Global Sustainable Tourism Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461050633
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
4153783572
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,157,834
Expenses
$2,102,650
Assets
$1,404,410
Liabilities
$14,500

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • RANDALL DURBAND CEO: $82,000 total reported compensation
  • IOANNIS PAPPAS (DIRECTOR): $41,342 total reported compensation
  • KELLY S BRICKER (DIRECTOR): $4,542 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) advances sustainable travel and tourism by developing and managing internationally recognized sustainablity standards, promoting their adoption worldwide, accrediting certification bodies, providing education and professional training, supporting destination stewardship, and fostering collaberation among governments, businesses, destinations, educational institutions, and civil society organizations to encourage responsible tourism practices.

What it reported doing in 2025

Destinations and International Standards: GSTC develops and maintains global standards for sustainable tourism and provides destination-management organizations and public agencies with assessments, technical guidance, workshops and capacity building services. During 2025, GSTC completed the revision of its former Industry Standard and issued separate GSTC Hotel and GSTC Tour Operator Standards. Together with the Destination, MICE and Attraction Standards, GSTC maintained five published standard sets addressing sustainable management and socioeconomic, cultural, and enviornmental impacts. GSTC also launched a destination self- assessment tool to help destinations to evaluate performance and identify areas for improvement under the four pillars of the GSTC Destination Standard. During the year GSTC completed five destination assessments, engaged with approximately 100 destination members, conducted destination workshops and advisory activities in several countries, and supported the establishment of destination stewardship councils in the Bahamas.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 71% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 36
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.2%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 78.1%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.6%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.67; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.1%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 23.7% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.1% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.2% of revenue deployed · 78.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $82K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.