7.3 Assessing Reporting Programs with the AHP Model
7.3.1 The Decision Criteria and the Alternatives
As mentioned before, the application of the AHP model has been driven by the objective to assess the effectiveness of the reporting systems available in Europe and then to give tour operators a set of elements useful to choose the program that best responds to their characteristics and requirements. Consequently, the choice of the decision criteria represents a crucial phase in the implementation of the entire model, given that opting for certain parameters rather than others will create 112 7 Assessing the Effectiveness of Reporting Systems: Why and How
significant differences in the final ranking. According to the qualitative analysis carried out in the previous chapters and to the identification of the main character- istics and issues of the reporting systems, four main criteria have been defined (Table7.1.). These are thought to be the most appropriate variables for assessing reporting programs and determine their effectiveness in measuring the businesses’
commitment to responsible tourism and CSR.
The criteria have been divided into sub-criteria in order to better specify some particularly relevant aspects. Table 7.1 shows all the criteria and sub-criteria adopted.
• Degree of coverage given to all elements of the triple bottom line. All assessment systems claim to evaluate and certify tour operators’ responsibility, but respon- sibility implies a social, environmental and economic commitment. Therefore, programs that wish to acquire a reputation for seriousness and reliability should be able to assess all the three aspects with appropriate indicators. Consequently, the first criterion judges the thoroughness of each of the methodologies in each of the three areas. The decision was then taken to divide this criterion into three sub-criteria (environmental, social and economic dimension), which in turn were divided into further sub-criteria. Each of the latter represents a category of indicators, whose presence (or absence) contributes to determine the degree of coverage given to the three elements by the system. For example, for the environmental dimension, six sub-criteria were considered, which check the adoption of an environmental policy by the tour operator; the measures implemented to ensure the respect of the environment along the whole value chain; the actions put in place to reduce energy consumption, CO2 emissions, etc.
• Degree of implementation of reporting systems on the part of SMEs. The European tourism industry is mainly composed of small and medium-sized enterprises. The fact that they cannot draw on the same resources as large corporations means that smaller businesses may encounter organisational and economic difficulties with regard to investing in certification programmes.
Therefore, the second criterion evaluates systems in relation to their applicabil- ity for SMEs. It has been divided into two sub-criteria: the cost of joining and implementing the program and the ease with which the entire process of certi- fication can be carried out by operators (number of indicators to be elaborated and data collection).
• Level of integration between the certification approach and the responsible tourism approach. A key element to distinguish the various assessment programmes measuring businesses’ responsibility is to identify the approach these programmes follow. As previously explained, the integration of both approaches is crucial in order to gather together simultaneously all aspects of responsibility (strategy, internal processes, activities, travel experiences) and to disseminate pertinent information to all stakeholders, from tourists to the host community, from suppliers to employees. For this reason, the third criterion evaluate systems on the basis of their ability to integrate the two approaches.
Table 7.1 Criteria and sub-criteria for the application of AHP
Criteria 1 Degree of coverage given to all elements of the triple bottom line 1.1 Environmental dimension: presence of one or more indicators as listed below 1.1.1 Indicators to verify whether the company has an environmental policy in place
1.1.2 Indicators to check the measures adopted by the company with regard to its supply chain and respect for the environment
1.1.3 Indicators inherent to energy consumption, water, paper and the recycling of water, paper and other materials carried out by the company
1.1.4 Indicators with regard to CO2emissions produced by the company and the measures adopted by the company to reduce or compensate for the emissions by financing projects to safeguard the environment
1.1.5 Indicators regarding information given out by the company to employees, suppliers, the local community and tourists concerning environmentally friendly behaviour and any environmental problems in holiday destinations
1.1.6 Indicators in relation to the measures adopted by the company to prevent/reduce negative impacts on the environment as a result of tourist activities in holiday destinations (e.g. using local public transport to get around, reducing waste and energy and water consumption, monitoring tourism impact on the environment)
1.2 Social dimension: presence of one or more indicators as listed below
1.2.1 Indicators in relation to the measures adopted by the company to ensure healthy and safe- working conditions for employees as well as offering opportunities for training courses 1.2.2 Indicators with regard to personnel (e.g. the percentage of women in managerial positions, turnover rates, the percentage of job-related accidents and incidents of illness, rate of staff satisfaction)
1.2.3 Indicators in relation to the measures adopted by the company to control whether suppliers have strategies in place to guarantee the safety and well-being of their employees 1.2.4 Indicators aimed at establishing whether the company maintains fair and lasting business
relations with their suppliers
1.2.5 Indicators aimed at verifying whether the company acts in the interests of the local community by evaluating existing social problems in the destination and encouraging the local community to be pro-actively involved in the organisation of holidays in the destination
1.2.6 Indicators in relation to the measures adopted by the company to inform tourists about the social and cultural aspects of the destination and whether any meetings or occasions for cultural exchange between tourists and local people are planned and integrated into the holiday package
1.2.7 Indicators regarding measures adopted to ensure clients’ safety and satisfaction (question- naire for the customer satisfaction)
1.3 Economic dimension: presence of one or more indicators as listed below
1.3.1 Quantitative indicators with regard to business performance (e.g. total revenue, percentage of income derived from responsible tourism (if offered), sales of package holidays, main source of income, overheads/expenditure, number of employees, etc.)
1.3.2 Indicators that demonstrate the economic contribution made by the company to the holiday destination in terms of funding development projects and programmes, hiring local people, buying local products and the relationships established with local suppliers (e.g. the percentage of local people employed by the company, the percentage of invoicing to local suppliers, breakdown of the prices of the single components of the holiday package including those inherent to the local community)
(continued) 114 7 Assessing the Effectiveness of Reporting Systems: Why and How
• Type of auditing. The fourth and final criterion checks the type of auditing adopted by the program: self-evaluation, second-party audit or third-party audit. The choice of the auditing contributes to determine the reliability, objec- tivity and transparency of a reporting program.
Figure7.1shows the dominance hierarchy. The first level at the top represents the general objective of the assessment, while the following three levels contain the criteria and sub-criteria according to which the programs are evaluated. The base of the structure lists the different alternatives, i.e. the reporting systems analysed in Chap.5. The Responsible Tourism Standards of AITR, the Enterprise Indicator for Responsible Tourism of QUIDAMTUR and the Tour Operators’ Sector Supple- ment of TOI-GRI have been excluded from the analysis, since their principles and statements do not have found a concrete application in the tourism industry.