CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, SUSTAINABILITY GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE PERFORMANCE: A PRELIMINARY INSIGHT

This conceptual paper aims to investigate corporate social responsibility (CSR) practises in the tourism sector. Drawing on the existing literature, this study conceptualises the linkage between CSR, sustainability governance, and sustainable performance. Moreover, this study conceptualises three sub-dimensions of CSR. The integration of CSR in the tourism sector is significant and novel. An analytical review is conducted to present conceptual linkage and research implications. The finding implies that CSR positively influences the sustainable performance of organisations and sustainable governance plays a mediating role between relationships. This study provides important implications that help tourism industry practitioners to realise the significance of reducing environmental and social problems, which cause by tourism activities. Further, this study obtains support from institutional theory to explain the relationships of governance mechanism and CSR that leads to economic performance as well as create value for nature and the local community. Additionally, the future direction of research is provided that highlights some important avenues in the sustainability field.


INTRODUCTION
In recent years, more attention has been paid by policymakers to the tourism sector (Alola et al., 2020;Meo et al., 2020). There has been an increasing importance of sustainable business practises along with a wide range of issues facing societies such as a decrease in natural resources, degradation of the environment, climate change, and lack of social equality (Jones et al., 2016). Earlier, the tourism sector did not receive ample criticism in comparison to other industries, i.e., manufacturing, mining, and chemical. Nowadays, consumers and the general public are raising their voices over the adverse effects of the tourism industry and demanding more transparency in terms of business practises that tourism firms carry out to circumvent this problem (De Grosbois, 2012;Ghaderi et al., 2019). Subsequently, the tourism industry has tried to demonstrate its credentials by contributing toward society and the environment, not only focusing on their business performance (Ghaderi et al., 2019).
Due to growing pressures from the general public and other stakeholders, tourism companies have managed to include sustainable practises in their operations. The companies initiated reporting on the environmental and societal aspects of such sustainable practises (Medrado & Jackson, 2016). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting ensure transparency (Tregidga et al., 2019), organisational legitimacy (Khan et al., 2013), public trust (De Grosbois, 2016), and increase corporate performance (Malik & Kanwal, 2016). Therefore, CSR is instrumental for creating congenial relationships with various stakeholders (Guix et al., 2018), improving a firm's corporate image, reputation, and trust among the general public (De Grosbois, 2016). Despite the significance of reporting sustainable practises, there are no universally accepted rules and regulations with regards to how a firm should gather, analyse, and present its non-financial performance (Fernández & Rivero, 2009;Kolk & Perego, 2010).
Recently, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has been widely accepted and reported guidelines by many organisations (Albareda & Waddock, 2018;Medrado & Jackson, 2016). Despite a lot of emphases have been on the sustainability issues in the tourism industry, CSR practises remains an unchartered area in term of research studies. Since sustainability efforts are voluntary, that raises the question of what encourages or stops organisations to participate in sustainable development (Nikolaeva & Bicho, 2011). In this regard, the institutional theory provides insight that the governance factor creates the variation for the adoption of sustainability practises in organisations (Campbell, 2006(Campbell, , 2007Matten & Moon, 2008). The theory signifies that institutional environment, i.e., legal, political, cultural, economic, and partnerships significantly influence the acceptance level of the business community and CSR (Jensen & Berg, 2012;Sheldon & Park, 2011).
CSR initiatives are developing closer links and inter-relationships, starting with the establishment of collaborative resource sharing structures, mutual goals, and coordinated strategies (Albareda & Waddock, 2018). Researchers indicated that CSR contributes greatly to society and improve communal support (Lee et al., 2018). CSR policy for tourism supports the communities as well as increases business performance (Farmaki, 2019). The researcher also points out that the stakeholder strategy was perceived to be an acceptable framework that could lead to the introduction of strategic CSR and more efficient management (Farmaki, 2019). CSR is increasingly presented as one of the leading resources to achieve mutual benefits for stakeholders concerning communal well-being, economic gains, and protection of environmental aspects (Pereira & Gadotti, 2021). In essence, these values revolves around sustainable development policies presented in the 17 Sustainable Development Goals defined in 2017 by the United Nations (Ghaderi et al., 2019).
Earlier studies have provided a concise description of the advantages and effects of CSR practises in the tourism industry (Horng et al., 2018;Kim et al., 2018;Melubo et al., 2017;Tan et al., 2017). However, the focus of the prior studies was limited to the single tourism sector (Guix et al., 2018;Medrado & Jackson, 2016). In addition to that, the main focus of tourism CSR has been the hotel industry, negligence towards other subsectors has been visible (De Grosbois, 2012; Guix et al., 2018). Rhou and Singal (2020) highlight the need for research studies to enrich the current stream of CSR in the hospitality industry with sub-sector analysis. Camilleri (2017) also mentioned that there is scant theoretical research on CSR and sustainability. CSR reflects on fair resource allocation with sustainability objectives and relies on a broader variety of academic disciplines than in the past (Albareda & Waddock, 2018). Hence, the disciplines that can provide new meaningful directions while assessing CSR should include employees' well-being, corporate sustainability reporting, and corporate social involvement (Amjad et al., 2017;Daily & Huang, 2001;Kim et al., 2018;Pullman et al., 2009). Besides, previous literature indicates that CSR, sustainable governance, and sustainable performance are related concepts (Esfahbodi et al., 2017;Hussain et al., 2018;Johnstone, 2019;Smith et al., 2005;Yeh & Trejos, 2015;Yeh, 2019). However, scant theoretical studies links CSR, sustainable governance, and sustainable performance -no research have examined their relationships in the tourism industry. Hence, understanding the relationship between factors influencing institutional sustainable governance and sustainable performance is very important as institutional governance plays a pivotal role in shaping organisational behaviour. Thus, this research deals with providing an understanding of CSR, sustainability governance, and sustainable performance in the field of tourism.
The tourism industry significantly accords to the economic development of a country. The tourism sector contributes to generating 10.3% of the world's gross domestic product (GDP) along with generating 330 million job opportunities during 2019 that made it one of the world's largest sectors (World Travel & Tourism Council, 2020). On the other hand, to ensure corporate sustainability, an increase can be seen in CSR research in various economic sectors. Still, CSR research studies have not contributed much to the tourism sector hitherto (Coles et al., 2013). Also, it has suggested an extremely lesser insight into the relationship between CSR and sustainability governance mechanisms for the sustainability of the tourism sector (Herremans et al., 2011;Medrado & Jackson, 2016). Hence, there is still room to study the influence that CSR and sustainability governance have on the sustainability of the tourism industry. Additionally, Coles et al. (2013), Herremans et al. (2011), Karaman et al. (2018, Kılıç et al. (2021), Kılıc et al. (2019), and Medrado and Jackson (2016), have also been the suggestive significance of sustainability in the tourism sector.
Taken from an institutional theory perspective, this article conceptualises the relationship between CSR, including employees' well-being, corporate sustainability reporting and corporate social involvement, sustainability governance, and sustainable performance. Due to stakeholder pressure for environmental concern, policymakers have paid attention to sustainable development of tourism sector. Therefore, this study aims to contribute to the existing literature by employing the following points. First, this study contributes to the tourism literature by exploring CSR within tourism industry. Second, despite the growing interest in sustainability practises, prior research examining corporate sustainability reporting is scarce (Kılıç et al., 2021) and most of the studies rely upon the single tourism sector (Guix et al., 2018;Medrado & Jackson, 2016). Therefore, this study adds to the CSR research stream by exploring employee well-being, corporate sustainability reporting, and corporate social involvement. Third, this is one of the few attempts to conceptualise the influence of CSR on the sustainable performance of tourism industry. Finally, it contributes to the corporate governance literature by conceptualising the mediating role of the sustainable governance between CSR and sustainable performance, which has not yet been conceptualised in the tourism industry. Thus, this article addresses the following questions:

Theoretical Lens
The institutional theory is a useful source in comprehending the CSR practises and how it differs in different institutional sectors including private organisations, governmental organisations, media, social movements, and nongovernmental organisations (Campbell, 2006(Campbell, , 2007Matten & Moon, 2008). The institutional authority in a country responsibly constructs structures that act as a guide for organisations to embark on appropriate operations (Melubo et al., 2017). Thus, to gain legitimacy, trust, and acceptance, the companies must stay responsive to these institutional bodies (Muthuri & Gilbert, 2011). Furthermore, the institutional theory demonstrates that in presence of industrial self-regulation, social movement organisations, and government regulatory authorities, there are chances that companies will adhere to more social responsibilities, and embark on appropriate operations (Campbell, 2007;Melubo et al., 2017). Hence, the institutional environment is considered to be the most significant source for building corporate behaviour which leads toward corporate sustainable performance. Therefore, in the light of institutional theory, this research conceptualises CSR, sustainability governance, and how they influence the sustainable performance of the tourism industry.

Corporate Social Responsibility
CSR practises illustrate the social aspect of sustainability (Kleindorfer et al., 2005). CSR practises include organisational programmes to contribute to employees and communal well-being. CSR can be categorised into two aspects, internal (employees) and external (society). The internal aspect of social sustainability includes employee's well-being and equity (Agan et al., 2016;Anisul et al., 2014;Kleindorfer et al., 2005), whereas, external aspect focus on societal welfare and being responsible organisation (Amjad et al., 2017;Pagell & Gobeli, 2009).

Employees' Well-Being and Equity Practises
Employee well-being commonly includes health, safety, and equity practises of organisations Hutchins & Sutherland, 2008). During past years, viable workplace conditions have been considered as an essential element to promote employees' welfare and protect health and safety requirements of employees at work (Das et al., 2008;Crawford et al., 2017). Sustainable workplace conditions are fundamental for organisations in pursuit of sustainable development (Jorgensen, 2008).
According to Pagell and Gobeli (2009), organisations implement employee well-being through effective human resource management which improves employees' capabilities, equity, and working conditions. Similarly, Daily and Huang (2001) proposed that sustainable human resource management is required to implement policies and practises for employees' well-being, equity, training and development, identity, acknowledge as well as encourage capabilities of their workforce. Subsequently, employee well-being practises can be gauge through examining organisation involvement in employees' health and safety conditions (Pagell & Gobeli, 2009). Murphy et al. (2016) proposed that employee well-being has been focused on plenty of studies. Further, researchers gauge employee well-being through health and safety practises and highlighted its importance in both health policymaking and managerial field (Murphy et al., 2016). Consequently, Pagell and Gobeli (2009) report a positive relationship between employee well-being and economic performance of organisations. Moratis and Widjaja (2018) highlighted that the social dimension of sustainability plays a significant role in the evaluation and development of responsible organisations within society. Earlier, researchers have paid little attention to operationalise workplace conditions and equity with the social dimension of sustainability. Kim et al. (2018) analyses the quality of work-life through different indicators, such as health and safety needs, social needs, actualisation needs, economic and family needs, and knowledge needs. Findings of the research revealed that philanthropic and economic CSR positively affect the quality of work-life, while legal and ethical CSR did not affect the quality of work-life.
Vachon and Mao (2008) measure equity through fair workforce practises, based on employee well-being and employment equality, implemented in human resource operations and business functions. Additionally, Hutchins and Sutherland (2008) validate key indicators including workforce equity, healthcare, and safety to measure employee well-being and equity condition. Hence, through the implementation of employee well-being and equity practises, an organisation can significantly improve the quality of workforce, health and safety conditions, equity, and human rights.

Corporate Sustainability Reporting
Corporate sustainability reporting practises have become an important organisational practise due to the increasing pressure of accountability from stakeholders (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2017;Montabon et al., 2007). According to Emtairah (2002), organisations are obligated to execute corporate sustainability reporting practises under corporate disclosure and public reporting requirements. Corporate disclosure related to sustainable activities and performance could be regarded as a direct response to all stakeholders about corporate ethical and responsible behaviour (Kaler, 2002). Hence, corporate sustainability reporting represents the primary duties of organisations toward stakeholders and society (Daub, 2007).
Corporate sustainability reporting based on institutional theory addresses a process for protecting the interests of all stakeholders, focusing on achieving long-term financial and non-financial performance for all shareholders. The sustainability reporting trend is increasing in organisational practises and widespread in policy making for sustainability in many countries (Mashayekhi et al., 2019). Though sustainability reporting is not a legal requirement in many countries, sustainability reporting is assumed as voluntary practises contrary to the legal requirement to disclose financial information for organisations. Generally, leading corporates are actively involved in sustainable reporting due to greater pressure for social responsibility. In the tourism sector, organisations with higher CSR practises have a larger tendency to publish sustainability reports (Koseoglu et al., 2021). Further, Koseoglu et al. (2021) mentioned that CSR achievements are major driving factor behind the adaptation of the GRI framework. Though, corporate sustainability reporting practises drag organisations into an informational paradox in the sense that sustainability reporting likely to increase the demand for more sustainable information as well as stakeholders may raise questions regarding the validity and credibility of corporate sustainability reporting.
This informational paradox induces management executives for cautious consideration due to the strategic significance of corporate sustainability reporting. Daub (2007) highlighted that reports on sustainable achievements potentially improve the public image of the organisation and also provide the opportunity to identify waste and resource inefficiencies. Consequently, some developed countries have initiated to impose a legal obligation for transparency regarding sustainability issues (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2017). Specifically, in many developed countries organisations are obligate under regulatory regimes to disclose certain information related to public health, safety, and environment to the regulatory authorities, some examples of mandatory environmental disclosure regime in developed countries include toxic release inventory (TRI) in the United States and pollutant release and transfer registers (PRTR) in Europe. Malaysia also mandated sustainability reporting starting from 2012. According to the sustainability reporting requirement, organisations are obligated to disclose corporate social activities, otherwise, they have to make a public statement regarding the absence of CSR practises. Prominently, there is no specific sustainability reporting guideline to disclose information on certain metrics in either China or Malaysia, it is similar to regulation embraced in European countries (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2017).
According to Brown et al. (2009), GRI is one of the substantial frameworks for sustainable information disclosure for organisations worldwide. Additionally, annual sustainable reporting under eco-management and audit scheme and publicly available environmental disclosures under any certification are examples of voluntary sustainability disclosure schemes (Emtairah, 2002). Furthermore, mandatory environmental disclosure regimes such as TRI and PRTR provide opportunities for the organisation to obtain incentives by reducing toxic releases and it also provides transparency and accessibility to interested parties and encourages organisations to take pollution prevention measures.
Earlier, researchers have highlighted various benefit for organisations to engage in sustainability reporting practises (Daub, 2007;Ioannou & Serafeim, 2017;Morhardt et al., 2002). Sustainability reporting provides various benefits to organisations by improving public image, brand recognition, high profile employee retention, locating opportunities to improve wastes and resource inefficiencies, regulatory compliance, and better access to finance (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2017). Similarly, Morhardt et al. (2002) stated the various reasons in support of sustainability reporting such as, reduce the potential cost of future regulations by adopting the eco-friendly attitude, direct operations following environmental requirement, meet regulatory requirements, reduce operating costs, and improve stakeholder relations. Sustainability reporting practise is the organisational response toward changing trends and legitimise their actions to society (Daub, 2007). Hence, corporate sustainability reporting includes sustainable performance disclosure of the organisation.

Corporate Social Involvement Practises
The other approach of CSR includes corporate social involvement of an organisation that depicts the discretionary responsibilities of organisations (Carroll, 1991). Corporate social involvement practises can be referred to as an organisation's philanthropic commitments within society for a greater cause of sustainability (Hutchins & Sutherland, 2008;Vachon & Mao, 2008). The philanthropy activities of the tourism industry are valued by local society, which also boosts corporate reputation and offers economic benefits (Rhou & Singal, 2020).
Earlier, well known corporations have been involved in corporate social involvement practises, for example, Toyota, Dell, Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Starbucks, and Johnson & Johnson have adopted corporate social involvement practises to obtain desired performance outcomes. Additionally, Procter & Gamble, a popular for diapers manufacturing, are very active in corporate social activities to improvise sales, their social activities involved awareness for infant well-being and informative programmes (Pullman et al., 2009). By performing these discretionary philanthropic practises such as charitable assistance and funding for better education programmes make organisations socially famous and prove them sincere to societies (Hutchins & Sutherland, 2008).
Corporate social involvement practises substantially improve the social performance of organisations due to community interaction and social aspects in the supply chain (Amjad et al., 2017;Pagell & Gobeli, 2009). Besides, the government has established programmes to create a better social environment, and the philanthropic activities of organisations can significantly contribute to those programmes. Furthermore, business organisations and stakeholders can play their part in increasing the reverence and self-actualisation of social groups with the help of constructive relations (Pullman et al., 2009).
Previously, Carter (2004) adopted the social aspect of sustainability to propose the concept of socially responsible purchasing. Researchers conceptualise socially responsible purchases on five key elements including human rights, environment, diversity, safety, and philanthropy practises. Subsequently, numerous researchers have operationalised corporate social involvement as an aspect of social sustainability (Hutchins & Sutherland, 2008;Vachon & Mao, 2008). Corporate social involvement also includes philanthropic activities such as building libraries and museums, funding educational programmes and art talent, and contributing to social health projects (Hutchins & Sutherland, 2008). Besides, Hutchins and Sutherland (2008) calculated the social commitment of the organisation through the ratio of philanthropic involvement to market capitalisation. Additionally, corporate social involvement practises represent the national level of sustainability practises (Vachon & Mao, 2008).
Corporate social involvement relies on the development of opportunities that reflect active interaction with various stakeholders (both internal and external stakeholders), which would potentially produce synergistic value for all stakeholders (Camilleri, 2017). Hence, corporate social involvement considers the interest of all stakeholders including employees, customers, environment, and society for sustainable development (Amjad et al., 2017;Carroll, 1991). Additionally, Carroll (1991) proposed that corporate social involvement practises are mainly voluntary and based on the strong organisational desire to contribute to societal welfare, hence, these practises are not required by law, although depict discretionary responsibility of the organisation. Carroll highlighted four main indicators of corporate social involvement including workforce training and development, philanthropy activities, voluntary services, and the importance of social responsibility within the organisation. Thus, corporate social involvement practises encourage employee development, philanthropy contribution, and societal welfare which lead toward sustainable development of the organisation.

CSR and Sustainable Performance
Organisations aim to preserve the social, environmental, cultural as well as economic aspects where it operates through CSR (Raimi, 2017). During past decades CSR has been received valuable attention and its importance continues to increase in business sectors (Hou, 2019). CSR determine by different factors including rules and regulations, organisational behaviour, market competition, and government regulations (Campbell, 2018). Subsequently, CSR provides a competitive advantage and improves firms' capabilities to attain sustainable growth (Gorski, 2017). Organisational participation in social development programmes and environmental consideration in their operation significantly improve environmental performance, reduces waste pollution, and also increase the market share of organisations (Awan et al., 2017). Consequently, researchers and stakeholders have also suggested incorporating social practises into organisational operations (Yu & Huo, 2019).
Previous studies have supported the role of CSR in achieving sustainable development goals. For instance, Malik and Kanwal (2016) have found a positive relationship between CSR and economic performance of the organisation. Further, Shahzad et al. (2019) reported a positive association of CSR with sustainable performance and proposed that socially responsible practises improve sustainable performance of the organisation. CSR could enhance corporate financial performance, minimise cost, boost the morale of employees, create job satisfaction, and reduce employees' turnover, along with other benefits (Camilleri, 2017). Additionally, Sarvaiya et al. (2018) proposed that employees provide support for socially responsible activities and both are linked to each other. Moneva et al. (2020) also mentioned that CSR practises contribute to sustainable development goals and positively influence business performance. Though, integration of CSR in the tourism sectors is relatively new and in the initial levels of adoption. Thus, we articulate that: Proposition 1: CSR is positively linked with sustainable performance.

CSR and Sustainability Governance
Sustainability governance has been used as a rising issue for ensuring sustainability of the tourism industry. Governance creates a competitive advantage to the organisation, which reduces unpredicted situations of resource allocation (Sanders & Carpenter, 2003;Smith et al., 2005). The concept of sustainable governance is based on the criteria of legitimacy, efficiency, and effectiveness (Juerges & Hansjürgens, 2018). Correspondingly, it acts as an effective strategy to deal with challenges, improve competitiveness and performance (Wang & Ran, 2018). Additionally, Kooiman (1993) states that governance is implicit an approach to social coordination, unlike governing, guiding, and control along with managing society. Particularly, governance mechanisms substantially improve the social performance of organisations (Jamali et al., 2008) and also encourage organisational transparency, and accountability for their CSR (Khan et al., 2013). Corporate sustainability reporting enhances comparability, credibility, and transparency of organisation (Jones et al., 2016), and governance mechanism ensure more credible sustainability information to both internal and external stakeholders (Kılıç et al., 2021). By considering growth, rapidly changing demands (Tsai et al., 2011), and intense competition (Yeh & Trejos, 2015), there is a need for sustainable governance structure in the tourism sector.
Johnstone (2019) mentioned sustainable governance not only means for a public and private relationship but also the implementation of overarching sustainability goals concerning sustainable operations. Hence, sustainability governance is linked with both; sustainability practises and performance outcomes. Moreover, the researcher proposed that to attain sustainability goals, commitment is required by the state, industry, and society. Government policies and regulations on CSR encourage organisations to act responsibly in tourism sector (Bello & Kamanga, 2020). Similarly, Gao et al. (2019) proposed that the government should also intervene to promote sustainable behaviour in business entities. The institutional authorities could guide socially acceptable behaviour of organisations and act as a coercive mechanism to engage them in CSR (Muthuri & Gilbert, 2011). Researchers highlighted that regulatory institutions around the globe have initiated to create public policies on CSR standards (Bendell et al., 2011). Hence, to address changes in market dynamics, tourism sector needs to integrate sustainable governance mechanism for appropriate socially responsible practises (Yeh, 2019;Yeh & Trejos, 2015), as sustainability governance is a critical factor in successful deployment and development of sustainable practises (Esfahbodi et al., 2017). Hence, we propose that: Proposition 2: CSR is positively linked with sustainable governance.

Sustainability Governance and Corporate Sustainable Performance
Sustainability governance has been explained as a governance structure with an integrated governance approach, where all stakeholders interact with each other as a requirement of the governance construction. It also improves stakeholder relationships by fostering corporate sustainability. Sustainability governance work for better stakeholder management, develop capabilities for economic value maximisation, reduce inefficient resource allocation, and enhance control of operations while growing overall performance (Michelon & Parbonetti, 2012). It has been observed that companies with better corporate governance are more likely to have higher sustainable performance and that corporate governance adds more value to the organisation (Lu, 2020). Aksoy et al. (2020) also confirm that governance structure positively influences corporate sustainable performance.
Earlier, researchers have investigated the relationship between governance and sustainable performance (Hussain et al., 2018). They suggest that organisations should adopt sustainability approach in strategic planning, and practises which entail corporate governance mechanisms for successful implementation. Correspondingly, society's apprehension of environmental issues has increased significantly with the increasing demand of regulatory organisations and nongovernmental organisations to manage environmental issues (Carter & Easton, 2011;Tian et al., 2018). Further, it was found that organisations are facing several forms of social pressure including quality, environmental, and societal concerns which demonstrated the need for sustainable performance. According to justifications of the recommended outcomes of the governance (Esfahbodi et al., 2017;Hussain et al., 2018;Johnstone, 2019;Smith et al., 2005), it has been identified that remarkable hindrances of the sustainable performance will be overcome through adaptation of the sustainability governance. Hence, we posit that: Proposition 3: Sustainable governance is positively linked to sustainable performance.

CSR, Sustainable Governance, and Sustainable Performance
The CSR practises have addressed the role of the relationship on the sustainable performances of organisations. Based on the literature, the relationship has a positive influence on the performance of the organisation (Das, 2017;Emamisaleh et al., 2018). It has been found that corporate sustainable practises not only enhance the economic performance of organisations but also support establishing social equality and environmental integrity which have reflected the sustainable performance. Meanwhile, many earlier studies (i.e., Bhagat & Bolton, 2008;Gompers et al., 2003;Hussain et al., 2018;Ioannou & Serafeim, 2017;Smith et al., 2005) recommended governance can make support to ascertain normal performance, particularly the pressure by internal and external connections of the organisation. Governance is considered the fundamental issue of administration (Sporn, 2007). By this perception, researchers have recommended different plans, business strategies, market structure-based approaches like coercive pressures, certification standards, accountability, and relational standards (Esfahbodi et al., 2017;Hussain et al., 2018;Tregidga et al., 2019). These strategies were prescribed to repress organisation, competitively improved, and promoted desired behaviours.
CSR initiatives are related to a shared objective, corporate sustainability, and dynamic interaction with a set of multi-stakeholder actors. CSR with governance represents a mechanism of self-reflection leading to a self-organising system (Albareda & Waddock, 2018). Esfahbodi et al. (2017) considered governance as a key antecedent for the implementation of sustainability initiatives. Governance performs a substantial role in the transition toward sustainable development and also provides various economic benefits in the form of market share expansion, tax reduction, and subsidies for environmental management. Thus, sustainability creates a balance in economic benefits and environmental protection which ensures a win-win situation for all stakeholders and minimises environmental trade-offs for economic performance. Also, Bhagat and Bolton (2008), and Gompers et al. (2003) confirmed that sustainability governance increases the monitoring and control of business operations, resulting in improve overall organisational performance. Hence, sustainability governance compiled CSR practises for making accession to reduce the vulnerabilities. In this way, it assists organisations to achieve the worthy performance that has been focused on sustainable performance. Therefore, we propose that: Proposition 4: Sustainable governance mediates the relationship between CSR and sustainable performance.

RESEARCH METHODS
Due to the significance of identifying determinants of sustainable performance and the research objective of figuring out scarce research studies, we proposed conceptual linkage of CSR with the sustainable performance of tourism sector and identify the role of sustainability governance in the relationship between CSR and sustainable performance, through conducting qualitative and exploratory research (De-Guimarães et al., 2020).
This study operationalised the guidelines given by Torraco (2016), who suggested that the literature review provides new perspectives and directions about the research topic. Seuring and Gold (2012) also highlighted that literature review effectively evaluates and creates a knowledge base within a research field. They also emphasise the importance of methodological rigour in a literature review to justify existing analytical standards and ensure replicability, reliability, and validity. Hence, this research carried out a content analysis technique to scrutinise the data (Duriau et al., 2007;Mayring, 2015) by generating main theme coding, categories, and sub-categories.
This study follows the procedural guidelines provided by Tranfield et al. (2003) to carry out the research. We initiated a query search on databases such as ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The starting point for 2000 was selected since only a relatively small number of CSR studies had been published before that year. We used keywords such as "corporate social responsibility" or "CSR", and "sustainability" for extensive query searching. Boolean operator "OR" has been used to combine keywords related to the same group and the Boolean operator "AND" is used to add the two search groups. The search was generalised to include Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholars databases to capture tourism-focused journals and nontourism-focused journals. This strategy is acceptable because CSR is a multidisciplinary subject and research has certainly been published in a broader variety of journals; 12,870 are from Science Direct; 17,225 are from the Web of Science; 3,692 are from Scopus and 76,900 are from Google Scholars. The total number of papers, including duplicates, is 110,687. After restriction applied by duplicates and peer-reviewed publications in English, 28,779 studies are included for further study. Afterwards, we begin scrutinising research studies by title, abstract, and analyse their scope to our study. Subsequently, we studied the full-text research objective, findings, and suggestions of residual papers to include in this study. Figure 2 shows the flowchart of studies selection, counting the search query and inclusion criteria.
We formulated the criteria to choose the relevant articles for the study including CSR research papers published from 2000 to 2019 are used in this study; articles based on CSR with the focus on sustainability are included; articles related to CSR and sustainability governance domains are considered. A total of 78 papers have been identified to include in this study. Further, some latest articles are used in the study to strengthen the conceptual framework. This research attempt to conceptualise CSR and governance mechanism for sustainable performance of the tourism sector, hence selected studies have covered some aspect of this research. ii. Articles based on CSR with the focus on sustainability are included.
iii. Articles related to CSR and governance domains are considered.

DISCUSSION
This study aims to explore the CSR in tourism industry. The study posits that growing interest in sustainability issues requires a more structured corporate design to enable governance and align firms' interests with stakeholders' interests. CSR can be categorised into two aspects, internal (employees) and external (society). CSR entails consideration of employees' well-being, corporate social involvement, and assure corporate sustainability reporting by adopting reporting standards such as GRI guidelines to issue an accurate and consistent report (Kılıç et al., 2021). Thus, the study conceptualises that CSR plays a crucial role in meeting sustainability objectives. Nevertheless, the literature does not fully address the key role of CSR on sustainable performance in tourism sector.
In addition, this study conceptualises sustainability governance as a mediator between CSR and sustainable performance. Moreover, this study responds to the calls of prior studies to enrich the current stream of CSR in the hospitality industry (Rhou & Singal, 2020). The findings are discussed, along with previous studies in the following paragraphs.
CSR has been received valuable attention and its importance continues to increase in organisations (Hou, 2019). Organisations aim to preserve the social, environmental, cultural as well as economic aspects through CSR (Raimi, 2017). Organisations with a higher level of CSR are more likely to have a higher sustainable performance that lends support to Proposition 1, which is in line with the notion that CSR improves firms' capabilities to attain sustainable growth (Gorski, 2017). Organisational participation in social development programmes and environmental consideration in their operation significantly improves environmental performance, reduces waste pollution, and also increases the market share of organisations (Awan et al., 2017). CSR could enhance corporate financial performance, minimise cost, boost the morale of employees, create job satisfaction, and reduce employees' turnover, along with other benefits (Camilleri, 2017). According to Moneva et al. (2020), Shahzad et al. (2019), and Yu and Huo (2019) participation of corporations in social welfare and regulation of their operations to minimise environmental degradation not only reflects on fair resources allocation but also lead to improving business performance.
Sustainability governance has been used as a rising issue for ensuring sustainability of the tourism industry. Tourism organisations with efficient sustainability governance are more likely to achieve higher sustainability performance which means that governance built organisational capabilities to reduce unpredicted situations of resource allocation (Sanders & Carpenter, 2003;Smith et al., 2005). Governance mechanisms substantially improve the social performance of organisations (Jamali et al., 2008) and also encourage organisational transparency, and accountability for their CSR (Khan et al., 2013). Corporate sustainability reporting enhances comparability, credibility, and transparency of organisation (Jones et al., 2016), and governance mechanism ensure more credible sustainability information to both internal and external stakeholders (Kılıç et al., 2021). Also, Lu (2020) observed that companies with better corporate governance are more likely to have higher sustainable performance and that corporate governance adds more value to the organisation. Similarly, Aksoy et al. (2020) confirm that governance structure positively influences corporate sustainable performance. Hence, these studies support that sustainable governance is positively linked with CSR and sustainable performance of tourism organisations, and sustainable governance mediates the relationship between CSR and sustainable performance, thus supported Propositions 2, 3, and 4.
Moreover, prior studies (i.e., Bhagat & Bolton, 2008;Gompers et al., 2003;Hussain et al., 2018;Ioannou & Serafeim, 2017;Smith et al., 2005) recommended governance can make support to ascertain normal performance, particularly the pressure by internal and external connections of the organisation. While CSR initiatives are related to a shared objective, corporate sustainability, and dynamic interaction with a set of multi-stakeholder actors. Hence, CSR with governance represents a mechanism of self-reflection leading to a selforganising system (Albareda & Waddock, 2018). Additionally, Esfahbodi et al. (2017) considered governance as a key antecedent for sustainability outcomes. Hence, the study conceptualises that sustainability governance compiled CSR practises for making accession to reduce the vulnerabilities and lead to enhance sustainable performance of tourism organisations.

RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
This research has contributed by conceptualising a new model, which provides a clear and systematic understanding of relationships between CSR, sustainability governance, and sustainable performance in tourism industry. The sustainable performance of tourism industry was conceptualised as a consequence of CSR. More specifically, this study assesses CSR by including employees' well-being, corporate sustainability reporting, and corporate social involvement. Therefore, this study offers a research model that supports the notion that economic, social, and environmental objectives can be achieved in the tourism industry through enhancing CSR and governance mechanism could ensure sustainable development by developing a link between sustainability practises and performance outcomes. This research also highlighted that corporate sustainability reporting is critical for disclosure of CSR, and adaptation of international reporting standards such as GRI are required to assure accurate and consistent reporting (Kılıç et al., 2021). Thus, tourism organisations are recommended to determine a corporate CSR agenda, pursue CSR goals with governance mechanism and assess sustainable outcome on various stakeholders including employees, environment society, and shareholders among others. Additionally, by developing novel insight into the outcome of CSR in the tourism sector, this study provides a vision to tourismbased countries to mitigate sustainability issues and ensure compliance with sustainability standards in the tourism sector.

LIMITATION AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION
This study is subject to certain limitations. First, this study examines sustainability concerns in a specific industry i.e., tourism, which might affect the generalisation of the findings. Second, this study includes limited factors of sustainability; other factors such as environmental management practises, sustainable customer management, and sustainable leadership are related to sustainability, however, not part of this research. Finally, this paper lacks empirical evidence. In this regard, we suggested that empirical evidence of the relationships between CSR, sustainable governance, and sustainable performance can be a focus in future research. Moreover, studies of this domain can investigate the effect of CSR on sustainable performance with mediator sustainability governance in a multi-sector context. Future research can also determine the other factors with CSR such as organisational commitment and technology to integrate sustainable practises in operations to overcome environmental issues, improve employees' well-being, social and economic performance. Moreover, future research agenda should focus on secondary stakeholders such as residents, government, and activists other than primary stakeholders such as employees or investors. Another future avenue of research could focus on the value-relevance of sustainability reporting, such as whether it is sufficient to improve firm value or whether GRI reporting offers incremental firm value. There is also a need to explore consequences and antecedents of CSR with new research initiatives such as environmental, social, and governance reporting. More countries and locations may be focused on the research topic to yield interesting results.

CONCLUSIONS
This research is only a preliminary attempt to deal with sustainability in tourism industry. However, this study has successfully answered four research questions. Previous research has provided the foundation for conceptualising relationships between CSR, sustainability governance, and sustainable performance in tourism industry. An increasing number of CSR studies seem to be exploring the related phenomena in the tourism industry. CSR practises focused in this study revolved around employee well-being, corporate sustainability reporting, and corporate social involvement. There is a recent study conducted by Rhou and Singal (2020) regarding "A review of the business case for CSR in the hospitality industry", which analyses CSR and its impact on the environment, employees, customers, community, and investors in the hospitality industry. This study rather conceptualises corporate sustainability reporting as a crucial aspect of CSR along with employee well-being and corporate social involvement.
Based on previous studies our paper conceptualises a positive relationship between CSR and sustainable performance. Further, sustainability governance is conceptualised to mediate the relationships between CSR and sustainable performance of tourism industry, these elements make our paper contribute to existing literature.