LABOUR JUSTICE &

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
Mega Tourism Projects and Labour Supply
Chains - A Formula for ‘Sustainable
Exploitation’?

Presenter: Stephanie Chok

June 2009
Asia Research Centre
This research is funded by Murdoch University, WA
and the Sustainable Tourism CRC, Australia
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT or
SUSTAINABILITY

BEWARE!
A VALUE-LADEN Concept
In SD debate, tug-of-war over what is to be
‘sustained’ (biodiversity or economic
growth?) and how (preventive measures or
user-pays?) essentially contestation of
diverse and/or competing values
(Dresner 2002, p.64)
 Different Sustainability
Positions
Very weak (a traditionally
resource exploitative
perspective)
to the very strong (an
extreme preservationist
perspective)
Hunter (1997:853)
 V Weak to V Strong Sustainability Positions
(Hunter 1997)
VERY WEAK WEAK STRONG VERY STRONG
*Anthropocentric & utilitarian *Anthropocentric & utilitarian *(Eco)systems perspective *Bioethical and eco-centric

*Resource *Resource *Resource

Exploitative conservationist preservationist *Extreme resource
preservationist – utilization
of natural resources
minimized

*No limits to growth: *Growth managed and *Zero economic and

Continued well-being modified. Concern for
assured through economic distribution of development
growth and technical costs and benefits through
innovation intra-and intergenerational
equity
population growth *Anti-economic growth and
Belief in a steady-state reduced human population
economy
*Adherence to intra- and
inter-generational equity

*Decoupling negative *Recognizes primary value

environmental impacts from of maintaining functional
economic growth integrity of ecosystems over
and above secondary value
through human resource
utilization
 The Crisis:
Widespread acceptance at general
framework level but fierce political
contest over its actual
implementation (Macbeth 2005; Jacobs 1999)
 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM -
A Clash of Contested Concepts

Assumption: ST is ‘the same’ as SD – just

apply to tourism;
Critical Distinction: Difference between
sustaining development that contributes to
(human and non-human) welfare and
sustaining tourism development per se.
For e.g. meeting the needs of present tourists is not an SD
objective;
Majority of the world’s population does not participate in
tourism - poses significant challenges to sustainable
development’s equity principles.
 EQUITY: Fulcrum of
Sustainability
INTER- and Ecological Protection
INTRA-GENERATIONAL & Enhancement
EQUITY (Dale 2001;
Robinson & Tinker 1996) Recognition of Complex,
Adaptive Systems
(Farrell & Twinning-Ward 2005)

Precautionary SUSTAINABILITY
Policy Approach
(Fennell & Ebert 2004)
PRINCIPLES
Protection & Enhancement
of
Social & Cultural Capital
Participatory Steady-State (Dale 2001)
Democracy Economics
(Mog 2004; Dale 2001; (Daly 2002; Dale 2001)
Macbeth 1997;Holcombe 1995;)
 EQUITY: Fulcrum of
Sustainability
Necessitates Recognition of
EQUITY: Implies need for FAIRNESS Gross Inequalities:
in distribution of gains & losses, Resources & Power
and entitlement of everyone to
an acceptable quality
and standard of living
REDISTRIBUTION/
(Beder 1996:145)
REDISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

INTER- and
INTRA-GENERATIONAL
EQUITY
SUSTAINABILITY
PRINCIPLE
 When Equity is Central,
New Questions Emerge:
 Should an ‘eco-mall’ be
celebrated if it’s
Click to edit Master text styles constructed by an army of
econd level underpaid workers?
● Third level
● Fourth level  What if an ‘environmentally-
● Fifth level
friendly’ resort is built on
land acquired by displacing
local villagers?
 Are toxin-free ‘green’
products becoming
exclusive ‘eco-labels’ only
the wealthy can afford?
Mega Tourism Projects &
Labour Supply Chains

A Formula for ‘Sustainable Exploitation’?

 WORKING CONDITIONS
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level  Long hours - 80-
● Third level
90 hours a week;
● Fourth level

● Fifth level
more then 350
hours a month;
 24 hours shifts;
 7 days a week;
Click to edit Master text styles  No overtime pay;
Second level
● Third level  Arbitrary
● Fourth level
deductions;
● Fifth level
 Poor safety
standards;
 LIVING CONDITIONS
Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master text styles
Second level Second level
● Third level ● Third level

● Fourth level ● Fourth level

● Fifth level ● Fifth level

Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master text styles
Second level Second level
● Third level
● Third level
● Fourth level
● Fourth level
● Fifth level
● Fifth level
OTHER PROBLEMS
Workplace Injuries – under-
reporting; compensation;
Withheld wages;
‘Breach of contract’ fees;
Oppressive Managerial
Control:
Withholding of key personal
documents (work permits &
passports);
Threats: blacklisting;
Repatriation (or threat of);
 CHALLENGES
 Transnational Labour Migration Regime;
 Foreign Enterprises; Recruitment Agents in Sending
& Receiving Countries; Transnational Corporate Law;
Different legislative frameworks;
 Complex Labour Supply Chains;
 Main contractors, many sub-contractors;
 Inadequate Legislative Protection;
 Stratified migration regime;
 Pro-business, global political economy;
 Highly Politicized Issue;
 Controversial locally;
 Situation of STRUCTURAL INJUSTICE
STRUCTURAL INJUSTICE: Socio-political
realities for low-wage (migrant) workers
Average (Bangladeshi
worker): Agency Fee is
Click to edit Master text styles
Click to edit Master text styles 2000% of salary;
Will work 20 months just

Second level Second level to pay off agency fee

● Third level ● Third level

Average (Chinese
worker): Agency Fee is
1000% of salary
● Fourth level ● Fourth level Will work 11 months
just to pay off agency

● Fifth level ● Fifth level

fee

Click to edit Master text st

Second level
● Third level

● Fourth level

● Fifth level
 IMPLICATIONS
 ‘TOURISM INDUSTRY’:
 ‘World’s largest industry’;
 ‘World’s largest employer’;
 Complex & fragmented supply chains;
 Wide-reaching impacts;
 Emphasis on ‘mega projects’ to stimulate
economic figures & provide jobs;
 ‘Pro-poor Tourism’ emphasis on Development:
At what cost and to whom? Development in
what manner?
 FINAL QUESTIONS:
● Is ‘sustainable tourism’ fuelling ‘sustainable
exploitation’? (‘Virtuous’ or ‘Vicious’ Cycle?)
Are we exacerbating inequalities? How?
If we are not part of the solution, are we contributing
to the problem?
Why is Equity NOT recognized as a fundamental
sustainability principle IN PRACTICE? (who stands
to gain the most from this ‘blind spot’?)
What are the consequences of ignoring the Equity
Principle in Sustainable Development and
‘Sustainable Tourism’?
VALUES in ST: What values? Whose values? Who
stands to gain? Who loses?
 THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING!
Acknowledgements:
•This research is funded by Murdoch

University and the Sustainable Tourism

CRC.
•This research project is supervised by

Associate Professor Jim Macbeth &

Associate Professor Carol Warren,
School of Social Sciences &
Humanities,
Murdoch University.
 REFERENCES
 Beder, S. 1996. The Nature of Sustainable Development, 2nd edn. Scribe Publications, Australia.

 Dale, A. 2001. At the Edge: Sustainable Development in the 21st century. UBC Press, Canada.

 Daly, H. 2002. Reconciling the economics of social equity and environmental sustainability. Population and
Environment, 24 (1):47-53.

 Dresner, S. 2002. The Principles of Sustainability. Earthscan Publications, London.

 Farrell, B. and Twinning-Ward, L. 2005. Seven steps towards sustainability: tourism in the context of new knowledge.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13 (2):109-122.

 Fennell, D. and Ebert, K. 2004. Tourism and the precautionary principle. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12 (6):461-
479.

 Holcome, S. 1995. Managing to Empower: The Grameen Bank’s Experience of Poverty Alleviation. Zed Books, London.

 Hunter, C.1997. Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (4), 850-867.

 Jacobs, M. 1999. Sustainable development as a contested concept. In A. Dodson (ed.) Fairness and Futurity, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp.21-45.

 Macbeth, J. 2005. Towards an ethics platform for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (4), 962-984.

 ____. 1997. Tourism and the District of Omeo: Final Report of the Omeo District Sustainable Community Project
(Abridged). Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia.

 Mog, J. 2004. Struggling with Sustainability –A Comparative Framework for Evaluating

 Sustainable Development Programs. World Development, 32 (12), 2139-2160.

 Robinson. J. and Tinker, J. 1996. Reconciling Ecological, Economic and Social Imperatives: Towards an Analytical
Framework. Sustainable Development Research Institute, University of British Columbia. Paper prepared for the
International Development Research Centre, April 1996. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sdri.ubc.ca/documents/Reconciling_Ecological.pdf [2004, August 29]