1

Responsible Tourism and Sustainability: The Case of Kumarakom in

Kerala, India
Authors:

Dr Angelique Chettiparamb, Senior Lecturer, School of Real Estate and Planning, University
of Reading, Reading, RG6 6UD.

and

Dr Jithendran Kokkranikal, Senior Lecturer, Department of Marketing, Events and Tourism;

Business School; University of Greenwich; London, SE10 9LS

Abstract:
This paper discusses the notion of ‘responsible tourism’ and its current use within the tourism
literature. We argue that the concept as used currently means everything and therefore adds
nothing to the conceptual terrain of tourism trends and nomenclatures. We then introduce
our own understanding of the concept arguing that while responsible tourism is linked to
sustainability initiatives such as alternative tourism, ecotourism, ethical tourism, green
tourism, soft tourism, pro-poor tourism, geo tourism, integrated tourism, community-based
tourism, etc it also demarcates an analytical realm of its own. We suggest that the practical
use of the term in areas where it has been adopted (such as South Africa and Kerala for
instance) suggests a rather restricted use. We identified this realm as the tourism sector
specific manifestation of the CSR agenda.

Following Flyvberg’s (2006) call for exemplars and paradigmatic case studies to advance
knowledge in a particular domain, the responsible tourism initiative in Kumarakon, Kerala is
presented. Discussion of the case study traces the particular governance context of Kerala
and the position of tourism in the state economy. The responsible tourism initiatives at state
level and local level are then described highlighting the ‘how’ of the implementation and the
impact that it has produced. Generic, non-prescriptive principles that could be said to be
necessary in some form for the successful translation of responsible tourism principles to
practices are then identified. Such an approach is contrasted with one that places faith in the
voluntary adoption of ‘responsible’ practices by the private sector on its own. It is argued
that responsible tourism can make a contribution to practice provided that the conceptual
terrain is delineated against other forms of tourism and if research within the terrain can
unpack the particular forms of challenges that are thrown up by the delineation itself.

Key words: responsible tourism, pro-poor tourism, corporate social responsibility,

sustainable tourism, Kerala, Kumarakom.

1
 2

Introduction

The concept of responsible tourism has been present in the tourism literature since the early
eighties (Smith, 1990; Cooper and Ozdil, 1992). Seminal works by deKadt (1980) and
Krippendorf (1987), for instance, raised concerns over the impacts of tourism on the
environment and destination communities. In response to increasing instances of social and
environmental problems of tourism, a range of sustainability initiatives such as alternative
tourism, ecotourism, ethical tourism, green tourism, soft tourism, pro-poor tourism, geo
tourism, integrated tourism, community-based tourism, etc. emerged in the tourism
literature. Responsible tourism is closely linked to these concepts. These sustainability-
oriented alternatives to mass tourism seek to promote environmental conservation, cultural
integrity, socioeconomic development and the welfare of communities, especially the
disadvantaged sections, living in tourism destinations (TIES, 1990; Scheyvens and Momsen,
2008; Oliver and Jenkins, 2003; Blackstock, 2005; Cawley and Gilmour, 2008;
Kontogeorgopoulos, 2009; Weeden, 2002; Hall, 2008). Even though such initiatives help
promote the principles of sustainable tourism (Sharpley, 2000), a range of political,
economical and commercial challenges such as differing priorities of the national/regional
economy, the structure and incentives of the public administration system, over-
commercialisation, the structure of the international tourism system to name but a few,
make implementation difficult in practice (Tosun 2001). This paper examines a fairly
successful case study of planning and implementation of ‘responsible tourism’ in the village
of Kumarakom in Kerala, India. Though the case study itself is interesting for the practice of
sustainable/responsible tourism, it also presents an opportunity to critically evaluate the
conceptual and practical contribution that the concept of ‘responsible tourism’ might make
in tourism studies.

The next section discusses the notion of ‘responsible tourism’ and its current use within the
tourism literature. We show that the concept as used currently means everything and
therefore adds nothing to the conceptual terrain of tourism trends and nomenclatures. We
conclude this section with our own understanding of the concept. In the next section we
elaborate upon this arguing that our understanding while remaining broad based identifies
distinctive areas of concern that clarifies the conceptual focus and thus the contribution
made to tourism studies. The next section discusses the methodology which in turn is
followed by a discussion of the case study itself. The contribution of the concept of

2
 3

‘responsible tourism’ as we have defined it is then discussed. Finally, the policy contributions
of the case study is presented. The conclusions summarise the main arguments presented in
the paper.

The Concept – ‘responsible tourism’

The sustainability orientation of responsible tourism is stressed by Smith (1990:480), who

defined responsible tourism as “a form of tourism which respect the host’s natural, built and
cultural environments and the interest of all parties concerned”. Besides the absence of a
distinction between responsible tourism and sustainable tourism that this view prompts, the
controversies surrounding ‘sustainable tourism’ also gets imported into the debates of
responsible tourism. For instance, the sustainability debate is often criticized for its lack of
conceptual clarity (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2010); has been characterised as a flawed and
inadequate concept that is based on misconceptions on the role of tourism demand, the
nature of tourism resources, the imperative of inter and intra-generational equity, socio-
cultural integrity, measurement and forms of sustainable development (Liu, 2003); and for
offering micro solutions to what is essentially a macro problem of unsustainable growth in
tourism (Wheeler, 1991). Wheeler (1991) is critical about the growing number of seemingly
environment-friendly tourism initiatives and argues that responsible tourism cannot be a
solution for the problems of tourism, as long as the volume of global tourism is on the
increase. Any increase in tourism volume will necessarily have a corresponding increase in
negative impacts. Therefore responsible development of tourism will require reducing the
scale and volume of tourism. Wheeler (1991:96) views responsible tourism as “a pleasant,
agreeable, but dangerously superficial, ephemeral and inadequate escape route for the
educated middle classes unable, or unwilling, to appreciate or accept their/our own
destructive contribution to the international tourism maelstrom.”

Many authors argue that reform of and more carefully planned and managed mass tourism
could be a realistic way of dealing with the problems of mass tourism (Cohen, 1987; Butler,
1990; Wheeler, 1994). Sustainable forms of tourism thus generally propose small scale
destinations and tourism activities. The shrinking of scale could however threaten tourism’s
economic and environmental viability as lower numbers would create negligible financial
returns. Further, an increase in smaller destinations could invite environmental harm to
more locations if the demand for tourism locations remains high (Butler, 1990; Cater, 1993;
3
 4

Sharpley, 2009). The new interest in environment and sustainability in general could also
threaten vulnerable and fragile locations as they become new products of sustainable
tourism (e.g. eco tourism) thus making them vulnerable to the perils of tourism
development, and businesses (MacLellan, 1997; Wight, 1993). However, though consensus
on its efficacy is still elusive, the sustainability debate has helped draw attention to the need
for a balance between commercial and environmental interests in tourism, and has resulted
in many good practices of energy-saving and recycling in the tourism industry (Wall, 1997).

Responsible tourism has similarities with pro-poor tourism (PPT) too. This is another form of
value oriented tourism that emerged in the late 1990s. It has the aim of linking tourism and
poverty alleviation by focusing on the interests of the poor in tourism destinations (Ashley
et. al. 2001; Hall, 2008). PPT focuses on the re-distributive dimensions of sustainable tourism
trying to ensure that tourism yields more net benefits to the poor (Scheyvens and Momsen,
2008). PPT too however, has been criticised for its theoretical impreciseness, failure to
consider the importance of markets and the need for commercial viability, and for ignoring
the existing PPT features and potential of mass tourism (Harrison, 2008).

The definition for responsible tourism used by the South African Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), considers responsible tourism as ‘tourism that
promotes responsibility to the environment through its sustainable use, responsibility to
involve local communities in the tourism industry; responsibility for the safety and security
of visitors and responsible government, employees, employers, unions and local
communities’ (DEAT, 1996, 4 cited in Merwe and Wocke, 2007, 1). There is an attempt here
to promote the concept as signifying everything without really laying down precise
parameters for distinguishing the added contribution that this new term might bring to the
already crowded conceptual terrain of different forms of tourism. Goodwin (2011:31) from
the International Centre for Responsible Tourism exemplifies this fuzziness when he argues
that ‘responsible tourism is about everyone involved taking responsibility for making tourism
more sustainable’. The exhortation to everyone taking responsibility for everything only
serves to weaken the concept as it does not really add any conceptual clarity to tourism
studies.

4
 5

A drift towards tourism businesses is evident in George and Frey’s (2010, 12) description of
responsible tourism as ‘managing the business in a way that benefits its local community,
natural and business environment and itself’ (added emphasis). We shall argue that
‘responsible tourism’ must be seen as a tourism sector specific manifestation of the wider
CSR agenda in the business world.

The CSR agenda and ‘responsible tourism’

CSR practices grew as a response to pressures arising from changing ethical values of
consumers and increasing demands from multiple stakeholders for businesses to be more
ethical (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). CSR relates to a company’s obligation to be
accountable to all of its stakeholders in its operations and activities with the aim of
facilitating sustainable development (Dodds and Joppe, 2005). CSR practices can then, in
principle, help businesses introduce environmentally friendly operational practices that help
them reduce cost, ensure better employee satisfaction and gain consumer support as an
ethical business (Malovics, et. al. 2008). A raft of initiatives fall within their scope as for
instance ethical sourcing, waste reduction and non-exploitative waste disposal, equitable
employment, honest advertisement, fair pricing, community partnerships, responsible
resource management, etc.

Businesses however are ultimately driven by profit motives (Welford, 1997). Their
investment decisions are typically dictated by profit, not by altruism, and therefore any
trade-off at the expense of commercial viability generally requires either targeted public
policies or a consumer demand that favour particular businesses practices (Henderson,
2007). Thus CSR practices are normally adopted for its modified, but still profit oriented
business value that result from either requirements for legal/policy compliance or public
relations and estimations of long term commercial value (Pearce and Doh, 2005; Miller and
Twining-Ward, 2005; Inoue and Lee, 2010). For example, Business in the Community (BITC),
a business-led coalition in the United Kingdom set up to promote corporate social
responsibility, lists the benefits of CSR as: reputation management, risk management,
employee satisfaction, innovation and learning, access to capital, and financial performance
(BITC, 2003).

As with other business sectors, tourism businesses have also embraced CSR practices
declaring their environmental and social commitment (Bohdanowicz, 2007). Its advocates

5
 6

contend that CSR initiatives can help enhance a tourist destination’s competitiveness and
image (Williams, et. al. 2007; Bohdanowicz, 2005). However, as mentioned earlier, the ability
of the private sector in tourism to direct and coordinate their actions towards wider goals of
sustainability, business ethics, pro-poor development etc, will need to be steered. As an
industry that is fragmented and made up of large numbers of small and medium enterprises,
with a range of potential effects that are in the main, wide ranging and diverse, corporate
social responsibility within the tourism sector takes on sector specific nuances with specific
challenges and opportunities. We suggest that responsible tourism initiatives can be seen to
be the policies and practices that embody an extension of the CSR agenda in tourism. As
such then, it relates to encouraging, regulating and steering private actors in tourism to
adopt a wider broad based CSR agenda through legal intervention, public policy, voluntary
action or social mobilisation. The central role of tourism businesses in responsible tourism
policies is demonstrated by the various Declarations in responsible tourism such as the Cape
Town Declaration (2002), the Kerala Declaration (2008), the Alberta Declaration (2011), etc
and the experience of South Africa in introducing the South African National Responsible
Tourism Guidelines and that of Kerala in introducing the Responsible Tourism initiative
through local governments. In all of the above, facilitating ‘responsible’ behaviour of the
private sector through CSR related practices targeting wider socio-economic- cultural issues
is the focus.

The concept of responsible tourism then overlaps significantly with related concepts of
sustainable tourism, ethical tourism, pro-poor tourism and integrated tourism. Sustainable
tourism is defined by Middleton, (1998, ix, cited in George and Frey, 2010, 13) as ‘achieving
a particular combination of numbers and types of visitors, the cumulative effect of whose
activities at a given destination together with the actions of the servicing businesses, can
continue into the foreseeable future, without damaging the quality of the environment on
which the activities are based’. While ethical tourism can be thought of as emphasising the
ethical dimension of sustainable tourism and pro-poor tourism can be thought of as
emphasising the re-distributive dimensions of sustainable tourism, the concept of integrated
tourism brings inter-sectoral linkages into the equation and emphasises broad cross–
linkages in tourism that allows it to become sustainable. Responsible tourism, as we have
defined it, can then be seen as distinct from all of the above in its focus on the role of private
sector and the CSR agenda in achieving all of the above more normative goals.

6
 7

Responsible tourism has now been officially adopted by many important tourism
destinations and tourism businesses. The concept has also been actively promoted by
academic centres of study such as the International Centre for Responsible Tourism 1; and
International Conferences2. Though perhaps not yet a ‘movement’, responsible tourism is
increasingly being pursued by states and city governments as a means to engage with the
private sector. The international appeal of the concept can be partly explained by the
centrality of the private sector in managing impacts of tourism and the increased wider
interest in CSR activities in general. Thus, besides offering a normative appeal, ‘responsible
tourism’ also offers a pragmatic appeal in managing tourism for after all, the private sector is
the major provider of tourism experiences and services in most destinations worldwide and
is a fast growing presence in the tourism sector.

Studies in responsible tourism can be expected to both draw upon and contribute to the
wider CSR literature. However actual case study based accounts of experiences in the
implementation of responsible tourism have only just started appearing in the academic
tourism literature. Some early reports on South Africa have now emerged (George and Frey
2010; Merwe and Wocke 2007). This paper is an early case study based contribution to this
nascent and emerging field of study. The methodology used to document this case is
explained below.

Research Methods

A case study based research approach is adopted. As stated by Yin (1981) one of the most
distinguishing characteristics of case study research is the fact that phenomena are studied
in their real-life context. The research strategy therefore is particularly apt for studies of
phenomena that can only be understood and explained through its context – the particular
actors, institutions, imageries and the happenings therein - because of which, and through
which, particular practices and phenomena emerge. It has been argued that such context
based learning is essential for professionals to make their transition from scientific rule-
based knowledge dominated by analytical rationality typical of ‘beginners to ‘virtuoso
experts’ capable of understanding and appreciating the non-rule based complexities
involved in practice (Flyvberg, 2006). This then is also a call for the study of exemplars in
advancing knowledge, for as Flyvberg citing Kuhn, (1987) remarks:

1
http://www.icrtourism.org
2
such as the five ‘International Conferences on Responsible Tourism in Destinations’ held at Cape
Town, South Africa; Cochin, Kerala, India; Belmopan, Belize, Central America; Muscat, Oman; and
Alberta, Canada.
7
 8

a discipline without a large number of thoroughly executed case studies is a discipline without
systematic production of exemplars, and that a discipline without exemplars is an ineffective one.
(Flyvberg, 2006, p.242).

Flyvberg further defines a ‘paradigmatic case study’ (p.232). This is a case that aims ‘to
develop a metaphor or establish a school for the domain that the case concerns’ (Flyvberg,
2006, 229). Paradigmatic cases thus highlight particular features of the domain of enquiry
and as such need not be typical or even remarkable.

It is not possible consistently, or even frequently, to determine in advance whether a given case
Geertz’s (1973) cockfights in Bali, for instance—is paradigmatic. Besides the strategic choice of
case, the execution of the case study will certainly play a role, as will the reactions to the study
by the research community, the group studied, and possibly, a broader public. The value of the
case study will depend on the validity claims that researchers can place on their study and the
status these claims obtain in dialogue with other validity claims in the discourse to which the
study is a contribution (Flyvberg, 2006, 233).

There are thus few guidelines for the selection of such cases, and the literature suggests a
retrospective justification more or less along the lines of the saying ‘the proof of the pudding
is in the eating’.

The case study chosen here can be claimed to be atypical in the sense that it is situated in
the state of Kerala in India, which has come to be known for relatively high (amongst
developing regions) levels of social development, social movements and active citizenship
(Parayil, 2000, Heller, 1996, Heller, et al, 2007). The state has also instituted far reaching
institutional changes that allow for direct citizen participation in bottom-up planning, against
which local budget allocation takes place (Chettiparamb, 2005, 2006). Innovative
programmes such as the Kudumbashree in poverty alleviation have also been reported
(Williams et al, 2010). The responsible tourism initiative is a relatively new venture of the
Government of Kerala.

The atypical nature of the case poses an interesting context for this paper. If responsible
tourism is to be re-conceptualised and understood as an extension of the CSR agenda as we
have suggested, then it is worthwhile to investigate the operation of the scope of this
conceptualisation to encapsulate, while clarifying current understandings of the term
‘responsible tourism’. A detailed study of the concept of responsible tourism in Kerala then
8
 9

has value for it has the potential to evolve into a ‘paradigmatic case study’ in that it could
provide the empirical arguments that allow for pinning down the rather nebulous concept of
‘responsible tourism’ to a CSR agenda in tourism.

In line with the purposes of case study research in general (Yin, 1981), the investigation of
the case study in this paper is exploratory and phenomenological. It aims to elicit a thick
description of the ‘how’ in the implementation of responsible tourism in Kumarakom. The
implementation of responsible tourism in Kumarakom is relatively well known and therefore
substantial secondary information was available. Given the exploratory nature of the study,
research methods were confined in the first instance to an analysis of secondary data.
Besides serving as a valid research method in itself, as Cowton (1998) suggests, analysis of
secondary data can also be a useful initial stage that leads on to the initiation of primary
research. Though further primary research will undoubtedly help explore and enhance the
conclusions suggested in this paper, we believe that the arguments we make at this stage
are nevertheless of significance to tourism and planning studies.

Cowton (1998, 429) suggests a number of practical and logistical advantages for research
based on secondary sources. However and more importantly (for the purpose of this paper)
he suggests that due to the multiplicity of perspectives through which secondary data may
have been collected, the descriptive validity of the case study can be often be better
established than in (sometimes biased) narrative reporting from primary research structured
around particular research questions. However, care is also needed in working with
secondary sources for -

secondary data are likely to map only approximately onto the researcher's ideal research
questions, hypotheses or concepts, and the researcher needs both to bear in mind the extent of
that approximation and to make readers aware of it when the results are written up for
publication (Cowton, 1998, 429).

Sourcing extensively across different secondary sources can then help as the multiplicity of
narratives can provide a source for triangulation and multiple interpretations. Sources for
secondary data used in this paper include academic publications, government publications
(state and local levels), newspaper reports, and publications and websites of activist groups
such as EQUATIONS and TOURISM WATCH engaged in lobbying against environmental and
social issues in tourism. Descriptive background information on the context was first sought.

9
 10

These were categorised into information on the location (state and local); information on
general governance modes and information on tourism policy. The historical and
geographical policy context of the case study from the first phase informed the search and
analysis of the second phase which focused on the case study itself: the formulation,
implementation and impacts of responsible tourism initiatives in Kumarakom.

In the following sections, we present the governance context of the state of Kerala followed
by a brief overview of the tourism sector. In the second section, we describe the
implementation of responsible tourism in Kumarakom in Kerala. The third section advances
our arguments and we conclude in the fourth and final section.

The governance context of Kerala

Kerala is located on the Southern-most tip of India on the East coast of the Arabian Sea. The
population is around 33.4 million (provisional figures, 2011 census). The state has attracted
the interest of development scholars mainly because it has been successful in maintaining
high levels of literacy, health and gender parity alongside relatively high quality of life in
spite of low economic development 3. These have been argued to be an outcome of both
historical factors and public intervention in the form of state policies through redistributive
programmes such as land reforms, a public distribution system for food, and various welfare
programmes for the socially and economically marginalised (Parayil, 2000). Social reforms
led by important social leaders, the communist movement and science based people’s
movements that were active in the late 19 th and most of 20th century also served to instil
significant levels of civic and political activism amongst the population (Franke and Chasin,
1997).

In terms of governance, a broad based bottom-up planning initiative called the People’s
Planning Campaign which involves participatory budgeting was launched in 1996 and has
been firmly institutionalised since (Chettiparamb, 2005, 2006, Isaac and Franke, 2000).
Through the process of bottom-up planning, communities are empowered to plan local
projects, prioritise the projects against a budget, and partake in implementation and
monitoring of the same. The process is an annual process and presently around 25% of plan
funds of the state budget (devolved to local governments in Kerala) are planned through
such a process. The programme has been by and large successful, on a number of counts,
particularly in rural areas. Innovative schemes have been designed and implemented and

3
See George 1997 and Tharamanaglam, 1997 for alternate views
10
 11

localities have had the freedom to prioritise diverse kinds of economic, social and
infrastructure schemes that suit the specificities of their place (Kerala State Planning Board,
2011, Isaac and Franke, 2000).

Also important for this paper is the Kudumbashree programme of Kerala. This is a state
sponsored poverty alleviation programme with broader goals of women’s empowerment
(realised through women’s collectives) and local economic development (realised through
close integration with the local government who are themselves empowered as stated
previously). The programme has a multi-dimensional view of poverty fore-fronting self help
as a core strategy. The mission statement reads:
‘[t]o eradicate absolute poverty in ten years through concerted
community action under the leadership of local governments, by
facilitating organization of the poor for combining self-help with
demand-led convergence of available services and resources to tackle
the multiple dimensions and manifestations of poverty, holistically’
(Kudumbashree, n.d, a, added emphasis).
The structure that delivers these objectives is closely linked to the local government system
(see figure 1). Overall coordination is done by the State Poverty Eradication Mission through
its District offices. The Neighbourhood groups are made up of 10-20 women members from
economically backward families constituted on a spatial basis. These groups are federated to
Area Development Societies at ward level and Community Development Societies at local
government level. The spatial organisation allows for dove tailing of policy to specific needs
of the poor determined on a spatial basis. Through bottom-up planning, these needs
become the impetus for change and multi-faceted new programme development.

11
 12

Figure1: Organisational structure of the Kudumbashree Programme.

Source: Author.

Projects taken up by the Kudumbashree units involve local economic development through
micro-enterprises (both production and service); thrift and credit operations through micro-
finance; women’s empowerment initiatives through capacity building and debate; and
general social development through initiatives in housing, children’s education, support for
cultural activities and so on (Chettiparamb, 2011). The programme has won many awards
and is generally known as an ‘exemplar’ within poverty alleviation policy circles in India
(Oommen, 2008, Kudumbashree, n.d,b).

While the programme has undeniably been quite successful in poverty alleviation and
women’s empowerment, success in micro-enterprises has been rather patchy (Oommen,
2008; Williams, et al 2010). While there are significant numbers of successful stories, stories
of business failures and struggles are also abundant. Though multiple forms of support are
provided to Kudumbashree units, marketing of produce and products remain a problem
(Oommen, 2008; Pat, 2005).

Tourism sector in Kerala

12
 13

Kerala is known for its scenic beauty and is a popular tourist destination. It was listed as the
top 10 ‘paradises found’ in the millennium edition of the National Geographic magazine
(Sebastian and Rajagopalan, 2009). Though almost 50% of the state's population was
dependent on agriculture until the 1980s, this sector has since declined with farming
becoming increasingly unprofitable (George, 1997, Kerala State Planning Board, 2011).
Industrial activities in the state are also limited, due to a multiplicity of factors, not least of
which was the presence of a militant trade union movement (Tharamangalam, 1997). In
terms of natural and cultural assets, Kerala however has a varied portfolio of attractions
such as beaches, backwaters, hill stations, festivals, ayurveda (the traditional Indian medical
practice), wildlife, traditional cuisines, classical and folk art and dance forms, unique
artefacts and a distinctive style of architecture (Kelly and Kokkranikal, 2010). Tourism was
therefore identified as a major economic development alternative. This recognition
triggered a series of tourism development and promotional activities in the late 1980s
(Kerala State Planning Board, 2011).

In the second half of the 1980s, a raft of initiatives to tap the tourism potential of the state
was introduced. Tourism was given an industry status in 1986, thus making the sector
eligible for all public sector incentives and concessions that were extended to other
industries. This was followed by the announcement of significant investment, particularly in
tourism infrastructure, and the announcement of a number of performance incentives for
the tourism industry. Some of the public sector interventions taken during this time include
the establishment of a new tourism training institute, Kerala Institute of Tourism and Travel
Studies (KITTS) in 1988; formation of District Tourism Promotion Councils in all fourteen
districts, to decentralise tourism efforts and make it more spatially sensitive; a year-long
campaigning for tourism awareness in 1992 to increase public awareness of tourism related
issues; organisation of familiarisation tours for overseas travel trade and media and the
development of international airport at Kochi as a cooperative venture. Strategically, these
programmes, projects and interventions served to elevate and proclaim tourism as a high
profile sector for private investment.
The late nineties and early twenties saw Kerala significantly benefitting from private sector
investment in tourism. Public-private joint ventures with leading hotel chains in the country
were launched by the setting up of Tourist Resorts Kerala Limited (TRKL) for the purpose.
The Department of Tourism also publishes an annual calendar of indigenous cultural festivals
and have been organising the Grant Kerala Shopping Festival (GKSF) annually since 2001. The

13
 14

state participated in major international tourism trade fairs and has organised a trade fair of
its own - the Kerala Travel Mart - since 2000. This period also saw the identification and
promotion of a specialised niche market in health (ayurveda) tourism by supporting
traditional practitioners of ayurveda and health resorts through standardisation, education,
training and marketing programmes.

The decline of Kashmir as a major tourist destination (due to the India-Pakistan conflict in
the area) indirectly helped Kerala (Kokkranikal and Morrison, 2002). The state took this
opportunity to present itself as an attractive and viable alternate tourist location thus
attracting national government budgetary support. Kerala tourism is now widely acclaimed
as one of the successful marketing stories in Indian tourism (Chakravarti, 2001). The state
has won the national award for the ‘best performing state in the tourism sector’ several
times and has been hailed as ‘the undisputed tourism hotspot of India' (Charkavarti, 2001).
Tourism statistics from the mid-80s onwards has consequently seen a quadrupling of
arrivals.

With all the boosterism evident in tourism policy and promotion, Kerala inevitably has also
suffered from the down-side of tourism. Tourism destinations have suffered from problems
such as littering and pollution resulting in adverse environmental impacts; social issues such
as drug trafficking, commercial sex exploitation involving men, women, and children have
arisen (Kokkranikal and Morrison, 2002); displacement of local inhabitants and competition
for resources and infrastructure have surfaced; and indigenous cultural attractions such as
Kathakali (a form of dance drama), theyyam (a religious festival celebrated in North Kerala
temples), and other similar temple festivals have been packaged as tourist products, leading
to concerns of commodification of traditional living practices. Resentment has thus grown
amongst the general public with increasing concerns about the pressure exerted by tourists,
on the sometimes already over-stretched infrastructure and resources in the state
(Kokkranikal, 1993). With the development of new destinations and consequent increase in
marketing activities, the number of tourists to the state is only likely to increase.

The above pressures and public discontent has now induced the Government to adopt the
concept of ‘responsible tourism’ as a way forward. The implementation of the concept in
Kerala has however taken on a character and tone that is specific to Kerala and its

14
 15

development history. In the next section, we detail how this particular initiative in Kerala
takes on a place based, community mediated dimension in Kumarakom, in Kerala.

Responsible tourism in Kerala

A concerted effort to implement responsible tourism began with a state level consultation
on the subject organised by the Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, in
association with the International Centre for Responsible Tourism and EQUATIONS (a non-
government activist organisation and ‘hard’ campaigner on tourism related issues) organised
at Thiruvananthapuram, the state capital, on the 2 nd and 3rd of February, 2007. Discussions
were conducted in three sub-groups consisting of 1) Local self governments and civil society
organisations; 2) Tourism industry and 3) State Government Departments and organisations.
A series of economic, socio-cultural and environmental issues were identified by each of
these sub-groups which were in turn captured in a workshop document that eventually led
to the preparation of a framework for the implementation of responsible tourism. A ‘State
Level Responsible Tourism Committee (SLRTC) emerged from this consisting of 40 members
with representation from different groups of stakeholders.

In the first meeting of SLRTC it was decided that the responsible tourism initiative should be
piloted in four different types of destinations in Kerala, all chosen for their importance as
tourism destinations, but differing in tourist volumes and the ecological sensitivity of the
destinations. These were to be Kovalam (near saturated, coastal destination), Kumarakom
(ecological fragile backwaters destination), Wayanad (dispersed settlement pattern and hill
resort destination) and Thekkady (contained settlement pattern and hill resort destination).
Three state-level multi-stakeholder Working Groups were then constituted for steering
economic, environmental and socio-cultural aspects of tourism management in these
destinations. At local level, multi-stakeholder Destination Level Responsible Tourism
Committees (DLRTCs) and local level implementation cells consisting of working groups that
mirrored the state level working groups were to be formed under the local government. The
DLRTCs were to have representatives from local self governments, tourism industry, NGOs,
civil society organizations, academia and media. Additionally, organizations and individuals
professing expertise in a range of subject areas of relevance to the management of tourism
were also to be members. While the state level committees worked on preparation of
guidelines for responsible tourism at destinations, local committees were to work on the
specificities of implementing the guidelines in locations. Thus, the initiatives though
15
 16

supported by the state tourism department, were to be formulated by local governments

through destination level planning, implementation and monitoring. Figure 2 below shows
the proposed overall organisational structure for the implementation of responsible tourism.

Figure: 2: Proposed organisational layout for the implementation of Responsible Tourism in

Kerala (adapted from http://www.keralatourism.org/rt-impactsocial.php (accessed 22nd
October, 2011)

It is worth noting here that the Kerala Declaration for responsible tourism was working with
a rather diffuse definition. For instance, the Kerala Declaration on Responsible tourism co-
signed by the Conference Convenor Dr Harold Goodwin and the State Secretary for Tourism
Affairs Dr Venu, pledges to ‘take forward the concept of Responsible Tourism into practice,
focusing on local economy, well being, local culture and environment’ (Goodwin and Venu,
2008). Further the document declares that ‘one of the purposes of responsible tourism is
that the benefits of tourism are equitably accessed and distributed’ (Goodwin and Venu,
2008).

16
 17

A major impetus for the responsible tourism initiative came when links were established to
the Kudumbashree programme. As mentioned earlier, eradication of poverty through
facilitation and development of entrepreneurial skills amongst women while contributing to
local economic development through programme ‘convergence’ is a strong mandate of the
Kudumbashree programme. The federated Kudumbashree units are also, by and large, a
politically and socially forceful presence in most local government endeavours throughout
the state. For the Kudumbashree programme, the responsible tourism initiatives held the
potential for opening up markets for goods and services that in turn could be a spur for local
entrepreneurship development and thereby poverty alleviation. Marketing of produce and
services to various extents had always been an Achilles heel for the Kudumbashree
entrepreneurial units (Oommen, 2008, Pat, 2005). The responsible tourism programme was
therefore of great interest to them (Venu, 2008).

In the state level workshop conducted in February, 2007 (mentioned earlier), a series of
issues in engaging with responsible tourism practices were identified. From the rather large
list of issues local food procurement by tourism providers and local level facilitation of the
same, were taken up for detailed investigation. Kerala Institute of Tourism and Travel
Studies (KITTS) detailed the problems in this sector through a survey of issues in local food
procurement for hotels in the four destinations chosen. From this study, it emerged that
hoteliers though in principle willing to procure food locally, had a number of concerns that
would have to be addressed if local procurement was to become a reality. These were:

 Produce requirements in practice were not steady throughout the year and supply chains
would have to cater to this variability. Sudden spurts in demand were not uncommon
and timeliness of supply would be needed.
 Acceptable prices needed to be negotiated. In some instance, local procurement could be
more expensive with prices lower outside the locality.
 Quality control of food produce was of prime importance.
 Local food producers often were very small entities and hoteliers could engage in one to
one transactions with each producer (Venu, 2008).

A strategy to address the above concerns was then needed. Detailing of such a strategy, as
well of initiation of other initiatives in line with the spirit of responsible tourism, was left to
the local governments at the destinations chosen. In the next section we detail the initiatives

17
 18

taken up in one destination – Kumarakom. This destination was chosen as it is widely

acknowledged as ‘successful’ within Kerala.

Responsible Tourism in Kumarakom

Kumarakom is largely a rural society with an agrarian economy. It is located on the banks of
the Vembanad Lake in South Kerala and covers an area of 51.66 square kilometers of which
24.13 square kilometres are part of the backwaters leaving just 27.54 kilometres for human
habitation and farming (Shyamlal, 2008). Paddy fields make up almost 12.5 square
kilometers. The total population of the area is around 24,900 (Shyamlal, 2008) and the main
occupation of the population before the advent of tourism was agriculture, fisheries, daily
wage labour and shell-mining from the backwaters. The place is known for its backwaters,
paddy fields, mangroves, bird sanctuary and intrinsic inland water canals, all of which
constitute a fragile backwaters ecosystem. The vast Vembanad Lake forms an integral part of
this ecosystem and at Kumarakom this is capitalised as a significant tourist attraction.

Tourism became a significant economic sector in Kumarakom in the early 1990s after one of
India’s leading hotel chains – the Taj Goup – leased a heritage resort in 1989 from the
Government of Kerala (Equations, 2007; Sebastian and Rajagopalan, 2008). This eventually
led to a spontaneous (rather than planned) growth of tourism, characterised by expensive
hotels/resorts for high-spending tourists, significant conversion of paddy fields to high value
resort sites with consequent ecological impacts, spiralling land prices, restricted access to
the lake for the local population, unwelcome socio-sexual intrusions by tourists and minimal
local involvement in the economic aspects of tourism (Sebastian and Rajagopalan, 2011).

The first initiative to address problems arising from tourism in the location came in 2002,
when the Panchayat (rural local self –government in India) sought help from EQUATIONS (a
Bangalore based activist organisation campaigning on tourism related issues), and other
locally active civil organisations to formulate a ‘People’s Charter and Draft Guidelines on
Sustainable Tourism’. The Charter demanded the preparation of a Master Plan for tourism
development; proposed regulations for new constructions and tourism related activities;
protested against the enclavisation and exploitation of common resources, demanded
effective allocation of costs of tourism to the industry itself; better distribution of the
benefits from tourism and increased participation of the local community. Debate and public
discussions on the social obligations of tourism industry and its corporate accountability
18
 19

were thus discernible quite early. The Charter also demanded the creation of institutional
forums such as an expert committee to conceptualise, plan, implement and monitor tourism
development within the Panchayat (Kerala Tourism Watch, n.d, Padmanabhan and Georgey,
n.d). However, not much in terms of change on the ground resulted from this
(Padmanabhan and Georgey, n.d).

By 2004, the Grama Panchayat constituted an institutional forum called the ‘Functional
Committee’ on tourism. The President (elected leader) and Secretary (chief executive officer)
of the Kumarakom Grama Panchayat were to be the Chairperson and Secretary of the
Committee. Other members were all elected Panchayat members, people with knowledge
and expertise in tourism, District Town Planning Officer, environmentalists, economists, local
NGOs and representatives from the tourism industry. The committee was charged with the
implementation of the People’s Charter and the monitoring of tourism activities. Though
initial discussions on the various aspects were held, the committee was subsequently
dissolved with the dissolution of the then Panchayat (Kerala Tourism Watch, n.d).

In 2005, in an effort to regulate some of the unbridled tourism activity, the state
government declared the area as a ‘Special Tourism Zone’ (along the lines of special
economic zones) under the Kerala Tourism (Conservation and Preservation of Areas) Act
2005 (Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, 2005a). Though guidelines for the
conservation and preservation of Kumarakom were issued under this Ordinance
(Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, 2005b), Sebastian and Rajagopalan (2008)
report that they were not yet implemented in 2007. However, though the functional
committees no longer existed, tourism related activities were taken up by a civil forum. The
civil forum was essentially a collective of civil society movements, individuals and people’s
groups (Kerala Tourism Watch, 2007). This forum was active in campaigning (sometimes
successfully) against issues such as reclamation of land from backwaters for parking space;
illegal sand mining and environmental pollution. It demanded action on (again effectively)
violation of building rules; declaration of the bird sanctuary area as a ‘community conserve’;
reservation of 30% of jobs for the local population and closure of illegal massage parlours
(Kerala Tourism Watch, n.d.). Thus even though public awareness on tourism related issues
was strengthening in Kumarakom, the potential for institutionalised broad based economic
leveraging while safeguarding the ecological and social assets had not yet been effectively
realised before the responsible tourism initiative.

19
 20

The lack of effective institutionalisation earlier meant that the responsible tourism initiatives
that were initiated by the Kerala State Government in December, 2007 did not inspire much
hope locally. As a first step therefore, the Panchayat, together with officials from the state
Government, organised a local meeting in order to explain the programme, the schedule for
implementation and introduce the key players in the initiative (Michot, 2010). Following the
survey by KITTS mentioned earlier, the Destination Level Responsible Tourism Committee
Cell (RT Cell) first worked on a strategy for encouraging local procurement by resorts. Some
of the key elements of such a strategy involved
 Selected ranges of food produce would be targeted at first.
 Food production beyond tourism would also be targeted by including the local
population in order to ensure both spare production for hotels at all times and enough
demand for excess supply).
 Dedicated brokering units facilitated by the local government would be established to
address timeliness, quality control, fair price guarantees and access to resources
(finance, land and skills).

An agricultural calendar for the locality was then prepared. This calendar mapped out the
local demand from the resorts for specific produces at different times of the year and 18
hotels and resorts were cajoled (through state and local influence) into signing up to an
agreement to purchase produces exclusively from the farmers of the locality (Michon,2010;
Interview 2011).

The KITTS study had also identified groups of people in the locality that were economically
struggling the most. Kudumbashree units of 5 members were then constituted from these
groups for the cultivation of the food produces chosen. 180 such groups involving 900
women were formed with land for cultivation earmarked and fertilizers and seeds supplied
by the Panchayat. Fallow land for cultivation was found through a household survey and
physical reconnaissance survey. It is reported that paddy cultivation in 55 acres of and
vegetable cultivation in 30 acres resulted. Further, 612 homestead farmers were motivated
to take up vegetable cultivation. Organic farming practices were encouraged. The resource
mapping exercise also identified 26 un-used ponds, 20 of which were restored as fish farms
and 6 were restored for lotus cultivation. Initially (in 2008) 11 produces from the units were
supplied to the hotels, which in 2010 has grown to 45 produces. It is estimated that at
present around one third of the population of the village is involved in the production and
sale of agricultural produce (Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, n.d).

20
 21

Other initiatives that were also started under the responsible tourism initiative were the
development of microenterprises in souvenir units; the formation of art and culture groups
by women and children in a number of traditional art forms; development of calendars of
local festivals and celebrations that could be used for marketing and promotion by industry
partners; development of tour packages of village life and experiences; environmental
protection through the promotion of eco-bags instead of plastic bags; mangrove
regeneration and control of backwater pollution; energy saving initiatives through the
development of local green certification; and use of energy efficient street lighting. Further,
a grass root level community generated multifaceted resource mapping (containing
information on different kinds of resources including that of art and culture), and a
destination labour directory were completed to help with planning (Department of Tourism,
Government of Kerala, n.d). The clientele for all of these initiatives are the tourists that
come to the numerous privately owned tourist resorts in the area.

Michon (2010) reports that the responsible tourism has had real and quantifiable results on
the ground. He lists these as

 “Significant increase in local agricultural production

 Creation of a cultivation calendar
 Creation of systems for steady prices to avoid inflation and market fluctuations
 Creation of 10 Karshakasamity (farmers groups), with a total of 460 people
 Creation of 20 Kudumbashree units, with a total of 250 women
 Creation of 5 Micro Enterprises focused on women
o 1 women fish processing unit
o 1 women chicken processing unit
o 1 women Chappathy (local bread) processing unit
o 2 coconut supply units” (Michon, 2010, p.10)

Michon (2010) further reports that the responsible tourism initiative has led to the
involvement of 760 women in the cultivation of local produce, 35 in retail activities, 30 in art
and cultural groups, and 45 in the village tours. In line with overall Kudumbashree aims, the
responsible tourism initiative has significantly contributed to an overall social agenda for
women’s empowerment too.

21
 22

The initiative at Kumarakom is largely acknowledged within policy circles and practitioner
circles, both locally and more widely within the state, as a success. It is therefore useful to
deconstruct the case study and analyse its contribution to not just practice, but also
academic debates around the notion of responsible tourism.

Sustainability, the CSR agenda and responsible tourism

The responsible tourism initiative in Kumarakom as detailed above can be seen as broad
based and incorporating elements of a wide range of tourism sub-strands - pro-poor
tourism, community participation in tourism and integrated tourism - that are normatively
promoted within debates and discussions on sustainable tourism. In this section we present
our case for positioning the concept of responsible tourism and linking it to the CSR agenda
in tourism.

Corporate Social Responsibility can be defined as ‘actions that appear to further some social
good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law’ (Mc Williams and
Siegal, 2001, p.117). Carroll (1991) suggests a pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility
wherein four different motivations for businesses to engage with CSR practices are
identified. The first of these - the economic responsibility – is the base upon which the other
three – legal responsibility, ethical responsibility and philanthropic responsibility – rests. This
then suggests that while economic sustainability is a fundamental motive, other motivations
can also feed into it thereby strengthening the corporation social responsibility agenda of a
firm. Further, Nicolau (2008) and Sheldon and Park, (2012) argue that when concern for the
long-term overrides concerns for the short–term, CSR becomes a more viable strategy for
firms. Many international (see the initiatives of the United Nations Global Contact and the
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises) and national organisations (see the
Responsible Tourism Manual for South Africa, 2002) have attempted to encourage adoption
of CSR practices through the creation of standards. However, as Sheldon and Park (2012,
394) note, these remain as voluntary guidelines and ‘the various agencies authoring these
initiatives are challenged to transition voluntary guidelines into meaningful and widely
adopted action’.

Studies on the actual adoption of CSR practices as opposed to intentions show a very low
translation rate. For instance, Sheldon and Park (2012) report that the McKinsey Quarterly
Survey of 2008 show that only 30% of those who supported CSR in principle had actually
22
 23

taken any action. Results from Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College (2007) are
also reported as similar, though less drastic. Henderson (2007) suggests that the nature of
tourism and travel operations is such that an additional layer of complexity is added as
society is part of the product on offer. The relationship of the industry to the environment
and society is therefore necessarily different. In spite of this, the capacity of tourism to
adversely affect multiple dimensions of society and the environment is rather well known.
Nevertheless, he argues that there is a potential positive impact that tourism can deliver in
destinations which is closely related to concepts of sustainability. But he distinguishes
between these two:

The principles of sustainable development have much in common with those of CSR and the
terms are sometimes used interchangeably. A company pursuing sustainable tourism is, by
definition, socially responsible while CSR incorporates some of the fundamental tenets of
sustainability. However, sustainable development seeks to embrace all the participants in the
development process and give equal weight to their voices. CSR maintains a company
perspective and questions of profitability remain at the forefront, not to be eclipsed by social
and environmental agendas. Sustainable development implies a deeper and broader
commitment and is part of a debate which is relevant to most areas of human endeavour and
informs private and public sector actions. In comparison, CSR pertains only to industry members
and covers a particular and voluntary aspect of activity. It therefore occupies a position near the
weaker pole of the sustainability spectrum and should be assessed within the context of that
discourse (Henderson , 2007, 231).

We suggest that ‘responsible tourism’ could be the bridging concept that connects the CSR
agenda in tourism business practice to the wider sustainability agenda. If it is to perform as a
bridging concept, it must then retain the width of the sustainability debate – incorporating a
diverse range of actors and agendas – while refocusing this on facilitative and
complementary practices, provisioning of public goods, and provision of regulatory limits
that allow the private sector to reach its optimum potential. This will then involve creative
ways of planning and must include the design of innovative mechanisms that have the dual
purpose of achieving sustainability and industry viability. Studies of CSR adoption in the
travel and tourism sector is, in general, ‘somewhat sparse’ (Sheldon and Park, 2012, 394),
and case study reports of the same are even more so. The case of Kumarakom is, we
suggest, a paradigmatic case study that embodies certain principles for the
operationalisation of ‘responsible tourism’ in destinations. We discuss these principles and
their associated policy implications in the next section.

23
 24

Operationalising responsible tourism: Policy implications

In this section we engage with four non-prescriptive principles for operationalising

responsible tourism. They are non-prescriptive, in the sense that the elements that make up
these principles will vary from case study to case study, yet they are principles as care and
attention must be given to ensure the presence and operationalisation of these components
in most situations. In other words, the principles are not to be used as prescriptive dictums
that would hold true in all situations, but emerge as significant markers in achieving
responsible tourism. We discuss the importance of coercion, information flow, local
embeddedness and local leadership in this section.

In Kumarakom, the knowledge, capability and the will for action for responsible tourism
practices were not present initially within the industry, the state government or the local
government. The issue gained political/official prominence through generalised awareness
gained through the active campaigning of civil society movements and NGOs engaged in
oppositional politics which also resonated with lived experiences in the locality. Once a
political space was opened at state level (arguably through the accumulation of such
oppositional politics), the bureaucratic/regulatory power of the state became available for
implementation. Michon (2010) highlights how the implementation of the responsible
tourism initiative was fraught with non-compliance from industry partners at the start (in
spite of a written agreement) due to higher costs of local produce. It was the personal
involvement and unwavering insistence of top-level bureaucrats that finally coerced the
industry partners to compliance and cooperation in the early days. Once implementation
was streamlined, industry partners started to reap the tangible (product diversification and
enhancement of tourist experience) and intangible (good-will of community, better tourist-
host relations and better linkages with regulators) benefits which then could lead to the
longer term sustainability of the venture.

The productive value of socially accepted value based coercion has to be therefore
acknowledged. This may emanate from civil society, government hierarchy, consensus
amongst industry partners or combinations of the above depending upon the specificities of
the destination. Further as we have seen good intentions need not always translate into
practice. The presence of coercion nudges good intentions in CSR practices towards higher
levels of CSR adoption by helping overcome real and imagined risk barriers. Real and
imagined risk can arise because of both increased capital and recurring expenditure (high

24
 25

prices for local produces in the case of Kumarakom) and also the need for change in business
practices (delinking form existing supply chains) resulting in uncertainty and consequent
inertia. However if the coercive mechanism can be streamlined into intrinsic motivational
mechanisms the longer-term sustainability can arise from changed business practices which
in turn could result in much less active regulation.

Though coercion is highlighted as a necessary principle to get responsible tourism practices

off the ground, these must remain socially accepted and value based. There is a vast
literature around the why and how of collaborative planning which elaborates on the
process of stakeholder interests and consensus formation to arrive at socially accepted value
based agreement (Healey, 1998, 1999, Innes, 2004, Forester, 2006). Theoretically speaking,
if due process has been followed, the need for coercion should not exist. However, the daily
grind of business practices for small and medium businesses (which make up the bulk of
tourist sector in most locations) may not allow for extensive and exhaustive participation
except on the most serious of issues. Also all firms may not be always present. In
Kumarakom for instance, only the major actors and players in all three sectors were invited
for the consultative workshop. However, this served as a focus group representing broad
based interests in tourism, which then fed into identification of information gaps, design of
institutional forums and the formulation of generic policy guidelines for responsible tourism.
Information gathering practices such as carefully designed surveys, the KITTS survey on
difficulties in local procurement in Kumarakom for instance, can also help in gathering
information from more diverse groups such as small and medium firms or identifying target
populations such as the economically backward families in a location. Directions of
information flow and ensuring that interested parties are part of the decision making
process through a variety of means is therefore vital.

A focus on place has been claimed to have the potential to promote intersectoral joined up
thinking (Healey, 1999). This is because local embeddedness admits the specificity of
information required for evaluating and appropriating the strengths and weaknesses of
particular initiatives within a meaningful framework of solving or creating problems. This
allows the sorting and recognition of complementarities and gaps in policy formulation thus
enabling appropriate ‘bundling’ of policy initiatives. Given that responsible tourism
initiatives (and CSR initiatives in general) are geared towards wider impacts of industry on
society, the absence of place focus can potentially result in the loss of information specificity
needed for ‘truly’ responsible initiatives and the loss of meaningfulness in terms of

25
 26

addressing an acknowledged problem. This then has the potential to affect not just the initial
uptake of the responsible tourism initiative, but can also affect the intrinsic worth of the
initiative with consequent impacts on the sustainability of the initiative. Low uptake of
voluntary generic guidelines for CSR practices mentioned earlier are, we suggest, partially
explained by the lack of such local embeddedness.

Kumarakom shows the mobilisation of destination level initiatives that are informed by local
place-specific renderings of problems which in turn can draw upon the lived experiences of a
broad based (including marginalised) section of the population. All sorts of knowledge –
experiential, tacit, codified and ethical – can be more easily accessed when policy and
practice formulation is local, making them more meaningful and problem oriented. It must
be remembered that much of the activity in conducting transect walks, identifying fallow
land, training and project formulation were mobilised through voluntary work of local
actors. This broad based involvement can itself serve as a coercive/seductive force on
industry appealing to both the business logic and civic/philanthropic motivations leading to
long term sustainability. Local embeddedness also can mobilise important networking power
and improved shared understandings. However, while these can be viewed as testimony to
the mobilising power of ‘meaning’ attributed to action in local place based interventions, it is
also testimony to a public awareness and civic responsibility that needs to be already
present or alternately built up.

The realisation of the breadth of impacts that responsible tourism implies will depend not
just upon an active and intervening civil society, but will necessarily also require an informed
and proactive local government with capacity for local leadership. The results obtained in
the survey conducted in Kumarakom report that business managers found that there were
too many constraints in the environment (local food procurement for instance) which
disempowered translation of positive intentions of business managers into responsible
tourism practices. Due partly to the decentralised governance ethos of the Kerala state, the
local government could step in and act as a leader/facilitator to manage the perceived
constraints in the environment. Further, though the structure of the Kudumbashree units
existed even before the responsible tourism initiative, the supply side (products from
Kudumbashree micro-enterprises) had not found the demand side (tourism industry outlets)
automatically. The relative marginalisation of the women and poor women in particular,
could partially account for this. The intervention and helping hand of the local state is thus
imperative if the productivity of marginalised labour is to be non-exploitatively joined up

26
 27

with the consumption needs of tourists. The local state must then act as an adept co-
ordinator, facilitator, negotiator and problem-solver. An enabling governance climate that
allows the local state to function on these lines is thus essential.

We have above argued that the policy implications from the Kumarakom case study suggest
that coercion, information flow, local embeddedness and local leadership are generic non-
prescriptive, yet essential principles for the sustained implementation of responsible tourism
initiatives. It must be said here that these are by no the only determining factors for the
success of responsible tourism. For instance, the success of responsible tourism may also be
mediated by place specific features such as the relative maturity of the tourism industry in
the location (problems deeply embedded for more mature tourism locations thus requiring
increased levels of sustained resources and sophistication in policy formulation), the type of
tourism (eco-tourism, health tourism, plantation tourism, etc each of which are different in
their outward orientation) the nature of the place (urban/rural/tribal), etc to name only a
few. These are agendas for future research. However, following a realist ontology, we
believe that regardless of differences in empirical manifestation (due to some of the factors
listed above), the arguments for paying attention to coercion, information flow, local
embeddedness and local leadership will still be relevant.

Conclusions

In this paper we have examined the concept of responsible tourism that has now started
appearing in the tourism literature. We reviewed some of the ways in which the term has
been used within tourism studies and suggested that the term has come to signify
everything, resulting in a blurring of the added conceptual contribution that can be claimed
of it. Instead we suggested that the practical use of the term in areas where it has been
adopted (such as South Africa and Kerala for instance) suggests a rather restricted use. We
identified this as the tourism sector specific manifestation of the CSR agenda.

While writings around responsible tourism are available and declarations of intentions and
guidelines for implementing these are also available within tourism, not many case study
based exemplars have been reported. We see this as a gap for as argued by Flyvbverg (2006)
exemplars are necessary for a domain of knowledge to progress. The importance of a
‘paradigmatic case study’ becomes then relevant and we proposed that the case study of
Kumarakom could be conceived as such as paradigmatic case study.

27
 28

Discussion of the case study, first traced the particular governance context of Kerala and the
position of tourism in the state economy. The responsible tourism initiatives at state level,
and local level were then described highlighting the ‘how’ of the implementation and the
impact that it produced. Generic, non-prescriptive principles that could be said to be
necessary in some form for the successful translation of responsible tourism principles to
practices were then identified. These are coercion, information flow, local embeddedness
and local leadership mobilised and realised in a dialectic tension of tolerance and
confrontation. Such an approach is contrasted with one that places faith in the voluntary
adoption of ‘responsible’ practices by the private sector on its own. Responsible tourism
then can still make a contribution to practice provided that the conceptual terrain is
delineated against other forms of tourism and research within the terrain seeks to unpack
the particular forms of challenges that are thrown up by the delineation itself.

References:

Alberta Declaration (2011) Alberta Declaration on Responsible Tourism in Destinations,

International Centre for Responsible Tourism – Canada, Retrieved March 23, 2012, from
http://icrtcanada.ca/?p=230

Ashley, C., Roe, D. and Goodwin, H. (2001) Pro-Poor Tourism Strategies: making tourism
work for the poor. Pro-Poor Tourism Report No.1 (April) for the Overseas Development
Institute, London. Nottingham: Russell Press.

Blackstock, K. (2005) A critical look at community based tourism Community

Development Journal, 40(1), 39-49

BITC (2003) Why become a responsible business? retrieved February 12, 2012, from:
http://www.bitc.org.uk/issues/why_become_a_responsible_business/index.html

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

business. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46 (2), 188-204

Bohdanowicz P. (2007), A case study of Hilton Environmental Reporting as a tool of

Corporate Social Responsibility. Tourism Review International 11(2), 115-131

Bond, P (2008) Social movement and corporate social responsibility in South Africa
Development and Change, 39, 1037-52.

28
 29

Butler, R (1990) Alternative Tourism: Pious Hope or Trojan Horse? Journal of Travel
Research, 28(3), 40-45

Cape Town Declaration (2002) Cape Town Declaration on Responsible Tourism, Cape
Town Conference on Responsible Tourism in Destinations – August 2002, Retrieved on
March 22, 2012, from
http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/tourism/Documents/Responsible
%20Tourism/Toruism_RT_2002_Cape_Town_Declaration.pdf

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

Cater, E. (1993) Ecotourism in the Third World: Problems for sustainable tourism
development, Tourism Management, 14 (2), 85–90

Cawley, M and Gillmor, D.A. (2008) Integrated rural tourism: Concepts and
Practice, Annals of Tourism Research, 35 (2), 316-337

Chakravarti, S (2001, January 29), God’s Acre, India Today. Retrieved July 21, 2009, from
http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20010129/cover.shtml

Chettiparamb, A. (2005) 'Fractal spaces in planning and governance' Town Planning

Review, Volume 76(3), 317-340

Chettiparamb, A. (2006) 'Bottom-up Planning and the Future of Planning Education in

India' Journal of Planning Education and Research, Volume 26(2): 185-194.

Chettiparamb, A (2011) Kudumbashree Project, Kerala, India: A Meta-governance

analysis, World Planning Schools Conference. Perth, 3rd - 9th July.

Cohen, E. (1987) Alternative tourism - a critique. Tourism Recreation Research, 12(2), 13-
18

Cooper, C. P. and Ozdil, I. (1992). ‘From mass to 'responsible' tourism: The Turkish
experience.’ Tourism Management, 13(4): 377-386

Cowton, C, J (1998) The Use of Secondary data in Business Ethics research. Journal of
Business Ethics, 17 (4), 423-434.

DEAT (1996) White Paper on the Development and Promotion Of Tourism In South
Africa, Department Of Environmental Affairs And Tourism, Government Of South Africa.
Retrieved July 21, 2011, from
http://www.environment.gov.za/PolLeg/WhitePapers/tourism96.htm
29
 30

DEAT (2002). Guidelines for Responsible Tourism Development. Pretoria: Department of

Environmental Affairs and Tourism.

de Kadt, E. (1979). Tourism: Passport to development. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala (n.d.) Responsible Tourism – The Update.

Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://www.keralatourism.org/rt-keralaupdate.php

Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala (2005a) ‘Kerala Tourism (Conservation

and Preservation of Areas) Act 2005’. Retrieved November 11, 2011 from
http://www.keralatourism.org/tourismact.php

Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, (2005b) ‘Guidelines for Conservation

and preservation: Special Tourism Zone, Kumarakom’. Retrieved November 11, 2011,
from www.keralatourism.org/tourismzone/Kumarakom.doc

Dodds, R. and Joppe, M. (2005). CSR in the Tourism Industry? A Value-Chain Approach.

New York: World Bank. 

Equations (2007) Vembanad Lake and Tourism. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from
http://www.equitabletourism.org/files/fileDocuments378_uid10.pdf.

Flyvberg, B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative

Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.

Forester, J (2006) Making Participation Work When Interests Conflict: Moving from
Facilitating Dialogue and Moderating Debate to Mediating Negotiations. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 72 (4), 447-456.

Franke, R. and Chasin, B.H (1997) Power to the Malayalee People, Economic and Political
Weekly. 32 (48), 3061-3068

George, R. And Frey, N. (2010) Responsible tourism management: Using social marketing
to create positive change, South Africa Journal of Business Management, 41(1), 11-23.

George, T.J.S. (Ed.) (1997) India at 50, Chennai: Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd,

Goodwin, H. (2011) Taking Responsibility for Tourism, Oxford: Goodfellow Publications

Goodwin, H and Venu, V (2008) Kerala Declaration on Responsible Tourism

http://www.responsibletourism2008.org/keraladeclaration.php. Accessed 28th April,
2012.

30
 31

Government of South Africa (1996) ‘The Development and Promotion of Tourism in

South Africa’ Retrieved November 11, 2011, from
http://www.info.gov.za/whitepapers/1996/tourism.htm#3.4

Hall, C.M. (2008) Pro-Poor Tourism: Do ‘Tourism Exchanges Benefit Primarily the
Countries of the South’? Current Issues in Tourism, 10 (2-3), 111-118

Harrison, D. (2008) Pro-poor tourism: a critique, Third World Quarterly, 29(5), 851-868

Healey, P (1999) Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning and shaping places.

Journal of Planning Education and Research.19, 111-121.

Heller, P (1996) Social capital as a product of class mobilization and state intervention:
Industrial workers in Kerala, India. World Development, 24(6), 1055-1071. 

Heller, P, Harilal, K, N and Choudhuri, S (2007) Building Local Democracy: Evaluating the
Impact of Decentralization in Kerala, India, World Development 35 (4), 626-648.

Henderson, J, C (2007) Corporate social responsibility and tourism: Hotel companies in

Phuket, Thailand, after the Indian Ocean tsunami. Hospitality Management, 26 (1), 228–
239

Higgins-Desbiolles (2010) The Elusiveness of Sustainability in Tourism: The Culture-

Ideology of Consumerism and its Implications, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(2),
116-115

Idemudia, U (2011) Corporate Social Responsibility and developing countries: moving

the critical CSR agenda in Africa forward. Progress in Development Studies, 11(1), 1-18.

Innes, J, E (2004) Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory, 3(1)
5-20.

Inoue, Y and Lee, S (2010) Effects of different dimensions of corporate social

responsibility on corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries. Tourism
Management, 32(4), 790-804.

Isaac, T.M. and Franke, R.W. (2000) Local Democracy and Development: People’s
Planning for Decentralized Planning in Kerala. New Delhi, India: Left Word.

Kerala Declaration (2008) The Kerala Declaration on Responsible Tourism, Retrieved

March 22, 2012, from http://www.responsibletourism2008.org/keraladeclaration.php

31
 32

Kerala State Planning Board (2011) Economic Review 2010. Retrieved November 11,
2011 from http://spb.kerala.gov.in/index.php/economic-review/er-2010.html

Kerala Tourism Watch (2007) Forum Kerala demands Govt to stop STZs and pay
compensation to victims of irresponsible Tourism.
http://www.keralatourismwatch.org/node/12. Accessed 11th November, 2011.

Kerala Tourism Watch (n.d,a) Kumarakom – A Case study of Sustainable Tourism.

http://www.keralatourismwatch.org/node/87 Accessed 11th November, 2011.

Kelly, C. and kokkranikal, J. (2010) “The evolution and commodification of Wellness

Tourism in India: A case study of Kerala”; a conference paper for the Tourism and Travel
Research Association Conference, Budapest, Hungary, 21-23 April

Kerala State Planning Board (2011) Economic Review 2010. Retrieved November 11,
2011, from http://spb.kerala.gov.in/index.php/economic-review/er-2010.html

Kerala Tourism Watch (n.d,a) Kumarakom – A Case study of Sustainable Tourism.

Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://www.keralatourismwatch.org/node/87

Kerala Tourism Watch (2007) Forum Kerala demands Govt to stop STZs and pay
compensation to victims of irresponsible Tourism. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from
http://www.keralatourismwatch.org/node/12.

Kokkranikal, J (1993), ‘Tourism and the environment’, Kerala Calling, 13(10), .27-39

Kokkranikal, J., and Morrison, A. (2002) ‘Entrepreneurship and sustainable tourism: A

case study of the Houseboats of Kerala’, Tourism and Hospitality Research, The Surrey
Quarterly Review. 4 (1), 7-20

Kontogeorgopoulos, N.(2009) The Temporal Relationship between Mass Tourism and

Alternative Tourism in Southern Thailand, Tourism Review International, 13 (1),1-16

Krippendorf, J. (1987) The Holiday Makers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and
Travel, Oxford: Butterwoth-Heinemann

Kudumbashree (n.d,a) The Mission Statement. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from
http://www.kudumbashree.org/?q=vision

Kudumbashree (n.d, b) ‘Milestones’. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from

http://www.kudumbashree.org/?q=milestones

32
 33

Liu, Z.H. (2003) Sustainable Tourism Development: A Critique. Journal of sustainable

Tourism, 11 (6), 459-475.

MacLellan, L.R., (1997), ‘The Tourism and the Environment Debate: From Idealism to
Cynicism’, in Foley, M., Lennon, J. and Maxwell, G. (Eds.) Hospitality, Tourism and
Leisure Management, London: Cassell.

Málovics, G. Csigéné, N. and Kraus, S. (2008) The role of corporate social responsibility in
strong sustainability. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(3), 907–918

McWilliams, A and Siegel, D (2001) Corporate Social responsibility: A Theory of the Firm
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, (1), 117-127.

Merwe, M, V, D. and 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.

Michot, T (2010) ‘Pro-poor tourism in Kumarakom, Kerala, South India: Policy

Implementation and Impacts. Journal of Alternate Perspectives in the Social Sciences.
Working paper No7. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from
www.japss.org/upload/Working_Paper_no._7_March_2010_FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf.

Middleton, V (1998) Sustainable Tourism: A Marketing Perspective, Oxford: Butterworth-

Heinemann

Miller, G. and Twining-Ward, L. (2005) Monitoring for a Sustainable Tourism Transition:

the Challenge of Developing and Using. Indicators. Oxon: CAB International

Nicolau, J, L (2008) Corporate Social Responsibility: Worth-Creating Activities. Annals of

Tourism Research, 35 (4), 990-1006.

Oliver, T. and Jenkins, T (2003) Sustaining rural landscapes: the role of integrated
tourism, Landscape Research, 28 (3), 293-307

Oommen, M, A (2008) Micro Finance And Poverty Alleviation: The Case Of Kerala’s
Kudumbashree. Working Paper No 17. Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental
Studies (CSES), Kochi, Kerala, India. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from
http://maoommen.com/images/papers/MICRO%20FINANCE%20AND%20POVERTY
%20ALLEVIATION.pdf

33
 34

Padmanabhan, P, G and Georgey, K (n.d.) A World Class tourism centre & its host
community. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://www.kumarakomvillage.com/a-
world-class-tourism-centre-its-host-community/

Parayil, G (ed) (2000) Kerala – The Development Experience. Reflections on Sustainability

and Replicability. Zed Books. London.

Pat, A, K (2005) Kudumbashree – A Poverty Eradication Mission in Kerala. Economic and

Political Weekly, November 26th, 4989 – 4991.

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

Scheyvens, R and Momsen, J.H. (2008) Tourism and Poverty Reduction: Issues for Small
Island States, Tourism Geographies, 10 (1), 22-41

Sebastian, L, M and Rajagopalan, P (2009) Socio-cultural transformations through

tourism: a comparison of residents’ perspectives at two destinations in Kerala, India.
Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 7(1), 5-21.

Sharpley, R. (2000) Tourism and Sustainable Development: Exploring the Theoretical

Divide, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8 (1), 1-19

Sharpley, R. (2009) Tourism Development and the Environment: Beyond Sustainability,

London: Earthscan

Sheldon, P, J and Park, S-Y (2012) An Exploratory Study of Corporate Social Responsibility
in the US Travel Industry. Journal of Travel Research, 50(4), 392-407

Shyamlal G.S (2008) Carrying Capacity Study of Coastal Tourism in Kumarakom, Kerala,
Journal Ekonomi Bisnis, 13 (1), 1-15

Smith, V. L. (1990) Alternative/responsible tourism seminar. Annals of Tourism Research,

17 (3), 479-480

Tharamangalam, J., (1998) The Perils of Social Development with Economic Growth: The
Development Debacle of Kerala, India, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 30 (1),
Retrieved August 24, 2011, from http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?
docId=97729156

TIES (1990) What is Ecotourism? Retrieved February 20, 2012, from

http://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism

34
 35

Tosun, C. (2001) Challenges of sustainable tourism development in the developing

world: the case of Turkey, Tourism Management, 22 (3), 289-303

Venu, V. (2008) The Kerala Responsible Tourism Initiative – A Work in Progress. Paper
presented at Incredible India 2nd International Conference – Responsible Tourism,
Kochi, India, 21-24 March. Retrieved September 27, 2011, from
http://responsibletourism2008.org/papers.php

Wall, J. (1997) Sustainable Tourism- Unsustainable Development, in Pigram, J and

Wahab, S (eds.), Tourism Development and Growth: the challenge of sustainability’,
London: Routeledge

Weeden, C (2001) Ethical tourism: An opportunity for competitive advantage? Journal

of Vacation Marketing, 8 (2), 141-153

Welford, R (1997) Hijacking environmentalism: Corporate responses to sustainable

development. Earthscan: London.

Wheeler, B. (1991). Tourism's troubled times: Responsible tourism is not the answer.
Tourism Management, 12(2), 91-96.

Wheeler, B. (1994). Ecotourism: A ruse by any other name. In C. P. Cooper and A.

Lockwood (eds.). Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality management.
Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Williams, G, Thampi, B, Narayana, D and Bhattacharya, D (2011) Performing Participatory

Citizenship - Politics and Power in Kerala's Kudumbashree Programme. In Journal of
Development Studies, 47(8), 1261-1280.

Williams, P., Alison, G., and Ian, P. (2007) Corporate Social Responsibility at Tourism
Destinations: Toward a Social License to Operator, Tourism Review International, 11 (2),
133-144

Wight, P. (1993) Ecotourism: Ethics or Eco-Sell? Journal of Travel Research, 21 (3), 3-9.

Yin, R.K. (1981) The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers, Administrative Science Quarterly,
26 (1), 58-65

35