The post-apartheid government has shown some interest in incorporating tourism development BSR policies in its economic development programmes. However, at first, the Industrial Strategy Project (ISP) initiated by the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) focused mainly on the manufacturing sector. Moreover, the African National Congress (ANC) alliance’s Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) made little mention of the role tourism BSR could play in developing the economy. It was only in 1995 that South Africa took sustainable tourism development seriously (NalediI, 2001). The Green Tourism Paper, introduced in 1995, aimed to deliver RDP objectives, as indicated in Table 4.3. In addition, the 1996 White Paper for Tourism outlines the importance of responsible tourism. However, in the absence of strong tourism BSR policies and with a lack of support from labour unions, such as Cosatu, tourism businesses were unconcerned about BSR issues (Naledi, 2001).
According to Visser (2005), the development of corporatism and big unions, such as Cosatu, marked the transition to South African democracy. The tri-partite alliance of the ANC, Cosatu and the South Africa Communist Party (SACP) became the central custodian of the new government (Desai, 2003). Prior to the 1994 democratic elections, the ANC agreed to adopt Cosatu’s RDP. The programme addressed elements of social security, focusing on the provision of jobs, land, housing, water, electricity, telecommunications, transport, a clean and healthy environment, nutrition, health care and social welfare to previously disadvantaged South Africans. The RDP
105
did not include issues around tourism BSR. Although the neoliberal approach has become popular in other parts of the world, South Africa continues with the social development approach. The country achieved its social security target through the RDP.
However, skills shortages in RDP staff led to difficulties in the implementation of the programme, and access to basic services became a significant problem. The RDP lacked specific targets and focused on satisfying capitalist interests (Visser, 2005). In addition, RDP funding became a major problem for the government. Funding was depleted because international donors supplied most of these funds. Although the government implemented numerous strategies to fund the RDP, the redirection of the budget towards social services failed due to resource scarcity and competition between government departments (Visser, 2005). Hence, the researcher questions the contribution of South African businesses, particularly in the tourism industry, in assisting government to address the social challenges the country faces.
According to Fig (2005), businesses began seducing the former liberation fighters “into a culture of golf days, cigar bars, conspicuous consumption and recognition in the social pages”. The ruling party's shift from socialism to capitalism became problematic, especially between the ANC and Cosatu, because the gap between the rich and poor was widening as a result of MNCs and TNCs’ abilities to influence government policies to suit their interests while having short-term plans for sustainable tourism development. In addition, the private sector felt that the pace of privatisation was too slow, although BEE was proceeding rapidly. The private sectors, including tourism, further felt that legislation governing working conditions, such as guaranteeing minimum wages for farm and domestics workers, and the implementation of affirmative action laws negatively affected businesses (Visser, 2005). This indicates the reluctance of South African businesses generally and tourism business particularly to contribute to BSR by empowering the poor.
In 1996, the country faced its first major currency crisis. During this time, economic considerations began dominating South African government policies, and the focus shifted from RDP to economic growth. The government was forced to embrace a conservative macro-economic strategy, known as the GEAR strategy, to manage
106
domestic capital and international foreign markets. The GEAR strategy reaffirmed that South Africa’s economic development should be led by the private sector while the state plays a reduced role in the economy. It also indicated that state-owned assets should be privatised.
Peck and Tickell (2002) argue that neoliberalism became the model used to regulate the extensive spheres of socio-economic activities. However, Desai (2003) contends that the GEAR programme attempted to move away from the apartheid service model in which the government subsidised and delivered municipal services. Scott (2011) and Asamoah (2013) describe neoliberalism as a policy in which communities or stakeholders play a major part in the policy formulation process and development of issues. Nevertheless, the GEAR programme favoured the private sector and tourism policies were created to accommodate the private sector. Hence, in South Africa and many developing countries, tourism businesses are reluctant to engage in BSR activities. Nyakunu and Rogerson (2014) contend that the governments of other developing countries, such as the Namibian government, also adopted neoliberal development policies by encouraging foreign investment. In 2010, the South African government was forced to introduce the NGP with the intention of increasing job creation while reducing unemployment (Department of the Presidency, 2013). It will not be easy to achieve the goals of the NGP if there is a lack of communication with the tourism private sector.
With regard to tourism policy, the Tourism Green Paper was introduced in 1995, followed by the White Paper on Tourism Development and Promotion in 1996. This allowed tourism businesses greater power in support of GEAR objectives (Visser, 2005). The White Paper was the responsibility of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), and the policy supported the GEAR strategy of stimulating economic growth among the poor, especially in less developed areas. In addition, the White Paper rectified some significant limitations that emerged from the 1992 White Paper on Tourism. The 1992 White Paper focused more on the environment and less on the social and economic aspects of tourism development (Steyn & Spencer, 2011). Other areas that were excluded from the White Paper were the involvement of local communities and the empowerment of previously disadvantaged people. Monshausen and Fuchs (2010) argue that there needs to be
107
a strong focus on environmental issues in conjunction with an emphasis on social aspects of tourism development.
Steyn and Spencer (2011) mention that the restructuring of tourism in South Africa was achieved through three major phases, with policies formulated in 1992, 1996 and 2005. Following the emergence of the democratic government in 1994, several micro-tourism policies for the country were introduced (see Table 4.3). Micro-tourism policies are the rules and policies that govern the activities of tourism businesses to ensure a competitive edge for the country. These policies led to the establishment of frameworks, guidelines and initiatives that promote sustainable tourism development in South Africa. Furthermore, the policies were formulated to manage the negative effects associated with tourism development.
Table 4.3: Summary of government tourism policy development shifts, 1994 to
date (Naledi, 2001:31;Tibane & Vermeulen, 2013:34)
Seven tourism-linked spatial development initiatives (SDIs) were launched in 2005 to stimulate investment and development in selected areas. The preparations made for hosting the 2010 World Cup tournament and its requirements forced the inclusion of SDIs for ASGI-SA as an immediate priority (Steyn & Spencer, 2011). The government of South Africa further published numerous policy documents, mostly regarding the environment. Twenty-eight international and national conventions, protocols and agreements and 33 related bilateral agreements were formulated. However, despite numerous policy initiatives, community involvement and empowerment have been unsuccessful, a problem endemic to countries in sub- Saharan Africa (Steyn & Spencer, 2011). In Namibia, for example, tourism policy
Policy focus Time period Policies developed Simplistic character of policies
Process focus 1994 to 1996 Tourism Green Paper Capitalise on tourism for the implementation of
RDP; planning and institutions given priority.
Product focus 1996 to 1998 Tourism White Paper
Satour Act amended
Solving problems in the industryby creating a local
product.
Customer focus 1998 to 2001 Tourism in GEAR Tourism Action Plan: Capitalise on tourism to
implement GEAR, marketing SA as a world-class destination, focus on international tourism. Development
focus
2001 - current National Tourism Sector
Strategy The Tourism Act
Inspire and accelerate the responsible growth of the tourism industry from 2010 to 2020. Ensures the development and promotion of sustainable tourism from which the whole country, its citizens and visitors can benefit.
108
remains based on the interests of tourism businesses while neglecting the involvement of local communities (Steyn & Spencer 2011; Nyakunu & Rogerson, 2014). Although the South African government formulated various tourism policies, these policies support the GEAR strategy, which endows the tourism industry with power. Most importantly, none of the established policies emphasises BSR commitment. Currently, few tourism businesses are engaged in BSR initiatives.
4.10 Chapter Summary
This chapter covered the political ideology of tourism development and included discussions about policy formulation and implementation, and accountability. The difference between policy and metaphoric issues were outlined, and the concept of globalisation and its relationship with tourism and sustainability were explored. A discussion of the development of tourism and its role in shaping the socio-economic policies and issues in South Africa followed. Chapter Five, an enhancement of this chapter, addresses business social responsibility.
109
Chapter Five
Literature Review: Business Social Responsibility
5.1 Introduction
Globally, tourism and tourism for development are largely driven by economic- market interests. This is aligned to the processes of globalisation which are fundamentally driven by economic-market priorities protected by political ideologies. This is even more evident in the context of developing countries which have to develop and align tourism policies that guarantee economic-market interests. The framework background provided in Chapter Four of this thesis highlighted the development of tourism in South Africa with emphasis on the role of the private sector in tourism industry. In this chapter, the purpose is to deepen this discussion and search for more insights regarding the role of the tourism private sector and its relationship with BSR. The origins and development of BSR are discussed, followed by analyses of various models and theories of tourism business operations. The chapter concludes by providing some insights into the role of government in regulating tourism businesses in the African and South African contexts.