AI and Sustainability Reporting in Hospitality: Back to Integrity

Definitions and scope matter. What does each indicator measure? Does it cover one property, selected hotels or the entire company? Are outsourced laundry and other services included? Clear units, geographical and operational boundaries, reporting periods and baselines are essential for meaningful comparisons.

We must distinguish measured data, calculated or modelled estimates, future projections and achieved results. Estimates are legitimate if their methods, assumptions and limitations are stated. An estimate must not appear measured, a projection must not appear achieved, and incomplete information must not appear comprehensive.

AI can help organise information, identify gaps and explain findings. But neither polished language nor extensive detail guarantees credible evidence. Inventing figures is falsification. We need traceability, transparency and clear responsibility for the claims. AI adds value if it makes evidence easier to check and supports better decisions; faster reporting alone does not demonstrate progress.

Badges deserve the same scrutiny. What does each badge certify, how demanding are its criteria, and who checks compliance? Does it recognise commitments, management processes or demonstrated results? Rigorous certification can support credibility, but we cannot assume that guests and communities understand the differences between labels. Hotels should explain what their badge covers and the evidence behind it. Otherwise, collecting badges risks becoming another communication exercise, while actual improvement remains unproven.

The social pillar also needs more attention. Sustainability is too often reduced to environmental performance, while working conditions, fair pay and benefits for local communities receive less scrutiny. These outcomes need clear indicators and evidence too. A credible report should show what has improved for people, where progress has stalled and what still needs to change.

Regenerative principles invite hospitality to go further than reducing harm. And if we claim to leave a place better than we found it, who defines “better”—and what evidence shows that improvement?