUI Travel shows willingness to commit to corporate social
responsibility and the voluntary reporting on carbon emissions emphasizes great accountability
to the stakeholders.
If we take a look at TUI Travels total carbon footprint, then we see that 90 % of it
is due to aviation. Therefore, the focus is on reducing the carbon emission from the airlines and
TUI Travel has engaged in fuel conservation programmes to protect the environment.
Additionally, the UK airline Thomson Airways performs very well by keeping a high load
factor. This means that every time a flight takes off, there is no or only a limited number of
empty seats on the flight. Such a practice secures a responsible approach to carbon management
and reduces the carbon emission per passenger. Furthermore, TUI Travel is reducing the number
of old aircrafts and investing in new technology, for instance aircrafts with a 20 % lower fuel
burn and a better environmental performance. TUI Travel will be the first UK customer to buy
the new improved Boeing 787 to further improve its carbon management. Finally, TUI Travel
11
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
also works for reducing carbon emissions in other areas of business, such as water transport
(cruises), ground transport and hotels (TUI Travel Plc 2009, pp. 11-16). Indeed, TUI Travel
focuses on the environmental bottom line and it is evident that the company takes the ethical
responsibilities seriously by actively involving in practices to reduce carbon emissions in order
to take care of the environment.
TUI Travel has entered into active collaborate partnerships with many of its
stakeholders, as they can provide guidance and encourage the development of a more
progressive position on aviation and climate change. A few of these stakeholders are Forum for
the Future, EU Clean Sky project and Sustainable Aviation group. All the above mentioned
stakeholders help TUI Travel reach its goal of a 6 % reduction in carbon emissions by 2013/2014
(TUI Travel Plc 2009, pp. 11-16). This practice shows a successful dialogue with some of the
key stakeholders, who can improve the performance of the company.
TUI Travel shows very responsible leadership in its handling of environmental
issues. It shows concern for the environment and climate changes and moves ahead of the
minimum standards. Using the context of the triple bottom line theory, it shows great concern for
the environmental bottom line. It also fulfils some of the ethical responsibilities in Archie
Carroll’s pyramid of corporate social responsibility, that is, some of the responsibilities that
society expects a corporation to embrace. Finally, TUI Travel engages actively with its
stakeholders, which is the key to success when integrating corporate social responsibility in the
business strategy. By listening to its stakeholders and showing full transparency, the corporate
social responsibility practices are more likely to be successful.
3.1.2 Destinations
Another of TUI Travels priorities is to optimise its holidays’ environmental, economic and social
impact. The leisure travel industry has both negative and positive impacts on the local
communities in the destinations, but if the impacts are managed in a responsible way it can
improve the local communities and their living standards (TUI Travel Plc 2009, pp. 17-22).
The first category within corporate social responsibility in the destinations is
supplier management. TUI Travel has an extensive supply chain of primarily owners of
accommodation and suppliers of transport and excursions and the aim is to extend the reach of
influence to all suppliers and to monitor their progress. In order to do so, TUI Travel has
included environmental and social contractual standards in its arrangements with suppliers. The
destination teams see to that the standards are kept and they carry out regular checkups to assure
12
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
that health and safety as well as quality and sustainability regulations are adhered to. If a supplier
fails to comply with the rules, he will be removed from TUI Travel’s programme. The most
thorough collaboration is carried out with TUI Travels flagship hotels though. An additional
aspect of supplier management is animal welfare as TUI Travel experience a high demand from
customers for better conditions for animals in captivity. Many tourists wish to visit an attraction
with animals, for instance a dolphin show or an animal park while on holiday and as a tour
operator, TUI Travel asks its partners for a high level of animal welfare (TUI Travel Plc 2009,
pp. 17-22). All kinds of suppliers are stakeholders to TUI Travel and they may have demands for
the company, but the other way around, TUI Travel also has demands for its suppliers. The
regulations dictated by TUI Travel assure a high standard of health and safety and shows concern
for its primary stakeholders, the customers.
The other category within corporate social responsibility in the destinations is
destination projects, such as support to projects in the local communities, e.g. planting trees,
child protection, education and other charitable contributions. TUI Travel has also launched a
measurement of the socio-economic impact in areas with many all-inclusive hotels to analyze the
impacts they may have on local businesses and how an eventual linkage between the two can be
created. Such initiatives will be published in the next sustainable development report (TUI
Travel Plc 2009, pp. 17-22).
TUI Travel also engages with a big number of stakeholders with regard to
sustainable management in the destinations, e.g. Overseas Development Institute, the Travel
Foundation and Tourism Concern. These stakeholders assist TUI travel towards best practice in
tourism so that local communities can benefit from the tourism industry as well. Furthermore, it
creates a sustainable future for tourism (TUI Travel Plc 2009, pp. 17-22).
TUI Travel’s approach to corporate social responsibility in its destinations show a
concern with the impact that tourism has on local communities and a willingness to be able to
leave a green footprint. In a theoretical context, TUI travel deals with both ethical
responsibilities and philanthropic responsibilities. The integration of contractual standards is an
attempt to extend corporate social responsibility practices to all branches of the corporation,
including all suppliers. It contributes to meeting the customers’ demands on a greener holiday
option. With regard to the destination projects, those are mainly philanthropic practices, which
are the more passive part of corporate social responsibility, as they do not require any active
participation from the corporation. But giving charities shows commitment to the destinations
13
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
and is highly appreciated by the locals. TUI Travels approach to the destinations shows concern
for the triple bottom line as well, both in terms of the environmental dimension and the social
dimension.
3.1.3 Our colleagues
All the employees in TUI Travel are part of the corporation’s stakeholders. And as we have seen
from the theories in chapter 2, it is important to have an active dialogue with stakeholders,
whether they are employees or part of the local community.
TUI Travel strives to make corporate social responsibility tangible to all employees
and encourage every member of the group to take personal action. Through training- and
development programmes, all employees gain an understanding for the concept of corporate
social responsibility and the business practices associated with it. TUI Travel makes sure that
communication is given pride of place and that information about sustainable development, e.g.
updates on new initiatives and attention on colleague contributions, reaches every employee
through the use of newsletters and intranet,. In this way all employees become ambassadors who
can promote the activities and everyone in the corporation gain an understanding to play a
positive part in the activities towards corporate social responsibility (TUI Travel Plc 2009, pp.
24-27). The employees in TUI Travel are simultaneously primary stakeholders to the company
and therefore it is important to TUI Travel to make sure that there is an open communication
about corporate social responsibility practices. Not only does it improve the commitment of the
employees, but it also means that the employees can spread the word to all customers and extend
the knowledge of corporate social responsibility.
TUI Travel provides training and development programmes as well as they offer all
employees a hands-on experience. For instance at the annual Green Day, where employees can
learn more about sustainable tourism and what it means for their own role in the corporation. In
the British sector of the group, the management arranges a World Environment Day where
everyone is encouraged to do one good thing for the environment. It resulted in a range of
activities, e.g. beach clean-ups, no-towel-change day and a request only to use walking or
bicycles as means of transportation. Furthermore, TUI Travel’s employees can sign up for
colleague volunteering where they can take active part in an organised placement and use their
professional skills in a new context. Some participated in a tree nursery project while others
planned a water and energy saving project (TUI Travel Plc 2009, pp. 24-27).
14
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
It seems that sustainable development practices are integrated from top to bottom
of the corporation and the lines of communication assures that the corporate social responsibility
practices are transparent. It is not reduced to simply being a phenomenon on paper or a PR
exercise; it is an integral part of every aspect of the business. This transparency makes it a part of
everyday processes and every member of the corporation take active part in the activities and
show commitment. Well-organised corporate social responsibility is an aspect in all parts of the
business and it is clear and communicated to everyone instead of being an elusive term
formulated in the business strategy.
3.1.4 Our customers
The fourth and last priority for TUI Travel is its customers. Research shows that 80 % of all
tourists care about climate changes and two thirds of customers would like to be able to easily
identify a greener holiday option. Moreover, 90 % of all customers expect their holiday company
to be working to tackle climate change and support destination communities (TUI Travel Plc
2009, pp. 28-32). Thus, there is a call for more sustainable holiday options.
TUI Travel is at the same time working to raise the awareness of sustainability
issues, because they find it necessary to have their customers’ support through purchase habits
and personal action. As indicated in the first paragraph, most customers care about climate
change, but sustainability is still not a major deciding factor. It is the aim to raise the awareness
of sustainability, in the interest of the destinations and the environment, and encourage more
responsible holidays, so that corporate social responsibility becomes an influencing factor (TUI
Travel Plc 2009, pp. 28-32). It is evident that it is important for TUI Travel to raise the
environmental awareness among its customers and primary stakeholders. The above mentioned
statistics show that the customers are well aware of corporate social responsibility, but it is
necessary to make it part of the decision process when a holiday is planned.
In 2009, TUI Travel launched its first brochures exclusively with green holiday
products and the aim is to continue the development of greener holiday options. The green
products give the customers an opportunity to take action and to reduce the negative impacts of
their holiday. TUI Travel’s goal is to deliver quality information about sustainability at each
stage of the journey, so that customers always pay attention to the best practice and how they can
contribute to a responsible behaviour (TUI Travel Plc 2009, pp. 28-32).
To sum up, customers are well aware of climate changes and that their holiday may
have a negative impact on the environment. By being more transparent and by providing detailed
15
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
information to the customers throughout the holiday, TUI Travel can get their customers to
contribute to a more sustainable behaviour. Transparency offers the customers the option of
travelling greener.
3.2 Corporate social responsibility in Thomas Cook Group Plc
Thomas Cook is the second biggest tour operator in the United Kingdom and each year it sends
more than 7.8 million passengers in holiday. Thomas Cook is part of the Thomas Cook Group
Plc and the UK and Ireland sector accounts for almost 30 % of the profit made in the group
(Thomas Cook Group Plc 2010, p. 5). Thomas Cook was founded in 1841, but many things have
changed since then, including the corporation’s responsibility to be a sustainable business. In
June 2007 Thomas Cook AG merged with My Travel Group Plc and later that year, Thomas
Cook UK and Ireland became listed on the London Stock Exchange (Thomas Cook 2011).
On Thomas Cook’s website, at www.thomascook.com, there is a lot of information
about sustainable tourism. Thomas Cook explains the concept of sustainable tourism and marks
its stand on environmental protection and animal welfare; furthermore it explains to its
customers how they can play an active part in sustainable tourism. The company works closely
with the Travel Foundation and many other partners in reaching the best practice of
sustainability. Thomas Cook also marks its best and most sustainable hotel with awards of gold,
silver or bronze in proportion to their sustainability activities and the ability to encourage others
to take action. Accordingly, the customer has an option and has the chance to book a greener
holiday. Finally, there is a direct link to the Thomas Cook Group’s website where it is possible
download and read the full sustainability report from 2010 (Thomas Cook 2011a).
Thomas Cook believes that a successful business is one that is economically,
environmentally and socially responsible and it is committed to work with the long-term
challenges within corporate social responsibility. Thomas Cook is certain that sustainability
contributes to the continuing of the company and it puts emphasis on five prioritised areas: the
customers, the employees, the suppliers, the environment and the communities (Thomas Cook
Group Plc 2010, p. 9). Below, I will analyse each of the five focus areas in Thomas Cook’s
corporate social responsibility activities.
3.2.1 Our customers
In the sustainability report, Thomas Cook stresses that the company is obsessed with customer
service and that the keyword for them is “satisfied customers”. All staff with direct contact to
customers goes through customer service training programmes to assure the best and highest
16
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
standard of service. That is why Thomas Cook proudly receives many awards, e.g. Favourite
Package Holiday Company in 2010 (Thomas Cook Group Plc 2010, pp. 20-31).
Thomas cook cares about its customers and thus, health and safety is a priority, so
that customers can relax and be assured that they are being well looked after. The company has
minimum standards for accommodation, transport and excursions and a health and safety
database makes it easy to save assessments and information. All suppliers must meet local safety
legislation and Thomas Cook’s preferred practices and operators must naturally have all the
licences and insurances required to do business. The destination staff makes sure that the rules
and practices are complied with and they undergo special training in health and safety so that
they can provide accurate records to the company. Furthermore, staff that handles childcare must
have childcare qualifications or professional work experience. And finally, as a new initiative,
Thomas Cook has formed Club 18-30, which works with providing information about excessive
drinking to the younger customers. Club 18-30 wants to prevent excessive drinking, which some
young people see as the main objective when going in holiday. It can raise the risk of
dehydration or sunburns or in worst case, some persons may end up injured or with a criminal
record in their luggage (Thomas Cook Group Plc 2010, pp. 20-31). This type of practices shows
concern for the customers well-being and the fact that they are company’s primary stakeholders.
The social dimension of business is in play in this case.
Thomas Cook is also proud of simple and transparent pricing and accessibility to
disabled customers in terms of assistance in airports and onboard aircrafts (Thomas Cook Group
Plc 2010, pp. 20-31). Such practices assure that everyone has the chance to participate in a
holiday and no one is excluded or overlooked. Again, the bottom line is in play, but to some it
may just be considered good customer service.
In order to heighten the value of the sustainability processes, Thomas Cook does
what it can to raise customers’ awareness of the impact of their holiday. The first information on
corporate social responsibility is stated in the brochures and when the customer has placed a
booking with Thomas Cook, additional information is printed in the ticket book. In the
destination as well, Thomas Cook encourages the customers to show sustainable behaviour;
anything from saving water and recycling waste to buying locally produced souvenirs and trying
local food and culture (Thomas Cook Group Plc 2010, pp. 20-31).
To sum up, the customers are important in more than one sense. They are important
because they economically keep the company running, but they are also important in their role as
17
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
primary stakeholders. Communication and information are clearly priorities to Thomas Cook and
by meeting the customers’ expectations, the company can build a stronger image and at the same
time raise awareness among its customers and show best practice in terms of corporate social
responsibility.
3.2.2 Our employees
Thomas Cook works hard to engage and motivate its employees in order to create a sustainable
competitive advantage. An important aspect of corporate social responsibility in Thomas Cook is
motivation of the employees to obtain high employee engagement. That is realised by the
creation of a safe and supportive work environment. It is also reached by completing employee
surveys and by having an open communication where employees can raise concerns without fear
of retribution. Thomas Cook makes sure to acknowledge employees who have demonstrated
exceptional commitment and it rewards high levels of performance and loyalty. Also, Thomas
Cook is a company with big diversity and no harassment on the grounds of age, race or gender is
tolerated. Furthermore, it is important to the company that all employees, whether they are fulltime or part-time employees, have the same rights (Thomas Cook Group Plc 2010, pp. 32-50).
Thomas Cook has full understanding for the value of a committed and loyal workforce and
therefore it is important for the company to create a good and safe work environment in every
way. The employees are not just the engine of the company, they are also primary stakeholders.
The above mentioned values are all social values and it puts focus on the social bottom line in
Elkington’s triple bottom line theory.
Another aspect is appreciating the employees and listening to them, because they
are the eyes and ears on the ground and they are often the first ones to know if an initiative does
not work out or a new practice is not received well by the other stakeholders. They are also the
source of ideas and they know what customers and other stakeholders want, especially those
employees who have daily contact with different stakeholders. In all branches of the
organisation, the employees can contact a Voice Forum and come with input to new initiatives or
decision-making (Thomas Cook Group Plc 2010, pp. 32-50). Thomas Cook listens carefully to
its employees and values the suggestions they make. That is an excellent way of encouraging
commitment and creativity and it gives the employees a higher degree of job-satisfaction.
Finally, the employees are all part of the corporate social responsibility activities in Thomas
Cook, no matter how their job description sounds. By engaging the employees in sustainability,
the business values can be passed onto the customers by them. Newsletters and training
18
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
programmes make sure that all employees are up to date on the activities undertaken by the
company and monthly reports on sustainability initiatives and performance keeps everyone
informed. The staff who works in jobs with direct relation to corporate social responsibility has a
sustainability criteria incorporated in the job description (Thomas Cook Group Plc. 2010, pp. 3250).
To sum up, Thomas Cook creates job-satisfaction and loyalty among its employees
by creating a safe work environment and by valuing the opinion of every single person in the
organisation. Training programmes and career development make every employee perform better
in his/her job. The social bottom line is clearly in play and Thomas Cook understands the value
of a committed workforce. Furthermore, the employees help the company spread the word about
the greener and more sustainable profile. In short, good communication and high accountability
towards both employees and customers make Thomas Cook a more competitive corporation.
3.2.3 Our suppliers
Thomas Cook wants to influence its suppliers to improve their sustainability performance and to
show best practice in the industry. In order to do so, Thomas Cook sends an electronic magazine
to the suppliers with inspiration from previous sustainability projects in other destinations and
hopefully, it can inspire the suppliers to do the same. Managers and staff from the hotels are sent
in training to be more responsible and to learn how to create and implement sustainability
measures. For instance, hotels should measure its energy, water, fuel and towel use. With some
simple changes, the overall consumption can be reduced significantly (Thomas Cook Group Plc
2010, pp. 51-57). Thomas Cook wants to have high social and environmental standards and the
suppliers are actively involved in the process. The high standards make it easier for other
stakeholders, e.g. the customers, to make a sustainable decision about their holiday. Reducing
the consumption of natural resources shows concern for the environmental bottom line and such
practices can assure a more sustainable future for tourism.
All hotels are encouraged to implement the Travellife Sustainability System. It is a
system where each hotel is measured on a number of issues. Hotels with a high sustainability
level are awarded with a bronze, silver or gold medal and this makes it easy for customers to
identify responsible hotels. Thomas Cook recognises, however, that it is more difficult for some
hotels than others to live up to Travellife’s Sustainability System, because there are great
differences in the levels of environmental protection in each country. But many tour operators
use the Travellife award system and therefore, the hotels only have to comply with one set of
19
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
rules instead of different standards from all tour operators (Thomas Cook Group Plc 2010, pp.
51-57). The more hotels adapt the Travellife Sustainability System, the easier it gets for
customers to identify the options for choosing a greener holiday. It also means great
accountability to all types of stakeholders, including the customers.
To sum up, Thomas Cook tries to make corporate social responsibility a part of all
branches of the organization by encouraging all suppliers to comply with the same set of
practices.
3.2.4 Our environment
Thomas Cook cares a lot about the environment and that is another of its areas of focus.
Environmental management is the key to long-term success and therefore, Thomas Cook is
committed to the negative impacts of tourism on the environment. One of the main points in the
company’s environmental management is to reduce and report on carbon emission from aircrafts.
Thomas Cook tries to keep a high load factor on all aircrafts to lower the emissions per
passenger kilometre. The pilots also take different measures to be more fuel efficient, e.g. the
aircrafts are equipped with light-weight items in the cabin and the pilots choose the more direct
route to save fuel. Additionally, part of the fleet will be renewed with new aircrafts with a better
environmental performance. Thomas Cook’s UK airline has an ISO certification for
environmental management (Thomas Cook Group Plc 2010, pp. 58-75). The reduction of carbon
emissions has a clear link to the environmental bottom line and the ethical responsibilities of a
business. Many stakeholders expect a company to be responsible towards the environment and to
take the measures needed to reduce its impact on nature.
All Thomas Cook offices must report on the use of electricity, gas and water and
the goal is to reduce the energy use and in a higher degree use renewable sources of energy. In
new constructions, whether it is office buildings or hotels, Thomas Cook integrates efficiency
measures in the design and construction. Furthermore, hotels and customers are encouraged to
use water responsibly, especially in those destinations where water resources are not unlimited
(Thomas Cook Group Plc 2010, pp. 58-75). Such practices also show great concern for the
environmental bottom line and the customers and stakeholders are also encouraged to actively
contribute to sustainable behaviour.
Reducing and recycling waste is another focus area for Thomas Cook. For instance
paper and expired brochures from the offices and catering waste from the aircrafts are recycled
today and the airports are also encouraged to make some changes. Even in some of the resorts,
20
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
Thomas Cook has started separate waste collections for organic and non-organic waste (Thomas
Cook Group Plc 2010, pp. 58-75). Again, the environmental dimension of the triple bottom line
is in focus and Thomas Cook contributes to a cleaner and healthier environment.
In the destinations, Thomas Cook wants to conserve and protect bio diversity. The
nature and wildlife can be highly affected by tourism as many customers wish to visit nature
reserves and get as close as possible to wild animals. Therefore, it is necessary to raise the
awareness among customers and employees in order to enjoy but at the same time respect nature
(Thomas Cook Group Plc 2010, pp. 58-75). The protection of nature and wildlife is yet another
aspect of the environmental bottom line. If all tourists, locals and employees show the same level
of care for bio diversity as Thomas Cook encourages, then tourists can keep enjoying the wildlife
in their future holidays.
3.2.5 Our communities
The fifth and last focus area that Thomas Cook has is its communities and that means both home
communities and destination communities. One cause that is particularly important to the
company is projects in order to help sick and disadvantaged children. Thomas Cook asks its
customers to make donations if they wish to support the cause and the company also collects
unwanted currency on return flights to the United Kingdom. These two practices have raised a
lot of money and funding is given to a range of organisations and individuals. The money is used
to build hospitals and give educational support to children (Thomas Cook Group Plc 2010, pp.
76-84). Projects like this, to help sick children and improve their life quality, show that Thomas
Cook works hard to be a good corporate citizen. Such practices are not expected from the
stakeholders, but it shows the willingness on the part of the company to act as responsible as
possible.
The challenges in the home communities and the destination communities are very
diverse and Thomas Cooks aims to protect the environments around holiday destinations as
many of them are emerging economies and, consequently, fragile to the impacts of tourism.
Many destinations need support for basic needs such as infrastructure, education and health care.
Tourism can bring income and employment to improve the destination, but the projects must be
managed carefully in order to avoid leaving the local community even more deprived as before
tourism arrived. Tourism can create problems as well, e.g. damage the nature and the
environment. In Northern Thailand, Thomas Cook works hard to overcome problems concerning
child labour, child trafficking and child prostitution. Thomas Cook has built a School for Life
21
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
that gives education to children and furthermore, it gives money to many organisations that
struggle to overcome these negative impacts of tourism (Thomas Cook Group Plc 2010, pp. 7684). Thomas Cook shows that it is aware of the negative impacts of tourism and that the
company is ready to fight for a more sustainable future for all the communities affected by
tourism. It shows concern for the social bottom line and Thomas Cook also makes a lot of
charitable contributions to organisations with more knowledge and reach than itself. Charitable
contributions are considered as part of the philanthropic responsibilities of a business and it
enhances the image of the company.
Thomas Cook also spends time of the employees, flights and fuel costs to give sick
children an experience of a lifetime. For instance at Christmas time when it takes sick children
on flights to meet Santa who brings them presents (Thomas Cook Group Plc 2010, pp. 76-84).
Such an event underlines the focus on children and their future possibilities. Activities like this,
is considered a philanthropic responsibility of the company.
Finally, Thomas Cook puts responsibility on its suppliers too in terms of social
values. All hotels outside of the European Union plus hotels in Bulgaria and Romania have a
clause on protection of children incorporated in the contractual terms and they must report any
suspicion that a child is being exploited in one or the other way (Thomas Cook Group plc 2010,
pp. 76-84).
To sum up, both the home communities and destination communities is important
to Thomas Cook, especially with regard to children and their welfare. The practices undertaken
by Thomas Cook show focus on the social bottom line and a willingness to reduce the negative
impacts of tourism. Thomas Cook also engages with many stakeholders, e.g. hotels, NGOs and
other organisations, and makes charitable contributions to improve the living standards in
destination communities.
4. Conclusion
I have in the previous chapters described the definition of corporate social responsibility,
introduced three different theories on corporate social responsibility and used those theories as
an approach to analyze the nature of corporate social responsibility in the British tourism
industry.
It turns out that the term corporate social responsibility is an elusive term that has
existed for more than 50 years. However, the most conventional definition is that corporate
22
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
social responsibility has to do with a company’s way of governing itself and realising its
economic goals without compromising the social and environmental dimensions of doing
business. The company must live by its values and engage with its stakeholders in the fulfilling
its mission.
In chapter 2, I have introduced Archie Carroll’s pyramid of corporate social
responsibility and identified the four different types of responsibilities and the importance of all
four responsibilities being fulfilled simultaneously. The pyramid is linked to the stakeholder
theory, formulated by Edward Freeman. Any company have both primary stakeholders and
secondary stakeholders and in order to create a successful corporate social responsibility profile,
the company must engage actively in a dialogue with its stakeholders and identify their
legitimacy and claims. Finally, I have discussed John Elkington’s metaphor on the triple bottom
line. He argues that all businesses today have two extra bottom lines in addition to the economic
bottom line, namely the social bottom line and the environmental bottom line. Accordingly, a
business is more than a profitable institution that just reports on its economic performance to the
shareholders and owners. The triple bottom line encourages accountability and transparency in
all aspects towards all stakeholders.
The motivation for engaging in corporate social responsibility may be different
from business manager to business manager, but the positive outcome is not to be mistaken. A
strong corporate profile can improve the company’s competitiveness and increase the value of
the shares. It can also bring a higher employee involvement and customer loyalty and finally, a
strong corporate profile makes the company more attractive to potential investors.
In chapter 3, I have analyzed and discussed the corporate social responsibility
activities in the two biggest tour operators in the United Kingdom, namely TUI Travel and
Thomas Cook to discover which activities and practices is undertaken in the tourism industry
today. In the discussion, it becomes clear that one subject has top priority and that is the
environmental aspect of tourism. The tour operators strive to reduce carbon emissions, especially
from aviation, but also from ground transport and accommodation. TUI Travel and Thomas
Cook achieve this goal by using new technology, keeping a high load factor, using light-weight
items in the cabin and by using the shortest possible flight routes. Concern for the environment is
part of Carroll’s ethical responsibilities and Elkington’s environmental bottom line. It is expected
by the companies’ stakeholders that they engage actively in protecting the world we live in.
23
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
Corporate social responsibility also has to do with the ability to manage and satisfy
the different corporate stakeholders. Freeman’s stakeholder theory showed that it is important to
first identify the stakeholders, then theirs claims and their legitimacy. Some of the most
important stakeholders in the tourism industry are the employees. The tour operators are aware
of the value of employee loyalty and they strive to obtain welfare and open communication in
the workplaces. Opportunities and employee training enhances the commitment from the
employees, who are also important in spreading the knowledge of corporate social responsibility.
The customers, too, are important stakeholders as they put forward demands for greener holiday
options and environmental awareness on the part of the companies. However, the companies also
raise the awareness of corporate social responsibility among the customers and they want to
make sustainability a predominant factor throughout the holiday. Therefore, the customers are
encouraged to choose sustainable hotels, which are marked on the websites and in general show
a sustainable behaviour in the destination by reducing the consumption of scanty supplies, e.g.
energy and water. Furthermore, they are encouraged to improve the conditions for the locals and
their communities by buying locally produced souvenirs, eating in the local restaurants and
discovering local culture. The tour operators do not leave it up to the stakeholders alone to be
sustainable though. They make various charitable contributions to the local communities to
enhance the life quality and development and besides, the companies support and collaborate
closely with many external stakeholders in achieving the goal of less negative impacts from the
tourism industry.
Finally, the tour operators also demand their extensive supply chain to comply with
the regulations formulated by them. Suppliers must comply with the regulations to be able to do
business with the responsible tour operators; otherwise they will find new and better suppliers. It
is important for both TUI Travel and Thomas Cook that corporate social responsibility is an
integral part of all branches of the organization and therefore, suppliers are involved and
monitored in the process.
In conclusion, corporate social responsibility is an integral part of the British
tourism industry and activities range from ethical responsibilities, e.g. environmental protection
and animal welfare, to philanthropic responsibilities, e.g. charitable contributions to destination
communities in order to improve the living standards. A range of stakeholders are involved in
the corporate social responsibility practices in the British tourism industry and the tour operators
promote the social and environmental dimensions of business in their daily operations.
24
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
Bibliography
Adams, C., Frost, G and Webber, W. (2004). Triple Bottom Line: A Review of the Literature. In:
Henriques, A. and Richardson, J. (eds), The Triple Bottom Line: Does it All Add Up? Assessing
the Sustainability of Business and CSR (pp. 26-33). London: Earthscan.
Business in the Community. (2011). 2000s: From CSR to responsible business. Located on
04.05.11 at http://www.bitc.org.uk/about_bitc/our_history/2000s_csr.html
Carroll, A. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral
Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, vol. 34/4, pp. 39-48.
Carroll, A. and Buchholtz, A. (2003). Business & Society. Ethics and stakeholder management.
United States of America: Thomson Learning.
Clement-Jones, T. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility – bottom-line issue or public relations
exercise. In: Hancock, J. (edt), Investing in Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 5-14). Great
Britain: Cambrian Printers Ltd.
Djursø, H. and Neergaard, P. (2006). Virksomhedens sociale ansvar – Corporate Social
Responsibility. En introduktion. Danmark: Academica.
Euromonitor International. (2010). Travel Retail – United Kingdom. Country Sector Briefing.
Located on 14.03.11 at
http://www.portal.euromonitor.com/Portal/Pages/Search/SearchResultsList.aspx
Fauzi, H., Svensson, G. and Rahman, A. (2010). “Tripe Bottom Line” as “Sustainable Corporate
Performance”: A Proposition for the Future. Sustainability, vol. 2, pp. 1345-1360.
Freeman, E., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Parmar, B. and De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder Theory.
The state of the art. Cambridge: University Press.
Garriga, E. and Melé, D. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Theory.
Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 53, pp. 51-71.
Henriques, A. (2004). CSR, Sustainability and the Triple Bottom Line. In: Henriques, A. and
Richardson, J. (eds), The Triple Bottom Line: Does it All Add Up? Assessing the Sustainability of
Business and CSR (pp. 26-33). London: Earthscan.
25
Corporate social responsibility in the British tourism industry
Morrision, J. (2006). The International Business Environment. Global and Local Marketsplaces
in a Changing World. 2nd edition. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
O’Riordan, L. and Fairbrass, J. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Models and
Theories in Stakeholder Dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 83, pp. 745-758.
Thomas Cook Group Plc. (2010). Sustainability Report 2010. Located on 24.03.11 at
http://www.thomascook.com/sustainable-tourism
Thomas Cook Group Plc. (2010a). Business Segments and Brands. Located on 04.05.11 at
http://www.thomascookgroup.com/segments
Thomas Cook. (2011). Key Dates. Located on 04.05.11 at http://www.thomascook.com/aboutus/thomas-cook-history/key-dates/
Thomas Cook. (2011a). What is Sustainable Tourism? Located on 04.05.11 at
http://www.thomascook.com/sustainable-tourism/
TUI Travel Plc. (2009). Sustainable Development Report 2009. Taking on Responsible
Leadership. Located on 24.03.11 at
http://www.tuitravelplc.com/tui/pages/sustainabledevelopment
TUI Travel Plc. (2011a). About Us - Corporate Profile. Located on 04.05.11 at
http://www.tuitravelplc.com/tui/pages/aboutus/corporateprofile
TUI Travel Plc. (2011b). Brands. Located on 04.05.11 at
http://www.tuitravelplc.com/tui/pages/brands
TUI Travel Plc. (2011c). Sustainable Development. Located on 04.05.11 at
http://www.tuitravelplc.com/tui/pages/sustainabledevelopment
26