The Observer
Today The Observer published a critical article concerning 'greenwashing' in travel, with several references to us. We welcome debate around all the ethical issues in tourism, and have a policy of transparency and inviting feedback on how we might improve. However as some of our responses to the journalist have not been published in the article I'm going to reply in more detail here.
It is claimed that we have 'appropriated' the term responsible travel and appear that we are an 'official industry portal'. I believe that in 2000 we were the first business to use the term responsible travel. A great many people told me that it was a stupid name (most people told me that tourists just want to have fun on holiday and don't care about anything else), and a great many more people told me we would never make a business out of it. Since then we've worked extremely hard to build customer awareness of a different type of respectful travel.
Rather than appropriating 'responsible travel' we have spent 7 hard years trying to build consumer awareness of the concept from scratch. Nowhere have we ever claimed to be an 'industry portal', in fact quite the opposite - we've always been very proud of our business roots. No other business has yet tried to do this on our scale, but this is hardly our fault! It feels that we are being criticised for being too successful, after initially being told that we were mad to try -hey ho!
The writer picks on skiing holidays to Whistler and claims that many of our skiing holidays are long haul. A closer look at the winter holidays section on our site shows that the majority of them in fact involve shorter trips. Interestingly, the most popular destination on the site overall is now the UK. We spent a lot of time and effort increasing our UK holiday offer to ensure that this could happen.
However, it does raise the question of why we promote trips that do involve a longer flight. I firmly believe that all holidays, wherever they are, can and should be more responsible. Only in this way can we create widespread change in tourism and tourism destinations. Whistler is one of, if not the greenest resorts in North America. While, as above, we offer lots of UK and European winter sports, if the responsible traveller wants to go to the US - or lives there as 10-15% of our site visitors do - then Whistler is your best bet.
Providing a tour company meets our criteria for responsible tourism I make no judgements about whether they are independently owned or part of a larger group as this would be wholly unfair and unreasonable, and would confine responsible tourism to a niche and limit the change we can create - it they are good enough they are welcome.
Only 25% of the companies who approach us for membership end up meeting our criteria and joining our site. We publish their detailed responsible tourism polices on the site (example here), and specifics on responsible tourism on every single holiday page. Many of the hotels on the site are already accredited by by an independent scheme, however there is no such thing for trips. We publish unedited customer reviews concerning both the tourists experience and responsible tourism, and send every review back to the company who operate the holiday -this valuable feedback helps them improve their practices. Over the years we've removed 17 companies because we have not been able to be confident that they would meet our criteria.
On the subject of transparency I wish The Observer - a business which itself claims an ethical positioning - were as tough with choosing their reader offers (run by a company with no published policy for responsible tourism) and travel advertisers as we are with choosing the companies we promote!
We are criticised for charging tour companies a commission to be on the site. To my knowledge every travel agent in the world charges a commission, and we are no different except that ours is lower than most. This means that we have become an effective marketing channel for a great many small tour companies and hotels all over the world (including community based tourism ventures which are charged nothing).
The statement that tiny ecotourism businesses are less likely to be found on our site is badly informed and incorrect. We represent nearly 900 different organisations (tour operators and accommodations), most of which are small businesses. I'm very proud of the very many, very small companies that we've helped over the years, and of the benefits that tourism has brought to the people and destinations in which they operate. It is only by being a successful business that we've been able to do this - and I make no apology for that.
At the other end of the scale, we are fully aware of the considerable impact that large travel companies can make in encouraging adoption of responsible tourism practices throughout the industry - as is commented on towards the end of The Observer's article, "...they have the power to make sure all their suppliers on the ground take action". It is for this reason that back in 2004 we targeted 3 of the then big 4 travel companies to create and implement responsible tourism policies. This campaign was reported and recognised by The Observer at the time.
We also engage with larger operators through initiatives such as our annual Responsible Tourism Awards. We founded the Awards on the principle that all types of tourism – from niche to mainstream – can and should be operated in a way that respects and benefits destinations and local people, and that travel companies, individuals and organisations (big or small, businesses, charities or not-for-profits) who are leading the way should be celebrated to inspire others.
I think that some people get confused and think that only charities can create positive social and environmental change. In fact businesses and charities can, and indeed must do this if we are to create a better world. By proving that we can be commercially successful I think responsibletravel.com has done far more to persuade other businesses to follow suit than we would have done if we were a charity.
So, finally we welcome the debate and the scrutiny. There has been no route map for responsibletravel.com to follow, we are not perfect and we are determined to improve. I do, however, wish The Observer put as much scrutiny into some of the issues in mass tourism as they have into responsible tourism, as it is there that most of the impacts of tourism lie.
Read Harold Goodwin's response here
Read Neilson's response to The Observer article
It is claimed that we have 'appropriated' the term responsible travel and appear that we are an 'official industry portal'. I believe that in 2000 we were the first business to use the term responsible travel. A great many people told me that it was a stupid name (most people told me that tourists just want to have fun on holiday and don't care about anything else), and a great many more people told me we would never make a business out of it. Since then we've worked extremely hard to build customer awareness of a different type of respectful travel.
Rather than appropriating 'responsible travel' we have spent 7 hard years trying to build consumer awareness of the concept from scratch. Nowhere have we ever claimed to be an 'industry portal', in fact quite the opposite - we've always been very proud of our business roots. No other business has yet tried to do this on our scale, but this is hardly our fault! It feels that we are being criticised for being too successful, after initially being told that we were mad to try -hey ho!
The writer picks on skiing holidays to Whistler and claims that many of our skiing holidays are long haul. A closer look at the winter holidays section on our site shows that the majority of them in fact involve shorter trips. Interestingly, the most popular destination on the site overall is now the UK. We spent a lot of time and effort increasing our UK holiday offer to ensure that this could happen.
However, it does raise the question of why we promote trips that do involve a longer flight. I firmly believe that all holidays, wherever they are, can and should be more responsible. Only in this way can we create widespread change in tourism and tourism destinations. Whistler is one of, if not the greenest resorts in North America. While, as above, we offer lots of UK and European winter sports, if the responsible traveller wants to go to the US - or lives there as 10-15% of our site visitors do - then Whistler is your best bet.
Providing a tour company meets our criteria for responsible tourism I make no judgements about whether they are independently owned or part of a larger group as this would be wholly unfair and unreasonable, and would confine responsible tourism to a niche and limit the change we can create - it they are good enough they are welcome.
Only 25% of the companies who approach us for membership end up meeting our criteria and joining our site. We publish their detailed responsible tourism polices on the site (example here), and specifics on responsible tourism on every single holiday page. Many of the hotels on the site are already accredited by by an independent scheme, however there is no such thing for trips. We publish unedited customer reviews concerning both the tourists experience and responsible tourism, and send every review back to the company who operate the holiday -this valuable feedback helps them improve their practices. Over the years we've removed 17 companies because we have not been able to be confident that they would meet our criteria.
On the subject of transparency I wish The Observer - a business which itself claims an ethical positioning - were as tough with choosing their reader offers (run by a company with no published policy for responsible tourism) and travel advertisers as we are with choosing the companies we promote!
We are criticised for charging tour companies a commission to be on the site. To my knowledge every travel agent in the world charges a commission, and we are no different except that ours is lower than most. This means that we have become an effective marketing channel for a great many small tour companies and hotels all over the world (including community based tourism ventures which are charged nothing).
The statement that tiny ecotourism businesses are less likely to be found on our site is badly informed and incorrect. We represent nearly 900 different organisations (tour operators and accommodations), most of which are small businesses. I'm very proud of the very many, very small companies that we've helped over the years, and of the benefits that tourism has brought to the people and destinations in which they operate. It is only by being a successful business that we've been able to do this - and I make no apology for that.
At the other end of the scale, we are fully aware of the considerable impact that large travel companies can make in encouraging adoption of responsible tourism practices throughout the industry - as is commented on towards the end of The Observer's article, "...they have the power to make sure all their suppliers on the ground take action". It is for this reason that back in 2004 we targeted 3 of the then big 4 travel companies to create and implement responsible tourism policies. This campaign was reported and recognised by The Observer at the time.
We also engage with larger operators through initiatives such as our annual Responsible Tourism Awards. We founded the Awards on the principle that all types of tourism – from niche to mainstream – can and should be operated in a way that respects and benefits destinations and local people, and that travel companies, individuals and organisations (big or small, businesses, charities or not-for-profits) who are leading the way should be celebrated to inspire others.
I think that some people get confused and think that only charities can create positive social and environmental change. In fact businesses and charities can, and indeed must do this if we are to create a better world. By proving that we can be commercially successful I think responsibletravel.com has done far more to persuade other businesses to follow suit than we would have done if we were a charity.
So, finally we welcome the debate and the scrutiny. There has been no route map for responsibletravel.com to follow, we are not perfect and we are determined to improve. I do, however, wish The Observer put as much scrutiny into some of the issues in mass tourism as they have into responsible tourism, as it is there that most of the impacts of tourism lie.
Read Harold Goodwin's response here
Read Neilson's response to The Observer article
Labels: greenwashing, responsibletravel.com, The observer
posted by Justin at
08:56
Subscribe
to our RSS feed
26 Comments:
We are a very small Kenyan tour operator who have been with rt from the beginning. We have found them very fair, honest and efficient to deal with - and are more than happy to pay their small commission.
Without rt many small resonsible operators would not get off the ground.
As Justin says, the debate on greenwashing is a very important one. Wilderness Scotland were one of the fist operators to feature on RT.com and we fully understand the myriad of challenges of managing the growth and integrity of the site. RT.com's policy has, correctly, been to support the small operations yet at the same time engage with the bigger players rather than seek to alienate them by being critical of their practices. This is a sound strategy but is is a tough one to get absolutely right. We welcome Justin's commitment to continue to address this important challenge. Neil Birnie, Wilderness Scotland / Wilderness Journeys
It's an inevitable debate, and to be fair to the Observer/Guardian, their coverage of this type of holiday is significantly wider than most of the other broadsheets.
You can't stop people going to Whistler/North America on holiday, just as you can't prevent people who work hard for 300 days a year wanting to get some sunshine with their families. Inevitably that's going to involve a flight - what RT and others are doing is offering food for thought for future holiday-making decisions. This is going to be a gradual shift in consumer buying patterns, not an overnight rejection of longhaul flights and the standard package holiday.
We have been with RT since 2003 and as a company started in middle of 2002 and based in the destination country, we could have never been able to realize one of our goals of cutting off middlemen in the traditional tourism marketing chain and market direct to our target market without RT.
The debate of "greenwashing" is valid , no doubts about that. But The Observer should get their facts straight. responsibletravel.com offers equal opportunities for small, medium, large and giant companies to healthily compete for the products. In fact, it is probably the only marketplace where this can happen right now. Several other companies are now aping this model. It is successful.
Our company now competes online with the like of Tribes, Exodus, Intrepid, etc for trips to Nepal. We could have never achieved to reach a common marketplace with such operators without a website such as this...
Lay off, Observer... do some more background checks before scandalizing a perfectly good operation that is helping small operators worldwide. In fact, the existance of the larger operators in the same marketplace lets us learn from them too, which is of tremendous value to small operations such as ours.
We are staunchly behind RT, and can safely say that they helped us establish and now have national recognition in Nepal through the two Best Operator nominations we received for the RT Awards. Our international image and recognition is better than ever due to RT. What more can a small operator want?
I have not read the article in the Observer, being in the middle of a very busy time at our organic farm with guests visiting and harvest just around the corner, I don't have the luxury of indulging myself in a weekend paper at the moment. It is a shame that journalists use their headlines to criticise & try to cast doubt upon a genuine company that specialises in Responsible Tourism when there are so many other, larger tourism companies that really only care about their bottom line.
There are many criteria one has to meet to even be included on the website of this company and well done to those who have achieved the changes in business practice it takes to reduce their environmental impact, and in some cases, small businesses that improve their local economies making life a little better for those that live around them.
These days cynicism and suspicion are rife among the general public, it's hardly surprising after all the food scares, animal welfare issues and tardy government action that we have all endured over the recent years; however, all these are negatives leading to poor moral and general apathy among the population. Perhaps the Observer would do better to support Responsible Tourism as a beneficial industry, to promote Responsible Tourism themselves in a positive way and wave a flag for those of us that are trying to do our bit and change the way that tourism works.
Lizzie Myers
Huntstile Organic Farm
Somerset UK
I have not read the article in the Observer, being in the middle of a very busy time at our organic farm with guests visiting and harvest just around the corner, but I think it is a shame that journalists should use their headlines to criticise & try to cast doubt upon a genuine company that specialises in Responsible Tourism when there are so many other, larger tourism companies that really only care about their bottom line.
There are many criteria one has to meet to even be included on the website of this company and well done to those who have achieved the changes in business practice it takes to reduce their environmental impact, and in some cases, small businesses that improve their local economies making life a little better for those that live around them.
These days cynicism and suspicion are rife among the general public, it's hardly surprising after the numerous food scares, animal welfare issues and tardy government action that we have endured over the recent years; however, all these are negatives leading to poor moral and general apathy and suspicion among the population. Perhaps the Observer would do better to support Responsible Tourism as a beneficial industry, to promote Responsible Tourism themselves in a positive light and wave a flag for those of us that are trying to do our bit and change the way that tourism works.
Lizzie Myers
Huntstile Organic Farm
Somerset UK
We have been members of RT since 2004 and have benefited from their assistance. Their commission is a lot less than some other travel agents who ask for extortionate fees and do little for them. Overall RT does a great job.
However over the last couple of years we have noticed that there is an overshadowing by the inclusion of the larger tour operators who may say that they comply with the ethics of RT but in reality they come nowhere near. I should know as I have worked for a couple. Very few of the big operators employ "local staff" especially as reps and guides. This is a shame as a local who is proud of his area, culture and interests is more likely to give a good impression than someone shipped in from abroad. I recently heard a rep from a supposedly "green" tour operator tell his guests to "only drink bottled water and to only buy from the hotel shops so as not to get ripped off!" Bearing mind that was in Italy in 2007.
RT should in my view promote the smaller companies and niche markets over and above the big companies. By all means have a dialogue with them to encourage them to change for the better but they can be shown the way forward by the likes of Wilderness Scotland etc. At the end of the day it is us small companies that are operated with a genuine passion for our locations. The bigger companies passion lies only in maximising profits for the shareholders.
RT is a great concept and over the last 7 years has come from nowhere and is now recognised as a spokesperson for the travel industry. The fact that the Observer is picking on them is in fact an indirect complement. By the Observer making these comments it can only raise the profile of RT when it can clearly show that it is clean and transparent and ethical.
I have to say that we have been wondering whether rt is really as exemplary as they would like to be seen. Often they appear entirely profit-driven to us. The way they bill us claiming poverty and immediate payment, the way they treat award-winners of their own awards by letting them travel long distances for a very rushed "ceremony" all smacks of marketing tools to further their own gains. There is also the issue of growing rapidly and not matching this with staff. We certainly feel that the service we have received has suffered as rt grew as has the number of people rt directs to our site as more and more holidays are added, making the mix more diluted.
As someone who works for one of the companies featured on RT I can appreciate the criticisms articulated in the Observer, since it is very difficult to guarantee standards are being maintained by all your suppliers, but I think the article lacks substance. Although I often read the Guardian and Observer, I do find their holier-than-thou attitude irritating at times - to effect real change on environmental issues requires the participation of the big businesses and corporations, since the power to change things generally lies, unfortunately, with those who have all the money in this world. I would have thought by now that the environmental movement would have adopted a more pragmatic attitude - people aren't just going to give up all their eco-unfriendly vices overnight, it needs companies like RT to take the lead and encourage consumer pressure on the industry. Of course it's important that such companies are scrutinised to make sure they are delivering on their claims - after all, you have to remember that they are a business - but it seems to me like the author of this article is more intent on tarnishing reputations than actually encouraging responsible practices when travelling.
As for the long haul debate, one could perhaps compare it to the Observer's decision to carry on printing an eco-unfriendly paper edition when most people can access all the articles online - until consumer habits and attitudes change sufficiently, businesses aren't going to willingly sacrifice a massive portion of their income!
Tom, Bristol
Very interesting and as already said, important debate.
In regards to Whistler, I take the point that some of the users live in the US, but I think that's not a great defence in this particular instance given the company concerned is Thomas Cook. It seems unlikely many Americans would book Whistler through Thomas Cook (furthermore, they'd suffer financially from exchange rate differences)
I also think it's highly misleading for ResponsibleTravel.com to be called or call itself a travel agent. It doesn't match up to any of the definitions that a quick Google search brings up or anything I've ever known a travel agent to do. My enquiry was just sent to several operators. Though I ended up booking with one, I wasn't delighted and am not sure about the data protection angle on that front! Also, you don't have an ATOL or ABTA like my local high street travel agent (who also actually organise my booking!) so it seems a bit rich if 7% of my holiday money is going to you! I suppose it's more like a marketing cost which is paid by results but that should be clearer.
I don't agree that ResponsibleTravel has created a concept from scratch. You might have made up a name or something, but I've been taking ethical holidays for years both on my own and with travel companies. I think claiming you invented it is insulting to those companies who've been going for years and have actually been running holidays!!!
All that said, I think ResponsibleTravel has done a brilliant job in bringing green travel to the masses. Several friends and colleagues of mine that I never thought would take the sorts of holidays have been on ResponsibleTravel and raved about holidays they found. And surely if you are engaging with large companies so all travel can become greener, it can only be a good thing.
Let's face it, would Fairtrade goods make the same money it does if it wasn't now in Tescos and was still stuffed down an aisle in a teeny health food store.
I've neen with RT from the begining. Justin and the team have worked tirelessly to raise the profile of 'responsible travel' and by engaging big firms as well as niche ones have really made huge changes in the industry for which they should be proud. When we set up Wheatland Farm RT was (and is) a big help and I have never considered the commission to be other than good value! Keep up the work and sure - flush out the greenwashers.
Maybe the Observer has a point. You have coral reef holidays in non-locally owned owned hotels in the Caribbean where some of the highlighted "responsible" aspects include that the hotel uses eco-friendly soap. There are more fundamental, big things that make a holiday responsible and I feel when I first joined, this was understood, but when I recently entered a new tour the validation encouraged me to list as many petty things as I could. The criteria do have to be carefully assessed.
Having said that, you work for me and I am a very small operator, a couple of tours a year!
Inevitably there is a growing cynism towards responsible tourism as the market becomes more mainstream and is seen less of a quirky niche when we first joined Responsible Travel. Thank goodness for the success of RT to have raised many important issues to such a large audience.
We are a family business in Spain and struggled for sometime to differentiate ourselves from the mass tourism that has destroyed much of the coast in Spain. Responsible Travel made us think about our business and our position on the issues RT promote. Subsequently we have become more conscious about our own values and confident articulating where we stand. The guests that choose our venue as their holiday will often be aware or become more aware of these values, and perhaps we have some influence on their outlook as a result of this.
I note in the article that some of the large operators now work through RT. The irony is that the monopoly that mass tourism enjoyed is now significantly compromised due to the internet and the range of choice now available. This has been of great benefit to the likes of our business and RT has played an important role promoting a wide range of small operators who do not have the resources to compete with the big operators. There is now a huge diversity of individual holidays available where each destination has had to demonstrate a broad range of credentials to qualify to be listed on the RT website. How amusing and what an endorsement to RT that these larger companies also have to demonstrate and live up to these credentials too.
Regarding the matter of transport. As long as people have the choice to fly, they will fly as it represents a cost effective and convenient way to travel. If RT stopped promoting holidays where there is no air travel, would that have any significant impact on the world and people’s desire to travel? We live in a free market where people have choice and people would simply shop around to find an alternative. With choice comes responsibility and surely it is better to chip away at making people aware of some of the issues than to tell them that certain resorts, long distant flights and types of holiday companies are ‘off-limits’.
We have been with RT for a year, we are a small farm stay and the small fee we pay easily covers us just having a nice web page! No one can be 100% perfect. People will go on Long haul holidays regardless of if its eco friendly or not. RT is doing its bit to promote eco tourism in big resorts and small places. We ourselves try to promote responsible skiing for our guests and try to get them to use slopes with no snow machines but if our guests come here for skiing and theres no snow only artificial what can I do?!? Tell them not to go? The eco tourisn thing is all about people doing a little bit to help protect the envoronment and support local people in some way. Its not a major political inituative taken by a governmnet organisation. RT and its members can only encourage our customers to be more responsible..we cant force them....The Observer should get off its high horse....how green is the Observer newspaper group! Do they recycle? Use low electricity lighting in there printng factories overnight. Are the lights left on all night in the Offices whilst the Journalists are flying first class round the globe to cover a travel story? DO their Journalists from the travel section Off-set their emmissions? I wanna know how green or responsible Is the observer? Then they can come and visit us (Ill do them a nice deal!) and Ill show them all the eco friendly things we have done here on our little farm.
Nick and Dasa Clarke: Smugglers Lodge. Czech Republic.
As a user of your site, i'd like to say that i don't believe all i read in the papers and don't think that most sensible people do either. So don't take the observers article to heart. It probably had nothing else to report so thought let's make up a problem! It'll be back for help from you next week. :) - feel free to edit this post i just wanted to send in a public view as other posts were all from travel providers.
As a member of Responsible Travel I strongly subscribe to its ethics and try to run my own small B and B this way.My comments are relatively untainted by commercial gain as I have not yet had a customer through my membership (and maybe more on that to the team later!)However, I do think that we have to live in the real world. We can only effect change incrementally, and not overnight.To simply get people thinking about the ethics of how they travel, and maybe alternating that big overseas holiday with smaller, more local trips can only be good both for members for UK tourism and for the planet.Remember that you only get noticed, and maybe knocked, if you are successful!
I am not surprised at all that you did not post my earlier critical comments and this only serves to make my point of RT being mainly profit-driven and not open to real debate. You put up a very canny front "welcoming debate", but behind it all it seems that some of the Observer criticisms are richly deserved.
Thankas to everyone who has posted here - responsible tourism is complex and benefits from the debate. Just a quick reply to the anonymous poster who criticised our requests for payment.
Very unusally for any business we operate on an honesty system where we rely on tour companies and hotels to let us know when clients book - for which we recieve a commission from them.
We don't recieve any payment until the client has travelled. This can be a month or after the tour company has recieved their full payment from the client, so yes we do chase quick payment as we are the last to get any money. It's not our job to subsidise the cash flow of tour companies!
With regard to service levels I'd suggest this company emails me directly with specific concerns and I'll be very happy to address them.
Justin
I would like to make the point, often overlooked, that long-haul travel can also be responsible and ethical from the perspective of contributing to economies and local livelihoods on our planet home, educating ourselves about different cultures and participating in life-changing experiences.
Great discussion.
Of course it is a good thing that RT exists and at least they are moving in the right direction. However it is true for many 'agents' that they do jump on the green band wagon and I would like to see greater lampooning in the media of useless tourism departments who on occasions have employed their professor colleague to try and achieve a marketable 'Responsible Tourism' state policy. Far more does need to be done by the even bigger fish to clean up (in our case)south India
Aloha
When we applied with RT we were so amazed how many questions they wanted to have answered in order to make sure we are "sustainable". With each more question my trust grew and I knew those people "mean business" and will protect and support sustainability. I also know when I get a customer from their site, they will be happy to stay at a place where we are living with nature and be conscious of our "footprints". We salute a company like RT and we are proud to be a member and will pay for their effort to "screen" and take the time to create this business.
Maui Retreat, Kutira Decosterd, Owener, living off the grid since 1988
kl7g1704We are associated with the RT for nearly four years. The RT has made a break us to the travellers who wanted to surpass the big agents and thier sub agents . Guests are directly booking to stay in our cottages and participate in the cooking and activity holidays with minimum impact . See now the problem is not having proper defenition what is small , eco , green m sustainable. If the traveller is happy spenting their money and local community is benefiited and no eco harm is done what is there to complain. RT has done a great job to bring out the small guest house houses , activity holidays and cooking holidays accessible to travellers not paying a big amount to the operators. Direct dealing or fair trade is happening through them . We are only taking the payment from the guest when they arrives and pays the RT their reasonable fee only after we receive the payment from RT .
I totally disagree with the Observer article. I am a very very small Ecotourism facility and I fully support and endorse the good work that Responsibletravel.com is doing and if the writer would like to write to me, I would be more than pleased to give him my views.
Keep up the good work. The planet needs us all .
Kind Regards,
Ean
Ean and Marion Mackay
Website: adventure-ecovillas.com
Ummm...i realize this particular debate is larger than this...but i can't help but respond to tell you (all since some have since commented using this example), that Whistler is actually in British Columbia, Canada. As travel professionals we should get our facts straight, yes?
As a small business, we are happy to pay a fair commission to have guests actually walk though our door that are happy to have found us. We would never have been able to have that kind of exposure without the help of this big site. We feel RT has it's motives in the right place. Working with smaller businesses and larger ones as well, to try and have a positive influence on the areas that people travel to is a path not often taken. As far as engaging the larger companies, I am not quite as confident, but I do know that the process of applying to be a member for us was thought provoking and helped us really evaluate what were our strengths and areas where we could improve. Hopefully this holds everyones feet to the fire. Perhaps this type of discussion is a healthy process for RT to evaluate their business as well. We have found RT to be honest and transparent about their motives and how they do business. How refreshing. While it is commendable for the public to be educated and challenged to think about what choices they make without blindly accepting things at face value, I felt the article was a tad narrow in scope of the amount of operators it took to task, thereby not seeming entirely fair and balanced. However as other here have pointed out, when you are successful and hold yourself to a higher standard, then there will be others who will attempt to raise the bar. Debate and sharing of ideas even when controversial, is healthy and probably inevitable. It keeps us all alert to not become complacent and lose our pursuit of fair, ecological and sustainable tourism.
We are small hotel group in kerala, offers the experiential holdays for all travellers in kerala. responsible tourism is one of the stongest point.more details visit Responsible tourism
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home