Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become the response by default from the tourist
operators and key stakeholders involved in attracting tourism fl ows. It is, however, a complex
concept that can be viewed from a variety of perspectives but that in practice is more often than
not misunderstood and badly implemented. It is a culturally specifi c topic that has links with a
variety of practices around the globe, thus it is important to be sensitive to local conditions and
traditions. In relation to tourism, CSR is a global practice that given its nature and history raises
constantly questions of corporate colonialism and patronage; which means that for PR scholars
and practitioners it is crucially important to maintain a critical awareness concerning strategic
intentions and its viability as a unique response to the challenges posed by tourism-reputation
systems.
CSR may be defi ned as the corporate/company practice which, so it is claimed, recognizes a
societal obligation above and beyond existing legal obligations and economic contributions and
consequently develops programmes to respond to societal needs. CSR may also be defi ned as
a concept of social obligation, which recognizes corporate/company impacts (this connects
the concept to issues/crisis management) but also celebrates the power of corporations/
companies to facilitate and catalyze positive change and outcomes in otherwise under-resourced
communities. CSR may respond to ongoing social issues or focus on programmes that address
the side-effects of corporate/company production e.g. environmental side effects. In other words
CSR programmes may respond to a general societal problem or a specifi c response to address a
corporate/company impact.
Since CSR programmes tend to be directed towards identifi ed needs in specifi c communities,
it is logical to assume that the implementation and strict monitoring of these programmes would
be an ideal tool for public relations to deal with tourism-reputation systems. They could be used
to explore response scenarios and model complexity of a potential crisis. However, the problem
for PR practitioners is that overall CSR activities have a wider political impact, beyond corporate/
company stakeholders. They are primarily and strategically concerned with anticipating and
impeding possible regulation/legislation while guaranteeing growth and profi t. This presents
enormous ethical limitations for those trying to deal with the complexity of the tourism-
reputation systems from a public relations perspective.
If well managed, CSR programmes represent a diversity of actions, encompassing youth
programmes, community programmes, fi nancial information/training, skills transfer, technology
transfer and arts sponsorship. Trying to centralize a response is a non-starter, in our view, to deal
with the complexity of challenges posed by the tourism-reputation systems. CSR may be posited
as a response to ongoing social and political issues, but it is not a motivation, and the intentionality
behind such programmes is as important as what they do (L'Etang
et al
. 2011). According to
Kantian deontology, should motivation for an action be anything other than to meet a duty or
obligation, then the action cannot be judged as moral. This means that we have to ask questions
of programmes which are designed primarily to address issues with a view to an organization's
reputation. Likewise, publicizing CSR tourism programmes may be criticized because it sug-
gests that the motivation behind such programmes is not to meet a moral obligation but to
reap publicity (either through the media or personal networks) (L'Etang 1994, 1995, 1996,
2006). Others, however, take the view that communicating CSR is important in terms of
accountability:
CSR can be better understood as a means of reinforcing both reputation and legitimacy, as
it provides an opportunity to communicate to stakeholders the congruence of the
organization with societal concerns.
(Farache and Perks 2009: 237)
