2.2. Characteristics of the Alliance and Environmental Performance
Some climate change policies and initiatives, such as carbon taxes, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and ICAO’s Market-Based Mechanism (MBM) to resolve the conflicts on fees for airline emissions by non-European Union (non-EU) airlines [
6], contribute to a reduction in the emissions released to the environment by this sector. However, its compliance will result in lower profitability for the airlines in the short term [
4], since some types of adjustment and changes are likely to be slow, for example, the replacement of an airline’s fleet.
That is to say, not all of the alliances are affected the same by stakeholder pressure and sustainability regulations, and each alliance has its own objectives, characteristics and values that may have different implications on overall performance, and in particular, upon environmental performance. This situation makes it important to analyze the characteristics of the alliance and their relation with environmental performance.
Following this idea, after reviewing and analyzing the composition and the data made available by global alliances, we observed some alliances’ characteristics or attributes that can affect the environmental performance of their members in different ways. In fact, Castiglioni et al. [
37] (p. 28) argued that “both the features of the individual firm and the characteristics of the alliance network impact on the performance that a company can get from its integration in this type of cooperation”.
Thus, besides the shared objectives of alliance’s members, each partner may pursue a specific or individual interest that is not necessarily aligned with that of the group [
38].
Table 1 summarizes the main variables that can affect airlines’ environmental sustainability, and different arguments related to their impacts on the environmental performance of firms.
The
number of airlines that comprise each alliance would influence their environmental performance, since the higher this number is, the greater the likelihood of customers sharing flights is, and the greater the availability of airplanes is, due to the higher number of accessible airlines. This would allow airlines to select the most efficient aircraft (that emanate fewer emissions) and, for instance, to keep the newest airplanes for trips shared among members of the alliance. This greater number of airlines would also lead to access to greater R&D expenses, which are allowed in the network for technological changes (shared or not) that enhance the reduction of fuel consumption and emissions [
39].
However, the regulatory rigidity of some companies may lead to changes in the operation of other companies of the same alliance, and therefore affect incremental improvements in emissions. Besides, the greater the alliance is and the more companies it integrates, the greater the rigidity is and the lower the flexibility in making changes towards a more sustainable behavior is, due to the greater objectives’ divergence to reach non-economic objectives.
Regarding the alliance age, as it grows, the greater the confidence among member airlines, the greater the likelihood of medium-term cooperation to deal with non-economic problems, such as those regarding emissions. On the other hand, the younger the alliance, the greater the likelihood that the definition of long-term objectives will be affected by environmental concerns and contexts, and that a commitment to emissions would be generated.
Nevertheless, the higher is the age of the alliance, the greater the likelihood that new members will lack room to redefine the goals of the alliance, usually with economic profile in the short term.
The average age of airline membership would also improve environmental performance. The younger the membership age of the airline, the greater the likelihood that the alliance will consider new green ideas brought by the new members. On the other side, the higher the age is, the greater the difficulty in environmentally orienting already established objectives in the global alliance.
On the other hand, the older the airline is, the greater the likelihood is of having old airplanes that have poor environmental performance in terms of emissions. Besides, young airlines can have lower financial solvency that makes their operations dependent upon airplane subcontracting (no availability of their own aircraft), so they are unable to choose the least-polluting ones.
Considering the
average number of destinations of the alliance, as this number gets higher, the probability of using shared flights with other alliance members increases, thus generating some degree of efficiency by filling the plane with more passengers [
39].
In contrast, a higher number of destinations also entails a greater number of take-offs and landings, and therefore, a greater number of emissions, since those are the operations with the greatest effect upon pollution. Additionally, fewer destinations would imply lower flight diversity and lower capacity/load aircraft adaptation, which has a detrimental effect on emissions.
Something similar happens with the
average number of countries served. The more dispersed the network, the higher the number of countries served, and the higher the need for sharing flights is, thus contributing to a reduction in emissions [
39]. Besides, as the number of countries grows, the learning effects of the specific regulations of each country that reduces emissions increases, and these measures could be applied to all airlines, or to the alliance as a whole.
Nevertheless, this greater number of countries in which the airline operates would imply less flexibility to adapt to regulations regarding refueling, fuel reserve, take-offs and routes, among others, which would lead to greater emissions. In addition, the fewer countries served, the smaller the need to share flights, leading to less energetic efficiency (more emissions).
Lastly, the number and age of the aircraft also affects the environmental performance of these airlines. The greater the average number of aircraft is, the greater the flexibility to choose a more efficient aircraft for each destination is. In addition, a higher number of aircraft implies greater pollution due to a potential lag in the capacity/load ratio.
The higher the average age of their airplanes is, the greater would be the likelihood of a need for airplanes’ renewal, changing to aircraft with lower emissions. However, this would also imply a higher likelihood of being old, and therefore less efficient in emissions.
2.3. Alliance, Business Model, and Environmental Performance
The individual corporate strategies of airlines have been found to play fundamental roles in their development and survival, even in the alliance context. Simple participation in a global alliance does not guarantee an airline’s success, as shown by the closure of Malev in 2012, and the absorption of Austrian Airlines in 2009 [
11]. As these authors assert, the strategy plays a key role in ensuring an airline’s development, and leveraging the opportunities arising from its participation in global alliances. Therefore, the general strategy and specific mission of the company can reveal important differences between airlines [
24].
As González-Benito and González-Benito [
40] have expressed, companies within international groups can benefit from a greater availability of resources and suffer higher pressure from the social and economic environment, leading to firms improving their environmental behaviors. However, the incorporation of the environmental variable into corporate strategies has largely depended upon the level of corporate proactiveness [
41,
42], not only of the firm, but also of the global alliance as a whole. This proactivity refers to the adoption of environmental protection strategies that do more than comply with legislation or meet industry standards [
43], but rather, voluntarily take measures to reduce the environmental impact of the firm [
21,
40,
44].
The airline industry is quite varied in terms of business models. They are usually characterized into four main categories: Net carrier, regional, charter and low-cost, e.g., [
25,
45]. The business model of each company will determine the company behavior, which, in turn, will probably determine its environmental performance, given differences in the route and network design, occupancy rate, weight carried and age of the fleet (and therefore the use of more efficient aircraft), among other factors [
46].
Net carriers or full-service carriers traditionally represented the majority of the industry. Air China, British Airways or Delta Airlines are examples of these. They focus on providing a broad variety of services, which include hundreds of destinations via a hub-and-spoke model, which is eventually complemented by a network of direct flights that are mainly focused on the home country. To do so, they use different aircraft models, from small, regional to wide-body aircraft. These are configured in 2–4 passenger classes, and offer a wide variety of amenities to customers, including loyalty programs [
47].
Regional airlines are mainly focused in more rural areas [
48] and usually provide feeding services for net carriers, to which they might be associated, or not. They usually have more efficient operations and costs than net carriers, and employ a fleet of regional aircraft ranging in capacity from 30 to 90 seats [
47].
Charter airline is a broad definition used for carriers that specialize in the transport of tourists. Nowadays, they usually operate on schedules, although this highly depends upon the seasonal demand [
49]. They typically offer point-to-point flights, concentrated at a few times per week, by employing a homogeneous fleet of medium-sized and large aircraft.
Finally, low-cost carriers are airlines which offer simple, no-frills services based upon simple operations and a simple point-to-point network with no connections. They usually employ a quite homogeneous and young, medium-sized fleet, which helps to maintain the low-cost structure (both maintenance and capital costs). They proactively stimulate demand by offering low fares and serving destinations that were not previously covered to maximize the occupation and utilization of their fleet [
45,
49].
All these differential characteristics led us to propose the following hypothesis:
H2. Environmental performance differs depending of the business model of the airline (with or without alliance) (net carrier, regional, charter and low-cost).