Tag Archives: environment

Using Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Factors for the promotion of Sustainable Tourism Development

Featuring excerpts from one of my latest article focused on the intersection of ESG performance and the promotion of the sustainable tourism agenda – published through Business Strategy and the Environment:

Suggested citation: Camilleri, M.A. (2025). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors for sustainable tourism development: The way forward toward destination resilience and growth, Business Strategy and the Environmenthttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/bse.70366

1 Introduction

Sustainable tourism is based on the principles of sustainable development (Fauzi 2025). It covers the complete tourism experience, including concerns related to economic, social and environmental issues (Bang-Ning et al. 2025; Wang and Zhang 2025). Its long-term dual objectives are to improve the tourists’ experiences of destinations they visit and to address the needs of host communities (Kim et al. 2024). Arguably, all forms of tourism have the potential to become sustainable if they are appropriately planned, led, organised and managed (Camilleri 2018). Destination marketers and tourism practitioners who pursue responsible tourism approaches ought to devote their attention to enhancing environmental protection within their territories, to mitigating the negative externalities of the tourism industry on the environment and society, to promoting fair and inclusive societies to enhance the quality of life of local residents, to facilitating exposure to diverse cultures, while fostering a resilient and dynamic economy that generates jobs and equitable growth for all (Rasoolimanesh et al. 2023; Scheyvens and Cheer 2022).

Conversely, irresponsible tourism practices can lead to the degradation of natural habitats, greenhouse gas emissions and the loss of biodiversity through air and water pollution from unsustainable transportation options, overconsumption of resources, waste generation and excessive construction (Banga et al. 2022; H. Wu et al. 2024). Indeed, any nation’s overdependence on tourism may give rise to economic difficulties during economic crises, such as increased cost of living for residents, seasonal income and precarious employment conditions, leakage of revenues when profits go to foreign-owned businesses and displacement of traditional industries like fishing and agriculture, among other contingent issues (Mtapuri et al. 2022; Mtapuri et al. 2024).

In addition, tourism may trigger social and cultural externalities like overcrowding and an increased strain on public services, occupational hazards for tourism employees and inequalities due to uneven distribution of benefits, displacement of local communities to give way to tourism infrastructures, the loss of authenticity in local traditions, an erosion of local identities and traditional lifestyles under external influence, as well as increased crime rates or illicit activities (Ramkissoon 2023).

In light of these challenges, this research seeks to provide a better understanding of how environmental, social and governance (ESG) dimensions can be embedded within sustainable tourism, to strengthen long-term destination resilience and economic growth. Debatably, although the use of the ESG dimensions is gaining traction in various corporate suites, their application in tourism and hospitality industry contexts is still limited. Notwithstanding, ESG research is still suffering from inconsistent conceptualisations, measurements and reporting systems (Legendre et al. 2024).

To address this gap, this contribution outlines five interrelated objectives: (1) It relies on a systematic review methodology to investigate the intersection of ESG principles and sustainable tourism; (2) It synthesises the findings and maps thematic connections related to environmental stewardship, social equity and governance structures in tourism destinations; (3) It evaluates ESG-based strategies that address carrying capacity limitations, overtourism, climate vulnerabilities, sociocultural tensions and institutional accountabilities; (4) It advances theoretical insights; and (5) It develops a comprehensive conceptual framework, to guide policymakers, practitioners and stakeholders in embedding ESG considerations into tourism planning and development, thereby promoting environmental sustainability, socioeconomic resilience and corporate governance.

Guided by these objectives, this timely research addresses four central research questions. Firstly, it asks: [RQ1] How have high-impact scholarly works conceptualised and operationalised ESG dimensions in order to promote sustainable travel destinations? Secondly, it seeks to answer this question: [RQ2] What empirical evidence exists on the effectiveness of ESG-aligned strategies in enhancing destination resilience and fostering long-term economic growth? The third question interrogates: [RQ3] What academic implications arise from this contribution, and how might its insights shape the future research agenda? Finally, the study seeks to address this question: [RQ4] How and in what ways are the ESG pillars interacting within sustainable tourism policy and practices? This research question recognises that the ESG dimensions may or may not always align harmoniously with the sustainable tourism agenda.

Although the sustainable tourism literature has often been linked to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and to broader corporate social responsibility (CSR) frameworks, the explicit integration of ESG principles into this field is still underdeveloped (Back 2024; Legendre et al. 2024; Lin et al. 2024; Shin et al. 2025). Much of the existing literature examines the environmental, social and governance (E, S and G) dimensions in isolation (Moss et al. 2024), with scholars often addressing, for example, environmental sustainability through climate adaptation strategies or governance via destination management systems, without adequately considering their interdependence or combined impact on tourism outcomes (Comite et al. 2025; Kim et al. 2024). This pattern was clearly evidenced in the findings of this research.

This article synthesises the findings of recent high-impact publications focused on sustainable tourism through the ESG performance lens, in order to advance a holistic conceptual model that bridges academic scholarship and policy application. In sum, this proposed theoretical framework clarifies how environmental stewardship, social inclusivity and governance accountability are shaping sustainable tourism trajectories. In conclusion, it puts forward original theoretical as well as the managerial implications. Theoretically, it enriches the sustainable tourism literature with an ESG-integrated analytical framework grounded in systematic evidence. Practically, it offers an actionable, governance-oriented blueprint that aligns environmental, social and economic objectives for responsible tourism planning and development. Hence, it provides a tangible roadmap that embeds ESG dimensions and their related criteria into sustainable tourism strategies for destination resilience and long-term competitiveness.

2 Background

The evolution of sustainable and responsible tourism paradigms can be traced back to the environmental consciousness that characterised the 1960s and 1970s. At the time, several governments were concerned over the ecological and cultural consequences of mass tourism. Early initiatives, such as the European Travel Commission’s 1973 campaign for environmentally sustainable tourism, sought to mitigate the negative externalities of rapid sector growth. Subsequently, South Africa’s 1996 national tourism policy introduced the concept of responsible tourism, that essentially emphasised community well-being as an integral component of destination management. The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has since positioned sustainable tourism as a catalyst for global development.

Eventually, the declaration of 2017 as the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development has underscored its potential to contribute directly to the United Nations SDGs. Specific targets like SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), SDG 14 (life below water) and SDG 15 (life on land) highlight the sector’s capacity to create jobs, preserve ecosystems, safeguard cultural heritage and benefit vulnerable economies (Mahajan et al. 2024), particularly in small island states and least developed countries (Grilli et al. 2021). However, an ongoing achievement of these objectives necessitates balancing environmental, social and economic interests, a process that is often complicated by the diverse, and at times conflicting, priorities of a wide array of stakeholders (Civera et al. 2025).

Governments are important actors in this process. They can influence sustainable tourism outcomes through regulation, education, destination marketing and public–private partnerships (Dossou et al. 2023; Mdoda et al. 2024). Generally, their underlying policy rationale is to ensure that tourism development supports long-term economic growth while protecting cultural and natural assets, in order to improve community well-being (Andrade-Suárez and Caamaño-Franco 2020; Breiby et al. 2020). Yet this ambition is often undermined by market pressures, limited institutional capacities and the difficulty of translating high-level sustainability commitments into enforceable measures at the local levels.

In this light, the ESG framework a concept that was popularised by a United Nations Global Compact (2004) report, entitled, “Who Cares Wins”, offers a coherent approach for the integration of environmental stewardship, social equity and institutional accountability for the advancement of responsible tourism planning and development. Hence, in this context, practical tools are required in order to translate inconsistent guiding principles into actionable destination management strategies. For instance, the carrying capacity acts as a practical control mechanism within such a theoretical framework (Mtapuri et al. 2022; O’Reilly 1986). It ensures that tourism figures remain compatible with the preservation of natural, cultural and heritage assets. For the time being, there are challenges as well as opportunities for governments to translate the holistic vision of sustainable tourism policies into robust governance systems that maintain economic vitality and the integrity of their destinations.

4 Results

The thematic analysis indicates that the sustainable tourism concept is interconnected with each of the ESG’s dimensions. The findings suggest that sustainable tourism integrates environmental stewardship, social responsibility and sound governance to advance ecological preservation, community well-being and organisational accountability. Hence, it supports long-term destination resilience. The bibliographic results report that each of the ESG components is not only essential for sustainable tourism but also interdependent pillars that enable the sector to thrive in a responsible manner. Therefore, it is imperative for governments to safeguard natural and cultural heritage, empower local communities and foster transparent and effective governance, to ensure the sustainable development of destinations as well as their economic growth (Chong 2020; Grilli et al. 2021; Mamirkulova et al. 2020). The ESG framework, along with its criteria, serves as an important lens through which stakeholders can shape and evaluate sustainable tourism policies and practices (Işık, Islam, et al. 2025). Table 1 features the most conspicuous themes that emerged from this study. Additionally, it presents definitions for each theme along with illustrative research questions examined by the academic contributions identified in this systematic review.

4.1 The Environmental Dimension of Sustainable Tourism

The tourism industry is dependent on natural ecosystems. Therefore, it is in the tourism stakeholders’ interest to protect the environment and to minimise their externalities (J. S. Wu et al. 2021). There is scope for them to promote the conservation of land and water resources (Sørensen and Grindsted 2021). Water scarcity is a pressing global concern that is amplified in many tourist hotspots (WTTC 2023). However, tourism development and its related infrastructural expansion ought to respect ecological thresholds and preserve green spaces, particularly in urban areas. Hotels, resorts and attractions could implement water-saving technologies such as rainwater harvesting, low-flow fixtures and wastewater recycling (Foroughi et al. 2022). These sustainable measures reduce stress on local water supplies and help preserve aquatic ecosystems. In addition, tourism entities can avail themselves of renewable energy sources like solar panels, wind turbines, et cetera, and may adopt energy-efficient appliances and lighting solutions (Abdou et al. 2020; Zhan et al. 2021).

The rapid growth of tourism has historically been linked to environmental degradation through waste accumulation and pollution (Bekun et al. 2022). Circular economy strategies including improved waste management and pollution control through responsible waste disposal as well as reducing, reusing and recycling certain resources, can help decrease the industry’s externalities, but also create healthier spaces for tourists and staff (Camilleri 2025; Dey et al. 2025; Jain et al. 2024).

Tourism significantly contributes to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions through transportation and accommodation (Kim et al. 2024). Addressing climate change within sustainable tourism is critical to reducing the sector’s ecological footprint and enhancing destination resilience to climate impacts (Comite et al. 2025; Scott 2021). Many tourism businesses invest in carbon offset programs including reforestation, renewable energy projects and community-based conservation as mechanisms to offset their emissions (Banga et al. 2022). Eco-certifications such as Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC), Green Globe, EarthCheck, GreenKey and LEED, among others, encourage the adoption of low-carbon practices. They enable practitioners and consumers to make environmentally conscious choices (Dube and Nhamo 2020; Gössling and Schweiggart 2022). Moreover, green transportation policies can encourage public transit, cycling, walking and the adoption of electric and hybrid vehicles for tourism-related travel, thereby reducing carbon footprints (Kim et al. 2024).

Ecologically sensitive zones such as national parks and marine reserves, which are home to wildlife, fragile species and habitats are some of the most visited places by tourists (Partelow and Nelson 2020; Tranter et al. 2022). Hence, they should be protected from overtourism by implementing visitor limits, buffer zones and conservation fees to reduce human impact (Leka et al. 2022). Restoration projects like reforestation, coral reef rehabilitation and wetland conservation are good examples of proactive environmental stewardship linked to tourism (Herrera-Franco et al. 2020; Muhammad et al. 2021). Environmental sustainability also depends on shaping tourist behaviours and fostering responsible activities like environmental awareness campaigns, community involvement in conservation efforts as well as engagement in low-impact alternatives like birdwatching, hiking and sustainable diving, among other stewardship practices (Khuadthong et al. 2025; J. S. Wu et al. 2021).

4.2 The Social Dimension of Sustainable Tourism

Sustainable tourism outcomes extend beyond environmental stewardship principles. Its social dimension encompasses criteria related to the preservation of cultural heritage; community engagement and empowerment; social equity, inclusion and cohesion; as well as responsible tourist behaviours, among other aspects (Bellato et al. 2023; Bianchi and de Man 2021; Joo et al. 2020a; Xu et al. 2020; Yang and Wong 2020; Rasoolimanesh et al. 2023). Sustainable tourism practices are clearly evidenced through improved relationships between tourists and local host communities, resulting in tangible benefits to both parties (Ramkissoon 2023).

The tourism industry can be considered a catalyst for cultural appreciation as well as a threat to cultural authenticity (Bai et al. 2024; H. Wu et al. 2024). Therefore, host destinations need to safeguard their cultural heritage, historical landmarks and monuments. Regulations and visitor management policies ought to be in place to limit wear and degradation of archaeological and religious sites, as well as historically important buildings and architectures (Mamirkulova et al. 2020). The social dimension of sustainable tourism entails that destination marketers preserve their cultural heritage and authenticity. They may do so by showcasing indigenous tastes and aromas of the region, including local foods and wines, and by promoting traditional music, dance, arts, crafts, et cetera, to appeal to international visitors (Andrade-Suárez and Caamaño-Franco 2020). This helps them keep their cultural legacy and maintain a competitive edge (Bellato et al. 2023). As a result, incoming tourists would be in a better position to appreciate local customs and folklore. Notwithstanding, their behaviours can play a crucial role in shaping social dynamics within destinations, as their activities might support community well-being and promote equitable access to tourism benefits (Mamirkulova et al. 2020).

However, policymakers are expected to manage visitor flows within a destination’s carrying capacity to prevent overcrowding, and to avoid social tensions, while fostering inclusivity, mutual respect and positive interactions between visitors and host communities (Back 2024; Koens et al. 2021). Perhaps, destination management organisations should educate visitors about cultural sensitivity issues to demonstrate their respect to host communities (Foroughi et al. 2022; Joo et al. 2020b; Mdoda et al. 2024). For example, they may raise awareness of appropriate behaviours in specific contexts, including dress codes and etiquette to mitigate cultural clashes, discourage exploitative tourism practices like invasive photography in certain settings and prevent unethical animal encounters, in order to foster mutual respect, enhance positive exchanges and safeguard community values (Ghaderi et al. 2024).

The sustainable tourism concept encourages participatory tourism planning. It prioritises the empowerment of indigenous communities in tourism decision-making and policy formulation (Ramkissoon 2023). The involvement of local residents may require capacity building to equip them with relevant skills to participate in the tourism sector, and to foster their economic advancement (Mamirkulova et al. 2020). The proponents of sustainable tourism frequently refer to the provision of fair employment opportunities, including for native populations, in terms of equitable wages and salaries, as well as decent working conditions, in order to enhance community livelihoods and social cohesion (Mtapuri, Camilleri, et al. 2022). Very often, they report that destinations would benefit from sustainable tourism practices that build social capital and reduce economic leakage, by incentivising local entrepreneurs and community-based tourism initiatives to ensure that financial returns remain within the community (Chong 2020; Partelow and Nelson 2020).

The systematic review postulates that the sustainable tourism concept is meant to promote social justice and reduce inequalities (Bianchi and de Man 2021). The extant research confirms that it fosters social inclusivity across various demographic groups in society by supporting gender equality, thereby enriching the sector’s diversity (Bellato et al. 2023; A. Khan et al. 2020). The industry’s labour market may include individuals hailing from different backgrounds in society, including young adults, women, senior citizens, immigrants and disabled people (Bianchi and de Man 2021; Camilleri et al. 2024). Tourism businesses are encouraged to develop infrastructures and services that accommodate people with accessibility requirements in order to broaden their destinations’ reach and social value (Sisto et al. 2022).

4.3 The Governance Dimension in Sustainable Tourism

The integration of environmental and social dimensions of sustainable tourism ultimately depends on transparent, accountable and participatory governance mechanisms (Joo et al. 2020b; Putzer and Posza 2024). Effective governance provides the institutional framework through which environmental stewardship and social responsibility are translated into actionable policies, coordinated initiatives and measurable outcomes (Back 2024; Ivars-Baidal et al. 2023).

Governments are entrusted to set the foundation for sustainable tourism through national and local tourism policies that clearly define sustainability goals, action plans and regulatory measures (Gössling and Schweiggart 2022). Such policies may be related to environmental and/or social regulations. They may enforce environmental impact assessments (EIAs), zoning laws and they could be meant to protect cultural heritage (Farsari 2023). Moreover, they may be intended to encourage or incentivise environmental sustainability practices (e.g., through eco-label or certification schemes) (Bekun et al. 2022). Alternatively, they may be focused on the destinations’ carrying capacity limits and/or on their overtourism aspects, if they specify visitor limits, and/or refer to taxes, levies or fees imposed on visitors or tourists (Leka et al. 2022).

Sustainable tourism governance depends on multisector cooperation (Farsari 2023) that may usually involve government departments and agencies, the private sector that may comprise accommodation service providers, airlines, tour operators, travel agencies as well as local communities, NGOs and international organisations, among others. Policymakers need to balance diverse stakeholders’ interests and to instil their shared responsibilities (Siakwah et al. 2020). Good governance can ultimately ensure that public–private partnerships would translate to long-term, sustainable tourism strategies related to responsible planning and development that consider specific socioenvironmental aspects of destinations: green building standards and the use of renewable energy, and/or emergency and crisis management issues (Scheyvens and Cheer 2022).

Policymakers are expected to conduct regular assessments and evaluations of tourism practitioners’ environmental, social and economic outcomes operating in their jurisdictions. They need to scrutinise corporate ESG disclosures, particularly in certain domains (e.g., in European contexts, where they ratified the corporate sustainability reporting directive) (Camilleri 2025). Governments should monitor business practices to safeguard their employees’ well-being, environmental sustainability and the communities’ interests (Putzer and Posza 2024). They may avail themselves of sustainability indicators and benchmarking tools such as GSTC’s criteria that are used to measure progress in sustainable tourism, in terms of sustainable management (planning, monitoring, governance); socioeconomic benefits to the local community, cultural heritage preservation and environmental protection (Wang and Zhang 2025). Such responsible and ethical practices increase trust and lead to continuous improvements in the tourism industry.

Discussion

The holistic integration of environmental, social and governance dimensions in sustainable tourism collectively contributes to enhance destination resilience and sustainable economic growth. The conservation of natural attractions such as beaches, forests and coral reefs will enable destinations to remain competitive. Therefore, there is scope in implementing climate-friendly measures, including reforestation and sustainable water management, among others, to reduce vulnerability to floods and storms. At the same time, they may curb ocean-level increases. Pollution prevention, waste minimization and circular economy strategies can help destinations maintain environmental quality, that is crucial for their ongoing tourism appeal. Notwithstanding, eco-certifications of responsible destinations can attract environmentally conscious travelers, who may be willing to pay more to visit sustainable tourism destinations.

The effectiveness of eco-certifications is amplified when combined with socially responsible practices. The integration of community empowerment, cultural heritage preservation, and social inclusiveness into tourism planning and development can contribute to increasing the sustainability of a destination. Hence, the tourism industry could add value to the environment as well as to local communities. By aligning sustainable development with local priorities and by promoting responsible tourism practices, destinations can provide authentic cultural and heritage experiences, thereby enhancing their visitor satisfaction and revisit intentions, in the future. In turn, this reinforces both market differentiation and long-term social resilience. Furthermore, as entrepreneurship flourishes, the local communities would benefit from circulating incomes and reduced economic leakages. Such outcomes are conducive to tourism growth.

However, policymakers must implement effective tourism governance to ensure that these economic gains are sustainable. Transparent governance fosters trust among stakeholders and facilitate sustainable growth and competitiveness. By implementing strategic planning and regulations, local authorities can ensure that tourism development| does not overwhelm infrastructure or degrade natural and cultural assets. This creates a balanced environment where entrepreneurship and community benefits coexist with long-term destination resilience. Therefore, sound governance prevents over-tourism and unmanaged expansion, whilst protecting the destinations’ assets. Robust tourism governance frameworks foster stable policy environments, attract further investments and enable long-term planning. Additionally, strong crisis management capabilities can equip destinations to handle unforeseen circumstances including pandemics, natural disasters and economic shocks.

The above analysis underlines that environmental, social and governance dimensions are deeply interlinked to one another and mutually-reinforcing within sustainable tourism. An integrative ESG approach conceptualizes sustainable tourism as a synergistic framework that reconciles ecological integrity, social equity, and institutional effectiveness, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Theoretical implications

This study adds value to the growing body of literature focused on sustainable tourism governance (Gössling & Schweiggart, 2022; Işık et al., 2025; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2023). It clearly identifies key theoretical underpinnings of articles focused on the intersection of ESG dimensions and sustainable tourism practices. The bibliographic findings suggest that the stakeholder theory (Bellato et al., 2023; Ivars-Baidal et al., 2023; Matsali  et al., 2025; Mdoda  et al., 2024) and the institutional theory (Bekun et al., 2022; Dossou et al., 2023; Hall et al., 2020; Saarinen, 2021; Zhan et al., 2021) shed light on the role of government policies, corporate responsibility and community engagement in shaping the sustainable tourism agenda and different settings (Lin et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025). Interestingly, the Social Identity Theory clarifies how various stakeholder groups, including residents, tourists and industry practitioners, are aligning their behaviors with shared norms and identities that promote corporate ESG values (Yang & Wong, 2020). Drawing on Cognitive Appraisal Theory, it indicates that stakeholders’ evaluation of ESG-related risks and opportunities influences their emotional responses and subsequent engagement in sustainability initiatives (Foroughi et al., 2022). The Theory of Empowerment further explains how participatory governance and transparent decision-making can enhance community agency, fostering stronger local support for ESG-driven tourism strategies (Joo et al., 2020a).

In line with the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Attitude–Behavior–Context (ABC) Theory, the findings highlight that pro-sustainability intentions are by attitudes toward ESG as well as by perceived behavioral control and contextual enablers such as policy frameworks and market incentives (Joo et al., 2020b; Khuadthong et al., 2025; Wu et al., 2021). Moreover, the Value–Belief–Norm Theory demonstrates how environmental values and moral obligations underpin behavioral commitments to ESG-aligned tourism (Kim et al., 2024).

From a governance perspective, the Evolutionary Governance Theory clarifies how institutional arrangements, stakeholder relationships and regulatory norms adapt over time to embed ESG principles in tourism planning (Partelow & Nelson, 2020). The review suggests that tourism stakeholders’ decision-making including during uncertain situations, can be enriched through Decision Theory and by referring to the Interval-Valued Fermatean Fuzzy Set approach (Rani et al., 2022). These theories enable robust, data-informed prioritization of ESG objectives.

Furthermore, the findings underscore the recursive relationship between the human agency and the structural constraints. The results suggest that stakeholder actions can influence ESG governance systems. This argumentation is congruent with the Structuration Theory (Saarinen, 2021). Meanwhile, the Resource-Based View (Wang & Zhang, 2025; Zhu et al., 2021) and Dynamic Capabilities Theory (Wang & Zhang, 2025) frame ESG adoption as a strategic asset, where unique sustainability capabilities can enhance competitive advantage and long-term destination resilience.

Managerial implications

This research yields clear implications for policymakers, industry practitioners and local communities of tourist destinations. It postulates that the ESG dimensions can provide these stakeholders with a strategic framework to balance growth with long-term resilience. It confirms that ESG policies necessitate a comprehensive approach, that combines environmental conservation, social inclusion, and responsible governance considerations, rather than addressing them individually. Arguably, there may be variations in the importance, focus and implementation of ESG dimensions in tourism, in different contexts, due to the host countries’ economic capacities regulatory frameworks, social priorities and/or environmental challenges. As a result, the effects or outcomes of ESG initiatives are not uniform across destinations (Lin et al., 2024).

In addition, the size of the businesses can also influence their commitment to account and disclose ESG-related aspects of their performance. Large multinational travel and hospitality firms could benefit from economies of scale, in terms of greater financial, human, and technological resources, resulting in their ESG alignment and compliance with societal norms and regulatory frameworks. They can afford dedicated sustainability teams, advanced data management tools, and external consultants to ensure accurate measurement, benchmarking and disclosure of ESG performance. In stark contrast, the smaller firms may face resource constraints, limited expertise, and higher relative costs for data collection and reporting. Such non-commercial activities can hinder their ability to systematically track, measure and communicate ESG performance, placing them at a comparative disadvantage, relative to their larger counterparts.

From an environmental perspective, policy makers should operationalize carrying capacity thresholds and implement adaptive management systems to safeguard ecosystems, optimize resource utilization, and enhance climate resilience. Continuous monitoring and evaluation of environmental impacts are essential to ensure that tourism activities remain within sustainable limits. Proactive interventions including the promotion of low-carbon transportation, the adoption of renewable energy, efficient resource management, and waste reduction are critical for aligning tourism development with ESG objectives. Such strategies preserve biodiversity and can contribute to the long-term sustainability of destinations.

The social dimension emphasizes the equitable distribution of tourism benefits and the preservation of cultural integrity. Overtourism threatens community well-being through inflated living costs, cultural commodification and resident–visitor tensions. Hence, managers should foster participatory governance structures that empower local communities, entrepreneurs and cultural custodians in decision-making processes. Technological innovations including artificial intelligence (AI) solutions that monitor visitor flows can further support socially responsible destination management. At the same time, stakeholder engagement ensures that tourism operations retain their legitimacy in society.

Robust governance mechanisms underpin these strategies. Practitioners can align policies with international sustainability standards in order to facilitate transparent accountability. The implementation of ESG performance indicators, enforceable visitor limits and adaptive regulatory measures, such as dynamic pricing or quotas enable evidence-based decision-making and continuous improvements in responsible destinations. The strengthening of institutional capacities and local skills ensures that governance frameworks are effective and sustainable over time.

Financial innovation is essential for sustainable tourism development. Policy makers ought to invest in green technologies and infrastructures to protect the natural environment from externalities. They can provide incentives and funds to support practitioners in their transition to long-term sustainability. By embedding ESG principles, destinations are in a better position to enhance their resilience to environmental and social shocks, strengthen their reputation and image, whilst maintaining their competitiveness in the global tourism market.

Policymakers are encouraged to increase their enforcement of regulations to trigger responsible behaviors. At the same time, they need to nurture relationships with stakeholders. The hoteliers should embed social innovations and environmentally sustainable practices into core strategies and operations. As for local communities, it is in their interest to actively participate in tourism planning and development, to ensure they preserve their cultural heritage and share tourism benefits in a fair manner. Collectively, this contribution’s integrated ESG approach positions destinations for sustained economic growth while safeguarding environmental and social well-being.

Conclusion

This article reinforces the significance of integrating ESG principles into sustainable tourism strategies. By addressing environmental concerns, fostering social inclusivity, improving governance frameworks, and ensuring economic viability, stakeholders can contribute to a more resilient and responsible tourism sector. This research demonstrates that sustainable tourism is most effectively achieved through the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions, which together foster long-term destination resilience and economic growth. Environmentally, sustainable tourism requires the preservation of natural ecosystems, efficient resource use, and proactive measures to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Practices such as water-saving technologies, renewable energy adoption, waste reduction, and circular economy strategies not only mitigate ecological impacts but also enhance the attractiveness and competitiveness of destinations.

From a social perspective, sustainable tourism supports community empowerment, cultural preservation, inclusivity, and social equity. By engaging local residents in planning and decision-making, promoting equitable employment, and safeguarding cultural heritage, destinations can foster positive resident–visitor interactions and enhance the overall visitor experience. Responsible tourist behavior, participatory governance, and cultural sensitivity further reinforce social cohesion while ensuring that tourism benefits are broadly shared within host communities.

Effective governance underpins both environmental and social outcomes by providing transparent, accountable, and coordinated frameworks for sustainable tourism. Policymakers and destination managers play a critical role in enforcing regulations, monitoring ESG performance, and balancing stakeholder interests. Multi-sector collaboration, the application of sustainability indicators, and adaptive management strategies enable destinations to anticipate and respond to environmental, social, and economic shocks.

Collectively, the ESG approach positions sustainable tourism as a synergistic model that aligns ecological integrity, social responsibility, and institutional effectiveness. By embedding ESG principles into core strategies, destinations can deliver unique, high-quality experiences, strengthen community livelihoods, and maintain global competitiveness. This integrative framework demonstrates that environmental stewardship, social equity, and sound governance are mutually reinforcing, offering a pathway for destinations to achieve enduring sustainability, resilient growth, and enhanced market differentiation.

The full paper is available here:

Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397949208_Environmental_social_and_governance_ESG_factors_of_sustainable_tourism_development_The_way_forward_toward_destination_resilience_and_growth

Academia: https://www.academia.edu/145139975/Environmental_social_and_governance_ESG_factors_for_sustainable_tourism_development_The_way_forward_toward_destination_resilience_and_growth

Open Access Repository @University of Malta: https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/141666

Leave a comment

Filed under carrying capacity, ESG, ESG Reporting, Marketing, Sustainability, sustainable tourism, tourism

Cocreating Value Through Open Circular Innovation Strategies

This is an excerpt from one of my papers published through Wiley’s Business Strategy and the Environment.

Suggested citation: Camilleri, M.A. (2025). Cocreating Value Through Open Circular Innovation Strategies: A Results-Driven Work Plan and Future Research Avenues, Business Strategy and the Environmenthttps://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4216

This research raises awareness of practitioners’ crowdsourcing initiatives and collaborative approaches, such as sharing ideas and resources with external partners, expert consultants, marketplace stakeholders (like suppliers and customers), university institutions, research centers, and even competitors, as the latter can help them develop innovation labs and to foster industrial symbiosis (Calabrese et al. 2024; Sundar et al. 2023; Triguero et al. 2022). It reported that open innovation networks would enable them to work in tandem with other entities to extend the life of products and their components. It also indicated how and where circular open innovations would facilitate the sharing of unwanted materials and resources that can be reused, repaired, restored, refurbished, or recycled through resource recovery systems and reverse logistics approaches. In addition, it postulates that circular economy practitioners could differentiate their business models by offering product-service systems, sharing economies, and/or leasing models to increase resource efficiencies and to minimize waste.

Arguably, the cocreation of open innovations can contribute to improve the financial performance of practitioners as well as of their partners who are supporting them in fostering closed-loop systems and sharing economy practices. They enable businesses and their stakeholders to minimize externalities like waste and pollution that can ultimately impact the long-term viability of our planet. Figure 1 presents a conceptual framework that clarifies how open innovation cocreation approaches can be utilized to advance circular, closed-loop models while adding value to the businesses’ financial performance.

The collaborative efforts between organizations, individuals, and various stakeholders can lead to sustainable innovations, including to the advancement of circular economy models (Jesus and Jugend 2023; Tumuyu et al. 2024). Such practices are not without their own inherent challenges and pitfalls. For example, resource sharing, the recovery of waste and by-products from other organizations, and industrial symbiosis involve close partnership agreements among firms and their collaborators, as they strive in their endeavors to optimize resource use and to minimize waste (Battistella and Pessot 2024; Eisenreich et al. 2021). While the open innovation strategies that are mentioned in this article can lead to significant efficiency gains and to waste reductions, practitioners may encounter several difficulties and hurdles, to implement the required changes (Phonthanukitithaworn et al. 2024). Different entities will have their own organizational culture, strategic goals, and modus operandi that may result in coordination challenges among stakeholders.

Organizations may become overly reliant on sharing resources or on their symbiotic relationships, leading to vulnerabilities related to stakeholder dependencies (Battistella and Pessot 2024). For instance, if one partner experiences disruptions, such as operational issues or financial difficulties, it can adversely affect the feasibility of the entire network. Notwithstanding, organizations are usually expected to share information and resources when they are involved in corporate innovation hubs and clusters. Their openness can lead to concerns about knowledge leakages and intellectual property theft, which may deter companies from fully engaging in resource-sharing initiatives, as they pursue outbound innovation approaches.

Other challenges may arise from resource recovery, reverse logistics, and product-life extension strategies (Johnstone 2024). The implementation of reverse logistics systems can be costly, especially for small and micro enterprises. The costs associated with the collection, sorting, and processing of returned products and components may outweigh the benefits, particularly if the market for recovered materials is not well established (Panza et al. 2022; Sgambaro et al. 2024). Moreover, the effectiveness of resource recovery methodologies and of product-life extension strategies would be highly dependent on the stakeholders’ willingness to return products or to participate in recycling programs. Circular economy practitioners may have to invest in promotional campaigns to educate their stakeholders about sustainable behaviors. There may be instances where existing recovery and recycling technologies are not sufficiently advanced or widely available, in certain contexts, thereby posing significant barriers to the effective implementation of open circular innovations. Notwithstanding, there may be responsible practitioners and sustainability champions that may struggle to find reliable partners with appropriate technological solutions that could help them close the loop of their circular economy.

In some scenarios, emerging circular economy enthusiasts may be eager to shift from traditional product sales models to innovative product-service systems. Yet, such budding practitioners can face operational challenges in their transitions to such circular business models. They may have to change certain business processes, reformulate supply chains, and also redefine their customer relationships, to foster compliance with their modus operandi. These dynamic aspects can be time-consuming, costly, and resource intensive (Eisenreich et al. 2021). For instance, the customers who are accustomed to owning tangible assets may resist shifting to a product-service system model. Their reluctance to accept the service providers’ revised terms and conditions can hinder the adoption of circular economy practices. The former may struggle to convince their consumers to change their status quo, by accessing products as a service, rather than owning them (Sgambaro et al. 2024). In addition, the practitioners adopting products-as-a-service systems may find it difficult to quantify their performance outcomes related to resource savings and customer satisfaction levels and to evaluate the success of their product-service models, accurately, due to a lack of established metrics.

In a similar vein, the customers of sharing economies and leasing systems ought to trust the quality standards and safety features of the products and services they use (Sergianni et al. 2024). Any negative incidents reported through previous consumers’ testimonials and reviews can undermine the prospective customers’ confidence in the service provider or in the manufacturer who produced the product in the first place. Notwithstanding, several sharing economy models rely on community participation and localized networks, which can pose possible challenges for scalability. As businesses seek to expand their operations, it may prove hard for them to consistently maintain the same level of trust and quality in their service delivery. Moreover, many commentators argue that the rapid growth of sharing economies often outpaces existing regulatory frameworks. The lack of regulations, in certain jurisdictions, in this regard, can create uncertainties and gray areas for businesses as well as for their consumers.

This open access paper can also be accessed via ResearchGate: https://researchgate.net/publication/389267075_Cocreating_Value_Through_Open_Circular_Innovation_Strategies_A_Results-Driven_Work_Plan_and_Future_Research_Avenues#CSR#CircularEconomy#OpenInnovation

Leave a comment

Filed under academia, circular economy, innovation, Open Innovation

Restaurants communicating about sustainable practices: Guidelines for ESG reporting of food and beverage operations

The following content was drawn from one of my academic articles published through the International Journal of Hospitality Management. It has been adapted for a blog post.

Stakeholders including the regulatory authorities, among others, are increasingly encouraging hospitality businesses to publish information about their environmental, social and governance (ESG) activities. In many cases, they are already preparing ESG disclosures that shed light on their sustainable production and consumption policies and practices.

The environmental dimension

Generally, many hospitality chains are already monitoring the usage of their energy, water, raw materials and other resources, to minimize their running costs. For example, their restaurants could turn off certain appliances when not in use, invest in efficient lighting, appliances, cooking methods, as well as in water conservation practices (Madanaguli et al., 2022). In addition, they could generate their energy from renewable sources. Other aspects that are related to ESG’s ‘E’ dimension include environmental protection measures, sustainable sourcing of food items and their components (as the responsible procurement of items from local suppliers would reduce their environmental impact), as well as waste minimization efforts before, during and after food consumption, among others laudable practices (Elkhwesky, 2022). Hospitality businesses may avail themselves of food waste tracking systems to optimize their production and consumption activities, and to identify areas for improvement (Okumus et al., 2020). Such systems could help them reduce food scraps that will probably end up in landfills, if they recycle them into compost, that may be used for local farming or landscaping.

Very often, they gather and hold records about their recycling efforts as well as on their generated waste and emissions that can ultimately affect biodiversity and eco-systems including climate change, water and marine resources (Klaura et al., 2023). If this is the case, their captured data can be utilized to identify inefficiencies in their restaurants and to better understand how sustainable practices (like the ones mentioned in the above text) could reduce their costs as well as their overall financial performance. Moreover, it enables them to be in a good position to disclose information about their sustainability credentials.

Restauranteurs should prioritize purchasing from local sources to support the domestic economy and reduce transportation emissions. Food and beverage preparers could utilize seasonal menus to ensure that the dishes they serve and/or their ingredients are fresh and in-season. This reasoning is congruent with the farm-to-fork or farm-to-table initiatives adopted by various hotels and restaurants (Bux and Amicarelli, 2023). Frequently, hospitality businesses are opting for organic certified products and food components, to reduce the environmental impact associated with conventional agricultural practices. In a similar vein, many practitioners are investing in ant-based and insect-based items as more consumers are recognizing their nutrition benefits (Motoki et al., 2022). A number of colleagues are recognizing that such protein foods would result in lower externalities on the environment.

In this day and age, it is imperative that food and beverage service providers utilize sustainable food items in their menus. They are pressured by stakeholders to use eco-friendly packaging made from recycled, biodegradable, compostable, and/or reusable materials for food delivery and takeaway services as opposed to single-use plastic waste that pollute the natural environment. In sum, the hospitality businesses’ environmental responsibilities comprise sustainable sourcing of food items, sound inventory management, innovative food preparation practices, responsible consumption of food, and the use of eco-friendly packaging, to minimize their environmental footprint, and contribute to broader sustainability goals.

The social dimension

Most practitioners are taking into account non-financial information about hospitality businesses’ labor practices related to their own employees as well as to other workers employed by organizations in the value chain (including distributors, suppliers, subcontractors, et cetera) (Bullock et al., 2024). Report preparers may usually gather information about the conditions of employment of human resources, training and development records, health and safety measures, work life balance initiatives, living wage policies as well as on issues related to equal opportunities, diversity and inclusion in their workplace environment. A number of contributions reported that there is scope for hospitality owner-managers to delegate responsibilities to employees to enhance their morale and job satisfaction (Camilleri, 2022Gewinner, 2020). Frequently, they indicated that it is in their businesses’ interest to provide regular training and development opportunities on sustainable practices like food hygiene and safety, meal portion control as well as on food waste management, among others (Okumus, 2020). Notwithstanding, they are expected to communicate about their active engagement with suppliers. It is within their responsibility to ensure that they treat their marketplace stakeholders in a fair manner. They are expected to forge long lasting, mutual relationships with trustworthy suppliers and partners, who are recognized as responsible employers by stakeholders in society.

Hospitality businesses ought to be encouraged to source food items from local suppliers to promote community well-being. They should prioritize suppliers that are renowned for their dependability, responsible human resources management and environmental sustainability practices. Working closely with reliable suppliers could help improve the efficient sourcing of products and may result in timely delivery of fresh items (Vaughan, 2024). The practitioners’ engagement with suppliers would increase their chances of receiving food products and ingredients in an optimal condition, to reduce the likelihood of spoilage and of overstocking their inventories.

In addition, the social dimension may usually involve aspects related to the businesses’ engagement with customers as well as with societal stakeholders. Hospitality practitioners can promote their sustainable procurement and food production practices with customers. The food and beverage businesses’ communications and corporate disclosures about their sustainable credentials can influence their consumers’ behaviors. They could even induce their patrons to reduce food loss and waste in their households.

Report preparers could make reference to responsible marketing practices. They can raise awareness about their transparent pricing and on how they avoid deceptive or misleading tactics (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2023). They might communicate about their commitment to protect their consumers’ personal data. It this case, practitioners may reveal that they are using secure systems to prevent data breaches and unauthorized access to information. In addition, they could publicize the provision of accessible facilities for disabled patrons. Furthermore, they may shed light on their cultural sensitivity, as well as on their engagement with local communities through food donation programs to philanthropic and charitable institutions, among other socially responsible behaviors. Their proactive collaboration with local communities, NGOs, and other stakeholders can help them achieve the sustainable development goal related to the responsible production and consumption (of food) to reduce the accumulation of waste originating from their operations (UNEP, n.d.). Conversely, they may decide to monetize their waste resources by utilize sharing economy platforms and functional mobile apps to sell surplus/excessive food to consumers, at reduced prices.

In a nutshell, the hospitality practitioners’ social responsibility aspects cover aspects related to their engagement with responsible suppliers, employees, customers and with the community at large. Restauranteurs are expected to communicate about their organizations’ responsible food production and consumption practices with a wide array of stakeholders. Their corporate reporting can add value to their business in terms of increased profits, as they benefit from an improved brand image and corporate reputation, among other positive outcomes.

The governance dimension

Listed hotel chains are frequently disseminating content about their corporate governance efforts, as they publish rules, regulations, collective agreements with trade unions and codes of conduct through offline and online channels (Yu et al., 2025). Such information would usually serve as formal guidelines for their organizations’ modus operandi. They also shed light on how the businesses are directed and controlled among internal and external stakeholders. Ultimately, it is in the organizations’ interest to build stakeholder relationships and to maintain open lines of communication with different parties, including with creditors, investors, shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, regulatory institutions and with local communities, among others.

There is scope for hospitality businesses to report about governance aspects including details about their organizations’ standards of integrity, accountability, board structure, executive compensation, and shareholder rights among other matters in their ESG reports. Such disclosures would probably make also reference to their businesses’ ethical dispositions as well as to risk management practices (e.g. compliance with health and safety, security issues, financial and operational aspects, reputation management, etc.) as these issues can help them build brand equity, instill trust in their activities and enhance their corporate reputation.

Specific disclosures about governance matters related to responsible food production and responsible consumption may include reference to accountable and transparent leadership that prioritizes the prevention of food loss and waste. The higher echelons of the organization ought to implement clear policies and procedures that ensure sustainable supply chain management. They are expected to monitor responsible food and beverage operations, at all times, from the procurement stage, through food preparation and consumption, in order to reduce food loss and waste. Food and beverage service providers ought to comply with relevant national legislation (where they operate their business) as well as with food safety and hygiene standards to protect their consumers’ health and wellbeing. They should handle, prepare and store their food and its components, in clean environments, to minimize spoilage, contamination and waste. This argumentation is congruent with substantive legislative instruments that are present in different jurisdictions, which require restaurants, among other entities, to implement sustainable measures that improve resource efficiency and prevent the generation of waste (EU, 2023aGovUK, 2024NEA, 2024).

A number of regulatory standards encourage practitioners to utilize food labeling that feature expiration dates (as well as nutrition information), to reduce food loss (Clodoveo et al., 2022). They may establish dedicated committees or sustainability champions to lead responsible food and beverage operations and initiatives that are intended to achieve continuous improvements in preventative and mitigative measures that reduce waste generated from hospitality businesses. Such practices may require ongoing training and development of employees on food and beverage practices like offering reduced portions and implementing efficient inventory management, to minimize food waste as much as possible.

Hospitality businesses may refer to the industry standards (that are duly mentioned in this paper), and they can even obtain certifications from some of them, including Green Key Certification, International Standards Organization’s ISO 14001: Environmental Management Systems (EMS), among others, to improve their sustainability credentials for their food and beverage operations. These regulatory instruments can play a critical role in fostering ESG accounting, reporting, auditing and assurance. Fig. 1 clearly illustrates key elements that can be disclosed in ESG reports.

Fig. 1. The environmental, social and governance (ESG) dimensions (Camilleri & Carroll, 2024).

Regulatory instruments including standards and metrics for ESG reporting

Currently, several governments and intergovernmental institutions are encouraging big businesses to report information about their environmental, social and governance performance, in addition to their financial statements. Many of them are developing rules, regulations and guiding principles for corporations and listed enterprises. With regards to the materiality of their disclosures, report preparers need to take into account pertinent information (in terms of the reliability and completeness of the content they feature in their ESG reports) including on aspects related to critical issues related to sourcing of food and its ingredients, inventory management, preparation of meals (such as hygiene standards, use of local and organic ingredients), as well as other relevant details about measures that were undertaken to reduce food loss and waste. Hospitality businesses are expected to be transparent in their disclosures, to track progress vis-a-vis their efforts to reduce waste (year after year), and to identify areas that should be improved. Their ESG disclosures could also link food loss reduction initiatives with broader sustainability and financial performance metrics. This could enable them to evaluate their social, economic and environmental impacts of responsible food and beverage operations, and to develop comprehensive strategies and courses of action, for the future, to address their deficits.

Large entities, including hospitality chains as well as international food and beverage franchises, are usually expected by their stakeholders to prepare non-financial reports about their ESG performance in accordance with certifiable standards and/or eco-labels. They are bound to comply with relevant legislation about sustainability accounting, disclosures, audit and assurance practices applicable in specific jurisdictions where they operate their business,

For example, the European Union’s (EU’s) Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) Directive 2014/95/EU was one of the regulatory instruments that encouraged large undertakings to disclose non-financial information relating to ESG matters in their annual reports. Subsequently, the European Union built on the foundations of NFRD when it launched its Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Arguably, the latter directive has improved the harmonization and standardization of ESG disclosures (across the EU), in terms of their transparency, consistency, comparability and reliability aspects. While the NFRD was primarily focused on large public-interest entities (PIEs), the CSRD has extended reporting obligations to more companies, including large private companies and subsidiaries of non-EU parent companies operating within the EU member states (EU, 2023b). Business practitioners, including hospitality firms are encouraged to utilize renowned international standards to prepare their ESG disclosures. They may refer to Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI’s) and/or to the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board’s (SASB’s) standards, among others. Whilst the former was not specifically designed to disclose information about food and beverage operations, GRI’s principles can still be applied in the hospitality industry sector.

Organizations could utilize the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI’s) guidelines to prepare non-financial reports that shed light on their ESG initiatives (Koseoglu et al., 2021Li et al., 2025). They could refer to GRI’s Standards that are intended to support organizations in various aspects of their operations. Several GRI standards and guidelines can be used to address and reduce food loss and food waste in hotels and restaurants. While GRI does not have a specific standard solely focused on food waste, various standards cover aspects related to sustainability, waste management, and social responsibility that can be applied in this context. GRI has formulated topic standards related to the management approach (GRI 103 2016), procurement practices (GRI 204 2016), waste (GRI 306 2020), supplier environmental assessment (GRI 308 2016), labor/management relations (GRI 402 2016), occupational health and safety (GRI 403 2018), training and education (GRI 404 2016), marketing and labeling (GRI 417 2016): among others, that could be used to assess the businesses’ credentials, with regards to their responsible production and sustainable consumption of food. 

Key takeaways

The underlying rationale behind this contribution is to promote responsible food and beverage operations within the hospitality industry. The sustainable sourcing of food products and their ingredients, their sound inventory management and control, the responsible preparation, production and consumption of food, can ultimately lead to a reduction in food loss and waste in hospitality settings including from hotels, restaurants and cafes, among others. The good practices that were mentioned in this article clearly address the environmental impact as well as social and economic dimensions, thereby promoting a holistic approach for the sustainability of food and beverage service providers.

This research raises awareness on the significance of non-financial accountability standards in the hospitality industry context. It makes reference to some of the most popular regulatory instruments and standards, including those set by the GRI, SASB and FLW among others, to promote ESG disclosures in corporate sustainability reports. Indeed, practitioners can utilize the standards mentioned in this paper, to account, measure and disclose their ESG performance. Arguably, such standards are instrumental to provide stakeholders with the necessary information to trace, evaluate and compare the sustainability efforts of hospitality firms.

This contribution builds on previous research that identified laudable food and beverage operations in the hospitality industry’s value chain; from the procurement of resources required for food production, leading to the point when surplus food and leftover items are reused, recycled or upcycled. It clarifies that excessive, edible and unspoilt food could be donated to food banks and/or to those in need, or even sold at discounted pricing through sharing economy platforms. Moreover, it also indicates that inedible foods can be converted into sustainable resources like garden compost or could be transformed into biogases, including methane (through anaerobic digester systems), that may be utilized for different purposes.

This research identifies and explains several ESG dimensions associated with food and beverage operations. It sheds light on several regulatory instruments comprising principles and standards, that may be adopted by practitioners to guide them in their ESG disclosures of their sustainable initiatives. Notwithstanding, this article puts forward a novel theoretical model that illustrates various responsible practices related to each of three (3) ESG dimensions. It clearly indicates that the hospitality businesses’ kitchen behaviors can be measured and accounted for in ESG reports, to provide stakeholders with a true and fair view of their sustainability credentials.

Future research directions

There is scope for further research focused on the main themes of this contribution. Academic colleagues may conduct primary research activities to explore the hospitality practitioners’ good practices, or lack thereof. They may reveal how they are planning, organizing, implementing and measuring the effectiveness of their responsible value chain activities. Prospective researchers may avail themselves of various methodologies and sampling frames, to explore this topic in depth and breadth. They could identify specific organizations including sustainability champions, that have a proven track record in: (i) reducing materials and resources, as well as in reusing and recycling surplus or leftover foods; (ii) utilizing sharing economy platforms and mobile apps to sell surplus foods at discounted prices; (iii) donating food to community projects; and/or iv) recycling inedible foods for compost purposes, among other options.

New submissions to journals could promote the positive multiplier effects of engaging in responsible food and beverage operations in terms of operational efficiencies and cost savings, improved corporate image and reputation, and the like. They could raise awareness on the business case for responsible food production and consumption behaviors. Alternatively, future researchers could prepare theoretical and/or discursive papers that clearly explain how, where, when and why hospitality firms are accounting their sustainable ESG activities. They may refer to specific standards and metrics presented in this article.

In addition, they may prepare comparative analyses of different ESG reporting frameworks (e.g., GRI and SASB among others). Their research might reveal the strengths and weaknesses of each framework and could possibly evaluate their standards and metrics in detail. Scholars could explore the enablers and barriers associated with ESG accounting, reporting, auditing, and assurance. They may focus on organizational aspects, financial and technological issues, regulatory interventions, and/or on cultural influences that could either support or hinder the widespread adoption of sustainable food and beverage initiatives in the hospitality sector.

Suggested citation: Camilleri, M. A. (2025). Sustainability accounting and disclosures of responsible restaurant practices in environmental, social and governance (ESG) reports. International Journal of Hospitality Management126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.104051

Leave a comment

Filed under ESG Reporting, food loss, food waste, Hospitality, hotels, Integrated Reporting, restaurants, Sustainable Consumption, sustainable production, sustainable supply chains

Cocreating Value Through Open Circular Innovation Strategies

This blog post is an excerpt from my latest open-access article on the intersection of open innovation and the circular economy.

Suggested citation: Camilleri, M.A. (2025). Cocreating Value Through Open Circular Innovation Strategies: A Results-Driven Work Plan and Future Research Avenues, Business Strategy and the Environmenthttps://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4216

The stakeholders’ open innovation approaches are evidenced through collaborative practices across value chains, as practitioners are willing to share ideas and technologies with “new” partners to advance disruptive sustainable innovations (Battistella and Pessot 2024; Bocken and Ritala 2022; Brown et al. 2020). Inbound innovation practitioners can benefit from external stakeholders’ knowledge and expertise to implement product-life extension strategies and resource recovery methods and to cocreate circular economy ecosystems including industrial symbiosis, reverse logistics, product-service systems/product-as-a-service, sharing economy, and leasing models (Köhler et al. 2022; Lisi et al. 2024).

Resource Recovery and Industrial Symbiosis

Open innovation practitioners would benefit from external competences, capabilities, and technologies from stakeholders who are not in the company’s books. Their ongoing engagement and collaboration with them may help them improve their operations as they acquire resources such as human capital, materials, energy, water, and by-products, among others. Resource sharing can help the businesses to optimize manufacturing processes, to minimize waste, and to create a more sustainable and efficient industrial ecosystem (Johnstone 2024).

Practitioners may even benefit from other businesses’ externalities including by-products or unwanted waste materials and could utilize them as resources. They can leverage open innovation approaches to address resource scarcity (and resource depletion) by finding new ways to repurpose waste. They may do so by reducing material inputs and by recycling valuable resources (Berkemeier et al. 2024). For example, the heat generated from a power plant could be used to heat buildings or greenhouses located in nearby communities. Industries situated close to each other may share utilities including energy and water supply infrastructure or services, such as transportation, water treatment facilities, or waste management services. Their resource recovery can result in cost saving and operational efficiencies (Johnstone 2024).

Cross-industry collaboration and industrial symbiosis can help companies to discover new uses of waste streams to develop circular supply chains. There is scope for business leaders to engage with external stakeholders, to exchange or sell discarded resources, and by-products that would otherwise end up as waste. Arguably, one company’s waste, materials and by-products can serve as resources for others. The sharing of resources among organizations can significantly enhance the practitioners’ capabilities, as partners can work in tandem on sustainability initiatives and innovation projects to achieve circular economy outcomes. The stakeholders’ pooling of surplus resources can lower the manufacturing costs for collaborating partners, as they allow them to access tools and materials at lower market prices.

The case of Kalundborg, Denmark, typifies such open innovation approaches (CEStakeholderEU n.d.; Valenzuela-Venegas et al. 2016). A power plant (located at Asnæs), a Novo Nordisk (a pharmaceutical company), and an oil refinery (belonging to Equinor, formerly known as Statoil), among other organizations, are working together in industrial symbiosis. In sum, these entities have created a network that optimizes materials from waste or by-products and are turning them into valuable resources. Their aim is to lower their costs while minimizing their environmental impact.

Kalundborg started as an informal exchange of waste materials between industries that are situated in close proximity to one another. For example, the excess heat from the power plant is used by Novo Nordisk for production processes, and to heat local homes. In addition, surplus water from the oil refinery is used by a local fish farm. Over the years, this collaboration has grown into a large-scale, highly efficient system, where waste from one process becomes a resource for another. Such symbiosis has significantly reduced waste, emissions, and water consumption, thereby contributing to environmental and economic sustainability.

Similarly, the municipality of Amsterdam is collaborating with a nonprofit organization, entitled, “Circle Economy.” Together, they have developed a strategic plan whose objectives are to turn Amsterdam into a fully circular city by 2050 (Calisto Friant et al. 2021; CEStakeholderEU 2016; Government.nl 2016). This initiative involves the transformation of various sectors, such as construction, energy, and waste management, among others, to adapt the city to operate closed-loop systems. Collaborative projects comprise the reutilization of materials from demolished buildings to reduce waste generated from the construction industry, the promotion of business models like “product as a service” that encourage the leasing of assets rather than owning them, the development of shared mobility solutions, and the reduction of food waste, among others (Camilleri 2021; Camilleri 2025). These circular economy practices can contribute to reducing resource utilization, consumption, and depletion of materials.

Resource Recovery, Reverse Logistics, and Product-Life Extension Strategies

Practitioners can collaborate with external partners to extend the life of certain products and/or of their components. They can help each other to recover materials from used and unwanted items, including from waste, in order to reuse, refurbish, recycle, and remanufacture resources to promote sustainable supply chains (Hadi 2024). The resource recovery procedures focus on reclaiming discarded products and their component materials to reuse them as inputs for new production processes (Brown et al. 2020). Similarly, reverse logistics approaches are intended to support the collection and transportation of waste items, like plastics, metal, and electronics, among others (Pichlak and Szromek 2022). For example, returned electronics can be refurbished, remanufactured for further use, and resold. Such operational processes facilitate the flow of products in the opposite direction of traditional supply chains, as they involve returning, repairing, restoring, and recycling materials for a specific manufacturer, or for designated facilities.

The utilized materials that could have finished in a landfill can be repurposed as plausible resources in industrial production (Lisi et al. 2024). Likewise, the products collected through reverse logistics can also be refurbished or remanufactured. This form of resource recovery extends the life of products and reduces the need for new raw materials (Phonthanukitithaworn et al. 2024). There are instances where materials like organic waste, used oils, or even heat could be captured and utilized in waste-to-energy processes, and for resource extraction purposes, instead of being disposed of, in the natural environment (Ahmad et al. 2024; Liu et al. 2023). Therefore, external stakeholders could help sustainability champions in the recovery of resources, or to increase product longevity, and the lifecycles of extant products and/or of their component materials, while reducing material consumption (Panza et al. 2022; Sgambaro et al. 2024). As a result, the responsible manufacturers would be in a position to develop sustainable products that are durable, repairable, recyclable, and/or biodegradable.

For example, retail brands, including H&M, among others have teamed up with Ellen MacArthur Foundation as well as with philanthropists, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and disruptive innovators, to design a “new textiles economy” known as Circular Fibres Initiative (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2021a; UNEP 2023). One of its objectives is to develop materials including sustainable fibers in order to improve their end-of-life processing. As a result, clothing and apparel materials could last longer, be worn multiple times, and may be easily rented, resold, or recycled. This collaboration set the foundation for H&M’s efforts to collect and recycle used clothing through their in-store garment collection programs. Similarly, Nike has launched a Circular Innovation Challenge (Di Summa 2023). Like H&M, it invited innovators from around the world to propose ideas for new sustainability materials, design processes, and end-of-life solutions for shoes, to transform the future of footwear. Evidently, Nike’s goal was to reduce waste by creating closed-loop products that are recycled or reused at the end of their lifecycle. One of the major outcomes of their challenge was the development of shoes made from recycled materials, including from factory waste and recycled plastics.

Like Nike, Adidas partnered with Parley for the Oceans, an environmental organization, as well as with material innovators and recycling experts, to address a growing consumer demand for eco-friendly and sustainable footwear, without compromising on performance or quality (Murfree and Police 2022). This collaboration is aimed at developing shoes made from recycled ocean plastics, thereby contributing to a circular product lifecycle. As a result, the company’s Parley line of shoes, which was/is made from ocean plastics, has quickly become a global success, with millions of pairs sold since its launch. Other apparel brands, including Patagonia, REI, and Eileen Fisher, have joined forces with Yerdle, a technology company that provides logistics capabilities to buy back and resell their used items (Agrawal et al. 2019; Forbes 2019). By taking advantage of resale, brands take control of the growing secondary retail market. Such sustainable recovery practices provide them with an opportunity to extend the life of their existing products. Hence, they are in a position to reduce the generation of unwanted materials that end up in landfills. At the same time, they promote responsible consumption behaviors among consumers, and increase their profits, by selling refurbished items.

Alternatively, for-profit businesses may collaborate with other organizations, including with competitors, to reduce waste related to single-use packaging, that could inevitably end up in landfills, and/or in our oceans. TerraCycle, a United States–based company specializing in recycling hard-to-recycle materials, is a case in point, of such organizations, as its “Loop” platform aims to reduce single-use packaging, by offering consumers reusable, refillable containers for everyday products (Conick 2019; WEF 2023). Launched in 2019, Loop represents a major step toward implementing circular economy principles. It is intended to eliminate waste from disposable packaging through a “return and reuse” system. For the record, Terracycle entered into a partnership with multinational brands like Nestlé, Unilever, and Procter & Gamble, among other retailers Consumers can purchase these brands’ products through Loop’s platform, and when finished, they can return their empty packages for cleaning and reuse. The partnerships among these big brands has dramatically reduced the need for single-use plastic packaging. As a result, a number of companies have been able to extend the lifecycle of their packaging materials, while offering consumers a more sustainable alternative to traditional packaging. The Loop model has expanded to major retailers like Carrefour in Europe and Walgreens in the United States, among others, demonstrating that open innovation efforts across different sectors can scale circular practices globally (WEF 2025).

For instance, there is scope for businesses to collaborate with research institutions as well as with NGOs, to develop open innovation solutions that are intended to reduce waste and pollution that are damaging the natural environment and the biosphere (Pichlak and Szromek 2022). For instance, Interface (a flooring company) and the Zoological Society of London have launched the Net-Works Program (Luqmani et al. 2017; ZSL 2025). Essentially, this program involves the utilization of discarded fishing nets and their recycling into nylon yarn, to develop sustainable carpets. Net-Works is designed to tackle the growing environmental problem of discarded fishing nets in some of the globe’s poorest coastal communities, including those in the Philippines and Cameroon, among others. This program is aimed at reducing pollution in the oceans, as plastic materials can be ingested by marine animals and/or destroy their habitat. It raises awareness on the use of dangerous resources that are polluting the world’s natural environment. Moreover, it offers economic opportunities for the governments of developing countries, as they enable them to provide new sources of income for local communities. Through such sustainable initiatives, Interface has integrated a circular economy approach into its supply chain. It created a model that combines environmental conservation with social impact.

In a similar vein, Unilever, one of the world’s largest consumer goods companies, is collaborating with external innovators, research institutions and startups to address the challenge of plastic waste. In short, this multinational business indicated that it is seeking external ideas to reduce plastic waste, to use better plastic that is designed to be recycled, and/or to avoid using plastic by switching to alternative materials (Arijeniwa et al. 2024; Phelan et al. 2022). Unilever’s engagement with external partners has helped the organization to utilize responsible material designs, sustainable packaging, and recycling technologies that align with circular economy principles. For example, one of the key success factors of Unilever’s open innovation initiative was the development of a fully recyclable plastic detergent bottle that is made from 100% recycled materials. Additionally, this multinational organization continuously raises awareness about its reuse and refill stations for personal care products, in various supermarkets, in different contexts around the globe, thereby reducing the need for single-use packaging. The diverse ideas sourced through external partners are significantly contributing to minimizing the use of virgin plastics by its distributors in the value chains, as well as by their consumers.

Likewise, Proctor & Gamble (P&G) collaborates with external scientists, startups, research institutions, and industry partners in its Connect + Develop program that is intended to develop sustainable products and solutions (Huston and Sakkab 2006). This laudable program seeks external ideas related to sustainable packaging and product designs that are congruent with the company’s circular economy goals. Since its inception, P&G has developed new packaging materials that are easier to recycle, such as its clear, recyclable plastic for shampoo bottles. The company has also introduced concentrated product formulations that reduce packaging waste and shipping emissions. P&G’s open innovation model allowed the company to access diverse ideas and to rapidly implement responsible and sustainable solutions that align with its circular economy vision.

Another good example of circular economy practices is clearly illustrated when organizations leverage open innovation approaches to adopt waste-to-resource technologies to accelerate their transition to a zero-waste economy. A number of manufacturing firms including automotive businesses are already recovering materials and reutilizing resources from used vehicles at their end-of-life. Renault, one of Europe’s largest car makers, has teamed up with Veolia, a global environmental services company and Solvay, a global chemical and advanced materials company, to develop closed-loop recycled resources for automotive parts (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2021b; Muller et al. 2021). These companies collaborate to utilize end-of-life vehicles to recover metals, plastics and other materials from them, as they are no longer in use. This allows Renault to operate its business sustainably, as the French car maker incorporates recycled materials in its new automobiles. The automotive company’s manufacturing plant in Flins, France, became a leading facility in Europe for vehicle disassembly and material recovery, thereby contributing to the circular economy agenda.

Product-Service Systems/Product-as-a-Service

Other manufacturing practitioners operating in different industries are adopting product-service systems that are also known as product-as-a-service business models. Such circular economy approaches involve companies offering products in combination with services (Sgambaro et al. 2024). The businesses offering product-service systems emphasize about the value derived from accessing and utilizing their maintained products rather than owning them. This economic model clearly specifies that customers do not have to purchase the products they use. Hence, consumers would benefit from utilizing the products and from its performance. Frequently, the practitioners operating business models that are very similar to leasing systems would provide additional services including maintenance, upgrades, and training, among others, along with their products, to add value to customers. As the service providers would usually retain the ownership of their products, it is in their interest to design them as efficient as possible, as they are meant to serve their purpose for a long time, without the need for regular maintenance (Chen 2018). Preferably, they should be designed in a very sustainable manner. Their components ought to be easily recyclable, and preferably modular and lightweight, to increase their likelihood of offering extended product lifespans.

A case in point is Signify (that was formerly known as Philips Lighting). Currently, the Dutch multinational conglomerate is collaborating with various municipalities and businesses (Bocken 2021; Camilleri 2019). The company is adopting a product-service system strategy, as it provides lighting systems as a service to its clients including to municipalities and to businesses, rather than merely selling light bulbs. This enables Signify to retain ownership of its equipment, to maintain its infrastructure as well as to upgrade and recycle its products at their end-of-life. In plain words, its customers will be only expected to pay for the light they use.

Arguably, this business model is clearly promoting the circular economy. It encourages the manufacturers and/or service providers to use efficient materials, as well as to increase the recycling of resources and materials. Hence, they will be in a better position to reduce their waste.

Sharing Economies and Leasing Systems

There are other sustainable business models that are related to product-service systems (Sergianni et al. 2024). In this case, their payment structure is typically based on subscription models, leases, and/or may involve pay-per-use arrangements. Customers including individuals and organizations, such as institutions, businesses, and NGOs, will be expected to pay for the duration of the service(s) they receive, or to pay the amount of the products they consume. Like the product-service systems (that were mentioned in the previous section), such circular economy models are shifting the focus from ownership to access (Eisenreich et al. 2021).

Such sustainable propositions can extend product lifecycles, reduce the generation of waste, and encourage resource-efficient practices. The proprietors who lease their assets are responsible for their ongoing maintenance and repairs. Hence, it is in their interest to design and develop high-quality, durable items and components that are easy to replace, refurbish, recycle, and repair. If they do so, they would require fewer raw materials, minimize their reliance on new resources, and also decrease their waste output.

The partnership between FROG Bikes (a manufacturer of children’s bikes) and Bike Club (a subscription service for bikes) represents a good example of open innovation practices, as the two businesses joined forces to lease bikes for families, and to exchange bikes as children outgrow them (Eurofound 2018). Essentially, Frog Bikes maintains, refurbishes, and reuses its bikes with new customers, once existing consumers need to upgrade to bigger ones. They strive in their endeavors to maximize the use of their resources. In reality, such a sharing economy initiative has extended the life of the bikes and has significantly reduced the likelihood that they end up in landfills when kids outgrow them. Indeed, the Bike Club’s leasing model is promoting a circular approach by prioritizing maintenance, reuse, and resource efficiency, over ownership and disposal.

Similarly, Floow2, a Dutch business-to-business sharing platform, collaborates with hospitals, construction companies, and other firms to share underutilized equipment, vehicles, and office spaces (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2021c). This sharing economy company invites businesses from various industry sectors, including healthcare and construction, among others, to list their idle assets (that can be rented). Floow2 facilitates the sharing economy of high-cost resources such as medical equipment and/or construction tools. Its platform enables its customers (including hospitality, clinics, healthcare centers, and construction companies, among others) to optimize their operations, by utilizing leased technologies and systems, without the need to purchase them. This sharing economy approach reduces unnecessary investments in new equipment, minimizes waste, and improves resource efficiencies across multiple sectors.

Discussion

This research raises awareness of practitioners’ crowdsourcing initiatives and collaborative approaches, such as sharing ideas and resources with external partners, expert consultants, marketplace stakeholders (like suppliers and customers), university institutions, research centers, and even competitors, as the latter can help them develop innovation labs and to foster industrial symbiosis (Calabrese et al. 2024; Sundar et al. 2023; Triguero et al. 2022). It reported that open innovation networks would enable them to work in tandem with other entities to extend the life of products and their components. It also indicated how and where circular open innovations would facilitate the sharing of unwanted materials and resources that can be reused, repaired, restored, refurbished, or recycled through resource recovery systems and reverse logistics approaches. In addition, it postulates that circular economy practitioners could differentiate their business models by offering product-service systems, sharing economies, and/or leasing models to increase resource efficiencies and to minimize waste.

Arguably, the cocreation of open innovations can contribute to improve the financial performance of practitioners as well as of their partners who are supporting them in fostering closed-loop systems and sharing economy practices. They enable businesses and their stakeholders to minimize externalities like waste and pollution that can ultimately impact the long-term viability of our planet. Figure 1 presents a conceptual framework that clarifies how open innovation cocreation approaches can be utilized to advance circular, closed-loop models while adding value to the businesses’ financial performance.

The collaborative efforts between organizations, individuals, and various stakeholders can lead to sustainable innovations, including to the advancement of circular economy models (Jesus and Jugend 2023; Tumuyu et al. 2024). Such practices are not without their own inherent challenges and pitfalls. For example, resource sharing, the recovery of waste and by-products from other organizations, and industrial symbiosis involve close partnership agreements among firms and their collaborators, as they strive in their endeavors to optimize resource use and to minimize waste (Battistella and Pessot 2024; Eisenreich et al. 2021). While the open innovation strategies that are mentioned in this article can lead to significant efficiency gains and to waste reductions, practitioners may encounter several difficulties and hurdles, to implement the required changes (Phonthanukitithaworn et al. 2024). Different entities will have their own organizational culture, strategic goals, and modus operandi that may result in coordination challenges among stakeholders.

Organizations may become overly reliant on sharing resources or on their symbiotic relationships, leading to vulnerabilities related to stakeholder dependencies (Battistella and Pessot 2024). For instance, if one partner experiences disruptions, such as operational issues or financial difficulties, it can adversely affect the feasibility of the entire network. Notwithstanding, organizations are usually expected to share information and resources when they are involved in corporate innovation hubs and clusters. Their openness can lead to concerns about knowledge leakages and intellectual property theft, which may deter companies from fully engaging in resource-sharing initiatives, as they pursue outbound innovation approaches.

Other challenges may arise from resource recovery, reverse logistics, and product-life extension strategies (Johnstone 2024). The implementation of reverse logistics systems can be costly, especially for small and micro enterprises. The costs associated with the collection, sorting, and processing of returned products and components may outweigh the benefits, particularly if the market for recovered materials is not well established (Panza et al. 2022; Sgambaro et al. 2024). Moreover, the effectiveness of resource recovery methodologies and of product-life extension strategies would be highly dependent on the stakeholders’ willingness to return products or to participate in recycling programs. Circular economy practitioners may have to invest in promotional campaigns to educate their stakeholders about sustainable behaviors. There may be instances where existing recovery and recycling technologies are not sufficiently advanced or widely available, in certain contexts, thereby posing significant barriers to the effective implementation of open circular innovations. Notwithstanding, there may be responsible practitioners and sustainability champions that may struggle to find reliable partners with appropriate technological solutions that could help them close the loop of their circular economy.

In some scenarios, emerging circular economy enthusiasts may be eager to shift from traditional product sales models to innovative product-service systems. Yet, such budding practitioners can face operational challenges in their transitions to such circular business models. They may have to change certain business processes, reformulate supply chains, and also redefine their customer relationships, to foster compliance with their modus operandi. These dynamic aspects can be time-consuming, costly, and resource intensive (Eisenreich et al. 2021). For instance, the customers who are accustomed to owning tangible assets may resist shifting to a product-service system model. Their reluctance to accept the service providers’ revised terms and conditions can hinder the adoption of circular economy practices. The former may struggle to convince their consumers to change their status quo, by accessing products as a service, rather than owning them (Sgambaro et al. 2024). In addition, the practitioners adopting products-as-a-service systems may find it difficult to quantify their performance outcomes related to resource savings and customer satisfaction levels and to evaluate the success of their product-service models, accurately, due to a lack of established metrics.

In a similar vein, the customers of sharing economies and leasing systems ought to trust the quality standards and safety features of the products and services they use (Sergianni et al. 2024). Any negative incidents reported through previous consumers’ testimonials and reviews can undermine the prospective customers’ confidence in the service provider or in the manufacturer who produced the product in the first place. Notwithstanding, several sharing economy models rely on community participation and localized networks, which can pose possible challenges for scalability. As businesses seek to expand their operations, it may prove hard for them to consistently maintain the same level of trust and quality in their service delivery. Moreover, many commentators argue that the rapid growth of sharing economies often outpaces existing regulatory frameworks. The lack of regulations, in certain jurisdictions, in this regard, can create uncertainties and gray areas for businesses as well as for their consumers.

Read further: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bse.4216 (the full references are available here).

This research is also available via ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Social Science Research Network and through University of Malta’s Open Access Repository.

Leave a comment

Filed under Circular Economy, circular economy, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, Open Innovation

How can we combat climate change?

This is an excerpt from one of my latest contributions.

Suggested citation: Camilleri, M.A. (2022). The rationale for ISO 14001 certification: A systematic review and a cost-benefit analysis, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2254

Source: UNFCCC.int

During the Paris Climate Conference (COP 21), one hundred ninety-six (196) countries pledged their commitment to implement environmental performance measures to reduce the effects of climate change. This conference has led to the development of the ‘Paris Agreement’ where signatories became legally bound to limit global warming to below 2°C, and possibly 1.5°C (Palea & Drogo, 2020; Secinaro, Brescia, Calandra & Saiti, 2020). They recognized the importance of averting and minimizing the environmental impact that is caused by climate change, by scaling up their efforts and support initiatives to reduce emissions, by building resilience among parties, and by promoting cooperation (Birindelli & Chiappini, 2021; Gatto, 2020).

In the aftermath of COP 21, many countries submitted their plans for climate action (these plans are also known as nationally determined contributions – NDCs), where they communicated about their tangible actions that were aimed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of rising temperatures (Fatica & Panzica, 2021; Gerged, Matthews & Elheddad, 2021).  Consequentially, intergovernmental organizations including the European Union (EU), among others, are increasingly establishing ambitious carbon neutrality goals and zero-carbon solutions to tackle climate change issues (Benz, Paulus, Scherer, Syryca & Trück, 2021).

Many countries are incentivizing businesses across different economic sectors, to reduce their emissions. For example, the EU member states are expected to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 40% before 2030, and by 60% prior to 2050 (EU, 2019). These targets would require the commitment of stakeholders from various sectors including those operating within the energy and transportation industries, among others.

The latest climate change conference (COP26) suggested that progress has been made on the signatories’ mitigation measures that were aimed to reduce emissions, on their adaptation efforts to deal with climate change impacts, on the mobilization of finance, and on the increased collaboration among countries to reach 2030 emissions targets. However, more concerted efforts are required to deliver on these four pledges (UNFCC, 2021).

This contribution raises awareness on the use of environmental management standards that are intended to support organizations of different types and sizes, including private entities, not-for-profits as well as governmental agencies, to improve their environmental performance credentials. A thorough review of the relevant literature suggests that, over the years many practitioners have utilized the International Standards Organization’s ISO 14001 environment management systems standard to assist them in their environmental management issues (Baek, 2018; Delmas & Toffel, 2008; Erauskin‐Tolosa, Zubeltzu‐Jaka, Heras‐Saizarbitoria & Boiral, 2020; Melnyk, Sroufe & Calantone, 2003).

Many academic commentators noted that several practitioners operating in different industry sectors, in various contexts, are implementing ISO 14001 requirements to obtain this standard’s certification (Boiral, Guillaumie, Heras‐Saizarbitoria & Tayo Tene, 2018; Para‐González & Mascaraque‐Ramírez, 2019; Riaz, & Saeed, 2020). Whilst several researchers contended about the benefits of abiding by voluntary principles and guidelines (Camilleri, 2018), others discussed about the main obstacles to obtaining impartial audits, assurances and certifications from independent standard setters (Hillary, 2004; Ma, Liu, Appolloni & Liu, 2021; Robèrt, Schmidt-Bleek, Aloisi De Larderel … & Wackernagel, 2002; Teng & Wu, 2018).

Hence, this research examines identifies the rationale for ISO 14001 certification (Carvalho, Santos & Gonçalves, 2020; Eltayeb, Zailani & Ramayah, 2011; Lee, Noh, Choi & Rha, 2017; Potoski & Prakash, 2005) that is supposedly intended to improve the organizations’ environmental performance and to enhance their credentials. Specifically, this contribution’s objectives are threefold. Firstly, it provides a generic background on voluntary instruments, policies and guidelines that are intended to promote corporate environmentally responsible behaviors. Secondly, it presents the results from a systematic review of academic articles that were focused on ISO 14001 – environment management systems. Thirdly, it synthesizes the findings from high impact papers and discusses about the benefits and costs of using this standard. In conclusion, it elaborates on the implications of this research, it identifies its limitations and points out future research avenues.

In sum, this contribution differentiates itself from previous articles, particularly those that sought to investigate the introduction and implementation of environment management systems in specific entities. This research involves a two-stage systematic analysis. It appraises a number of empirical investigations, theoretical articles, reviews, case studies, discursive/opinion papers, from 1995-2021. Afterwards, it scrutinizes their content to shed more light on the pros and cons of using ISO 14001 as a vehicle to improve corporate environmental performance.

This paper can be downloaded, in its entirety, through ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358557458_The_rationale_for_ISO_14001_certification_A_systematic_review_and_a_cost-benefit_analysis

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, Circular Economy, corporate citizenship, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, CSR, environment, Sustainability, sustainable development

What is Corporate Citizenship?

The corporate citizenship term was typically used to describe the corporations that can contribute to the ethical, philanthropic and societal goals. Therefore, this notion is rooted in political science as it directs corporations to respond to non-market pressures.

Throughout the years, the corporate citizenship agenda has been wrought from distinctive corporate social responsibility (CSR) theories and approaches. Its conceptual foundations can be found in the CSR literature (e.g., Carroll, 1979), corporate social responsiveness (e.g., Clarkson, 1995), corporate social performance (e.g., Albinger & Freeman, 2000), the theory of the firm” (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001), stakeholder engagement (Strand & Freeman, 2013); and other enlightened ‘self-interest’ theories; as corporate citizenship can be a source of opportunity, innovation and competitive advantage (Camilleri, 2017a, 2017b; Porter & Kramer, 2006). For this reason, this concept continues to receive specific attention, particularly by those responsible businesses that are differentiating themselves through responsible and sustainable behaviours.

 

Literature Review

The multinational corporations (MNCs) have been (and still are) under pressure to exhibit “good corporate citizenship” in every country or market from where they run their business. MNCs are continuously monitored by their stakeholders, including regulatory authorities, creditors, investors, customers and the community at large. They are also being scrutinised by academic researchers. Several empirical studies have explored the individuals’ attitudes and perceptions toward corporate citizenship. Very often, their measurement involved quantitative analyses that investigated the corporations’ responsible behaviours (Camilleri, 2017a; 2017b). Other research has focused on the managerial perceptions about corporate citizenship (e.g., Basu & Palazzo, 2008). A number of similar studies have gauged corporate citizenship by adopting Fortune’s reputation index (Flanagan, O’Shaughnessy, & Palmer, 2011; Melo & Garrido‐Morgado, 2012), the KLD index (Dupire & M’Zali, 2018; Fombrun, 1998; Griffin & Mahon, 1997) or Van Riel and Fombrun’s (2007) Reptrak. Such measures expected the surveyed executives to assess the extent to which their company behaves responsibly toward the environment and the community (Fryxell and Wang, 1994).

Despite the wide usage of such measures in past research, the appropriateness of these indices still remains doubtful. For instance, Fortune’s reputation index failed to account for the multidimensionality of the corporate citizenship construct; as it is suspected to be more significant of management quality than of corporate citizenship (Waddock & Graves, 1997). Fortune’s past index suffered from the fact that its items were not based on theoretical arguments as they did not appropriately represent the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary dimensions of the corporate citizenship construct.

Pinkston and Carroll (1994) identified four dimensions of corporate citizenship, including; orientations, stakeholders, issues and decision-making autonomy. They argued that by observing orientations, one may better understand the inclinations or the posturing behaviours of organisations with respect to corporate citizenship. Pinkston and Carroll (1994) sought to identify the stakeholder groups that are benefiting from the businesses’ corporate citizenship practices. They argued that the businesses’ decision-making autonomy determined at what organisational level they engaged in corporate citizenship. In a similar vein, Griffin and Mahon (1997) combined four estimates of corporate citizenship: Fortune’s reputation index, the KLD index, the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), and the rankings that are provided in the Directory of Corporate Philanthropy.

Singh, De los Salmones Sanchez and Rodriguez del Bosque (2007) adopted a multidimensional perspective on three domains, including; commercial responsibility, ethical responsibility and social responsibility. Firstly, they proposed that the commercial responsibility construct relates to the businesses’ responsibility to develop high quality products and truthful marketing communications of their products’ attributes and features among customers. Secondly, they maintained that ethical responsibility is concerned with the businesses fulfilling their obligations toward their shareholders, suppliers, distributors and other agents with whom they make their dealings. Singh et al. (2007) argued that ethical responsibility involves the respect for the human rights and norms that are defined in the law when carrying out business activities. They hinted that respecting ethical principles in business relationships has more priority than achieving superior economic performance. Their other domain, social responsibility is concerned about with corporate citizenship initiatives that are characterised by the businesses’ laudable behaviors (Camilleri, 2017c). The authors suggest that the big businesses could allocate part of their budget to the natural environment, philanthropy, or toward social works that supported the most vulnerable groups in society. This perspective supports the development of financing social and/or cultural activities and is also concerned with improving societal well-being (Singh et al., 2007).

Conclusion

There are several actors within a society, including the government and policy makers, businesses, marketplace stakeholders and civil society organisations among others (Camilleri, 2015). It is within this context that a relationship framework is required to foster corporate citizenship practices in order to enhance the businesses’ legitimacy amongst stakeholders (Camilleri, 2017; Camilleri, 2018). The corporate citizenship practices including socially responsible and environmentally sustainable practices may be triggered by the institutional and/or stakeholder pressures.

 

References

Albinger, H.S. & Freeman, S.J. (2000). Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 243-253.

Basu, K. & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking, Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122-136.

Camilleri, M. A. (2015). Valuing stakeholder engagement and sustainability reporting. Corporate Reputation Review18(3), 210-222.

Camilleri, M. A. (2017a). Corporate citizenship and social responsibility policies in the United States of America. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8(1), 77-93.

Camilleri, M. A. (2017b). Corporate Social Responsibility Policy in the United States of America. In Corporate Social Responsibility in Times of Crisis (pp. 129-143). Springer, Cham.

Camilleri, M. A. (2017c). Corporate sustainability and responsibility: creating value for business, society and the environment. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility2(1), 59-74.

Camilleri, M. A. (2018). Theoretical insights on integrated reporting: The inclusion of non-financial capitals in corporate disclosures. Corporate Communications: An International Journal. 23(4) 567-581.

Carroll, A.B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.

Dupire, M., & M’Zali, B. (2018). CSR strategies in response to competitive pressures. Journal of Business Ethics148(3), 603-623.

Flanagan, D. J., O’shaughnessy, K. C., & Palmer, T. B. (2011). Re-assessing the relationship between the Fortune reputation data and financial performance: overwhelming influence or just a part of the puzzle?. Corporate Reputation Review14(1), 3-14.

Fombrun, C.J. (1998). Indices of corporate reputation: An analysis of media rankings and social monitors’ ratings. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(4), 327-340.

Griffin J.J. & Mahon, J.F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business & Society, 36(1), 5-31.

McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective, Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127.

Melo, T., & Garrido‐Morgado, A. (2012). Corporate reputation: A combination of social responsibility and industry. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management19(1), 11-31.

Pinkston, T.S. & Carroll, A.B. (1994). Corporate citizenship perspectives and foreign direct investment in the US. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3), 157-169.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard business review84(12), 78-92.

Strand, R. & Freeman, R.E. (2013). Scandinavian cooperative advantage: The theory and practice of stakeholder engagement in Scandinavia, Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), 65-85.

Singh, J. & Del Bosque, I.R. (2008). Understanding corporate social responsibility and product perceptions in consumer markets: A cross-cultural evaluation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(3), 597-611.

Van Riel, C.B. & Fombrun, C.J. (2007). Essentials of corporate communication: Implementing practices for effective reputation management, Routledge, Oxford, UK and New York, USA.

Waddock, S.A. & Graves, S.B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link, Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319.


This is an excerpt from one of my contributions that will appear in Springer’s Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management.

Leave a comment

Filed under corporate citizenship, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, CSR, Marketing

Call for chapters: “Advancing the Circular Economy for a Sustainable Future”

Abstract submission deadline: 30th June 2020
Full chapters due: 31st December 2020

The Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) defined sustainable development as; “development that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 43). Its underlying assumption is that the world’s physical resources are not finite; therefore, they have to be managed responsibly to sustain future generations (Camilleri, 2018a; Camilleri, 2014). Subsequently, the United Nations (UN) Conference on Environment and Development has put forward Agenda 21 that dedicated a chapter that was focused on unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. This document recommended that the UN’s member states ought to intensify their efforts to reduce the use of scarce resources during production processes, whilst minimising the environmental impacts from the generation of waste and pollution (Camilleri, 2018a; Camilleri, 2014; Agenda 21, 1992).

In 2002, the UN Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development also made reference to unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. The UN’s member states were urged to manage their natural resources in a sustainable manner and with lower negative environmental impacts; by promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems, whilst reducing waste (WSSD, 2002, p. 13). Moreover, in another resolution, entitled; “The future we want,” the General Assembly at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development has reaffirmed its commitment to implementing green economy policies in the context of sustainable development. The heads of state and government or their representatives have agreed to continue promoting the integrated and sustainable management of ecosystems, whilst facilitating their conservation, regeneration, and restoration of resources (UNCSD, 2012). Furthermore, during the UN’s General Assembly Resolution of September 25 2015 entitled “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” the world leaders have agreed to adopt the Sustainable Development Goals that replaced the previous millennium development goals that were established in the year 2000. Specifically, the Sustainable Development Goal 12 of the 2030 agenda, namely, “Sustainable Consumption and Production” explained that there is an opportunity for business and industry to reap economic gains through resource and energy efficiencies. It also raised awareness on the use of sustainable infrastructures and urged the UN member states to address air, water, and soil pollution to minimise their environmental impact (UNDP, 2015). Moreover, the Paris Climate Agreement (COP 21) and Resolutions 1/5 and 2/7 on chemicals and waste, and 2/8 on sustainable production and consumption, as adopted by the first and second sessions of the United Nations Environment Assembly (that was held in Nairobi, Kenya, on the June 27, 2014 and the May 27, 2016), are also considered as important policy instruments for many stakeholders, as they have paved the way for the transition towards the CE strategy.

These intergovernmental policy recommendations on sustainable consumption and production have led to increased regulatory pressures on business and industry towards controlled operations management and environmentally responsible practices.

Relevant theoretical underpinnings reported that the circular economy reduces the reliance on resource extraction and raw materials (Camilleri, 2018b; Camilleri, 2017; Cooper, 1999). Therefore, it restores any damage in resource acquisition by ensuring that little waste is generated throughout the production process and during the products’ life. Liu, Li, Zuo, Zhang, and Wang (2009) explained that the circular economy aims at minimising the generation of waste, as it involves environmental conservation. Similarly, Su, Heshmati, Geng, and Yu (2013) contended that the circular economy strategy involves efficiency‐oriented control systems at all stages of production, distribution, and consumption of materials. They made reference to energy efficiency and water conservation, land management, and soil protection, among other issues. Hence, the circular economy model can lead to resource and energy efficiencies as well as economic development.

In this light, the publisher is calling for theoretical and empirical contributions that are focused on the sustainable production and consumption of resources, materials and products. Therefore, the readers of this publication will be in a better position to understand the operations and strategies in manufacturing industries as well as in closed loop and product-service systems (Camilleri, 2018a). This special issue will include but is not limited to the following topics:

  • Alternative consumption patterns;
  • Assessment and Reporting;
  • Biomass;
  • Clean production;
  • Circular economy;
  • Circular economy business models;
  • Circular economy product designs;
  • Climate change;
  • Climate change policy and adaptation;
  • Closed loop systems;
  • Corporate social responsibility;
  • Corporate sustainability,
  • Eco-efficiency;
  • Eco-industrial parks;
  • Ecological management and natural capital;
  • Education for sustainability;
  • Emissions reduction;
  • Energy efficiency;
  • Energy policy;
  • Energy use and consumption;
  • Environmental assessment;
  • Environmental behavior;
  • Environmental economics;
  • Environmental management;
  • Environmental policy;
  • Environmental protection;
  • Environmental sustainability;
  • Extended producer responsibility;
  • Footprints and other assessment types;
  • Green/sustainable engineering;
  • Green/sustainable supply chains;
  • Industrial, agricultural and supply chains;
  • Industrial ecology;
  • Life cycle assessment;
  • Pollution reduction;
  • Product-service systems;
  • Recycling Resources;
  • Regional sustainability;
  • Renewable energy;
  • Renewable resource;
  • Resource and energy use;
  • Resource Efficiency;
  • Sustainable consumption;
  • Sustainable production;
  • Sustainable tourism;
  • Urban and regional sustainability;
  • Water conservation;
  • Waste management;
  • Waste minimization;

 

Submission Procedure

Academics and researchers are invited to submit a 300-word abstract before the 30th June 2020. Submissions should be sent to Mark.A.Camilleri@um.edu.mt. Authors will be notified about the editorial decision during July 2020. The accepted chapters should be submitted before the 31st December 2020. The length of the chapters should be around 7,000 words (including references, figures and tables). The references should be presented in APA style (Version 6). All submitted chapters will be critically reviewed on a double-blind review basis. All authors will be requested to serve as reviewers for this book. They will receive a notification of acceptance, rejection or suggested modifications –before the 25th February 2021.

 

Note: There are no submission or acceptance fees for the publication of the book chapters. All abstracts / proposals should be submitted via the editor’s email.

 

Editor

Prof.  Dr. Mark Anthony Camilleri (Ph.D. Edinburgh)

Department of Corporate Communication,

Faculty of Media and Knowledge Sciences,

University of Malta, MALTA.

Email: mark.a.camilleri@um.edu.mt

 

Publisher

Following the double-blind peer review process, the full chapters will be submitted to Emerald for final review. For additional information regarding the publisher, please visit https://www.emerald.com/insight/. This prospective publication will be released in 2021.

 

References

Agenda 21.1992. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development. Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. United Nations Sustainable Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf.

Camilleri, M. (2014). Advancing the sustainable tourism agenda through strategic CSR perspectives. Tourism Planning & Development11(1), 42-56.

Camilleri, M. A. (2017). Closing the Loop of the Circular Economy for Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility. In Corporate Sustainability, Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (pp. 175-190). Springer, Cham.

Camilleri, M. A. (2018a). The circular economy’s closed loop and product service systems for sustainable development: A review and appraisal. Sustainable Development27(3), 530-536.

Camilleri, M. A. (2018b). Closing the loop for resource efficiency, sustainable consumption and production: A critical review of the circular economy. International Journal of Sustainable Development.21(1-4), 1-17.

Cooper, T. (1999). Creating an economic infrastructure for sustainable product design. Journal of Sustainable Product Design8, 7– 17.

Liu, Q., Li, H. M., Zuo, X. L., Zhang, F. F., & Wang, L. (2009). A survey and analysis on public awareness and performance for promoting circular economy in China: A case study from Tianjin. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 265– 270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.06.003

Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y., & Yu, X. (2013). A review of the circular economy in China: Moving from rhetoric to implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production42, 215– 227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.020

UNCSD (2012). Future we want—Outcome document. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 July 2012. United Nations General Assembly. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/66/288&Lang=E.

UNDP (2015). Transforming our world. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf.

WCED (1987). Our common future. In World commission on environment and development. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University press.

WSSD (2002). United Nations report of the world summit on sustainable development. Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August‐ 4 September 2002. http://www.un‐documents.net/aconf199‐20.pdf.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Circular Economy, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, Stakeholder Engagement, Sustainability, sustainable development

Creating Shared Value Leverages the Value Chain

csv

Socio-economic actions and environmental changes play a vital role in determining the prices of core commodities. Undoubtedly, the availability of commodities can change the dynamics in supply chain relationships. It is in the interest of suppliers to forge fruitful and collaborative working relationships with their customers. For instance, farm workers are demanding bigger shares from the profits of wine producers, coffee makers and the like. In this day and age, businesses will have to look at new ‘shared value’ models as customers are often expecting greater reliability, higher quality, reduced lead times and frequent deliveries from their suppliers.

‘Creating shared value’ needs to address not only value chain requirements but to ensure that programmes are built on joint principles. Of course, many businesses may be genuinely interested in investing in philanthropic initiatives. However, this particular proposition suggests that businesses can leverage themselves as they gain a competitive advantage.  Inevitably, this notion suggests  that there is a need for co-creative and innovative approaches rather than blueprints.

CASE STUDIES

“Take Novartis as an example. They saw a shared value opportunity in selling their pharmaceuticals in rural India, where 70% of the population lives. The obstacle was not the prices they charged but the social conditions in the region: a chronic lack of health-seeking behaviour in the community, healthcare providers with virtually no healthcare training, and tens of thousands of local clinics without a reliable supply chain. Looking through a shared value lens, Novartis saw these social problems as business opportunities: they hired hundreds of community health educators, held training camps for providers, and built up a distribution system to 50,000 rural clinics.

For Novartis, the result was an entirely new business model that is essential to their future. In the coming decade, emerging markets with similar challenges are predicted to account for 75% of the growth in global pharmaceutical sales. For 42 million people in India, the results are access to a vastly improved level of healthcare that neither government nor NGOs were providing.

Or consider Southwire, a US company that manufactures wire and cable in a small town in Georgia. Their machinists were retiring and the local high school, burdened by a 40% dropout rate, wasn’t producing the workforce they needed. So Southwire partnered with the school, opened a factory nearby to employ the most at-risk students, part-time, using attractive wages as an incentive, and mentored their academic performance. Nearly 100% of the students in the Southwire program completed high school, and 1/3 went on to become Southwire employees. And, by the way, that factory near the school generates a million dollar annual profit.

These examples are not examples of corporate social responsibility or sustainability. They are examples of businesses grabbing hold of a social issue that is at the core of their business, and figuring out how to wrap that into their strategy and operations. These companies are using the resources and capabilities of business to solve very specific social problems in ways that are aligned with the company’s strategy, that strengthen its competitive positioning, and that enable it to make more money” (More details are available in the Guardian – Better ways of doing business: Creating Shared Value).

More blogs about “Shared Value” approaches!

Leave a comment

February 5, 2013 · 4:36 pm

Environment and economy on collision course

According to the latest communication from the the World Economic Forum; weak economies coupled with  extreme weather conditions in some places, have brought greater risks and instability in the international markets. In a highly uncertain economic backdrop, the European Union has avoided a euro break-up in 2012. Whereas, the United States stood very close to fall off from its fiscal cliff, merely a week ago. Of course, business leaders and academics are raising their alarm bells as they fear that many politicians and policy makers are not capable of addressing their fundamental problems.

These arguments were mirrored in  the recent ‘Global Risks 2013’ report, which surveyed more than 1,000 chief executives and owner-managers. This report maintained that the industry bosses are more pessimistic about their economic outlook, than how they perceived it a year ago. Unfortunately, many multi-national firms are facing unprecedented wealth gaps and unsustainable government finances in some of the countries, where they carry out their business. In addition, during this year some areas witnessed a marked increase in severe weather conditions, which may have also affected their operations as well as their bottom-line.

This particular report featured an 80-page analysis of risks which are envisaged for the next 10 years. It anticipates the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual meeting, scheduled between January 23rd to 27th. It will be held in the Swiss ski resort of Davos. This meeting will once again symbolise the modern globalised world, where business leaders hailing from successful multinational corporations mingle with  politicians and bankers. On the horizon, the economic front indicates that there are some dark clouds which are causing some euro-zone uncertainty. The report suggested that, “the associated risks of  systemic financial failure are limited, yet they cannot be completely discarded”. It transpires that there are rising concerns in the environmental issues, particularly about the greenhouse gas emissions. Apart from the strict European standards, the failure to adapt to climate change is being perceived as the biggest challenge for sustainability.

For instance, superstorm Sandy created havoc and unnecessary costs on the US east coast, in October. This year, the temperatures in China chilled to a 28-year low. Today, south eastern Australia battled scores of wildfires in heat-wave conditions. It goes without saying that slack resources will have to be dedicated to mitigate the rising risk from severe and unforeseen weather conditions. As a consequence, our well-being and the global prosperity of our future generations may be threatened.

Interestingly, on this occasion the theme in Davos has been dubbed, “resilient dynamism”. Inevitably, the governments and the businesses will have to come up with reasonable strategies and approaches to ensure that critical systems continue to respond to such contingencies. Essentially, the regulatory authorities and the business practitioners are expected to successfully weather the economic and environmental storms.

(source: http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/risk-case-1/testing-economic-and-environmental-resilience/)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized