Corporate Social Responsibility An Exploratory Re-Groen Kennisnet 391174

Corporate
Social Responsibility:
an exploratory research into views and
practices of tour operators in India

Petra Jansen
Wageningen University
MSc Thesis Leisure, Tourism and Environment

Wageningen University and Research Center
Department of Environmental Sciences
Cultural Geography Chair Group
MSc thesis Leisure, Tourism and Environment
Research Title:

Corporate Social Responsibility:
an exploratory research into views and practices of tour operators in India

Thesis code GEO-‐80433
Submission date August 14, 2016
Student’s name Petra Alexandra Maria Jansen
Student’s registration number 840507393050
Examiners Dr. ir. M.H. Jacobs
Prof. dr. V.R. van der Duim
1
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 4
List of figures .................................................................................................................................... 5
List of tables ...................................................................................................................................... 5
List of abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 6
Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 7
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 8
1.1 Background of the Study .................................................................................................................. 8
1.2 Problem Statement .......................................................................................................................... 11
1.3 Research Objectives and Research questions ........................................................................ 11
1.4 Relevance of the Study ................................................................................................................... 11
1.5 Structure ............................................................................................................................................. 13
2. Literature review and theoretical approach ................................................................... 14
2.2 Concepts .............................................................................................................................................. 14
2.2.1 Responsible / Sustainable Tourism ....................................................................................... 14
2.2.2 Corporate Social Responsibility .............................................................................................. 16
2.3 Theoretical Approach ..................................................................................................................... 18
2.3.1 Drivers .............................................................................................................................................. 18
2.3.2 Drivers versus Motivation ......................................................................................................... 20
2.3.3 Theoretical perspectives to explain the drivers ................................................................ 21
Shareholders Theory ............................................................................................................................................ 22
Agency Theory ......................................................................................................................................................... 22
Stakeholders Theory ............................................................................................................................................. 23
Institutional Theory .............................................................................................................................................. 24
Culture Centered Approach Theory ............................................................................................................... 25
2.4 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 25
2.5 Conceptual Model ............................................................................................................................. 26
2.6 Research Questions ......................................................................................................................... 27
3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 28
3.1 Justification of Methods ................................................................................................................. 28
3.2 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................. 28
Qualitative research .............................................................................................................................................. 29
Quantitative research ........................................................................................................................................... 30
3.3 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 32
3.4 Validity and Reliability ................................................................................................................... 33
3.5 Research Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 33
4. Results .......................................................................................................................................... 35
4.1 Characteristics .................................................................................................................................. 35
4.1.1 Surveys ............................................................................................................................................................ 35
4.1.2 Interviews ...................................................................................................................................................... 36
4.2 Research question 1 -‐ Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility ................... 36
4.2.1 Surveys ............................................................................................................................................................ 37
4.2.2 Interviews ...................................................................................................................................................... 39
4.3 Research Question 2 – What are the views of tour operators on CSR ............................ 41
4.3.1 Surveys ............................................................................................................................................................ 41
4.3.2 Interviews ...................................................................................................................................................... 42
4.4 Research Question 3 -‐ Corporate Social Responsibility Actions ...................................... 44
Employees ................................................................................................................................................................. 44
Social ............................................................................................................................................................................ 46
2
Environmental ......................................................................................................................................................... 48
Economic .................................................................................................................................................................... 49
4.5 Research Question 4 – Drivers of CSR ....................................................................................... 51
4.5.1 Quantitative results .................................................................................................................................... 51
4.5.2 Qualitative results ....................................................................................................................................... 61
5. Discussion and Conclusion .................................................................................................... 64
5.1 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 64
5.1.1 Understanding of CSR .................................................................................................................. 64
5.1.2 Views on CSR .................................................................................................................................. 65
5.1.3 Corporate Social Responsibility Actions ............................................................................... 66
5.1.4 Corporate Social Responsibility Drivers .............................................................................. 68
5.1.5 Reflections on Methods .............................................................................................................. 70
5.1.6 Reflection on the used theory .................................................................................................. 70
5.2 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 71
5.2.1 The main research question ..................................................................................................... 71
5.2.2 Recommendations and Future Research ............................................................................. 73
References ....................................................................................................................................... 75
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 84
Appendix l – Interview Guidelines .................................................................................................... 84
Appendix ll – Survey CSR ...................................................................................................................... 87
Appendix lll – Quantitative Results ................................................................................................... 94

3
Acknowledgements

This thesis officially closes of a period in my life. I am excited that I have almost reached
my goal of obtaining a masters degree. Nevertheless, there is also a sad part that this
chapter in my life is finished. I remember that from a young age, I already dreamt of
attending university. My first class at Wageningen University was a wonderful
experience. It felt like finally being where I needed to be. A place where they discussed
topics that needed to be discussed and questioned things that needed to questioned. My
master brought me so much and made me grow immensely. I have worked very hard to
be where I am now. Often not taking the easy route and losing my confidence here and
there but luckily always finding it back again. I am proud to present the end result of my
studies and that leaves me only with thanking everyone who helped me to get there.

I could not have done it without the support of many. To start, I would like to thank my
loved ones. I seriously neglected my boyfriend, family and friends but all those who love
me, understood and accepted it. Without them and their understanding I could not have
done it. I would like to thank my supervisors – Chin Ee Ong who supported me in the
beginning and Maarten Jacobs who took over and guided me with patience and gave me
advise when I needed it. During this research, I was often alone with my thoughts in my
world of CSR. Whoever asked me about my research; I generally lost with just giving
them the title of my research. For me, my research was an absolute logical choice. My
introduction to India was through my internship for NGO EQUATIONS in Bangalore in
2012. I did not fall in love with the country straight away but sometimes love takes a
little bit of time. I can absolutely say that returning to the country in 2015 felt in a way
like coming home again. Passion and love for the country made my research even more
interesting. To conclude, I would like to thank EQUATIONS for guiding me in my
internship and offering me support in the beginning stages of my thesis. I am under no
illusion that my research will change the world but adding some knowledge, it might
help a tiny bit in reaching a more sustainable form of tourism. During my research I
came across the saying underneath, which to me is very appropriate.

“Tourism is like fire: you can cook your dinner on it, but it can burn down your house."
-‐Asian saying-‐

If we all add a little bit of knowledge, which can lead to actions, we can hopefully cook
dinner without setting things on fire. With these final words I am proudly presenting
you my thesis.

Petra Jansen

4
List of figures
Figure 1: Conceptual model ......................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 2: Corporate Social Responsibility Indicators ....................................................................... 31
List of tables

Table 1: Characteristics – Tour operators ............................................................................................. 36
Table 2: Views on Corporate Social Responsibility ........................................................................... 42
Table 3: Actions – Employees ..................................................................................................................... 44
Table 4: Actions – Social ................................................................................................................................ 47
Table 5: Actions – Environmental ............................................................................................................. 48
Table 6: Actions – Economic ........................................................................................................................ 50
Table 7: Descriptive results -‐ Drivers ...................................................................................................... 52
Table 8: Cultural factors ................................................................................................................................ 53
Table 9: Institutional factors ....................................................................................................................... 53
Table 10: Stakeholders .................................................................................................................................. 54
Table 11: Shareholders .................................................................................................................................. 54
Table 12: Employees ....................................................................................................................................... 55
Table 13: Social ................................................................................................................................................. 56
Table 14: Environmental .............................................................................................................................. 56
Table 15: economic ......................................................................................................................................... 57
Table 16: Variables .......................................................................................................................................... 57
Table 17 – Regression Model 1 .................................................................................................................. 94
Table 18: Regression model 1 – Employees ......................................................................................... 58
Table 20: Regression model 2 – Social .................................................................................................... 59
Table 22: Regression model 3 – Environment .................................................................................... 60
Table 24: Regression model 4 -‐ Economic ........................................................................................... 60

5
List of abbreviations

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
FTA Foreign Tourist Arrivals
MoT Ministry of Tourism
GSTC Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria
STCI Sustainable Tourism Criteria for India
UNWTO United Nations World Tourism Organization
RT Responsible Tourism
TISS Tata institute of Social Sciences
DPE Department of Public Enterprises
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
UN United Nations
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
CCA Culture Centered Approach
IATO Indian Association of Tour Operators
ADTOI Association of Domestic Tour Operators in India
TAAI Tourism Association … India
IATA Indian Association of Travel Agents

6
Summary

Tourism in India is growing immensely and the topic of sustainable growth has been
part of discussions. At the moment sustainable tourism is part of the agenda of the
government but actions seem to be lacking. Related to the topic of sustainable tourism is
the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). CSR has been a well researched
topic nevertheless research in India in relation to the tourism industry is lacking. The
objective of this research is to provide knowledge about the tour operator industry in
India and their views and practices on CSR. Therefore, in this study the research
question “What are the views and practices of Indian Tour Operators on Corporate
Social Responsibility in relation to sustainable tourism?” is answered. Research on CSR
in the tour operator industry of India has not been conducted; therefore the research is
exploratory in nature. CSR can contribute to a more sustainable form of tourism
therefore this research contributes to the sustainability debate.
Literature research was conducted and studies within the scope of this research
are analysed. The theoretical framework gives an explanation of the most important
concepts for this research: sustainable tourism and corporate social responsibility. To
analyse the understanding and views of tour operators, different studies have been
discussed and described. An important part of the research focuses on CSR actions and
drivers for these actions. A deeper theoretical understanding is given by considering the
different theoretical perspectives that CSR and CSR research has been viewed from. This
research therefore purposely has a broad theoretical framework. Among the most
important theoretical perspectives are: Shareholders theory, Agency theory,
Stakeholders Theory, Resource-‐based theory, Institutional Theory and Culture theory.
The research has a mixed methods approach with a qualitative and quantitative
part. The results of the research show that although the majority of tour operators have
an understanding of CSR, there still is a relatively large part of tour operators that do not
have any understanding of CSR. CSR is defined by many tour operators as ‘giving to
projects’ and CSR is not often linked to company actions. Actions were analysed 4 fields;
employees, social, environment and economic. Results show that tour operators do have
certain CSR actions in place especially regarding employees and in-‐house environmental
policies. Actions rarely reach the supply chain and generally tour operators do not
consider that part of their responsibility and/or within their reach. A relation is shown
between external drivers and CSR actions. Stakeholders, shareholders and institutional
environment can be a driver of CSR actions.

7
1. Introduction
This chapter will start with explaining the background for this research. The second
paragraph provides the problem statement. This is followed by the research objectives
and research questions. Furthermore it provides the relevance of the study and finally
the structure of the research is given in the last paragraph.

1.1 Background of the Study
India's tourism industry has seen an immense growth over the past decades. The
Foreign Tourist Arrivals (FTAs) grew from 1.28 million in 1981, to 1.68 million in 1991,
to 2.73 million in 2003, to reach 6.97 million in 2013. Furthermore, the number of
domestic tourists in India significantly rose as well; from 309.04 million in 2003 to
1145.28 million in 2013 (Tourism Statistics, MoT, 2015). The mission of the Ministry of
Tourism (MoT) is to achieve a level of 11.24 million Foreign Tourist Arrivals and 1450
million domestic tourist visits by the year 2016-‐2017. The MoT wants to achieve this by
promoting sustainable tourism as a priority. The most recent numbers show that
tourism accounts for 6.7% of the National GDP (2014), this equals 8.7% of the total
employment (World Travel & Tourism Council). Analysing the numbers of the last ten
years it is obvious that tourism in India is growing fast and that it is an important sector
for the economy. The importance becomes even more obvious when comparing it to
2003-‐2004, when the same industry ‘only’ contributed 2% to national GDP. Because of
the growth in this industry, tourism is an important sector in the economy of India.
Research has shown that tourism can be a contributor for economic growth and success.
Tourism can create employment, bring earnings, provide infrastructure and help to
preserve the environment (Dodds and Kuehnel, 2010).
As the tourism industry of India shows this enormous growth, the debate of
sustainability has become a hot issue. Although the MoT mentions sustainable tourism
in their mission, many of the government’s documents show both elements of
sustainable as well as unsustainable growth. Growth is one of the main objectives of the
tourism policy of the Government of India. Because it is believed that tourism has many
backward and forward linkages, the government states that tourism has the potential to
ensure poverty alleviation and growth with equity (Annual Report MoT, 2014).
Within recent years, a more sustainable form of tourism is slowly making ways
into general policy. In the annual report there are chapters regarding eco-‐tourism and
sustainable tourism. Since 1998 the MoT has been engaging in Responsible Tourism
(RT) policies, starting with policy and guidelines on ecotourism in India. This was
followed by the collaboration of different organizations to promote the Global
Sustainable Tourism Council and their Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria (GSTC). The
limitation of these criteria was that they focused solely on hotels and tour operators and
not on the other major players in the tourism industry such as local communities,
transport and airlines. Therefore, the decision was made to take matters further and
define criteria for sustainable tourism that suits Indian conditions.
As part of the focus on sustainable tourism, the MoT appointed the Tourism
Sustainable Council to develop Sustainable Tourism Criteria for India. Sustainable
8
Tourism criteria for India (STCI) and indicators for hotels and tour operators have been
finalized as part of the 12th Five Year Plan. The intention is to have tourism that benefits
the socio-‐economic benefit of local communities without causing damage to the
environment and local culture. Although further developed, these new criteria still only
apply to tour operators and the accommodation sector, as several major stakeholders
(such as airlines) fall outside of the reign of the MoT. The STCI for India will be
mandatory to adopt in the future (Annual Report, MoT 2014).
Apart from the national efforts, there are also state initiatives that focus on a
sustainable form of tourism. The state of Kerala is the forerunner in RT and was even
awarded in 2014 with top honours at the annual United Nations World Tourism
Organization (UNWTO) Awards for Excellence and Innovation in Tourism. Kerala
Tourism started with implementing RT practices at four destinations: Kumarakom,
Wayanad, Kovalam and Thekkady. Hereby focusing on economic, social-‐cultural and
environmental responsibility. In 2010 the state officially accepted the development of an
RT certification scheme. In India, Kerala has so far been the only state, which actively
promotes RT (RT Kerala).
The importance and development of responsible/sustainable tourism is closely
related to the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Nowadays businesses
have to be more concerned about ethical, environmental, legal, commercial and public
standards. Next to shareholders, all stakeholders are influenced and/or involved in
business processes (Crane and Matten, 2008). The implementation of CSR within
corporations worldwide is expanding rapidly. However, concerning CSR in India’s
tourism industry it seems that CSR generally is approached as a project-‐oriented
strategy – instead of the implementation of a sustainable strategy for all company action.
Thus, the tourism field in India still seems to be behind regarding a CSR policy.
There is a possibility that CSR in India is related to the situation in the country. Whereas
governments in the west have a strong social security net, the government in India still
has a large focus on meeting the basic needs of the people. As certain aspects are still
underdeveloped, such as social security, healthcare and education, the government sees
it necessary that corporations take part of the responsibility. Involvement in CSR from
the government has started by formulating CSR guidelines for corporations.
The recent concept of CSR in India emerged after liberalisation and the
emergence of India as an economic power. The realisation of the interaction between
economic growth and social consciousness started to gain more attention in both private
and public sector corporations. An increase in community relations, stakeholder
communication and impact monitoring and assessment became visible. Governmental
and non-‐governmental institutions started working with corporations to implement
CSR. In 2012 the first national conference on CSR was organised to analyse and discuss
CSR in the Indian context (Ray and Raju, 2014).
Ray and Raju (2014) mention that a move from contribution and aid towards a
more structured CSR is developing. Their examples still focus on projects rather than a
more inclusive form of CSR as part of business management and strategies. However,
the number of companies that see CSR as a part of their business structure is increasing
(Perspectives of Business, 2007 in Ray and Raju, 2014). Corporations seem to come to
9
the realisation that CSR is not just a cost but also an important factor for the image of the
company and that it may even contribute to strengthening against competition (Raju,
2014). Research of Karmayog (2010 in Raju, 2014) that involved 500 Indian companies,
showed that CSR practices have improved, awareness is higher and reporting has
increased.
On the other hand, one of the most interesting developments in this field is the
decision of the government to change legislation. As of 2015 companies that fall into a
certain category are obliged to spend 2% of their net profit on CSR. The recent decision
of the government will certainly change CSR. Mandatory spending on CSR will apply to
companies with at least Rs. 5 crore (approximately 700.000 Euro) of net profit or Rs.
1,000 crore (approximately 140 million Euro) of turnover or Rs. 500 crore of net worth
(approximately 70 million Euro). Companies that fall into these categories have to spend
2% of their net profit on CSR (Indian Express). The estimation is that about 8.000
companies in India apply to the mandatory spending of 2% (Business Standard). As part
of the movement towards implementing CSR in India, Tata institute of Social Sciences
(TISS) and the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE), government of India developed
a centralised system. TISS is now hosting the National CSR Hub which core functions are
research, publication, knowledge dissemination, capacity building and advocacy (CSR
Hub).
Among all the players in the field, the major players in the tourism industry are
tour operators as they can influence their supply chain. Their corporate behaviour does
not only involve their own corporation. At the moment there is limited knowledge of
tour operators and their responsible behaviour, in particular regarding CSR. Research
shows divided opinions about CSR in Asia and in India. A point of agreement is the fact
that in large parts of the world CSR has become a popular concept during the last
decades. Some researchers find that CSR awareness in Asia is still lower than in other
parts of the world. Only in the last few years CSR activities have been taken more
seriously by Asian corporations (Tsai et al. 2010). Most corporations in India lack well-‐
defined CSR guidelines (Ray and Raju, 2014), whereas other research states that CSR in
India has a long history (Arora and Puranik, 2004; Aravind, 2011; Balasubramaniam et
al., 2005; Jose et al., 2003).
In the 19th century, merchants and religious groups would already help out
communities. Especially religious communities have always had the belief that giving is
important (Jose et al., 2003 in Aravind, 2011). After the independence it was mostly
public companies that would participate in CSR activities that were sponsored by the
state (Mohan, 2001 in Aravind, 2011). CSR is many times considered a western
phenomenon, mainly because institutions and standards are considered stronger in
western countries. This can be one of the reasons why there is no unison in research
concerning the topic of CSR in India (Chapple and Moon, 2005 in Aravind, 2011). What
CSR in the tourism industry of India exactly entails is not clear at the moment. Empirical
research on CSR in India is linked to many fields with the exemption of tourism.

10
1.2 Problem Statement
With the growth of tourism, many problems in India have emerged as well. At the
moment many negative effects of tourism in India are visible. There is a need for growth
in a sustainable manner. Recent years have shown uncontrollable and unrestricted
growth of the hospitality industry. The attraction of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and
liberalization of rules do not seem to have common grounds with sustainable tourism.
As responsibility in tourism is shared between different stakeholders, it means that
responsibility of the negative effects of tourism is not always taken.
Many stakeholders play a part in the movement towards sustainable tourism.
Tour operators are the main players in the industry and a big part of sustainable
tourism is in their hands (van Wijk and Persoon, 2006). Mainly because of the power
and the central position of tour operators in the value chain, the focus of this research is
on tour operators. At the moment, little research is available on the role of tour
operators and what their views and actions are regarding sustainable tourism. It seems
that many companies do not have CSR policies but when they do have them, they focus
on project-‐oriented CSR. Hereby CSR is limited to the donation to projects by companies.
Sometimes these projects are related to their business or the tourism industry but often
the projects are not related. Another issue is that there is hardly any reporting and there
are concerns regarding mandatory CSR, such as a rise in green washing.
To move towards sustainable tourism, knowledge about the current situation is
essential. At the moment there are some accounts of irresponsible behaviour of tour
operators and also some examples that show the opposite. However, no scientific
research has been conducted to support these statements yet.

1.3 Research Objectives and Research questions
The purpose of this research is to provide an exploratory study of tour operators in
Indian and evaluate their awareness level of CSR and sustainable tourism and their
actions in this field. This leads to the following main research question:

What are the views and practices of Indian Tour Operators on Corporate Social
Responsibility in relation to sustainable tourism?

As this research is explorative in nature, theory will lead to more specific questions. Sub
questions are therefore formulated after elaborating the theoretical framework.

1.4 Relevance of the Study
This research identifies, describes and analyses the tour operator business in India with
regard to sustainable tourism. The main relevance of this study is on a social level as this
research contributes to the knowledge on practices of tour operators. Especially the
MoT and NGO’s will benefit as knowledge about sustainable tourism and CSR is the first
part that is needed before actions can change policies or behaviour, especially with the
recent development of creating the Sustainable Tourism Criteria in India. Scientifically it
11
will benefit research in the field of sustainability, especially regarding research in the
field of CSR.
Research in the fields of CSR is extensive but quite limited with respect to
tourism. Coles et al. (2013) give a critical appraisal of research in CSR in the field of
tourism. According to their findings, there is limited research resulting only in a partial
body of knowledge. There are three main topic areas that research focuses on:
implementation, the economic rationale for acting more responsibly and the social
relations of CSR (Coles et al., 2013). An example is the research on CSR in tourism of
Mitrokostas and Apostolakis (2013), which focuses on one part; the economic incentives
to engage in CSR activities. Factors that can influence a firm’s decision are the size of the
group of consumers that is conscious about CSR, the price that companies can charge
and underlying costs of CSR activities. Research on the understanding of CSR in the tour
operating industry is limited. Van Wijk and Persoon (2006) researched 42
internationally operating tour operators. Their research shows that reporting on CSR of
tour operators is limited and many companies are vague about their actions. Compared
to other industries the tourism industry performs less well. This research does not make
an attempt to give a deeper explanation.
Dodds and Kuehnel (2010) analysed tour operators in Canada and the study
revealed that the awareness on social, economic and environmental impacts of mass
tourism is increasing. However, actions related to CSR of tour operators are limited. A
small part of this research focuses on drivers and it seems that society and profit can be
drivers. Furthermore, out of the studies about CSR in the tour operating industry, the
majority of studies are conducted in Europe and the United States. Comprehensive
studies on CSR in India are limited and more research is still necessary to analyse CSR in
India (Ray and Raju, 2014). Only a handful of studies focus on CSR in India. Aravind
(2011) examines what the understanding of CSR is amongst companies in India.
Important drivers are moral motives and/or profit. Lack of resources and difficulty of
implementing CSR are reasons for Indian companies to refrain from having a CSR policy.
Dhanesh (2015) also researched drivers for CSR with Indian companies and concluded,
like Aravind (2011), that moral and economic imperatives are drivers for CSR.
There are no studies in India of CSR with tour operators. Addressing this
knowledge gap is essential for understanding CSR among tour operators in India. It
takes the understanding and discussion of CSR outside Europe and the United States
further. The discussed studies lead to the theoretical relevance of this study. This
research will broaden the academic understanding of responsibility issues within
tourism. It will add up to research on CSR and sustainable tourism and more specifically
for sustainable tourism in India. So far CSR of tour operators has not been researched
much and in general the topic of CSR has been approached from a specific perspective.
Some of the mentioned studies will be further discussed in chapter 2. In all studies it is
visible that the theoretical focus is generally in one area. This study will have a focus on
a broad theoretical understanding. Previous research has focused on drivers or
motivations from one theoretical perspective. As CSR has not been researched yet with
tour operators in India, this research does not exclude any theories. Chapter 2 will
provide further insights in understanding CSR theoretically. Relevant studies will be
12
discussed, leading to the insight that most studies are limited to one theoretical
approach. In this study several theoretical approaches will be taken into account and
might therefore generate new theoretical perspectives.

1.5 Structure
Chapter 1 explains the background and the problem statement, which leads to the
research objectives and the main research question. Furthermore, the relevance of this
study is explained in the first chapter. Chapter 2 provides the theoretical framework this
research is based upon. First, the different concepts for this study will be explained; the
concepts of sustainable tourism and Corporate Social Responsibility. Subsequently, a
theoretical overview will be given with a focus on the theoretical approach for this
research. In chapter 3 the methodology of this research will be explained. Chapter 4 will
give the results and a deep analysis. In chapter 5 the conclusion and discussion will be
given accompanied by recommendations.

13
2. Literature review and theoretical approach
This chapter will start with defining the most important concepts for this research. This
chapter also provides an overview of significant literature, which leads to the
explanation of a deeper theoretical framework.

2.2 Concepts
The most important concepts for this research are sustainable tourism and CSR. It is
therefore important to explain these concepts and give the adopted definition for this
research. There is a daily understanding of these concepts that everybody shares. But as
these concepts will be different than daily language terms, it is important to define and
explore literature on these concepts.

2.2.1 Responsible / Sustainable Tourism
Despite the positive contributions tourism may possibly provide, tourism often is
not very responsible. Negative environmental and/or economical effects of tourism are
a problem in many tourism destinations. Issues in tourism vary from low payments,
leakages and low job status to displacement and depletion of natural resources (Dodds
and Kuehnel, 2010; van Wijk and Persoon, 2006). In the last decades different forms of
tourism and various understandings are visible. Research in tourism has developed with
that as well. In this research there is a focus on sustainable tourism and therefore an
understanding of the concept is important.
Tourism has developed through the decades and different ‘forms’ of tourism can
be seen. In the 1960s and 1970s, tourism was mainly looked at from a neo-‐liberal point
of view. The ‘trickle down’ effect was assumed as the truth and dominated strongly
(Spenceley and Meyer, 2012; Scheyvens, 2011). One of the beliefs was that through the
generation of jobs and foreign exchange earnings, economic development and
prosperity would come to tourism destinations (Williams, 1998; Spenceley and Meyer,
2012). The discussion about more sustainable forms of tourism already started during
the 1970s. A few of the first researchers that started the debate were George Young
(1973) and Claude Kaspar (1973). Both researchers mentioned the environment in
relation to tourism. In the 1980s Krippendorf (1984, 1987) was one of the first
researchers to criticise mass tourism (Mihalic, 2014). Views on tourism changed in the
1980s and the 1990s. The realisation emerged that tourism in the form as it existed at
that point in time did not lead to poverty reduction or the reduction of inequality
(Spenceley and Meyer, 2012). In the decades that followed different important steps
towards sustainability were taken; the earth summits of 1992 (Rio de Janeiro) and 2002
(Johannesburg) were major steps where the topic of sustainable development was
discussed among many governments and heads of states (Mowforth and Munt, 2005).
Later in the 1990s the neo-‐liberal view became stronger again; tourism was seen
as a mechanism for poorer countries to trade their way out of poverty. This was also the
time when alternative options to mass tourism were fully explored. At the beginning of
the new millennium, this view was further challenged. It became eminent that
14
liberalization often did not lead to economic growth and inequalities between developed
and developing countries were increasing (Spenceley and Meyer, 2012).
In tourism, especially since 2002, all stakeholders have been urged to take
greater action towards sustainability (Coles et al., 2013). This has also led to the
emergence and further development of many different forms of tourism as an answer to
mass tourism. Some examples are: eco-‐tourism, pro-‐poor tourism, sustainable tourism
and responsible tourism. All these forms have common grounds, which are based on
environmental, economic, social, and cultural sustainability principles; when these
dimensions are balanced it will guarantee long-‐term sustainability. Since the
development of mass tourism there still does not seem to be a unified answer to the
question whether tourism contributes to poverty reduction and the diminishing of
inequality levels. An intensive debate has been ongoing about the concept of doing
business in a more sustainable way.
Sustainable and responsible tourism are often considered to be the same. In the
end, both sustainable and responsible tourism contribute to a better world. It urges
businesses to focus of social and environmental aspects that might be overlooked in
mainstream tourism. Responsible tourism has more of a focus on the responsibilities
that have to be taken by all stakeholders; responsibility cannot be outsourced (Goodwin,
2012). Most important for defining responsible tourism is that the development is
economically, environmentally and culturally beneficial (Mody et al., 2014). There is not
one definition that encompasses everything. Following the Cape Town Declaration,
responsible tourism is characterised by the following points:
• Minimizes negative economic, environmental and social impacts;
• Generates greater economic benefits for local people and enhances the well-‐
being of host communities, improves working conditions and access to the
industry;
• Involves local people in decisions that affect their lives and life changes;
• Makes positive contributions to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage,
to the maintenance of the world’s diversity;
• Provides more enjoyable experiences for tourists through more meaningful
connections with local people, and a greater understanding of local cultural,
social and environmental issues;
• Provide access for people with disabilities and the disadvantaged;
• Is culturally sensitive, engenders respect between tourists and hosts, and builds
local pride and confidence. (http://responsibletourismpartnership.org/)
Goodwin (2011) who is one of the leading researchers of the responsible tourism
movement gives the following explanation: “Responsible Tourism is about everyone
involved taking responsibility for making tourism more sustainable”.
The discussion on sustainable and responsible tourism has also been
addressed in research and even led to the new term of responsustable tourism. This is
not a new form of tourism but a merge of the two concepts (Mihalic, 2014). This
research focuses on sustainable tourism, although responsible tourism could also have
been chosen. As responsible tourism does not seem to have a clear definition, the
15
concept used in this research will be sustainable tourism. Also, sustainable tourism
seems to be a more accepted term and is widely recognised. In India both with tour
operators and the government, generally sustainable tourism is used as a concept.
Different criteria for sustainable tourism have been used over the years. The three
pillars of sustainable tourism -‐ environmental, socio-‐cultural and economic -‐ seem to be
most accepted (Mihalic, 2014). Over the years there has been a wide variation in the
usage of the definition of sustainable tourism. Understanding the concept and realising
that the concept is not value-‐free is of utmost importance. Because of different interests
and dimensions it is unlikely that there will be a completely accepted definition that is
universally applied (Butler, 1999). Butler (1999) gives the following definition:

‘Tourism which is developed and maintained in an area (community, environment) in
such a manner and at such a scale that it remains viable over an infinite period and does
not degrade or alter the environment (human and physical) in which it exists to such a
degree that it prohibits the successful development and well being of other activities and
processes” (Butler 1993: 29).

A more recent, clear and used definition is the definition of the World Tourism
Organization:

‘Tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and
environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment
and host communities” (UNWTO).

This definition recognizes the different dimensions (economic, social and
environmental) and addresses the different stakeholders involved and is therefore the
adapted definition for this research.

2.2.2 Corporate Social Responsibility
An important concept in the sustainability debate is the emergence of Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR). The debate on CSR started in the 1950s with the emergence of the
book of Bowen (1953) on Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (Garriga and Melé,
2004). According to Carroll and Shabana (2010) this book was ahead of its time but it
contributed to thoughts on the topic. The focus was mainly on the responsibilities of
companies towards society. Other writers, such as Levitt (1958) focused on the dangers
of social responsibility. In the 1960s and the 1970s, CSR grew in popularity and took
shape (Carrol and Shabana, 2010). Different but related concepts have emerged through
time, such as: Sustainable Development, Triple Bottom Line, Corporate Societal
Accountability and Corporate Social Responsibility (van Marrewijk, 2003; van
Marrewijk, 2005).
Corporate Social Responsibility is interpreted in many different ways. About 40
years ago Votaw (1972) wrote: “Corporate Social Responsibility means something, but
not always the same thing to everybody” (p. 51 in Garriga and Melé, 2004). Since then,
16
the situation has not changed much. Regarding the definition of CSR, everybody gives a
different meaning to it and CSR has a very broad meaning (van Marrewijk, 2003).
Currently there is not one generally accepted definition (Dodds and Kuehnel, 2009,
Boxenbaum 2004, Campbell, 2007). A few of the most accepted CSR definitions are
described below.
According to Campbell (2007) the most important aspect of CSR is ‘doing no
harm’. This limits the understanding to a minimal form of CSR. Matten and Moon (2008)
agree that CSR should not be defined in detail for some research as meanings vary
across nations. Although this might be applicable for some research, a more
comprehensive definition serves the goal of this research, as only ‘doing no harm’ is not
accurately describing CSR and too limited.
The UN (2007) describes different approaches in CSR. The overall definition is
very broad; CSR is described as “the overall contribution of business to sustainable
development”. The definition on CSR from the World Business Council on Sustainable
Development (2000) has a more comprehensive character than the basic definition of
the UN, namely: “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the commitment of business to
contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their
families, the local community and society at large to improve their quality of life”.
Although comprehensive, there is the lack of specifically mentioning the environment.
The new definition of the Commission of European Communities (2011) is even more
comprehensive and is in line with the goals that need to be achieved with CSR when the
goal is sustainable tourism:

“... a process to integrate social, environmental, ethical, human rights and consumer
concerns into their business operations and core strategy in close collaboration with
their stakeholders”.

CSR encompasses different dimensions and the definition of the Commission of
European communities includes these dimensions. Therefore, this is the adopted
definition of CSR for this research. Dahlsrud (2006) analysed 37 different definitions of
CSR. In his research five different dimensions are mentioned: environmental, social,
economic, stakeholder and voluntariness. The definition of the Commission of European
Communities from 2001 is the highest regarding frequency count and includes all five
dimensions. Although all dimensions were important at the time of the research of
Dahlrud, the adopted legislation in India changes this. How and if voluntariness should
be involved is a topic of debate.

Triple Bottom Line
The corporate responsibility agenda includes a wide range of issues and the ‘triple
bottom line’ is an important concept related to CSR. The concept was coined by John
Elkington in 1994 and was more frequently used since the late 1990s. According to
Elkington, social and environmental dimensions had to be addressed in a more
integrated way. The Brundtland Report in 1987 led to this as well (Elkington, 2004). The
triple bottom line focuses on three main dimensions: economic, social and
17
environmental (Kumar et al., 2001). From 1995 the triple bottom line led to the
formulation of the 3Ps; people, planet and profits. Multinational as well as smaller
companies are using the triple bottom line. Organizations, government and political
parties are accepting or advocating for the triple bottom line principle (Norman and
March, 2003).

In this paragraph the most important concepts are explained and defined. To analyse
actions of tour operators regarding CSR, it is essential to have an understanding of these
concepts. The described concepts and adopted definitions will be used for this research.
For research on CSR it is important to define the area and field of research as the
abundance of research can make the research unfocused. This research focuses on the
views and practices of tour operators.

2.3 Theoretical Approach
For a deeper understanding of CSR, the literature regarding this topic was analysed. This
led to the area of studies focused on motivation and drivers of CSR. In this paragraph the
variations in CSR are explained. For a deeper theoretical understanding this paragraph
explains drivers and motivation and discusses different theoretical approaches
regarding the explanation of drivers and motivation.

2.3.1 Drivers
The discussion on drivers of CSR has been extensive and viewed from many different
perspectives. To understand what drives companies to be socially and environmentally
responsible, there are a great number of drivers that have been proposed by
researchers. Various authors that researched drivers have developed different
approaches to evaluate an organization’s responsibility (van Marrewijk, 2003). Next to
explaining drivers it also categorizes the sort of CSR that companies are showing.
Different researchers use different terms for example categories, approaches, levels,
dimensions and models.
One of the most accepted views is ‘the four kinds of social responsibilities’
proposed by Carroll (1991). The four categories are: economic, legal, ethical and
philanthropic. This can be displayed in the pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility. It
shows that the foundation is the economic performance of the company but together
with this aspect a second aspect comes in; companies need to obey the law. The third
aspect of the company is to be ethical, which entails the obligation to do what is right
and minimize harm to all stakeholders (employees, consumers, environment et cetera).
The last aspect explains that companies have a philanthropic responsibility and that it is
expected that they improve quality of life for communities. Although these four concepts
have been treated separately, it is important to focus on all four aspects.
Three approaches to the concept of CSR are mentioned by several authors in
literature and described by van Marrewijk (2003) as the shareholders approach, the
stakeholders approach and the societal approach. For companies that have the
shareholders approach, the most important aim of the company is to maximize profit
18
where CSR only is important if it contributes to the aim of business. CSR should be
regarded as a task of the government, not of businesses (van Marrewijk, 2003; Foley
2000 in van Marrewijk, 2003). Companies with the stakeholders approach do not only
focus on their shareholders but also look at the bigger picture. All the stakeholders that
can affect or are affected by the company are taken into account (Freeman, 1984 in van
Marrewijk, 2003). The societal approach is considered as the broadest view on CSR.
Companies are part of the society and therefore responsible for the society in which they
operate. The needs and satisfaction of the society play an important role (van Marrewijk,
2003). The categorisation of CSR can give meaning and gives a deeper understanding of
the CSR approaches that companies have and will therefore be used for analysing in this
research as well.
To understand CSR and the ambitions of tour operators, levels of corporate
sustainability are used in different studies. Various researchers describe these levels of
CSR. Van der Woerd and van Den Brink (2004) describe four levels. Van Marrewijk
(2003) builds further on the three different approaches and explains five ambition
levels, which are:
• Compliance-‐driven: CSR is seen as a duty and an obligation towards the society.
By providing welfare and charity, companies feel their behaviour towards society
is correct.
• Profit-‐driven: The business is the most important and financially CSR should
contribute to a better financial state of the company. Social, ethical and ecological
aspects can be part of decision-‐making but only if it contributes to the financial
bottom-‐line.
• Caring CS: Companies do not only find profit and laws important but also have
economic, social and ecological initiatives because they care about society and
the planet.
• Synergistic CS: All stakeholders are involved in a well-‐balanced manner to work
on economic, social and ecological sustainability. As all stakeholders are involved,
this form of CSR is more inclusive than the level above.
• Holistic CS: CSR is fully embedded in all aspects of the company. The company
does not only care about the stakeholders but the life of every being and society
and the planet as a whole. As everything and everybody is related to each other,
there is no other way but to fully emerge in CSR.

Part of these ambition levels focus on drivers but in the categorisation it is already
visible that it goes beyond just drivers. Motivation that comes from within is for example
visible in certain ambition levels. An important aspect related to motivation is culture.
Research has shown that CSR has a different background in different countries and a
great majority of the research on CSR has been done in Europe or the United States.
Little is known about the drivers of CSR from a sociocultural perspective in an emerging
country. There are different reasons why it is important to take this into account
(Dhanesh, 2015). Research has shown that local setting can be very important for
shaping perceptions and practices. Also in CSR this is the case and there are obvious
national patterns in CSR (Gjolberg, 2009).
19
India’s commercial history goes back to 1500 BCE (the Vedic periods) and has
been characterized by traditions of social responsibility (Sundar 2000, in Dhanesh,
2015). Furthermore, giving because of cultural and religious traditions are embedded in
Indian society (Mitra 2007 in Dhanesh, 2015). There are examples of Indian
corporations in all fields of work, which are known for their social and philanthropic
work. Different scholars have looked at the drivers in India and seem to agree on the
four models of responsibility of Kumar et al. (2001) (Arevalo and Aravind, 2011; Mitra,
2011, Dhanesh, 2015). Kumar et al.’s (2001) research was the first to describe the
following models of CSR but various researchers have used and described these models
such as Arora and Puranik, 2004; Arevalo and Aravind, 2011; Mitra, 2011; Dhanesh,
2015. The different models are: ethical, statist, (neo)liberal and the stakeholder model.
Different studies described CSR according to these models but research has also shown
that companies do not always fit into one category. Several aspects of the different
models can be seen with one company (Mitra, 2011). Therefore, the levels of van
Marrewijk (2003) are more clearly defined and are clearer for analysing CSR in this
research. Nevertheless, culture and religion will not be disregarded and can be
important for CSR.

2.3.2 Drivers versus Motivation
Another stream of research seems to have a focus on separate drivers instead of
explaining the sort of CSR. All drivers can be divided into two different categories; moral
drivers and strategic drivers (Dhanesh, 2015). Other researchers focus on internal and
external drivers and although named differently, the theory is in line with moral and
strategic drivers. Companies are driven by intrinsic values and engage in socially
responsible behaviour because it is ‘the right thing to do’ (Dhanesh, 2015). Companies
are driven by extrinsic factors such as the market and institutional pressures (Mc
Williams and Siegel, 2011 in Dhanesh, 2015). Videl et al. (2012) explain the different
aspects of internal context and external context. Internal context relates to the company
characteristics such as company size, organizational culture and leadership. External
context relates to the geographical, economic, political and social characteristics around
the company. The division many researchers make can also be seen as the division
between drivers, motivation and characteristics. Although research often uses the terms
drivers and motivation interchangeably, there is a clear difference. Research on various
drivers shows different result, sometimes also contrasting one another.
Vidal et al. (2012) explain that some factors play an important role in the
adoption and implementation of CSR for example leadership and organizational
environment (Ackerman, 1975; Post, 1978). Research also shows that awareness and
actions are not always linked. Management is generally positive about the idea of
implementing CSR but actions are not always visible (van Marrewijk, 2003; Dodds and
Kuehnel, 2010). Some studies in India have showed that moral drivers and commitment
of top management are important for CSR (Arevalo and Aravind, 2011; Gopinath, 2005;
Lee, 2010). There are also studies that show that CSR in India continues to be
philanthropic in nature (Arora and Puranik, 2004; Gautam and Singh, 2010). This result
20
has been recently opposed, as a study by Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2013) found that
CSR in India is turning more strategic.
Not many studies focus on the theoretical understanding of the motivations of
corporations to be socially responsible or not (Campbell, 2007). According to
Baumeister “The primacy of motivation emphasizes that cognition, emotion, agency, and
other psychological processes exist to serve motivation” (Baumeister, 2016). There is
variation in motivation from simple desires to complex forms of motivation. However,
the foundation of motivation stems from ‘wanting’. Besides simple desires, there is the
desire to understand, to fulfil ambitions, to be liked and respected -‐ among other desires.
When looking at it this way, motivation refers to recurrent patterns of desire and
behavioural tendencies. It is not constant or continuous. “It is a condition of an organism
that includes a subjective sense (not necessarily conscious) of desiring some change in
self and/or environment” (Baumeister, 2016). Some people can feel certain desires
more often and more intensely than others. The definition underneath is used for this
research:

“A motive is an internal factor that arouses, directs and integrates a person’s behaviour”
(Murray, 1964, as cited in Iso-‐Ahola, 1982, page 257).

The adaptation of environmentally and socially responsible business practices can
depend on motivation. In the end, motivation of an individual or small group can
determine the CSR policy of a company. So far research has shown that next to drivers,
motivation that comes from within and characteristics of the company determine
whether companies have CSR actions. As motivation and drivers are different, the focus
is on both but will be looked at separately.
To summarise, literature shows that there are many studies focusing on different
types of CSR (although named differently among studies). Although the levels of CSR are
useful for analysing, they do not give a deeper theoretical understanding of drivers. The
next paragraph will therefore discuss different theoretical approaches to the concepts of
drivers and motivation.

2.3.3 Theoretical perspectives to explain the drivers
Lockett et al. (2006) describe CSR as a field of research -‐ not as a discipline. It is
therefore necessary to rely on wider disciplines for theories. During the process of
research, theory can therefore also develop and evolve (Chapple and Moon, 2007). CSR
has been approached from a wide variety of angles and even sciences such as
economical, psychological and sociological perspectives. Hundreds of concepts and
definitions have been proposed (van Marrewijk, 2003). To serve the purpose of
exploratory research and not exclude or include, a holistic view is chosen as the
approach.
McWilliams and Siegel (2005) agree that CSR cannot be analysed with one
disciplinary perspective. Dhanesh (2015) also looked at different layers to understand
the key drivers of CSR in India. His findings show that there are moral and economic
21
imperatives that drive CSR amongst companies in India. Garriga and Mele (2004) have
put all relevant CSR theories and approaches in four different groups: economical
theories, political theories, social integrative theories and ethical theories. This
differentiation is not commonly used. When analysing the various studies on CSR there
are a number theoretical understanding mostly used. Among the most important ones
are: Shareholders theory, Agency theory, Stakeholders Theory, Resource-‐based theory,
Institutional Theory and Culture theory.
Shareholders Theory
With the studies that do have a theoretical underpinning, the focus is mostly on the link
between CSR and corporate financial performance (Rowley and Berman, 2000; Walsh et
al., 2003 in Campbell, 2007). A profound amount of research has proven that
maximizing profit and shareholder value are important factors towards responsible
behaviour. Another important factor is the financial performance of corporations. When
corporations are financially struggling it is less likely for them to engage in social
responsible behaviour (Margolis and Walsh, 2001; Orlitzky et al., 2003 in Campbell,
2007). This theory therefore explains that CSR is driven by shareholders. Friedman
(1970) was one of the leading researchers in economy and was the first to propose the
shareholders theory. The origin is not linked to CSR but to a way of doing business
where shareholders were considered to be most important in company strategy. Later,
the theory was linked to responsibility as well and this approach views shareholders as
the economic engine of the organization and the only group to which the firm must be
socially responsible. According to Friedman:

“...there is only one and only one social responsibility of business – to use resources and
engage in activities designed to increase profits so long as it stays within the rules of the
game, which is to say, engages in open and free competitions without deception or
fraud” (Friedman, 1970).

The theory of Friedman has evolved over time and other theoretical understandings are
linked to the shareholders theory. There are similarities in the shareholders theory and
the agency theory.
Agency Theory
This theory looks at the owners of a company as principals and the managers as agents.
Agency theory addresses the power that agents have to achieve their interests instead of
the principals’ interest (Mitchell et al., 1997). CSR from an agency perspective regards
the issue of spending on CSR. Views are there that resources of the company can better
be returned to shareholders or spend on actions or projects that add value for the
company. Managers use CSR for their own careers or to gain other individual benefits
(McWilliams et al., 2005) but are also pressured to have common economic goals with
the owners (Camilleri, 2012). The theory of Friedman (1970) lies also at the base of
agency theory, like with the shareholders theory.
Corporate governance is linked to agency theory and can explain certain aspects
and choices in CSR as well. Although hardly any empirical research can prove the use of
22
Corporate Governance theory, there are some examples. Harjoto and Jo (2011) give an
explanation of the four most noteworthy hypotheses in governance theory and have
tested these hypotheses. First, Principal-‐agent theory explains that management is
mostly involved in overspending in CSR to show that they are ‘good global citizens’
(Barnea and Rubin, 2010). Second, CSR is mostly used by CEO’s to connect with social
and environmental activists to safeguard their position (Cespa and Cestone, 2007).
Third, CSR is a way of showing product quality in a competitive market (Fisman, 2005,
2006). Last, CSR prevents conflict between managers and non-‐investing stakeholders
(Jensen, 2001; Calton and Payne, 2003; Scherer et al., 2006). The research of Harjoto and
Jo (2011) finds strong results in especially the fourth hypothesis: the issue of conflict
prevention.
Stakeholders Theory
If and how businesses involve shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers,
governments, NGOs, organisations and other stakeholders is usually a main aspect of the
CSR concept (Fontaine et al., 2006). Freeman’s stakeholder theory explains how all
stakeholders (e.g. employees, clients, suppliers, local communities) can influence firm
outcomes. Certain CSR activities go beyond satisfying shareholders and can be
important for the company. The actions of stakeholders can have a negative or positive
influence on a company. Within stakeholders’ theory, moral and ethical dimensions of
CSR are also addressed (McWilliams et al., (2005). The adapted definition of
stakeholders is “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement
of the organization’s objectives” (p. 46, Freeman 1984 in Mitchell et al, 1997).
Stakeholder theory explores the behaviour of corporations in relation to their
stakeholders (Driver and Thompson 2002 in Campbell, 2007). Different scholars have
done research about CSR with this theoretical framework. Although this research adds
to understanding what companies are doing, it does not always look at the conditions
under which corporations are acting socially responsible (Campbell, 2007). Criticism is
also there as the ‘silent’ stakeholders and the ‘absent’ stakeholders are not represented.
This means that nature and future generations are not considered in the stakeholders
theory. It can still be questioned if self-‐serving behaviour of managers is more important
than the stakeholders.

Resource-‐based Theory
This theory states that resources can contribute to a sustainable competitive advantage.
Research of Hart (1995) showed that environmental social responsibility could have a
competitive advantage. Research of Russo and Fouts (1997) showed a correlation
between environmental performance and financial performance (McWilliams and Siegel,
2010). Therefore companies can see CSR as a way to improve their business.
Linked to this theory is the theoretical understanding of Porter and Kramer
(2011) who introduced their principle of ‘creating shared value’. Important is that
shared value is considered to be a new way to achieve economic success by creating
economic value in a way that also creates value for society. Creating shared value is
therefore also not considered a cost as it brings mutual benefits for the society and the
23
company. Societal needs are linked to markets needs and when society is harmed it can
negatively influence a company financial. On the other side, shared value can strengthen
a business because of the improved competitive position. Creating shared value is linked
to CSR but according to Porter and Kramer, creating shared value is more ‘integral to a
company’s profitability and competitive position’. Creating shared value is theoretically
a strong perspective but it is very difficult to measure the value added by CSR to the
company and to the society (McWilliams and Siegel, 2010). This is therefore also not
specifically mentioned in the theoretical framework. Value for the company that in this
case would be driver also has an origin that must come from somewhere. In the
conceptual model in paragraph 2.5 this theory is therefore not specifically mentioned.
Nevertheless, this theoretical perspective is important to consider.
Institutional Theory
Institutional theory belongs under organizational theory and it provides one of the
stronger sociological perspectives (Greenwood and Hinings, 1996; Perro, 1979 in Jamali
and Neville, 2011). Institutional theory is very comprehensive because the focus is on
exploring and comparing motives in the national, cultural and institutional context. As
the societal orientation is vital to understand CSR, institutional theory brings
interdependencies between and interactions among stakeholders into the analysis
(Matten and Moon, 2008). An understanding is there that a focus on the institutional
mechanisms that might influence the social responsible behaviour of companies is
needed (Bühner et al., 1998; Doh and Guay, 2006; Orlitzky et al., 2003; Walsh et al., 2003
in Campbell 2007). Campbell (2007) explains how institutional theory can be used to
understand the socially responsible behaviour of corporations. Institutions are
important to make corporations understand that their responsibility goes beyond profit
for their own corporation (Scott, 2003 in Campbell, 2007). A wide range of political and
economic institutions influences the behaviour of firms (Campbell et al., 1991; Fligstein,
1990, 2001; Roe, 1991, 1994 in Campbell 2007). Although this is the case, most research
does not focus on the relation between institutional conditions and CSR behaviour
(Campbell, 2007). Campbell (2007) explains that there are multiple factors that
influence responsible behaviour of corporations. His focus is on institutions although he
agrees that economic conditions may affect behaviour as well.
Matten and Moon (2008) provided a framework based on New Institutional
Theory to look at implicit and explicit CSR. Explicit CSR refers to “corporate policies that
assume and articulate responsibility for some societal interests” and implicit CSR refers
to “corporation’s role within the wider formal and informal institutions for society’s
interests and concerns” (p. 409, Matten and Moon, 2008). Although their research is
focused on Europe and the United States, they have included a brief overview of the
situation across the globe. When looking at a transitional economy like India, long-‐term
implicit CSR is visible. Since the 60s a change is visible towards explicit CSR. Different
societies have different market systems “reflecting their institutions, their customary
ethics and their social relations” (p. 407 Matten and Moon, 2008). This leads to
differences in CSR mainly because institutional frameworks of national business systems
have historically grown (Whitley, 1997 in Matten and Moon, 2008). There are four key
24
features that should be looked at: the political system, the financial system, the
education and labour system and the cultural system (Matten and Moon, 2008). Based
on new institutional theory, three processes are described to explain why and how
explicit CSR is becoming the new management concept: coercive isomorphisms, mimetic
processes and normative pressures. Coercive isomorphisms refer to externally codified
rules, norms or laws that assign legitimacy to practices. Mimetic processes refer to the
response of managers to uncertainty. Managers take actions that work in a different
field as legitimate to put in place in their company. Normative pressures refer to the
educational and professional authorities that set standards for organizational practices.
Institutional theory can provide a deeper understanding of CSR in the tour
operator industry in India.
Culture Centered Approach Theory

Culture plays an important role in CSR. Besides the fact that culture can be a driver for
CSR, culture can also be a reason for different approaches. Culture Centered Approach
Theory (CCA) looks at the cultural differences between CSR in different countries. This
approach focuses on certain concepts and the most important concepts are: culture,
structure and agency. It takes the collective and individual agency of impacted
communities and analysing is done from that perspective rather than from the
corporation’s point of view. A considerate amount of research has been done on finding
out why companies engage in CSR, as pointed out earlier, the majority of these studies
are still about corporations in Europe and the US (Raman, 2006 in Arevalo and Aravind,
2011). As behaviour towards CSR varies between countries, research is necessary for
understanding this (Maignan and Ralston, 2002 in Campbell, 2007). There are only a few
studies that have explored the concept of CSR -‐ both theoretically as empirically -‐ in
India (Arevalo and Aravind, 2011). And according to the earlier mentioned research of
Kumar (2001), culture, religion and philosophy are motivations for CSR.

2.4 Conclusion
There is not one unified answer on what really makes businesses adopt a CSR strategy
and this strongly depends on the focus area of the studies. It is visible that there is an
overlap between the different theoretical approaches but that every theory has a main
focus. Different theories and with that different drivers of CSR are accepted. This
research tries to explain CSR of tour operators in India with all relevant discussed
theories. This means that drivers, motivation and characteristics are looked at. Drivers
such as competition, finances, clients, environment, local communities and employees
amongst others can influence agents. What becomes visible from the theoretical
perspectives is that there are certain aspects that can influence drivers; these are
stakeholders, shareholders and the institutional context in its broadest understanding.
Culture can be a factor as well but would in this case not influence drivers but
motivation. The other part comprises the characteristics of the company such as
company size, ownership and number of employees. Different factors can influence
drivers and for a deeper theoretical understanding these are used to find explanations.
25
In the next paragraph this has been transformed into a new conceptual model of
research.

2.5 Conceptual Model
In paragraph 2.3 the most used theoretical approaches are mentioned and all different
motivations for CSR can be explained via these theoretical approaches. One theoretical
approach could have been chosen but would leave out possible explanations. Due to the
explanatory nature of this study, it is important to have a holistic and broad theoretical
view. Drivers for CSR can come from many different concepts and are therefore
included. The conceptual model includes the theoretical approaches explained. The
division has been made between external and internal drivers and although different
studies have different terminology for drivers, internal and external has been found the
most appropriate for this study. Within the literature it became clear that the different
external drivers can be categorised under stakeholders, shareholders or institutional
context. There are theories that mention drivers that are more difficult to research (for
example: resource based theory). Within the scope of this research, choices had to be
made and therefore a focus is there on the external and the internal drivers. These
drivers influence the agent and determine Corporate Social Responsibility Actions. In
the end an individual or small group makes the decisions regarding CSR policies.
Characteristics and motivation are within this individual/company. In the model this
party is referred to as ‘the agents’.

Figure 1: Conceptual model

26
In figure 1, the conceptual model is visible. The theoretical perspectives are shown
under the categories of external or internal drivers. It is expected that these drivers
influence the agent and this will lead to Corporate Social Responsibility Actions.

2.6 Research Questions
The theoretical understandings explained in the former paragraphs will be used to
explain the findings in the field. After thoroughly reviewing the literature on CSR, the
following specific sub-‐questions can be formulated:

1. What is the understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility of tour operators in
India?
2. What are the views of tour operators in India on Corporate Social Responsibility?
3. Which Corporate Social Responsibility Actions can be seen with tour operators in
India?
4. What drives tour operators in India to adopt Corporate Social Responsibility?
In order to investigate what drives tour operators to adopt Corporate Social

Responsibility, the following hypotheses are set up:

H1. There is a relation between the external driver stakeholders and Corporate Social
Responsibility Actions
H2. There is a relation between the external driver shareholders and Corporate Social
H3. There is a relation between the external driver institutions and Corporate Social
H4. There is a relation between the internal driver culture and Corporate Social

With these questions the following main research question can be answered:

Responsibility in relation to Sustainable Tourism?

27
3. Methodology
This chapter describes the methodology of the research. The justification of chosen
methods is given. The process of the data collection is explained followed by the data
analysis. Furthermore, the important concepts of validity and reliability are discussed.
The last part of this chapter focuses on the research limitations.

3.1 Justification of Methods
The theoretical framework serves as the background of the research. As mentioned
before, no other studies have been conducted regarding tour operators in India and CSR.
As the participants’ perspective was not known prior to data collection, the research is
explorative in nature (Boeije, 2010). This means that an inductive way of reasoning is
logical at the start of the research. Inductive reasoning is more open-‐ended and
exploratory, especially at the beginning. Most social research involves stages of
inductive and deductive reasoning during the studies. This will also be the case in this
study.
In research it is important to acknowledge the positionality and research
paradigm of the researcher. According to Hemingway, “a paradigm can be understood as
indicating a model of propositions and beliefs, explicit and implicit, held by a community
of researchers about the conduct of their work, the structure of what they study, the
nature of their findings, how these findings are to be fitted together, and the social
meaning(s) of the resulting statements” (1999, p.489). There are different paradigms in
tourism research and the paradigm of the researcher is the interpretive paradigm. The
main focus for researchers in the interpretive paradigm is to seek understanding and
meaning. Important is that the social world is not objectified but instead encouraged to
speak for itself by treating it as a subject (Tribe, 2001). According to Ponterotto (2005),
interpretivists believe there are multiple realities; reality is subjective and influenced by
the individual’s experience and perceptions and the interaction between the researcher
and the individual. According to Tribe, most of the time qualitative research methods are
used in interpretive research (2001). When quantitative methods are used this is
generally in an interpretive way (Ateljevic, 2010). Willson and McIntosh (2007) explain
that a combination of thoughtful methods through a mixed approach allows the
researchers to be more confident about their results. The results are not given via a
model or table but explained with different views, which fits the interpretive research
paradigm (Ateljevic, 2010).

3.2 Data Collection
The aim of this research is not to generalize but to understand the complexity of the
phenomenon; therefore a qualitative research approach fits most. The strict separation
of quantitative and qualitative research is evolving and research with different methods
is more common (Morgan, 2007 in Boeije 2010). A combination of different methods can
fully capture phenomena. In this way it is possible to get a full understanding of the
research problem and to answer the main research question. Thus, though the nature of
28
the study is qualitative, a quantitative part will add value and give a wider and fuller
understanding (Johnson et al., 2007).
The tour operator industry in India is fragmented and there is an organized and
unorganized part, which makes it more difficult to determine the strategy. Regarding the
size of India and the spread of tour operators, choices had to be made. A selection of tour
operators was made for conducting interviews. Interviews give the opportunity for
participants to “share their story, pass on their knowledge and provide their own
perspective on a range of topics” (Hess-‐Biber and Leavy, 2006 in Boeije, 2010; p. 62).
Many studies focusing on CSR, struggle with initial replies. Therefore the sample of tour
operators was larger than needed. From the list of tour operators, tour operators were
selected for interviews. To gather the basic information, online research was conducted
on these tour operators. Research of company websites and annual reports exposed the
first details.
The second part of this research involved surveys. Surveys were sent out to
different Indian tour operators. To choose the sample of the surveys, the two most
important associations in the Indian Tour Operator Industry were used. The surveys
were sent to the members of IATO (Indian Association of Tour Operators) and ADTOI
(Association of Domestic Tour Operators of India). These associations were chosen as
both registered as unregistered tour operators have a membership.
Qualitative research
Sampling approaches between quantitative and qualitative research vary and even the
term ‘sample’ in qualitative research has been discussed. Regarding the qualitative part
of this research a purposive sampling approach has been used. This means that tour
operators have been selected according to the needs of the study. It is important that the
cases can teach us about the issues of importance (Coyne, 1997 in Boeije, 2010).
Therefore a variance of tour operators was chosen for the interviews. Differences in size
(market share and employees), sorts of tourism (inbound, outbound, domestic) and
company structure were taken into account. There was a focus on choosing influential
tour operators that are important in the tourism industry in India. During initial
research it became clear that most tour operators have their headquarters in New Delhi,
Gurgaon and Mumbai. Therefore these cities were chosen and only tour operators with
headquarters in these cities were considered.
For the goal of the research it was important to speak to an employee with a
management position. Chosen tour operators were approached by telephone and
appointments were made where possible. This did not always lead to contact with the
correct person and therefore headquarters were visited without appointment for more
interviews. This led to the total amount of 18 interviews with tour operators. 1
interview was excluded as the interviewee had no in-‐depth knowledge about the
company and seemed to be unqualified to speak for his company. Therefore the total
amount of 17 interviews was reached. Furthermore, important experts were
approached to gain a better insight. This led to three extra interviews with experts in the
tourism field, among them was a member of the board of one of the affiliations, an
organisation related to CSR and an expert on tourism issues. These interviews were held
29
to obtain knowledge and expertise of the field and are therefore considered a valuable
addition for this research.
Two important aspects in scientific research are trust and ethical principles. This
means that the privacy of the participants was respected. Regarding the topic of this
research, the researcher believes that only complete anonymous handling of the data
gives the interviewees the freedom to share details of their company. Therefore names
of interviewees as well as company names are not mentioned. Numbers of employees,
market share among other details, give away the identity of the companies. To keep the
identity of the tour operators anonymous, these details are also not shared.
Data has been collected through semi-‐structured interviews. An interview
guideline was structured with main topics and questions. The individual questions were
formed mainly for the researcher and were not necessarily asked in each interview. The
questions and answers of the interviewee led the interview and main research topics
were always addressed. This gave the interviewees the opportunity and freedom to
explain in-‐depth. Subsequently, this gave the researcher the freedom to choose
important topics in each conversation and the order of discussing could be adjusted.
Apart from the details of the company, most questions were open-‐ended. Interview
guidelines can be found in Appendix I.
Before each interview, the company was researched on the topics of sustainable
tourism and CSR. This made it possible to bring these findings into the interview if the
interviewee did not. Interviews were held face-‐to-‐face and the duration varied from 20
to 75 minutes excluding a short introduction of the researcher and the research.
The interviews were with owners or employees with higher management
positions. In thirteen cases there was one interviewee, in three cases there were two
interviewees, in one case there were three interviewees. The interviews were recorded
in order to make a transcript for coding in a later stage. It also gave the researcher the
possibility to focus solely on the interview without being responsible for accurate notes.
Recording the interviews also improved the interview skills of the researcher during the
research as interviews were listened to afterwards to improve the next interviews. One
company refused the recording and notes were made during the interview. This
interview was typed out immediately after in order to capture all information on paper.
During the interviews the researcher did take notes to capture non-‐verbal
communication. As many thoughts, ideas and impressions are not remembered because
of demanding fieldwork and analysis, writing notes are necessary. There are different
kinds of notes: observational, methodological and theoretical memos (Boeije, 2010). The
three different memos were used during the research.
Quantitative research
The second part of the research was the distribution of the surveys. The survey was
designed based on similar research and adjusted to this research. Important concepts
from literature and theories were used to form the questions. There was a relatively
long time period between the interviews and the surveys; therefore it was possible to
change the survey according to the findings of the interviews. The survey was designed
around four main parts. The first part focuses on important details of the company, the
30
second part on the concept of CSR, the third part on CSR actions and the fourth part
focuses on the deeper understanding of the companies’ actions and motivation. The
survey consists of closed and open questions.
For the third part -‐ measuring actions of Corporate Social Responsibility it was
necessary to operationalize this variable. As CSR policies can be very different it is
important to look at separate indicators. Indicators or actions of sustainability can be
organized by three dimensions; social, environmental and economic. These three
dimensions are widely accepted within another field of research: reporting of CSR. Also,
as mentioned before, in the definition of CSR these dimensions are commonly accepted.
Actions are measured within the topics mentioned in figure 2. Recently, the government
of India has developed the sustainable tourism criteria (STCI) for the hotel industry and
for tour operators. The areas mentioned in figure 2 have been developed according to
the STCI of the government, previous research on CSR, and discussions with experts.
These relate to the issues within the country of India and more specific within the
tourism industry. Next to these dimensions, a field of actions has been added that relates
to the behaviour of companies towards their employees. These four fields are used to
analyse the behaviour of companies.

Corporate Social Responsibility Actions

Social
• Land rights Environmental
Economic
• Displacement • Water issues
• Revenues
• Intrusion of private • Sewage
• Waste
• Procurement
space
• Leakages
• Crime • Energy
• Foreign ownership
• (Sexual) • Depletion of natural
• Non-‐local
exploitation of resources
employment
women/children • Damage to nature
• Employment

• Education

Figure 2: Corporate Social Responsibility Indicators

The fourth part is designed with statements to which respondents can express
agreement on a five point Likert scale. To ensure the reliability of the study, the survey
was improved after consultation with an expert in the field; Ms. Swathi Seshadri of NGO
Equations. Subsequently the survey was adjusted after feedback of the thesis
supervisors. Furthermore the survey was tested among a varied audience (total of ten
people) to ensure clarity and consistency. The survey can be found in Appendix II.
Tour operators registered with ADTOI and IATO were used for this research.
Both affiliations have their members online and these were used to make a final list of
31
the research population. IATO has 1572 registered members and ADTOI has 749
members. This makes a total of 2321 tour operators. During the process the researcher
discovered that these online lists consisted many mistakes. Therefore all these
companies were checked on websites and for email addresses. Many of the companies
that were registered were listed twice, were not tour operators, did not have a website
and/or did not even exist. These were excluded from the research and a final list was
constructed. The final list consisted of 1306 (N=1306) tour operators. There was still the
possibility that tour operators did have a website but were not active anymore.
Unfortunately this could not be avoided.
The chosen method was online survey distribution as this was the only
possibility considering the time and sample size. The survey was spread via the software
program Qualtrics. As a student of Wageningen University it was possible to register,
create a survey and send the link to a large number or tour operators. As this software
also registers unfinished surveys, the researcher has the choice to include answers of
incomplete surveys in the analysis. This software also allows the researcher to export
the results to different software for analysing.
Tour operators received an email with a personal link to the online survey. This
distribution is quick and increases validity as the entire population has an equal chance
of being included in the sample. Sample errors are hereby avoided. Therefore the choice
for this research is probability sampling. Out of the 1306 tour operators, 611 opened the
email. Part of reason for this low number is due to the high number of bounced emails
because of incorrect email addresses. A total of 163 tour operators started the survey of
which 103 tour operators completed the survey. In total 3 reminders were sent out to
stimulate the amount of answers.
It is not possible to find out what the exact population is and if the sample size is
representative. In India, it is not obligatory for companies to register. Therefore the total
amount of tour operators in the country is not known. It is believed that with the
members of ADTOI and IATO almost all tour operators were addressed. According to
Salant and Dillman (1994 in Vaske 2008) a sample size of approximately 400 is often
considered to be acceptable for generalizing at a confidence level of 95% with a 5%
sampling error. A sample size of approximately 100 will be acceptable for generalizing
at a 95% confidence level with a 10% sampling error. There were a number of
uncertainties, such as an expected low response rate, the uncertainty regarding correct
email addresses and the existence of tour operators in the sample. Subsequently, the
total amount of tour operators was approached. Due to limited response, it is probably
not possible to generalize.

3.3 Data Analysis
Qualitative part
Sometimes raw data are considered as findings, which is a mistake. Data needs to be
sorted, categorized, connected and interpreted (Boeije, 2010). The in-‐depth interviews
were recorded with an audio recorder and transcribed. The transcripts were coded for
analysing. There are three different types of coding: open, axial and selective (Boeije,
32
2010). Keeping the explorative nature of the research in mind, the data analysis started
with open coding. With this step, a list of codes was created and the initial step of coding
took place. The second step was axial coding; the data was coded again and main
categories and subcategories were determined. These categories were analysed to see
relationships. The last step was the process of selective coding. This led to the
determination of core concepts and relationships between these concepts. The process
of coding was not always linear and sometimes merged. According to Boeije (2010) this
is typical in qualitative research. The process is characterised by alternating between
activities. The software MAXQDA was used for the process of coding.

Quantitative part
The survey consists of a part that was analysed in a quantitative manner and a part that
was analysed in a qualitative way. The open questions were coded and analysed
accordingly. The quantitative part of the surveys was analysed via the statistical
program SPSS. Via this program frequencies, percentages, descriptive statistics and
relations could be tested.

3.4 Validity and Reliability
Reliability is usually referred to as “the consistency of the measures used in social
research” (Boeije, 2010: p. 169). This means that measuring the same phenomena
should lead to similar outcomes if the research would be repeated with the same
methods. To measure internal stability, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is commonly used.
In research a certain bias cannot be prevented. The researcher understands that her
standpoints, values and biases play a role in the entire research process. A maximum
level of objectivity, neutrality and impartiality were the aim of the researcher. Through
the standardization of the data collection methods, reliability is addressed. Validity is
being specific about what you set out to assess. Measurement validity refers to “whether
the measure that is formulated for a particular concept really does reflect the concept
that it is supposed to measure” (Bryman, 2008 in Boeije, 2010: p. 169). Pilot testing is a
procedure to improve internal validity and is used to assure that the interviews and
surveys are clear and can be adjusted. Triangulation validates the methodology by an
examination of the results from several perspectives.

3.5 Research Limitations
One of the limitations of this research was the time constraint. Regarding the size of the
country and tour operator industry a larger sample for both the qualitative and
quantitative part was perhaps more favourable. However, the researcher is convinced
that the interviews give a profound view of opinions. Finding tour operators to
participate was a time-‐consuming process. Therefore with more time, more tour
operators could have been addressed. Having a few more tour operators in each
category might have given a wider view. The other limitations are in a way linked to
time constraint as well but also to choices with regards to the scope of the research.
33
For the interviews only tour operators with their headquarters in Delhi, Gurgaon
or Mumbai were considered. Although these places were chosen based on the number of
tour operators, it might have excluded important other tour operators.
In hindsight a more confined sample size should have been chosen. The group of
tour operators chosen by the researcher was too complex for this research. A list of
more than 2000 tour operators was analysed which was very time-‐consuming. It does
give a sample within the organised and unorganised field but for a thesis research the
sample should have been based on different criteria. Because of the large sample size a
profound amount of time went into analysing this list which otherwise could have been
spend to search for more tour operators for the qualitative part for example. If different
criteria were to be used it might have been possible as well to consider conducting
questionnaires by phone which would have led to a larger number of tour operators for
the quantitative part.
The last research limitation is the nationality of the researcher. Although the
researcher lived in India before, being from a different country means views and
perspectives are different. This influences research, especially because Indians often
treat foreigners differently. This is not necessarily a limitation; nevertheless socially
accepted answers with regards to the topic of this research might be more visible. Also,
both for the researcher as for the respondents, English is not the first language. In India
and in particular the tourism industry, English is used as the professional working
language and therefore communication was unproblematic. Language nevertheless
always influences research and when not communicating in your mother tongue,
answers are influenced. At times respondents misunderstood the questions or struggled
with finding words for their answers.

34
4. Results
This chapter describes the findings obtained from the research. The results of the
interviews and surveys will be analysed. This chapter will focus purely on the results in
relation to the research questions. In chapter 5 the results will be further explained,
conclusions are drawn and linked with the theoretical framework. The first paragraph
gives the characteristics of the respondents of the quantitative and qualitative part. The
second paragraph gives the results of the first research question: What is the
understanding of CSR of tour operators in India. Paragraph 3 has a focus on the second
research question and gives the results on the views that tour operators have on CSR.
Paragraph 4 has a focus on the CSR actions of the companies. Paragraph 5 gives the
results on the drivers of CSR; this paragraph focuses on the quantitative and qualitative
part and the results are given separately.

4.1 Characteristics
4.1.1 Surveys
From the 161 surveys, 23 are excluded straight away as no data can be used. Of the
respondents 65 companies are tour operators, 5 companies are travel agencies and 64
companies are both tour operator as travel agency. Out of the companies that specified
to be a different company, 4 are excluded, as they are neither a tour operator nor a
travel agency. For clarity, all companies that participated in this research will be
referred to as companies or tour operators.
79% of all the companies (N=133) is registered with the department of tourism
and 21% is not registered. 99% have their headquarters in India and 1% has their
headquarters somewhere else in the world.
The associations that tour operators are connected with can have an influence on
their actions and therefore the question is asked whether tour operators are registered
with industry associations. Companies are associated with: IATO 85%, ADTOI 30%,
TAAI 24%, IATA 22%. Other associations are mentioned but never more than 3 times for
one association. 2% of the tour operators are not linked to any associations.
56% of the tour operators have 0-‐9 employees, 29% of the tour operators have
10-‐49 employees, 11% of the tour operators have 50-‐249 employees and 4% of the
companies have 250-‐499 employees. None of the tour operators fall in the category from
500-‐999 or more than 1000 employees.
29% of the tour operators only operate tours in India, 66% of the tour operators
operate tours in India and in other parts of the world. 2% of the tour operators do not
operate tours in India but only in other parts of the world. The majority of tour
operators have different forms of tourism: inbound 78%, domestic 49% and outbound
tourism 40%).
The revenue situation can influence CSR. In the last two years the revenue of the
tour operators has been strongly decreasing for 5%, decreasing for 14%, steady for 40%,
increasing for 26% and strongly increasing for 7 5% of the tour operators. 2% of the
35
tour operators do not know about their financial status and 7% of the tour operators
prefer not to answer the question.
4.1.2 Interviews
In total 17 tour operators in India are interviewed and the characteristics of the tour
operators can be found in table 1.
Table 1: Characteristics – Tour operators

Tour Employees Sort tourism Reg. Revenue IATO ADTOI IATA
operator situation
1. 250 -‐ 499 Inbound Yes Stable Yes Yes Yes
2. 10 -‐ 49 Outbound Yes Increase Yes No Yes
3. >1000 All Yes Yes Yes Yes
4. 50 -‐ 249 All (mostly Yes Stable Yes Yes Yes
outbound)
5. >1000 All Yes Increase Yes Yes Yes
6. 500 -‐ 999 All (mostly Yes -‐ Yes Yes Yes
inbound)
7. 500 -‐ 999 All (mostly Yes Increase Yes Yes Yes
domestic)
8. 250 -‐ 499 All Yes Increase Yes Yes Yes
9. 500 -‐ 999 All (mostly inbound Yes -‐ Yes Yes Yes
and domestic)
10. 10 -‐ 49 All (mostly Yes Increase Yes No Yes
outbound)
11. 50 -‐ 249 All Yes Stable Yes Yes Yes
12. 250 -‐ 499 Inbound Yes Stable Yes Yes Yes
13. 50 -‐ 249 Inbound Yes Stable Yes No Yes
14. 500 -‐ 999 Inbound Yes Decrease Yes Yes Yes
15. 50 -‐ 249 All (mostly Yes Decrease Yes Yes Yes
inbound)
16. 50 -‐ 249 All Yes Increase Yes No Yes
17. 10 -‐ 49 Outbound Yes Stable No No Yes

4.2 Research question 1 -‐ Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility
The most important concept for the research is the concept of Corporate Social
Responsibility. Respondents were asked for their understanding of CSR in both the
surveys as the interviews. The first research question focuses on the understanding of
tour operators of CSR. In this paragraph the results are given on this research question.
A division has been made between the results from the surveys and the interviews. Also
36
in the surveys this question was mostly handled in a qualitative manner via an open
question.
4.2.1 Surveys
Of the tour operators (N=125) 79% of the tour operators are familiar with the concept
of Corporate Social Responsibility. 21% of the tour operators are not familiar with the
concept. Out of the 99 tour operators that are familiar with the concept of CSR only 82
gave their definition. It is therefore possible that not all tour operators are confident
enough about their knowledge of CSR to give their definition. It can also be that the
question is not answered because it is an open question. Out of the 82 tour operators, 5
give an answer that shows no knowledge or a wrong understanding of CSR.
In conclusion, it can be said that the percentage of 79% tour operators that are
familiar with CSR is in reality lower. Whether the tour operators that give a definition
really have an understanding of the concept of CSR is also debatable. With analysing, the
definition used for this research was of importance and especially for the following
dimensions: Social, Environmental, Economic, Stakeholders and voluntariness
(Dahlsrud, 2006). To analyse the understanding of CSR, the frequency of certain words
related to these dimensions such as environmental, social, community et cetera were
counted. Some tour operators mention multiple dimensions in their definition but many
definitions have a focus on either the social, environmental or stakeholder dimension.
Therefore, it is a point of discussion whether there is a clear understanding of the term
CSR.

Social dimension
When analysing the results it becomes visible that the social responsibility is mentioned
most often in the definitions. The words ‘Society’ and ‘Social’ are the most mentioned
words in the explanations. 69 definitions (out of 82) mention the social dimension.
There are definitions that are very simple. Other definitions are more comprehensive
and include other dimensions of CSR. A few definitions that mention the social
dimension are:

Social
‘Give Back to the Society’
‘Serve local communities with part of profit’
‘Corporate responsibility towards society’

Stakeholder dimension
The next most mentioned dimension is stakeholders. Stakeholders are mentioned in 60
different definitions and is closely related to the social dimension. The society can be
considered as stakeholders and therefore this is included. Whether the tour operators
consider society in the broad meaning of the word or the direct society that they
influence cannot be said from most definitions. Therefore it is not really possible to
make a differentiation between society and stakeholders. Some tour operators refer
37
especially to stakeholders in the surroundings. A few definitions that mention the
stakeholder dimension are:

Stakeholders
‘To give back to the community that one is working in and drawing one's resources and
livelihood from”.
‘Contributing to the local community through education, environmental measures and
supporting local employment’.
‘Development with protecting the interest of local stakeholders. Something that we pay
back to the society’.

Environment dimension
The environment is mentioned in 30 definitions, mostly in combination with the social
dimension and or stakeholders dimension. A few definitions that mention the
environmental dimension are:

Environment
‘Being a commercial company we have some responsibilities beyond law toward our
society of living creatures and environment. Business is not only make money but be
responsible and positive to humanity and nature’.
‘A company’s sense of responsibility towards the community and environment (both
ecological and social) in which it operates’.

Economic dimension
To determine whether definitions have the economic dimension is somewhat more
difficult. As ‘giving back to society’ for example can be in an economic way as well. Also
when stakeholders are mentioned, this can relate to the economic dimension. 12
definitions have a clear indicator of the economic dimension in there. An example of one
of these definitions is:

Economic
‘Corporate Social Responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave
ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of
the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large’

Voluntariness dimension
Dahlrud (2006) has mentioned voluntariness as the 5th dimension. This dimension of
voluntariness is not often mentioned especially compared to the other definitions. It is
not possible to derive from the definitions whether CSR is considered voluntarily or
whether it can be obligatory as well. In any case, the dimension of voluntarily is up for
discussion as recent laws of obligatory spending might influence the definition of CSR. Is
CSR still CSR when the government decides that you have to spent 2% on CSR? As most
companies in the research do not fall in the category of obligatory spending,
38
voluntariness is still included. Five definitions mention the voluntarily character of CSR
specifically. A few definitions that mention the voluntariness dimension are:

Voluntariness
‘To take such actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of
the firm and that which is required by law’.
‘A company, like a human being, has to be based on some values and beliefs. My
company is based on the value that we are all inter-‐connected on this planet, and that
we cannot have pockets of misery and poverty and other pockets of luxury and wealth.
My company therefore, has to inherently have social good and social welfare at its
heart’.

As mentioned, most definitions include more than one dimension and show a more
comprehensive understanding of CSR on different levels. A few definitions that mention
the multiple dimensions are:

Multiple dimensions
‘Being a commercial company we have some responsibilities beyond law toward our
Society of living creature and environment. Business is not only make money but be
responsible and positive to humanity and nature’.
‘CSR to me is the responsibility of any organisation towards the community and
environment. Guided by it companies frame policies streamlining their corporate
philosophies in order to give back to the immediate environment in which they work’.

Many of the definitions showed an aspect of project-‐oriented CSR. Where CSR is
considered to be separate from business behaviour. Spending on social or
environmental projects that many times are not linked to the company. Research shows
that CSR in India is often considered to be the same as giving to projects. Also in the
understanding of tour operators in this research this was visible. A few definitions that
have a focus on giving to projects are:

Project-‐oriented CSR
‘Support local community and charitable organisations’
‘Support sustainable tourism protects’
4.2.2 Interviews
During the interviews the tour operators were also asked to explain their understanding
of CSR. Of the tour operators that were interviewed, there are companies that have
never heard of CSR and/or cannot explain CSR or have a completely different
understanding of CSR. Out of seventeen tour operators, three do not have any
understanding of the concept of CSR. One tour operator kept on talking about their
clients and this was part of the answer to what CSR is to them. The other fourteen tour
operators have an understanding of CSR. The understanding varies considerable from a
wider, comprehensive understanding mentioning multiple dimensions by nine tour
39
operators to a project oriented CSR by five tour operators. Of these nine companies that
have a more comprehensive understanding of CSR it is not really possible to find many
direct quotes as their thoughts on CSR came across in various parts of the interview and
it was necessary to ask multiple questions to find out if their understanding of CSR goes
beyond giving to NGOs. Most companies mention the social, environmental and
stakeholder dimension. Two companies really stand out with their comprehensive
understanding of CSR. Both companies have an employee that focuses on their CSR
policy. This fact alone does not mean the understanding is automatically comprehensive.
One tour operator that was asked about their understanding seemed to look at it in a
broad perspective but when asked further he also was only mentioning giving to
projects with the only difference being that the project as such does not necessarily have
to be linked to tourism. Next to this tour operator, there were four other tour operators
that have an understanding that ‘giving to projects’ is CSR. Underneath you can find a
quote of one of these tour operators that has a more project-‐oriented approach.

Project Oriented
‘We haven’t had a policy as such in terms of CSR in our office but yes we do sort of,
spend some decent amount promoting the underprivileged. Normally, we been working
with an organisation that works for the blind so that’s, that’s what we sort of do on a
yearly basis’.

One of the tour operators with an employee on CSR explains that the lack of
knowledge in the industry is normal. The tour operator explains this as follows:

‘I also do Corporate Social Responsibility, its like whenever they hear CSR the response
is like, ‘oh your working with an NGO’. That's the first and this is from people who are in
the corporate world. They don’t know what it is’.

This point of view was shared by other tour operators and also relates to the views of
the expert on CSR that is interviewed for this research. This expert mentioned many
industries for CSR but when asked about tourism he looked at it from the other side;
tour operators that receive funds from CSR initiatives of other companies. To view tour
operators as companies with a CSR policy did not come to his mind.
In the interviews some tour operators mention the legislation in India regarding
CSR. Out of the fourteen tour operators, four tour operators mentioned the recently
adopted law of the government in their explanation of the understanding of CSR.
Although many tour operators are not aware of the legislation, the bigger companies
that are affected by this legislation mention this in their explanation.

Legislation
‘So, there are two parts to it. Number one is the law, that requires as a Public limited
company, which we are, 2%’.
‘The law says, which was recently introduced that we supposed to, for certain
40
companies or certain et profit and we supposed to spend 2% of your..’

As part of their understanding, companies were also asked about the law and their
opinion on this. Companies have not always heard of the legislation. There are
companies that believe they do fall in the category but are actually not sure about this.
This means that there certainly is some misunderstanding regarding this legislation. It
seems that there are also companies that believe they have to pay 2% on CSR where
they actually are not obligated to do so.

Conclusion
Although 79% of the tour operators indicate to be familiar with the concept of CSR, the
actual percentage is most likely lower. Regarding the definitions, it is interesting to
notice that the social dimension is mentioned more than twice as much as the
environment. The outcome can give the impression that the term itself influenced the
answers of the tour operators, mainly because the social dimension is mentioned so
much more than the environmental dimension. This can be one explanation for the focus
on the social dimension as it might be possible that ‘Social’ and ‘Society’ are therefore
mentioned more often. Only a handful of tour operators give a definition that mentions
multiple dimensions. It is not surprising to see that tour operators often mention ‘giving
to projects’ as it relates to the project-‐oriented understanding of CSR that is visible in
India. Therefore this outcome was anticipated. In relation to the understanding of CSR in
other research, this is an interesting outcome.
The results from the interviews indicate variances in understanding CSR. There
are tour operators without any understanding that have never even heard of the term to
tour operators that look at all the dimensions. Some tour operators have an
understanding that comes close to the adopted definition for this research. Similar as to
the results of the surveys, understandings often focused on giving to good causes.
Interesting as a result is that the legislation was mentioned by some of the tour
operators when asked about their understanding. It does become clear that there is
quite some confusion around the legislation.

4.3 Research Question 2 – What are the views of tour operators on CSR
4.3.1 Surveys
In the last paragraph the understanding of tour operators on CSR was discussed. Next to
the understanding, the quantitative and qualitative part of the research also focused on
the views of tour operators on CSR. In table 2 the results of the quantitative part are
given. The statements in the table were tested with a Likert scale and answers vary
between 1 and 5. When analysing the means of these statements it becomes clear that
companies do not think that CSR is only a task of the government (1,94). When asked if
CSR is task for government and companies, agreement is mostly there (4,18). Tour
operators do not agree with the fact that companies should only focus on making a profit
(1,86). Furthermore CSR should not only apply for state companies (2,00) and
large/multinational companies (2,21). An interesting outcome is that many companies
41
agree with putting a mandatory CSR policy in place for all companies (3,56). Tour
operators also believe that as companies are part of the society, they are therefore
responsible for the society in which they operate (4,27). This responsibility should be
towards everybody affected by the company (4,03).
Table 2: Views on Corporate Social Responsibility

N Mean Std.
Deviation
CSR is a task of the government, not of businesses 99 1,94 ,988
Companies should focus only on making a profit 94 1,86 ,957
The government should put a mandatory CSR policy in place 97 3,56 1,099
for all companies
Companies are part of the society and therefore responsible 100 4,27 ,737
for the society in which they operate
CSR is a task for both the government as for companies 97 4,18 ,777
Not only shareholders of the company but everybody 97 4,03 ,669
affected by our company should be taken in account in
relation to the operation of a company
Only state companies should have a CSR strategy 98 2,00 ,849
Only large and multinational companies should have a CSR 99 2,21 1,043
strategy

4.3.2 Interviews
Some tour operators do not believe CSR is part of their responsibility and especially the
belief that the responsibility of a tour operator does not include the supply chain, is
shared by many tour operators. Some of the companies explain that there is little
responsibility at the moment however answers are mixed. Tour operators also mention
that India is a country where people (and companies) have been taken care of one
another for centuries already and that this is part of their culture.

‘People have to be taken care of. Indians have been doing that’.
‘It is good eh it mandates corporates to help because a lot of people who need help. A lot
of corporates are also doing it. It is not that they are not doing it. It is just that, now it has
become a policy’.

Because the understanding of CSR varies, views on sustainable tourism and specific
actions were also analysed. Views on sustainable tourism and CSR/sustainable tourism
actions are generally positive. Even the companies who do not have policies themselves
do believe that sustainable tourism should be there. There are some companies (2) that
separate sustainability and tourism and do not see harm in doing ‘just’ doing business.
Out of the seventeen tour operators, fifteen admit to the need of responsibility.
Responsibility towards the environment and society are mostly mentioned.
42
Most of the companies (15) agree with the legislation of the government on CSR.
Companies see this as a way to help more people and although forced, the outcome is
welcomed.

‘When it is regarding the legislation on CSR: there is no harm in that. It is another way
of giving and it goes back to the people’.

Three of the tour operators agree that the legislation needs to expand to smaller
companies as well but the majority (14) believes that it should not. There is a concern
about the legislation as well. There are tour operators that believe that companies will
find a way that the mandatory spending will benefit the companies more than the local
communities as companies will cheat and find ways to make sure money returns.

‘I think anything which is dictatorial, anything which binds the company is something
which I feel is not a welcome thing. You need to be enablers, you need to give them –
unless you’re funding them you should not be dictatorial. If you’re funding them then
you have a right to be dictatorial. But if you’re not funding them – you need to create an
enabling ecosystem where companies have the comfort level, have the trust and the
feeling that they could put in some money’.

It becomes clear that almost all companies have projects they support and are
giving back to society. Some tour operators sponsor environmental projects. More about
the actions of companies will be discussed in the next paragraph.

Conclusion
Without addressing their own company it can be concluded that tour operators believe
in CSR and that companies should have a policy. CSR is not linked to the size of the
company or to state or public companies. Every company should have a policy and not
only the state needs to focus on this. The most interesting outcome is that quite a lot of
tour operators agree with mandatory CSR policies for all companies. It can also be
concluded that tour operators believe that responsibility goes beyond stakeholders and
that the society and everybody affected by the company should be taken in account.
These opinions are not related to the CSR policies that the companies have but to their
views on CSR and responsibility in general.
In the interviews the views of CSR are also discussed and it is visible that the
views on CSR are linked to giving money to NGO’s or supporting local projects.
Therefore giving to projects is considered by many tour operators to be an adequate CSR
policy. Companies do think they have a responsibility but this responsibility generally
does not go further down the supply chain.
Differences in views on CSR are visible in relation to the sort of tourism. Most
tour operators with a focus on outbound tourism indicated that CSR is not applicable to
them. Whereas the tour operators that believed CSR to be very important were all tour
operators with a strong focus on inbound tourism.

43
4.4 Research Question 3 -‐ Corporate Social Responsibility Actions
One of the research questions focuses on the CSR actions of tour operators. This
paragraph gives the result of the actions related to CSR that tour operators undertake.
There are different aspects in the survey that measured the actions of the tour
operators. These were analysed and results are shared.
As mentioned in paragraph 4.2, 79% of the tour operators have an understanding
of CSR These tour operators are asked if their company has a CSR policy. 52% of the tour
operators indicate that they have a policy on CSR. 43% of the tour operators indicate
that they do not have a policy on CSR and 5% of the tour operators do not know whether
they have a policy on CSR. As companies might have actions on CSR but do not know the
concept of CSR, all companies are asked whether their company supports social or
environmental projects. 83% of the tour operators support social or environmental
projects whereas 17% of the tour operators do not. 20% of the tour operators indicate
that they are obliged by law to spend 2% of their net profit on CSR. 66% of the tour
operators indicate that they do not have to spent 2% of their net profit on CSR and 14%
does not know if they fall under this law.
For the questions about CSR actions some respondents were excluded as no answers
were provided for this section. In total 105 tour operators answered the questions on
their actions. The actions are divided in 4 different categories:
• Actions related to treatment of employees
• Actions related to the social dimension
• Actions related to the environmental dimension
• Actions related to the economic dimension
Employees
Surveys
In table 3 the results are given of the actions of tour operators in relation to the
employees. Although not all respondents would classify these actions as CSR, treatment
of employees is a very important part of CSR. It is visible that a majority of the tour
operators (90%) have fair wages for all employees, equal opportunities in hiring
practices (79%), employee benefits (76%) and skill development programs for
employees (66%). A minority of the tour operators (42%) gives certain trainings. Only
25% of the tour operators have an Internal Complaint Committee. As this is only
mandatory in India for larger companies, it is clear that this is a low score due to the
substantial number of small and medium sized tour operators in the sample. Like the
internal complaint committee, also scoring low with 25% is the monitoring of labor
practices of suppliers.

44
Table 3: Actions – Employees

Actions -‐ Employees

Fair wages for all employees 90
Equal opportunity hiring practices 79
Employee benewits 76
Skills development programs for employees 66
Periodic training for employees on health and

43
safety
Periodic training for employees on the
42
environment and community sensitivity
Internal Complaint Committee 25
Monitoring of labor practices of suppliers 25
0 20 40 60 80 100

Interviews
Of the tour operators that are interviewed there are mixed answers. All tour operators
have fair wages for employees and equal opportunities in the hiring process. Some
companies have benefits for employees. A majority of the companies explain that they
focus on skills development of employees. Out of the seventeen companies, thirteen
have an Internal Complain Committee. With two companies this was a very informal
process without any real guidelines to it. Many of the tour operators provide trainings
for their employees on the environment and/or communities but generally speaking this
only refers to the local guides and mostly this is done in an informal manner. Four tour
operators keep the practices of their suppliers in mind but only one tour operator
monitors certain suppliers. There was variance in answers and what the responsibility
of a tour operator is, was a discussion point. Some tour operators mention that this is
not their responsibility and that every stakeholder has its own responsibility.

‘Lies with somebody else, yeah yes’ (tour operator about responsibility)
‘See as a hotel guest, they have a lot of things which is directed to the environment and
things like that but as a tour operator, what we do is we only arrange all these things. In
that the environment thing does not come in the picture because see we sit in an
aircraft, it does not belong to us, we go to hotels, it does not belong to us, we arrange for
a coach, it does not belong to us. We only do...’

There are tour operators that mention that their suppliers are partly their responsibility
but that monitoring is very difficult. One tour operator checks the cars and buses that
45
are driving for them with a checklist. In this way, for example underage workers can be
spotted. The tour operator that looks at the supply chain admits that it is very difficult to
monitor down the supply chain. As they for example work with bus companies that they
have a contract with but if more buses are needed, other companies are used via their
contracted companies. This is one of the reasons that makes monitoring difficult. Next to
this, it is also not possible to know what happens after the company check.

‘It’s very tricky, it depends on how far we can also monitor. So that’s why the
assessment was also hard for us to understand that... Listen, what can we do? But what
can we do about it if we don’t have a contract with them’.

There are tour operators that look at the hotels that are contracted but this is mainly
focused on hygiene and safety. One tour operator mentions certain clauses are included
in their contracts. These focus on employees and protection of women and children.
Social
Surveys
In table 4 the results are given of the actions of tour operators that belong to the social
dimension. Respecting property rights is done by 72% of the tour operators. 65% of the
tour operators follow the Sustainable Tourism Criteria for India (STCI). 61% of the tour
operators educate their clients on the social impacts and 60% assist with local
development projects. 53% donates a percentage of their profit to social projects. A
minority of the tour operators does the other social actions. 49% contributes to
protection, 35% has a policy against commercial exploitation, 34% promotes social
codes and standards and 30% conducts a social impact study on their destinations.

Interviews
In the interviews, all tour operators say to respect the property rights of local
communities. Many tour operators have their own codes of conduct but none of the tour
operators follow the Sustainable Tourism Criteria for India and most tour operators
have not even heard of this. This can be related to the fact that this has just been
implemented but it is therefore surprising to see the difference with the results of the
tour operators of the survey. As the government of India had a code of conduct for
tourism before, this might have been considered to be the same. There are tour
operators that explain how they educate their clients. Most tour operators do this in an
informal manner via the local guide. This means that it is also not possible to check
whether tour operators actually do this. One tour operator showed a brochure that they
created to inform their travelers about the region they were going to. The brochure was
linked to social and environmental issues of that region and educated travelers how to
act responsibly.

46
Table 4: Actions – Social

Actions -‐ Social
Respect the property rights of local communities 72
Follow the Sustainable Tourism Criteria for India

65
(STCI)
Education of clients about social issues and how to

61
minimize negative impacts
Assist with local development projects 60
Donate a percentage of prowits to social projects 53
Contribute to the protection of local, historical,

culturally and spiritually important properties and 49
sites
Implementation of a policy against commercial
35
exploitation
Promotion of social codes and standards to suppliers 34
Conduct a social impact study on destinations 30
0 20 40 60 80 100

Almost all tour operators (15) assist with or donate money for social projects. From all
actions mentioned by tour operators, this action is mentioned most. Six tour operators
have a focus on the protection of important properties and sites. This is found
important, as this is in some cases the main reason for tourists to come to that specific
sight. None of the tour operators directly focuses on commercial exploitation. The four
tour operators that keep the practices of their suppliers in mind also promote social
codes and standards to suppliers. When companies are asked about social impact
studies, some tour operators mention they do this but when more questions were
answered none of the tour operators could exactly explain, give examples or show a
report.

Respondent: ‘We monitor the ehhh we monitor their services and ehh basically we have
ehh we have several guidelines we know they are following so we keep that in mind
ehh (longer pause) when we give them the business’
Interviewer: ‘Do you have this on paper?’
Respondent: ‘No’

47
Only one tour operator has done a social impact study and has a (public) report on this.
This tour operator uses this report as their focus points for their CSR policy and to work
on issues in certain destinations.
Environmental
Surveys
In table 5 the results are given of the actions of tour operators that belong to the
environmental dimension. Compared to the social dimension and the actions regarding
employees it is visible that companies do not have as many actions related to the
environment. Three actions have a small majority but most actions are only done by a
minority of the tour operators.
Table 5: Actions – Environmental

Actions -‐ Environmental

Support of endangered species or conservation of
58
wildlife area/park
Education of clients about biodiversity and resource
52
protection
Limited group sizes for tours to 16 pax or fewer 51
Have an in-‐house environmental program (recycling,

41
waste reduction, energy efwiciency)
Policy on energy consumption 33
Promotion of environmental codes and standards to

32
suppliers
Donate a percentage of prowits to environmental
31
projects
Conduct an environmental impact study on
23
destinations
Offer clients carbon-‐offsetting options 18
0 20 40 60 80 100

58% of the tour operators support the conservation of wildlife. 52% of the tour
operators educate their clients on biodiversity and resource protection. 51% of the tour
operators offer tours that have group sizes of sixteen travelers or less. 41% of the tour
operators have an in-‐house environmental program. 32% promote environmental codes
and standards to suppliers. 31% donates a percentage of their profit to environmental
projects. 23% conduct an environmental impact study on their destinations. The lowest
scoring action is to offer clients carbon-‐offsetting options with 18%.

48
Interviews
With the tour operators that are interviewed you can see similar results as with the
social actions. The companies that educate their clients on social issues also do this in
regard to environmental issues. Almost all companies (16) have an (informal) in-‐house
environmental program. Mostly mentioned are the separation of waste, light usage, use
of air-‐conditioning and printing. One tour operator mentions the environmental policies
for their new office.

‘When it comes to the environment – we are building a new office in Gurgaon. This will
be with solar power, water preservation and plants. We now also have plants on the
roof. Greenery is energy’.

One tour operator used hybrid cars for their car rentals. Most companies do not see the
link between them and their suppliers and do not promote environmental policies.

‘(Long silence) ‘ehh see that is, most of our tourists go to hotels so the hotels have to
look at it for us it is not applicable’.

Like with the social actions, there is one tour operator that conducted an environmental
impact study. The issues that have been found in their destinations are part of their
focus for CSR. There is also one company that does research into issues and changes
aspects of their tours if it is hindering the social wellbeing of the community or the
environment.
Economic
Surveys
In table 6 the results are given of the actions of tour operators that belong to the
economic dimension. Four actions are done by a majority of the tour operators. 79% of
the tour operators employ local residents. 77% of the tour operators give guidelines to
the clients about being a responsible traveler. 75% of the tour operators work with
environmentally and socially responsible suppliers. 61% of the tour operators purchase
local or fair trade goods and services when possible. Two actions are done by a minority
of the companies. 30% of the tour operators provide sustainable guidelines for
suppliers. 25% has a department or employee specifically responsible for Corporate
Social Responsibility.

Interviews
All companies that are interviewed employ local residents. Guidelines given to be a
responsible traveler are mostly done in an informal manner by the local guides. Four
tour operators out of seventeen look at their suppliers and whether they are socially and
environmentally responsible. This result differs significantly from the outcome of the
surveys. Of the seventeen tour operators there are four companies that have one or
more employees that specifically focus on CSR. These employees generally also have
different other tasks. One company has an employee that is solely responsible for CSR.
49
Table 6: Actions – Economic

Actions -‐ Economic
Employment of local residents 79
Guidelines given to clients to be a responsible

77
traveler
Work with suppliers which are environmentally and
75
socially responsible
Local and fair trade goods and services are
61
purchased when possible
Provide sustainable purchasing guidelines for
30
suppliers
Department or employee speciwically responsible for
25
Corporate Social Responsibility
0 20 40 60 80 100

Conclusion
This paragraph gives the results on the actions concerning CSR that tour operators
undertake. Having a policy is sometimes considered to be for big companies only. Some
tour operators also mention that they do not have actions as they focus on outbound
tourism. During the interviews it became evident that for most tour operators CSR
policies are limited. One tour operator says the following about the industry:

‘Tourism sector is not good with Social Responsibility, we are not. No one is doing
anything, which isn’t a bad thing. Someone could be faffing that they doing something
but no one is actually doing anything. So for us also typically on our financial books you
will not find any CSR activity taking place per say’.

Even though many companies do not see certain actions as CSR, it is visible that many
tour operators have certain actions in place. Many tour operators do not consider the
supply chain as part of their responsibility. There are a few tour operators that realise
their influence with suppliers. One of the tour operators with most actions in all fields
and a holistic outtake on CSR mentions the following:

‘We didn’t start a revolution so to say, because we're also only a tour operator, there’s
only that much we can do, so very clear about that’.

Out of the seventeen companies, two tour operators look at all company actions and
their suppliers. Many companies have certain actions that fall under CSR but not
necessarily a holistic view or approach. Next to the understanding of Corporate Social
Responsibility, companies were asked in a separate question whether they have a policy
50
on sustainable tourism. Of the seventeen tour operators, nine companies have a policy
on this. Eight companies do not have a policy on sustainable tourism.

‘You know, look I do, I do ehh recognize that (silence) eco (silence) ehhh you know the
environment will get affected but you know at the end of the day there’s got to be a
balance in this whole exercise ehh. I am not saying that we should destroy the
environment but at the same time, I am not saying that we can keep quiet and just allow
things to go. There got to be a balance’.

Three companies have plans but at the moment nothing is realised yet. They cannot
indicate why there is no policy yet.

I don’t know because it is something new for us. Something new for us and there was no
compulsion of that.

Six companies have a policy on sustainable tourism and focus on this. 1 of these
companies has ‘tourcert’ and ‘travelife’, which are both certification schemes for
sustainable tourism.

4.5 Research Question 4 – Drivers of CSR
One of the research questions focuses on the drivers of CSR and where the drivers come
from. In this paragraph the results are given on this research question. These insights
take the analysing of the results of paragraph 4.4 to a higher dimension. For clarity and a
better understanding, the quantitative and qualitative results in this paragraph are
separated. In the first sub paragraph the descriptive results of the drivers are given.
Furthermore, the process of data reduction in this research is explained, followed by the
composition of new variables for further analyses and finally the regression analyses are
described. The second sub paragraph explains the qualitative results.
4.5.1 Quantitative results

Part of the research focused on the drivers for CSR. In table 7 the results of the
quantitative part are given. The statements in the table were tested with a Likert scale
and answers vary between 1 and 5. The table is included to show all the results. Only
some of the outcomes are discussed in this paragraph. Interesting as a result is that
religion does not seem to be a reason for the philanthropy of the businesses (2,29). This
is mainly interesting as research has shown different results and the results from the
qualitative part which will be discussed further in this paragraph are different. Tour
operators do agree with the importance of nation building in their business philosophy
(4,22). Social and environmental practices should contribute to a better financial state of
the company (3,70) but on the other hand giving back is seen as an obligation (4,01) and
tour operators also agree that they care about the society and planet and that this is a
reason for economic, social and/or ecological initiatives (3,93). With many of the other
statements the mean is around 3 and no clear agreement or disagreement is seen.
51
Table 7: Descriptive results -‐ Drivers

N Mean Std.
Deviation
Religion is (part of) the reason of the philanthropy of our business 94 2,29 1,043
Nation building and socio-‐economic development are important in 98 4,22 ,666
our business philosophy
Social and environmental practices should contribute to a better 90 3,70 ,841
financial state of our company
Giving back to society is our obligation 90 4,01 ,868
Investing in CSR is part of our marketing strategy 88 3,35 ,959
We do not have a CSR policy because financially this is not possible 89 3,09 1,062
for our company
Our company cares about the society and the planet and therefore we 87 3,93 ,695
have economic, social and/or ecological initiatives
We only follow legislation regarding environmental and social 87 3,03 1,017
practices
Our company is too small to have a CSR policy 89 3,20 1,179
The government stimulates our company to focus on sustainable 90 2,91 1,013
tourism
Non-‐Governmental Organisations or other institutions stimulate our 92 3,11 ,966
company to focus on sustainable tourism
The associations we are affiliated with, have a focus on sustainable 92 3,65 ,804
tourism
We have sufficient opportunities to receive support (e.g. consultancy, 92 2,98 ,983
training or financial support) for sustainable tourism options
We feel pressured (by the government, organizations or 92 2,43 ,843
communities) into having a CSR policy
We have a CSR policy because customers expect us to have this and 91 3,03 ,971
care about this

Data Reduction
To analyse the quantitative part it is necessary to analyse the data. To be certain that the
variables measure what they are suppose to measure, reliability analysis is conducted.
In order to make the data more manageable, the data was reduced to create new
variables for further analysis. In the survey different statements represented the same
concept. To find out if these statements can represent the concept and a new variable
can be created, reliability analyses were done. In the following sub-‐paragraphs, the
various drivers are analysed. The first step in this process was looking at the
significance.

52
Independent variables

Culture
In the survey two statements were directly related to culture, in order to research
whether this could be a driver of CSR. In table 8, the cultural factors with the mean and
standard deviation are given. With more than two statements Cronbach’s Alpha is
calculated but as there are only two factors, the reliability is calculated with Pearson’s
Correlation. Next to reliability, Pearson’s correlation can be used to measure the
strength of association. Pearson r of .10 is small/minimal, .30 is medium / typical and
.50 is large substantial. In this case, there is no significant relationship between the two
statements of culture. Pearson’s r = .13. P = .903 and as p>.05. As there is no significant
relationship, culture will not be further analysed in the quantitative part of this research.
Table 8: Cultural factors

N=94 Mean Std.
Deviation
Religion is (part of) the reason of the philanthropy of our business (1) 2,29 1,043
Nation building and socio-‐economic development are important in our 4,22 0,666
business philosophy (2)

Institutions
The next category to be analysed is the category of institutions. The variables in the
category of institutions have a Cronbach’s Alpha of .585, which means there is no
reliability. In table 9 the mean and standard deviation of each variable is given.
Cronbach’s Alpha will only increase marginally to .586 if any of the constructs is deleted.
Therefore, no constructs are deleted. Although the measurement level of .65 is not
reached, in research the threshold of Cronbach’s Alpha of .6 is also used. As the results
are close to .6 the decision has been made to include this variable in analysing.
Table 9: Institutional factors

N=90 Mean Std. Cronbach’s
Deviation Alpha if Item
Deleted
The government stimulates our company to focus on 2,91 1,013 ,401
sustainable tourism (1)
Non-‐Governmental Organisations or other institutions 3,11 ,965 ,488
stimulate our company to focus on sustainable tourism (2)
The associations we are affiliated with, have a focus on 3,64 ,812 ,555
sustainable tourism (3)
We have sufficient opportunities to receive support (e.g. 2,98 ,983 ,582
consultancy, training or financial support) for sustainable
tourism options (4)
We feel pressured (by the government, organizations or 2,42 ,834 ,586
communities) into having a CSR policy (5)
53
Stakeholders
The third category is the category of stakeholders. The variables in the category of
stakeholders have a Cronbach’s Alpha of .674, which means there is reliability. In table
10 the mean and standard deviation of each variable is given. Cronbach’s Alpha will not
increase if any of the constructs were deleted.
Table 10: Stakeholders

Deviation Alpha if
Item
Deleted
Companies are part of the society and therefore responsible 4,25 ,778 ,628
for the society in which they operate (1)
Not only shareholders of the company but everybody 4,04 ,671 ,648
affected by our company should be taken in account in
relation to the operation of a company (2)
Nation building and socio-‐economic development are 4,24 ,673 ,575
important in our business philosophy (3)
Giving back to society is our obligation (4) 4,01 ,876 ,650
Our company cares about the society and the planet and 3,92 ,702 ,611
therefore we have economic, social and/or ecological
initiatives (5)

Shareholders
The variables in the category of shareholders have a Cronbach’s Alpha of .498 which
means there is no reliability. In table 11 the mean and standard deviation of each
variable is given. Cronbach’s Alpha will increase if construct 4 is deleted. It will then
increase to the acceptable level of .667. Therefore construct 4 is removed for further
analyses.
Table 11: Shareholders

Deviation Alpha if
Item
Deleted
CSR is a task of the government, not of businesses (1) 1,92 1,002 ,311
Companies should focus only on making a profit (2) 1,81 ,917 ,331
Only state companies should have a CSR strategy (3) 1,99 ,848 ,340
Social and environmental practices should contribute to a 3,71 ,819 ,667
better financial state of our company (4)
We only follow legislation regarding environmental and 3,00 1,024 ,431
social practices (5)

54
Conclusion
Variables that belong together were grouped to make the data more manageable to
analyse. Next to the grouping based on theoretical understandings, for grouping
different variables Exploratory Factor Analysis (Principal component analysis in SPSS)
has been employed. With these analyses, varimax rotation was used and values below .4
were suppressed. These analyses did not give any different results. Therefore the
original grouping based on theory has remained the same. To conclude, the reliability
was tested for the different groups. In cases with three or more variables, Cronbach’s
Alpha was used and in cases with two variables Pearson’s R was used. Of the four
different categories, culture is not further researched due to insignificance. The other
three categories (stakeholders, shareholders and institutions) will be used for analysing.
Of the theoretical model, these three categories reflect the external drivers. For all of
these external drivers, composite indices were created for ‘stakeholders’, ‘shareholders’
and ‘institutions’.
Dependent variables
The fourth research question focuses on the relationship between drivers and CSR
actions. In the last paragraph the process of data reduction for the drivers is explained.
This will also be done for the dependent variables: the CSR actions. These actions have
been explained on a descriptive level in paragraph 4.4 but need to be analysed on a
higher level in order to conduct regression analyses.

Employees
The variables in the category of employees have a Cronbach’s Alpha of .751, which
means it is reliable. In table 12 the mean and standard deviation of each variable is
given. Cronbach’s Alpha will increase to the level of .762 if construct 1 is deleted. As this
is a relatively small difference, the decision is made to keep construct 1.
Table 12: Employees

Deviation Alpha if
Item
Deleted
Equal opportunity hiring practices (hiring of women, ,79 ,409 ,762
racial minorities) (1)
Fair wages for all employees (2) ,90 ,308 ,748
Employee benefits (3) ,76 ,428 ,723
Skills development programs for employees (4) ,66 ,477 ,722
Internal Complaint Committee (5) ,35 ,480 ,706
Monitoring of labor practices of suppliers (6) ,25 ,434 ,714
Periodic training for employees on health and safety (7) ,43 ,497 ,705
Periodic training for employees on the environment and ,42 ,496 ,706
community sensitivity (8)

55
Social
The variables in the category ‘social’ have a Cronbach’s Alpha of .776, which means there
is reliability. In table 13 the mean and standard deviation of each variable is given.
Cronbach’s Alpha would not increase if any item is deleted.
Table 13: Social

Deviation Alpha if
Item Deleted
Contribute to the protection of local, historical, culturally ,49 ,502 ,771
and spiritually important properties and sites (1)
Assist with local development projects (2) ,60 ,492 ,762
Conduct a social impact study on destinations (3) ,30 ,458 ,745
Promotion of social codes and standards to suppliers (4) ,34 ,477 ,752
Respect the property rights of local communities (5) ,72 ,449 ,749
Donate a percentage of profits to social projects (6) ,53 ,501 ,770
Implementation of a policy against commercial ,35 ,480 ,747
exploitation (including sexual exploitation) (7)
Education of clients about social issues and how to ,61 ,490 ,747
minimize negative impacts (8)
Follow the Sustainable Tourism Criteria for India (STCI) ,65 ,480 ,750
(9)

Environmental
The variables in the category ‘environmental’ have a Cronbach’s Alpha of .771, which
means there is reliability. In table 14 the mean and standard deviation of each variable is
given. Cronbach’s Alpha would not increase if any item were deleted.
Table 14: Environmental

N=105 Mean Std. Cronbach’s Alpha
Deviation if Item Deleted
Have an in-‐house environmental program (recycling, waste ,41 ,494 ,770
reduction, energy efficiency) (1)
Conduct an environmental impact study on destinations (2) ,23 ,422 ,751
Promotion of environmental codes and standards to ,32 ,470 ,761
suppliers (3)
Limited group sizes for tours to 16 pax or fewer (4) ,51 ,502 ,756
Support of endangered species or conservation of wildlife ,58 ,496 ,733
area/park (5)
Offer clients carbon-‐offsetting options (6) ,18 ,387 ,753
Donate a percentage of profits to environmental projects (7) ,30 ,463 ,740
Policy on energy consumption (8) ,33 ,474 ,748
Education of clients about biodiversity and resource ,52 ,502 ,735
protection (9)
56
Economic
The variables in the category ‘economic’ have a Cronbach’s Alpha of .716, which means it
is reliable. In table 15 the mean and standard deviation of each variable is given.
Cronbach’s Alpha would increase to the level of .718 if construct 1 were deleted. As this
is a relatively small difference, the decision was made to keep construct 1.
Table 15: economic

Deviation Alpha if
Item
Deleted
Provide sustainable purchasing guidelines for suppliers (1) ,30 ,458 ,718
Local and fair trade goods and services are purchased ,61 ,490 ,641
when possible (2)
Guidelines given to clients to be a responsible traveler (3) ,77 ,422 ,669
Employment of local residents (4) ,79 ,409 ,689
Work with suppliers (hotels, transportation etc.) which are ,75 ,434 ,667
environmentally and socially responsible (5)
Department or employee specifically responsible for ,25 ,434 ,674
Corporate Social Responsibility (6)

To conclude, the reliability is tested for the different CSR actions. Cronbach’s Alpha is
used to look at the reliability. All the different categories are found to be reliable. The
four categories will be used for further analysing. Of the theoretical model, these
categories reflect the CSR actions. For these actions, composite indices are created for
‘Employees’, ‘Social actions’, ‘Environmental actions’ and ‘Economic actions’.

Regression Analyses
The next step in the analyses is to create new variables. In total 3 independent variables
are created and 4 dependent variables are created. These variables can be seen in table
16. For the regression analyses N=91.
Table 16: Variables

Independent Dependent
Stakeholders Employees
Shareholders Social
Institutions Environmental
Economic

The next step is the regression equations using the stepwise entry method testing the
hypothetical relationships of the components and/or variables. It is important to realise
that an explanation is not necessarily a causal explanation. Correlation between two
variables does not indicate causation or for that matter the direction of the cause and
effect. Correlation is there when there is a cause-‐effect relationship but not always the
57
other way around. The main aim is to research if there is a relationship between drivers
and CSR actions of tour operators. To provide answers and see if relationships exist,
regression analyses were carried out. With the regression analyses it is possible to find
the statistical significance and with that a relationship between variables can be proven.
Furthermore, the effect size can be calculated, which makes it possible to explain how
large the relation is between subjects. The regression analyses will provide answers to
the question of whether the independent variables predict CSR actions. The adjusted R
square provides an idea of how well the model generalizes. It explains the percent of
variability in the dependent variable that is explained by the independent variable(s).
The strength of the relationship can be determined by the β value. This standardized
coefficient indicates the relative effect of each independent variable (predictor) on the
dependent variable (outcome). The relation can be positive or negative. It is important
to look at the significance of the relationship, it can be considered significant when p
≤.05. Also the Adjusted R Square needs to be taken into account when analysing.

Employees
Regression model 1 shows that there is a significant relation between the drivers and
the CSR actions in the category ‘employees’ as p=.004. The adjusted R square is .114,
which means that 11% of the variation of CSR actions regarding employees can be
explained by the predictors shareholders, stakeholders and institutions (see appendix lll
– Table 17). Looking at the individual predictors for CSR actions, neither institutions nor
shareholders make a significant contribution in predicting CSR actions in the category
‘employees’. However, stakeholders appeared to be significant (ß=.346, t=3.193,
p.=.002). 34% of the total variance of the actions in the category ‘employees’ can be
explained by the individual driver of stakeholders. The significance of stakeholders
indicate that this predictor positively influences the CSR actions regarding employees.
These results can be seen in table 18.
Table 18: Regression model 1 – Employees

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Beta
Error
1 (Constant) -‐,205 ,327 -‐,628 ,532
INSTITUTIONS ,010 ,048 ,021 ,203 ,840
STAKEHOLDERS ,197 ,062 ,346 3,193 ,002
SHAREHOLDERS -‐,028 ,042 -‐,073 -‐,661 ,510
a. Dependent Variable: EMPLOYEES

58
Social Actions
the CSR actions in the category ‘social’ as p=.000. The adjusted R square is .221, which
means that 22% of the variance of the ‘Social’ CSR actions can be explained by the
predictors shareholders, stakeholders and institutions (see appendix lll – Table 19).
Looking at the individual predictors for CSR actions, institutions (ß=.347, t=3,623,
p.=.000), stakeholders (ß=.202, t=1,984, p.=.050) and shareholders (ß=-‐.317, t=-‐3,047,
p.=.003) make a significant contribution in predicting CSR actions in the category
‘social’. Institutions explain 35% of the variance for the social CSR actions. 20% of the
total variance in the category ‘social’ can be explained by the individual driver of
stakeholders. 31% of the total variance in the category ‘social’ can be explained by the
individual driver of shareholders. With shareholders, the relationship is negative. The
significance of institutions, stakeholders and shareholders indicate that these predictors
positively (institutions and stakeholders) and negatively (shareholders) influence the
social CSR actions. These results are shown in table 20.
Table 20: Regression model 2 – Social

Coefficientsa
B Std. Beta
Error
1 (Constant) -‐,234 ,327 -‐,716 ,476
INSTITUTIONS ,173 ,048 ,347 3,623 ,000
STAKEHOLDERS ,123 ,062 ,202 1,984 ,050
SHAREHOLDERS -‐,127 ,042 -‐,317 -‐3,047 ,003
a. Dependent Variable: SOCIAL
Environmental Actions
Regression model 3 significantly shows that there is a significant relation between the
drivers and the CSR actions in the category ‘environmental’ as p=.000. The adjusted R
square is .185, which means that 18% of the variance of ‘environmental’ CSR actions can
be explained by the predictors shareholders, stakeholders and institutions (see
appendix lll – table 21). Looking at the individual predictors for CSR actions, institutions
(ß=.257, t=2,624, p.=.010), stakeholders (ß=.236, t=2,267, p.=.026) and shareholders
(ß=-‐.288, t=-‐2,706, p.=.008) make a significant contribution in predicting CSR actions in
the category ‘environmental’. Institutions explain 26% of the variance of the
environmental CSR actions. 24% of the variance of the total actions in the category
‘environmental’ can be explained by the individual driver of stakeholders. 29% of the
variance of the total actions in the category ‘environmental’ can be explained by the
individual driver of shareholders. With shareholders, the relationship is negative. The
significance of institutions, stakeholders and shareholders indicate that these predictors
positively (institutions and stakeholders) and negatively (shareholders) influence the
59
environmental CSR actions. These results are presented in table 22.
Table 22: Regression model 3 – Environment

Coefficientsa
B Std. Beta
Error
1 (Constant) -‐,330 ,332 -‐,994 ,323
INSTITUTIONS ,127 ,048 ,257 2,624 ,010
STAKEHOLDERS ,142 ,063 ,236 2,267 ,026
SHAREHOLDERS -‐,115 ,042 -‐,288 -‐2,706 ,008
a. Dependent Variable: ENVIRONMENT

Economic Actions
the CSR actions in the category ‘economic’ as p=.007. The adjusted R square is .098,
which means that 10% of the variance of ‘economic’ CSR actions can be explained by the
predictors shareholders, stakeholders and institutions (see appendix lll – table 23).
Looking at the individual predictors for CSR actions, institutions (ß=.271, t=2,625,
p.=.010), stakeholders (ß=.235, t=2,149, p.=.034) make a significant contribution in
predicting CSR actions in the category ‘environmental’. Viewing the individual
predictors for CSR actions, shareholders does not make a significant contribution in
predicting CSR actions in the category ‘environment’. Institutions explain 27% of the
variance of the economic CSR actions. 24% of the variance of the total actions in the
category ‘economic’ can be explained by the individual driver of stakeholders. The
significance of institutions and stakeholders indicate that these predictors positively
influence the economic CSR actions. These results are presented in table 24.
Table 24: Regression model 4 – Economic

Coefficientsa
B Std. Beta
Error
1 (Constant) -‐,287 ,337 -‐,854 ,396
INSTITUTIONS ,129 ,049 ,271 2,625 ,010
STAKEHOLDERS ,137 ,064 ,235 2,149 ,034
SHAREHOLDERS -‐,033 ,043 -‐,086 -‐,767 ,445
a. Dependent Variable: ECONOMIC
60
4.5.2 Qualitative results
One of the topics during the interviews was the drivers of CSR. To understand what
drives CSR actions, internal and external drivers are looked at and in the interviews the
different theoretical perspectives were considered. The same categories were used with
the qualitative part of the research as with the quantitative part of the research (culture,
institutions, stakeholders and shareholders).
In the interviews with tour operators it is visible that most tour operators are
driven by culture and stakeholders. Although institutions are mentioned, this only
relates to the government and to the legislation of the government. None of the tour
operators have a feeling that education, NGO’s or the associations they are affiliated
with, stimulate CSR actions. It can be that the lack of focus on CSR by institutions results
in lack of actions but this cannot be determined in these interviews. The government is
mentioned different times.

‘The government is making people more aware’.

It is also mentioned that the government stimulates growth. Mostly not related to
sustainable growth. Also the balance of growth and sustainability is mentioned by some
of the tour operators.

‘Yes, the government should look at it. I think the government is doing something but
you don't know. See, there is so much of pressure from the people for development so
the government is caught in two lines. Should I look at the people? Or should I cut down
the forest? It is something world over, not only India’.

Competition
Of the seventeen tour operators, fourteen admit to having serious competition. The
fragmented market of India was mentioned multiple times just as the organised and
unorganised market.

‘Competition.. we have Company X and there are others, a lot of small players who are
there in the market. Because the Indian travel industry is a bit of a fragmented market’
Respondent 1: ‘There is a lot of competition’
Respondent 2: ‘A lot of competition’
‘Look we do have, see you know there has been lot of competition with tour operators
and also in terms of the destination. See if we compete we do not compete only as the
other tour operators in India. We also compete with other destinations’

Research has shown that competition can be regarded as a constraint to adopt CSR. The
quote underneath is an example of the fact that competition, profits and CSR are linked
with one another.

‘We try to but let’s be honest, today the focus is so much on the economics that are
happening and to be able to get the business because there is so much competition
61
happening. Yes we try to work towards the environment but we don’t always succeed’.

Three tour operators indicated they had no competition.

‘We don’t have any competition. It is a healthy market and everybody has its share. We
look at new markets as well and we don’t want to put all our eggs in one basket. We
actually focus on all markets and all countries’.

Based on these results of the interviews it is nevertheless not possible to draw
conclusions if competition is directly linked to having a CSR policy.
Other drivers are mentioned within conversation. One of the important ones,
which became visible, is the importance of the ‘agent’. In some companies the owner
was interviewed and his opinion came across as the vision of the company. In interviews
with employees with other management positions it sometimes was visible that the
person was representing a view of the company or owner. This is linked to the drivers of
CSR policies. The following quote is one of these examples.

‘The chairman of the company is very soft hearted. He gives a lot of money. He used to
give a lot of money.

In interviews the topic of religion was named as one of the drivers of CSR. Two quotes
related to religion are:

‘I think it will happen, it will happen. In India we are very big CSR, automatically you
will find it. Because Indians are religious, I think we have 0.1% atheist and 80% is
strong religious people, we are a religious people’.

‘When it comes to CSR we are very different than others. For us it is not like for anyone
else. When you look at India, CSR is a modern term. Indians are caring by nature. It is in
us to give because it is part of our religion as well. For example when you are Hindu you
have to and will give to the ones that need it. You give donations. As a child you are
already your parents already teach you this. You have to do good for others and it
comes naturally’.
Some companies see CSR as a business tool but opinions are divided.

‘Would we be going to an unrelated area, the answer is no. I mean it would have to be
somewhere indirectly related to tourism somewhere’.

Some companies see CSR as a marketing strategy whereas one company admits the need
to get something out of the investment. This being said, also this company questions
whether something really would come back and if there is a spin off. Not every company
admits the business strategy behind CSR and it seemed that companies who did look at
it that way felt the need to explain. In a way it became obvious that gaining publicity
62
with CSR is looked at negatively although almost all companies search publicity via
newspapers of websites. There were companies that highlighted the fact the CSR was
really not related to marketing.

‘We don’t highlight this because we don’t like to boast about this. That is not our way.
We just keep doing it but don’t want to focus on this. Corporates need to highlight their
CSR. For us it has nothing to do with marketing’.

Conclusion
Different drivers can be seen with tour operators. One of the interesting outcomes that
is different between the quantitative and the qualitative part is the influence of religion.
In the interviews various tour operators mentioned this. In the surveys, tour operators
generally did not agree with the driver of religion. Most tour operators agree with
drivers related to responsibility towards stakeholders. One of the drivers with high
agreement did mention the need that environmental and social practices had to
influence the financial situation for the company in a positive manner. This is a very
interesting outcome and contradicts some of the other statements that tour operators
agree with.
Of the four independent variables, three were used for further analysing;
Institutions, Stakeholders and Shareholders. Culture was found not significant and
therefore not further analysed. The four dependent variables were found significant and
therefore used for further analysing. The dependent variables are: Employees, Social,
Environmental and Economic. Regression analysed took the analysing to the next level.
Significant relations are found between stakeholders and employees. In the category
‘social’ relations were found with institutions, stakeholders and shareholders. In the
category ‘environment’ relations were found between institutions, stakeholders and
shareholders. In the category ‘economic’ relations were found between institutions and
stakeholders.
The qualitative part shows that both culture and stakeholders are drivers of CSR
with tour operators. Institutions do not seem to be a driver but on the other hand, the
institutional context might be a reason for lacking policies. From the interviews, these
conclusions cannot be drawn. It is visible that tour operators feel that they have strong
competition and this might be a reason why companies do not focus on CSR. Many
companies discussed CSR as a marketing tool or business advantage and opinions on
this topic are divided. For some companies this is certainly a driver whereas others
indicate that this is not important.

63
5. Discussion and Conclusion
This final chapter describes the discussion and conclusion of the research. The first
paragraph will focus on the discussion of the different research questions and answers
the sub questions. A link is made between the results, existing research and the
theoretical framework. The last two sub paragraphs give the reflections on the used
methods and theories. In paragraph 5.2 the main research question is discussed and
answered. In 5.3 the recommendations and advise for future research is given.

5.1 Discussion

5.1.1 Understanding of CSR
The first research question is: What is the understanding of Corporate Social
Responsibility of tour operators in India?
Definitions in both interviews as surveys were analysed and the mentioning of
certain key words made it possible to analyse the understanding of tour operators.
There are five dimensions mentioned by Dahlrud (2006), which were used to analyse
the results. Especially interesting as a result is that the social dimension has been
mentioned more than twice as often as compared to the environmental dimension. This
is an interesting find as CSR is often related to the environment. Research shows an
ecological focus in understandings and awareness of CSR. (Knowles et al., 1999, Ayuso
2006, Kasim 2006, Henderson 2007, Dodds and Kuehnel 2010). Mostly mentioned next
to the social dimension, is the dimension of stakeholders. It is more difficult to draw
conclusions on the depth of the understanding. As there is no unified acceptance of a
definition for CSR. Who determines what CSR is? Nevertheless, it can be said that the
understanding of tour operators in India of CSR focuses mainly on the social and
stakeholders dimension. Some of the tour operators also mention the environment
dimension, economic dimension and voluntariness dimension.
It is visible that there is variance in understandings of CSR. From tour operators
that have never heard of CSR to tour operators that have a full comprehensive
understanding. The surveys show that there still is a relatively large part of the tour
operators (>20%) that have never even heard of the term CSR. There are also three tour
operators of the seventeen tour operators that are interviewed that have never heard of
CSR. For the tour operators of the survey, the conclusion was expected, as research
shows that the understanding of CSR, especially outside the United States or Europe still
is lower (see for example: Merwe and Wocke, 2007). CSR is sometimes still considered
to be a western phenomenon (Aravind, 2011). Research also indicates that
understanding and actions are lower amongst small and medium enterprises (van
Marrewijk, 2003). 96% of the tour operators of this research fall into this category, these
findings are in line with this statement. However, it cannot be stated with certainty that
company size is the reason for lacking understanding on CSR.
With the tour operators that were interviewed, it was difficult to really discover
the understanding of CSR as many tour operators slightly misinterpreted the question
and started mentioning what they do and not necessarily explain what their
64
understanding is. From the conversation it became clear in all interviews what the
understanding of the tour operators was. Furthermore, it was possible to conclude if
there was a limited understanding or a comprehensive understanding. It is surprising to
conclude that three tour operators that are interviewed have no understanding of CSR.
The tour operators that are interviewed are larger influential companies and knowledge
on CSR was therefore expected. That some of the interviewed tour operators had never
even heard of the concept was unexpected.
In many definitions an aspect of giving to (mainly social) projects is mentioned. It
can therefore be concluded that many tour operators in India see CSR as giving to social
or environmental projects. From the interviews it became clear that these projects are
sometimes related to their business or tourism in general but are often unrelated and
focus on issues in the country. Raju (2014) indicates that more structured CSR is
developing instead of just giving to contribution and aid. It must be noted that the
results of this research seem to contradict those findings. A relatively large part of the
tour operators still considers CSR to be the same as ‘giving to good causes’. Both in the
interviews as in the surveys this was visible.
An important aspect of CSR in India is the legislation that obliges certain
companies to spend 2% of their profits on CSR. There were companies that mentioned
this law when asked about their understanding of CSR. There seems to be a lot of
misconception concerning this legislation. Some companies have never heard of this
legislation. Furthermore, companies do not know if they fall under this legislation.
Finally, there are also companies that believe they need to spend 2% of their profits
while they do not have too. The understanding of the laws of the government on CSR is
therefore not there. It seemed to be the case that the largest tour operators in this
research did have an understanding of this law. Most of these companies were still in the
process of discovering the exact details, as this is the first year of the legislation.

5.1.2 Views on CSR
The second research question is: What are the views of tour operators on Corporate
Social Responsibility? This research question relates to the understanding of tour
operators on CSR but the analysing of views goes beyond understanding. It also
separates the thoughts on CSR from the actions on CSR as these actions are further
discussed in paragraph 5.1.3
In the interviews it became clear which view tour operators have on CSR.
Differences in views on CSR by Indian tour operators can certainly be observed. Some
tour operators see CSR as an obligatory part of doing business. This is because tour
operators feel obliged to give back to the community and/or environment. Part of this
obligation is also related to culture in India. Research of Gjolberg (2009) has showed
that CSR has national patterns. Dhanesh (2015) also indicated that giving has been part
of cultural and religious traditions in India. The results of this research agree with those
findings. Also, the mentioned legislation changes the whole view on CSR. Whereas the
voluntary part was an important dimension before, CSR is now becoming
institutionalised in India. This is represented in the views on CSR. At the moment it is
65
too early in time to see what this legislation will do and how this will change the views
on CSR, nevertheless it was already visible that the legislation influences the views of
tour operators in both a positive as a negative way. Meaning that some tour operators
agree with this legislation whereas other do not. The surveys gave remarkable results
regarding the legislation. One of the interesting conclusions that can be drawn is the
agreement of tour operators to making CSR mandatory for all companies.
According to the approaches of van Marrewijk (2003), it is clear that a large
majority of the tour operators has the societal approach. With this approach the
business is responsible to the society in which it operates and many definitions provided
during the interviews and surveys confirmed the societal approach. A smaller group has
a stakeholders approach as their understanding of CSR and only a few tour operators
have a shareholders approach.
Ray and Raju (2014) indicate that corporations can see CSR as a way of
strengthening their business against competition. Within this research these results
were not observed. Most tour operators in this research do not see the business
advantages of CSR. The larger tour operators did see some advantages in having a CSR
policy and indicated that this policy might bring benefits. There are companies that
admitted that publicity is an important part of CSR. Opinions regarding this aspect were
addressed strongly and some tour operators responded in the opposite way; detesting
the ‘media show’ CSR has become and that this is not what CSR is about.
A difference in views can also be seen between tour operators that focus on
inbound tourism and tour operators that focus on outbound or domestic tourism. Tour
operators with a focus on inbound tourism have a better understanding of CSR and
generally regard CSR to be important. Whereas especially tour operators with a focus on
outbound tourism feel CSR is not applicable to them as they do not bring tourists into
India. Consequently, they are not affecting the country and CSR is not for them.
One interesting outcome regarding the views on CSR is that one of the influential
travel associations in the business does not see the need in addressing CSR to its
members. This is a small indicator that institutions around tour operators do not have
CSR on their agenda’s. Although this is only one example, an expert of an institution in
the CSR industry in India only mentions tour operators as receivers of CSR funds. To
look at tour operators as companies having a CSR policy, did not seem to have been done
before. Although not fully researched in this study, it remains interesting to see how
institutions look at CSR. The institutional context forms an important part of CSR in
countries and to observe that CSR is not linked to the tour operator industry (by an
influential company in the CSR industry) is an important find. From the interviews it
also became clear that within tourism studies, CSR and sustainability form a small part
only.

5.1.3 Corporate Social Responsibility Actions
The third research question is: Which Corporate Social Responsibility Actions can be
seen with tour operators in India?
66
Four main topics were used to determine the CSR actions. All actions were
divided in the categories: employees, social, environmental and economic. Of the
companies that have an understanding of CSR, 43% of the tour operators indicate to
have a policy on CSR. This might not be a correct percentage as companies can have a
different understanding of CSR. Sometimes companies do have CSR actions but would
not consider them to be CSR actions according to their understanding, therefore in both
the qualitative as quantitative part of the research, actions were analysed in different
ways. Tour operators also had to indicate whether they support social or environmental
projects. 83% of the tour operators indicate that they do support projects. The third part
in discovering the actions of tour operators was via concrete indicators. These
indicators were divided in the earlier mentioned categories.
Actions in de field of employees are mostly in place. A majority of the companies
have fair wages for employees, equal opportunity hiring practices, employee benefits
and skill development programs. A minority of the companies have periodic training on
health, safety and also regarding the environment and communities. They also lack an
Internal Complaint Committee but as this is only obligated in India for larger companies,
the outcome is logical. In the interviews (with larger tour operators) it was visible that
thirteen out of seventeen tour operators have an internal complaint committee. Also a
minority of companies monitors the labour practices of suppliers.
The second field that is analysed are the social actions. A majority of the tour
operators respect the property rights of local communities, follow the STCI, educate the
clients on social issues, assists with local development projects and donate a percentage
to social projects. A minority of the tour operators contributes to the protection of
sights, has a policy against commercial exploitation, promotes social codes and
standards to suppliers or conducts a social impact studies in destinations. Interesting
here is the variation seen between the outcomes of the surveys and the interviews.
Where none of the tour operators follow or have even heard about the STCI, 65% of the
tour operators of the survey agree to follow these.
The lowest scores can be seen for the environmental actions. A majority of the
tour operators support endangered species or the conservations of wildlife area,
educate the clients about biodiversity and resource protection and limit group sizes for
tours. A majority of the tour operators have an in-‐house environmental program, policy
on energy consumption, promotion of environmental codes and standards, donate to
environmental projects, conduct an impact study or offer carbon-‐offsetting options. This
outcome is quite surprising as certain actions can be done relatively easily. Only 41% of
the tour operators have an in-‐house environmental program and with small adjustments
any tour operator could focus on this. Of the tour operators that are interviewed sixteen
out of seventeen have some sort of environmental in-‐house policy. It is also interesting
to see that donating to social projects is done much more than donating to
environmental projects.
The last category to be analysed are the economic actions. A majority of the
companies employ local residents, give guidelines to clients to be a responsible traveller,
work with suppliers that are responsible and purchase local goods and services where
possible. Also here there are some differences with the outcome of the interviews. Most
67
tour operators admit not to look at the suppliers. Only two tour operators consider this
(and take actions if behaviour is incorrect). A minority of the tour operators provide
sustainable purchasing guidelines for suppliers and have a department or employee
responsible for CSR.
The tour operators cannot prove many of the actions that they indicate they have,
which is an interesting finding. Most tour operators have nothing on paper or mention
they do but proof is never shown. According to Ray and Raju (2014) most companies in
India lack well-‐defined guidelines on CSR and this research agrees with his findings. In
this research it can be concluded that most tour operators do not have guidelines on
paper. Furthermore, Van Wijk and Persoon (2006) have indicated that many tour
operators are vague about their actions. When asked specifically about their CSR actions,
tour operators could not always provide a proper answer and indeed some answers
were vague in description and no proof could be given. Research of Dodds and Kuehnel
also shows that the level of concern is high but that participation is not always visible
and that not many tour operators have CSR actions (2010).

5.1.4 Corporate Social Responsibility Drivers
The fourth research question is: What drives tour operators in India to adopt Corporate
Social Responsibility?
The first part in analysing the drivers was to analyse the descriptive results of the
different drivers. Tour operators find nation building and socio-‐economic development
to be important aspects of business philosophy. Next to this, companies believe that
giving back to society is their obligation and they care about the society and the planet.
This is one of the reasons why companies have a CSR policy. On the contrary, social and
environmental practices should contribute to a better financial state of the company.
This last mentioned statement in a way contradicts the statements mentioned before.
These statements regarding the drivers were further analysed to find answers to the
fourth research question.
This research question has been approached from different theoretical
perspectives. Van Marrewijk (2003) indicates that there are five different levels:
Compliance driven, Profit-‐driven, Caring CS, Synergistic CS, and Holistic CS. It is not
possible to appoint one level that is seen most in India as a mixture can be found. With
the tour operators in this research different levels can be seen. There are researchers
that have appointed different levels regarding research in India (Kumar et al., 2001,
Arora and Puranik, 2004, Dhanesh, 2015). Culture, religion and nation building have a
more important role in their levels. Also according to Matten and Moon (2006) identities
and interests of stakeholders vary cross-‐nationally. Within the qualitative part of this
research it became clear that culture can be a driver of CSR whereas religion could not
be proven as being one of the drivers. Religion was mentioned; nevertheless this was
only by a minority of the tour operators. Culture was not further analysed in the
quantitative part of the research, as no significance was visible.
Various codes of conducts for companies can be seen as drivers of CSR. This is
mostly related to companies in Europe and bigger companies (Matten and Moon, 2006).
68
From this research it can be concluded that tour operators in India do not follow many
codes of conducts. To conclude whether this can be seen as a driver is not possible but it
is possible to conclude that there is a lack of following codes of conducts. Even when
companies indicated to have their own code of conduct, they did not have this on paper
or could not show the document.
According to Dodds and Kuehnel (2010) society and profit can be drivers. With
research in India bot Dhanesh (2015) as Aravind (2011) indicate that moral and
economic imperatives are drivers for CSR. The motives of managers, shareholders and
stakeholders influence CSR of companies (Matten and Moon, 2006). Certain results are
also proven in this research. A significant relationship between stakeholders and actions
regarding employees is found. Furthermore, stakeholders and shareholders influence
the social actions. Shareholders, stakeholders and institutions influence the
environmental actions and to conclude institutions and stakeholders influence economic
actions. Not all drivers are tested in this research; the focus of this research has been on
the external drivers. At the beginning of this research certain hypotheses were created.
These hypotheses are accepted, partially accepted or rejected.

H1. There is a relation between the external driver stakeholders and Corporate
Social Responsibility Actions

This hypothesis is accepted as the category ‘stakeholders’ has a relation with all 4
categories that were created to analyse the CRS Actions.

H2. There is a relation between the external driver ‘shareholders and

This hypothesis is partly accepted as the category ‘shareholders’ has a relation with
social actions and the environmental actions. No relation was found between
shareholders and actions in the category employees and economic actions.

H3. There is a relation between the external driver institutions and Corporate
Social Responsibility Actions

This hypothesis is partly accepted as the category ‘institutions’ has a relation with
environmental actions and economic actions. No relation was found between
institutions and actions in the category employees and social actions.

H4. There is a relation between the internal driver culture and Corporate Social

This hypothesis is rejected as no significance has been found.

As a conclusion it can be said that the external drivers of shareholders, stakeholders and
institutions influence certain Corporate Social Responsibility Actions.
69

5.1.5 Reflections on Methods
The approach for this research is a mixed-‐method approach. The use of different
methods led to a deeper understanding of the topic. The qualitative part provided an
extra dimension and understanding to the quantitative part. Certain understandings
could only be derived from the quantitative part whereas the qualitative part was
necessary for a deeper explanation. Therefore the use of mixed methods seemed to be
the best approach for this research question. Nevertheless research findings are
inevitably influenced by the chosen methods.
Both methods have negative and positive sides to them. In this research the
survey questions may unintentionally ask for social correctness. Although tested, survey
questions can be misunderstood or interpreted differently. Nobody is there to observe
and it is not possible to know who answered the surveys. For this survey it was
preferred that employees with at least a management position would answer the survey.
It can be that employees with a lower position in the end filled the survey out. Another
point of discussion with surveys is whether the questions regarding actions measure
what tour operators actually do. With surveys this is slightly more difficult to test
Regarding the interviews, it became clear when tour operators had actions or not.
Also here social correctness is an issue but it was possible to discover real thoughts and
views in a longer conversation.
A large part of the research is based on the surveys nevertheless and therefore it
is possible that research with only qualitative methods would have led to different
results. Also the other way around this is the case, as it is not possible to conduct
interviews in a pure objective manner.

5.1.6 Reflection on the used theory
This research combined different theoretical understandings, as the nature of the
research was exploratory. For this research that was a logical choice as knowledge was
limited on the topic regarding CSR with tour operators in India. The conceptual model
was tested and both the external as the internal drivers influence CSR actions in India.
The internal drivers within this model were only tested with the quantitative part of the
research whereas the external drivers were tested with both the qualitative as the
quantitative part of the research. The theoretical understandings that were used can be
used for further research as well and that is certainly necessary regarding this model.
Because this was an exploratory research, all drivers were considered but there were
limitations related to time and also to the scope of the research. Therefore the
theoretical background in this research supports the findings and can be used for
further research regarding the topic of CSR in the tour operator industry in India.
Certain drivers might need deeper analysing for a further understanding of drivers of
CSR.

70
5.2 Conclusion
5.2.1 The main research question
This research has been conducted for multiple reasons. The tourism industry in India is
growing and with that growth, many negative effects have become visible. Although
growth is stimulated, the government also mentions sustainable tourism in the country’s
policy. Together with this development, CSR has been developing as well. Where CSR
used to be considered mostly a European or American concept, research has shown it is
now gaining momentum in Asia as well. For India, CSR can be part of a sustainable
growth in tourism. At the moment, not much is known about CSR in India, let alone CSR
with tour operators in India. As tour operators handle the supply chain and have a lot of
power, their influence can make a difference. This research is conducted in order to
contribute to the existing research on CSR. It serves the purpose to gain more
knowledge on the topic of CSR in India and specifically the tour operator industry. The
main question that will be answered with this research is:

Responsibility in relation to Sustainable Tourism?

A thorough study on the literature has led to the conceptual model and the most
important research questions:

1. What is the understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility of tour operators in
India?
2. What are the views of tour operators on Corporate Social Responsibility?
3. Which Corporate Social Responsibility Actions can be seen with tour operators in
India?
4. What drives tour operators in India to adopt Corporate Social Responsibility?
These sub-‐questions were answered in the first paragraph of this chapter and linked
with literature and previous findings, subsequently leading up to providing an answer to
the main research question. First of all, although a majority of the tour operators have an
understanding of CSR, there are still many tour operators that have not heard of CSR or
who do not comprehend what CSR entails. Especially interesting as a result is the fact
that there are larger tour operators that handle large amounts of tourists that have not
heard of CSR. Furthermore, the link with sustainable tourism is often not been made.
With the understanding of CSR it is visible that the social dimension is mentioned most
often. Furthermore, CSR understanding often focuses on giving to projects. This has
been addressed by various other studies, although most recent finds, indicate that
companies in India are moving towards a more strategic CSR. Tour operators in India
are not amongst those companies yet.
Without regarding their own policies, tour operators generally have a positive
feeling towards CSR and sustainable tourism. Although they often do not have a policy
on CSR or any form of sustainable tourism, they do view it as positive. Some tour
operators do view it as an obligation but not always as a negative obligation. Generally
71
the tour operators indicate that CSR is not only a task of the government but just as
much of businesses. The legislation on CSR is a topic that has not been discussed in any
research yet as this has only been put in place in 2015. Therefore, it was not possible to
analyse this part with literature but it can be concluded that views and understanding
on CSR has been influenced already by this recent legislation. The legislation on CSR
makes and interesting discussion topic for research on CSR in India. Many tour
operators agree with the legislation of the government, only a small minority was
negative about making CSR mandatory.
It is visible that many companies undertake certain actions that are considered to
be CSR, although the companies themselves would not indicate it to be CSR. CSR actions
in the dimension of employees are seen more often than actions in the three other
dimensions. It is remarkable that actions in the dimension of the environment are not
seen as much with tour operators. From the indicators it becomes clear that tour
operators have more CSR actions in place than they would recognize themselves as
actions. Nevertheless, many actions score very low and some actions can certainly be
done by more tour operators to reach a more sustainable form of tourism.
There are various drivers of CSR and it can be concluded that the external drivers
of stakeholders, shareholders and institutions have a relation with CSR actions. The
qualitative part of this research also shows a relation between internal drivers and CSR.
Nevertheless internal drivers cannot be linked to CSR actions based on the quantitative
part of the research. When viewing the conceptual model of this research, especially the
relation between the external drivers, the agent and the CSR actions in the various
categories are visible.

72
To take the sustainability debate further, CSR can be a huge contribution. Especially if
the legislation in India takes form or maybe in the future will expand to smaller
companies as well. As mentioned in the introduction, growth in India sometimes seems
unlimited and not very sustainable. In the tourism industry sustainability does not seem
to be a hugely discussed topic yet. Only in certain areas, the focus is there (for example:
Kerala) or related to certain types of tourism. Both in formal as informal conversations
with experts in the industry, it became clear that education on sustainable tourism is
lacking. To help sustainable tourism making way via CSR can benefit the industry and
mostly communities and the environment. At the moment it can be concluded that a link
between CSR and sustainable tourism is not seen by many. Most companies consider
these concepts to be different, although there are many obvious links. It is also
interesting to realise that minimum effort can lead to many far-‐reaching changes. If tour
operators would be educated on the possibilities it can make a difference. Simple in-‐
house environmental measures can be done by most tour operators, for example. In the
qualitative part of this research, two tour operators set the example of linking business
to CSR and sustainable tourism. Examples of actions were given that are life changing
and over the years have changed and are changing many lives.
In a way, the aim of this research is to show what the tour operator industry at
the moment is doing (or is not doing). This research has shown and explained
understanding, views, actions and drivers of CSR. This research can be seen as a start. A
start to inform, educate or take research further.

5.2.2 Recommendations and Future Research
This research clearly shows that an understanding of CSR is sometimes lacking; many
tour operators in India seem to have a limited understanding. The legislation in India on
CSR is path breaking and whether this will bring positive or negative actions is yet to be
seen. From the perspective of CSR in relation to sustainable tourism, the main
recommendation is to educate. Education can lead to a deeper and more common
knowledge on the goals that the government wants to reach with their policies on CSR.
In relation to CSR it would also be advisable to educate on the sustainable tourism
criteria India as none of the interviewed tour operators had heard of these.
The legislation in India is one of the interesting sides of CSR that cannot be found
anywhere else in the world. This legislation was adopted during the course of this
research. Although implemented, the scope of this research was limited due to time
constraints and therefore the full adaptation and influence of this legislation can make
an interesting topic for future research. Especially because most definitions and studies
still have the voluntary dimension at base, it can be argued that the legislation in India
makes it necessary to readdress the concept.
This research can be taken as the starting point for analysing CSR in India in
general. Some research has been done in this field and this adds to the existing
literature. This is the first research that focuses on CSR in relation to tour operators in
India and it will be beneficial to take this research further. This research focused on the
external drivers and research into the internal drivers would be interesting. Also deeper
73
analysing on the specific drivers will make an interesting research topic. For example,
the institutional context of the tour operator industry in India.
Another topic that was not fully explored in this research is the institutional
network of CSR in India. Within the encounters with institutions, organisations and in
the field of education, it seemed there was a lack of understanding and knowledge. As
this was beyond the scope of this research no further attention than necessary was paid
to this. This would be beneficial to research in the future.
This research does not focus on CSR as the business case (See: Carroll and
Shabana, 2010). To discover what would be the economic and financial benefits that
would flow from CSR activities and initiatives would be an interesting research topic.
This can bring motivation for CSR activities in a country like India, where knowledge
and understanding of CSR is more limited.

74
References

Ackerman, R. W. (1975). The social challenge to business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Arevalo, A., & Aravind, D. (2011). Corporate social responsibility practices in India:
approach, drivers and barriers. Corporate Governance: The international journal
of business in society, 11(4), 399-‐414.

Arora, B., & Puranik, R. (2004). A review of corporate social responsibility in India.
Society for International Development, 47(3), 93-‐100.

Ateljevic, I. (2010). Overview of Inquiry Paradigms. Handout; Overview of paradigms in
social science in the post-‐positivist era, Wageningen, Netherlands, Wageningen
University and Research Centre.

Ateljevic, I. (2010). Lecture as part of the master Tourism, Leisure and Environment,
Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Ayuso, S. (2006). Adoption of voluntary environmental tools for sustainable tourism:
analysing the experience of Spanish hotels. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 13, 207-‐220.

Balasubramaniam, N. K., Kimber, D., & Siemensma, F. (2005). Emerging opportunities or
traditions reinforced? An analysis of the attitude towards CSR and trends of
thinking about CSR in India. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 17, 79-‐92.

Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between
shareholders. Journal of business ethics, 97(1), 71-‐86.

Baumeister, R.F. (2016). Toward a general theory of motivation: Problems, challenges,
opportunities, and the big picture. Motivation and Emotion, 40(1), 1-‐10.

Boeije, H. (2010) Analysis in Qualitative Research. Sage publications, London.

Boxenbaum, E. (2004). Institutional innovation processes: A hybridization of
institutional logics. Paper for the Academny of Management, New Orleans.

Broad, R., & Cavanagh, J. (1997). The Corporate Accountability Movement: Lessons and
Opportunities. A Study for the World Wildlife Fund's Project on International
Financial Flows and the Environment, 1-‐39.

Butler, R.W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state-‐of-‐the-‐art review. Tourism Geographies,
1(1), 7-‐25.
75

Calling to Account – Image and Ethics in Corporate Accountability in Tourism.
Bengaluru: EQUATIONS, April 2011.

Campbell, J.L. (2007). Why Would Corporations Behave in Socially Responsible Ways?
An Institutional Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility. The academy of
Management Review, 32(3), 946-‐967.

Camilleri, M. A. (2012). Creating shared value through strategic CSR in tourism.

Calton, J., & Payne, S. (2003). Coping with Paradox. Business and Society, 42, 7–42.

Carroll, A.B. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibiiity: Toward the Moral
Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-‐48.

Carroll, A.B., & Shabana, K.M. (2010). The Business Case for Corporate Social
Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85-‐105

Coles, T., Fenclova, E., & Dinan, C. (2013). Tourism and Corporate Social Responsibility:
A critical review and research agenda. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6, 122-‐
141.

Cespa, G., & Cestone, G. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and managerial
entrenchment. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 741-‐771.

Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility in Asia: a seven-‐country
study of CSR web site reporting. Business and Society, 44(4), 415-‐41.

Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2007). CSR agendas for Asia. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 14(4), 183-‐188.

Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: readings and cases in a
global context. London: Routledge.

Dahlsrud, A. (2006). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37
definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1),
1-‐13.

Dhanesh, G. (2015). Why Corporate Social Responsibility? An Analysis of Drivers of CSR
in India. Management Communication Quarterly, 29(1), 114-‐129.

76
Dodds, R., & Kuehnel, J. (2010). CSR among Canadian mass tour operators: Good
awareness but little action. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management ,22 (2), 221–244.

Duim, van der, R. (2010). Lecture Sustainability. Wageningen University and Research
Centre, March 2010.

Elkington (2004). Enter the Triple Bottom Line in The triple Bottom Line: Does it all add
up? Assessing the sustainability of Business and CSR. Earthscan: London.

Fisman, R., Heal, G., & Nair, V. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing Well by
Doing Good?. Working Paper. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

Fisman, R., Heal, G., & Nair, V. (2006). A Model of Corporate Philanthropy’, Working
Paper. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New
York Times Magazine. September, 13. Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance,
173-‐178.

Gautam, R., & Singh, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility practices in India: A study
of top 500 companies. Global Business and Management Research: An
International Journal, 2(1), 41-‐56.

Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the
Territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71

Gjolberg, M. (2009). Measuring the immeasurable? Constructing an index of CSR
practices and CSR performance in 20 countries. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 25, 10-‐22

Goodwin, H. (2012). Ten Years of Responsible Tourism: an assessment in Progress in
Responsible Tourism 2(1). Goodfellow.

Gopinath, C. (2005). Trusteeship as a moral foundation for business. Business and Society
Review, 110(3), 331 – 344.

Gunningham, N., Kagan, R.A., & Thornton, D. (2004). Social License and Environmental
Protection: Why Businesses Go Beyond Compliance. Law & Social Inquiry, 29, 307.

Harjoto, M. A., & Jo, H. (2011). Corporate governance and CSR nexus. Journal of Business
Ethics, 100(1), 45-‐67.
77

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

Hemingway, J. (1999). Emancipation and critique: Toward a critical theory of leisure. In
E. Jackson & T. Burton. Leisure studies: Prospects for the twentyfirst century (pp.
487–506). State College, PA: Venture.

Hess, D. (2007). Social Reporting and New Governance Regulation: The Prospects of
Achieving Corporate Accountability Through Transparency. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 17(3), 453 – 476.

Henderson, J.C., (2007). Corporate social responsibility and tourism: Hotel companies in
Phuket, Thailand, after the Indian Ocean tsunami. Hospitality Management, 26,
228 – 239.

Ip, P. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and crony capitalism in Taiwan. Journal of
Business Ethics, 79, 167–177.

Iso-‐Ahola, S. E. (1982). Toward a Social Psychological Theory of Tourism Motivation: A
Rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9, 256-‐62.

Jamali, D., & Neville, B. (2011). Convergence versus divergence of CSR in developing
countries: An embedded multi-‐layered institutional lens. Journal of Business
Ethics, 102(4), 599-‐621.

Jensen, M. (2001). Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective
Function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8–21.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed
methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(2), 112-‐133.

Jose, P.D., Bandi, R., & Mehra, M. (2003). Corporate social responsibility in the
information and communication technologies sector: discussion, IIMB
Management Review, 61-‐75.

Kasim, A. (2006). The need for business environmental and social responsibility in the
tourism Industry. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration.
7(1), 1-‐22.

Knowles, T., Macmillan S., Palmer J., Grabowski P., & Hashimonto A. (1999). The
development of environmental initiatives in tourism: responses from the London
hotel sector. International Journal of Tourism Research, 1, 255-‐265.

78

Kumar, R., Murphy, D. & Balsari, V. (2001). Altered images: the 2001 state of corporate
responsibility in India, Business-‐Social Partnership: Beyond Philanthropy
Conference, Indian Institute of Management: India.

Lee, S. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility in India. A Case Study for the Oxford-‐
Achilles Working Group on Corporate Social Responsibility, 3-‐4.

Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in management
research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. Journal of management
studies, 43(1), 115-‐136.

Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “implicit” and “explicit CSR: A conceptual framework for a
comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of
Management Review, 33(2), 404-‐424.

McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S., & Wright, P.M. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility:
Strategic Implications. Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics. Nr. 0506.

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D.S. (2010). Creating and Capturing Value : Strategic Corporate
Social Responsibility, Resource-‐Based Theory, and Sustainable Competitive
Advantage. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1480 -‐1495.

Merwe, M.V.D., & Wocke, A. (2007). An investigation into responsible tourism practices
in the South African hotel industry, South African Journal of Business Management,
38(2), 1-‐15.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.
Academy of management review, 22(4), 853-‐886.

Mitra, R. (2012). My country’s Future: A Culture-‐Centered Interrogation of Corporate
Social Responsibility in India. Business Ethics, 106, 131-‐147.

Mitrokostas, E., & Apostolakis, A. (2013). Strategic CSR and competition in the tourism
industry: a theoretical approach. Tourism Economics, 19(4), 967-‐975.

Mody, M., Day, J., Sydnor, S., Jaffe, W., & Lehto, X. (2014). The different shades of
responsibility: Examining domestic and international travelers' motivations for
responsible tourism in India. Tourism Management Perspectives, 12, 113–124.

Mohan, A. (2001). Corporate citizenship: perspectives from India, Journal of Corporate
Citizenship, 2, 107-‐17.

79
Moon, J. (2004). Government as a Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility. Research
Paper Series, International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, 20, 1-‐27.

Morgera, E. (2012). From Corporate Social Responsibility to Accountability Mechanisms:
The Role of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Research Paper 06, 1-‐28.

Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2009). Tourism and Sustainability; Development, globalisation
and new tourism in the Third World. Third edition. Routledge: London.

Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2003). Getting to the Bottom of “Triple Bottom Line”,
Business Ethics Quarterly, 1-‐19.

Mihalic, T. (2014). Sustainable-‐Responsible Tourism Discourse – towards
‘responsustable’ tourism. Journal of Cleaner production, 26, 1-‐10.

Mitchell, R.K., Bradley, R., & Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder
Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts.
Academy of Management, 22(4), 853-‐886.

Owen, David, L., Swift, T., & Hunt, K., (2001). Questioning the Role of Stake-‐ holder
Engagement in Social and Ethical Accounting, Auditing, and Reporting.
Accounting Forum, 25(3), 264 – 282.

Pearce, J.A., & Doh, J.P. (2005). The high impact of collaborative social initiatives. Sloan
Management Review, 46(3), 29–39.

Ponterotto, J.G. (2005). Qualitative Research in Counseling Psychology: A Primer on
Research Paradigms and Philosophy of Science. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
52(2), 126-‐136.

Porter, M.E., & Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating Shared Value -‐ How to reinvent
capitalism—and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business
Review, 1 – 17

Post, J. E. (1978). Corporate behavior and social change. Reston, VA: Reston.
Ray, S., & Raju, S. (2014). Implementing Corporate Social Responsibility; Indian
perspectives. India: Springer.

Russo, M., & Fouts, P. (1997). A resource-‐based perspective on corporate environmental
performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 534-‐559.

Scherer, A., Palazzo, G., & Baumann, D. (2006). Global Rules and Private Actors, Toward a
New Role of the TNC in Global Governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16, 502–532.
80

Scheyvens, R. (2011). Tourism and poverty. New York: Routledge.

Spenceley, A., & Meyer, D. (2012). Tourism and poverty reduction: theory and practice in
less economically developed countries. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(3), 297
– 317.

Tilakasiri, K.K. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility and Company Performance:
Evidence from Sri Lanka. Victoria University, Melbourne

Tribe, J. (2001). Research Paradigms and the Tourism Curriculum. Journal of Travel
Research, 39(4), 442-‐448.

Tsai, W., Hsu, J., Chen, C., Lin, W., & Chen, S., (2010). An integrated approach for selecting
corporate social responsibility programs and costs evaluation in the international
tourist hotel. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, 385 – 396.

Van Der Woerd, F., & Van Der Brink, T. (2004). Feasibility of a responsive business
scorecard; a pilot study. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2), 173-‐186.

Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability:
between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 95-‐105.

Van Wijk, J., & Persoon, W. (2006). A Long-‐haul Destination: Sustainability Reporting
Among Tour Operators. European Management Journal, 24(6), 381-‐395.

Vidal, N., Kozak, R., & Hansen, E. (2012). Adoption and Implementation of Corporate
Responsibility Practices: A Proposed Framework. Business & Society, 54(5), 701-‐
717.

Williams, S. (1998). Tourism geography. London: Routledge.

Willson, G.B., McIntosh, A.J. (2007). Heritage Buildings and Tourism: An Experiential
View. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2(2), 75-‐93.

Zadek, S. (2001). The Civil Corporation: the new economy of corporate citizenship,
London and Stirling VA, Earthscan.

Zadek, S. (2004). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82(12),
125-‐132.

Websites

Alrroya (2010). "A Call for Mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting".
81
http://english.alrroya.com/content/call-‐mandatory-‐corporate-‐social-‐
responsibility-‐reporting.

Annual Report, MoT (2014). Annual Report 2013-‐14, Ministry of Tourism (MoT),
Government of India;
http://tourism.gov.in/writereaddata/Uploaded/Tender/081220141131463.pdf

Business Standard
http://www.business-‐standard.com/article/companies/india-‐now-‐only-‐country-‐
with-‐legislated-‐csr-‐114040300862_1.html Retrieved on February 24, 2015.

Commission of European Communities (2011)
Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council,
the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. A
renewed EU strategy 2011-‐2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved
on January 7, 2015.

CSR Hub
http://www.csr.tiss.edu. Retrieved on February 24, 2015.

Fontaine, C., Haarman, A., Schmid, S. (2006). Stakeholder Theory of the MNC‘
http://www.martonomily.com/sites/default/files/attach/Stakeholders%20theo
ry.pdf. Retrieved on April 20, 2015.

Friends of the Earth (2005). Briefing Corporate Accountability.
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/corporate_accountability1.pdf.
Retrieved on March 10, 2015

IndiaCSR (2012). "Good Community Involvement Activity Alone Does Not Make Good
CSR by Suresh Kr Pramar".
http://www.indiacsr.in/en/?p=4920. Retrieved on March 10, 2015.

Indian Express
http://indianexpress.com/article/business/economy/mandatory-‐2-‐csr-‐spend-‐
set-‐to-‐kick-‐in-‐from-‐april-‐1/. Retrieved on February 24, 2015.

KPMG
http://karmayog.org/relateddocumentsoncsr/upload/13376/KPMG-‐
CSR%20White%20Paper.pdf. Retrieved on February 23, 2015.

Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2013). Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility in India.
https://www.pwc.in/assets/pdfs/publications/2013/handbook-‐on-‐corporate-‐
social-‐responsibility-‐in-‐india.pdf. Retrieved on January 27, 2015.

82
RT Kerala
http://www.rtkerala.com/classification.php -‐ Retrieved on of February 22, 2015

The Hindu Business Line. Social Responsibility for SMEs.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/mentor/article2823118.ece?ho
mepage=true&ref=wl_home. Retrieved on April 10, 2016,

Tourism statistics, MoT (2015). Ministry of Tourism (MoT), Government of India.
http://www.tourism.gov.in/writereaddata/CMSPagePicture/file/marketresearc
h/Incredible%20India%20final%2021-‐7-‐2014%20english.pdf. Retrieved on
April 4, 2016.

Travel and Tourism – Economic Impact 2015 India
https://www.wttc.org//media/files/reports/economic%20impact%20research/
countries%202015/india2015.pdf. Retrieved on March 23, 2015.

United Nations (2007). CSR and Developing Countries -‐ What scope for government
action? Sustainable Development Innovation Briefs, 1 February 2007.
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/innovationbriefs/no1.pdf.
Retrieved on December 14, 2014

UNWTO. Sustainable Development of Tourism
http://sdt.unwto.org/content/about-‐us-‐5. Retrieved on January 12, 2015.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2000). Corporate Social
Responsibility: Making Good Business Sense.
http://www.wbcsd.org/includes/getTarget.asp?type=d&id=MzE0. Retrieved on
January 12, 2015.

83
Appendices
Appendix l – Interview Guidelines

General

1. What is your name and function within the company?
2. What is the core business of your company?
3. What is the structure of your company?
-‐ Are you an Indian Company or a Multinational
-‐ How many offices do you have and where?
-‐ Where is your head office?
-‐ Are there any agency’s
-‐ What does the ownership look like?
-‐ Do you have any partners?
-‐ Do you have shareholders?
-‐ Do you do your own destination management?
-‐ Ask about link with TCI?
4. What was the foundation year of the company?
5. Are you registered with the Ministry of Tourism?
6. How many employees does your company have?
-‐ In the head office + the other offices
-‐ Are the on a contractual base or permanent base
-‐ Seasonal or full year round
7. Does your company focus on inbound or outbound tourism?
-‐ When inbound, are there particular regions
8. Do you cater to the foreign or Indian market?
9. What is the main focus of your company?
10. What is the size and market position of your company?
11. Is there any competition? Which tour operators?
12. How would you describe your business?
-‐ Are you financially doing well?
-‐ What is your net profit / annual turnover
-‐ Are you growing
13. What are the goals and aims of your company now and for the future?
14. Are you affiliated with any organizations – for example IATA, IATO, ADTOI or
international ones?

Institutions

15. How do you feel about the government and their policy towards tour operators?
16. Do you receive any tax benefits or exemptions as a tour operator?
17. Do you receive any subsidies as a tour operator?
18. Did you look at the budget for 2015?
-‐ What are your feelings about this
19. Do you think the government supports growth?
20. What is the role of associations you are affiliated with?
21. Which ones are the most important ones?
22. Do you think travelers look at the affiliations?
CSR
84

23. What is your understanding of CSR?
24. Do you have a CSR policy?
25. Do you have a CSR department?
26. What are your feelings about CSR?
27. Have you heard about the legislations of the government?
-‐ Do you fall in to this category?
-‐ What do you think of this policy?
-‐ Do you think it is implemented well?
-‐ Do you think it should be expanded to smaller companies as well?
28. Are there any associations that focus on CSR?
29. Do you think CSR is financially beneficial for your company or only costing
money?
30. Do you feel travelers find CSR important?
-‐ Indian travelers
-‐ Foreign travelers
31. Except for financial benefits, do you have the feeling CSR brings you anything?
32. What do you think about the education of CSR?

Sustainable Tourism

33. What is your understanding of sustainable or responsible tourism?
34. Does your company have guidelines on sustainable tourism?
-‐ If yes, which ones?
35. Do you have any assessments of your practices?
-‐ Are these published or only internally?
36. Why do you focus on sustainable tourism?
-‐ Business perspective
-‐ Philanthropically perspective
37. Do you think tourist care about sustainable tourism?
-‐ Indian tourists
-‐ Foreign tourists
38. Do you think you are responsible for the environment?
39. Do you think you are responsible for the welfare of local communities?
40. Do you have any non-‐financial reports?
-‐ Which ones?
41. Do you have any frameworks you follow? For example: UN business framework
and human rights
-‐ Which ones
42. Do you follow any codes of conduct?
-‐ Which ones?
43. Have you heard of the code of conduct for safe & honorable tourism?
-‐ Do you follow this?
44. Have you heard of the STCI – Sustainable Tourism Criteria of India?
-‐ Do you follow this?
45. Do you think the government focuses on Sustainable tourism and how?
46. Do any of the associations you are affiliated with have any policies on sustainable
tourism or stimulate this?

85

In-‐house
47. Are there any guidelines you follow regarding labour?
48. Do you provide your employees with the provident fund?
49. Do you have an internal complaint board?
-‐ How about whistle-‐blower policy?
50. Do you have any guidelines to protect employees against harassment
51. Do you have in-‐house environmental policies?
-‐ Water
-‐ Energy
-‐ Waste

At the destinations
52. Do you have any environmental or social policies?
53. Do you communicate these with your partners and how?
-‐ Hotels
-‐ Transportation companies
-‐ Tour guides
-‐ Restaurants
54. Do you provide training on such issues?
-‐ Staff in-‐house or at destinations
55. Do you inform travelers?
56. Do you have any policies regarding the safety of women and children?
57. Do you look at local procurement and local benefits?
58. Do you protect local heritage and cultural practices?

The industry

59. Do you see any threats and difficulties in the tour industry?
-‐ And for your company

86
Appendix ll – Survey CSR

Dear Sir/Madam (management),

My name is Petra Jansen and I am a graduate student at Wageningen University and
Research Centre. For my final project, I am looking at sustainability in the tourism
industry in India. I am inviting you to participate in this research study by completing
the survey. I would like to know your opinion and would be very grateful if you can find
the time.

Filling out the survey will take approximately 10 minutes and it is strongly preferred
that the survey is answered by management. The research is of exploratory nature;
therefore, there are no incorrect answers. Your answers will be treated confidential.

The results will be analyzed in a MSc. thesis and published in a research paper for the
University of Wageningen.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact: petra.jansen@wur.nl

Thank you in advance for your participation; it is highly appreciated!

Sincerely,
Petra Jansen
Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Netherlands

87
The first part of the survey focuses on the company

Q1 How would you describe your company?
m Tour operator (1)
m Travel agency (2)
m Both tour operator as travel agency (3)
m Other, please specify (4) ____________________

Q2 Is your company registered with the department / ministry of tourism?
m Yes (1)
m No (2)

Q3 Where are the headquarters of your company located?
m India (1)
m Other, namely: (2) ____________________

Q4 Is your company associated with the following industry associations?
q TAAI (1)
q ADTOI (2)
q IATO (3)
q IATA (4)
q Other, namely: (5) ____________________
q No, we are not affiliated with any associations (6)

Q5 How many employees does the company have (approximately)?
m 0 -‐ 9 employees (1)
m 10 -‐ 49 employees (2)
m 50 -‐ 249 employees (3)
m 250 -‐ 499 employees (4)
m 500 -‐ 999 employees (5)
m More than 1,000 employees (6)

Q6 Where do you operate your tours?
m Only in India (1)
m In India and in other countries/parts of the world (2)
m Not in India, only in other countries/parts of the world (3)

Q7 What is the majority of your business?
q Inbound tourism (travelers coming from other countries to India) (1)
q Domestic tourism (Indian travelers in India) (2)
q Outbound tourism (Indian travelers to other countries) (3)
q Other, namely: (4) ____________________

88
Q8 How has your companies revenue situation been during the last two years?
m Strongly decreasing (1)
m Decreasing (2)
m Steady (3)
m Increasing (4)
m Strongly Increasing (5)
m I don't know (6)
m I prefer not to answer this question (7)

The next part of the survey will focus on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). There
are no correct or incorrect answers and no knowledge about this topic is needed to
proceed with the survey

Q9 Are you familiar with the concept Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)?
m Yes (1)
m No (2)

If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Q12

Q10 My understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility is:

Q11 Does your company have a policy on Corporate Social Responsibility?
m Yes (1)
m No (2)

Q12 Does your company support social or environmental projects?
m Yes (3)
m No (4)

In the following questions you will find the term CSR. Please use the following
understanding of CSR: CSR is the responsibility of a company towards society and the
environment

Q13 Is your company legally obliged by the government to spend 2% of your net
profit on CSR?(CSR is the responsibility of a company towards society and the
environment)
m Yes (1)
m No (2)

89
Q14 Does your company have any of the following?
Please tick the boxes of all answers that apply for your company
q Equal opportunity hiring practices (hiring of women, racial minorities) (1)
q Fair wages for all employees (2)
q Employee benefits (3)
q Skills development programs for employees (4)
q Internal Complaint Committee (5)
q Monitoring of labor practices of suppliers (6)
q Periodic training for employees on health and safety (7)
q Periodic training for employees on the environment and community sensitivity (8)

q Contribute to the protection of local, historical, culturally and spiritually important
properties and sites (1)
q Assist with local development projects (2)
q Conduct a social impact study on destinations (3)
q Promotion of social codes and standards to suppliers (4)
q Respect the property rights of local communities (5)
q Donate a percentage of profits to social projects (6)
q Implementation of a policy against commercial exploitation (including sexual
exploitation) (7)
q Education of clients about social issues and how to minimize negative impacts (8)
q Follow the Sustainable Tourism Criteria for India (STCI) (9)

q Have an in-‐house environmental program (recycling, waste reduction, energy
efficiency) (1)
q Conduct an environmental impact study on destinations (2)
q Promotion of environmental codes and standards to suppliers (3)
q Limited group sizes for tours to 16 pax or fewer (4)
q Support of endangered species or conservation of wildlife area/park (5)
q Offer clients carbon-‐offsetting options (6)
q Donate a percentage of profits to environmental projects (7)
q Policy on energy consumption (8)
q Education of clients about biodiversity and resource protection (9)

q Provide sustainable purchasing guidelines for suppliers (1)
q Local and fair trade goods and services are purchased when possible (2)
q Guidelines given to clients to be a responsible traveler (3)
q Employment of local residents (4)
90
q Work with suppliers (hotels, transportation etc.) which are environmentally and
socially responsible (5)
q Department or employee specifically responsible for Corporate Social Responsibility
(6)

Q18 To what degree do you agree with each of the following statements? (CSR is
the responsibility of a company towards society and the environment)

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree (2) Agree nor (4) Agree
(1) Disagree (5)
(3)
CSR is a task of the government,
m m m m m
not of businesses (2)
Companies should focus only on
m m m m m
making a profit (3)
The government should put a
mandatory CSR policy in place for m m m m m
all companies (6)
Religion is (part of) the reason of
the philanthropy of our business m m m m m
(8)
Companies are part of the society
and therefore responsible for the m m m m m
society in which they operate (9)
CSR is a task for both the
m m m m m
government as for companies (10)
Not only shareholders of the
company but everybody affected
by our company should be taken in m m m m m
account in relation to the operation
of a company (11)
Nation building and socio-‐
economic development are
m m m m m
important in our business
philosophy (12)
Only state companies should have
m m m m m
a CSR strategy (13)
Only large and multinational
companies should have a CSR m m m m m
strategy (14)

91
Q19 To what degree do you agree with the following statements? (CSR is the
responsibility of a company towards society and the environment)

Disagree (2) Agree (4) Agree
(1) nor (5)
Disagree
(3)
Social and environmental practices
should contribute to a better financial m m m m m
state of our company (1)
Our company is financially doing well
m m m m m
(2)
We have a lot of competition from
m m m m m
other companies (3)
Giving back to society is our obligation
m m m m m
(6)
Investing in CSR is part of our
m m m m m
marketing strategy (7)
We do not have a CSR policy because
financially this is not possible for our m m m m m
company (8)
Our company cares about the society
and the planet and therefore we have
m m m m m
economic, social and/or ecological
initiatives (9)
We only follow legislation regarding
environmental and social practices m m m m m
(10)
Our company is too small to have a
m m m m m
CSR policy (12)

Q20 To what degree do you agree with each of the following statements? (CSR is
the responsibility of a company towards society and the environment)

Disagree (2) Agree (4) Agree
(1) nor (5)
Disagree
(3)
The government stimulates our
company to focus on sustainable m m m m m
tourism (1)
Non-‐Governmental Organisations or
m m m m m
other institutions stimulate our
92
company to focus on sustainable
tourism (2)
The associations we are affiliated
with, have a focus on sustainable m m m m m
tourism (3)
We have sufficient opportunities to
receive support (e.g. consultancy,
m m m m m
training or financial support) for
sustainable tourism options (4)
We feel pressured (by the
government, organizations or
m m m m m
communities) into having a CSR
policy (5)
We have a CSR policy because
customers expect us to have this m m m m m
and care about this (6)

Q21 Do you have any comments related to this survey?

Q22 Can I contact you for some more information? (this will be fully confidential)
m No (1)
m Yes, my phonenumber is: (2) ____________________

93
Appendix lll – Quantitative Results

Table 17 – Regression Model 1

Model Summary
Model R R Adjusted Std. Error Change Statistics
Square R Square of the R F Sig. F
Estimate Square Change Change
Change
1 ,379a ,144 ,114 ,25237 ,144 4,865 ,004
a. Predictors: (Constant), SHAREHOLDERS, INSTITUTIONS, STAKEHOLDERS


Model Summary
Change
1 ,497a ,247 ,221 ,25270 ,247 9,493 ,000


Model Summary
Change
1 ,460a ,212 ,185 ,25618 ,212 7,791 ,000

Model Summary
Change
1 ,358a ,128 ,098 ,25983 ,128 4,263 ,007

94

Corporate Social Responsibility An Exploratory Re-Groen Kennisnet 391174

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corporate Social Responsibility An Exploratory Re-Groen Kennisnet 391174

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corporate

List of tables

Culture Centered Approach Theory

Figure 1: Conceptual model

In order to investigate what drives tour operators to adopt Corporate Social

Figure 2: Corporate Social Responsibility Indicators

Table 1: Characteristics – Tour operators

Table 2: Views on Corporate Social Responsibility

Actions -­‐ Employees

Equal opportunity hiring practices 79

Skills development programs for employees 66

Periodic training for employees on health and

Internal Complaint Committee 25

Monitoring of labor practices of suppliers 25

Actions -­‐ Social

Respect the property rights of local communities 72

Follow the Sustainable Tourism Criteria for India

Education of clients about social issues and how to

Assist with local development projects 60

Donate a percentage of prowits to social projects 53

Contribute to the protection of local, historical,

Promotion of social codes and standards to suppliers 34

Conduct a social impact study on destinations 30

Table 5: Actions – Environmental

Actions -­‐ Environmental

Have an in-­‐house environmental program (recycling,

Policy on energy consumption 33

Promotion of environmental codes and standards to

Offer clients carbon-­‐offsetting options 18

Actions -­‐ Economic

Employment of local residents 79

Guidelines given to clients to be a responsible

4.5.1 Quantitative results

Table 8: Cultural factors

Table 9: Institutional factors

Table 10: Stakeholders

Table 11: Shareholders

Table 12: Employees

Table 13: Social

Table 14: Environmental

Table 15: economic

Table 16: Variables

Table 18: Regression model 1 – Employees

Table 20: Regression model 2 – Social

Table 22: Regression model 3 – Environment

Table 24: Regression model 4 – Economic

Table 17 – Regression Model 1

Table 21 – Regression Model 3

Table 23 – Regression Model 4

You might also like

Actions -‐ Employees

Actions -‐ Social

Actions -‐ Environmental

Have an in-‐house environmental program (recycling,

Offer clients carbon-‐offsetting options 18

Actions -‐ Economic