No abstract

No abstract

Purpose This paper aims to examine the choices made by the hotel industry about what to include, and who to be accountable to, in their sustainability reports; a process defined as materiality assessment. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on the findings of semi-structured interviews with eight sustainability managers (from eight of the world’s 50 largest hotel groups) to explore their understanding of, and use of, materiality and any barriers to its uptake and eight industry sustainability experts to assess the general industry-wide application of materiality. Findings Sustainability managers from large hotel groups are evasive when disclosing their materiality criteria, their decision-making processes and how they aggregate stakeholder feedback; they limit their disclosure to the reporting process. Sustainability managers are disempowered, with limited resources, time, knowledge and skills to apply to materiality assessment. Experts confirm that hotel groups are unsystematic and opaque about their decision-making and how they control their materiality assessments. Practical implications Materiality assessment is concealed from the public and may be constructed around business imperatives with high managerial capture. The hospitality industry needs to improve its sustainability reporting by examining how it defines and applies materiality and by addressing the barriers identified, if it is to demonstrate an enduring commitment to sustainability and organisational legitimacy. Originality/value This study addresses the limited knowledge of how hotel groups undertake materiality assessments. It identifies gaps in the conception and application of materiality by pinpointing barriers to its uptake and recommending areas in need of further research.

Most travel trade associations ignore their responsibility towards sustainable development broadly and animal welfare in particular. We analyse the development and implementation of animal welfare standards across 62 national and international associations using interviews, surveys, content analysis of published materials and websites. Only 21 associations mention sustainability in their websites, and only six refer to animal welfare. Of these, three associations have well-developed animal welfare activities (ABTA, ANVR and GSTC) [AQ1] and only one (lightly) monitors its members' sustainability and animal welfare standards (ANVR). ABTA's Animal Welfare Guidelines are the de facto industry standard, despite being designed for information (not auditing) purposes and lacking enforcement mechanisms. We examine jolts that prompt some associations to respond to external pressures and the institutional entrepreneurship process that triggers a process of reflexivity, theorisation and diffusion of a broader sense of responsibility. We examine the field-level conditions that lead to mostly mimetic pressures on large European tour operators (that compel them to act due to reputational risk management), with minimal normative pressures that would diffuse animal welfare practices across other association members. Change is not divergent, and the resources allocated to animal welfare protect trade associations' members from criticism without binding them to implementation.