<%BANNER%>

Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility in the Tourism Industry

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024385/00001

Material Information

Title: Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility in the Tourism Industry
Physical Description: 1 online resource (160 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Kim, Jung-Eun
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: cev, csr, presor, sustainable
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Health and Human Performance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The primary purpose of this study was to understand corporate socially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations and tourism professionals? attitudes toward corporate social responsibility (CSR). The secondary purpose was to examine the determinants (corporate ethical value, perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility, respondents? profiles, and organizations? profiles) of corporate socially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations and tourism marketing professionals? attitudes toward corporate social responsibility. Details of achieving these purposes are described in the following chapters adopting the format of three articles. First, a measurement of socially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations was developed. This study was performed using multiple procedures and data collected from tourism professionals participating at THETRADESHOW 2008 hosted by the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA). It was found that the measurement of socially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations can be themed into (1) managing impacts and (2) Support of local and fairness. In addition, the corporate ethical values and the age of organizations were significantly associated with more responsible behaviors by tourism organizations. Multiple regression analysis, MANOVA, and ANOVA used for the analysis. Second, the study investigated how corporate ethical values and the perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility affect tourism professionals? attitudes toward CSR of tourism organizations. The results suggested tourism practitioners? attitudes toward corporate social responsibility of tourism companies were influenced by the corporate ethical values and perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility. In the third study, only travel agents from the samples were polled to examine the relationships between demographic factors and job-related factors of travel agents and their attitudes toward CSR. The results revealed that only gender and work experience had significant influences on travel agents? attitudes toward CSR. Further, travel agents? attitudes toward CSR were significantly associated with travel agencies? CSR of behaviors. As future research, it is suggested that the measurement tool of socially responsible behaviors developed in this study be applied to a variety of samples to test its validity. Methodologies such as contents analyses and in depth qualitative interview with the practitioners are suggested to acquire more profound information about the CSR behaviors of tourism organizations
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jung-Eun Kim.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Pennington-Gray, Lori.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024385:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024385/00001

Material Information

Title: Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility in the Tourism Industry
Physical Description: 1 online resource (160 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Kim, Jung-Eun
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: cev, csr, presor, sustainable
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Health and Human Performance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The primary purpose of this study was to understand corporate socially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations and tourism professionals? attitudes toward corporate social responsibility (CSR). The secondary purpose was to examine the determinants (corporate ethical value, perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility, respondents? profiles, and organizations? profiles) of corporate socially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations and tourism marketing professionals? attitudes toward corporate social responsibility. Details of achieving these purposes are described in the following chapters adopting the format of three articles. First, a measurement of socially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations was developed. This study was performed using multiple procedures and data collected from tourism professionals participating at THETRADESHOW 2008 hosted by the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA). It was found that the measurement of socially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations can be themed into (1) managing impacts and (2) Support of local and fairness. In addition, the corporate ethical values and the age of organizations were significantly associated with more responsible behaviors by tourism organizations. Multiple regression analysis, MANOVA, and ANOVA used for the analysis. Second, the study investigated how corporate ethical values and the perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility affect tourism professionals? attitudes toward CSR of tourism organizations. The results suggested tourism practitioners? attitudes toward corporate social responsibility of tourism companies were influenced by the corporate ethical values and perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility. In the third study, only travel agents from the samples were polled to examine the relationships between demographic factors and job-related factors of travel agents and their attitudes toward CSR. The results revealed that only gender and work experience had significant influences on travel agents? attitudes toward CSR. Further, travel agents? attitudes toward CSR were significantly associated with travel agencies? CSR of behaviors. As future research, it is suggested that the measurement tool of socially responsible behaviors developed in this study be applied to a variety of samples to test its validity. Methodologies such as contents analyses and in depth qualitative interview with the practitioners are suggested to acquire more profound information about the CSR behaviors of tourism organizations
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jung-Eun Kim.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Pennington-Gray, Lori.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024385:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 UNDERSTANDING CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE TOURISM INDUSTRY By JUNG EUN KIM A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Jung Eun Kim

PAGE 3

3 To my Husband, Min Sig Hwang, for al l his support and encouragement

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been po ssible without the invaluable support and assistance of the following people and organizations First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my Ph.D. advisor, Dr. Lori Pennington-Gray, for her sincere support, valuable advice, and patience regarding both academic work and personal life. I learned how to conduct research, teach, and most of all to be a good ment or. She is my role model to follow through my life. I sincerely appreciate the help of Dr. Brije sh Thapa, a member of my Ph.D. committee, who has always been supportive and willing to liste n to me. I would also like to thank Dr. Kyriaki Kaplanidou and Dr. Jorg e Villegas, members of my Ph.D. committee, for their assistance and generous encouragement. Many thanks are extended to Elizabeth Culkin and Andie Snider, members of the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA). I am extremely grateful for their help which enabled me to collect data from th e THETRADESHOW 2008 hosted by ASTA. My friends and family also deserve my sincer est appreciation for their encouragement and prayer through the whole period of my study. In particular, I am extremely grateful to my parents and sister, Jee Eun Kim, for their understanding, patience, a nd support through my graduate program. Also, I would like to tha nk to my friends, Charle s Lane and Sung Jin Kang, for their friendship and support. They were al ways with me whenever I needed them. My deepest and warmest gratitude must be expressed to my husband, Min Sig Hwang. Without his support and encouragemen t, I would not be who I am. Finally, I have no doubt that my Ph.D is achieved only with the blessings of God.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................ 11 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................12 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................14 Conceptual Framework........................................................................................................... 17 Literature Review.............................................................................................................. .....19 Corporate Social Responsibility...................................................................................... 19 The Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility.................................................... 20 Corporate Social Respon sibility in Tourism ................................................................... 23 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................... .25 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................ 25 Research Objectives........................................................................................................ 25 Definitions..............................................................................................................................26 Method....................................................................................................................................27 Instrumentation................................................................................................................ 27 Data Collection................................................................................................................31 Data Analysis...................................................................................................................32 Dissertation Format............................................................................................................ ....32 2 AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF SOCIALLY RES PONSIBLE BEHAVIORS OF TOURISM ORGANIZATIONS............................................................................................. 40 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........40 Literature Review.............................................................................................................. .....42 Stakeholder Theory as a Guiding Framework................................................................. 42 Corporate Social Respon sibility and Tourism ................................................................. 43 The Determinants of CSR Behaviors.............................................................................. 48 Methodology...........................................................................................................................52 Data Collection................................................................................................................52 Measurement................................................................................................................... 53 Results.....................................................................................................................................55 Description of the Sample............................................................................................... 55 Tests of Dimensionality................................................................................................... 56 Tests of Associations between Variables........................................................................58 Discussion...............................................................................................................................60 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ..........63

PAGE 6

6 3 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN THE TOURISM INDUST RY............................................................................................................................75 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........75 Literature Review.............................................................................................................. .....76 A General Theory of Marketing Ethics........................................................................... 76 Ethical and Socially Respons ible Issues in Tourism ....................................................... 77 Corporate Ethical Values.................................................................................................78 Perceptions of Ethics an d Social Responsibility ............................................................. 79 Methods..................................................................................................................................81 Data Collection................................................................................................................81 Measurement Tools......................................................................................................... 82 Results.....................................................................................................................................86 Descriptive Analysis........................................................................................................ 86 Description of the sample................................................................................................ 86 Test of Hypotheses..........................................................................................................88 Discussion...............................................................................................................................89 Limitation and Future Studies................................................................................................ 91 4 TRAVEL AGENTS ATTITUDES TO WARD CORP ORATE SOCIALLY RESPONSIBILITY AND CORPORATE SO CIALLY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR OF TRAVEL AGENCIES.................................................................................................... 100 Introduction................................................................................................................... ........100 Literature Review.............................................................................................................. ...101 CSR and Small Business............................................................................................... 101 The Role of the Travel Agencies in the Tourism Industry............................................ 104 Demand for CSR........................................................................................................... 106 The Determinants of Attitudes toward CSR.................................................................. 106 Methodology.........................................................................................................................109 Data Collection..............................................................................................................109 Survey Instrument.........................................................................................................110 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................111 Results...................................................................................................................................112 Descriptive Analysis...................................................................................................... 112 Hypotheses Tests........................................................................................................... 114 Discussion and Conclusions.................................................................................................117 5 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................. 132 Discussion of Research Objectives....................................................................................... 132 Implications................................................................................................................... .......136 Future Research and Study Limitations................................................................................ 137

PAGE 7

7 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE.............................................................................................141 B INITIAL ITEMS OF CORPORATE SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIORS OF TOURISM ORGANIZATIONS ........................................................................................... 148 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................150 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................160

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1-1 Attitudes toward CSR in tourism....................................................................................... 37 1-2 Conceptual dimensions and items of behaviors of CSR in tourism .................................. 38 1-3 The sampling summary of the each chapter...................................................................... 39 2-1 Global code of et hics for tourism....................................................................................... 65 2-2 Characteristics of respondents...........................................................................................66 2-3 Characteristics of tourism organizations............................................................................67 2-4 Factor analysis of corporate ethical values........................................................................ 68 2-5 Factor analysis of tourism organiza tions socially res ponsible behaviors ......................... 69 2-6 Multiple regression models for socially respons ible behavior of tourism organizations......................................................................................................................70 2-7 Multivariate summary for organizational characteristics of socially responsible behaviors using Wilks Lambda........................................................................................ 71 2-8 One-way ANOVA for effects of organizati onal age on socially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations.................................................................................................... 72 2-9 Least-square means for organizational age........................................................................ 73 3-2 Factor analysis of CEV......................................................................................................94 3-3 Factor analysis of PRESOR...............................................................................................95 3-4 Regression results: Depe ndent variable: PRESOR ............................................................96 3-5 Regression results: Dependent variab le: Attitud es toward CSR in tourism organizations......................................................................................................................97 3-6 Regression results: Dependent variab le: Attitud es toward CSR in tourism organizations......................................................................................................................98 4-1 Profile of travel agents................................................................................................... ..121 4-2 Attitudes of travel agents toward CSR in tourism........................................................... 122 4-3 Factor analysis of travel agenci es socially responsible behaviors ..................................123

PAGE 9

9 4-4 A t-test for effects of gender on travel agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism ............ 124 4-5 One-way ANOVA of effects of age on tr avel agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism ........................................................................................................................ .....125 4-6 One-way ANOVA of effects of education on travel agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism........................................................................................................................ .....126 4-7 One-way ANOVA of effects of work e xperience in tourism industry on travel agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism......................................................................... 127 4-8 Least-square means for work experience in tourism industry......................................... 128 4-9 A t-test for effects of ownership on travel agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism ...... 129 4-10 A ttest for effects of internationa l w ork experience on tr avel agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism.....................................................................................................130 4-11 Regression analysis for travel agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism on socially responsible tourism behaviors.......................................................................................... 131

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 The social responsibility model.........................................................................................35 1-2 A conceptual model of corporate so cially responsible behavior of tourism organizations and managers attitudes toward CSR in tourism......................................... 36 3-1 The hypothesized model among CEV, PRESOR, and attitudes toward CSR ................... 99 5-1 A summary of results for this study................................................................................. 140

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ASTA American Society of Travel Agents CEV Corporate Ethical Value CSR Corporate Social Responsibility PRESOR Perceptions of Ethics and Social Responsibility SME Small and Medium Sized Enterprises TOI Tour Operators Initiatives WTO World Tourism Organization WTTC World Travel and Tourism Council

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy UNDERSTANDING CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE TOURISM INDUSTRY By Jung Eun Kim August 2009 Chair: Lori Pennington-Gray Major: Health and Human Performance The primary purpose of this study was to understand corporate socially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations and tourism pr ofessionals attitudes to ward corporate social responsibility (CSR). The seconda ry purpose was to examine the determinants (corporate ethical value, perceived importance of ethics and soci al responsibility, respondents profiles, and organizations profiles) of corporate socially responsible behavior s of tourism organizations and tourism marketing professionals attitudes toward corporate social responsibility. Details of achieving these purposes are described in the foll owing chapters adopting the format of three articles. First, a measurement of socially responsib le behaviors of tourism organizations was developed. This study was performed using multiple procedures and data collected from tourism professionals participating at THETRADESH OW 2008 hosted by the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA). It was found that the me asurement of socially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations can be themed into (1) managing impacts and (2) Support of local and fairness. In addition, the corporat e ethical values and the age of organizations were significantly

PAGE 13

13 associated with more responsible behaviors by tourism organizations. Multiple regression analysis, MANOVA, and ANOVA used for the analysis. Second, the study investigated how corporate et hical values and the perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility affect tour ism professionals attitude s toward CSR of tourism organizations. The results sugge sted tourism practitioners att itudes toward corporate social responsibility of tourism companies were infl uenced by the corporate ethical values and perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility. In the third study, only travel agents from the samples were polled to examine the relationships between demographic factors and job-related factor s of travel agents and their attitudes toward CSR. The results revealed th at only gender and work e xperience had significant influences on travel agents attitudes toward CS R. Further, travel agents attitudes toward CSR were significantly associated with trav el agencies CSR of behaviors. As future research, it is suggested that th e measurement tool of socially responsible behaviors developed in this st udy be applied to a variety of samples to test its validity. Methodologies such as contents analyses and in depth qualitative interview with the practitioners are suggested to acquire more profound inform ation about the CSR behaviors of tourism organizations

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Tourism is recognized as the worlds larges t industry. The World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) has estimated that tourism industry generated 11% of the worlds Gross Domestic Product (GDP) directly or indirectly and 221 million job, or 8.3% of total employment world wide in 2005 (WTTC 2005). Also, the to urism industry has been one of the fastest growing industries for the last half century (B artra and Kaur 1998). Cont rolling for inflation, the World Tourism Organization (WTO) estimated in ternational tourism increased by 9% in 2004 (WTO 2005). This growth in tourism devel opment has led to many changes made by host societies (Brunt and Courtney 1999). Some of these changes are positiv e, such as improved income, education, employment opportunities, and local infrastructure and services (Ross 1992; Lankford 1994; McCool and Martin 1994), while others are negative, such as changes in social and family values, the emergence of economi cally powerful groups, and cultural practices adapted to suit the demands of tourists (Ap and Crompton 1993; Johnson, Snepenger, and Akis 1994). Recognizing many of these negative impacts, stakeholders have in creased expectations that companies will perform corporate social responsibility to mitigate these negative aspects (Dodds and Joppe 2005). Corporate social respon sibility (CSR) is defi ned as actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the inte rests of the firm as well as those which are required by law (McWilliams and Siegel 2001, p. 117). CSR is an activity not only for the firms sake but also for the sake of various stakeholders, such as shareholders, employees, customers, community, and the like. (Carro ll 1979; Fox, Ward, and Howard 2002). Scholars have suggested that corporations engage in socially responsible ac tivities because of the recognition of various benefits, such as an increa se in positive image and the likelihood of hiring

PAGE 15

15 top quality employees, as well as a positive effect on the companys bottom line (Marrewijk 2003; Henriques and Richardson 2004). In the tourism literature, CSR usually has been studied in a context of sustainable development (Henderson 2007). The concept of sustainable development emphasizes the conservation and management of both nature e nvironments and human communities in terms of three dimensions such as economical, socio-cu ltural, and environmental (McCool, Moisey and Nickerson 2001). Sustainable develo pment is a paradigm in which a whole system is considered in the development process not merely one component of a system. Sustainable tourism integrates a variety of tourism activities that m eet the needs of tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for future generations (WTO 1996). The main objective of sustainable tourism is to decrease and mitigate negative environmental impacts and sociocultural change on destinations while enhanci ng positive economic impacts of tourism (Hassan 2000). Dodds and Joppe (2005) argue that the concept of CSR has many features in common with sustainable tourism because bot h focus on methods to identify and involve stakeholders to contribute to or mitigate their impacts. Similarly, Henderson (2007) examined CSR within a sustainable tourism context and found the primary tenets of CSR and sustainable development are very similar and the terms are often used interchangeably. More specifically, CSR integrates some of the fundamental princi ples of sustainable development, while an organization pursuing su stainable tourism is socially responsible. Although CSR share common concepts and tene ts with sustainable tourism, some differences also exist. The main difference is that CSR deals with the supply side whereas sustainable tourism covers the involvement of both supply and demand side. More specifically,

PAGE 16

16 sustainable tourism mainly inco rporates the involvement of three large components such as private sector, the public sector and the nongovernmental organi zations (NGOs) (Hassan 2000). The private sector includes industr ies such as hotels, tour operators, travel agencies, airlines and etc. Unlike the other sectors, private companies are involved with discu ssions on sustainability however their main interest is not the needs of future generations or the sustainability of destination. Although private compan ies attention to sustainability has gained importance, their true interest is short term growth of their bus iness (Carey, Gountas, Gilb ert 1997). Thus, in order to increase the involvement of the private sector, there is a need to gauge private sectors attitudes towards sustainability and social responsibility in general. Unlike the long history of CSR in the busine ss literature, tourism studies have just recently attempted to address it (Tearfund 2000; Mitchell 2006; Henderson 2007). Further, most CSR studies are conceptual in nature rather than empirically tested (Wheeler 1995). Thus, some scholars argue that it is necessary for st udies to move beyond this conceptual discussion and test a variety of CSR issues within a tourism context (Flecken stein and Huebsch 1999; Angela 2002; Mitchell 2006). Most of all, the numbers of tourism organizations implementing CSR are not well documented even though some tourism organizations, such as World Tourism Organization (WTO) and the Association of Independent Tour Operators (AITO), have suggested guidelines for responsible behaviors (Dodds and Joppe 2005). Thus, there is a need to examine how tourism organizations utilize el ements of CSR and what the perceptions and attitudes of tourism professionals are toward CSR. Unlike the long history of CSR in the busine ss literature, tourism studies have just recently attempted to address it (Tearfund 2000; Mitchell 2006; Henderson 2007). Further, most CSR studies are conceptual in nature rather than empirically tested (Wheeler 1995). Thus,

PAGE 17

17 some scholars argue that it is necessary for st udies to move beyond this conceptual discussion and test a variety of CSR issues within a tourism context (Flecken stein and Huebsch 1999; Mitchell 2006). Most of all, the numbers of tourism organizations im plementing CSR are not well documented even though some tourism organizations, such as World Tourism Organization (WTO) and the Association of Independent Tour Operators (AITO), have suggested guidelines for responsible behaviors (Dodds and Joppe 2005). Thus, there is a need to examine how tourism organizations utilize el ements of CSR and what the perceptions and attitudes of tourism professionals are toward CSR. Conceptual Framework Stakeholder theory: Stakeholder theory suggests that organizational survival and success is contingent on satisfying both its econom ic (e.g., profit maximization) and non-economic (e.g., corporate social performance) objectives by meeting the needs of the companys various stakeholders (Pirsch, Gupta, and Grau 2007, p. 127). According to this theory, corporations are no longer responsible for only their stakeholders, but also a variety of other groups in society. This is primarily the case because operations of corporations often lead to societal issues, while at the same time societal issues affect corporate decisions. Stakeholder theory has been applied freque ntly to research about CSR (Freeman 1984; Samli 1992; Carroll 1993; Clarkson 1995; Ba nerjee 2002; Quazi 2003). Clarkson (1995) suggested that CSR can be better understood within a framework of stakeholder theory. From a stakeholder perspective, CSR includes all st akeholders, including employees, customers, suppliers, local community, trade associations, and governments. Stakeholder theory assumes that a corporation is responsible for the impact of its behavior s because all stakeholder groups usually have a legitimate relationship with the corporation (Banerjee 2002). Various stakeholders in recent years have expected and demanded companies being more responsible.

PAGE 18

18 Expectations of stakeholders not only apply to the direct relationshi p between the two groups, but also apply to social issu es related to the community and management of the community (Kok, Wiele, McKenna, and Brown 2001). The Model of CSR by Zenisek (1979): Based on stakeholder theory, empirical studies on CSR have measured it from three main perspectives. First, CSR has been examined from a managerial perspective. Second it has been ex amined using external stakeholders, such as consumers. Finally, CRS has been measured usi ng actual responsible activ ities or behaviors of corporations. These three approaches are explai ned in the proposed model by Zenisek (1979). Zenisek (1979) developed a model for CSR ba sed on an understanding of ethics in order to clarify the concept of social responsibility. Ethics are a belief system with associated behaviors. This system includes both ideological aspects and operational as pects (Petit 1967). In essence, the difference between beliefs and be haviors is the associated difference between ideological aspects and operational aspects, re spectively (Zenisek 1979). Thus, people do not always behave the way they believe. Namely, the operational aspects of ethics do not always correspond to the their ideologi cal aspect of ethics. In summary, Zeniseks model ha s three perspectives (Figure1-1 ); (1) the ideological, or what a corporations managers believe the firm s hould be doing; (2) the societal, what the firms external stakeholders expect; and (3) the operatio nal, the examination and measurement of what the corporations actually perform (Arthaud-Day 2 005, p. 13). Zeniseks model allows for critical understanding of the issues related to performing CSR (Arthaud-Day 2005). With an inclusive review the relevant liter ature, Arthaud-Day (2005) found some studies use a managerial perspective (ideol ogical), while others use external stakeholders (societal) via a self-report method, such as surveys or intervie ws. Meanwhile, behaviors of corporations

PAGE 19

19 (operational) have been studied using a range of qualitative or quantitative approaches such as case studies, content analysis, and comparisons based on reputation rankings or financial performance. While most CSR studies use only one pers pective, Arthaud-Day (2005) emphasized the significance of comparing two perspectives because it helps to understand the pivotal aspects of potential and actual conflicts rele vant to CSR. Most of all, co mparing what people believe is CSR and what the corporations are actually doing is important because CSR activities of an organization can be more meaningful and effect ive when they match peoples beliefs. An organization can garner better support from mana gers when its CSR activities are in line with their managers perceptions. Arth aud-Day (2005) also argued that examining these conflicts is extremely meaningful within the context of international research on cultures and societies. Within an international business setting, a corpor ation can have various managerial beliefs and stakeholders expectations based on diffe rent cultures and nationalities. Literature Review Corporate Social Responsibility The concept of CSR is varied ranged from a br oad definition, such as the behaviors that involve with social improvement, beyond making th e interest of a company to a more narrow view focusing on economic benefits to shareholders of a company (McWilliams and Siegel 2007). Adopting the wider concept of CSR, Carroll (1979) argued th at CSR needs to include the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary resp onsibilities that a so ciety expects of the organization. Based on these definitions, a social ly responsible organizati on must try to make a profit as well as obey the law and be ethical (Carroll 1991). Although the concept of CSR has been generally applied to a broad spectrum of in dustries, previous resear ch has argued that the practices of CSR may be appro ached very differently within each industry (Spender 1989).

PAGE 20

20 Beliveau, Cottrill, and ONeill (1994) and Spende r (1989) suggested that behavioral patterns within an industry may be similar, but differ acr oss industries. Thus, they suggested examining how CSR is affected within different industries. The Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Previous studies have attem pted to examin e the potential determinants of corporate socially responsible behavior s and the attitudes toward CSR (Aldag and Jackson 1977; Arlow 1991; Thomas and Simerly 1994; Schlegelmilch and Robertson 1995; Burton and Hegarty 1999; Quazi 2003). Mainly, the determinants supported by previous studies have fallen into four conceptual areas: 1) the characteri stics of the organizations, 2) the characteristics of the manager, 3) corporate ethical values, and 4) the perceived importance of ethi cs and social responsibility. Characteristics of organizations Previous studies of businesse s have tested the broad eff ects of organizational size, financial performance, and organizational age. First, regarding orga nizational size, some research has argued that larger organizations typically have more socially responsible behaviors and make a greater impact on so ciety (Cowen, Ferreri, and Parker 1987; Stanwick and Stanwick 1998). However, other studies have not found support for a rela tionship between size and performance of CSR (Ng 1985; Roberts 1992). Second, the role of financial performance is an important determinant of socially responsible be haviors. Beliveau, Cottr ill, and ONeill (1994) found a positive relationship betwee n economic factors and socially responsible behaviors. Third, the maturity of organizations has been exam ined in relation to their socially responsible activities (Navarro 1988; Roberts 1992; Chen, Patt en, and Roberts 2007). According to Navarro (1988), as an organization matures, its involvemen t in socially responsib le activities tends to grow. Chen, Patten, and Roberts (2007) also re ported that the age of an organization was correlated to corporate ch aritable contributions.

PAGE 21

21 Characteristics of managers A thorough review of the litera ture suggests that personal ch aracteristics of employees may also affect attitudes toward CSR. These characteristics include ge nder (Arlow 1991; Burton and Hegarty 1999), age (Arlow 1991), education (Hage 1980; Kidwell, Stevens, and Bethke 1987; Serwinek 1992; Quazi 2003), length of work experience (Aldag and Jackson 1984; Arlow 1991), managerial work experience, and internati onal work experience (Quazi, 2003). First, the findings related to the influence of gender on CS R are inconsistent. Some researchers have argued that females have a tendency to be less supportive of unethical behaviors than males (Ruegger and King 1992). However, some scholars ha ve found that gender does not play a role in ethical attitudes (Dawson 1997; McDonald and Kan 1997). Second, regarding the role of age on CSR, generally, the studies suggested atti tudes toward CSR varied by age based on the assumption that older people are more conservative. For example, Longnsecker, McKinney, and Moore (1989) found that younger people tended to be less sensitive in their moral judgment than older people. Similarly, Serwin ek (1992) revealed the older em ployees are stricter regarding ethical rules than younger people. Third, regarding the effect of education on CSR, Hage (1980) found that managers with higher educational leve ls tended to have more liberal attitudes. Likewise, Quazi (2003) reported that the highe r the level of education the more likely respondents were to understand the issues of CSR. Regarding le ngth of work experience, while most studies found that an employee with more work experience might exhibit greater ethical tendencies, other studies have found no relationship. While Harris (1990) argued that the workers with ten or more years work experience in an organization are less tolerant of unethical behaviors, Arlow (1991) found no si gnificant relationship between th e length of work experience and attitudes toward social res ponsibility. In addition, studies revealed that the people who are

PAGE 22

22 in top managerial positions are more likely to have higher ethical perc eptions than middle and lower level managers (Harris 1990). Examining the effect of interna tional work experience on the level of socially responsible perceptions, Quazi (2003) found that international experience was not related to the level of CSR. Corporate ethical values Corporate ethical values have been defined as a composite of the individual ethical values of managers and both the formal and in formal policies on ethics of the organization (Hunt, Wood, and Chonko 1989, p. 79). Various empiri cal studies have tested the importance of corporate ethical values in ethical decision making (Singhapakdi, Kraft, Vitell, and Rallapalli 1995; Vitell and Hidalgo 2006; Singhapa kdi, Gopinath, Marta, and Carter 2007). Using a corporate ethical value (CEV) scale deve loped by Hunt, Wood, and Chonko (1989), many studies have revealed a positive relationship between corporate ethical values and mangers ethical or responsible attitudes or behaviors. For example, Si nghapakdi, Marta, Rallapalli, and Rao (2000) found that CEV had a positive effect on be havioral intentions of Thai managers. Vitell and Hidalgo (2006) also revealed that CEV had a strong influence on the perceived importance of managers ethics across countries. Vitell, Paolillo, and Thomas (2003) found that the CEV may influence the managers ethical behavioral intentions. Perceptions of ethics and social responsibility One of the most important factors affecting et hical and socially res ponsible behaviors of a company is how the managers in the compa ny perceive the notion of ethics and social responsibility (Shafer, Fukukawa, and Lee 2006). According to Vitell and Hidalgo (2006), managers must perceive ethics as important if their behaviors are to ch ange. If they do not consider ethics and social res ponsibility important, their behavior s are likely to be affected by

PAGE 23

23 these beliefs. Supporting this view, Newstrom and Ruch (1975) found that ethical beliefs of managers were significantly associated with th eir behaviors. In the business literature, the perceptions of ethics and social responsibility have mainly been examined using a scale of the perceived role of ethics and social responsibil ity (PRESOR). The PRES OR scale was developed by Singhapakdi, Vitell, Rallapalli, and Kraft (1996) in order to understand the way in which marketers perceive ethics and so cial responsibility. Numerous studies have used the PRESOR scale as both a predicting variable and an affectin g variable in relation to ethical decision making (e.g., Singhapakdi, Vitell, Rallapalli, and Kraft 1996; Singhapakdi 1999; V itell, Paolillo, and Thomas 2003; Axinn, Blair, Heorhiadi, and Thach 2004; Shafer, Fukukawa, and Lee 2006; Pettijohn, Pettijohn and Taylor 2007; Singhapakdi, Gopinath, Mart a, and Carter 2007). The original PRESOR scale had sixteen items with in three dimensions: (1) Good Ethics Is Good Business, (2) Profits Are Not Paramount, and (3) Quality and Communication. Corporate Social Responsibility in Tourism In the touris m literature, interest in the i ssue of corporate social responsibility has increased in recent years (Tearfund 2000; G oodwin and Francis 2003; Pennington-Gray and Thapa 2004; Dodds and Joppe 2005; PenningtonGray, Reisinger, Kim, and Thapa 2005; Mitchell 2006; Henderson 2007). Corporate soci al responsibility in tourism has been approached largely within the cont ext of sustainable development. Sustainable tourism The concept of sustainable development was first mentioned in 1987 in a report published by the World Commission on Enviro nment and Development and has received increased attention from both theo rists and practitioners since the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It defined sustainable development as "d evelopment that meets the needs of the present

PAGE 24

24 without compromising the ability of future ge nerations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, p.8). Sustainable tourism development is understood as a goal for all types of tourism (Clarke 1997). While a number of researchers have di scussed the issues of sustainable tourism development based on this reaching a consensu s on understanding, studies on a definition of sustainable tourism development are rare. The de finition of sustainable tourism is complex and still evolving. The popular definition of sustai nable tourism is that of the World Tourism Organization. They define sustainable tourism as tourism which leads to management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be filled while maintaining cultural integrity, essentials eco logical processes, biological di versity and life support systems (WTO 2002, P.7) This definition emphasizes the importance of not only a guests needs, but also for host development and sustainability. Corporate social responsibility and sustainable tourism CSR studies in tourism have mainly been conducted within a para digm of sustainable tourism (Dodds and Joppe 2005; Henderson 2007). This is because the issue of corporate social responsibility in the tour ism literature has not gained much inte rest until recent years. Dodds and Joppe (2005) argue that the con cept of CSR has many similar feat ures to sustainable tourism because both focus on methods to identify and invol ve stakeholders in the contribution to and/or mitigation of impacts. Similarly, Henderson (2007) examined CSR within a sustainable tourism context and found the primary tenets of CSR and sustainable development are very similar and the terms are often used interchangeably. Mo re specifically, CSR integrates some of the fundamental principles of sust ainable development and an or ganization pursuing sustainable

PAGE 25

25 tourism is socially responsible. His comparison between CSR and sustainable development helped clearly delineat e the two terms. Sustainable development seeks to embrace all th e participants in the development process and give equal weight to thei r voices. CSR maintains a company perspective and questions of profitability remain at the forefront, not to be eclipsed by social and environmental agendas. Sustainable development implies a deeper and broader commitment and is part of a debate which is relevant to most areas of human endeavor and informs private and public sector actions. In comparison, CSR pertains only to industry members and covers a particular and voluntary aspect of activity. Therefore it occupies a position near the weaker pole of the sustainability spectrum and shoul d be assessed within the context of that discourse. (Henderson 2007, p. 231) Statement of the Problem A num ber of studies of CSR have tried to measure CSR in various business settings (Carroll 1979; Wood 1991; Quazi 2003). However, there is a dearth of empirical studies that measure CSR in a tourism context. This study at tempts to fill this gap by proposing a method to measure CSR, then empirically testing its validit y in terms of managerial perceptions within a tourism context. Purpose of the Study The m ain purpose of this study is to unders tand both corporate ethical values and the perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility, and tourism professionals attitudes toward CSR in tourism organizations. Also, this study seeks to examine CSR behaviors of tourism organizations by using a newly develope d measurement. Additionally, this study will investigate how corporate ethical values and th e perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility may affect touris m professionals attitudes toward CSR in tourism organizations and the socially responsible beha viors of tourism organizations. Research Objectives The research objectives of this study include: testing the determinants of travel agents attitudes toward corporate soci al responsibility using demogra phic and job-related factors and

PAGE 26

26 their relationship to attitudes toward CSR. Further, this study will examine travel agents attitudes toward corporate social responsibility (ideological pers pectives of CSR) and travel agencies behaviors of corporati on social responsibility (opera tional perspectives of CSR). Figure 1-2 shows the conceptual mode l to explain these relationships. The specific objectives that guide d this study are as follows: 1. What CSR behaviors are exhibi ted by tourism organizations (operational perspectives of CSR)? 2. What is the relationship between CEV and CSR behaviors of tourism organizations? 3. Are there differences in CSR behaviors ( operational perspectives of CSR) by the organizations characteristics (size, financ ial performance, and time in business)? 4. What is the relationship between CEV and PRESOR by the marketing professionals within tourism organizations? 5. What is the relationship between CEV and the marketing professionals attitudes toward CSR of tourism organizations (ideol ogical perspectives of CSR)? 6. What is the relationship between the degree of PRESOR and the marketing professionals attitudes toward CSR of tourism organiza tions (ideological pers pectives of CSR)? 7. Are there significant relationships between mana gerial characteristics of travel agents (gender, age, education level, work e xperience in tourism industry, ownership, and international work experience) and their attitudes toward CSR in tourism (ideological perspectives of CSR)? 8. Are there significant relationships between trav el agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism (ideological perspectives of CS R) and travel agencies beha viors toward CSR in tourism (operational perspe ctives of CSR)? Definitions The following term s below have been defined fo r the purpose of the study. For many of the terms, a more detailed operational explana tion is included in the methodology section of the following three chapters.

PAGE 27

27 CORPORATE ETHICAL VALUE: a composite of the individual ethical values of managers and both the formal and informal policies on ethi cs of the organization (Hunt, Wood, and Chonko 1989, p. 79). CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interest of the firm as well as t hose which are required by law (McWilliams and Siegel 2001, p. 117). ATTITUDE TOWARD CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (IDEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES OF CSR): what a corporations managers believe the firm should be doing (Zenisek 1979; ArthaudDay 2005). BEHAVIORS OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (OPERATIONAL PERSPECTIVES OF CSR): what the corporations actually perform social responsibility (Zen isek 1979; Arthaud-Day 2005). PERCEPTIONS OF ETHICS AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: how the managers in the company perceive the notion of ethics and social responsibility (Shafer, Fukukawa, and Lee 2006). SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, p.8). Method This section includes an overview of the m ethods undertaken to examine managerial attitudes toward social responsibility and corporate socially respons ible behaviors of tourism organizations. Instrumentation The questions included in th e questionnaire were derived fr o m a comprehensive literature review and interviews with tourism professionals The survey instrument was composed of six subsections. The first section contained informa tion assessing the respondents company profile.

PAGE 28

28 The second section measured the perception of ethi cs and social responsibili ty. The third section asked for managers perceptions about their companys ethical values. The fourth section measured CSR behavior of tourism organizatio ns. The fifth section measured the general attitudes toward CSR of tourism organizations. The last sec tion asked demographic questions about the respondents. The survey instru ment is presented in Appendix I. A common criticism of surveys is the researchers lack of knowledge of the actual respondents to a survey (Banerjee 2002). In this study, it is assumed that the appropriate manager will fill out the survey. In order to validate that the respondent was a manager who knows CSR in his or her company, the survey included questions as king the respondents position as well as asking them to comment on th eir knowledge about their companys socially responsible activities. Responde nts who do not have the knowle dge and/or confidence about their companys social responsibility were excluded from the analysis. Thus, it is assumed that the respondents were qualified to answer the survey questions. Company profiles The section assessing a companys profile in cluded three questions. Based on previous studies about the relationship between CSR and rganizational size (Aldag and Jackson 1984; Aupperle, Carroll, and Hatfield 1985), financial performance (Aldag and Jackson 1984), organizational age (Navarro 1988; Robe rts 1992; Chen, Patten, and Roberts 2007), participants were asked to answer questi ons on the number of employees, annual revenues, and the number of years their organizations had been in business. This sec tion consisted of single choice responses and open-ended questions.

PAGE 29

29 The perception of ethics and social responsibility The perception of ethics and social respons ibility was measured using a PRESOR scale of 13 items. The PRESOR scale was develope d by Singhapakdi, Kraft, Vitell, and Rallapalli (1995) and has been used by many researchers (S inghapakdi, Vitell, Ralla palli, and Kraft 1996; Etheredge 1999; Sighapakdi, Karande, Rao, and V itell 2001; Vitell, Paolillo, and Thomas 2003; Axinn, Blair, Heorhiadi, and Thach 2004; Shafer, Fukukawa, and Lee 2006). The PRESOR scale was developed measure to understand the way that marketers perceive ethics and social responsibility. The original vers ion of the PRESOR scale used a 9-point Likert-type scale. However, the PRESOR scale in this study was revised to a seven point scale ranging from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (7) that was more consistent with the other scales used in this study. Two examples of items are The ethics and social resp onsibility of a firm is essential to its long term profitability and Social responsibility a nd profitability can be compatible. Corporate ethical values Corporate ethical values were measured us ing five-item CEV scal e developed by Hunt, Wood, and Chonko in 1989. The items are designed to capture the extent to which managers concerns and behavior are related to ethical issues, as well as the extent to which the rewards for ethical behaviors are encouraged by the organi zation. The items were rated on a seven-point scale raging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (7). Attitudes toward CSR in tourism industry The attitude toward CSR in the tourism industry was measur ed based on six items (Table 1-1). These items were designed to measure how individuals perceived socially responsible behavior by tourism organizations. Items were developed based on the survey from Partnership

PAGE 30

30 for Global Sustainable Criteria (2007) and prev ious research (Tearfund 2000; Dodds and Joppe 2005; Henderson 2007). Examples of the items include Tourism corporations have a responsibility to preserve the en vironment and Corporate social responsibility is particularly important for the tourism industry. These item s were measured using a seven-point scale, ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (7). Corporate behavior of soci ally responsible tourism Nineteen scale items were developed to m easure socially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations using a multi-step procedure (T able 1-2). First, for behaviors of CSR, four domains were selected based on the relevant li terature review (Hende rson 2007). The four dimensions are economic responsibility, soci o-cultural responsibi lity, environmental responsibility, and ethics and internal responsibility. Next, the in itial item pool consisted of 32 items based on a thorough review of the sustaina ble tourism literature and the corporate social responsibility literature (Tourism Concer n 1992; Tearfund 2000; Dodds and Joppe 2005; Henderson 2007). After generating the initial item s, the items were then refined and edited for content validity by three experts who are professors or graduate students in tourism and knowledgeable about socially re sponsible tourism. These e xperts were given the studys operational definition of CSR and were reque sted to rate each item as being clearly representative of CSR, somewhat representati ve of it or not at all representative of it (Zaichkowsky 1985). Next a series of decision rules were establ ished. The rules included (1) consider the clarity of the items, (2) consider th e readability of the items, and (3) consider the likelihood that the items may be acceptable to re spondents (not objectionable). The items were rated on a seven-point scale from Strongly Disagree (1), to Strongly Agree (7).

PAGE 31

31 Respondents profile The final section of the questi onnaire focused on the socio-de mographic characteristics of respondents, as well as their work experience. The questions included gender, age, education, job position, international work experience, and overall work experience in the tourism industry. Job position and work experience in the tourism industry were measured using a single choice response with open-ended responses. International work experience was a yes-no question. Data Collection The target of this study was em ployees of tourism organizations who attended a conference in Central Florida. Survey questionnaires were distri buted to the tourism professionals participating at THETRADESH OW 2008 hosted by the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA) at the Convention Ce nter. ASTA estimated that around 2500 tourism professionals across a number of countries registered at THETRADESHOW 2008. Only registered members with name tags were able to enter the event venue. With the permission of the organizers of the tradeshow, for three days survey questionnaires were distributed to participants entering the event venue. The survey questionnaires included items that were used in this present study, as well as other items th at will be employed in other studies. For this study, 700 questionnaires were dist ributed. That number was determined by the calculation that the sample size for an 0.05% marg in of error with a 95% confidence level for a population of 2500 is 333 (Research Advisors 2006) multiplied by the response rate (around 50% of response rate wa s expected). A total of 252 completed questionnaires were collected with an approximate response rate of 36%. A sample size of 252 is the number that has an 0.05% margin of error with a 90% confidence level for a population of 2500 (Res earch Advisors 2006). The sample size and

PAGE 32

32 response rate were satisfactory considering that the questions dealt with relatively sensitive issues. Data Analysis The analysis of data in this study consisted of several steps. B efore testing the research questions or hypotheses, descrip tive analyses were performed to investigate the frequency distribution of responses to the re levant questions. To test the fi rst research question, exploratory factor analysis was used. With exploratory factor analysis, th e dimensionality of corporate socially responsible behaviors was tested. Mul tiple regression analyses were used to test research questions 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8. Before condu cting regression analyses, in order to examine if multicollinearity exists in the data, corre lation analyses were conducted. MANOVA and ANOVA were used to test research question 3. A post hoc test using the least-squares means (LSM) was used to determine the location of th e differences of socia lly responsible tourism attitudes. Lastly, to test Hypotheses 4 to 9 for research question 7, independent t -tests, and oneway ANOVA analyses were used to examine whet her the characteristics of respondents affected a respondents attitude toward tourism companies social responsibility. A post hoc test using LSM was used to determine the differences amon g each managerial characteristic variable. Dissertation Format This dissertation is divided into five chap ters that build on each other by exam ining corporate ethical values, the perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility, attitudes toward CSR of tourism organiza tions, corporate socially resp onsible behaviors of tourism organizations, respondents profil es, and organizations profiles. Further, each chapter has the different sample based on the research purpose. Table 1-3 shows the summary of sampling for the each chapter.

PAGE 33

33 Chapter 2 aims to understand socially respons ible behaviors of tourism organizations. First, this chapter assesses the dimensionality of socially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations using exploratory factor analysis. Additionally, this chapter examines the relationship among corporate ethical values, or ganizational characteri stics, and socially responsible behaviors of different types of tourism organizations using multiple regression analysis, MANOVA, and ANOVA. Th e results of these analyses ar e used to suggest detailed guidelines for future studies on CSR in tourism. Chapter 3 assesses the relationship between co rporate ethical values and the perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility within a tourism setting using multiple regression analysis. Additionally, focusing on socially respons ible tourism, this chapter investigates how corporate ethical values and the perceived importance of ethics a nd social responsibility affect the tourism professionals attitudes toward corporate social res ponsibility of tourism organizations. The results of this chapter help to understand the ethical an d socially responsible perceptions and attitudes of tour ism managers and employees. Further, the results of analyses are used to suggest for tourism organizations th e role of organizational ethical values on the perceptions and attitudes of or ganizational members. Chapter 4 focuses on travel agents only. This chapter examines the relationships between demographic and job-related factor s of travel agents and their attitudes toward CSR. Further, this chapter investigates travel agents attitudes toward corporate social responsibility and travel agencies behaviors regarding corpor ate social responsibility. The results of this chapter provide suggestions for travel agencies in thei r performance and management of CSR.

PAGE 34

34 Chapter 5 summarizes the results and conclusions of the former chapters. This allows for the integration of overall results into implica tion for future studies and management of CSR within the tourism industry.

PAGE 35

35 A Business Ethics Figure 1-1. The social responsibil ity model. Source: Zenisek, T. J. (1979). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Conceptualization base d on Organizational Literature. Academy of Management Review, 4(3): 359-368. Societal Demands/Expectations Ideological Aspects (Managerial attitudes as to what constitutes legitimate demand) Operational Aspects (Reified organizational behavior)

PAGE 36

36 Figure 1-2. A conceptual model of corporate socially responsible behavior of tourism organizations and managers attitudes toward CSR in tourism Managers Perception of Ethics & Social Res p onsibilit y CSR Behavior of Tourism Organizations Managers Attitude toward CSR in Tourism Corporate Ethical Value Characteristics of Organizations Characteristics of Managers Chapter 2 Chapter 4 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 3 Chapter 3 Chapter 4

PAGE 37

37 Table 1-1. Attitudes toward CSR in tourism Items of attitudes toward CSR in tourism 1. Tourism corporations have a responsibi lity to preserve the environment. 2. Tourism corporations have a responsibi lity to preserve the local culture. 3. Tourism corporations have a responsibility to enhance the quality of tourist experiences. 4. Tourism corporations have a responsibil ity to contribute to the economy of local community. 5. CSR is hard to apply for tourism companies. 6. CSR is particularly important for the tourism industry.

PAGE 38

38 Table 1-2. Conceptual dimensions and ite ms of behaviors of CSR in tourism Dimensions Items of behaviors of CSR in tourism Purchase goods and services from local suppliers. Support local businesses to ensure benefits to local communities. Educate tourists on the positive effects tourism can have on the local economy. Implement programs that support th e economic vitality of local communities. Employ local residents. Economic responsibility Donate part of proceeds to charities of local community. Educate employees about socio-cultural issues. Provide on-going cultural sensit ivity training about the local community. Formulate policies to avoid soci o-cultural impacts of operations. Help tourists increase their cultural understanding of local communities. Market products and services in a socio-culturally responsible way. Socio-cultural responsibility Implement programs to manage socio-cultural impacts of our activities. Train staff on the environmental impacts of the companys operations. Market products and services in an environmentally responsible way. Educate tourists about environmental concerns. Formulate policies to avoid envi ronmental impacts of operations. Environmental responsibility Train staff on the principles of environmental conservation. Wage structures are fair and equitable. Ethics and Internal responsibility Provide women with the same opportunity to be a manager.

PAGE 39

39 Table 1-3. The sampling summary of the each chapter Sample N Chapter 2 The respondents who were aware of his/he r organizations socially responsible behaviors 207 Chapter 3 The respondents w ho completed questionnaires 252 Chapter 4 Only Travel Agents 149

PAGE 40

40 CHAPTER 2 AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF SOCIALLY RE S PONSIBLE BEHAVIORS OF TOURISM ORGANIZATIONS Introduction The tourism industry has been one of the fastest growing industrie s for the last half century (Bartra and Kaur 1998). In 2004 inte rnational tourism increased by 18.9% over the previous year. Controlling for inflation, the World Tourism Organization (WTO) has estimated international tourism increased by 9% in 2004 (WTO 2005). The growth in people traveling outside their home environment is unprecedented. In addition, more destinations are looking to develop their tourism industry to at tract tourists. This growth in tourism development has led to many changes being made by host societies (Br unt and Courtney 1999). These changes have been documented as both positive and negative. Positive changes include improved income, education, employment opportunities, and local infrastructure and services (Ross 1992; Lankford 1994; McCool and Martin 1994), while negative cha nges include changes in social and family values, the emergence of economically powerful groups, and cultural practices adapted to suit the demands of tourists (Ap and Crompt on 1993; Johnson, Snepenger, and Akis 1994). With the recognition of these changes, the concept of sustainable tourism has been proposed and popularized. Sustainable tourism is not a single type of tourism, but one that integrates a variety of tourism activities that m eet the needs of tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for future generations (WTO 1995). The main objective of sustainable tourism is decreasing and mitigating the negative impacts on the destinations while maintaining the economic and socio-cultura l benefits. Thus, in the academic literature, much attention has been paid to tourism imp acts, and has proposed sustainable development strategies to mitigate these impacts.

PAGE 41

41 Within the framework of sustainable tourism de velopment, has been an interest in CSR. These are activities that comp anies perform for a social benefit beyond the profit of the organization or requirements by regulators (i .e., government) (McWilliams and Siegel 2001). In comparison with sustainable development, CSR is limited to the supply side of the industry with an emphasis on how industry members can be responsible both at the destination as well as within their organization (Henders on 2007). CSR is not a new concept. In fact, it has appeared in the business literature since th e early 50s. More recently, however, other disciplines, such as tourism, have begun to pay attention to the concept. In the business literatu re, scholars have suggested that corporations aim to engage in socially responsible activities because of the recognition of various benefits, such as an increased positive image and likelihood to hire top quality employees, as well as an increased positive effect on the organizations bottom lin e (Marrewijk 2003; Henriques and Richardson 2004). Further, many stakeholders in the or ganization, including sh areholders, expect businesses to perform responsibly, as do customers. Unlike the long history of CSR in mainstream business literat ure, tourism studies have just recently attempted to address it. Interestingly, however, most studies of CSR are conceptual in nature rather than empirically tested (Wheeler 1995). Thus, some scholars argue that it is necessary for studies to move beyond this conceptual discussion and test a variety of CSR issues within the tourism context (Fle ckenstein and Huebsch 1999; Mitchell 2006). Specifically, studies examining CSR behaviors have not yet b een conducted. Furthermore, more attention needs to be paid to the various factors that may affect responsible behaviors of tourism organizations. Therefore, the current study will address these limitations and focus on

PAGE 42

42 empirically testing the measures of CSR in a tourism setting, as well as examine the relationships among these variables. Literature Review Stakeholder Theory as a Guiding Framework Corporate social responsibil ity can be better underst ood within the fram ework of stakeholder theory (Clarkson 1995). Numerous studies regarding CSR have applied stakeholder theory to their research (Freeman 1984; Roberts 1992; Samli 1992; Ca rroll 1993; Clarkson 1995; Banerjee 2002; Quazi 2003; Pirsch, Gupta, and Grau 2007). Stakehol der theory has been used as a guiding framework for CSR studies because of the need to focus on multiple players when adopting a CSR strategy. Stakeholders includ e both primary stakeholders and secondary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders are defined as those who have continuing participation in the corporation (Clarkson 1995). This group consis ts of shareholders, investors, employees, customers, and suppliers (Clarkson 1995, p. 106). According to Clarkson (1995), the corporation and its primary stakeholder groups are highly interdependent on each other. For example, it is difficult for the organization to be successful if customers and/or employees are not satisfied with the systems or products in place. Secondary stakeholders include the gove rnments and communities that provide infrastructure and markets. This group includes those whose laws and regulations must be followed, and to whom taxes and obligations may be due (Clarkson 1995). Stakeholder theory suggests that organiza tional survival and success is contingent on satisfying both its economic (e.g., profit maximi zation) and non-economic (e.g., corporate social performance) objectives by meeting the needs of the organizations various stakeholders (Pirsch, Gupta, and Grau 2007, p. 127). This theory also assumes that corporations are no longer responsible to only their stakeholde rs, but also to a variety of groups in society. This is primarily

PAGE 43

43 the case because operations of corporations often im pact societal issues while at the same time societal issues can affect corporate decisions. From a stakeholder perspective, CSR include s all stakeholders, primary and secondary. Stakeholder theory assumes that a corporation is responsible for th e impact of its behaviors on all stakeholder groups mainly because all stakehol ders have a legitimate relationship with the corporation (Banerjee 2002). Various stakehol ders in recent years have expected, even demanded, organizations to be more responsible. E xpectations of stakeholders not only apply to the direct relationship between two groups, they also apply to social issues related to the community and management of the community (Kok, Wiele, McKenna, and Brown 2001). Corporate Social Responsibility and Tourism Corporate social responsibility is a topic which has received an abundance of attention in both an acad emic setting as well as an industria l environment since the early 50s (Weaver, Trevino, and Cochran 1999; Kok, Wiele, McKe nn, and Brown 2001). The study of CSR has been largely divided into two pers pectives. One perspective is th at CRS is implemented in order to maximize profits within the rules and regulations of the orga nization (Fiedamn 1970). Under this perspective, organizations seem to be gove rned by only economic and legal analysis, and not by ethics (Kok, Wiele, McKenn, and Brown 2001). This argument suggests that organizations need to balance both their social responsibility and their financ ial performance (Shaw and Barry 1992). The other accepted approach encompasses a mu ch wider view of CSR, whereby CSR is defined as actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm as well as those which is required by law (McW illiams and Siegel 2001, p. 117). Taking this view, Carroll (1979) argued that CSR is performe d not only for the firms sake, but also for the

PAGE 44

44 sake of society. Based on these definitions, a socially responsibl e organization must try to make a profit, as well as obey the law a nd be ethical (Carroll 1991). From an industry viewpoint, the understanding of CSR supports the definition of Carroll (1991). For example, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development emphasizes a responsibility toward community that defines CS R as the ethical behavior of a organization toward society. management acting responsibly in its relationships w ith other stakeholders who have a legitimate interest in the busin ess and explained CSR is the continuing commitment by businesses to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large (WBCSD 1999, p3). In addition, Volkswagen (2000) defines CSR as the ability of an orga nization to incorporate its respon sibility to society to develop solutions for economic and social problems. Although the concept of CSR has been generally applied to a broad spectrum of industries, previous research ha s argued the practices of CSR may be approached very differently within each industry (Spender 1989). Therefore, this study will review how CSR has been understood in a tourism context. In the tourism literature, the issue of CSR has received increased attention (Tearfund 2000; Goodwin and Francis 2003; Pennington-G ray and Thapa 2004; Dodds and Joppe 2005; Pennington-Gray, Reisinger, Kim, and Thapa 2005; Mitchell 2006; Hende rson 2007). Corporate social responsibility in tourism has been a pproached mostly from the perspectives of 1) sustainability 2) marketing strategy and 3) ethical issue debate. First, CSR studies in tourism have main ly been conducted with in a paradigm of sustainable tourism (Dodds and Joppe 2005; Henderson 2007). Until recently, the issue of CSR as if applies to tourism has not attracted much interest. Dodds and Joppe (2005) argue

PAGE 45

45 that the concept of CSR has many features in common with sustainable tourism because both focus on methods to identify and involve st akeholders to contribute to or mitigate their impacts. Similarly, Henderson (2007) examined CSR within a sustainable tourism context and found the primary tenets of CSR and sustai nable development are very similar and the terms are often used interchangeably. More specifically, CSR integrates some of the fundamental principles of sustainable de velopment, while an organization pursuing sustainable tourism is socially responsible. Recent CSR studies typically use detailed gu idelines from the sustainable tourism literature. First, the tenets of sustainability (i.e., environmenta l, social, and economic) have been used as a guide for CSR analysis. For example, Henriques (2004) stated th at stakeholder issues can be divided into issues related to the envi ronment, society and the economy. Thus, Dodds and Joppe (2005) went on to endorse these tenets and recommende d that companies feel an obligation to go beyond just environmental dime nsions and incorporat e social and economic dimensions. In addition, studies dealing with companies overall res ponsibility have adopted the guidelines of sustainable tourism in many cases (Forsyth 1997). This adoption of guidelines moves the conceptualization of CSR beyond the business literature because tourism may require a more comprehensive list of responsibilities due to the interdisciplinar y nature of the industry (Henderson 2007). In addition, the industrys range of stakeholders may also be reason for using the more comprehensive paradigm of sustaina ble tourism to examine a companys behaviors than a traditional business model might. In addition to the conceptual framework a dopted in tourism studi es, guidelines for CSR have been established to operationalize the framework. However, although CSR share common

PAGE 46

46 concepts and tenets with sustai nable tourism, there exist some differences also. The main difference is that CSR deals in only supply side but sustainable tourism covers the involvement of both supply and demand side. Thus, when adop ting the guidelines from sustainable tourism, the one focusing the supply management need to be chosen. Three organizations have moved beyond a c onceptual paradigm and put guidelines for behaviors into a best practice model for the suppl y side. These three organizations are the World Tourism Organization (WTO), Tourism Concern and Tour Operators Initiatives (TOI). First, WTO, a specialized agency under the United Nations, establishes world tourism policies, addresses the global tourism issues, and provides the direction for future generations. The Global Code of Ethics for Tourism issued by the WTO is the most frequent cited set of guidelines (Table 2-1). This code of ethics is aimed t o promote responsible, su stainable and universally accessible tourism in the framework of the right of all persons to use their free time for leisure pursuits or travel with respect for the choices of society of all people (WTO 2003, p.2). The ten articles of the code describe five aspects of re sponsibility (economic, environmental, political, social, and cultural) for its stak eholders (travelers, destinatio ns, tour operators, governments, developers, travel agents, and workers). Each arti cle has three to six code s. The codes delineate detailed responsibilities to promote responsible an d sustainable tourism, so that all sectors of international tourism can share the benefits of world tourism. In particular, Article 6 of the code emphasizes the obligations of stakeholders ( governments, companies, local communities, and press) in tourism development. Specifically, it highlights tourism professionals who have a responsibility to provide information to tourists and contribute to the cu ltural experiences of tourists. In addition, Article 5 highlights the be nefits for host communities. The article argues tourism should benefit the local residents in various ways, including direct and indirect

PAGE 47

47 employment, and cultural and economic gains. It also suggests tourism professionals need to research the impacts before tourism developmen t article. Pennington-Gray, Reisinger, Kim, and Thapa (2005) argued that the behaviors of touris ts should be guided by this global code which means that tourism organizations have the respon sibility to follow this code and to inform tourists of this code. Second, with the support of the World Wide Fund for Nature and the UK campaign group, Tourism Concerns also developed a list of guidelines, Beyond the Green Horizon: Principles for Sustainable Tourism, for tourism sectors including government, local communities, and tourism industry practitioners (Tourism Concerns 1992). It has ten guidelines intended to provide working regulations among various tourism organizati ons. These guidelines cover various ways to control negative touris m impacts in terms of decreasing environmental impacts, and preserving socio-cultural diversity. Further, this guideline also emphasizes supporting the local economy and involving local community, as does the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism. Beyond the Green Horizon also inco rporates the suggestion that marketing tourism responsibly includes respect for the environmental, social, and cultural as pects of destinations. Lastly, TOI was created to encourage for tour operators to develop and implement management tools to minimize the various negative impacts of tourism by some pioneering tour operators which already had conducted good mana gement activity for sustainable tourism development. Tour operators as the member of this Initiative, are seeking towards sustainable tourism by choosing the concepts of sustainabl e development as the co re of their business activity and to work together through co mmon activities to prom ote and practices compatible with sustainable development. As a guideline for the members, TOI developed the statement of commitment to sustainable tourism developmen t for the tour operators. According to the

PAGE 48

48 statement, TOI also like the other organizations emphasizing th e Commitment to sustainable development and management of tourism to minimize the negative impacts on the economy, environment, nature, social structures and local cultures. In ad dition, TOI recognize the importance of awareness and active involvement am ong tourists towards the natural, social and cultural environment of the places they visit. Thus, they have a statement to encourage the mutual understand between local communities and tourist. The meaningful thing about TOI guideline is that they include the statement regarding the impo rtance of the contribution of tourism to the viability of local economies. Reviewing the existing guidelines of sustaina ble tourism, some rese archers have argued that the guidelines of CSR in tourism need to focus more on culture, society, ethics and quality of life. Some scholars identify the need to incorporate benefits to the community, as well as ethical issues of the tourism company, in their explanation of CSR (e.g., Tearfund 2000). Tearfund (2000) has urged tourism companies to move beyond environmental issues to more social and ethical issues. Sp ecifically, Tearfund (2000) suggested that, as a function of CSR travel companies need to ensure good wo rking conditions, fair prices, and economic contributions directed back to the local comm unity. Moreover, some scholars have suggested including ethical aspects of tourism management (e.g., McBeth 2005; Fennell 2006). Mitchell (2006) suggested that there are li mited empirical studies that d eal with CSR that incorporate ethical issues, so further research is needed to fill this gap. Dodds a nd Joppe (2005) argued that tourism companies have a responsibility to the qu ality of life of both tourists and hosts. The Determinants of CSR Behaviors Relevant literatures have dealt with what fact ors affect the CSR beha viors of organization. Generally, these factors can be divided into 1) co rporate eth ical values and 2) characteristics of organizations.

PAGE 49

49 Corporate ethical values Marketing ethics theory has acknowledged th e importance of an ethical organizational environment for the successful implementation of socially responsible behaviors (Ferrell and Greshan 1985; Hunt and Vitell 1986). Business studies have main ly focused on corporate ethical values (CEV) as an important environmental feat ure of corporations that can affect employees ethical attitudes and ultimately lead to ethi cal and responsible beha viors (Vitell and Hidalgo 2006; Singhapakdi, Gopinath, Marta, and Carter 2007). Focusing on corporate ethical values, Hunt, Wood, and Chonko (1989) de fined corporate ethical values as a composite of the individual ethical values of ma nagers and both the formal and informal policies on ethics of the organization (p. 79). Using a CEV s cale developed by Hunt, Wood, and Chonko (1989), many studies have revealed a positive relationship between corporate ethical values and managers ethical or responsible attitude s or behaviors. For example, examining Thai managers, Singhapakdi, Marta, Rallapalli, and Rao (2000) found that corporate ethical values had a positive effect on behavioral intentions. Vitell and Hidalgo (2000) also re vealed that corporate ethical values had a strong influence on the perceived importance of ma nagers ethics for managers across countries. Vitell, Paolillo, and Thomas (2003) found the corporate ethical values may influence the managers ethical behavioral intentions. Characteristics of organizations Numerous studies have focused on organizati onal characteristics to examine the potential determinants of socially responsible corporate behaviors. Generally, studies have tested the effect of organization size, fi nancial performance, organizatio n age, and industry type. First, regarding size, some re search has found that larger or ganizations typically exhibit more socially responsible beha viors and make a greater impact on society (Cowen, Ferreri, and

PAGE 50

50 Parker 1987; Stanwick and Stanwick 1998). For example, using firms listed in the Fortune Corporate Reputation Index, Stanwick and Stanwi ck (1998) examined the relationship between corporate social performance and size of the corp oration. The results of th eir study revealed that firms that were larger in size ha d higher levels of CSR. Howe ver, other studies have not found support for the relationship between size and the perf ormance of CSR. Ng (1985) failed to show support for the association between organizationa l size and CSR in activiti es in New Zealand. Similarly, using a U.S. sample, Roberts (1992) found no relationship between organization size and the demonstration of CSR. Moreover, the role of financial performance is an important determinant of socially responsible behaviors. For example, measuring the CEOs orientation toward CSR indicated that positive financial performance in a period posit ively influenced CSR (McGuire, Sundgren, and Schneewers 1988). Likewise, Beliveau, Cottrill, and ONeil (1994) found a positive relationship between economic factors and socially responsible behaviors. However, both studies concluded the patterns within an industry can affect the level of socially responsible behaviors of an organization. The maturity of the organization has been examin ed in relation to its socially responsible activities. According to Navarro (1988), as an organization mature s, its involvement in socially responsible activities gr ows. However, Roberts (1992) found that an organization ages, as one important intervening variable fo r socially responsible activities, which suggested that more empirical work is needed to understand the rela tionship between organiza tion age and socially responsible activities. Chen, Patten, and Roberts (2007) also re vealed organizational age had a positive correlation to corporate charitable contributions.

PAGE 51

51 Contrarily, some studies have concluded that the nature of an organizations industry is the best determinant of CSR behaviors. Beliv eau, Cottrill, and Neill (1994) and Spender (1989) suggested that behavioral patter ns within an industry may be similar, but different across industries, and that this would have an effect on CSR. In addition, Cowen, Ferreri, and Parker (1987) found that the type of industry may aff ect the level of environmental and community involvement activities. Baucus and Near (1991) argued that criteria may va ry by the type of industry and found a variety of di fferences in ethical behaviors among industries. Specifically, Cowen, Ferreri, and Parker (1987) that consumer-oriented orga nizations tend to demonstrate more social responsibility to the community beca use it contributes positivel y to the image of the organization and may attract customers. Hackston and Milne (1996) divi ded industries into high-profile (a high level of political risk or concentrated intense competition) and low-profile industries and found that the relationship between organizati on characteristics and CSR wa s based on these criteria. According to Hackston and Milne (1996), size and CSR is much stronger for high-profile industry organizations than lo w-profile industry organizations Examples of high-profile industries were automotive, o il industries, and alcohol orga nizations, while low-profile organizations, such as hotels, personal products and food, tended to be more service-oriented. For the purpose of this study, the study examin ed only organization size, age, and financial performance. In addition, this study describes how different sectors in an industry affected CSR. Purpose of the study and research questions Thus, given the paucity of research that examines this combination of organization characteristics, ethics, and CSR, this study w ill attempt to understand socially responsible

PAGE 52

52 behaviors of tourism organizations. Additionally this study will examine the best determinants of socially responsible be haviors of different types of tourism organizations. The research questions that guided this study are: 1. What corporate socially responsible behavior s are exhibited by tourism organizations? 2. What is the relationship between corporate ethical values (CEV) and the behavioral corporate social responsibility of tourism organizations? 3. Are there differences in corporate socially responsible behavior s by the organizations characteristics (size, year of orga nization, and financial performance)? Methodology Data Collection The target of this study was em ployees of tourism organizations who attended a conference in Central Florida. Survey questionnaires were distri buted to the tourism professionals participating at THETRADESHOW 2008 hosted by AS TA (American Society of Travel Agents) at the Convention Center in Orlando, Florida. ASTA estimate that around 2500 tourism professionals across countries register ed at THETRADESHOW 2008. Only registered members with name tags were able to enter the event venue. With the permission of organizers of the tradeshow, for three days survey questionnaires were distribute d to the participants entering the event venue. The survey included items that were used in this present study, as well as other items that were to be employed in other studies. This study distributed 700 questionnaires. The number 700 was determined by the calculation that the sample size for an 0.05% marg in of error with a 95% confidence level for a population of 2500 is 333 (Research Advisors 20 06) multipled by the response rate (around 50% response rate was expected). A total of 252 completed questionnaires were collected with an approximate response rate of 36%. A sample size of 252 is the numbe r that an 0.05% margin of error with a 90%

PAGE 53

53 confidence level for a population of 2500 (Res earch Advisors 2006). The sample size and response rate were satisfactory considering that the questions dealt with relatively sensitive issues. The questionnaires included a question asking whether the respondent were aware of his/her organizations so cially responsible behaviors; anyone who responded no were excluded from the remainder of the study. A total of 45 responded no, thus the remaining 207 questionnaires were used for this study, resulti ng in an 0.05% of margin error with an 87% of confidence level for a population of 2500 (Research Advisors 2006). Measurement Operationaliz ation of the dependent variables A nineteen-item scale was developed to measure socially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations using a multi-step procedure. First, the behaviors of CSR in tourism were identified based on previous research. For behavi ors of CSR, four domains were selected based on the relevant literature re view (Henderson 2007). The four dimensions are economic responsibility, socio-cultural res ponsibility, environmental responsibil ity, and ethics and internal responsibility. Second, items that captured the domains were generated. The initial item pool, which consisted of 32 items, was generated based on a thorough review of the sustainable tourism literature and the corporate so cial responsibility literature (Tourism Concern 1992; Tearfund 2000; Dodds and Joppe 2005; Henderson 2007). Afte r generating initial items, the items were then refined and edited for content validity by three experts who are pr ofessors or graduate students in tourism and knowledgeable about socially responsible tourism. These experts were given the studys operational defi nition of CSR and requested to rate each item as being clearly representative, somewhat represen tative or not at all representati ve of CSR (Zaichkowsky 1985).

PAGE 54

54 A series of decision rules were established for this determin ation by the rater. The rules included (1) consider the clarity of the items, (2) consider the readability of the items, and (3) consider the likelihood that the items may be accep table (not objectionable) to respondents. Using this process, a total of 19 items were se lected for this study. Th e items were rated on a seven-point scale rated from S trongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (7). Table 1-2 shows the dimensions and items of CSR behaviors. Appendix II shows the initial 32 items. Operationalization of the independent variables Corporate ethical values The Corporate Ethical Values (CEV) scale was developed by Hunt, Wood, and Chonko in 1989. The scale measures the extent to which managers concerns and behaviors are related to ethical issues, as well as the extent to which th e rewards for ethical behaviors are encouraged by the organization. The original CEV scale was a uni-dimensional, five-item scale measured on a seven-point Likert scale (H unt, Wood, and Chonko 1989). However, recent studies have revealed a two factor solution of CEV scale. Specifically, Singhapakdi, Gopinath, Marta, and Carter (2007) examined the dimensionality of CEV using exploratory fa ctor analysis and found the two factor solutions, (1) punishment and (2 ) behaviors and, with 66.3% variance. Using LISREL, they confirmed the model with two fact ors is a very good indicator of absolute and comparative fit. Thus, this study tested for uni-dimensionality by way of exploratory factor analysis. Characteristics of the organization Organizational size : For this study, organizational size was measured by the number of employees. This question was originally asked for a single choice, with open-ended response. For the purpose of this study, however, it was recoded as a categorical variable. Based on the

PAGE 55

55 distribution of the data, the orga nizations with fewer than 10 em ployees were recoded as smallsized organizations while those organizations with employees between 11 and 99 employees were recoded as medium-sized organizations, an d organizations with more than 100 employees were recoded as large-sized organizations. The st andard for the number of employees is based on the statistics on business size from the U.S. Census Bureau (2009). The U.S. Census Bureau does not define small or large business, but provides statistical criteria to categorize businesses. Financial performance : This variable was measured as last years (2007) annual corporate revenue. This questi on was originally asked by usi ng a single, open-ended response and was then recoded into a ca tegorical variable. Based on th e distribution of the data, the organizations were divided into 3 cate gories: (1) fewer than $99,999, (2) $100,000 to $9,999,999, (3) and over $10,000,000. Organizational age : Organizational age was measured by the number of years the organization had been in the tourism business. This measurement was asked as an open-ended question, but was then recoded into a categorical variab le. Based on the distribution of the data, the organizations were divided into 4 categories: (1) less than 5 year s, (2) 6 to 10 years, (3) 11 to 19 years, and (4) more than 20 years. Results Description of the Sample A summ ary of demographic data for the sample is provided in Table 22. As indicated in the table, almost 60% of respondents were female. Approximately, one third (34%) of respondents were owners of the organization/business. More than 85% of the respondents had earned at least a college degree and about 62% were older than 40 years of age. Also, the respondents had an average of 12 years of work e xperience in the tourism industry and more than

PAGE 56

56 9 years of managerial experience. They had wo rked in their current business an average of 7 years. Table 2-3 illustrates the characteristic inform ation of tourism organizations. More than half the organizations were small businesses with fewer than 10 employees. Expectedly, more than 40% of the businesses made fewer than $100,000 in annual revenue. Almost 23% of organizations had been in the tourism industr y for more than 20 years. The majority of organizations were travel agencies (64.4%). Other types of businesse s represented included theme parks, travel marketing organizations, and event management organizations. Tests of Dimensionality Exploratory factor analysis of CEV Results of the exploratory factor analysis of CEV with direct oblim in rotation with kaiser normalization are consistent with the two-factor structure of Singhapakdi, Gopinath, Marta, and Carter (2007) revealing the same items loaded on each factor (Table 2-4). The first factor explained 58.4% of the variance including 3 item s with factor loading ranging from 0.89 to 0.65. Adopting Singhapakdi, Gopinath, Marta, and Carter (2007) labels as appropriate, the first dimension was labeled formal policy. Example of CEV items for the first factor is If a manager in my company is discovered to have engaged in unethical behavior that results primarily in personal gain (rather than corporate gain), he or she will be promptly reprimanded and Top management in my company has let it be known in no uncertain terms that unethical behavior will not be tolerated. The second factor was termed informal polic y, explaining 22.78% of the variance with 2 items. The factor loading of these items ranged from 0.88 and 0.87. The two items for the second factor were, In order to succeed in my company, it is often necessary to compromise ones ethics and Managers in my company ofte n engage in behaviors that I consider being

PAGE 57

57 unethical. The factor extracted 71% of variance in the data. The reliability tests of the items for each dimension were over 0.70. Exploratory factor anal ysis of CSR behaviors Exploratory factory analysis was conducted to test the dimensionality of the measure socially responsible behaviors of tourism orga nizations. Since there ha ve been no previous efforts to develop a scale to measure the socially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations, it was not possible to hypothesize the dimensionality of the scale. However, it was expected that socially responsible behaviors of tourism orga nizations have more than one dimension since corporate social responsib ilities involve various issu es ranging from internal ethical behaviors to managing impacts. In addition, behaviors were conceptualized using the three tenets of sustainable tourism (environmental, socio-cultural and economic). Results of the exploratory fact or analysis using a direct oblimin rotation with kaiser normalization yielded two factors accounting for a total of 69.96% of the variance. According to Churchill (1979), items that cross-load above 0.4 on multiple factors or ite ms without at least a 0.5 factor loading on one factor are deleted. The deleted item s are educate tourists on the positive effects tourism can have on the local economy, implement programs that support the economic vitality of local communities, donate part of proceeds to charities of local economy, and provide on-going cultural sens itivity training about the local community. Accordingly, 4 items were deleted, leaving a total of 15 items in the scale. The factor loadings and items of each factor can be seen in Table 2-5. The first factor was labelled managi ng impacts and it explained 59.43% of the variance. This dimension consisted of 10 items with factor loadings ranging from 0.96 to 0.71. This dimension was given its name because the items describe the responsible behaviors to

PAGE 58

58 control and manage the environmental, socio-cult ural, and economic impacts. Examples of items were my company implements programs to manage socio-cultural impacts of our activities and my company markets products and services in an environmentally responsible way. The second factor was termed Support of local and fairness and explained 10.52% of the variance with 5 items. The factor loadings of these items ranged from 0.83 to 0.53. Items of this dimension dealt with both the supporting activities for local stakeholders and the fair and ethical environment of the company. The overall mean (based on a 7 point scale) for the management impacts dimension was 5.13 and the overall mean for the Support of local and fairness dimension was 5.84. Thus, tourism businesses are more likely to do better jobs in terms of fair internal systems than managing impacts. The mean score for the behavioral items ranged from 6.13 to 4.88 (Table 2-5). A score over 5 was interpreted as tending to behave respons ibly. This is because the range of the scale was 1-7. The items provide women with the sa me opportunity to be a manager and employ local residents yielded the hi ghest mean scores. The lowest mean score was for formulate policies to avoid socio-cultural impacts of ope rations. Data were nor mally distributed around the mean, indicating that no data transformation was necessary to apply multivariate statistical techniques. Tests of Associations between Variables Relationship betw een CEV and corpor ate socially responsible behaviors Multiple regression analysis was undertaken to determine the strength of the relationship between corporate responsible be haviors and corporate ethical va lues (Table 2-6). This study found a significant linear relationship, indicating that higher leve ls of formal policy in an organization resulted in greater socially responsible behaviors for both managing impacts

PAGE 59

59 (4.60, p = 0.00) and Support of local and fairness (6.52, p = 0.00). To examine if multicollinearity exists in the data, correla tion analyses were conducted. The correlation between two CEV dimensions was relative low (0 .34) and suggested collinearity would not be problem (Mason and Perreault 1991). The informal policy dimension of CEV did not have a significant association with either dimension of socially responsible behavior s. However, informal policy had a somewhat positive relationship with the Support of local and fairness (1.94, p = 0.05). Relationship between characteri stics of organization and CSR A one-way multivariate analysis of varian ce (MANOVA) was conducted to determine if significant differences existed for the effects of organization size, organiza tion age, and financial performance (i.e., independent variables) on th e two dimensions of socially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations (i.e., dependent variables). Based on findings from previous research (Cowen, Ferreri, and Parker 1987; McGuire, Sundgren, and Schneewers 1988; Navarro 1988; Roberts 1992; Stanwick and Stanwick 1998; Chen, Patten, and Roberts 2007), characteristics of businesses were expected to impact the soci ally responsible behaviors of organizations. MANOVA results revealed no significant influe nce on CSR by the majority of organizational characteristics; only organizational age indicate d significant differences on the managing impacts dimension (Table 2-7). Specifically, MANOVA indicated th at organizational age [Wilks = 0.89, F (4, 17) = 2.54, p = 0.00, multivariate 2 = 0.93] significantly affected social ly responsible behaviors. This indicated the necessity to further analyze the di fferences between organization age and socially responsible behaviors. Theref ore, the ANOVA procedure was employed to further examine the differences.

PAGE 60

60 The ANOVA test indicated that socially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations differ by organizational age. Specifically, the probability of obtaining an F value of 4.94 was 0.00 for the managing impacts dimension and th e probability of obtaining an F value of 2.75 was 0.04 for the Support of local and fairness dimension (Table 2-8). A post hoc test with least-square means (LSM) was used to determine where the differences in organization ages existed. LS M revealed significant differences between subgroups on both dimensions (Table 2-9). For example, the organizations of 6 to 10 years exhibited a higher degree of socially responsib le behaviors for both managing impacts and fair internal system: than the other two groups. However, the less than 5 years and 6 to 10 years groups did not show significant diffe rences for either dimension. Discussion The purpose of this study was to exam ine so cially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations and their relationshi p to organizational characteristics and corporate social values. In addition, this paper provides a current descri ption of the sample organizations socially responsible behaviors. First, tourism organizations re vealed stronger behaviors rela ted to fair and responsible employment systems than related to managing impacts. With regard to the issue related to providing women with the same opportunities, give n that the majority of organizations were based in the U.S., it makes sense that the respond ents would reply in this manner since the U.S. is governed by equal opportunity laws and punishab le by anti-discrimination laws if violated. Thus, one might expect that they behaved ethically and socially w ith regard to this behavior. However, this result might be affected by social de sirability because of the fact that the majority of respondents of this study were female. Social desirability is defined as responents answering a questionnaire may select an an swer more socially acceptable than alternatives other ones

PAGE 61

61 (Fisher 1993). Previous studies f ound that social desirability ex ists in responses dealing with ethical and responsible issues (Nyaw and Ng 1994). Thus, future research is recommened to investigate the possible skewing by soci al desirability in CSR studies. Moreover, with regard to employing local resi dents, again due to th e high incidence of U.S. based organizations, this positive finding ma y make sense. What may be interesting is whether non-U.S. based firms respond in the same way. Research has suggested that no laws exist in some developing countries restricti ng gender-based discrimina tion or requiring equal opportunity of employment and de veloping countries have a tendenc y to have varying behaviors related to employment of women and locals (L awler and Bae 1998). Thus, further research needs to be conducted on this topic. An additional meaningful finding was that soci ally responsible behaviors factored into two aspects. Within the context of tourism, previous literature has suggested that responsible behaviors largely represent thr ee areas: environmental, sociocultural and economic. This study did not support that finding. In fact, in the minds of this sample population (mostly small business owners) they conceptualized behaviors as both internal and extern al to their business. So, things that they could manage outside th eir organization and thi ngs that they could manage inside the organization were the drivers of CSR behaviors. This may be due to the design of the questionnaire, which emphasized the internal role of the organization in socially responsible behaviors rather than how their mismanagement might impact the community. Further investigation into the di fferences in wording should be tested to better understand this difference from the traditional tourism literature that has highlighted the impact of tourism behaviors rather than the mitigation of these impacts.

PAGE 62

62 As well as examining behaviors, this study te sted several factors that may affect an organizations socially responsible behavior. Consistent with previous research (Vitell and Hidalgo 2006), the results indica ted that an organizat ions ethical values affect socially responsible behaviors. Specifical ly, an organization that has pena lties for unethical behavior is more likely to show higher levels of socially responsible behavior. Th is is a good example of operant conditioning by way of negative reinforc ement (Skinner 1950), which suggest that the effects of the consequence of a par ticularly behavior is negatively reinforced in order to alter the future occurrence of the behavior Regarding an organizations characteristics, the results indicated only organizational age was significantly related to socia lly responsible behaviors. Previ ous literature has proposed that industry type may determine corporate socially responsible behavior s (Spender 1989; Beliveau, Cottrill, and ONeill 1994). With regard to age, perhaps this is a function of other correlates of age, for example, size and age, type of ownership and age, age of proprietor of business, and the like. Further research should be conducted to control for these m oderating variables. Moreover, the insignificant relationship between organi zational size and financial performance and CSR is an interesting finding. Perhaps this may have happened because of the various types of tourism organizations which were incorporated in our study. The organizational size can be influenced by the type of organization. For example, travel agents or tour operators generally have a small number of employees, while hotels or airlines have a greater number. So, focusing on the narrow range of types of organizati ons, such as only travel agents or only tour operators, could be helpful to be tter understand the affect of or ganizational size on the CSR. Further, examining CSR behaviors by the types of organizations with a larger, more diverse sample of tourism organizations is recommended for future studies. Finally, this study suggested

PAGE 63

63 investigating organizations characteristics as the determ inant of socially responsible behaviors without understanding their ethi cal backgrounds, which may be mi sleading. In addition, this study concludes that corporate ethi cal values are better indicators than corporate characteristics in determining CSR behavior. The relationshi p between corporate ethical values and the responsible behaviors of organizations implies an association between employees behaviors and organizational culture. Also, an organization with strong ethical values can result in employees who are more responsible and committed to th e organization, as Vite ll and Hidalgo (2006) implied. Although most individual factors can not be controlled by the organizations, corporate ethical values can be managed and appropria te training provided by the leaders of the organizations. Consequently, managers need to support corporate ethics programs and promote their integration at levels of th e organization. Therefore, we can conclude that organizations may be able to influence the ethical perceptions and attitudes of their employees by formulating a well defined set of ethical values and policies. Also, providing ethical training and proper ethical punishment system and may be useful to enhanc e the ethical and responsible behaviors of the employees within an organization. Limitations Like all studies, this stud y had som e limitations that should be addressed. The first concern relates to the measurement of SRB. Th is study measured SRB from the perspective of tourism industry professionals. Measuring organizations behaviors by eliciting individuals perceptions is one of the common methods in business studies (Quazi and OBrien 2000; Arthaud-Day 2005). However, some bias may have affected the outcomes of this study due to the nature of the topic: ethics and social respons ibility. It is quite pos sible that the responses were affected by social desira bility, although unless actual beha viors are measured by visual

PAGE 64

64 techniques this may be a limitation of the topic in general. A combination of qualitative and quantitative research may be one way to minimize the possible effect of so cial desirability. Second, this study was the first effort to de velop a measurement of SRB for the tourism industries. Therefore, genera lizability of the measurement may be limited. This study recommends testing the tool with a variety of samples to confirm the scales validity and reliability. In addition, development of a more rigorous scale may entail a follow-up study with a more exhaustive set of SRB items develope d through focus group inte rviews or in-depth interviews with industries Third, this study examined SRB within a tour ism industry framework. It was originally intended to examine differences according to orga nization types, but due to the small sample size, this could not be completed. Therefore for future research, it is necessary to focus on SRB within one type of organizati on or to examine the differences in SRB based on organization types.

PAGE 65

65 Table 2-1. Global code of ethics for tourism No. Principles 1 Tourisms contribution to mutual unders tanding and respect between peoples and societies 2 Tourism as a vehicle for indi vidual and collective fulfilment 3 Tourism, a factor of sustainable development 4 Tourism, a user of the cultural heritage of mankind and contributor to its enhancement 5 Tourism, a beneficial activity for host countries and communities 6 Obligations of stakeholders (governments, companies, local communities) in tourism development 7 Right to tourism 8 Liberty of tourist movements 9 Rights of the workers and entrepreneurs in the tourism industry 10 Implementation of the principles of the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism Source: http://www.world-tourism.org/code_ethics/eng/brochure.htm

PAGE 66

66 Table 2-2. Characteristi cs of respondents Characteristic Number Percent (%) Gender Male 82 41.4 Female 124 58.6 Job position Owner (CEO) 65 34.2 Manager 84 44.2 Travel Agent 41 21.6 Education Less than college 21 10.4 Technical school 8 4.0 College degree 101 50.2 Graduate school 39 19.4 Advanced degree 32 15.9 Age Younger than 30 23 11.3 31-40 56 27.5 41-50 56 27.5 51-60 46 22.5 Older than 61 23 11.3 Mean SD Work experience in tourism industry 12.2 10.8 Work experience in managerial position 10.1 9.7 Work experience in current organization 7.4 8.1

PAGE 67

67 Table 2-3. Characteristics of tourism organizations Characteristic Number Percent (%) Size Small (fewer than 10 employees) 98 50.8 Medium (11 to 99 employees) 41 21.2 Large (more than 100 employees) 54 28.0 Financial performance Less than $99,999 57 41.3 $100,000 and $9,999,999 50 36.2 Over $10,000,000 31 22.5 Organization age Less than 5 92 45.5 6-19 64 31.7 Over 20 46 22.8 Type of organization Travel agency 132 64.4 Others 30 14.6 Accommodation 18 8.8 Tour operator 12 5.9 Transportation 8 3.9 Resort 5 2.4 Total 252

PAGE 68

68 Table 2-4. Factor analysis of corporate ethical values Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations c. Total variance explained in the data = 71.27% CEV Items Factor loading Eigen value % of variance Mean SD Factor 1( = 0.74): Formal policy 2.42 48.49 5.63 1.38 1. If a manager in my company is discovered to have engaged in unethical behavior that results primarily in pers onal gain (rather than corporate gain), he or she will be promptly reprimanded. 0.89 5.65 1.69 2. If a manager in my company is discovered to have engaged in unethical behavior that results primarily in corporate gain (rather than personal gain), he or she will be promptly reprimanded. 0.88 5.80 1.63 3. Top management in my company has let it be known in no uncertain terms that unethical behavior will not be tolerated. 0.65 5.44 1.79 Factor 2 ( = 0.70): Informal policy 1.14 22.78 5.89 1.89 1. In order to succeed in my company, it is often necessary to compromise ones ethics. 0.88 5.87 1.71 2. Managers in my company often engage in behaviors that I cons ider being unethical. 0.87 5.89 1.74

PAGE 69

69 Table 2-5. Factor analysis of tourism organizations social ly responsible behaviors Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations c. Total variance explained in the data = 69.96% Items of socially responsible behaviors Factor loading Eigen value % of variance Mean SD Factor 1( = 0.96, N = 252): Managing impacts 9.21 59.43 5.13 1.57 1. Implement programs to manage socio-cultural impacts of our activities. 0.97 5.15 1.90 2. Train staff on the principles of environmental conservation. 0.95 5.01 1.94 3. Educate tourists about environmental concerns. 0.91 4.96 1.87 4. Formulate policies to avoid environmental impacts of operations. 0.89 5.13 1.84 5. Educate employees about socio-cultural issues. 0.87 5.14 1.78 6. Train staff on the environmental impacts of the company's operations. 0.86 5.12 1.83 7. Formulate policies to avoid socio-cultural impacts of operations. 0.85 4.88 1.85 8. Help tourists increase their cultural understanding of local communities. 0.79 5.48 1.81 9. Market products and services in an environmentally responsible way. 0.77 5.01 1.94 10. Market products and services in a socioculturally responsible way. 0.71 5.44 1.61 Factor 2 ( = 0.77, N = 252): Support of local and fairness 1.78 10.52 5.84 1.04 1. Purchase good and services from local suppliers 0.83 5.86 1.40 2. Wage structures are fair and equitable. 0.80 5.54 1.60 3. Provide women with the same opportunity to be a manager. 0.71 6.13 1.40 4. Support local businesses to ensure benefits to local communities. 0.65 5.84 1.37 5. Employ local residents. 0.53 5.95 1.34

PAGE 70

70 Table 2-6. Multiple regression models for socially responsible behavior of tourism organizations Enter Regression Summary Variable B t -value ( p ) Significance Managing impacts Formal policy 0.36 4.60 0.00* Informal policy 0.85 1.10 0.27 R2= 0.11, Adjusted R2= 0.10 F-value = 10.71, Significance = 0.00 Support of local and fairness Formal policy 0.46 6.52 0.00* Informal policy 0.14 1.94 0.05 R2= 0.27, Adjusted R2= 0.26 F-value = 30.75, Significance = 0.00 The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 Level.

PAGE 71

71 Table 2-7. Multivariate summary for organizationa l characteristics of socially responsible behaviors using Wilks Lambda Variables Wilks Lambda F df P Size of organization 0.98 0.35 170 0.84 Organizational age 0.89 2.54 170 0.00* Financial performance 0.91 1.98 170 0.09 The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 Level.

PAGE 72

72 Table 2-8. One-way ANOVA for effects of organizational age on soci ally responsible behaviors of tourism organizations SRB df SS MS F P Between groups 3 34.00 11.33 Managing impacts Within groups 180 412.66 2.29 4.94 0.00* Between groups 3 8.49 2.83 Organization age Support of local and fairness Within groups 188 193.25 1.03 2.75 0.04* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 Level.

PAGE 73

73 Table 2-9. Least-square means for organizational age Organization age Less than 5years (a) 6-10 years (b) 11-19 years (c) Over 20 years (d) SRB M SD M SD M SD M SD Post hoc Managing impacts 5.32 1.50 5.89 1.16 4.70 1.77 4.88 1.43 b > c, d* a > c* Support of local and fairness 6.02 1.04 6.21 0.84 5.72 1.01 5.67 1.05 b > c, d* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 Level.

PAGE 74

74 Figure 2-1. The hypothesized model for this study Corporate Socially Responsible Behavior of Tourism Organizations Corporate Ethical Value Financial Performance Organizational Age Organizational Size

PAGE 75

75 CHAPTER 3 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN THE TOURISM INDUSTRY Introduction Worldwide tourism is one of the largest and most important industries. The increase of the tourism industry mainly has been led by th e strategic marketing activities (Ahmed, Krohn, and Heller 1994). Tourism marketers have create d marketing plans that meet the needs of specific markets and sell their products at a profit (Ahmed, Krohn, and Heller 1994). While tourism destinations and industry practitioners have aggressively developed more sophisticated marketing strategies to attract more tourists, this success has generated a number of issues in the host communities. With the recognition of these impacts, scholars have questioned the ethics and social responsibility of marketers (Ha ll 1992) although many tourism marketers have not paid much attention to these i ssues. For example, Fleckenstein and Huebsch (1999) contend that both the supply and demand sides of the tourism industry have not only lacked consideration for the ethical aspects of tourism, but also ethical standards of care for their guests/customers. Hall (1992) has also questioned the ethical issues of tourism products, services, and marketing. After a comprehensive review of the tourism literatu re, Hultsman (1995) revealed that there is a concern among tourism professionals about the ethical aspects of tourism service delivery and suggested that tourism research a nd literature have not deal ade quately with ethical issues. Some scholars, however, have expressed an in terest in ethical issues in tourism, as Wheeler (1995) reported, but the in terest was implicit and not yet e xplicitly discussed. Thus, this study attempts to understand the ethical decisi on-making process of tourism professionals, focusing on the ethical aspects of the tourism indus try. Specifically, this study examines tourism organizations ethical values and practitioners pe rceptions regarding thes e issues. In addition, this study examines how organizations ethical va lues and the employees perceptions of ethics

PAGE 76

76 and social responsibility may a ffect tourism practitioners attit udes toward CSR of the tourism industry. Literature Review A General Theory of Marketing Ethics Hunt and Vitell (1986) devised general theory of m arketing ethics, one of the most comprehensive models for ethical decision-maki ng. They attempted to describe the decisionmaking process that takes place surrounding ethical issues. This theory is rooted in moral philosophy, a teleological evaluation, and a proc ess where the marketer evaluates an evoked asset of alternatives based on such factors as the probability and desirability of perceived consequences. In the teleological evaluation, w ho is affected by these ethical decisions determines the issues, including good or bad consequences. The ethics theory places an organizations internal environment as the determiner of ethical decision-making based on te leological perspectives (Vitell and Hidalgo 2006). The role of environmental factors in the decision maki ng process has also been supported by several studies (e.g., Ferrell and Gresha m 1985; Trevino 1986; Jones 1991). These studies suggest that ethical decision-making is determined by an in teraction between environmental factors (e.g., organization culture and job characteristics) a nd personal cognitive factors (e.g., moral values, perceptions, and attitudes). According to the general theory of marketing ethics, perceive d problems of ethical issues can trigger an ethical decision. Namely, an individual must percei ve an ethical problem first in order to make a decision. This proposition is consistent with ot her consumer behavior theories (e.g., Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) that suggest indi vidual judgments affect behavior through the intervening variable of intentions. Hunt and Vitell (1986) posited that ethical behaviors are better determined by direct/implicit ethica l problems than peripheral problems.

PAGE 77

77 Ethical and Socially Responsible Issues in Tourism The issue of ethics and CSR has not been a major focus in the tourism literature (Tearfund 2000; Mitchell 2006; Henderson 2007). Although the issue of ethics in tourism has been explored in tourism, there is a dearth of empirical studies related to ethical decision making within the tourism industry (e.g., Kr ohn and Ahmed 1991; Wheeler 1995). Krohn and Ahmed (1991) argued that internatio nal tourism marketers within different segments of the tourism industry, including air lines, accommodations, tour operators, travel agencies, and cruise lines, need to develop an ethical code of cor porate behavior. They suggested that a code would help employees fr om violating ethical va lues and meet industry standards. According to Wheeler (1995), the dis tinguishing features of tourism products, such as intangibility, evolving over time into a comp letely different product, the difficulties with standardization and violating world events have led to more recognition of the importance of ethical issues in the tourism industry (p. 47) Fleckenstein and Huebsch (1999) argued that ethics in the tourism industry has not been a focus and need s more consideration. They suggested that consideration need s to be given to socio-cultura l costs of tourism development and the ethical treatment of customers and employees. They also sugge st that the tourism industry has a great responsibility to travelers and its own employees. Several scholars have focused specifically on ethical decision-making in the tourism industry. First, Go and Haywood (1990) argued th at the main concern of tourism literature related to social responsibility and ethics was controlling negativ e environmental, socio-cultural, and economic impacts through marketing efforts. Wheeler (1991, 1993) trie d to apply marketing ethics to understanding the relationship between government and the environment. His findings suggest that critical issues include coercion and control, compro mise of individual ethics, and ethical responsibilities for communities. Furthe r, these studies suggested that the decision-

PAGE 78

78 making processes of marketers were influenced by individual beliefs, professional ethics, and organizational ethics. Malloy a nd Fennell (1998) supported this ar gument in a study that focused on organizational cultures within an ecotourism context. They contended that organizational culture plays an important role in affecti ng the ethical, or unethical, behaviors of an organizations employees; an organizations cu lture helps to guide ethical or unethical behaviours and solve ethical problems. Also, th ey found that, in an organization with more ethically enhanced cultures, the employees tended to behave more ethically. Another line of research has examined ethics in relation to managing impacts. According to Malloy and Fennell (1998), the ecotourism industr y is concerned with ethical and responsible performance because it impacts on both survival and profitability. Henderson (2007) argued CSR initiatives in tourism need to incorporate issues related to the management of negative impacts of business, the investigation of social welfare, and environmental programs. According to Henderson (2007), the guidelines of CSR and sust ainable development are very similar and the terms are often used interchangeably. More specifically, CSR integrates some of the fundamental principles of sustai nable development when a company pursues sustainable tourism. Corporate Ethical Values The study of corporate ethical values (CEV) in relation to ethical decision m aking have focused mainly on environmental factors of an organization which influe nce behavior (Vitell, Paollio, and Thomas 2003; Vitell and Hidalgo 20 06; Singhapakdi, Gopinath, Marta, and Carter 2007). Hunt, Wood, and Chonko (1989) defined corporate ethical values as a composite of the individual ethical values of ma nagers and both the formal and informal policies on ethics of the organization (p.79). Various empirical studies have tested the impor tance of corporate ethi cal values in ethical decision-making and found mixed results (Singhapakdi, Kraft, Vitell, an d Rallapalli 1996; Vitell

PAGE 79

79 and Hidalgo 2006; Singhapakdi, el al. 2007). A numbe r of studies revealed positive influences of corporate ethical values on indivi duals ethical perceptions. Fo r instances, Vitell and Hidalgo (2006) examined U.S. and Spanish managers a nd their ethical percepti ons and found corporate ethical values had a strong influence on the perc eived importance of ethics to managers across countries. Singhapakdi, el al.(1996) argued that ethical corporate va lues seem to help sensitize marketers to the importance of ethics and social responsibilit y as a component of marketing decisions (p. 55). Using the CEV scale developed by Hunt, Wood, and Chonko (1989), Pettijohn, Pettijohn, and Taylor ( 2007) found that a salespersons general attitude regarding business ethics is significantly related to the corp orate ethical environment perceived by him/her. In contrast, some studies have not revealed a significant role that CEV play in the decision-making process. In a study examining ma rketing managers from the U.S., U.K., Spain, and Turkey, Vitell, Paollio, and Thomas (2003) hypot hesized that if corporate ethical values are strong, they will influence both ethical judgment and intentions. However, they found that corporate ethical values were not a significant determinant of ethical judgment. On the other hand, the relationship between corporate ethical values and intention was partially supported. Singhapakdi, el al. (2007) also found that corporate ethical values did not have a positive affect on perceived ethical problems, but did have a positive affect on a managers perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility. Perceptions of Ethics and Social Responsibility One of the most im portant factors affecting et hical and socially res ponsible behaviors of a company is how the managers in the company perceive its ethics a nd social responsibility (Shafer, Fukukawa, and Lee 2006). According to Vitell and Hidalgo (2006) managers must perceive ethics as important if their behaviors are to change. If they do not consider ethics and social responsibility important then their behaviors are more likely to be affected by this belief.

PAGE 80

80 Supporting this view, Newstrom and Ruch (1975) found that ethical beliefs of managers were significantly associated w ith their behaviors. In the business litera ture, the perceptions of ethics a nd social responsibility are often examined using the PRESOR scale which stands for the Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility. The PRESOR scale was deve loped by Singhapakdi, Vitell, Rallapalli and Kraft (1996) to understand the way that marketers perceive ethics and so cial responsibility. Numerous studies have used the PRESOR scale as both a predicting variable and an affected variable in relation to ethical decision maki ng (e.g., Singhapakdi, Vitell, Rallapalli, and Kraft 1996; Singhapakdi 1999; Vitell, Paollio, and Thom as 2003; Axinn, Blair, Heorhiadi, and Thach 2004; Shafer, Fukukawa, and Lee 2006; Pettijoh n, Pettijohn, and Taylor 2007). Singhapakdi (1999) surveyed the members of American Marketing Association and found that marketers who perceived ethics and social re sponsibility to be important indica ted more ethical intentions. Using the PRESOR scale previous business re lated research has revealed a relationship between corporate ethical values and perceptions of ethics and social responsibility among business managers (Singhapakdi et al. 2007). These studies suggested, ho wever this relationship may be affected by the types of industry (Singhapakdi et al. 2007). In response to this conclusion, this study will examine whether this relationship can be explained within a tourism setting. Additionally, while focusing on socially responsible tourism, this study will investigate how corporate ethical values and perceptions of ethics and social re sponsibility may affect marketing professionals attitudes towa rd CSR of tourism organizations. In a review of previous studies and supporting empiri cal evidence, the following hypotheses are suggested: Hypothesis 1: Corporate ethical values are positively related to the degree of importance

PAGE 81

81 of ethics and CSR perceived by tourism marketing professionals within tourism businesses. Hypothesis 2: Corporate ethical values are positively related to the to tourism marketing professionals attitudes toward CSR of tourism industry. Hypothesis 3: The importance of ethics and CSR is positively related to tourism marketing professionals attitudes toward CSR of tourism industry. Methods Data Collection The sam ple for this study was marketers within tourism busine sses who attended a tourism industry trade show in Central Florida. Questionnaires were distributed to tourism professionals participating at THETRADESHOW 2008 at the C onvention Center in Orlando, Florida. Only registered members with name tags were able to enter the event venue. With the permission of the organizers of th e tradeshow, for three days questionnaires were distributed to participants entering the event venue. The survey included items that were used in this present study as well as other items that be employed in other studies. Interviewe rs worked either in teams of two or as individuals. Data collectors we re instructed to approach alternating males and females and to ask people if they worked in the tourism industry. Only individuals who answered yes to this question were interviewe d. Surveyors were identified by a name tag with THETRADESHOW and University of Florida logos. Clipboards were available for the researcher to either hand to the respondent to answer individually or, where necessary, for the respondents to answer items on their own. Out of 700 distributed survey questionna ires, a total of 252 completed survey questionnaires were collected giving an approxi mate response rate of 36%. The 252 sample size is the number with an 0.05% margin of error w ith a 90% of confidence level for a population of

PAGE 82

82 2500 (Research Advisors 2006). The sample size a nd response rate is sa tisfactory considering that questions dealt with relatively sensitive issues. A summary of demographic data for the sample is provided in Table 3-1. As indicated, more than half of respondents were female, 85% earned at least a college degree, and about 62% were older than 40. Most of the respondents work ed at travel agencies (66.4%) and 10% of them work at hotels and resorts. Also, the participants had an average of 12 years of work experience in the tourism industry and more than 9 years of managerial experience. Measurement Tools This study used two existing scales and de veloped one new measure to examine the proposed relationship in a tourism setting. All measur es used rated with a seven-point scale rated from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (7). Corporate ethical values (CEV) scale The first scale used for this study was the Co rporate Ethical Values (CEV) scale, which was originally developed by Hunt, Wood, and Chonko (1989). This scale measures the extent to which managers concerns and behaviors are relate d to ethical issues as well as the extent to which the rewards for these ethical behaviors are met. The original CEV scale was desinged as a uni-dimensional five items scale. However, so me studies (e.g., Singhapakdi et al. 2007) have revealed a two-factor solution a nd distinguished one factor relate d to behaviors and one related to formal policies. Results of the exploratory factor analysis of this study were consistent with a two-factor structure revealing the same fact ors as Singhapakdi et al. (2007). The factor loadings and items of the two factors are shown in Table 3-2. The first factor explained 48.48% of the variance and consisted of three items. Examples of questionnair e statements relevant to the first factor were If a manager in my company is discovered to ha ve engaged in unethical behavior that results

PAGE 83

83 primarily in personal gain (rather than corporate gain), he or she will be promptly reprimanded and Top management in my company has let it be known on no uncertain terms that unethical behavior will not be tolerated. The first factor was labeled formal policy because the items of the first factor showed the extent to which une thical behaviors are punished by formal policies. The second factor explained 22.77% of the va riance and consisted of two items: In order to succeed in my company, it is often n ecessary to compromise ones ethics (reverse scored item) and Managers in my company often engage in behaviors th at I consider to be unethical (reverse scored item). The second f actor termed informal policy. These factors identified 71% of variance in the data. The reli ability tests for the items for each dimension were over 0.70. Perceptions of ethics and social responsibility (PRESOR) scale The perceptions of ethics and social responsib ility were measured using a PRESOR scale. The items included in this scale are shown in Table 3-3. The PRESOR scale was developed to measure the perceived importance of ethics and so cial responsibility by Singhapakdi et al. (1996) and has been used in numerous studies (e .g., Singhapakdi et al. 1996; Etheredge 1999; Singhapakdi et al. 2001; V itell, Paolillo, and Thomas 2003; Axinn et al. 2004; Shafer, Fukukawa, and Lee 2006; Pettijohn, Pettijohn and Taylor 2007). In the original study, Singhapakdi et al. 1996 found a three-factor soluti on and named each factor: (1) Good Ethics Is Good Business, (2) Profits Are Not Param ount and (3) Quality and Communication. Although, Axinn et al. (2004) also found th ree factors using PRESOR, which they conceptualized two categories ca lled: (1) Stockholder view and (2) Stakeholder view. In another study testing the dimensionality of PR ESOR, Etheredge (1999) concluded that PRESOR items loaded only two factors ra ther than three. According to Axinn et al. (2004) the two

PAGE 84

84 dimensions found by Etheredge can also be concep tualized as stockholder view and stakeholder view. The stockholder view argues that a comp any has a main responsibility to follow the interests of the stockho lders by providing products and serv ices to consumers, while the stakeholder view suggests that a company has res ponsibilities to solve societal concerns and to do so is profitable. Specifically, one of the two f actors had four of the fi ve stockholder view items and the other factor included five of th e eight stakeholder view items as suggested by Ethridge (Axinn et al. 2004). The factor structure of the st ockholder vs. stakeholder view was also adopted by Shafer, Fukukawa, and Lee 2006. Using the stockholder vs. stakeholder view terminology, they examined the effect of personal values on managers perceived role of ethics and social responsibility and found a similar pattern of factor loading in the PRESOR scale as one that Axinn et al. Additionally, the study revealed th e two dimensions of PRESOR were influenced differently by personal values, but this could no t explain the reason why the relationships varied across the PRESOR dimensions. Thus, the study s uggested further research was needed to deal with this varied dimensionality of PRESOR. The original PRESOR scale had sixteen items and a 9-point Likert-type scale. For the purpose of the present study, the scale was reduced to thirteen items as suggested by Singhapakdi et al. (1996) and revised to a seve n-point scale in order to be cons istent with the other scales in this study. A principal compone nt factor analysis with Oblimin rotation and Kaiser normalization was used to examine the dimensiona lity of the PRESOR scale. Direct oblimin rotation was used because it allows the correlation of factors. This diminishes interpretability of the factors however, is preferred because of the po tential that factors will be correlated. Table 33 shows a summary of the factor loadings. Tw o factors with eigenvalu es were higher than 1

PAGE 85

85 emerged. The items that loaded on the two factors were similar to the Stockholder view and Stakeholder view as revealed by Shafer, Fukukawa, and Lee (2006). Therefore, this study adopted the stockholder vs. stakeholder view terminology originally named by Axinn et al. (2004) for the purpose of the discussion. In th is study, the stockholder view implies that the priority of a company is to make profits and provide goods and services in the interest of stockholders. On the other hand, the stakehol der view means that the business has the responsibility toward various st akeholders to consider their common concerns in a society. The first factor, labeled stakeholder view s howed that ethics and social responsibility are important for business survival. This factor included eight items th at explained 35.26% of the variance. The second fact or, stockholder view with th ree items, accounted for 11.2% of the variance. All of these items were reverse-coded, so genera lly the respondent s did not agree with these items. The reliability of these factors using Cronbach alpha values was higher than 0.6, which is generally deemed acceptable (Nunnally 1978). Attitudes toward CSR of the tourism industry A uni-dimensional measurement with six items was developed to measure on individuals attitudes toward CSR of the tourism industr y based on a thorough review of the literature (Tearfund 2000; Dodds and Joppe 2005; Henders on 2007). Items were developed based on the survey from Partnership for Global Sustainable Cr iteria (2007). Examples of the items include Tourism corporations have a res ponsibility to preserve the envi ronment and Corporate social responsibility is particul arly important for the tourism industry. One item, Corporate social responsibility is hard to appl y to tourism companies was re verse scored. This study used a seven-point scale, ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. In this study, the

PAGE 86

86 statements were positively and negatively worded and were placed randomly in a single set to reduce the halo effect of responses. Although this measurement was intended as a uni-dimensional scale, principal component factor analysis with Oblimin rotatio n and Kaiser normalization was used to examine the possible dimensionality of the six items of attitude regarding CSR in the tourism industry. Results of factor analysis reve aled that one factor emerged w ith an eigenvalue higher than 1. Therefore, for the hypothesis test, the responses to all questions were summed to provide a single composite index consisting of six items. This in dex of attitudes toward CSR in tourism provided scores ranging from a low of 6 to a high of 42 points. The higher index the more positive the attitudes toward CSR of tour ism organizations. For the de tailed items, see the Table 1-1. Results Descriptive Analysis Description of the sample A summ ary of characteristic data for the sample is showed in Table 3-1. As indicated in the table, almost 60% of respondents were fe male. More than 80% of the respondents had earned at least a college degree and about 60% were older than 40 years of age. Also, the respondents had an average of 12 years of work e xperience in the tourism industry and more than 9 years of managerial experience. The majority of respondents work at travel agent (64.4%). Other types of businesses represented incl uded accommodations, and tour operators. Corporate ethical values The two dimensions of CEV entailed five items in total. Three items loaded on the first factor related to formal policy of unethical behavior s and the remaining two items loaded on the second factor related to an informal compromise about unethical behaviors.

PAGE 87

87 The overall mean (based on a 7-point scale) for the formal policy dimension was 5.63 ( SD = 1.38), and for the informal policy dimension 5.90 ( SD = 1.50). Since the items were measured on a 7-point scale, the results sugge st that the means of both dimensions were relatively strong and that tourism marketing professionals generall y believe their companies have very good ethical value systems in place. This result can be compared with the one from the Hunt, Wood and Chonko (1989) study which examined CEV of the marketing managers in general business. In their study, the mean score of CEV perceived by marketing managers sampled from the American Marketing Managers (AMA) was 5.33. Perceptions of ethics and CSR The two dimensions of the perceived importan ce of ethics and CSR were measured using eleven items. Eight items loaded on the first f actor related to the stakeholder view of the perceived importance of ethics a nd social responsibility and the remaining three items loaded on the second factor regarding stockholder view. On a 7-point scale, the mean scores of the items ranged from 5.41 to 6.16. Marketing professionals in tourism industries were more likely to perceive ethics an d social responsibility as important. For the stakeholder view dimension, the overall mean (based on 7-point scales) was 5.78 ( SD =0.92), and 5.82 ( SD = 1.27) for the stockholder view. Since the items were measured on a 7-point scale, the results suggest that tourism marketing professionals generally believe that being ethical is good for business. These results are similar to ones found in general marketing studies (Singhapakdi et al. 1995; Sh afer, Fukukawam and Lee 2006). Singhapakdi et al. (1995) reported the mean sc ores of 6.15 to 8.66 on a 9-point scale and Shafer, Fukukawam and Lee (2006) showed 5.92 to 7.86.

PAGE 88

88 Attitudes toward CSR of the tourism industry The index of attitudes toward CSR of the tourism industry ranged from a minimum of 13 to a maximum of 42, while the index ranges were 6 to 42. The index had a mean of 35 and a standard deviation of 6.08. No data transf ormation was necessary to apply multivariate statistical techniques because the data were normally distributed around the mean. The mean for the six items was 5.82 ( SD =1.01). Since the items were measured on a 7point scale, the results suggest ed tourism marketing professi onals generally recognize that tourism companies are socially responsible a bout various issues. The statement Tourism corporations have a responsibil ity to enhance the quality of tourist experience, showed the highest mean ( Mean = 6.33, SD = 0.99). The lowest mean scored item was Corporate social responsibility is hard to a pply to a tourism company ( Mean = 4.32, SD = 2.11). Test of Hypotheses Results of testing hypo thesis 1: Corporate et hical values are positively related to the degree of importance of ethics and CSR perceived by tourism marketing professionals within tourism businesses. In order to test hypothesis 1, a regression an alysis was performed. Results suggest that hypothesis 1 was partially supported. The formal policy dimension of corporate ethical values had a positive effect on stakeho lder view, but not on stockhol der view of the PRESOR. The informal policy dimension of the CEV scale had the strongest positive effect for the stockholder view of the PRESOR but the formal policy dimension of the CEV was not significant for the stockholder view. Adjusted R2 for the regression of CEV for the stockholder view was 0.15, indicatin g that the two dimensions of corporate ethical values, by themselves, account for almost 15% of the va riance of the stockholder view. The regression analysis results for the hypothe sis 1 appears in Table 3-4.

PAGE 89

89 Results for testing hypothesis 2: Corporate ethical values are positively related to tourism marketing professionals attitudes toward CSR of tourism industry. Corporate ethical values also had a significan t positive effect on the tourism practitioners attitudes toward CSR of the tourism industry. Both formal policy (3.19, p = 0.00) and informal policy (2.83, p = 0.00) indicated statistical significance and explained 12% of the attitudes toward CSR ( R2 = 0.12) Thus, hypothesis 2 was supporte d. The regression analysis results for hypothesis 2 appears at table 3-5. Results for testing hypothesis 3: The impor tance of ethics and CSR is positively related to tourism marketing profe ssionals attitudes toward CSR of tourism industry. Both the stakeholder view dimension (7.46, p = 0.00) and the stockholder view dimension (2.98, p = 0.00) of the PRESOR scale showed significant positive effect on socially responsible tourism attitudes. Thus, hypothesis 2 was supported. The adjusted R2 for this regression analysis was 0.30 i ndicating that the two dimensions of perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility, by themselves, account for over 30% of the variance of attitudes toward CSR of the tourism industry (Table 3-6). Discussion This study focused on ethical and socially resp onsible issues within the tourism industry. The results from this study, which focused on tourism, generally supported the propositions of the general theory of marketing ethics. First, this study showed that tourism busine sses perceive there is a generally good ethical environment in which their companies operate. T ourism marketing professionals tend to believe their companies provide a strong value system a nd this is found in both formal and informal policies. Comparing the results from ge neral marketing studies (Hunt, Wood, and Chonko

PAGE 90

90 1989), tourism marketing professionals perceive relatively higher corporate ethical values than those in the general studies. One possible explanation is that there is a higher proportion of owners or presidents in this study than in the general marketing studies and thus these owners may be naturally more committed to their orga nization and thus indicate higher ethics in management (Hunt, Wood, and Chonko 1989). Second, tourism marketing professionals generally pe rceived ethics and social responsibility as important to business. These results imply the pe rceptions of tourism professionals are similar to marketing professionals from general business. This study revealed results among the different dimensions of the CEV and perceptions of ethics and CSR, similarly with Shafer, Fukukawa, and Lee (2006). First, the findings from this st udy are supported by the positive association between the formal policy of CEV and the stakeholder view, where a company has responsibilities to address societal concerns and to do so is profitable. The informal policy dimension of CEV was associated with only the stockholder view, where a company has a responsibility to follow the interests of the stockholders by providing products and services to consumers which are sound. These results imply that employers percep tions of CSR are influenced and strengthened by formulated ethical values, such as a punishment system. Thus, if an organization commits to ethical business practices the organization needs to set up ethical systems with high standards and train their employees. Another explanation fo r this maybe that, similar to general marketing professionals, those in the tourism industry may have responded to quest ions regarding their companies with an element of social desirab ility. Given the nature of the questions and respondents relationship to their companies l eadership, it may be understandable that marketing and tourism managers w ould response positively.

PAGE 91

91 Moreover, two dimensions of corporate ethical values had a signifi cant impact on tourism practitioners attitudes toward CSR of the tourism industry. This result is consistent with the general theory of mark eting ethics, which suggests that marketing professionals in an organization with a higher ethical value system may have more positive at titudes toward social responsibility issues than thos e in organizations with lower value systems. This study implies that tourism marketers are more sensitive to soci ally responsible and ethical issues when the organization sets clear ethical standards and values. Thus, this study suggests that, by providing a clear set of goals and standards, an organization may improve its ethical and socially responsible practices of employees, and ultimately lead to better ethical behavior a nd socially responsible performance. Marketers in the tourism industry generally te nd to believe that good ethics is important for the success of their business and that tourism companies have a responsibility toward society and tourists. The results of this study suggest that marketers in the t ourism industry who believe ethics are important for a business are more likely to have positive attitudes toward implementing social responsibility within their tour ism business. This finding is consistent with results from a study by Singhapakdi (1999), who examined marketers in general. Consistent with his recommendation, this st udy also recommends that to improve ethical behaviors in organizations it is necessary to strengthen employe rs perception of the impor tant role of ethics as a determinant of business success and to pr ovide various training oppo rtunities on ethics and social responsibility for employees, such as workshops. Limitation and Future Studies This study was a starting point to exam ine tourism professi onals ethical attitudes and sense of social responsibility. Guided by marketing theory, this study revealed that an

PAGE 92

92 organizations environment, such as corporate ethical values, affects the tourism marketing professionals ethical decision -making. While previous re search covered by marketing professionals in general business, this study focused on professionals from a single industry. However the sample of this study incorporates the professionals from various types of tourism companies since the unique characteristics of the tourism industr y is an amalgam of many types of businesses. Different types of businesses may result in varying perceptions and attitudes among employees. In addition to the types of busin ess, the companies characteristics, such as size and length of time in business (age) may influence ethical perceptions and attitudes of employees. Thus, further research is recomm ended to investigate additional organizational factors that may determine a prof essionals ethical decision-making. This study revealed the relationship betw een the perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility and tourism practitioners attitudes toward CSR of the tourism industry. The general theory of mark eting ethics formulated by Hunt and Vitell (1986) suggests that understanding ethical issues is a significant predictor of ethical behaviors. Therefore, future research needs to examine the relationship betw een perception and behavi ors within a tourism context. In addition, marketing ethics theories (e.g., Ferrell and Gresham 1985; Hunt and Vitell 1986) suggest that individual characteristics may influence perceptions of and attitudes about ethical and social responsibility. In other words, one can exp ect that ethical perceptions and socially responsible attitudes may vary, in part by personal factors. Further research should measure this relationship and examine such pers onal characteristics such as gender, age, education, work experience, employment position, and the like.

PAGE 93

93 Table 3-1. Characteristics of respondents Characteristic Number Percent (%) Gender Male 147 41.4 Female 104 58.6 Education Less than college 30 12.2 Technical school 9 3.7 College degree 122 49.8 Graduate school 47 19.2 Advanced degree 37 15.1 Age Younger than 30 29 11.7 31-40 66 26.6 41-50 67 27.0 51-60 56 22.6 Older than 61 30 12.1 Types of organizations Accommodation (Lodging) 25 10.0 Tour operator 14 5.6 Travel marketing company 10 4.0 Cruise 4 1.6 National tourism organization 9 3.6 Transportations 7 2.8 Travel agency 166 66.4 Others 15 6.0 Mean SD Work experience in managerial position 9.8 9.7 Work experience in tourism industry 12.4 10.8

PAGE 94

94 Table 3-2. Factor analysis of CEV Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations c. Total variance explained in the data = 71.27% CEV Items Factor loading Eigen value % of variance Mean SD Factor 1( = 0.74): Formal policy 2.42 48.48 5.63 1.38 1. If a manager in my company is discovered to have engaged in unethical behavior that results primarily in pers onal gain (rather than corporate gain), he or she will be promptly reprimanded. 0.87 5.79 1.63 2. If a manager in my company is discovered to have engaged in unethical behavior that results primarily in corporate gain (rather than personal gain), he or she will be promptly reprimanded. 0.85 5.44 1.79 3. Top management in my company has let it be known in no uncertain terms that unethical behavior will not be tolerated. 0.69 5.65 1.68 Factor 2 ( = 0.70): Informal policy 1.14 22.77 5.90 1.50 4. In order to succeed in my company, it is often necessary to compromise ones ethics 0.87 5.89 1.67 5. Managers in my company often engage in behaviors that I cons ider being unethical. 0.85 5.85 1.77

PAGE 95

95 Table 3-3. Factor analysis of PRESOR Factor loadings Eigen value % of variance Mean S.D Factor 1 ( = 0.80) Stakeholder view 1.80 35.26 5.78 0.92 1. Being ethical and socially responsible is the most important thing a firm can do. 0.73 5.83 1.38 2. The ethics and social responsibility of a firm is essential to its long term profitability 0.70 5.88 1.45 3. The overall effectiveness of a business can be determined, to a great extent, by the degree to which it is ethical and socially responsible. 0.69 5.41 1.60 4. Business ethics and social responsibility are critical to the survival of a business enterprise. 0.67 5.60 1.56 5. Businesses have a social responsibility beyond making a profit. 0.66 5.97 1.34 6. Social responsibility and profitability can be compatible. 0.54 5.88 1.38 7. Good ethics is often good business. 0.53 6.14 1.42 8. A firms first priority should be employee morale. 0.53 5.55 1.26 Factor 2 ( = 0.63) Stockholder view 1.63 11.17 5.82 1.27 1. If the survival of a business enterprise is at stake, then you must forget about ethics and social responsibility. 0.81 5.64 1.67 2. Bending and breaking the rules is acceptable, if a firm is making a profit. 0.68 6.16 1.39 3. To remain competitive in a global environment, business firms will have to disregard ethics and social responsibility. 0.62 5.87 1.75 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations c. Total variance explained in the data = 46.44%

PAGE 96

96 Table 3-4. Regression results: Dependent variable: PRESOR Enter Regression Summary B t -value Significance Stakeholder view Formal policy 0.16 2.26 0.03* Informal policy 0.13 1.82 0.07 Adjust R2=0.06, F = 6.19, Significance of F = 0.00 Stockholder view Formal policy 0.12 1.71 0.08 Informal policy 0.32 4.75 0.00* Adjust R2= 0.15, F = 17.41, Significance of F = 0.00 The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 Level.

PAGE 97

97 Table 3-5. Regression results: Dependent vari able: Attitudes toward CSR in tourism organizations The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 Level. Enter Regression Summary B t -value Significance Attitudes toward CSR in tourism organizations Formal policy 1.42 3.19 0.00* Informal policy 1.26 2.83 0.00* Adjust R2= 0.12, F = 14.31, Significance of F = 0.00

PAGE 98

98 Table 3-6. Regression results: Dependent vari able: Attitudes toward CSR in tourism organizations Enter Regression Summary B t -value Significance Attitudes toward CSR in tourism organizations Stakeholder view 2.76 7.46 0.00* Stockholder view 1.12 2.98 0.00* Adjust R2= 0.30, F = 44.53, Significance of F = 0.00 The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 Level.

PAGE 99

99 Figure 3-1. The hypothesized model among CEV, PRESOR, and attitudes toward CSR Perceived Importance of Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility Attitudes toward Corporate Social Responsibility in Tourism Industry Corporate Ethical Values

PAGE 100

100 CHAPTER 4 TRAVEL AGENTS ATTITUDES TOWARD CO RPORATE SOCIALLY RES PONSIBILITY AND CORPORATE SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR OF TRAVEL AGENCIES Introduction Corporate s ocial responsibility (CSR) has been a common topic in business research since the 1950s. Studies dealing with CSR have moved from the concep tual studies of CSR (Carroll 1991) to the behaviors of CSR of companies (McGuire, Sundgren, and Schneewers 1988). However, understanding managers views on CSR of their busines ses is still under researched. Some scholars have argued for an examination of CSR due to the relationships between attitudes and behavior (Zenisek 1979; Arthadu-Day 2005; Burton and Goldsby 2007), although there is still a paucity of research that examines how CS R attitudes affect the behaviors of organizations (Burton and Goldsby 2007). Traditionally, CSR has been recognized usually with regard to large corporations, so it is not surprising that CSR research tends to be conducted mainly on large size corporations. Contemporary society, however pressures even sm all companies to engage in CSR behavior. Thus, some recent literature has emphasized th e importance of CSR performance in small-and medium-sized enterprises (Fuller 2003), althoug h much of the importance of the relationship between CSR and small businesses has been specula tive without a deep u nderstanding of small business behaviors, which may be very differe nt from that in larger organizations. The tourism industry is dominated by smalland medium-sized enterprises (SME). More recently, there has been an increas ing interest in the role of SME regarding social issues. According to Agenda 21 for European Tourism (2002), SMEs can contribute to sustainable tourism development though demonstrating CSR be havior. Specifically, SMEs in tourism can minimize environmental impacts due to their small scale as well as contribute to strengthening

PAGE 101

101 local cultures and customs by providing various t ourism activities (Lordkipanidze, Brezet, and Backman 2005). Moreover, small-sized tourism companies can contribute to the local economy by transforming local resources into tourist pr oducts and services (Lordkipanidze, Brezet, and Backman 2005, p. 791). Although some literature has recently turned th eir attention to issues regarding small-and medium-sized tourism enterprises (SMTE) and CSR, there are virtually no empirical studies that examine these in a practical business environment. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to understand the CSR behavior of travel ag encies, the small-and medium-sized businesses within tourism. In addition, the study exam ined the relationship be tween travel agents demographic factors and job related factors a nd their attitudes toward CSR. A secondary purpose was to test the association between trav el agents attitudes toward CSR and the CSR behaviors of travel agencies. Literature Review CSR and Small Business Com pared to large corporations, corporate so cial responsibility in small businesses has been studied infrequently. According to Thom son and Smith (1991), there are several reasons for this limited examination. First, the public and the managers of SMEs believe there are not sufficient resources to perfor m CSR in SMEs. Second, research methodologies developed for large-sized corporations may not be applicable to small businesses. Third, information on CSR performance by SMEs is relatively difficult to obtain. Lastly, the greater visi bility of large-sized corporations usually results in more research intere st because of the scope of larger organizations. Recent literature has re vealed that the majority of SMEs believe that organizations like themselves need to pay more attention to their social responsibility (S outhwell 2004). However, some scholars have argued that CSR behaviors of SMEs should be different from large

PAGE 102

102 corporations. Arlow and Ackerl sberg (1991) argue that issues affecting small businesses are smaller in scope, more narrowly focused on lo cal issues, and involve fewer, more narrow constituencies than large corpora tions. Moreover, Reeder (1978) has argued that social behaviors by SMEs are more informally structured than is true in larger organizations. Arlow and Ackerlsberg (1991) have asserted that traditional assumptions of CSR are considered less important by SME managers. However, Longenecker, Mckinney, and Moore (1989) argued the opposite and found that managers and owners of SMEs did not show different perceptions of acceptable responsib le practices. Several empirical studies have argued that small business owners are more concerned with CSR th an large organizations (Wilson 1980; Chrisman and Fry 1982). This is mostly because small business owners believe that good ethics is good business and that they are the business (Besser and Miller 2001). In addition, some studies have suggested that the ownership of the organi zation results in higher ethical and responsible attitudes (Bucar and Hisrich 2001). In the tourism literature, some studies have identified small businesses relevant to sustainable tourism and environmental and so cial responsibility (Horobin, Helen, Long, and Jonathan 1996). In Australia, Carlsen, Getz, a nd Ali-Knight (2001) examined the responsible behaviors of small, family-owned businesses in terms of environmental practices and educating tourists on conservation matters. This study found that members and owners of small, familyowned businesses are morel likely to express posi tive attitudes toward implementing sustainable tourism behaviors. Specifically, tour operators showed better practic es regarding educating tourists on conservation matters th an the other types of businesses, such as hotels, motels, and tourist attractions.

PAGE 103

103 Although, there are few studies regarding what factors affect the behaviors of small businesses regarding sustainable development, some scholars agreed that th e attitudes of owners and managers are most critical in determ ining behaviors (Dewhurst and Thomas 2003). However, only a few studies have examined the at titudes of small busine ss owners and managers toward their responsibility and the association between their a ttitudes and business practices (e.g., Horobin, Helen, Long, and Jonathan 1996; Dewhurst and Thomas 2003). For instances, Horobin, Helen, Long, and Jonathan (1996) examined attitudes and behaviors of owners and managers of small business in the U. K. regarding sustainable tourism. According to them (1996), small business owners perceive d the importance of sustainable tourism development, even though they felt there was a lack of information on how to implement it. Likewise, Dewhurst and Thomas (2003) reporte d that 80% of small business owners in their sample agreed with the proposed principles of sustainable tourism and 60% of them agreed to the implementation of sustainable guidelines. Moreover, some studies have examined whethe r personal characteristics affect managers and owners attitudes toward su stainable development and res ponsibility. Horobin, Helen, Long, and Jonathan (1996) reported males who were more motivated to make a profit were less supportive of sustainable tourism development. Conversely, Carlsen, Getz, and Ali-Knight (2001) found that age and gender did not affect at titudes or business behaviors. Also, they found there is an association between the level of education of re spondents in small businesses and business behaviors in educating tourists about cultures of the host community. While some scholars have examined this relationship between pe rsonal attitudes and business behaviors and sustainabil ity and social responsibility, pr evious studies have suggested this relationship needs to be tested more ri gorously (e.g., Carlsen, Getz, and Ali-Knight 2001;

PAGE 104

104 Dewhurst and Thomas 2003). Further, the prev ious studies are inconsistent about personal characteristics determining attitudes toward re sponsibility and sustainable development, thus more research is needed to understand the decision-making pro cess that leads small business owners to have a sense of social responsibility. The Role of the Travel Agenci es in the Tourism Industry Travel agencies play a critical role in the tourism industry, m aking important links between tourists and destinations. Traditionally, the role of travel agencies was recognized as selling airline tickets, and hotel bookings, however recently their role has been transferred as main travel service supplier or travel expert and counselor (LeB lanc 1992). Recently due to the internet, tourists have been able to plan a nd package their own travel itineraries through accessing information online. As a result, travel agents have had to rethink th eir traditional roles. Given a sense of credibility that the inform ation on the internet has provided, tourists have felt less need to work directly with travel agents. Thus, travel agents have found a way to provide value added information as well as superi or customer service as a way to maintain a customer base and entice new customers (Lawton and Page 1997). Moreover, travel agents have determined that they are in a position where th ey can influence destination choice as well as itinerary choice based on personal experience (i.e., FAM trips) and customer feedback (i.e., testimonials). Lovelock (2008) has argued that more than any other stakeholder, agents are in a critical position to influence the tourists destina tion choice (p. 340). Furthermore, travel agents have determined that they can play a role for tourists that the internet based companies cannot when the tourist is in situ, particularly in the ev ent of a crisis, in that they can be a familiar voice on the end of the phone when needed. Travel agents have contributed to the deve lopment of many destinations. According to Lovelock (2008), the success of a destination de pends on the positive support of travel agents.

PAGE 105

105 Travel agents may sell a destination or refuse to book or provide recommendations for specific destinations. With the recognition of the importa nt role of travel agen t in decision-making of destination choice and destina tion development (Lawton and Page 1997), some studies argued the need for research to unders tand the role and influence that the travel agents have towards sustainable tourism development (Carey, Gountas, and Gilbert 1997; Lovelock 2008). First, Carey, Gountas, and G ilbert (1997) argued that resear ch about sustainable tourism needs to emphasize the role of the supplier. They concluded that marketi ng strategies of tour operators and travel agents may influence sustaina ble tourism. Thus, they suggested that travel companies need to develop a long term devel opment plan instead of a short term strategy focusing on the economic benefits. On the other hand, Lovelock (2008) examined attitudes and behaviors of travel agents toward ethical issues, such as sending tourists to human-rights-challenge d destinations and found that most respondents did not recognize the ne gative impact of their behaviors upon the host destination. Further, her study f ound that travel agents feel a greater responsibility to their customers and employers than to the host commun ity. According to Lovelock (2008), travel agents behave ethically and responsibly in order to satisfy the need of tourists, employers, and a social ethic. Lovelock (2008) c oncluded that travel agents play an important role as moral mediators when faced with a number of altern ative choices that benefit or harm various stakeholders (p. 341). Similarl y, Pennington-Gray, et. al (2005) ar gued that travel agents can contribute to the sustainable tourism by providi ng detailed information about responsible behaviors at the tourism destination and educat e tourists about the va rious impacts of their behaviors.

PAGE 106

106 Demand for CSR Recent research suggests a growth in the conscio us tourism segment (Lovelock 2008, p. 355). According to an Intern ational Ecotourism So ciety (TIES) study (2002), tourists have a stronger willingness to pay more for ethical practi ces and to contribute to community projects than ever before. A majority of the respondents in their study expressed a willingness and interest in learning social, cultur al, and environmental issues befo re and during their trip and felt that it was important that tourism not damage the host destination. As a result, tourists expect that they should behave responsibly as should the companies who operate in those destinations. The TIES study also argued also that consumers are more likely to be respons ible tourists if they receive information about how to behave ahead of their trip. From marketing perspective, Goodwin and Francis (2003) suggested that respon sible behaviors by the tourism industry are an important marketing strategy for travel businesses. The Determinants of A ttitudes toward CSR A thorough review of the litera ture suggests that personal ch aracteristics of employees may affect their attitudes toward CSR. Thes e characteristics include gender (Arlow 1991; Burton and Hegarty 1999), age (Arlow 1991), e ducation (Hage 1980; Bethke 1987; Serwinek 1992; Quazi 2003), length of work experi ence (Aldga and Jackson 1977; Arlow 1991), managerial work experience, and international wo rk experience (Quazi 2003). Below is a review of the literature related to these characteristics, as well as the related hypotheses. Gender The influence of gender on CSR is inconsiste nt. Some researchers have argued that females exhibit more caring attitudes (Aupperl e 1984; Ibrahim and Angelidis 1991; Kraft and Singhapakdi 1995), show higher ethical judgment (A kaah 1989), and have a tendency to be less supportive of unethical behaviors (R uegger and King 1992) than males.

PAGE 107

107 However, some scholars have found that gender do es not play a role in ethical attitudes, arguing that females use different modes of moral reasoning than males (Dawson 1997). Dawson (1997) found that females in a sample of 203 responded in a more ethical fashion than males to six of twenty scenarios. However, ma les responded more ethically than females in two scenarios. Likewise, McDonald and Kan (1997) found no difference between the ethical responses of males and females on ethical attitudes. Hypothesis 1: There is signifi cant relationship between gender of travel agents and their attitudes toward CSR in tourism. Age Regarding the role of age on CSR, mixe d findings were revealed (Serwinek 1992; Deshpand 1997; Quazi 2003). Genera lly, the studies suggested atti tudes of CSR have varied by age based on the assumption that older people are more conservative. For example, Longnsecker, McKinney, and Moore (1989) f ound that younger people tended to be less sensitive in their moral judgments than older pe ople. Similarly, Serwinek (1992) revealed that older employees were stricter with ethical ru les than younger people. McDonald and Kan (1997) supported this finding that older a dults tended to have stronger ethical beliefs. However, in a study examining Australian managers, Quazi (2003) found that age did not affect attitudes toward CSR. Hypothesis 2: There is signifi cant relationship between the age of travel agents and their attitudes toward CSR in tourism. Education The relationship between education and CSR al so yielded various results. Hage (1980) found that managers with higher educational leve ls tended to have more liberal attitudes. Likewise, Quazi (2003) reported that the highe r the level of education the more likely respondents were to understand the issues of CSR. He suggested that educated managers were

PAGE 108

108 exposed to broader perspectives which may help w ith a better understanding of topic. However, some studies (Kidwell, Stevens, and Bethke 1987; Serwinek 1992) found that education level was not a determinant of attitudes toward social responsibility. Hypothesis 3: There is signifi cant relationship between educa tion level of travel agents and their attitudes toward CSR in tourism. Length of work experience Regarding length of work experience, previous studies found mixed results. While most studies found that an employ ee with more work experience might exhibit greater ethical tendencies, other studies have found no relationship. Harris (1990) argued that the workers with ten or more years of work experience in an organization are less tolerant of unethical behaviors. McDonald and Kan (1997), however, revealed that an individual with more business experience is more likely to disagree with unethical activities. However, in contrast, Arlow (1991) found no significant relationship between th e length of work experiences and attitudes toward social responsibility. Hypothesis 4: There is signi ficant relationship between work experience in the tourism industry between travel agents and thei r attitudes toward CSR in tourism. Ownership Relevant to managerial position, studies revealed that the people who have top managerial position are more likel y to show higher ethical percep tions than those in middle and low level of management (Harris 1990). Hypothesis 5: There is signi ficant relationship between owne rship of travel agents and their attitudes toward CSR in tourism.

PAGE 109

109 International work experience Quazi (2003) examined whether international work experience of business people affect the level of socially responsible perceptions and found that internati onal experience was not related to the level of CSR. Hypothesis 6: There is signifi cant relationship betw een international work experience of travel agents and their attitudes toward CSR in tourism. Based on the previous literatures, this study has an additi onal Hypothesis: Hypothesis 7: There is significan t relationship between travel agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism and travel agencies be haviors toward CSR in tourism. Methodology Data Collection The sam ple for this study was U.S. travel agents. The sample frame was members of the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA) who attended THETRADE SHOW 2008 in Orlando, Florida, from September 7 to 9, 2008. Survey questionnaires were distributed on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday of the conference. ASTA is the world's largest association of travel professionals. The ASTA's member s are travel agencies and travel suppliers, such as airlines, hotels, car rental firms, cruise lines, and tour operators. Acco rding to the ASTA (2008), the ASTA travel agency had 9.3 of the average number of full-time employees, and 5.9 of the average number of part-time employees. Also, mo st of their sale was the tour package (36.9%) followed by the cruise (25.4%) in 2008. Regardi ng the legal status, most agencies showed corporations (33.8%) or cor poration, subchapter (32.0%) ASTA estimated that around 2500 tourism pr ofessionals from a number of countries registered for the event. Only registered member s with name tags were able to enter the event venue. With the permission of the organizers of the tradeshow, surv ey questionnaires were

PAGE 110

110 distributed to potential participants entering th e event venue. The survey included items that used in this present study as we ll as other items that were to be employed in other studies. From 700 questionnaires, total of 252 complete d survey questionnaires were collected, an approximate response rate of 36%. The questionn aires included questions asking what type of company the respondent was working for and what was the job title of the respondent. Only those who responded as either tra vel agency or travel agent we re selected for this study, total of 149. Survey Instrument A self-administered questionnaire was used to gather data. The original questionnaire was divided into six sections, but only thr ee sections were used for this study. One section of the questionnaire focused on attitudes toward CSR. A uni-dimensional scale with six items was developed to meas ure how individuals perceived the socially responsible behavior of their company (Tearfund 2000; Dodds and Joppe 2005; Henderson 2007). Items were developed based on the survey from Partnership for Global Sustainable riteria (2007). Examples of the items include Tourism corporations have a responsibility to preserve the environment and C orporate social responsibility is particularly important for the tourism industry. One item, Corporate social responsibility is hard to apply to tourism companies was reverse scored. In this study, the statements were positively and negatively worded and were placed randomly in a single set to reduce a halo effect of responses. In the next section, nineteen items were developed to measure socially responsible behaviors of tourism companies. First, the CSR behaviors were identified based on previous research. For CSR behaviors, four domains were proposed based on a thorough review of the literature. Second, items that captured the doma ins were generated. The initial item pool that consisted of 32 items based on a thorough review of the sustainable tourism literature and the

PAGE 111

111 CSR literature (Tearfund 2000; Dodds and Joppe 2005; Henderson 2007). After generating the initial items, the items were then refined and ed ited for content validity by three experts who are professors or graduate students in tourism and knowledgeable about socially responsible tourism. These experts were given the studys operational definition of CSR and were requested to rate each item as being clearly representative of CSR, somewhat representative of it or not at all representative of it (Zaichkowsky 1985). Next a series of decision rules were esta blished. The rules incl uded (1) consider the clarity of the items, (2) consider the readability of the items, a nd (3) consider the likelihood that the items may be acceptable to respondents (not objectionable). Nineteen final items were selected for this study. The items were rate d on a seven-point scal e ranged from Strongly Disagree (1), to Strongly Agree (7). (See Tabl e 2-3 for the dimensions and items of corporate socially responsible behaviors). The final section of the questionnaire focuse d on the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents, as well as their wo rk experience. The questions included gender, age, education, job position, international work experience, and overall work e xperience in the tourism industry. Job position and work experience in the tourism industry were measured, respectively, with a single choice response and open-en ded responses. International wo rk experience was asked as a yes or no question. Data Analysis The data analysis in this study consisted of several steps. Descriptive analyses were perform ed to investigate the frequency distribution of responses to the relevant questions. These questions were composed of respondents attitudes on tourism companies social responsibility, travel agencies socially res ponsible behaviors as perceive d by travel agents, and the characteristics of respondents.

PAGE 112

112 Secondly, the socially responsib le behaviors of travel agencies as perceived by travel agents were factor analyzed separately to identify the underlying dimensions of CSR. Third, independent t -tests and one way ANOVAs were used to examine whether the characteristics of respondents affected a responde nts attitude toward the tourism companies social responsibility. Finally, based on the results of factor anal ysis, regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between respondents attitudes of tourism companies social responsibility and the behaviors of travel agencies in terms of so cial responsibility as perceived by travel agents. Results Descriptive Analysis Profile of respondents A summ ary of the profile of respondents is presented in Table 4-1. The sample was 64.4% female and 35.6% male. In terms of age, 27.9% of respondents were 51-60 years old, 3140 and 41-50 years old each equaled 23.8% of re spondents. Over 80% of respondents were well educated earning at least a coll ege degree, and 26.2% of resp ondents had either advanced degrees or graduate degrees. Mo re than half of respondents ( 54.4%) did not have international work experience. Moreover, 40.3% of respondents stated that their job title was owner or CEO. With regard to work experience in the tourism industr y, respondents had an average of 11 years of experience in the tourism industry. A total of 29.5% of resp ondents had less than 3 years of experience, 22.6% had 3-9 years of expe rience, and almost half of them (47.9%) had more than 10 years of work experience in the tourism industry.

PAGE 113

113 Attitudes of travel agents toward CSR in tourism The mean score for the attitudes toward CSR in tourism ranged from 4.34 to 6.21 (Table 4-2). Travel agents showed the highest mean score (M = 6.21) on the item Tourism corporations have a resp onsibility to enhance the quality of tourist experiences. The lowest mean scored item was Corporate social responsi bility (CSR) is hard to apply for tourism companies. Data were normally distributed around the mean, indicating that no data transformation was necessary to apply multivariate statistical techniques. CSR Behaviors in tourism An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to test the dime nsionality of the measure, socially responsible behaviors of travel agencies. It was not possible to hypothesize the dimensionality of the scale because there have been no previous efforts to develop a scale to measure these behaviors of tourism companies. However, it was expected that socially responsible behaviors of tourism companies w ould have more than one dimension since CSR involves various issues ranging from internal ethical behaviors to managing impacts. Thus, this study conceptually proposed four dimensions. The results of the exploratory factor analysis using a direct oblimin rotation with Kaiser normalization yielded two factors accounting for a total of 66.60% of the variance. According to Churchill (1979), items that cross-load above 0.4 on multiple factors or items without at least an 0.5 factor loading on one factor ar e deleted. Accordingly, two items were deleted, leaving a total of 17 items in the scale. The deleted items ar e employ local residents and donate part of proceeds to charities of local community. The factor loadin gs and items of each factor can be seen in Table 4-3.

PAGE 114

114 The first factor, labelled Managing impacts, explained 57.3% of the variance. This dimension consisted of 13 items with factor loadings ranging from 0.99 to 0.57. This dimension was given its name because the items describe th e responsible behaviors to control and manage the environmental, socio-cultural, and economic impacts. Examples of items were My company implements programs to manage soci o-cultural impacts of our activities and My company markets products and services in an environmentally responsible way. The second factor, was termed Support of lo cal and fairness, explained 9.30% of the variance within 4 items. The factor loadings of these items ranged from 0.87 to 0.56. Items of this dimension dealt with both the supporting activi ties for local stakeholders and fair and ethical business environment of the organization. Hypotheses Tests An independent sam ple t -test was carried out to test hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1: There is significant re lationship between the gender of travel agents and their attitudes toward CSR in tourism. Hypothesis 1 was supported because a significant relationship was identified between age of travel agents and their att itudes toward CSR in tourism. Ta ble 4-4 indicates that across all items, female travel agents had a more positive att itude toward corporate so cial responsibility in tourism companies than male travel agents. Spec ifically, female travel agents were more likely to believe that tourism companies have a re sponsibility to preser ve the environment ( p<0.05) and the local culture ( p< 0.05). In addition, female travel agents expressed a slightly more positive attitude toward the importance of CSR in the tourism industry. Hypothesis 2: There is signi ficant relationship between age of travel agents and their attitudes toward CSR in tourism.

PAGE 115

115 Previous research has suggested that older respondents tend to have stronger ethical beliefs and be more sensitive to ethical issues (L ongnsecker, McKinney, and. Moore 1989; Serwinek 1992; McDonald and Kan 1997). However, using ANOVA, the hypothesis was rejected, suggesting that age was not a si gnificant influence on travel agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism. Hypothesis 3: There is signifi cant relationship between educatio nal level of travel agents and their attitudes toward CSR in tourism. Employing an ANOVA to test for the relations hip, hypothesis 3 was rejected, therefore, the level of education was not found to significan tly influence travel ag ents attitudes toward CSR. This result is consistent with previous studies (Kidwell, Stevens, and. Bethke 1987; Serwinek 1992) which have found that educatio nal level was not a determinant of social responsibility. Hypothesis 4: There is signi ficant relationship between work experience in the tourism industry of travel agents and their attitudes toward CSR in tourism. Hypothesis 4 was supported because a significant relationship was identified within two items that indicated attitudes toward CSR were si gnificantly related to number of years of work experience. The probability of obtaining an F value of 3.45 was 0.03 for the item Tourism companies have a responsibility to enhance the quality of tourist experience and the probability of obtaining an F value of 4.79 was 0.01 for T ourism companies have a responsibility to contribute to the economy of the local community Table 4-7 shows the results of an ANOVA analysis.

PAGE 116

116 A post hoc test using least-square means (L SM) determined where the differences in socially responsible tourism attitudes existed. Th e LSM revealed significant differences between travel agents with less than 3 years of industry experience an d those with more than years of experience on both items (Table 4-8). Further, tr avel agents with between 3 to 9 years of work experiences showed differences from those with less than 3 years work experiences on the item Tourism companies have a responsibility to co ntribute to the economy of local community. The travel agents with more than 10 years work experience indicated more supportive attitudes toward CSR on the items Tourism companies have a responsibility to en hance the quality of tourist experience and Tourism companies have a responsibility to contribute to the economy of local community than the travel agen ts with less than 3 years experience. Hypothesis 5: There is signi ficant relationship between owne rship of travel agents and their attitude toward CSR in tourism. Using an independent sample t -test, hypothesis 5 was rejected because no significant relationship was identified betw een ownership of travel agenci es and their owners attitudes toward CSR in tourism, although Table 4-9 indicates that owners of travel agencies have a generally more positive attitude toward corporation social responsibility in tourism companies ( p = 0.05). Hypothesis 6: There is signifi cant relationship betw een international work experience of travel agents and their attitudes toward CSR in tourism. An independent sample t -test was carried out to test hypothesis 6. This hypothesis was rejected because no significant relationship between internationa l work experience of travel agents and their attitudes toward CSR in tourism was revealed (Table 4-10).

PAGE 117

117 Hypothesis 7: There is signi ficant relationship between trav el agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism and travel agencies behaviors toward CSR in tourism. In order to test the relationship between at titudes and behavior, the responses to all the attitude questions were summed to provide a single composite scale consisting of six items. This index ranged from a low of 6 to a high of 42 poi nts. The higher the number in the index the more sensitive respondents were to social responsibility in tour ism. Regression analyses were undertaken to test hypothesis 7 in order to de termine the strength of the relationship between travel agents attitudes toward CSR and travel agencies behaviors toward CSR in tourism. As Table 4-3 shows, 40.3% of the respondents were owners of travel agen cies and half of the respondents had more than 10 years industry experi ence. This study assumed that travel agents were decision makers and therefore their behaviors would be directly related to the in attitudes. This study found a significant linear relationship, indicating that a more supportive attitude toward CSR resulted in greater socially res ponsible behaviors for both managing impacts (5.09, p = 0.00) and Support of local and fa irness (4.98, p = 0.00). Thus, hypothesis 7 was supported (Table 4-11). Discussion and Conclusions This study examined the travel agents att itudes and the behaviors of travel agencies toward CSR. Travel agencies play a critical ro le in guiding responsible behaviors of tourists. Thus, their beliefs and behaviors regarding CS R can lead to significant impacts on both the destination and the tourist. The findings from this study revealed travel agents hold mostly positive attitudes toward CSR. These results are c onsistent with the previous literature (Carlsen, Getz, and Ali-Knight 2001). Specifically, in this study, travel agents believed that the enhancement of the quality of the tourist experi ence is the most important corporate social

PAGE 118

118 responsibility of tourism companies. Socially responsible tourism companies, the professionals were more supportive of the quality of tourists experi ences than of preserving the environment and local culture. While previous literature ha s generally focused on preserving the environment, travel agents generally indicated less concer n for this element and more for preserving the culture. These results can be explained by Love lock (2008), who concluded that travel agents feel a stronger responsibility to their customer s and employers than to a host community. This may also be explained by the fact that travel agents are most interested in creating satisfying, quality tourist experiences because these are high ly related to the profit s of their business. Interestingly, travel agents are likely to believe that CSR is hard for tourism companies to apply. This may be, perhaps, an issue of education and might be explained by the fact that most examples of CSR are within large non traveled co rporations, consequently it is harder for travel agents to pull from small corporation case stud ies and thus see the relevance of implementing CSR. The examination of the relationship betw een travel agents profiles and socially responsible attitudes revealed that such characteristics of respondents as age, education, ownership, and international work experience did not have an a ssociation with any socially responsible attitudes. A lthough prior studies had found a relationship between age (Longnsecker, McKinney, and Moore 1989; Serw inek 1992), education (Hage 1980; Quazi, 2003), ownership (Harris 1990), and internationa l work experience (Quazi 2003) and attitudes toward corporate social responsib ility, no such association were found among travel agents. This study found that only gender and length of work experience had significant influences on travel agents attitudes toward corporate social responsibility. From th ese results, this study suggested that ones length of work experience is more important than ones job position. These results

PAGE 119

119 imply that the support of travel agents for socially responsible issues is linked to experience acquired in an industry environment. Thus, ac quired knowledge through i ndustry experience is the most important factor influe ncing a travel agents commitmen t toward socially responsible issues. In light of these fi nding, tourism companies, tourism associations, and other training institutions (educational institutions) need to provide employees with a variety of training programs that will enhance their knowledge of CSR and how to impr ove behaviors. Also, periodic seminars and training programs fo r employees and top management on socially responsible issues may be helpfu l because the characte ristics of the tourism industry as a fast growing industry requires continuous knowledge be supplied to practitioners. On the other hand, future study is recommended to test whether th ere is a direct relati onship between employees socially responsible behaviors and their attitudes. Another meaningful result is that the att itudes of travel agents toward CSR had a significant influence on determini ng corporate socially responsibl e behaviors of travel agents. These finding support the argument that the attitu des of owners and managers are significant influences on determining the behaviors of business (Welford 1995; Dewhurst and Thomas 2003). Although previous research has suggested an association between managers attitudes and organizational behaviors toward socially responsible issues, empirical support for this notion is lacking. Furthermore, this study focused only on travel agents attitudes and travel agencies behaviors. Future research is needed to exam ine the attitudes of empl oyees of other types of SMTEs, such as tour operators, tour guides, and owners of tourist attractions. Moreover, investigating how corporate so cially responsible behaviors of tourism organizations are

PAGE 120

120 differentiated by the various types of tourism organizations would be helpful to understand the CSR in the tourism industry. Interestingly, this study found contradictious to several other studies on similar topics. One reason for this may be due to a relatively sm all sample size. However, it may also be a result of other limitations. For example, lack of unders tanding of the scope of CSR by travel agents may have played a role. More specifically, not know ing the different methods for implementing CSR by SMEs might have contributed to a lack of understanding and therefore fewer expressed behaviors.

PAGE 121

121 Table 4-1. Profile of travel agents Demographic characteristic Number Percent Gender Male 53 35.6 Female 96 64.4 Age Younger than 30 14 9.5 31-40 35 23.8 41-50 35 23.8 51-60 41 27.9 Older than 61 22 14.9 Education Less than college 24 16.7 Technical school 8 5.6 College degree 74 51.4 Graduate school 19 13.2 Advanced degree 19 13.2 International work experience Yes 67 45.0 No 81 54.4 Ownership Owner 60 40.3 Employee 89 59.7 Work experience in tourism industry (M =11 ) Less than 3 years 43 29.5 3 to 9 years 33 22.6 More than 10 years 70 47.9

PAGE 122

122 Table 4-2. Attitudes of travel ag ents toward CSR in tourism Items of attitudes toward CSR in tourism Mean SD 1. Tourism corporations have a re sponsibility to preserve the environment. 5.93 1.50 2. Tourism corporations have a res ponsibility to preserve the local culture. 6.21 1.22 3. Tourism corporations have a res ponsibility to enhance the quality of tourist experiences. 6.40 0.86 4. Tourism corporations have a res ponsibility to contribute to the economy of local community. 6.02 1.29 5. CSR is hard to apply for tourism companies. 4.34 2.06 6. CSR is particularly important to the tourism industry. 5.91 1.40

PAGE 123

123 Table 4-3. Factor analysis of travel agencies socially responsible behaviors Factor loading Mean SD Factor 1: Managing impacts ( = 0.966) 5.05 1.51 1. Implement programs to manage socio-cultural impacts of our activities. .99 4.88 2.00 2. Train staff on the principles of environmental conservation. .94 4.74 1.99 3. Formulate policies to avoid environmental impacts of operations. .91 4.81 1.95 4. Educate tourists about environmental concerns .90 4.65 1.92 5. Train staff on the environmental impacts of the company's operations. .89 4.99 1.83 6. Providing on-going cultural se nsitivity training about the local community. .88 4.64 1.88 7. Educate employees about socio-cultural issues. .87 4.82 1.82 8. Formulate policies to avoid socio-cultural impacts of operations. .83 4.64 1.85 9. Help tourists increase their cultural understanding of local communities. .81 5.31 1.88 10. Implement programs which support the economic vitality of local communities .71 5.13 1.85 11. Educate tourists on the positive effects tourism can have on the local economy. .62 5.52 1.66 12. Market products and services in an environmentally responsible way. .60 5.36 1.66 13. Market products and services in a socio-culturally responsible way. .57 5.36 1.60 Eigen value = 10.31, % of variance = 57.30 Factor 2: Support of local and fairness ( = 0.724) 5.98 1.02 1. Provide women with the same opportunity to be a manager. .87 6.32 1.21 2. Wage structures are fair and equitable. .67 5.65 1.63 3. Purchase goods and services from local suppliers. .64 6.01 1.25 4. Support local businesses to en sure benefits to local communities. .56 5.96 1.34 Eigen value = 1.68, % of variance = 9.30 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations c. Total variance explained in the data = 66.60%

PAGE 124

124 Table 4-4. A t-test for effects of gender on tr avel agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism Socially responsible tourism attitudes Male Female df t value ( p) 2-tail sig. A responsibility to preserve the environment 5.58 6.13 140 -2.14 0.03* A responsibility to preserve the local culture 5.91 6.39 140 -2.33 0.02* A responsibility to enhance the quality of tourist experience 6.33 6.44 139 -.74 0.46 Have a responsibility to contribute to the economy of local community 5.88 6.10 139 -.96 0.34 CSR is hard to apply for tourism company 4.08 4.51 134 -1.19 0.24 CSR is particularly important for the industry 5.62 6.10 135 -1.95 0.05 The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 Level.

PAGE 125

125 Table 4-5. One-way ANOVA of effects of age on trav el agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism Attitudes toward CSR in tourism df SS MS F P Between groups 5 14.71 2.94 A responsibility to preserve the environment. Within groups 134 300.26 2.24 1.31 0.26 Between groups 5 10.21 2.04 A responsibility to preserve the local culture Within groups 134 200.19 1.50 1.37 0.24 Between groups 5 6.09 1.22 A responsibility to enhance the quality of tourist experience Within groups 133 96.93 0.72 1.67 0.15 Between groups 5 14.90 2.98 Have a responsibility to contribute to the economy of local community Within groups 133 218.09 1.64 1.8 0.11 Between groups 5 25.05 5.01 CSR is hard to apply for tourism company** Within groups 129 545.55 1.23 1.15 0.32 Between groups 5 12.36 2.47 CSR is particularly important for the industry Within groups 129 250.27 1.94 1.27 0.28 ** Reverse scored item

PAGE 126

126 Table 4-6. One-way ANOVA of effects of education on travel agents at titudes toward CSR in tourism Attitudes toward CSR in tourism df SS MS F P Between groups 4 5.23 1.31 A responsibility to preserve the environment. Within groups 133 305.19 2.29 0.57 0.68 Between groups 4 2.11 0.53 A responsibility to preserve the local culture Within groups 133 206.80 1.55 0.34 0.85 Between groups 4 1.56 0.39 A responsibility to enhance the quality of tourist experience Within groups 132 99.16 0.75 0.52 0.72 Between groups 4 4.00 1.00 Have a responsibility to contribute to the economy of local community Within groups 132 226.93 1.72 0.58 0.68 Between groups 4 17.02 4.25 CSR is hard to apply for tourism company** Within groups 128 555.66 4.34 0.98 0.42 Between groups 4 1.61 0.40 CSR is particularly important for the industry Within groups 128 259.30 2.03 0.20 0.94 ** Reverse scored item

PAGE 127

127 Table 4-7. One-way ANOVA of effects of work expe rience in tourism industry on travel agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism Attitudes toward CSR in tourism df SS MS F P Between Groups 2 6.97 3.48 A responsibility to preserve the environment Within Groups 136 284.92 2.09 1.66 0.19 Between Groups 2 3.62 1.80 A responsibility to preserve the local culture Within Groups 136 179.06 1.32 1.37 0.26 Between Groups 2 4.93 2.46 A responsibility to enhance the quality of tourist experience Within Groups 135 96.35 0.71 3.45 0.03* Between Groups 2 13.81 6.91 Have a responsibility to contribute to the economy of local community Within Groups 135 194.60 1.44 4.79 0.01* Between Groups 2 6.02 3.01 CSR is hard to apply for tourism company** Within Groups 130 558.71 4.30 0.70 0.49 Between Groups 2 5.28 2.63 CSR is particularly important for the industry Within Groups 131 255.12 1.95 1.35 0.26 The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 Level. ** Reverse scored item

PAGE 128

128 Table 4-8. Least-square means for work experience in tourism industry Less than 3 years (a) 3 to 9 years (b) More than 10 years (c) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Post Hoc A responsibility to enhance the quality of tourist experience 6.13 1.06 6.39 0.88 6.57 0.68 c > a* Have a responsibility to contribute to the economy of local community 5.56 1.50 6.32 1.08 6.24 1.05 b, c > a* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 Level.

PAGE 129

129 Table 4-9. A t-test for effects of ownership on tr avel agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism Socially responsible tourism attitudes Owner Employeedf t -value ( p) 2-Tail Sig. A responsibility to preserve the environment. 6.07 5.84 140 0.91 0.36 A responsibility to preserve the local culture 6.21 6.21 140 0.02 0.98 A responsibility to enhance the quality of tourist experience 6.46 6.35 139 0.75 0.45 Have a responsibility to contribute to the economy of local community 6.11 5.96 139 0.64 0.52 CSR is hard to apply for tourism company* 4.39 4.30 134 0.23 0.81 CSR is particularly important for the industry 5.93 5.90 135 0.10 0.92 Reverse scored item

PAGE 130

130 Table 4-10. A ttest for effects of internati onal work experience on tr avel agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism Socially responsible tourism attitudes Experience No experience df t -value ( p) 2-Tail Sig. A responsibility to preserve the environment. 6.05 5.82 139 0.89 0.37 A responsibility to preserve the local culture 6.33 6.10 139 1.08 0.28 A responsibility to enhance the quality of tourist experience 6.45 6.34 138 0.76 0.45 Have a responsibility to contribute to the economy of local community 6.20 5.86 138 1.59 0.11 CSR is hard to apply for tourism company* 4.26 4.37 133 -0.31 0.75 CSR is particularly important for the industry 5.98 5.84 134 0.60 0.55 Reverse scored item

PAGE 131

131 Table 4-11. Regression analysis for travel agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism on socially responsible tourism behaviors The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 Level. ` Enter Regression Summary Variable B t -value ( p ) Sig. Managing impacts The index of socially responsible tourism attitudes 0.45 5.09 0.00* R2= 0.20, Adjusted R2= 0.19, F-value = 25.90, Significance = 0.00 Support of local and fairness The index of socially responsible tourism attitudes 0.44 4.98 0.00* R2= 0.19, Adjusted R2= 0.18, F-value = 24.82, Significance = 0.00

PAGE 132

132 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS The prim ary purpose of this study was to exam ine the attitudes toward corporate social responsibility (CSR) and CSR behaviors within a tourism context. The secondary purpose of this study was to test the relationship among antecedents (corporate ethical values, perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility, personal characteristics, and organizational characteristics), the tourism practitioners attitudes toward CSR and the tourism organizations CSR behaviors. The results are summarized in the following section a nd future research is recommended at the end of this chapter. Figu re 5-1 describes the only significant relationships among variables in this study. Discussion of Research Objectives (1) What corporate socially responsible beha viors are exhibited by tourism organizations? Tourism organizations revealed stronger be haviors related to fair and responsible employment systems, particularly related to providing women with the same opportunities and employing local residents. With regard to the issue related to providing women with the same opportunities, given that the major ity of organizations were base d in the United States, it makes sense that the respondents would reply in this manner since the U.S. has equal opportunity and antidiscrimination laws. Thus, one might expect th at they behaved ethically with regard to this behavior. Moreover, with regard to employing lo cal residents, again due to the high attendance of U.S.-based organizations, this finding may make sense. What may be interesting is whether non-U.S. based firms would respond in the same wa y. Research has suggested that lack of laws in some developing countries related to gender-based discrimination or equal opportunity in employment may result in varying behaviors related to employment of women and locals (Lawler and Bae 1998). Thus, further research needs to be conducted on this topic.

PAGE 133

133 An additional meaningful finding was that soci ally responsible behaviors factored into two aspects. Within the context of tourism, previous literature has suggested that responsible behaviors largely represent thr ee areas: environmental, sociocultural and economic. This study did not support that finding. In fact, in the minds of this population, owners of small tourism businesses, they conceptualized behaviors as internal and external to their business. Consequently, things that they could manage out side their organization and things that they could manage inside the organization we re the drivers of CSR behaviors. (2) What is the relationship between corporate ethical values (CEV) and the corporate behaviors of socially responsible tourism? Consistent with previous research (Vitell a nd Hidalgo 2006), the results indicated that an organizations ethical values affect socially resp onsible behaviors. Spec ifically, an organization that has formal policies for unethical behavior is more likely to show higher levels of socially responsible behavior. This is a fine exampl e of operant conditioning by way of negative reinforcement (Skinner 1950), which s uggests that the effect of the consequences of a particular behavior is negatively reinforced in order to alter the future occurrence of the behavior. (3) Are there differences in the corporate soci ally responsible behaviors by the organizations characteristics (size, financial perf ormance, and organizational year)? Regarding an organizations characteristics, the results indicated only organizational age was significantly related to socia lly responsible behaviors. Previ ous literature has proposed that an industrys type may determine corporate so cially responsible be haviors (Spender 1989; Beliveau, Cottrill, and ONeill 1994). With regard to organiza tional age, perhaps this is a function of other correlates, for example, size, type of ownershi p, age of the proprietor of the business, and the like. Further research shoul d be conducted to control for these moderating variables.

PAGE 134

134 Moreover, the lack of a relationship between organizational size financial performance and CSR is an interesting finding. Perhaps this may have happened because of the various types of tourism organizations that were incorporat ed in our study. An orga nizations size can be influenced by the type of organization. For exam ple, travel agents and tour operators generally have a small number of employees, while hotels or airlines have a large number of employees. So, focusing on a narrower range of types of organizations could be helpful for better understanding of the affect of or ganizational size to CSR behavior. Further, examining corporate socially responsible behaviors by th e types of organizations with a larger more diverse sample of tourism organizations is recommended for future studies. (4) What is the relationship between CEV and th e perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility (PRESOR) by the marketing pr ofessionals within tourism organizations? This study revealed across results among the different dimensions of CEV and perceptions of ethics and CSR, similar to that found by Shafer, Fukukawa, and Lee (2006). First, the finding from this study is supported by the positive a ssociation between the formal policy of CEV and the stakeholder view, in which a company is seen to have the responsibility to address societal concerns and that to do so is profitable. The informal policy dimension of CEV was associated only with the stockholder view, in which a companys main responsibility is to follow the in terests of the stockholders by pr oviding products and services to consumers. These results imply that employe rs perceptions of CSR are influenced and strengthened by formulated ethical values, such as punishment systems. Thus, if an organization commits to ethical business practices, the organiza tion needs to establish an ethical system with high standard and train their employees to change their perceptions. (5) What is the relationship between CEV and marketing professionals attitudes toward CSR of tourism organizations?

PAGE 135

135 Two dimensions of corporate ethical values had a significa nt impact on professionals attitudes toward CSR of tourism or ganizations. This result is cons istent with the general theory of marketing ethics by Hunt and Vitell (1986), which suggests that marketing professionals in an organization with a higher ethical value system may perceive social responsibility issues as more important than those in organizatio ns with lower value systems. (6) What is the relationship among the perceive d degree of the importance of ethics and CSR and marketing professionals attitudes toward CSR of tourism organizations? Marketers in the tourism industry generally tend to believe that good ethics is important for the success of their business and that tourism companies have a responsibility toward society and tourists. The results of this study suggest that marketers in the tourism industry who believe ethics are important for the business to succeed are more likely to perceive problems with implementing social responsibility within their tour ism business. This finding is consistent with results from Singhapakdi (1999), who ex amined marketers in general. (7) Are there significant relati onship between managerial charac teristics of travel agents (gender, age, education level, work e xperience in tourism industry, ownership and international work experience) and their attitudes toward CSR in tourism? The examination of the relationships be tween travel agents profiles and socially responsible attitudes revealed that such characteristics of respondents as age, education, ownership, and international work experience did not have an association with any of the socially responsible attitudes. Although prior studies found some relationship between age (Longnsecker, KcKinney, and Moore, 1989; Serw inek, 1992), education (Hage, 1980; Quazi, 2003), ownership (Harris, 1990), a nd international work experien ce (Quazi, 2003) and attitudes toward corporate social respons ibility, no such association was found with these agents. This study found that only gender and length of work experience had significant influences on travel agents attitudes toward corporate social responsibility of tourism companies. From these

PAGE 136

136 results, this study suggested th e length of work experience is more important to social commitment than employment position. These results imply that those travel agents who support CSR have acquired more experience in an industry environment. From these findings, it can be argued that knowledge acquired through industry experience is the most important influence on tourism employees commitment towa rd CSR issues for tourism companies. (8) Is there a significant rela tionship between travel agents attitudes toward CSR in tourism (ideological perspectives of CS R) and travel agencies beha viors toward CSR in tourism (operational perspe ctives of CSR)? Another meaningful result is that the att itudes of travel agents toward CSR had a significant influence on determini ng corporate socially responsibl e behaviors of travel agents. These findings support the argument that the attit udes of owners and managers are significant influences on determining the behaviors of business (Welford 1995; Dewhurst and Thomas 2003). Although some literature has suggested an association between ma nagers attitudes and organizational behaviors toward socially responsib le issues, a lack of empirical evidence was noted. Moreover, this result implies that empl oyees with ethical and re sponsible attitudes are more likely to behave responsibly. Implications This study o ffers several implications for academics and practitioners. First, this study suggests that investigating an organizations ch aracteristics as determinants of socially responsible behavior without understanding their ethical backgr ounds may be misleading. This study argues that CEV are better determinants th an corporate characteristics in determining corporate socially responsible behavior. Therefor e, we can conclude that organizations may be able to influence the ethical perceptions and attitudes of their employees by formulating a well defined set of ethical policies Also, providing a pr oper ethical punishment system and ethical training may be useful to enhance the ethical a nd socially responsible behaviors of employees

PAGE 137

137 within an organization. As Vitell and Hidalgo (2006) implie d, this study suggests that an organization with strong ethical values can be nefit employees who are more responsible and committed to the organization. Second, this study implies that tourism mark eters are more sensitive to socially responsible and ethical issues when the organization sets clea r ethical standards and values. Thus, this study suggests that by providing a clear set of goals and standards, an organization may improve their ethical and socially responsible perceptions of employees, and ultimately lead to better ethical behaviors and socially responsible performance. Third, this study implies that employees w ith positive attitudes toward CSR are more likely to behave responsibly. Therefore, tour ism organizations need to seize opportunities to enhance their employees ethical and socially responsible attitudes in order to be more responsible organizations and to encourage more responsible behaviors of their employees. Providing advanced information and educating employees regarding what are the right and ethical things for the corporate society would be one method to affect their attitudes. Also, periodic seminars and training programs fo r employees and top management on socially responsible issues may be helpfu l because the characte rization of the tourism industry as fast growing industry requires supplying continuous updated knowledge to practitioners. Future Research and Study Limitations Like all stud ies, this study had limitations that should be addressed. One concern relates to the measurement of SRB. This study measured SRB from the perspec tive of tourism industry professionals. Measuring organizations behaviors by asking individuals perceptions is a common method in business studies (Quazi and OBrien 2000; Arthaud-Day 2005). However, due to the nature of the topic, ethics and social res ponsibility, some bias may have affected the outcome of this study. It is quite possible that the responses were affected by social desirability,

PAGE 138

138 although, unless actual behaviors ar e measured by visual techniques, this may be a limitation to the topic in general. A combination of qualitative and quantitative research may be one way to minimize the social desirability factor. Second, this study was the first effort to develop a measurement of SRB for tourism industries. Therefore, genera lizability of the measurement may be limited. This study recommends testing the tool with a variety of samples to confirm the scales validity and reliability. In addition, development of a more rigorous scale may entail a follow-up study with a more exhaustive set of SRB items develope d through focus group inte rviews or in-depth interviews with industries This study was a starting point to examine tourism professi onals ethical attitudes and social responsibility. Guided by marketing theo ry, this study revealed that an organizations environment, i.e., stating and rewarding co rporate ethical values affects a marketing professionals ethical decision-m aking. While this study focused on professionals from a single industry, the companies characteristics, such as type of business, years in business, and size may affect ethical perceptions and attitudes of empl oyees since the tourism industry is a group of many types of businesses. Thus, further research should investigate addi tional factors that may determine a professionals ethical decision-making. This study revealed the relationship betw een the perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility and the pe rceived problems of incorporating CSR within tourism businesses. Ethics theory suggests that unde rstanding perceived problems is a significant predictor of ethical behaviors. Therefore, future research needs to examine the relationship between perception and behaviors within a tourism context.

PAGE 139

139 In addition, theories of marketing ethics (e.g., Ferrell and Gresham 1985; Hunt and Vitell 1986) suggest that individual characteristics ma y determine perceptions and attitudes about ethical and social responsibility. In other words, one can exp ect that ethical perceptions and socially responsible attitudes may vary by personal factors. Furt her research should measure this relationship and examine such personal characteristics as gender, age, education, work experience, employment position, and the like. In addition, travel agents te nd to believe CSR is not easy to apply to tourism companies. The individual comments elicited in the intervie w process revealed that travel agents believe tourism companies have some barriers to overc ome to perform CSR, such as lack of both resources and knowledge. Thus, future research needs to examine those perceived barriers, specifically, which issues of CSR are difficult to follow for tourism organizations.

PAGE 140

140 Figure 5-1. A summary of results for this study Managers Attitude toward CSR in Tourism Ch. 4 Ch.3 Ch. 2 Managing Impacts Fair Internal System and Local Stakeholder View Stockholder View Gender Work Experience Organizational Age Informal Policy Formal Policy Ch. 2 Ch.3 Ch. 3

PAGE 141

141 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Corporate Social Resp onsibility in Tourism Organizations Department of Tourism, Recreati on and Sport Management Fall 2008 University of Florida This survey is part of a dissertation fo r a student from the Department Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management at the Univers ity of Florida. This survey should take 10-15 minutes to complete. Your responses will be anonymous and confidential. The following questions will ask you to respond to questions re garding your attitudes and behaviors of and your company toward corporate social responsibility. Corporate so cial responsibility means a companys attitudes and behaviors regarding its responsiveness to its perceived societal obligations. Your time and assistance is greatly appr eciated. There are no anticipated risks, compensation, or benefits to you as a participant in this study. You do not have to answer any questions that you do not want to. You are free to withdraw your consent to participate and may discontinue your participation at any time without consequence. Data will be stored securely, only research personnel will have ac cess to it. For questions regard ing your rights as a research participant, contact the IRB at 352-392-0433 or irb2@ufl.edu. Thank you for your co-operation and time.

PAGE 142

142 Section I: Profile of the Organization Please take a moment to tell us about your or ganization. This information will be kept in the strictest confidence and used for statistical purposes only. Q1. In which country is your companys h ead office (or organization) located? Q2. What type of organization is your firm (check all that apply)? Accommodation (Lodging) Tour operator Travel marketing company Casino, gaming & entertainment Theme park Multi-national organization Resort Cruise National tourism organization Convention & Event management Transportations (what? _________ ) Other type of organizations Q3. What is the approximate number of employees in your organization? Q4. How long has your company been in business? Q5. What was your companys annual revenue for 2007? $_______________________________________________ 6. Do you believe your organization is engage d in socially res ponsible activities? Yes No Q7. If you selected Yes in Question 6, does your organization have the report about corporate social responsibility activities? Yes No Q8. If you selected Yes in Question 6, are you aware of your organizations socially responsible activities? Yes No Q9. To what degree (between 0 100%) are you involved in your orga nizations socially responsible activities? _________% Q10. To what degree (between 0 100%) are you satis fied with your organizations socially responsible activities? _________%

PAGE 143

143 Section II: Perceptions of Ethics a nd Corporate Social Responsibility In this section we would like to know about your perceptions re garding ethics and corporate social responsibility. Please rate your agre ement within each item on a 7-point scale from Strongly Disagree (1), to Strongly Agree (7). Q11. Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? S D S A 1. Being ethical and socially res ponsible is the most important thing a firm can do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Bending and breaking the rules is acceptable, if a firm is making a profit. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. The ethics and social responsibilit y of a firm is essential to its long term profitability. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. The overall effectiveness of a bus iness can be determined, to a great extent, by the degree to wh ich it is ethical and socially responsible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. To remain competitive in a global environment, business firms will have to disregard ethics and social responsibility. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Social responsibility a nd profitability can be compatible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Business ethics and social res ponsibility are critical to the survival of a business enterprise. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. A firms first priority should be employee morale. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Businesses have a social responsibility beyond making a profit. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. If the survival of a business en terprise is at stake, then you must forget about ethics a nd social responsibility. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Efficiency is much more important to a firm than whether or not the firm is seen as ethical or socially responsible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Good ethics is often good business. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. If the stockholders are unhappy, not hing else matters. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 144

144 Section III: Corporate Ethical Values In this section, we would like to ask questions about your companys ethical values. Please rate your agreement within e ach item on a 7-point scale from S trongly Disagree (1), to Strongly Agree (7). Q12. Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? S D S A 1. Managers in my company often engage in behaviors that I consider being unethical. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. In order to succeed in my co mpany, it is often necessary to compromise ones ethics. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Top management in my comp any has let it be known in no uncertain terms that unethical behavior will not be tolerated. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. If a manager in my company is discovered to have engaged in unethical behavior that results primarily in personal gain (rather than corporate gain), he or she will be promptly reprimanded. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. If a manager in my company is discovered to have engaged in unethical behavior that results primarily in corporate gain (rather than personal gain), he or she will be promptly reprimanded. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 145

145 Section IV: Organizations Behaviors of Socially Responsible Tourism Here, we would like to know about your organizations behavior. Please rate your agreement with each item on a 7-point scale from Strongly Disagree (1), to Strongly Agree (7). Q13. Has your organization done (implemented) the following? S D S A 1. Wage structures are fair and equitable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Provide women with the same opportunity to be a manager. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Purchase goods and servic es from local suppliers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Support local businesses to ensure benefits to local communities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Educate tourists on the positive effects tourism can have on the local economy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Train staff on the environmental impacts of the companys operations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Implement programs that support the economic vitality of local communities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Market products and services in an environmentally responsible way. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Educate tourists about environmental concerns. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. Formulate policies to avoi d environmental impacts of operations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Help tourists increase their cultural understanding of local communities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Market products and services in a socio-culturally responsible way. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Train staff on the principles of environmental conservation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Implement programs to manage socio-cultural impacts of our activities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Employ local residents. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Educate employees about socio-cultural issues. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. Provide on-going cultural sensiti vity training about the local community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. Donate part of proceeds to charities of local community 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Formulate policies to avoid socio-cultural impacts of operations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 146

146 Section V: Attitudes toward Corporate So cial Responsibility of Tourism Industry In this section we would like to know about your general attit udes regarding corporate social responsibility of tourism corporations. Please ra te your agreement within each item on a 7-point scale from Strongly Disagree (1 ), to Strongly Agree (7). Q14. Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? S D S A 1. Tourism corporations have a re sponsibility to preserve the environment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Tourism corporations have a re sponsibility to preserve the local culture. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Tourism corporations have a responsibility to enhance the quality of tourist experiences. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Tourism corporations have a re sponsibility to contribute to the economy of local community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is hard to apply for tourism companies. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Corporate social responsibi lity (CSR) is particularly important to the tourism industry. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Section VI: Profile of Respondent Please take a moment to tell us about yourself. This information will be kept in the strictest confidence and used for stat istical purposes only. Q15. Please indicate your gender. Q16. What is your job title? __________________________ Q17. What are your main responsibilities? __________________________ Q18. How many years have you worked in the tourism industry? _______year (s) Q19. How many years have you worked in th is current organization? _______year (s) Q20. How many years have you served in th is current position? _________ year (s) Male Female

PAGE 147

147 Q21. How many years have you served in a managerial position? _________ year (s) Q22. Do you have international work experience? Yes No Q23. If you selected Yes to the above question, how many y ears have you been involved in international work? _________ year (s) Q24. Please indicate your politic al orientation (check one) Liberal Independent Conservative None Q25. Please indicate the highe st level of education you ha ve obtained (check one). Less than College Graduate College Degree Graduate School Advanced Degree Technical School Q26. Of what country are you a citizen? ____________ Q27. How old are you? Younger than 30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 Older than 71 Q28. Are you willing to be involved in fu rther research on the related topic? Yes No Q29. If you selected Yes in Question 26, please write your e-mail address? _____________________________________________ If you have any questions concer ning this study, please contact: Jung Eun Kim ( jekim@hhp.ufl.edu ), or Dr. Lori Pennington-Gray ( penngray@hhp.ufl.edu ), University o f Florida, Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA (Tel) 1352-392-4042 (x 1318) (Fax) 1352392 7588 Thank you so much.

PAGE 148

148 APPENDIX B INITIAL ITEMS OF CORPORATE SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIORS OF TOURISM ORGANIZ ATIONS Dimension and Items Results Economic Responsibility 1. Educate tourists on buying locally produced goods and services. Removed 2. Train the employee on the positive e ffects tourism can have on the local economy. Removed 3. Purchase goods and services from local suppliers. 3* 4. Support local businesses to ensure benefits to local communities. 4 5. Educate tourists on the positive ef fects tourism can have on the local economy. 5 6. Implement programs which support the economic vita lity of local communities. 7 7. Provide tourists with opportunitie s to help the local community economically. Removed 8. Employ local residents. 15 9. Minimize hiring of expatriates into high level positions in international locations. Removed 10. Donate part of proceeds to charities of local community. 18 Socio-cultural Responsibility 1. Provide on-going cultural sensitivity training about the local community. 17 2. Train non-local staff on local customs. Removed 3. Encourage tourists to learn about cultural traditions. Removed 4. Formulate policies to avoid soci o-cultural impacts of operations. 10 5. Help tourists increase their cultural understanding of local communities. 19 6. Educate tourists about the local customs. Removed 7. Market products and services in a socio-culturally responsible way. 12 8. Implement programs to manage sociocultural impacts of our activities. 14 9. Educate employees about socio-cultural issues. 16 Environmental Responsibility 1. Implement programs to manage environmen tal impacts of our activities. Removed 2. Train staff on the environmental impacts of the companys operations. 6 3. Market products and services in an environmentally responsible way. 8 4. Educate tourists about environmental concerns. 9 5. Formulate policies to avoid envi ronmental impacts of operations. 10 6. Provide tourists with reliable information about minimizing their environmental impact while traveling. Removed 7. Educate the tourist on how to behave environmentally responsibly. Removed 8. Train the organizations staff on the principles of environmental conservation. Removed 9. Train staff on the principles of e nvironmental conservation regulations 13

PAGE 149

149 Ethics and Internal Responsibility 1. Wage structures are fair and equitable. 1 2. Provide women with the same opportunity to be a manager. 2 3. Have self-imposed codes of ethics Removed 4. Perform corporate social responsibili ty based on ethical values Removed 5. Perform codes of conduct putting by intern ational or national organizations Removed Number stands for the question number used in the survey questionn aire for this study

PAGE 150

150 LIST OF REFERENCES Ahm ed, Z. U., F. B. Krohn, and V. L. Heller (1994) International Tourism Ethics as a Way to World Understanding. The Journal of Tourism Studies 5(2): 36-44. Akaah, I. P. (1989). Differences in Research Ethics Judgments between Male and Female Marketing Professionals. Journal of Business Ethics 8: 375-381. Aldag, J. A., and D. W. Jackson (1984). Measurement and Correlates of Social Attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 3: 143-51. Aldag, R. J., and D. W. Jackson (1977). Assessme nt of Attitudes toward Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Administration, 8: 65-80. Ap, J., and J. L. Crompton (1993). Residents Strategies for Responding to Tourism Impacts. Journal of Travel Research 32(1): 47-50. Arlow, P. (1991). Personal Characteristics in College Student s' Evaluations of Business. Journal of Business Ethics, 10: 63-9. Arthaud-Day, M. L. (2005). Transnational Corpor ate Social Responsibilit y: A Tri-Dimensional Approach to Internat ional CSR Research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15: 1-22. Aupperle, K. E. (1984). An Empirical Measure of Corporate Social Orie ntation. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 6: 27-54. Aupperle, K. E., A. B. Carroll, and J. D. Ha tfield (1985). An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28: 446-63. Axinn, C. N., M. E. Blair, A. Heorhiadi, and S.V. Thach (2004). Comparing Ethical Ideologies Across Cultures. Journal of Business Ethics 54: 103-119. Banerjee, S. B. (2002). Corporate Environmen talism: The Construct and Its Measurement. Journal of Business Research 55:177-191. Batra, G.S., and N. Kaur (1998). New vistas in reducing the conflicts between tourism and the environment: an environmental audit approach. Ethics in Tourism Conference. http://www.mcb.co.uk/services/conferen/jan98/jan98/eit/paper3-2.htm Baucus, M. S., and J. P. Near (1991). Can Illegal Corporate Behavior be Predicted? An Event History Analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 9-36. Beliveau, B., M. Cottrill, and H. M. ONeill (1994). Predicting Corporate Social Responsiveness: A Model Drawn from Three Perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics 13:731-738.

PAGE 151

151 Bitner, M. J., and B. H. Booms (1982). Trends in Travel and Tourism Marketing: The Changing Structure of Distribution Channels. Journal of Travel Research 20(4): 39-44. Brunt, P., and P. Courtney (1999). Host Perceptions of Socio-Cultural Impacts. Annals of Tourism Research 26(3): 493. Burton, B. K., and W. H. Hegarty (1999). Some Determinants of Student Corporate Social Responsibility Orientation. Business and Society 38: 88-205. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review 4: 496-503. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The Pyramid of Corpor ate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organiza tional Stakeholders. Business Horizons 34: 39. Carroll, A. B. (1993). Business and Society: Ethics and stakeholders management. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern Publishing Co. Carroll, A.B. (2000). Ethical Challenges for Businesses in the New Millennium: Corporate Social Responsibility and Models of Management Morality. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10: 32-42. Carlsen, J., D. Getz and J. Ali-Knight (2001). The Environmental Attitudes and Practices of Family Businesses in Rural Tour ism and Hospitality Sector. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9(4): 281-297. Carey, S., Y. Gountas and D. Gilbert (1997). Tou r Operators and Destina tion Sustainability. Tourism Management 18: 425. Chen, J. C., D. M. Patten, and R.W. Robert s (2007). Corporate Charitable Contributions: A Corporate Social Performance or Legitimacy Strategy? Journal of Business Ethics 82: 131-144. Churchill, G. A. (1979). A Paradigm for devel oping better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16: 64-73. Clarke, J. (1997). A Framework of Approach to Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5(3): 224-233. Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A Stakeholder Fram ework for Analyzing a nd Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academic of Management Review, 20: 92-117. Cowen, S., L. Ferreri, and L. Parker (1987). The Impact of Corporate Ch aracteristics on Social Responsibility Disclosure a Typolog y and Frequency-Based Analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, pp.111-122.

PAGE 152

152 Dawson, L. M. (1997). Ethical differences betw een men and women in the sales profession. Journal of Business Ethics 16: 1143-1152. Deshpande, S. P. (1997). Managers' Perception of Proper Ethical Conduct: the Effect of Sex, Age and Level of Education. Journal of Business Ethics 16: 79-85. Dewhurst, H. and R. Thomas (2003). "Encourag ing sustainable business practices in a nonregulatory environment: a case study of small firms in a UK national park." Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11(5): 383-403. Dodds, R., and M, Joppe (2005). CSR in the Tourism Industry: The Status of and Potential for Certification, Codes of Conduct and Guidelines Washington DC: The World Bank. Etheredge, J. M. (1999). The Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility: An Alternative Scale Structure. Journal of Business Ethics 18: 51-64. Fennell, D. A. (2006). Toursim Ethics. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Ferrell, O. C., and L. G. Gresham (1985). A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing. Journal of Marketing 49: 87-96. Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen (1975). Belief, Attitude, Inte ntion, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research Addison: Wesley Pub. Co. Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social De sirability Bias and the Valid ity of Indirect Questioning. The Journal of Consumer Research 20(2): 303-315. Fleckenstein, M. P. and P. Huebsch (1999). Ethics in Tourism-Reality or Hallucination. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(1): 137-142. Forsyth, T. (1997). Environmental Responsibil ity and Business Regulation: The Case of Sustainable Tourism. The Geographical Journal 163: 270-280. Fox, T., H. Ward, and B. Howard (2002). Public Sector Roles in St rengthening Corporate Social Responsibility; a Baseline Study Washington DC: The World Bank. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach Boston, MA: Pitman. Friedman, M. (1970). Social Responsibility of Business is to increase its Profit. The New York Times Magazine, 13: 122-126. Fuller, T. (2003). Small Bu siness Futures in Society. Futures, 35(4): 297. Go, F., and K. M. Haywood (1990) Marketing of the Service Pr ocess: State of the Art in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Industries, In Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management edited by Cooper, C.P. London: Belhaven. pp.129-150.

PAGE 153

153 Goodwin, H., and J. Francis (2003). Ethical and Responsible Tour ism: Consumer Trends in the UK. Journal of Vacation Marketing 9(3): 271-284. Hackston, D., and M. J. Milne (1996). Some Determinants of Social and Environmental Disclosures in New Zealand Companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 9(1): 77-108 Hage, J. (1980). Theories in Organizations: Form, Process and Transformation. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Hall, S. S. J., ed (1992). Ethics in Hospitality Management: A Book of Readings East Lansing: International Institute for Quality an d Ethics in Service and Tourism. Harris, J. (1990). Ethical Values of Individu als at Different Levels in the Organizational Hierarchy of a Single Firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 9: 741-750. Henderson, J. C. (2007). Corporat e Social Responsibility and T ourism: Hotel Companies in Phuket, Thailand, after the Indian Ocean Tsunami. Hospitality Management 26: 228239. Henriques, A. (2004) CSR, sustainability and the triple bottom line, In The Triple Bottom Line: Does it all add up? edited by A. Henriques and J. Richardson. London: Earthscan. pp 26-33. Horobin H, and J. Long (1996). Sustainable tourism: the role of the small firm. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(5): 15-19. Hultsman, J. (1995) Just Tourism: An Ethical Framework. Annals of Tourism Research 22(3): 553. Hunt, S. D., and S. J. Vitell (1986). A General T heory of Marketing Ethics. Journal of Micromarketing 6: 5. Hunt, S. D., and S. J. Vitell (2006). The General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A Revision and Three Questions. Journal of Micromarketing 26(2): 143-153. Hunt, S. D., V. R. Wood, and L. B. Chonko (1989). Corporate Ethical Values and Organizational Commitment in Marketing. Journal of Marketing 53: 79-90. Ibrahim, N. A., and J. P. Angelidis (1991). "Effects of board members' gender on level of involvement in strategic management and cor porate social responsiven ess orientation, In Proceedings of the Northeast Decision Sciences Institute pp.208-10. Johnson, J. D., D. J. Snepenger, and S. Akis (1994). Residents Perceptions of Tourism Development. Annals of Tourism Research 21(3): 629-642. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An IssueContingent Model. Academy of Management Review 16: 366-395.

PAGE 154

154 Kidwell, J. M., R. E. Stevens, and A. L. Bet hke (1987). Differences in the Ethical Perceptions between Male and Female Managers: Myth or Reality. Journal of Business Ethics, 6: 489-93. Kok, P., T. van der Wiele, R. McKenna, a nd A. Brown (2001). A Corporate Social Responsibility Audit within a Qu ality Management Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 31: 285-297. Kraft, K. L., and A. Singhapakdi (1995). The Re lative Importance of Soci al Responsibility in Determining Organizational Effec tiveness: Students Reponses II. Journal of Business Ethics 14: 314-326. Krohn, F. B., and Z. U. Ahmed (1991). The Need for Developing an Ethical Code for the Marketing of International Tourism Services. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 8: 189-200. Lankford, S. V. (1994). Attitudes and Perceptions toward Tourism and Rural Regional Development. Journal of Travel Research, 33(4): 35-43. Lawler, J. J., and J. Bae (1998). Overt Empl oyment Discrimination by Multinational Firms: Cultural and Economic Influences in a Developing Country. Industrial Relations 37(2): 126-152. Lawton, G., and S. Page (1997). Evaluating Trav el Agents Provision of Health Advice to Travelers. Tourism Management 18: 89-104. Leblanc, G. (1992). Factor affecting customer eval uation of service quality in travel agencies: An investigation of customer perception. Journal of Travel Research, 30( 4): 10. Longnsecker, J. G., J. A. McKinney, and C. W. Moore (1989). Do Smaller Firms have Higher Ethics? Business and Society Review, Fall: 19-21. Lovelock, B. (2008). Ethical Travel Deci sions Travel Agents and Human Rights. Annals of Tourism Research 35(2): 338-358. Lordkipanidze, M., Brezet, H., and M. Backma n (2005). The Entrepreneurship Factor in Sustainable Tourism Development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(8), 787-798. Malloy, D. C., and D.A. Fennell (1998). Eco tourism and Ethics: Moral Development and Organizational Cultures. Journal of Travel Research 36: 47-56. Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and Definitions of CSR and Corporate Su stainability: Between Agency and Communion. Journal of Business Ethics 44: 95-105. Mason, C. H., and W. Perreault (1991). Collinearity, Power, and Interpretation of Multiple Regression Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 28: 268-280

PAGE 155

155 McBeth (2005). Toward an Ethics Platform for Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 32(4): 962-984. McCool, S. F., and S. R. Martin (1994). Co mmunity Attachment and Attitudes toward Tourism Development. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3): 29-34. McDonald, G. M., and P. C. Kan (1997). Ethical Perceptions of Expatriate and Local Managers in Hong Kong. Journal of Business Ethics, 16: 1605-1623. McGuire, J. A., Sundgren, and T. Schneewers (1988) Corporate Social Re sponsibility and Firm Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal. pp. 854-872. McWilliams, A., and D. Siegel (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspectives. Academy of Management Review 26(1): 117-127. Mitchell, R. (2006). A Recon ceptualisation of Destination Tourism Management: Focusing on Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility. In Processing of Otago Business PhD Colloquium Otago, New Zealand, pp. 11. Navarro, P. (1988). Why Do Co rporations Give To Charity? Journal of Business 1: 65-93. Newstrom, J. W., and W. A. Ruch (1975). The Ethics of Management and the Management of Ethics. M.S.U Business Topics, Winter, 23: 29-37. Ng, L.W. (1985). Social Responsibility Disclosures of Selected New Zealand Companies for 1981,1982 and 1983, Palmerston North: Massey Univ ersity, Faculty of Business. Nyaw, M., and I. Ng (1994). A comparative analysis of ethica l beliefs: A four country study. Journal of Business Ethics 13(7): 543-555. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory New York: McGraw-Hill. Partnership for Global Sust ainable Criteria (2007). http://www.sustainabletourismcriteria.org/ Pennington-Gray, L., and B. Thapa (2004). Cultu rally Responsible Tourism : Are DMOs doing a Good Job of Educating the Tourist? TourismAn Interdisci plinary International Journal, 52 (2): 183-194. Pennington-Gray, L., Y. Reisinger, J. Kim, a nd B. Thapa (2005). Do U.S. Tour Operators Educate the Tourist on Culturally Responsib le Behaviours?: A Case Study for Kenya. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(3): 265-284. Petit, T. A. (1967). The Moral Crisis in Management New York: McGraw-Hill.

PAGE 156

156 Pettijohn, C., L. Pettijohn, and A. J. Taylor (2007). Salesperson Perceptions of Ethical Behaviors: Their Influence on Job Sa tisfaction and Turnover Intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 78:547-557. Pirsch, J., S. Gupta, and S. L. Grau (2007). A Framework for Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility Programs as a Continuum: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Business Ethics 70(2): 125-140. Quazi. A.M., and D. O'Brien (2000). An Empi rical Test of a Cross-National Model of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 25: 35-51. Quazi, A.M. (2003). Identifying the Determinants of Corporate Mangers Perceived Social Obligations. Management Decision, 41(9): 822-831. Research advisors (2006). http://www.research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm Roberts, R.W. (1992) Determ inants of Corporate Social Responsib ility Disclosure: An Application of Stakeholder Theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society 17(6): 595612. Ross, G. (1992). Resident Perceptions of the Impact of Tourism on an Australian City. Journal of Travel Research 4: 13-17. Ruegger, D., and E. W. King (1992). A study of the Effect of Age and Gender upon Student Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11:179-186. Samli, A, C. (1992). Social responsibility in marketing: a proactive and profitable marketing management New York, NY: Quorum Books. Schlegelmilch, B. B., and D. C. Robertson (1995 ). The Influence of Country and Industry on Ethical Perceptions of Senior Ex ecutives in the US and Europe. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(4): 859-879. Serwinek, P.J. (1992). Demographics and Re lated Differences in Ethical Views among Businesses. Journal of Business Ethics, 11: 555-66. Shafer, W.E., K. Fukukawa, and G.M. Lee (200 6). Values and the Perceived Importance of Ethics and Social Responsibility: The U.S. versus China. Journal of Business Ethics 70:265-284. Shaw, W. H., and V. Barry (1992). Moral Issues in Business 5th Edition. Belmont (CA): Wadsworth Publishing. Singhapakdi, A., K. L. Kraft, S. J. Vitell, and K. C. Rallapalli (1995). The Perceived Importance of Ethics and Social Responsib ility on Organizational Effectiveness: A Survey of Marketers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23(1): 49-56.

PAGE 157

157 Singhapakdi, A., S. J. Vitell, K. C. Rallapalli, and K. L. Kraft (1996). The Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility: A Scale Development. Journal of Business Ethics, 15: 1131-1140. Singhapakdi, A. (1999). Perceived Importance of Ethics and Ethical Decisions in Marketing. Journal of Business Research, 45: 89-99. Singhapakdi, A., J. K. Marta, K. C. Rallapalli, and C. P. Rao (2000). Toward an Understanding of Religiousness and Marketing Ethics: An Empirical Study. Journal of Business Ethics 27: 305-319. Sighapakdi, A., K. Karande, C. P. Rao, and S. J. Vitell (2001). How Im portant are Ethics and Social Responsibility? A Multinational Study of Marketing Professionals. European Journal of Marketing, 35(1/2): 133-153. Singhapakdi, A., and S.J. Vitell (2007). Institutionaliz ation of Ethics and its Consequences: A Survey of Marketing Professionals. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35: 284-294. Singhapakdi, A., M. Gopinath, J. K. Marta, and L. L. Carter (2007). Antecedents and Consequences of Perceived Importance of Et hics in Marketing Situations: A Study of Thai Businesspeople. Journal of Business Ethics 81(4):887-904. Skinner, (1950). Are Theories of Learning Necessary? Psychological Review 57: 193-216. Southwell, C. (2004). Engaging SMEs in Community and Social Issues, In Responsibility and Social Capital: The World of Sma ll and Medium Sized Enterprises, edited by L. J. Spence, A. Habisch and S. Schmidpeter. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 96. Spender, J. C. (1989). Industry Recipes: An Inquiry into the Nature and Sources of Managerial Judgement. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Stanwick, P., and S. D. Stanwick (1998). The Relationship betw een Corporate Social Performance and Organizational Size, Fina ncial Performance, and Environmental Performance: An Empirical Examination. Journal of Business Ethics 17 (2): 195-204 Tearfund (2000). A Tearfund Guide to Tourism: Dont Forget Your Ethics London: Tearfund. The International Ecotourism Society (2004) Consumer demand and operator support for socially and environmentally responsible tourism, available at www.ecotourism.org/, accessed 1st Nove mber, 2004. The U.S Census Bureau (2009). http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html Thom as, A. S., and R. L. Simerly (1994). The Chief Executive Officers and Corporate Social Performance: An Interdis ciplinary Examination. Journal of Business Ethics 3: 959-968.

PAGE 158

158 Thompson, J. and H. Smith (1991). Social Respons ibility and Small Business: Suggestions for Research. Journal of Small Business Management, 29(1): 30. Tourism Concern (1992). Beyond the green horizon: princi ples of sustainable tourism London: Tourism Concern and World Wide Fund for Nature. Tour Operators Initiative (2009). Statemen t of Commitment to Sustainable Tourism Development. http://www.toinitiative.org/ Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision Ma king in Organizations: A Person-Situation Interationist Model. Aca demy of Review, 11(3): 601-617. Vitell, S. J., J. G.P. Paolillo, and J. L. Thomas (2003). The Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility: A Study of Marketing Professionals. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1): 63. Vitell, S. J., and E. R. Hidalgo (2006). T he Impact of Corporate Ethical Values and Enforcement of Ethical Codes on the Percei ved Importance of Ethics in Business: A Comparison of U.S. and Spanish Managers. Journal of Business Ethics 64: 31-43. Volkswagen AG (2000). Corporate Social Performance: Commitment and Performance Generic. Weaver, G. R., L. K. Trevino, and P. L. Cochra n (1999). Corporate Ethics Practices in the mid 1990s: An Empirical Study of the Fortune 1000. Journal of Business Ethics, 18(3): 283-294. Wheeler, M. (1991). Tourism Marketers in Local Governm ent: Critical Issues and Ethical Components. Unpublished thesis, Guildfor d: University of Surrey. Wheeler, M. (1993). Tourism Mark eters in Local Government. The Annals of Tourism Research 20(2): 354-356. Wheeler, M. (1995). Tourism Marketing Ethics. International Marketing Review 12(4): 38-49. Wood, D. (1991). Corporate Soci al Performance Revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4): 691-718. World Business Council for Sust ainable Development WBCSD(1999). Meeting Changing Expectations. Corporate Social Responsibility. New York: WBCSD. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). From One Earth to One World: An Overview. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

PAGE 159

159 World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1996). What Tourism Managers Need to Know: A Practical Guide to the Development and Us e of Indicators of Sustainable Tourism Madrid, Spain: WTO Publications. World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1999). Tourism Highlights-1998. Madrid, Spain: WTO Publications. World Tourism Organization (WTO) (2002). Voluntary initiatives for sustainable tourism http://www.e-nwto.org/content/x164 51/? p=1b3b94065cee4c8db15f75d970aac338&pi=5 World Tourism Organization (WTO) (2003). Global Code of Ethics for Tourism : Madrid, Spain: WTO Publications. World Tourism Organization (WTO) (2005). Tourism Highlights Madrid, Spain: WTO Publications. World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) (2005). Philippines Travel and Tourism Economic Research. London, WTTC. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the Involvement Construct. Journal of Consumer Research 12(3): 341-352. Zenisek, T. J. (1979). Corpor ate Social Responsibility: A Conceptualization based on Organizational Literature. Academy of Management Review 4(3): 359-368.

PAGE 160

160 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jung Eun Kim com pleted her bachelor of science in history at D uksung Women University in 1997. She received the degree of Master of Science in touris m from Han Yang University in 2000. In 2000, she began her career as a project director at FILLIN Co. Ltd., a marketing and event management company. She began her Ph.D. studies at the University of Florida in 2002. She plans to continue her career as an academ ic in tourism management, applying both the valuable lessons she has achieved through her Ph.D. studies and patience she gained as the mom of two daughters.