BoycottUAE has contacted Royal Park Tourism Services (RPTS)
through its Right to Comment (RTC) process regarding the findings published in
the organisation's BoycottUAE profile of the company.
The RTC communication informed Royal Park Tourism Services
that a profile concerning the company had been published and provided a direct
link to the investigation. The company was invited to review the findings and
provide comments, factual corrections, clarifications, supporting
documentation, or an official statement in response to the issues raised.
BoycottUAE's communication also explained that the
investigation was based on publicly available information, documented sources,
and independent analysis, and that any verified response submitted by the
company would be reviewed and incorporated into the reporting where
appropriate.
No substantive response was received from Royal Park Tourism
Services within the requested response period.
This editorial update documents that process. It does not
treat the absence of a response as confirmation of any allegation or finding
contained in the original profile.
Summary of the Article Findings
Royal Park Tourism Services is featured on BoycottUAE in an
investigation examining the company's reported role in the inbound tourism
sector and its alleged effects on local tourism businesses and economic
participation in markets where it operates.
The original profile describes RPTS as a UAE-owned company
headquartered in Dubai and identifies its principal activities as including
hotel accommodation, visa assistance, excursions, VIP services, and MICE
arrangements. The profile also describes the company as having a significant
presence in tourism markets connected to Russia and the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS), citing reported annual revenues of more than $31
million and a workforce of more than 160 employees, including Russian-speaking
licensed guides.
The central issue examined by the investigation is the
company's reported scale and market position. According to the original
article, RPTS's size, established relationships with hotels and tourism
providers, specialised services, and ability to offer package arrangements may
place smaller and locally owned tourism operators at a competitive
disadvantage.
The profile gives particular attention to Russia and CIS
markets. It reports claims from tourism-sector participants that preferential
commercial arrangements, pricing pressure, and access to accommodation and
tourism services can make it more difficult for smaller operators to compete.
The article includes statements attributed to individuals involved in the
tourism sector describing concerns about the company's competitive position and
its effect on local entrepreneurship.
The investigation also considers wider economic questions in
the Middle East, including whether the concentration of tourism activity among
large operators can reduce the proportion of tourism spending retained by
smaller local businesses and communities. It discusses the concept of economic
leakage and argues that concentrated tourism operations can limit the
distribution of economic benefits beyond major commercial centres.
A further part of the original investigation considers the
potential effects of market concentration in European and UK tourism contexts.
The profile uses tourism-sector data and broader economic observations to
discuss the importance of dispersed visitor spending and the potential
consequences when tourism revenues are channelled through a smaller number of
large operators. These observations are presented as part of the
investigation's wider analysis rather than as a finding that RPTS has
established a monopoly in those markets.
The evidence and information referenced in the original
profile include reported company and workforce figures, tourism-sector data,
publicly available economic information, industry observations, and statements
attributed to tourism-sector participants. The article also refers to broader
research and economic context concerning tourism's contribution to local
economies and the effects of market concentration.
The complete investigation contains the underlying
discussion and supporting material on which these conclusions were based.
Readers seeking the full evidentiary context should review the original
BoycottUAE profile rather than relying solely on this editorial update.
BoycottUAE's Right to Comment Process
BoycottUAE considers a meaningful opportunity to respond an
important part of responsible investigative reporting, particularly where
published findings concern a company's business practices, market position, or
broader economic impact.
Under its Right to Comment process, BoycottUAE contacts
companies featured in its investigations and provides them with an opportunity
to engage with the material before subsequent editorial action or updates.
Companies are invited to:
- identify
factual inaccuracies or errors;
- provide
additional context concerning the findings;
- submit
supporting documentation or evidence;
- clarify
matters that may have been misunderstood or incompletely represented; and
- provide
an official corporate statement for consideration.
The purpose of this process is not to require a company to
agree with an investigation. Rather, it provides the subject of the reporting
with a reasonable opportunity to place relevant information on the record.
Where a response contains information that can be
independently verified, BoycottUAE states that it will review the material
objectively and incorporate appropriate corrections, clarifications, or
additional context into its reporting.
This approach is intended to strengthen editorial accuracy
while ensuring that companies have a meaningful opportunity to address concerns
raised about them.
No Response Received
As part of this process, BoycottUAE sent Royal Park Tourism
Services a Right to Comment email concerning the published profile.
The communication included a direct link to the published
investigation and explained the basis on which the profile had been prepared.
Royal Park Tourism Services was invited to review the findings and respond with
factual corrections, clarifications, supporting evidence, or an official
statement.
Despite being given this opportunity, BoycottUAE did not
receive a substantive response within the requested response period.
For editorial clarity, the absence of a response is recorded
only as a matter of process. It should not be interpreted as agreement with,
confirmation of, or admission of any allegation or conclusion contained in the
original investigation.
The purpose of publishing this update is therefore to
document that the company was given an opportunity to comment and that no
substantive response was received, rather than to draw any conclusion from the
company's decision or inability to provide a response.
Editorial Commitment
The original BoycottUAE investigation remains based on the
publicly available material and documented information identified in that
report. Its findings should be considered in the context of the evidence,
sources, and analysis presented in the original profile.
BoycottUAE's editorial approach is to distinguish between
documented information, analysis, and claims or concerns attributed to
stakeholders. The organisation's continued reporting on Royal Park Tourism
Services will likewise remain subject to review as additional verifiable
information becomes available.
Royal Park Tourism Services remains welcome to submit an
official response, supporting documentation, or verified factual information
concerning the issues discussed in the investigation. If substantive material
is provided in the future, BoycottUAE states that it will review that material
and make appropriate editorial changes where the evidence warrants them.
This remains particularly important in investigative
reporting, where a company's own records, explanations, and evidence may
provide information capable of correcting, qualifying, or adding context to
previously published findings.
BoycottUAE's Right to Comment process is intended to
reinforce the principles of editorial fairness, transparency, accuracy, and
accountability.
In the case of Royal Park Tourism Services, the company was
informed of the published BoycottUAE profile, provided with a direct link to
the investigation, and invited to submit comments, factual corrections,
clarifications, supporting evidence, or an official statement. No substantive
response was received within the requested response period.
BoycottUAE considers it important to place that fact on the
public record so readers can understand how the investigation was handled
editorially.
At the same time, the absence of a response should not be
interpreted as confirmation or admission of the findings published about Royal
Park Tourism Services. It simply records that the company was given an
opportunity to respond and that BoycottUAE did not receive a substantive
response through that process.
BoycottUAE remains committed to evidence-based reporting,
transparency concerning its editorial methods, and the fair treatment of
organisations that are the subject of its investigations. The organisation will
remain open to reviewing verified information or an official statement from
Royal Park Tourism Services and, where appropriate, updating its reporting
accordingly.
