What Is the Value of an Environmental Certification Label in Tourism Industry? Is It Worth the Effort?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors
The theme of your research is quite appealing. However, I have two issues, that are my main concerns:
1) Firstly the Materials and Methods section should be more clear and more developed in my opinion;
2) Secondly, the theoretical contributions/implications should be more detailed unless there are no more contributions, and if that is the case, I advise you to theorise a little more to reach the theoretical contributions.
Best regards
Author Response
|
Comments 1: Firstly, the Materials and Methods section should be more clear and more developed in my opinion; |
|
Response 1: Agree. The section ‘materials and methods’ has been updated. We have added additional information to the manuscript explaining the data collection and analysis. Please check page 6, lines 240-248 (data collection) and page 7, lines 285-294 (data analysis). |
|
Comments 2: Secondly, the theoretical contributions/implications should be more detailed unless there are no more contributions, and if that is the case, I advise you to theorise a little more to reach the theoretical contributions. |
|
Response 2: Agree. We have revised the theoretical contributions and modified the manuscript. The changes can be found in page 16, lines 573-581, and 589-594. |
|
|
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWhile the article addresses an important topic within the tourism industry, there are several critical areas that require further clarification and improvement:
1. The abstract and introduction of the article do not clearly define the specific economic phenomenon under investigation. The authors seem to imply that environmental certification in tourism is an economic phenomenon, which is not accurate. Certification is merely a tool that can contribute to the sustainability of the tourism industry, but it does not constitute an economic phenomenon in itself. It is essential that the authors refine their focus and clarify what economic aspects they are examining in relation to sustainability in tourism.
2. The article presents the results obtained from a survey, yet it lacks a brief description of the companies that participated. To provide context and enhance the validity of the findings, it is recommended that the authors include a characterization of the surveyed companies. Information such as the age of the companies, their business forms, whether they are large or small enterprises, and the specific types of tourism services they offer would be valuable. This will allow readers to better understand the background and relevance of the survey results.
3. Following up on my first point, it remains unclear how this article contributes to economic research on sustainability in the tourism industry. The authors need to specify the contribution their study makes in this regard. It is crucial to articulate how the findings of this research advance our understanding of the economic implications of sustainability practices in tourism, beyond the application of certification labels.
I hope that these clarifications will strengthen the article and its contribution to the field of tourism economics.
Author Response
|
Comments 1: The abstract and introduction of the article do not clearly define the specific economic phenomenon under investigation. The authors seem to imply that environmental certification in tourism is an economic phenomenon, which is not accurate. Certification is merely a tool that can contribute to the sustainability of the tourism industry, but it does not constitute an economic phenomenon in itself. It is essential that the authors refine their focus and clarify what economic aspects they are examining in relation to sustainability in tourism.
|
|
Response 1: The abstract and introduction does not define the specific economic phenomenon under investigation because we are not studying an economic phenomenon per se. As mentioned in page1, lines 9-10 the aim of this study is ‘…to understand the main drivers and constraints for companies to join certification schemes and compare possible changes between the years 2021 and 2024 among tourism companies…’. It is not mentioned in the text that we are researching economic drivers, constraints or changes. The drivers, constraints and changes may be of any nature and that is what this research will point out. In the conclusions, in page 16, line 557 and 558, we state that sustainability certification favors environmental, social and economic performance.
|
|
Comments 2: The article presents the results obtained from a survey, yet it lacks a brief description of the companies that participated. To provide context and enhance the validity of the findings, it is recommended that the authors include a characterization of the surveyed companies. Information such as the age of the companies, their business forms, whether they are large or small enterprises, and the specific types of tourism services they offer would be valuable. This will allow readers to better understand the background and relevance of the survey results. |
|
Response 2: The description of the surveyed companies has been made, when characterizing the sample. Information such has the sector of activity, company size, region where the company is located, and regarding the respondent, the job title, education, gender and age have been asked (please check table 1, page 7). Information such has the age of the companies and their business form was not considered relevant for the study.
Comments 3: Following up on my first point, it remains unclear how this article contributes to economic research on sustainability in the tourism industry. The authors need to specify the contribution their study makes in this regard. It is crucial to articulate how the findings of this research advance our understanding of the economic implications of sustainability practices in tourism, beyond the application of certification labels.
Response 2: This is an interesting point. Despite the aim of this study is not to contribute directly to economic research on sustainability, the economic issue is one of the main pillars of sustainability and the object of the study are companies, which have as a target to create wealth. Therefore, we have added one more sentence, in page 16, lines 589-592 to emphasize this point. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is interesting, however I have some comments and suggestions:
1. At the beginning, there is a citation, “Han, 2021,” which is not in the citation format of the journal.
2. With regard to the materials and methods section, there could be a more detailed explanation of the analysis process and methods.
3. Materials and methods section could be divided into variables description and analysis methods applied
Author Response
|
Comments 1: At the beginning, there is a citation, “Han, 2021,” which is not in the citation format of the journal. |
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The manuscript has been updated to include the reference (page 1, lines 27 and page 17, line 637). |
|
Comments 2: With regard to the materials and methods section, there could be a more detailed explanation of the analysis process and methods. |
|
Response 2: Agree. We have added additional information to the manuscript explaining the data collection and analysis. Please check page 6, lines 240-248 (data collection) and page 7, lines 285-294 (data analysis). Comments 3: Materials and methods section could be divided into variables description and analysis methods applied. Response 2: The section ‘materials and methods’ has been updated. Please check response to comment 2. |
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am compelled to reiterate my disappointment with the authors' lack of effort in addressing the concerns raised in the previous review.
One of the primary concerns I had was the lack of a clear definition of the research object. Unfortunately, this issue remains unaddressed, and I must reiterate my disagreement with the notion that certification in tourism can be a standalone goal. Certification is merely a means to achieve sustainable development, not an end in itself. As an economist, I approach sustainable development from an economic perspective, and I believe it is essential to clarify the research object within the chosen field of study. The authors may not share this view, but in any case, I consider it necessary to clearly describe the research object and its contribution to the field.
I urge the authors to take a more rigorous approach to their research and provide a more comprehensive and well-defined study that meaningfully contributes to the existing body of knowledge in their chosen field.
Author Response
Regarding the review of the article entitled ‘What is the value of an environmental certification label in the tourism industry? Is it worth the effort?’ and given the comments, in rounds one and two, the authors would like to point out the following:
First, and concerning the comment: ‘…I am compelled to reiterate my disappointment with the authors' lack of effort in addressing the concerns raised in the previous review…’
Authors: We have acknowledged the concerns raised and we have addressed them in the best possible way. Nevertheless, we couldn’t make all the required changes because it would go against our understanding of the object in the study.
We cannot approach sustainable development from a single perspective.
Reviewer comment: ‘…As an economist, I approach sustainable development from an economic perspective, and I believe it is essential to clarify the research object within the chosen field of study….’
According to the “triple bottom line” model (Elkington, 1997) - which is practically consensual in the scientific literature - sustainable development should be approached from a triple perspective (social, environmental, and economic), and not just from an economic perspective.
In addition, the ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) model - originally presented in the report “Who Cares Wins - Connecting Financial Markets to a Changing World” (UN, 2004), serves as a sustainability guide for the financial market - also presents the concept of sustainability from a much broader perspective than the economic one.
Our article presents sustainability certification from a broad and holistic perspective.
The article suggests the author's position concerning a robust model of sustainability that simultaneously integrates its three dimensions (pages 2-3, lines 81-99). The role of certification as an instrument to support sustainable development is also mentioned (page 3, lines 101-115). Of particular note are lines 108-115 “…Good practice models, or sustainable tourism certifications, are voluntary instruments that make it possible to improve the environmental, social and economic performance of a company, destination or service. Honey & Rome [14] define certification processes as a voluntary procedure(s) that assess, audit, and give written assurance to a facility, product, process, or service (that) meets specific standards. It awards a marketable logo to those that meet or exceed baseline standards. In this sense, certification consists of implementing production processes based on sustainable criteria, developed and verified by an external agent [15]”.
Secondly, according to the reviewer's comment … ‘One of the primary concerns I had was the lack of a clear definition of the research object… I urge the authors to take a more rigorous approach to their research and provide a more comprehensive and well-defined study that meaningfully contributes to the existing body of knowledge in their chosen field’.
We’ve addressed this concern in our response to the reviewer in round one (as mentioned on page1, lines 9-10 the aim of this study is ‘…to understand the main drivers and constraints for companies to join certification schemes and compare possible changes between the years 2021 and 2024 among tourism companies…’)
Thirdly, and given the reviewer's comment… ‘I must reiterate my disagreement with the notion that certification in tourism can be a standalone goal. Certification is merely a means to achieve sustainable development, not an end in itself….’
In response to the reviewer, it was not mentioned at any point, nor was it even implicitly suggested, that “certification in tourism can be a standalone goal (reviewer comment)”. On the opposite, we argue that by ‘…adopting good practices (or certifications schemes), companies minimize the impact of their environmental footprint and contribute to the preservation of local culture and economic development (page 16, lines 555-556) [… and …] Certifications, as previously mentioned, are a way of ensuring that companies implement environmentally sustainable practices that are also socially fair. (Page 16, lines 583-584) […] With these schemes, companies will have a significant role in preserving the natural environment (pages 16 and 17, lines 589-590).
We would like to add and reinforce that the efforts to create sustainable societies, organizations, and practices (such as certification schemes) rely on a set of dimensions or pillars related to the economy, society, and environment.
Efficiency and productivity are central from an economic point of view, but pursuing them exclusively tends to undermine social and environmental principles. Therefore, when analyzing sustainability issues, it is essential to holistically consider the different dimensions of economic systems, institutions, and decisions. In other words, it is imperative to assume that economic and social objectives are interlinked. Decisions about economic processes and institutions inevitably favor something, someone, or some social group or class, and that can, ultimately, favor one social group (or class) over another. Sustainability, however, involves social and economic values that are not a priority in today's consumer society. Therefore, in many concrete situations, the different concerns and objectives related to the three pillars of sustainability cannot be harmoniously reconciled, and choices and priorities have to be made, especially when contradictory objectives of social justice, economic efficiency, and environmental integrity are present.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. New Society Publishers.
UN (2004). Who Cares Wins — Connecting Financial Markets to a Changing World (https://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/events/2004/stocks/who_cares_wins_global_compact_2004.pdf).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDespite the fundamental differences in approach to the key issues raised in the article, I, as a reviewer, and the authors have engaged in a thorough discussion. However, I believe it is not productive to continue the "reviewer-author" dialogue. The article is worthy of publication in the journal.
