Corporate nonfinancial disclosures: An illuminating look at the corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting practices of hospitality and tourism firms

Abstract

This paper examined nonfinancial disclosures by hospitality and tourism firms on corporate social responsibility (CSR)/sustainability dimensions. Specifically, the study utilized content analysis to assess and document CSR and sustainability reporting practices by firms in this economic sector. The study found that in general, firms utilized the Global Reporting Initiative as the standard guideline for reporting. Findings also suggested that there is a vast difference in the types of information reported by firms in the industry’s various sectors. Lodging firms disclosed the most information on the CSR/sustainability dimensions than firms operating in the food and beverage and cruise line sectors. These findings suggested that CSR/sustainability reporting in the hospitality and tourism industry is in its infancy. Overall, the most frequently disclosed information related to performance on indicators associated with water usage, energy conservation, and waste generation. Community involvement activities were also frequently disclosed by sampled firms. The least reported dimensions were information germane to compensation and work–life balance.

Keywords

Corporate social responsibility reporting nonfinancial disclosures sustainability reporting social performance

Introduction

Today, academic and professional literature is replete with research and reports addressing the issue of corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices and reporting by firms. In fact, over the past two decades, organizations and researchers have sought to gain a better understanding of firm’s responsibilities to the communities in which they operate, and further, the importance of ensuring adherence to practices that are generally accepted as sustainable. This bourgeoning and sustained interest in CSR by firms has been driven in part by the societal trend of stakeholders holding firms responsible for their actions in the environments in which they operate (Jackson and Hua, 2009; Jackson and Parsa, 2009; Jackson and Singh, 2015). Consequently, several firms have implemented corporate policies and procedures aimed at ensuring that CSR becomes a central tenet of their corporate strategy. Although governments often extol the virtues and positive outcomes of such policies, it is important to note that CSR implementation and reporting for the most part, are typically unregulated, unilateral, and voluntary initiatives undertaken by firms. Furthermore, on a global scale, currently, there no clear methods for governments to fully incentivize or penalize firms for noncompliance with generally accepted CSR practices. As such, firms typically adopt and implement dimensions of CSR that are financially feasible and will generate incremental economic and social benefits for relevant stakeholders. In conjunction, firms have also developed strategies aimed at informing stakeholders about their CSR initiatives via voluntary disclosures.

Voluntary CSR disclosures have increased exponentially since the 1990s. Such disclosures have been driven largely by societal demand for information about firms’ deliberate contribution to society, the environment, and the economy. In addition, firms have voluntarily disclosed their CSR efforts to leverage actual or ostensible stakeholder benefits. Such demands and benefits have encouraged firms to not only implement dimensions of CSR germane to their corporate objectives, but to also convey performance-related information and outcomes of CSR initiatives (Romero et al., 2014). For a fact, CSR reporting via disclosures is not a new phenomenon. Instead, the concept has been around since the 1970s, when it was formally described as social accounting, or the process of evaluating firms “social performance” and reporting such performance outcomes to internal and external stakeholder groups (Ramanathan, 1976). However, in recent years, the concept has expanded to include environmental and economic performances in stakeholder-driven CSR reports (Ballou et al., 2006; Garz and Volk, 2007; Goel, 2010; Romero et al., 2014; Slater and Gilbert, 2004). In the context of this research, stakeholders refer to groups or individuals who can impact or is affected by the achievement of an organization’s objectives (Mitchell et al., 1997).

As CSR and sustainability reporting becomes the norm, especially among publicly traded firms, it is conceivable to posit that there will be increased stakeholders need for such reports, especially for investment decision purposes (Garz and Volk, 2007; Romero et al., 2014). However, in the absence of specific legislated or industry-specific CSR reporting guidelines, a persistent challenge faced by today’s firms is deciding what to report, specific formats, and measuring CSR performance (Smith, 2010). This is due in part to the fact that CSR is a broad construct that encompasses several dimensions. Currently, The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) offers a standardized set of guidelines to assist firms with reporting and disclosing CSR performance (Global Reporting Initiative, 2014). Several firms have utilized these guidelines to aid in documenting and reporting CSR initiatives.

Like most of today’s economic sectors, the hospitality and tourism industry has dutifully incorporated CSR principles into all aspects of operations and strategic management, and several firms have started to disclose performance voluntarily via CSR or sustainability reports. Such adoptions are typically driven by hospitality firms attempting to: enhance their company’s image; gain competitive advantages; retain employees; attract new employees and customers; comply with government regulation; reduce risk exposure; and reduce operational costs (Bader, 2005; Graci and Dodds, 2008; Jackson, 2010). To date, hospitality and tourism research is replete with studies addressing CSR-related issues such as: sustainability practices within the industry’s various sectors; CSR practices and financial performance; and CSR applied to specific entities such as restaurants, hotels, and the industry as a whole (Peršić et al., 2013). Despite advances in hospitality and tourism research in this area, there is paucity of research on the subject of CSR and sustainability reporting practices within the industry (Peršić et al., 2013). Such research is important, given the growing relevance of CSR and sustainability in the decision-making process of both internal and external stakeholders (Jackson, 2010, 2013; Jackson and Singh, 2015). As such, the purpose of this research is to examine and document the CSR and sustainability reporting practices of hospitality and tourism firms. This is accomplished through content analysis of CSR and sustainability reports of publicly traded hospitality and tourism firms operating in the lodging, food and beverage, cruise line, and airline sectors of the industry. This research is important since it will add to our understanding of the dimensions of CSR and sustainability reported by such firms. It is hoped that the findings of this research will aid stakeholders, especially small hospitality firms in developing CSR practices, guidelines, and benchmarks.

Literature review

Social responsibility and sustainability reporting

The broad and related disciplines of sustainability and CSR have been the focus of studies in several economic sectors (Crittenden et al., 2011; Graci and Dodds, 2008; Vuontisjärvi, 2006; Waller and Lanis, 2009). In recent years, an area that has generated interest from researchers and the public as a whole is CSR reporting, which is often interrelated with terms such as sustainability reporting, corporate sustainability reporting, and triple bottom line reporting (Ballou et al., 2006; Garz and Volk, 2007; Goel, 2010; Slater and Gilbert, 2004). In fact, the need for sustainability reporting has forced firms to modify corporate practices, incorporate CSR and sustainability initiatives, and report outcomes. Consequently, sustainability reporting has progressed from general economic concepts to more specific determinants in the form of periodic reports and online reporting updates (Romero et al., 2014). These reports typically disclose a company’s performance on economic, social, and environmental initiatives that forces firms to be accountable for externalities associated with their operations (Goel, 2010).

The overarching goal of effective corporate social reporting is to address organization performance and make necessary changes to attain sustainable development (Hess, 2008). Hence, firms’ economic, social, and environmental changes, initiatives, and activities must be linked to core business strategies in order to enhance risk management in the three pillars of triple bottom line, increase company reputation, and attract and retain new stakeholders (MacLean and Rebernak, 2007). At its purest, CSR, generates a positive relationship between corporate social performance and financial performance (May and Khare, 2008). This perspective postulates that firms can simultaneously promote a social agenda while achieving superior financial performance achieved through efficiency gains, which ultimately positively impacts their bottom line (English and Schooley, 2014). However, sustainability reporting should not be perceived as a pursuit for a new bottom line metric but instead, should be a management and performance assessment philosophy that emphasizes the importance and interdependence of economic, environmental, and social performance relevant to firm’s core business strategies (Goel, 2010). In regard to process, sustainability reporting is a cycle that involves the release of information, communication with internal and external stakeholders, and moral development or an organization’s own self-reflection of its social behavior (Hess, 2008). The cycle starts with a dialogue with stakeholders to establish expectations of legitimate goals specific to sustainable development. This should be followed by the firm working to achieve established goals while simultaneously internalizing corporate values through moral development. The cycle is complete when the firm disclosures its performance, and restarts when dialogue continues (Hess, 2008).

For a fact, stakeholders, especially investors typically engage with a firm to maximize their value and return on investments, financially and otherwise, such as social returns. For several of today’s stakeholders, the concept of value not only includes financial returns but also social returns. This revolution in thinking has led to the performance-related concept of the triple bottom line, which relates to firms, performance on financial measures, as well as social and environmental measures. Hence, firms have come to the realization that in order to maximize shareholders’ value and profitability, it is essential that they to meet and exceed expectations of internal and external stakeholders and on financial, social, and environmental or sustainable measures of performance (MacLean and Rebernak, 2007).

Although there is growing interest from stakeholders in CSR and sustainability reporting, in most jurisdictions, including the U.S., sustainability reporting is not mandatory since it is not legislated (MacLean and Rebernak, 2007). Despite this fact, firms are increasingly electing to voluntarily disclose performance of CSR and sustainability initiatives (Goel, 2010). In fact, it is suggested that this type of reporting is now the norm for firms, especially those that are publicly traded (Garz and Volk, 2007). For publicly traded firms, this form of reporting is typically disclosed separately from their annual financial report (e.g., Form 10-K) since it contains information for all stakeholders and not only investors. In addition, currently, the data, facts, and figures reported are typically expressed in nonfinancial qualitative terms (Slater and Gilbert, 2004). However, in the future, it is anticipated that CSR and sustainability reporting will evolve and become a component of firms’ annual reports, which will include both financial and nonfinancial disclosures via a process known as integrated reporting (IR) (Dragu and Tudor-Tiron, 2013; Milne and Gray, 2013; Slater and Gilbert, 2004).

As CSR and sustainability reporting evolves, its format, content, and measurement are also progressing to include detailed information pertinent to specific industries (Smith, 2010). However, in general, sustainability reporting includes three main aspects related to CSR: existing strategies to improve performance; current issues and how to tackle them; and ongoing and future activities/initiatives by the firm (Waller and Lanis, 2009). In essence, CSR reports present a quantitative analysis of the company’s current social, economic, and environmental performance and future goals to improve firm value (MacLean and Rebernak, 2007). Examples of social indicators include: employee health and safety; equal opportunity and nondiscrimination plans; and volunteering activities. Economic indicators include disclosure of investments in human capital, wages and benefits packages, and local community economic development initiatives among others. Environmental performance typically addresses the consumption and preservation of energy, water, and waste management policies (Goel, 2010).

Nonfinancial disclosure reporting

Voluntarily nonfinancial disclosures by firms are grounded by at least three closely related theories—legitimacy, stakeholder theory, and institutional theory. Legitimacy theory (Suchman, 1995) is grounded in the idea that firms undertake specific actions that are congruent with prevailing social norms and values and communicate these actions to stakeholders. On the contrary, stakeholder theory (Freedman and Jaggi, 2010; Manetti, 2011; Manetti and Toccafondi, 2012) suggests that firms are motivated to initiate action to satisfy specific stakeholders (e.g., shareholders, customers, suppliers, and citizens). Finally, institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) postulates that firms are forced (typically by legal or shareholder pressures) to provide voluntary disclosure. For hospitality and tourism firms, it can be argued that direct and indirect shareholder pressures have helped to advance nonfinancial disclosures in the industry.

Sustainability reporting standards

Sustainability reporting is based on firms’ internal guiding principles or on standards and guidelines from external bodies such as the International Standards Organization (ISO), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), and the GRI (Adams and Narayanan, 2007). The GRI is a private institution that works in partnership with the United Nations and has become increasingly popular among firms in international jurisdictions (Ballou et al., 2006; Sarfaty, 2013). The GRI is generally accepted as the standard for effective corporate sustainability reporting (Ballou et al., 2006; MacLean and Rebernak, 2007; Slater and Gilbert, 2004). The GRI labels sustainability reporting as an important element for managing change toward a sustainable global economy. This change synthesizes long-term profitability with ethical behavior, social justice, and concern and care for the environmental (Global Reporting Initiative, 2014). The GRI reporting standards are dynamic and evolve to incorporate the best practices. For example, in 2006, the GRI launched the third generation of reporting guidelines, the G3 Guidelines (Global Reporting Initiative, 2014). The G3 Guidelines offer a standard set of disclosures, performance measurements, and analysis, as well as different application levels, self-declared by each company, based on the extent to which the guidelines were adhered to (Legendre and Coderre, 2013; MacLean and Rebernak, 2007). Application levels are graded as A, B, C, or undeclared and can receive a plus sign (+), which indicates the highest level of coverage of the GRI standards (Legendre and Coderre, 2013; Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, 2011).

The G3 Guidelines call for greater transparency of reports, listing of issues, and stakeholder contribution (MacLean and Rebernak, 2007). Sustainability reports under the G3 Guidelines are mainly divided into three categories—economic, environment, and social. The latter is subcategorized into labor, human rights, society, and product responsibility (Global Reporting Initiative, 2014). In 2011, the G3 Guidelines were updated to G3.1 and in 2013, the GRI introduced the G4 Guidelines—Fourth Generation of Guidelines. The fourth generation guidelines will effectively replace the third-generation guidelines, which will not be utilize after 2015 (English and Schooley, 2014; Global Reporting Initiative, 2014). The G4 Guidelines allow reporting organizations to emphasize factors relevant to their operations in order to better evaluate how they influence stakeholders and impact the triple bottom line. Finally, the G4 Guidelines are generally regarded as a step in the process of combining nonfinancial and financial disclosures into one single report (IR) (English and Schooley, 2014).

Sustainability reporting and practices in the hospitality industry

Several studies have examined or suggest reasons why hospitality and tourism firms elect to choose to follow sustainable practices and implement CSR activities (Bader, 2005; Chan and Hawkins, 2010; Graci and Dodds, 2008; Jackson, 2010). However, there is paucity of hospitality-related research that specifically examines voluntarily nonfinancial disclosures. Existing research on the issue has generally been sector specific. For example: Bonilla-Priego et al. (2014) focused their study on corporate social reporting in the cruise line industry; Peršić et al. (2013) researched sustainability reporting of hotel companies in Croatia, and; Grosbois (2012) evaluated sustainability reporting practices among the largest lodging firms in the globe.

In general, hospitality firms tend to invest more in environmental initiatives relative to other economic sectors and generate fewer concerns on environmental issues, such as carbon footprint. As such, firms in the hospitality and tourism sector can leverage positive sustainability outcomes (Singal, 2014). Furthermore, the nature of the industry is conducive to the core principles of social responsibility and sustainability. For example, tourism-related activities, especially those in pristine environments, can improve a community’s social and economic profile and well-being, while generating few undesirable social, financial, and environmental impacts such as directly contributing to change in climate temperatures, air and noise pollution, and biodiversity loss among others. Consequently, issues related to not only the execution but also the reporting of sustainability practices, are of great importance to the development of the industry (Grosbois, 2012).

Methodology

This research examined the CSR and sustainability reporting practices of publicly traded hospitality and tourism firms. To accomplish this task, firms disclosing CSR and sustainability initiatives via reports were first identified through an exhaustive internet search. To be included in the sample, firms were US domiciled or had a major US corporate office, traded on a US stock market, had reported sustainability initiatives for at least one reporting period, and reports were available as specific documents or information was available on firms’ website. Since this research is a primer, only US domiciled firms or those that had a major corporate office in the US were selected. Selection of these firms ensured that data were available to accomplish the research objectives. The most recent reports and supporting documentation were selected for analysis for firms. It should be noted that not all sampled firms prepared and disclosed full sustainability reports on an annual basis. Instead, some firms reported every few years, but provided annual summary updates. Hence, sampled firms’ disclosure reports ranged from 2009 to 2014. Some companies choose to publish a full sustainability report every few years, but they issue report updates in between those years. In such cases, for the purpose of this study, the latest full report as well as the latest report updates was utilized for this study. Website content on sampled firm’s corporate responsibility webpages was also examined. The final sample comprised 14 firms of which 6 were in the lodging sector, 6 operated in the food and beverage sector, and 2 were in the cruise line segment. Table 1 presents a list of sampled firms.

Table 1.

Sampled firms.

	Company name	U.S. headquarter	Market exchange
	Hilton Worldwide	McLean, VA	NYSE
	Hyatt Hotels Corporation	Chicago, IL	NYSE
Lodging firms	InterContinental Hotels Group PLC^a	Atlanta, GA	NYSE
	Marriott International, Inc.	Washington, DC	NYSE
	Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide	Stamford, CT	NYSE
	Wyndham Worldwide Corporation	Parsippany-Troy Hills, NJ	NYSE
Cruise lines	Carnival Corporation & plc	Miami, FL	NYSE
	Royal Caribbean International	Miami, FL	NYSE
	Burger King Worldwide Holdings, Inc.	Miami, FL	NYSE
	Darden Restaurants, Inc.	Orlando, FL	NYSE
Food and beverage	Dunkin' Brands Group, Inc.	Canton, MA	NASDAQ
firms	McDonald's Corporation	Oak Brook, IL	NYSE
	Starbucks Corporation	Seattle, WA	NASDAQ
	Yum! Brands, Inc.	Louisville, KY	NYSE

Major corporate office. UK domiciled, has major office in Atlanta, USA.

Content analysis was conducted on each firm’s sustainability report and other relevant information found on their website. This methodology was deemed appropriate since content analysis was deemed appropriate since it allows the researchers to a examine documents for content and make replicable and valid inferences from information found in the texts of each document as well as the contexts in which the information was used (Krippendorff, 2013). Furthermore, content analysis was deemed appropriate since it enables researchers to gain greater understanding of a specific phenomenon (Krippendorff, 2013), such as CSR reporting. Prior to conducting the content analysis, a checklist of CSR and sustainability dimensions, or themes were identified. Each dimension was further divided into categories. The checklist was developed after a careful review of extant literature (Sobhani et al., 2012; Vuontisjärvi, 2006) germane to CSR and sustainability application and reporting. A total of 13 dimensions were identified. The 13 categories are: general CSR reporting; community involvement; social responsible products/services; education, training, and staff development; pays and benefits; participation and staff involvement; values and principles; employee health and well-being; measurement of policies; employment policy; security in employment; equal opportunities; and work–life balance. Each firm’s disclosure document was examined for instances of reporting on each dimension and recorded on the checklist under the appropriate category. For the purpose of this research, instance refers to each mention or reference of the dimensions in each firm’s sustainability report.

Results and discussion

Findings suggest that in general, hospitality and tourism firms utilized the GRI as the standard guideline for their reporting. In general, the level and detail of information reported by each firm varied greatly especially in regard to the number of issues covered in each report. Overall, firms in the lodging sector had the most complete reports that were centered on the three pillars of the triple bottom line, namely, economic, social, and environmental. These reports also included a greater number of indicators compared to those from the cruise and food and beverage sectors. The majority of the restaurant firms examined focused a significant portion of reporting on their supply and food chain, providing information about sustainable practices along their supply chain. The cruise industry had a higher focus on environmental initiatives than employment disclosure. This could be due to the fact that in recent years, the cruise industry has been heavily scrutinized for its negative environmental impacts (Klein, 2013) and hence, firms in this sector have taken steps to ameliorate environmental impacts.

As noted, this study identified 13 CSR and sustainability dimensions or reporting categories. As such, sampled firms’ were assessed to ascertain reporting on these dimensions. Findings of such reporting are highlighted and discussed below appropriately under each dimension heading.

General CSR and sustainability reporting

Under this category, content analysis of sampled reports addressed instances of reporting related to general CSR and sustainability reporting practices. Findings are highlighted in Table 2. It is interesting to note that all sampled firms disclosed information about: use and implementation of innovative products and services conducive to CSR and sustainability; collaboration with stakeholders such as community groups; energy conservation strategies; waste reduction strategies; and animal welfare especially those related to their supply chain. However, firms appeared reluctant to disclose information about their carbon footprint as only two firms from the lodging sector included disclosures about carbon in their reports. One plausible explanation is that sampled firms were in the infancy of sustainability adoptions and as such, they were not in a position to accurately disclose their carbon footprint. However, a high majority (86%) disclosed initiatives to reduce carbon footprint, while 36% (50% lodging, 0% cruise, 33% food and beverage) disclosed their carbon performance. Additionally, only 21% of sampled firms disclosed information about carbon offset programs. More specifically, while 12 firms reported that commitment to reduce their carbon footprint, only InterContinental Hotels Group and Wyndham Worldwide explicitly revealed their amount of carbon footprint, while five companies (Marriott International, InterContinental Hotels Group, Wyndham Worldwide, Darden Restaurants, and Yum! Brands) participated in the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), a nonprofit organization that provides an international system to measure, release, and control environmental information. Furthermore, only Starwood Hotels & Resorts, Marriott International, and Hilton worldwide were found to use carbon offset programs as a way to reduce carbon emissions.

Table 2.

General CSR reporting.

General CSR reporting	Sample instances		Segment instances
	Sample instances		Lodging		Cruise		Food and beverage
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Innovation (innovative responsible products/services)	14	100	6	100	2	100	6	100
Collaboration (with the local community and other entities)	14	100	6	100	2	100	6	100
Development partnership (e.g., to build new green properties)	10	71	4	67	0	0	6	100
Environment and conservation	12	86	6	100	2	100	4	67
Community (e.g., local sourcing)	11	79	5	83	2	100	5	83
Performance measures	9	64	5	83	2	100	2	33
Benchmarks	12	86	6	100	2	100	4	67
Energy consumption	11	79	6	100	1	50	4	67
Energy conservation strategies	14	100	6	100	2	100	6	100
Water consumption	10	71	6	100	2	100	2	33
Water conservation strategies	13	93	6	100	2	100	5	83
Waste reduction strategies	14	100	6	100	2	100	6	100
Use of alternative energy sources	12	86	6	100	2	100	4	67
Carbon footprint disclosures	2	14	2	33	0	0	0	0
Efforts to reduce carbon footprint	12	86	6	100	2	100	4	67
Carbon performance band/carbon disclosure project	5	36	3	50	0	0	2	33
Carbon offset programs	3	21	3	50	0	0	0	0
Greenhouse gas emission disclosures	10	71	6	100	2	100	2	33
Disclosure of non-GHG (cruise industry only)	2	14	0	0	2	100	0	0
Animal welfare (sustainable supply chain)	14	100	6	100	2	100	6	100
Preservation of ecosystem initiatives	6	43	2	33	2	100	2	33

Note: CSR: corporate social responsibility; non-GHG: nongreenhouse gas.

From a sustainability perspective, it is encouraging to note that a high majority (71%) of firms disclosed information about greenhouse gas emissions. However, only 14% disclosed information about nongreenhouse gas (non-GHG) emissions (0% lodging, 100% cruise, 0% food and beverage). This finding suggests that disclosure of emissions of non-GHG could be perceived as relevant and important for the cruise segment, but does not garner such importance in the other two sectors. Furthermore, all firms showed interest toward utilizing and encouraging a sustainable supply chain, including use of a supplier sustainability policy and making efforts to educate suppliers on the benefits of sustainability.

Community involvement

This section reports on the extent to which hospitality firms disclosed involvement, support, and promotion of initiatives in the communities in which they operate. All firms reported some level of community involvement (Table 3). All reported involvement in: charitable endeavors; volunteer activities; support of youth and children initiatives; and engagement in community development programs. A high majority (93%) reported engagement in education and training initiatives. They were also found to be strong advocates for local development (79%), social welfare (79%), and environmental conservation (64%), particularly among the cruise sector (100%) and the food and beverage sector (100%). Of note, is the fact that sampled firms did not disclosed involvement in religious activities or supported such endeavors in the communities in which they operate. This could be due to the fact that religion, while valuable to the social fabric of communities, can also be divisive, and as such, firms might chose to support other community initiatives. Furthermore, it also suggests that firms wanted to be unbiased toward groups in the communities in which they operated. In conjunction, community involvement via sponsorship was low (21%), which seemed to support the notion that firms did not want to be perceived as biased toward any organization or groups in the communities in which they operated. Additionally, at the community level, support for arts and culture (14%) as well as agriculture (14%) was found to be very low. This is interesting since (preservation of) arts and culture often play an important role in the authenticity of the tourism experience at some destinations. Hence, it is plausible to expect that hospitality and tourism organizations would actively support initiatives aimed at such preservations. Findings also indicate that paradoxically, support for agricultural initiatives at the community level was low (14%), suggesting that sampled firms did not rely heavily on local food supply chains. Regarding community involvement, it is advisable that hospitality and tourism firms pursuing CSR initiatives adopt a collaborative stakeholder-driven approach since it will ensure community buy-in (Jackson, 2006) while simultaneously enable firms to achieve stated CSR objectives.

Table 3.

Community involvement.

Community involvement	Sample instances		Segment instances
	Sample instances		Lodging		Cruise		Food and beverage
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
General	14	100	6	100	2	100	6	100
Charity	14	100	6	100	2	100	6	100
Community development	14	100	6	100	2	100	6	100
Health,disability	2	14	1	17	0	0	1	17
Religious	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Volunteering (employees)	14	100	6	100	2	100	6	100
Sponsorship	3	21	1	17	0	0	2	33
Agriculture	2	14	0	0	0	0	2	33
Local economic development	11	79	4	67	2	100	5	83
Arts, culture	2	14	1	17	0	0	1	17
Education, training (e.g., scholarship)	13	93	5	83	2	100	6	100
Environment, conservation	9	64	5	83	2	100	2	33
Housing	3	21	1	17	0	0	2	33
Sport (fitness, healthy lifestyle)	3	21	1	17	0	0	2	33
Welfare (including poverty, emergency relief)	11	79	6	100	2	100	3	50
Youth, children	14	100	6	100	2	100	6	100
Other	3	21	1	17	1	50	1	17

Socially responsible products/services

Socially responsible products and services disclosures (Table 4) addressed instances of firms’ disclosures of use of products that are generally considered to be less harmful to the environment and services that can contribute to a healthier ecosystem. Only a small number of firms (21%) disclosed information about use of chemical products that are less harmful to the environment. Of note is the fact that only 14% disclosed information about initiatives against human trafficking, giving the bourgeoning interest and persistent challenge of this issue to the industry.

Table 4.

Socially responsible products and services.

Socially responsible products/services	Sample instances		Segment instances
	Sample instances		Lodging		Cruise		Food and beverage
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Construction	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Chemicals (e.g., cleaning products)	3	21	2	33	1	50	0	0
Health and safety	7	50	1	17	0	0	6	100
Human resources	1	7	1	17	0	0	0	0
Ethics	2	14	1	17	0	0	1	17
Initiative against human trafficking	2	14	2	33	0	0	0	0

Education, training, and staff development

This category reported on all instances of employee training and development (Table 5). The majority of companies (85.7%) reported supporting company-sponsored certificate training programs aimed at assisting employees achieve formal qualifications. However, support for formal educational initiatives was low (29%), as indicated by support for employee studies on their own. Reporting of training costs was also low as only one firm reported this initiative. One plausible explanation could be that the sampled firms reported spending on this initiative in their annual reports and as such, negated the need to provide additional disclosure via CSR reports. Sampled firms also did not disclose job enrichment programs as only 7% provided information about job rotation and competence appraisals. One plausible explanation for nondisclosure could be poor internal record keeping on these initiatives.

Table 5.

Employee relations: education, training, and employee development.

Education, training, and staff development	Sample instances		Segment instances
	Sample instances		Lodging		Cruise		Food and beverage
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Training aimed at achieving formal qualifications	12	86	6	100	1	50	5	83
Development discussions	1	7	0	0	0	0	1	17
Initial training	3	21	2	33	0	0	1	17
Survey on training program	2	14	1	17	0	0	1	17
Job rotation	1	7	1	17	0	0	0	0
Competence appraisals	1	7	0	0	0	0	1	17
Personal development plans	4	29	2	33	0	0	2	33
Support for employees’ studies on their own accord	4	29	3	50	0	0	1	17
Measures/steps to integrate low-skilled employees	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Cost of training	1	7	0	0	0	0	1	17
Time spent on training	1	7	0	0	0	0	1	17
Number of employees participating in training initiatives	2	14	1	17	1	50	0	0

Pays and benefits

Disclosures of pay and benefits appeared to be an area that firms could improve on in their CSR and sustainability reporting documents since instances of such disclosures were sparse (Table 6). This category includes all references made to pays and benefits of all levels of employees, including managers. It also included incentive and option schemes, equal pay references, personnel fund, and average wage among other indicators. The lack of disclosures in this category could be due to the fact that firms often disclose such information in their annual reports and as such, do not feel compel to disclose via CSR/sustainability reports. Additionally, firms might be skittish to disclose and make definitive claims regarding wage equivalency, given that salary, wages, and other forms of compensation are in a constant state of flux.

Table 6.

Employee relations—pay and benefit.

Pay and benefits	Sample instances		Segment instances
	Sample instances		Lodging		Cruise		Food and beverage
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Equal pay/Just pay	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Incentive schemes	1	7	1	17	0	0	0	0
Option schemes	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Shares and options owned by individual directors	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Personnel fund	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Average wage	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Spread of wage	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pay and conditions compared against equivalent averages	1	7	0	0	0	0	1	17

Participation and staff involvement

Participation and staff involvement refer to reported activities related to employee contribution and participation on all levels of business. As such, this category attempted to identify instances of top-level managers and executives communication with lower level employees to solicit feedback and input toward strategic and operational initiatives and policies. The most common indicator in this category was “anonymous complaint points,” such as a whistle-blower line. In this regard, 42.9% of sampled firms (Table 7) indicated the existence of variations of communication channels for employees express complains, concerns, and comments anonymously. Only four firms (28.6%) disclosed information about work force meetings, while only three organizations (21.4%) reported having a personnel newsletter. Only one firm, InterContinental Hotel Group reported information about trade unions in its sustainability report.

Table 7.

Employee relations—staff participation and involvement.

Participation and staff involvement	Sample instances		Segment instances
	Sample instances		Lodging		Cruise		Food and beverage
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Open two-way communication	3	21	1	17	0	0	2	33
Representation of personnel in the company’s administration	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Teams	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
A cooperative body	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Unions or collective agreement	1	7	1	17	0	0	0	0
A suggestion scheme	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Intranet	4	29	3	50	0	0	1	17
Work force meetings	4	29	2	33	0	0	2	33
Personnel newsletter	3	21	2	33	0	0	1	17
Personnel guide	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Informing personnel about corporate strategy	1	7	1	17	0	0	0	0
Immediate supervisor as a communication channel	3	21	1	17	2	100	0	0
Open channels of communication to the CEO/managing director	2	14	0	0	0	0	2	33
Anonymous complaint points	6	43	2	33	2	100	2	33
Informing personnel about financial performance	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Perceptions measures	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Number of days or losses related to industrial action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Values and principles

This section addressed instances related to firms’ mission, vision, and values statements, as well as ethical principles and training. Half of the sample firms (Table 8) reported either a part or full statement of their ethical principles, suggesting the importance of ethics to these organizations. Mission statements, either in full or a summary, were disclosed by 42.9% of the firms and the vision statement was only made referenced by 14.3% of the sample. This relatively low reporting of firms’ mission on CSR and sustainability reports should be the cause for concern since CSR and sustainability initiatives should be driven by, and incorporated into some aspects of organizations mission and vision statements. Such incorporations would suggest commitment to CSR and sustainability initiatives. Conversely, the omission of the mission and vision from these reports suggests some level of detachment between the firm and its CSR and sustainability initiatives. This notion is further accentuated by the fact that only 29% of sampled firms made reference to their value statements in sampled reports.

Table 8.

Values and principles.

Values and principles	Sample instances		Segment instances
	Sample instances		Lodging		Cruise		Food and Beverage
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Values (full statement or summary)	4	29	3	50	0	0	1	17
A mission (full or summary)	6	43	3	50	1	50	2	33
A vision (full or summary)	2	14	2	33	0	0	0	0
Ethical principles (full or statement summary)	7	50	5	83	0	0	2	33
Ethics training	4	29	2	33	1	50	1	17

Employee health and well-being

This category included indicators related to employee well-being and personal health. The most common indicator, reported (57.1%) was individual well-being, suggesting that firms have taken steps to improve the well-being of their employees. This was highest in the lodging sector where 83% reported information about programs designed to improve employees’ well-being (Table 9). A total of 42.9% of the firms reported that they provided health and safety training to employees, while 35.7% reported that they provided advice on health issues. Interestingly, 21.4% reported that they provided special doctors and nurses for all staff members, while 21.4% reported that they provided health screening services to employees. Only two firms (14.3%) reported on their work environment conditions. Similar findings were found for disclosures related to health and safety system audited by third parties (14%). Not surprisingly, firms did not reported on working capacity index, workplace ergonomics, and principles of zero defects since these concepts are typically utilized in manufacturing as opposed to the service-related industries. An important finding is that there were no instances for sampled firms related to stress-related surveys. This is especially interesting since firms reported on life balance, and it can be argued that poor life balance results in increased stress. It was also interesting to note that there were no reported instances of programs designed to address drug and alcohol issues among employees as well as violence in the workplace. It was also interesting to note that firms did not disclosed information about measures of employee perceptions about their health and well-being programs. Such feedback is important for firms since it provides information that will aid in continuous improvement.

Table 9.

Employee health and well-being.

Employee health and well-being	Sample instances		Segment instances
	Sample instances		Lodging		Cruise		Food and beverage
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Individual well-being	8	57	5	83	2	100	1	17
Emphasis on preventative activities	4	29	2	33	2	100	0	0
Retaining the personnel working capacity up to retirement age	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Support for sports and recreation	3	21	2	33	1	50	0	0
Support for rehabilitation	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Measurements (health and well-being activities)	1	7	1	17	0	0	0	0
Training or advice on health issues	5	36	3	50	1	50	1	17
Support to employees with mental problems	1	7	0	0	0	0	1	17
Health screening, follow-up	3	21	2	33	1	50	0	0
Action against drugs or alcohol	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Special doctor/nurse services	3	21	2	33	1	50	0	0
Special attention paid to aging employees	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Surveys on stress	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Rate of absences	1	7	1	17	0	0	0	0
Working capacity index	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Occupational health costs	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Perception measures	1	7	1	17	0	0	0	0
Work organization and community	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Improving the leadership skills and procedures	2	14	1	17	0	0	1	17
Improving the cooperative and interactive skills	1	7	0	0	0	0	1	17
Alleviating rush and time pressure	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Improving the management of change and crisis	4	29	2	33	1	50	1	17
Improving internal communication	3	21	1	17	0	0	2	33
Work environment and conditions	2	14	1	17	1	50	0	0
Principles of zero accidents	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Health and safety training	6	43	2	33	2	100	2	33
Occupational health and safety system audited by third parties	2	14	0	0	2	100	0	0
Analysis of the causes of work-related accidents and safety surveys	2	14	1	17	1	50	0	0
Improving the workplace ergonomics	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Improving the hygiene of work	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Improving the management of threat and violence	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Percentage of injuries in the total workforce	2	14	1	17	1	50	0	0
Perception measures	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Focus groups	2	14	0	0	0	0	2	33

The data also suggest that firms are somewhat reluctant to disclose employee-related information since only two organizations openly disclosed the percentage of injuries in their workforce and while only one disclosed the rate of absences. Management of change and crisis was reported by only 28.6% of the firms. This finding was unexpected since management of change and crisis is often perceived as important factors in improving workplace working conditions. Additionally, only one firm (Starbucks Corporation) explicitly reported support for employees with mental problems, more specifically autism.

Measurement of policies

Measurement of policies addressed tools used by the organizations to obtain feedback from employees and external stakeholders on perceptions of the company and its policies. The majority of firms (64.3%) reported having some form of job satisfaction survey in place (Table 10), with the lodging and food and beverage sectors leading in this regard at 67%, respectively. Of interest is the fact that sampled firms (57%) were apt to disclose recognition and awards received for their CSR and sustainability initiatives (lodging sector, 100% disclosure), however, there were no disclosures related to employee contracts or employee retention rates. This suggests that firms are willing to showcase awards to indicate that they are receiving recognition for CSR/sustainability initiatives, however, there appears to be a need for internal improvement especially regarding employees and employee engagement. This is also accentuated by the relatively low instances of internal surveys (36%).

Table 10.

Measurement of policies.

Measurement of policies	Sample instances		Segment instances
	Sample instances		Lodging		Cruise		Food and beverage
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Work atmosphere or job satisfaction surveys	9	64	4	67	1	50	4	67
Other internal surveys (e.g., Starwood associate engagement survey)	5	36	2	33	1	50	2	33
External surveys	2	14	2	33	0	0	0	0
Employee turnover rate	3	21	2	33	1	50	0	0
Breakdown by length of employee contract	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Average length of employee contract	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Standards (qualitative and quantitative)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Awards	8	57	6	100	1	50	1	17
Retention rate	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Safety and security audits	2	14	0	0	2	100	0	0

Employment policy

Employment policy addressed disclosures related to firms’ hiring practices and the hiring of employees from all societal segments. The majority of the firms (57.1%) reported that they had programs in place to train students and recent graduates (Table 11). Half of sampled firms indicated that they offered employment opportunities for ethnic minorities, however, only one firm (Yum! Brand) disclosed the percentage of new recruits from ethnic minority groups. Additionally, half of the sampled firms disclosed information about offering employment to military veterans, while 28.6% reported employing people with identified disabilities. However, they did not disclose the number of new recruits identified as having been disabled. Likewise, only one firm reported the number of recruits from ethnic minority groups. Only three firms (21.4%), explicitly disclosed their support for alternative lifestyle (e.g. lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender), and initiatives for support. However, the fact that firms did not report hiring ageing people, suggests room for improvement.

Table 11.

Employment policy.

Employment policy	Sample instances		Segment instances
	Sample instances		Lodging		Cruise		Food and Beverage
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Traineeships for students	8	57	5	83	0	0	3	50
Company has offered training/employment for:
Aging people	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
People with disabilities	4	29	3	50	0	0	1	17
Ethnic minorities	7	50	4	67	0	0	3	50
Low-skilled people	1	7	0	0	0	0	1	17
Military veterans	7	50	5	83	0	0	2	33
Support for alternative lifestyle	3	21	3	50	0	0	0	0
Number of new hires	1	7	1	17	0	0	0	0
Number of traineeships	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Number of new ageing recruits	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Number of new recruits with disabilities	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Percentage of new recruits from ethnic minorities	1	7	0	0	0	0	1	17

Security in employment

This category considers all references made to initiatives that lead to employment security. As highlighted in Table 12, several categories within this dimension were not reported by companies (information on redundancies, temporary employees, and internal rotations).

Table 12.

Security in employment.

Security in employment	Sample instances		Segment instances
	Sample instances		Lodging		Cruise		Food and beverage
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Reductions in workforce for economic or other reasons	1	7	0	0	0	0	1	17
Proactive measures to avoid redundancies	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Professional support for employees that become disable	2	14	2	33	0	0	0	0
Breakdown by part time or full time	4	29	3	50	1	50	0	0
Breakdown by hourly versus salaried	3	21	2	33	0	0	1	17
Number of internal rotations	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Number of redundancies or dismissals	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Number of temporary employees	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Perception measures (qualitative or quantitative)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Four organizations (28.6%) disclosed a breakdown by part-time or full-time employment and three firms (21.5%) disclosed a breakdown of hourly versus salaried employees. A small percentage of companies (14.3%) reported that they provided professional support for employees who become disabled. Only one firm, Dunkin’ Brands Group, disclosed information about initiatives aimed at addressing employees in the event of workforce reductions for economic or noneconomic reasons.

Equal opportunities

This dimension specifically addressed instances of initiatives that specifically addressed equal employment opportunities in the workplace, especially those related to: gender; age; disability; ethnic minorities; and incentives to encourage equal opportunity in the work place. A total of 57.1% (Table 13) reported on the principle of nondiscrimination/equal opportunities, while 50.0% disclosed information about their diversity or equal opportunity training programs. However, only two companies indicated in their reports that they had policies germane to address the practice for harassment while only one company, InterContinental Hotel Group, reported on the code of practice for bullying in the work place. Intercontinental Hotel Group was also the only firm to disclose information about measures to facilitate the adaption of visible minorities. However, the data suggest that there is room for improvement hospitality and tourism firms in regard to equal employment opportunities in the workplace. More specifically, the fact that there were nonreporting on surveys and perceptions of equality, recruiting to balance gender segregation and people with disabilities in management seems to support this notion. Nonetheless, there are some encouraging signs on this dimension since most of the organizations (57.1%) offered a breakdown of employees by gender, while 28.6% offered a breakdown of employees by age. Six companies (42.9%) reported the percentage of women in management positions, 14.3% stated the percentage of employees from ethnic groups, and also 14.3% provided information about employees from ethnic background who hold management positions.

Table 13.

Equal opportunities.

Equal opportunities	Sample instances		Segment instances
	Sample instances		Lodging		Cruise		Food and beverage
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Principle of nondiscrimination/equal opportunities	8	57	5	83	0	0	3	50
Equal opportunity plan	2	14	2	33	0	0	0	0
Diversity or equal opportunity training	7	50	4	67	0	0	3	50
Attention paid to equality is salary and wage	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Code of practice for harassment (e.g., sexual)	2	14	1	17	0	0	1	17
Surveys on equality	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Code of practice for bullying	1	7	1	17	0	0	0	0
Targeted recruitment in order to balance gender segregation	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Measures to facilitate the adaption of visible minorities	1	7	1	17	0	0	0	0
Breakdown by age	4	29	3	50	0	0	1	17
Average age	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Breakdown by gender	8	57	5	83	1	50	2	33
Percentage of women in management positions	6	43	3	50	0	0	3	50
Percentage of employees from ethnic groups	2	14	1	17	0	0	1	17
Percentage of people with disabilities	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Percentage of people with disabilities in management positions	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Percentage of people with ethnic background in management positions	2	14	0	0	0	0	2	33
Perception measures (qualitative or quantitative)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Work–life balance

This dimension (Table 14) addressed issues such as flexible working times and efforts by firms to assist employees in balancing their work and private lives. Interestingly, this concept was only mentioned by two hotel groups (14.3%). There was no reporting by firms on elements of work–life balance including: support for childcare; maternity leave options; and family leave conditions for male or female employees. It is plausible that such elements are present at the sampled firms, however they were not disclosed. Given the growing importance of work–life balance in today’s society, it is imperative that firms support and implement work–life balance initiatives, but also report their performance on each element.

Table 14.

Work–life balance.

Work–life balance	Sample instances		Segment instances
	Sample instances		Lodging		Cruise		Food and beverage
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Principles of work–life balance	2	14	2	33	0	0	0	0
Flextime	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Support for childcare	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Better maternity leave than stipulated by law or collective agreements	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Encouragement for men to use their family leave options	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Complimentary training for those returning from family leave	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Survey on work–life balance	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Perception measures (qualitative or quantitative)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Conclusion

CSR and sustainability implementation and disclosure are undergoing a rapid growth in the hospitality and tourism industry as stakeholders are demanding such actions from firms. In conjunction, hospitality and tourism firms are engaging in such practices to receive actual or ostensible benefits including: corporate reputation enhancement; increased employee and guest loyalty; attracting new investors; and increasing new market share and productivity. However, in recent years, stakeholders have become more concerned and interested not only in firms’ implementation of CSR and sustainability initiatives but also require more transparency via disclosure of information on such initiatives. Like most industries, firms in the hospitality and tourism industry have started to disclose information about their CSR and sustainability initiatives via CSR/sustainability reports. Given that such disclosures by hospitality and tourism firms are currently in their infancy, this research attempts to shed light on what aspects of CSR and sustainability firms within the sector are reporting.

General CSR/sustainability reporting was the dimension having the most instances of reporting. In fact the most reported categories included indicators that are often viewed as the foundation or the pillars of the triple bottom line, namely water, energy, and waste disclosures. This seems to suggest that firms often view sustainability and performance on CSR initiatives as intricately related issues. Community involvement, another pillar of the triple bottom line was the second most frequently reported component. This suggests that hospitality and tourism firms continue to strive to enhance their social reputation by highlighting their social activities in the communities in which they operate. The least reported dimensions were pays and benefits and work–life balance. As previously noted, it is plausible that firms did not perceive a need to disclose information about pays and benefits due to their dynamic and fluid nature. Other plausible reasons for nondisclosures could be: firm might not want to make this information publicly available to competitors; organizations might not see this subject as a potential competitive advantage; and firms might have chosen to focus on other areas of employee relations on their reports. However, given the importance of this dimension in today’s full disclosure and information relevant society, it could be beneficial for firms to disclose such information to inform relevant stakeholders about their fair compensation practices. Work–life balance information should also be disclosed by firms especially to improve their competitiveness for attracting the best and most talented job candidates. Thus, it is not sufficient for firms simple to have work–life policies and practices, instead, they should also disclose this information.

Like most empirical studies, this study had limitations that future studies are encouraged to overcome. First, the sample size utilized for this was small. This was not unexpected since CSR/sustainability reporting by hospitality and tourism limitations is a relatively new practice. It is hoped that future studies will replicate this study using a larger sample size. This study also utilized formal published CSR/sustainability reports and information found on firms’ websites. It is hoped that future studies will expend beyond these sources to include all relevant reports and other means by which companies can communicate with stakeholders such as press releases, publicity, and public relations reports. Moreover, future research could take a step further and investigate how a company can benefit from reporting on each specific indicator and construct a framework for best reporting practices in the industry. Additionally, the sample was drawn from US domiciled firms or those having a major corporate office in the United States. Future studies are encouraged to include firms domiciled in different countries since firms in these countries, such as those domiciled in Europe could have different or additional disclosure information.

Finally, the findings from content analysis of the CSR/sustainability reports of 14 hospitality and tourism firms, suggest that there is a vast difference between the levels of information reported by those firms in the industry’s sectors. Hotel or lodging firms report on a larger scale and on a greater number of issues than firms operating in the food and beverage and cruise line sectors. This suggests CSR/sustainability reporting in the hospitality and tourism industry is in its infancy, and as such, there is room for growth and improvement in the area CSR/sustainability reporting by hospitality and tourism firms.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Laura Medrado, works for InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG) as a consultant for new hotel openings. She earned her Bachelors and Masters degree from the Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University.

Leonard A Jackson, PhD, MS, MBA, MAcc, teaches graduate and undergraduate lasses in the Hospitality Management Department, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University. His research interests include sustainability and financial performance, hotel REIT performance, business combinations, entrepreneurship and executive transition impact.

References

Adams

Narayanan

(2007) The ‘standardization’ of sustainability reporting. In: Unerman

Bebbington

O’Dwyer

(eds) Sustainability Accounting and Accountability, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 70–85.

Bader

(2005) Sustainable hotel business practices. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property 5(1): 70–77.

Ballou

Heitger

Landes

(2006) The future of corporate sustainability reporting: A rapidly growing assurance opportunity. Journal of Accountancy 202(6): 65–74.

Bonilla-Priego

Font

Pacheco-Olivares

(2014) Corporate sustainability reporting index and baseline data for the cruise industry. Tourism Management 44: 149–160.

Chan

Hawkins

(2010) Attitude towards EMSs in an international hotel: An exploratory case study. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29: 641–651.

Crittenden

Ferrell

(2011) Market-oriented sustainability: A conceptual framework and propositions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39: 71–85.

Dragu

Tudor-Tiron

(2013) New corporate reporting trends. Analysis on the evolution of integrated reporting. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series 22(1): 1221–1228.

English

Schooley

(2014) The evolution of sustainability reporting: Utilizing the GRI’s latest guidelines and looking to integrated reporting. The CPA Journal. (March: 26–35.

Freedman

Jaggi

(2010) Global warming and corporate disclosures: A comparative analysis of companies from the European Union, Japan and Canada. Sustainability, Environmental Performance and Disclosures, Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 129–160.

10.

Garz

Volk

(2007) GRI reporting: Aiming to uncover true performance. WestLB Extra-Financial Research. . http://minnesotafuturist.pbworks.com/f/The-SRO_WestLB_GRI_reporting.pdf (accessed March 2015).

11.

Giacomo M and Simone T. The role of stakeholders in sustainability reporting assurance. Journal of Business Ethics 107(3): 363–377.

12.

Global Reporting Initiative (2014) Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 24 May 2014).

13.

Goel

(2010) Triple bottom line reporting: An analytical approach for corporate sustainability. Journal of Finance, Accounting and Management 1(1): 27–42.

14.

Graci

Dodds

(2008) Why go green the business case for environmental commitment in the Canadian hotel industry. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 19(2): 251–270.

15.

Grosbois

(2012) Corporate social responsibility reporting by the global hotel industry: Commitment, initiatives, and performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31: 896–905.

16.

Hess

(2008) The three pillars of corporate social reporting as new governance regulation: Disclosure, dialogue, and development. Business Ethics Quarterly 18(4): 447–482.

17.

Jackson

(2006) Ameliorating the negative impacts of tourism: A Caribbean perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 18(7): 574–582.

18.

Jackson

(2010) Toward a framework for the components of green lodging. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property 9(3): 211–230.

19.

Jackson

(2013) Best management practices in green lodging defined and explained. Hospitality Review 31(1): 1–36.

20.

Jackson

Hua

(2009) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: A snapshot from the lodging and gaming industries. Journal of Hospitality Financial Management 17(1): 63–78.

21.

Jackson

Parsa

(2009) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: A typology for service industries. International Journal of Business Insights and Transformation 2(2): 13–21.

22.

Jackson

Singh

(2015) Environmental rankings and financial performance: An analysis of firms in the US food and beverage supply chain. Tourism Management Perspectives 14: 25–33.

23.

Klein R (2013) Cruising-out of control: The cruise industry, the environment, workers and the Maritimes. Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives-Nova Scotia. Available at: http://www.cruisejunkie.com/ccpa1.pdf (accessed 24 December 2014).

24.

Krippendorff

(2013) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

25.

Legendre

Coderre

(2013) Determinants of GRI G3 application levels: The case of the fortune global 500. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 20: 182–192.

26.

MacLean

Rebernak

(2007) Closing the credibility gap: The challenges of corporate responsibility reporting. Environmental Quality Management 16(4): 1–6.

27.

Manetti G (2011) The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: Empirical evidence and critical points. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 18(2): 110–122.

28.

May

Khare

(2008) An exploratory view of emerging relationship between corporate social and financial performance in Canada. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 10(3): 239–264.

29.

Milne

Gray

(2013) W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 118: 13–29.

30.

Mitchell

Agle

Wood

(1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853–886.

31.

Paul JD and Walter WP (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.

32.

Peršić

Janković

Bakija

(2013) Sustainability reporting for hotel companies: A tool for overcoming the crisis. In: Conference proceedings: 2nd International Scientific Conference Tourism in South East Europe, 2013, pp., 319–334.

33.

Ramanathan

(1976) Toward a theory of corporate social accounting. The Accounting Review 51(3): 516–528.

34.

Romero

Lin

Jeffers

(2014) An overview of sustainability reporting practices: Results of related research and recommendations for the future. The CPA Journal (March: 68–71.

35.

Sarfaty

(2013) Regulating through numbers: A case study of corporate sustainability reporting. Virginia Journal of International Law 53(3): 575–621.

36.

Singal

(2014) The link between firm financial performance and investment in sustainability initiatives. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 55(1): 19–30.

37.

Slater

Gilbert

(2004) The evolution of business reporting: Make room for sustainability disclosure. Environmental Quality Management 14(1): 41–48.

38.

Smith G (2010) Filling the void: An exercise to enhance student understanding of corporate social responsibility reporting using the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) G3 reporting guidelines. In: Proceedings of the Northeast Business & Economics Association, pp. 685–689. http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/56100941/filling-void-exercise-enhance-student-understanding-corporate-social-responsibility-reporting-using-global-reporting-initiatives-gri-g3-reporting-guidelines.

39.

Sobhani

Amran

Zainuddin

(2012) Sustainability disclosure in annual reports and websites: A study of the banking industry in Bangladesh. Journal of Cleaner Production 23: 75–85.

40.

Suchman

(1995) Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571–610.

41.

Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (2011) Available at: Global Reporting Initiative: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3-Guidelines-Incl-Technical-Protocol.pdf (accessed 27 May 2014).

42.

Vuontisjärvi

(2006) Corporate social reporting in the European context and human resource disclosures: An analysis of Finnish companies. Journal of Business Ethics 69: 331–354.

43.

Waller

Lanis

(2009) Corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure of advertising agencies: An exploratory analysis of six holding companies’ annual reports. Journal of Advertising 38(1): 109–121.

44.

WBCSD (2014) Available at: http://www.wbcsd.org/newsroom/faq.aspx (accessed 22 May 2014).