1. Catrina Papaleo and Sue Beeton
Exploring Clarkson’s Typical Corporate and Stakeholder Issues Model as an Approach to Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility in Tourism
The Case of Lonely Planet
In today’s world of growing concern over the social and environmental effect of tourism, the responsibility for the future of our society is moving from simply relying on our political leaders and interest groups towards the concept that corporations also need to be socially responsible for their actions.
With the global reach of tourism comes a responsibility to those places and people that constitute our ‘product’ – the stakeholders.
This paper explores the notion of stakeholder theory within the realm of Corporate Social Responsibility by studying the case of travel publisher Lonely Planet, looking at its internal and external stakeholders and their concepts of the social responsibility of the organisation.
Catrina Papaleo and Sue Beeton

2. Theories associated with CSR
Profit maximisation theory
Ethical theory
Political theory
Stakeholder theory
There is a range of theories associated with the term CSR, which include profit maximisation theory (Aupperle, Carroll and Hatfield, 1985), ethical theory (Saiia, Carroll & Buchholtz, 2003), political theory (Riggins, 1988), and stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984; Clarkson, 1988, 1995).
Of these four theories, stakeholder theory has particular resonance in tourism. This theory holds that organisations have a responsibility that extends beyond their shareholders, as they must also be accountable to any group in society who has an interest in the organisation (Quazi, 2003).

3. Clarkson’s Typical Corporate and Stakeholder Issues Model
1 Company
3 Shareholders
1.1 Company history
1.2 Industry background
1.3 Organisation structure
1.4 Economic performance
1.5 Competitive environment
1.6 Mission or purpose
1.7 Corporate codes
1.8 Stakeholder & social issues management systems
3.1 General policy
3.2 Shareholder communications & complaints
3.3 Shareholder advocacy
3.4 Shareholder rights
3.5 Other shareholder issues
4 Customers
4.1 General policy
4.2 Customer communications
4.3 Product safety
4.4 Customer complaints
4.5 Special customer services
4.6 Other customer issues
2 Employees
2.1 General policy
2.2 Benefits
2.3 Compensation & rewards
2.4 Training & development
2.5 Career planning
2.6 Employee assistance program
2.7 Health promotion
2.8 Absenteeism & turnover
2.9 Leaves of absence
2.10 Relationships with unions
2.11 Dismissal & appeal
2.12 Termination, layoff, & redundancy
2.13 Retirement & termination counselling
2.14 Employment equity & discrimination
2.15 Women in management & on the board
2.16 Day care & family accommodation
2.17 Employee communication
2.18 Occupational health & safety
2.19 Part-time, temporary, or contract employees
2.20 Other employee or human resource issues
5 Suppliers
5.1 General policy
5.2 Relative power
5.3 Other supplier issues
As Clarkson (1988; 1995) notes, identifying the types of behaviour that could serve as indicators was a major issue that had to be dealt with. Based on a ten year study, Clarkson (1995) developed a stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating CSR which has been applied in this paper, and is outlined in Figure 1.
The framework identifies six stakeholder groups: the company, employees, shareholders, customer, suppliers and public stakeholders such as the government and other interest groups.
Clarkson (1995) proposed that the performance of corporations in terms of the social activities can be measured more effectively by applying “… a framework based on the management of a corporation’s relationships with its stakeholders than by using models and methodologies [simply] based on concepts concerning corporate social responsibilities and responsiveness” (Clarkson, 1995: 92).
He stresses that ‘stakeholder’ is not another term for ‘shareholder’, and that the social purpose of an organisation to distribute value to all primary stakeholders sits hand-in-glove with economic imperatives.
6 Public Stakeholders
6.1 Public health, safety, & protection
6.2 Conservation of energy & materials
6.3 Environmental assessment of capital projects
6.4 Other environmental issues
6.5 Public policy involvement
6.6 Community relations
6.7 Social investment & donations

4. Lonely Planet
While there have been many calls for tourism to consider its stakeholders, the main focus has been on NGOs such as destination marketing organisations, government organisations and public-private partnerships, primarily in relation to planning (see Bramwell and Lane, 1993; McKercher, 1993; Jamal and Getz, 1995; Bramwell and Sharman, 1999).
The Case of Lonely Planet
Lonely Planet is one of the world’s most recognised travel brands across both print and digital media, and is promoted by the company as the information source for millions of independent travellers on their journeys world over (Lonely Planet Publications, 2004). The company was selected as the case for this paper due to its stated principles to behave in an ethical and socially responsible manner. These principles are that “[t]ravel can be a powerful force for tolerance and understanding. As part of a worldwide community of travellers, we want to enable everyone to travel with awareness, respect and care” (Lonely Planet Online, 2006).
In addition, Lonely Planet “… embraces the thousands of people whose lives are affected by tourism, the businesses we do and don't recommend, and the environments travellers explore, armed with information we provide on ethical and responsible behaviour” (Lonely Planet Online, 2006).
Lonely Planet “… embraces the thousands of people whose lives are affected by tourism, the businesses we do and don't recommend, and the environments travellers explore, armed with information we provide on ethical and responsible behaviour” (Lonely Planet Online, 2006)

5. Lonely Planet Foundation
Criteria
Grass-roots, non-domestic projects
Emphasis on education and health
Clear outcomes through local initiative and support
Empowering the local community.
Further evidence of Lonely Planet’s commitment to the ethical and discretionary elements of CSR is illustrated by the existence of the Lonely Planet Foundation. ‘Giving back’ has always been part of the picture at Lonely Planet, with its charitable policy beginning in 1987.
It donated AU$500,000 to aid Tsunami relief. The Lonely Planet Foundation sources help from an outside not-for-profit partner, Charity Aid Foundation (CAF), and prefer to donate to charities that meet one or more of the following criteria:
Grass-roots, non-domestic projects
Emphasis on education and health
Clear outcomes through local initiative and support
Empowering the local community.
However, without adequate education and support of their internal stakeholders such as their staff, it will not be possible for Lonely Planet to maintain a true commitment to CSR.
This raises the question as to how does the company relate such principles to their internal environment?
Consequently, this study investigates whether stakeholder theory in terms of CSR is a viable notion to deploy in an organisation offering a tourism-related product reliant on multiple stakeholders such as Lonely Planet.

6. Overview of CSR Activities at Lonely Planet
The Lonely Planet Foundation
Ancient forest friendly printing arrangement
The use of environmentally friendly and/or soy based ink
Strong responsible travel aspect to all guidebooks
Ensuring labour contracts comply with laws in Australia & overseas
Support local community events
Recycling paper
Turning the lights off at the end of the day
Lonely Planet undertakes numerous CSR initiatives including the Lonely Planet Foundation and the use of environmentally friendly paper and printing resources (see Table 2).
It was clear that the relationship between management and employees is strong, with the ethos of the company being represented well by employees in their responses. Employees had a positive view on Lonely Planet’s CSR, with all concurring that it is strong within the organisation. However, one employee did state that ‘what we do at the moment is great but it is very grass roots, we need to put more structure around it which is what we’re trying to do’.
This leads on to the issue of improving CSR at Lonely Planet, with every employee offering suggestions of how Lonely Planet can enhance what they already do in terms of CSR. As one employee stated, ‘there’s more we can do in our supply chain, we can do more in our Foundation, there’s more and more we can do in everything we do, it’s about slowly but surely improving everything you do’.
“there’s more we can do” [LP employee]

7. LP Stakeholder Perceptions of CSR
What is CSR?
‘doing the right thing’
Using corporation’s resources to benefit the world
“there’s nothing false about them” [LP supplier]
The findings provide an insight to Lonely Planet and their CSR activities, and also CSR in a general tourism context.
When discussing what CSR meant, the definition provided by the majority of respondents was consistent amongst all stakeholder categories. It did not mean different things to different stakeholders, with the most common response being ‘doing the right thing’.
When asked Lonely Planet’s motive for their CSR activities, the supplier stated ‘there’s nothing false about them (Lonely Planet)’, which again demonstrates the positive organisational culture that exists at Lonely Planet regarding their CSR.
In terms of what the data suggests about Lonely Planet’s motive for engaging in CSR, it is clear that their involvement originates from the co-founders. The giving nature of the company is instilled into its culture and responses received from all stakeholders indicated that their activities are genuine and not perceived as a marketing ploy.

8. LP Stakeholder Perceptions of CSR
How do we measure it?
In terms of ‘sustainability’…
What is sustainability?
“series of goods been created by our activity of benefit to the world” [LP employee]
The measurement of CSR is an issue to arise from the findings, with respondents not knowing how to measure CSR, with employees questioning ‘how do you measure it’?
A consensus view was that making an organisation’s activity sustainable is appropriate, with sustainable by one employee being defined as a ‘series of goods been created by our activity of benefit to the world’. This was also the case for Lonely Planet as employees did not see a difference between any company and themselves.

9. We propose that the ‘environment’ is also a stakeholder
CSR
1. Awareness
2. Definition
3. Appropriate level
4. Motive
5. Channelling CSR
Company
Employees
Shareholders
Customers
Suppliers
Background
1. Lonely Planet
2. Travel guides
3. Reason for success
Human Resources
1. Organisational structure
2. Terms of employment
3. Economic performance
4. Business competitors
5. Corporate policies/
statements
CSR at Lonely Planet
1. Initiatives
2. Staff
3. Promotion
4. Enhancing CSR
1. Benefits
2. Employee relations
3. Training
4. Legislative requirements
5. Issues
2. Promotion
3. Employee contribution
4. Employee view on CSR at Lonely Planet
5.Improvements
Lonely Planet Shareholders
1. Structure
2. Agreements
Shareholder Relations
1.Communication between shareholders
2. Shareholder support
3. Communication with Chief Executive Officer
Issues
1. Corporate re-structuring
Views as a shareholder as opposed to co-founder
Awareness of Lonely Planet
2. CSR
3. Products
4. Communic-ation and promotion
Recomme-ndations
1. Lonely Planet and CSR
2.Communication and promotion
3. Customer contribution
The Environment
Tourism and the Environment
1. Obligation of any Company
2. Obligation of a tourism company
The Role of the Environment
Can the environment be considered a stakeholder?
Lonely Planet Policies
The Lonely Planet Foundation
Supplier Relationship with Lonely Planet
1. Provision of services
2. Policies
2. Personal contribution
Taking Clarkson’s model and adapting it to Lonely Planet according to stakeholder views….
It becomes clear that Clarkson’s focus on HR issues needs to be widened in the tourism context.
We propose that the ‘environment’ is also a stakeholder
- If not the environment, then environmental groups

10. Conclusion
The use of a stakeholder theory to ascertain the perceptions of Lonely Planet’s stakeholders was a successful approach to take. It is these perceptions that informed the choices for the CSR framework developed for Lonely Planet.
While the research was primarily exploratory, the interviews provided a rich source of information, showing that Lonely Planet was ideal case organisation for analysis, as the company offer tourism-related products and give back financial and physical resources to the communities to which they send their travellers. Stakeholder theory, the conceptual framework of this study, has demonstrated that it can be used to examine CSR as it provides a way of adapting new approaches to the theory. In this instance, stakeholder theory in the form of Clarkson’s model has been used to interpret the nature of the relationship between CSR in tourism.
Although this research project has recognised the significance of the relationship between stakeholder theory, CSR and tourism, the research opportunities relating to CSR and tourism are numerous. This area is still an underdeveloped research topic, and there is much potential for CSR and tourism to become a prominent subject in CSR and stakeholder theory literature. Applying other CSR theories such as profit maximisation theory and ethical theory in and through tourism creates many possibilities for future studies.
Further work has been undertaken on applying CSR to tourism by considering why and for what purposes CSR is useful for Lonely Planet, as well as the stakeholders’ perceptions of CSR at Lonely Planet. However, it is the application of the theoretical model that has been the focus of this paper.