Eco-Certification in the Travel and Tourism Industry
by Peter Davis Krahenbuhl

In an economic system that respects profit above all else, private industry will not self-regulate with regard to the environmental, socio-economic and cultural impacts of their operations. The travel and tourism industry is no exception.

All good intentions of company owners and managers aside, the simple fact remains that business activity falls prey to the structure of the income statement, which defines success by maximizing profit. One way to maximize profit, as any business manager will tell you, is by minimizing expenses. For better or worse, protection of the environment and local cultures, along with employee salaries, benefits, etc., are expenses to be minimized. It is this fact that has created the necessity to regulate economic activity, much as the U.S. did with health and safety regulations that resulted from the industrial revolution. It is now time for the travel and tourism industry – the largest industry in the world – to incorporate more responsible business practices into their operations.

As society evolves, community decisions develop at many levels, and in doing so often preclude individual or industry interests. Slavery, for example, was a deep-seated economic institution of the southern plantation economy. At some point in America, we decided that slavery was unethical, so we made it illegal. And after the advent of the automobile, we eventually decided that too many people were dying in auto accidents and that a concept called the seatbelt might help to mitigate the problem. Of course the automobile industry screamed bloody murder, but fortunately not as loud as physicians and those who lost friends and family in accidents. Now, seatbelts are standard safety features, and lo and behold the auto industry survived and continued to flourish! A few jobs were even created.

Arguably, the travel and tourism industry is impacting the global environment and local cultures – particularly in developing countries – more so than any other industry in the world. As with other industries, a(n) (r)evolution is moving us in the direction of sustainable business development, that is, business that can be "sustained" over time without negatively impacting the earth or it's peoples. In travel, it is taking shape in the form of eco-certification, a concept that is built more upon the notion of consensus building and branding rather than direct economic regulation. At its most basic level, eco-certification offers a seal of approval, or rather a rating, measuring health, safety, quality and service standards, as well as environmental, social and economic impacts.

As with consensus building in any industry there has been and will continue to be, healthy debate about the positive and negative impacts of eco-certification, whether or not it should exist, and if so what the best structure and process is. Many groups are afraid of the concept, just as automobile companies were afraid of seatbelts prior to the 1960s. However, in order to progress, we have to address those most concerned, or "threatened", by eco-certification.

For one, companies that depend on turning a profit in order to survive are afraid of costly restrictions, and rightly so. In addition, responsible tour operators, owners of hotels and other travel industry members believe that their conscientious choices in and of themselves, can overcome the many obstacles faced in pursuing sustainable business development. Perhaps on a small scale and with cost saving measures such as energy efficiency, waste minimization, resource productivity, etc, they can. But on a basic level and large scale the travel and tourism industry can't or won't, and here again I defer to the income statement argument mentioned above.

On another note, many people feel that eco-certification unfairly discriminates against poor/rural communities and small businesses that can't afford to be involved. This is another legitimate but not insurmountable concern. Ironically, responsible companies that express these concerns tend to be the ones that operate with more ethical business practices. More often than not this places them at an unfair economic disadvantage. It is time to incorporate responsible business practices industry-wide, to level the playing field, and to take the quantum leap toward sustainability.

I am not debating whether or not eco-certification must proceed. Until our economic system, and specifically our accounting system, is gutted and rebuilt based on a "triple bottom line" of economic, environmental and social performance, it must and will proceed. What I am here to discuss is the many aspects of eco-certification, the positives and negatives of the process and the obstacles we must overcome, as well as how to overcome them, in order to make it a net positive force in our society and to the industry as a whole. Let's bring it out of the world of theory and debate and address the practical questions.

For starters, we must define what we are certifying. Where is the overlap between ecotourism, sustainable travel and the travel and tourism industry in general? Herein lies the majority of the confusion, and a lot of it is semantics. For example, the classic definition of ecotourism is:

"... environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features - both past and present) that promotes conservation, has low negative visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local populations" (Ceballos-Lascurain, Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas, IUCN, 1996)

Take out the "relatively undisturbed natural areas" and we could use this definition for tourism in general. As such, we can focus on the concept of sustainable travel in the broader sense, that is, promoting responsible business practices within the travel and tourism industry. For the sake of argument, though, let's stick with the small-scale nature/culture based aspect of ecotourism. Critics of eco-certification within this context cite a fear of harmonization, a new level of cultural imperialism and perhaps even economic monopoly of broad-based, uniform standards. Rural (economically poor) discrimination is most often sited here, as affluent companies can afford to certify themselves and reap the benefits of improved market positioning.

Not only does this not have to be the case, I would argue the opposite: the current trend toward industry-wide consolidation is threatening rural community-based ecotourism projects (CBEs). These small-scale efforts attempt to build the tourism infrastructure believing that "if you build it, they will come." Without access to adequate marketing resources, however, they more often than not fail. For the most part they are left wondering why there is no steady stream of ecotourists gainfully employing them. Many proponents of eco-certification are those most sensitive to rural needs and those most willing to support rural efforts.

The barriers to entry are not insurmountable. Community-based projects can be assisted in a variety of ways. One example, of course, is direct subsidization. Not-for-profit organizations offering eco-certification have access to grant money that can be made available to CBEs. In addition, there are organizations, such as community foundations, for example, that help to funnel large donor funds to small start-up organizations and rural communities. A part of any eco-certification program may involve facilitating this process. Another viable option is related to the certification evaluation process itself. The measurement criteria for certifying a company can reward extra points for helping another organization to become certified. In this way, partnerships can form between companies with more resources and those that are smaller, less affluent and more rural.

In addition, structuring application fees in proportion to a company's gross revenues will help to alleviate barriers to entry, while training certification auditors in host countries decreases high costs of on-site inspections. In fact, on-site audits for high impact businesses can compliment self-audits for low impact businesses that combine signed affidavits with audits from clients, resource area managers, local communities and primary support service partners. These are just a few viable options for addressing rural discrimination concerns related to the eco-certification process.

We must also address those concerned with broad-based standardization versus local certification programs. With regard to the latter, there is no reason that an international certification program can't defer, at some level or another, to legitimate national or regional standards. As a simple example, take a US-based company that operates domestically and internationally. In scoring their US-based operations, quantifiable performance data can be measured against a domestic baseline level and global best practices. The same company is likely to utilize the services of local tour operators, rural communities, and CBEs abroad, where their operations could receive a weighted measurement based on the host county's certification program, resulting in the co-branding of certification programs.

Assuming eco-certification programs become recognizable as a reputable and legitimate process by consumers, then all of these efforts would actually increase the market presence of eco-certified organizations. This includes rural communities and CBEs that otherwise may be discriminated against if their operations were not being promoted. To take it a step further, these communities could also benefit by combining eco-certification with travel guidebook marketing, public relations campaigns and the creation of green alliances of eco-certified organizations. This would be much more legitimate than the somewhat arbitrary "ecotourism awards" currently being flaunted in mainstream travel publications. The key here is a holistic approach to assisting rural communities and underrepresented environments.

On a similar note, many travel and tourism providers claim that there is no evidence of demand for eco-certification. They state that their clients don't request a stamp of approval when inquiring about their trips or accommodations. My response to that is "Great, then don't worry about it. You have nothing to lose by not participating if you're right." However, the results from a very recent study sponsored by the Travel Industry Association of America and National Geographic Traveler found that at least 55.1 million Americans could be classified as "sustainable tourists." Specifically, the study states that:

"These travelers have ceaseless expectations for unique and culturally authentic travel experiences that protect and preserve the ecological and cultural environment. In addition, ... close to 100 million (other) traveling Americans could be moving in that direction." (Stueve-Cook-Drew, The Geotourism Study: Phase I Executive Summary, TIA-National Geographic Traveler, 2002)

My own experience with a not-for-profit company that is working on eco-certification (and is growing in popularity) also tells me that there is a need, which points to another necessary component of a successful eco-certification program: They must be credible, self sustaining and economically viable. One of the major problems with many prior eco-certification efforts, especially not-for-profit based organizations, is that they have created a product without incorporating an adequate consumer marketing, education and awareness program. Whereas, for profit-certification businesses fall prey to the double-edged sword of profit maximization that has resulted in "greenwashing" even the most prominent organizations. Combine the best of both, though, and we will undoubtedly experience successful eco-certification programs.

Many travel and tourism providers also proclaim that we should let the tourist dollar speak, rather than an eco-certification program. This only holds true in economic theory – in a world of perfect knowledge where everyone understands the true impacts of their decisions – which simply doesn't exist. It is ironic to hear these business owners sound like economists. Remember, there is a reason AAA ratings, Energy Star certified, and certified organic food labels exist. People respect what they stand for.

Taking all of this into consideration, once we move closer to the mainstream travel and tourism industry, rather than just nature-based travel or ecotourism, arguments against eco-certification fall even shorter. This is primarily true because the impacts of mainstream travel and tourism providers tend to be larger and industry-wide business practices more standardized.

So, where do we go from here? My advice is geared primarily to business owners and is this: "Get involved in the process," the process of developing and debating eco-certification standards, measurement criteria and practical applications. The door must be open to include all interested parties (i.e., stakeholders) Æ non-governmental organizations, governmental agencies, academics, consumers, local communities and travel and tourism providers. But those that don't want to have anything to do with it shouldn't complain. If they truly believe there is no future in sustainable tourism and eco-certification, then they wouldn't care. The market will dictate if they are correct. The fact that so many business owners do care, however, means there may be other concerns. And this leads us right back to getting involved.

At Sustainable Travel International (www.sustainabletravelinternational.org), we are inviting as many stakeholders as possible to review, critique and comment on our eco-certification application and measurement criteria, as well as get involved in an advisory capacity. We are doing what we can to ensure the best possible process for a continually evolving concept and realistic application. We may never come up with the perfect solution, but we are going to achieve success in helping to make the global travel and tourism industry more sustainable.

info@SustainableTravelInternational.org