*2.2.1. Classification systems of tourism organizations*

On the other hand, the analyses carried out highlight the relatively low number of the tourism organizations ISO 9001 certified, and the causes that explain this situation. The survey conducted at Egyptian travel agencies, in 2008, shows that 84% of the respondents have not applied a formal Quality Management program; only 4% had already implemented a formal quality system, the other 12% of them being in the stage of preparation [31]. A similar situation, consisting in a small number of tourism organizations ISO 9001 certified, is presented in other studies, referring to Croatia [28], Portugal [32], and Romania [33]. It is notable that a small number of big tourism companies do have quality systems ISO 9001 certified as can be seen from the information published on their websites and on other promotional materials.

164 Mobilities, Tourism and Travel Behavior - Contexts and Boundaries

There are also critical studies on ISO 9001 implementation in tourism related to the efficiency of QMSs. As the literature consistently shows, the implementation of the ISO 9001 standard in tourism can be very different from one organization to another, considering the motives, tools, and results [34–36]. The researchers consider that the efficient functioning of the QMS must be reflected in improved performance, expressed by the evolution of the number of customers, the number of new customers, the losing effect of certain customers, etc., with customer satisfaction being crucial to achieve the objectives related to financial performance of the organization. However, an empirical study carried out with guests of the Spanish and Italian hotels shows that quality-certified hotels did not receive a significantly better statistical evaluation from their customers [36]. Frequently, customers are not aware of what the QMSs consistent with ISO 9001 are. The study's authors underline the potential dangers in inferring directly that quality certification in the hospitality industry leads to superior customer

Generally, the causes of low effectiveness of QMSs based on ISO 9001 model do not differ in tourism compared to other activity areas, the most important being: formal application of the standard requirements, with accent on the QMS documentation; focusing on technical issues, without taking into account social aspects; lack of the staff training in the field of quality; and low commitment of the staff in achieving quality, especially of the senior management [37]. Zajarskas and Ruževi consider that "implementation or improvement of management system is primarily strategic management of change," most problems being at the level of strategic management [38]. In many cases, the certification ISO 9001 is intended to improve the corporate image rather than internal practices and organization effectiveness. According to Dick et al., managers should consider that internal drivers are the key to quality certification success. Consequently, top management should be involved to produce a robust quality system, which incorporates the utilization of quality improvement tools and generates greater internal benefits and customer satisfaction [35]. According to Kachniewska, one of the causes of QMS inefficiency is the superficial knowledge of the standard, which encourages the belief that ISO 9001 is irrelevant to the tourism sector [39]. This probably explains why the tourism industry searches for a new internationally recognized quality standard that would be more applicable

for the tourism sector. The results of this work are presented in Sections 2.2.2 and 2.3.

Besides ISO 9001, the opening toward the application of more complex models aiming to achieve excellence is also notable. Broadly speaking, "excellence" means "greatness—the very best." Currently, the term is commonly used in the economic and administrative environments,

satisfaction.

The term classification, also called grading, rating, and star rating [43], refers to breaking down and ranking accommodation units into categories. The European Standardization Committee defines the expression "accommodation rating," or "classification scheme," as "a system providing an assessment of the quality standards and provision of facility and/or service of tourist accommodation, typically within five categories, often indicated by one to five symbols" [44].

The general purpose of hotel classification is the creation of a ranking based on specific criteria, and the assignment of a symbol that certifies the services' level. The classification creates conditions for the determination of different tariffs corresponding to the hotel or restaurant ranking and provides useful information to make potential guests aware of what they can expect before making a booking. The classification also serves as a reference for the implementation of institutional and public policies to support tourism passing to another level of quality.

The beginnings of the tourism entities' classification are placed in the last century and are connected to "AAA Diamond Ratings System" and "Forbes Travel Guide" in USA and "Michelin Guides" in Europe. But presently, there are wide and diverse classification schemes of tourism establishments. There are several workpapers on this topic, which reveal the extent and diversity of the existing schemes worldwide [39, 45–49]. As these studies show, between the classification systems, there are differences related to the following aspects: number of categories and name or symbols associated; classification criteria; classification character, obligatory or voluntary; frequency of evaluation. It must be stressed that in the EU, and worldwide, not only are the classification systems different from country to country, but there is also diversity in the level of comfort related to the grading and classification criteria. A single tourist destination often employs multiple classification schemes. It is therefore difficult to understand and compare the quality of tourism services, and especially to consumers, it is difficult to appreciate the significance of the various rating schemes not to mention their reliability.

Although the diversity of classification schemes has disadvantages, UNWTO specifies that it is unlikely to reach a single official classification, given the great diversity of contexts in which tourism organizations operate. In this regard, Taleb Rifai, Secretary-General of UNWTO, says: "There is no worldwide standard for official hotel classification systems, and there may will never be one, due to the incredible diversity of the environmental, socio-cultural, economic, and political contexts in which they are embedded" [43]. The same conclusion results from the analysis made in the EU setting up that one European hotel classification scheme may be considered an unfeasible demarche [50].

There are, however, concerns for harmonizing the classification schemes from tourism by introducing common rules. In this regard, we must mention the recent UNWTO recommendations for revising the hotel classification systems such as certification performed by independent third parties; integration of guests' reviews into hotel classification schemes; global focus on sustainability and accessibility to be reflected in the classification criteria. Likewise, updating the certification criteria to general trends and considering data collected from the guests is recommended [43].

To mention is the improvement of the classification systems in favor of extending and integrating new criteria, with emphasis on quality and sustainability. The result of this dynamic process is the creation of combined schemes that include criteria for classification of the tourism establishments and also for quality certification. The European Hospitality Quality (EHQ) model launched in 2009 by HOTREC (abbreviation for Hotels, Restaurants and Cafés) should be mentioned. EHQ classification is based on a criteria catalog, some of these criteria being compatible with the main clauses of ISO 9001 standard, adapted to the particularities of tourism [51]. There are also other classification systems in connection to quality marks and labels used in tourism industry. Scotland, Iceland, and Australia are among the countries that include the quality element in their hotels' classification [43].

Another improvement axis consists of the global focus on sustainability reflected in the classification criteria. The Hensen study finds that "recently updated hotel classification systems reflect different viewpoints on whether and how to incorporate environmental management practices" [52]. The author identifies three situations: environmental standards are included as a requirement for a certain star rating; classification systems recognize external environmental certification next to their ratings; external environmental certification is required as minimum standards in the rating scheme. As Hensen concludes, it is still open to question whether environmental management practices should be integrated into classification schemes or remain complementary approaches.

Guides" in Europe. But presently, there are wide and diverse classification schemes of tourism establishments. There are several workpapers on this topic, which reveal the extent and diversity of the existing schemes worldwide [39, 45–49]. As these studies show, between the classification systems, there are differences related to the following aspects: number of categories and name or symbols associated; classification criteria; classification character, obligatory or voluntary; frequency of evaluation. It must be stressed that in the EU, and worldwide, not only are the classification systems different from country to country, but there is also diversity in the level of comfort related to the grading and classification criteria. A single tourist destination often employs multiple classification schemes. It is therefore difficult to understand and compare the quality of tourism services, and especially to consumers, it is difficult to appreciate the significance of the various rating schemes not to mention their reliability.

Although the diversity of classification schemes has disadvantages, UNWTO specifies that it is unlikely to reach a single official classification, given the great diversity of contexts in which tourism organizations operate. In this regard, Taleb Rifai, Secretary-General of UNWTO, says: "There is no worldwide standard for official hotel classification systems, and there may will never be one, due to the incredible diversity of the environmental, socio-cultural, economic, and political contexts in which they are embedded" [43]. The same conclusion results from the analysis made in the EU setting up that one European hotel classification scheme may be

There are, however, concerns for harmonizing the classification schemes from tourism by introducing common rules. In this regard, we must mention the recent UNWTO recommendations for revising the hotel classification systems such as certification performed by independent third parties; integration of guests' reviews into hotel classification schemes; global focus on sustainability and accessibility to be reflected in the classification criteria. Likewise, updating the certification criteria to general trends and considering data collected from the

To mention is the improvement of the classification systems in favor of extending and integrating new criteria, with emphasis on quality and sustainability. The result of this dynamic process is the creation of combined schemes that include criteria for classification of the tourism establishments and also for quality certification. The European Hospitality Quality (EHQ) model launched in 2009 by HOTREC (abbreviation for Hotels, Restaurants and Cafés) should be mentioned. EHQ classification is based on a criteria catalog, some of these criteria being compatible with the main clauses of ISO 9001 standard, adapted to the particularities of tourism [51]. There are also other classification systems in connection to quality marks and labels used in tourism industry. Scotland, Iceland, and Australia are among the countries that

Another improvement axis consists of the global focus on sustainability reflected in the classification criteria. The Hensen study finds that "recently updated hotel classification systems reflect different viewpoints on whether and how to incorporate environmental management practices" [52]. The author identifies three situations: environmental standards are included as a requirement for a certain star rating; classification systems recognize external environmental certification next to their ratings; external environmental certification is required

considered an unfeasible demarche [50].

166 Mobilities, Tourism and Travel Behavior - Contexts and Boundaries

include the quality element in their hotels' classification [43].

guests is recommended [43].

Integrating guests' reviews into hotel classification systems is another important current change, favored by the evolution of online networks and review sites. Online guests' reviews related to facilities and services' quality of tourism organizations or destinations are instruments increasingly used today, along with the official classification and certification of hotels, restaurants, and other tourist establishments. Certain social media websites are becoming more popular and are likely to evolve into primary travel information sources [53–55]. The most important travel sites include TripAdvisor, Expedia, Hotels.com, and Travelocity etc., but their number continues to rise. These platforms represent systems that analyze the information on websites and social networks in order to find the overall consumers' rating for a particular establishment. The information thus obtained has multiple uses: it is helpful for customers in choosing the location for travel; it provides data on the service quality used to enhance the overall performance of the tourism organizations and sector; and the online guests' reviews are useful in the process of rating and/or awarding quality marks in tourism [54, 56].

Regarding the use of online guests' reviews in the classification of tourist establishments, recent studies highlight the need to harmonize the conventional rating systems and social media platforms [52, 54, 57]. As Hensen says, one can talk about a democratization of the rating process that "will lead to an innovation revolution whereby hotels seek to respond quicker to consumer trends as they have a direct feedback loop to their position in the market" [57]. The UNWTO report [54] shows that several countries are moving toward integrated models, distinguishing the next two variants: independent functioning of the two models and respectively their full integration. In the first case, online evaluations are done separately, and their results are included in the organization promoting documents. The second variant, of full integration, is a model in which the overall guests' review ranking is included as criterion within the official classification scheme. According to the UNWTO report, Norway and Switzerland each have documented models for integrating online guests' reviews and hotel classifications, and United Arab Emirates, Germany, and Australia are also involved in developing integrated systems. In both cases, the integration could effectively help to further reduce the gap between guests' experiences and expectations.
