Social responsibility in tourism:system archetypes approach

Mirjana Pejic Bach and Jovana ZorojaFaculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia, and

Marjana Merkac-SkokFaculty of Commercial and Business Sciences, Celje, Slovenia

Abstract

Purpose – Tourism has become one of the world’s major industries measured in terms of turnover,the number of employees and foreign currency earnings, having at the same time a huge impact on theenvironment. However, the future development of tourism depends on today’s decisions that often donot take into account the positive and the negative impact on the tourism destinations’ environmentwith long-term consequences that are not easily undone. System archetypes are generic structures thatare responsible for generic patterns of behavior over time, especially behavior that is counterintuitive.The article aims to explore the possible use of system archetypes in order to increase sociallyresponsible (SR), i.e. systemic thinking and behavior of tourism business organizations, based on therequisite holism theory.

Design/methodology/approach – The experimental design methodology has been used in order totest the assumption that individuals familiar with the system archetypes will be more likely to believethat tourism business organizations that operate in tourism destinations should be involved inattaining SR goals. Participants included managers, public authorities and community representativesand were divided into an experiment and a control group. The experiment group was exposed to aworkshop on system archetypes, while the control group had no treatment. Structured quantitativeinterviews were used in order to test differences in attitudes and beliefs on SR of tourism businessorganizations among the experiment and the control group members.

Findings – Natural environment of tourism destinations as tourism’s essential resource is oftendestroyed due to the lack of SR. The research results indicate that the exposure of individuals tosystem archetypes increased the understanding of importance of SR behavior of tourism businessorganizations. System archetypes increased individuals’ comprehension of the fact that the non-linearcausal relationship, time delay and hidden structures of the systems generate complex behaviorresulting in damage to the natural environment of tourism destinations.

Research limitations/implications – The survey research on a restricted number of subjects wasapplied. In order to overcome limitations of such an approach, the rigor procedure for data collectionand analysis was used.

Practical implications – Managers of tourism business organizations could use system archetypesto analyse the impact of their activities on tourism destinations environment and thus improve thesocial responsibility of their decisions. The authors propose the formation of system archetypes andtheir applications repository in an organized environment to enhance understanding of SR behavior oftourism business organizations.

Originality/value – The authors used experimental design in order to test whether exposure ofstakeholders’ to system archetypes changes their attitudes regarding SR, with the goal to increase theunderstanding of various conflicts that emerge from the fact that tourism depends on unspoiledenvironment and at the same time tourism is a potential polluter. Available literature offers no similarapplications of the system archetype approach to systemic behavior via SR in tourism.

Keywords Sustainability, Tourism, Bounded rationality, Systemic thinking, Counterintuitive behavior,Social responsibility, System archetypes

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0368-492X.htm

Received 7 September 2013Revised 8 December 2013

Accepted 13 December 2013

KybernetesVol. 43 No. 3/4, 2014

pp. 587-600q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0368-492XDOI 10.1108/K-09-2013-0195

Socialresponsibility

in tourism

587

IntroductionTourism is one of the fastest growing sectors in the world and has a great impact on thesocial-economy structure of tourism destinations as well as on the environment (Geyer,2003). The number of tourists traveling worldwide is increasing on a daily basis which hasa negative impact on the environment of tourism destinations, especially in developingcountries where policies that would support sustainable development still do not exist.Tourism business organizations function as a subsystem within the meta-system oftourism destinations (Lebe and Milfelner, 2006). Today, great efforts are invested intopromoting socially responsible (SR) behavior of tourism business organizations, whichwould reduce the impact on the environment of tourism destinations (Lebe and Milfelner,2006; Cunill et al., 2013). In the same time, tourism business organizations aim towardsbusiness excellence (Mesko Stok et al., 2010) and minimization of risk (Kavcic andBertoncelj, 2010), which results in the possible conflict between these goals andsustainable development.

The concept of social responsibility (SR) considers social benefits beyond the interestof organizations, indicating that organizations should not only fulfill their own interestsbut also support the interests of the society (Ghoul et al., 2011). However, in a number ofcases, actions of stakeholders are necessary to force both local and multinational firms tochange their behavior (Mijatovic and Stokic, 2010). This paper is based on the triplebottom line framework that focuses on sustainability and incorporates the followingthree dimensions of performance: social, environmental and financial (Slaper andHall, 2011; Hacking and Guthrie, 2008).

Tourism business organizations that practice SR aim to increase the quality ofresource management of tourism destinations. Such actions aim to preserve the natural,the built, and the sociocultural resources in order to achieve intra- and inter-generationalequity, while at the same time satisfying the needs of tourists (Briassoulis, 2002). Publicauthorities play an important role in such a process through their documents thatpromote SR as a part of the development strategies of tourism destinations.

Modern times are characterized mainly by change (Roblek, 2007). Tourism is one ofthe economic sectors that is both driven by change and drives change. Technological,demographic, life style and economic changes influence tourism development. Tourismin turn creates changes in the environment, population, the quality of life andeconomies of tourism destinations. Changes resulting from the tourism businessorganizations’ activities are often unintended and emerge from the bounded rationalityand result in counterintuitive behavior. Several researchers recognized that peopleneed to change their way of thinking regarding SR in tourism, and employ the systemthinking approach (Nguyen et al., 2011; Lazanski and Kljajic, 2006; Ramage and Shipp,2012; Mulej et al., 2013).

System archetypes are generic causal loop structures which are responsible forthe generic model of behavior over time (Senge, 1990; Sterman, 2000). Systemarchetypes are gradually appreciated as a relevant tool for understanding compoundmulti-stakeholder problems such as SR (Wolstenholme, 2003; Kolkman et al., 2005).This paper elaborates on the use of system archetypes as a tool for an increasedunderstanding of the importance of socially responsible decision making of tourismbusiness organizations.

K43,3/4

588

Current approach to social responsibility in tourismSocial responsibility (SR) can be described as the relationship between organizationsand the society, i.e. the obligation of an organization towards socio-economic benefit ofits stakeholders (Snider et al., 2003). Vuontisjarvi (2006) defines SR as the decisionof the organization, aiming toward a satisfied society and a sustainable environment.A broader definition of SR presumes that it includes three dimensions of performance:social, environmental and financial (Slaper and Hall, 2011; Hacking and Guthrie, 2008)in order to increase the welfare of the society (Snider et al., 2003). Companies invest alot into SR, for example, in the USA one out of eight invested dollars is subject to somesocial or ethical issue (Scholtens, 2006). Nowadays, most companies in their businessactivities include corporate SR programs, which are oriented to the society, theenvironment and employees and SR that belong to the core components of thecorporate strategy (Becchetti et al., 2012). SR is defined as one’s responsibility for one’simpact on the society (EU, 2011). SR is based on:

. interdependence; and

. the holistic approach (ISO, 2010).

Knez-Riedl et al. (2006, p. 441) points out that SR “requires businesspersons and otherdecision makers to be broad and hence to apply inter-disciplinarity incorporatingmany, mutually partly different and therefore interdependent, viewpoints for requisiteholism”. Therefore, SR’s use in practice depends on humans’ personal requisite holism(Sarotar Zizek and Mulej, 2013), making it systemic only when humans “think, decide,and act on a very broad basis rather than to reduce their horizons to the narrow habit ofbusinesses to find profit only essential” (Knez-Riedl et al., 2006, p. 441).

The tourism sector has the potential to boost economic resilience and job creation(World Economic Forum, 2013), despite the recent financial and economic crisis,political conflicts and natural disasters (ITB, 2012). Tourism is also one of the majorfactors considering the impact to the environment of tourism destinations. The naturalecosystem of tourism destinations can be easily disturbed/disorganized; so tourismbusiness organizations have to take SR into account.

SR for tourism business organizations implies business activities, which are inbalance with economic, ecological and social demands of the tourism destinationscommunities. SR is important for tourism business organizations because of itspositive impact on reputation, and client and employee satisfaction (Garay and Font,2012). Tourism business organizations’ SR is mostly oriented towards preserving theenvironment (Lee and Park, 2009). Tourism business organizations that practice SRadd new values to the business activities, which lead to a higher competitiveness andthe sustainable development of the business (Kasim, 2006).

Despite the benefits for both tourism business organizations and tourismdestinations, only 2 percent of tourism business organizations, all over the world,practice SR (Frey and George, 2010). Possible reasons for such a low implementation ofSR actions stem from bounded rationality (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1994; Botzen andvan den Bergh, 2009; Gsottbauer et al., 2011), that presumes that decision makers arelimited by the available information, the cognitive limitations, and the time availablefor making the final decision (Conlisk, 1996). Previous research indicates that, due tothe analytical thinking, decision makers presume that consequences of actions couldeasily be predicted, even in cases when they do not completely understand the system

Socialresponsibility

in tourism

589

elements, structure and behavior (Botzen and van den Bergh, 2009; Gsottbauer et al.,2011). However, as decision makers perceive systems as black boxes, unintended andcounterintuitive consequences occur, making it highly questionable if the future SRgoals (satisfying tourists’ needs, the intragenerational and the inter-generationalequity) will be attained (Figure 1).

We propose the use of system archetypes as a tool for “looking inside the black box”and understanding the system elements, structure and behavior. So far archetypemodels have been used in analyzing sustainable development of resource managementin the tourism sector (Ambroz and Derencin, 2010; Graham, 2000; Briassoulis, 2002;Kunc, 2012). However, there is no systematic analysis of the system archetypes use bytourism business organizations’ with the goal to increase SR awareness and initiatives.

MethodologyIn order to explore the possible use of system archetypes in decision making oftourism business organizations, aimed at increasing SR thinking and behavior, theexperimental design methodology has been used, which consists of four stages(Figure 2). Experimental design methodology is based on the framework for evaluating

Figure 1.Analytical thinkingapproach to SR of tourismbusiness organizations

Source: Authors’ work, based on Botzen and van den Bergh (2009) and Gsottbauer andvan den Bergh (2011)

Tourismbusiness

organizations'performance

Financial

EnvironmentalSocial

Social responsibilitygoals

Intragenerationalequity

Intergenerationalequity

Satisfyingtourists' needs

Present state Future

Analytic thinking

actions consequences

unitendedcounterintuitive

Side effects

Black box

Figure 2.Four-stage methodologyfor the research on systemarchetype usability

Source: Authors’ work

Stage 4:Measurementand analysis

Stage 3:Treatment

Stage 2: Groupselection

Stage 1:Sample

selection

Total sample (managers,public authorities, local

communityrespresentatives)

Experiment group (n = 45)

Treatment: Discussion onsystem archetype intourism destinations'

communites

Control group (n = 45) No treatment

Survey on attitudes andplanned initiatives intourism destinations'

communities

K43,3/4

590

systems thinking interventions proposed by Huz et al. (1997, p. 149), who found outthat systemic interventions, that include direct involvement of management teams in“qualitative analysis of systems using archetypes of system structure and behavior”lead to “shifts in goal structures and change strategies of the management team”. Inaddition, Doyle (1997, p. 253) points out that controlled experimental research on theeffects of system thinking interventions on mental models and cognitive processesshould be systematically used. Their work was followed by number of researchers,who applied the concept of experimental design of exposure of humans to systemthinking in order to test change in attitude and behavior in the area of sustainabledevelopment and social responsibility (Marcy and Mumford, 2010; Stouten et al., 2012;Kim et al., 2013).

Stage 1: sample selectionThe goal of the first stage was to develop a list of participants that would includemanagers of tourism business organizations (hotels, restaurants and tourismagencies), representatives of public authorities from tourism destinations’communities, and citizen representatives from tourism destinations’ communities.Participants were selected from the following three Croatian regions on the Adriaticcoast: north region (Istria and Kvarner), central region (Dalmatia), and south region(Dubrovnik). Besides managers of tourism business organizations, public authoritiesrepresentatives and local community representatives were included in the survey,due to the fact that previous research revealed that the pressure from the localcommunity to public authorities and business organizations is important forincreasing the SR of tourism business organizations decision making (Mijatovic andStokic, 2010).

Since our aim was to include three groups of stakeholders (public authorities,managers and local community representatives), we used three different approaches tosample selection.

First, the population list for public authorities was formed based on the list of thecities and municipalities in Croatian coastline (60 cities and 160 municipalities). The listof potential participants consisted of cities and municipalities mayors and theirdeputies. Potential participants were contacted with the request to participate in thesurvey; 32 representatives of public authorities agreed.

Second, the population list for managers was formed based on the list of firmsregistered as hotels, restaurants or tourism agencies. The list was provided by theCroatian Chamber of Commerce, and contained the total number of 4,301 firms.Random sampling was employed to select 200 firms. Managers of those firms werecontacted with the request to participate in the survey; 28 managers agreed.

Third, local community representatives were selected by the snowball samplingmethodology (Snijders, 1992). Fifty local community representatives (members ofNGOs) were contacted with the request to participate in the survey. Those participantswho are not eligible or who do not wish to participate were asked to transmit therequest to someone else from their or other NGO. That approach resulted in 30 localcommunity representatives that agreed to participate.

The total sample of 90 participants was selected with 30 representatives from eachof the three Croatian coastline regions.

Socialresponsibility

in tourism

591

Stage 2: group selectionThe total sample of 90 participants was divided into two groups: an experiment and acontrol group with 45 participants in each one. Table I presents the experiment and thecontrol group participants according to the stakeholder group, gender, age, education,and the region. The x 2 test indicates that differences among the experiment andthe control group according to the mentioned characteristics are not statisticallysignificant. Therefore, we presumed that the differences among the experiment and thecontrol group can be interpreted as a result of the treatment, and not as a result ofdemographic or other differences.

Stage 3: treatmentOur starting point is the assumption that individuals familiar with the systemarchetypes will be more likely to have a more “open” view to SR that would presumethat firms that operate in tourism destinations’ communities should be involved inattaining SR goals. In order to test this assumption the following approach was used.

Experiment group members were exposed to treatment that was organized as threeregional workshops in three regions of the Croatian Adriatic coastline, during July2013. At the workshops participants were introduced to the notion of systemarchetypes during an interactive lecture, which lasted approximately 90 minutes. Afterthe break, participants were asked to present examples of systems in their localcommunities that could be explained by the system archetype elements, structureand behavior. At the end of the workshop, participants were asked to fill in thequestionnaire on attitudes and planned initiatives in their host communities.

Structure in %

CharacteristicNumber of

participantsExperiment

groupControlgroup

x 2 test( p-value)

StakeholderPublic authorities 32 33.3 28.9 0.615Managers 28 35.6 35.6 (0.735)Local community representatives 30 31.1 35.6GenderFemale 40 46.7 42.2 0.180Male 50 53.3 57.8 (0.671)Age25-35 21 24.4 22.2 0.06736-45 51 55.6 57.8 (0.967)46-65 18 20.0 20.0EducationSecondary school 37 42.2 40.0 0.062Bachelor degree 24 26.7 26.7 (0.970)Master degree 29 31.1 33.3RegionNorth region (Istria and Kvarner) 30 35.6 31.1 0.800

(0.670)Central region (Dalmatia) 30 28.9 37.8South region (Dubrovnik) 30 35.6 31.1

Source: Authors’ survey (July 2013)

Table I.Characteristics ofparticipants

K43,3/4

592

Control group members were asked to fill in the questionnaire on attitudes and plannedinitiatives in their host communities.

The following system archetypes were presented to the members of the experimentgroup:

. Limits to growth. The extraordinary growth is fuelled by a reinforcing feedbackprocess until the system reaches its peak. The interruption of this growth iscaused by limited resources of the system (e.g. building increasingly more largehotels on the coastline in the long run decreases the attractiveness of thelandscape).

. Shifting the burden. In shifting the burden archetype, the problem is resolvedthrough a solution which results in an immediate action and positive effects. Theorigin of the problem should be determined and solved during a longer period oftime (e.g. cleaning of a polluted beach instead of decreasing the uncontrolledimpact to the environment).

. Eroding goals. When current problems have to be solved immediately then thelong-term goals continuously decline; this can be avoided with persisting in thelong-lasting vision (e.g. a firm states the SR goals and later avoids theirfulfilment).

. Tragedy of the commons. Persons use resources to earn or make profit. Resourcesare limited and if their use is not controlled and people increasingly use them toraise profit they will have no more resources and the profit will decrease(e.g. depleting of the natural environment).

Stage 4: measurement and analysisThe questionnaire used by GlobeScan Ltd (formerly Environics) as a part of theircorporate social responsibility monitor series was used to measure if the experimentgroup participants’ attitudes concerning SR will differ from the control groupparticipants’ attitudes. Table II lists measurement dimensions and items used in thesurvey. The questionnaire used in the survey is provided in the Appendix of the article.Participants were asked to answer questions on the SR of tourism businessorganizations: to what extent do you think tourism business organizations should beheld responsible for [. . .]? The answering scale ranges from (1) not held responsible to(5) held completely responsible. In addition, participants were asked to state how manySR initiatives they planed to start in the next three years. Participants provided shortdescriptions of these initiatives.

Table II also reports descriptive statistics of the total sample participants regarding SRof tourism business organizations. Items were divided into three dimensions based on thetriple bottom line framework: social, environmental and financial (Slaper and Hall, 2011;Hacking and Guthrie, 2008). The reliability analysis was conducted using Cronbach’scoefficients which are approximately 0.7 for all of the dimensions, which indicates aninternal consistency of the used items (Feldt and Kim, 2008). Mean values for each itemindicate that participants in the survey held firms responsible for the environmental issuesto the greatest extent, and less for operations and community issues.

Differences among attitudes and planned initiatives in tourism destinations’communities were tested by the use of the Mann-Whitney test and the t-test,respectively, (Table III).

Socialresponsibility

in tourism

593

ResultsDifferences in attitudes and beliefs on SR among the experiment and the control groupmembers were tested with the Mann-Whitney test (Table III). Mean values arecalculated for each item measured on the scale from (1) not held responsible to (5) heldcompletely responsible. The Mann-Whitney test revealed that the found differences arestatistically significant for all of the environmental and financial issues. Table IVpresents the average number of SR initiatives that respondents plan to start in the nextthree years, according to the following three dimensions: environmental, financial andsocial. The experiment group members on average plan to start more SR initiativescompared to the control group members. The t-test revealed that found differences arestatistically significant for the environmental and the financial dimension at 1 and 5percent, respectively.

System archetypes approach in practiceOur evidence suggests that the experiment group participants that were exposed to theworkshop on system archetypes had different attitudes and beliefs on SR actions oftourism business organizations than the control group participants. However, founddifferences were statistically significant for the environmental and financial dimensions,while there were no statistically significant differences for the social dimension. Thesefindings contribute to the previous research that indicates that complex problems

Item code/triple bottomline dimension Description

Min.-max. Mean SD

Cronbach’sa

Environmental dimensionENVIRON I Ensuring products and operations

do not harm the environment1-5 4.16 0.616 0.695

ENVIRON II Not only protecting the environmentbut restoring it for futuregenerations

1-5 4.12 0.650

SOC ACC Reporting honestly and accuratelyon their social and environmentalperformance

1-5 4.01 0.627

Financial dimensionACCOUNTS Reporting honestly and accurately

on their financial performance1-5 3.62 0.696 0.650

PRICES Providing good quality products andservices at the lowest possible price

1-5 3.44 0.638

PROFIT Operating profitably and paying itsfair share of taxes

1-5 3.57 0.735

Social dimensionRIGHTS Reducing human rights abuses in

the world1-5 3.87 0.584 0.707

CHARITY Supporting charities and communityprojects

1-5 3.78 0.614

POVERTY Helping to reduce extreme poverty 1-5 3.59 0.616EDUCATION Improving education and skills in

communities where they operate1-5 3.64 0.624

Source: Authors’ survey (July 2013)

Table II.Measurement dimensionsand items used in thesurvey and descriptivestatistics of the totalsample participantsregarding SR of tourismbusiness organizations

K43,3/4

594

should be solved and analyzed through an integrated approach provided by the systemarchetypes framework (Wolstenholme, 2003; Kolkman et al., 2005).

However, in order to foster learning, previous research indicates the need for aformally organized environment (Nguyen et al., 2011; Cancer and Mulej, 2006). Basedon the findings, we propose the formation of repository system archetypes and theirapplications in an organized environment aimed at enhanced learning called systemarchetypes in tourism for enhanced learning (SATEL), which will foster theunderstanding-acting balancing process. The proposed repository would provide anopen chance for the participants to use system archetypes for testing and anticipatingthe consequences of their actions in the following way.

First, the system archetypes repository would support participants in problemsidentification and understanding. An in-depth understanding would replace previousill-understanding described by the bounded rationality, as suggested by previous

Experimentgroup

ControlgroupItem code/triple bottom line

dimension Mean SD Mean SD Mann-Whitney U p-value Difference

Environmental dimensionENVIRON I 4.38 0.576 3.93 0.580 642.000 0.001 þþþENVIRON II 4.36 0.570 3.89 0.647 641.000 0.001 þþþSOC ACC 4.18 0.576 3.84 0.638 741.000 0.012 þþFinancial dimensionACCOUNTS 3.67 0.640 3.22 0.560 777.500 0.037 þþPRICES 3.71 0.727 3.42 0.723 627.000 0.000 þþþPROFIT 3.87 0.625 3.73 0.495 802.000 0.064 þSocial dimensionRIGHTS 3.69 0.633 3.49 0.589 926.500 0.412 ¼CHARITY 3.67 0.603 3.62 0.650 875.500 0.209 ¼POVERTY 4.38 0.576 3.93 0.580 821.500 0.084 þEDUCATION 4.36 0.570 3.89 0.647 984.000 0.806 ¼

Notes: þþþ – statistically significant difference at 1 percent; þþ – statistically significantdifference at 5 percent; þ – statistically significant difference at 10 percent; ¼ (no statisticallysignificant difference)Source: Authors’ survey (July 2013)

Table III.Respondents’ attitudes

and beliefs on SR intourism

Experimentgroup Control group

Triple bottom line dimensions Mean SD Mean SD t-test p-value Difference

Environmental dimension 5.44 1.179 3.58 0.988 8.141 0.000 þþþFinancial dimension 3.04 1.413 2.49 1.058 2.111 0.038 þþSocial dimension 2.47 1.217 2.24 0.802 1.023 0.310 ¼

Notes: þþþ – statistically significant difference at 1 percent; þþ – statistically significantdifference at 5 percent); þ – statistically significant difference at 10 percent); ¼ – no statisticallysignificant differenceSource: Authors’ survey (July 2013)

Table IV.Number of SR initiatives

that respondents planto start in the next

three years

Socialresponsibility

in tourism

595

research (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1994; Botzen and van den Bergh, 2009; Gsottbauerand van den Bergh, 2011). Second, based on insights gained from the systemarchetypes, the policy making and the decision making with the balanced approachbetween tourism business organizations and tourism destinations communities’ goalswould lead to more responsible actions. Finally, consequences of such actions wouldcontribue to the decrease of problems in tourism destinations communities that resultfrom the activities of tourism business organizations (Figure 3).

ConclusionThe tourism industry as one of the fastest growing industries in the world with thehighest income is a key driver for the socio-economic progress of many countries.Despite the benefits of investing in SR activities, there are also few situations in whichtourism business organizations contribute less to SR programs (Frey and George,2010). A possible reason for the fact that tourism business organizations still rarelybase their decisions on SR is the notion of bounded rationality, taking into account thefact that decision makers are limited by the information available, cognitivelimitations, and the time available for making the final decision (Donaldson andDunfee, 1994; Botzen and van den Bergh, 2009; Gsottbauer and van den Bergh, 2011).

The goal of the paper was to explore the possible use of system archetypes in orderto increase SR, i.e. systemic, thinking and behavior of tourism business organizations.Results of the research revealed that stakeholders (tourism organizations mangers,public authorities, local community representatives) that were introduced to the majorsystem archetypes in tourism had a higher level of expectations from tourism businessorganizations regarding making socially responsible decisions than stakeholders thatwere not introduced to the major system archetypes and had a lower level ofexpectations. Our research findings indicate that the use of system archetypes intourism destinations’ communities would increase the understanding of SR, whichwould, in turn, increase the pressure of local communities and political authorities formore SR actions conducted by tourism business organizations operating in tourismdestinations. Such actions would force both local and multinational firms to changetheir behavior, as indicated by Mijatovic and Stokic (2010).

Figure 3.SATEL with theunderstanding-actingbalancing process

activity by Bactivity by A

A's results

symptomatic''solution''

fundamentalsolution

side effect

delay

problem symptom

results of Arelative to B

B's results

+

+

++

+

+–

–

–

–

–

Problems Identification Understanding

Policy making

Decision making

System archetypes repository

Source: Authors’ work

Case studies in socially responsible tourism

System archetypes in tourism for enhanced learning (SATEL)

Actions Consequences

K43,3/4

596

In order to foster learning, we propose the use of repository system archetypes andtheir applications in an organized environment aimed at enhanced learning calledSATEL. Further actions should be undertaken in order to start the formation ofSATEL, with the goal of involvement of all stakeholders and the demonstration of itsbenefits. Further actions are needed in order to assure that SATEL will become aninstitutionalized and continuing project.

References

Ambroz, K. and Derencin, A. (2010), “Using a system dynamics approach for identifyingand removing management model inadequacy”, Kybernetes, Vol. 39 Nos 9/10,pp. 1583-1614.

Becchetti, L., Ciciretti, R., Hasan, I. and Kobeissi, N. (2012), “Corporate social responsibility andshareholder’s value”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 11, pp. 1628-1635.

Botzen, W. and van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. (2009), “Bounded rationality, climate risks, and insurance:is there a market for natural disasters”, Land Economics, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 265-278.

Briassoulis, H. (2002), “Sustainable tourism and the question of the commons”, Annals ofTourism Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1065-1085.

Cancer, V. and Mulej, M. (2006), “Systemic decision analysis approaches: requisite tools fordeveloping creative ideas into innovations”, Kybernetes, Vol. 35 Nos 7/8, pp. 1059-1070.

Conlisk, J. (1996), “Why bounded rationality?”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 34 No. 2,pp. 669-700.

Cunill, O.M., Forteza, C.M. and Gil-Lafuente, A.M. (2013), “Choice of entry mode into a foreignmarket: the case of Balearic hotel chains in the Caribbean region”, Kybernetes, Vol. 42 No. 5,pp. 800-814.

Donaldson, T. and Dunfee, T.W. (1994), “Toward a unified conception of business ethics:integrative social contracts theory”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 2,pp. 252-284.

Doyle, J.K. (1997), “The cognitive psychology of systems thinking”, System Dynamics Review,Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-265.

EU (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 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility, Com (2011) 681 Final,European Commission, Brussels, 25 October.

Feldt, L.S. and Kim, S. (2008), “A comparison of tests for equality of two or more independentalpha coefficients”, Journal of Educational Measurement, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 179-193.

Frey, N. and George, R. (2010), “Responsible tourism management: the missing link betweenbusiness owners’ attitude and behaviour in the cape town tourism industry”, TourismManagement, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 621-628.

Garay, L. and Font, X. (2012), “Doing good to do well? Corporate social responsibility reasons,practices and impacts in small and medium accommodation enterprises”, InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 329-337.

Geyer, F. (2003), “Globalization and sustainability: the cynics, the romantics and the realists”,Kybernetes, Vol. 32 Nos 9/10, pp. 1235-1252.

Ghoul, S.E., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C.C.Y. and Mishra, D.R. (2011), “Does corporate socialresponsibility affect the cost of capital”, Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol. 35 No. 9,pp. 2388-2406.

Socialresponsibility

in tourism

597

Gsottbauer, E. and van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. (2011), “Environmental policy theory given boundedrationality and other-regarding preferences”, Environmental and Resource Economics,Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 263-304.

Hacking, T. and Guthrie, P. (2008), “A framework for clarifying the meaning of triple bottom-line,integrated, and sustainability assessment”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review,Vol. 28 Nos 2/3, pp. 73-89.

Huz, S., Andersen, D.F., Richardson, G.P. and Boothroyd, R. (1997), “A framework for evaluatingsystems thinking interventions: an experimental approach to mental health systemchange”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 149-169.

ISO (2010), International Standards Organization, ISO 26000:2010, ISO, available at: www.iso.org/iso/social_responsibility/ (accessed 10 May 2011).

ITB (2012), World Travel Trends Report, available at: www.itb-berlin.de/media/itbk/itbk_media/itbk_pdf/WTTR_Report_2013_web.pdf (accessed 10 June 2013).

Kasim, A. (2006), “The need for business environmental and social responsibility in the tourismindustry”, International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, Vol. 7 No. 1,pp. 1-22.

Kavcic, K. and Bertoncelj, A. (2010), “Strategic orientation of organizations: risk managementperspective”, Kybernetes, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 735-749.

Kim, H., MacDonald, R.H. and Andersen, D.F. (2013), “Simulation and managerial decisionmaking: a double-loop learning framework”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 73 No. 2,pp. 291-300.

Knez-Riedl, J., Mulej, M. and Dyck, R.G. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility from theviewpoint of systems thinking”, Kybernetes, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 441-460.

Kolkman, M.J., Kok, M. and van der Veen, A. (2005), “Mental model mapping as a new tool toanalyse the use of information in decision-making in integrated water management”,Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Vol. 30 Nos 4/5, pp. 317-332.

Kunc, M. (2012), “Teaching strategic thinking using system dynamics: lessons from a strategicdevelopment course”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 28-45.

Lazanski, T.J. and Kljajic, M. (2006), “Systems approach to complex systems modelling withspecial regards to tourism”, Kybernetes, Vol. 35 Nos 7/8, pp. 1048-1058.

Lebe, S.S. and Milfelner, B. (2006), “Innovative organisation approach to sustainable tourismdevelopment in rural areas”, Kybernetes, Vol. 35 Nos 7/8, pp. 1136-1146.

Lee, S. and Park, S.-Y. (2009), “Do socially responsible activities help hotels and casinos achievetheir financial goals?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 1,pp. 105-112.

Marcy, R.T. and Mumford, M.D. (2010), “Leader cognition: improving leader performancethrough causal analysis”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-19.

Mesko Stok, Z., Markic, M., Bertoncelj, A. and Mesko, M. (2010), “Elements of organizationalculture leading to business excellence”, Zbornik radova Ekonomskog fakulteta u Rijeci,Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 303-318.

Mijatovic, I. and Stokic, D. (2010), “The influence of internal and external codes on SR practice: thecase of companies operating in Serbia”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 94 No. 4, pp. 533-552.

Mulej, M., Zenko, Z., Cagran, B. and Mulej, N. (2013), “Relations between the object underconsideration, dialectical system, system and model of it as a basis for the requisite holismand realism of modelling and its results”, Interdisciplinary Description of Complex System,Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 238-253.

K43,3/4

598

Nguyen, N.C., Bosch, O.J.H. and Maani, K.E. (2011), “Creating ‘learning laboratories’ forsustainable development in biospheres: a systems thinking approach”, Systems Researchand Behavioral Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 51-62.

Ramage, M. and Shipp, K. (2012), “Expanding the concept of ‘model’: the transfer fromtechnological to human domains within systems thinking”, in Bissell, C. and Dillon, C. (Eds),Ways of Thinking, Ways of Seeing Automation, Collaboration, & E-Services, Springer,New York, NY, pp. 121-144.

Roblek, V. (2007), “The strategy of establishing and managing the manager and enterprisenetwork”, Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 231-251.

Sarotar Zizek, S. and Mulej, M. (2013), “Social responsibility: a way of requisite holism of humansand their well-being”, Kybernetes, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 318-335.

Scholtens, B. (2006), “Finance as a driver of corporate social responsibility”, Journal of BusinessEthics, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 19-33.

Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday/Currency, New York, NY.

Slaper, T.F. and Hall, T.J. (2011), “The triple bottom line: what is it and how does it work?”,Indiana Business Review, Vol. 86 No. 1, available at: www.ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2011/spring/article2.html (accessed 11 November 2013).

Snider, J., Hill, R.P. and Martin, D. (2003), “Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century:a view from the world’s most successful firms”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 48 No. 2,pp. 175-187.

Snijders, T.A.B. (1992), “Estimation on the basis of snowball samples: how to weight?”, BMS:Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Mthodologie Sociologique, Vol. 36 No. 1,pp. 59-70.

Sterman, J. (2000), Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World,Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Homewood, IL.

Stouten, H., Heene, A., Gellynck, X. and Polet, H. (2012), “Learning from playing withmicroworlds in policy making: an experimental evaluation in fisheries management”,Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 757-777.

Vuontisjarvi, T. (2006), “Corporate social reporting in the European context and human resourcedisclosures”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 331-354.

Wolstenholme, E.F. (2003), “Towards the definition and use of a core set of archetypal structuresin system dynamics”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 7-26.

World Economic Forum (2013), The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2013,available at: www.weforum.org/reports/travel-tourism-competitiveness-report-2013(accessed 11 November 2013).

Appendix. Questionnaire used in the surveyI. Demographic characteristics of the participants

Q1. Gender: male /female.

Q2. Stakeholder group: public authorities/managers/local community representatives.

Q3. Age group: 25-35/36-45/45-65.

Q4. Education: secondary school/bachelor degree/Master degree.

Q5. Region: North region (Istria and Kvarner)/Central region (Dalmatia)/South region(Dubrovnik).

Q6. Workshop participation: yes (experiment group)/no (control group).

Socialresponsibility

in tourism

599

II. Attitudes on social responsibility of tourism business organizations

To what extent do you think tourism business organizationsshould be held responsible for…

1- Not heldresponsible

2 3 4 5-Heldcompletelyresponsible

Q7. Ensuring products and operations do not harmthe environment

1 2 3 4 5

Q8. Not only protecting the environment but restoring it for future generations

1 2 3 4 5

Q9. Reporting honestly and accurately on their social and environmental performance

1 2 3 4 5

Q10. Reporting honestly and accurately on their financia performancel

1 2 3 4 5

Q11. Providing good quality products and services at the lowest possible price

1 2 3 4 5

Q12. Operating profitably and paying its fair share of taxes 1 2 3 4 5Q13. Reducing human rights abuses in the world 1 2 3 4 5Q14. Supporting charities and community projects 1 2 3 4 5Q15. Helping to reduce extreme poverty 1 2 3 4 5Q16. Improving education and skills in communities where they operate

1 2 3 4 5

III. Planned future actions for fostering social responsibility in your community Q10

Q17. Respondens were asked to shortly describe SR initiatives they plan to start in the nextthree years.

About the authorsMirjana Pejic Bach, PhD, is a Full Professor of system dynamics, managerial simulation games anddata mining at the Department of Informatics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University ofZagreb. Her current research areas are simulation modelling, data mining and web contentresearch. She is the (co) author of number of articles in international and national journals. She isactively engaged in number of scientific projects (FP7-ICT, bilateral cooperation, national projects).

Jovana Zoroja is a Teaching and Research Assistant at the Faculty of Economicsand Business, University of Zagreb, Department of Informatics. Jovana Zoroja finishedpostgraduate study programme in information management at Faculty of Economics andBusiness-Zagreb and she is currently a PhD candidate. Her main research interests areinformation and communication technology, simulation games and simulation modeling. Sheparticipated in Erasmus-Preparatory-Visit-Program and is now engaged in FP7-ICT project aswell as bilateral cooperation. Jovana Zoroja is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:jzoroja@efzg.hr

Marjana Merkac-Skok, PhD, is a Dean at the Faculty of Business and Commercial Sciences,Celje Slovenia. Her current research area is human resources management exploration withcutting-edge methodologies, like simulation modeling and data mining. She is Editor-in-Chief of theFKPV Journal and Programme Board President of the Knowledge and Business Challenges ofGlobalization Conference (2010-today). She is actively engaged in several Slovenian and internationalprojects.

K43,3/4

600

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints