Hotel Presentation : International Hotel chains and environmental protection: Analysis of Hilton's we care!

Journal of Sustainable Tourism Vol. 19, No. 7, September 2011, 797–816

International hotel chains and environmental protection: an analysis of Hilton’s we care! programme (Europe, 2006–2008)

Paulina Bohdanowicza∗, Piotr Zientarab and Emilie Novotnac

aInternational Centre for Responsible Tourism, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK; bFaculty of Economics, University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland; cIndependent Researcher

(Received 2 December 2009; final version received 15 December 2010)

Using the case study method, this paper evaluates and analyses Hilton’s we care! pro- gramme for improving the environmental performance of the 70 Hilton Worldwide hotels in operation in Continental Europe in 2006–2008. It explores the practical di- mension of “greening” hotel operations in the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR), and demonstrates the close links between CSR and human resource management (HRM) in hotels. It deepens the understanding of corporate environmentalism and seeks to disseminate best practice among hospitality managers. The programme’s distinctive and innovative character as well as its weaknesses and strengths are highlighted. Bar- riers to behavioural change in hotel operation are discussed. The programme involved over 16,000 employees, created hotel-specific action teams linking all employee levels and reduced energy use per square metre by 15%, water use and CO2 emissions per guest night by 8% each over three years. Avoided utility costs totalled US$16 million, of which US$9.6 million can be attributed to changes in human behaviour. The paper makes a case for a holistic approach that combines the introduction of IT-based measure- ment and performance-assessing tools with genuine employee empowerment and green awareness raising. The study concludes with future managerial policy recommendations that simultaneously bear upon corporate environmentalism and HRM.

Keywords: Hilton; hospitality; corporate social responsibility; environmentalism; human resource management

Introduction

Environmental protection – with climate change to the fore – is one of the most important challenges currently facing mankind. Co-ordinated action – at governmental, corporate and individual levels – needs to be taken to stop the progressing degradation of the environment (IPCC, 2007). That increasing attention is being paid to broadly understood ecological issues is borne out by the propagation of such concepts as sustainable development, helping ensure that humanity “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Kates, Parris, & Leiserowitz, 2005, p. 10), or eco-efficiency, which “prescribes reducing the amount of energy and natural resources used, as well as wastes and pollutants discharged in the production of goods and services” (Kelly, Wolfgang, Williams, & Englund, 2007, p. 337). The rise of corporate social responsibility (CSR) – which implies, among other things, that businesses should green their opera- tions, thereby minimising their environmental impact – confirms the above assumption

∗Corresponding author. Email: paulina [email protected]

ISSN 0966-9582 print / ISSN 1747-7646 online C⃝ 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2010.549566 http://www.informaworld.com

798 P. Bohdanowicz et al.

(Bohdanowicz, 2007; Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008; Buchholz, 1993; Crook, 2005; Franklin, 2008; Holcomb, Upchurch, & Okumus, 2007; Lewis, 2003; McIntosh, Thomas, Leipzinger, & Coleman, 2003; Porter & Kramer, 2006). It is almost unthinkable today for a large international company to be without a CSR policy (Franklin, 2008). This also holds true for the tourism and hospitality industry (Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008; Holcomb et al., 2007; Kalisch, 2002; Knowles, Macmillian, Palmer, Grabowski, & Hasimoto, 1999).

Given that an unspoilt environment is both a vital constituent of service quality and a significant factor behind the attractiveness of any tourist destination, it is in the interest of hospitality companies to ensure the long-term environmental sustainability of tourist activity (see, inter alia, Bohdanowicz, Simanic, & Martinac, 2005; Bowe, 2005; Lanzarote Conference on Sustainable Tourism, 1995; Hall & Richards, 2000; International Hotels Environment Initiative, 1996; Kalisch, 2002; Kirk, 1998; Knowles et al., 1999; Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Sharpley, 2000). This implies that the way hotel chains deal with ecolog- ical issues is likely to affect their long-term competitiveness (Dow Jones Indexes, 2009; Holcomb et al., 2007). That is why the imperative to protect the environment in general, and to reduce climate change-inducing CO2 emissions in particular, features prominently on the responsible business agendas of most international hospitality firms. And there is little doubt that top hotel chains, with their global reach and significant financial resources, are particularly well placed to propagate corporate environmentalism (Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2009; Bowen, 2000).

There is more to “going green” than carrying out concrete eco-friendly projects or initiatives. Reducing a company’s environmental impact is about introducing a genuine change. But, for any change to happen, it is necessary to engage and support all employees, including those of lower rank (Kanter, 1983). This implies that human resource management (HRM) plays a special role in environmental management (Jabbour & Santos, 2008a, 2008b; Wehrmeyer & Parker, 1996). Furthermore, there is an overlap between HRM, environmentalism (sustainability) and CSR; ecological and employee issues are central to the concept of CSR. In this context – both from green and HRM perspectives – hotels stand out among other commercial buildings and workplaces. They consume significant amounts of resources and turn out large quantities of effluents, emissions and waste, thereby producing substantial environmental impacts (Bass Hotels & Resorts, 2000; Bowe, 2005; Erdogan & Baris, 2007; World Travel and Tourism Council, 2009). Further, managing employees in hotels – due to the specificity of their modus operandi and the intrinsic nature of typical hospitality jobs – is a particularly difficult task (Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008; Deery & Jago, 2009; Furunes & Mykletun, 2005; Hjalager & Andersen, 2001; Magd, 2003; Worsfold, 1999).

It is against this background that the research reported in this paper – which assumes the form of a case study (Eisenhardt, 1989) – analyses Hilton’s we care! programme (in operation in Continental Europe1 in 2006–2008). We care! was chosen because, at the time of its creation, it was an innovative initiative implemented in different places all over Europe. It was also conceptualised as a grassroots campaign, which means that investigating the reactions and perceptions of Hilton employees (called team members – TMs) can potentially offer informative insights into the interconnected realities of HRM and environmental management. Equally importantly, the company’s head office, when approached, was willing to share internal materials and granted permission to perform a team member study. Hence, great emphasis is placed in this paper on the practical dimensions of the implementation of an environmental programme.

The paper aims to answer the following research questions: (1) how does sustainabil- ity thinking influence the design and implementation of concrete environmental projects?;

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 799

(2) what is the character of the interaction between HRM and environmental manage- ment?; (3) why does investment in resource-efficient technologies prove beneficial in the long run?; (4) what difficulties do managers encounter in implementing environmental projects?; (5) how can creativity help overcome typical problems?; and (6) why does employee empowerment and ecological awareness raising play an important part in the implementation process?

It needs to be said that case studies are regarded as particularly suitable for answering “how” and “why” research questions (Yin, 2003). Case studies deal with operational links that ought to be, and can be, traced over time (Yin, 2003) and, therefore, enhance contextual sense and facilitate better comprehension of the issues at hand (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Van Maanen, 1979). This helps justify the main research method used here (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000).

The structure of the paper is as follows. The next section, constituting a theoretical framework, explores the conceptual interrelatedness between CSR, HRM and environmen- tal management. The following part is empirical in character. First, the methodology is presented. Then, the focus shifts to the main premises and effects of Hilton’s we care! programme (Europe, 2006–2008). Subsequently, Hilton employees’ perceptions of – and reactions to – the initiative are discussed in detail. The paper concludes by laying out a num- ber of managerial policy recommendations and suggesting further research directions. The paper seeks to deepen understanding of the implementation of environmental programmes in hospitality, expands the existing body of knowledge and disseminates best practice.

Conceptual framework

CSR and the hospitality industry: conceptualisations and implications

Corporate social responsibility is a multidimensional concept. Not only do many nuanced definitions of CSR exist, but also various terms – such as corporate citizenry, corporate sustainability, corporate responsibility or responsible business – are used to denote it. Thus, CSR is conceptualised in slightly different ways. Business in the Community, for instance, states that corporate responsibility is about producing “public benefit”. The idea is to make a “positive impact on society and the environment” through interactions with main stakeholders such as employees, customers, investors and suppliers (Business in the Community, 2009). Others regard CSR through the prism of sustainability. Socially responsible managers need to “harness the market’s potential for sustainability products and services while at the same time successfully reducing and avoiding sustainability costs and risks” (Dow Jones Indexes, 2009). In sum, companies should justify their existence in terms of (environmentally friendly) service to a wider public rather than mere profit. Businesses are expected to behave ethically and ecologically (Solomon, 1992; Sparkes, 2002).

International hotel chains are thought to have made considerable progress in the domain of CSR. They were among the first to implement comprehensive CSR programmes and some even made CSR the centrepiece of their business models. Symptomatically, Wyndham regards CSR not as a stand-alone programme to implement or a policy to follow but as “a way of living, working and playing that embodies our vision and values, celebrates our diversity and supports a balance of professional and personal needs” (Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, 2009). This is also true for Scandic, which turned its “Omtanke” programme into an organising principle of its modus operandi (Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008). In practice, this means that corporate decision-making is, to a large degree, underpinned by

800 P. Bohdanowicz et al.

environmental problems and human resource (HR) concerns. For instance, all Marriott and Starwood employees, regardless of their position in the corporate hierarchy, are called associates. Hilton (and Scandic) employees are referred to as team members. The idea is to reinforce the atmosphere of partnership and fair treatment, thereby enhancing employees’ job satisfaction (see also Spector, 1997) and organisational commitment (see also Meyer, Stanley, Herscovich, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982).

CSR and HRM in hospitality

This interrelatedness between CSR and HRM is of critical importance since hotels constitute specific workplaces. Above all, hospitality facilities operate 24/7; hours worked in this sector are usually not only long but also unsocial (Mulvaney, O’Neill, Cleverland, & Crouter, 2006; Rowley & Purcell, 2001). In practice, “for many tourism industry employees, working in frontline positions of 24/7 operations, it is difficult to maintain a healthy lifestyle, travel or study” (Deery & Jago, 2009, p. 97). That, in turn, causes some of them to leave an organisation or even – increasingly frequently – the industry. In this context, Hjalager and Andersen (2001) note that one of the reasons why the hospitality industry has falling levels of staff retention is employees’ desire to have a “pleasant lifestyle”. Other reasons for high labour turnover (Rowley & Purcell, 2001) include low remuneration (Pratten & O’Leary, 2007) as well as poor prospects of being promoted (Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008; Furunes & Mykletun, 2005). It follows that some CSR-inspired activities – such as those mentioned above – can offset some negative aspects of hospitality employment.

But there is far more to this than that. If a (prospective) employee is genuinely con- cerned about the state of the environment and believes that businesses should take action against climate change and environmental degradation, he or she will naturally be more likely to identify themselves with (and gravitate towards) companies that pay due regard to ecology and implement environment-friendly solutions (Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008). Hence, such firms are well positioned to recruit and retain ecologically minded individu- als (and there is evidence that, at least in Scandinavia, employees do prefer working for companies that are explicitly and authentically committed to environmental sustainability [Bohdanowicz et al., 2005]). Equally, ecologically responsible companies can boost em- ployees’ motivation, job satisfaction and, by extension, organisational commitment. This is of key importance: it reduces staff turnover, and because research shows a connection between hotel employee commitment and the level of service quality, he or she extends to guests (Worsfold, 1999).

In this way, CSR-underpinned “green management” can be an effective tool for attain- ing concrete objectives in HRM. There are other ramifications: a company that goes to great lengths to raise employee environmental awareness and propagates green ideals also con- tributes to generally understood societal wellbeing. The greater the number of people who care about nature, the more chances there are of reversing environmentally hostile trends and, therefore, of living in a less degraded environment. For that reason, it is legitimate to speak of positive externalities.

CSR and environmental sustainability

Environmental sustainability is, alongside employee wellbeing and community develop- ment, central to the concept of CSR. Of course, one can justifiably argue that it is problem- atic to assume that CSR programmes and environmental initiatives are intrinsically linked in terms of philosophy and purpose. A firm may devise an environmental programme

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 801

and carry out eco-friendly projects within its framework, but that does not necessarily mean that the programme is part of its CSR policy (or its CSR-inspired philosophy). CSR and ecological behaviour may well be divorced from each other. Nonetheless, there is some evidence to suggest that – at least in the case of some top hotel chains – CSR and environmentalism are inextricably intertwined with each other (Zientara & Bohdanow- icz, 2010). That said, Hilton’s we care! programme, albeit theoretically bearing on certain aspects of CSR, was originally conceived as an environmental initiative sensu stricte.

Irrespective of this distinction, it is hardly in dispute that, from an ecological per- spective, hotels stand out among other commercial buildings. Due to the higher-than- average consumption of energy and water and the production of large quantities of waste (Bohdanowicz, 2005; Erdogan & Baris, 2007), their environmental impact is consider- able. Thus, in principle, the hospitality sector has many viable opportunities to promote environmental sustainability. Concrete measures include: (1) developing environmental management/sustainability systems to track and reduce energy, water and waste consump- tion; (2) installing resource-efficient appliances based on state-of-the-art technologies (such as LED lighting or low-flow water fixtures) to reduce energy and water usage; (3) switching to renewable energy sources (wind, geothermal, solar power); (4) using recycled materials; (5) encouraging guests and employees to take some simple steps to protect the environ- ment (e.g. switching off lights and TV sets when leaving rooms); (6) using local food and beverages to reduce transport-related carbon footprints; and (7) co-operating with other businesses (such as car rental firms or developers) that have high environmental standards and comply with ecological legislation (World Travel and Tourism Council, 2009).

Environmental management and HRM

There is far more to going green than carrying out single eco-friendly projects or awareness- raising initiatives. Reducing a company’s environmental impact needs a genuine change. This is very evident in the case of hotel chains such as Scandic, which embedded envi- ronmental sustainability into the core of their business models. But instigating any organ- isational change – and environmental change in particular – constitutes one of the most difficult tasks facing managers (Kanter, 1983). Various barriers impede change (Post & Altman, 1994). While going about ecological transformation, companies are confronted with both industry-specific and organisational barriers (see Table 1).

In this context, O’hEocha (2000) and Klassen (2000) argue that the most significant organisational barriers to implementing environmental action processes relate to generally understood human factor. That is not surprising, given that people (who often happen to be change-resistant) actually carry out change (Savage, 2007). Rothenberg (2003) points out that employees are the main experts in the way environmental dimensions can be included in fundamental organisational activities. For instance, waiting staff will be far more familiar than hotel management with the level of food wastage at breakfast (Savage, 2007). Hence, it is necessary to motivate, engage and support employees.

This is of great significance since corporate greening activities entail extra-role (and pro-social) behaviours; they are neither required nor formally rewarded (Katz & Kahn, 1978). As such, they compete for an employee’s time and attention with in-role tasks, which, being part of performance evaluations, tend to have a higher priority. Essentially, then, corporate greening behaviours are often performed in the context of so-called “weak situations” (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). In other words, employees often find them- selves in situations without clear goals or certainty about the rewards associated with the optional behaviour of promoting environmentally beneficial changes and their motivation is

802 P. Bohdanowicz et al.

Table 1. Barriers to ecological change.

Type Description Means of overcoming barrier

Industry barriers Capital costs Funds for major and minor

environmental improvements, expected internal rate of return on all capital projects

Market innovations, “green” products, special capital funds

Community concern Perception of risks associated with the business

Risk communication, community advisory councils, community initiatives

Regulatory constraints Regulations, standards, operating permits

Voluntary action programmes

Information Difficulty of collecting appropriate data, measurement problems

Industry alliances/cooperation, performance measurement

Technical knowledge Physical, chemical and biological uncertainty, inability to eliminate some risks or effects

Joint research/development, learning

Organisational barriers

Attitudes of personnel Disengaged, parochial interests, environment not a high priority

Information sharing, teams, awards, sharing of environmental “wins”

Top management Detached, uncaring, lack of understanding of environmental/economic cost relationship, environment not a key value

Articulation of environmental values, peer pressure/actions, involvement in high profile community activities

Quality of communication “Distance” between top management’s espoused commitment and action throughout the organisation

Communications treated as a critical business process, create “champions” at all levels

Administrative heritage (past practice)

Standard operating procedures, assumptions about running the business

Prospective outlook, strategic focus

Source: Adapted from Post & Altman (1994).

thought to be predominantly driven by personal predispositions (Shamir, 1991) and by value congruence between the individual and the organisation (Chapman, 1989). This implies that HRM plays a special role in environmental management (Jabbour & Santos, 2008a, 2008b; Wehrmeyer & Parker, 1996) (see Table 2).

Crucially, Daily and Huang (2001) developed a conceptual model of the interrelationship between basic elements of environmental management systems (EMS) and HR factors (or HRM aspects). The former include policy, planning, implementation and operation, checking and corrective action, and management review, while the latter encompass top management support, training, employee empowerment, teamwork and rewards. The model takes as its premise that there is a continuous interaction between particular HR factors and EMS elements. For instance, any environmental policy needs to specify, say, what form of training (if any) employees will be offered and how they will be rewarded (if at all) for their ecological behaviours. On the other hand, if it turns out (thanks to monitoring and feedback) that employees are bored with – and unenthusiastic about – environmental initiatives, it is necessary to introduce modifications and to take action to rekindle their interest.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 803

Table 2. Role of HRM in environmental management.

Role of human resources Activities

Support to environmental management system • Provide training • Guarantee effective communication • Motivate employees

Develop organisational change • Incorporate environmental dimension in the values of a company

• Develop competencies for environmental management

• Stimulate ethics for environmental issues Alignment of functional dimensions • Recruit and select based on environmental

criteria • Include environmental dimension in job

description • Train for the environment • Evaluate performance and reward based on

environmental strategy

Source: Adapted from Post & Attman (1994).

Crucially, the issue here is management attitudes towards the environment. It is managers who instigate a concrete organisational culture, which – understood as a set of assump- tions and values that guide individuals’ daily work behaviours (Brockhoff, Chakrabarti, & Kirchgeorg, 1999) – is a vehicle for aligning employee motivation and efforts with or- ganisational processes and goals. Accordingly, an organisational culture that attaches little importance to environmental issues is likely to undermine staff motivation for environ- mental improvement efforts (Ramus, 2001). This might happen since some managers tend to perceive pro-environmental initiatives as clashing (at least in the short term) with the overarching objectives of competitiveness enhancement and profit maximisation or they simply lack competence in environmental management (Roome, 1994). This incompetence may also relate to other aspects of managerial practice that have an indirect effect on envi- ronmental performance. For example, it is generally acknowledged that both empowerment and teamwork are helpful in achieving environmental improvement (Hart, 1995). It follows that managers who are unwilling to delegate power and/or to organise work in teams (if feasible) risk seeing their environmental efforts fail.

It is clear, therefore, that introducing an environmental change is a complex and de- manding task that requires both authentic commitment from all employees and superior managerial acumen. To ensure the success of ecological efforts, it is necessary to com- bine standard environment-friendly measures of a technological character (e.g. installing energy- and water-efficient appliances) with actions through HRM (to engage, motivate and train staff). There is a conspicuous conceptual interrelatedness between CSR, HRM and environmental management, reinforcing the case for adopting a holistic approach. Now it might be informative to see how the implementation of an environmental programme proceeded in practice at Hilton establishments.

Explaining and assessing we care!

Methodology

This paper employs the case study method (Eisenhardt, 1989). To substantiate the argu- ments and, crucially, to deal with the research questions, the content analysis technique

804 P. Bohdanowicz et al.

(Neuman, 2003) was used. Specifically, the company’s website as well as various mag- azines were reviewed and any information concerning environmental management and sustainability was sought. Thanks to the cooperation of Hilton head office, the authors were also granted access to internal documents such as hotel case studies including some not normally available to those not employed by Hilton. Managers in charge of the implementa- tion process were contacted via email and personal interviews. Finally, with assistance from Hilton, an in-house survey was conducted in 20 Hilton hotels located across Continental Europe in November 2008 (covering 25% of the entire European portfolio). These methods allowed the authors to gather enough information and data to offer an in-depth analysis of the programme.

The survey was based on a literature review (Daily & Huang, 2001; Govindarajulu & Daily, 2004, 2008; Gupta & Singhal, 1993; Jabbour & Santos, 2008a, 2008b; Matthews, Diaz, & Cole, 2003; Ramus & Kilmer, 2007; Ramus & Steger, 2000; Vickers & Bear, 2006). It was available in English and in French, had four parts, and comprised 18 Likert-scale questions and four open-ended questions in the form of a “Personal comments” text box. The initial questions were revised with input from various interested parties and pilot-tested by representatives of the academy and the industry. The survey was administered online via the SurveyMonkey tool.

The list of hotels surveyed was defined by the Hilton sustainability manager in Europe. In order to ensure a representative range of views, the choice of hotels included equal numbers of properties that were very active in we care! and those where struggles to adopt the programme were observed. Despite the consequent varying activity level, all properties in the sample were initially included in the environmental programme since 2006 and over the years received the same training materials, feedback and support from the central office.

The corporate Hilton office helped in distributing the SurveyMonkey questionnaire link by sending it to general managers, directors of operation and leaders of the Green Teams at the selected hotels. A request was made to each hotel to encourage participation of at least 10 team members, and a follow-up reminder was sent to the management representatives a week before the conclusion of the study.

Despite all this, there are limitations to the study, including: (1) possible positive pro- environmental bias of the hotels in the sample, despite the selection of equal numbers of active and non-active hotels; (2) positive self-selection bias in the sample of employees, with employees who responded to the survey being more likely to be interested in and/or informed about environmental issues than the population of employees from which they were drawn; (3) possibility of social desirability in responses, triggered by the fact that the survey was distributed via internal means; as well as (4) only two language versions distributed across 11 countries, and a lack of a paper version of the survey making it available only to users with computer access and skills. Despite these limitations, it is believed that the combination of data from various sources offers a good insight into the implementation of an environmental programme at a multinational company.

Main premises and effects of Hilton’s we care! programme (Europe 2006–2008)

Hilton Worldwide is represented by 10 brands comprising more than 3600 hotels in 81 countries. The chain is committed to reducing resource use, while at the same time en- hancing guest experience and gaining employee loyalty. The company is a strong believer that operating business in a more responsible manner will bring financial savings, new revenue opportunities, as well as marketing and public relations coverage, and will better prepare business for new government regulations. In 2008, CEO Christopher Nassetta an- nounced the chain’s global goal of reducing waste to landfill, energy consumption and CO2

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 805

emissions by 20% as well as water consumption by 10% by 2014 compared with 2008 as part of the Hilton Worldwide Global Sustainability Initiative. Earlier, Hilton hotels in Continental Europe had participated in the regional environmental programme (we care!) between 2006 and 2008.

The principal idea behind the European programme was to empower team members to create a change both in their work environment and at home. It focused on four key environmental issues – energy efficiency, waste reduction, water efficiency and chemical use – through setting targets and measuring performance. The chief aim was to engender a culture change that would enable team members to improve hotels’ green performance: a significant reduction (over the first three years) in normalised energy consumption (15%) and normalised water consumption (10%) compared with 2005 was planned. The entire programme was based on five pillars: (1) environmental policy endorsed by the top man- agement; (2) the International Tourism Partnership (ITP) guidelines for sustainable hotel siting, design and construction; (3) “ecoLearning” via the company’s intranet and work- shops; (4) Hilton Environmental Reporting (HER, a performance monitoring tool); and (5) HiWay (intranet) as a communication tool (later supplemented by the company’s in- ternet website: www.hiltonwecare.com). Also, within the framework of we care!, Hilton suppliers were provided with a guideline document and encouraged to improve their envi- ronmental responsibility. This was supplemented by sharing best practices and supporting environmental initiatives at the community level.

The programme was launched in Continental Europe on 1 January 2006 with a “Green- Box” being sent to all hotels. The “GreenBox” contained: (1) an introductory video inter- view with Wolfgang Neumann, Area President (at the time); (2) a PowerPoint presentation for the Team Member Forum explaining the four focus areas; (3) instructions on how to run environmental workshops; (4) training materials to use during workshops; and (5) towel and linen change-on-demand cards for hotel guestrooms. In addition, because communication and feedback provision are crucial in the success of such programmes, a we care! board was supplied to each hotel to be displayed in the team member area, accompanied with posters promoting the programme. To encourage team members to take part in the programme, a competition was organised. A mountain bike was promised annually to each team member in the best performing hotel in each operational region over the course of three years. In addition, Green Teams – in charge of preparing and implementing Action Plans – were set up in all hotels. They consisted of operational (front line) team members (not Heads of De- partment), a Chief Engineer as an advisor and a General Manager as a nominal leader (the actual leader came from within the team). Such composition of the Green Teams combined with workshops performed for all team members ensured opportunities for employees from different process areas to communicate and solve problems together (O’hEocha, 2000). Post and Altman (1994) further believe that such an approach will result in a system that is employee-driven and should bring considerable improvements in the firm’s environmental performance.

Since setting efficiency/reduction targets needs to be accompanied by performance measuring tools, an internal reporting system for monitoring environmental performance – Hilton Environmental Reporting (HER) – was created in 2004 (Bohdanowicz, 2007). It was a computerised system through which Hilton hotels from Europe monthly reported their resource consumption (energy, water) and operational factors such as guest nights and food covers sold (however, in 2010, HER was replaced by LightStay – a global sustainability tool used by all Hilton Worldwide brands, Hotel Online, 2010). The information collected in HER was then used to construct performance indicators for individual hotels and to compare their performance with the average in a country and in the European Hilton

806 P. Bohdanowicz et al.

portfolio. The following indicators have been available for each hotel since 2005: energy in kWh per guest night, energy in kWh per square metre of floor area, water in litres per guest night, kilograms of unsorted waste per guest night and kilograms of laundry per guest night. Kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted per guest night were also displayed for each hotel to raise the awareness of the team members and introduce the concept of carbon footprint and carbon reduction. The per-guest-night indicators were constructed on the basis of year-to-date information, while energy in kWh/m2 was an annual estimate.

There were also league tables for each country and operational region showing indi- vidual hotel’s percentage change in energy consumption per guest night and square metre of the area in the months of the current year as compared to the same months of 2005 – which was regarded as the benchmark year for the first phase of the we care! programme. League tables for water consumption in litres per guest night were also available. At times, a comparison of performance between hotels with similar characteristics was performed manually. In addition, the performance on an individual basis was sometimes compared to the benchmark established by the ITP EnvironmentBench, while hotels located in Scandi- navia and labelled with the Nordic Swan continue to be verified against the benchmarks established by the Nordic Swan label. The reports available within HER were regularly published on the hotel we care! boards, and in this way, the tool proved to be instrumental in raising ecological awareness and in fostering a sense of responsibility for performance in individual properties. It was also of help during the competition as individual teams were able to see the positive results of their initiatives, which boosted their confidence and encouraged even more efforts, especially when the results of two or more properties were very similar.

It needs to be reiterated in this context that the we care! programme, involving all team members, bears all the hallmarks of a grass roots campaign. Andrew Forte, Hilton’s Director of Energy Management & Sustainability, described it as:

In a nutshell, we care! delegates responsibility to team members who can really identify improvements and then implement them. Our aim was to create a culture in which all our team members feel empowered to propose improvements and then have the opportunity to actually change their actions. The results show that we are beginning to make a difference but this is just the start. (Breaking Travel News, 2008)

In the first 12 months of the programme, over 16,000 team members participated in the we care! workshops and a further 4000 completed the first ecoLearning e-course, launched at Hilton University. A number of hotels picked up public recognition awards. All the team members worked collectively to turn off taps, opted for energy-efficient light bulbs, re- adjusted the settings of boilers and air conditioning units, sorted waste, reached out to local communities by participating in clean-up events and forest planting and educated hotel guests. As a result, Hilton in Europe reduced energy consumption by 6.7% (exceeding the 5% target set for the first year), avoiding paying more than US$3 million in energy costs (Hotels, 2007). Referring to these successes, Wolfgang Neumann, initiator of the programme, pointed out that:

in the wake of Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, and daily media discussions about our endangered planet, this is an example of how one of the biggest companies in the world (in terms of employees and brand power) is doing something. We are not perfect but we are heading in the right direction. (Hotels, 2007, p. 10)

At the same time, it became clear that the public had begun to pay attention to the way hotel companies go about environmental protection. This, in turn, confirmed the view that the industry’s approach to sustainability would become a source of competitive advantage,

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 807

determining guests’ choice of quality accommodation. It might be informative to cite Neumann again:

It is clear that current debate about climate change has highlighted the need for action from all of us. As more and more people look to book according to their conscience and beliefs, it is inevitable that hoteliers will need to demonstrate and communicate their commitment to saving the environment. Our we care! programme is one step further on the way to becoming a more responsible corporation. At Hilton we all care about the environment and are genuinely committed to making a difference. (Hotels, 2007, p. 11)

Despite all the successes, over time there was a feeling that team members’ initial enthusiasm was ebbing away. To keep up the momentum, in 2008 two more ecoLearning courses were developed (available in eight local language versions), and the second edition of the “GreenBox” was issued to all hotels. Each box contained: (1) a letter and a video from the Area President, outlining the 2008 targets and actions; (2) a PowerPoint presen- tation for the Team Member Forum; (3) posters advertising two new ecoLearning courses available at Hilton University; (4) workshop training materials, including a training film and brainstorming session in order to create a new hotel action plan; and (5) updated logos and materials. In addition, posters announcing the competition and a surprise prize, as well as updated we care! boards were distributed among the hotels.

To summarise, within the framework of the three-year we care! programme, Hilton hotels in Continental Europe reduced energy consumption by 15%, water consumption per guest night by 8% and CO2 emissions per guest night by nearly 8%. This helped prevent a total of 28,600 tonnes of CO2 from being emitted and helped the company avoid paying US$16 million in energy and water bills. Of these improvements, approximately US$9.6 million can be attributed to changes in human behaviour, with a further US$6.4 million resulting from the installation of energy and water-efficient equipment and control systems, such as energy-efficient lighting systems and controls, boilers, chillers and heat exchangers, as well as implementing water reduction measures, water purification and recycling projects.

As far as the social dimension is concerned, the employees were successfully encouraged to help local communities and to participate in green initiatives such as “Clean up the world” actions or “Earth Hour” events. During the three-year programme, over 16,000 team members were trained in workshops (8000 participated in the ecoLearning courses). More than 3000 employees who worked at best performing hotels were given mountain bikes.

Results and analysis of employees’ perception of the programme

To verify Hilton employees’ perception of the we care! programme, an in-house survey was conducted. The sample targeted included about 200 team members; 156 usable responses were obtained giving an overall response rate of 78%. Fifty-two percent of responses came from hotels very active in the programme, while the remainder originated from teams with less involvement. As discussed below, there were some differences in attitudes between the two groups; however, despite the varying activity level at individual hotels, general perceptions were quite similar across the region. One could justifiably expect inactive hotels to have lower marks since their very “inactivity” stemmed from the fact that they did not understand the goals and failed to take any action.

Team members were asked to respond to a number of statements concerning the pro- gramme’s rationale and effectiveness, and encouraged to provide their personal comments. Of all the responses, 19.4% came from senior managers, 38.1% from managers, 16.9% from

808 P. Bohdanowicz et al.

assistant managers, 9.4% from shift/team leaders and 16.3% from team members with a specialised function. Such significant participation of managers may have introduced a further bias to the answers received only as a small proportion of responses that actually came from the team members working on the floor and considered to be the primary re- cipients/force in the programme. Despite varying levels of the we care! implementation in the surveyed hotels, overall, 65% of the respondents expressed positive feelings towards the initiative when it was introduced to them. The average note on a five-point scale (with 1 and 2 standing for “no” and “rather no”, respectively, while 4 and 5 for “rather yes” and “yes”, respectively) was 4.53. Team members at the active hotels were more posi- tive than the employees at less active properties with notes of 4.59 and 4.48, respectively. Over time, however, both groups valued the positive change in attitude similarly, with notes of 4.70 and 4.69, respectively. A few representative comments can be cited. One of the team members said that “the we care! programme is the right programme for a New Millennium Company” while another noted that “it’s a great thing to try to save and be more green towards the planet”. Also, worth stressing is the following statement: “It was very easy to initiate it as we have been following very good environmental policies for a long time”. Negative and less appreciative views were also expressed. To quote just two emblematic utterances: “I very much believe in we care!, but it has been and still is a time consuming exercise if you want to do it properly and, with all other programmes and trainings, it is difficult to focus on one properly” or “I had the feeling it has nothing to do with me”.

Equally significantly, more than 95% of the respondents said that their environmental awareness has been raised as a result of the programme. Likewise, 97% of the infor- mants declared that their environmental behaviour improved, thanks to we care! Change in behaviour was more pronounced among the team members of the less active hotels, as indicated by the mark of 4.78 as compared with 4.68 at the active hotels. The improvement in environmental awareness was evaluated similarly in both groups with an average of 4.76 for active hotels and 4.72 for non-active hotels. The comments made by the respondents were mostly positive. For example, one of the employees said: “It is now an important part of my life at work and at home, too”. There were also more nuanced voices. Em- phasis was placed, for instance, on the inability to keep up the team spirit – and hence to implement the programme properly – due to high staff turnover. Regarding the training provided within the framework of the programme, 82% of the informants found partic- ipation in forums interesting, 82% in ecoLearning and 80% in workshops. Interestingly, the team members at the properties that were less active valued the quality of the various training means higher than the employees of the hotels that continued to be active. The average opinions were 4.45, 4.48 and 4.46 for the forum, ecoLearning and workshops, respectively, among the former group as compared with 4.38, 4.39 and 4.31, respectively, among the latter group. Such differences may be explained by the former group having no or very limited information or awareness prior to the programme, and thus gaining more from the training materials offered. There were a number of critical comments and useful suggestions aiming to improve the practical dimension of training provision. To quote one participant:

EcoLearning Part 1 was not so interesting, but Part 2 and Part 3 gave me a lot of important and interesting information. I think we could organise more workshops, it was the best training! . . . maybe training in other Hilton hotels to see how we care! works there.

As regards Hilton employees’ motivation to follow the we care! programme at work, 95% of the respondents found themselves motivated by the fact that “it makes a difference

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 809

Table 3. Analysis of team members’ understanding and perception of the programme.

Team members’ (TMs) attitude

Percentage of positive answers

(marks 4 and 5)

Sample average

Average among active

hotels

Average among

non-active hotels

TMs are clear about company environmental goals

76 4.07 4.14 3.98

TMs are clear about how the goals are to be achieved

73 4.02 4.07 3.96

TMs are clear about who is responsible for what

73 4.08 4.25 3.88

TMs are informed about progress of the programme

83 4.38 4.48 4.28

TMs are bubbling with ideas 73 3.87 3.92 3.82 TMs are given freedom to implement

good environmental practices 77 4.14 4.24 4.03

TMs have the necessary means (funding, technical) to implement good environmental practices

71 3.99 4.11 3.80

Enough time is allowed for implementation of environmental improvements

69 3.99 4.05 3.91

Feedback from TMs is encouraged 83 4.28 4.28 4.28 TMs receive recognition for work well

done 77 4.24 4.42 4.03

– every employee can help to save the environment” (4.82); 90% by “it helps my hotel’s profitability” (4.64); 88% by “it helps my hotel to comply with environmental laws” (4.55); 89% by “it helps to improve the image of the hotel I work in” (4.58); 79% by “it can help my hotel’s team to win a prize” (4.31); and 51% by “it is in my job description” (3.42). While most of the answers were almost identical in both samples, a few responses exhibited variations. The most pronounced difference was observed with the team members from the active hotels evaluating the importance of the “save the environment” as well as “improve hotel image” concepts much higher than their colleagues from the remaining hotels, with the respective average votes of 4.86 and 4.63 as compared with 4.77 and 4.52. This might have been influenced by the high share of managers in the sample, with their more business-oriented attitude. Employees at the former group were also more motivated by the possibility of winning the prize (4.35 and 4.27, respectively).

The next set of questions received significantly different responses among the two groups, with employees of the more active hotels offering more positive answers (Table 3). This may indicate that despite all the hotels receiving exactly the same set of initial materials and continuous feedback and encouragement from the corporate level, there was not enough communication and support at the hotel level. The fact that the team members at the less active hotels seemed to have less understanding of company goals, ways to achieve them and division of responsibilities would support such a statement. They also felt constraints in what could be implemented and how, given the limited time allowed. Finally, team members at these hotels felt that an insufficient feedback on the programme progress was given and that their work had not been properly recognised. These are very important observations, indicating that providing all properties with the same level of training, initial information and feedback from the corporate level may not be enough to create the same level of

810 P. Bohdanowicz et al.

participation/engagement/response. It is important to identify properties that require more support and work with them on a one-to-one basis.

In general, both team members and managers believe to be committed to we care! (mean of 4.22 and 4.33); however, when responses from each group are studied separately, differences are visible. Team members (TMs) do not seem to distinguish between TM and management commitment and give both relatively low means of 3.90. Managers view the situation much more positively, ranking themselves at 4.49 and TMs at 4.36. This discrepancy may indicate that managers were keen on presenting their hotel in a better light, while team members did not hesitate to speak the truth.

On the one hand, a majority of team members believed that the “we care! is about team collaboration” (average of 4.72, 4.71 and 4.73 for the sample, active hotels, and non-active hotels, respectively), while on the other hand, there was a more widespread feeling among employees from the non-active hotels that “we care! is about individual responsibility” (4.41, 4.33 and 4.51, respectively). The latter may be related to the fact that the respondents in this particular group were the members of the Green Teams possibly heavily involved in the implementation of the programme but not receiving much help from their colleagues, and thus expressing their frustration. When asked about being proud to work in a company that cares, the representatives of more “active” hotels were, as expected, more prone to provide positive answers, with average note of 4.46 as compared with 4.10 for the other group and 4.29 for the entire sample.

The programme’s imperfections and recommendations for managerial policy

From the above responses, it is fair to say that most Hilton employees have a positive opinion of the programme. But the initiative was not devoid of flaws and inconsistencies. First of all, in contrast to the answers to pre-structured statements, informants’ personal comments – by definition, more revealing and sincere – were more nuanced and crit- ical. One of the respondents noted, for instance, that “the we care! programme is too much in the corner of the engineering department. Other departmental managers must reinforce the programme more”. Another said that while some team members are truly interested in the initiative, most show little interest (it transpires that, while asked to respond to pre-structured statements, most of the respondents generally went for posi- tive assessments, while when asked to express freely their own views, they seemed more critical).

More importantly, although we care! was constructed as an initiative aimed at enhancing sustainability (which, in line with the sector’s general practice, means a great emphasis put on the carbon dioxide reduction), Hilton management felt that team members first needed to really get to grips with the concept of raw energy and its consumption before stepping up to talking in terms of CO2 reductions. Following the success of the first year of the programme, with the focus on raw utilities only, in the second year, the league tables displayed carbon dioxide emissions per guest night for each hotel. In this way, the carbon footprint concept was introduced to the hotel teams. There was, however, no reduction goal set for carbon emissions.

Given the programme’s limited company-level focus on social aspects (with local com- munity development to the fore) as well as sustainable sourcing and local suppliers (issues that were largely addressed at an individual hotel level only), it has to be concluded that the practical focus of the we care! programme was on environmental protection and green awareness improvement rather than on sustainability sensu stricte. This may be because

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 811

the we care! programme was a single-area initiative rather than a global one and because social aspects of sustainability were being addressed within the framework of another intra- company programme. Such a situation inevitably poses limitations, which include minimal engagement with customers as well as lack of both participation in any large-scale projects (such as Marriott’s rainforest protection) and cooperation with any environmental organ- isation. The entire initiative was carried out in-house, with team members acting as the driving force.

Likewise, considering a fast-growing interest among hotel guests in ecological issues, the fact that the we care! programme was not marketed to Hilton customers can be perceived as a flaw. Moreover, engaging both customers and external environmental bodies could have had a positive effect on the implementation process of the initiative, an opportunity not utilised by the company. Finally, Hilton decided not to endorse any particular eco-label. This could have lent both credence to its achievements and support to those hotels that considered applying for one. Furthermore, this could have resulted in more uniform implementation of certain initiatives across the portfolio as required by the label criteria. Individual hotels were nevertheless offered support and, as a result, approximately 10% of Hilton establishments throughout Europe now bear environmental logos.

Despite these imperfections and inconsistencies, the programme offers instructive prac- tical insights. Above all, it transpires that, for such initiatives to be successful, it is necessary to create an eclectic strategy combining the spirit of competition and employee empower- ment with the sense of entertainment and innovative training. Moreover, it is important to ensure consistency and continuity so as to avoid the impression of a one-off effort as well as taking into account participants’ views and reactions. It is thus useful to formulate a number of managerial policy guidelines (recommendations) of general applicability. These can be summarised as follows:

(1) Adopt a holistic attitude – do not limit it to standard environmentally friendly measures (such as installing energy-efficient lighting or purchasing green power or carbon offsets), but get hotel employees and guests involved in creative (and learning-oriented) undertakings that raise ecological awareness;

(2) Ensure that the programme is well thought out and unambiguous but achievable objectives (targets) are set;

(3) Provide employees with genuine support and make sure that the programme is not a one-off project but a continuous effort (in the spirit of corporate environmental- ism); keep the programme fun and encourage the spirit of competition; monitor employees’ perceptions of and reactions to it;

(4) Develop and put into place environmental (sustainability) management IT systems (such as LightStay) that, using meaningful indicators (such as energy in kWh per guest night or carbon emissions in kg CO2 per guest night), monitor and show (in an understandable and, ideally, vivid manner) the environmental performance of particular establishments;

(5) Try and persuade partners (subcontractors, suppliers, collaborators) to abide by high environmental standards and to comply with green legislation (for instance, cooperate with those taxi and car rental firms that use hybrid, electric or bio-fuelled vehicles and with those developers who, when designing and constructing new buildings, use innovative eco-friendly solutions); and

(6) Cooperate with external organisations and institutions that have experience in cre- ative environmental projects.

812 P. Bohdanowicz et al.

Conclusion

The necessity of protecting the environment and the implications of CSR will remain the focus of public and managerial interest in the near future. Ecological concerns and CSR are likely to be top priorities on the agendas of politicians and managers since, to preserve the environment, coordinated action is needed both at government and corporate levels (e.g. a failure to impose adequate carbon pricing, which forces fossil fuel plants to pay for the environmental cost of the carbon they generate, is likely to slow the propagation of carbon-free and/or low-carbon sources of energy, thereby making it harder for hotels and other businesses to honour their green commitments).

Hilton’s we care! – albeit not devoid of certain imperfections and inconsistencies – stands out among similar schemes. This is because Hilton lays greatest emphasis both on employee involvement and on the notion of change. The idea behind we care! was, therefore, not only to save resources (energy, water) and hence to limit Hilton’s environmental footprint (which ultimately offers cost reduction and thus lies in the very interest of the company) but also, above all, to instigate a permanent modification of team members’ attitudes towards environmentalism through active participation and genuine empowerment. It transpires that, for such initiatives to be successful, it is necessary to come up with an eclectic strategy of holistic character combining the spirit of competition and employee empowerment with a sense of entertainment and innovative training. Accordingly, it is important to ensure consistency and continuity to avoid the impression of a one-off effort and to take into account participants’ views and reactions. In sum, Hilton’s programme was a creative and effective instrument promoting simultaneously environmental awareness and human resources development.

This paper contributes to the fast-growing literature on CSR. By focusing on the practical and the concrete aspects of development, it shows how to conceive and implement CSR programmes, and demonstrates that ultimate success hinges upon genuine involvement by senior managers and low-ranking employees (that is why considerable attention was paid to Hilton team members’ reactions to – and perceptions of – we care!). In this sense, the study constitutes a voice in the debate over the rationale of CSR. Consequently, despite claims that CSR is too often about improving a company’s image by publicising (and showing off) its well-intentioned initiatives, it provides evidence that there might be far more to CSR than to sheer public relations (PR)-underpinned brand management. In other words, CSR – if wholeheartedly embraced and translated into a holistic programme – can lead to positive results.

The study’s major limitation is that too little attention was paid to assessing the impact of the programme on Hilton’s market position, customer decision-making and, critically, the company’s financial results. Nevertheless, considering that the programme was designed as a back-of-the-house initiative and was implemented only in one geographical area (Continental Europe), it would be very hard to perform such an assessment (and key corporate data are deemed confidential and thus unavailable). Future studies could focus on the link between concrete CSR programmes and financial performance, and exploration of whether CSR initiatives, as perceived by customers rather than employees, actually influence their decisions concerning the choice of a given brand. This would require slightly different analytical tools and research methods. We hope that this paper will prompt further research into CSR-related issues and foster the dissemination of best practice.

Note 1. Continental Europe refers to all European countries except UK and Ireland.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 813

Notes on contributors Paulina Bohdanowicz has a PhD in energy technology (Royal Institute of Technology) and a PhD in social science (University of Gdańsk). She is currently working in the hospitality industry and guest lecturing at tourism and hospitality schools, with close links to Leeds Metropolitan University.

Piotr Zientara has a PhD in economics (University of Gdańsk), an MA in HRM (College of Europe) and a Diploma of Economics (Paris Chamber of Commerce), DEUF (Jean Moulin III University). He is a lecturer in HRM at Gdańsk University School of Administration and a consultant for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Emilie Novotna has a Masters degree in business studies (Dublin Business School and Liverpool John Moores School). She works as a freelance consultant interested in sustainability aspects of hotel operations.

References Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. London: Sage. Bass Hotels & Resorts. (2000). Energy and water management manual. London: Bass Hotels &

Resorts. Bohdanowicz, P. (2005). European hoteliers’ environmental attitudes: Greening the business. Cornell

Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 188–204. Bohdanowicz, P. (2007). A case study of Hilton environmental reporting as a tool of corporate social

responsibility. Tourism Review International, 11(2), 115–131. Bohdanowicz, P., Simanic, B., & Martinac, I. (2005). Environmental training and measures at Scandic

hotels, Sweden. Tourism Review International, 9(1), 7–19. Bohdanowicz, P., & Zientara, P. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in hospitality: Issues and

implications. A case study of Scandic. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(4), 271–293.

Bohdanowicz, P., & Zientara, P. (2009). Hotel companies’ contribution to improving the quality of life of local communities and the well-being of their employees. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(2), 147–158.

Bowe, R. (2005). Going green: Red stripe, yellow curry and green hotels. The Environmental Maga- zine, 16(1), 52–53.

Bowen, F. (2000). Environmental visibility: A trigger of green, organisational response? Business Strategy and the Environment, 9(2), 92–107.

Breaking Travel News. (2008, April 1). Hilton claims ten percent energy cut. Breaking Travel News. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://www.breakingtravelnews.com

Brockhoff, K.A., Chakrabarti, K., & Kirchgeorg, M. (1999). Corporate strategies in environmental management. Research Technology Management, July/August, 26–30.

Buchholz, R.A. (1993). Principles of economic management: The greening of business. Englewood Cliff, NY: Prentice Hall.

Business in the Community (BITC). (2009). Corporate responsibility. Retrieved December 3, 2009, from http://www.bitc.org.uk/

Chapman, J.A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person–organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333–349.

Crook, C. (2005). The good company. Economist, 8410, 3–18. Daily, B.F., & Huang, S. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource factors

in environmental management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(12), 1539–1552.

Deery, M., & Jago, L. (2009). A framework for work–life balance: Addressing the needs of the tourism industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(2), 97–108.

Dow Jones Indexes. (2009). Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from http://www.sustainability-index.com

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

Erdogan, N., & Baris, E. (2007). Environmental protection programs and conservation practices of hotels in Ankara, Turkey. Tourism Management, 28, 604–614.

Franklin, D. (2008). Just good business. Economist, 8563, 3–22.

814 P. Bohdanowicz et al.

Furunes, T., & Mykletun, R.J. (2005). Age management in Norwegian hospitality business. Scandi- navian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5(2), 1–19.

Govindarajulu, N., & Daily, B.F. (2004). Motivating employees for environmental improvement. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(4), 364–372.

Govindarajulu, N., & Daily, B.F. (2008). Incentives and motivation – Brownie points for green workers. Human Resource Management International Digest, 16(7). Retrieved March 20, 2009, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com

Gupta, A.K., & Singhal, A. (1993). Managing human resources for innovation and creativity. Research Technology Management, 36(3), 41–48.

Hall, D., & Richards, G. (Eds.). (2000). Tourism and sustainable community development. New York: Routledge.

Hart, S.L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014.

Hjalager, A.-M., & Andersen, S. (2001). Tourism employment: Contingent work or professional career? Employee Relations, 23(2), 115–129.

Holcomb, J.L., Upchurch, R.S., & Okumus, F. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: What are top hotel companies reporting? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(6), 461–475.

Hotel Online. (2010, April 20). Hilton unveils LightStay sustainability measurement system. Hotel Online. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://www.hotel-online.com/

Hotels. (2007, June). Green convergence. Hotels Magazine, 10–11. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007). WG1 fourth assessment report, summary

for policymakers. Geneva: IPCC-Secretariat, c/o WMO. International Hotels Environment Initiative. (1996). Environmental management for hotels: The

industry guide for best practice. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Jabbour, C.J.C., & Santos, F.C.A. (2008a). Relationships between human resource dimensions and

environmental management in companies: Proposal of a model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(1), 51–58.

Jabbour, C.J.C., & Santos, F.C.A. (2008b). The central role of human resource management in the search for sustainable organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(12), 2133–2154.

Kalisch, A. (2002). Corporate futures: Social responsibility in the tourism industry. London: Tourism Concern.

Kanter, R.M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster. Kates, R.W., Parris, T.M., & Leiserowitz, A.A. (2005). What is sustainable development? Goals,

indicators, values, and practices, environment. Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 47(3), 8–21.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Kelly, J., Wolfgang, H., Williams, P.W., & Englund, K. (2007). Stated preferences of tourists for

eco-efficient destination planning options. Tourism Management, 28, 377–390. Kirk, D. (1998). Attitudes to environment management held by a group of hotels managers in Scotland.

International Journal of Hospitality Management, 17(1), 33–47. Klassen, R.D. (2000). Exploring the linkage between investment in manufacturing and environ-

mental technologies. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20(2), 127–147.

Knowles, T., Macmillian, S., Palmer, J., Grabowski, P., & Hasimoto, A. (1999). The development of environmental initiatives in tourism: Response from the London hotel sector. International Journal of Tourism Research, 1(4), 255–265.

Lanzarote Conference on Sustainable Tourism. (1995, April). Charter for Sustainable Tourism. Char- ter agreed at the World Conference on Sustainable Tourism, Lanzarote. Retrieved March 15, 2003, from http://insula.org

Lewis, S. (2003). Reputation and corporate responsibility. Journal of Communication Management, 7(4), 356–365.

Magd, H. (2003). Management attitudes and perceptions of older workers in hospitality management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(7), 393–401.

Matthews, R.A., Diaz, W.M., & Cole, S.G. (2003). The organizational empowerment scale. Personnel Review, 32(3), 297–318.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 815

McIntosh, M., Thomas, R., Leipzinger, T., & Coleman, G. (2003). Living corporate citizenship. London: Prentice-Hall.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D., Herscovich, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.W. (1982). Employee-organisation linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (1998). Tourism and sustainability: New tourism in the third world. London: Routledge.

Mulvaney, R., O’Neill, J., Cleverland, J., & Crouter, A. (2006). A model of work–family dynamics of hotel managers. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 66–87.

Neuman, W.L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

O’hEocha, M. (2000). A study of the influence of company culture, communications and employee attitudes on the use of 5Ss for environmental management at Cooke Brothers Ltd. The TQM Magazine, 12(5), 321–330.

Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–89.

Post, J.E., & Altman, B.W. (1994). Managing the environmental change process: Barriers and oppor- tunities. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 7(4), 64–81.

Pratten, J., & O’Leary, B. (2007). Addressing the causes of chef shortages in the UK. Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(1), 68–78.

Ramus, C.A. (2001). Organizational support for employees: Encouraging creative ideas for environ- mental sustainability. California Management Review, 43(3), 85–105.

Ramus, C.A., & Kilmer, A.B.C. (2007). Corporate greening through prosocial extrarole behaviours – A conceptual framework for employee motivation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 554–570.

Ramus, C.A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviours and environmental policy in employee “ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 43(4), 605–626.

Roome, N. (1994). Business strategy, management and environmental imperatives. R&D Manage- ment, 24(1), 65–82.

Rothenberg, S. (2003). Knowledge content and worker participation in environmental management at NUMMI. Journal of Management Studies, 40(7), 1783–1802.

Rowley, G., & Purcell, K. (2001). As Cooks go, she went: Is labour churn inevitable? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 20, 163–185.

Savage, M. (2007). Make staff your agents for change. Caterer & Hotelkeeper, 197(4498), 31. Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self, and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12(3),

405–424. Shamir, B., House, R.J., & Arthur, M.B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership:

A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594. Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide. Journal

of Sustainable Tourism, 8(1), 1–19. Solomon, R.C. (1992). Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and integrity in business. New York:

Oxford University Press. Sparkes, R. (2002). Socially responsible investment: A global revolution. Chichester: John Wiley. Spector, P.E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause, and consequences. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage. Van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organisational research. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 24(4), 52–56. Vickers, M.R., & Bear, D. (2006). Building and sustaining a culture that supports innovation. Human

Resource Planning, 29(3), 9–19. Wehrmeyer, W., & Parker, K.T. (1996). Identification and relevance of environmental corporate cul-

tures as part of a coherent environmental policy. In W. Wehrmeyer (Ed.), Greening people: Human resources and environmental management (pp. 163–184). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

816 P. Bohdanowicz et al.

World Travel and Tourism Council. (2009). Leading the challenge on climate change. London: WTTC.

Worsfold, P. (1999). HRM, performance, commitment, and service quality in the hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(7), 340–348.

Wyndham Hotels & Resorts. (2009). WyndhamGreen. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from http://www.wyndhamworldwide.com/wyndham-green/

Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Zientara, P., & Bohdanowicz, P. (2010). The hospitality sector (Chapter 5). In J. Jafari & L.A. Cai

(Eds.), Tourism and the implications of climate change: Issues and actions (Bridging Tourism Theory and Practice, Vol. 3, pp. 91–111), Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Copyright of Journal of Sustainable Tourism is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.