Value-creating assets in tourism management: Applying marketing's service-dominant logic in the hotel industry

Tourism Management 36 (2013) 86e98

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tourism Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Value-creating assets in tourism management: Applying marketing’s service-dominant logic in the hotel industry Mary FitzPatrick a, *, Janet Davey b, Lisa Muller c, Howard Davey c a

Department of Marketing, Waikato Management School, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand Dean’s Office, Waikato Management School, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand c Department of Accounting, Waikato Management School, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand b

h i g h l i g h t s < We use S-D Logic to interpret hotels’ intellectual capital disclosures. < Hotels disclose the intellectual capital embedded in their brands. < Generic disclosures of Brand, Guest, and Employees overlook latent value-creation. < We highlight the capacity for co-construction of value within a hotel’s network. < Hotels’ IC development depends on value co-construction and relational processes.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 5 April 2012 Accepted 13 November 2012

Value-creating assets are recognised as critical in today’s tourism management field. However, empirical research to date has not yet developed a useful conceptual framework for managing and marketing such assets. This paper presents service-dominant logic (S-D Logic) as a framework for advancing our understanding of intangible assets within the hotel industry. The research used S-D Logic to analyse intellectual capital (IC) disclosures of 20 publicly-listed European and US hotels. Results showed hotels acknowledge IC assets; in particular, the value embedded in their brands. However, the hotel companies’ disclosures on generic items of Guest and Employees indicate they are overlooking the capacity for valuecreation from such IC. This research, which makes a unique contribution by applying S-D Logic to examine hotel IC disclosures, recommends developing more sophisticated constructs for effective management of hotels’ intangible assets. Finally, the S-D Logic framework has potential application in other areas of tourism management. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Service-dominant logic Value co-creation Hotel management Intellectual capital disclosure

1. Introduction This research examines disclosure of intellectual capital (IC) in the hotel industry. From the range of definitions and interchangeable terms used, this paper employs ‘intellectual capital’ as a comprehensive term to refer to the ‘invisible’ assets that contribute to a company’s value (following Alcaniz, GomezBezares, & Roslender, 2011; Marr, 2005; Sveiby, 1997). While there is no universal definition of IC, it is commonly examined using a tripartite model comprising internal capital, external capital, and human capital (e.g., Yi, Davey, & Eggleton, 2011). Furthermore, although researchers agree that these three elements together play

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ64 078384466x6273. E-mail address: maryfi[email protected] (M. FitzPatrick). 0261-5177/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.009

a vital role in generating future cash flows, there is no consensus on how best IC can be measured (Beattie & Thomson, 2007; Petty & Guthrie, 2000). Not surprisingly, IC is traditionally under-reported because of the difficulty in attributing quantitative value to it. Much research has been conducted on IC disclosure. However, few studies have focused on IC disclosures in the hotel industry, an industry that is greatly influenced by IC assets, especially through training (human capital), efficient processes (internal capital), and branding (external capital). Such intangible assets distinguish hotels as experience-dominant service contexts (Shaw, Bailey, & Williams, 2011), which are increasingly important in today’s experience economy (Pine & Gilmore, 1999). Indeed, in the highly competitive environment in which hotels are operating today, the customer experience is regarded as critical to hotel positioning and competitive advantage (Asku & Tarcan, 2002; Nasution & Mavondo, 2008). Building and maintaining a competitive edge in these

M. FitzPatrick et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 86e98

conditions can no longer be simply about the product, the brand, or innovation but must be more about the integration and distinctiveness of the value-creating assets of the hotel. Commentators agree that IC assets offer a valuable means of augmenting and differentiating one hotel’s offering from its competitors (Engstrom, Westnes, & Westnes, 2003; Jerman, Kavcic, & Kavcic, 2009; Li & Petrick, 2008). However, issues and tensions around managing, measuring, and reporting IC in the hotel industry continue to limit understanding of the links between IC and competitive advantage. Compounding the managerial tensions surrounding IC, the prevailing perspective in accounting literature tends to compartmentalise IC (Yi et al., 2011). We propose that such issues might be addressed by applying the holistic paradigm of Service-Dominant (S-D) Logic, which originated in the marketing discipline in 2004 (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). As Shaw et al. (2011) and Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012) have recently demonstrated, there are valuable insights to be had from applying this emerging conceptual framework to tourism management. This paper extends the application of S-D Logic to the context of the hotel industry, specifically to examine the IC disclosure practices of top publicly-listed hotels. We argue that fresh insights into managing IC for competitive advantage are afforded by applying SD Logic, predicated on value being co-created within a complex network of stakeholder relationships, to interpret voluntary IC disclosures made by hotels in their annual reports.

87

dimensions provide a useful framework for examining IC disclosure practices. Table 1 provides the tripartite conceptualisation as used in our analysis. Some scholars, concerned that this commonly used tripartite conceptualisation overlooks the complexities of IC, have expanded the IC framework into various layers prior to exploring the effects of the separate IC elements on business performance and the causal relationships among the elements (e.g., Chen, Zhu, & Xie, 2004; Wang & Chang, 2005). With particular reference to the hotel industry, Rude z and Mihali c (2007) choose to divide external capital into two sub-categories of endecustomer relationship capital and non-end customer relationship capital. Their framework, which segments hotel customers into guests as the direct end-users of the hotel service and other external partners in both the public and private sectors as the non-end customers, thereby acknowledges the heightened significance of relationships within the hotel industry. These various categorisations underpin the ongoing debate relating to the conceptualisation and definition of IC. Regardless of such conceptualisation difficulties, increasingly researchers and theorists agree that the dynamic flows between the IC categories exert considerable influence on company performance (e.g., Engstrom et al., 2003; Lev, 2001). Thus, the holistic S-D Logic framework, with its emphasis on resource-integrating networks, offers considerable potential as a conceptual base for a deeper understanding of IC assets in tourism management (refer Section 4).

2. Intangible assets and intellectual capital Increasingly-competitive business conditions and the knowledge age have intensified interest across disciplines among academics, scholars, and practitioners in the value of the IC of organisations. IC is now considered to be the principal driver of value in today’s organisations: “.in the competition of the ‘new economy’ there is a greater reliance on knowledge-based assets such as human know-how, innovation, technologies and information.[P]hysical and financial assets.have, accordingly become less powerful explanations of business success” (Campbell & Abdul Rahman, 2010, p. 56). The view that intangible assets are significantly more important in value-creation than tangible resources is not new (Bontis, 1998; Sveiby, 1997). Considerable research has demonstrated that management practices accounting for such intangible assets and IC are capable of creating long-term competitive advantage for businesses (Davey, Schneider, & Davey, 2009; Fincham & Roslender, 2003; Pike, Fernstrom, & Roos, 2005). IC reporting, which provide an effective integrative framework for identifying a company’s value-creating intangible assets and managing their interrelationship, is encouraged both by industry and academics (e.g., EFFAS Commission on Intellectual Capital, 2008; Peppard & Rylander, 2001). However, IC disclosure may in fact be partial disclosure when companies are reluctant to divulge sensitive information (e.g., Davey et al., 2009). Furthermore, research has not consistently upheld the expectation that IC-rich companies will disclose more IC (e.g., Bozzolan, O’Regan, & Ricceri, 2006; Brennan, 2001; Miller & Whiting, 2005). Although the origins of academic interest in IC extend back more than 70 years, there is still no universal agreement over its definition (Davey et al., 2009; Engstrom et al., 2003; Pike et al., 2005). Definitions typically contain many of the terms “.knowledge skills, know-how, experience, intangible asset, information, processes and value creation.” (Engstrom et al., 2003, p. 288). Researchers do, however, generally agree that IC comprises three elements (although variously named): internal capital, external capital, and human capital (e.g., Abeysekera, 2007; Guthrie & Petty, 2000; Sveiby, 1997; Yi et al., 2011). These

3. Intellectual capital disclosure Although invisible, IC and its management have been identified as vital for sustainable competitive advantage for companies in most industries (Garcia-Ayuso, 2003; Garcia-Parra, Simo, Sallan, & Mundet, 2009; Vergauwen, Bollen, & Oirbans, 2007). IC is considered a strategic resource, unlike financial and physical capital, since other companies cannot replicate it or use it as efficiently (Davey et al., 2009; Engstrom et al., 2003; Namvar, Fathian, Akhaven, & Gholamian, 2010; Zéghal & Maaloul, 2010). Therefore, financial reporting that focuses on historical value undervalues IC-rich companies (Davey et al., 2009; Guthrie, 2001); stakeholders Table 1 Tripartite conceptualisation of intellectual capital. Intellectual capital

A multi-dimensional concept lacking a universal definition; multiple terms used interchangeably. This paper uses intellectual capital as a comprehensive term for ‘invisible’ assets that contribute to a company’s value.

Internal capital

The non-human, accumulated knowledge internalised within the structures, processes, and capabilities of the company which remain when ‘employees go home for the night’. These are the only IC resources owned and/or controlled by the company. Examples: Patents, concepts, trademarks, R&D, hardware, software, databases, managerial attitudes, information-system flows, entrepreneurial culture. The value embedded in the company’s relationships with its external stakeholders, often referred to as the company’s ‘customer capital’. Examples: Marketing channels, brand names, reputation, distribution channels, customer satisfaction, franchisees, suppliers, and partners. The resources that relate to individuals and which cannot be replaced by machines or written down. They are a key source of potential strategic renewal. An individual chooses to give a company access to these. Examples: Education, skills, attitude, know-how, innovativeness, intellectual agility, competencies, training of employees, and directors/executives.

External capital

Human capital

88

M. FitzPatrick et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 86e98

consequently are denied full information for decision-making and companies overlook the value of their intangible IC-based assets. With the recognition of technology, connectivity, and human capital as wealth drivers (Laing, Dunn, & Hughes-Lucas, 2010), managers are being urged to identify and manage IC as part of realising its value (Garcia-Parra et al., 2009; Vergauwen et al., 2007; Whicker & Andrews, 2004). This new appreciation of IC is due largely to the competitiveness of globalisation and the subsequent need for managers to use innovation and technology to their best advantage (Chalhoub, 2010). As part of this shift to more purposeful IC management, there has been a marked increase in IC disclosure as a means of making the ‘invisible visible’ (Cooper & Sherer, 1984; as cited in Petty & Cuganesan, 2005) and of ensuring that ‘what gets measured gets managed’ (Stewart, 1997). Yi et al. (2011) hold that the three key benefits of voluntary IC disclosure of intangibles are unquantifiable: reduction of information asymmetry between management and stakeholders; discharging accountability; and signalling organisational legitimacy and excellence. Empirical evidence of the links between IC disclosure and company performance has been provided by numerous research projects, including a study by the Danish Agency for Trade and Industry that concluded “Companies measuring and managing their IC clearly outperformed other companies” (Engstrom et al., 2003, p. 289). IC disclosure research by Tan, Plowman, and Hancock (2007) on Singaporean firms (including hotel companies) confirmed a positive correlation between a company’s IC disclosure and its performance, and also found a positive relationship between increased value of a company’s IC and that company’s future performance. Despite these findings and their implications for the hotel industry, IC disclosure in the tourism management field has received scant attention. 4. Service-dominant logic Intangibility, the essence of IC, is implicit in S-D Logic. It is implied in the definition of ‘service’ as “the application of specialized competences (knowledge and skills) for the benefit of another party” (Vargo & Lusch, 2008, p. 256). Indeed, S-D Logic conceptualises ‘value’ in terms of a process involving operant resources, which are “usually intangible, dynamic resources” (Vargo & Lusch, 2008, p. 256). These operant resources are more fully understood in Hunt’s description of them as “typically human (e.g., the skills and knowledge of individual employees), organisational (e.g., controls, routines, cultures, competences), informational (e.g., knowledge about market segments, competitors, and technology), and relational (e.g., relationships with competitors, suppliers, and customers)” (2004, p. 22). Other key concepts in S-D Logic, including process, value co-creation, collaboration, resource integration, interactivity, and value-creation network, are also by nature intangible. Intangibility is implicated in the resources and activities a company develops to create more compelling value propositions than competitors and thereby achieve competitive advantage and superior financial performance. Invisible, intangible, and infinite, operant resources are regarded as the core source of ‘value’ in S-D Logic. Compared with the traditional goods-dominant logic (G-D Logic), which rests on the notion that value is created by the firm, embedded in the product, and subsequently delivered to the consumer, S-D Logic reframes ‘value’ as being created through “participation in a value creation network” (Tynan & McKechnie, 2009, p. 507). S-D Logic maintains the centrality of the consumer with its emphasis on the consumer as a co-producer involved in the design, production, and consumption processes that determine the ‘value’ co-created in the consumer experience. Other members of the value-creation network are also vital for integrating resources that enable the firm to manage service experiences that are valued by

Table 2 Foundational premises of S-D logic. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Service is the fundamental basis of exchange Indirect exchange masks the fundamental basis of exchange Goods are a distribution mechanism for service provision Operant resources are the fundamental source of competitive advantage All economies are service economies The customer is always a co-creator of value The enterprise cannot deliver value, but only offer value propositions A service-centred view is inherently customer oriented and relational All social and economic actors are resource integrators Value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary

Source: Vargo & Akaka, 2009, p. 35.

the consumer, the “final and only arbiter of value” (Tynan & McKechnie, 2009, p. 511). The value-creation realised in the collaboration of the consumer, the firm, and other members of the network depends largely on the exchange of operant resources through interaction, dialogue, and coordinated communication (Tynan & McKechnie, 2009). “Intangibility, exchange processes, and relationships” (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, p. 2), which underpin the S-D Logic approach, are intrinsic to the dynamic processes of learning, innovation, knowledge flows, and knowledge management in the hotel industry (Shaw et al., 2011). Such operant resources (both the actors and their collaborative processes) have been linked directly to competitive advantage and economic growth (e.g., Ballantyne & Varey, 2006; Hunt, 2004; Vargo & Lusch, 2004) and, therefore, are regarded as key assets of a company. The foundational premises of S-D Logic are outlined in Table 2. The hotel industry is becoming increasingly competitive (Wang, Chen, & Chen, 2012) and customers are becoming increasingly discerning when selecting and consuming the service experience (Han, Kim, & Hyun, 2011). It is widely recognised that the management of intangible assets creates value in the context of services; however, the hotel industry has been under-researched with specific regard to IC disclosures (Laing et al., 2010). Recent studies indicate limited implementation of IC practices in the hospitality and tourism industries (Cooper, 2006; Hallin & Marnburg, 2007; Sigala & Chalkiti, 2007) and limited engagement with S-D Logic (Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012; Li & Petrick, 2008; Shaw et al., 2011). The hotel market is characterised by its very intangibility, dominated by the service experience (e.g., Shaw et al., 2011; Xu & Chan, 2010), and distinguished by the characteristic of hospitality (Hemmington, 2007). Therefore, we hold that S-D Logic is eminently appropriate to frame and interpret IC disclosures made by hotel companies in their annual reports. 5. Method 5.1. Research instrument The research design follows the work of Davey et al. (2009) and Guthrie and Petty (2000). The coding framework used by Davey et al. (2009) was adapted to identify and classify IC disclosures in the annual reports of 20 international hotel companies.1 Adaptations to the research instrument, which were based on literature

1 The hotel companies were Accor SA (2009); Boyd Gaming Corporation (2009); Choice Hotels International (2009); Hotel Regina Paris SA (2009); Hyatt Corporation (2009); InterContinental Hotels Group PLC (2009); Las Vegas Sands Corporation (2009); Les Hotels de Paris SA (2009); Marriott International (2009); MGM Mirage (2009); Millennium and Copthorne Hotels PLC (2009); MTR Gaming Group (2009); NH Hoteles SA (2009); Park Plaza Hotels Ltd. (2009); Peel Hotels PLC (2009); Sol Melia SA (2009); Starwood Hotel and Resorts Worldwide (2009); The Hotel Corporation (2009); Vail Resorts (2009); Wynn Resorts Ltd. (2009).

M. FitzPatrick et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 86e98

89

Table 3 Top 10 disclosed IC items. IC item

Brands Intangible liabilities Financial relations Directors/executives Guest Expansions Bus. collaborations & owner relns. Employees (role, demography) Franchising agreements Strategy Total top 10 IC disclosures Total top 10 as % of total IC discl.

IC category

External External Internal Human External Internal External Human External Internal

Europe hotels n ¼ 10

US hotels n ¼ 10

Total

ICD

%

ICD

%

ICD

%

685 67 126 206 98 123 75 90 40 52 1562

31.83 3.11 5.86 9.57 4.55 5.72 3.39 4.18 1.86 2.42

944 394 272 163 180 97 112 60 91 60 2373

32.97 13.76 9.50 5.69 6.29 3.39 3.91 2.10 3.18 2.10

1629 461 398 369 278 220 187 150 131 112 3935

32.48 9.19 7.94 7.36 5.54 4.39 3.73 2.99 2.61 2.23

regarding IC and the services industries, also addressed some of the issues regarding transparency and shared meanings of IC disclosure (as raised by Beattie & Thomson, 2007). Following our review of the literature and a pilot study, we also refined the instrument to improve its relevance to the research context, the hotel industry. The refinements included the addition, deletion, and/or reclassification of items in each category; for example, items of Strategy and Business Awards were added under internal capital; Business Collaborations and Owner Relationships, Joint Ventures, and Intangible Liabilities were added under external capital (while Licensing Agreements was deleted); within human capital the item Directors/Executives was added and the generic item of Employees was split into several sub-items (A complete list of the instrument modifications can be obtained on request from the authors.). Our research instrument features 45 IC items across the three categories e internal (12), external (14), and human (19). These IC items and their allocation within each of the three categories (internal, external, and human) are shown in Table 4. 5.2. Data collection and analysis The largest 10 publicly-listed hotels in each of Europe and the US with accessible 2009 annual reports were selected from the factiva. com industry rankings. Private hotel chains such as Hilton Worldwide and Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts were excluded. Annual reports of two European hotels were translated from French to English using Google translate. US hotel companies (five traditional, five casino-hotels) and European (10 traditional) companies were chosen to compare across continents (The complete list of hotel company website addresses is provided after References.). Initial comparisons of IC disclosure by traditional hotels and by casino-hotels showed marked similarities and for the purposes of this paper the hotels are not treated separately. Moreover, due to the breadth of many of the hotel portfolios, differentiation on the basis of luxury, upscale, moderate, or budget brands was not undertaken. Following accepted IC disclosure research practices, analysis of the research data initially considered US and Europe IC disclosure differences. The US hotel industry has traditionally been dominated by franchised and branded hotel supply. By contrast, Europe has traditionally been characterised by a “heterogeneous hotel industry.dominated by individually owned properties or small familyowned hotel groups” (Holverson & Revaz, 2006, p. 398) that are now under pressure from international hotel chains with strong brands. The characteristics once used to differentiate hotel structure by continent, therefore, are mitigated by forces such as internationalisation and increased competition, as well as unpredictable events that make geographic distinctions less pronounced (Slattery, Gamse, & Roper, 2008). Notably, in our data, there were no

72.58

82.89

78.46

significant differences between the disclosures of hotels headquartered in the US and Europe. Therefore, differences by continent were not developed as a basis for further interpretation, although data relating to country-of-headquarters informed discussion of individual IC items when relevant. The annual report is widely recognised as being the most important document for company valuation (Li, Pike, & Haniffa, 2006). The annual report offers companies an excellent opportunity to expand their communication from strictly financial information to information reflecting intangible, value-creating company assets (Abeysekera, 2007; Dawkins & Ngunjiri, 2008; Stanton & Stanton, 2002). Despite the extensive use of the Internet for a wide variety of company communications, annual reports (both online and traditional) are a “systematic source of IC information”, insofar as they are “produced regularly, editorially controlled by the company and intended for a shareholder readership” (Campbell & Abdul Rahman, 2010, p. 57). In addition, annual reports are an established data source for IC disclosure research (Davey et al., 2009; Petty & Cuganesan, 2005). Content analysis was conducted on the annual reports using the sentence, which ended in a full-stop or a question mark, as the unit of analysis (Guthrie, Petty, Yongvanich, & Ricceri, 2004). A zero-to-one coding scheme (following Davey et al., 2009) resulted in a quantitative summary of IC disclosure. Categorisation was based on manifest meanings (Tsang, 1998). This type of analysis allows patterns of IC disclosure to be explored and facilitates insights into the importance of the different IC resources and activities. A single coder followed strict instructions regarding decision rules (Guthrie et al., 2004), with a second researcher reviewing a selection of coding decisions across all the IC categories and in a variety of the sample annual reports at the start of the coding process. The decision rules were then adjusted according to any inconsistencies to reduce ambiguity clarifying the nature of the information included and/or excluded for a particular item. Illustrative quotes from the annual reports are included in our discussion of results in order to enrich understanding of the nature of hotel IC disclosures (following Brennan, 2001). 6. Results and discussion The 10 most disclosed items collectively accounted for 78.46% of the total IC disclosures (Table 3). These items were classified using the preferred tripartite categorisation of IC as external capital (5 of the top 10 items), internal capital (3 of the top 10), and human capital (2 items). Table 4 details hotel IC disclosures by item, category, and continent. The data are then interpreted in Sections 6.1e 6.3 using the S-D Logic framework. Initially, following previous research (e.g., Bozzolan et al., 2006; Garcia-Meca, 2005; Petty & Cuganesan, 2005), IC disclosures were analysed according to company size, as measured in this research

90

M. FitzPatrick et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 86e98

Table 4 Hotel IC disclosures by category, item, and continent. IC item Internal capital Trademarks Management philosophy Corporate culture Management processes Expansions Re-launch/restructure Information systems Financial relations Revenue/available room Strategy Promotion tools Business awards Internal capital total

Europe hotels n ¼ 10

US hotels n ¼ 10

Total disclosures

19 5 7 11 123 32 55 126 51 52 20 23 524

0.88% 0.23% 0.33% 0.51% 5.72% 1.49% 2.56% 5.86% 2.37% 2.42% 0.93% 1.07%

17 10 30 19 97 20 42 272 33 60 29 36 665

0.59% 0.35% 1.05% 0.66% 3.39% 0.70% 1.47% 9.50% 1.15% 2.10% 1.01% 1.26%

36 15 37 30 220 52 97 398 84 112 49 59 1189

0.72% 0.30% 0.74% 0.60% 4.39% 1.04% 1.93% 7.94% 1.67% 2.23% 0.98% 1.18%

External capital Brands Brand promotion & developments Loyalty programmes Guest Guest awareness & satisfaction Guest loyalty Reservation channels Favourable supplier Bus. collaborations & owner relns. Franchising agreements Reputation Joint venture Charitable efforts Intangible liabilities External capital total

685 0 36 98 14 10 14 2 75 40 0 7 45 67 1093

31.83% 0.00% 1.67% 4.55% 0.65% 0.46% 0.65% 0.09% 3.49% 1.86% 0.00% 0.33% 2.09% 3.11%

944 4 38 180 20 11 10 6 112 91 8 15 21 394 1854

32.97% 0.14% 1.33% 6.29% 0.70% 0.38% 0.35% 0.21% 3.91% 3.18% 0.28% 0.52% 0.73% 13.76%

1629 4 74 278 34 21 24 8 187 131 8 22 66 461 2947

32.48% 0.08% 1.48% 5.54% 0.68% 0.42% 0.48% 0.16% 3.73% 2.61% 0.16% 0.44% 1.32% 9.19%

Human capital Employees (role, demography) Employees (named) Employees (cultural/diversity) Know-how/Awards Education Work-related knowledge Work-related competencies Entrepreneurial spirit Innovation & creativity In-house training Number of employees Directors/executives Employee value/pride/feedback Career development Employee benefits Employee safety Career opportunities Employee charitable efforts Retention Human capital total Total IC disclosures

90 6 19 7 6 19 12 9 7 57 20 206 13 3 30 8 12 6 5 535 2152

4.18% 0.28% 0.88% 0.33% 0.28% 0.88% 0.56% 0.42% 0.33% 2.65% 0.93% 9.57% 0.60% 0.14% 1.39% 0.37% 0.56% 0.28% 0.23%

60 11 5 0 1 4 4 21 5 7 22 163 11 0 25 0 1 3 1 344 2863

2.10% 0.38% 0.17% 0.00% 0.03% 0.14% 0.14% 0.73% 0.17% 0.24% 0.77% 5.69% 0.38% 0.00% 0.87% 0.00% 0.03% 0.10% 0.03%

150 17 24 7 7 23 16 30 12 64 42 369 24 3 55 8 13 9 6 879 5015

2.99% 0.34% 0.48% 0.14% 0.14% 0.46% 0.32% 0.60% 0.24% 1.28% 0.84% 7.36% 0.48% 0.06% 1.10% 0.16% 0.26% 0.18% 0.12%

100.00%

context by number of hotels and by sales revenue. The data revealed that higher sales revenue did not relate to higher IC disclosure; there was a weak, positive correlation between total IC disclosure and sales revenue (n ¼ 20, r ¼ 0.335481, R2 ¼ 0.1125). When hotel size was measured by number of hotels there was a stronger (but not significant) correlation with levels of disclosure (n ¼ 20, r ¼ 0.505823, R2 ¼ 0.25586). The greater the number of hotels, the more brands the company has (Forgacs, 2003); this might well account for the relationship found in our data between IC disclosure and number of hotels. Our data revealed no statistically significant differences between the disclosures of hotels headquartered in the US and Europe (KolmogoroveSmirnoff Z test, p > .05). In our sample of 20 hotel companies, eight have a significant international presence (according to the number of countries they operate within), which

100.00%

100.00%

may blur the effects on IC disclosures from accounting regimes and practices and help explain these results. However, despite the lack of overall significant differences in US and European hotels’ IC disclosures, there were contrasting disclosures on three IC items (Intangible Liabilities, Financial Relations, and Directors/ Executives). 6.1. External capital disclosures Five external capital items were among the 10 most disclosed IC items and they accounted for 53.55% of the total of all IC disclosures. 6.1.1. Brands Disclosure of the Brands item dominated hotel companies’ IC disclosure, representing 32.48% of total IC disclosures. The

M. FitzPatrick et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 86e98

extremely high level of disclosures of Brands confirm earlier research (Bailey & Ball, 2006; Lee & Back, 2010) and endorse the importance of hotel branding as “.one of the most dominant trends in the global hotel industry” (Kayaman & Arasli, 2007, p. 92). Our data show that these 20 hotel companies recognise their brands as a key asset, described by one hotel as its ‘lifeblood’. The other brand-related item, Brand Promotion and Developments, was minimally reported; this suggests that hotel companies’ brand disclosures are typically generalised with constructs such as brand awareness, brand associations, brand loyalty, and brand image being subsumed within the blanket term ‘brand’. Close examination of the IC disclosure data reveals that the strong emphasis on brands is at the core of an integrative managerial system for many of the sample hotel companies. Other important IC management processes that were disclosed were linked directly to their brands. For example, hotels linked their Brands disclosures to strategy, promotions and processes, technology systems that facilitated a consistent and reliable network, employees and their value, and attracting and satisfying guests. Hotel disclosures recognised the brand as a principal driver of value and profitability, justifying many brand management techniques such as discontinuing the relationship of poorly performing individual hotels, expanding current operations, and creating new brands. For example, Marriott described its introduction of a new brand called the Autograph Collection as “.a new brand of upscale independent hotels with distinctive personalities in major cities and desired destinations worldwide. Member properties preserve their branding and personalities, while reaping the benefits of Marriott’s reservation, marketing and technology platforms” (Marriott Intl. Inc, 2009, p. iii). Brand management strategies are also central to business collaborations through management arrangements or franchises practised by the larger hotel chains such as Accor and InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG). The rapid increase in the number of hotel companies consolidating into public and franchised ownership arrangements indicates those companies are moving away from being “operating hotels to brand management and franchise administration organisations” (O’Neill & Mattila, 2004, p. 156). This re-affirms the importance of sophisticated brand management within a hotel’s IC. However, marketing theorists warn that today’s customer is less sensitive to brands. Applied to the hotel context, recommended responses to this change in consumer behaviour include more effective brand differentiation strategies (Bailey & Ball, 2006), managing the customer’s total hotel brand experience (de Chernatony & SegalHorn, 2001), focussing on managing the customer base and customer network relationships (Merz, He, & Vargo, 2009), and encouraging guests to become involved in promoting the identity, image, and value of the hotel brand (Merz et al., 2009). These recommendations, based on various brand-related constructs well-established in the marketing literature, receive coherent support from the S-D Logic perspective. Underlying brand differentiation and management, from the S-D Logic perspective, is the importance of facilitating dialogic relationships with and between the hotel company, the guest, employees, and all the stakeholders involved, who collectively have a role in co-creating the value of the hotel brand and differentiating it from other hotel brands. According to the work of Brodie, Glynn, and Little (2006), hotel brands “facilitate and mediate the marketing processes used to realise the experiences that drive co-creation of value” and are a fundamental IC asset symbolising meaning in the marketing network that the hotel can use purposefully to develop “service-based competency and hence competitive advantage” (p. 373). Such S-D Logic conceptualisations of brands challenge researchers to re-evaluate and refine the generic construct of

91

Brands as it appears in IC disclosure instruments to better measure and manage this critical asset. 6.1.2. Intangible liabilities Intangible liabilities can be defined as “the organisational nonmonetary obligations that the company must accept and acknowledge in order to avoid the depreciation of its intangible assets” (Garcia-Parra et al., 2009, p. 827). Disclosure of the Intangible Liabilities accounted for 9.19% of total IC disclosures and was the second highest disclosed item overall, suggesting that hotel management is aware of disclosing (and managing) risks and their consequences. Intangible liabilities derive from the consequences of “organizational effects/actions/responses” (Caddy, 2000, p. 130) that depreciate intangible assets but cannot be measured directly. Intangible liabilities, therefore, can be regarded as unfunded, offbalance sheet liabilities that are the natural corollary of intangible assets (Harvey & Lusch, 1999). An intangible liability in the hotel industry might be a hotel company not fulfilling the environmental obligations communicated in its brand. For example, the news media report that, in order to cut costs, one of the hotel franchisees is using cleaning products that are hazardous to the health of the hotel employees and to the natural environment. In this case, the franchisee’s decision could harm the hotel company’s brand image, thus depreciating its IC; the intangible liabilities here are the risks associated with the choice of external suppliers by an individual franchisee and the company’s regulation of its franchisees. The Intangible Liabilities disclosure results of this research indicate higher disclosure by the US hotels than European, which may be a response to the mandatory risks disclosures of the US Securities and Exchange Commission and also to the litigious US environment. Across both continents, the high level of disclosures relating to intangible liabilities reveals that hotel management is aware of the importance of off-balance sheet liabilities associated with intangible assets. For example, Our responsibilities under the franchise agreements may be subject to interpretation and may give rise to disagreements in some instances. Such disagreements may be more likely as hotel returns are depressed as a result of the current economic recession. We seek to resolve any disagreements in order to develop and maintain positive relations with current and potential hotel owners, however, failure to resolve such disagreements could result in litigation. (Choice Hotels International, 2009, p. 27) From the S-D Logic perspective, the disclosure of intangible liabilities is important on several counts. First, it relates directly to the notion of value and its creation. According to S-D Logic, a company’s value is much more than a calculation of assets and liabilities. Rather, the company’s value is based in the network of relationships with customers, suppliers, and society as a whole. Thus, the company’s value is co-created in its relationships with these multiple stakeholders. Assuming the goal of marketing a hotel, for instance, is to increase the hotel’s value then ‘value’ would include both the intangible value of its multiple relationships as well as its financial profits, according to S-D Logic. Nondisclosure of intangible liabilities would diminish the value of the hotel’s intangible relationship assets and ultimately decrease the hotel’s value (Abela & Murphy, 2008). By implication, the disclosure of intangible liabilities relates directly to establishing and sustaining trust. Trust is crucial in the hotel’s relationships with customers and other stakeholders as a base for the collaboration that is implicit in the ‘co-creation’ of value (Ballantyne & Varey, 2006; Hormiga, Batista-Canino, & SanchezMedina, 2011). To maintain its trustworthiness, the hotel needs to be clear and transparent about its intangible liabilities. From the

92

M. FitzPatrick et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 86e98

perspective of S-D Logic then, the honest, transparent disclosure of intangible liabilities can be seen as a way for the hotel to protect the value potential of relationships as a source of competitive advantage. 6.1.3. Guest Disclosure data on the Guest item (5.54% of all disclosures) reflect the recognition of customers by the hotels. As IHG states in its annual report: “A guest’s loyalty can never be taken for granted e it is something that can take years to achieve and seconds to lose” (2009, p. 5). As the paying customer, a guest creates sales and, ultimately, earnings and profits (Baltescu, 2009; O’Neill & Mattila, 2004) and levels of Guest disclosure confirm that the hotels appreciate this. Despite Guest disclosure being in our Top 10, the items of Guest Awareness and Satisfaction, Guest Loyalty, and Loyalty Programmes were minimally disclosed (refer Table 4). Hotel services require considerable contact with guests across many service dimensions (Hartline & Jones, 1996), which contributes to the uniqueness of hotel marketing processes (see Li & Petrick, 2008) and confirms the value of S-D Logic in this context. The guest as customer is referred to, either directly or indirectly, in half of the 10 S-D Logic foundational premises (refer Table 2). Indeed, the value realised collaboratively by the network of people involved in the hotel’s service experience is “uniquely determined” (Vargo & Akaka, 2009, p. 39) by each hotel guest in the context of his/her own life, as recognised by researchers and theorists focussed on experience marketing and experiential marketing (Same & Larimo, 2012; Schwartz, 2012; Tynan & McKechnie, 2009). S-D Logic emphasises that hotel management cannot create value independently of the guest; rather, the guest is engaged with the hotel company in the cocreation of value. S-D Logic proponents Ballantyne and Varey (2006) hold that knowing how guests create value and how the management of network processes helps to realise that value can be a source of competitive advantage through innovation. Applied to hotel services, this means that hotel companies are right to acknowledge their guests as a Top 10 IC item. Various marketing tactics were disclosed by the hotel companies to enhance the company-customer interface and the co-creation of value in that interaction. For example, We recently turned our focus to innovation in the area of guest communications. In May 2009, we launched Hyatt Concierge, making us the first hospitality company in the world to deploy a designed concierge site on Twitter, thereby enhancing the quality of hotel guest services. (Hyatt Corporation, 2009, p. 25) Certainly, in the context of the hotel industry, both the experience of guests and the hotel’s relationships with those guests are critical (Tynan & McKechnie, 2009). However, S-D Logic extends the focus from the company-customer interaction to “value-creation networks” (Lusch, Vargo, & Wessels, 2008, p. 11), the dynamic networks of relationships that converge on value-creation. Within the network, the customer is one of the operant resources that is collaborating and co-creating value by improving both resourcing capability and well-being for the various network partners. Thus, the customer’s ‘experience’ is broadened from the micro-context of specific dyadic interactions to the wider notion of customer experience being her/his “service experience of the particular actors in interaction” (Ballantyne & Varey, 2006, p. 336). S-D Logic conceptualises service (singular) as being different from goods or services, in that it involves one person doing something for another person in a value-creating interaction. Thus, this interaction by nature is both highly personalised and always dynamic, which theoretically guards against commodification (Pine & Gilmore, 1999) and reinforces the relevance of a service (singular) dominant logic. The S-D Logic marketing approach supports these hotels in their emphasis of the Guest in IC disclosures. However, our data suggest

there is considerable scope for hotel management to increase their guest-related IC with more differentiated disclosures regarding guests, including the processes and “relevant others” (Tynan & McKechnie, 2009, p. 511) involved in value-creation; the rationale being that this will encourage better management of these aspects. 6.1.4. Business collaborations and owner relationships Disclosures of this item accounted for 3.73% of total IC disclosures. The item included relations with owners of businesses new to the hotel’s value-creation network (including other hotels) and established relations with owners already part of the hotel’s valuecreation network. Across this range of business collaborations and owner relations our data revealed a variety of disclosures. For example, Las Vegas Sands highlighted business collaborations with high-end retailers so that guests at The Venetian Las Vegas and The Palazzo could enjoy shopping without leaving the hotel building. Marriott provided details of two types of collaborations with other business owners: first, a partnership with jewellery and luxury goods designer Bvlgari SpA in the development of Bvlgari Hotels & Resorts (Marriott International Inc, 2009, p. 3); second, a collaboration with other travel industry leaders aimed at mounting a determined appeal to politicians “to curb the negative rhetoric around group meetings.We know that our associates are our greatest asset, because it’s through their dedication that we deliver exceptional customer service.” (Marriott International Inc, 2009, p. iii). Collaboration is central to the S-D Logic framework: it is fundamental to the activity required for successful resourcing, “which always involves human knowledge and ingenuity” (Lusch et al., 2008, p. 8). In practice, this is reflected in a conscious commitment to collaboration as a way of doing business with members of the value-creation network, most often implemented in building closer working relationships with other business owners in the form of partnerships, alliances, joint ventures, and outsourcing (Lusch et al., 2008). The collaborative resourcing that creates value for various network members depends for success on the sharing of knowledge and competences in dialogic relationships. The ability to share existing knowledge (both tacit and explicit) and create new knowledge enables a company to improve resourcing capability and respond quickly to changes in the business environment. Collaborative relationships with other business owners (including other hotels) thus creates value for the company in terms of creating this strategic knowledge, vital for sustaining a competitive advantage derived from IC assets. One illustration of this from Hyatt Corporation states, “Increasing engagement among our associates and including them in deciding how we deliver great service to our guests is a key element of delivering on our Mission” (Hyatt Corporation, 2009, p. 5). Disclosure of this IC item indicates that at least some of these hotel companies, working in an industry that has been long characterised as highly networked (Dredge, 2006; Li & Petrick, 2008), appreciate the strategic importance of investing in the cooperative, interdependent, and “symmetric relations” (Lusch & Vargo, 2006, p. 284) with other business owners that are foundational to S-D Logic. 6.1.5. Franchising agreements Disclosure on Franchising Agreements appeared in the Top 10 list but accounted for only 2.61% of total IC disclosures. This is surprising in light of assertions that hotels are moving away from hotel-operating companies to brand management and franchiseadministering organisations (e.g., O’Neill & Mattila, 2004). Franchise agreements have been shown to be the preferred growth strategy for hotels (Cunill & Forteza, 2010), with increased market concentration expected by the top hotels. This trend is apparent, but not emphasised, within the Franchising Agreements disclosures. For example,

M. FitzPatrick et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 86e98

93

With a focus on hotel franchising instead of ownership, we benefit from the economies of scale inherent in the franchising business.accordingly continued growth of our franchise business should enable us to realise benefits from the operating leverage in place and improve operating results. (Choice Hotels International, 2009, p. 4)

downturns.we are uniquely positioned to take advantage of strategic opportunities to develop or acquire properties and brands even in economic downturns such as the one we are currently experiencing. We adhere to a formal investment process in evaluating such opportunities with input from various groups within our global organization. (Hyatt Corporation, 2009, p. 24)

The practice of franchising can be understood from an S-D Logic perspective as the formalisation of a particular relationship that includes transmitting the company’s know-how to new operators. This know-how, including both tacit and explicit knowledge, is the essential differentiating information about the company that sets the company apart from competitors and identifies its value proposition as different to customers. There are several arguments for the effectiveness of franchise agreements for the hotel industry (for a review see Cunill & Forteza, 2010). Specifically in the present context, franchising allows the organised dissemination of various elements of IC (e.g., relational capital, social capital, brand capital, company culture, organisation models, information flows, infrastructure, software, databases, internal procedures). Implicit in franchising arrangements are the mutual responsibilities and obligations between the parent hotel and the franchisee. These responsibilities and obligations, endorsed by S-D Logic in the emphasis on mutuality between members of the value-creation network, protect the hotel’s IC-based competitive advantage and allow for improved performance in the future through access to new knowledge, new resources, and new valuecreation networks.

S-D Logic rests on committed, dialogic relationships between the hotel company and stakeholders that involve “the joint investigation of needs, wants, desires, problems, issues, and decisions to be made” (Ballantyne & Varey, 2006, p. 229). Financial Relations represents a particular need of stakeholders for information about the hotel’s financial competence to provide a sound base for decision-making, a “resource input” (Lusch et al., 2008, p. 6) for stakeholders’ continuing value-creation. Indeed, the knowledge resource termed Financial Relations is vital in the resource integration activities between the hotel and external stakeholders that co-create value for both.

6.2. Internal capital disclosures Three internal capital items were among the 10 most disclosed IC items and together accounted for 14.56% of the total IC disclosures. 6.2.1. Financial relations This was the third most disclosed item across the total IC disclosures (7.94%, refer Table 3). US hotel companies disclosed more Financial Relations than European companies, which may be influenced partly by the differences in the US reporting standards (FASB) in this area compared to Europe (IFRS). In its most general sense, the item Financial Relations refers to the dealings between the hotel company and shareholders, other companies, and interest groups within the hotel industry; in particular, communication and relations concerning financial matters (e.g., risk management, financial performance, and strengthening relationships with investors, rating agencies etc.). Disclosures ranged from those of a generally reassuring tone to others that provided more detailed statements: We broadened our offerings to address additional segments of the hospitality market, partnered with experienced investors with proven success in building great public companies. (Hyatt Corporation, 2009, p. 2) Our cost-savings initiatives resulted in increased operating margins at Mountaineer Casino, Racetrack & Resort and at Presque Isle Downs & Casino. (MTR Gaming Group Inc, 2009, p. 1) For these hotel companies, their Financial Relations disclosures are a public declaration of the strategic orientation they take towards managing their value-creation networks; in other words, how well they are learning and adapting within their networks. For example, Our approach is to maintain appropriate levels of financial leverage and liquidity through industry cycles and economic

6.2.2. Expansions Expansions disclosures, accounting for 4.39% of the total IC disclosures in our data, demonstrate growth potential and consequent potential for increased shareholder wealth. For example, MGM emphasised its expansion into a City Centre development (MGM Resorts International, 2009) and Las Vegas Sands detailed its commitment to the company’s Macau project (Las Vegas Sands Corporation, 2009). These disclosures serve as evidence of the hotels’ growth opportunities; at the same time they justify company expenditure on such expansions. For example: “Perhaps most important is the strong return on investment we expect from this expansion and the value it will create for our stockholders” (MTR Gaming Group, 2009, p. 2). The growth option of expansion relates to a company increasing its product/service offerings; in the case of these hotels, Expansions certainly implies new builds in new locations. However, the expectations for the future that new hotels embody (as illustrated in the MTR comment above) are highly intangible. The Expansions item also encompasses new collaborations, expanded service offerings, more effective service processes, asset-light strategies, and international expansion. Such expansions can be regarded as the hotels’ strategic commitment to the particular growth opportunities they consider will generate revenue growth and future earnings. For example: “.we continually focus on .mak[ing] low cost products available to our franchisees; streamlin[ing] the purchasing process.we plan to expand this business and identify new methods for decreasing hotel operating costs.” (Choice Hotels International Inc., 2009, p. 10); and “We will focus our expansion efforts on under-penetrated markets where we already have an established presence and locations where our guests are travelling but where we do not have a presence” (Hyatt Corporation, 2009, p. 26). Given the audience for annual reports includes shareholders, investors, and analysts, it is understandable that the Expansions item is one of the most disclosed IC items. Expansion disclosures indicate the opportunities that the hotel company recognises for future revenue and net income growth, which represent the potential for the creation of ‘value’ as it is constructed by these various publics. Ultimately, realisation of shareholder ‘value’ depends in large part on their continued financial support; therefore, expansion disclosures in annual reports are one means by which the hotel companies can communicate expectations and strategic vision to inspire investor confidence. However, it is reasonable to expect that the economic climate leading up to the annual report preparation would have reduced the hotel companies’ disclosures on their expansions.

94

M. FitzPatrick et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 86e98

S-D Logic endorses understanding how shareholders construct ‘value’ and communicating with them effectively. However, shareholders are just one of the key groups in the hotel’s valuecreation network. Co-constructing value with shareholders relies on co-constructing ‘value’ with the other network members. From the S-D Logic perspective then, the intangible assets associated with hotel expansions are directly related to the successful management of relationships to create ‘value’ as it is differentially constructed across the network (Galbreath, 2002). Disclosure of Expansions in our data typically involved leveraging the hotel’s brand, the IC item most disclosed by these hotel companies. Brodie et al. argue that service brands “provide sign systems that symbolize meaning in the marketing network” (2006, p. 373); our IC disclosure data, which reveal links between categories of external capital (e.g., Brands) and internal capital (e.g., Expansions), provide evidence that some of the hotel companies are realising the benefits that, according to S-D Logic, exist in the interdependent dynamics of resource integration. 6.2.3. Strategy IC disclosures regarding Strategy accounted for 2.23% of the total IC disclosures of the 20 hotels. Strategy is another IC item that leveraged predominantly off the hotel brand. The following example illustrates the centrality of the hotel brand with regard to managing other IC assets strategically: Our business strategy is to create franchise system growth by leveraging Choice’s large and well-known hotel brands, franchise sales capabilities, effective marketing and reservation delivery efforts, certain training and education programs, RevPAR enhancing services and technologies, and financial strength created by our significant free cash flow. (Choice Hotels International Inc, 2009, p. 9) There is a two-way relationship between a company’s resources and its long-term strategy, so the company should have a future objective for how IC as well as physical and monetary capital can be best developed and deployed to sustain competitive advantage (Alcaniz et al., 2011). S-D Logic insists that the focus of strategy is on creating value from intangible assets, which is more difficult and complicated to achieve than “extracting value” from tangible assets (Augier & Teece, 2005, p. 6). Hotel strategy, for instance, concerned with setting the future direction and objectives of the company, should take stock of the IC assets within its value-creation network. It should also have objectives for managing the processes and dynamics of the network itself, in order to facilitate the continued co-creation of value through purposeful activities and the integrative application of resources. This view implies that strategy is concerned with developing selective resources and capabilities that “correspond to key success factors in the target market” (Day, 2004, p. 19). In the context of the hotel industry, sustainable competitive advantage will depend in part on identifying and developing those complex operant resources (e.g., skills, competences, knowledge, relationships) that are embedded in patterns of coordination within the value-creation network itself. Our data suggest that while these hotel companies acknowledged the strategic importance of various IC assets, there was little mention either of how such assets could be increased and developed, or of how relationships and interdependencies among operant resources could be better managed for future value-creation. 6.3. Human capital disclosures Two items of human capital are among the 10 most disclosed IC items, together accounting for 10.35% of the total IC disclosures (Table 3).

6.3.1. Directors/executives Directors/Executives, the fourth most disclosed IC item (7.36% of total IC disclosures), shows empirically the importance these hotels place on the knowledge and expertise that reside in their management teams and supports our inclusion of this item in our modified research instrument. Our data revealed higher disclosures on Directors/Executives by European hotel companies than US companies, which may be explained partly by the differential effects of consolidation and market concentration in the hotel industry (Slattery et al., 2008). The same rapid growth of the experience economy that has created and supports the criticality of intangible assets for companies can also cause rapid changes in the marketplace’s environmental conditions. This environmental volatility underscores the need for astute management of the company’s IC. Hotel company responses to this increasingly complex marketplace are reflected in Directors/Executives disclosures such as: Throughout 2009.the company has strengthened the Board of Directors, adding greater professionalism and a greater range of disciplines.there are now six independent directors out of a total of twelve members, eminent figures in the areas of business, economics, law, philosophy and technology. (Sol Melia SA, 2009, p. 15) The Committee believes that the long-term interests of shareholders are best provided through a competitive remuneration policy aiming to attract, retain and motivate the right calibre of executives to manage the Company in a demanding environment. (Millennium and Copthorne Hotels PLC, 2009, p. 52) Typically, directors and executives, as ‘upper management’, are responsible for making decisions ranging from long-term strategy to immediate marketing tactics for services/goods, as well as creating a particular company culture. On the basis of their knowledge capability, these decision-makers, who can allocate resources and activities that enable flexible collaboration, should be acknowledged as part of the value-creation network of the hotel company. S-D Logic explains the value of directors and executives as being: 1. operant resources; 2. the integrators of other operant and operand resources; and 3. managers of the network’s collaborative co-creation processes (Pike et al., 2005). The synergies realised within the set of directors/executives and their specialised skills, knowledge, and competences are key to creating the hotel company’s competitive advantage. Thus, the directors/executives of these hotel companies are not only actors but also orchestrators of the value-creation network. It is noteworthy that while S-D Logic scholars have identified particular actors for closer scrutiny in the value-creation network, it appears that director and executive actors have not yet been recognised specifically in the S-D Logic theorising. This is a crucial oversight, given the connections between directors/executives and strategy, competitive advantage, and the search for inimitability. In an increasingly competitive and volatile environment such as the hotel industry the key to innovation and competitiveness depends on the “continuous renewal of strategies and competencies” (Ballantyne & Varey, 2006, p. 343), both of which demand high calibre decision-makers. 6.3.2. Employees Employees disclosures (2.99% of total IC disclosures) implicitly acknowledged that the employee interface with guests is critical to the service experience. For example: The professional and human qualities of every person that forms part of the company are decisive when it comes to transmitting to customers the passion for service that has

M. FitzPatrick et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 86e98

always characterised the company and which has become one of the keys to our business success over time.” (Sol Melia SA, 2009, p. 34) As we have seen, the S-D Logic re-orientation from service delivery to value-creation shifts attention to the value-creating interactions and relationships within the company’s network. Disclosures of the Employees item draw particular attention to company employees, especially those who interact with customers. In hotels, the employees who have face-to-face contact with guests (known as ‘boundary spanners’) learn the preferences of an individual guest, personalise the experience for that guest, and thereby shape the ‘value’ co-created in their interaction. Thus, the knowledge and skills of boundary-spanning personnel are critical in negotiating co-constructions of ‘value’. This tacit knowledge is intrinsically personal in nature, “deeply rooted in individual action, commitment, and involvement in specific circumstances” (Guchait, Namasivayam, & Lei, 2011, p. 515). In addition, boundary-spanning employees can be conduits of knowledge between the customer and the hotel company. As operant resources then, employees are vital to the hotel’s communication with the customer, the relationship between hotel and customer, and ultimately the learning that occurs by the hotel about (and with) the customer. Therefore, employees are value-creating assets and are fundamental to economic growth for the hotel (Galbreath, 2002). Indeed, according to Abela and Murphy, S-D Logic implies that the hotel company has an obligation to invest in its employee-asset in order to “deliver on what the brand offers” (2008, p. 47) or, in other words, to meet the implicit promises about value that the brand makes to customers. The ‘investment’ construct encompasses a range of recommendations relating to employees: from actively developing each employee as an operant resource, especially the boundary spanners directly involved in co-creating value with guests (e.g., Michel, Brown, & Gallan, 2008), to building a company culture that champions innovation and responsiveness (e.g., Yang, 2008), through to the purposeful management and dissemination of knowledge learned by boundary-spanning employees (e.g., Shaw et al., 2011). While the Employees item appears in the Top 10 IC items disclosed by these hotel companies, we note that it is one of only two human capital items that figure on the list and is relatively insignificant. In addition to the generic Employees item, our modified research instrument added eight new items to measure disclosures of specific dimensions of the employee human capital asset (e.g., Employee Charitable Efforts, Career Development, Cultural/Diversity). Despite these refinements, the generic Employees item was the only employee-related item to register in the top 10 disclosed IC items. Taken together, our data reveal that while the hotel companies recognise their employees as IC assets, there is much potential for them to invest in their employees as key operant resources. S-D Logic provides a sound conceptual base for hotel companies to move from what appears to be a superficial acknowledgement of their people, to a deeper commitment to realising their potential in the hotels’ value-creation networks. 6.4. Insights, issues, and future research The S-D Logic framework provides insights into hotel companies’ voluntary IC disclosures as demonstrated in our interpretation of the 10 most disclosed items. While all the IC items on our research instrument can be conceived of as operant resources according to S-D Logic, some of the hotel companies’ IC disclosures align particularly well with the logic. For instance, Guest and Employees are highly visible operant resources within the hotels’

95

value-creation network. However, only the generic items for Guests and Employees appeared on the Top 10 list, suggesting that hotels are taking superficial stock of both their guests and their employees. Vargo and Lusch state that “Operant resources, specifically the use of knowledge and mental competences, are at the heart of competitive advantage and performance” (2004, p. 9). Thus, knowledge, skills, and/or competences in human capital that are under-developed or overlooked represent lost opportunities for a hotel company to employ IC assets strategically as the basis of competitive advantage. The S-D Logic focus on interactions, collaboration, relationships, and networks highlights several issues with schema such as the tripartite model of IC. All of the ‘beneficiaries’ involved in a company’s value-creation network are regarded as collaborative partners. The traditional tripartite model used to categorise this data classes the hotel companies’ directors/executives and employees as human capital but the guests as external capital. In addition, the franchisees, suppliers, and business owners that these hotel companies work with are also categorised (by inference) as external capital in items such as Favourable Supplier and Franchising Agreements. This internal/external categorisation of ‘partners’ is intrinsically problematic from the S-D Logic perspective. It also underscores a significant issue regarding the continued use of measures and models that are inconsistent with business and research practices shifting from the microeconomic maximisation paradigm to the service-centred view of exchange (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Another issue revealed by applying the S-D Logic framework to these IC data relates to the processes that underpin S-D Logic. The key S-D Logic concepts all depend on dynamic, evolving processes. Value co-creation, learning and knowledge systems, collaboration, resource integration, information flow, for instance, are all processual in nature. While the tripartite scheme for analysing IC disclosures does include one process item, Management Processes (internal capital), it has no items referring to other key S-D Logic processes; for example, the processes underlying the hotel companies’ relationships with network partners, value-creation processes, learning and knowledge management systems. The hotel companies made only 30 disclosures relating to Management Processes (1% of total IC disclosures); S-D Logic suggests that the hotel companies are overlooking the potential for competitive advantage that lies in the proactive management of the interdependent processes and their coordination. Such issues and insights point to the fundamental challenge of S-D Logic: changing “the mind-sets, schemas, and mental models of the managers and researchers who determine how competitive advantage is conceptualised and how resources are allocated” (Day, 2004, p. 18). Therefore, while our interpretation situates hotel IC disclosures within S-D Logic and makes a strong case for applying this framework in this context, it is evident that research of IC disclosure practices needs improvement. The results of our study encourage further research. Although we adapted the research instrument for the hotel industry context, future studies are needed to validate these adaptations. Given the internationalisation trend within the hotel industry, further research could usefully relate specific variables (e.g., ownership structure, governance mechanisms, composition of boards of directors, and strategic orientation) to IC disclosures. We suggest the development of a research agenda that uses case studies and multiple sources of evidence to evaluate hotel companies’ IC disclosures and charts the effects of strategic change on their financial performance. Finally, there are exciting opportunities for replicating this research in other tourism organisations, following the valuable insights afforded by applying S-D Logic to IC in the hotel context.

96

M. FitzPatrick et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 86e98

7. Conclusions This research interpreted hotel companies’ IC disclosure data using the S-D Logic framework rather than theoretical frameworks based on the goods-dominant logic (G-D Logic) that underlies conventional business practice and research protocols. Our paper contributes to the tourism management literature in several ways. It is the first to apply S-D Logic to interpret voluntary IC disclosures made by hotels in their annual reports. Second, our paper provides fresh insights into managing IC for competitive advantage in the hotel industry and finally, we further demonstrate the usefulness of S-D Logic for tourism management. As a preliminary study this research has some important findings. Frequently disclosed IC items supported the centrality of the service experience in the hotel industry, the interdependence of multiple organisations and actors within a hotel’s network, and the overall coordination of the value-creation network. However, we conclude that the generic IC disclosures made by these hotels deny the potential capacity for value-creation to be gained from better measuring (and therefore managing) the specifics of brands, guests, and employees. Given the importance of intangible assets in today’s environment, the fundamental challenge for hotel management lies in disclosing and managing that capital responsively, according to changing constructions of value within the hotel’s network. Implicit in this type of management are the twin needs for full information on value construction and for relational processes that communicate evolving value propositions and accommodate change. According to S-D Logic, service is a process of integrating a company’s resources in the co-creation of value. This involves the application of operant resources such as IC to co-create value in such a way that management recognises and maximises the hotel company’s competitive advantage. Converting operant resources into competitive advantage under S-D Logic requires a new model of business strategy concerned with developing IC resources within a dynamic system of interrelationships. We contend that S-D Logic can help hotel companies better understand and manage the holistic network of relationships to create more sustainable competitive advantage.

References Abela, A. V., & Murphy, P. E. (2008). Marketing with integrity: ethics and the service-dominant logic for marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 39e53. Abeysekera, I. (2007). Intellectual capital reporting between a developing and developed nation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(2), 329e345. Alcaniz, L., Gomez-Bezares, F., & Roslender, R. (2011). Theoretical perspectives on intellectual capital: a backward look and a proposal for going forward. Accounting Forum, 35(2), 104e117. Asku, A. A., & Tarcan, E. (2002). The Internet and five-star hotels: a case study from the Antalya region in Turkey. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 4(2), 94e97. Augier, M., & Teece, D. (2005). An economics perspective on intellectual capital. In B. Marr (Ed.), Perspectives on intellectual capital (pp. 3e27). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Bailey, R., & Ball, S. (2006). An exploration of the meanings of hotel brand equity. Service Industries Journal, 26(1), 15e38. Ballantyne, D., & Varey, R. (2006). Creating value-in-use through marketing interaction: the exchange logic of relating, communicating and knowing. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 335e348. Baltescu, C. A. (2009). Challenges and opportunities facing brand management in the lodging industry. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov, 2(51), 67e 74. Beattie, V., & Thomson, S. J. (2007). Lifting the lid on the use of content analysis to investigate intellectual capital disclosures. Accounting Forum, 31, 129e163. Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision, 36(2), 63e76. Bozzolan, S., O’Regan, P., & Ricceri, F. (2006). Intellectual capital disclosure: a comparison of Italy and the UK. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 10(2), 92e113.

Brennan, N. (2001). Reporting intellectual capital in annual reports: evidence from Ireland. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14(4), 423e436. Brodie, R. J., Glynn, M. S., & Little, V. (2006). The service brand and the servicedominant logic: missing fundamental premise of the need for stronger theory. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 363e379. Caddy, I. (2000). Intellectual capital: recognizing both assets and liabilities. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(2), 129e146. Campbell, D., & Abdul Rahman, M. R. (2010). A longitudinal examination of intellectual capital reporting in Marks & Spencer annual reports, 1978e2008. The British Accounting Review, 42, 56e70. Chalhoub, M. (2010). Innovation management and thought leadership e a cultural requirement in a global competitive environment. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 16(1), 240e245. Chen, J., Zhu, Z., & Xie, H. Y. (2004). Measuring intellectual capital: a new model and empirical study. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(1), 195e212. Cooper, C. (2006). Knowledge management and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 47e64. Cooper, D., & Sherer, M. J. (1984). The value of corporate accounting reports: arguments for a political economy of accounting. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 9(3/4), 207e232. Cunill, O. M., & Forteza, C. M. (2010). The franchise contract in hotel chains: a study of hotel chain growth and market concentrations. Tourism Economics, 16(3), 493e515. Davey, J., Schneider, L., & Davey, H. (2009). Intellectual capital disclosure and the fashion industry. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(3), 401e424. Dawkins, C., & Ngunjiri, F. W. (2008). Corporate social responsibility reporting in South Africa: a descriptive and comparative analysis. Journal of Business Communication, 45(3), 286e307. Day, G. S. (2004). Achieving advantage with a new dominant logic e invited commentary. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 18e27. de Chernatony, L., & Segal-Horn, S. (2001). Building on services’ characteristics to develop successful services brands. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(7/8), 645e669. Dredge, D. (2006). Policy networks and the local organisation of tourism. Tourism Management, 27(2), 269e280. EFFAS Commission on Intellectual Capital (EFFAS CIC). (2008). Principles for effective communication of intellectual capital. The European Federation of Financial Analysts Societies, (EFFAS). Engstrom, T. E. J., Westnes, P., & Westnes, S. F. (2003). Evaluating intellectual capital in the hotel industry. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(3), 287e303. Fincham, R., & Roslender, R. (2003). Intellectual capital accounting as management fashion: a review and critique. European Accounting Review, 12(4), 781e795. Forgacs, G. (2003). Brand asset equilibrium in hotel management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(6), 340e342. Galbreath, J. (2002). Twenty-first century management rules: the management of relationships as intangible assets. Management Decision, 40(2), 116e126. Garcia-Ayuso, M. (2003). Intangibles: lessons from the past and look in to the future. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 597e604. Garcia-Meca, E. (2005). Bridging the gap between disclosure and use of intellectual capital information. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(3), 427e440. Garcia-Parra, M., Simo, P., Sallan, J. M., & Mundet, J. (2009). Intangible liabilities: beyond models of intellectual assets. Management Decision, 47(5), 819e830. Grissemann, U. S., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2012). Customer co-creation of travel services: the role of company support and customer satisfaction with the cocreation performance. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1483e1492. Guchait, P., Namasivayam, K., & Lei, P.-W. (2011). Knowledge management in service encounters: impact on customers’ satisfaction evaluations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(3), 513e527. Guthrie, J. (2001). The management, measurement and the reporting of intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(1), 27e27. Guthrie, J., & Petty, R. (2000). Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting practices. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(3), 241e251. Guthrie, J., Petty, R., Yongvanich, K., & Ricceri, F. (2004). Using content analysis as a research method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 282e293. Hallin, C. A., & Marnburg, E. (2007). Knowledge management in the hospitality industry: a review of empirical research. Tourism Management, 29, 366e381. Han, H., Kim, W., & Hyun, S. S. (2011). Switching intention model development: role of service performances, customer satisfaction, and switching barriers in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3), 619e629. Hartline, M. D., & Jones, K. C. (1996). Employee performance cues in a hotel service environment: influence on perceived service quality, value, and word-ofmouth. Journal of Business Research, 35(3), 207e215. Harvey, M. G., & Lusch, R. F. (1999). Balancing the intellectual capital books: intangible liabilities. European Management Journal, 17(1), 85e92. Hemmington, N. (2007). From service to experience: understanding and defining the hospitality business. The Service Industries Journal, 27(6), 747e755. Holverson, S., & Revaz, F. (2006). Perceptions of European independent hoteliers: hard and soft branding choices. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(5), 398e413. Hormiga, E., Batista-Canino, R. M., & Sanchez-Medina, A. (2011). The impact of relational capital on the success of new business start-ups. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(4), 617e638.

M. FitzPatrick et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 86e98 Hunt, S. D. (2004). On the service-dominant logic for marketing value e invited commentary. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 18e27. Jerman, M., Kavcic, S., & Kavcic, B. (2009). Intangibles as future value creators: the case of the hotel industry. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 15(2), 153e162. Kayaman, R., & Arasli, H. (2007). Customer based brand equity: evidence from the hotel industry. Managing Service Quality, 17(1), 92e109. Laing, G., Dunn, J., & Hughes-Lucas, S. (2010). Applying the VAIC model to Australian hotels. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(3), 269e283. Lee, J., & Back, K. (2010). Examining antecedents and consequences of brand personality in the upper-upscale business hotel segment. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(2), 132e145. Lev, B. (2001). Intangibles: Management, measurement, and reporting. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Li, X., & Petrick, J. F. (2008). Tourism marketing in an era of paradigm shift. Journal of Travel Research, 46(3), 235e244. Li, J., Pike, R., & Haniffa, R. (2006). Intellectual capital disclosures in corporate annual reports: A European comparison (Working Paper Series No. 06/24). Bradford, UK: Bradford University School of Management. Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281e288. Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & Wessels, G. (2008). Towards a conceptual foundation for service science: contributions from service-dominant logic. IBM Systems Journal, 47(1), 5e14. Marr, B. (2005). Perspectives on intellectual capital. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Merz, M. A., He, Y., & Vargo, S. L. (2009). The evolving brand logic: a servicedominant logic perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(3), 328e344. Michel, S., Brown, S. W., & Gallan, A. S. (2008). An expanded and strategic view of discontinuous innovations: deploying a service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 54e66. Miller, J. C., & Whiting, R. H. (2005). Voluntary disclosure of intellectual capital and the ‘hidden value’. Proceedings from AFAANZ Conference, Melbourne. Namvar, M., Fathian, M., Akhaven, P., & Gholamian, M. (2010). Exploring the impacts of intellectual property on intellectual capital and company performance: the case of Iranian computer and electronic organizations. Management Decision, 48(5), 676e697. Nasution, H. N., & Mavondo, F. T. (2008). Customer value in the hotel experience: what managers believe they deliver and what customers experience. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 204e213. O’Neill, J., & Mattila, A. S. (2004). Hotel branding strategy: its relationship to guest satisfaction and room revenue. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 28, 156e165. Peppard, J., & Rylander, A. (2001). Leveraging intellectual capital at ApiON. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3), 225e235. Petty, R., & Cuganesan, S. (2005). Voluntary disclosure of intellectual capital by Hong Kong companies: examining size, industry and growth effects over time. Australian Accounting Review, 15(2), 40e50. Petty, R., & Guthrie, J. (2000). Intellectual capital literature review: measurement, reporting and management. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(2), 155e176. Pike, S., Fernstrom, L., & Roos, G. (2005). Intellectual capital: management approach in ICS Ltd. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(4), 489e509. Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Rude z, H. N., & Mihali c, T. (2007). Intellectual capital in the hotel industry: a case study from Slovenia. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(1), 188e199. Same, S., & Larimo, J. (2012, May). Marketing theory: Experience marketing and experiential marketing. Paper presented at the 7th International Scientific Conference, Vilnius, Lithuania. Schwartz, S. C. (2012). Experiential consumption: A literature review that positions subcultures of consumption within the experience economy. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Shaw, G., Bailey, A., & Williams, A. (2011). Aspects of service-dominant logic and its implications for tourism management: examples for the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 32(2), 207e214. Sigala, M., & Chalkiti, K. (2007). Improving performance through tacit knowledge externalisation and utilisation: preliminary findings from Greek hotels. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 56(5/6), 456e483. Slattery, P., Gamse, I., & Roper, A. (2008). The development of international hotel chains in Europe. In M. Olsen, & J. Zhao (Eds.), Handbook of hospitality strategic management (pp. 41e69). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. Stanton, P., & Stanton, J. (2002). Corporate annual reports: research perspectives used. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(4), 478e500. Stewart, T. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.

97

Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new organizational wealth: Managing and measuring knowledge based assets. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler. Tan, H. P., Plowman, D., & Hancock, P. (2007). Intellectual capital and financial returns of companies. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(1), 76e95. Tsang, E. W. K. (1998). A longitudinal study of corporate social reporting in Singapore: the case of the banking, food and beverages and hotel industries. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 11(5), 624e635. Tynan, C., & McKechnie, S. (2009). Experience marketing: a review and reassessment. Journal of Marketing Management, 25(5e6), 501e517. Vargo, S. L., & Akaka, M. A. (2009). Service-dominant logic as a foundation for service science: clarifications. Service Science, 1(1), 32e41. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1e17. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). From goods to service(s): divergences and convergences of logic. Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 254e259. Vergauwen, P., Bollen, L., & Oirbans, E. (2007). Intellectual capital disclosure and intangible value drivers: an empirical study. Management Decision, 45(7), 1163e 1180. Wang, W.-Y., & Chang, C. (2005). Intellectual capital and performance in causal models: evidence from the information technology industry in Taiwan. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(2), 222e236. Wang, C.-H., Chen, K.-Y., & Chen, S.-C. (2012). Total quality management, market orientation and hotel performance: the moderating effects of external environmental factors. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(1), 119e129. Whicker, L. M., & Andrews, K. M. (2004). HRM in the knowledge economy: realising the potential. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 42, 156e165. Xu, J. B., & Chan, A. (2010). A conceptual framework of hotel experience and customer-based brand equity: some research questions and implications. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(2), 174e193. Yang, J.-T. (2008). Individual attitudes and organizational knowledge sharing. Tourism Management, 29(2), 345e353. Yi, A., Davey, H. B., & Eggleton, I. R. C. (2011). Towards a comprehensive theoretical framework for voluntary IC disclosure. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12(4), 571e585. Zéghal, D., & Maaloul, A. (2010). Analysing value added as an indicator of intellectual capital and its consequences on company performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(1), 39e60.

Website addresses of annual reports of hotel companies Accor SA. (2009). http://www.accor.com/uploads/static/ra2009/en/appli.htm. Boyd Gaming Corporation. (2009). http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml? c¼95703&p¼irol-reports. Choice Hotels International, Inc. (2009). http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/100301/ CHOICE-HOTELS-INTERNATIONAL-INC-DE_10-K/. Hotel Regina Paris SA. (2009). http://www.sa-hotel-regina-paris.com/. Hyatt Corporation. (2009). http://investors.hyatt.com/phoenix.zhtml?c¼228969& p¼irol-sec Hyatt2009AnnualReport[1].pdf. InterContinental Hotels Group PLC. (2009). http://www.ihgplc.com/files/reports/ ar2009/. Las Vegas Sands Corporation. (2009). http://investor.lasvegassands.com/annuals. cfm. Les Hotels de Paris SA. (2009). http://www.leshotelsdeparis.biz/portal.php? x¼REPORTS&l¼FR. Marriott International, Inc. (2009). http://investor.shareholder.com/mar/secfiling. cfm?filingID¼1193125-09-27236. MGM Mirage, Inc. (2009). http://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/ AnnualReports/.../mgm2009.pdf. Millennium and Copthorne Hotels PLC. (2009). http://www.millenniumhotels.com/ corporate/investor.../ara_2009.pdf. MTR Gaming Group, Inc. (2009). http://www.moreatmountaineer.com/ mountaineer_home/.../ar09.pdf. NH Hoteles SA. (2009). https://corporate.nh-hoteles.es/.../NHH_Financial_ Statements_2009. Park Plaza Hotels Ltd.. (2009). http://www.parkplazahotels.net/default.asp? section¼1154&page¼8735. Peel Hotels PLC. (2009). http://www.peelhotels.co.uk/about-peel-hotels/investorrelations.shtml. Sol Melia SA. (2009). http://prensa.solmelia.com/en/view_manager.html?root¼87,98. Starwood Hotel and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. (2009). http://development. starwoodhotels.com/.../14-starwood_2009_annual_report. The Hotel Corporation. (2009). http://www.thehotelcorporation.co.im/. Vail Resorts, Inc. (2009). http://investors.vailresorts.com/annuals.cfm. Wynn Resorts Ltd.. (2009). https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/983134/ 20100323/AR_57891/HTML2/wynn_resorts-ar2009_0003.htm.

98

M. FitzPatrick et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 86e98 Dr Mary FitzPatrick has a PhD in Marketing from the University of Waikato. She is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Marketing, Waikato Management School. Mary FitzPatrick’s research explores interactions between the consumers and providers of services, in particular the experience and construction of relationships within service contexts.

Professor Howard Davey is a Professor of Accounting at the University of Waikato. He has a background in government accounting practices and business. Howard’s research interests are in the areas of external reporting and financial accounting in general, including intellectual capital disclosure, non-traditional measures of performance, and accounting theory.

Ms Janet Davey has an MA (Hons) in Psychology and an MPhil (Dist) in Regional Planning. She currently supervises senior undergraduate research projects at Waikato Management School, University of Waikato. Her research interests are stakeholder networks, knowledge management, and strategic marketing.

Ms Lisa Muller has a BMS (Hons) in Accounting from the University of Waikato.