Tourists and community development: corporate social responsibility or tourist social responsibility?

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities are usually determined, in large part, by head office and by shareholder interests. This article explores the unique case of tourism CSR which has a distinctive relationship with local communities. CSR programmes of hotels and resorts in the Global South are increasingly creating opportunities for tourists to engage directly with communities, yet the relationship between tourists and CSR – and how this impacts on community development outcomes – has so far been overlooked. Based on two separate research projects undertaken in Zambia and Fiji which examined hotel CSR from community perspectives, we show how these programmes were largely motivated, driven and financed by tourists. This suggests that, in the accommodation subsector of tourism, CSR is not only being shaped by head office, but that tourists can play a key role, leading us to coin the term TSR (tourist social responsibility). For community development initiatives in particular, this gives rise to both challenges and opportunities.

Keywords:

• Tourists
• corporate social responsibility
• community development
• hotels
• Fiji
• Zambia

Introduction

For the tourism industry, and particularly the accommodation sector, corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes often constitute a key way of contributing directly to development in destination communities. CSR is conventionally understood as company investment activities which bring environmental or social benefits beyond the company, with activities usually determined, in large part, by head office and by shareholder interests. (Lindgreen, Swaen, & Campbell, 2009, p. 439; Nyahunzvi, 2013) This article seeks to challenge that notion, showing how – in the case of the tourism industry and the accommodation subsector in particular – CSR initiatives can be heavily influenced by the tourists themselves. When considering community development outcomes, this has significant implications in terms of the nature of CSR activities and how they relate to local communities.

Existing research suggests that CSR has a limited impact on development outcomes for local communities (Banks, Kuir-Ayius, Kombako, & Sagir, 2013; Blowfield, 2007; Jenkins, 2005), with critics suggesting that CSR is more responsive to head office or stakeholders than community needs (Akpan, 2008; Banerjee, 2008; Sagebien & Whellams, 2010). Where CSR policies are formulated at global headquarters and shaped by international development debates, this can impact on how community concerns are addressed at country-level. Kapelus (2002), for example, demonstrates that this can result in a failure to effectively implement CSR and Akpan (2008) indicates it can lead to the potential for a mismatch between corporate and community expectations. Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi, and Herremans (2010) show that company–community engagement can be weak and that transformational outcomes are rare, consistent with the finding that as a stakeholder group the local community is disregarded in policymaking within tourism CSR (Farmaki & Farmakis, 2018). These structural constraints can limit the ability of business to prioritise community well-being. We contend, however, that the tourism industry, in particular the accommodation sector, constitutes a unique case of CSR where tourism consumers play a key role in shaping CSR practices. While it does not necessarily follow that the tourism sector is better placed to address community needs, CSR nevertheless represents a critical aspect of community development in tourism areas. Consideration of the importance of the role of tourists in shaping and funding CSR can therefore add to our understanding of who influences CSR and how, alongside advancing our understanding of tourism-sector led community development.

Tourism research on CSR shows that community-focused programmes are largely discussed in terms of the business case for the company, for example mitigating risk and providing a social licence to operate (Ashley, De Brine, Lehr, & Wilde, 2007; Ashley & Haysom, 2006; Williams, Gill, & Ponsford, 2007), while engagement strategies are often directed towards company staff (Coles, Fenclova, & Dinan, 2013, p. 134). Where the involvement of tourists in CSR is discussed it tends to be in terms of tourist demand for ethical practices (de Grosbois, 2012; Dodds & Joppe, 2005), or meeting tourist expectations to experience pristine environments and local culture (Kalisch, 2002). Communication of CSR can therefore focus on generating positive public relations (Mowforth & Munt, 2009, p. 223). Further, there is little acknowledgement of tourist participation in CSR programmes or any indications of the extent of their involvement. Where CSR focuses on environmental initiatives such as energy conservation or reduction of carbon emissions, tourists may in fact have limited direct participation. However, where initiatives target local communities, we suggest that the role of tourists could be much more influential.

In this article, we report on two independent studies undertaken in different parts of the world examining tourism CSR from community perspectives, both of which generated an unexpected finding. In each case, the researchers later noted the fascinating phenomenon of tourist-driven CSR: rather than constituting an interaction between hotel management and communities, community-focused CSR occurred principally at the interface between tourists and communities. As the title of this article suggests, if tourists are driving CSR, we might need to talk more directly about tourist social responsibility (TSR).

Below we first outline current evidence in the literature examining the connections between tourists and CSR. We then go on to present case study findings from research undertaken in Zambia and Fiji considering the community development implications of CSR. The final section considers the opportunities and challenges that arise from recognition of tourist involvement in hotel-sponsored community development.

Tourists and community development

Mowforth and Munt argue that tourists should be taken more seriously in tourism research in general (2009, p. 120), drawing attention to the ethos of new tourists which demands “a clear, and sometimes explicit acknowledgement that they seek sustainability in their holiday pursuits, with a minimum of negative impact.” (Mowforth & Munt, 2009, p. 189)

There is consideration in the literature of the demand for companies to respond to such ethical concerns, for example through the call for ethical tourism products (Scheyvens, 2011, p. 114), responsible tourism (Goodwin, 2011) and voluntourism experiences (McGehee, 2014; McLennan, 2014) along with evidence of the corresponding growth of certification schemes (de Grosbois, 2012; Dodds & Joppe, 2005). There is less discussion of the relationship between tourists and CSR. Existing research tends to focus either on the direct impact of CSR on tourist behaviour, or on the indirect impact of tourists on CSR through tourist expectations for cultural experiences and community engagement while on holiday.

Tourists and CSR

CSR refers to a company’s responsiveness to the “triple bottom line” of financial, social and environmental outcomes spanning activities such as “employee welfare schemes, stakeholder engagement, community action, charitable giving, responsible supply chain management, ethical leadership and environmental stewardship.” (Coles et al., 2013, p. 123) According to Telfer and Sharpley (2008, p. 52), CSR in tourism is “considered to be a key element in the achievement of sustainable development in general”. Yet there is limited mention of the impact of tourists on CSR policy and practice with literature principally assessing the implications for company performance and marketing. A review of contemporary literature on the role of CSR in the hotel industry identified a lack of awareness in tourists of hotels’ CSR practices (Serra-Cantallops, Peña-Miranda, Ramón-Cardona, & Martorell-Cunill, 2018), and although positive correlation between CSR and consumer choices has been identified around environmental issues (Randle, Kemperman, & Dolnicar, 2019; Su, Swanson, Hsu, & Chen, 2017; Tuan, 2018), it seems that “knowledge does not necessarily translate into action” (Kasim, 2004, p. 24). Interestingly, although Kasim’s (2004) study on tourist demand for green and socially responsible hotels in Malaysia found that socio-environmental issues were not the basis of hotel choice, the study did find a high interest in the recreation experience. The study suggests therefore that responsible hotel practices could be enacted through the provision of recreational programmes focussing on traditional heritage and culture. It is this latter type of community engagement where the connection between tourists and responsible business practice is most evident, explored in further detail next.

Holiday expectations

In the 1990s, Poon (1994) suggested that “new tourism” heralded the rise of consumers seeking more authentic experiences and holidays which minimise negative impact on the environment, creating possibilities for greater sustainability and advantages for vulnerable destinations. The demand for cultural experiences has continued to grow, including access to heritage sites, cultural entertainment, local cuisine, and opportunities to purchase local souvenirs, together acting as a driver for tourism companies to engage with local communities and their environment in positive ways. Conservation initiatives can support preservation of the local environment and heritage, while hiring local entertainers and offering tours, information and handicrafts can provide valuable income-earning opportunities for local people (Scheyvens, 2011, p. 116). Strong agriculture–tourism linkages can contribute to poverty reduction, economic development, employment for farming communities (Thomas-Francois, von Massow, & Joppe, 2017). Tourist demand for local activities while on holiday, however, does not necessarily result in outcomes which are locally-meaningful. Discussions of slum tours, for example, demonstrate that tours can vary widely in terms of the benefits that accrue to communities. While such tours can provide a means to direct economic benefits to communities and overcome stereotypes (Scheyvens, 2011, pp. 92–93), often the residents of the slum, shanty town or favela have little control over tours and the benefits that “trickle down” are few (Mowforth & Munt, 2009, pp. 285–291). Concerning demand for local produce and cuisine, research shows that this is also shaped by tourist expectations (Sengel et al., 2015); in many cases tourists forgo potential local delicacies and prefer ubiquitous steak, pizza and pasta dishes (Laeis, Scheyvens, & Morris, 2019) and the majority of food and beverages are still imported from overseas (Harrison & Pratt, 2015, p. 13; Meyer, 2006). Further, while local entertainment provides an income, contracts may be insecure, symptomatic of a wider issue of power in which the poor are up against the financial might of companies (Manteaw, 2007).

Where there is a clear commitment from tourists to supporting ethical tourism, this still does not equate to alignment with community development concerns. For example, signs of tourist values influencing local CSR practices can be seen in the emphasis on issues such as the environment, with Mowforth and Munt referring to the tourist imperative to “green the earth’s poor” (2009, p. 56). Similarly, tourist beliefs on issues like child welfare or animal rights shaped by dominant views in their own countries might be transferred to foreign contexts when they travel. Swedish tour operator Apollo, for example, was influenced by tourists to invest in animal welfare in their holiday destinations (Zapata Campos, Hall, & Backlund, 2018). In fact, research links social responsibility to tourist emotions (Tran, Hwang, Yu, & Yoo, 2018) and shows that a key motivator in ethical tourism is the individual hedonic or feel-good value for tourists (Malone, McCabe, & Smith, 2014), with tourist priorities focused around a range of personal extrinsic and intrinsic goals (Caruana, Glozer, Crane, & McCabe, 2014). Evidence shows that ultimately tourists will fulfil individual priorities; Sharpley argues it is unrealistic to expect tourists to be accountable for ethical behaviour (Sharpley, 2015, p. 377) echoing McKercher’s (1993, p. 11) sentiment that tourists are above all “consumers not anthropologists.”

In summary, current evidence in the literature shows that the impact of tourists on the ethical practices of hotels, and the subsequent benefit to local communities, is ambiguous, with limited tourist motivation to exert ethical purchasing power and a self-interested approach to activities while on holiday. The literature does not deal with tourist involvement in community-oriented hotel CSR practices or the community-focused practices of hotels more generally. The lack of knowledge of the impact of tourists on community CSR is particularly significant in large-scale tourism settings: despite the growth of new forms of tourism, large-scale mass tourism continues to constitute the majority of travel globally (Weaver, 2015). Therefore, tourist engagement in community development may be an important factor for consideration in tourism and development debates. Exploration of this neglected area offers the opportunity to better understand an area of tourist impact on sustainable practices.

Methodology

The authors undertook fieldwork in Zambia and Fiji for two separate studies, both aiming to explore the contributions of hotels and resorts to the development of nearby communities from the perspectives of local communities and hotel staff. Analysis of community experiences is critical to understanding the development potential of CSR. Evidence from studies in other sectors (e.g. oil and mining) show that there are clear differences in how initiatives are perceived from a corporate or community perspective (Akpan, 2008; Idemudia, 2009; Kapelus, 2002). It is only “beneficiary-centred” approaches which make room for distinctions between CSR done “for”, “to” or “with” communities. (Akpan, 2008, p. 497) The community-centred investigations in Zambia and Fiji provide a basis for examining the relationship between tourist involvement in CSR practices and community development outcomes. Both studies adopted a qualitative approach, using semi-structured interviews to collect data; this method offered both a rigorous structure and the ability to solicit a range of interviewee experiences.

Zambia’s tourism sector, while small, is currently one of the identified growth potential areas for the economy (GRZ, 2018). The tourism product is mainly based on the country’s vast cultural and natural resources, most of which are located in rural areas neighbouring poor communities. The land tenure system in Zambia is still largely communal at approximately 90% traditional and 10% state-owned (Mbinji, 2012), thus most tourism resorts are located on communal land with prospects of creating benefits from tourism for communities. Often, however, chiefs are under pressure from investors who seek shortcuts to acquire communal land without considering the impacts on the majority of the people (German, Schoneveld, & Mwangi 2011; Nolte, 2012). Data were collected between July and December 2014 and focused on Indigenous Mukuni communities neighbouring hotel and lodge resorts in the tourist town of Livingstone, adjacent to the world-renowned Victoria Falls. A total of 113 interviews were undertaken with senior government officials, hotel and lodge managers, the local tourism association, leaders of local and international NGOs along with curio traders, small-scale farmers and other Mukuni community members. Interview questions explored different ways in which hotels and lodges were practising CSR to deliver benefits to communities, whether communities had a voice in influencing CSR practices, and how tourism policies could better promote community-responsive CSR.

Fiji is the largest tourist destination in the South Pacific attracting a third of the region’s tourist arrivals (South Pacific Tourism Organisation, 2014) and as the country’s key income earner, tourism accounts for 33% of employment (World Travel and Tourism Council, 2015). Tourism in Fiji is concentrated on the coast, with the majority of hotels located on communally-owned land. 99-year tourism leases with Indigenous landowning communities are negotiated by the government-established iTaukei Land Trust Board, creating an ongoing direct link between hotels and landowning communities. Although classed as an upper-middle income country by the World Bank, almost a third of the population remain below the poverty line with a higher proportion of the rural population living in poverty (Ministry of Economy, 2017). Data were collected from June to October 2014 and focused primarily on Indigenous Fijian communities located adjacent to multinational resorts, including both landowning and non-landowning communities. Two hotels were selected as case studies in the principal tourist locations of Denarau and the Coral Coast, which receive 50% and 18% of visitors to Fiji, respectively (Bernard & Cook, 2015; Movono, Pratt, & Harrison, 2015). Eighty interviews were undertaken with resort management, CSR managers, community members, partnering NGOs and project beneficiaries, including school and hospital staff, in addition to government bodies and tourism organisations. interviews at the community level explored the relationship between the community and the hotel, their priorities for development and the details of the CSR initiatives, how they were identified and carried out and any known outcomes. At a company level, questions and observation explored how initiatives were identified, carried out and implemented and were used to ascertain the perceived impact on the community in general, individuals or groups within the community, and for the company itself.

Site observation of some CSR projects in communities was also undertaken in both Zambia and Fiji. In both cases, interviews were either transcribed or detailed notes taken and were analysed thematically. Themes covered CSR strategy and practices, education, health, employment, partnerships, and local customs and values. The role of tourists only appeared later as a theme when through the research process the significance of the role of tourists in CSR in both cases became apparent.

The CSR programmes in both locations focused primarily on education and health. Initiatives encompassed support for local schools and provision of scholarships and internships, infrastructure and equipment for hospitals, and health-care programmes for staff. In addition, there was support for environmental restoration activities. Other activities carried out by the hotels which specifically benefitted local communities included examples of ethical business practices such as preferential employment, locally-sourced goods and services and locally-provided entertainment and community tours. The examples that follow focus specifically on education programmes, which were the most significant focus of CSR across all case study areas, and community tours, which were the most common way for tourists to engage directly with communities.

Tourist involvement in CSR

All hotels in the study locations, varying in size from 20 to 440 beds, had well-established CSR programmes, including hotels which have been recognised with industry awards for their achievements. Most, but not all, have arrangements in place contributing varying percentages of profits to CSR (ranging from 2% to 10%). However, in all cases the most substantial contribution to CSR programmes comes from guest donations. Several hotels provided a donation box in the lobby, while others appealed for donations from tourists by showcasing their CSR projects in communities to guests. In Fiji, a voluntary amount is automatically added to each guest bill at the end of the stay (between US$2.50–$5) and tourists make additional donations via community tours in both locations. The hotels provide all the human resources necessary to run CSR programmes including staff expertise in project management, finance, engineering, training, health and safety and construction along with contributions of staff time through volunteer programmes.

Tourists and education

CSR initiatives in the case study locations in both Zambia and Fiji focus overwhelmingly on supporting schools, particularly primary schools, and rely heavily on tourist support to implement programmes. Support for local schools includes infrastructure development and maintenance, student scholarships, outfitting libraries and computer labs, donations of books, computers and stationery, donations of vocational equipment (e.g. for hospitality training courses), tourism expertise and staff and tourist volunteer time. While the hotels and lodges are directly involved in improving infrastructure and facilities in schools, the main engine behind these practices is tourists who are increasingly seeking out opportunities to engage with and donate to local schools.

School visits are a popular activity offered by many hotels. Sometimes they are built into a community or village tour, and sometimes a stand-alone activity. Tourists make a tour of the school and kindergarten and students often provide some entertainment, such as performing local songs and dances. Some hotels and lodges charge for the activity and others offer a free visit with the expectation that tourists will make a donation to the school. In addition to contributing financial donations, tourists may gift stationery and books, with arrangements sometimes made to donate other more expensive items including computers, musical instruments and play equipment. In Zambia, items such as exercise books, pencils and pens are often purchased from small community-owned shops, while in Fiji, most donations are brought from the tourist’s home country, with hotel management making efforts to coordinate and manage these donations by collecting items and distributing as needed and by guiding choice of gifts prior to the guest’s arrival. Unsurprisingly, patterns of donations are unpredictable. Hotel staff also devote a great deal of time and energy to providing opportunities for tourists to “give back” to the community. Opportunities to physically hand over gifts are a high priority, along with managing guest expectations of this experience.

Guests get excited about the donations. Their kids might have saved their pocket money … they’ve brought them over in their suitcase: it’s a big thing for them. They want recognition and a huge thank you (CSR manager, Fiji).

From a community perspective, there is certainly some financial benefit for schools in engaging directly with tourists, in addition to the benefits to small businesses when purchases are made locally, but interactions are largely driven by tourist priorities. For example, tourists commonly prefer to donate their items directly during tours, with one principal in Fiji revealing that whereas in the past the tourists would bring donations to the office for the school to distribute as appropriate, they are now more likely to want to direct their gifts to a class of their choice. Some schools on the tourist trail also receive visitors every day, causing disruption to classes. There are some examples of schools managing the agenda for school visits, such as setting limits on the days of visits or using visits as a leadership exercise for students who provide tours for guests, but in general the control is firmly held by the tourists. The expectation for hands-on involvement in education CSR as part of the holiday experience also has an impact on the geographical distribution of donations. Schools in the vicinity of hotels are most likely to benefit from tourist donations, while schools in more remote areas do not have access to this assistance. For countries where tourism is the primary income earner such as Fiji and Zambia, this can further exacerbate inequalities.

Two examples of tourist support for education-related CSR follow: the Tonagbezi Lodge in Zambia and the Bilo Bar Club in Fiji. From its opening in 1990, Tongabezi Lodge, a 20-bed lodge providing a luxury safari experience for clients, had an ambitious goal of establishing and managing a community trust school for children of its staff and children of non-lodge staff from a nearby community. The Tujatane Community Trust School (TCTS) was established in May 1996 with the construction of the first pre-school classroom, resourced by the Lodge. The lodge owners played an instrumental role in the school’s establishment, viewing education as the starting point for change and emancipation of the nearby community. As the financial challenge of expansion was considered too high for the lodge alone, the decision was made by Lodge management to involve tourists through guest donations.

To fundraise for the school capital projects and management costs, cards were produced and placed in guest rooms profiling the school project and including options to sponsor a building project, a teacher, a child or a programme (including items from a wish list). Tourists also have the liberty to donate according to their interests outside these options. Donated funds go straight into the bank account of the school project.¹ The option to tour the school project site initially allowed tourists to assess the needs of the community at the project site and over the years these tours have become part of the tourism activities of the lodge. It is common for tourists to engage directly with the project and the community during tours to identify new activities or to follow-up on the progress being made by projects or students that they finance. The trust school also accepts volunteer teachers, who arrive primarily as tourists and include youth groups from schools and groups of retired professionals, mostly from the US and the UK.

From a community perspective, the school fulfils the high demand for primary- and secondary-level education, since the alternative government schools are located far from the community. Qualified volunteers also remain invaluable to the running of the school: the Head Teacher of Tujatane School first came as a voluntourist herself. However, although this was seen as a positive contribution to the community, volunteers are not always professionally qualified teachers. Individual projects and programmes that are implemented in the school have come to reflect tourists’ interests over those of the lodge management and communities. This is because through their financial contributions and by volunteering their services as members of the school management board, tourists have gained power to influence school policies and practices. Over time this has relegated the power of communities to a peripheral position with community members identifying a lack of voice in management decisions.

The second example is the Bilo Bar Club, Fiji, which demonstrates that one of the longest running education projects in the tourism industry in Fiji originates from tourists. The Bilo Bar Club is a loyalty club, founded in 1981 as a social club by a group of returnee guests to Shangri-La’s Fijian Resort and Spa. The club took on a charitable focus in response to cyclones which damaged Fiji in the 1980s and a trust fund for donations and an annual fee was established. The club now has over 3000 active members who have raised more than FJ$500,000 (US$250,000) for local projects, including the building and resourcing of five local kindergartens, with provision for wages and training for staff. The first kindergarten was opened in 1991 and the most recent in 2013. Four continue to be supported by the Bilo Bar Club. The club is not solely focused on education, although this is the primary expenditure. Funds have also contributed to improvements at the local hospital and to a national sand dune reserve. Furthermore, individual members contribute additional donations, for example 120 ukuleles distributed to five schools and gift boxes of clothing and stationery for all 150 children at a boarding school. The administration of the fund is provided by hotel staff, and the hotel also supplements fundraising initiatives, for example providing prizes for fundraising raffles. Members hold an AGM each year, where funding proposals are assessed and decided on by majority vote.² Monitoring is carried out by club members who visit projects annually to assess their successful completion or monitor the use and care of equipment and buildings. Kindergarten teachers are also invited to trustee meetings to report on any issues. On average, one major project is approved each year and followed-up the next year; however, the most active club members visit the hotel several times a year when they may also interact with funded projects.

The club demonstrates collaboration between the hotel, guests and the community through its structure: the board is comprised of representatives from hotel management, returnee tourists and the community through the Ka Levu (provincial chief). Of particular interest here, is the primary focus of the tourists in directing the organisation. Although the community are represented on the board, it is the tourists who lead and manage this initiative, engage directly with schools and communities, decide on priorities, determine project scope and assessment criteria, and provide ongoing project financing. Project timing and communication with organisations receiving funding can be challenging as decisions on projects funded by the loyalty club can generally only be advanced during the members’ stay in Fiji, with community members expressing uncertainty about ongoing funding, waiting times and communication with the club. However, the value of the educational support provided by the Bilo Bar Club was emphasised by each of the four villages, and the kindergartens remain a highly visible, enduring and positive source of CSR for local communities.

Tourists and community tours

The value of community tours to tourism businesses cannot be overemphasised. In both Zambia and Fiji, hotels, lodges and resorts partner with the neighbouring communities to allow guests to experience the local culture of the area. It was found that the motivation behind this enthusiasm in both locations is the need to meet the growing demand from tourists for unique cultural experiences. As one representative from Tourism Fiji noted, “There has been a change in the way tourists look at things. Now they are venturing out - they want to see more of what’s out there, feel and interact”. It is also a way to provide opportunities for the communities to benefit from tourism. Some hotel and lodge managers in Zambia argued that their involvement in community tours in Mukuni communities was part of their companies’ deliberate policy to contribute to community development in the area, while other managers and senior government officials explained that community tours are client-driven. In Fiji, community tours are most frequently organised by the recreation arm of hotels as part of the menu of entertainment on offer, rather than constituting a component of CSR programmes; however, management also acknowledge the importance of the income-generation opportunity to local villages. For tours in both countries, tourists usually pay a set fee and a proportion (around 10% or up to US$5 per person) is paid to the community through a trust fund or community committee, which supports local development in different ways. Our research also found that the community tours often act as a springboard for further development initiated by tourists.

Community tours in Zambia start with a traditional handshake from village tour guides at Chief Mukuni’s palace. While the lead guide logs in tour details and receives payment from the hotel representative, the guides on duty take the tourists through the traditional formalities in readiness to pay a courtesy call on the Chief. Tourists are then led by the guides through a grass thatched passage into the arena that acts as the Chief’s official office and meeting place. After the royal welcome, tourists are given a guided tour of the communities. Tourists listen to the historical narration of the origins and traditional practices of the Mukuni people and have a chance to meet and participate in the activities of different households. Tours also include visits to local schools and clinics. No prior arrangements are made to receive or to parade to entertain tourists. For this reason, Mukuni is considered as a “living” tourist village. Village tours always end with shopping at the local curio market next to Chief Mukuni’s palace.

During the tours, tourists make direct donations to the households, schools and clinics they visit. Most of the items that tourists donate are those which are bought from village shops, such as bags of maize meal, sugar, cooking oil, money and stationery. Mukuni community members feel that village tours are important because they create opportunities to generate both community level benefits as well as individual and household level incomes:

…when companies bring their clients, they pay US$5 each for village tours… this money goes to the community trust for community projects…. when tourists are taken to local markets, they buy crafts and curios … Mukuni people benefit when tourists buy crafts and curios…selling of these items for some is the main source of livelihood. In addition, tourists donate to families, to schools and [the] clinic… (Community Member, Zambia)

Additional community revenue comes from many other CSR arrangements made through the Mukuni Community Development Trust (MCDT), a community-level structure established with the primary purpose of helping local people to capture opportunities and benefits from tourism. For example, fees paid by white water rafting companies for launching their activities on the Zambezi River from Mukuni land and lease fees paid by hotel and lodge companies for operating on Mukuni land. Mukuni communities also provide most village tour guides: young people are professionally trained with help from local hotels and are in turn employed by the MCDT. The funds collected by the MCDT are used to implement social investment projects in the areas of education, health and water and sanitation.

In some cases, tourists return to their home countries to mobilise more resources by fundraising. As an example, an NGO called Butterfly Tree was formed by one of the tourists who stayed at a hotel in Livingstone in 2006. The NGO was formed to support livelihood improvement and social investment projects in Mukuni communities, with the tourist motivated to establish the NGO after taking part in community tours in the area. Butterfly Tree also mobilises retired teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers and other essential experts to come to Mukuni as voluntourists every six months to offer their resources and services to the community over a period of 4 to 6 weeks. This NGO is creating a positive impact on the living standards of people in Mukuni communities. Mukuni community members, including their leaders, spoke highly of the activities of this NGO, as did hotel managers in the area:

…the founder [of Butterfly Tree] first came as a guest to one of the hotels… The NGO has supported water and sanitation projects, school services and infrastructure projects, orphan support, and health issues especially HIV/AIDS awareness campaigns… (hotel manager, Zambia)

Village tours in Fiji typically begin with a welcome song and ceremony and a guided tour around the village with the opportunity to buy handicrafts finishing with a traditional farewell song. Rather than touring “living villages” as in Zambia, tourists are often provided with some form of entertainment: this could be a meke (dance) performance or another activity such as coconut husking or weaving. The village tours are led by the adults of the village, under the leadership of the village head, and at this time usually also included a visit to a local school outside of the village. The proceeds from village tours (approximately FJ$5/US$2.50 per head) go directly to the village committee and support village upkeep, church renovations, construction of village fences and traditional obligations such as funeral and wedding costs. One village established a loan scheme from village funds where households could borrow from the fund to support individual family or unexpected expenses. In addition, some villagers see tours as a way to preserve their own culture and hand down stories to the next generation, for example through training young people as guides.

Villagers, however, have limited influence over the tours, which are directed by hotel management with fees set by individual hotels. According to both the Fiji Hotel and Tourism Association (FHTA) and the South Pacific Tourism Organisation (SPTO), arrangements for tours are made through individual discussions between resorts and villagers; there are no regulations in place and a lack of knowledge about how tour fees are distributed. Therefore, although tours provide an additional source of income for villages, it can be unpredictable. Tours are also strongly influenced by tourist expectations. For example, one hotel manager indicated that tourists increasingly want to watch Polynesian fire dancing with a declining interest in viewing traditional Fijian meke dances performed in the villages. As resorts incorporate opportunities to experience entertainment such as fire dancing and lovo nights (food from an underground oven) in the resort itself, many tours have become more minimalist with fees just covering the cost of maintaining the village (tidying, cutting grass, etc.). One villager explains how their income from tours is reliant on tourist demands:

It seems like the hotel controls everything from one point. If the hotel does not like how the tourists respond to the village tour they might pull out. We have no control (community member, Fiji).

As with the example from Zambia, an additional benefit arises when tourists continue to engage with the communities they have visited. Villagers in one village recounted how an American visitor fell in love with their village and asked how he could further support them. He subsequently funded the building of a new community hall for the village, and his photograph can now be seen hanging on the wall inside.

Discussion

The examples above illustrate that in these two case studies tourists are clearly a significant force in community development, whether through shaping ad hoc donation practices or founding and funding longer-term development projects. Importantly, each of these examples in the areas of both education and community tours demonstrates the strength of the connection between tourists and communities with tourists increasingly becoming the driving force behind community CSR projects in two geographically dispersed regions. This was substantiated by tourism officials in both locations. A Fiji Hotel and Tourism Association official pointed out, “sometimes CSR is not between us and the communities; it’s between guests and communities.” Similarly, a senior tourism official in the Department of Tourism in Zambia remarked that “CSR is client driven…. Government sees hotels and lodges that are doing CSR as responding to their market (tourists) and those hotels and lodges that are particularly engaging in CSR with adjacent communities as doing so because their clients expect them to do it…they respond to that demand”. This suggests that any assessment of community development impacts of tourism-related CSR should therefore consider the potential influence that tourists have over CSR. The following sections examine this relationship and the impact on communities in more detail.

Findings suggest that the relationship between tourists and CSR can be categorised in three ways, viewing tourists as influencers, drivers or architects of CSR (see Table 1). First, tourists can be seen as “influencers” where they serve as a key motivation behind the implementation of CSR programmes. CSR programmes are designed to be responsive to tourist demands to engage with communities, with examples including community and school tours. Activities on offer are subject to their ongoing popularity with tourists. Where tourists have greater influence over CSR programmes they can be seen as “drivers”. In these instances, tourists have significant influence over how CSR is shaped, implemented and accounted for. Examples include the Tujatane Community School in Zambia, where tourists have the ability to influence which projects are funded through their donation decisions and through their active involvement in the programmes as volunteers while on holiday. Less commonly, tourists manage both the design and implementation of CSR programmes and can be seen as “architects” of CSR, as in the case of the Bilo Bar and through volunteer roles on the Tujatane school board.

Table 1. Degrees of tourist involvement in CSR.

Role of tourists in CSR	Key characteristics	Examples
Influencers	Key motivation behind design and implementation of CSR programmes. Allows tourists to engage with communities and “give back” while on holiday.	Community tours School tours Adventure activities on community-owned land, e.g. rafting Collection and distribution of donations to communities
Drivers	Influence over how CSR is shaped, implemented and accounted for. Tourists have input into CSR programmes through donation decisions or active involvement in programme development.	Ongoing development programmes with tourist input, for example hotel-sponsored school, hotel-managed school libraries Tourists volunteering in schools, construction projects, health clinics
Architects	Design and implementation of CSR programme is managed by tourists. Tourists develop priorities, fundraise, make decisions on donations and monitor projects.	Tourist-led trust funds Tourist membership on boards of a school or charity

Source: authors.

Although tourists are not explicitly acknowledged in the CSR literature, it is clear that they can play a significant role in shaping CSR, which impacts on the livelihoods of people in host destinations. These findings from the tourism sector supplement existing research identifying CSR as typically directed by corporate head office by adding an understanding of how tourists also influence CSR. Acknowledging the degree of influence of tourists in community-centred CSR raises questions around where the balance of power and control in shaping CSR lies, and suggests greater reflection is necessary on the challenges and opportunities created by tourist-community interactions.

Challenges

First, the shaping of the CSR agenda by tourists limits the opportunities for communities to set priorities for their own development as articulated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, including the right to participation, equity and self-determination (United Nations, 2013). Recipients of CSR assistance are consulted but in practice have little control over projects, as shown in the case of the Tujatane Community Trust School in Zambia. Philanthropic donations are often directed by tourists, which can skew the agenda. Tourists often decide what they want to donate and where, limiting the ability of both hotels and partners to target the funding most appropriately. In this regard, communities are relegated to a position of passive recipients of gifts from hotels and tourists. The nature of the obligations implicit in the receipt of “gifts” from donors can be problematic for communities, reflecting the unequal dynamics of the encounters between “donor” and “beneficiary” and the expectation for gratitude in the recipient (Mauss, 1954; Rajak, 2010). While communities are not able to genuinely influence the development agenda, significant priorities may be overlooked.

Second, accountability of hotels for voluntary CSR is not primarily to communities, but is increasingly, to hotel guests (who want to see where their donations are made). This is consistent with existing research showing that the outcomes of development initiatives of private organisations tends to be showcased through websites reporting success stories rather than the impact or meaning of the work (Schulpen, 2007). Furthermore, communities are reluctant to demand accountability from tourists, or indeed hotels, for voluntary initiatives. Companies expect communities to conform to donor requirements: this can include evidencing self-help strategies as well as performing for tourists and displaying gratitude. The need for hotels to be responsive to satisfying guest demands as well as reporting to head office effectively means that the accountability to communities is minimal. It also adds to the imperative to determine beneficiaries through geographical parameters which prioritise locations adjacent to resorts.

Third, tourist demands for greater engagement with destination communities, either through tours or by volunteering can have a number of negative impacts. The expectation for school visits means that sometimes schools host visitors on a daily basis. The long-term impact of performing for tourists from a young age and continually having classes interrupted, being photographed and, for kindergarteners, picked up by tourists, is not generally considered. During their visit, the study space is transformed into one of performance and display. This not only risks objectifying the children but demands considerable emotional labour from them (Guiney, 2018). Schools reliant on volunteer staff have limited quality control over the selection of teachers, and while voluntourism provides a highly valued experience for the tourist, the benefits to the destination communities can be variable (Luh Sin, Oakes, & Mostafanezhad, 2015; McLennan, 2014; Raymond & Hall, 2008). These factors suggest that tourist involvement with communities can arguably present a greater challenge than an opportunity.

Finally, the promotion of tourist support for communities as part of the tourist experience can also promote an uncritical response to inequalities and perpetuate neo-colonial approaches to development. Neo-colonial relationships of dominance are manifested in patterns of tourism development arising from the control of tourism from the global North and are visible in the unequal power relationship between tourists and communities (see Mowforth & Munt, 2009, pp. 47–72). Tucker makes the link between tourist empathy for the “other” and neoliberal discourse, suggesting that market-oriented logic urging "the individual to ‘care’… in turn diverts attention away from transnational structures of inequality.” (2016, p. 35) That is, by creating opportunities for tourists to support local communities while on holiday, tourist companies effectively transfer the responsibility for ameliorating the living conditions of destination communities to the consumer, while limiting expectations for the industry to change its practices. Further, when volunteer tourists assume the roles of “expert” or “teacher” without the appropriate experience or qualifications, this embodies a “neo-colonial construction of the westerner as racially and culturally superior” (Raymond & Hall, 2008, p. 531) and can reinforce uncritical perceptions of poverty as accepted by the communities concerned or as a matter of luck (p. 533).

While there are opportunities afforded by heightened tourist awareness of destination communities, overall the issues identified above require significant consideration and careful planning if tourist-driven community development is to be meaningful to communities and deliver lasting development impacts. There is also much that hotels and lodges could do to better control tourist-community engagement and ensure beneficial outcomes.

Opportunities

Although hotels and tourists do not have expertise as development agents (Blowfield, 2007; Blowfield & Dolan, 2010; Fox, 2004), through collaborations with locally-based agents such as NGOs, community groups and local government, hotels have the ability to connect a wide network of donors with appropriate initiatives. Hotels can play an important coordinating role and connecting function for tourists who want to donate goods or services because of their unique position in the community. As demonstrated in examples from both Fiji and Zambia, this role by hotels is effectively a facilitative role that links tourism and community development through tourist-driven CSR. For example, some hotels in Zambia collaborated with NGOs, universities and a donor organisation to train local farmers in new vegetable gardening skills. Similarly, a hotel in Fiji collaborated with an NGO to facilitate the construction of an early childhood centre in a remote village.

The imperative to respond primarily to tourist demands rather than head office also provides hotels with the opportunity to tailor programmes to local demands rather than international priorities, for example profiling specific projects for guests to donate to and providing guidance on the choice of gifts to bring prior to the guest’s arrival in consultation with communities. In Fiji, one hotel was able to diverge from the international CSR programme set by head office to establish projects which were more closely aligned to local needs, for example focussing on education needs rather than child mortality in a context where child mortality is very low. Thus, if well managed, this link could provide a unique opportunity to channel the goodwill of tourists effectively for community development. With the interventions of stakeholders such as government and NGOs, this can also help to lower initial input costs for CSR and ensure that programmes directly target community needs, thereby encouraging both hotels and tourists to do more. In addition, this synergy could facilitate community involvement and help to address sustainability concerns expressed in literature for CSR initiatives (Ite, 2004; Muthuri, 2007; Muthuri, Moon, & Idemudia, 2012; Van Alstine & Afionis, 2013).

The greater engagement with different cultures and communities can also have the capacity to promote positive cross-cultural engagement if managed well. Raymond and Hall (2008) note the potential for voluntourism to create opportunities for cross-cultural understanding where there are greater opportunities for interaction and the appropriate support in place from the facilitating organisation and this is reflected in positive community perspectives of engaging with tourists through tours. Higgins-Desbiolles (2006, p. 1196), meanwhile, underscores the “transformative capacity” of tourism and calls for academia to identify “the tangible and intangible benefits [social tourism] could deliver to the entire community (not just the business sector) through research” (p. 1206). A critical tourism approach similarly suggests that empathy in tourists “may open up new forms of intersubjective understanding and thereby create more ethical relations between people across cultural and social divides” (Tucker, 2016, p. 1064).

Conclusion

Our research suggests that tourists play a far greater role in CSR than has been previously acknowledged. These findings indicate that the tourism industry presents a unique case of private sector-led development: tourists themselves play a significant role in shaping CSR, both through involvement in CSR activities and through influence over activities such as recreation and procurement. Increasingly, there is evidence of much more proactive involvement of tourists in community development, through shaping local education to establishing NGOs and trust funds. Although this phenomenon may not happen in all cases and in other scenarios hotels will still retain most of the control, we argue that the role of tourists in CSR in the tourism industry is worthy of greater attention. Our research shows that for CSR programmes in two distinct case study locations the primary accountability of hotels was to tourists rather than shareholders or head office. Tourist demand not only shaped the nature of CSR but was a significant driver in its implementation and management. In some instances, tourists were the principal architects in the design of community development initiatives. Much of the CSR in the case study hotels is funded, and even directed, by guests – either through development initiatives such as the construction and management of kindergartens and schools or through tourist participation in recreational activities such as community tours. As a key stakeholder group, tourist demands, and their perceptions of priorities for communities, play a significant part in shaping hotel-initiated community development. This leads us to suggest, in the title of this article, that we should be talking about TSR (tourist social responsibility), not just CSR. Further research is needed to identify the existence of this phenomenon in different settings and locations, with additional research exploring tourist perspectives on involvement in CSR to be welcomed.

From the perspectives of local communities, tourist influence over CSR gives rise to both challenges and opportunities. On the positive side, engaging directly with communities while on holiday can link tourism with development, creating opportunities for tourists to contribute directly to local development outcomes and building cross-cultural understanding and empathy. However, it also means that community priorities can be overlooked in favour of tourist preferences with accountability of hotels for outcomes primarily corresponding to satisfying tourist demands, and initiatives can ultimately serve to reinforce existing inequalities.

Nevertheless if the role of tourists is appropriately harnessed in tourism destinations, a greater contribution could be made by tourism-driven community development. In support of this proposition, we urge that policy makers/practitioners in government and CSR managers pay more attention to ensuring that the role and accountability of both hotels and tourists is directed to respective communities. In addition, measures that seek to encourage the role and interventions of other stakeholders such as government and NGOs become a necessary aid to success. The importance of encouraging these measures is premised on the need to support the development of equitable relationships in the CSR process, which is an important factor for achieving inclusiveness and sustainability (Scheyvens & Biddulph, 2017).

We consider that if managed appropriately the tourist quest for engagement with communities and their desire to “give back”, in combination with private sector goals to deliver development outcomes, could spur a wide range of options for expanding CSR-driven community development. However, to ensure positive outcomes for communities as well as for tourists, a number of safeguards must be put in place. First, programmes require genuine consultation with communities as partners in tourism CSR. Second, recognising that neither tourists nor hotels are development specialists, the involvement of other stakeholders, such as government and NGOs is essential to the sustainability and effectiveness of outcomes. Finally, the role that tourists play in CSR-led community development as influencers, drivers and architects should be acknowledged in the tourism industry with further research and planning undertaken to enhance future outcomes.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge helpful comments of anonymous reviewers in revising this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Royal Society of New Zealand [MAU1206] and the New Zealand Aid Programme.

Notes on contributors

Andrew Chilufya

Andrew Chilufya is Chief Tourism Development and Research Officer at the Ministry of Tourism and Arts, Zambia. His research examines tourism and community development in Zambia.

Emma Hughes

Emma Hughes is a Research Associate in Development Studies at Massey University. Her research examines community development and tourism from community perspectives.

Regina Scheyvens

Regina Scheyvens is a Professor in Development Studies at Massey University. Her research focuses on the relationship between tourism, sustainable development and poverty reduction.

Notes

1 See more details on donations and other details about Tujatane at: www.tongabezitrustschool.com.

2 The AGM processes are public and transparent with documentation posted online. http://bilobar.com/category/agm-meeting-minutes/.