Accounting Forum 34 (2010) 4653

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accounting Forum
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/accfor

Managing social and environmental action and accountability in the

hospitality industry: A Singapore perspective
Lai Hong Chung a , Lee D. Parker b,
a
b

Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, S3-B1A-15, Singapore 639798, Singapore
School of Commerce, The University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia

a r t i c l e
Keywords:
Hospitality
Hotel
Singapore
Social
Environmental

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
This exploratory study examines the phenomenon of corporate social and environmental
accountability and management in two particular contexts that have received very limited
attention from accounting researchers to date. Addressed in this paper are corporate social
and environmental reporting and management with specic reference to the hospitality
industry in Singapore, a highly developed tourism hub in the South East Asian region. A
decade of recent research into Singapore corporate social and environmental disclosures
is examined as the setting for a review of hospitality industry strategies and disclosures in
this eld internationally. These developments are then considered from a Singaporean as
well as global perspective, proposing the triple bottom line framework as a strategic vehicle
for pursuing the social and environmental agenda in the Singapore and international hotel
industry.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contemporary economic development in Singapore has been accompanied by government regulation designed to protect
the environment. However, increasingly, organisations in Singapore are assuming greater responsibility for the impact that
their operations have on the environment. Over the years, there has also been growing Singaporean public awareness and
interest in social and environmental issues, thereby placing demands on organisations to be responsible for and report on
these areas.
Internationally, research into corporate environmental control and reporting has predominantly focused on industries
most scrutinized by media and governments for their environmental pollution and degradation impacts (e.g. heavy manufacturing and chemical industries). More recently however, community environmental concerns have begun to extend to
organisations in the service sector. Among these stands the international hotel industry which has begun to exhibit varying
degrees of activity in hotel environmental strategy and reporting.
This paper aims to explore, identify and integrate emerging trends in corporate social and environmental accountability
generally and in hotel industry social and environmental management within both global and Singaporean contexts. In doing
so, it offers a succinct appraisal of social and environmental reporting trends in Singapore, a major nancial and tourism
hub in South East Asia, reecting upon these trends for the hospitality industry, both internationally and in Singapore.
Additionally the paper draws on studies from the accounting and hospitality research literatures, the latter being largely
unfamiliar to the social and environmental accounting research community.
The paper commences with a brief discussion of the theoretical and practice dimensions that form a backdrop to this
examination of the Singapore hospitality industry in the social and environmental strategy and accountability context. It then

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: alhchung@ntu.edu.sg (L.H. Chung), lee.parker@unisa.edu.au (L.D. Parker).
0155-9982/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.accfor.2009.10.003

L.H. Chung, L.D. Parker / Accounting Forum 34 (2010) 4653

47

moves on to review trends in corporate social and environmental reporting by Singapore companies, consequently drawing
out the potential relevance for the hospitality industry in the region. The wider developing social and environmental missions
and strategies being developed in the hotel industry internationally are subsequently considered. Strategic opportunities in
this industry are introduced and the triple bottom line as a practical framework for developing practice in this industry is
then revisited.
1. A theory and practice context
The social and environmental accounting research literature has burgeoned in recent times but remains in debate concerning both appropriate theoretical perspectives and effective strategies for improving corporate social and environmental
responsibility, behaviour and reporting. One of the most recent available summaries of the theoretical smorgasboard has
been provided by Parker (2005) who classies them into two groups: augmentation theories that provide for the incorporation of social responsibility management and accountability into a general corporate strategic planning framework,
and heartland theories that privilege the accounting role in constructing a social and environmental information ow and
organisation-society dialogue with a clear societal changing agenda. Under the augmentation theory banner fall such theoretical approaches and rationales as stakeholder theory, decision-usefulness, agency, legitimacy and accountability theories.
The heartland category embraces political economy accounting theory, the deep green ecology perspectives, eco-feminism,
and theories of justice. No one of these can or necessarily should offer the holy grail of the all-inclusive explanatory lens in
this rapidly changing and diverse eld of social and environmental responsibility and accountability. Each theoretical lens
offers unique perspectives and incrementally cumulative insights, be they macro-societal critiques or managerialist practice
constructions. All arguably have a place, just as has been discovered by the accounting history research community with its
many and varied theoretical perspectives and schools of thought (Carnegie & Napier, 1996; Fleischman, Kalbers, & Parker,
1996; Merino, 1998; Merino & Mayper, 1993).
The theoretical perspectives that inform this particular paper clearly sit within the augmentation theory grouping. In part
they hearken back to the corporate planning framework incorporation of social responsibility advanced by earlier advocates
such as Ansoff (1965) and also to some degree are informed by Gray, Dey, Owen, Evans, and Zadek (1997) accountability
notions as well as reecting a New Institutional Theory (NIT) view of organisational strategy and change. From the latter perspective, organisations may institutionalise their structures and processes, formalising them with a view to better
managing an ambiguous and unpredictable environment while seeking consistency with the social and economic agendas
reected in their surrounding communities and stakeholders (Carruthers, 1995; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Euske & Euske,
1991; Fogarty, 1996; Kostova & Roth, 2002; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Scapens, 1994).
Linked also to the NIT perspective is the associated notion of Legitimacy Theory which in essence argues that managers
will pursue strategies and resources that contribute to their organisations survival, therefore being predisposed to align
their organisations value system (or at least its public projection) with the general expectations extant in the society and
community at large. Thus management is predisposed to ensure that their organisations existence and activities are perceived as legitimate by the community, so as to preserve its formal and informal permission to continue operating (Dowling
et al., 1975; Lindblom, 1994). As Deegan (2002) points out, there are overlaps between Gray et al.s (1997) notions of accountability, NIT and Legitimacy Theory. All can be regarded as addressing various dimensions of the managerialist adaptation
to the general societal moves towards demanding greater action and accountability from governments, organisations and
individuals for corporate social and environmental actions, impacts and disclosure.
Of course this managerial-societal engagement approach to corporate social and environmental strategising and disclosure is not without its critics. Owens (2008) seminal review and critique of the recent history and contemporary standing
of social and environmental accounting research resiles from the managerialist approach to setting an agenda for corporate
social and environmental responsibility and disclosure. He argues that most corporate engagement and eld research studies
have revealed a dominant underlying corporate agenda of image creation rather than substantive action and suspects that
for most organisations, beneath any protestations of social and environmental values, lies a business as usual philosophy.
Also reecting such critiques and concerns is the disquiet expressed by such as Bebbington (1997), Tinker and Gray (2003),
and ODwyer (2003) who fear the capture of the social and environmental agenda by dominant pragmatic business interests
who may then restructure the its concepts and boundaries to serve their own interests, thereby robbing the agenda of its
potential impact and efcacy. Nonetheless, engagement through the participation of corporate management and accountants in social and environmental innovation, strategies and reporting must arguably be an ultimate agenda for the social and
environmental movement, be that through regulation, community pressure, voluntary philanthropy or business oriented
corporate citizenship strategies, or some combination of these. Even where organisations embark on such strategies and
disclosures with a predominantly reputation management agenda, such involvement can begin to familiarise them with the
relevant issues, the impacts of their operations, the attitudes and likely future responses and requirements of key stakeholders and introduces social and environmental concepts, language and thinking into the corporate lexicon. Bebbington
(1997) has qualied her critique by contending that environmental reporting, for example, can change organisational and
community power distributions and relationships and set up foundations for new arenas of dialogue and potential changes
in practice. Indeed Everett and Neu (2000) have called for greater discourse between social and environmental researchers
and practitioners to reconsider the realism and potential for win/win solutions, as well as from whence relevant standards
and regulations should appropriately be generated. Just as Parker (2005) has argued, so this paper also contends that the

48

L.H. Chung, L.D. Parker / Accounting Forum 34 (2010) 4653

nature and identity of captors and captives is often assumed as a corporate fait accompli, yet without some forms of corporate engagement in one form or another, social and environmental strategy implementation and reporting faces severe
limitations and a limited future.
2. Singapore corporate social and environmental reporting
Singapore represents an important economic and strategic hub in the South East Asian region. It merits attention as
a highly developed economy in the Asia zone which occupies a high prole and pivotal position, both economically and
politically. Spanning both service and manufacturing sectors, its signicant industries include nancial services, electronics,
petroleum rening, pharmaceutical manufacturing, processed food and beverages, and ship repair. More recently it has
expanded in the biotechnology, chemical and petrochemical industries. The Singapore government has strongly promoted
development in the areas of education, nancial and transport services with an emphasis on building a knowledge economy
(DFAT, 2009). The tourism industry now forms one of Singapores largest service industries, generating over S$12 billion in
annual revenue and contributing 3% of Singapores GDP (MTI, 2009). Thus Singapore represents an important barometer of
corporate activity, in particular hospitality and tourism industry development and strategy in the Asian region.
An indicator of the recent history of Singapore companies overall social and environmental responsibility activities can be
accessed from their reporting activities, awards and certications. For example, Tsang (1998) examined 330 annual reports
of 33 companies incorporated in Singapore for a 10-year period from 1986 to 1995. The companies were across 3 industries,
namely, banking, food and beverage, and hotel. He found that 16 of the 33 companies did not have any social responsibility
disclosures throughout the whole period. In the hotel industry, only 3 of the 16 companies disclosed any social information.
For those companies that did disclose social information, these largely related to energy, products and fair business practices
and were rather minimal.
Perry and Sheng (1999) also studied the trend of environmental reporting in Singapore by examining the annual reports of
all 264 Singapore registered public companies listed on the stock exchange in June 1996. They examined the annual reports
for two consecutive nancial years 1995/1996 and 1996/1997. They found that less than 10% of reports in either nancial
year included environmental information and that the extent of disclosure was minimal. Disclosure was signicantly greater
among the larger companies, but surprisingly was not greater for those companies with higher pollution intensity (i.e. with
higher environmental risks).
More recently, various initiatives have been taken to promote better corporate environmental and social reporting in Singapore. In July 2003, the Singapore Environmental Reporting Award (subsequently renamed as the Singapore Environmental
and Social Reporting Awards) was launched by the Association of Chartered Certied Accountants (ACCA) in partnership
with the National Environmental Agency (NEA). The awards are given annually and aim to give recognition to those organisations which report and disclose environmental and social information, thereby encouraging the uptake of environmental
and social reporting. In addition to providing the award, ACCA also released a set of reporting guidelines for Singapore companies. These guidelines serve to facilitate companies who wish to properly inform stakeholders of their corporate efforts
in environmental and social fronts to do so.
In 2005, ACCA commissioned a survey on the state of environmental and social reporting in Singapore. A web-based survey
was sent to 327 companies. Only 44 (15%) responses were received. It revealed that one third of respondents produced
an environmental or social report, with the key drivers for reporting being reputation/brand enhancement, stakeholder
engagement and shareholder value. The most popular type of report is environmental reporting, with 71% disclosing both
social and environmental information and 29% only disclosing environmental information. 93% of companies had ISO 14001
certication.
A desk based review of 90 Singapore companies was also carried out by ACCA following the web-based survey. Half
of the Singapore companies reviewed provide some form of CSR information in their reporting, with 31% providing the
information as part of their annual reports, 25% providing the information on their websites, and 4% providing stand-alone
reports. This represents a signicant increase to reporting since 2002 when only 16% of companies reviewed provided some
informal reporting. However, ACCA researchers conclude that the quality of reporting remains poor. Despite these reporting
statistics, there is a trend towards ISO 14001 certication by Singapore companies. As at March 2008, according to NEA, 747
companies are ISO 14001 certied, which is more than double the number in 2002 (369).
So the picture of general corporate social and environmental certication and reporting in Singapore is a mixed one.
Corporate involvement and attention is growing, but arguably remains in its infancy.
3. The hospitality industry
For over 20 years, the travel and tourism industry has constituted the largest industry in the world (Woodward, 1998).
The international hotel and hospitality industry has been a leading player within this industry. This is also certainly the
case for Singapore. From latest published statistics (Singapore Tourism Board, 2008), in 2007 the total number of visitors to
Singapore was 10.3 million, 73% incoming from the Asian region. The top 10 markets were Indonesia, PR China, Australia,
India, Malaysia, Japan, UK, South Korea, Philippines and USA. Of these visitors, 40% were holiday visitors and 29% were
business visitors. Total visitor days in Singapore during 2007 were 37.3 million days, generating total tourism receipts of
$14.1 billion (Sing.). In that year, Singapore had 98 gazetted hotels providing a supply of 30,087 rooms. The average room

L.H. Chung, L.D. Parker / Accounting Forum 34 (2010) 4653

49

occupancy rate was 87% with room revenues for 2007 totalling $1,857.6 million (Sing.) and total revenue generated at
$2,810.7 million (Sing.).
While the hospitality industrys economic benets to nation states and local communities have often been the subject of
public discussion, its social and environmental impacts have not received the same levels of attention. When compared with
mining, chemical and manufacturing industries, these impacts of the hospitality industry have been subject to less media
and regulator interest. Indeed at times it has been referred to as the silent partner in this respect.
This scenario is however, changing. Increasingly communities and customers are demonstrating concerns with the hospitality industrys social and environmental impacts. Many hotels are located in major cities, historic townships, mountain,
lakeside or beach settings, attracting greater and greater numbers of travellers and thereby imposing an increasing ecological
footprint (Kirk, 1995). For Singapore, as a major international transport, travel and tourism hub, the hotel and hospitality
industrys social and environmental prole and ecological footprint is a matter of importance. Ranging from small to large
operations, hotels and resorts employ signicant numbers of local people, consume energy, water, food, paper, chemicals
and other resources, produce pollution in terms of smoke, smell, noise and chemicals, and impact on local communities
through their occupation of space, use of infrastructure, and relationships with local business and government. For example
the potential range of even a small hotels environmental impacts is far greater than might rst be presumed. Necessary
environmental consumption includes energy, food, linen, laundry, consumables, stationery and cleaning materials. However, leakages and inefciencies can also include loss or theft of materials and equipment; breakages, emissions and wastes;
heating and air-conditioning emissions; hot water, grey water, food packaging, food and other waste (Gray & Bebbington,
2001).
4. The broadening mission
For many years now, leading companies have found that the integrating of social and environmental objectives into
their broader operational and nancial missions can only assist regulatory compliance, but in addition can become a basis
for developing unique competitive advantages. This allows them to effectively and proactively respond to the increasing
social and environmental responsibility demands of customers, insurance companies, green investors, ethical trusts and
innovative competitors (Azzone & Bertele, 1994; Dechant & Altman, 1994). Some have consciously opted to become leaders
in developing missions and strategies that positively contribute to societal and environmental well being and role model
such approaches for the industry. These include such organisations as Shangrila Hotels, and Banyan Tree Hotels & Resorts
based in Singapore.
While most social and environmental accounting researcher attention has been focussed upon industries such as manufacturing, mining and chemicals, for more than 20 years increasing numbers of hotel organisations internationally have been
incorporating social and environmental objectives into their missions. Internationally these have included hotel industry
corporations such as Hilton, Accor, Inter-Continental, Mandarin, Marriott, Melia, Pan-Pacic, Regent, Sheraton, and Ramada
(Edwards, 1998; Michaud, 1995; Patterson, 1995). Such developments have not been conned to the large hotel chains. They
have also included individual hotels such as the Creta Paradise Beach Resort Hotel, in Greece (The Tourist Guide of Greece,
1997), and the Ghazala Hotel, South Sinai, Egypt (Ghazala Hotel, 1998).
Such missions are sometimes stand-alone pronouncements, but increasingly have been backed up with transparent
strategies that can include specic programs and taskforces for implementing social and environmental initiatives. These
have been trialled in such organisations as the India-based Welcomgroup and the Canada-based Canadian Pacic Hotels
groups. As far back as 1992, the Welcomgroup launched its environment-friendly hotels program at its Maurya Sheraton
Hotel and Towers in New Delhi (Welcomgroup, 1998). The CP Hotels group announced its Green Partnership policy as early
as 1991 (Environment Canada, 1998). Also in the 1990s, the Mandarin Oriental (Bangkok) used an e-mail network called
GREEN (for Group Realtime Environment Exchange Network) to share employee-generated issues and concerns (Edwards,
1998). The Saunders group in Boston used its SHINE (Saunders Hotels Initiative to Nurture the Environment) campaign to
solicit employee input (Wagner, 1996). Banyan Tree Hotels & Resorts publishes a sustainability report annually which is also
available on their website. The report details their efforts and outcomes in various programmes such as the Green Imperative
Fund and Tsunami Recovery.
In Singapore itself a number of hotels have been recognised for their energy efciency efcient building programs by
the Singapore Government. This is called the Energy Smart Building Labelling Programme, and has been developed by the
Energy Sustainability Unit (ESU) of the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Singapore governments National
Environment Agency (NEA), being inaugurated in 2007. This program recognises that hotels are among the largest energy
consumers in the building sector. An energy smart label is given to organisations that are among the top 25% most efcient in
their class and maintain a healthy and productive indoor environment. Winners of this award in recent years have included
Holiday Inn Park View, Intercontinental Singapore, Changi Village Hotel, Shangri-La Hotel Singapore. In addition Singapore
hotels have gured in the recently developed ASEAN Green Hotel Awards initiated by the ASEAN member country ministers
of tourism. These awards are based upon eleven criteria for assessing environmental and energy conservation strategies,
including environmental policy and actions for hotel operations, solid waste management, energy efciency, water efciency,
and air quality management. Winners in Singapore have recently included Grand Hyatt, Allson Hotel, Shangri-La Hotel,
The Regent, Sheraton Towers Singapore, Royal Plaza on Scotts, Furama City Centre, Intercontinental Singapore, Conrad
Centennial, and Rasa Sentosa Resort.

50

L.H. Chung, L.D. Parker / Accounting Forum 34 (2010) 4653

As an example of a Singapore hotel that has pursued multiple environmental management strategies. The Regent Singapore has been awarded the Green Mark Award by the Singapore Building and Construction Authority, the ASEAN Green
Hotel Award, the Energy Smart Hotel Award by the National Environment Agency, and the Certied Water Efcient Building
Award by the Singapore Public Utilities Board.
5. Strategic opportunities
In terms of practical strategies for social and environmental action, a considerable array of opportunities exist and are
already showing signs of uptake in the hotel industry. These include for example quantication of environmental costs and
savings, environmental training programmes, green purchasing policies, energy and water-saving actions and recycling (Gil,
Jimenez, & Lorente, 2001). Environmental audits of hotels have revealed major potential areas for both environmental impact
improvement and cost savings. These have included efciency in water use, energy use, reduction in use of chemicals, solid
waste generation and recycling, and utilities monitoring (Meade & del Monaco, 1999).
In relation to energy saving for example, typically 65% of annual hotel utility costs are accounted for by electricity,
with heating, ventilation and air conditioning consuming between 25 and 45% of a hotels total energy costs (Hope, 1996).
This has led many hotel organisations to pursue energy saving and resource reduction strategies including heat recovery
processes, energy management systems, thermopane windows, automated lighting controls, air-conditioning sensors, high
efciency air-conditioning equipment, and water efcient shower heads and toilets. These have led to reductions in energy
consumption and costs as high as 40% (Glanzrock, 1995; Hope, 1996; Kirk, 1995). This can also produce benets to local
communities in terms of reduced energy emissions from local power generating plants (Datz, 1996).
Recycling and re-use strategies have also featured as environmental initiatives in the hotel industry. These have included
recycling programs for paper, cardboard, cans, bottles, shipping pallets, glass, plastic, printer cartridges, landscape waste,
and the use of recycled paper for selected items. Waste reduction initiatives have also included bulk purchases to reduce
packaging, eliminating individually packaged toiletries in guestrooms, using rechargeable batteries instead of disposable
ones, double-sided photocopying and guest options for daily or less frequent towel replacement. Recycling strategies also
involve such activities as recycling of grey water and discarded organics for gardening, for animal food, farm composting,
and donating leftover prepared meals to charitable organisations (Chung & Parker, 2008; OBrien & Parker, 1999).
Strategic opportunities in terms of hotel resource acquisition, usage, management and control are now growing almost
exponentially. This is especially evident when key infrastructure and processes inherent in hotel operations are reviewed: air
conditioning, heating, lighting, laundry, cooking, refrigeration, cleaning and fuel consumption. Functional options for more
efcient management of water and energy include air lters, light ttings, window and door seals, hot water temperature
levels, full loads in laundry machines, light switches and sensors, pipe insulation, window treatments and shading, solar
heating, rainwater collection, water storage, grey watering landscape, toilet cistern volumes and dual ush mechanisms and
more. Scope for pollution control ranges across management of emissions in the form of treated and untreated sewage, hazardous chemicals discharge, vehicle emissions, CFC discharges from equipment, odours and spills of food, liquids, chemicals,
etc. (SPTO, 2004).
Further hotel environmental strategies have included a green room strategy to appeal to travellers prepared to pay
a premium for an environmentally sound room or one free from chemical sensitivities and allergy inducing properties.
Examples have included the Waterfront Hilton Beach Resort in California and The Natural Place, at Deereld Beach, Florida.
Green Suites International company has implemented greening based on purication of air and water plus hypoallergenic
and biodegradable amenities. Some hoteliers estimate that such environmental rooms have an above average occupancy rate
of 17%. The green room strategy has also extended to entire hotels that have redesigned themselves as eco-tourism hotels,
based on a commitment to sustainable development, environmental protection and responsible use of local resources (Ayala,
1996). Eco-tourists can be less price conscious than the traditional tourist (Withiam, 1995). In addition, such strategies may
counter low season loss of business. For example the Hotel Ilio (on the Italian island of Elba) adopted an eco-tourism strategy
in 1995, including energy and waste reduction and ecotourist guest activities, thereby improving low-season occupancy rates
(Withiam, 1995).
Examples of recent environmental management strategies in Singapore hotels include Pan Pacic Hotel Singapore introducing guest towel re-use, sensor activated taps, energy saving light bulbs and room key cards for energy saving. Fullerton
Hotel has reduced power and cooling usage and associated costs by 30%. The Regent Singapore has replaced its diesel boiler
with a heat recovery system, installed LED lighting and motion detector lighting in public areas, undertaken organic waste
recycling and is moving to plastic bottle crushing and recycling and energy saving light bulbs. The Novotel Singapore Clarke
Quay has implemented programs including recycling, emissions reduction and resource usage reduction.
6. Towards a triple bottom line
The hotel industrys traditional nancial focus is capable of being challenged to expand to a triple bottom line focus
that includes nancial, social and environmental outcomes and impacts of its operations. This trend can be sourced in
two major causes. First, the growth of national and international tourism and the hospitality sector are gaining a much
greater public prole, especially as economic drivers: both in Singapore and internationally. Accordingly they are beginning
to attract the attention of community groups, environmentalists and regulators. Second, an increasing proportion of hotel

L.H. Chung, L.D. Parker / Accounting Forum 34 (2010) 4653

51

guests are seeking socially responsible, green accommodation and related services (OBrien & Parker, 1999). The associated
challenge for hoteliers is to develop related missions and objectives and to effectively implement supporting strategies. A
key to effective implementation lies in linking social and environmental strategies to corporate accounting and management
control functions. Ultimately this will involve the development of information systems that identify and track social and
environment related costs and benets within the conventional management and nancial accounting processes (Parker,
2000a, 2000b).
The triple bottom line notion is not new. However it is only in its infancy in terms of consideration and implementation within the hotel industry. The potential importance and opportunities associated with its development are alluded
to by a number of recent studies in the social and environmental accounting eld. Guthrie, Cuganesan, and Ward (2008)
study of web disclosures in the Australian food and beverage industry highlights the unique issues, activities and context
of that industry and the need for the development of industry specic measures and performance indicators. Indeed they
propose a specic reporting framework for that industry. Adams and Frost (2008) conducted case studies of a number of
British and Australian companies, highlighting the need to integrate environmental and social indicators with strategic plans,
organisational performance measures, decision-making and risk management. They discovered a corporate diversity in the
incorporation of social and environmental indicators into management control and decision-making systems, particularly
noting the tendency to build social and environmental performance measures into existing corporate accounting and management systems and processes. In similar vein, Durden (2008) examined a case study with a view to observing the degree
of integration of social responsibility factors into the management control system. He found and subsequently argued that
to be effective, social responsibility indicators need to be integrated alongside nancial indicators and associated controls,
with social goals specied in similar detail to nancial goals, and social targets being measured and reinforced by formal
control systems. The integration of nancial and social goals, targets, KPIs and formal control systems was held by Durden,
to be crucial for the effective implementation of social (and environmental) strategy and accountability.
The opportunity exists for the hotel industry to adopt a strategic approach to social and environmental management, and
an associated triple bottom line approach to accounting and performance evaluation. Drawing upon the existing knowledge
available from the accounting and management control professions, this is capable of being designed to meet the specic
needs of the hospitality industry (Bartolomeo et al., 2000; Harris & Brown, 1998). What is required under this approach is a
simultaneous focus on costs and revenues, operations, and the environment. Financial, social and environmental costs and
benets require consistent monitoring and evaluation over a medium to long time horizon, particularly with respect to those
elements most relevant to the organisation and its likely environmental impacts. A tourism hub such as Singapore offers a
unique opportunity to pioneer such an integrated approach to the development of social and environmental strategy and
accounting in that it requires contextual and situational design for both the local Singaporean economic, social and political
setting while operating in a global economy and tourist marketplace.
7. Conclusion
This paper has presented an exploration and reection upon a signicant gap in the social and environmental accounting
research agenda and literature. The international hospitality industry stands as an industry of major economic signicance, social and environmental impact. Other than the carbon footprint effects of international air travel that can be traced
to tourism activities, the hotel industry and its potential for social program innovation and local environmental impact
reduction remains a silent space. In the meantime, while sporadic and differentiated in effort and focus, social and environmental strategies and innovations are being pursued in the industry. However little is known about their motivations and
experiences, management processes and controls, performance measurement and accountability systems.
In traversing missions, strategies and accounting dimensions in the international and Singaporean hotel management
world, the paper offers an engagement between the traditions of research, policy and practice. All too often such rapprochement is avoided by researchers in aiming to win publication in the tradition of the refereed accounting research journal.
Yet the broaching and enmeshing of the survey ndings, the eld research observations, the practice experiences and the
normative policy implications are arguably an inevitable and necessary precursor to innovation and practical action.
What this paper uniquely offers to the accounting literature is an introduction to several dimensions of this silent space.
First it has drawn upon some studies and evidence from the literature in the hospitality management research tradition, little
known to the accounting research community. Second, it reveals the relevance of social and environmental management
and accountability issues and opportunities in the hotel industry, and the array of prospects for related innovation and
development in that industry. Third, it offers a focus upon innovations and potential in Singapore, a major global and regional
tourist hub amidst the burgeoning Asian populations and economies. Such crucial regional and global intersection points have
been all too rarely considered by researchers to date. Finally the paper enjoins an integration of research concerns spanning
the social and environmental accounting and management, the management control, and the hospitality management elds.
For effective research, policy and practice development in this domain, all three traditions, with their particular focuses, are
required.
Thus a triple bottom line approach presents itself as an option both in terms of the research traditions to be applied to
this silent space and in terms of the accounting and management approaches to be applied to the practice of integrating
social, environmental and nancial objectives, strategies and reporting. In rising to this challenge, the global hotel industry,
as a major social, economic and environmental force, beckons our attention.

52

L.H. Chung, L.D. Parker / Accounting Forum 34 (2010) 4653

Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the research grant from the Cornell-Nanyang Institute of Hospitality Management
that has supported the project from which this paper is drawn.

References
Adams, C. A., & Frost, G. R. (2008). Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices. Accounting Forum, 32, 288302.
Ansoff, I. (1965). Corporate strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ayala, H. (1996). Resort ecotourism: A paradigm for the 21st century. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 4653.
Azzone, G., & Bertele, U. (1994). Exploiting green strategies for competitive advantage. Long Range Planning, 17(7), 6981.
Bartolomeo, M., Bennett, M., Bouma, J., Heydkamp, P., James, P., & Wolters, T. (2000). Environmental management accounting in Europe: Current practice
and future potential. The European Accounting Review, 9(1), 3152.
Bebbington, J. (1997). Engagement, education and sustainability: A review essay on environmental accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
10(3), 365381.
Carnegie, G. D., & Napier, C. J. (1996). Critical and interpretive histories: Insights into accountings present and future through its past. Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, 9, 739.
Carruthers, B. G. (1995). Accounting, ambiguity, and the new institutionalism. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(4), 313328.
Chung, L. H, & Parker, L. D. (2008). Integrating hotel environmental strategies with management control: A structuration approach. Business Strategy & the
Environment, 17, 272286.
Datz, J. (1996). Hilton Hotels continues its Green Trend in the hospitality industry. Hospitality Net: News, Trends and Facts. http://www.hospitalitynet.
nl/news/article/1001572.htm.
Dechant, K., & Altman, B. (1994). Environmental leadership: From compliance to competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 8(3), 726.
Deegan, C. (2002). The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosuresA theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
15(3), 282311.
Department of Foreign Affairs Trade (DFAT). (2009). Singapore Country BriefJune 2009. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government.
http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/singapore/singapore country brief.html
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron-cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational elds. American
Sociological Review, 48(2), 147160.
Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organisational legitimacy: Social values and organisational behaviour. Pacic Sociological Review, 18(1), 122136.
Durden, C. (2008). Towards a socially responsible management control system. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(5), 671694.
Edwards, A. (1998). Green with Envy. Frequent Traveller, April/May, 2427.
Environment Canada Atlantic Region/Environement Canada Region de lAtlantique. (1998). Action 21: Environmental success stories.
Wysiwyg://64/http://ns/des.ca/action21/story16.htm.
Euske, N. A., & Euske, K. J. (1991). Institutional theory: Employing the other side of rationality in non-prot organizations. British Journal of Management,
2(1), 8188.
Everett, J., & Neu, D. (2000). Ecological modernization And the limits of environmental accounting? Accounting Forum, 24(1), 529.
Fleischman, R. K., Kalbers, L. P., & Parker, L. D. (1996). Expanding the dialogue: Industrial revolution costing historiography. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
7(3), 315337.
Fogarty, T. J. (1996). The imagery and reality of peer review in the US: Insights from institutional theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21(2/3),
243267.
Ghazala Hotel (1998). Keep it green and clean. http://www.ghazala.com.
Gil, M., Jimenez, J., & Lorente, J. (2001). An analysis of environmental management, organization al context and performance of Spanish hotels. Omega, 29,
457471.
Glanzrock, P. (1995). Green hotels cut waste and woo guests. Facilities Design and Management, 14(1), 33.
Gray, R, & Bebbington, J. (2001). Accounting for the environment (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Gray, R., Dey, C., Owen, D., Evans, R., & Zadek, S. (1997). Struggling with the praxis of social accounting: Stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10(3), 325364.
Guthrie, J., Cuganesan, S., & Ward, L. (2008). Industry specic social and environmental reporting: The Australian food and beverage industry. Accounting
Forum, 32, 115.
Harris, P., & Brown, J. (1998). Research and development in hospitality accounting and nancial management. Hospitality Management, 17, 161181.
Hope, A. (1996). Converting energy into savings. Hospitality Net: News, Trends and Facts. http://www.hospitalitynet.nl/news/article/13411053.ht.
Kirk, D. (1995). Environmental management in hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7(6), 38.
Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects.
Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 215233.
Lindblom, C. K. (1994). The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. In Critical perspectives on accounting
conference New York, NY,
Meade, B., & del Monaco, A. (1999). Environmental management: The key to successful operation. In First Pan-American Conference, Latin
American Tourism in Next Millenium: Education, investment and sustainability Panama City, Panama,. http://www.hotel-online.com/Trends/
PanAmerProceedingsMay99/EnviroManagmt.html
Merino, B. D. (1998). Critical theory and accounting history: Challenges and opportunities. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 9, 603616.
Merino, B. D., & Mayper, A. G. (1993). Accounting history and empirical research. The Accounting Historians Journal, 20, 237267.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340363.
Michaud, P. R. (1995). Accor takes stand on environment. Hotel and Motel Management, 21(14), 6, 91.
Ministry of Trade Industry (MTI). (2009). About us: Singapore Tourism Board. Singapore: Singapore Government. http://app.mti.gov.sg/default.asp?id=375
OBrien, P., & Parker, L. D. (1999). Environmental strategies and the international hotel industry. JANZAM Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy
of Management, 5(1), 1225.
ODwyer, B. (2003). Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: The nature of managerial capture, Accounting. Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(4),
523557.
Owen, D. (2008). Chronicles of wasted time? A personal reection on the current state of, and future prospects for social and environmental accounting
research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(2), 240267.
Parker, L. D. (2000a). Green strategy costing: Early days. Australian Accounting Review, 10(1), 4655.
Parker, L. D. (2000b). Environmental costing: A path to implementation. Australian Accounting Review, 10(3), 4351.
Parker, L. D. (2005). Social and environmental accountability research: A view from the commentary box, Accounting. Auditing & Accountability Journal,
18(6), 842860.
Patterson, M. (1995). Environmental action pays dividends. Buildings, 89(5), 5254.

L.H. Chung, L.D. Parker / Accounting Forum 34 (2010) 4653

53

Perry, M., & Sheng, T. T. (1999). An overview of trends related to environmental reporting in Singapore. Environmental Management and Health, 10(5),
310320.
Scapens, R. W. (1994). Never mind the gap: Towards an institutional perspective on management accounting practice. Management Accounting Research,
5(3/4), 301321.
Singapore Tourism Board. (2008). Annual Report on Tourism Statistics 2007.
South Pacic Tourism Organisation (SPTO). (2004). Environmental management Guide For Small Hotels and Resorts. http://www.spto.org/spto/
export/sites/spto/tourism resources/spto public/2004 07 environ guide.pdf.
The Tourist Guide of Greece. (1997). Creta Paradise Beach Resort Hotel Department of Environmental Conservation and Culture. http://www.odysseas.
com/cretenv.htm.
Tinker, T., & Gray, R. (2003). Beyond a critique of pure reason: From policy to politics to praxis in environmental and social research, Accounting. Auditing
& Accountability Journal, 16(5), 727761.
Tsang, E. W. K. (1998). The case of the banking, food and beverages and hotel industries. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 11(5), 624635.
Wagner, G. (1996). A work in progress. Lodging Hospitality, 52(4), 5960.
Welcomgroup. (1998). Welcomenviron WorldCreating Public Awareness. http://www.cyberclub.com/welcomgroup/Environ.htm.
Withiam, G. (1995). ElbatuttanaturaItalys all-nature hotel. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 12.
Woodward, D. (1998). Hotels and the environment, World Association of Travel Agents. http://www.kenpubs.co.uk/watanetwork/BuyersGuide/Hotels/Intercontinental.htm.