Why climate accountability must come before claims of net positive hospitality

Maurice Bergin | Green Hospitality Programme | September 2026

This paper responds to EHL’s September 2026 article “Sustainability Was Just the Beginning. What Comes Next? Dr. Alessandro Inversini on Regenerative Hospitality”. (Also see: EHL – Hospitality Outlook Report 2026)  It accepts the article’s explicit statement that regeneration is not a substitute for sustainability, while questioning whether the language of a shift beyond net zero is justified by present climate performance.

My central argument  Regenerative hospitality can be valuable. It can strengthen local economies, protect habitats, deepen community relationships and improve the quality of tourism. But it must not be presented as the next stage after sustainability, as though the climate work has largely been done. It has not. Tourism is still expanding its demand for energy and transport, while the world remains far off a pathway consistent with the Paris Agreement. Regeneration should therefore sit alongside rigorous climate action—not above it, beyond it or in place of it.

The danger in saying that net zero is only the baseline

Dr Alessandro Inversini’s discussion of regenerative hospitality contains much that is worthwhile. He explicitly says that regeneration is not a substitute for sustainability and describes sustainability as the foundation. His emphasis on responsibility by owners, managers and employees—rather than shifting the burden onto guests—is welcome. So is his focus on local communities, ecosystems and the retention of value within destinations.

My concern is with the wider framing: that hospitality is shifting from sustainability to regeneration; that net zero is now merely the baseline; and that the new goal is net positive. A baseline is something established and operating. Net zero is nothing of the kind. For most tourism and hospitality businesses it remains an unfulfilled target, often unsupported by a costed, approved and time-bound transition plan.

The global evidence does not suggest that we are ready to move on. UNEP’s 2025 assessment estimates that current policies point towards approximately 2.8°C of warming this century. It says emissions in 2035 must be 55 per cent below 2019 levels for alignment with a 1.5°C pathway. The IPCC is equally clear that limiting warming requires rapid and deep cuts in energy-system emissions and a substantial decline in fossil-fuel use. In that context, the language of moving beyond net zero risks turning an unfinished obligation into yesterday’s agenda.

Two responsibilities that should not be conflated

We face at least two related but distinct responsibilities. The first is climate mitigation: reducing greenhouse-gas emissions fast enough to limit further warming. The second is stewardship of place: protecting biodiversity, water, landscapes, cultural assets and communities, and ensuring that tourism does not consume or displace the very places on which it depends.

Both matter. They frequently reinforce each other, but they are not interchangeable. Restoring a wetland may protect biodiversity, improve flood resilience and store carbon. Buying locally may retain economic value and sometimes reduce supply-chain impacts. Supporting community projects may be socially valuable. None of these actions, however, automatically cancels the emissions from fossil-fuel heating, purchased energy or a long-haul flight. A regenerative project in Nepal, South Africa or on a coral reef may do genuine local good; that good does not erase the emissions required to take affluent visitors there.

The answer is not to reject regeneration. It is to keep separate accounts. Climate performance should be measured and reported as climate performance. Biodiversity gains should be evidenced as biodiversity gains. Community benefits should be demonstrated as community benefits. One category should not be used as moral compensation for failure in another.

The elitism risk

Regenerative tourism can also become an elite marketing language: affluent travellers are invited to experience remoteness, authenticity and purpose, while the high-carbon journey that enables the experience fades into the background. The destination receives a conservation initiative, a garden, a volunteering programme or a compelling story; the customer and operator receive reassurance and differentiation. The harder question—whether the volume, distance and mode of travel are compatible with climate goals—may remain unanswered.

This is particularly uncomfortable where wealthy visitors travel to lower-income destinations and the language of giving back becomes part of the product. Local benefit is important and should be maximised. But philanthropy is not decarbonisation, and economic benefit is not a climate exemption. Tourism cannot claim that a positive local intervention balances an unaddressed carbon impact unless it can demonstrate that claim through credible accounting—and even then, direct emissions reduction must take priority over compensation.

Responsibility must remain with the business

Inversini is right to criticise the habit of placing the visible burden on guests: reuse the towel, take a shorter shower, decline housekeeping. Guest participation can help, but it is secondary to the decisions controlled by the business. Owners decide the heating system, building fabric, equipment, controls, menus, procurement standards, staff resources and capital programme. Operators influence which markets they pursue and how products are packaged. Airlines, tour operators, accommodation providers and destination bodies each control different parts of the tourism system.

For a hotel, Scope 1 emissions are the clearest test of direct operational intent because they arise from fuels burned on site and in owned vehicles. Every business that still uses oil, gas or LPG should know how and when it will phase them down, what will replace them, what the capital cost will be and who has approved the plan. But responsibility cannot stop at Scope 1. Scope 2 emissions must be reduced through efficiency, appropriate on-site renewables and credible procurement. Material Scope 3 emissions must also be measured and influenced. For the tourism sector, transport—especially aviation—cannot be left outside the conversation simply because it may sit beyond the direct inventory of an individual hotel.

Government policy is indispensable to decarbonising electricity grids and transport infrastructure. That does not make purchased electricity solely a government responsibility. Businesses still control demand, efficiency, load management, technology selection, renewable generation and purchasing decisions. Climate accountability is shared, but it must never become so diffuse that nobody is answerable.

From sustainability policy to climate transition plan

The hospitality sector does not need another layer of aspiration without delivery machinery. A broad sustainability policy may contain admirable commitments on food, waste, water, nature, employment and community. But if it does not lead with a funded climate transition plan, it can conceal the most consequential issue inside a long list of good intentions.

Every serious tourism and hospitality business should lead with and publish a climate transition plan that includes:

• a verified greenhouse-gas baseline covering Scope 1, Scope 2 and material Scope 3 sources;
• absolute emissions and intensity indicators, reported together so that business growth cannot hide rising total emissions;
• near-term targets, not only a distant 2050 ambition;
• a costed programme to eliminate or sharply reduce direct fossil-fuel use;
• named projects, budgets, responsibilities and delivery dates;
• annual disclosure of actual performance against the pathway; and
• clear treatment of residual emissions and offsets, with direct reduction taking precedence.

A 2050 pledge without this architecture is not a plan. Nor should a vegetable garden, local sourcing initiative, conservation partnership or employee volunteering programme be allowed to create the impression that it is.

Where regeneration belongs

Regeneration belongs in tourism strategy, but in the correct place. It can guide how a business contributes to the ecological and social systems of its destination. It can ask whether tourism revenue remains locally, whether residents retain access to housing and public space, whether ecosystems are restored, whether employment is fair, and whether visitor pressure is kept within the destination’s capacity. Barcelona and other heavily visited destinations remind us that protecting the tourism product is not enough; communities must remain viable places in which to live.

These are serious responsibilities, not decorative extras. Yet their seriousness is weakened—not strengthened—when they are folded into an all-purpose sustainability narrative that permits incomparable benefits and harms to blur together. Climate change needs its own governance, targets, capital plan and reporting line. Environmental and regenerative strategies should interact with that plan, but should not be used to obscure it.

A better hierarchy for hospitality

The practical hierarchy should be straightforward. First, measure emissions honestly. Second, reduce energy and resource demand. Third, replace fossil-fuel technologies with low-carbon alternatives and address the material emissions in the value chain. Fourth, report progress transparently in absolute as well as intensity terms. Alongside this—not after it—protect nature, strengthen communities and improve the destination’s long-term resilience.

Regeneration can describe a valuable ambition for people and place. It cannot become an alibi for continued carbon growth. The tourism sector has not completed the climate work and earned the right to move on. Until businesses can show funded plans, falling absolute emissions and credible progress towards eliminating fossil-fuel dependence, claims of being net positive should be treated with caution.

The test is not how inspiring the language sounds. The test is whether the emissions are falling.

Editorial note and sources

This paper responds to EHL’s September 2026 article “Sustainability Was Just the Beginning. What Comes Next? Dr. Alessandro Inversini on Regenerative Hospitality”. It accepts the article’s explicit statement that regeneration is not a substitute for sustainability, while questioning whether the language of a shift beyond net zero is justified by present climate performance.

• United Nations Environment Programme. Emissions Gap Report 2025. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2025
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. AR6 Working Group III Chapter 6 Energy Systems. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/chapter/chapter-6/
• UN Tourism and International Transport Forum. Transport related CO2 emissions of the tourism sector. https://www.untourism.int/news/tourisms-carbon-emissions-measured-in-landmark-report-launched-at-cop25
• The Regenerative Transition A Canvas Based Approach for Hospitality. https://research.ehl.edu/funded-research-projects/regenerative-hospitality-sustainability