Corporate Responsibility for Cultural Heritage

Conservation, Sustainable Development, and Corporate Reputation

Fiona Starr

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781135135829
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architettura
• Subtopic: Conservazione storica in architettura

This book examines the relationship between two divergent fields – corporate activity and heritage conservation – linking the financing of conservation and its benefits with the corporate social responsibility (CSR) goals of the private sector. Through discussion of physical conservation, benefits to heritage site visitors, sustainable development impacts, and corporate benefits such as improved reputation, this book outlines the shared value of corporate support for cultural heritage sites, and encourages financial and in-kind support for conservation and responsible activity by the private sector.

Providing a convincing commercial rationale for CSR managers to engage with cultural heritage sites, this book suggests how companies may reap the benefits of CSR for heritage. Author Fiona Starr offers advice for companies looking to specialize in a unique CSR endeavor, especially those looking to engage with emerging markets. The book also provides useful strategies for heritage managers to attract CSR and financial support, offering new look at the financing of heritage conservation at both international and local levels and providing a new approach to the future of financing of cultural heritage conservation

Part I

Private Sector and Heritage Conservation Goals

Sometimes the objectives of developers and heritage policy can seem at cross purposes, but economic analyses suggest that there is ample common ground.

Robert et al. (2003: 95)

1 Heritage Conservation, Funding and the Private Sector

Preserving our cultural heritage is an expensive business. Too expensive to be shouldered by one financing formula alone.

Frangialli (1998: 11)

When considering the goal of funding the safeguarding of heritage through conservation, it is useful to consider what we mean by cultural heritage, why we value it, why it needs conservation, who is responsible for its care, what is the current state of financing of heritage conservation and to what extent is the private sector aware of the value and needs of cultural heritage.

1.1 What is Cultural Heritage? Why is it Important?

Cultural heritage is almost anything created by people including architecture, archaeology and monuments, but it can also refer to intangible culture such as music, dance, cuisine and cultural traditions. In this book, the term ‘cultural heritage’ follows the definition used in the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, also known as the World Heritage Convention, adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1972. It defines cultural heritage sites as monuments (architecture, archaeological elements, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features); groups of buildings including historic cities; and sites (works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including archaeological sites) (UNESCO, 1972). The convention gives UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee the mandate to identify, protect and preserve the most significant and precious natural and cultural heritage sites around the world. Such places are masterpieces of human creative genius, show developments in architecture, design, planning or technology, represent cultural traditions that have disappeared, and reflect significant periods or activities in human history. While some heritage sites around the world are considered to be more significant and exceptional than others, and are protected by international conventions, heritage places and sites of all kinds at national, regional and local scales are also valued and protected by legislation, protective charters and lists. Cultural heritage places are an invaluable source of local and national pride and identity and if properly managed, can be a source of long-term local socio-economic development through skill development, job creation and poverty alleviation. The safeguarding of such significant and rare places is essential for the preservation of cultural traditions and identity and the history of human civilization.

1.2 Heritage Sites Under Threat

Heritage places around the world are threatened by exponential population growth, tourism, pollution, urban development and construction, mining, armed conflict, traffic congestion, lack of legislation and resources for conservation management, irresponsible governance and corruption, looting and trafficking, natural disasters and the effects of climate change and deliberate destruction. Poor planning controls also create threats, particularly in less developed countries, with great pressure for heritage sites to be replaced with high-rise developments. Irreplaceable underground archaeological remains and historic structures and landscapes are being destroyed as more land is taken up for industrial, commercial or public infrastructure uses. Even heritage places that do not face these destructive forces still face the threats of time, neglect and lack of use, leading to deterioration or destruction.

Many sensitive heritage sites receive visitor numbers beyond carrying capacity and, while the impact of visitors has long been recognized, there is still surprising ignorance about the detrimental effects that visitors can have on heritage places, and the long-term problems that tourism causes. The United Nations World Tourism Organization predicts that by 2020, the world will experience 1.6 billion international tourist arrivals, in comparison with 693 million in 2001(UNWTO, 2012). Many impacts of tourists on cultural heritage sites are often irreversible, including graffiti, looting of artefacts, fading of artwork due to flash photography, path and historic surface erosion and the deteriorating effects of moisture and humidity fluctuations such as salt crystallization and mould growth.

A number of conservation approaches to reduce the impact of tourism on heritage sites are being trialled; however, these measures may not be sufficient to protect sites in the long term. In the near future, visitor numbers may reach such levels that the ongoing use of such practical methods of visitor management may severely restrict access or compromise the visitor experience. In order for tourism and heritage to maintain a sustainable and mutually beneficial relationship, greater public awareness of conservation and detrimental behaviour is required, as is greater responsibility for sites, particularly from private sector industries such as tour operators, whose business activities have direct impacts on the preservation of sites.

As of 2012, 38 of the 962 World Heritage properties are inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, requiring the urgent allocation of resources to safeguard the properties. Each year since 1995, the World Monuments Fund has listed 100 of the world’s most endangered sites on its World Monuments Watch list, to identify sites most in need of their assistance. In its Saving Our Vanishing Heritage study the Global Heritage Fund recognized 200 sites in the lowest-income countries of the world that are facing irreversible loss and damage (GHF, 2010). These are amongst the most significant and iconic sites around the world, so we can only begin to imagine the state of deterioration and scale of resources needed to preserve the hundreds of other sites at the national and local scale not recognized on these international lists.

1.3 Safeguarding Heritage: Who is Responsible?

Theoretically, every member of society is a heritage stakeholder and so must be responsible for its conservation. At the global scale, World Heritage sites with ‘outstanding universal value’ (UNESCO, 1972: 4) are considered to be a common inheritance that transcends political and geographical boundaries. Likewise, the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter) (1964) regards ancient monuments as a common heritage, asserting that it is the duty of the international community as a whole to ensure their conservation for future generations. As individuals we must all ensure the safeguarding of cultural heritage, from places of local to global significance.

Large organizations and companies share the same legal and moral rights and duties as individuals, so logically they must share the responsibility for heritage protection. Companies in the world’s major developed countries have expanded their global reach significantly since the 1980s, with multinational enterprises (MNEs) extending their business to remote parts of the world. Production has become increasingly global, with parts of the supply chain, production, headquarters, listing of shares, legal incorporation, manufacturing and other activities occurring across numerous countries. The national identities of MNEs are being dissolved, creating a dichotomy between local and global, which has been referred to as the ‘responsibility paradox’ and the concept of ‘global corporate responsibility’ (Davis et al., 2006). Companies today are not simply citizens of the countries where their headquarters are based or their stock is listed, but are citizens of the world. MNEs operate beyond national governance requirements, so it can be argued therefore that they have a global social responsibility that extends beyond the company’s shareholders, to the international community. In this sense, responsibility for heritage sites of global significance, for example, should be considered amongst the causes that the private sector support through corporate responsibility.

Indeed, the business activities of some industries such as tourism and hospitality, extractive resource industries and property development often have significant negative impacts on cultural heritage sites and the industries stand to profit from the values and resources of sites themselves. For many tourism industry companies, their profitability and mere existence depends upon heritage attractions, so there is certainly a social expectation and need to act responsibly for the protection of heritage sites. While the tourism industry can bring many socio-economic development benefits to areas surrounding cultural heritage sites, the industry also uses cultural heritage resources to attract customers for financial gain. The visits of these customers have negative impacts on the fabric of heritage sites, so there has long been reason to call for increased tourism industry responsibility and the return of some revenue towards conservation of the sites that sustain their business. A number of studies have indicated the general need for increased social responsibility in the tourism and hospitality industry (Miller, 2001; Kalisch, 2002; Kasim, 2006). These argue that tourism has widespread negative impacts and that the industry must behave responsibly and guide the sustainable tourism process, for the good of society and the environment, but also for the sustainability of the industry itself.

The broader private sector is also under increasing public pressure to behave in responsible ways, especially to protect the natural environment and to help solve social problems. There is also a general belief that the broader private sector should act responsibly towards cultural heritage. A survey conducted by the author in February 2008 at the World Heritage site of Preah Khan, Angkor, Cambodia, revealed that visitors believed that governments and inter-governmental organizations (IGOs) such as the United Nations (UNESCO) and the World Bank should ultimately be responsible for caring for and funding heritage. However, responses from many visitors also indicated a general belief that the private sector should show more responsibility for cultural heritage sites.

Some visitors called on companies to be more involved in the funding of heritage sites, particularly large, multinational and wealthy companies. In relation to the American Express Company support at the site, one visitor noted: ‘Good job! To be continued and increased please!’ (German female, aged 18–30, corporate employee). Others agreed: ‘They should fund more!’ (German female, aged 18–30, student); ‘companies should be more involved’ (Canadian male, aged 18–30, SME employee); ‘need more participation of international companies to give money’ (Korean male, aged 31–40, SME employee); ‘corporates should contribute more money to heritage conservation and set up foundations to monitor the conservation progress’ (Chinese male, aged 31–40, MNE employee); ‘the more participation by corporates the better!’ (Chinese female, aged 18–30, SME employee).

One Korean male noted that ‘companies should be held more responsible, and they should participate more’ (Korean male, aged 41–50, not-for-profit/ public sector employee), and one American male felt that the business activities of companies require that they be held responsible: ‘The bastards live off the third world, they should support it (e.g., NIKE in my state of Oregon)’ (American male, 51–60, SME employee). Some believed the wealth of large companies provides a rationale for increased responsibility: ‘even if the company doesn’t make profits [from supporting heritage], companies should provide more support because they have more money’ (Korean male, aged 18–30, student); ‘I think companies definitely should help preserve, especially those that make big profits’ (Australian female, aged 31–40, not for profit/public sector employee). There was also a call for large companies to provide support: ‘corporates especially big ones, should contribute more effort’ (Chinese male, aged 18–30, SME employee); ‘large companies should contribute towards the preservation of more world heritage sites around the globe’ (Australian male, aged 51–60, corporate employee).

Others believed it is simply the social duty of companies: ‘Any profitable companies should help to conserve heritage. It’s part of the social responsibility to make a contribution to the world’ (Chinese female, aged 18–30, SME employee). One female student noted that the choice to support heritage rests with companies, although the public will notice: ‘I think companies should be interested in heritage, more so than now. The way? It’s up to them. We’ll watch them’ (Korean female, aged 18–30, student). One respondent even pinned the responsibility on the hospitality industry: ‘hotels from international origin should be forced to give a part of their profits to world heritage sites’ (Canadian female, aged 18–30, student).

A couple of respondents believed that responsibility should be shared: ‘UN, local government, and companies should invest for heritage more aggressively’ (Korean male, aged 41–50, SME employee); ‘Everyone should take part, government takes the lead, big corporates should give part of their profits in conserving heritage, that’s social responsibility’ (Chinese female, aged 31–40, SME employee), and some others believed that responsibility for heritage conservation is still the responsibility of governments: ‘government should take the lead on conservation, not focus on commercialization and neglect the purpose of conservation’ (Chinese male, aged 18–30, SME employee); ‘Ultimately it’s a govt’s responsibility to care for and garner respect for the sites!’ (Singaporean female, aged 18–30, SME employee).

1.4 Heritage Funding Needs & Limited Resources for Conservation

1.4.1 The Global Financial Crisis & Heritage

Since 2008, the global financial crisis has had an adverse affect on the funding of heritage and culture, creating a political environment where governments take increasingly economic rationalist approaches, with austerity measures and de-funding and privatization of public assets such as arts and heritage institutions. It has been suggested that the crisis has even begun to be used as a reason to legitimate decisions or policies regarding heritage protection as ‘unavoidable’ (Schlanger and Aitchison, 2010) and that pressures from international financial organizations might play a role in influencing government re-organization of heritage management (Luciano, 2006). The economic downturn is causing problems not only in funding for research and conservation projects, but across the whole field of heritage management, including job losses, heritage consultancy and archaeological business closures due to less developer-funded projects, changes in policies and legislation, and government cuts to tertiary education for training in heritage management theory and skills.

Struggling economies, poor governance and corruption in many countries are having negative impacts on heritage sites, and other basic social needs requiring attention mean that resources for heritage are extremely limited. In Europe, the Euro debt crisis has begun to affect the conservation of some of the region’s most significant places. In Greece, for example, the Culture and Tourism Ministry has cut 2,000 jobs since 2009, and museums and archaeological sites were nearly completely shut down in November 2011 due to a dispute about the overtime pay of staff (Jones, 2011). This reduction in management creates neglect and therefore security risks for the conservation of sites and the potential for damage and trafficking of antiquities. Aside from direct funding cuts, the financial crisis is having more general adverse affects on heritage sites in Greece, with the austerity measures causing protesters to set fire to dozens of buildings in 2012, including several national heritage sites (Tugwell, 2012).

Cultural heritage sites are non-renewable and yet they receive substantially less philanthropic and political attention than natural heritage. While natural heritage sites have been well supported by funds from the UNDP, UNEP and World Bank, and are the focus of the ongoing environmental movement, much still needs to be done to attract resources for cultural sites, particularly in developing countries. It has even been suggested that the crisis facing cultural property is similar to that of decreasing biodiversity (Goodland and Webb, 1987). As more and more heritage sites are listed on heritage protection registers, as sites age and deteriorate further, and suffer the effects of mass tourism and other threats, the already limited resources must be spread wider. Even in the current economic crisis, tourism to heritage sites is increasing, so more resources are needed for conservation monitoring and reducing the impacts of mass tourism.

1.4.2 Heritage Financing Organizations & Funds

At the global level, international support for cultural heritage site preservation has traditionally been provided through the World Heritage Fund, established in order to assist States Parties to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention to preserve sites within their territory. It consists of biennial compulsory contributions from States Parties, UNESCO and other UN agencies, public and private bodies, interest, revenue from fundraising events and other sources. The fund reached the level of US$5–5.5 million per year in 2000–2002, but it has since been reduced to approximately $7 million per biennium (Bandarin, 2007). The value of the fund has also dwindled over the last decade due to poor currency exchange rates and an exponential increase in States Parties to the Convention (Vrdoljak, 2008).

Intended as a supplement to national contributions towards the conservation and management of sites, the World Heritage Fund provides assistance for emergency aid, training, management expertise, technical missions and equipment, but only if site management plans have been approved and a report on the condition of the site is submitted at regular intervals according to the instructions of the WH Committee (Feilden and Jokilehto, 1998). Requests are considered by the committee twice a year, but in 2005 a review found that between 1998 and 2003, the fund was often exhausted by the middle of the year (Vrdoljak, 2008). However it is managed and distributed, the WH Fund is a limited resource that is unable to meet the needs of all the sites it serves.

Funds are also made available through the US-based United Nations Foundation (UNF), which since 1998 has provided about US$32 million in private funds for conservation at natural heritage sites (Patchett, 2008), but is less focused on cultural heritage sites. In addition to these funds, technical support and expertise is provided by advisory bodies such as IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM, and some financial support is offered by other bodies such as governments, inter-governmental bodies, development banks and NGOs. Even combined with the World Heritage Fund, these additional sources are still insufficient for the growing number of inscribed sites and their increasingly complex management issues.

In order to ensure the ongoing safeguarding of cultural heritage sites, in an economic climate involving government funding cuts, new sources of revenue and conservation measures are required. Linking this need with the CSR obligation of the private sector, through philanthropic support, partnerships and responsible business, may be the approach that is required for more sustainable financing, resources, and care for cultural heritage into the future. There is great potential for heritage to partner with CSR programs and work in the area of partnerships has already begun.

In response to increasing private sector interest in recent years, particularly in the United States, the UNESCO WHC launched its World Heritage Partnerships Initiative (WHPI) in 2002. It is based on the United Nations Global Compact, whose principles provide a standards framework for the business w...