This opinion piece reviews the claim by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) that its Global Code of Ethics “is an important frame of reference for the responsible…development of world tourism”. Most of the prescriptions contained within the Code's 10 Articles and accompanying sections focus on human rights, freedoms and benefits and much less on specific aspects of the environment. The Code's overriding anthropocentric tone denies any chance for it to be a truly responsible creed. Being responsible should mean taking care of human needs, and the needs of the millions of animals used in the tourism industry for human enjoyment and benefit. The code fails to be truly responsible: the “frame of reference” is not inclusive or protective of the welfare of those beings who, by their involvement as workers, entertainers and competitors, are an important part of the tourism industry's operations whether acknowledged or not. Animal ethics is an area of scholarship that is virtually terra incognita in tourism studies. The paper recommends that the UNWTO reconvene to amend the Code. Good practice is illustrated, and a draft Article 11 for a revised UNWTO Code is provided. Respect and animal welfare is advocated, but not the more extreme position of animal rights.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David A. Fennell (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: