1、 1 外文翻译 原文 Environmental policy in the hotel sector: “green” strategy or stratagem? Material Source: International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Author: Margaret Brown Adoption of an environmental policy is one ofthe main requirements of an organization undertaking a “green” strategy, whereby
2、environmental concerns are considered of strategic importance. A “green” stratagem description would apply to organizations giving the appearance of treating environmental concerns strategically but without the underlying changes in the control system of the organization. Environmental issue within
3、the hotel sector The UK hotel sector would appear to accept that it does have an impact on the environment6. This is not only confirmed by exploratory research but also through the formation of the International Hotels Environmental Initiative (IHEI). The IHEI has published an environmental manual E
4、nvironmental Management for Hotels: the Industry Guide to Best Practice which is aimed at hotel general managers. As an alternative to the manual the IHEI has also produced an action pack designed for the small and independent hotel operator. A number of hotel groups have also separately developed t
5、heir own environmental programmes and initiatives. These include newsletters on “green” issues, environmental committees and “green” bedrooms. It is evident from the literature that cost benefits can be achieved by operating a more “environmentally friendly” hotel. However,anecdotal evidence would s
6、uggest that of more concern to the hotelier is the impact of environmental initiatives on the perceived quality and service of the hotel. One solution to this problem would be education of guests about environmental factors and allowing them the opportunity of choosing the “environmental”, option. A
7、 further concern of the hotelier is that “environmentally friendly” alternatives are perceived as less efficient than the normally-used products7. This problem should become less apparent as suppliers recognize the demand for satisfactory “green” products and provide adequate alternatives. The gener
8、al manager in the hotel sector does appear to recognize that the hospitality industry does have an impact on the environment6. However he/she would appear to be restricted in introducing environmental improvements in the hotel 2 unless a cost saving or other tangible benefit is identified6. Introduc
9、tion The “greening” of industry is an issue which has been increasing in importance since the late 1980s1,2. Although the chemical and oil industries were initially the focus of attention for environmentalists due to the visible nature of their environmental impact, the service industries will find
10、themselves under scrutiny3,4. Although they are perhaps less visible in their environmental impact, it is increasingly being recognized that they too have a responsibility to reduce what impact they do have. The hospitality industry will no longer be able to ignore its environmental responsibilities
11、 as it will have to respond to a number of pressures. For example, the “green tourist” will demand “green” accommodation5 ; legislation with regard to the disposal of waste has implications for the hospitality industry; and the continued increase in energy costs will necessitate reductions in usage.
12、 In this article the reaction of the hotel sector to “the environmental issue is considered from a strategic control perspective. In particular, the link between the control system and the environmental status of the hotel group is explored. Analysis is made of the results of a questionnaire survey
13、which was undertaken during late 1993. The environmental issue and the accounting control system operating within hotel companies are considered from the perspective of the hotel general manager.Only tentative conclusions can be drawn as regards the hotel sector and its response to the environmental
14、 issue on the basis of this study but, if representative, then there is some cause for concern. Control system The control system is an important part of the structure of the organization8, and of the strategy implementation process9,10. The control system provides the means for senior management of
15、 the hotel group to monitor the performance of its general managers and motivate these managers to achieve the organizations objectives9,11. The control system may be regarded as a function of both the strategy12,13 and the structure of the organization9. The control system may include a number of c
16、omponents such as organizational culture8,supervisory visits14, standardized procedures and manuals14, accounting and nonaccounting information14,15, and the reward system8,9,14,15. It is not simply the use of a particular package of control techniques which defines the control system but rather the
17、 individual weighting placed on each of the control components14,16. The individual components of the control system should match the structure8. If there is 3 conflict between individual controls then a dysfunctional effect may be the outcome17. Each component or sub-unit of the control system shou
18、ld be consistent with one another8 and should persuade the manager to act in the best interests of the organization9. Brown6 has suggested that the most important accounting controls used within the hotel sector in assessing the performance of the general manager were achievement of budget and profi
19、ts. The only non-accounting information on which the general manager would appear to be judged by his head office is customer complaints. In another study of hotel managers, Umbreit and Eder18 looked at the link between behaviour and outcome measurement. They found that there was “.a general lack of
20、 consensus across hotel firms in defining managerial effectiveness”18. The reasons identified for the difference in outcome measurement may relate to the market position of the company, strategy, financial position, management style and age of the company19. There is no evidence as yet, of the hotel
21、 sector recognizing environmental initiatives in the control system6,20. This would appear to be one of the factors preventing the general manager introducing environmental improvements. Research in the USA has confirmed that the majority of managers would appear to be hindered because of the nature
22、 of the control system in which the budgeted results do not recognize environmental initiatives20. Environmental strategy A number of generic strategic archetypes12,21,22 have been developed as well as specific lodging industry strategies23. However, the relevance of either generic strategies or hot
23、el-specific strategies in relation to environmental issues should be in doubt. As has been stated24 managers “may still be operating with the old world mental models that do not give sufficient value to the environment”. Strategies will need to be developed where the environment is viewed to be as i
24、mportant as traditional strategic requirements, such as profitability, growth, etc. In other words, the environment cannot be treated as an “add-on to the other corporate policies”25, but should become a strategic direction in itself. If the strategic reaction of senior management is to simply view
25、the environmental issue as a policy decision, then any necessary changes are slotted into the existing structure of the organization. Alternatively the environmental issue may be viewed as of such importance that a change in strategy is required. This will involve more fundamental changes as the exi
26、sting structure of the organization will be required to adapt to the new environmental strategy. An organizations response to environmental concerns may be described as either reactive or pro-active26. A reactive response organization is 4 one which “follows the pace of change dictated by social, sc
27、ientific and the legislative agenda on the environment”26. A pro-active response organization is one which is responding through “management systems which can be verified, to challenge existing management conventions and to encourage organizational change”26. A pro-active organization therefore has
28、identified environmental concerns as a strategic issue and is adapting both its structure and control system to accommodate the new strategy. This environmental strategy will involve the company in additional costs with the extent of the expenditure depending on the level of environmental excellence
29、 the organization wishes to achieve27. Roome26 describes two environmental response strategies which are pro-active a “compliance plus” strategy and “excellence” strategy. The main differences between these two strategies is the scale of the organizations environmental ethic and the level of organiz
30、ational change to support a “corporate environmental ethic”26. Similarly Sadgrove27 identifies two proactive responses to the environmental issue that an organization may take. However, the main difference identified between the responses is cost. The high cost option gives the company a high profil
31、e to the extent that it may become a leading edge or best practice company. The low cost option also allows thecompany to have a green image but with no cost, or low costs involved. Once the organization adopts a pro-active response to the environmental issue then changes to its strategy should be m
32、atched by changes to the control system. This will involve changes to the individual components within the control system. Control through the reporting requirement of financial information should be extended to allow for environmental reporting. This may involve a move away from performance apprais
33、al on purely financial criteria to the use of nonfinancial criteria. Environmental reporting should become part of the reporting requirements of the managers1,27 and of the organization1. Therefore the environmental performance of the hotel should become an integral part of the appraisal system28 of
34、 the general manager. Environmental awareness The hotels general manager is responsible for implementing the companys environmental policy at the unit level. Therefore he should be more able to recognize the environmental issues as they affect his hotel than a manager who is operating without an env
35、ironmental policy. It was hypothesized that the “with policy” manager will be more environmentally aware than the “no policy” manager. A z score of +2.33 (one-tailed test) would indicate a significant difference at 1 per cent level of significance. As shown in Table II the level of awareness of the
36、environmental impact 5 of the hotel was not rated particularly high by either group of managers. However, the managers rated themselves as the most environmentally aware of all the hotels stakeholders. The “with policy” managers perceived themselves as significantly more environmentally aware than t
37、he “no policy” managers, and also rated their employees, head office and shareholders as significantly more aware than the “no policy” managers. However, given the low level of perceived awareness, neither group of managers seem to be particularly environmentally aware. Generally there would appear
38、to be little environmental pressure being exerted by the stakeholders of the hotel. The managers did not view care for the environment as particularly important when considering the various criteria which may be used to justify changes in the hotel6. Control system The managers response to the envir
39、onmental issue could be influenced by the nature of the control system. For example, the requirement to achieve his budgeted targets or profitability level could restrict his ability to introduce environmental initiatives which did not achieve an improvement in his results. If a company has adopted
40、an environmental policy then the environmental issue has been recognized and the company should have adapted its control system to allow for this. Environmental reporting should become part of the reporting requirements of the manager. It was hypothesized that there will be a difference in the contr
41、ol system between the “with policy” and “no policy” companies. The individual components of the control system were analysed using a z-score calculation to indicate any significant difference between the two groups of managers. For the purposes of the analysis a z score of +/2.58 (two-tailed test) w
42、ould indicate a significant difference at the 1 per cent level of significance. Table III shows the results of the analysis of the managers reporting requirements. As previously identified by Brown6 the three most important forms of reporting in the hotel sector are achievement of budget, maintenanc
43、e of profitability and reporting of customer complaints. However, the “with policy” managers perceive a number of other reporting requirements as significantly more important to their head office than the “no policy” managers. In particular there are significant differences between the two groups in
44、 the reporting of customer complaints, staff turnover, external factors, environmental reporting and environmental target achievement. Therefore, although both financial reporting and customer complaints remain important to both groups of managers, the “with policy” managers do seem to be more aware
45、 that non-financial data, including environmental 6 information, may be part of their performance appraisal. Two other components of the control system on which the managers were questioned were supervisory visits and the reward system. Although significant differences were identified between the tw
46、o groups, specifically in promotion within the group and job security, these differences are more likely to be due to factors other than the control system or the adoption of an environmental policy. For example, the size of the hotel group or the financial situation of the hotel could be a factor.
47、Environmental strategy Hotel companies are faced with a number of strategic issues, one of which is environmental concern. However not all hotel companies will recognize environmental concern to be of sufficient importance for it to be considered at all, let alone in a strategic context. In order to
48、 gauge if environmental concern is perceived to be of strategic importance to the hotel company the manager was asked to consider a number of strategic issues and to rate the importance to his hotel group. The results are shown in Table IV. It was hypothesized that the “with policy” manager would ra
49、te the strategic importance of environmental concern more highly than the “no policy” manager. A z score of +2.33 (one-tailed test) would indicate a significant difference at the 1 per cent level of significance. Statistically then there is a significant difference between the two groups of managers in the perceived importance of environmental concern as a strategic issue. The “with policy” managers did rate environmental concerns as more important than the “no policy” managers. However, th
