Improving environmental performance in the tourism accommodation sector

While environmental legislation in Australia regulates tourism development, it is less effective in operational areas because of the dependency of tourism on environmental resources that are not managed by operators, and the small but incremental nature of operational impacts. The absence of functional environmental standards for tourism means that little guidance exists: a problem compounded by variability in the diversity of operation types and receiving environments, as well as the accessibility of information by a non-technical audience. While legislation and economic considerations may provide impetus to adopt environmental practices, it is proposed that an environmental philosophy is necessary for tourism businesses to seek out and maintain alternative sustainable modes of operation. Review of the environmental audit process used by a Queensland resort suggests commitment to continual improvement in environmental performance is attributable to individual and corporate ethics. While the case is an ecotourism operation, the literature indicates that these factors have relevance to tourism generally. Although client satisfaction and return on investment objectives are constraints, environmental auditing can provide impetus for practical expression of environmental objectives. Facilitation of ethically-motivated voluntary action may be more effective in achieving tourism's environmental objectives than codifying standards in static legislation.

A full cost environmental accounting experiment

A lack of appropriate measurement techniques has constrained full cost environmental accounting (FCEA) experimentation. Yet, there has been little research on the applicability of valuation techniques recently developed by environmental economists within FLEA frameworks. This paper examines a reporting experiment using these valuation techniques that was undertaken by an Australian Government Department managing publicly owned forests. The FCEA experiment was ultimately not successful. However, the implementation experiences of the Department including the reactions of its managers and stakeholders provide an opportunity to critically reflect on the experimental outcomes to extend the current empirical knowledge of corporate social responsibility reporting. Such critical reflection has not been common in past FCEA experimentation. © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.