Content uploaded by Ioannis Spilanis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ioannis Spilanis on Dec 08, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
* Correspondence to: Dr. Benjamin Karatzoglou, University of Macedonia, 156 Egnatia Street, 54006 Thessaloniki, Greece.
E-mail: venos@uom.gr
Business Strategy and the Environment
Bus. Strat. Env. 19, 26–38 (2010)
Published online 22 September 2008 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/bse.627
Sustainable Tourism in Greek islands: the
Integration of Activity-Based Environmental
Management with a Destination Environmental
Scorecard Based on the Adaptive Resource
Management Paradigm
Benjamin Karatzoglou1* and Ioannis Spilanis2
1 University of Macedonia, Greece
2 University of the Aegean, Greece
ABSTRACT
Tourism is a major industry that can lead to economic gains as well as to degraded envi-
ronment and social infrastructure. Tourism has the potential to destroy the available
common environmental resources through overuse and poor management practices, as
limited information disclosure and poor monitoring of actions encourage the perpetuation
and extension of environmental problems. Based on the adaptive resource management
paradigm for addressing problems related to the use of the commons, this paper suggests
a methodology for the development of a management tool that can provide island hotels
with a continuous fl ow of timely, relevant, accurate and objective information on the envi-
ronmental impact of critical corporate activities. The tool, named the destination environ-
mental scorecard (DES), draws on activity-based management concepts and can help local
hotel SMEs measure and compare their performance against certain standards and thus
conduct operations in a responsible and measurable way to the benefi t of both business
fi nancial performance and regional sustainability. The paper presents the DES operational
characteristics and the potential benefi ts from its implementation. Copyright © 2008 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
Received 29 August 2007; revised 12 April 2008; accepted 14 April 2008
Keywords: sustainable tourism policy; stakeholder engagement; activity-based management; adaptive resource management;
destination environmental scorecard
Sustainable Tourism in Greek Islands 27
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 19, 26–38 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Tourism, Sustainable Development, Adaptive Resource Management and
Greek Island Hotel SMEs
Introduction
Tourism involves the travel of people to destinations away from their usual dwelling or working places and the
provision of facilities created to cater for their needs while touring (Mathieson and Wall, 1982). The European
Commission (EC, 2002) views tourism as the set of activities performed by people who travel and stay in places
outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year, for leisure, business and other purposes.
The Commission (EC, 2003) recognizes that ‘The central challenge for the tourism industry, its businesses and
destinations, is: how can the tourism activity . . . be managed in such a way as to ensure that it respects the limits
of its resource base, and of those resources’ capacity to regenerate, whilst being commercially successful?’. Factors
such as the facilitation of cross-border travel, increasing wealth and leisure time in many developed countries, and
transport and facility developments are expected to drive the further growth of tourism. As an economic phenom-
enon, tourism may have a strong positive impact on tourist destinations. However, it also places a heavy strain
on, and has the potential to destroy through overuse and unsuccessful management practices, the available
common environmental resources that support tourism activities. The uneven allocation of tourist arrivals in time
(seasonality) and space (tourism intensity) further aggravates this impact.
Europe has doubled its arrivals between years 1980 and 2000, despite the emergence of new competing desti-
nations (WTTC, 2001), and hence there is growing interest by the Commission in the possibility of sustainable
tourism as well as a suggested shift of emphasis from the quantity to the quality of tourism experience, if the
industry is to avoid the risk of deteriorating its own income generating resource base and, thus, of becoming
economically and socially unsustainable (EC, 2003, p. 5).
Greece is a member of the European Union as well as a major international tourist destination. Tourism is
important to the Greek economy, contributing 7.30% of the gross domestic product, 29.10% of national exports
and 10.30% of the total employment. International tourist arrivals exceeded 16 million for the year 2006 and an
annual growth of 4.0% is expected between 2006 and 2013 (WTTC, 2006). The Greek tourism market is mature,
with strong and increasing competition from neighboring destinations, characteristics that result in diminishing
profi t margins and a predisposition to evade or externalize all avoidable discretionary costs.
The total hospitality capacity in Greece exceeds 1 million beds in all categories, allocated to 8900 hotels and all
other types of tourist residence. 80% of all Greek hotels are considered ‘micro’ enterprises, another 13% are clas-
sifi ed as small enterprises and only 7% fall into the large hotel category, with over 100 rooms, by European stan-
dards (EUROSTAT, 2000). Small size, lack of relevant legal framework, poor monitoring and insuffi cient
infrastructures provide partial explanations of the unsatisfactory environmental performance of many Greek
hotels.
Greek islands constitute a major destination for international tourists and thus play a critical role in the support
and further development of Greek tourism. Most of the tourists visit the islands to enjoy the local natural and
cultural environment. Undermining this heritage would rapidly lead to a deterioration of the quantitative and
qualitative tourist infl ux. Yet, ‘tourism destroys the object of its desire’ (Wilson, 1997, cited by Briassoulis, 2002).
Tourism has sharply changed the land use patterns on the islands, damaged fragile coastal ecosystems and dis-
turbed the littoral habitats. Hotel activities consume excessive amounts of water and generate large quantities of
solid waste, often accumulated in uncontrolled dumps or landfi lls near tourist attractions, and of liquid discharges,
which exacerbate pollution and degrade coastal waters (OECD, 2000). Although such problems are typical reper-
cussions of tourism development worldwide, UNESC (1996, p. 4) has repeatedly highlighted that ‘the fragile
ecosystem, limited resources and limited scope for pursuing alternative development strategies make concerns for
the environmental and ecological impact of small island tourism particularly acute’.
The fragile island natures of many destinations and the diminishing return have led to a restructure of the Greek
national tourism policy and to attempts for the development of integrated tourist development areas. Sustainable
tourism development and higher quality standards have become a stated goal and specifi c measures have been
taken to promote them. Yet, most of these measures aim at, and can be adopted particularly by, the large hotel
28 B. Karatzoglou and I. Spilanis
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 19, 26–38 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
chains, while no small Greek hotel has voluntarily adopted a certifi ed environmental management system (EMS),
despite the heavy subsidization of relevant initiatives.
The fi rst section of this paper describes the interrelationships between key elements involved in the problem:
tourism as a desirable economic activity; the need to protect the natural habitat which is the cornerstone of tourism
development on Greek islands; the adaptive resource management paradigm; and the barriers and drivers of adop-
tion of EMS by hospitality small and medium enterprises (SMEs). In the second section, a new management tool,
the destination environmental scorecard (DES), based on physical environmental management accounting founda-
tions, is suggested as a way to address the degradation of island environments and its function is analytically
described. The paper concludes with a brief assessment of the potential benefi ts and of the future of the DES.
SMEs, Sustainable Development in the Tourism Sector and the Adaptive Resource Paradigm
Tourism based on the goal of sustainable development has several important characteristics. First, it simultane-
ously addresses economic and environmental impacts, attempting ‘the management of all resources in such a way
that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfi lled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological
processes, biological diversity and life support systems’ (WTO, 1993).
Second, empirical evidence suggests that the environmental performance of each organization can be potentially
improved through the adoption of an EMS encompassing eco-control (Schaltegger et al., 2003), through the estab-
lishment of a link between EMS and the level of environmental disclosure (Frost and Seamer, 2002) and through
the association between environmental disclosure and environmental performance generated by improved man-
agement attention and awareness (Adams, 1999). The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) has
participated in efforts to promote the use of EMS by tourism facilities, especially hotels. Though certain efforts
have been successful, UNEP recognizes that ‘The key remaining challenges facing the tourism industry are to
promote wider implementation of environmental management, particularly in the many SMEs that form the back-
bone of the tourism industry, promote the involvement of local stakeholders in tourism ventures, and work with
Governments and other stakeholders to improve the overall environmental quality of destinations’ (UNESC, 1996,
p. 6).
Third, environmental management accounting can provide the foundation for gathering and using suitable
information, critical for decision making, planning and control. Experts recognize that the integration of tourism
with sustainable development demands, among other things, best practice information (UNEP and WTO, 1998). The
United Nations has identifi ed the need for the information to be disseminated on the transfer of environmentally
sound technologies in the tourism sector and the establishment of a system to effi ciently monitor progress towards
sustainable tourism (UNESC, 1999). To date, however, few specifi c tools have been identifi ed that would help
bring this transformation about.
SMEs are critical stakeholders in any attempt to move towards sustainable tourism because they account for
99% of the 2.7 million businesses active in European tourism. More than 94% of them are micro-operators
employing fewer than 10 individuals (EU DG XXIII, 1998). Currently there is a great diversity of standards among
SMEs in terms of economic competitiveness, quality and sustainability. Typically, most tourism SMEs capitalize
on local natural resources, which possess the characteristics of non-substitutable ‘common pool resources’ (CPRs).
Economists defi ne the CPRs as resources for which exploitation by one user reduces the amount available for
others, but for which exclusion of additional users is diffi cult or impossible (Briassoulis, 2002; Bromley, 1991;
Ostrom, 1990). Briassoulis (2002) suggests that the adaptive resource management paradigm be used to frame
the development of management options (Holling et al., 1998). This paradigm possesses several characteristics
that make it best suited to address the spatial and temporal variability of the tourism commons within the sustain-
able development context. First, it requires individuals and communities to be empowered to make and implement
decisions locally. Locals become stewards of the commons. Second, stewardship requires that accounts of resource
use and maintenance be given and that people are held liable for results in these accounts. Third, participation in
policy design and network development among the appropriators and users of the commons is encouraged. Fourth,
reduction of uncertainty in resource regimes, such as water usage, is important to protect them from free-riders.
Finally, governance systems for the tourism commons as a whole and for their individual components are needed
Sustainable Tourism in Greek Islands 29
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 19, 26–38 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
to establish rules of collective behaviour and principles of resource allocation in host areas and offer the requisite
authority that legitimizes and protects the rights and duties of local and non-local resource appropriators and users
(Briassoulis, 2002). Note that, since the adaptive management embraces wide participation as well as continual
monitoring, it implies that appropriate accounting information must be obtained, recorded and communicated to
management to provide a basis for informed action.
Barriers and Drivers in the Adoption of EMS by SMEs
Most operational decisions of all companies have an environmental cost. This cost can take the form of either an
increased resource consumption–low effi ciency pattern, or that of an opportunity cost from lost sales and profi ts.
Though few SMEs can boast an exemplary sustainable performance, the majority is still reluctant to comply despite
the identifi cation of environmental costs. Underestimation or denial of environmental impacts, ignorance of
relevant legislation, reservations on the effi ciency of self-regulation and management tools, and lack of access to
human, technological and economic resources, necessary to engage in sustainable practices, have been suggested
as possible reasons for the poor commitment and unsustainable performance of SMEs (Hillary, 1999, 2000;
Observatory of European SMEs, 2002; Schaltegger et al., 2003).
The mix of barriers changes from place to place and from time to time. Tourism SMEs in particular experience
problems related strongly to the high volatility and seasonality of tourist demand, which result in underutilization
of facilities and thus in underexploited, economically ineffi cient investments. Further investment in environmen-
tal improvements can seriously jeopardize the entrepreneurs’ short-term profi tability in the case of demand that
declines because of changing preferences, competing destinations or cost/quality-based manipulation of the tourist
fl ows by tour operators. Different researchers provide contradictory empirical evidence on the intensity and causal-
ity of relationship between economic gains and environmental performance for small companies. Most of the
environmental tools, structures and systems have been designed by, and for, big corporations and have proved
inappropriate or impractical for SMEs. These observations, coupled with the limited impact that SMEs consistently
believe they have on their environment, lead to the reactive stance chosen by many small companies. The typical
tool to improve environmental performance is the implementation of an EMS, which is a structured mechanism
to measure and manage corporate environmental risks and impacts in a consistent way (Voorhees and Woellner,
1997). To enhance propensity for EMS implementation, national governments and local authorities must strengthen
relevant incentives and weaken the barriers. Since small companies are usually compliance driven, legislation has
been considered the single most important factor instigating the environmental compliance of SMEs (O’Laoire
and Welford, 1998; Hillary, 1999). Local authorities can enhance the collaboration and coordinate the efforts of
local enterprises, monitor their performance, provide sources of information and training and locate and dis-
seminate best practices. Such support can prove particularly critical, since the cost of implementing a – certifi ed
– EMS is mostly of a fi xed nature, and thus the smaller the size of the enterprise the higher the implementation
cost discounted on a per employee or percent of turnover basis (Löfqvist et al., 2000). Further, its size seriously
impacts the visibility of a company’s environmental performance, since customers and the public authorities
exert far more pressure on large enterprises to comply than they do on their smaller counterparts (Observatory of
European SMEs, 2002). Smaller pressure can be explained by an underestimation of the potential threat that
SME activities represent or by ineffi cient capacity to monitor the accumulated impact of these activities.
The diversity and heterogeneity of the SME sector limit the applicability of the various research fi ndings on the
identifi cation of the exact internal and external barriers to EMS adoption and of the specifi c benefi ts and disben-
efi ts that result from such an adoption. Thus Hillary (1999) suggests that future research considers sub-groups
of the SMEs either by size or by industrial sector. The complete set and the relevant signifi cance of drivers and
barriers to sustainability for the Greek island hotel SMEs have not been studied yet. However, waiting for the
appropriate research to take place, while maintaining the current level of consuming the natural tourism resources,
might result in the irreversible damage and permanent extinguishment of these resources. This is a catastrophic
prospect in a society where tourism demand for an individualized product with integrated quality, social and
environmental concerns divorces from the hotels’ continuing inclination to disregard sustainability issues and
invest only in practices that improve their bottom line or augment their marketing value (EC, 2002).
30 B. Karatzoglou and I. Spilanis
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 19, 26–38 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Current Recommendations for SME Sustainable Performance
While the issue of what challenges tourism SMEs confront on their way to sustainable operations has been widely
discussed by major international organizations, limited efforts and generalized suggestions have been offered on
how to frame these challenges.
UNEP considers the improvement of the monitoring procedure and public reporting by the private sector a
major emerging issue and suggests that ‘. . . Local and central governments [should] develop monitoring tools, such
as indicators and [should] incorporate the results into the decision making process. Where appropriate, participa-
tory approaches should be used. Monitoring is currently uncommon and that should be made a priority’ (UNESC,
1996, p. 11). The implication is that measurement of corporate success cannot be limited to the creation of value
for only one stakeholder group when it comes to the establishment of long-term strategic stakeholder relationships
and that the viability of any company relates to the development and maintenance of sustainable and durable rela-
tions with all members of its stakeholder network (Clarkson, 1995).
OECD notices that ‘A strategic action plan for sustainable tourism development should be developed in consul-
tation with all relevant stakeholders . . . Relevant indicators of tourism should be developed’ (OECD, 2000, p. 162)
and that ‘Further environmental management should be promoted within the tourism industry, using codes of
good practice, disseminations of best practices within the profession, staff training programmes, environmental
audits and voluntary agreements’ (OECD, 2000, p. 164).
EC (2002, p. 6) suggests that ‘SMEs work closely together in order to assure their market position’ and that
‘Smaller operators and individual hotels can also achieve economies (of scale) through access to consortia for
example for marketing, purchasing and reservations. Consortia can provide smaller operators with higher visibil-
ity and viability’ (EC, 2002, p. 17) How to do so is described in page 8 of the report: ‘As markets become more
integrated and the Internet eases communications SMEs can benefi t from the best practices of others more easily.
Regional tourism associations will have an important role in this area . . . by disseminating best practices from other
SMEs, from their region or beyond it’.
The necessity for close cooperation between local SMEs as a sine qua non for their survival and prosperity has
been repeatedly recognized and stressed in major conferences (EU DG XXIII, 1998) and publications (WTTC
et al., 2002) in the past. The adoption of information and communication technology has been suggested as a
critical tool to aid in this effort. A management accounting tool that uses such technology, encompasses the above
recommendations and can help Greek island hotel SMEs improve their environmental performance is presented
next. The suggested approach derives from theoretical analyses and empirical experiences from primary research
performed by the Laboratory for the Development of Local Islands (http://www.aegean.gr/lid), University of the
Aegean, and the EU-funded STEPS for Islands (STEPS, 2001) research project.
The Integration of Activity-Based Management in the Construction of a Destination
Environmental Scorecard
A Corporate Perception of Destinations
This paper posits that islands should proceed with critical changes in the way they approach the sustainability
issue. The tourism CPRs comprise the whole spectrum of resources that a host area possesses and, in this sense,
they coincide with the tourism product (Briassoulis, 2002). The individual hotel SMEs operating on the islands
are too small to spare the resources needed to rationalize their environmental performance, optimize their CPR
management and defi ne a complicated reporting system (Perrini and Tencati, 2006). Further, their small size
makes them invisible to any local or national regulatory oversight. Yet, the accumulated impact from their opera-
tions leads to a continuous degradation of the local environment that sustains their operations. Though different
hotels exercise different magnitudes and types of strain, environmental failures externalized by one hotel under-
mine the quality of services offered by its neighbors as well as the reputation of the whole destination. Thus the
prevailing notion of competitive relationships among the local actors should be replaced by a partnership effort to
improve the viability and economic prospects of the whole destination. Any integrated approach to policy formula-
tion should adopt a broader spatial framework as its basis to be effective and avoid drawing on market-based
Sustainable Tourism in Greek Islands 31
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 19, 26–38 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
instruments alone, since there is no clear evidence that the latter ‘have generated improvements to, or helped
maintain, environmental quality at any major destination over a reasonable time-period’ (Collins, 1999, p. 106).
Whenever possible, destination communities should be empowered to make and implement decisions locally.
Participatory approaches to policy designs and development of non-hierarchical horizontal relationships and net-
works should be encouraged to promote self-reliance and cooperation based on mutually agreed objectives and
rules and on competition (Schleicher-Tapesser, 1999). Local autonomy should be advanced in a way that allows
restricted or controlled access to sensitive resources and provides incentives for users to invest in resource main-
tenance and enhancement (Ostrom et al., 1999). Collins (1999, p. 107) further identifi es ‘. . . a need for strategic
coordination, planning, and enforcement on a spatially extensive basis, whether community or government-led’,
and suggests that any governance system developed should include a spatial planning apparatus to coordinate
tourism and other local activities and to secure the preservation of natural and human resources. New and smarter
performance measurement systems are continuously designed to address increasing past, current and future,
physical and monetary, information needs and allow evaluation of the resource based/capacity building aspects of
corporate operations (Xiang et al., 2007). Composite performance measurement systems are suggested, drawing
on management accounting tools and integrating fi nancial indicators with environmental and social measures
(Bonacchi and Rinaldi, 2007). In consistence with these approaches, the individual hotel SMEs can be treated as
strategic business units (SBUs) of a virtual corporation, namely the island, and their operations be monitored and
coordinated in that way that optimizes the value of the whole corporation-destination. The local hoteliers’ union, in
cooperation with the county authorities, can undertake the responsibilities that CEOs perform in a fi rm, i.e. those
of planning, measuring and controlling. Indeed, freedom will be allowed to SBUs concerning their choices of
design and upkeep in the most profi table way. Individual fi rms must be given the necessary fl exibility to benefi t
from their better knowledge of local conditions, of idiosyncrasies and of their customers, and maintain the incen-
tive to fully participate in the scheme. The – initial – focus of the scheme will be on data collection, administration
and disposal of information to all interested parties. Such data should pertain to the physical and economic impacts
of the hotels’ operations. The benefi t of this approach is that the information collected will always be relevant,
current and timely and, if organized properly, will allow an estimation of both the individual performance of each
SBU and of the cumulative operation impact at a destination level.
The expenditure related to this suggestion is offset by the expected benefi ts for the voluntarily participating
entities: cost reduction because of more effi cient technologies and processes occupied; price premiums and
increased market share among green consumers; preemption of future stringent mandatory environmental regu-
lations; indirect entry barriers to new competitors and better response to environmentally conscious investors
(Videras and Alberini, 2000; Rivera, 2002). Findings indicate that fi rms serving fi nal consumers are more likely
to participate voluntarily in environmental initiatives, especially when such initiatives are promoted by their trade
associations and aim at improving industry reputation and avoiding increased scrutiny from stakeholders (King
and Lennox, 2000). The notion of ‘co-management’, or power sharing, between government agencies and non-
governmental groups has been suggested as a precondition for areas that attempt the adaptive management of
their resources (Pinkerton, 1989, cited by Finlayson and McCay, 1998). By the time these benefi ts are convincingly
communicated to the participating companies, the authority managing the suggested scheme will play the role of
a coordinator rather than that of a regulatory administrator and will draw its power from the positive economic
and environmental expectations of the participants.
ABC, ABM and the Destination Environmental Scorecard
An activity-based costing (ABC) system is based on the premise that products consume activities, activities consume
resources and resources consume costs (Gunasekaran, 1999). Therefore, the implementation of an ABC system
allows costs to be traced back to the specifi c activities that incurred them. Regrettably, the offi cial defi nition of
‘resource’ refers to anything that is an economic cost to the business and not to anything that is consumed along
the normal course of operations. The general concept of exerting control by the management of activities is referred
to as activity based management (ABM) (Brandon and Drtina, 1997). ABM is a technique which measures the cost
and performance of activities, resources and the objects that consume them in order to generate more accurate
and meaningful information to facilitate long-term strategic decision making (CIMA, 2001). ABC and ABM have
32 B. Karatzoglou and I. Spilanis
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 19, 26–38 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
been repeatedly suggested as methods potentially helpful toward a more sophisticated and rational cost allocation
and as tools for the sustainability pursuit, but always in an intra-organizational approach (Bartolomeo et al., 1999;
ACCA and EPA, 1995).
ABM is concerned more with planning and controlling the various activities and processes of a company rather
than dealing with its functional tasks. To do so, it uses fi nancial and non-fi nancial performance indicators to
measure the output of each activity center (Trussel and Bitner, 1998). Furthermore, ABM supports the quest for
continuous improvement by focusing managerial attention on the most critical sources of demand for activities
and by permitting management to create behavioral incentives to improve certain aspects of a company.
Various public organizations and private institutions, such as the International Hotels Environmental Initiative
(IHEI), the International Network for Environmental Management and the USA Environmental Protection Agency,
have detected a number of critical environmental issues for hotels and offer tips and specialized tools that can
help hotels benchmark their performance against the standards set by each organization. These tools usually suffer
from high acquisition cost when sold by private enterprises, complexity, limited fl exibility and small relevance,
since ideal levels of resource consumption and waste production differ strongly depending on the various types,
sizes, locations and technologies of the companies. Yet, the key to any successful performance measurement
system is to identify and collect meaningful measures that can – and actually will – be used and that will allow
comparisons and benchmarking between companies in the same market sectors (WBCSD, 1996). The suggested
replacement of hotel-based measurements with activity-based measurements and the development of a local envi-
ronmental activity scorecard, adapted to the needs of each individual destination, can offer an effective solution.
For instance, common critical issues for all hotels worldwide involve the energy use, the water consumption, pol-
lutant releases and the volume of litter produced. These issues incur environmental and economic costs arising
from specifi c identifi able activities, the most critical of which can be detected at a destination level by making
use of a Pareto approach (those few activities responsible for the greatest part of environmental costs). For the
Greek island hotels, the following critical activities and their respective impacts have been identifi ed (STEPS,
2001):
• cooking (energy consumption, littering)
• cooling (energy consumption, greenhouse gas production)
• laundry (water and energy consumption, liquid discharges)
• room facilities such as bathing or sauna (water consumption, liquid discharges)
• breakfast preparation and beverage serving (littering)
• gardening (water consumption, fertilizers discharged)
• swimming pool (water consumption, chlorinated water discharged).
Identifying the critical activities for each specifi c island is a prerequisite for the appropriateness of the analysis
that follows. Identifi cation implies a shift of the assessment emphasis from a purely economic to an environmen-
tal one. Activity drivers must be broken down by their cost behavior (Cooper and Kaplan, 1991). Cooking, beverage
serving and room facilities are unit level activities changing proportionately to the number of overnights spent at
each hotel. Breakfast preparation and laundry are batch level activities, performed to benefi t a number of custom-
ers at the same time. Cooling can be classifi ed as a facility level activity for those hotels that operate a central
cooling unit, or as a unit level activity for those offering individual room air-conditioning. Gardening and swim-
ming pool operations are purely facility level activities. Classifying the activities in this way allows the company
management to identify and abolish the non-value-adding ones, set a ‘number of customers’ threshold for some
batch or facility others and redesign or share the rest as described later.
Energy and materials accounting information (Schaltegger and Burritt, 2000) regarding the environmental
impact of each activity will be used for the collection of data. A metric will be assigned to measure environmental
pressure produced by each activity. IHEI suggests that energy be measured in kw h, water in m3 and litter in l or
kg. For a specifi c destination there may be only one environmental resource in short supply, such as water, or
there may be a number of scarce resources. Pooling different environmental – physical – costs in one activity basis
will have to exceed the problem of weighting different qualities (energy consumption, water consumption, solid
waste disposal) that must be cohesively considered. This impediment can be surpassed by the application of rel-
evant accepted methodologies such as the ecological footprint methodology (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996), the
Sustainable Tourism in Greek Islands 33
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 19, 26–38 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
‘functional units’ suggested by the ISO14040 life-cycle analysis or the Global Reporting Initiative methodology
(CERES and UNEP, 2002).
The Tool Implementation
After the physically measured environmental costs have been appropriately attributed, assigned or allocated to the
benefi ting activities, and translated to a common denominator-indicator of the environmental impact of each activ-
ity, a double entry matrix will be produced, with all participating hotels on the vertical axis, critical activities on
the horizontal, and the measured impact per hotel activity recorded in each cell. The form of the matrix is shown
in Table 1.
The sum of each column provides accumulated per activity fi gures for consumption and pollution (strategic
measures), while the sum of each row provides an indication of the environmental impact of each hotel (operating
measure). Measurements for each activity will be collected on a periodical basis, suggested to be less than 30 days,
so that intervention and corrective measures can be prompt. Each hotel will also supply information on its cost-
drivers such as the area of its premises, number of rooms, overnights spent and average occupancy rates. Relevant
data are readily available from the hotels’ records and accounting books and are offi cially submitted to the Greek
Bureau of Statistics on a monthly basis. When the column sums are divided by the total number of overnights (or
other driver) for each measurement period, they supply a discounted per unit consumption or pollution fi gure,
representing an average effi ciency indicator for the whole island hospitality sector. This indicator can be used as a
fi rst targeted reference (benchmark) by the rear-leaders of the classifi cation. Lack of feasible, relevant and objective
predetermined targets for companies to measure their environmental performance against has been noticed as an
obstacle to efforts to develop internal unbiased comparisons rather than conforming to irrelevant, externally set
standards (Xie and Hayase, 2007). Assuming that drivers remain constant, changes to this indicator will represent
changes in the effi ciency with which local companies trade on their resources. Each hotel can then refer to this
matrix via information and communication technology (ICT) to compare its own performance with that of its local
peers, the average, the best available performance or a preset target. The notion of the adaptive resource manage-
ment suggested in the paper title becomes evident here: adaptive management differs from the conventional
resource management practices in that it emphasizes the importance of continuous and prompt feedbacks from
the environment in forming policy through an iterative, co-evolutionary, learning-based process. It is an inductive
approach relying on comparative studies between ecological theories and observation, and a systematic dynamic
experimentation and adaptation of human responses (Berkes and Folke, 1998). The suggested tool maintains the
Env. impact
measured in
Cooling Restaurant
cooking
En-suite
facilities
Laundry Breakfast Total hotel impact
kw h kw h m3 of water m3 of water kg of solid
waste
measured in
equivalent land ha*
Hotel A XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Hotel B XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Hotel C XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Hotel D XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
Total destination fi gures XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Driver(s) (for instance) # overnights XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Discounted per unit fi gures XX XX XX XX XX XX
Table 1. The destination environmental scorecard
* If the ecological footprint methodology is used.
34 B. Karatzoglou and I. Spilanis
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 19, 26–38 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
traditional ABC/M pattern with three layers: resources consumed (as recorded in the general ledger and through
physical measures), critical activities (as identifi ed and performed locally) and services rendered (number of over-
nights or other activity drivers, taken from the hotels’ accounting books). Further, it identifi es and communicates
to interested parties the causal linkages between business components and environmental impacts.
Details of the total energy and water consumption can be accessed for each particular activity through meter
readings and verifi ed from the hotel energy and water bills. IHEI and UNEP studies and business cases1 indicate
that there can be variations in energy consumption between neighboring equal-size hotels of as much as 40% of
the total bill. Fresh water consumption can account for over 15% of the total utility bills in most summer vacation
hotels and the use of appropriate measures can lead to a cut-down of by as much as 50%. Water management for
islands is critical both in physical and monetary terms. Hotels sometimes have to pay not only to purchase but
also to dispose of untreated water. Furthermore, proper water management normally results in energy savings as
well. Collection of data requires installation of simple inexpensive gauges to measure critical activities. All moni-
toring and energy reducing gauges are currently subsidized at a 40–60% rate by the central administration. Finally,
solid waste management is critical to cut costs, reduce pollution, reduce purchases and conserve natural resources.
Poor garbage collection and disposal in uncontrolled dumps and landfi lls can seriously undermine the ability of
a destination to effectively serve its visitors. The imminent introduction of the ‘polluter pays’ principle implies that
the management of solid wastes will become critical for the survival of hotels, since charges for disposal will rise
rapidly, municipality landfi ll charges will be introduced and the legal framework will become more austere. IHEI
estimates that 35% of total waste by volume originates from packaging, mainly of food and beverages, and this
waste can be reduced to one-fourth of the volume by proper waste management. Failure of certain hotels in an
area to comply with sanitation or aesthetic standards will negatively affect the wider destination performance unless
costs ‘externalized’ by these hotels are ‘internalized’ by neighboring more sensible and/or better equipped
hotels.
The incentives and ability of the hotel enterprises to participate and meet requirements in excess of compulsory
regulations may come into question. The continuing environmental deterioration of the islands indicates the inef-
fi ciency of mere compliance with legislation. State regulations set a minimum standard, which is rapidly surpassed
by customers’ expectations if not accompanied by more effi cient and fl exible tools such as self-regulation. Certifi ed
EMSs and over 30 international different ecolabels for the hotel industry alone (CREM and CH2M HILL, 2000)
prove this fact. Local companies should perceive their involvement with the scheme not as an additional forced
bureaucratic burden but rather as a voluntary engagement with a tool that can, and will, have widespread, profound,
and long-term positive effects on the competitive position and profi tability of the whole destination. Once this view
becomes accepted, the response rate will increase and the quality of submitted data will improve. Major interna-
tional tour operators can help in this direction since they have the expressed will (see www.toinitiative.org), the
resources and the authority to require and monitor conformity of their hotel partners with a number of standards.
The implementation of the scheme requires careful preparation and will go through the same stages as the adop-
tion of any ecolabel. The interested parties will have to reach voluntary agreements and develop a consensus as to
the recommendations, critical activities, measures and metrics used, elaborate a manual to provide specifi c help
in carrying out environmentally friendly actions and secure consistency and reliability of measurements by jointly
training qualifi ed personnel and by periodically auditing the gauges and records. Environmental quality prizes and
recognition, awarded by the local hoteliers association, can prove especially effective in enhancing positive attitudes
of the hotels involved.
Interactive sites can be used for the submission of periodical data to the central authority managing the project.
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, widely employed today, enable companies to collect, process and
share physical and technical apart from fi nancial data. ICT, as a precondition for effective corporate environmen-
tal performance and reporting, has been repeatedly suggested in various articles (Rikhardsson, 2001; Adams and
Frost, 2006; Perrini and Tencati, 2006) and is already widely used by most Greek hotels. ABC/M will lend the
accounting tools to set up an operative framework, the ability of which to function successfully will depend on its
applicability and the grid of the accompanying incentives and disincentives. Prompt submission and management
of valid accounting and physical data will allow the tool users to
1 See http://www.ihei.org/HOTELIER/hotelier.nsf/content/a1a2.html and also http://www.cep.unep.org/pubs/techreports
Sustainable Tourism in Greek Islands 35
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 19, 26–38 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
• judge the actual performance of each company, since the information disclosed will be consistent in terms of
collection methodology, content, style and complexity,
• monitor the trends of resources consumed and waste produced at a destination-wide level and maintain relevant
records,
• compare these trends with the pre-assessed carrying capacity of the area, defi ned as the ability of the island to
sustain the current rate of tourism activities, and promptly take corrective measures when needed,
• track the resource consumption and waste production pattern of each hotel and its efforts to improve its effi ciency
performance,
• smooth out performance discrepancies and locate potential synergies between neighboring hotels,
• make sure that local hotel enterprises meet the national regulation environmental standards as well as the
expectations and restrictions of the local communities,
• share common sound reporting processes and methods that discourage fraudulent free riders from communicat-
ing unfair and untrue results (Perrini and Tencati, 2006),
• enhance the individual hotel SMEs’ capacity to successfully leverage information and data on the most critical
activities which undermine the island environment and
• employ comparative analytical tools in classifying hotels along a sustainability index according to their perfor-
mance and identifying organizational strengths and weaknesses.
This last classifi cation will result in the disclosure of the best and worst partners operating on the island. Since
they serve, and benefi t from, the same destination, the most effi cient hotels have a strong motive to share their
best available techniques and support weaker hotels in the implementation of advanced techniques. A hotel envi-
ronmental index may reveal extreme weaknesses, negative attitudes or persistent inability of certain hotels to
comply with performance requirements. Such cases should be led to conform or cease operations, since they are
ultimately subsidized by their peers and the continuation of their operations undermines the sustainable perfor-
mance of the wider destination.
The whole concept closely resembles those of the EU European Pollutant Emission Register (EC, 2006), OECD
PRTR (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/26/39785042.pdf) and EPA TRI (www.epa.gov/tri). All these tools have
been designed to identify environmental threats, monitor corporate progress and trends to manage these threats,
and proactively suggest action. They provide interested parties with an inventory of data disclosing which facilities
released potentially harmful substances, how much and to which environmental media. Just like DSE, registers
vary depending on a country’s needs, conditions, environmental objectives and national/local priorities. The fea-
tures that all registers have in common are a list of hazardous substances, multimedia or integrated reporting of
releases, data provided by source (facilities) and the availability of data to stakeholders. However, DSE differs from
these tools in that it suggests an analysis of the threats by the exact intra-company activity that produced them.
Performance measurement has no consequence and will not lead to any improvement unless followed by per-
formance management. Hotels demonstrating poor performance will have to proceed in the elimination of scarcely
demanded non-value-adding activities, the reduction or/and redesign of the low value–high environmental cost
activities by introducing available technological advances, changes to their costing and pricing decisions so that all
environmental costs are considered and no service offered is underpriced or overpriced and fi nally activity sharing.
Opportunities for activity sharing are abundant on small islands but lack of coordination and personal dislikes
deter their application. Linkage exploitation, collective order placement, economies of scale, common training of
employees and destination advertisement plans are only a few of the initiatives that can lead to shared fi xed costs
and increase economic benefi ts without compromising the area’s sustainability.
The Scheme’s Future
The scheme could eventually take the form of an ‘island hotel observatory’. Developed for a non-profi t scope, it
could be publicly or privately sponsored. It is suggested that fi xed costs related to establishing the scheme be
subsidized by the central or local administration while operating costs be paid by the participants. Hoteliers, as
well as other social partners and local authorities, can create a public trust offering the system credibility and
transparency. Prefectures, municipalities, NGOs, tour operators and other entrepreneurs active in the region can
36 B. Karatzoglou and I. Spilanis
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 19, 26–38 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
set up a grid of incentives to reward proactive companies and of disincentives to penalize those reactive or indif-
ferent. Such incentives might include easier access to funds, enhanced reputation, lower oversight and increased
participation in local occasions.
An effective island hotel should be ultimately confi gured to collect and disseminate information on the best
globally available industry practices as well as on the ideal offered fi nancing tools to acquire them; become a focal
point for consulting, commercial and technical, enterprises that are interested in operating on the islands by offer-
ing sustainability related products (Wagner, 2002); set negotiated annual attainable performance goals to foster a
sense of ownership and motivation among the participating members; set up training programs for hoteliers and
hospitality employees on the introduction of sustainability in their policy and operations; establish close relation-
ships with respective schemes of neighboring islands that may result in synergies, exchange of experience and
knowledge, and hence to mutual benefi ts, and, fi nally, produce and manage a local eco-label scheme focusing on
the island priorities.
The emphasis on the effi ciency improvement of the critical activities, as suggested by this approach, will be
embraced by all hotels because of its positive cost–benefi t analysis outcome. In fi nancial terms, the implementa-
tion of the scheme will have a positive net present value and a payback period that varies between 6 months and
three years (CADDET, 1997). The scheme can set the basis for the creation of an individual balanced scorecard
through which each hotel will be able to measure and coordinate its fi nancial and physical performance. It will
operate against black-market practices, since unregistered customers will exacerbate the per unit consumption and
pollution indicators for the tax-evasive hotels. The training of the managers for the scheme and the credibility and
confi dentiality of the fi gures produced are critical issues. Lack of verifi cation of the measures submitted and of
the averages produced can lead to the collapse of the whole project. The accuracy of the submitted measures is
not critical since the approach emphasizes incremental, improvement-oriented changes from one period to another.
The wider framework is practical and fl exible. The major recorded problems related to the application of such tools
included increased initial costs and lack of measurement consistency and data comprehensibility. However, after
the fi rst two reporting cycles the costs for collecting, reporting and collating the information dropped signifi cantly
and the tools’ effectiveness increased (OECD, 1997). The exact pros and cons of the DES tool cannot be established
for as long as the scheme remains a theoretical design. However, its operational prospects are positive since the
framework is based on the principles of widely and effectively applied managerial tools, such as adaptive resource
management and the ABC/M, and will use primary input developed by, and for, the exact destination it was
fashioned to serve.
Conclusions
In a context where demands for sustainability are continually growing, tourism destination competition is increas-
ing and stakeholder pressures are forcing companies to be more effi cient and transparent, lack of any comparison
standards or environmental benchmarks has been documented by researches to hamper the sustainable perfor-
mance of the Greek island hotels. With the intention of supporting local companies and authorities to overcome
this barrier to sustainable operations, we suggest the development of a functional tool, namely the destination
environmental scorecard. DES draws on the ‘adaptive resource management’ paradigm and the principles of
ABC/M and can effectively manage and present critical information in a way that allows an estimation of the total
island resource consumption and waste production due to hotel operations as well as the weighted participation
of each hotel in these processes. The paper suggests that the activities through which all hotels offer utility to their
customers be decomposed into their environmental aspects and their effi ciency be measured and benchmarked
against that of their peers, the local average or other preset standards. The suggested tool can disclose critical
information on the strains that each particular unit and activity exercise on the local environment and thus support
the operation of an island hotel observatory and the formulation of an appropriate sustainable tourism policy.
Initiatives to implement DES-like tools have recently been undertaken by certain Aegean islands at an experi-
mental level. Although this positions this paper as an academic think piece, DES derives its legitimacy and reli-
ability from its solid theoretical background and the extensive empirical research performed by the authors on the
Greek hoteliers’ motives and barriers to operate sustainably and to disclose information on their environmental
performance. Since the mix of activities, environmental threats and motives and barriers changes from one place
Sustainable Tourism in Greek Islands 37
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 19, 26–38 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
to another, the tool is suitable to be implemented in all destinations assuming that care has been taken in the
adaptation of the critical activities, measures and metrics to the local priorities. The article provides a preliminary
attempt to integrate the ABC/M and the adaptive resource management paradigm literature in a construct expected
to operationalize a sustainability measurement framework for tourist destinations. Empirical testing and further
studies will be required before the DES becomes a robust, fully operable tool.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the two anonymous journal reviewers for their comments. Special thanks go to Professor Roger
Burritt, Australian National University, Canberra, whose valuable remarks enriched the initial draft of the paper and critically
infl uenced the overall approach to the topic.
References
ACCA, EPA. 1995. An Introduction to Environmental Accounting as a Business Tool. Washington, DC.
Adams CA. 1999. The Nature and Processes of Corporate Reporting on Ethical Issues, CIMA research monograph.
Adams CA, Frost GR. 2006. Accessibility and functionality of the corporate web site: implications for sustainability reporting. Business Strategy
and the Environment 15: 275–287. DOI: 10.1002/bse531
Bartolomeo M, Bennett M, Bouma JJ, Heydkamp P, James P, de Walle F, Wolters T (eds). 1999. Eco-Management Accounting. Kluwer:
Dordrecht.
Berkes F, Folke C (eds). 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Bonacchi M, Rinaldi L. 2007. Dartboards and Clovers as new tools in sustainability planning and control. Business Strategy and the Environment
16: 461–473. DOI: 10.1002/bse596
Brandon Ch, Drtina R. 1997. Management Accounting: Strategy and Control. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Briassoulis H. 2002. Sustainable tourism and the question of the commons. Annals of Tourism Research 29(4): 1065–1085.
Bromley D. 1991. Environment and Economy. Blackwell: Cambridge.
Center for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies (CADDET). 1997. Energy Effi ciency in Hotels and Motels,
Brochure 07. CADDET: The Netherlands.
CERES, UNEP. 2002. The Global Reporting Initiative: 2002 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. http://www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/2002.
asp [31 August 2002].
Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA). 2001. Activity-Based Management: an Overview, April 2001 Technical Briefi ng. CIMA:
London, UK.
Clarkson MB. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20(1):
92–117.
Collins A. 1999. Tourism development and natural capital. Annals of Tourism Research 26(1): 98–109.
Cooper R, Kaplan R. 1991. Profi t priorities from activity-based costing. Harvard Business Review. DOI: 10.1225/91305: 130–136.
CREM, CH2M HILL. 2000. Feasibility and Market Study for a European Eco-Label for Tourist Accommodations (FEMATOUR). European Com-
mission DG ENV: Amsterdam. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ecolabel/tourism.htm [30 June 2002].
European Commission (EC). 2002. Structure, Performance and Competitiveness of European Tourism and its Enterprises http://europa.eu.int/
comm/enterprise/services/tourism/studies/pwc/pwc.pdf [7 March 2003].
European Commission (EC). 2003. Basic Orientations for the Sustainability of European Tourism, Communication from the Commission to
the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 21.11.2003,
COM(2003) 716 fi nal. Brussels.
European Commission (EC). 2006. Guidance Document for the Implementation of the European PRTR. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ippc/
eper/pdf/en_prtr.pdf [9 May 2007].
EU DG XXIII. 1998. Agenda 2010 for Small Businesses in the ‘World’s Largest Industry’, Final Communiqué. Llandudno, Wales.
EUROSTAT. 2000. Tourism Trends in Mediterranean Countries. http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-catalogue [27
March 2002].
Finlayson Ch, McCay B. 1998. Crossing the threshold of ecosystem resilience: the commercial extinction of northern cod. In Linking Social
and Ecological Systems, Berkes F, Folke C (eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA; 311–337.
Frost GR, Seamer M. 2002. Adoption of environmental reporting and management practices: an analysis of New South Wales public sector
entities. Financial Accountability and Management 18(2): 103–128.
Gunasekaran A. 1999. A framework for the design and audit of an activity-based costing system. Managerial Auditing Journal 14(3): 118–126.
Hillary R. 1999. Evaluation of Study Reports on the Barriers, Opportunities and Drivers in SMEs in the Adoption of Environmental Management
Systems. Department of Trade and Industry: London.
Hillary R (ed.). 2000. Small and Medium Sized Enterprises and the Environment. Greenleaf: Sheffi eld.
38 B. Karatzoglou and I. Spilanis
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 19, 26–38 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Holling C, Berkes F, Folke C. 1998. Science, sustainability and resource management. In Linking Social and Ecological Systems, Berkes F, Folke
C (eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA; 342–362.
King A, Lenox M. 2000. Industry self-regulation without sanctions: the chemical industry Responsible Care program. Academy of Management
Journal 43: 698–716.
Löfqvist H, Birkenheim J, Cook K, Backman M. 2000. Are Environmental Management Systems Generating Competitive Advantages for Small and
Medium-Sized Enterprises? IIIEE Reports 2000: 13. The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE), Lund
University, Sweden.
Mathieson A, Wall G. 1982. Tourism: Economic Physical and Social Impacts. Longman: USA.
Observatory of European SMEs. 2002. European SMEs and Social and Environmental Responsibility, Report 2002/4, The European Commission.
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/enterprise_policy/analysis/doc/smes_observatory_2002_report4_en.pdf [20 June 2005].
O’Laoire D, Welford R. 1998. The EMS in the SME. In Corporate Environmental Management. System and Strategies, 2nd edn, Welford R (ed.).
Earthscan: London; 199–209.
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 1997. Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs): a Tool for Environ-
mental Management and Sustainable Development, PRTR Workshop for the Americas, San Juan del Rio, Mexico, 1997. http://www.oecd.
org/dataoecd/36/32/2348006.pdf [20 June 2007].
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2000. Environmental Performance Review: Greece. OECD Publications.
Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions of Collective Action. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Ostrom E, Burger J, Field ChB, Norgaard R, Policansky D. 1999. Revisiting the Commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science. DOI:
10.1126/science.284.5412.278: 278–282.
Perrini F, Tencati A. 2006. Sustainability and stakeholder management: the need for new corporate performance evaluation and reporting
systems. Business Strategy and the Environment 15: 296–308. DOI: 10.1002/bse538
Rikhardsson P. 2001. Corporate environmental management and information technology. Eco-Management and Auditing. DOI: wiley.
com/10.1002/ema.149: 90–99.
Rivera J. 2002. Assessing a voluntary environmental initiative for the developing world: the Costa Rican Certifi cation for Sustainable Tourism.
Policy Sciences 35: 333–360.
Schaltegger S, Burritt R. 2000. Contemporary Environmental Accounting. Greenleaf Sheffi eld.
Schaltegger S, Burritt R, Petersen H. 2003. Corporate Environmental Management. Striving for Sustainability. Greenleaf: Sheffi eld.
Schleicher-Tapesser. 1999. INSURED – Instruments for Sustainable Regional Development, fi nal report. EC Environment and Climate Research
Program: Brussels.
Sustainable Tourism Environmental Protection System (STEPS) for Islands. 2001. Final report, prepared by FEEM, Italy, and the University
of Sheffi eld, UK, and submitted to EU DG XII, Contract ENV4-CT98. http://www.feem.it/NR/Feem/resources/Newsletter/2001.01/021_
042_highlight.pdf [3 April 2004].
Trussel J, Bitner L. 1998. Strategic cost management: an activity-based management approach. Management Decision 36(7): 441–447.
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNESC). 1996. Sustainable Tourism Development in Small Island Developing States
– Addendum to the Report of the Secretary General, Document E/CN.17/1996/20/Add.3. http://islands.unep.ch/d96–20a3.htm [30 April
2002].
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNESC). 1999. Tourism and Sustainable Development, report of the Secretary
General (19–30 April 1999).
United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), World Tourism Organization (WTO). 1998. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Sustainable Tourism in Small Island Developing States and Other Islands, Lanzarote, Spain, 1998.
Videras J, Alberini A. 2000. The appeal of voluntary environmental programs: which fi rms participate and why? Contemporary Economic Policy
18(4): 449–461.
Voorhees J, Woellner R. 1997. International Environmental Risk Management: ISO 14000 and the Systems Approach. Lewis: Boca Raton, FL,
USA.
Wackernagel M, Rees W. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint. New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC and Philadelphia, PA.
Wagner L. 2002. The Sustainable Development Imperative and the Travel and Tourism Industry, case study for the UN Vision Project. http://www.
globalpublicpolicy.net [27 June 2004].
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 1996. Environmental Performance and Shareholder Value. WBCSD: Geneva.
World Tourism Organization (WTO). 1993. Principles for Sustainable Tourism. http://www.worldtourism.org/frameset/frame_sustainable.html
[20 July 2002].
World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC). 2001. Year 2001: TSA Research Tables – World Analysis. http://www.wttc.org/measure/PDF/World.
pdf [9 June 2001].
World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC). 2003. The 2003 Travel and Tourism Economic Research. London.
World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC). 2006. Greece: the Impact of Travel and Tourism on Jobs and the Economy. London.
World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), World Tourism Organization (WTO), Earth Council. 1996. AGENDA 21 for the Travel and Tourism
Industry: Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development. http://www.wttc.org/promote/agenda21.htm [27 January 2005].
Xiang Z, Kothari T, Fesenmaier DR. 2007. Benchmarking as a strategic tool for destination management organizations: a proposed framework.
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 22(1): 81–93.
Xie S, Hayase K. 2007. Corporate environmental performance evaluation: a measurement model and a new concept. Business Strategy and the
Environment 16: 148–168. DOI: 10.1002/bse493
