Journal of Sustainable TourismVol. 19, No. 7, September 2011.docx

Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Vol. 19, No. 7, September 2011, 797–816
International hotel chains and environmental protection: an
analysis
of Hilton’s we care! programme (Europe, 2006–2008)
Paulina Bohdanowicza∗ , Piotr Zientarab and Emilie Novotnac
aInternational Centre for Responsible Tourism, Leeds
Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK; bFaculty
of Economics, University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland;
cIndependent Researcher
(Received 2 December 2009; final version received 15
December 2010)
Using the case study method, this paper evaluates and analyses
Hilton’s we care! pro-
gramme for improving the environmental performance of the 70
Hilton Worldwide
hotels in operation in Continental Europe in 2006–2008. It
explores the practical di-
mension of “greening” hotel operations in the context of
corporate social responsibility
(CSR), and demonstrates the close links between CSR and
human resource management
(HRM) in hotels. It deepens the understanding of corporate
environmentalism and seeks
to disseminate best practice among hospitality managers. The
programme’s distinctive
and innovative character as well as its weaknesses and strengths

are highlighted. Bar-
riers to behavioural change in hotel operation are discussed.
The programme involved
over 16,000 employees, created hotel-specific action teams
linking all employee levels
and reduced energy use per square metre by 15%, water use and
CO2 emissions per
guest night by 8% each over three years. Avoided utility costs
totalled US$16 million,
of which US$9.6 million can be attributed to changes in human
behaviour. The paper
makes a case for a holistic approach that combines the
introduction of IT-based measure-
ment and performance-assessing tools with genuine employee
empowerment and green
awareness raising. The study concludes with future managerial
policy recommendations
that simultaneously bear upon corporate environmentalism and
HRM.
Keywords: Hilton; hospitality; corporate social responsibility;
environmentalism;
Introduction
Environmental protection – with climate change to the fore – is
one of the most important
challenges currently facing mankind. Co-ordinated action – at
governmental, corporate and
individual levels – needs to be taken to stop the progressing
degradation of the environment
(IPCC, 2007). That increasing attention is being paid to broadly
understood ecological
issues is borne out by the propagation of such concepts as
sustainable development, helping

ensure that humanity “meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs” (Kates, Parris, &
Leiserowitz, 2005, p. 10), or
eco-efficiency, which “prescribes reducing the amount of
energy and natural resources used,
as well as wastes and pollutants discharged in the production of
goods and services” (Kelly,
Wolfgang, Williams, & Englund, 2007, p. 337). The rise of
corporate social responsibility
(CSR) – which implies, among other things, that businesses
should green their opera-
tions, thereby minimising their environmental impact – confirms
the above assumption
∗ Corresponding author. Email: paulina [email protected]
ISSN 0966-9582 print / ISSN 1747-7646 online
C⃝ 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2010.549566
http://www.informaworld.com
798 P. Bohdanowicz et al.
(Bohdanowicz, 2007; Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008; Buchholz,
1993; Crook, 2005;
Franklin, 2008; Holcomb, Upchurch, & Okumus, 2007; Lewis,
2003; McIntosh, Thomas,
Leipzinger, & Coleman, 2003; Porter & Kramer, 2006). It is
almost unthinkable today for
a large international company to be without a CSR policy
(Franklin, 2008). This also holds
true for the tourism and hospitality industry (Bohdanowicz &
Zientara, 2008; Holcomb
et al., 2007; Kalisch, 2002; Knowles, Macmillian, Palmer,

Grabowski, & Hasimoto, 1999).
Given that an unspoilt environment is both a vital constituent of
service quality and
a significant factor behind the attractiveness of any tourist
destination, it is in the interest
of hospitality companies to ensure the long-term environmental
sustainability of tourist
activity (see, inter alia, Bohdanowicz, Simanic, & Martinac,
2005; Bowe, 2005; Lanzarote
Conference on Sustainable Tourism, 1995; Hall & Richards,
2000; International Hotels
Environment Initiative, 1996; Kalisch, 2002; Kirk, 1998;
Knowles et al., 1999; Mowforth
& Munt, 1998; Sharpley, 2000). This implies that the way hotel
chains deal with ecolog-
ical issues is likely to affect their long-term competitiveness
(Dow Jones Indexes, 2009;
Holcomb et al., 2007). That is why the imperative to protect the
environment in general,
and to reduce climate change-inducing CO2 emissions in
particular, features prominently
on the responsible business agendas of most international
hospitality firms. And there is
little doubt that top hotel chains, with their global reach and
significant financial resources,
are particularly well placed to propagate corporate
environmentalism (Bohdanowicz &
Zientara, 2009; Bowen, 2000).
There is more to “going green” than carrying out concrete eco-
friendly projects or
initiatives. Reducing a company’s environmental impact is
about introducing a genuine
change. But, for any change to happen, it is necessary to engage
and support all employees,

including those of lower rank (Kanter, 1983). This implies that
(HRM) plays a special role in environmental management
(Jabbour & Santos, 2008a,
2008b; Wehrmeyer & Parker, 1996). Furthermore, there is an
overlap between HRM,
environmentalism (sustainability) and CSR; ecological and
employee issues are central to
the concept of CSR. In this context – both from green and HRM
perspectives – hotels
stand out among other commercial buildings and workplaces.
They consume significant
amounts of resources and turn out large quantities of effluents,
emissions and waste, thereby
producing substantial environmental impacts (Bass Hotels &
Resorts, 2000; Bowe, 2005;
Erdogan & Baris, 2007; World Travel and Tourism Council,
2009). Further, managing
employees in hotels – due to the specificity of their modus
operandi and the intrinsic nature
of typical hospitality jobs – is a particularly difficult task
(Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008;
Deery & Jago, 2009; Furunes & Mykletun, 2005; Hjalager &
Andersen, 2001; Magd, 2003;
Worsfold, 1999).
It is against this background that the research reported in this
paper – which assumes
the form of a case study (Eisenhardt, 1989) – analyses Hilton’s
we care! programme
(in operation in Continental Europe1 in 2006–2008). We care!
was chosen because, at
the time of its creation, it was an innovative initiative
implemented in different places
all over Europe. It was also conceptualised as a grassroots
campaign, which means that

investigating the reactions and perceptions of Hilton employees
(called team members –
TMs) can potentially offer informative insights into the
interconnected realities of HRM
and environmental management. Equally importantly, the
company’s head office, when
approached, was willing to share internal materials and granted
permission to perform
a team member study. Hence, great emphasis is placed in this
paper on the practical
dimensions of the implementation of an environmental
programme.
The paper aims to answer the following research questions: (1)
how does sustainabil-
ity thinking influence the design and implementation of
concrete environmental projects?;
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 799
(2) what is the character of the interaction between HRM and
environmental manage-
ment?; (3) why does investment in resource-efficient
technologies prove beneficial in the
long run?; (4) what difficulties do managers encounter in
implementing environmental
projects?; (5) how can creativity help overcome typical
problems?; and (6) why does
employee empowerment and ecological awareness raising play
an important part in the
implementation process?
It needs to be said that case studies are regarded as particularly
suitable for answering

“how” and “why” research questions (Yin, 2003). Case studies
deal with operational links
that ought to be, and can be, traced over time (Yin, 2003) and,
therefore, enhance contextual
sense and facilitate better comprehension of the issues at hand
(Miles & Huberman, 1994;
Van Maanen, 1979). This helps justify the main research
method used here (Alvesson &
Deetz, 2000).
The structure of the paper is as follows. The next section,
constituting a theoretical
framework, explores the conceptual interrelatedness between
CSR, HRM and environmen-
tal management. The following part is empirical in character.
First, the methodology is
presented. Then, the focus shifts to the main premises and
effects of Hilton’s we care!
programme (Europe, 2006–2008). Subsequently, Hilton
employees’ perceptions of – and
reactions to – the initiative are discussed in detail. The paper
concludes by laying out a num-
ber of managerial policy recommendations and suggesting
further research directions. The
paper seeks to deepen understanding of the implementation of
environmental programmes
in hospitality, expands the existing body of knowledge and
disseminates best practice.
Conceptual framework
CSR and the hospitality industry: conceptualisations and
implications
Corporate social responsibility is a multidimensional concept.
Not only do many nuanced

definitions of CSR exist, but also various terms – such as
corporate citizenry, corporate
sustainability, corporate responsibility or responsible business –
are used to denote it.
Thus, CSR is conceptualised in slightly different ways.
Business in the Community, for
instance, states that corporate responsibility is about producing
“public benefit”. The idea
is to make a “positive impact on society and the environment”
through interactions with
main stakeholders such as employees, customers, investors and
suppliers (Business in
the Community, 2009). Others regard CSR through the prism of
sustainability. Socially
responsible managers need to “harness the market’s potential
for sustainability products
and services while at the same time successfully reducing and
avoiding sustainability costs
and risks” (Dow Jones Indexes, 2009). In sum, companies
should justify their existence
in terms of (environmentally friendly) service to a wider public
rather than mere profit.
Businesses are expected to behave ethically and ecologically
(Solomon, 1992; Sparkes,
2002).
International hotel chains are thought to have made
considerable progress in the domain
of CSR. They were among the first to implement comprehensive
CSR programmes and
some even made CSR the centrepiece of their business models.
Symptomatically, Wyndham
regards CSR not as a stand-alone programme to implement or a
policy to follow but as
“a way of living, working and playing that embodies our vision
and values, celebrates our

diversity and supports a balance of professional and personal
needs” (Wyndham Hotels
& Resorts, 2009). This is also true for Scandic, which turned its
“Omtanke” programme
into an organising principle of its modus operandi
(Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008). In
practice, this means that corporate decision-making is, to a
large degree, underpinned by
environmental problems and human resource (HR) concerns. For
instance, all Marriott
and Starwood employees, regardless of their position in the
corporate hierarchy, are called
associates. Hilton (and Scandic) employees are referred to as
team members. The idea is to
reinforce the atmosphere of partnership and fair treatment,
thereby enhancing employees’
job satisfaction (see also Spector, 1997) and organisational
commitment (see also Meyer,
Stanley, Herscovich, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Mowday, Porter, &
Steers, 1982).
CSR and HRM in hospitality
This interrelatedness between CSR and HRM is of critical
importance since hotels constitute
specific workplaces. Above all, hospitality facilities operate
24/7; hours worked in this sector
are usually not only long but also unsocial (Mulvaney, O’Neill,
Cleverland, & Crouter, 2006;
Rowley & Purcell, 2001). In practice, “for many tourism
industry employees, working in

frontline positions of 24/7 operations, it is difficult to maintain
a healthy lifestyle, travel
or study” (Deery & Jago, 2009, p. 97). That, in turn, causes
some of them to leave an
organisation or even – increasingly frequently – the industry. In
this context, Hjalager
and Andersen (2001) note that one of the reasons why the
hospitality industry has falling
levels of staff retention is employees’ desire to have a “pleasant
lifestyle”. Other reasons
for high labour turnover (Rowley & Purcell, 2001) include low
remuneration (Pratten &
O’Leary, 2007) as well as poor prospects of being promoted
(Bohdanowicz & Zientara,
2008; Furunes & Mykletun, 2005). It follows that some CSR-
inspired activities – such as
those mentioned above – can offset some negative aspects of
hospitality employment.
But there is far more to this than that. If a (prospective)
employee is genuinely con-
cerned about the state of the environment and believes that
businesses should take action
against climate change and environmental degradation, he or
she will naturally be more
likely to identify themselves with (and gravitate towards)
companies that pay due regard to
ecology and implement environment-friendly solutions
(Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008).
Hence, such firms are well positioned to recruit and retain
ecologically minded individu-
als (and there is evidence that, at least in Scandinavia,
employees do prefer working for
companies that are explicitly and authentically committed to
environmental sustainability
[Bohdanowicz et al., 2005]). Equally, ecologically responsible

companies can boost em-
ployees’ motivation, job satisfaction and, by extension,
organisational commitment. This
is of key importance: it reduces staff turnover, and because
research shows a connection
between hotel employee commitment and the level of service
quality, he or she extends to
guests (Worsfold, 1999).
In this way, CSR-underpinned “green management” can be an
effective tool for attain-
ing concrete objectives in HRM. There are other ramifications:
a company that goes to great
lengths to raise employee environmental awareness and
propagates green ideals also con-
tributes to generally understood societal wellbeing. The greater
the number of people who
care about nature, the more chances there are of reversing
environmentally hostile trends
and, therefore, of living in a less degraded environment. For
that reason, it is legitimate to
speak of positive externalities.
CSR and environmental sustainability
Environmental sustainability is, alongside employee wellbeing
and community develop-
ment, central to the concept of CSR. Of course, one can
justifiably argue that it is problem-
atic to assume that CSR programmes and environmental
initiatives are intrinsically linked
in terms of philosophy and purpose. A firm may devise an
environmental programme

and carry out eco-friendly projects within its framework, but
that does not necessarily
mean that the programme is part of its CSR policy (or its CSR-
inspired philosophy). CSR
and ecological behaviour may well be divorced from each other.
Nonetheless, there is
some evidence to suggest that – at least in the case of some top
hotel chains – CSR and
environmentalism are inextricably intertwined with each other
(Zientara & Bohdanow-
icz, 2010). That said, Hilton’s we care! programme, albeit
theoretically bearing on certain
aspects of CSR, was originally conceived as an environmental
initiative sensu stricte.
Irrespective of this distinction, it is hardly in dispute that, from
an ecological per-
spective, hotels stand out among other commercial buildings.
Due to the higher-than-
average consumption of energy and water and the production of
large quantities of waste
(Bohdanowicz, 2005; Erdogan & Baris, 2007), their
environmental impact is consider-
able. Thus, in principle, the hospitality sector has many viable
opportunities to promote
environmental sustainability. Concrete measures include: (1)
developing environmental
management/sustainability systems to track and reduce energy,
water and waste consump-
tion; (2) installing resource-efficient appliances based on state-
of-the-art technologies (such
as LED lighting or low-flow water fixtures) to reduce energy
and water usage; (3) switching
to renewable energy sources (wind, geothermal, solar power);

(4) using recycled materials;
(5) encouraging guests and employees to take some simple steps
to protect the environ-
ment (e.g. switching off lights and TV sets when leaving
rooms); (6) using local food and
beverages to reduce transport-related carbon footprints; and (7)
co-operating with other
businesses (such as car rental firms or developers) that have
high environmental standards
and comply with ecological legislation (World Travel and
Tourism Council, 2009).
Environmental management and HRM
There is far more to going green than carrying out single eco-
friendly projects or awareness-
raising initiatives. Reducing a company’s environmental impact
needs a genuine change.
This is very evident in the case of hotel chains such as Scandic,
which embedded envi-
ronmental sustainability into the core of their business models.
But instigating any organ-
isational change – and environmental change in particular –
constitutes one of the most
difficult tasks facing managers (Kanter, 1983). Various barriers
impede change (Post &
Altman, 1994). While going about ecological transformation,
companies are confronted
with both industry-specific and organisational barriers (see
Table 1).
In this context, O’hEocha (2000) and Klassen (2000) argue that
the most significant
organisational barriers to implementing environmental action
processes relate to generally
understood human factor. That is not surprising, given that

people (who often happen to be
change-resistant) actually carry out change (Savage, 2007).
Rothenberg (2003) points out
that employees are the main experts in the way environmental
dimensions can be included
in fundamental organisational activities. For instance, waiting
staff will be far more familiar
than hotel management with the level of food wastage at
breakfast (Savage, 2007). Hence,
it is necessary to motivate, engage and support employees.
This is of great significance since corporate greening activities
entail extra-role (and
pro-social) behaviours; they are neither required nor formally
rewarded (Katz & Kahn,
1978). As such, they compete for an employee’s time and
attention with in-role tasks,
which, being part of performance evaluations, tend to have a
higher priority. Essentially,
then, corporate greening behaviours are often performed in the
context of so-called “weak
situations” (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). In other words,
employees often find them-
selves in situations without clear goals or certainty about the
rewards associated with the
optional behaviour of promoting environmentally beneficial
changes and their motivation is
Table 1. Barriers to ecological change.
Type Description Means of overcoming barrier

Industry barriers
Capital costs Funds for major and minor
environmental improvements,
expected internal rate of return
on all capital projects
Market innovations, “green”
products, special capital funds
Community concern Perception of risks associated
with the business
Risk communication, community
advisory councils, community
initiatives
Regulatory constraints Regulations, standards, operating
permits
Voluntary action programmes
Information Difficulty of collecting
appropriate data, measurement
problems
Industry alliances/cooperation,
performance measurement
Technical knowledge Physical, chemical and biological
uncertainty, inability to
eliminate some risks or effects
Joint research/development,
learning

Organisational barriers
Attitudes of personnel Disengaged, parochial interests,
environment not a high priority
Information sharing, teams,
awards, sharing of
environmental “wins”
Top management Detached, uncaring, lack of
understanding of
environmental/economic cost
relationship, environment not a
key value
Articulation of environmental
values, peer pressure/actions,
involvement in high profile
community activities
Quality of communication “Distance” between top
management’s espoused
commitment and action
throughout the organisation
Communications treated as a
critical business process, create
“champions” at all levels
Administrative heritage
(past practice)
Standard operating procedures,
assumptions about running the
business

Prospective outlook, strategic
focus
Source: Adapted from Post & Altman (1994).
thought to be predominantly driven by personal predispositions
(Shamir, 1991) and by value
congruence between the individual and the organisation
(Chapman, 1989). This implies
that HRM plays a special role in environmental management
(Jabbour & Santos, 2008a,
2008b; Wehrmeyer & Parker, 1996) (see Table 2).
Crucially, Daily and Huang (2001) developed a conceptual
model of the interrelationship
between basic elements of environmental management systems
(EMS) and HR factors
(or HRM aspects). The former include policy, planning,
implementation and operation,
checking and corrective action, and management review, while
the latter encompass top
management support, training, employee empowerment,
teamwork and rewards. The model
takes as its premise that there is a continuous interaction
between particular HR factors and
EMS elements. For instance, any environmental policy needs to
specify, say, what form of
training (if any) employees will be offered and how they will be
rewarded (if at all) for their
ecological behaviours. On the other hand, if it turns out (thanks
to monitoring and feedback)
that employees are bored with – and unenthusiastic about –
environmental initiatives, it is
necessary to introduce modifications and to take action to
rekindle their interest.

Table 2. Role of HRM in environmental management.
Role of human resources Activities
Support to environmental management system • Provide training
• Guarantee effective communication
• Motivate employees
Develop organisational change • Incorporate environmental
dimension in the
values of a company
• Develop competencies for environmental
management
• Stimulate ethics for environmental issues
Alignment of functional dimensions • Recruit and select based
on environmental
criteria
• Include environmental dimension in job
description
• Train for the environment
• Evaluate performance and reward based on
environmental strategy
Source: Adapted from Post & Attman (1994).
Crucially, the issue here is management attitudes towards the
environment. It is managers

who instigate a concrete organisational culture, which –
understood as a set of assump-
tions and values that guide individuals’ daily work behaviours
(Brockhoff, Chakrabarti, &
Kirchgeorg, 1999) – is a vehicle for aligning employee
motivation and efforts with or-
ganisational processes and goals. Accordingly, an
organisational culture that attaches little
importance to environmental issues is likely to undermine staff
motivation for environ-
mental improvement efforts (Ramus, 2001). This might happen
since some managers tend
to perceive pro-environmental initiatives as clashing (at least in
the short term) with the
overarching objectives of competitiveness enhancement and
profit maximisation or they
simply lack competence in environmental management (Roome,
1994). This incompetence
may also relate to other aspects of managerial practice that have
an indirect effect on envi-
ronmental performance. For example, it is generally
acknowledged that both empowerment
and teamwork are helpful in achieving environmental
improvement (Hart, 1995). It follows
that managers who are unwilling to delegate power and/or to
organise work in teams (if
feasible) risk seeing their environmental efforts fail.
It is clear, therefore, that introducing an environmental change
is a complex and de-
manding task that requires both authentic commitment from all
employees and superior
managerial acumen. To ensure the success of ecological efforts,
it is necessary to com-
bine standard environment-friendly measures of a technological
character (e.g. installing

energy- and water-efficient appliances) with actions through
HRM (to engage, motivate
and train staff). There is a conspicuous conceptual
interrelatedness between CSR, HRM
and environmental management, reinforcing the case for
adopting a holistic approach. Now
it might be informative to see how the implementation of an
environmental programme
proceeded in practice at Hilton establishments.
Explaining and assessing we care!
Methodology
This paper employs the case study method (Eisenhardt, 1989).
To substantiate the argu-
ments and, crucially, to deal with the research questions, the
content analysis technique
(Neuman, 2003) was used. Specifically, the company’s website
as well as various mag-
azines were reviewed and any information concerning
environmental management and
sustainability was sought. Thanks to the cooperation of Hilton
head office, the authors were
also granted access to internal documents such as hotel case
studies including some not
normally available to those not employed by Hilton. Managers
in charge of the implementa-
tion process were contacted via email and personal interviews.
Finally, with assistance from
Hilton, an in-house survey was conducted in 20 Hilton hotels

located across Continental
Europe in November 2008 (covering 25% of the entire European
portfolio). These methods
allowed the authors to gather enough information and data to
offer an in-depth analysis of
the programme.
The survey was based on a literature review (Daily & Huang,
2001; Govindarajulu &
Daily, 2004, 2008; Gupta & Singhal, 1993; Jabbour & Santos,
2008a, 2008b; Matthews,
Diaz, & Cole, 2003; Ramus & Kilmer, 2007; Ramus & Steger,
2000; Vickers & Bear, 2006).
It was available in English and in French, had four parts, and
comprised 18 Likert-scale
questions and four open-ended questions in the form of a
“Personal comments” text box.
The initial questions were revised with input from various
interested parties and pilot-tested
by representatives of the academy and the industry. The survey
was administered online via
the SurveyMonkey tool.
The list of hotels surveyed was defined by the Hilton
sustainability manager in Europe.
In order to ensure a representative range of views, the choice of
hotels included equal
numbers of properties that were very active in we care! and
those where struggles to adopt
the programme were observed. Despite the consequent varying
activity level, all properties
in the sample were initially included in the environmental
programme since 2006 and over
the years received the same training materials, feedback and
support from the central office.

The corporate Hilton office helped in distributing the
SurveyMonkey questionnaire link
by sending it to general managers, directors of operation and
leaders of the Green Teams at
the selected hotels. A request was made to each hotel to
encourage participation of at least
10 team members, and a follow-up reminder was sent to the
management representatives a
week before the conclusion of the study.
Despite all this, there are limitations to the study, including: (1)
possible positive pro-
environmental bias of the hotels in the sample, despite the
selection of equal numbers of
active and non-active hotels; (2) positive self-selection bias in
the sample of employees,
with employees who responded to the survey being more likely
to be interested in and/or
informed about environmental issues than the population of
employees from which they
were drawn; (3) possibility of social desirability in responses,
triggered by the fact that
the survey was distributed via internal means; as well as (4)
only two language versions
distributed across 11 countries, and a lack of a paper version of
the survey making it
available only to users with computer access and skills. Despite
these limitations, it is
believed that the combination of data from various sources
offers a good insight into the
implementation of an environmental programme at a
multinational company.
Main premises and effects of Hilton’s we care! programme
(Europe 2006–2008)

Hilton Worldwide is represented by 10 brands comprising more
than 3600 hotels in 81
countries. The chain is committed to reducing resource use,
while at the same time en-
hancing guest experience and gaining employee loyalty. The
company is a strong believer
that operating business in a more responsible manner will bring
financial savings, new
revenue opportunities, as well as marketing and public relations
coverage, and will better
prepare business for new government regulations. In 2008, CEO
Christopher Nassetta an-
nounced the chain’s global goal of reducing waste to landfill,
energy consumption and CO2
emissions by 20% as well as water consumption by 10% by
2014 compared with 2008
as part of the Hilton Worldwide Global Sustainability Initiative.
Earlier, Hilton hotels in
Continental Europe had participated in the regional
environmental programme (we care!)
between 2006 and 2008.
The principal idea behind the European programme was to
empower team members
to create a change both in their work environment and at home.
It focused on four key
environmental issues – energy efficiency, waste reduction,
water efficiency and chemical
use – through setting targets and measuring performance. The
chief aim was to engender a
culture change that would enable team members to improve

hotels’ green performance: a
significant reduction (over the first three years) in normalised
energy consumption (15%)
and normalised water consumption (10%) compared with 2005
was planned. The entire
programme was based on five pillars: (1) environmental policy
endorsed by the top man-
agement; (2) the International Tourism Partnership (ITP)
guidelines for sustainable hotel
siting, design and construction; (3) “ecoLearning” via the
company’s intranet and work-
shops; (4) Hilton Environmental Reporting (HER, a
performance monitoring tool); and
(5) HiWay (intranet) as a communication tool (later
supplemented by the company’s in-
ternet website: www.hiltonwecare.com). Also, within the
framework of we care!, Hilton
suppliers were provided with a guideline document and
encouraged to improve their envi-
ronmental responsibility. This was supplemented by sharing
best practices and supporting
environmental initiatives at the community level.
The programme was launched in Continental Europe on 1
January 2006 with a “Green-
Box” being sent to all hotels. The “GreenBox” contained: (1) an
introductory video inter-
view with Wolfgang Neumann, Area President (at the time); (2)
a PowerPoint presentation
for the Team Member Forum explaining the four focus areas;
(3) instructions on how to run
environmental workshops; (4) training materials to use during
workshops; and (5) towel and
linen change-on-demand cards for hotel guestrooms. In
addition, because communication
and feedback provision are crucial in the success of such

programmes, a we care! board was
supplied to each hotel to be displayed in the team member area,
accompanied with posters
promoting the programme. To encourage team members to take
part in the programme, a
competition was organised. A mountain bike was promised
annually to each team member
in the best performing hotel in each operational region over the
course of three years. In
addition, Green Teams – in charge of preparing and
implementing Action Plans – were set
up in all hotels. They consisted of operational (front line) team
members (not Heads of De-
partment), a Chief Engineer as an advisor and a General
Manager as a nominal leader (the
actual leader came from within the team). Such composition of
the Green Teams combined
with workshops performed for all team members ensured
opportunities for employees from
different process areas to communicate and solve problems
together (O’hEocha, 2000).
Post and Altman (1994) further believe that such an approach
will result in a system that is
employee-driven and should bring considerable improvements
in the firm’s environmental
performance.
Since setting efficiency/reduction targets needs to be
accompanied by performance
measuring tools, an internal reporting system for monitoring
environmental performance –
Hilton Environmental Reporting (HER) – was created in 2004
(Bohdanowicz, 2007). It was
a computerised system through which Hilton hotels from Europe
monthly reported their
resource consumption (energy, water) and operational factors

such as guest nights and food
covers sold (however, in 2010, HER was replaced by LightStay
– a global sustainability
tool used by all Hilton Worldwide brands, Hotel Online, 2010).
The information collected
in HER was then used to construct performance indicators for
individual hotels and to
compare their performance with the average in a country and in
the European Hilton
portfolio. The following indicators have been available for each
hotel since 2005: energy
in kWh per guest night, energy in kWh per square metre of floor
area, water in litres per
guest night, kilograms of unsorted waste per guest night and
kilograms of laundry per
guest night. Kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted per guest
night were also displayed for
each hotel to raise the awareness of the team members and
introduce the concept of carbon
footprint and carbon reduction. The per-guest-night indicators
were constructed on the basis
of year-to-date information, while energy in kWh/m2 was an
annual estimate.
There were also league tables for each country and operational
region showing indi-
vidual hotel’s percentage change in energy consumption per
guest night and square metre
of the area in the months of the current year as compared to the
same months of 2005 –
which was regarded as the benchmark year for the first phase of

the we care! programme.
League tables for water consumption in litres per guest night
were also available. At times,
a comparison of performance between hotels with similar
characteristics was performed
manually. In addition, the performance on an individual basis
was sometimes compared to
the benchmark established by the ITP EnvironmentBench, while
hotels located in Scandi-
navia and labelled with the Nordic Swan continue to be verified
against the benchmarks
established by the Nordic Swan label. The reports available
within HER were regularly
published on the hotel we care! boards, and in this way, the tool
proved to be instrumental
in raising ecological awareness and in fostering a sense of
responsibility for performance
in individual properties. It was also of help during the
competition as individual teams
were able to see the positive results of their initiatives, which
boosted their confidence and
encouraged even more efforts, especially when the results of
two or more properties were
very similar.
It needs to be reiterated in this context that the we care!
programme, involving all
team members, bears all the hallmarks of a grass roots
campaign. Andrew Forte, Hilton’s
Director of Energy Management & Sustainability, described it
as:
In a nutshell, we care! delegates responsibility to team members
who can really identify
improvements and then implement them. Our aim was to create
a culture in which all our team

members feel empowered to propose improvements and then
have the opportunity to actually
change their actions. The results show that we are beginning to
make a difference but this is
just the start. (Breaking Travel News, 2008)
In the first 12 months of the programme, over 16,000 team
members participated in the
we care! workshops and a further 4000 completed the first
ecoLearning e-course, launched
at Hilton University. A number of hotels picked up public
recognition awards. All the team
members worked collectively to turn off taps, opted for energy-
efficient light bulbs, re-
adjusted the settings of boilers and air conditioning units, sorted
waste, reached out to local
communities by participating in clean-up events and forest
planting and educated hotel
guests. As a result, Hilton in Europe reduced energy
consumption by 6.7% (exceeding
the 5% target set for the first year), avoiding paying more than
US$3 million in energy
costs (Hotels, 2007). Referring to these successes, Wolfgang
Neumann, initiator of the
programme, pointed out that:
in the wake of Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth,
and daily media discussions
about our endangered planet, this is an example of how one of
the biggest companies in the
world (in terms of employees and brand power) is doing
something. We are not perfect but we
are heading in the right direction. (Hotels, 2007, p. 10)
At the same time, it became clear that the public had begun to
pay attention to the way

hotel companies go about environmental protection. This, in
turn, confirmed the view that
the industry’s approach to sustainability would become a source
of competitive advantage,
determining guests’ choice of quality accommodation. It might
be informative to cite
Neumann again:
It is clear that current debate about climate change has
highlighted the need for action from
all of us. As more and more people look to book according to
their conscience and beliefs,
it is inevitable that hoteliers will need to demonstrate and
communicate their commitment to
saving the environment. Our we care! programme is one step
further on the way to becoming a
more responsible corporation. At Hilton we all care about the
environment and are genuinely
committed to making a difference. (Hotels, 2007, p. 11)
Despite all the successes, over time there was a feeling that
team members’ initial
enthusiasm was ebbing away. To keep up the momentum, in
2008 two more ecoLearning
courses were developed (available in eight local language
versions), and the second edition
of the “GreenBox” was issued to all hotels. Each box contained:
(1) a letter and a video
from the Area President, outlining the 2008 targets and actions;
(2) a PowerPoint presen-
tation for the Team Member Forum; (3) posters advertising two

new ecoLearning courses
available at Hilton University; (4) workshop training materials,
including a training film
and brainstorming session in order to create a new hotel action
plan; and (5) updated logos
and materials. In addition, posters announcing the competition
and a surprise prize, as well
as updated we care! boards were distributed among the hotels.
To summarise, within the framework of the three-year we care!
programme, Hilton
hotels in Continental Europe reduced energy consumption by
15%, water consumption per
guest night by 8% and CO2 emissions per guest night by nearly
8%. This helped prevent
a total of 28,600 tonnes of CO2 from being emitted and helped
the company avoid paying
US$16 million in energy and water bills. Of these
improvements, approximately US$9.6
million can be attributed to changes in human behaviour, with a
further US$6.4 million
resulting from the installation of energy and water-efficient
equipment and control systems,
such as energy-efficient lighting systems and controls, boilers,
chillers and heat exchangers,
as well as implementing water reduction measures, water
purification and recycling projects.
As far as the social dimension is concerned, the employees were
successfully encouraged
to help local communities and to participate in green initiatives
such as “Clean up the
world” actions or “Earth Hour” events. During the three-year
programme, over 16,000
team members were trained in workshops (8000 participated in
the ecoLearning courses).

More than 3000 employees who worked at best performing
hotels were given mountain
bikes.
Results and analysis of employees’ perception of the programme
To verify Hilton employees’ perception of the we care!
programme, an in-house survey was
conducted. The sample targeted included about 200 team
members; 156 usable responses
were obtained giving an overall response rate of 78%. Fifty-two
percent of responses came
from hotels very active in the programme, while the remainder
originated from teams with
less involvement. As discussed below, there were some
differences in attitudes between
the two groups; however, despite the varying activity level at
individual hotels, general
perceptions were quite similar across the region. One could
justifiably expect inactive
hotels to have lower marks since their very “inactivity”
stemmed from the fact that they did
not understand the goals and failed to take any action.
Team members were asked to respond to a number of statements
concerning the pro-
gramme’s rationale and effectiveness, and encouraged to
provide their personal comments.
Of all the responses, 19.4% came from senior managers, 38.1%
from managers, 16.9% from
assistant managers, 9.4% from shift/team leaders and 16.3%

from team members with a
specialised function. Such significant participation of managers
may have introduced a
further bias to the answers received only as a small proportion
of responses that actually
came from the team members working on the floor and
considered to be the primary re-
cipients/force in the programme. Despite varying levels of the
we care! implementation in
the surveyed hotels, overall, 65% of the respondents expressed
positive feelings towards
the initiative when it was introduced to them. The average note
on a five-point scale (with
1 and 2 standing for “no” and “rather no”, respectively, while 4
and 5 for “rather yes”
and “yes”, respectively) was 4.53. Team members at the active
hotels were more posi-
tive than the employees at less active properties with notes of
4.59 and 4.48, respectively.
Over time, however, both groups valued the positive change in
attitude similarly, with
notes of 4.70 and 4.69, respectively. A few representative
comments can be cited. One of
the team members said that “the we care! programme is the
right programme for a New
Millennium Company” while another noted that “it’s a great
thing to try to save and be
more green towards the planet”. Also, worth stressing is the
following statement: “It was
very easy to initiate it as we have been following very good
environmental policies for a
long time”. Negative and less appreciative views were also
expressed. To quote just two
emblematic utterances: “I very much believe in we care!, but it
has been and still is a
time consuming exercise if you want to do it properly and, with

all other programmes and
trainings, it is difficult to focus on one properly” or “I had the
feeling it has nothing to do
with me”.
Equally significantly, more than 95% of the respondents said
that their environmental
awareness has been raised as a result of the programme.
Likewise, 97% of the infor-
mants declared that their environmental behaviour improved,
thanks to we care! Change
in behaviour was more pronounced among the team members of
the less active hotels, as
indicated by the mark of 4.78 as compared with 4.68 at the
active hotels. The improvement
in environmental awareness was evaluated similarly in both
groups with an average of 4.76
for active hotels and 4.72 for non-active hotels. The comments
made by the respondents
were mostly positive. For example, one of the employees said:
“It is now an important
part of my life at work and at home, too”. There were also more
nuanced voices. Em-
phasis was placed, for instance, on the inability to keep up the
team spirit – and hence to
implement the programme properly – due to high staff turnover.
Regarding the training
provided within the framework of the programme, 82% of the
informants found partic-
ipation in forums interesting, 82% in ecoLearning and 80% in
workshops. Interestingly,
the team members at the properties that were less active valued
the quality of the various
training means higher than the employees of the hotels that
continued to be active. The
average opinions were 4.45, 4.48 and 4.46 for the forum,

ecoLearning and workshops,
respectively, among the former group as compared with 4.38,
4.39 and 4.31, respectively,
among the latter group. Such differences may be explained by
the former group having no
or very limited information or awareness prior to the
programme, and thus gaining more
from the training materials offered. There were a number of
critical comments and useful
suggestions aiming to improve the practical dimension of
training provision. To quote one
participant:
EcoLearning Part 1 was not so interesting, but Part 2 and Part 3
gave me a lot of important and
interesting information. I think we could organise more
workshops, it was the best training!
. . . maybe training in other Hilton hotels to see how we care!
works there.
As regards Hilton employees’ motivation to follow the we care!
programme at work,
95% of the respondents found themselves motivated by the fact
that “it makes a difference
Table 3. Analysis of team members’ understanding and
perception of the programme.
Team members’ (TMs) attitude
Percentage of
positive

answers
(marks 4 and
5)
Sample
average
Average
among active
hotels
Average
among
non-active
hotels
TMs are clear about company
environmental goals
76 4.07 4.14 3.98
TMs are clear about how the goals are
to be achieved
73 4.02 4.07 3.96
TMs are clear about who is
responsible for what
73 4.08 4.25 3.88
TMs are informed about progress of
the programme

83 4.38 4.48 4.28
TMs are bubbling with ideas 73 3.87 3.92 3.82
TMs are given freedom to implement
good environmental practices
77 4.14 4.24 4.03
TMs have the necessary means
(funding, technical) to implement
good environmental practices
71 3.99 4.11 3.80
Enough time is allowed for
implementation of environmental
improvements
69 3.99 4.05 3.91
Feedback from TMs is encouraged 83 4.28 4.28 4.28
TMs receive recognition for work well
done
77 4.24 4.42 4.03
– every employee can help to save the environment” (4.82);
90% by “it helps my hotel’s
profitability” (4.64); 88% by “it helps my hotel to comply with
environmental laws” (4.55);
89% by “it helps to improve the image of the hotel I work in”
(4.58); 79% by “it can
help my hotel’s team to win a prize” (4.31); and 51% by “it is in
my job description”
(3.42). While most of the answers were almost identical in both

samples, a few responses
exhibited variations. The most pronounced difference was
observed with the team members
from the active hotels evaluating the importance of the “save
the environment” as well as
“improve hotel image” concepts much higher than their
colleagues from the remaining
hotels, with the respective average votes of 4.86 and 4.63 as
compared with 4.77 and 4.52.
This might have been influenced by the high share of managers
in the sample, with their
more business-oriented attitude. Employees at the former group
were also more motivated
by the possibility of winning the prize (4.35 and 4.27,
respectively).
The next set of questions received significantly different
responses among the two
groups, with employees of the more active hotels offering more
positive answers (Table 3).
This may indicate that despite all the hotels receiving exactly
the same set of initial materials
and continuous feedback and encouragement from the corporate
level, there was not enough
communication and support at the hotel level. The fact that the
team members at the less
active hotels seemed to have less understanding of company
goals, ways to achieve them
and division of responsibilities would support such a statement.
They also felt constraints in
what could be implemented and how, given the limited time
allowed. Finally, team members
at these hotels felt that an insufficient feedback on the
programme progress was given and
that their work had not been properly recognised. These are
very important observations,

indicating that providing all properties with the same level of
training, initial information
and feedback from the corporate level may not be enough to
create the same level of
participation/engagement/response. It is important to identify
properties that require more
support and work with them on a one-to-one basis.
In general, both team members and managers believe to be
committed to we care!
(mean of 4.22 and 4.33); however, when responses from each
group are studied separately,
differences are visible. Team members (TMs) do not seem to
distinguish between TM
and management commitment and give both relatively low
means of 3.90. Managers view
the situation much more positively, ranking themselves at 4.49
and TMs at 4.36. This
discrepancy may indicate that managers were keen on
presenting their hotel in a better
light, while team members did not hesitate to speak the truth.
On the one hand, a majority of team members believed that the
“we care! is about team
collaboration” (average of 4.72, 4.71 and 4.73 for the sample,
active hotels, and non-active
hotels, respectively), while on the other hand, there was a more
widespread feeling among
employees from the non-active hotels that “we care! is about
individual responsibility”
(4.41, 4.33 and 4.51, respectively). The latter may be related to

the fact that the respondents
in this particular group were the members of the Green Teams
possibly heavily involved in
the implementation of the programme but not receiving much
help from their colleagues,
and thus expressing their frustration. When asked about being
proud to work in a company
that cares, the representatives of more “active” hotels were, as
expected, more prone to
provide positive answers, with average note of 4.46 as
compared with 4.10 for the other
group and 4.29 for the entire sample.
The programme’s imperfections and recommendations for
managerial policy
From the above responses, it is fair to say that most Hilton
employees have a positive
opinion of the programme. But the initiative was not devoid of
flaws and inconsistencies.
First of all, in contrast to the answers to pre-structured
statements, informants’ personal
comments – by definition, more revealing and sincere – were
more nuanced and crit-
ical. One of the respondents noted, for instance, that “the we
care! programme is too
much in the corner of the engineering department. Other
departmental managers must
reinforce the programme more”. Another said that while some
team members are truly
interested in the initiative, most show little interest (it
transpires that, while asked to
respond to pre-structured statements, most of the respondents
generally went for posi-
tive assessments, while when asked to express freely their own
views, they seemed more

critical).
More importantly, although we care! was constructed as an
initiative aimed at
enhancing sustainability (which, in line with the sector’s
general practice, means a great
emphasis put on the carbon dioxide reduction), Hilton
management felt that team members
first needed to really get to grips with the concept of raw energy
and its consumption
before stepping up to talking in terms of CO2 reductions.
Following the success of the
first year of the programme, with the focus on raw utilities
only, in the second year, the
league tables displayed carbon dioxide emissions per guest
night for each hotel. In this
way, the carbon footprint concept was introduced to the hotel
teams. There was, however,
no reduction goal set for carbon emissions.
Given the programme’s limited company-level focus on social
aspects (with local com-
munity development to the fore) as well as sustainable sourcing
and local suppliers (issues
that were largely addressed at an individual hotel level only), it
has to be concluded that
the practical focus of the we care! programme was on
environmental protection and green
awareness improvement rather than on sustainability sensu
stricte. This may be because
the we care! programme was a single-area initiative rather than

a global one and because
social aspects of sustainability were being addressed within the
framework of another intra-
company programme. Such a situation inevitably poses
limitations, which include minimal
engagement with customers as well as lack of both participation
in any large-scale projects
(such as Marriott’s rainforest protection) and cooperation with
any environmental organ-
isation. The entire initiative was carried out in-house, with team
members acting as the
driving force.
Likewise, considering a fast-growing interest among hotel
guests in ecological issues,
the fact that the we care! programme was not marketed to Hilton
customers can be perceived
as a flaw. Moreover, engaging both customers and external
environmental bodies could have
had a positive effect on the implementation process of the
initiative, an opportunity not
utilised by the company. Finally, Hilton decided not to endorse
any particular eco-label. This
could have lent both credence to its achievements and support
to those hotels that considered
applying for one. Furthermore, this could have resulted in more
uniform implementation of
certain initiatives across the portfolio as required by the label
criteria. Individual hotels were
nevertheless offered support and, as a result, approximately
10% of Hilton establishments
throughout Europe now bear environmental logos.
Despite these imperfections and inconsistencies, the programme
offers instructive prac-
tical insights. Above all, it transpires that, for such initiatives to

be successful, it is necessary
to create an eclectic strategy combining the spirit of
competition and employee empower-
ment with the sense of entertainment and innovative training.
Moreover, it is important to
ensure consistency and continuity so as to avoid the impression
of a one-off effort as well
as taking into account participants’ views and reactions. It is
thus useful to formulate a
number of managerial policy guidelines (recommendations) of
general applicability. These
can be summarised as follows:
(1) Adopt a holistic attitude – do not limit it to standard
environmentally friendly
measures (such as installing energy-efficient lighting or
purchasing green power
or carbon offsets), but get hotel employees and guests involved
in creative (and
learning-oriented) undertakings that raise ecological awareness;
(2) Ensure that the programme is well thought out and
unambiguous but achievable
objectives (targets) are set;
(3) Provide employees with genuine support and make sure that
the programme is not
a one-off project but a continuous effort (in the spirit of
corporate environmental-
ism); keep the programme fun and encourage the spirit of
competition; monitor
employees’ perceptions of and reactions to it;
(4) Develop and put into place environmental (sustainability)
management IT systems
(such as LightStay) that, using meaningful indicators (such as

energy in kWh per
guest night or carbon emissions in kg CO2 per guest night),
monitor and show (in
an understandable and, ideally, vivid manner) the environmental
performance of
particular establishments;
(5) Try and persuade partners (subcontractors, suppliers,
collaborators) to abide by
high environmental standards and to comply with green
legislation (for instance,
cooperate with those taxi and car rental firms that use hybrid,
electric or bio-fuelled
vehicles and with those developers who, when designing and
constructing new
buildings, use innovative eco-friendly solutions); and
(6) Cooperate with external organisations and institutions that
have experience in cre-
ative environmental projects.
Conclusion
The necessity of protecting the environment and the
implications of CSR will remain the
focus of public and managerial interest in the near future.
Ecological concerns and CSR
are likely to be top priorities on the agendas of politicians and
managers since, to preserve
the environment, coordinated action is needed both at
government and corporate levels
(e.g. a failure to impose adequate carbon pricing, which forces

fossil fuel plants to pay
for the environmental cost of the carbon they generate, is likely
to slow the propagation of
carbon-free and/or low-carbon sources of energy, thereby
making it harder for hotels and
other businesses to honour their green commitments).
Hilton’s we care! – albeit not devoid of certain imperfections
and inconsistencies –
stands out among similar schemes. This is because Hilton lays
greatest emphasis both on
employee involvement and on the notion of change. The idea
behind we care! was, therefore,
not only to save resources (energy, water) and hence to limit
Hilton’s environmental footprint
(which ultimately offers cost reduction and thus lies in the very
interest of the company) but
also, above all, to instigate a permanent modification of team
members’ attitudes towards
environmentalism through active participation and genuine
empowerment. It transpires
that, for such initiatives to be successful, it is necessary to
come up with an eclectic strategy
of holistic character combining the spirit of competition and
employee empowerment with
a sense of entertainment and innovative training. Accordingly,
it is important to ensure
consistency and continuity to avoid the impression of a one-off
effort and to take into
account participants’ views and reactions. In sum, Hilton’s
programme was a creative
and effective instrument promoting simultaneously
environmental awareness and human
resources development.
This paper contributes to the fast-growing literature on CSR. By

focusing on the
practical and the concrete aspects of development, it shows how
to conceive and implement
CSR programmes, and demonstrates that ultimate success hinges
upon genuine involvement
by senior managers and low-ranking employees (that is why
considerable attention was paid
to Hilton team members’ reactions to – and perceptions of – we
care!). In this sense, the
study constitutes a voice in the debate over the rationale of
CSR. Consequently, despite
claims that CSR is too often about improving a company’s
image by publicising (and
showing off) its well-intentioned initiatives, it provides
evidence that there might be far
more to CSR than to sheer public relations (PR)-underpinned
brand management. In other
words, CSR – if wholeheartedly embraced and translated into a
holistic programme – can
lead to positive results.
The study’s major limitation is that too little attention was paid
to assessing the impact
of the programme on Hilton’s market position, customer
decision-making and, critically, the
company’s financial results. Nevertheless, considering that the
programme was designed
as a back-of-the-house initiative and was implemented only in
one geographical area
(Continental Europe), it would be very hard to perform such an
assessment (and key
corporate data are deemed confidential and thus unavailable).
Future studies could focus on
the link between concrete CSR programmes and financial
performance, and exploration of
whether CSR initiatives, as perceived by customers rather than

employees, actually influence
their decisions concerning the choice of a given brand. This
would require slightly different
analytical tools and research methods. We hope that this paper
will prompt further research
into CSR-related issues and foster the dissemination of best
practice.
Note
1. Continental Europe refers to all European countries except
UK and Ireland.
Notes on contributors
Paulina Bohdanowicz has a PhD in energy technology (Royal
Institute of Technology) and a PhD in
social science (University of Gdańsk). She is currently working
in the hospitality industry and guest
lecturing at tourism and hospitality schools, with close links to
Leeds Metropolitan University.
Piotr Zientara has a PhD in economics (University of Gdańsk),
an MA in HRM (College of Europe)
and a Diploma of Economics (Paris Chamber of Commerce),
DEUF (Jean Moulin III University).
He is a lecturer in HRM at Gdańsk University School of
Administration and a consultant for small
and medium-sized enterprises.
Emilie Novotna has a Masters degree in business studies
(Dublin Business School and Liverpool
John Moores School). She works as a freelance consultant
interested in sustainability aspects of hotel

operations.
References
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management
research. London: Sage.
Bass Hotels & Resorts. (2000). Energy and water management
manual. London: Bass Hotels &
Resorts.
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.
Bohdanowicz, P., Simanic, B., & Martinac, I. (2005).
Environmental training and measures at Scandic
hotels, Sweden. Tourism Review International, 9(1), 7–19.
Bohdanowicz, P., & Zientara, P. (2008). Corporate social
responsibility in hospitality: Issues and
implications. A case study of Scandic. Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, 8(4),
271–293.
Bohdanowicz, P., & Zientara, P. (2009). Hotel companies’
contribution to improving the quality of life
of local communities and the well-being of their employees.
Tourism and Hospitality Research,
9(2), 147–158.
Bowe, R. (2005). Going green: Red stripe, yellow curry and
green hotels. The Environmental Maga-

zine, 16(1), 52–53.
Bowen, F. (2000). Environmental visibility: A trigger of green,
organisational response? Business
Strategy and the Environment, 9(2), 92–107.
Breaking Travel News. (2008, April 1). Hilton claims ten
percent energy cut. Breaking Travel News.
Retrieved April 3, 2008, from
http://www.breakingtravelnews.com
Brockhoff, K.A., Chakrabarti, K., & Kirchgeorg, M. (1999).
Corporate strategies in environmental
management. Research Technology Management, July/August,
26–30.
Buchholz, R.A. (1993). Principles of economic management:
The greening of business. Englewood
Cliff, NY: Prentice Hall.
Business in the Community (BITC). (2009). Corporate
responsibility. Retrieved December 3, 2009,
from http://www.bitc.org.uk/
Chapman, J.A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational
research: A model of
person–organization fit. Academy of Management Review,
14(3), 333–349.
Crook, C. (2005). The good company. Economist, 8410, 3–18.
Daily, B.F., & Huang, S. (2001). Achieving sustainability
through attention to human resource factors
in environmental management. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management,
21(12), 1539–1552.

Deery, M., & Jago, L. (2009). A framework for work–life
balance: Addressing the needs of the
tourism industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(2), 97–
108.
Dow Jones Indexes. (2009). Dow Jones Sustainability Index.
Retrieved May 10, 2009, from
http://www.sustainability-index.com
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study
research. Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Erdogan, N., & Baris, E. (2007). Environmental protection
programs and conservation practices of
hotels in Ankara, Turkey. Tourism Management, 28, 604–614.
Franklin, D. (2008). Just good business. Economist, 8563, 3–22.
Furunes, T., & Mykletun, R.J. (2005). Age management in
Norwegian hospitality business. Scandi-
navian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5(2), 1–19.
Govindarajulu, N., & Daily, B.F. (2004). Motivating employees
for environmental improvement.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(4), 364–372.
Govindarajulu, N., & Daily, B.F. (2008). Incentives and
motivation – Brownie points for green
workers. Human Resource Management International Digest,
16(7). Retrieved March 20, 2009,

from http://www.emeraldinsight.com
Gupta, A.K., & Singhal, A. (1993). Managing human resources
for innovation and creativity. Research
Technology Management, 36(3), 41–48.
Hall, D., & Richards, G. (Eds.). (2000). Tourism and
sustainable community development. New York:
Routledge.
Hart, S.L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm.
Academy of Management Review, 20(4),
986–1014.
Hjalager, A.-M., & Andersen, S. (2001). Tourism employment:
Contingent work or professional
career? Employee Relations, 23(2), 115–129.
Holcomb, J.L., Upchurch, R.S., & Okumus, F. (2007).
Corporate social responsibility: What are top
hotel companies reporting? International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management,
19(6), 461–475.
Hotel Online. (2010, April 20). Hilton unveils LightStay
sustainability measurement system. Hotel
Online. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://www.hotel-
online.com/
Hotels. (2007, June). Green convergence. Hotels Magazine, 10–
11.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007).
WG1 fourth assessment report, summary
for policymakers. Geneva: IPCC-Secretariat, c/o WMO.
International Hotels Environment Initiative. (1996).

Environmental management for hotels: The
industry guide for best practice. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Jabbour, C.J.C., & Santos, F.C.A. (2008a). Relationships
between human resource dimensions and
environmental management in companies: Proposal of a model.
Journal of Cleaner Production,
16(1), 51–58.
Jabbour, C.J.C., & Santos, F.C.A. (2008b). The central role of
human resource management in the
search for sustainable organizations. International Journal of
Human Resource Management,
19(12), 2133–2154.
Kalisch, A. (2002). Corporate futures: Social responsibility in
the tourism industry. London: Tourism
Concern.
Kanter, R.M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Kates, R.W., Parris, T.M., & Leiserowitz, A.A. (2005). What is
sustainable development? Goals,
indicators, values, and practices, environment. Science and
Policy for Sustainable Development,
47(3), 8–21.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of
organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Kelly, J., Wolfgang, H., Williams, P.W., & Englund, K. (2007).
Stated preferences of tourists for
eco-efficient destination planning options. Tourism

Management, 28, 377–390.
Kirk, D. (1998). Attitudes to environment management held by
a group of hotels managers in Scotland.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 17(1), 33–47.
Klassen, R.D. (2000). Exploring the linkage between investment
in manufacturing and environ-
mental technologies. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 20(2),
127–147.
Knowles, T., Macmillian, S., Palmer, J., Grabowski, P., &
Hasimoto, A. (1999). The development
of environmental initiatives in tourism: Response from the
London hotel sector. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 1(4), 255–265.
Lanzarote Conference on Sustainable Tourism. (1995, April).
Charter for Sustainable Tourism. Char-
ter agreed at the World Conference on Sustainable Tourism,
Lanzarote. Retrieved March 15, 2003,
from http://insula.org
Lewis, S. (2003). Reputation and corporate responsibility.
Journal of Communication Management,
7(4), 356–365.
Magd, H. (2003). Management attitudes and perceptions of
older workers in hospitality management.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
15(7), 393–401.
Matthews, R.A., Diaz, W.M., & Cole, S.G. (2003). The
organizational empowerment scale. Personnel
Review, 32(3), 297–318.

McIntosh, M., Thomas, R., Leipzinger, T., & Coleman, G.
(2003). Living corporate citizenship.
London: Prentice-Hall.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D., Herscovich, L., & Topolnytsky, L.
(2002). Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of
antecedents, correlates, and
consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data
analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.W. (1982). Employee-
organisation linkages: The psychology
of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York:
Academic Press.
Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (1998). Tourism and sustainability:
New tourism in the third world. London:
Routledge.
Mulvaney, R., O’Neill, J., Cleverland, J., & Crouter, A. (2006).
A model of work–family dynamics
of hotel managers. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 66–87.
Neuman, W.L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.

O’hEocha, M. (2000). A study of the influence of company
culture, communications and employee
attitudes on the use of 5Ss for environmental management at
Cooke Brothers Ltd. The TQM
Magazine, 12(5), 321–330.
Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2006). Strategy and society: The link
between competitive advantage and
corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review,
84(12), 78–89.
Post, J.E., & Altman, B.W. (1994). Managing the environmental
change process: Barriers and oppor-
tunities. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 7(4),
64–81.
Pratten, J., & O’Leary, B. (2007). Addressing the causes of chef
shortages in the UK. Journal of
European Industrial Training, 31(1), 68–78.
Ramus, C.A. (2001). Organizational support for employees:
Encouraging creative ideas for environ-
mental sustainability. California Management Review, 43(3),
85–105.
Ramus, C.A., & Kilmer, A.B.C. (2007). Corporate greening
through prosocial extrarole behaviours
– A conceptual framework for employee motivation. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 16,
554–570.
Ramus, C.A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory
support behaviours and environmental
policy in employee “ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European
companies. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 43(4), 605–626.

Roome, N. (1994). Business strategy, management and
environmental imperatives. R&D Manage-
ment, 24(1), 65–82.
Rothenberg, S. (2003). Knowledge content and worker
participation in environmental management
at NUMMI. Journal of Management Studies, 40(7), 1783–1802.
Rowley, G., & Purcell, K. (2001). As Cooks go, she went: Is
labour churn inevitable? International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 20, 163–185.
Savage, M. (2007). Make staff your agents for change. Caterer
& Hotelkeeper, 197(4498), 31.
Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self, and motivation in
organizations. Organization Studies, 12(3),
405–424.
Shamir, B., House, R.J., & Arthur, M.B. (1993). The
motivational effects of charismatic leadership:
A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–
594.
Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development:
Exploring the theoretical divide. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 8(1), 1–19.
Solomon, R.C. (1992). Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and
integrity in business. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Sparkes, R. (2002). Socially responsible investment: A global
revolution. Chichester: John Wiley.
Spector, P.E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment,
cause, and consequences. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.
Van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for
organisational research. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 24(4), 52–56.
Vickers, M.R., & Bear, D. (2006). Building and sustaining a
culture that supports innovation. Human
Resource Planning, 29(3), 9–19.
Wehrmeyer, W., & Parker, K.T. (1996). Identification and
relevance of environmental corporate cul-
tures as part of a coherent environmental policy. In W.
Wehrmeyer (Ed.), Greening people: Human
resources and environmental management (pp. 163–184).
Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
World Travel and Tourism Council. (2009). Leading the
challenge on climate change. London:
WTTC.
Worsfold, P. (1999). HRM, performance, commitment, and
service quality in the hotel industry.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
11(7), 340–348.
Wyndham Hotels & Resorts. (2009). WyndhamGreen. Retrieved
November 11, 2009, from
http://www.wyndhamworldwide.com/wyndham-green/
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Zientara, P., & Bohdanowicz, P. (2010). The hospitality sector
(Chapter 5). In J. Jafari & L.A. Cai
(Eds.), Tourism and the implications of climate change: Issues
and actions (Bridging Tourism
Theory and Practice, Vol. 3, pp. 91–111), Bingley: Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Copyright of Journal of Sustainable Tourism is the property of
Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

Journal of Sustainable TourismVol. 19, No. 7, September 2011.docx

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Journal of Sustainable TourismVol. 19, No. 7, September 2011.docx

Similar a Journal of Sustainable TourismVol. 19, No. 7, September 2011.docx (20)

Más de priestmanmable

Más de priestmanmable (20)

Último

Último (20)

Journal of Sustainable TourismVol. 19, No. 7, September 2011.docx