Dissertation on Event Management

Food waste policies and competitive advantage in Yorkshire event venues: an exploratory study

Presented as part of the requirement for the award of the

MSc in International Events Management Degree

Acknowledgements

First of all, thank you very much to my supervisor for guiding, supporting and challenging me throughout the process of this dissertation. A special thanks as well for your openness and constructive criticism, which helped me to continuously improve my work.

I would also like to say a big thank you to all my anonymous interviewees who spared their time for me in order to take part in this study. This research would not have been possible without your participation.

Thank you very much as well to Wendy, Nicky, Rob, Rhod and Ruth for all your assistance.

I also gratefully acknowledge the support of my aunt Renate and my cousin Daniela throughout my studies.

Last but not least I would like to thank my parents and my brother Sören for always being there for me and for your infinite support and love.

Abstract

This exploratory study is setting out to establish a relation between three areas of research in terms of events management. It deals with the previously under-researched area of food waste policies and the concept of competitive advantage in organisations. Both are applied to Yorkshire event venues. It can be argued that this research is a worthy undertaking due to the wide-ranging benefits of environmental improvements in businesses and the link to superior business performance (competitive advantage).

The research questions guiding this study are the following:

How and to what extent can environmental and food waste policies contribute to the creation of a competitive advantage for Yorkshire event venues?

How and to what extent do environmental and food waste policies contribute to the environmental performance of Yorkshire event venues?

12 semi-structured interviews were conducted with Yorkshire event venue managers and academics and experts for this cross-sectional and purely qualitative study. Comparing and contrasting the primary findings with the secondary findings of the literature review, a relation between the implementation of environmental and food waste policies and competitive advantage could be established. However, it needs to be stated that the sustainability of the advantage achieved by these policies is questionable. On the other hand, it was found that environmental and food waste policies contribute positively to the environmental and financial performance of Yorkshire event venues.

Finally, it needs to be noted that the findings of this research are subject to limitations and are not generalisable due to the exploratory nature of this research. Therefore, numerous opportunities for further research and recommendations can be derived from this study.

Table of contents

Acknowledgements

Abstract

Table of contents

List of appendices

List of figures

Introduction

Justification, context and scope of this research

Outline

Competitive advantage, event management and event venues

Introduction

Strategic management and competitive advantage

Establishing competitive advantage

Generic strategies

Resource-based strategies

Knowledge-based strategies

Sustaining competitive advantage

Events management and event venues

Characteristics of the UK events industry

Event venues

Competitive advantage in the UK events industry

Summary

Public, private, and food waste policy

Introduction

Public policy

The stages model of the policy process

Importance of stakeholder interaction

Private policy and strategic management

Policy and events

Public policy perspective

Private policy perspective

Sustainability, environmental and waste management policy

Sustainability and environmental management standards

Waste and food waste policy

Analysis and evaluation

Summary

Methodology

Research philosophy, question and purpose

Research approach

Research strategy and choice

Time-horizon and credibility of findings

Sampling, data collection and analysis

Research ethics and limitations

Summary

Findings and Discussion

Objective 1

Objective 2

Objective 3

Objective 4

Summary

Conclusion

Answer to the research questions

Recommendations

Practical recommendations

Theoretical recommendations

Methodological recommendations

Opportunities for further research

References

Appendices

List of appendices

Appendix A: Characteristics of participants

Appendix B:  Interview transcript

Appendix C:  Interview questions for practitioners

Appendix D:  Interview questions for experts and academics

Appendix E:  Categorisation and coding

Appendix F:   Declaration form

 

List of figures

Figure 2.1: Structure of chapter 2

Figure 2.2: Organizational behaviours creating CA

Figure 2.3: Generic strategies as sources of competitive advantage

Figure 2.4: Attributes of resources creating CA

Figure 2.5: Sources of competitive advantage

Figure 2.6: The seven elements of resource-based SCA

Figure 3.1: Structure of chapter 3

Figure 3.2: The stages model of the policy process

Figure 3.3: Reasons for government involvement in tourism and events

Figure 3.4: Recommendations for public policy making for events

Figure 3.5: Five policy measures for tourism and event development

Figure 3.6: Key elements of an environmental management system

Figure 3.7: Components of ISO 14001:2004

Figure 3.8: Components of BS 8901:2009

Figure 3.9: Components of a waste development framework

Figure 3.10: Components of Envirowise food waste policy guidelines

Figure 4.1: Structure of chapter 4

Figure 5.1: Establishing competitive advantage in the events industry

Figure 5.2: Sustaining a competitive advantage in the events industry

Figure 5.3: Utilisation of environmental and food waste policies

Figure 5.4: Characteristics of a good policy

Figure 5.5: Contribution of environmental policy to the environmental performance

Figure 5.6: Environmental policy as source of CA

Figure 5.7: Customer value of environmental policies

1.Introduction

1.1Justification, context and scope of this research

This study is setting out to establish a relation between three previously unconnected themes with regard to events management. In fact, this research deals with the so far under-researched area of food waste policy, the well-established concept of competitive advantage and applies these to event venues in the English region of Yorkshire and The Humber, henceforth referred to as Yorkshire. Therefore, the scope of this dissertation is geographically limited to the UK. This is also due to the fact that policy making processes vary according to the political environment of each country (Hall & Rusher, 2004; Hall & Page, 2002). In the process of establishing the final topic of this research, it was also considered to include food waste management and food waste options. However, due to the limited timeframe and lack of academic research in the area of food waste, this research needs to be constraint to food waste policies only. The area of food waste policies can be considered as part of general waste management policies in organisations. In broad terms, waste management is related to the concept of sustainability. To avoid a lengthy discussion of the very complex notion of sustainable development, only a brief definition will be provided here for the sake of completeness: “Sustainability means being able to continue indefinitely by minimising environmental and social impacts and ensuring financial stability.” (Businesslink, 2007e). This definition also highlights the triple-bottom line approach to sustainability. However, it needs to be noted that only the environmental ‘pillar’ of the concept is within the scope of this research.

The organisations which are of interest for the purpose of this study are event venues. As actors in the events industry, event venues create positive economic impacts including increased spending by delegates and increased government revenues, employment generation as well as stimulation of investment (Davidson & Rogers, 2006). With reference to environmental impacts, these authors also state that the conference industry has a complex

relation with the environment. Venues such as hotels and conference centres impact both positively and negatively on their natural and man-made surroundings. Positive impacts of event venues include maintaining the environment of host destinations and their contribution to the environmental improvement of the host region or city, whereas negative impacts incorporate infrastructure construction, use and wastage of resources, energy use and emissions caused by travel. Davidson & Rogers also maintain that “The quality of the environment, both natural and man-made, is important to the successful functioning of the conference and business events industry.” (2006, p. 23). Therefore, it can be argued that researching the area of waste management is a worthy undertaking. The above statement also establishes a link to sustainability and the conference industry. Recently, Rogers (2008) highlighted sustainable meetings as a trend and major concern in the conference industry. Furthermore, the issues of sustainability are high on the events industry agenda and play an important role in the delivery of events (Sanders, 2006). Mewis adds that “the meetings industry is looking to sharpen its environmental profile” (2009, p. 28). Other sources such as Businesslink (2007a, 2007c & 2007e) state the following benefits of environmental improvements:

• complying with legislation: more tight rules and legislation to be imposed on businesses (see also Maple, 2006)
• cutting costs due to reduced use of materials, energy and less disposal costs (see also Bowdin, Allen, O’Toole, Harris & McDonnell, 2006; Maple, 2006; Jones, 2010)
• business and marketing opportunities (see also Maple, 2006)
• attracting and retaining staff
• improving stakeholder relations (see also Bowdin et al, 2006; Maple, 2006; Jones, 2010)
• future proofing: “Anticipating future changes in the regulatory environment will help put you ahead of the game and can help you establish a competitive advantage.” (Businesslink, 2007e)

In addition to the above-mentioned benefits, Businesslink (2007d) highlights the following benefits of managing organic waste. Firstly, with regard to economic reasons it is argued that managing food waste reduces costs (see also Bowdin et al, 2006) as increasing waste disposal costs are likely to be imposed on businesses soon. Secondly, environmental concerns are high on the corporate and public agenda. Therefore, stakeholders expect businesses to commit to minimising and managing food waste (see also Bowdin et al, 2006). A survey conducted by the Sustainable Restaurant Association found that consumers value restaurants with a good environmental and social performance and would much more likely to eat there (Cawley & Walker, 2010). The authors conclude that taking sustainability issues into account will “attract new customers and build a loyal customer base.” (Cawley & Walker, 2010, p. 27). This observation shows that the concept of sustainability is directly linked to superior business performance (see also Maple, 2006; Jones, 2010) and therefore to the notion of competitive advantage. On the one hand, minimising food waste sent to landfill has the potential to increase business, leading to higher profits. On the other hand, costs are reduced by avoiding landfill tax. This is summarised by the following statement: “By reducing waste you not only cut the cost of waste disposal, you also cut production and energy costs, save time and make your business more competitive.” (Businesslink, 2007c). All these benefits can be regarded as a rationale for incorporating environmental sustainability issues in any business, including event venues.

To sum up all the benefits, it can be argued that (food) waste management as part of the concept of sustainability is essential due to positioning and competitive advantage (CA), public relations opportunities and financial savings (Jones, 2010). Here, a link to the theory of CA is evident. As the focal point of strategy (Miller, 1998; Campbell, Stonehouse & Houston, 2002), achieving and sustaining a CA is essential to any business, including event venues. For profit organisations, gaining new customers is a main factor which determines the degree of CA, and “It is now generally accepted that environmental performance and responsible behaviour in the community are important factors in winning and keeping new customers.” (Businesslink, 2007d). Hence, it can be suggested that there is a link between environmentally responsible corporate behaviour and CA.

As a result of the justification, context and scope of this research outlined above, this research is setting out to meet the following objectives:

1. To establish sources of competitive advantage in the events industry (secondary/primary data)
2. To critically analyse the utilisation of food waste policies in Yorkshire event venues (primary data)
3. To analyse the contribution of environmental and food waste policies to the environmental performance of event venues (primary data)
4. To establish a relation between the implementation of environmental and food waste policies and competitive advantage (secondary/primary data)

The purpose of this research is to investigate whether environmental and food waste policies contribute to the creation of a competitive advantage for Yorkshire event venues.

1.2 Outline

This introductory chapter is followed by the literature review (chapters 2 & 3), providing an analysis and discussion of all available secondary data relevant to this study. Next, the methodological process is provided and justified in chapter 4. Chapter 5 presents the findings and discussion of this research followed by the final chapter concluding this dissertation and giving recommendations as a result of its findings.

2.Competitive advantage, event management and event venues

2.Competitive advantage, event management and event venues

2.1Introduction

In order to achieve the objectives stated in chapter 1, this first part of the literature review introduces the reader to the concept of competitive advantage in relation to strategic management. Ways of establishing competitive advantage will be analysed and strategies to sustain competitive advantage will be discussed. Next, the scope and structure of the UK events industry will be discussed and a typology of event venues is provided. The chapter concludes with an application of the concept of competitive advantage to the UK events industry and event venues in particular.

Figure 2.1: Structure of chapter 2

2.1Strategic management and competitive advantage

2.1.1Establishing competitive advantage

Various definitions of the concept of competitive advantage (CA) with different foci exist in the strategic management literature, however a very brief definition is provided by David, who defines CA as “anything that a firm does especially well compared to rival firms” (2009, p. 39; see also Thompson & Martin, 2005). Campbell et al (2002) would agree with this definition, and add that a CA is not achieved by trying to emulate competitors. In addition, Grant (2008) argues that CA should not only be defined on the basis of gaining higher profits, it can also be described in terms of market share, technology, and customer loyalty.

Another view is presented by Grant, who argues that “competitive advantage emerges when change occurs” (2008, p. 205). He further states that change can be external or internal. External sources of change include changes in customer demand, changing prices and technological change, while internal change is characterised by innovation. The external change can have a different impact on businesses as every firm possesses different resources and some might be faster and more innovative in adapting to change. The impact of the change and the strategic differences of firms determine the extent of competitive (dis-) advantage as a result of the change. (Grant, 2008).

Campbell et al (2002) state that creating and sustaining CA is the focus of strategic management. Miller (1998) would agree with this statement. Campbell et al (2002) identify three schools of thought explaining the notion of competitive advantage:

• generic strategies
• resource-based strategy
• knowledge-based strategy

Other sources such as Miller (1998), Thompson & Martin (2005), Grant (2008), David (2009), and Lynch (2009) confirm this view. Campbell et al (2002) maintain that these explanations are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they are regarded as mutually enriching. For example, knowledge can be viewed as the basis for the exploitation of core competences, while generic strategie can be regarded as dependent upon   the core competences of a business. In addition, Campbell et al argue that there is“no universal prescription for building competitive advantage.” (2002, p. 156). Lynch (2009) agrees with this assertion by contending that there is no single route to it. Nevertheless, Campbell et al point out some organisational behaviours that make the achievement more likely. These are summarised in figure 2.2 below. It can be seen from this graphic that competitive advantage of a business seems to stem from a combination of external and internal factors. This is also reflected by Campbell et al’s (2002) explanations above. All these explanations will be discussed in the following sub-sections. It is essential to discuss these different schools of thought, as they provide insight into how a business can build attributes that deliver superior performance (Campbell et al, 2002).

Figure 2.2: Organizational behaviours creating CA

2.2.1.1 Generic strategies

The three generic strategies were coined by Porter (1985) and include the cost leadership strategy, the differentiation strategy and the focus strategy. Campbell et al (2002) and Grant (2008) refer to these strategies as types of CA, whereby the sources of CA are cost advantage or differentiation advantage. Miller (1998) adapted this framework by maintaining that CA is “based on excelling in providing one or more of three forms of customer value.” (Miller, 1998, p. 14) See figure 2.3. He argues that differentiation is about being better in creating unique and desirable attributes to products or services, while cos  leadership focuses on creating a standardised and cheap product. Finally, quick response is about offering products and services faster than the competitions because. This could be regarded as complementary to differentiation (Miller, 1998; Thompson & Martin, 2005).

Figure 2.3: Generic strategies as sources of competitive advantage

2.2.1.2. Resource-based strategies

“Strategy is concerned with matching a firm’s resources and capabilities to the opportunities that arise in the external environment.” (Grant, 2008, p. 125). However, due to the rapidly changing environment that businesses are facing, the emphasis of strategy has shifted towards an increasing importance of the internal resources and capabilities, as this is regarded as a secure foundation for a long-term strategy (Miller, 1998; Grant, 2008). According to the resource-based view of the firm, CA is linked to the internal competences of the firm and can only be established if the uniqueness of a business is exploited. (Oliver, 1997; Miller, 1998; Campbell et al, 2002; Lei & Slocum, 2005; Thompson & Martin, 2005; Grant, 2008; Newbert, 2008; Lynch, 2009). Within the concept of the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm, there is generally no agreement with regard to the definitions of several key terms (Grant, 2008; Lynch, 2009). These key terms are resources, competences and capabilities. Campbell et al state that the RBV “emphasizes that competitive edge stems from attributes of an organisation known as competences or capabilities, which distinguish it from its competitors, allowing it to outperform them” (2002, pp. 169-170). This statement implies that the terms competence and capabilities is used interchangeably (see also Grant, 2008). In contrast to this view, Miller maintains that capabilities are “the skills the firm needs to take full advantage of its assets.” (1998, p. 120), while a competency is the “ability to perform.” (1998, p. 120). Conversely, Grant contends that “resources are the productive assets owned by the firm; capabilities are what the firm can do.” (2008, p. 130) He continues by maintaining that only organisational capabilities have the potential to create CA by highlighting that a “capability is the essence of superior performance” (Grant, 2008, p. 131). Finally, Lynch (2009) asserts that there are three types of resources. These are tangible, intangible and organisational capabilities.

Despite the lack of consensus in the literature regarding definitions of the above-mentioned key terms, it is evident that there is more agreement on the attributes of the competences or capabilities that can establish CA. Grant

(2008) states that a resource or capability needs to be scarce and relevant to create a CA. Thompson & Martin (2005) add to this by emphasising that CA is developed by core competencies, which ideally should be hard to imitate, provide access to new markets or market segments and contribute considerably to the value creation for customers. Here, it also becomes evident that CA is based on creating customer value (Campbell et al, 2002; Thompson & Martin, 2005; Grant, 2008; Lynch, 2009) This argument is supported by Thompson & Martin (2005) who point out that CA can only be achieved if there is value added for customers.

Miller (1998) suggests the following tests for the competitive value of resources, which can be compared to those provided by Campbell et al (2002) and Grant (2008). See figure 2.4. The elements of the graphic can be defined as follows. Firstly, scarcity is about the availability of a resource. The more widely available it is, the more unlikely this resource is to create a competitive advantage. Secondly, imitability deals with the ability of competitors to copy the resource. If it is not hard to copy, the competitive advantage is unlikely to last for long. Thirdly, durability is about the rate of depreciation of the CA, while appropriability means that the profit that the resource creates needs to flow to the company that owns it. Next, substitutability relates to the alternatives to the resource, which not only includes substitute products and services. Finally, superiority is about the value of the resource. It needs to be more valuable than those held by rivals. Lynch (2009) on the other hand summarises the sources of CA as outlined in figure 2.5. Here, it is evident that he adopts an approach which combines external and internal factors of an organisation. Grant (2008) would add market responsiveness to these sources of CA, due to today’s rapidly changing external business environment.

Figure 2.4: Attributes of resources creating CA

Figure 2.5: Sources of competitive advantage

2.2.1.3 Knowledge-based strategies

For the sake of clarity of structure and completeness, the knowledge based view of the firm will be treated briefly here, as it closely relates to the RBV of the firm. The link between both views is shown by Campbell et al’s (2002) statement that knowledge and organisational learning are essential for the development of core competences and by the contention that “Knowledge acts as the foundation for competence building and leveraging.” (Campbell et al, 2002, p. 158.). Campbell et al further note that “Competitive advantage can only be developed and sustained through the creation of new business knowledge based upon continuous organizational learning.”(Campbell et al, 2002, pp. 154-155). Grant adds to this opinion by highlighting that “knowledge management offers valuable tools for creating, developing, maintaining, and replicating organizational capabilities.” (2008, p. 159) and by stating that knowledge is an important resource. In addition, capabilities are defined as the “manifestation of the knowledge of the organization.” (Grant, 2008, p. 159). Consequently, it can be argued that knowledge is an important factor to consider when establishing a competitive advantage.

2.2.2. Sustaining competitive advantage

David (2009) contends that establishing and sustaining CA is essential for the long-term success of the company. He further highlights that CA can only be sustained for as long as competitors start to imitate and undermine the established edge. In his opinion, there are two factors that enable the development of a sustainable CA. It can be sustained by “continually adapting to changes in external trends and events and internal capabilities, competencies, and resources; and by ... effectively formulating, implementing, and evaluating strategies that capitalize upon those factors.” (David, 2009, p. 41). Lynch points out that there is “no general agreement on what constitutes the best single approach to the development of SCA.” (sustainable competitive advantage) (2009, p. 157). However, Campbell et al (2002) oppose this view by stating that the notion of sustainable CA is questionable. They assert that maintaining superior performance over a long period of time is impossible due to the rapidly changing environment that businesses operate in. According to them, CA is not easy to create and even more difficult to sustain (Campbell et al, 2002). Grant (2008) would partially agree with them. He argues that, once CA is established, it is subject to erosion by the competitors in the market. CA can be challenged either by imitation or innovation (Grant, 2008). Advocators of the notion of  sustainable CA, such as Lynch (2009) and David (2009), point out the characteristics of  a  resource-based  sustainable  which are outlined in figure 2.6 below. Grant (2008) states that the more durable, less transferable and less replicable resources and capabilities are, the more likely they are to sustain the CA. David adds to this assertion by maintaining that “The more a resource(s) is rare, non-imitable, and non-substitutable, the stronger a firm’s competitive advantage will be and the longer it will last.” (2009, p. 139)

Figure 2.6: The seven elements of resource-based SCA

Comparing these attributes to figure 2.4, it can be seen that these are comparable to those suggested by Miller (1998). It could be argued at this stage that, consequently, there is hardly any difference between the resources that create and those that sustain CA.

2.3 Events management and event venues

In order to be able to apply the concept of CA the events industry and events venues in particular, the structure and characteristics of the industry needs to be discussed first. Next, a typology of event venues will be provided which leads into the final section of this part of the literature review: the theoretical application of CA to the events industry and event venues.

2.3.1    Characteristics of the UK events industry

According to Bowdin et al (2006), the UK events industry is “wide-ranging, incorporating many different sectors” (2006, p. xvii). Raj, Walters & Rashid (2009) agree with this by stating that the industry can be divided into many different sectors and sub-sectors. Furthermore, Shone & Parry (2004) maintain that the events market is diverse and fragmented. With regard to the structure of the industry, Bowdin et al (2006) list the following actors in the events industry: event organizations, event management companies, event industry suppliers, industry associations and external regulatory bodies. They also argue that “Events have become so all encompassing and far reaching that it is almost impossible to accurately gauge the full size of the industry.” (Bowdin et al, 2006, p. 441).

Rogers (2008) refers to the conference industry when highlighting that it is dynamic, growing and maturing quickly. “The conference industry is highly complex, comprising a multiplicity of buyer and supplier organizations and businesses.” (Rogers, 2008, p. 33)

2.3.2    Event venues

Event venues are categorised as suppliers in the events industry by Rogers (2008) and Shone & Parry (2004). Rogers (2008) maintains that “In theory...almost any type of building could be promoted as a conference venue.” (2008, p. 56). He also contends that it is not possible to give the exact number of venues, because new venues are constantly entering the market while others leave the market so that there is a continued fluctuation (Rogers, 2008).

Various classifications of event venues exist in the literature. Therefore it can be argued that there is so far little agreement on the typology of event venue categorizations. For example, Fenich (2008) distinguishes the following event venues:

• hotels
• convention centres
• conference centres
• retreat facilities: rural conference centres
• cruise ships
• specific use facilities: theatres, arenas, stadiums, sports facilities
• colleges and universities
• unusual venues: “places that were never designed for meetings” (2008, p. 113)

Another viewpoint is presented by Raj et al (2009), who make the following categorization, which is however mostly comparable: Venues comprise city halls, town halls, stately homes, municipal parks and grounds, promenades, hotels, sports stadiums and grounds, universities, conference centres, exhibition centres, public buildings, city and town squares and gardens, bars, nightclubs, restaurants and museums.

More specifically, Davidson & Rogers (2006), Rogers (2008), Team Tourism Consulting (2008) and Fenn (2009) refer to the conference market when making the following categorization of venues:

• purpose-build conference centres
• conference and training centres
• multipurpose venues
• hotels
• universities and other educational institutions
• civic venues
• unusual venues (including historic houses, sports stadia and theme parks)

Within this typology, hotels comprise half of all venues (Rogers, 2008). In particular, a conference venue is defined as: “A paid-for facility (i.e. rented, not a company’s in-house meeting rooms containing; at least 3 meeting rooms for hire with; a minimum capacity of 50 theatre-style in its largest room.” (Team Tourism Consulting, 2008).

2.4 Competitive advantage in the UK events industry

So far, there is no literature to be found applying the concept of CA to the events industry and event venues in particular. However, event venues are businesses like other any other companies operating in the events industry. Therefore, it can be argued that the concept could be applied when considering the structure of the events industry in combination with the identified sources of CA. This statement is supported by Campbell et al, who note that “Competitive advantage results from the development and exploitation of core competences by individual businesses, whatever industry they are in.” (2002, p. 155).

Firstly, it could be argued from the literature that CA can be created by quick response, as outlined by Miller (1998). According to Rogers (2008) the industry is growing and maturing quickly, therefore quick response and innovative capabilities (Lynch, 2009) could be seen as sources for CA. Secondly, one could maintain that CA in the events industry could stem from high quality and service, due to the industry being service-oriented (Tum, Norton & Wright, 2006). Thirdly, due to the industry’s division into many different sectors and sub-sectors, it could be argued that CA could be established by collaborating with other businesses (Campbell et al, 2002) in order to create synergies and strategic alliances (Lynch, 2009).

Finally, it can be suggested that due to the rapidly changing business environment (Campbell et al, 2002), event venues need to be aware of changes in the external environment to develop a CA which puts them ahead of the competitors (Campbell et al, 2002).

2.5 Summary

This chapter discussed the concept of establishing and sustaining CA in relation to strategic management. It was noted that there is little agreement in the literature, in particular concerning the RBV of the firm and its potential to create and sustain CA. In addition, the characteristics of the events industry were analysed and it was found that the events industry is a fragmented and fast growing industry (Shone & Parry, 2004; Rogers, 2008). Next, a typology of event venues was provided which showed that various categorisations exist. Nevertheless, it can be argued that most views are comparable. Finally, sources of CA in the events industry and for event venues were suggested based on the structure of the events industry.

In order to complete the literature review and to achieve the objectives stated in chapter 1, public and private policy, their relation to the events industry as well as sustainability, environmental and food waste policy will be discussed and analysed in the next chapter.

3.     Public, private, and food waste policy

3.1  Introduction

To achieve the objectives stated in chapter 1 of this research, it is essential to introduce the reader to the areas of public and private policy and to policy and events. Moreover, this chapter deals with sustainability and waste management policy to finally discuss food waste management policy. The structure of this chapter is shown in figure 3.1 below and follows a macro to micro approach. This means that the overarching area of public policy will be treated first, followed by the concept of private policy and policy and events. As  part  of  these  areas,  a  discussion  of  sustainability  and environmental policy will finally lead to a critical analysis and evaluation of food waste management policy.

Figure 3.1: Structure of chapter 3

3.2 Public policy

In an attempt to define the term ‘policy’, Colebatch states that it is “a central concept in both the analysis and the practice of the way we are governed” (2002, p. 1). Parsons defines policy as being “concerned with how issues and problems come to be defined and constructed and how they are placed on the political and policy agenda.” (1995, p. xv). Getz maintains that “Public policy consists of a goal-directed process by governments and their agencies, manifested in laws, regulations, decisions (both action and inaction) and intentions of governments regarding specific problems or general areas of public concern.” (2007, p. 328).

In contrast to these, Dye provides a rather simple definition: “Public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do.” (1995, p. 2). He criticises elaborate discussions about definition of public policy, as it does not lead to a better understanding of public policy, because it even diverts from the study of it (Dye, 1995). Despite this assertion, other authors found that policy is a multifaceted, complex and ambiguous concept, which is not only centred on government, but has also entered the non-governmental organisations and business firms (Colebatch, 2002; Weible, 2008).

3.3 The stages model of the policy process

From the wealth of models (advocacy coalition model, multiple streams, punctuated equilibrium model, social construction theory) providing insights into the policy making process, only the stages model was chosen for the purpose of this research. Other models such as the Advocacy Coalition Framework and the Multiple Streams Model are indeed applicable to environmental policy (Parsons, 1995; Litfin, 2000; Elliott & Schlaepfer, 2001; Dorey, 2002; John, 2003; Houlihan, 2005; Burton, 2006; Kim & Roh, 2008; Weible, 2008; James & Jorgensen, 2009; Weible, Sabatier & McQueen, 2009; Liu, Lindquist, Vedlitz & Vincent, 2010), but they are utilised to analyse the policy making process, which is outside of the scope of this research. Thestages model is regarded as most relevant to this research which will be discussed in the following sections.

According to Eger & Marlowe (2006), three different versions of a so-called stages model were developed in the course of policy research. All of these models are rooted in systems theory, and were consolidated in 1974 by Hofferbert. Burton (2006) contends that several versions of the stages model exist, with varying number of stages, differing labels and variations in the design (linear process or cycle). One example is depicted in figure 3.2. The stages model of the policy process is criticised by a variety of authors (Parsons, 1995; Dorey, 2005; Burton, 2006). The main point of criticism is that such a model does not reflect real-life policy making. On the contrary, in reality there are no clear-cut stages, phases or cycle in the policy process (Parsons, 1995). It is also emphasised that it fails to provide any causal explanations (Burton, 2006) and that it oversimplifies the policy making process (Dorey, 2005). In addition, policy is seen as a top-down process only which does not take account of multiple levels of government and interrelating cycles (Dorey, 2005; Parsons, 1995). Despite the critique above, Dorey (2005) maintains that the stages model remains popular and could still be used as a starting point to understand the essential processes in policy making. He highlights that this model can serve as a ‘heuristic’ device, which is defined as “an analytical tool or pedagogic model [...] designed and deployed to aid understanding [...] of an otherwise highly complex issue or process.” (Dorey, 2005, p. 6) because “without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to know where to start.” (Dorey, 2005, p. 7).

Figure 3.2: The stages model of the policy process

3.4 Importance of stakeholder interaction

Koontz (2005) points out that policy makers all across the world increasingly involve multiple stakeholders in the process of environmental policy making. This is due to rising public pressure to resolve issues such as climate change (Mostashari & Sussman, 2005). In his study, Koontz (2005) found that collaborating with stakeholders can lead to important policy changes. However, it was also concluded that the success of stakeholder participation strongly depends on the policy context.

Mostashari & Sussman (2005) state the ideal attributes of a good policy outcome:

• The outcome is a package of policies that the majority of key stakeholders agreed upon
• Policies   were    developed   in   a    collaborative   process    with   key stakeholders
• Policy will effectively address the identified problem
• Policies need to be adaptive when new information becomes available
• The implementation of the policies does only arouse little resistance and results in robust agreements

These attributes show that stakeholders need to play a vital role in the process of environmental policy making (see also Colebatch, 2002; Koontz, 2005; Lucas, Brooks, Darnton & Jones, 2008)

3.5 Private policy and strategic management

When researching strategic management textbooks and journal articles, it was found that some academic resources (Campbell et al, 2002; Grant, 2008; Johnson et al, 2006; Porter, 1985) do not even mention the term policy. Rather, as stated before, the literature uses expressions such as business plans, corporate plans and strategies to describe business policy (Colebatch, 2002). In general, Colebatch (2002) observes that businesses only make statements about their policies when outsiders have an interest, for example climate change policy, environmental policy etc.

With reference to the historic origins of strategic management in military realms, Thompson & Martin state that “Thus, strategy would be seen as a set of policies used for the conduct of conflict and the securing of an advantage over the competition.” (2005, p. 35) They further define policy as “guidelines relating to decisions and approaches which support organizational efforts to achieve stated (intended) objectives. Can be at any level in the organization, and can range from mandatory regulations to recommended courses of action. They may or may not be written down formally.” (Thompson & Martin, 2005, p. 860).

It can be said that there is a high level of agreement in the literature in terms of this definition, as other authors such as David (2009), Thompson, Strickland & Gamble (2005) and Bowdin et al (2006) refer to the same attributes when describing private policy.

To synthesise the literature, the following attributes and components of business policy can be identified as follows. Policies guide the behaviour of an organisation, relate to its objectives and assist the implementation of strategies (Thompson & Martin, 2005; Thompson et al, 2005; Getz, 2007; David, 2009). However, Thompson & Martin (2005) also contend that policies can emerge and have the potential to become perceived patterns of behaviour like the organisational culture. This assertion is in contrast to David (2009), who argues that policies need to be written down formally. Thompson & Martin (2005) also distinguish between mandatory and advisory policies, the former represented as rules while the latter represent guidelines. They argue in favour of advisory policies as mandatory polices can impair discretion and motivation, whereas advisory policies create flexibility to react to the changing environment. This argument is supported by Thompson et al (2005) who state that there should never be too much policy. A need for consistency within policies is highlighted by Thompson & Martin (2005) and Thompson et al (2005), while David (2009) maintains that policies allow consistency and coordination within a business. Furthermore, he points out that policies can apply to different levels of the organisation (corporate level, divisional level, functional level). External stakeholders such as the government can force policies on the company. This refers to legislation with regard to health & safety, redundancy, product safety etc (Thompson & Martin, 2005; Getz, 2007). Examples of policies on the functional level include dividend policy in terms of finance, recruitment, training and overtime policies with regard to human resources and quality policies in relation to operations (Thompson & Martin, 2005).

3.6 Policy and events

With regard to policy and events, two perspectives need to be considered. On the one hand, the public policy perspective deals with the role of events and the motivation of governments to engage in events and event tourism (Hall & Rusher, 2004, Getz, 2005, Getz, 2007). On the other hand, the private policy perspective of events deals with the policies that guide the event planning, execution and evaluation (Getz, 2005). These two perspectives will be treated in the following discussion of events and policy.

3.6.1 Public policy perspective

From the public policy perspective, it can be argued that events have policy significance as they are a part of wider regional development strategies and tourism (Hall & Rusher, 2004; Pugh & Wood, 2004). Getz (2007) maintains that public policy cannot be ignored by event managers, neither can the government ignore the potential social, economic and cultural benefits of events.

Topics of interest when studying public policy dimensions of events include

• “the political nature of the event policy-making process
• public participation in the event planning and policy process
• the sources of power in event policy making
• the    exercise    of    choice   by    public   officials   in   complex    policy environments
• perceptions as to the effectiveness of event policies” (Hall & Rusher, 2004, p. 219)

Hall & Rusher also provide a definition of event public policy which closely relates to the definition of public policy by Dye (1995) above. They define event related public policy “as whatever governments choose to do or not to do with respect to events” (2004, p. 219).

They further provide a definition of event policies which states that these are policies that enable the smooth running of events, which reflects a micro political approach (Hall & Rusher, 2004). Conversely, policies for events are defined as policies established by governments and other institutions that enable events to take place, which represents ad macro political approach (Hall & Rusher, 2004). Here, the significance of the two above-mentioned perspectives in events and policy becomes evident.

Government policies regulate events (licensing) but can also provide support (subsidies) (Getz, 2005). Getz (2005) also highlights the need to involve stakeholders to identify problems and opportunities in the policy making process. This is in accordance with the findings of section 3.4. Moreover, Hall & Page (2002) state reasons why the public sector is involved in tourism. This can also be applied to events (Getz, 2007). See figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3: Reasons for government involvement in tourism and events

“The basic policy imperative is to ensure that all events are ‘green’, meeting the minimum RRR standards (i.e. reduce, reuse, recycle).” (Getz, 2007, p.342). Getz (2007) also argues that policies for events need to be proactive and coordinated, as events relate to a variety of policy domains, therefore policies also need policy domain is to be integrated (Hall & Rusher, 2004; Getz, 2007). A “a broad area of government responsibility or interest, such as culture, the economy, environment or health, which usually encompass a variety of departments, agencies, laws, regulations and programmes.” (Getz, 2007, p. 328).

Figure 3.4: Recommendations for public policy making for events

In addition to this model, Hall & Page (2002) identified five different policy measures for development of tourism. These measures were established in relation to regional tourism development. Due to the range of overlaps in the fields of tourism and events (Dickson & Arcodia, 2010), these measures are also  applicable  to  public  policy for events. See figure  3.5,  an  analysis   of content from Hall & Page, 2002. The selection of most appropriate measure depends on the environment of the area concerned. Furthermore, there is no one best way but a need for a unique policy mix (Hall & Page, 2002). They emphasise that the policy process does not happen in a vacuum, on the contrary, the aim of the process is to make it “as overt as possible, so that the values, influence and interests of various stakeholders are relatively transparent.” (Hall & Page, 2002, p. 324).

Figure 3.5: Five policy measures for tourism and event development

3.6.2 Private policy perspective

With reference to the private policy perspective, Getz (2005) argues that policies regulate the event planning process and can either be formal or unwritten. However, while allowing flexibility these unwritten policies can also lead to abuse, therefore a balanced approach needs to be found. He also contends that policies are formulated in response to problems (Getz, 2005).