Trade associations as corporate social responsibility actors: an institutional theory analysis of animal welfare in tourism

Abstract

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.

Tourists' perceptions of non‐human species in zoos: An animal rights perspective

“…The questions aimed to acquire information regarding tourists' perceptions regarding animals kept in zoos while they were influenced by relevant literature (such as, Bansiddhi et al, 2020;Carr & Broom, 2018;Fennell, 2013;Font et al, 2019) 4. Can you elaborate on the importance (for you personally, and/or societally, or ecologically) of zoos?…”

“…From this perspective, sentience, animal physiological and psychological needs, stress, pain and suffering are important in understanding and enhancing animal welfare (Bansiddhi et al, 2020; Broom et al, 1993; Dawkins, 2012; Fennell, 2013). This is particularly important in the case of animals that are used for tourism purposes (Bansiddhi et al, 2020; Duffy & Moore, 2011; Font et al, 2019; Hughes, 2001; Moorhouse et al, 2017). In more detail, the animal welfare position maintains that is morally acceptable to use animals as human resources as long as animals are treated by humans “humanely” and do not inflict “unnecessary” suffering on them (Francione, 2010).…”

What do business associations do?

“…Marques (2017) provides a recent review of the social-responsibility-related activities of BAs. These might allow for structured engagement and bargaining with stakeholders (Dickson − Arcodia, 2010), defining and enforcing professional standards for dealing with external effects (Font et al, 2019;King − Lenox, 2000), or generating self-regulation that helps maintain a shared social reputation (King et al, 2002;Tucker, 2008).…”

“…They can coordinate contracts and knowledge-sharing to reduce transaction costs (Herrigel, 1993;Lane − Bachmann, 1997;Rademakers, 2000), to facilitate joint investment in public goods (Berk − Schneiberg, 2005) and innovation (Faulconbridge, 2007;McCormick et al, 2008;Nordqvist et al, 2010;Perez-Aleman, 2003). They can enable community reputational mechanisms in contract enforcement (Masten − Prüfer, 2014;Prüfer, 2016), the protection of property rights (Dixit, 2015;Hedberg, 2011;Nugent − Sukiassyan, 2009), and in dealing with social conflicts (Font et al, 2019;King − Lenox, 2000). They can also articulate communitylevel interests to improve policymaking.…”

Why organizations join voluntary sustainable tourism associations: Implications for membership and sustainability monitoring systems

“…Institutional theory provides a rich framework for understanding the roles and ways that organizations interact with each other within an institutional field (DiMaggio & Powell, ; Scott, ). Institutional theory has defined tourism institutional fields geographically (Lavandoski, Pinto, Silva, & Vargas‐Sanchez, ; Rawlence, ), and applied to study industry associations, where membership is a de facto requirement to trade (Font, Bonilla‐Priego, & Kantenbacher, ; Van Wijk, Stam, Elfring, Zietsma, & Den Hond, ), but not to genuinely voluntary membership associations. This paper fills this gap in the literature by examining a voluntary sustainable tourism association that supports members globally.…”