Drivers of Sustainability Strategies in Spain’s Wine Tourism Industry

Abstract

Confusion about what constitutes sustainability and the lack of incentives are two major factors interfering with the expansion of sustainability efforts in Spain’s wine tourism industry, according to a survey of forty-nine wine practitioners at forty-six small- and medium-size Spanish wineries. The study identified the following four overall strategies: (1) reducing waste and toxicity, (2) highlighting sustainability in products and regulations, (3) sustainability in energy consumption, and (4) developing new sustainability-related business opportunities. The fact that these strategies are heavily weighted toward production may be a function of the nascent state of Spain’s wine tourism but also because the structured interviews were more heavily weighted toward production issues. On balance, the study indicates that more education about sustainability, both for producers and tourists, should be paired with economic incentives to encourage greater sustainability in Spain’s wine tourism industry.

Keywords

Sustainability wine tourism

Wine tourism has emerged as a lucrative industry sector, with the capacity to generate growing tourism arrivals (Marzo-Navarro and Pedraja-Iglesias 2009, 817). Visiting wineries and exploring the so-called “wine routes” have become an important form of cultural tourism in many regions around the world (Hall and Mitchell 2000). The combination of wine and tourism offers considerable synergies (Scherrer, Alonso, and Sheridan 2009), and many authors point to the potential benefits from this relationship (e.g., Dodd 1995; Dodd and Bigotte 1997; Fraser and Alonso 2006; Getz et al. 1999). In this regard, wine is an important destination attraction and can be a major motivating factor for visitors (Yuan et al. 2008, 207). For the wine industry, wine tourism is an interesting marketing opportunity for wineries to educate and to sell their products directly to consumers (Getz 2000), and for wine regions to develop other products and services related to wine (Marzo-Navarro and Pedraja-Iglesias 2009). A notable example of a regional approach to wine tourism is found in Rioja, Spain, which hosts the City of Wine, complete with a Frank Gehry–designed hotel operated by the Starwood Luxury Collection (Vila, Enz, and Costa 2012).

Many small wine producers have redirected marketing resources toward wine sales in tasting rooms to good effect (Yuan et al. 2008), as Frochot (2003) found that small-scale wineries have greater success in attracting visitors than their large-scale counterparts. Given this opportunity, small producers are increasingly using wine tourism as a tool for building brand loyalty, gaining market information, and improving consumer awareness of wine products (Dodd 1995; Getz 2000; Getz and Brown 2006).

As is the case with all tourism endeavors, wine tourism is confronted by a range of critical development issues, notably, those regarding sustainability and long-term profitability (O’Neill and Charters 2000). In this paper, we address sustainable wine tourism, which aims to minimize environmental and cultural damage while it fulfills the common objectives of optimizing visitor satisfaction and maximizing long-term regional economic growth (Bramwell 1994), and also preserving the local natural environment and residents’ lifestyles. The adoption of sustainable practices is recognized as a growing trend and a point of differentiation among wineries and wine regions (Baird 2012; Flint and Golicic 2009; Hall and Mitchell 2008).

Despite the growing interest in wine tourism, we have not seen research regarding its sustainability aspects. Instead, most studies have addressed demand factors, such as the determinants of wine tourism or the socio-demographics of winery visitors (e.g., Charters and Ali-Knight 2002; Cohen and Ben-Nun 2009), and we have seen an increasing amount of supply-side and policy-oriented wine tourism research (e.g., Pikkemaat et al. 2009; Simeon and Sayeed 2011). Although these are worthwhile topics, research on sustainability aspects remains scarce (exceptions include Carlsen and Ali-Knight 2004; Poitras and Getz 2006; Ritchie and Crouch 2003). Moreover, studies have been based largely on a qualitative exploratory approach and have examined the general wine industry (e.g., Flint and Golicic 2009; Gabzdylova, Raffensperger, and Castka 2009; Marshall et al. 2010). Again, while these studies are of value, they provide few generalizable insights for wine tourism, because both the economic and the competitive conditions of the wine tourism industry differ from those of the wine production and sales sector. As Carlsen and Charters (2006, 3) stressed, “There is much work to do in understanding further how these two industries—wine and tourism—diverge, and indeed converge, across a range of economic, technical, cultural, geographic and vocational factors.” Sustainability is one such factor.

The research described here was aimed mainly at shedding more light on the sustainability issues involving Spain’s wine tourism activities. The objective of this paper is (1) to categorize the sustainability strategies that wineries and wine routes are developing and (2) to determine the main drivers (internal and external) influencing the adoption of sustainability strategies in the wine tourism industry. The participants in our study include wine company owners, environmental and marketing managers, and enologists, chosen from the main wine regions of Spain.

Sustainability in the Wine Tourism Industry

Interest in sustainable tourism has grown over the past twenty years, and international organizations have increasingly been considering the effects of tourism on the environment, culture, and society (Buzzigoli 2009, 136, 137). Nevertheless, sustainability is perceived as a complex concept for tourism (Butler 1999; Lu and Nepal 2009; Mowforth and Munt 2003), and the definition of the term is still being refined (Stoddard, Evans, and Davé 2008). As a consequence, tourism sustainability is still a contested area of research (Bramwell and Lane 2008; Buckley 2009). Nevertheless, there is an agreement in the literature that sustainable tourism should facilitate a region’s social, economic, and environmental well-being (Gilmore and Simmons 2007).

In that context, wineries throughout the world have begun to develop new processes to address the increased environmental concern of wine consumers and other important stakeholders (Cartier, Dolan, and Matz 2004). For example, the U.S. industry is faced with increased pressure to practice better land stewardship (Marshall, Cordano, and Silverman 2005). In the same way, many countries of the European Union (e.g., Portugal, Greece, and Moldova) have implemented several environmental projects to assist wine tourism and viticulture development (Hall, Johnson, and Mitchell 2000)

Drivers and Sustainability Strategies in the Wine Tourism Industry

From the wine industry’s perspective, sustainability is perceived as an important source of competitive advantage that forms a positive, environmentally conscious image in the mind of the consumer. Indeed, the adoption of sustainable practices as a signal of differentiation has been noted as a growing trend among wineries (Carmichael and Senese 2012; Casini et al. 2010; Nowak and Washburn 2002). Nevertheless, the reality is that winemaking is an industrial process based on a farming process (Baird 2012) that requires substantial chemical inputs and creates hydrocarbon emissions in the process of transporting the wine from vineyard to retailer to consumer (Hall and Mitchell 2008).

Keeping the necessary inputs in mind, Hall and colleagues (2000) proposed that sustainable wine tourism is based on the following three pillars: (1) economic sustainability, (2) environmental sustainability, and (3) social sustainability. Ritchie and Crouch (2003) added a fourth pillar—political sustainability—in the context of competitive destinations. In addition, Poitras and Getz (2006) suggested that sustainable wine tourism depends on the identification and management of issues pertaining to the resources used (i.e., the land and water, labor, capital, and infrastructure inputs necessary for grape growing and winemaking). In fact, much of the wine industry has become aware of the environmental and political issues surrounding wine and wine tourism, especially in heavily populated regions (but not all, as we discuss below). Some growers have moved to adopt practices that lower the chemical usage to benefit from decreased input costs, as outlined in the Code of Sustainable Wine Growing developed by the California-Based Wine Institute (www.wineinstitute.org). As in other industries, the focus on environmental performance can bring advantages such as better quality, reduced costs, improved image, and the opening of new markets (Corbett and Klassen 2006).

In analyzing the drivers of sustainability strategies, external aspects refer to the environmental, socio-cultural, and economic dimensions of sustainability. The definition of such “environmentally sustainable practices” implies a long-term environmental focus during both production and marketing (Bhaskaran et al. 2006). In addition to the reduction in inputs that we just mentioned, California researchers have noted that sustainable vineyard practices include initiatives such as habitat restoration and the use of cover crops (Silverman, Marshall, and Cordano 2005). The long-term view of sustainability also includes economic elements of sustainability, most particularly the long-term viability of the wine production and wine tourism businesses, the influence of market forces, and the nature of costs and benefits. Alonso (2010, 68) suggested that institutional support is essential to this process, as a lack of such help can hamper the adoption of sustainable economic practices. Given that long-term economic sustainability, as a consequence of increasing competition from other destinations, could affect the demand for products and services (Taylor, Barber, and Deale 2010, 15), the development of sustainable activities should improve the wineries’ image and finances. Finally, socio-cultural sustainability is linked to customers’ demand for sustainable products; pressure from investors, community groups, and the public; and compliance with regulations (Gabzdylova, Raffensperger, and Castka 2009).

Internal sustainability drivers include economies of scale (Baird 2012), the personal preferences of managers, and demands from employees. There appears to be a slower rate of adoption of sustainable practices by smaller, less financially empowered vineyards (Zucca, Smith, and Mitry 2009). However, a favorable attitude toward sustainable development should foster a corporate sustainability strategy (Vithessonthi 2009). Each winery’s stage of business development also dictates its ability to adopt sustainable practices (Carmichael and Senese 2012). Compliance with regulations is also a relevant driver of sustainability (Dean and Brown 1995).

Spain’s Competitive Situation

The study described in this paper examines the Spanish wine tourism industry, which is still developing despite the Spain’s long-standing wine-growing tradition and huge tourist industry (López-Guzmán, Rodríguez-García, and Sánchez-Cañizares 2009). Among the wine-producing countries, Spain is in first place in terms of the planted surface area for vineyards, is the third-largest producer of wine (with a larger yield than either France or Italy), the second-largest global exporter in terms of volume of wine exported, and third in terms of the value of wine produced (International Organization of Wine and Vine [IOWV] 2012). Beyond its economic impact, this sector is important for Spain in social, environmental, and perception terms. As Spain’s wine tourism industry has emerged (Del Campo Gomis et al. 2010), Spain has become a highly preferred wine tourism destination.

Despite this development, we believe that the Spanish wine tourism sector is in its infancy, as demonstrated by the fact that fewer than 10 percent of Spanish wineries are open to the public versus up to 80 percent in Australia and 70 percent in California’s Napa Valley (Marzo-Navarro and Pedraja-Iglesias 2012, 313). There are, nevertheless, more than twenty wine routes in Spain, covering thirteen regions and twenty-seven cities (Del Rey 2011). The Wine Routes of Spain integrates resources and services of interest in noteworthy areas of Spain (Del Campo Gomis et al. 2010; López-Guzmán, Rodríguez-García, and Sánchez-Cañizares 2009). Among these, premium wine regions such as Ribera del Duero and Priorat are considered as among the best in the world, and La Rioja and the Penedès are also noted worldwide. Given a recent dip in wine production in both the European Union and Spain,¹ both vineyards and wineries are becoming increasingly involved in tourism-related business. In 2011, the number of visitors to wineries associated with wine routes in Spain amounted to 1,528,295 (Spanish Wine Routes Association [ACEVIN] 2012). The most visited routes are the Wine and Cava Route of Penedès, with 480,767 visitors, and the Wine and Brandy Route of Marco of Jerez, which attracted 470,276 guests.

Method

To analyze the wineries’ sustainability strategies, as well as the internal and external aspects influencing the development of those strategies, we conducted an extensive literature review that allowed us to develop a list of twenty-five questions for the wine tourism purveyors. With the assistance and advice of California wine experts teaching in several universities, we classified the items according to strategies, difficulties arising from the company itself, and challenges from the environment. Taking into account the results and the comments from the experts, our final list comprised a total of thirty-three modified measurement items (see the appendix). These items were classified into the following three categories: (1) sustainability strategies (fifteen items), (2) internal drivers (seven items), and (3) external drivers (eleven items).

Using a structured questionnaire, we collected data during personal interviews with forty-nine people at 46 wineries chosen from ten Designations of Origin (DO) of Spain (see Exhibit 1). Our sample of 46 wineries was drawn from a larger random sample of 173 wineries taken from the most visited wineries in the Wine Routes of Spain.² After several contacts by mail, phone, or e-mail, a total of 46 wineries participated in this study, which can be considered a 26.59 percent response rate. Respondents at the wineries who agreed to participate were interviewed by one of the researchers between February and May 2012. The questionnaire used closed-ended questions that asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement with a series of statements related to sustainability. Most statements could be answered using a Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The data were analyzed using SPSS Statistic 20.

Exhibit 1:

Geographic Location of Spanish Wineries (% Belonging to Each Spanish Province) that Participated in the Study.

The forty-nine participants included wine company owners (25%), CEOs (16.7%), winemakers (38.2%), division managers (mainly environmental and marketing managers; 5.8%), consultants (1.4%), and others (e.g., enologists; 13.2%). The majority of the wineries (51.1%) were relatively small, producing no more than 20,000 cases annually, and more than three-quarters of the respondents’ wineries made a profit of less than 10 million euros. In addition, almost 55 percent of the wineries exported part of their production.³

Results

Sustainable Strategies

We found four overall strategies, based on our evaluation of the dimensionality of the scales, using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with varimax rotation. We eliminated two items with factor loadings below 0.4 or cross-loaded on more than one factor (Hair et al. 2010). These were Highlighting or promoting sustainability in supplier and distributor relationships, and Including sustainability in scenario planning or budget forecasts. All of the remaining factors in sustainability strategies produced Cronbach’s alphas greater than .7. The four factor loadings ranged from 0.519 to 0.914, as shown in Exhibit 2.

Exhibit 2:

Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for the Measurement Scale of Sustainable Strategies.

Dimensions	M	SD	Factor Loading
Reducing waste and toxicity (α = .907)
Reducing or eliminating toxicity of harmful chemicals	3.93	1.67	0.860
Reducing or eliminating waste by-products	4.15	1.72	0.833
Improving efficiency in packaging and closures	3.60	1.55	0.738
Improving efficiency by reducing waste by-products	3.80	1.63	0.882
Highlighting sustainability in products and regulations (α = .749)
Highlighting sustainability in company or product branding	3.60	1.50	0.653
Highlighting sustainability in the recruitment of employees	2.45	1.16	0.594
Influencing government policies/regulations (e.g., product content, packaging, etc.)	2.71	1.22	0.849
Reacting to government policies/regulations (e.g., product content, packaging, etc.)	2.58	1.16	0.761
Designing processes or products for reuse and recycling	3.52	1.51	0.519
Sustainability in energy consumption (α = .828)
Building awareness of sustainability in the organization	3.86	1.62	0.914
Reducing or eliminating carbon or greenhouse gas emissions	3.41	1.50	0.621
Improving efficiency in energy consumption	4.08	1.70	0.662
Developing new sustainability-related business opportunities (e.g., clean energy solutions)	3.36	1.45	0.822

Note. KMO(Kaiser-Myer-Olkin) : 0.789, Bartlett’s test of sphericity = 330.754 (p < .000).

As we discuss next, the four strategies that we identified as follows: (1) reducing waste and toxicity, (2) highlighting sustainability in products and regulations, (3) sustainability in energy consumption, and (4) developing new sustainability-related business opportunities. These became the dependent variables in regression analyses, as we discuss below.

Strategy 1, reducing waste and toxicity, contributed 42.49 percent to the total variance and includes the following four activities: (1) reducing or eliminating the toxicity of harmful chemicals, (2) reducing or eliminating waste by-products, (3) improving efficiency in packaging and closures, and (4) improving efficiency by reducing waste by-products. Strategy 2, highlighting sustainability in products and regulations, contributed 14.35 percent to the total variance and includes five activities that describe different strategies related to social responsibility, including branding, recruitment of employees, regulations, and process design. Strategy 3, sustainability in energy consumption, contributed 9.9 percent to the total variance and includes three activities related to awareness and efficiency in energy consumption. Finally, the single activity in Strategy 4, developing new sustainable business opportunities, explained 7.84 percent of the total variance.

Internal and External Drivers of Sustainability Strategies

Our results confirm that the recognition of the importance of sustainability issues occurs from multiple perspectives that are both internal and external to the winery (Alonso and Liu 2012). We evaluated the three most influential internal and external drivers, as follows (see Exhibit 3). The three most salient internal constraints were (1) not enough resources to address these issues, (2) unclear benefits of addressing these issues, and (3) too many competing perspectives on sustainability issues. These results are probably related to our earlier point that the majority of the wineries in our sample were relatively small. The perception of too many competing perspectives is a consequence of the complexity of sustainability. As we indicated above, the concept of sustainability is defined, interpreted, and implemented differently by individuals, stakeholders, and social groups (Lu and Nepal 2009, 5).

Exhibit 3:

Drivers Influencing Sustainability Issues.

	Number	% as Top 3 Factor
Internal challenges to addressing sustainability issues
Outdated perspectives on sustainability issues	14	30.4
Too many competing perspectives on sustainability issues	23	50.0
Unclear benefits of addressing these issues	27	58.7
Not enough resources to address these issues	28	60.8
Industry downturn has stalled sustainability initiatives	20	43.4
Not persuaded by business case or proven value proposition	9	19.5
Don’t know most effective ways to take action	13	28.2
External challenges to addressing sustainability issues
Absence of clear industry standards	9	19.5
Insufficient proven customer demand or needs	19	41.3
Lack of clear regulatory policy	13	28.2
Insufficient economic incentives	24	52.1
Limited availability of financial capital	20	43.4
Industry downturn has stalled sustainability initiatives	8	17.3
Inability to charge a price premium for sustainably sourced and produced products	18	39.1
Risk of economic incentives being reduced or eliminated due to changing policies	4	8.6
Lack of lender/investor support	3	6.5
Potential source of cost disadvantage relative to competitors	14	30.4
Potential source of differentiation disadvantage relative to competitors	3	6.5

The key external aspects were first, insufficient economic incentives, and tied for second: limited availability of financial capital and insufficient proven customer demand or needs. These results seem to confirm the importance of institutional support and the government involvement as key factors in the adoption of sustainable practices by wineries involved in wine tourism. This matter of the lack of institutional support is suggested by Alonso (2010) as inhibiting the adoption of sustainable practices by Australian wineries.

Finally, to analyze the relationship between internal and external issues and sustainability strategies, we estimated a seemingly unrelated regression (SUR; Zellner 1962). An SUR is a generalization of a linear regression model that consists of several regression equations, each having its own dependent variable and potentially different sets of exogenous explanatory variables. Each equation is a valid linear regression on its own and can be estimated separately, and the predictor variables may not be the same for each equation.

Because the scales of neither internal nor external aspects formed distinct factors, we applied each individual item as an independent variable to the four dependent variables, as listed in Exhibit 2. In this approach, all four equations were estimated using the same set of exogenous explanatory variables. The SUR was estimated using STATA 12.0.

The variance inflation factor (VIF) values for all four regressions were well below the cutoff value of 10 given by Neter et al. (1996). The tests confirmed that multicollinearity was not a problem with our data. In addition, the Breusch–Pagan heteroskedasticity test confirmed that the residuals between the four factors were homogeneous, χ²(6) = 8.670, p = .1930.

As shown in Exhibit 4, the regression results indicate that only certain internal and external drivers have an effect, depending on the sustainable strategy under study. For the first strategy (reducing waste and toxicity), internal aspects appear to offer little incentive, because no internal aspect has a significant influence on this strategy. In contrast, two external challenges influenced this strategy, both of them related to the availability of financial capital. Thus, we conclude that the wineries’ lack of financial resources leads them to respond to sustainability at the most basic level, in this case, trying to reduce and clean up waste after it has been created.

Exhibit 4:

Estimation Results of Four Strategic Sustainability Factors.

	Dependent Variables (Factors)
	Reducing Waste and Toxicity		Highlighting Sustainability in Products and Regulations		Sustainability in Energy Consumption		New Sustainable Business Opportunities
Independent Variables	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE
Internal challenges to addressing sustainability issues
Outdated perspectives on sustainability issues	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Too many competing perspectives on sustainability issues	—	—	−0.722**	0.307	0.429**	0.190	—	—
Unclear benefits of addressing these issues	—	—	—	—	0.431*	0.222	—	—
Not enough resources to address these issues	—	—	—	—	−0.356*	0.200	—	—
Industry downturn has stalled sustainability initiatives	—	—	—	—	0.413*	0.231	0.595*	0.360
Not persuaded by business case or proven value proposition	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Don’t know most effective ways to take action	—	—	−0.748**	0.357	—	—	—	—
External challenges to addressing sustainability issues
Absence of clear industry standards	—	—	—	—	0.441**	0.191	−0.611*	0.297
Insufficient proven customer demand or needs	—		—	—	—	—	—	—
Lack of clear regulatory policy	—	—	—	—	—	—	−0.670**	0.286
Insufficient economic incentives	—	—	0.501*	0.288	0.330*	0.177	−0.821***	0.276
Limited availability of patient financial capital	0.685**	0.270	—	—	—	—	−0.812**	0.347
Industry downturn has stalled sustainability initiatives	—	—	—	—	−0.421*	0.253	−1.175***	0.394
Inability to charge a price premium for sustainably sourced and produced products	—	—	—	—	—	—	−0.697**	0.320
Risk of economic incentives being reduced or eliminated due to changing policies	—	—	0.819**	0.395	−0.415*	0.244	—	—
Lack of lender/investor support	1.093***	0.392	—	—	0.609*	0.324	—	—
Potential source of cost disadvantage relative to competitors	—	—	—	—	−0.433**	0.200	−0.593*	0.312
Potential source of differentiation disadvantage relative to competitors	—	—	—	—	0.537**	0.261	—	—
Constant	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
R ²	.629		.336		.747		.387
RMSE	0.602		0.805		0.497		0.774
χ²	78.20***		23.34		135.84***		29.11**

Note. Only those significant parameters are shown; B = SUR coefficients. RMSE = root mean square error; SUR = seemingly unrelated regression.

p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

The second strategy, highlighting sustainability in products and regulations, is heavily influenced by a lack of clear information. Our results suggest that wineries either cannot acquire clear information on what sustainability issues really refer to, or else they cannot determine how to implement sustainability approaches. In the absence of clear internal guidelines, sustainability is linked to external factors such as compliance with (increasing) legislative requirements, codes, and standards. Wineries are unable or unwilling to meet national and international regulatory requirements due to the scarcity of economic incentives or the risk that such incentives would be reduced or eliminated. Our results indicate that effectively charging businesses to pollute would provide an economic incentive that would encourage wineries to address sustainability strategies beyond compliance with legislation (Beder 2001).

In contrast to pollution and regulation, internal issues drive strategies relating to sustainability in energy consumption. This is a consequence of wineries’ energy efficiency relying on the various aspects of winemaking itself, including process conditions and production management practices. Once again, we find that the benefits for wineries from addressing sustainable practices are not clear, most likely because the wineries do not know or are ignoring what the sustainability issues really are. A chief external aspect of this issue is the absence of clear industry standards for energy consumption, largely as a consequence of the variation between wineries. Thus, it is particularly difficult, for example, to compare figures for total amount of energy consumed or the cost per unit of wine produced, and the measurements of energy consumption or efficiency vary widely between wineries. Once again, we also see the lack of economic incentives interfering with the development of energy consumption–based sustainability strategies. However, the ability of this strategy to differentiate a winery from its competitors is an external challenge, in line with Nowak and Washburn (2002) who confirmed that wineries are attracting wine tourism via the promotion of sustainable practices of on-site viticultural production.

Finally, external aspects appear to be more relevant than internal ones as determinants of new sustainable business opportunities. Once again, lack of clear regulatory policy, insufficient economic incentives, and the absence of clear industry standards play a significant role in restricting wineries’ ability to find new sustainable business opportunities.

In sum, we see certain key external aspects—such as the absence of clear industry standards or insufficient economic incentives—as having a more significant influence on sustainability strategies by wineries than the internal drivers that we tested.

Discussion and Conclusion

Given that insufficient economic incentives is repeatedly cited as a limiting factor in sustainability strategies, our descriptive analysis shows the importance of Spanish public institutions offering some financial help so that the wine industry could implement sustainability strategies. Public institutions could, for example, help wineries to reduce the information and search costs relating to sustainability by providing information regarding environment-related opportunities and threats or even by developing indicators for monitoring the environmental impact of wine tourism activities. The government can also address another barrier by helping to build the reputation of companies that have implemented sustainable management systems (Gabzdylova, Raffensperger, and Castka 2009).

Another major roadblock to sustainability would be removed if various government bodies would undertake to explain better the main benefits of sustainability strategies to the wine industry. One approach would be to build a sustainability program as part of the wine tourism industry. Government bodies at all levels should take responsibility for communicating a sense of urgency among wineries beyond simple economic gain or legal constraints. Such communication strategies would help the wine tourism industry to develop sustainability initiatives. Along with governments, sustainable wine tourism requires participation from all the interested parties, including tourism operators, vintners and viticulturists, and other local business operators, but especially those residents bearing the environmental, social, political, economic, legal, and aesthetic burdens of tourism (Skinner 2000, 295).

The good news from our results is that wineries are developing various sustainability strategies from several perspectives. Most strategies are focused on eliminating or reducing waste before it is created. Although this is the most basic level of participation (see the environmental sustainability portfolio proposed by Hart 2005), this situation is probably a consequence of the majority of wine-producing areas in Spain being in the early stages of wine tourism development (Marzo-Navarro and Pedraja-Iglesias 2012). It is also likely a consequence of the high “export orientation” of the Spanish wineries included in this study. According to Sinha and Akoorie (2010), wineries with such an orientation are more likely to adopt environmental sustainability and conservation practices.

Another important sustainability strategy is to focus on developing sustainability through product branding and employee recruitment. These results are consistent with a recent study of U.S. wineries in which managers ranked employee welfare—along with other aspects such as cost savings or public image—as the most important reason for sustainable behavior (Marshall, Cordano, and Silverman 2005). Pullman, Maloni, and Dillard (2010) showed that sustainable human resource practices are strongly tied to an overall sustainability philosophy, even leading to improved wine quality and market perceptions. To enhance sustainability practices among employees, it is imperative to build the awareness of managers, who can then infuse sustainability values throughout the company (Marshall, Cordano, and Silverman 2005). Exhibit 5 offers a summary of the main findings of this study.

Exhibit 5:

Main Findings.

Limitations for addressing sustainability
Insufficient economic incentivesNeed to reduce information and search costs	Public institutions should offer financial help and support to wineries
Need to better explain the main benefits of addressing sustainability strategies to the wine industry	Need to build a sustainable program as a part of the wine-tourism industry
	Participation from government bodies + all interested parties (tourism operators, vintners and viticulturists and local business operators)
Sustainability strategies
Most strategies are focused on eliminating and/or reducing waste before it is created
Product brandingRecruitment of employees	Important elements for developing sustainable behavior
	Need to build the awareness of managers to the benefits to the sustainability

The benefits of sustainability practices in wine tourism industry result more from gains on SUPPLY SIDE rather than gains in the MARKET PLACE

Overall, the picture that emerges from this research is that the benefits of sustainability practices in the wine tourism industry result more from production gains rather than gains in the marketplace. As we see it, the wine tourism industry’s sustainability approach is closer to that of the wine industry than to the tourism industry. This may not only be a consequence of the Spanish wine tourism industry being in the relatively early developmental stage, but it also may be an artifact of our research, as the survey questions focused more strongly on the production side. As wine tourism grows, we expect continued changes in sustainability practices in the Spanish wine industry toward a greater “market-based perspective.” Indeed, the fact that one of the sustainable strategies identified in the current study focuses on developing sustainability throughout product branding confirms this tendency. One mechanism to increase such a market-based perspective would be to promote stronger consumer education regarding the benefits of sustainability (Atkin, Gilinsky, and Newton 2011). Building consumer education can help to develop a “pull” demand strategy that could increase the perception of wineries about the benefits (and suitability) of addressing sustainability issues.

The findings of this study are limited by the number of wineries and by the fact that only Spanish wineries were surveyed. Taking into account that each wine region faces its own sustainability challenges (Mitchell and Hall 2006), further data collection in additional countries is needed to generalize our results. We have already mentioned another limitation, namely, that the research questions emphasized the production aspects of the wine industry. Future studies should adopt a more balanced perspective based on the tourism sector.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

Author Biographies

Juan Carlos Gázquez-Abad (PhD from the University of Almería) is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the University of Almería (jcgazque@ual.es)

Rubén Huertas-García, PhD., is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Barcelona (rhuertas@ub.edu)

M. Dolores Vázquez-Gómez is an Adjunct Professor of Marketing at the University of Barcelona (mdvazquez@ub.edu)

Agustí Casas Romeo is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Barcelona (acasas@ub.edu)

References

ACEVIN (Spanish Wine Routes Association). 2012. Informe de visitantes a bodegas asociadas a las rutas del vino de España. Año 2011. [In Spanish]. http://www.wineroutesofspain.com/static/publicaciones/otros/An%C3%A1lisis%20Visitantes%20Bodegas%20Rutas%20del%20Vino%202011.pdf (accessed December 26, 2012).

Alonso

2010. Olives, hospitality and tourism: A Western Australian perspective. British Food Journal 112 (1): 55-68.

Alonso

Liu

2012. Old wine region, new concept and sustainable development: Winery entrepreneurs’ perceived benefits from wine tourism on Spain’s Canary Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20:1-19.

Atkin

Gilinsky

Jr. Newton

S. K.

2011. Sustainability in the wine industry: Altering the competitive landscape? 6th AWBR International Conference, Bordeaux Management School, Talence, Aquitaine, France, June 9-10.

Baird

2012. Between the vines: A comparative analysis of wineries’ attitudes towards wine tourism in New Zealand (Master thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand). http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/7598/2/Thesis_fulltext.pdf (accessed May 9, 2013).

Beder

2001. Economic incentives for environmental protection. Ecodate 15 (3): 6-7.

Bhaskaran

Polonsky

Cary

Fernandez

2006. Environmentally sustainable food production and marketing. British Food Journal 108 (8): 677-90.

Bramwell

1994. Rural tourism and sustainable rural tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2 (1/2): 1-6.

Bramwell

Lane

2008. Editorial: Priorities in sustainable tourism research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16:1-4.

10.

Buckley

2009. Evaluating the net effects of ecotourism on the environment: A framework, first assessment and future research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17 (6): 643-72.

11.

Butler

1999. Sustainable tourism: A state of the art review. Tourism Geographies 1 (1): 7-25.

12.

Buzzigoli

2009. Tourism sustainability: Conceptual issues, data and indicators. In Principales tendencias de investigación en turismo, ed. Ferrari

Mondéjar

J. A.

Vargas

, 135-57. Oviedo, Spain: Septem Ediciones.

13.

Carlsen

Ali-Knight

2004. Managing wine tourism through demarketing: The case of Napa Valley, California. In International Wine Tourism Research. Proceedings of the Margaret River, Australia, International Wine Tourism Conference, Vineyard Publishing, Guilford, Western Australia.

14.

Carlsen

Charters

2006. Introduction. In Global wine tourism: Research, management and marketing, ed. Carlsen

Charters

, 1-16. Reading, UK: CAB International.

15.

Carmichael

Senese

2012. Competitiveness and sustainability in wine tourism regions: The application of a stage model of destination development to two Canadian wine regions. In The geography of wine: Regions, terroir and techniques, ed. Dougherty

P. H.

, 159-178. New York: Springer.

16.

Cartier

Dolan

Matz

2004. Looking towards the future. In Wine: A global business, ed. Thach

Matz

, 203-12. Elmsford, NY: Miranda Press.

17.

Casini

Cavicchi

Corsi

Santini

2010. Hopelessly devoted to sustainability: Marketing challenges to face in the wine business. Paper presented at the 119th EAAE Seminar on Sustainability in the Food Sector: Rethinking the Relationship between the Agro-Food System and the Natural, Social, Economic and Institutional Environments, Capri, Italy, June 30-July 1.

18.

Charters

Ali-Knight

2002. Who is the wine tourist? Tourism Management 23 (3): 311-19.

19.

Cohen

Ben-Nun

2009. The important dimensions of wine tourism experience from potential visitors’ perception. Tourism and Hospitality Research 9 (1): 20-31.

20.

Corbett

Klassen

R. D.

2006. Environmental excellence as key to improve operations. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 8 (1): 5-22.

21.

Dean

T. J.

Brown

R. L.

1995. Pollution regulation as a barrier to new firm entry: Initial evidence and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal 38:288-303.

22.

Del Campo Gomis

F. J.

López Llunch

Sales Civera

J. M.

Agulló Torres

A. M.

Brugarolas Mollá-Bauzá

Martínez Poveda

Camacho de los Ríos

Nogués Pedregal.

A. M.

2010. Wine tourism product clubs as a way to increase wine added value: The case of Spain. International Journal of Wine Research 2:27-34.

23.

Del Rey

2011. Situación actual del enoturismo en España. In VI Congreso Nacional, ALITER Escuela Internacional de Negocios, 24 y 25 noviembre. [In Spanish][ Current situation of wine tourism in Spain] http://www.oemv.es/esp/situacion-actual-del-enoturismo-en-espana-presentacion-de-ra-fael-del-rey-director-general-del-oemv-421k.php (accessed January 19, 2013).

24.

Dodd

1995. Opportunities and pitfalls of tourism in a developing wine industry. International Journal of Wine Marketing 7 (1): 5-16.

25.

Dodd

Bigotte

1997. Perceptual differences among visitor groups to wineries. Journal of Travel Research 35 (1): 46-51.

26.

Flint

Golicic

S. L.

2009. Searching for competitive advantage through sustainability: A qualitative study in the New Zealand industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 39 (10): 841-60.

27.

Fraser

Alonso

2006. Do tourism and wine always fit together? A consideration of business motivations. In Global wine tourism: Research, management and marketing, ed. Carlsen

Charters

, 19-26. Reading, UK: CAB International.

28.

Frochot

2003. An analysis of regional positioning and its associated food images in French tourism regional brochures. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 14 (3): 77-96.

29.

Gabzdylova

Raffensperger

J. F.

Castka

2009. Sustainability in the New Zealand wine industry: Drivers, stakeholders and practices. Journal of Cleaner Production 17:992-98.

30.

Getz

2000. Explore wine tourism: Management, development & destinations. NYC, New York: Cognizant Corporation

31.

Getz

Brown

2006. Critical success factors for wine tourism regions: A demand analysis. Tourism Management 27:146-58.

32.

Getz

Dowling

Carlsen

Anderson

1999. Critical success factors for wine tourism. International Journal of Wine Marketing 11 (3): 20-43.

33.

Gilmore

Simmons

2007. Integrating sustainable tourism and marketing management: Can national parks provide the framework for strategic change? Strategic Change 16 (5): 191-200.

34.

Hair

Black

Babin

Anderson

2010. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed.. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.

35.

Hall

Johnson

Cambourne

Macionis

Mitchell

Sharples

2000. Wine tourism: An introduction. In Wine tourism around the world: Development, management and markets, ed. Hall

C. M.

Sharples

Cambourne

Macionis

, 1-23. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

36.

Hall

Johnson

Mitchell

2000. Wine tourism and regional development. In Wine tourism around the world: Development, management and markets, ed. Hall

C. M.

Sharples

Cambourne

Macionis

, 196-225. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

37.

Hall

Mitchell

2000. Wine tourism in the Mediterranean. A tool for restructuring and development. Thunderbird International Business Review 42 (4): 445-65.

38.

Hall

Mitchell

2008. Wine marketing: A practical guide. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

39.

Hart

2005. Innovation, creative destruction and sustainability. Research Technology Management 48 (5): 21-27.

40.

International Organization of Wine and Vine. 2012. Statistical report on world vitiviniculture. http://www.oiv.int/oiv/files/0%20-%20Actualites/EN/Report.pdf (accessed January 19, 2013).

41.

López-Guzmán

Rodríguez-García

Sánchez-Cañizares

S. M.

2009. Wine routes in Spain. A case study. Tourism 57 (4): 421-34.

42.

Nepal

S. K.

2009. Sustainable tourism research: An analysis of papers published in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17 (1): 5-16.

43.

Marshall

R. S.

Akoorie

M. E. M.

Hamann

Sinha

2010. Environmental practices in the wine industry: An empirical application of the theory of reasoned action and stakeholder theory in the United States and New Zealand. Journal of World Business 45:405-14.

44.

Marshall

R. S.

Cordano

Silverman

2005. The greening of the Californian wine industry: Implications for regulators and industry associations. Journal of Wine Research 16 (2): 151-69.

45.

Marzo-Navarro

Pedraja-Iglesias

2009. Wine tourism development from the perspective of the potential tourist in Spain. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 21 (7): 816-35.

46.

Marzo-Navarro

Pedraja-Iglesias

2012. Critical factors of wine tourism: Incentives and barriers from the potential tourist’s perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 24 (2): 312-34.

47.

Mitchell

Hall

2006. Wine tourism research: The state of play. Tourism Review International 9:307-32.

48.

Mowforth

Munt

2003. Tourism and sustainability: Development and new tourism in the third world. London: Routledge.

49.

Neter

Kutner

M. H.

Nachtsheim

C. J.

Wasserman

1996. Applied linear statistical models. Chicago: Irwin.

50.

Nowak

L. I.

Washburn

J. H.

2002. Building brand equity: Consumer reactions to proactive environmental policies by the winery. International Journal of Wine Marketing 14 (3): 5-19.

51.

O’Neill

Charters

2000. Service quality at the cellar door: Implications for Western Australia’s developing wine tourism industry. Managing Service Quality 10 (2): 112-22.

52.

Pikkemaat

Peters

Boksberger

Secco

2009. The staging of experiences in wine tourism. Journal of Hospitality, Marketing & Management 18:237-53.

53.

Poitras

Getz

2006. Sustainable wine tourism: The host community perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14 (5): 425-48.

54.

Pullman

Maloni

M. J.

Dillard

2010. Sustainability practices in food supply chains: How is wine different? Journal of Wine Research 21 (1): 35-56.

55.

Ritchie

Crouch

2003. The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism perspective. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

56.

Scherrer

Alonso

Sheridan

2009. Expanding the destination image: Wine tourism in the Canary Islands. International Journal of Tourism Research 11:451-63.

57.

Silverman

M. R.

Marshall

Cordano

2005. The greening of the California wine industry: Implications for regulators and industry associations. Journal of Wine Research 16 (2): 151-69.

58.

Simeon

Sayeed

2011. Examining the online wine tourism experience of California wineries. International Journal of Online Marketing 1 (1): 24-40.

59.

Sinha

Akoorie

M. E.

2010. Sustainable environmental practices in the New Zealand wine industry: An analysis of perceived institutional pressures and the role of exports. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business 11 (1): 50-74.

60.

Skinner

2000. Napa Valley, California: A model of wine region development. In Wine tourism around the world: Development, management and markets, ed. Hall

Sharples

Cambourne

Macionis

, 283-96. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann

61.

Stoddard

Evans

M. R.

Davé

D. S.

2008. Sustainable tourism: The case of the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 49 (3): 245-57.

62.

Taylor

Barber

Deale

2010. Environmental attitudes towards wine tourism. International Journal of Wine Research 2:13-26.

63.

Vila

Enz

C. A.

Costa

2012. Innovative practices in the Spanish hotel industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 53 (1): 75-85.

64.

Vithessonthi

2009. Corporate ecological sustainability strategy decisions: The role of attitude towards sustainable development. Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change 6 (1): 49-64.

65.

Yuan

Morrison

A. M.

Cai

L. A.

Linton

2008. A model of wine tourist behaviour: A festival approach. International Journal of Tourism Research 10:207-19.

66.

Zellner

1962. An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association 57:348-68.

67.

Zucca

Smith

D. E.

Mitry

D. J.

2009. Sustainable viticulture and winery practices in California: What is it, and do customers care? International Journal of Wine Research 2:189-94.