9. Sustainable, Responsible and Regenerative Tourism

Introduction and Context

Tourism depends upon environmental quality, cultural vitality, functioning communities and economic stability. Destinations attract visitors because of landscapes, biodiversity, heritage, hospitality and local ways of life; yet tourism can also place pressure on precisely these assets. Accommodation, transport, food services, attractions and events consume energy, water and materials, generate waste and emissions, and may intensify competition for land and housing. Visitor growth can produce employment and foreign exchange, but unmanaged growth may result in congestion, habitat loss, cultural commodification, resident displacement and declining visitor experience.

Sustainable tourism emerged as a response to these tensions. It seeks to balance economic, social and environmental objectives over the long term. Responsible tourism adds an emphasis on the conduct and accountability of identifiable actors—governments, businesses, residents and tourists. Regenerative tourism goes further by asking whether tourism can actively restore ecological systems, strengthen communities and leave destinations better than they were before.

For hotel and tourism managers, sustainability is not a promotional theme alone. It is a strategic and operational discipline involving investment decisions, supply chains, risk management, employee relations, destination governance, measurement and stakeholder dialogue. This chapter examines the transition from reducing harm to creating positive outcomes, with particular attention to climate change, biodiversity, overtourism, carbon management, circularity, community participation, indigenous rights and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Learning Objectives

After studying this chapter, students should be able to:

1. Distinguish sustainable, responsible and regenerative tourism.

2. Analyse tourism’s relationships with climate change, biodiversity and destination resilience.

3. Apply frameworks for carbon management, circularity and overtourism mitigation.

4. Design strategies involving communities and respecting indigenous rights.

5. Relate tourism policies and hotel operations to the SDGs.

6. Evaluate ethical, governance and measurement challenges in sustainability practice.

7. Formulate an integrated sustainability strategy for a tourism organisation or destination.

From Sustainability to Regeneration

Sustainable development is commonly understood as meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. In tourism, this implies that visitor activity should remain within ecological limits, support viable local economies and respect social and cultural systems. Sustainability is therefore not equivalent to environmental protection alone. It involves the interaction of three dimensions: ecological integrity, social justice and economic viability.

Responsible tourism is a practice-oriented concept. It asks who is responsible for particular impacts and what each actor can do to improve them. A hotel can purchase local products, reduce energy consumption, provide decent work and disclose its impacts. A destination authority can regulate development, manage visitor flows and protect public access. Tourists can respect local customs, conserve resources and choose lower-impact services. Responsibility is thus distributed, but not equally: institutions with greater power and resources generally carry greater obligations.

Regenerative tourism is an emerging approach that challenges the assumption that reducing negative impacts is sufficient. A regenerative project may restore wetlands, rebuild coral ecosystems, strengthen local food systems, revive cultural practices or increase community control over tourism assets. Its objective is not simply a smaller ecological footprint, but a positive contribution to the social-ecological system. Regeneration must, however, be treated critically. Claims of “positive impact” require evidence, long-term monitoring and local consent; otherwise regeneration may become a new form of green marketing.

A useful distinction is between three managerial questions:

• Sustainability: How can harm be reduced and viability maintained?
• Responsibility: Who must act, and how can accountability be demonstrated?
• Regeneration: How can tourism contribute to ecological and social renewal?

These approaches are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. A hotel cannot credibly claim regeneration while failing to manage basic energy, waste, labour or legal responsibilities.

Climate Change and Tourism Risk

Tourism both contributes to and is affected by climate change. Emissions arise from air and ground transport, electricity and fuel use in accommodation, food production, construction, refrigeration, laundry and purchased goods. Destinations are also exposed to heatwaves, floods, storms, drought, wildfire, sea-level rise, changing snowfall and ecosystem decline.

Climate strategy has two linked dimensions. Mitigation reduces greenhouse-gas emissions or increases their removal. Adaptation reduces vulnerability to actual or expected climate impacts. A coastal resort may mitigate by improving building efficiency and reducing air travel associated with business operations; it may adapt by restoring dunes, elevating critical equipment and revising emergency procedures. Adaptation should not create new harm—for example, a seawall may protect one property while intensifying erosion elsewhere.

Managers should begin with a climate-risk assessment. This involves identifying hazards, exposure, vulnerability, critical assets, dependence on utilities and supply-chain sensitivity. Scenario analysis can test how operations might perform under different temperature, rainfall, water availability or visitor-demand conditions. The result should inform capital budgeting, insurance, procurement, staffing and business continuity planning.

Carbon Management

Carbon management is more rigorous than simply purchasing offsets. It begins with an inventory of emissions, normally classified as:

• Scope 1: direct emissions from owned or controlled sources, such as hotel boilers or company vehicles.
• Scope 2: indirect emissions from purchased electricity, heating or cooling.
• Scope 3: other indirect emissions, including purchased food, construction materials, waste, employee travel, guest travel and outsourced services.

The managerial sequence is measurement, avoidance, reduction, substitution and, only for residual emissions, credible compensation or removal. Hotels can improve building envelopes, install efficient HVAC systems, use renewable electricity, control food waste, optimise laundry, procure low-carbon products and encourage lower-emission transport. Because guest travel can dominate the footprint of a tourism experience, destination strategy must address transport rather than focusing solely on hotel operations.

Carbon accounting has limitations. Results depend on boundaries, emission factors, occupancy assumptions and data quality. Carbon intensity per occupied room may improve while total emissions increase because of growth. Managers should therefore report both absolute emissions and intensity indicators, explain assumptions and avoid presenting offsets as a substitute for operational reductions.

Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Nature-Positive Tourism

Biodiversity includes variation within species, between species and across ecosystems. Tourism depends upon biodiversity through attractions, ecosystem services and destination identity. Wetlands regulate floods, forests store carbon, reefs support fisheries and beaches protect coastal settlements. At the same time, poorly planned tourism can fragment habitats, disturb wildlife, introduce invasive species, overuse water and damage landscapes.

A biodiversity strategy should follow the mitigation hierarchy: avoid impacts where possible, minimise unavoidable impacts, restore damaged ecosystems and compensate only as a last resort. The hierarchy is important because restoration or offsetting cannot always replace a unique habitat or sacred landscape.

Nature-positive tourism requires more than wildlife viewing. Operators should conduct ecological baseline studies, control visitor access, establish carrying or tolerance thresholds, manage lighting and noise, eliminate harmful wildlife interactions, prevent waste leakage and support conservation finance. Visitor interpretation can encourage informed behaviour, but education does not replace regulation. A protected area may need permits, zoning, seasonal closures, guide requirements and enforcement.

Biodiversity initiatives also raise questions of ownership and justice. Conservation restrictions imposed without local participation may undermine livelihoods or reproduce exclusionary models of protected-area management. Effective conservation connects ecological objectives with community rights, benefit sharing and locally appropriate employment.

Overtourism and Destination Carrying Capacity

Overtourism occurs when the volume, timing or behaviour of visitors produces unacceptable deterioration in residents’ quality of life, environmental conditions, cultural integrity or visitor experience. It is not simply a question of high visitor numbers. A small attraction may experience overtourism during a narrow time window, while a larger destination may manage substantial annual arrivals through infrastructure, dispersal and governance.

Carrying capacity is traditionally described as the maximum number of visitors an area can accommodate without unacceptable impacts. In practice, capacity is multidimensional:

• Physical capacity: space, water, transport and waste infrastructure.
• Ecological capacity: tolerance of habitats and species.
• Social capacity: residents’ acceptance and quality of life.
• Economic capacity: ability to capture benefits without excessive leakage or dependency.
• Experiential capacity: conditions required for a satisfactory visitor experience.

Capacity should not be treated as a single scientifically fixed number. Thresholds are value-based and change with technology, season, management quality and community expectations. Monitoring indicators such as congestion, rental prices, water stress, waste, resident sentiment, habitat condition and visitor satisfaction is more useful than relying on arrivals alone.

Responses may include timed tickets, pricing, dispersal, cruise regulation, zoning, limits on short-term rentals, infrastructure investment, alternative products and communication with visitors. Demand management can create equity concerns if high prices make public heritage accessible only to affluent visitors. Transparent governance and reinvestment of revenues are therefore essential.

Circularity in Tourism Operations

The linear model—extract, produce, consume and discard—is poorly suited to destinations with limited land, water and waste capacity. A circular tourism economy seeks to retain the value of products and materials through reduction, reuse, repair, refurbishment, remanufacture, recycling and recovery, while prioritising prevention.

In hotels, circularity can involve refillable amenities, reusable service ware, furniture repair, linen-life extension, food redistribution, composting, reusable transport packaging and procurement of recycled or durable materials. Circular design begins before purchase. Managers should ask whether a product is necessary, whether it can be shared or leased, how long it will last, whether it can be repaired and what happens at end of life.

Food systems are particularly important. Forecasting, flexible menus, smaller batch production, portion choice, measurement of kitchen waste and partnerships with food rescue organisations can reduce both emissions and costs. Organic waste should be separated and treated appropriately, but composting should not become an excuse for overproduction.

Circularity also depends on regional infrastructure. A hotel cannot recycle materials if local systems cannot collect or process them. Procurement contracts, supplier take-back schemes and collaboration among businesses may be more effective than isolated initiatives. Claims such as “zero waste” require precise boundaries and transparent definitions.

Community Participation, Equity and Indigenous Rights

Tourism development affects people differently. Owners and investors may gain returns, workers may gain jobs, residents may face congestion or rising rents, and marginalised groups may lose access to land or resources. Participation is meaningful only when communities can influence decisions, access information, reject harmful proposals and receive fair benefits. Consultation after key decisions have already been made is participation in form but not in substance.

A stakeholder approach maps affected groups, their interests, influence, vulnerabilities and decision rights. Effective processes use accessible language, representative forums, feedback mechanisms, grievance procedures and documented responses. Benefit-sharing may include local employment, training, community-owned enterprises, revenue agreements, infrastructure, preferential procurement and access to tourism markets. However, employment alone does not guarantee equity; job quality, wages, security, gender inclusion and career progression must be assessed.

Indigenous peoples possess distinct rights relating to land, culture, identity, governance, knowledge and self-determination. Tourism involving indigenous heritage should respect collective ownership and intellectual property, avoid stereotyping and obtain free, prior and informed consent where projects affect indigenous lands, resources or cultural expressions. Indigenous communities should not be treated merely as performers or cultural scenery. They should be able to define what is shared, control interpretation, negotiate benefits and decide that certain knowledge or places remain private.

Managers must distinguish authentic cultural exchange from commodification. Authenticity is not a fixed performance standard; communities may adapt traditions while retaining agency. Ethical interpretation should represent internal diversity and avoid presenting one group as timeless or homogeneous.

The SDGs as a Strategic Alignment Framework

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals provide a shared framework for linking tourism decisions with broader development outcomes. Tourism is directly connected to SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), SDG 13 (climate action), SDG 14 (life below water) and SDG 15 (life on land). It also affects SDG 5 (gender equality), SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 10 (reduced inequalities) and SDG 16 (institutions and accountability).

The SDGs should not be used as a decorative logo. An organisation should identify material impacts, select relevant targets, define indicators, assign responsibility and report progress. For example, a resort may connect water-reduction targets to SDG 6, renewable electricity to SDG 7, decent-work indicators to SDG 8 and habitat restoration to SDG 14 or SDG 15. The framework also exposes trade-offs: increased tourism employment may coexist with water stress, and renewable-energy infrastructure may affect landscapes or communities.

A materiality assessment helps prioritise issues by considering both their importance to stakeholders and their significance to the organisation’s impacts, risks and opportunities. Advanced organisations increasingly use a double-materiality perspective: they examine how sustainability issues affect the business and how the business affects people and the environment.

An Integrated Strategy for Tourism Organisations

A practical sustainability strategy can be organised into seven connected stages:

1. Establish purpose and governance. Set commitments approved by senior leadership, allocate budgets and define accountability.

2. Assess the system. Map emissions, water, waste, biodiversity, labour, community impacts, supply chains and climate risks.

3. Engage rights-holders and stakeholders. Include residents, workers, indigenous peoples, public agencies, suppliers and conservation organisations.

4. Set measurable priorities. Use baselines, time-bound targets, thresholds and indicators rather than vague aspirations.

5. Implement operational and destination measures. Integrate sustainability into design, procurement, human resources, marketing, guest services and investment.

6. Monitor, verify and learn. Use audits, sensor data, surveys, ecological monitoring and independent assurance where appropriate.

7. Report and adapt. Disclose progress and failures, revise targets and respond to changing conditions.

Technology can strengthen this process. Smart meters can identify energy anomalies; occupancy and weather data can improve HVAC control; digital food-waste scales can identify menu losses; geographic information systems can map visitor pressure and habitat sensitivity; and dashboards can connect operational indicators with strategic targets. Artificial intelligence may support demand forecasting, route optimisation and predictive maintenance. Yet technology does not resolve questions of rights, consent or distribution. Data can also create privacy risks, algorithmic bias and surveillance of workers or visitors. Human oversight and data governance remain necessary.

Illustrative Case: The Coastal Heritage Resort of Al-Mina

Background

Al-Mina is an illustrative case involving a medium-sized coastal resort located beside a marine protected area and a historic fishing settlement. The resort employs many local residents and attracts international visitors, but its growth has produced seasonal water shortages, reef damage from boat excursions, rising waste, traffic congestion and conflict over access to the beach. Local fishers report that tourism decisions are made without adequate consultation. The resort markets itself as “eco-luxury.”

Situation and Problem

Occupancy is high during a four-month peak season, when freshwater demand and reef visitation are greatest. The resort has installed efficient lighting but has not measured Scope 3 emissions, food waste or guest transport. A proposed expansion would increase rooms by 30 per cent. Investors support the project, while residents fear further pressure on housing and public infrastructure. An indigenous cultural association claims that a sacred coastal site is being used in promotional materials without consent.

Analysis

A materiality and rights assessment identifies five priorities: water security, marine biodiversity, community decision-making, carbon emissions and cultural rights. The analysis shows that adding rooms without demand management would intensify peak-season pressure. It also reveals that the resort’s existing “reef conservation fee” is not transparently distributed and that boat operators have no common ecological standards.

Strategy and Solution

The resort postpones expansion until thresholds and community agreements are established. It forms a governance committee including residents, fishers, indigenous representatives, municipal officials, conservation specialists, workers and management. The committee agrees to:

• install water meters, detect leaks, use treated wastewater for approved non-potable purposes and publish seasonal water indicators;
• limit reef excursions through permits, guide training, no-anchor zones and seasonal rest periods;
• establish a transparent conservation fund governed jointly with local representatives;
• measure Scopes 1 and 2 immediately and priority Scope 3 categories over time;
• redesign menus around seasonal local products while maintaining food-safety standards;
• create a local procurement and skills-development programme;
• remove unauthorised cultural imagery and negotiate consent and benefit sharing before future use;
• introduce timed visitor information and transport coordination during peak periods;
• report absolute and intensity-based indicators, including resident sentiment.

The resort also commissions an independent biodiversity baseline and conducts a feasibility study for renewable electricity. It rejects generic carbon offsets until direct reductions have been implemented and residual emissions are clearly identified.

Outcome

After the first operating cycle, water use per occupied room and avoidable food waste decline, while reef-monitoring results show reduced damage at managed sites. The most important outcome is institutional: local representatives gain formal influence over excursion rules, cultural representation and the use of conservation revenues. Some investors remain dissatisfied because expansion is slower, and the resort accepts that sustainability may require foregoing short-term revenue.

Learning Points

The case demonstrates that sustainability is a governance challenge as well as an operational one. Efficiency measures are valuable but insufficient when growth exceeds ecological or social thresholds. Community participation must include decision power, indigenous rights must be addressed before marketing use, and credible measurement must cover significant indirect impacts. Regenerative claims become more credible when ecological restoration and community authority are treated as long-term commitments rather than promotional additions.

Challenges, Risks and Professional Responsibilities

The principal risk is greenwashing: selective disclosure, vague claims, inflated offset benefits or presenting minor improvements as transformational. Managers should use specific language, disclose boundaries and seek independent verification. Another risk is rebound: efficiency may reduce unit costs and encourage greater consumption or expansion. Absolute impacts and destination-level effects therefore matter.

Other challenges include fragmented governance, weak local data, short investment horizons, unequal bargaining power, supply-chain opacity, resistance to operational change and the difficulty of comparing indicators across organisations. Sustainability programmes may also become burdensome for small enterprises if standards are designed without technical or financial support.

Ethical management requires precaution where impacts may be irreversible, transparency about uncertainty, non-discrimination, decent work, respect for privacy and accountability for contractors. Regulatory compliance is a minimum, not a sustainability strategy. Professional managers should understand environmental permits, labour law, heritage protection, indigenous-rights frameworks, accessibility obligations, waste regulations and relevant reporting standards in their jurisdiction.

Current Developments and Best Practice

Contemporary practice is moving toward science-based climate targets, nature-related risk disclosure, circular procurement, regenerative destination planning, resident-centred indicators and stronger scrutiny of tourism’s Scope 3 emissions. Climate adaptation is receiving greater attention as some impacts can no longer be avoided. Destinations are also experimenting with visitor contribution mechanisms, digital reservation systems, local ownership models and off-season product development.

Best practice is characterised by:

• leadership responsibility supported by resources and incentives;
• clear baselines, measurable targets and transparent reporting;
• reduction of absolute impacts, not only improvements in intensity;
• early involvement of affected communities and rights-holders;
• integration of sustainability into finance, procurement and operations;
• credible evidence for environmental and social claims;
• monitoring of unintended consequences and trade-offs;
• continuous learning rather than one-time certification.

The strategic question for tourism leaders is no longer whether sustainability is relevant. It is how tourism organisations can remain economically viable while contributing fairly to the ecological and social systems on which their viability depends.

Chapter Summary

Sustainable tourism balances ecological integrity, social justice and economic viability across generations. Responsible tourism focuses on the duties and accountability of governments, businesses, communities and visitors. Regenerative tourism seeks to restore ecosystems, strengthen communities and produce positive long-term outcomes. Climate strategy requires both mitigation and adaptation, with carbon management based on measurement and direct reduction before compensation. Biodiversity protection should follow the mitigation hierarchy and connect conservation with local rights. Overtourism is managed through multidimensional thresholds, monitoring, demand management and participatory governance. Circularity reduces resource use and retains product value through prevention, reuse and recovery. Community participation must provide influence and fair benefits, while indigenous rights require consent, cultural control and respect for self-determination. The SDGs can align organisational priorities, but only when translated into material issues, indicators and accountability. Effective strategies integrate governance, stakeholder engagement, operational change, technology, measurement and transparent learning.

Key Terms

Sustainable tourism: Tourism that balances environmental, social and economic needs over the long term.

Responsible tourism: Tourism in which identifiable actors accept responsibility for reducing harm and improving outcomes.

Regenerative tourism: Tourism intended to restore ecological systems and strengthen social and community wellbeing.

Climate mitigation: Actions that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions or increase their removal.

Climate adaptation: Actions that reduce vulnerability to actual or expected climate impacts.

Scope 1 emissions: Direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by an organisation.

Scope 2 emissions: Indirect emissions from purchased energy.

Scope 3 emissions: Other indirect emissions occurring across an organisation’s value chain.

Biodiversity: Variation among genes, species and ecosystems.

Ecosystem services: Benefits that people obtain from functioning ecosystems.

Mitigation hierarchy: The sequence of avoiding, minimising, restoring and, lastly, compensating for impacts.

Overtourism: Visitor pressure that produces unacceptable effects on residents, environments, culture or visitor experience.

Carrying capacity: The level of use that can occur without unacceptable impacts, across physical, ecological and social dimensions.

Circular economy: An economic system that reduces extraction and keeps products and materials in use.

Materiality assessment: A process for identifying sustainability issues significant to stakeholders and organisational impacts.

Double materiality: Assessment of both how sustainability issues affect an organisation and how the organisation affects society and nature.

Free, prior and informed consent: A rights-based process requiring consent before activities affecting indigenous peoples are authorised.

Greenwashing: Misleading communication that exaggerates or falsely represents environmental or social performance.

Nature-positive tourism: Tourism that contributes to the recovery and improvement of biodiversity and ecosystems.

Stakeholder governance: Decision-making that includes parties affected by or able to influence an activity.

Review Questions

Short Answer Questions

1. Distinguish sustainable tourism from regenerative tourism.

2. What are Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions?

3. Why is carrying capacity multidimensional?

4. State the stages of the mitigation hierarchy.

5. What does free, prior and informed consent mean in tourism development?

Long Answer Questions

1. Explain how a hotel can integrate climate mitigation and adaptation into strategic management.

2. Discuss the relationship between overtourism, resident wellbeing and destination governance.

3. Analyse the role of circularity in hotel food, procurement and waste systems.

4. Explain how tourism organisations can use the SDGs without reducing them to promotional labels.

5. Evaluate the transition from sustainable to responsible and regenerative tourism.

Analytical / Application Questions

1. A resort has reduced energy use per occupied room but has doubled its total room inventory. Analyse whether this represents genuine climate progress and recommend indicators for evaluation.

2. Design a participatory strategy for a heritage destination where residents oppose a proposed tourism expansion and an indigenous group claims cultural ownership of the site.

3. Prepare an integrated action plan for a coastal hotel facing water scarcity, reef damage, seasonal congestion and rising community opposition.

22. Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

Which statement best distinguishes regenerative tourism from conventional sustainability?

A. It focuses only on increasing visitor numbers efficiently.

B. It seeks to restore ecological and social systems, not merely reduce harm.

C. It replaces all regulation with voluntary visitor education.

D. It treats economic growth as the sole measure of success.

Correct Answer: B. It seeks to restore ecological and social systems, not merely reduce harm.

Question 2

A hotel’s purchased electricity emissions are normally classified as:

A. Scope 1

B. Scope 2

C. Scope 3

D. Offset emissions

Correct Answer: B. Scope 2

Question 3

Which action follows the preferred order of carbon management?

A. Purchase offsets before measuring emissions.

B. Advertise renewable energy without changing operations.

C. Measure emissions, reduce them directly, then address credible residuals.

D. Report only emissions per occupied room.

Correct Answer: C. Measure emissions, reduce them directly, then address credible residuals.

Question 4

Why should carrying capacity not be treated as a single fixed number?

A. Visitor impacts are unrelated to management quality.

B. Capacity changes with ecological, social, infrastructural and experiential conditions.

C. Physical infrastructure is the only relevant constraint.

D. Residents cannot contribute to capacity decisions.

Correct Answer: B. Capacity changes with ecological, social, infrastructural and experiential conditions.

Question 5

Which measure best reflects the mitigation hierarchy for biodiversity?

A. Avoid habitat damage before considering restoration or compensation.

B. Compensate for all impacts before assessing them.

C. Promote wildlife viewing without regulating access.

D. Replace protected habitats with marketing campaigns.

Correct Answer: A. Avoid habitat damage before considering restoration or compensation.

Question 6

A meaningful community participation process requires:

A. Consultation only after the investment decision is final.

B. Community influence, accessible information and mechanisms for accountability.

C. Benefits limited to senior investors.

D. A single public-relations event.

Correct Answer: B. Community influence, accessible information and mechanisms for accountability.

Question 7

What is the central implication of free, prior and informed consent?

A. Indigenous cultural imagery may be used if tourists like it.

B. Projects affecting indigenous rights require consent obtained before authorisation, with adequate information.

C. Only government officials can define cultural ownership.

D. Consent is unnecessary when a project creates employment.

Correct Answer: B. Projects affecting indigenous rights require consent obtained before authorisation, with adequate information.

Question 8

Which practice is most consistent with circularity in hotel operations?

A. Purchasing disposable products because they are inexpensive.

B. Replacing all furniture annually to maintain visual novelty.

C. Designing procurement around durability, repair, reuse and take-back systems.

D. Sending separated waste to landfill without verification.

Correct Answer: C. Designing procurement around durability, repair, reuse and take-back systems.

Question 9

Why can reporting only carbon intensity be misleading?

A. Intensity indicators are never useful.

B. Intensity may improve while total emissions rise through organisational growth.

C. Absolute emissions cannot be measured.

D. Guest transport is always excluded from tourism emissions.

Correct Answer: B. Intensity may improve while total emissions rise through organisational growth.

Question 10

Which approach most effectively uses the SDGs in organisational strategy?

A. Displaying SDG logos in promotional material.

B. Selecting relevant goals, establishing baselines, assigning responsibility and reporting indicators.

C. Choosing only goals that show positive performance.

D. Treating all goals as identical operational priorities.

Correct Answer: B. Selecting relevant goals, establishing baselines, assigning responsibility and reporting indicators.