Animals as tourism stakeholders: Huskies, reindeer, and horses working in Lapland

Abstract

In this chapter, our aim is to examine how animals are tourism stakeholders by applying this feminist framework to animal labour. We note that the wellbeing of many animals in organizations can be seen as of key strategic importance, especially within animal tourism branding itself ‘responsible’ or ‘ethical’, and as such, the care of the animal workers can be seen as a vital aspect of the business strategy. However, we go further than merely suggesting that animals are of key strategic importance in these contexts. We suggest that animal stakeholder status is of inherent moral value and that the human-animal relationship already existing in practice supports this understanding.

Full text

José-Carlos García-Rosell, Linda Tallberg
7 Animals as tourism stakeholders: Huskies,
reindeer, and horses working in Lapland
Introduction
Animals in tourism engage in many forms of labor, from pulling strength to speed
and riding, among others (Fennell, 2012). Animal bodies play an important role as a
source of power or comfort and curiosity for tourists watching or touching them
(Coulter, 2016). Moreover, it is through the emotional and embodied engagement
between animals and humans (tourists and guides) that animal-based tourism ex-
periences are co-created (Bertella, 2014; Haanpää & García-Rosell, 2020). Although
animals do not receive any direct financial compensation for their work, their
human owners provide for their physiological needs (e.g. food, water, and shelter)
with part of the money paid by tourists. Through their work and symbolic value,
animals generate significant economic benefits for both their human owners and
the tourism destinations where their labor is performed. Following Coulter’s (2016)
thoughts on interspecies solidarity, we argue that animals are not only tourism
workers, but are also tourism stakeholders. We use an ethics of care framework
(Connolly & Cullen, 2018; Wicks, Gilbert, & Freeman, 1994) to analyze animal tour-
ism workers in Finnish Lapland, concluding that the human-animal relationship is
largely based on contractual care by tourism entrepreneurs. As such, animal work-
ers are seen in instrumental terms, but with concrete and distinct relations with
their human owners. Customers, on the other hand, seem to view animal workers
as having intrinsic value. Hence, we argue that animals become tourism stakehold-
ers within this context through their close relationship to the traditional human
stakeholder groups of customers and owners.
Considering the important role of animal labor in tourism and other organiza-
tional contexts, there is value in developing new ways of understanding stakehold-
ers and their relationships. The tourism industry, with its complex and often messy
entanglements between human and animal experiential encounters, offers a fruitful
context to critically evaluate human-animal relations (e.g. Danby, Dashper, &
Finkel, 2019; Haanpää et al., 2019) and, as in this chapter, the notion of stakeholder
status. Burton and Dunn (1996), along with Wicks, Freeman, and Gilbert (1994),
first argued for a feminist framing in stakeholder theory in terms of establishing
moral behavior, which has been somewhat overlooked in comparison to other nor-
mative moral justifications (such as rights/justice) within stakeholder theory. In
this chapter, we continue the task of moving beyond the long-held deontological
premises of stakeholder theory towards an understanding of stakeholders based on
an ethics of care framework. Ethics of care is a core feminist framing of morality
Open Access. © 2021 José-Carlos García-Rosell, Linda Tallberg, published by De Gruyter. This
work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110664058-007

based on relationships, connectedness, and interdependence. In an interview,
Carol Gilligan, whose book In a Different Voice (1982) was foundational for a femi-
nist ethics of care discourse, defines this as
an ethic grounded in voice and relationships [. . .] the importance of everyone having a voice,
being listened to carefully (in their own right and on their own terms) and heard with respect. An
ethics of care directs our attention to the need for responsiveness in relationships (paying attention,
listening, responding) and to the costs of losing connection with oneself or with others. Its logic is
inductive, contextual, psychological, rather than deductive or mathematical. (Gilligan, 2011)
Following this, our aim is to examine how animals are tourism stakeholders by ap-
plying this feminist framework to animal labor. We note that the well-being of
many animals in organizations can be seen as of key strategic importance, espe-
cially within animal tourism branding itself “responsible”or “ethical,”and as such,
the care of the animal workers can be seen as a vital aspect of the business strategy.
However, we go further than merely suggesting that animals are of key strategic im-
portance in these contexts. We suggest that animal stakeholder status is of inherent
moral value and that the human-animal relationship already existing in practice
supports this understanding.
Following the recent work by Connolly and Cullen (2018) applying an ethics of
care framing of animals in organizations, we explore what this means for animal
stakeholder status. Whereas a deontological approach to stakeholders seeks a fair
solution between competing individual rights, an ethic of care sees the interests of
carers, care-givers, and cared-for as importantly intertwined rather than simply
competing (Held, 2006). In organizations where animals are workers, their interests
are more than just aspects of being cared-for, as upholding the animal interests is
vital to the success of the business. Drawing upon interviews conducted in Finnish
Lapland with animal-based tourism entrepreneurs, and upon social media content
produced by international tourists and local companies, we work towards a rela-
tional understanding of stakeholders, which gives primacy to the social bonds and
emotions that exist between the human and animal tourism workers. We suggest
that such a framing already exists in practice among some tourism entrepreneurs,
who recognize that caring well for their animals affects their business in terms of
receiving positive customer reviews. In this chapter, we explore what this means for
stakeholder status beyond anthropocentric objectives.
Considering stakeholder theory
Who is a stakeholder?
There are various definitions of a stakeholder, but an overarching understanding of
the concept is that a stakeholder is “any individual or group who can affect or is
104 José-Carlos García-Rosell, Linda Tallberg

affected by the actions, decisions, policies, practices, or goals of the organization”
(Carroll, 1996, p. 74). The term “stakeholder”is traditionally understood to include
employees, customers, suppliers, investors, government officials, competitors, local
community members, and activists, among others. Phillips, Freeman, and Wicks
(2003, p. 480–481) define stakeholder theory “as a theory of organizational man-
agement and ethics”which is “distinct because it addresses morals and values ex-
plicitly as a central feature of managing organizations.”This ethical and moral
consideration of the interests of those affected by organizational decision-making is
a core tenet throughout stakeholder theory, even though there are different schol-
arly opinions on who “legitimate”stakeholder status encompasses (see, for exam-
ple, Phillips & Reichart, 2000). This core aspect to the theory is vital to recognize,
as societal consideration increasingly acknowledges more-than-human actors (such
as animals and nature) as beings and entities important not only to human survival
and thriving, but with intrinsic value of their own.
Therefore, there has been much debate on whether non-human actors, such as the
natural environment (which animals are traditionally merged into), should or can be
considered as primordial stakeholders. Starik (1995), in his much-referenced article,
made a convincing argument that the natural environment is a key stakeholder, sepa-
rate from others such as suppliers, competitors, and stockholders, yet intertwined due
to nature encompassing all other groups. We note that this ongoing scholarly discussion
is multifaceted and based on the differing perspectives of rights, justice, and moral con-
siderations an organization is obliged to consider. However, we suggest that in a time of
impending climate change with systems of large-scale planetary disruption, it would be
short-sighted (and not very ethical) to limit managerial decision-making only to human
interests. In line with Gren and Huijbens (2014), we argue that the dire climate situation
we face today (and in the future) is a result of overtly anthropocentric and individualist
human enterprise based on outdated profit maximization ideals, something stakeholder
theory, at its core, distances itself from as a moral theory (see, for example, Freeman
1984). Instead, we see that stakeholder theory presupposes the interconnectivity be-
tween sometimes diverse groups and individuals, a relational connection that feminist
theory supports.
The normative justifications for stakeholder theory influence who to consider as a
stakeholder. Phillips, Freeman, and Wicks (2003) conclude that there are eight different
branches of the normative core of stakeholder theory. They split this core into (1) the
common good, (2) feminist ethics, (3) risk, (4) integrative social contracts theory, (5)
property rights, (6) Kantianism, (7) the doctrine of fair contracts, and (8) the principle of
stakeholder fairness (for a detailed discussion of each, see Phillips, Freeman, & Wicks,
2003, p. 481). The widely held anthropocentric position of not considering animals (or
nature) as stakeholders finds its origins in the latter, fairness-based principles, which
have generally shaped understanding of the stakeholder notion. Such an approach does
not necessitate aspects of caring or emotion, upon which we and many other feminists
would argue relationships are built.
7 Animals as tourism stakeholders: Huskies, reindeer, and horses working in Lapland 105

However, recent work has begun to consider animals as stakeholders due to in-
creased societal concern for and understanding of animals in society. In Animals and
Business Ethics, Smart (forthcoming) makes the case that animals should be treated as
stakeholders due to them having moral status. He claims that as animals’interests are
affected by organizational decisions and actions, we need to take such interests into
consideration according to the core tenets of stakeholder theory (Smart, forthcoming).
Following Carroll’s (1996) definition at the start of this section –that it is those whose
interests are affected by organizational decisions and actions who need to be considered
as stakeholders –offers a logical rationale for going beyond previous business consider-
ations and an anthropocentric focus to include animals.
An ethics of care perspective on stakeholder theory
In order to develop this consideration of animals as stakeholders, we use an ethics
of care framework for working animals in tourism. Noting that animal tourism is a
contested sector due to fluctuating levels of animal welfare within the global tour-
ism industry, we suggest not only that animals benefit from being considered stake-
holders, but that businesses reap benefits from the positive customer experiences
that ethical interactions with animals provide in tourism destinations.
Using feminist moral ethics in stakeholder theory was first argued over 25 years
ago (Burton & Dunn, 1996; Freeman & Gilbert, 1992; Wicks, Gilbert, & Freeman, 1994).
As stakeholder theory is based on the morals and behaviors of management, it re-
quires moral consideration beyond justice and rights (Burton & Dunn, 1996). Feminist
moral ethics focus on caring, relationships, collaboration –many of the values which
modern society is increasingly espousing, and even more so than when this framing
was first suggested. This relational aspect of feminist ethics is of key importance. As
Burton and Dunn (1996, p. 135) state:
Feminist ontology of humans as essentially relational beings is tied to their epistemology.
They believe that humans only know through relationships. If relationships are identifying
characteristics of humans, then the abstract, universal, impartial, and rational standard of
what is knowledge is inadequate in decision-making.
Emotion and affect are sources of knowledge in the feminist perspective, and ele-
ments of caring are highly relevant to moral behavior (Held, 2006). We note that
applying an ethics of care framing to decision-making and stakeholders does not
exclude aspects of rights, duties, and justice. Rather, this is a complementary layer
to stakeholder theory. As Wicks (1996) points out, there are practical objections to
using only an ethics of care framing to managerial decision-making, as in a practi-
cal sense there are no guidebooks or rules on managerial caring per se.
Applying an ethics of care framework to animals in organizations is not new.
However, our goal in this chapter is to apply this framing to tourism studies as a
106 José-Carlos García-Rosell, Linda Tallberg

unique context where animal workers are vital to the sector and where caring al-
ready occurs to some degree. In a review of the organizational studies field in rela-
tion to animals, Connolly and Cullen (2018) mapped publications from 1995 to 2015
on animals within business and management studies according to an ethics of care
framing in four distinct caring categories: (1) there was “contractual care”between
humans and animals; (2) there was a “no care environment,”where care for ani-
mals was not considered, although they were present in the context; (3) there was a
“care about”animals context or topic; and (4) there was a context where animals
were “care[d] for”(p. 410). The articles revealed differences in seeing animals as
providing either an instrumental value to the organization or having intrinsic value
in themselves. Furthermore, the relationship with the animals was seen to either be
“concrete,”which was “characterised by a direct and personal interaction”with an-
imals, or “abstract,”where there was “an objective distance between human and
animal”(Connolly & Cullen, 2018, p. 409). The authors found that those studies fo-
cusing on animals as instrumentally valuable in a concrete aspect applied a “con-
tractual care”framing. These included farmers or ranchers who had a personal
relationship with the animals, although these were seen in instrumental terms.
Abstract notions of animals serving instrumental values were seen in the “no care
environment,”which included animals in entertainment, animals as research tools,
and other forms of commodifying animals. On the other hand, animals with intrin-
sic value were seen in abstraction in articles focused around topics related to ethi-
cal consumption, animal advocacy, and sustainability in the “care about”category,
while the fourth category, “care for,”was focused on animal shelter workers and
aspects related to companion animals who were seen to have intrinsic value and
enjoyed a concrete human-animal relationship.
In the categorization (which included 185 peer-reviewed articles), 10 articles
were focused on the tourism sector. Most of these (six articles out of 10) involved a
“care about”relationship with animals. Within this, the subcategory of sustainabil-
ity or conservation aspects in relation to animals was dominant (Higham & Shelton,
2011; Orams, 2002; Reynolds & Braithwaite, 2001). The second most dominant view
from an ethics of care perspective was a “no care”relationship (three articles of
ten), where animals were viewed as a marketing tool (Okello, Manka, & D’Amour,
2008), seen as a commodity (Galloway & Lopez, 1999), and seen as a source of dis-
ease (Lee & Chen, 2011). Only one article had “contractual caring”by farmers as its
focus and, interestingly, none of the reviewed articles found a “care for”framing
within tourism. Such a categorization is useful to apply to animal tourism workers,
and we apply this ethics of care framing in the specific context of Finnish Lapland
to better understand the situation in practice.
7 Animals as tourism stakeholders: Huskies, reindeer, and horses working in Lapland 107

Animal workers in tourism: Husky, reindeer,
and horse tours in the winter wonderland
Animal workers are vital to much of the tourism industry, which relies on encounters
with nature and animals for unique tourism experiences in holiday destinations.
Coulter (2016) creates a case for animals as workers in describing the entanglements
that exist between humans and animals at work. She comments in her book Animals,
Work and the Promise of Interspecies Solidarity (2016, p. 11) that “alargemajorityof
labor researchers fail to see that humans are but one of many species in any given
space and community, that many humans work with animals, that humans depend
upon the broader ecological web for subsistence and survival, and that human, ani-
mal, and environmental well-being are inextricably connected.”Coulter calls this
framework “interspecies solidarity”to account for humane work which includes
“jobs that are good for both people and animals”(p. 163). She concludes that work
which exploits animals is often detrimental to humans and the environment, too (for
example, slaughterhouse work, which impacts all organizational actors negatively).
In this way, focusing on the well-being of humans and animals in solidarity benefits
all involved, as the welfare of all actors is interlinked (see García-Rosell & Hancock,
forthcoming). This inter-relational conceptualization links to our framing of animals
as stakeholders in tourism, as the human-animal relationship is at the core of the
context of the Finnish Lapland destination.
Finnish Lapland is the northernmost province of Finland and the European
Union. With only 3.5% of Finland’s population but about 30% of Finland’stotal
area, Lapland is by far the least densely populated region in Finland, and a rapidly
growing wilderness and nature-based tourism destination. The number of annual
registered overnight stays in Lapland is 3 million (Regional Council of Lapland 2019).
As a tourism destination, Lapland attracts tourists from around the world, particu-
larly in the winter season between December and March. Although most tourists
come from European countries, the number of Asian tourists has increased sharply
in recent years. In Lapland, tourists engage in winter activities such as viewing the
northern lights (or Aurora Borealis), driving snowmobiles, visiting Santa Claus, and
riding reindeer sleighs and dog sleds. According to a recent study (García-Rosell &
Äijälä, 2018), more than half of the tourists traveling to Finnish Lapland consider the
winter landscape and animal-based activities the main reasons to visit this Nordic
destination.
Animal-based tourism services, such as dog sledding and reindeer sleigh tours,
are some of the most popular activities among tourists (García-Rosell & Äijälä, 2018).
Indeed, these two activities form part of the ritualized pattern that international tou-
rists follow when visiting Lapland. A recent study calculated that there are 4,000
dogs and 750 reindeer working in the tourism industry in Lapland, generating an
annual turnover of approximately 15 million euros (García-Rosell & Äijälä, 2018).
108 José-Carlos García-Rosell, Linda Tallberg

However, this is an estimate, as their actual number may be higher, especially the
number of dogs. There are also 150 horses working in tourism, but these tend to be
more popular among the domestic Finnish visitors than international ones. Although
the reindeer is an icon of Lapland and an essential element of the Christmas narra-
tives, it is husky activities that are growing in popularity. In 2017, for the first time,
husky safaris surpassed snowmobile safaris as the number one tourism activity in
Lapland. Similar to human employees, the working and resting hours of these animal
workers are carefully planned by their owners, and most of their work is done during
the winter period (Ojuva, 2018).
Huskies in Lapland live in outdoor dog kennels with populations that can vary
from a dozen to 500 dogs. The number of all-year-round kennels in the Finnish
Lapland area is close to 50. In addition, mushers (dog handlers) come with their dogs
from other parts of Finland and Europe to work in the industry during the peak season
(December–February). The number of seasonal mushers is difficult to determine due to
a lack of official statistics. Most of the sled dogs in Lapland are Alaskan huskies, which
are a mix of different northern breeds chosen particularly for their pulling skills.
There are also Siberian huskies, which is the breed commonly depicted in the com-
mercial marketing and internet material for tours. Husky safaris can range from short
(0.5–2 km) to medium-length (10–40 km) and multi-day rides (two to eight days).
The sleds are pulled by four to six dogs depending on the size and weight of the
musher and passenger(s). Almost all of the safaris are organized in the same way.
Firstly, independent of the length of the safari, tourists receive driving and safety in-
structions before entering the kennel. Secondly, driving instructions are provided by
a guide demonstrating how to handle the sled and the team of dogs. Thirdly, the tou-
rists are guided towards the sleds to get ready for the start of the safari (Figure 7.1).
Depending on the type of safari, during the ride there are different stops where the
driver can swap places with the passengers. In this way, all the adult tourists have an
opportunity to drive the sled. When the safari is over, tourists can take a tour of the
kennels and learn more about and cuddle the dogs.
For many tourists, just seeing reindeer along the road or while walking through
the forest in the snow is part of the unique Lapland tourism experience. Like husky
tours, reindeer sledging is very popular with tourists of all ages throughout the winter
season, and in the Christmas season in particular (see García-Rosell & Hancock,
forthcoming). Reindeer work may take different forms (see Hoarau-Heemstra, 2018;
Nieminen, 2014). Some reindeer are enclosed within the boundaries of the reindeer
farms, where tourists can approach and feed them, as well as photograph themselves
with the exotic and mythical animals. Other reindeer work as draft animals, pulling
sleighs in activities. In the tourism industry, reindeer perform the roles of both work-
ers and objects of the tourist gaze (Urry, 1990). The reindeer working as draft animals
are castrated male reindeer who have undergone a long period of training, lasting
between four and five years. In comparison to dog sledding, tourists do not need to
handle the sleigh. These tours may take place in an enclosure where the reindeer
7 Animals as tourism stakeholders: Huskies, reindeer, and horses working in Lapland 109

follow a predetermined track (Figure 7.2). In case of longer tours, a guide will drive in
front of all sleighs, leading and setting the pace of the tour. Reindeer tours may last
from half an hour to a couple of hours. Female reindeer are not used as draft animals
due to the gestation period that takes place during the winter season. Reindeer only
pull sleighs during the winter season from December to April, and most of the tour-
ism reindeer roam free in the pastures and forest of Lapland in the summer. A small
number of reindeer stay at the reindeer farm during the summer months for tourist
“meet and greets.”As part of the reindeer herding annual cycle, female and unskilled
male reindeer are slaughtered for human consumption as in poronkäristys (tradi-
tional sautéed reindeer) and their bones, antlers, hides, and other body parts used to
produce traditional tourist souvenirs, (see García-Rosell & Hancock, forthcoming;
Hoarau-Heemstra, 2018).
Although horses are less popular among international tourists, there are several
horse stables offering horseback riding in Lapland. Some Finnish tourists prefer to
experience horse-riding in Lapland, rather than the husky or reindeer tours which
are more popular with international visitors. These tourists vary in their experience;
some domestic tourists are advanced riders, while others may have limited riding
Figure 7.1: Preparing for the start of the sled dog safari.
Source: Author.
110 José-Carlos García-Rosell, Linda Tallberg

experience. Safety and winter wear is often made available to visitors, and they will
have at least one experienced guide during the riding tour. Most horses used for
horseback riding in Lapland are Finnhorses or Icelandic horses. The Finnhorse is a
domestic horse of Finland and serves as the country’s official national horse breed.
Icelandic horses are also popular in tourism activities in Lapland. Both horse breeds
are capable and reliable mounts, well adapted to the harsh climate and terrain of
the region. As both the Finnhorses and Icelandic horses grow a thick winter coat,
they can tolerate surprisingly low temperatures. The horses usually work in trail
riding of different lengths from one hour to a half day or entire day. Some compa-
nies also offer longer trail rides which include overnight stays in cabins along the
trails. The horse stables in Lapland have between five and 20 horses. Although
stalls are common practice, the number of loose stables is growing in Lapland
(Figure 7.3). A loose stable allows horses to live in a herd and move freely both out-
doors and indoors. As with the huskies and reindeer, the work shifts of horses are
monitored and the individual character and strength of horses is considered in shift
planning by the human caretakers (Kähkönen, 2018).
Figure 7.2: Reindeer sleigh rides at reindeer farm.
Source: Marko Junttila. Used with permission.
7 Animals as tourism stakeholders: Huskies, reindeer, and horses working in Lapland 111

Animal stakeholdership: Social bounds
and emotions
In this chapter, we aim to illustrate animals becoming tourism stakeholders by apply-
ing a feminist normative core of stakeholder theory (Burton & Dunn, 1996; Wicks,
Gilbert, & Freeman, 1994), specifically that of ethics of care. The excerpts used in this
chapter come from interviews with animal-based tourism entrepreneurs and from so-
cial media content generated by Lapland tourists and service providers. The data were
gathered within the scope of two parallel two-year EU-funded research and develop-
ment projects focusing on animal welfare as part of responsible tourism in Finnish
Lapland. Data collection was conducted by four researchers, one project worker, and
five Bachelor’s/Master’s students. The first author of this chapter was one of the re-
searchers and the leader of the team. During the early stage of the two projects, the
team collected documentary material about the topic in general and in relation to
Finland and Lapland in particular, implemented a survey with tourists, conducted
participant/non-participant observations, and attended several meetings in the prem-
ises of approximately 20 different animal-based tourism companies. Based on
Figure 7.3: Loose stable at horse farm.
Source: Author.
112 José-Carlos García-Rosell, Linda Tallberg

this preliminary work, companies that showed a high level of commitment towards
animal welfare were selected to be interviewed. The social media data were collected
in the last stage of the projects to complement the data gathered by examining online
discussions related to animal welfare in Lapland.
A total of 11 semi-structured interviews with the owners of husky kennels and
reindeer and horse farms operating in Finnish Lapland were conducted by one re-
searcher and the project worker, occasionally accompanied by one or two Bachelor’s
students, between March 2016 and May 2017. The interviews took place in the prem-
ises of the companies and concentrated particularly on the treatment and welfare of
their animals in relation to their business operations, customers, and communication
strategies. The interviews lasted approximately 60–90 minutes; they were audio re-
corded and then carefully transcribed. The user-generated social media content in-
cluded publicly available comments, reviews, and discussions created during 2016,
2017, and January 2018. The content used relates to 45 Lappish tourism companies
and consists of 304 reviews systematically collected from Facebook, Instagram,
TripAdvisor, and YouTube during January and February 2018 by one Master’sstudent
under the supervision of the first author of the chapter (Klos, García-Rosell, &
Haanpää, 2018). The companies were selected based on their social media presence
from a list of 158 animal-based tourism service firms operating in Lapland (Bohn,
García-Rosell, & Äijälä, 2018). Furthermore, only companies which offer animal-
based activities involving sled dogs, reindeer, and horses were considered in the
study. Destination management companies that sell animal-based activities were
also included in the study due to their significant presence on social media.
The data were thematically analyzed relying on content analysis (Bengtsson,
2016). The interview data were divided according to five main themes: animal welfare,
working relationships, customer relationships, communication, and safety. The social
media content categories were established inductively in relation to the collected data.
Bycarefullyreadingthroughthesocialmediadata,wewereabletoidentifytwomain
themes: animals considered in the comments and animals omitted in the comments. In
this chapter, we focus on the theme of animals considered in the comments, which
was divided in four sub-themes: animal welfare, animal appearance, animal behavior,
and animals as educational resource. After discussing and reflecting on the data collab-
oratively, we identified passages reflecting the care perspective on human-animal
stakeholder relationships. Next, we present the results of the analysis by first discus-
sing animal stakeholder status being embedded in the social bonds with their owners,
and then discussing the emotions and social bonds evolving through customer
interactions.
7 Animals as tourism stakeholders: Huskies, reindeer, and horses working in Lapland 113

Animal stakeholder status embedded in social bonds
with owners
Using an ethics of care perspective on this data draws attention to relationships as
morally worthy and of value in human-animal interactions. Animal-based tourism
entrepreneurs tend to stress a caring relationship when talking about their animals.
As one reindeer tourism entrepreneur points out:
These reindeer are our colleagues and, like, we know every reindeer personally [. . .] and [their]
characteristics, in a way that it is our partner and not [just] a tool.
(Excerpt 1, Interview Reindeer Farm)
This focus on it being a collaborative effort, a form of partnership, fits well with femi-
nist moral theory, as well as the interspecies solidarity of Coulter (2016). This is par-
ticularly relevant when further describing the relationship between animal-based
tourism entrepreneurs and their animals. As Excerpt 2 shows, entrepreneurs tend to
give preference to those animals with whom they have a close relationship. This fol-
lows the ethics of care framing, as those we relate to are shown higher concern and
care than those further away from us (similar to social bonds) (Held, 2006). For exam-
ple, as one of the reindeer tourism entrepreneurs expresses:
When a reindeer becomes too old, we might send it to the slaughterhouse, but it can also hap-
pen that we put it down ourselves and take it out into the forest [. . .] but I wouldn’t feel like
selling an old sledge reindeer as meat, because it has been working for so many years and it
has been an everyday workmate [. . .] so it [what happens to aging animal workers] depends a
bit on the situation. (Excerpt 2, Interview Reindeer Farm)
This relationship may not necessarily eliminate harm, but it may give certain “privi-
leges”to animals who share a special bond with the owners of the company. In terms
of relating both interview excerpts to the ethics of care- categorization of Connolly and
Cullen (2018), it seems that the reindeers and their owners have a contractual care rela-
tionship here. As such, it seems that some of the animal workers in this specific tour-
ism destination might benefit from a closer relationship than in other contexts:
although these are special connections with certain individual animals or groups of
animals, it does not give them intrinsic value as the “caring for”categorization would.
For example, the quote above reveals that the entrepreneur would not be able to sell a
“workmate”as meat once he is “too old”to work by pulling a sledge, but may instead
be able to kill it themselves and “take it out into the forest.”The reindeer is seen in
instrumental terms as he is killed once “spent,”suggesting the commodification of the
animal’s utility over an inherent intrinsic value (Hughes, 2001), which the animal shel-
ter and companion animal category in Connolly and Cullen’s (2018) categorization fo-
cused on. Linguistics also matter in revealing this instrumental relationship. The
entrepreneur refers to the reindeer as “it”rather than he, suggesting a distancing and
objectification of the animal apart from human workers.
114 José-Carlos García-Rosell, Linda Tallberg

The emphasis on collaboration and cooperation –characteristic of the feminist
perspective in stakeholder thinking, as described by Wicks, Gilbert, and Freeman
(1994) –is evident in the ways in which the human-animal relationships are devel-
oped in the animal-based tourism companies. Some describe that there is a mutual
understanding between the humans and the animals that makes things work, as
one of the horse entrepreneurs explain:
As long as the horse is lively and cooperative, when you tell it “let’s go for a ride”and it’s
willing to come, you know it’s fine. You know it when a 600 kg creature isn’t willing to come.
And if it has an appetite for its food, I figure the animal is doing well. And when you know
approximately its limits, you make sure not to bring the horse close to them. We don’t want
that to happen, as everything would stop working. (Excerpt 3, Interview Horse Farm)
The ethics of care framework can easily be applied to the context, although to dif-
ferent degrees in terms of its practical application. It seems that caring, relation-
ship-building and cooperation serve as mechanisms for the humans and animals to
learn from each other, build trust, and find ways of working together in order to
deliver the service –the animal tour experience. This aspect of collaboration in the
feminist framing seems to transcend specific species in the Lapland context, apply-
ing to horses as well as dogs as animal workers.
You’ve got to think about it in the way that you treat each dog as if it was your own. Because
when it’s your own dog, it likes you and doesn’t run away with its tail between its legs but
comes to your side. Only then is it easy to deal with them, when they like to be with you and
only then do they run the best and work well [. . .] The same with the horses. It’s not going to
work by beating it with a stick. On the contrary, you have to work on building trust in the
horse so that when it comes to a difficult situation, the horse will trust you and follow your
instructions. (Excerpt 4, Interview Kennel and Horse Farm)
Relationships built in an animal-based tourism context seem not only to contribute
to facilitating close proximity between human and animal workers, but also to culti-
vating the virtues of care, respect and self-mastery (see Anthony, 2012). From this
perspective, an ethics of care provides an opportunity for human workers to remain
close to the outcome of their decisions and those animals that will be directly af-
fected by them (Connolly & Cullen, 2018). This is reflected in the following quote
from one of the sled dog entrepreneurs:
My husband is very good at spotting dogs that aren’t performing well in the safari. Sometimes
you need to change the dogs during the trip. It’s very important that you know how to do it. If
one of our dogs doesn’t tolerate a customer, for example, because they brake wrong or ride too
fast downhill, my husband stops the safari and replaces the dog with one that’s better at keep-
ing up with that type of customer [. . .] So, we are pretty good at noticing these individual
aspects. (Excerpt 5, Interview Kennel and Horse Farm)
This quote shows the importance of reading the dogs’behavior and knowing their
different temperaments with difficult customers. Without this mutual respect and
understanding between the sled dog entrepreneur and their dogs, the dogs would
7 Animals as tourism stakeholders: Huskies, reindeer, and horses working in Lapland 115

suffer at the hands of tourists who, more often than not, are unskilled in driving
sleds and handling dogs. In this way, it is beneficial both for the dogs, who are re-
placed if not “performing well,”and for the business owner, who inevitably will
gain better customer reviews from positive sled experiences. From the dogs’per-
spective, dealing with such a variety of customers, it is essential that the owners
pay attention to reading customers and their behaviors. One could ask whether it is
appropriate for all customers to be given the opportunity to handle a dog sled, and
at what point the owners take over if the customer is not able to handle themselves
appropriately; however, such aspects were not available in our data. But seeing the
sled dogs as key stakeholders, with their own limitations and strengths, may lead
to overall better experiences for the humans and animals involved, in addition to
positively affecting the business outcomes.
Animal stakeholder status embedded in customer social bonds
and emotions
Another human-animal relationship that exists in this context is the social bond be-
tween animal and customer. The customer comes to experience an animal adven-
ture at the tourism destination and therefore leaves with an emotive human-animal
experience. Customers are already considered key stakeholders in most service
businesses, and customer satisfaction is usually upheld as a barometer for good
business dealings. Within the tourism industry, online tourist customer reviews
play a key role in generating new business, with social media comments used to
tell experiential stories as part of tourism companies’communication strategies. We
use quotes from both company-generated content and customer reviews to analyze
the ethics of care framing for animal stakeholder status based on the social bond
with the customer. We contend that the social bond with customers (a key tradi-
tional stakeholder group) and the emotional aspects of human-animal interactions
are what assigns stakeholder status to animals. Feminist moral theory acknowl-
edges emotions as key areas of knowledge (Burton & Dunn, 1996), and here we see
the use of such aspects for commercial benefits, as well as underpinning the experi-
ence. Emotions are key marketing tools, and positive aspects regarding the animals
and their welfare are important for more business.
The staff are very helpful and accommodating and they really care for their dogs. I was a bit
sceptical of these kinds of things [animals’quality of life], but the company really opened my
eyes to the world of sled dogs. These beautiful dogs love what they do and they are properly
cared for and very much loved. (Social Media Content, Customer A)
Honestly, the thing that I loved the most about this experience was how much the business re-
volves around the dogs. The owner has a special formula for their food, supplemented with a vari-
ety of meats. The staff members know the names of all 95 dogs, and spend 2.5 years working with
116 José-Carlos García-Rosell, Linda Tallberg

them before they ever pull a sled, and their work schedule is determined by the dog's physi-
cality [. . .] dogs who need more down time get it, while dogs that love to run get sent out
more. They treat their dogs like family, and it was really heart-warming to get to see it.
(Social Media Content, Customer B)
I did a lot of research into which husky safari to choose and wanted to book with one which had
good ethics and clearly cared for the dogs. From the moment I started corresponding with [the
owner of the kennel], I knew that this was important to him and the farm also! The dogs clearly
loved working and enjoyed some cuddles afterwards. (Social Media Content, Customer C)
All three accounts demonstrate the importance of the dogs’well-being. They show
how some animal-based tourism customers to this particular destination look for,
research, and evaluate whether the animals they encounter when buying the ani-
mal experiences are well cared for and “loved”as “family.”Although it would be
interesting to know more about what “good ethics”means for Customer C and
whether all reviews (and not only positive ones) are available to customers, the
comments show the importance of “good”animal care from the customers’perspec-
tive. In this way, from an ethics of care perspective, the customer’s social bond to
the dog becomes more of a “care about”framing rather than the overt “contractual
care”seen in the owner-dog relationship earlier.
However, in the company-generated content, there were also aspects of owners
“caring for”their dogs. The following quote is from a company Facebook page dem-
onstrating a “care for”relationship with an ex-sled dog by adopting him to a home
rather than euthanizing him, which is a normal and fully legal procedure in
Finland and most countries. When a sled dog is unable to work due to behavioral
issues (being too timid or aggressive) or physiological issues (being too weak to
pull the sled or too old), the kennel can legally euthanize the dog. One of the most
controversial aspects of dog sledding is that euthanasia is used to a large degree to
manage dogs who are not good workers. As shown in the previous section, many
view the animals from a “contractual caring”perspective, which this management
style would support. Creating systems of adoption or other alternatives to euthana-
sia would require owners to shift more towards the “caring for”perspective. The
following sled entrepreneur wants to show that responsible animal tourism is possi-
ble through applying a “care for”aspect, intrinsically valuing the dogs for them-
selves, rather than purely for the value that the business generates from them. As
such, they use adoption as an alternative to euthanizing the dogs.
Miyagi is super cuddly and loves attention and lots of food. Miyagi was castrated a few years
ago because he could be a bit aggressive towards other dogs. He is much better now, but some-
times still snaps out of excitement, which can irritate his running partner and lead to fights,
but he doesn’t really mean any harm. He simply lacks a bit of social competence. He is a dog
that it’s hard not to like, and he certainly loves people. This big-eared loveable goofball has
been a favourite of many guides over the years, but this year he finally hit the jackpot when he
met Alva who came from Sweden to work as a guide at the beginning of March. Around this
point in the season, Miyagi (who was never really a very good sled dog) decided he would
7 Animals as tourism stakeholders: Huskies, reindeer, and horses working in Lapland 117

rather be on a couch than pulling a sled, and was fast-tracked onto our adoption list. Alva had
already fallen in love with his goofy personality, and decided to take him on. In a few days,
Alva and Miyagi will begin their journey to their new home outside Stockholm where they will
live and work in a horse stable. (Social Media Content, Company H)
Such an account clearly shows a different type of agency of the dog who is given
intrinsic value beyond his ability to work (see Hughes, 2001).
Conclusions
In this chapter, we suggest that applying an ethics of care framing to animal work-
ers in tourism shows that there are already degrees of animal stakeholder status in
the industry. Relying on empirical data from animal-based tourism firms operating
in Finnish Lapland, we demonstrate that what makes a husky, reindeer, or horse a
tourism stakeholder in the first place are the social bonds and emotions that they
share with human stakeholders, such as their owners and customers. These find-
ings are portrayed below in Figure 7.4, adapted from Connolly and Cullen (2018).
We find that the human-animal social bond with owners is predominantly based on
what Connolly and Cullen label “contractual care,”whereby the human-animal re-
lationship is distinct but often instrumental.
”No Care
Relationship” ”Care About”
”Contractual
Care” ”Care For ””
Instrumental
value
Instrinsic
value
Abstraction
Concretization
Animal-Based tourism
entrepreneurs
Animal-Based tourism
customers
Figure 7.4: Ethics of care framework applied to animal-based tourism in Lapland.
Source: Adapted from Connolly and Cullen (2018, p. 410)
118 José-Carlos García-Rosell, Linda Tallberg

On the other hand, the social bonds and emotions of customers’reviews are based
on what Connolly and Cullen label “care about,”where the animal has greater intrinsic
value, yet there is still an abstract or indirect relationship with the animals. We found
that there are some animal tourism entrepreneurs who are moving towards Connolly
and Cullen’s“care for”categorization of the human-animal relationship through using
adoption programs for dogs in retirement or animal workers with poor performance.
We find this to be a positive move, whereby the animal workers truly gain agency and
value beyond their direct commercial value. Nevertheless, animal work is still not cov-
ered by labor legislation, which is exclusively reserved for human workers. Indeed, the
question remains: should the animal workers not have some of the benefits human
workers enjoy beyond their working role –for example, pension plans, sickness bene-
fits, and value beyond utility? These are some of the ethical considerations that need to
be addressed if we truly wish to employ animal workers in our businesses. Moving to-
wards a “care for”relationship, where each animal’s unique individuality and right to
life beyond commercial gains are ensured, would surely lead to more authentic and
responsible human-animal interactions in tourism (see Fennell, 2014). This could lead
to further interspecies solidarity and humane work (Coulter 2016), which could create
new ways of relating to and with animals at work.
References
Anthony, R. (2012). Building a Sustainable Future for Animal Agriculture: An Environmental Virtue
Ethics of Care Approach within the Philosophy of Technology. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics 25, 123–144.
Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to Plan and Perform a Qualitative Study using Content Analysis.
NursingPlus Open 2, 8–14.
Bertella, G. (2014). The Co-creation of Animal-based Tourism Experience. Tourism Recreation
Research 39(1), 115–125.
Bohn, D., García-Rosell, J.C., & Äijälä, M. (2018). Animal-based Tourism Services in Lapland.
University of Lapland, Multidimensional Tourism Institute. Available at www.matkailuelaimet.fi.
Burton, B. K. & C. P. Dunn. (1996). Feminist Ethics as Moral Grounding for Stakeholder Theory.
Business Ethics Quarterly 6(2),133–147.
Carroll, A. B. (1996). Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management. 3rd edition
Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern.
Connolly, L., and J. G. Cullen. (2018). “Animals and Organisations: An Ethic of Care
Framework.”Organization & Environment 31(4), 406–424.
Coulter, K. (2016). Animals, Work, and the Promise of Interspecies Solidarity. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Danby, P., K. Dashper, & R. Finkel. (2019). “Multispecies Leisure: Human-Animal Interactions in
Leisure Landscapes.”Leisure Studies 38(3), 291–302.
Fennell, D. (2012). Tourism and Animal Ethics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Fennell, D. (2014). “Exploring the Boundaries of a New Moral Order for Tourism’s Global Code of
Ethics: An Opinion Piece on the Position of Animals in the Tourism Industry.”Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 22(7), 983–996.
7 Animals as tourism stakeholders: Huskies, reindeer, and horses working in Lapland 119

Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E. & Daniel R. Gilbert. (1992). “Business Ethics and Society: A Critical Agenda.”
Business &Society 31, 9–17.
Galloway, G. & K. Lopez. (1999). “Sensation Seeking and Attitudes to Aspects of National Parks:
A Preliminary Empirical Investigation.”Tourism Management 20, 665–671.
García-Rosell, J. C. & M. Äijälä. (2018). “Animal-based Tourism in Lapland.”In Animal Welfare in
Tourism Services: Examples and Practical Tips for the Well-being of Animals used for Tourism
in Lapland, edited by J. Ojuva, 10–24. Rovaniemi: Lapland University of Applied Sciences.
García-Rosell, J. C. & P. Hancock. (Forthcoming). “Working Animals, Ethics and Critical Theory.”In
Animals and Business Ethics, edited by Natalie Thomas. Cham: Springer.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Boston,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Gilligan, C. (2011), July 16. “Care Ethicist Network Interview with Carol Gilligan.”https://ethicsof
care.org/carol-gilligan/
Gren, M. & E. Huijbens. (2014). “Tourism and the Anthropocene.”Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism 14(1), 6–22.
Haanpää, M. & J. C. García-Rosell. (2020). “Understanding Performativity and Embodied Tourism
Experiences in Animal-Based Tourism in the Arctic.”In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism
Experience Management and Marketing, edited by S. K. Dixit, 229–237. London: Routledge.
Haanpää,M.,T.Salmela,J.C.García-Rosell,&M.Äijälä.(2019).“The Disruptive ‘Other’?
Exploring Human-Animal Relations in Tourism through Videography.”Tourism Geographies.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2019.1666158
Held, V. (2006). “The Ethics of Care.”In The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory, edited by D. Copp,
537–566. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Higham, J. E. S. & E. J. Shelton, (2011). “Tourism and Wildlife Habituation: Reduced Population
Fitness or Cessation of Impact?”Tourism Management 32, 1290–1298.
Hoarau-Heemstra, H. (2018). “A Life Worth Living: Reindeer in Nordic Tourism Experiences.”In
Animals, Food and Tourism, edited by C. Kline, 113–128. London: Routledge.
Hughes, P. (2001). “Animals, values and tourism –structural shifts in UK dolphin tourism
provision.”Tourism Management 22, 321–329.
Kähkönen, O. (2018). “Animal-based Tourism in Lapland.”In Animal Welfare in Tourism Services:
Examples and Practical Tips for the Well-being of Animals used for Tourism in Lapland, edited
by J. Ojuva, 10–24. Rovaniemi: Lapland University of Applied Sciences.
Klos, D., J. C. García-Rosell, & M. Haanpää. (2018). “Analysis of User-generated Social Media
Content related to Animal-based Tourism Activities in Lapland.”Accessed May 20, 2020,
www.animaltourismfinland.com
Lee, C., & C. Chen. (2011). “The Reaction of Elderly Asian Tourists to Avian Influenza and SARS.”
Tourism Management 32, 1421–1422.
Nieminen, M. (2014). Poro-Reindeer. Helsinki: Books on Demand.
Ojuva, J. (2018). Animal Welfare in Tourism Services: Examples and Practical Tips for the Well-being
of Animals used for Tourism in Lapland. Rovaniemi: Lapland University of Applied Sciences.
Okello, M. M., S. G. Manka, & D. E. D ’Amour, (2008). “The Relative Importance of Large Mammal
Species for Tourism in Amboseli National Park, Kenya.”Tourism Management 29, 751–760.
Orams, M. B. (2002). “Feeding Wildlife as a Tourism attraction: A Review of Issues and Impacts.”
Tourism Management 23, 281–293.
Phillips, R. A. & J. Reichart. (2000). “The Environment as a Stakeholder? A Fairness-based
Approach.”Journal of Business Ethics 23, 185–197.
Phillips, R. A., Freeman, R. E., and Wicks, A. C. (2003). What Stakeholder Theory Is Not. Business
Ethics Quarterly 13(4), 479–502.
120 José-Carlos García-Rosell, Linda Tallberg

Regional Council of Lapland. (2019). Lapin matkailustrategia 2020–2023 [Lapland Tourism Strategy
2020–2023]. Lapin liiton julkaisuja Serie A, No. 54. Rovaniemi: Regional Council of Lapland.
Reynolds, P. C., & D. Braithwaite. (2001). “Towards a Conceptual Framework for Wildlife Tourism.”
Tourism Management 22, 31–42.
Smart, J. (Forthcoming). “Animals as Stakeholders.”In Animals and Business Ethics, edited by
Natalie Thomas. Cham: Springer, accessed May 1, 2020, https://philarchive.org/archive/
SMAAAS-2
Starik, M. (1995). “Should Trees have Managerial Standing? Toward Stakeholder Status for Non-
human Nature.”Journal of Business Ethics 14(3), 207–217.
Urry, J. (1990). The Tourist Gaze. London: Sage.
Wicks, A. C. (1996). “Overcoming the Separation Thesis: The Need for a Reconsideration of
Business and Society Research.”Business & Society 35(1), 89–118.
Wicks, A. C., D. R. Gilbert, & E. Freeman. (1994). “A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Stakeholder
Concept.”Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4), 475–497.
7 Animals as tourism stakeholders: Huskies, reindeer, and horses working in Lapland 121