Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism - Philosophy and Practice (PDFDrive)

Tourism on the Verge
Pauline J. Sheldon
Roberto Daniele Editors
Social
Entrepreneurship
and Tourism
Philosophy and Practice
Series editors
Pauline J. Sheldon
University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA
Daniel R. Fesenmaier
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13605
Pauline J. Sheldon • Roberto Daniele
Editors
Social Entrepreneurship
and Tourism
Philosophy and Practice
Editors
Pauline J. Sheldon Roberto Daniele
School of Travel Industry Management OSHM - Oxford School of Hospitality
University of Hawaii Management
Honolulu, Hawaii Oxford Brookes University
USA Oxford, United Kingdom
ISSN 2366-2611 ISSN 2366-262X (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-319-46516-6 ISBN 978-3-319-46518-0 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-46518-0
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016960325
© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword
Scholars have, for decades, been calling for new tourism models and practices that
deliver real, sustainable and responsible tourism outcomes. Most make these calls
from behind their desks, caught up in the belief that public scholarship can make a
difference by throwing paper after paper into the scholarly publishing arena (iron-
ically, only available from behind login screens). But who is listening? What
difference does this make? The industry has remained predominantly growth and
profit motivated, yet social entrepreneurs with vision and creativity have been
forging new paths, many without ever having read an academic paper. There is,
of course, a small band of pracademics and activist scholars who are out in the field,
teaching, learning, engaging and contributing to the growth of the social entrepre-
neurship movement and driving real change. It is time to celebrate their achieve-
ments and to build stronger cocreated praxis. The editors and authors of this volume
believe that activist scholarship, cocreated knowledge and shared understandings in
tourism social entrepreneurship practice can change this hiatus.
Social entrepreneurship is one of the fastest growing social movements of our
time. Growing global awareness that ‘business as usual’ capitalism and individual
self-interest are leading us towards potentially catastrophic environmental and
social consequences has set the stage for social entrepreneurship to catalyse into
a movement. But other factors are also at play. It has become patently clear that
environmental issues cannot be addressed without making progress on pressing
social issues such as poverty, gender equity, empowerment and inclusion. The
millennial generation has also driven a shift in values away from the growth, profit
and greed of late twentieth-century capitalism and towards a concern for well-being
and social progress. A moral, caring turn is taking hold.
What is exciting about social entrepreneurship is that it is made possible by the
opening up of alternative spaces of dialogue and praxis. These spaces can be
synchronic and asynchronic, setting off constellations of creative thinking, knowl-
edge cocreation and actions that extend well beyond the initial ideation. After
decades of stifling neoliberalism, these are exciting times where alternative (social)
values are being nurtured, and leaders, in all shapes and sizes, are imagining and
v
vi Foreword
empowering better, more just, more inclusive and sustainable futures. They are not
simply waiting for governments or business to deliver. The dream that I share with
the editors of this volume is that tourism graduates across the world will be amongst
these future-makers.
In this context, linking tourism and social entrepreneurship makes perfect sense.
That tourism generates significant unintended consequences and is associated with
a range of market failures makes it surprising that tourism social entrepreneurship
has taken so long to gain traction. This book is therefore a very welcome contribu-
tion and, hopefully, the start of a journey that contributes to changing and
refocusing tourism on its world-making potential. It explores the phenomenon in
both theory and practice and sets forth fertile ground for future research and
education.
Tourism social entrepreneurship pushes the opportunity for meaningful action
well beyond what corporate social responsibility can or has been able to offer.
Three features in particular are worthy of mentioning. First, (tourism) social
entrepreneurship marks an ethical shift in the way that we define responsibility. It
calls us to care about things less and to care for others more. It heralds a shift away
from ethics based on universal principles towards a relational form of care ethics.
Second, tourism social entrepreneurship incorporates social benefit as a central
mission of the business, and it invites us to think differently about the value created
from investment. By conceptualising value creation as blended value – a complex
interlocking DNA sequence of social, economic and environmental value – it
prompts investors to consider the various forms of value that can emerge, and
how certain outcomes (e.g. social capital or empowerment) can be valued alongside
traditional economic factors. Third, through the concept of scaling, social enterprise
seeks to propagate an ecology of social benefits that extends well beyond the
individual social enterprise.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the vision, leadership and perseverance
shown by the editors in developing this volume. My friendship and collegiality with
the editors and many of the chapter authors has been grounded and nurtured via the
Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI), a network of tourism scholars and
tourism practitioners committed to driving change in tourism through education.
TEFI is the legacy of Pauline J. Sheldon and Dan Fesenmaier. In TEFI’s view,
education is much more than teaching and learning. It involves being activist
scholars and a commitment to the cocreation of tourism knowledge through itera-
tive processes of academic work and real-world engagement. TEFI is a social
movement in its own right: its activities are synchronic and asynchronic, and our
aim is that constellations of creative thinking, knowledge cocreation and action
extend well beyond our meetings and involve diverse creative world-making
activities involving a variety of actors. Pauline J. Sheldon has been a particularly
strong advocate in progressing TEFI’s agenda and has been instrumental to the
development of this book. This book is one outcome of a broader and deeper
engagement in tourism social entrepreneurship and sits alongside two successful
walking workshops to Nepal (2014 and 2016), student field trips that provide spaces
for cocreated knowledge and experience sharing between local and international
Foreword vii
students and the ongoing development of relationships with social entrepreneurs

and local communities. These achievements are largely due to Roberto Daniele,
Oxford Brookes University, who with head, heart and hands has put his commit-
ment to drive change in tourism at the forefront of his academic work. This volume
is Roberto’s parting contribution, for he leaves on his own cycling odyssey. Bon
voyage, Roberto, and thank you for the inspiration you have provided.
Aalborg University Dianne Dredge

Copenhagen, Denmark
June 2016
Acknowledgments
The subject of this book is an idea whose time has come. Many researchers,
educators, and practitioners, including our chapter authors, are now working to
develop social entrepreneurship as a major change agent in tourism. The book fits
well into the Tourism on the Verge series as it is a relatively new phenomenon but
one that offers an inspiring new direction for tourism development.
We would like to acknowledge those whose intellectual and resource contribu-
tions shaped and enriched the book. The center of much of the intellectual thought
for the book is the Oxford School for Hospitality Management at Oxford Brookes
University, Oxford, UK. It is there that Roberto Daniele, the coeditor of this book,
spearheaded much of the innovative work through his teaching and field work with
students. His passion, his ability to inspire others, and his dedicated action con-
stantly stoked the intellectual fire behind this book. He was generously supported by
Donald Sloan, Head of School of the Oxford School for Hospitality Management,
who created a fertile and innovative environment for this project to flourish. We
express our sincere gratitude to Donald for actively encouraging and championing
social entrepreneurship in tourism across higher education and in the industry.
We also wish to acknowledge UnLtd (The Foundation for Social Entrepreneurs
in the UK) who provided funding and support through its Innovation Partnership
program. This program resulted in the creation of TIPSE (Tourism Innovation
Partnership for Social Entrepreneurship) a network of leading universities and
social enterprises whose aim is to promote the field of Social Entrepreneurship in
Tourism. We are very grateful for UnLtd’s support and for the educators who are
leading TIPSE forward.
The Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI) also deserves our thanks as it
embraced tourism social entrepreneurship early on by making it a key strand of its
activity. Professor Dianne Dredge who now chairs TEFI has been an eloquent
proponent of social entrepreneurship in tourism and has provided a sounding
board for our ideas as we developed the book. We thank her for her excellent
insights and friendship. Both TEFI and TIPSE now play key roles in promoting
Social Entrepreneurship in academia and the wider tourism sector.
ix
x Acknowledgments
Others who have been inspired us along the way are Gavin Bate, Founder of
Adventure Alternative and Moving Mountains Trust. Gavin is a true pioneer in
sustainable business models for tourism and one of the first social entrepreneurs in
the field. He has been a role model and we thank him for the inspiration he has
provided to us. Anna Pollock, a visionary thinker in tourism, assisted us in the
development of the book’s structure and constantly challenged us to push forward
with ideas for the transformation of tourism. We thank her for her vision and
persistence in changing tourism for the better. We would also like to thank
Professor Daniel Fesenmaier, coeditor of the book series, for his encouragement
to pursue this endeavor.
Our thanks also go to each and every chapter author, whose creative work you
will enjoy in this book. The book would not have been so rich in content without the
contributions of these brilliant minds. We thank every one of the authors and hope
this is just the beginning of a deeper exploration of how social entrepreneurship can
transform the tourism sector.
Roberto thanks his life partner Marita Davidson who not only encouraged his
passion for Social Entrepreneurship but also helped shape his ideas through many
insightful discussions. Pauline thanks her husband William Remus, who inspired
and supported her in her writing and always gave constructive and insightful
comments as the book evolved.
Pauline J. Sheldon and Roberto Daniele
Contents
Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism: Setting the Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Pauline J. Sheldon, Anna Pollock, and Roberto Daniele
Part I Understanding Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism

Theorizing Social Entrepreneurship Within Tourism Studies . . . . . . . . 21
Christine Buzinde, Gordon Shockley, Kathleen Andereck, Edward Dee,
and Peter Frank
Institutional and Policy Support for Tourism Social Entrepreneurship . . . 35
Dianne Dredge
Social Entrepreneurship Typologies and Tourism: Conceptual
Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Jonathon Day and Makarand Mody
Business Models for Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Roberto Daniele and Isabel Quezada
Social Innovations in Tourism: Social Practices Contributing
to Social Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Jan Mosedale and Frieder Voll
Understanding How Social Entrepreneurs Fit into the Tourism
Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Ziene Mottiar and Karla Boluk
Part II Communities of Practice

Exploring Social Entrepreneurship in Food Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Carol Kline, Karla Boluk, and Neha M. Shah
Knowledge Dynamics in the Tourism-Social Entrepreneurship Nexus . . 155
Giang Thi Phi, Michelle Whitford, and Dianne Dredge
xi
xii Contents
Social Enterprise Evaluation: Implications for Tourism

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Marcella Daye and Kawal Gill
Part III Cases

Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism Development in Mexico:
A Case Study of North American Social Entrepreneurs in a
Mexican Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Helene Balslev Clausen
Heroic Messiahs or Everyday Businessmen? The Rhetoric and the
Reality of Social Entrepreneurship in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Makarand Mody and Jonathon Day
Guludo Beach Lodge and the Nema Foundation, Mozambique . . . . . . . 221
Amy Carter-James and Ross Dowling
The BEST Society: From Charity to Social Entrepreneurship . . . . . . . . 237
Jamie Murphy, Albert Teo, Casey Murphy, and Eunice Liu
Social Enterprise Ecosystems: A Case Study of the Danube Delta
Region of Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Georgiana Els and Kevin Kane
Adventure Alternative and Moving Mountains Trust: A Hybrid
Business Model for Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Roberto Daniele, Gavin Bate, and Isabel Quezada
The Influence of Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism on an Arab
Village in Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Alexandra Stenvall, Daniel Laven, and Alon Gelbman
Walking on Country with Bana Yarralji Bubu: A Model for
Aboriginal Social Enterprise Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
Helen Murphy and Sharon Harwood
Part IV Conclusion
Moving Tourism Social Entrepreneurship Forward: Agendas
for Research and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Pauline J. Sheldon, Dianne Dredge, and Roberto Daniele
Editor and Contributors
About the Editors
Pauline J. Sheldon is Professor Emeritus at the School of Travel Industry Man-

agement at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu, USA where she also served as
Professor and Dean. She has published books in the fields of Tourism Information
Technology, Wellness Tourism, and Change in Tourism Education. Her research
interests also lie in the areas of corporate social responsibility and sustainable island
tourism. She co-founded Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI), served as
President of the International Academy for the Study of Tourism, and has been
awarded UNWTO Ulysses Award, the TTRA Lifetime Achievement Award.
Roberto Daniele was Senior Lecturer in Entrepreneurship and Marketing at

Oxford Brookes University, UK. He founded the Hospitality and Tourism SE
Forum, was Director, Tourism Changemakers’ Forum, and executive member of
Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI). Roberto developed and led Oxford
Brookes SE Awards (OBSEA)—a program to support social entrepreneurs in
universities. The program won awards and was shortlisted for the Guardian Edu-
cation Awards. In 2014 he founded Tourism Innovation Partnership for Social
Entrepreneurship (TIPSE) a consortium of universities and social enterprises to
promote SE in academia and industry. In 2016, Roberto won the UnLtd “Social
Entrepreneurship Champion” award for his work on TIPSE.
Contributors
Kathleen Andereck School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona

State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
Gavin Bate Alternative Adventure, London, UK
xiii
xiv Editor and Contributors
Karla Boluk University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

Christine Buzinde School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona
Amy Carter-James Guludo Beach Lodge, Mucojo, Mozambique
Helene Balslev Clausen Tourism Research Unit, Aalborg University, Aalborg,
Denmark
Roberto Daniele Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
Jonathon Day School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue Univer-
sity, Lafayette, IN, USA
Marcella Daye Northampton Business School, University of Northampton,
Northampton, UK
Edward Dee School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
Ross Dowling School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup,
WA, Australia
Dianne Dredge Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University,
Aalborg, Denmark
Georgiana Els Tourism and Events Management, University of Lincoln, Lincoln,
UK
Peter Frank Department of Economics, Wingate University, Wingate, NC, USA
Alon Gelbman Kinneret College on the Sea of Galilee, Sea of Galilee, Israel
Kawal Gill Sri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce, University of Delhi,
Delhi, India
Sharon Harwood James Cook University, Cairns, QLD, Australia
Kevin Kane University of Salford, Salford, UK
Carol Kline Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA
Daniel Laven European Tourism Research Institute (ETOUR), Mid Sweden Uni-
versity, Sundsvall, Sweden
Eunice Liu Australian School of Management, Perth, WA, Australia
Makarand Mody School of Hospitality Administration, Boston University, Bos-
ton, MA, USA
Jan Mosedale Institute for Tourism and Leisure, University of Applied Sciences
HTW Chur, Chur, Switzerland
Ziene Mottiar Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin, Republic of Ireland
Editor and Contributors xv
Jamie Murphy Australian School of Management, Perth, WA, Australia

Casey Murphy Notre Dame University Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
Helen Murphy James Cook University, Cairns, QLD, Australia
Giang Thi Phi Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management, Griffith
University, Nathan, QLD, Australia
Anna Pollock Conscious Travel, London, UK
Isabel Quezada Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
Neha M. Shah Pittsboro-Siler City Convention & Visitors Bureau, Pittsboro, NC,
USA
Pauline J. Sheldon School of Travel Industry Management, University of Hawaii,
Honolulu, HI, USA
Gordon Shockley School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona
Alexandra Stenvall European Tourism Research Institute (ETOUR), Mid Swe-
den University, Sundsvall, Sweden
Albert Teo Borneo Eco Tours, Sabah, Malaysia
Frieder Voll Institute for Tourism and Leisure, University of Applied Sciences
HTW Chur, Chur, Switzerland
Michelle Whitford Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management, Grif-
fith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia
Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism:
Setting the Stage
Pauline J. Sheldon, Anna Pollock, and Roberto Daniele
Abstract This chapter sets the conceptual foundation for the book. It provides a
background on the development of thought around social entrepreneurship, and the
scholars and organizations that have led to its development. After introducing
various definitions of social entrepreneurship it then goes on to develop a definition
of tourism social entrepreneurship (TSE). The terms ‘tourism social entrepreneur’
and ‘tourism social enterprise’ are also defined. An analysis of the current state of
the tourism and hospitality industries and their market failures leads into a discus-
sion of how TSE can transform the industry for the better. The chapter then
describes how social entrepreneurship can effectively make changes to the eco-
nomic and social systems that are no longer working in the world and in tourism.
The status of tourism social entrepreneurship in industry, academia and education
are then discussed. The final section of the chapter lays out the book’s contents, its
three sections and the topics of each chapter.
Keywords Social entrepreneurship • Definitions • Terminologies • Tourism

contest and scope • Opportunities
Parts of this chapter are excerpted from: Pollock, A. 2015 “Social Entrepreneurship in
Tourism—the Conscious Travel Approach” www.tipse.org
P.J. Sheldon (*)
School of Travel Industry Management, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Pollock
Conscious Travel, London, UK
R. Daniele
School of Hospitality Management, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 1

P.J. Sheldon, R. Daniele (eds.), Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-46518-0_1
2 P.J. Sheldon et al.
1 Introduction
The world is in turbulence. Shocks to its economic, social and environmental

systems are increasingly frequent. As we seek to understand and predict these, we
must also strive to create new and different systems that address disturbing prob-
lems such as human rights, social justice, economic imbalances and inequalities,
environmental degradation and climate change. Governments have not been able to
address many of society’s problems due to lack of resources, lack of political will,
short election cycles, and warring ideologies as one regime replaces another
contributing to a breakdown of civil society (Kickul & Lyons, 2012). Tourism
exists within this turbulent world, and the call for more sustainable, resilient and
responsible tourism development is getting louder. Tourism researchers are work-
ing to address tourism’s impact on destinations, and tourism’s place in the world of
the future. If tourism is to thrive in the future, a more agile, responsive and forward-
looking industry is necessary to help society move through these profound changes.
We must also urgently consider whether tourism can continue as an end unto itself,
or whether it can realize its potential as a force for good by contributing to
conscious social, economic and environmental development.
Tourism is an economic and social phenomenon that is both a cause and effect of
the exploding levels of human connectivity over the past decades. Its diffusion and
success (in terms of the number of customers, host businesses and tourist spending)
has been largely due to the efficient application of a production-consumption model
that has created and serviced an expanding mass market. As demand has grown
rapidly for a finite “product” (places on earth to visit), this operating model is now
exhibiting signs of stress evidenced by overuse of physical resources (land, land-
scapes, water, wild lands etc.), congestion, increasing costs for infrastructure and
regulatory administration, diminishing returns and reduced yields.
At the same time, market preferences are evolving with more experienced
tourists preferring less structured group travel and more intimate experiences of
people and places. While profit maximization remains the primary motivation for
most enterprises, changing customer values, combined with growing social and
environmental concerns, are creating demand for greater corporate commitment to
social and environmental responsibility; the generation of greater social and shared
value; and for de-coupling growth from resource use (Gossling & Peters, 2015).
The pursuit of growth (in numbers of visitors, guest facilities, visitor spending
and investment) as an objective in its own right is being questioned in some
quarters, unless that growth increases and/or improves net benefit with positive
social, cultural and environmental impact on host communities (Pollock, 2015).
Diversifying organizational forms, objectives and ownership structures within a
destination and encouraging social entrepreneurship in particular provides one
strategy for addressing that need.
Tourism is but a subset of a larger economic system that is similarly showing
signs of systemic stress. These symptoms include high levels of wealth disparity,
volatility, boom and bust cycles, fluctuations in commodity prices, associated
Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism: Setting the Stage 3
environmental challenges such as waste, pollution, resource scarcity, and loss of

biodiversity. Negative socio-cultural impacts such as crime, addiction, mental
illness, obesity, and social unrest are also evident.
In both cases, social enterprise is one of society’s attempts to address specific
problems while informing and contributing to a deeper set of explorations into
systems change. It is one of several organizational forms, including co-operatives,
worker-owned companies, community companies and trusts, partnerships and not-
for-profits that are emerging or being re-vitalized to deliver greater social impact. In
agriculture, health, technology, retail, manufacturing and many other sectors,
passionate, risk-taking individuals with innovative and creative ideas are creating
and testing new solutions to old problems. Attention is being paid to social
enterprise because of its speed of growth, the relatively low barriers to entry and
its appeal to a digitally-savvy, entrepreneurial generation—the millennials. Social
entrepreneurship is a key aspect of intensifying explorations into a “new economy”
and “whole systems change” that include such expressions as Conscious Capital-
ism, the Next System Project, Regenerative Capitalism, Economics for the Com-
mon Good, the movement towards localization (as in Transitions Towns and the
Business Alliance for Local Economies); along with the rise of the so called
Sharing Economy.
Tourism is already rich with entrepreneurial activity in many sectors: accom-
modations, food and beverage outlets, tour operations, mobile app developers, local
events and attractions all provide opportunities for creative, risk-taking individuals
to use their talents for profit. It also is ripe with opportunities for social entrepre-
neurs to move the industry forward and impact destinations in transformative ways
by uniting the profit motive with the mission to change the world for the better. The
tourism and hospitality industry provides many opportunities to absorb the creativ-
ity and passion that social entrepreneurs bring, but mostly they remain nascent. Few
systematic approaches to creating awareness of those opportunities have been
undertaken by destinations, governments, NGOs or secondary educational insti-
tutions. This book will explore how social entrepreneurs can change the nature of
tourism, bring new value-driven creativity into the industry, and help destinations
to transform for the better.
This first chapter lays the foundation for the study of social entrepreneurship in a
tourism and hospitality context. It examines the core issues and change dynamics
underpinning the sector that provide fertile ground for social entrepreneurship. It
also scans and integrates the various definitions, concepts and terminologies used in
general, and places them in the tourism and hospitality context. The chapter begins
by discussing the factors that constitute a definitional understanding of social
entrepreneurship, extending them to the unique context of tourism and hospitality.
The chapter then goes on to analyze the context and scope of social entrepreneur-
ship in the tourism and hospitality field, and assesses the work done to date. The
chapter ends with a preview of the remaining chapters in the book.
2 Definitions and Terminologies
Social Enterprise is a relatively youthful phenomenon. The terms social entrepre-

neur and social entrepreneurship were first used in the literature on social change in
the 1960s and 1970s but came into widespread use in the following two decades
partly in response to increasing signs of social inequity. There are many definitions
of these terms, and the field is complex and rapidly moving. To study it we need to
know what and who we are studying. This knowledge can then be carefully applied
to the tourism and hospitality field. It is often stated that there is a lack of
definitional clarity for social entrepreneurship (SE) which has become “. . .so
inclusive that it now has an immense tent into which all manner of socially
beneficial activities fit.” (Martin & Osberg, 2007, p. 1). It is clear that more
definitional clarity is needed in a generic sense that can then be customized to the
tourism sector.
A social entrepreneur can be simply defined as one who uses business principles
to solve social problems. Other definitions suggest more of a continuum, extending
from those with a purely social mission to hybrid models that include the profit
motive to different degrees (Lee & Jay, 2015; Volkmann et al., 2012). Bornstein
(2007, p. 1) states that social entrepreneurs “combine the savvy, opportunism,
optimism and resourcefulness of business entrepreneurs, with the devotion and
pursuit of ‘social profit,’ rather than business profit.”
But these definitions barely touch on the more profound social transformation that
is the intended outcome of social entrepreneurship. As far back as 1977, Chamberlain
used the term to include a broader philosophical approach (Chamberlain, 1977, p. 2).
For me social entrepreneurship was grounded in social rationality—a completely different
philosophical perspective that prioritizes human relationships above task-efficiency.
Similarly, Yunus (2010, p. xv) states that “The biggest flaw in our existing
theory of capitalism lies in its misrepresentation of human nature” explaining that
humans are not ‘money-making robots’ but are multi-dimensional beings often
driven by selfless motivations. The growth in social entrepreneurship is proving this
to be the case. Dees (1998, p. 2) also questions the free market model:
Any definition of social entrepreneurship should reflect the need for a substitute for the
market discipline that works for business entrepreneurs. We cannot assume that market
discipline will automatically weed out social ventures that are not effectively and efficiently
utilizing resources.
This view is particularly important for the tourism industry which is strongly
based on human relationships, human nature, the creation of social capital, and the
need to use non-market mechanisms to manage the environmental resources upon
which it is based.
A few key global organizations and foundations supporting social entrepreneur-
ship have added their definitions. The Ashoka Foundation, the first organization to
support social entrepreneurship at the global level was founded by Bill Drayton in
1980. His definition also focuses on the systemic change that social entrepreneur-
ship can bring to industries and in society:
Social Entrepreneurs are not content just to give a fish, or teach how to fish. They will not
rest until they have revolutionized the fishing industry. www.ashoka.org
The Skoll Foundation, another well-recognized international organization for

social entrepreneurship founded by Jeff Skoll and others in 1999. It is based in Palo
Alto, California with its related Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship located in
the SAID Business School, University of Oxford, UK includes the transformative
impact in its definition:
Social entrepreneurs are society’s change agents: creators of innovations that disrupt the
status quo and transform our world for the better. They see a problem they want to solve and
they go after it in a way that is potentially disruptive. It is not just seeing a problem
and addressing it intermittently and on a piecemeal basis. It is saying “I’m going to crack
open this system and solve it.” https://skollworldforum.org/about/what-is-social-
entrepreneurship/
Both of these definitions point to the need to disrupt the status quo; to change
current systems. Social entrepreneurs have been categorized as ‘unreasonable
people’ because they want to change the system, are insanely ambitious, propelled
by emotion, think they know the future, seek profit in unprofitable pursuits and try
to measure the immeasurable (Elkington & Hartigan, 2008). All of this, however,
gives them power. But some stereotypes of social entrepreneurs need to questioned.
Brookes (2009) de-bunks the following myths: they are anti-business, run
non-profits, are born not made, are misfits, usually fail, love risk and finally that
greed is what differentiates them from commercial entrepreneurs.
The Skoll website (www.skollfoundation.org) also suggests that social entre-
preneurs “. . .pave avenues of opportunity for those who would, otherwise, be
locked into lives without hope” again suggesting their significant humanitarian
impact. Other researchers have noted that social entrepreneurship projects often
contribute to disadvantaged and marginalized groups. Martin and Osberg (2007)
identify a three stage process whereby social entrepreneurs can affect social change
for such disadvantaged populations. They recommend first identifying a stable but
unjust equilibrium creating the exclusion, marginalization, or suffering. Then
developing a social value proposition to challenge the stable state’s hegemony,
and finally forging a new equilibrium to alleviate the suffering of the targeted group
and creates a better future for them. The sustainability of these interventions and
initiatives is paramount, and this often demands that the private sector, the public
sector and the non-profit sectors all must all contribute to sustainable social
entrepreneurship (Keohane, 2013).
A definition that brings together many factors from various disciplinary sources
and prominent authors is recommended by Dees (1998). He combines an emphasis
on discipline and accountability, value creation (Say, 2001), innovation and change
agents (Schumpeter, 1975), pursuit of opportunity from (Drucker, 1995), and
resourcefulness (Wei-Skillern, Austin, Leonard, & Stevenson, 2007). Bringing all
these together he suggests social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the
social sector, by:
• adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value);
• recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission;
• engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning;
• acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand, and
• exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the
outcomes created (Dees, 1998).
It has been suggested that there are five pivotal dimensions around which social
entrepreneurship is structured: social mission, social innovation, social change,
entrepreneurial spirit, and personality (Praszkier & Nowak, 2012, p. 15). Similarly,
but in a more general sense, Volkmann, Tokarski and Ernst (2012) suggest four
factors in defining social entrepreneurs: the scope of their activity, their character-
istics, their primary mission and outcome, and the processes and resources used. As
we reflect on these factors in the tourism domain, each has something to offer a
definition of Tourism Social Entrepreneurship (TSE).
Since the potential for social entrepreneurship to transform society is strong,
much literature may have donned rose-tinted glasses. It is important to caution
against such non-critical, starry-eyed perspectives of social entrepreneurship as it
too has downsides. As Zahrer, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, and Shulman (2009) so
poignantly say “While social entrepreneurs are driven by an ethical obligation
and desire to improve their communities and societies, egoism can drive them to
follow unethical practices” (Zahrer et al., 2009, p. 528). The various potential,
ethical pitfalls that they can fall into are laid out by Zahrer et al. (2009). Tourism
social entrepreneurs can also fall into these pitfalls and would be advised to be
aware of them. The next section will propose a definition for tourism social
entrepreneurship.
2.1 Definition of Tourism Social Entrepreneurship
After reviewing a number of definitions, this book will use the generic definition of
social entrepreneurship from Alvord, Brown, and Letts (2004) upon which to build
a tourism specific definition. Their definition captures most of the factors discussed
above and also includes the concept of the longevity or sustainability of the impact,
which we feel is particularly important to the tourism and hospitality fields. Their
definition is:
a process that creates innovative solutions to immediate social problems and mobilizes the
ideas, capacities, resources, and social agreements required for this sustainable social
transformation.
We will now consider this definition in the unique tourism context. TSE is
uniquely defined in that it is operationalized in a tourism destination (local, regional
or national, or two or more in collaboration) with a primary mission to enhance the

destination’s environmental, social and economic fabric. The tourism social entre-
preneur could be a resident of the destination or related region, or someone from
outside the destination who knows it well (e.g. a repeat visitor or previous resident)
and sees a solution to one or more of its problems. It is implicit that tourism social
enterprises are related to the tourism sector (e.g. tour, transportation, attraction, or
event) and or the hospitality sector (e.g. accommodation, food and beverage,
hosting) and it is through these activities that the social transformation occurs. As
the tourism industry is complex and fragmented it is not easily defined. There are
many locations where the tourist interacts with the destination economically,
socially or environmentally meaning there are many possible touch points where
tourism social entrepreneurs can make an impact. The ideas, processes and
resources used to create the tourism social enterprise could be from within or
outside the destination. Often much of the work to prepare for the
operationalization of a social enterprise in the destination occurs in one or more
tourism generating countries. For example, the case of Adventure Alternatives
(discussed in chapter “Adventure Alternative and Moving Mountains Trust: A
Hybrid Business Model for Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism”) would not be
successful in Nepal or Kenya without the work in the UK where it operates and
generates participants for their activities.
Therefore we define TSE as:
a process that uses tourism to create innovative solutions to immediate social, environmen-
tal and economic problems in destinations by mobilizing the ideas, capacities, resources
and social agreements, from within or outside the destination, required for its sustainable
social transformation.
Having defined tourism social entrepreneurship, we need to also define the

related terms: tourism social entrepreneur and tourism social enterprise. We base
these definitions on the generic work of Mair and Martı́ (2006). Tourism social
entrepreneurs are defined as the change agents in a destination’s social entre-
preneurship system; the people who bring their vision, characteristics and ideas to
solve the social problem and bring about the transformation of the tourist destination.
Tourism social enterprises are organizations created by the entrepreneurs as private,
semi-private organizations or foundations dedicated to solving the social problems
in the destination. Throughout the book we will use the abbreviation TSE for tourism
social entrepreneurship and will spell out the two terms above to avoid confusion.
We will now expand on the unique situations in tourism destinations that are ripe
for social enterprise networks/ecosystems to be developed.
3 Tourism Context and Scope
The tourism and hospitality industry is experiencing major change and flux. The
industrial model of production and consumption, borrowed from manufacturing
after the last world war, was fueled by low energy costs, cheap credit, an expanding
population and rising disposable incomes. It has grown internationally from a few
million to nearly 1.2 billion trips in 2014 (UNWTO, 2015). Over the next 6 years it
is forecast to grow by another 50 %. The arrival of low cost airlines, Internet
connectivity, comparison search engines and rising competition has worked in the
customer’s favor. Long-distance travel now costs significantly less in real terms
than 50 years ago. But concurrently with cheap travel being viewed as a right, the
invisible externalities associated with congestion, low margins, resource use, sea-
sonality, environmental degradation, low wages and poor working conditions have
become harder to ignore.
The positive effects of an economic sector that has grown from the relatively
exclusive activity enjoyed by the elite to a mass phenomenon contributing 10 % to
GDP and providing employment to 250 million people are indisputable. While the
positive benefits of mass tourism have been emphasized by its participants and
promoters, less attention has been paid to measuring the full costs of production and
distribution and to tracing the distribution of visitor spending. Until recently, most
capital invested in tourism supply, and visitor spending has been derived from the
same or similar sources of visitors and has been re-cycled back to that source. This
is due in part to overseas investment and market expertise combined with a lengthy,
complex value chain connecting visitors to hosts. Furthermore while promoted on
the basis of its job creation potential, the industry suffers from a poor human
resource relations record and, according to the International Labor Organization
(ILO, 2014), is partially characterized by low wages, irregular hours, and poor
working conditions.
The pressure on tourism and hospitality companies to be more responsible—
both environmentally and socially—is growing rapidly. Members of both the
boomer and millennial generations—the two primary sources of consumer spend-
ing power—are increasingly aware of the impact of their travels on host
populations. The number of individual enterprises successfully creating both social
and environmental value while profitably attracting and catering to guests is
increasing. They operate under a multiplicity of labels—eco, responsible, sustain-
able, geo, green, good, and fair tourism and comprise an encouraging plethora of
grassroots initiatives recognized at annual industry events such as those hosted by
United Nations World Tourism Organization’s (UNWTO) ‘Ulysses Awards’ or
World Travel and Tourism Council’s (WTTC) ‘Tourism for Tomorrow Awards’.
There is, as yet, no unifying conceptual framework and approach that distinguishes
them from traditional “industrial” practices. In many cases, sustainable, philan-
thropic and even social enterprises, aimed at increasing positive social impact, can
constitute a modified form of “business as usual”. Few within the tourism sector are
yet asserting the need to “put the system question on the map” or actively integrate
tourism within the national debates on new forms of economy and wholesale
systems change. In this sense, the tourism sector’s resistance to “deep thinking”
is in alignment with the broader economy as indicated in this statement from The
Next System Project: New Political-Economic Possibilities For the 21st Century:
The need for a major intervention in the national debate is increasingly obvious.
Yet even in a time of economic crisis, there has been little willingness among
progressive organizations to discuss system-changing strategies. Efforts to cobble

together “solutions” to today’s challenges commonly draw upon the very same
institutional arrangements and practices that gave rise to the problems in the first
place (Alperovitz, Speth, & Guinan, 2015, p. 7).
Pollock (2015) has drawn attention to the need to acknowledge systemic and
structural flaws in the current system and for forward-thinking industry participants
to conceive and co-create alternative approaches. These approaches must be based
on a worldview acknowledging tourism as a human system embedded in a larger
socio-economic-biophysical system, and not as a separate “industrial machine”
disconnected from a larger whole.
Thus it follows that the tourism social enterprise is embedded in a global set of
inter-linked, interdependent societies and economies adapting to major challenges
from four quarters: environmental, technological, social and economic. To be
effective, therefore, entrepreneurs (social or otherwise) must learn to operate in a
volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world and make sense of the key
change forces that will impact their best efforts. The skills and knowledge to
cope with the complexities and pace of change are light years apart from those
required by an industrial societal machine intent on resource extraction for the
purpose of making and selling material goods. This requires a move away from
what most university courses and text books teach about tourism. It seems that
organizational structures and beliefs underpinning most strategy and policy still
draw on principles and assumptions developed in a previous century.
The opening words of the Earth Charter, a document that grew out of the 1992
Rio Earth Summit, frame the work at hand:
We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its
future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once
holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of
a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth
community with a common destiny. http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/
Read-the-Charter.html
Perhaps as a society we have now reached an “awareness tipping point” where

an increasing number of people, and many in the tourism industry, are aware that
societal change is needed (Drayton in Schwartz, 2012). The chapter authors in this
book are exploring the possibility that social entrepreneurship could be a major
contributor to that change in tourism and hospitality. The need for this and the
opportunities that await the industry are discussed below.
4 Tourism Social Entrepreneurship: The Need

and the Opportunity
The need and opportunity for social entrepreneurship within the global tourism and
hospitality sectors is systemic, strategic and tactical. A major systemic challenge
stems from its universal and virtually exclusive adoption of a profit maximizing
industrial model of production and consumption. This model has created an eco-
nomy based on the transport of over one billion international visitors and six to
eight billion domestic tourists using overnight accommodation (UNWTO, 2015).
The sector accounts for 10 % of global GDP, one in eleven jobs and 29 % of
services exports globally. Tourism has played a major role in globalization, and
the creation of employment and opportunities to earn foreign exchange in devel-
oping countries. But like the capitalist system on which it is based and that has
supported unprecedented levels of growth and global expansion, the sector is now
revealing significant flaws and market failures such as:
1. The net impact of tourism spending in host communities is low and insufficient
to cover all the costs associated with current levels of visitation. UNEP estimates
that in “all inclusive” resorts, only about five cents of every tourist dollar trickle
into the local economy (UNEP, 2015). This is because most development and
capital investment has come from enterprises located in the source markets.
Widespread diffusion of niche tourism products (activities, experiences, locally
owned accommodation, restaurants and transport providers) that are structured
as either social enterprises or cooperatives could improve and increase the
positive net impact of tourism to host communities.
2. The industry is highly labor intensive and supplies accessible jobs to people who
might otherwise have difficulty finding employment. But it also suffers from a
poor human resource (HR) relations record due to the prevalence of low wages,
irregular hours, seasonal operations and poor working conditions. Much of this
labor is controlled by profit seeking agencies, operating as intermediaries who
have little interest in developing a positive HR image. Instead they benefit from the
high rates of turnover, the mobility of the workforce, seasonality of employment
and, in many cases, workers desperate to take work under any condition. Working
in a social enterprise would change the nature of employment dramatically—albeit
for a smaller number of employees.
3. The travel and tourism sector, like many others, has not always been required to
pay for the externalities associated with its operations. This has led to significant
over use and pollution that can also create opportunities for social enterprises—
such as waste food management, recycling operations, water cleaning and
renewable energy projects.
4. The non-mass market of travelers wishing to enjoy authentic experiences,
interact more closely with locals and make a positive contribution (via philan-
thropy, voluntourism, micro-credit and crowd funding) is increasing and pro-
vides additional opportunities for social enterprise—e.g. tours and souvenirs
designed and delivered by local residents using materials and suppliers procured
from local sources; creation of niche experiences that engage visitors in local
cultural, social, environmental and political issues.
5. In many destinations the resilience and future viability of tourism will depend
on social ownership structures that ensure local control and enhanced local
benefits from the visitor economy. The sector is characterized by low margins,
limited barriers to entry and the perishable nature of the product. When these are
combined they can accentuate and accelerate the process of commodification

and, furthermore, diminishing returns further reduce any positive “trickle down”
effect of visitor spending. As input costs of food, water, and energy climb, social
enterprises and cooperatives could provide resilient and viable ways of sustain-
ing local economies.
Despite these trends, few if any destinations have applied a focused systematic
approach to the use of social entrepreneurial structures, including both social
enterprise and cooperatives and other community owned initiatives (land trusts,
micro credit operations) as a means of improving the livelihoods of people in host
communities. In chapter “Institutional and Policy Support for Tourism Social
Entrepreneurship in Tourism” Dredge addresses the policy options for destinations
to develop their tourism social entrepreneurship sector. To realize these oppor-
tunities, an ecosystem of support is needed that should be delivered via host com-
munities. A combination of global vision realized through place-based tactical
execution is required. This means that a conceptual, systems perspective is needed
to identify patterns of opportunity and interest in the opportunity stimulated. By
understanding the “big picture”, dynamics and strategic change drivers, existing
tourism practitioners and students of hospitality and tourism will be in a stronger
position to both identify and evaluate the social enterprise potential.
Climate change, resource and water depletion, wealth disparity, casino financ-
ing, weakening democracies, and run-away-technology are not the causes of our
present challenges but symptoms of a much deeper malaise—a fundamentally false
and obsolete way of seeing the world. Unless humanity, social entrepreneurs,
educators and tourism practitioners change the way we see ourselves, each other
and our relationship with our planetary home no effort to address “the problem”
will succeed.
This challenge has been defined in tighter, more rigorous language as an
epistemological error by Boehnert (2010, p. 1) quoting the renowned anthropo-
logist, Gregory Bateson who in ‘Steps to an Ecology of Mind’ (1972) wrote: “we are
governed by epistemologies that we know to be wrong” writing at the same time:
“the organism that destroys its environment destroys itself.” Most of our major
systems and institutions are based on assumptions about how the world works that
science has, over the time line of mass tourism, proved to be false.
Social entrepreneurs will find themselves operating in an economy and a culture
transitioning between two different paradigms—the currently dominant model
based on the importance of economic growth and money as the primary sign of
success, and an emerging model that defines success in richer, qualitative terms
associated with development and well-being as experienced by individuals, enter-
prises, communities and the planet as a whole.
Tourism has already played a significant role in diffusing the old model. There is
virtually no corner of the planet that does not see tourism offering an economic
opportunity for someone. But having been based on a production and consumption
model whose use of resources (land, water, wildlife and cultures) and production of
waste (landfill, sewage, greenhouse gases) is now outstripping the biosphere’s
capacity to process and recycle safely, it is time to re-think how to sustain visitor
economies that benefit all stakeholders and cope with huge increases in human
demand.
The purpose of this book is to make a small contribution to that global challenge.
It will attempt do this by focusing on changing from the corporate model of tourism
development to one which thrives on the energy and vision of social entrepreneurs
and the organizations and networks that they create. We hope the book will begin to
develop a knowledge base for tourism social entrepreneurship into the future,
focusing on the unique opportunities and challenges in the world’s destinations.
5 The Current State of Tourism Social Entrepreneurship
This section will examine briefly the current state of tourism social entrepreneur-
ship in industry, in academia and in education.
In Industry
There is to date no empirical study that documents the extent of social entre-
preneurship in tourism and hospitality, however anecdotal evidence suggests that
while many tourism enterprises are effectively working and delivering change
throughout the world (as evidenced by the cases in the third section of this book),
entrepreneurs of these companies are often working in isolation and do not recognize
themselves as being social entrepreneurs. This means unfortunately that they are not
privy to all the support networks, mechanisms, hubs and organisations that exist in the
generic social entrepreneurship world. By connecting with this wealth of resources,
TSE’s could gain strength, knowledge and synergies to move their enterprise and its
social impact forward. Resources such as Stanford Social Innovation Review (2016)
provide such resources, and some of the projects and profiles they present are
relevant to the tourism sector.
In Academia
A review of the status of social entrepreneurship studies in academia can be found
in Volkmann et al. (2012). On university campuses, social entrepreneurship has
mostly been studied through the disciplines of business economics, public admin-
istration and other social sciences (Rey-Marti, Ribiero-Soriano, & Palacios-
Marques, 2016). It is often seen as a sub-set of studies on entrepreneurship as
evidenced by the top five journals publishing most of the research on social
entrepreneurship at the present time. These journals are Journal of Business Ven-
turing, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Journal of Business Ethics and International Small Business Journal.
Smith-Hunter (2008) suggests that the study of social entrepreneurship be expanded
to include knowledge from different disciplines other than business, in particular
that of human capital and network structures. The importance of networks and
stable eco-systems for social entrepreneurship is critical for their longevity (Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2014). Now a few journals devote themselves specifi-
cally to social entrepreneurship: the “Social Enterprise Journal” published by
Emerald Publishers; the “International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and
Innovation” published by Inderscience, and the “Journal of Social Entrepreneur-

ship” published by Routledge.
The tourism academic literature, on the other hand, is full of studies on entre-
preneurship but very few of them focus on the social entrepreneur. Many chapters
in this book bemoan that fact, and so each chapter author has had to start from
scratch in creating concepts and frameworks and has leaned heavily on the generic
literature in the area to move the study of tourism social entrepreneurship forward.
It is our contention that tourism and hospitality are unique enough, and the field is
especially rich in opportunity, that the application of thought from generic social
entrepreneurship research will provide a platform for new ideas, concepts and
frameworks to the study of tourism social entrepreneurship.
In Education
Our educational systems need to encourage students to practice change-making as
preparation to lead change when they graduate (Bornstein & Davis, 2010). One of the
first initiatives in tourism education to develop social entrepreneurs was developed
by the Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI) in 2014 when it adopted Social
Entrepreneurship in Tourism as one of its five work areas (www.
tourismeducationfutures.org). In May 2014, TEFI organized the first Walking Work-
shop on Social Entrepreneurship in Nepal during which participants shared their
ideas and papers on the walk up the mountain (three days). Then for a few days, they
visited with tourism social enterprises in the villages of Bhupsa and Bumburi created
by Moving Mountains Trust, learning how they were structured and operated. On the
walk down (three days) the faculty and students discussed how what they had learned
from their experiences could be incorporated into university tourism curricula.
Following that landmark event, TEFI has continued to bring together scholars who
are interested in TSE. Another project which followed the TEFI initiative, called
Tourism Industry Partnership for Social Entrepreneurship (TIPSE) was jointly
funded by the UK Foundation for Social Entrepreneurs called UnLtd. The project’s
university partners were Oxford Brookes University, UK, University of Guelph,
Canada, University of Florida, USA. Two other partners were Adventure Alternative
and Tourism Changemakers’ Forum (TCF), UK. TIPSE aims to facilitate the adop-
tion of social entrepreneurship as a framework for tourism development within the
tourism and hospitality industries as well as in academia.
It is our contention that by creating bridges between industry, academia and
education, these new synergies and networks will progress the field forward more
rapidly than can be done alone. This book attempts to assist in this endeavor. Its
outline is discussed below.
6 Book Contents
The book is organized in three sections. The first section of the book “Understand-
ing Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism” addresses conceptual issues related to
understanding the nature of social entrepreneurship in the tourism context. The six
chapters in this section connect some of the generic body of knowledge of social
entrepreneurship to the tourism sector and suggest new models.
Chapter “Theorizing Social Entrepreneurship Within Tourism Studies” by Buzinde
et al. builds a theoretical framework using different theories of innovation and
entrepreneurship and social value theory, within which social entrepreneurship and
tourism can be placed. The chapter ends with many insights into how social
entrepreneurship can be conceptualized in tourism and hospitality. In the following
chapter, Dredge (Chapter “Institutional and Policy Support for Tourism Social
Entrepreneurship in Tourism”) addresses the policy issues that governments, plan-
ners and policy makers can consider as their destinations seek to develop and
nourish their tourism social entrepreneurship sector for a more resilient destination.
In chapter “Social Entrepreneurship Typologies and Tourism: Conceptual Frame-
works”, Day and Mody explore how different types of social entrepreneurs suit
different types of tourism destinations and hospitality environments. He connects
the conceptualization with the various case studies in the second half of the book.
Daniele and Quezada (Chapter “Business Models for Social Entrepreneurship in
Tourism”) then present and analyze different business models appropriate for social
entrepreneurs to use in tourism. Recognizing that social entrepreneurship is part of
the broader topic of social innovation, Mosedale and Voll in chapter “Social
Innovations in Tourism: Social Practices Contributing to Social Development”
examine how social entrepreneurship contributes to social innovation and social
development in tourism. Finally Mottiar and Boluk in chapter “Understanding how
Social Entrepreneurs Fit into the Tourism Discourse” place the research of social
entrepreneurship and tourism in the context of other research threads and themes in
tourism. These six chapters provide readers with a beginning framework upon
which to build their understanding of social entrepreneurship and tourism.
The second section of the book entitled “Communities of Practice” consists of
three chapters. Each focuses on more specialized topics related to the theme of
social entrepreneurship in tourism. Chapter “Exploring Social Entrepreneurship in
Food Tourism” by Kline et al. explores social entrepreneurship in food tourism—a
sector which is critical to a healthy tourism industry and healthy tourists, and one
which lends itself well to social enterprise developments and networks. They point
to the importance of influencing the supply chains of tourism social entrepreneurs.
This is followed by chapter “Knowledge Dynamics in the Tourism-Social Entre-
preneurship Nexus” by Phi et al. exploring the important topic of knowledge
creation and knowledge dynamics in the context of social entrepreneurship and
tourism. The final chapter in this section focuses on the very important topic of
measurement and evaluation of social enterprises. Chapter “Social Enterprise
Evaluation: Implications for Tourism Development” by Daye and Gill considers
how the evaluation of social enterprises contributes to tourism development.
The third section of the book includes eight successful “Case Studies” of TSE in
eight countries: Australia, India, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal and
Romania. The core of each of these cases is a pioneering social enterprise. Each
chapter details the characteristics of their enterprises, the gaps and opportunities
they faced, and the lessons they learned. Critical success factors are evaluated by
each author and several questions are presented at the end of each case for
discussion.
In chapter “Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism Development in Mexico: A
case study of North American social entrepreneurs in a Mexican town”, Clausen
examines a social enterprise development in Mexico which is driven by USA
expatriates. It highlights the dynamics of stakeholders in the region and discovers
the important elements of developing trust between them. Another important
contribution of this chapter is an understanding of the necessity of seeing social
entrepreneurship in the context of wider socio-economic networks. An exploration
of the motivations and identity construction of social entrepreneurs in India is the
key theme of chapter “Heroic Messiahs or Everyday Businessmen? The Rhetoric
and the Reality of Social Entrepreneurship in India” with Day and Mody’s case
study set in India. This chapter confirms, and challenges, the continued myth of the
social entrepreneur as an isolated “hero” and suggests a relevant conceptual frame-
work to deconstruct such a myth.
Two cases that follow (chapter “Guludo Beach Lodge and the Nema Foundation,
Mozambique” and chapter “Adventure Alternative and Moving Mountains Trust: A
hybrid business model for social entrepreneurship in tourism”) have a similar
theme. Dowling and Carter’s case set in Mozambique and Bate and Daniele’s set
in Nepal, both explore a unique social enterprise business model. This model
consists of a dual-structured social enterprise in which the tourism or hospitality
business drives the business enterprise and an associated sister charity delivers the
social impact. The synergies and potential strengths and weaknesses of this model
are analyzed in these two chapters. The growing phenomenon of charities shifting
away from traditional models to a social entrepreneurship model is the focus of the
chapter “The BEST Society: From Charity to Social Entrepreneurship” in a case by
Murphy et al. located in Malaysia. The author explains why this phenomenon is
expected to grow over time. Through a ‘diffusion of innovation’ lens he suggests
that as charities find that they can no longer rely on government funding due to
public sector budget cuts, the social enterprise model becomes more effective. They
propose a four step community tourism development model leading to full imple-
mentation of a social entrepreneurship model.
The important issue of developing ecosystems for social enterprises is addressed
in chapter “Social Enterprise Ecosystems: A Case Study of the Danube Delta region
of Romania” in Els and Kane’s case study of Romania in the Danube Delta. This
social enterprise is working to create an ecosystem of social enterprises whose
collective focus is to preserve the Danube Delta ecosystems whilst preserving and,
in many cases, re-vitalizing social customs and practices there. The following
chapter “The influence of social entrepreneurship in tourism on an Arab village
in Israel” is situated in the Arabian village of Jisr az-Zarga in Israel, an under-
served Arab community characterized by deep and systemic cross-cultural conflict.
It focuses on the development of a social enterprise accommodation unit called
Juha’s Guesthouse. In this case, Stenvall et al. aptly demonstrate how a social
entrepreneurship approach to tourism development can bring, not only renewed
hopes for economic and development and social cohesion, but also help
stakeholders overcome underlying, negative experiences resulting from the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict.
A family run Aboriginal social enterprise in Australia is the theme of chapter
“Walking on Country with Bana Yarralji Bubu: A Model for Aboriginal Social
Enterprise Tourism”. Murphy and Harwood examine the challenges of setting up a
social enterprise in a context of negative social capital in the local community. They
also focus on the impact of external factors such as land use planning, land
administration systems, the political environment and the tourism market in
Australia. A new model is proposed to help the tourism social enterprise influence
the effect that clan relationships have on business operation.
All of these cases shed light on challenges and opportunities of tourism social
enterprises that are currently operating in different locations around the world.
There is much to be learned from each of them. Each case provides the reader with
an opportunity to think through the challenges and opportunities of the situation by
offering a selection of discussion questions at the end of the case.
It is our hope that the reader will find the book stimulating and informative, and
that it will inspire latent tourism social entrepreneurs to take action, and researchers
to continue to search for more knowledge of this most important phenomenon.
Discussion Questions
1. Do you think the tourism and hospitality industries will benefit more than other
industries from the increase of social entrepreneurial activity? Explain why or
why not.
2. Think of a tourism destination that you know well. What are the key social,
environmental or economic issues in that destination? What type of social
enterprise do you think would be most needed to help with the problems?
3. As you consider the future of the world in the next 10 years, what changes do
you think need to be made to the tourism industry to keep it sustainable? How
does social entrepreneurship fit into your proposed solutions?
References
Alperovitz, G., Speth, J., & Guinan, J. (2015, March). New political-economic possibilities for the
twenty first century. The Next System Project, 44pp.
Alvord, H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship: Leadership that
facilitates societal transformation. In F. John (Ed.), Working paper. Center for Public Leader-
ship, Kennedy School of Government.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Boehnert, J. J. (2010, July 22–25). Epistemological error and converging crises: A whole systems
view. In: Learning from the Crisis of 2007–09—Philosophy of Management Conference,
University of Oxford.
Bornstein, D. (2007). How to change the world: Social Entrepreneurship and the power of
new ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 358pp.
Bornstein, D., & Davis, S. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: What everyone needs to know. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. 132pp.
Brookes, A. C. (2009). Social entrepreneurship: A modern approach to social value creation.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Chamberlain, N. (1977). Remaking American values. New York: Basic Books.
Dees, G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Kansas City, MO and Palo Alto, CA:
Kauffman Foundation and Stanford University.
Drucker, P. (1995). Innovation and entrepreneurship (p. 28). New York: Harper Business.
Elkington, J., & Hartigan, P. (2008). The power of unreasonable people. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Press.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (2014). Babson College. www.gemconsortium.org
Gossling, S., & Peters, P. (2015). Assessing tourism’s global impact 1990–2010. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 23(5), 639–659.
International Labor Organization (ILO). (2014). http://www.ilo.org/ilostat/content/conn/ILOSTAT
ContentServer/path/Contribution%20Folders/statistics/web_pages/static_pages/statistical_briefs/
Tourism_factsheet.pdf
Keohane, G. L. (2013). Social entrepreneurship for the 21st century: Innovation across the
nonprofit, private, and public sectors. New York: McGraw Hill.
Kickul, J., & Lyons, T. (2012). Understanding social entrepreneurship: The relentless pursuit of
mission in an ever changing world (p. 254). New York: Routledge.
Lee, M., & Jay, J. (2015). Strategic responses to hybrid social ventures. California Management
Review, 57(3), 126–148.
Mair, J., & Martı́, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction,
and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.
Martin, R., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social
Innovation Review. http://ssir.org/articles/entry/social_entrepreneurship_the_case_for_definition
Pollock, A. (2015). Social entrepreneurship in tourism: The conscious travel approach. Available
on www.Conscious.Travel
Praszkier, R., & Nowak, A. (2012). Social entrepreneurship: Theory and practice (p. 250).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rey-Marti, A., Ribiero-Soriano, D., & Palacios-Marques, D. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of
social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1651–1655.
Say, J., quoted in Dees, J. (2001). The meaning of ‘social entrepreneurship. Reformatted and
revised, May 30, 2001.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1975). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy (pp. 82–85). New York: Harper.
Schwartz, B. (2012). Rippling: How social entrepreneurs spread innovation throughout the world.
San Francisco, CA: Wiley. 266pp.
Smith-Hunter, A. (2008). Toward a multidimensional model of social entrepreneurship: Defini-
tions, clarifications, and theoretical perspectives. Journal of Business and Economic Research,
6(6), 93–112.
Stanford Social Innovation Review. (2016). http://ssir.org/
Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI). (2014). www.tourismeducationfutures.org
United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). (2015). http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/
Business/SectoralActivities/Tourism/FactsandFiguresaboutTourism/ImpactsofTourism/Eco
nomicImpactsof Tourism/NegativeEconomicImpactsofTourism/tabid/78784/Default.aspx
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2015). UNWTO tourism highlights—2015. Madrid:
United Nations World Tourism Organization.
Volkmann, C., Tokarski, K., & Ernst, K. (2012). Social entrepreneurship and social business:
An introduction and discussion with case studies. Wiesbaden: Springer. 279pp.
Wei-Skillern, J., Austin, J., Leonard, H., & Stevenson, H. (2007). Entrepreneurship in the
social sector. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 377pp.
Yunus, M. (2010). Building social business: The new kind of capitalism that serves humanity’s
most pressing needs. New York: Public Affairs, Perseus Books Group. 226pp.
Zahrer, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D., & Shulman, J. (2009). A typology of social entre-
preneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing,
24(5), 519–532. Special issue on ethics and entrepreneurship.
Pauline J. Sheldon is Professor Emeritus at the School of Travel Industry Management at the
University of Hawaii, Honolulu, USA where she also served as Professor and Dean. She has
published books in the fields of Tourism Information Technology, Wellness Tourism, and Change
in Tourism Education. Her research interests also lie in the areas of corporate social responsibility
and sustainable island tourism. She co-founded Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI),
served as President of the International Academy for the Study of Tourism, and has been awarded
UNWTO Ulysses Award, the TTRA Lifetime Achievement Award.
Anna Pollock is a consultant, strategist, international speaker, and change agent. Recipient of
The Visionary of the Year Award from the Canadian tourism industry, Anna also serves as
Visiting Fellow at Oxford Brookes University (UK) and recently co-founded the Tourism
Changemakers’ Forum to foster social enterprises within hospitality. She has undertaken seminal
work in sustainable tourism, and during the 1990s Anna became a thought leader on the strategic
implications of the Internet. She now focuses on models of destination development including
Conscious Travel, a new, grass roots approach to lead a destination into prosperity.
Roberto Daniele was Senior Lecturer in Entrepreneurship and Marketing at Oxford Brookes
University, UK. He founded the Hospitality and Tourism SE Forum, was Director, Tourism
Changemakers’ Forum, and executive member of Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI).
Roberto developed and led Oxford Brookes SE Awards (OBSEA)—a program to support social
entrepreneurs in universities. The program won awards and was shortlisted for the Guardian
Education Awards. In 2014 he founded Tourism Innovation Partnership for Social Entrepreneur-
ship (TIPSE) a consortium of universities and social enterprises to promote SE in academia and
industry. In 2016, Roberto won the UnLtd “Social Entrepreneurship Champion” award for his
work on TIPSE
Part I
Understanding Social Entrepreneurship
and Tourism
Theorizing Social Entrepreneurship Within
Tourism Studies
Christine Buzinde, Gordon Shockley, Kathleen Andereck, Edward Dee,

and Peter Frank
Abstract This chapter commences with a discussion of the term entrepreneurship

as conceptualized by key economists, Schumpeter, von Mises, and Kirzner. Various
fundamental theoretical linkages between the terms entrepreneurship and social
entrepreneurship are presented. Discussions related to the types of institutional
sectors that encompass social entrepreneurship are discussed, namely, for profit,
non profit, and public sector. The applicability of social entrepreneurship to the field
of tourism is extensively discussed, particularly relating to sustainable tourism and
other forms of tourism that attempt to respond the Sustainable Development Goals
established by the United Nations. The chapter presents an example of a tourism-
related Native American owned social enterprise, DinéHozhó L3C, which was
devised by the Navajo Tribe of Arizona, USA. The chapter ends with a presentation
of four important research avenues that can contribute to further theorizations of
social entrepreneurship and tourism. It is argued that further research into social
enterprises related to various tourism sectors will be useful in amassing evidence
for best practices within the field as augmenting theoretical bodies of knowledge. It
is important for such scholastic endeavors to go beyond idealizing examples of
social entrepreneurship in order to critically examine the sustainability (social,
cultural, economic, political, and environmental) of such initiatives.
Keywords Entrepreneurship • Social entrepreneurship • Sustainable tourism •

Navajo Nation
C. Buzinde (*) • G. Shockley • K. Andereck

School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ,
USA
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
E. Dee
School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
P. Frank
Department of Economics, Wingate University, Wingate, NC, USA

22 C. Buzinde et al.
1 The Concept of Social Entrepreneurship
In economics terms, social entrepreneurship indicates an opportunity-driven activ-

ity with the aim of creating social change. It is a discrete and observable process
that spans civil society, government, and commerce consisting of recognizing and
acting on an opportunity to produce social change (Dees, 2001; Nicholls, 2006).
The process of social entrepreneurship begins with any sort of actor—be it a
politician, civil servant, interest group, a citizen activist, or anyone with an interest
in producing social change—being alert to an opportunity to influence social
welfare for a community, then seizing that opportunity (Shockley & Frank,
2011). The recognized opportunity must be acted on; simply being aware of an
opportunity is not by itself sufficient to constitute social entrepreneurship. While
there is little empirical evidence that social entrepreneurs comprise a select group
with observable personality traits or characteristics (e.g., risk tolerance, creativity,
intellectual capacity), there remains a tendency to celebrate or even heroicize
individual social entrepreneurs (see Bornstein, 2007). Rather, social entrepreneur-
ship might be more usefully characterized as a universal behavior that can be
carried out by anyone, any organization, or any network in a limitless variety of
contexts and situations (Light, 2006). The nature of the opportunity to produce
social change can be “objective”—for example, becoming aware of new needs of a
community or demands from a constituency—or “subjective”—for example, antici-
pating deficiencies or weaknesses in a community before a crisis erupts.
The modern conception of entrepreneurship in economics principally derives
from the work of three economists: Joseph Schumpeter, Ludwig von Mises, and
Israel Kirzner. In his two major works The Theory of Economic Development
(1934) and Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1950), Schumpeter conceives
of “creative destruction” in which entrepreneurship consists of new combinations
of existing resources that drive economic development, such as the introduction of a
new good or a new method of production, the opening of a new market, the
conquest of a new source of supply of raw materials or half-manufactured goods,
and the carrying out of the new organization of any industry.
The other two economists—Mises and Kirzner—belong to what is usually
referred to as the Austrian school of economics. In his magnum opus Human Action
(1949/1996), Mises identifies entrepreneurship as a behavior universal to all activ-
ity. Entrepreneurship, he writes, “is not the particular feature of a special group or
class of men; it is inherent in every action and burdens every actor.” Consciously
expanding on Mises’ conception, Kirzner in his primary works on entrepreneurship
theory, such as Competition and Entrepreneurship (1973), locates entrepreneurship
as the driver of all market processes in that entrepreneurial market participants
acquire “more and more accurate and complete mutual knowledge of potential
demand and supply attitudes,” thus “equilibrating” or stabilizing a market by
moving it closer to equilibrium between supply and demand. Some contemporary
social scientists (for example, Bielefeld, 2008; Shockley & Frank, 2011; Shockley,
Frank, Stough, & Haynes, 2008; Swedberg, 2006, 2009) have made efforts to
Theorizing Social Entrepreneurship Within Tourism Studies 23
establish a theoretical foundation of social entrepreneurship based on the modern

conception of entrepreneurship in economics. Swedberg (2009), for example,
adapts Schumpeterian language in defining economic and non-economic (e.g.,
social) entrepreneurship alike “as the pushing through or successful introduction
of a new combination of already existing material and forces” (p. 94).
Schumpeterian entrepreneurship thus would embrace the social, environmental,
and commercial goals of sustainable development. Similarly, Shockley and Frank
(2011) analogize the market effects of Schumpeterian and Kirznerian commercial
entrepreneurship to the social and community effects. Rather than invent new
theories of social entrepreneurship, these authors and others rest their understanding
of social entrepreneurship on the well-developed and established modern concep-
tion of entrepreneurship in economics.
Central to all forms of entrepreneurship, including social entrepreneurship, is the
role of institutions. In both Kirznerian and Schumpeterian theories of entrepreneur-
ship the importance of institutions is not immediately apparent; rather, it is implied
in the operation of Kirznerian equilibration and Schumpeterian creative destruction.
Expressed another way, both Kirznerian and Schumpeterian theories of entre-
preneurship imply that institutions play a fundamental role in entrepreneurial activity
by structuring the opportunities in which profit might be made or in which new
combinations might be carried out. If entrepreneurial opportunities are dependent on
institutions, then Kirznerian profit opportunities and Schumpeterian opportunities
for enterprise that lead to creative destruction will appear in every institutional
environment, be it for-profit, public sector, and nonprofit (see Fig. 1).
Social entrepreneurship encompasses the institutional setting of all three sectors.
As discussed above, institutions structure profit opportunities. Institutions guide
political behavior (March & Olsen, 1984, 1996), including public sector entre-
preneurship. For example, Bellone and Goerl’s (2002) “civic-regarding entrepreneur-
ship” suggests that entrepreneurial discovery is involved in facilitating “increased
citizen education and involvement” and enabling citizens to “have greater
Social For-Proﬁt Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship
Creave Destrucon
Entrepreneurial Discovery
Public Sector Nonproﬁt

Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship
Social
Entrepreneurship
Fig. 1 Social entrepreneurship and the universe of for-profit, public sector, and nonprofit entre-
preneurship [adapted from Frank, Shockley, and Stough (2004)]
opportunities to participate in the design and delivery of their public goods and
services” (p. 388–389). In the nonprofit sector, certain institutions provide the catalyst
for entrepreneurs to act and seek the opportunities in a nonmarket context as well as
serving as the source of institutional change. For example, Shleifer (1998) makes the
case that nonprofit organizations fulfill a role where neither the state nor the private
market has the proper incentive to efficiently produce. Moreover, civil society is a
powerful force in sustaining democratic institutions and providing important condi-
tions for economic exchange, thus assisting for-profit entrepreneurs through the
institutions created by the many components of the nonprofit sector. Again, entre-
preneurial profit opportunities and opportunities for enterprise cannot be restricted to
one specific institutional environment: opportunities appear in all three sectors.
Consequently, the opportunity-driven activity of social entrepreneurship requires
contributions from civil society (nonprofit entrepreneurship), government (public
sector entrepreneurship), and commerce (for-profit entrepreneurship). Therefore,
the opportunities for social change, which are the aim of social entrepreneurship,
are structured by the institutions of all three sectors.
2 Is the Concept of Social Entrepreneurship Applicable

to Tourism Studies?
Given that social entrepreneurship focuses on producing social change beyond the
profit-seeking motive of private sector entrepreneurship, a question of enduring
interest is whether tourism plays a role in this emerging arena. Little has been
written in the scholarly literature about tourism as a vehicle for social entre-
preneurship (Boluk, 2011; Hall, Matos, Sheehan, & Silvestre, 2012; Kline, Shah, &
Rubright, 2014; Lamari & Ménard, 2012; Mody & Day, 2014). Extant research on
this matter does not appear in mainstream tourism journals thereby limiting impact
as well as access. Additionally, most studies focus on singular case studies and as a
result, cross comparative exercises that juxtapose various SE activities or geo-
political locations are rare. Lastly, there is a proliferation of conceptual papers on
SE and no comparative growth in empirically based work on this topic.
It is important to note that there are a number of parallels between the goals of
social entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship, and sustainable development, as well as
current views regarding the benefits of sustainable tourism development for various
communities. In their discussion of sustainable development, Hall, Daneke, and
Lenox (2010) note that, in general, the need for a fundamental change to reduce the
negative social and environmental impacts of businesses is becoming increasingly
evident. One advocated avenue is the transition to sustainable business practices,
products, and services to alleviate social and environmental concerns via entre-
preneurship and innovation. Drawing on Schumpeter’s (1934, 1950) concept of
creative destruction, Hall et al. (2010) argue that sustainability challenges create market
failures that then pave the way for new entrants into the market. Entrepreneurship,
then, is viewed as a panacea for social and environmental challenges, with “heroic”
social or environmental entrepreneurs providing a solution to societal ills (Hall
et al., 2010). Similarly, social entrepreneurship (SE) is concerned with the eco-
nomic, social, and environmental well-being of communities (Urbano, Toledano, &
Soriano, 2010) and has been promoted as a strategy for addressing poverty in the
developing world (Dees, 2008; Hall et al., 2012). Where the two concepts diverge
(i.e., sustainable development through entrepreneurship versus social entrepreneur-
ship), is that social good is the primary goal of social entrepreneurship while
sustainable development entrepreneurship tends to put economic, social, and envi-
ronmental concerns on equal footing. Furthermore, social entrepreneurship may or
may not have sustainability as its focus (Hall et al., 2010). Thus, sustainable
development through entrepreneurship may be SE, but not always; and SE may
focus on sustainable development, but not always. Despite the ubiquitous nature of
discussions on sustainable development, there has been limited research on the
intersection between entrepreneurship and sustainable development (Hall et al.,
2010).
Tourism development scholars have endeavored to examine enterprises related
to sustainable development and they have allowed for a broader discussion that
accounts for economic, social, and environmental dimensions. In the past, tourism
was often promoted as panacea, a means by which communities and nations at large
could experience positive economic impacts particularly in impoverished regions
with few viable industries (Bianchi, 2009). However, contemporary tourism liter-
ature increasingly cautions against economic reductionism and rather promotes
multifaceted approaches that incorporate social and environmental dimensions
(von der Weppen & Cochrane, 2012). While one goal of sustainable tourism is
the reduction or elimination of negative social impacts on communities, this is not
enough for a business to be considered a socially entrepreneurial venture; tourism
enterprises must go beyond mitigation of negative social consequences and create
social value. An entrepreneurial social venture, whether for-profit, nonprofit, gov-
ernmental, or a hybrid, is explicitly designed to serve a social purpose; it deliber-
ately aims to create social value and serve the public good. A socially
entrepreneurial venture is not simply a socially responsible organization or an
organization that operates in the social sector; rather it must have positive social
change at the core of its mission (Dees & Anderson, 2003). It is important to note
that some types of socially entrepreneurial tourism ventures could be considered
examples of sustainable development, however the reverse may not always be true.
Within academia, discussions on tourism and social entrepreneurship have
remained scarce. An exception includes a study by von der Weppen and Cochrane
(2012) that investigated several for-profit tourism ventures to understand how they
balanced commercial with social and/or environmental objectives, and determi-
nates of success. The authors found that, based on Alter’s (2006) framework of
social enterprise models, tourism enterprises were generally similar to other social
ventures. However, the operational models often adopted by tourism enterprises
tended to include: the Market Intermediary Model that focuses on assisting
producers with access to markets; the Employment Model, which centers on

providing employment opportunities; or the Organization Support Model that
deals with unrelated business activities geared towards supporting the social pro-
gram. The authors noted that success depends on leadership, strategy, organiza-
tional culture, and success implantation of strategy. From an organizational theory
standpoint, this particular study is instrumental given its contribution to explicating
how tourism businesses have configured the creation of social value within their
day-to-day operations. Arguably, such socially driven business endeavors benefit
from the existence of policies that favor a social value driven entrepreneurial
climate (Hall et al., 2012). However, the existence of such policies does not
necessarily yield nor foster growth of social enterprises.
Within the tourism industry, discussions on policies that directly address social
outcomes have gained traction as is indicated by, for instance, the United Nations
World Tourism Organization’s (UNWTO) global call for tourism enterprises to
start contributing to social change (Buzinde, Xue, & Yarmenko, 2013). The
UNWTO advocates for social change directed towards accomplishing the Sustain-
able Development Goals (previously the Millennium Development Goals), which
focus on social issues like: basic quality education; reduced inequalities; poverty
reduction; sustainable cities and communities; and, responsible consumption and
production, to name a few (see Buzinde et al., 2013; Maarten et al., 2015).
Sustainable tourism companies that respond to UNWTO’s call for tourism busi-
nesses, particularly those located in the global south are in many ways examples of
Alter’s (2006) organization support model. For instance, Xel-ha, a tourism park
resort in the Mexican Caribbean, abides by all the models mentioned by von der
Weppen and Cochrane (2012) through its social programs, which contribute to
building roads, libraries, and residential communities while providing employment
for locals Buzinde et al. (2013).
Like Xel-ha, most alternative forms of tourism have the potential to positively
affect social change. For example, ecotourism (Cho, 2006; Dees & Anderson,
2003), cultural and heritage tourism, community-based tourism (Kokkranikal &
Morrison, 2011), and volunteer tourism may all positively influence social welfare
for various communities in a deliberate way. However, according to Cho (2006),
there are notable challenges in defining the ‘social’ in social entrepreneurship and
perhaps even more so in tourism than in some other kinds of social ventures. Cho
(2006) notes ecotourism as a particularly good example of the difficulty in defining
the ‘social’ aspect of social entrepreneurship given the negative social impacts of
ecotourism development and competing visions of what constitutes the social good.
As one considers the notion of social value, it is important to question the involve-
ment of (or lack thereof) the population for whom social value is designed. von der
Weppen and Cochrane’s (2012) study provides a strong foundation from which to
understand the organizational models adopted by tourism related social enterprises.
However, there remains a gap in tourism scholarship related to how tourism social
enterprises collaborate with community members to co-create that which a com-
munity perceives as social value. Accordingly, future investigations related to
tourism and social entrepreneurship that focus on issues of community agency
and involvement are necessary to theorize and problematize the notion of (co)
creating social value.
2.1 Applying the Concept of Social Entrepreneurship

to Tourism Studies
The concept of social entrepreneurship can allow for further theorization of sustain-
able tourism development because the elements of social value it aims to deliver
can be economically, socially and/or environmentally derived. This concept can
guide critical inquiry into two topical areas: (1) the nature of social entrepreneurs as
key actors involved in sustainable development; and, (2) the interactions between
social entrepreneurs and the resident communities they serve.
Firstly, in-depth analyses related to the type of social entrepreneurs (e.g., a
politician, civil servant, interest group, a citizen activist) involved in sustainable
tourism can contribute to the understanding of the elements that imbue such actors
to engage in social entrepreneurship but also the understanding of the nature of their
entrepreneurial tourism related endeavors (i.e., profit, non profit or public sector).
Scholars interested in this line of inquiry can adopt a variety of theories such as
theory of planned behavior or theory of reasoned action to examine attitudes and
behaviors associated with social entrepreneurs. A quintessential research question
for this line of inquiry is: In what ways are social enterprises able to offer
sustainable solutions to the world’s social problems within the context of tourism?
It is important for research of this nature to avoid idealizing social entrepreneurs
(see Bornstein, 2007) and rather attempt to unveil varying ways in which the
identified attitudes and behaviors can be or are enacted by many other actors in
society (Light, 2006). Generally, further research on the nature of social entre-
preneurs will allow for an important ontological discussion related to social actors
who influence social change but it will also grant scholars an interesting opportunity
to undertake critical institutional analyses (i.e., profit, non profit or public sector) of
tourism related social enterprises. Additionally, the emergence of studies from
different parts of the world will help shape knowledge on the various social roles
enacted by social entrepreneurs within our global community.
Secondly, research related to the interactions between social entrepreneurs and
the placed based or non-place based communities they serve can augment our
understanding of the nature of collaborative efforts and political climates conducive
to social change. Critical analysis into the nature of the collaborative efforts can
provide insight into the nature of community involvement in a given social enter-
prise. A variety of social theories can guide inquiry into the ways in which issues of
power, agency, resistance, and empowerment inform collaborations between social
entrepreneurs and the communities they serve. For instance, post colonial theory or
the theory of decoloniality can be used to problematize conceptions of ‘social
value’ but also entanglements of power, acts of community resistance, and also
social entrepreneurship as a possible form of neocolonialism. Such lines of research

inquiry allow for structural analyses of power and inequality in tourism, which are
inherent to global and neo-liberal capitalist structures (Bianchi, 2009). Alter-
natively, scholars can examine the influence of political climates, which characterize
various geopolitical areas, on the emergence of certain types of social enterprise.
Certainly, some forms of social entrepreneurship may contribute to community
solidarity and a sense of place so theoretical concepts such as communitas and
theories of place attachment can be utilized to describe and explain community
outcomes related to social entrepreneurship. Research questions that can guide this
line of inquiry include but are not limited to: Who defines what constitutes social
change and when the desirable social goals have been achieved? How involved are
the communities, for whom social changes are being designed, in the social
entrepreneurship project? Do social enterprise led initiatives contribute to a sense
of community? What lessons can be gleaned from cases in which social entre-
preneurs’ social missions differ from the visions espoused by communities? Given that
social entrepreneurs aim to produce social change for communities (Shockley &
Frank, 2011) it is imperative for future tourism scholarship to problematize the
relationship between these interlocutors in order to provide detailed and nuanced
analyses regarding the social value related outcomes.
Equally important, is the need for further research into the types of tourism
sectors most conducive to social entrepreneurship. For instance, in the wake of the
global refugee crisis, a recent media covered example from the Austrian hospitality
industry demonstrates the tourism industry’s potential role in creating solutions for
social problems. The Last Hope Hotel, has recently gained notoriety given its
creation of a business opportunity that offers often unemployed refugees an oppor-
tunity to work in a hotel setting while gaining skills necessary to help them sustain
jobs in the service industry. One of the biggest challenges often faced by refugees is
the inability to be economically self-sufficient once relocated to a host nation; this is
generally due to lack of required skills and education, as well as linguistic barriers.
The Last Hope Hotel helps a small group of refugees by providing one-on-one
training per refugee employed. The profits gained by the hotel are re-invested in the
social enterprise. Further research into such initiatives related to various tourism
sectors will be useful in amassing evidence for best practices within the field. It is
important for such scholastic endeavors to offer a well-rounded account that not
only celebrates social enterprises but also critically questions the sustainability of
these initiatives.
2.2 An Example of Social Entrepreneurship in Action:

The Case of DinéHozh
o
This section utilizes the case of DinéHozhó to provide an example of a Native

American social enterprise whose aim is to impact change in an area that has little
federal and/or tribal support. DinéHozhó (Diné Innovative Network of Economies
in Hozhó) is a grassroots organization that compromises eight local Navajo com-

munities, commonly known as Navajo chapters, in the western region of the Navajo
reservation in Arizona, USA. DinéHozhó is working in collaboration with
Flagstaff-based Grand Canyon Trust (a regional non profit conservation organi-
zation) and with technical assistance from Arizona State University’s School of
Community Resources and Development and the Julie Ann Wrigley Global Insti-
tute of Sustainability to create a social enterprise.
In Navajo philosophy, the basic concept of Hozhó is Diné people’s highest aim
in life and for their ecosystem. The pursuit of Hozhó is captured in ceremonial
songs and prayers and is also frequently used in every day speech. According to
Witherspoon (1975), “a Navajo uses this concept to express his[/her] happiness, his
[/her] health, the beauty of his[/her] land, and the harmony of his[/her] relations
with others” (p. 570). DinéHozhó communities include: Leupp, Birdsprings, Tolani
Lake, Cameron, Coalmine Mesa, Bodaway-Gap, Tonalea, and Shonto. These
communities are located in a geographical area where Navajos had been exiled
from their land for nearly 40 years under “The Bennett Freeze”1 (Roberts et al.,
1995). Bennett’s order effectively halted all economic development on the affected
lands, causing severe hardships for mostly Navajo residents residing in the Bennett
Freeze area. Demographic snapshots of the nation indicate 43 % unemployment
rate and the medium household income of $20,005 which is alarming given that the
tribe is situated in a wealthy country. The Obama administration recently lifted the
freeze however the resolution of this issue has given rise to an increase in outside
investors imposing profit driven ideas that ignore Navajo cultural and sacred sites.
For instance, the infamous Grand Canyon Escalade proposed project, a multi-
million-dollar resort at the confluence of the Colorado River and the Little Colorado
River, is regarded by recently elected Navajo leaders as a direct violation of the
Hozhó principle not to mention the negative environmental impacts associated
with it.
Proposals such as the above mentioned, in part, imbue the community to find
ways to create entrepreneurial opportunities which enhance community well-being
and by so doing reduce the imminent threats of profit driven foreign investors. On
December 29, 2014, the Navajo Nation Council (legislative body of the tribal
government, equivalent to Congress in United States government) passed CD-63-
1
In 1966, Commissioner of Indian Affairs Robert Bennett, imposed a land freeze by stopping all
development in western Navajo reservation in Arizona. A land dispute between the Navajo Nation
and Hopi Tribe covering some 1.6 million acres. The imposed development ban affected both
tribes, but it severely devastated the Navajos more due to the larger population and larger land
base. The land freeze resulted from competition for control of the resources—water and coal—
needed to generate power for burgeoning southern California and Arizona. In this competition the
coal and power-generating giants and the federal agencies had an advantage over both Navajo and
Hopi tribal government, an advantage that was maintained by the division between the two tribes.
On a more careful analysis, this divide-and-rule pattern imposed by the federal government goes
back to 1930s, when the Bureau of Indian Affairs established the Hopi tribal government that
recognized an exclusive use area in the middle of the much larger 1882 Executive Order
reservation on and around Black Mesa for the Navajos.
14 Resolution that authorizes the creation of low-profit limited liability company

(L3C) statute, which allows organizations to use the new legal for-profit structure
that enables social benefit outcomes. Prior to this, only nine states and two Amer-
ican Indian tribal governments (Oglala Sioux Nation and Crow Nation) had adopted
L3C legislation; however, this has now changed with Navajo Nation becoming the
largest American Indian tribal government to allow L3C incorporation.
Accordingly, DinéHozhó has created an opportunity-driven movement of social
entrepreneurship that is unique to Diné lifeway given that it collaborates with local
Navajo chapters, a handful of nonprofit organizations, and an existing quasi-Navajo
enterprise, to forge partnerships with government, private sector and communities
in order to collectively explore social and sustainable solutions. The structuring of
DinéHozhó as a social enterprise with a non profit and for-profit component is
poised to benefit the eight Navajo communities. The “hybrid” setup of the
DinéHozhó provides new business opportunities that embrace and incorporate
traditional knowledge (e.g., rug weaving, traditional herbal medicines, traditional
Hogan architecture, traditional agricultural knowledge, traditional dance and music
choreography). Additionally, given the nation’s strategic location in a tourism
dependent zone of the state, DinéHozhó has strived to help stakeholders identify
sustainable tourism opportunities that embrace the intangible richness of Diné
culture. DinéHozhó’s multidimensional approach that encompasses social, cultural
and environmental capacities within the context of sustainable tourism is a model
that stands to capture a new entrepreneurial spirit in an era of federal and tribal
government cutbacks.
A key component for DinéHozhó under the newly adopted Navajo L3C is the
potential to attract significant program-related investments (PRIs). PRIs are invest-
ments by private foundations to further the foundation’s social mission, and thereby
promoting assets building and wealth creation for low-income communities in
western Navajo region. Through PRIs, DinéHozhó is exploring opportunities for
“impact investing” via philanthropically committed capital for land conservation
and eco-tourism opportunities. Other outcomes that the organization aims to engage
in include provision of training in sustainable development across a variety of
reservation-based industries and provision of a number of capacity building work-
shops for emerging social entrepreneurs. Linking the example of DinéHozhó to
Atler’s (2006) social enterprise models, it can be argued that this L3C adopts the
Entrepreneur Support Model as well as the Market Intermediary Model. In the case
of DinéHozhó, the former offers business and financial support services to local
individuals and Navajo based organizations. The latter model helps individuals or
organizations working with DinéHozhó to gain access to markets (e.g., tourist
markets). In the wake of government cutbacks, poverty stricken communities
have had to devise their own approaches to enhancing community well-being.
DinéHozhó is thus a quintessential example of a grassroots social enterprise
whose mission is to contribute to social change through social entrepreneurial
activities. Despite decades of unjust underdevelopment, western Navajos are begin-
ning to emerge as economic drivers of their own future, with DinéHózhó providing
a place for traditional knowledge and ways of seeing the larger world in an
economy based on social justice and sustainability. The power of social innovation
and community-based self-determination are part of an ecological imperative.
3 Conclusion
The examination of sustainable tourism development through the lens of social and
entrepreneurship is timely and necessary particularly given that many nations,
social institutions are increasingly unable or unwilling to remedy social problems
be they derived from environmental or economic elements. Accordingly, empiri-
cally based tourism analyses that focus on and problematize social entrepreneurship
as a unit of analysis will increasingly be central to our understanding of many forms
of sustainability oriented tourism enterprises. The concept of social enterprises
grants critical tourism scholars a variety of avenues through which to contribute
to the global debate on social change while advancing the field’s theorization on
tourism development. In this chapter we propose two topical avenues that can be
investigated by tourism scholars, namely (i) the nature of social entrepreneurs as
key actors involved in sustainable tourism development; and, (ii) the interactions
between social entrepreneurs and the resident/host communities they serve. Pursu-
ance of the first topical area can be guided by a plethora of theoretical frameworks,
such as theory of planned behavior or theory of reasoned action, which provide
insight into the attitudes and behaviors associated with social entrepreneurs. Pur-
suance of the second topical area can occur by adopting a postcolonial or decolonial
lens to examine issues of power, agency, resistance, inclusion, exclusion, and
empowerment as pertains the interactions between community members and social
entrepreneurs, particularly in the global south (see Chambers & Buzinde, 2015). It
is important for future tourism research to critically engage the concept of social
entrepreneurship so as to relevantly contribute to the current global debate on social
change and sustainable development goals.
Questions for Discussion
1. What ethical issues should social entrepreneurs consider as they contemplate

working with communities, particularly marginalized communities? Similarly,
what ethical issues should be considered by communities approached by
social entrepreneurs?
2. In what ways is social entrepreneurship a more sustainable approach for
community well-being when compared to traditional business models like
corporate social responsibility?
3. Collectivist societies are more likely to have a prevalence of social entre-
preneurs than individualist societies. Explain why you agree or disagree with
this statement.
References
Alter, S. K. (2006). Social enterprise models and their mission and money relationships.
In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable change
(pp. 205–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bellone, C. J., & Goerl, G. F. (2002). Reconciling public entrepreneurship and democracy. In
P. Kobrak (Ed.), The political environment of public management (pp. 384–392). New York:
Longman.
Bianchi, R. (2009). The critical turn in tourism studies: A radical critique. Tourism Geographies,
11(4), 484–504.
Bielefeld, W. (2008). Social entrepreneurship and social enterprise. In C. Wankel (Ed.),
21st century management: A reference handbook (pp. 22–31). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Boluk, K. (2011). Revealing the discourses: White entrepreneurial motivation in Black South Africa.
Tourism Planning and Development, 8(2), 199–213.
Bornstein, D. (2007). How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Buzinde, C. N., Xue, L., & Yarmenko, S. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and the millen-
nium development goals: The case of Xel-Ha, Mexico. In K. Bricker, R. Black, & S. Cottrell
(Eds.), Sustainable tourism & the millennium development goals: Effecting positive change
(pp. 7–22). Burlington, NC: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Chambers, D., & Buzinde, C. (2015). Tourism and decolonisation: Locating research and self.
Annals of Tourism Research, 51, 1–16.
Cho, A. H. (2006). Politics, values and social entrepreneurship: A critical appraisal. In J. Mair,
J. Robninson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp. 34–44). New York:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Dees, J. G. (2001). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Center for the advancement of
social entrepreneurship. Durham, NC: Fuqua School of Business, Duke University. Retrieved
June 20 2014, from http://fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/documents/dees_SE.pdf
Dees, J. G. (2008). Philanthropy and enterprise: Harnessing the power of business and social
enterprenuership for development. In D. Chollet & L. Brainard (Eds.), Global development
2.0: Can philanthropy, the public and the poor make poverty history? (pp. 120–134).
Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
Dees, G., & Anderson, B. B. (2003). For-profit social ventures. In M. Kourilsky & W. Walstad
(Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp. 1–26). Dublin: Senate Hall Academic Publishing.
Frank, P. F., Shockley, G. E., & Stough, R. R. (2004). An institutional typology of entrepreneur-
ship: Nonprofit, for-profit, and public sector entrepreneurial discovery. Paper presented at the
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (Babson-Kaufmann Entrepreneurship Research Con-
ference), Glasgow, Scotland.
Hall, J. K., Daneke, G. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2010). Sustainable development and entreprenuership:
Past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 439–448.
Hall, J., Matos, S., Sheehan, L., & Silvestre, B. (2012). Entreprenuership and innovation at the
base of the pyramid: A recipe for inclusive growth or social exclusion? Journal of Management
Studies, 49(28), 785–812.
Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kline, C., Shah, N., & Rubright, H. (2014). Applying the positive theory of social entrepreneurship
to understand food entrepreneurs and their operations. Tourism Planning and Development,
11(3), 330–342.
Kokkranikal, J., & Morrison, A. (2011). Community networks and sustainable livelihoods in tourism:
The role of entrepreneurial innovation. Tourism Planning and Development, 8(2), 137–156.
Lamari, M., & Ménard, C. (2012). Democratizing leisure and facilitate access to sports activities:
Evaluation of a social economy for disabled or disadvantaged people in Quebec, Canada.
Leisure/Loisir, 36(1), 37–52.
Light, P. (2006). Searching for social entrepreneurs: Who they might be, where they might be
found, what they do. In R. Mosher-Williams (Ed.), Research on social entrepreneurship:
Understanding and contributing to an emerging field (ARNOVA Occasional Paper Series,
Volume 1, Number 3) (pp. 13–38). Indianapolis, IN: Association for Research on Nonprofit
Organizations and Voluntary Action.
Maarten, H., Nilsson, M., Raworth, K., Bakker, P., Berkhout, F., Boer, Y., et al. (2015). Beyond
cockpit-ism: Four insights to enhance the transformative potential of the sustainable develop-
ment goals. Sustainability, 7(2), 1651–1660.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life.
The American Political Science Review, 3(78), 734–749.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1996). Institutional perspectives on political institutions. Governance:
An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 9(3), 247–264.
Mises, L. (1949/1996). Human action: A treatise on economics (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Fox
& Wilkes.
Mody, M., & Day, J. (2014). Rationality of social entrepreneurs in tourism: Max Weber and the
sociology of tourism development. International Journal of Tourism Anthropology, 3(3),
227–244.
Nicholls, A. (2006). Introduction. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New models of
sustainable social change (pp. 1–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, A. J., Begay, R., Kelley, K. B., Yazzie, A. W., Thomas, J. R., Piper, J., et al. (1995). Navajo
Nation cultural resource management program: Navajo history and cultural resources of the
Grand Canyon and the Colorado River. Window Rock, AZ: Navajo Nation Historic Preser-
vation Department.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934/2002). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits,
capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Shleifer, A. (1998). State versus private ownership. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(4),
133–150.
Shockley, G. E., Frank, P. F., & Stough, R. R. (2008). Introduction: The emerging field of
non-market entrepreneurship. In Non-market entrepreneurship: Interdisciplinary approaches
(pp. 3–9). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Shockley, G. E., & Frank, P. F. (2011). Schumpeter, Kirzner, and the field of social entrepreneur-
ship. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 6–26.
Swedberg, R. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: The view of the young Schumpeter. In D. Hjorth &
C. Steyaert (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and social change (pp. 21–34). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Swedberg, R. (2009). Schumpeter’s full model of entrepreneurship: Economic, non-economic and
social entrepreneurship, Chap. 6. In R. Ziegler (Ed.), An introduction to social entrepreneur-
ship: Voices, preconditions, contexts (pp. 155–175). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Urbano, D., Toledano, N., & Soriano, D. R. (2010). Analyzing social entrepreneurship from
and institutional perspective: Evidence from Spain. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship,
1, 54–69.
von der Weppen, J., & Cochrane, J. (2012). Social enterprises in tourism: An exploratory study of
operational models and success factors. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20, 497–511.
Witherspoon, G. (1975). Navajo kinship and marriage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Christine Buzinde is an associate professor in the School of Community Resources and Devel-
opment at Arizona State University. Her research centers on the use of tourism as a tool for
empowerment and well-being, particularly within marginalized communities. She focuses on
evaluations of parameters indicative of advancements (or lack thereof) related to community
well-being. Christine has conducted research within communities in Tanzania, Mexico, India,
and the United States. Christine has published numerous articles in tourism studies, geographical,
and cultural studies journals and she teaches graduate classes on advanced tourism theories and
critical approaches to tourism policy and planning.
Gordon Shockley is an Associate Professor of Social Entrepreneurship in the School of Com-

munity Resources and Development at Arizona State University. He earned his doctorate in Public
Policy at George Mason University’s School of Public Policy. His teaching and research interests
concentrate on building the field of non-market entrepreneurship as well as contributing to the
fields of public policy modeling. Before returning to academia, he worked for various levels of
American government, including the finance division of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and
the budget offices of Milwaukee County, Kentucky, and Missouri.
Kathleen Andereck is a Professor and director of the School of Community Resources and
Development at Arizona State University. Her research focuses on the tourism experience from the
perspective of both visitors and residents particularly as it applies to sustainable tourism.
Dr. Andereck has done research work with a diversity of agencies at the federal and state level
including the Bureau of Land Management, the USDA Forest Service, the Arizona Office of
Tourism and the Arizona Department of Transportation. Her work appears in numerous top-tier
tourism journals and it has been presented at many national and international tourism conferences.
Edward Dee is a Ph.D. Student in the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University. He
has a Master’s degree in Public Administration and Master of Business Administration degree and
a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science. Mr. Dee’s research interests include Energy and Material
Use, Policy and Governance, Innovative Community and Social Sustainable Enterprises, and
Human-Environment interaction in Sustainable Tourism. His current research devises a frame-
work that incorporates Indigenous Traditional Knowledge (ITK) or Diné Fundamental Law in
sustainability science; and analysis of sustainable livelihood capabilities and assets that offers
community-based Eco-tourism as possible solution option for Western Navajo chapters.
Peter Frank is an associate professor of economics and dean of Wingate University’s Porter
B. Byrum School of Business. In 2012, Frank was a Fulbright scholar, teaching economics at a
university in the former Soviet republic of Moldova. His focus was the economic and political
systems of Eastern Europe. He has published research on topics such as business incubation in the
Charlotte region, the institutionalization of venture capital, and functions of government in social
entrepreneurship. He teaches courses at Wingate University in microeconomics, macroeconomics,
business statistics, capitalism in U.S. economic history, and managerial economics.
Institutional and Policy Support for Tourism
Social Entrepreneurship
Dianne Dredge
Abstract There is no question that poverty, social and economic marginalization

are contributing to a growing gap between rich and poor, and that international
agencies, governments and the private sector have failed to substantially address
these issues. The aim of this chapter is to examine the characteristics of supportive
institutional and policy environments for tourism social entrepreneurship. It argues
that governments can contribute in two broad ways to creating the conditions for
tourism social entrepreneurship to flourish: they can develop policies that support
and encourage the development and operation of social enterprises as part of an
inclusive and sustainable tourism system, and they can assist in the creation of
institutional conditions that encourage, legitimize and synergize social entrepre-
neurship. The chapter offers concrete considerations for policy makers in terms of
making institutional and policy changes, but at the same time seeks not to take a
normative stance with respect to giving particular directives.
Keywords Policy • Social entrepreneurship • Governance • Critical tourism

policy • Institutional arrangements
1 Introduction
Social entrepreneurship has emerged as a potentially important approach to allevi-

ate a range of social problems, and it has been especially singled out in developing
countries as a means of addressing a range of social issues that governments
themselves have little or no expertise nor the resources to address (Montgomery,
Dacin, & Dacin, 2012). However, an increasing body of critical research demon-
strates that despite significant growth in these forms of tourism, especially in
developing countries, producing social value is not easy and the challenges can
be made more difficult by a lack of institutional and policy support (e.g. Scheyvens
& Russell, 2009). Indeed, governments’ lack of support or capacity to create
D. Dredge (*)
Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University, Copenhagen Campus,
Aalborg, Denmark

36 D. Dredge
‘enabling conditions’ can even stymie interest and/or investment in social entre-
preneurship (Civil Exchange, 2015). Limited attention has so far been given to the
influence of the institutional environment, and how this might foster or diffuse the
efforts of social entrepreneurs. Moreover, we know little about what policy direc-
tions might be suitable to promote social entrepreneurship. Given the ambiguity
surrounding social entrepreneurship, the lack of clarity about operational aspects,
and the paucity of information about how the institutional environment might affect
social entrepreneurship, there is considerable scope to explore these issues.
The aim of this chapter is to examine the characteristics of supportive institu-
tional and policy environments for tourism social entrepreneurship. The need to
explore the role of institutional arrangements is underpinned by the idea that social
entrepreneurship does not exist in a vacuum but is significantly influenced by
institutional rules, routines, structures and cultures over which governments have
some considerable influence. In fact, the pressure from increasingly complex,
interconnected policy problems and a tightening of public revenue streams,
means that while governments might have less power and resources to address
problems directly, they are becoming increasingly more interested in innovative
approaches to address economic and social problems (Bacq & Janssen, 2011;
Giddens, 2000). This chapter argues that governments can contribute in two
broad ways to creating the conditions for tourism social entrepreneurship to flour-
ish: they can develop policies that support and encourage the development and
operation of social enterprises as part of an inclusive and sustainable tourism
system, and they can assist in the creation of institutional conditions that encourage,
legitimize and synergize social entrepreneurship.
The approach adopted in this chapter is narrative review (Green, Johnson, &
Adams, 2006). It seeks to draw together the broad theoretical context and insights
from grey literature (e.g. blogs, policy reports, practice-based case studies), which
is triangulated with the author’s expert knowledge of tourism policy and practice.
There is a paucity of research in tourism and social entrepreneurship but a
burgeoning literature on social entrepreneurship more generally. In terms of liter-
ature that deals specifically with policy and the role of government in tourism social
entrepreneurship, there is very limited grey literature. This lack of research suggests
there is a need for a narrative overview that synthesizes and extends current
understandings, and that balances these insights with theoretical explanations. In
this way, the chapter intends to provoke thought and crystalize insights that can be
used as a foundation for further research. It is also important to note that the chapter
draws from case examples in both the Global North and South, drawing valuable
insights and, where appropriate, identifies contradictions in policy approaches
between the two.
Institutional and Policy Support for Tourism Social Entrepreneurship 37
2 Social Entrepreneurship: A Policymaker’s Perspective
So why should policymakers be interested in social entrepreneurship? There is a

strong line of argumentation within the literature that social entrepreneurship is
nothing new, and that social entrepreneurship is just entrepreneurship with a social
twist. This view is based on the idea that entrepreneurship is a human trait and a
universal construct (e.g. Mises, 1949; Morris, 1998). For these authors, there is
nothing distinctive about social entrepreneurship; it is simply entrepreneurialism
that directs its activities towards a social mission instead of an economic, profit-
motivated set of goals. However, this view is heavily focused on the individual
entrepreneur or the characteristics of the entrepreneurial business model, and it fails
to appreciate the transformative social ecologies that have the potential to generate
societal progress (Ebrashi, 2013). It is this promise of broader societal progress
beyond the individual enterprise, and an interest in empowering inclusive and
sustainable economies, that trigger many governments’ interest in social
entrepreneurship.
2.1 If It’s Not Broken, Why Change Things?
But cautious policymakers, especially those vested in the current tourism policy
approaches, may be concerned with the impact that support for social entrepreneur-
ship might have on current policy approaches. “If the current system isn’t broken,
then why fix it?” they might ask. To address this concern, it is first useful to briefly
explain current approaches to tourism policy development that predominate among
most western democratic capitalist societies where neoliberal economic manage-
ment reigns to a greater or lesser extent. In most countries, the value of tourism as
an export industry, as a regional development tool, and as a strategy for economic
diversification and for employment generation, are among the main reasons why
governments have historically become involved in tourism (Bramwell, 2011;
Bramwell & Lane, 2010). In the last decades, neoliberal approaches adopted by
many governments, have increasingly sought to embrace free market principles that
entail policies that move away from direct intervention towards indirect policies
that seek to secure conditions that favor destination competitiveness (Dredge &
Jenkins, 2007). Based on interpretations of Adam Smith’s idea of the ‘invisible
hand’ (1776), it is reasoned that a free market, unfettered by government interven-
tion, will encourage people to work harder and be more competitive, and the
improved competitiveness and profitability will in turn generate prosperity that
trickles down to communities. Of course, this God’s eye view that free market
economics will endow communities with benefits has been heavily criticized
(Stiglitz, 1991), and it has become increasingly clear that such policies have done
little to address economic and social marginalization, poverty, and other failures of
traditional capitalism.
38 D. Dredge
In most developed countries, tourism policies have tended to adopt an industry

policy approach (Dredge, 2015). An industry policy approach entails articulating a
vision and policy initiatives for the future derived from consultation with private
sector interests. This visioning process facilitates flows of information between
government and business; it produces a shared understanding between government
and industry of the values to be pursued; and it enables the private sector to direct
government resources towards assisting industry ends. However, in a highly
fragmented industry like tourism, where there are significant differences between
the capacity of global corporations and local operators, this approach produces big
winners and losers. Usually large multinational corporations enjoy closer proximity
to policy makers and are able to secure policy directions that support their for-profit
business interests (Dredge & Jenkins, 2012). Small and medium sized enterprises,
which make up the majority of the tourism industry, have less access to
policymakers, and are less able for a variety of reasons to advocate their interests
in policy making processes.
Not surprisingly, government policies have tended to fall into three broad
categories designed to address the concerns of predominantly large tourism busi-
nesses. Policies address such things as initiatives to increase tourism demand
(e.g. remove barriers to growth, open up idling assets such as waterfronts and
national parks); initiatives to improve productivity (e.g. maintain minimum
wages and labor protections); initiatives to attract investment (e.g. reduce environ-
mental regulation and red tape); and policies to address market failures (e.g. to
support governance arrangements to enhance industry co-ordination). In most
countries, these policy initiatives have favored large corporate interests, and
because these companies are answerable to their international shareholders and
their corporate headquarters (and not to governments), the efficacy of these indus-
trial tourism policy approaches with regard to protecting and enhancing community
interests is often brought into question (Goodwin & Santilli, 2009; Scheyvens,
2007). Moreover, despite arguments that industry should be taking steps to protect
the local assets and resources on which tourism is based (Adam Smith’s ‘invisible
hand’ argument suggests that market failures will be taken care of because entre-
preneurial interests care about the long-term sustainability of their business), there
is very patchy evidence that global tourism businesses are implementing responsi-
ble and sustainable practices in lasting ways.
2.2 Positioning Social Entrepreneurship as a Policy Issue
It is the need to address the market failures of capitalism—to fundamentally rethink

the dominant economic system—that provides the most compelling argument to
reconsider this dominant industrial policy approach to tourism (Pollock, 2012).
Contemporary developments within social entrepreneurship research have
highlighted that it is the widespread systematic social effects of social entrepre-
neurship that distinguish it from for-profit, business-as-usual economic activity.
Social entrepreneurship encompasses entrepreneurial activities that combine both a

social mission with “business-like discipline, innovation and determination” (Dees,
1998) and these ecologies of collaborative action between social entrepreneurs,
other civil society actors, governments and the commercial sector are what gives it
such transformative power (Bloom & Dees, 2008; Shockley & Frank, 2011). In this
view, there are reasons why governments should be interested in creating the social
and institutional conditions to facilitate tourism-oriented social entrepreneurship.
First, social entrepreneurship builds social and economic resilience, and is a way
that social problems can be addressed with minimal government resourcing. Gov-
ernments across the world have various levels of access to resources, but overall, in
both the North and the South, there are fewer resources to address the increasing
number and interrelated complexities of social issues that are emerging. The case of
KOTO (Know One Teach One), a social enterprise in Vietnam that delivers
culinary and hospitality training to vulnerable youth is an example (see Box 1).
Similar programs also exist in developed countries such as Jamie Oliver’s “About
Fifteen” (Jamie Oliver Food Foundation, 2014). These programs, funded by com-
mercial operations, deliver much more than training. They deliver life skills and
personal development, and they foster the development of supportive personal and
professional networks with net flow on effects for entire communities over time. In
other words, these benefits extend beyond the life of the training program to make a
difference over time. Government training programs, often outsourced to training
companies with short-term commercial objectives, are unlikely to contribute the
same level of social resilience over time.
Box 1. KOTO, Vietnam

The case of KOTO (Know One Teach One) in Vietnam is an example of a
highly successful tourism/hospitality social enterprise that improves the lives
of street kids in Vietnam. KOTO was established by Vietnamese-Australian
Jimmy Pham after a visit to his country of birth in 1996. During a work trip to
Vietnam, and seeing the homeless youth on the streets of Hanoi, Pham
understood that the needs of these vulnerable youth extended beyond their
immediate need for job: they needed to build sustainable livelihoods. Pham
returned to Vietnam and started a sandwich shop, although the initiative has
now evolved into the operation of two restaurants, one in Hanoi and one in Ho
Chi Minh City (SBS, 2015). The restaurants cater mainly to tourists and also
incorporate a volunteer component. KOTO is a social enterprise that not only
provides culinary and hospitality training to street kids, it also delivers them
life skills. Its programs are accredited and monitored through a strategic
partnership with an Australian technical education college, the Box Hill
Institute. KOTO specifically trains students for work in five-star hotels and
restaurants, and graduates are highly sought after both in Vietnam and
internationally. However, despite that the initiative was addressing a
(continued)
40 D. Dredge
Box 1 (continued)
significant social issue that the government did not have the capacity to deal
with, it has not always been easy, and in the social enterprise’s early years, the
government closed down the initiative several times (SBS, 2015). Anecdot-
ally, lack of understanding about the initiative and political concerns were
key reasons.
Useful Links
Box Hill Institute. http://www.koto.com.au/about-koto/what-is-koto/koto-
story. Accessed: Accessed 1 August 2015.
SBS. (2015). How KOTO cooking school is turning Vietnam street kids
into five-star chefs. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/01/10/
how-koto-cooking-school-turning-vietnam-street-kids-five-star-chefs.
Accessed: 1 August 2015.
KOTO. (2015). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼qbodUwsCxFE.
Accessed: Accessed 1 August 2015.
Second, social entrepreneurs are often closer to the problems, they are more
grounded and often have deeper understandings of the issues, and they have unique
insights into how such issues can be effectively addressed. This grounded under-
standing and proximity to local communities is a key motivation for governments
and international institutions to partner with social enterprise because it allows
social problems to be more effectively addressed than if government addressed the
problem itself or outsourced to the private sector. For example, the Inter-American
Development Bank’s Multilateral Investment Fund commissioned the Planeterra
Foundation, a non-profit social enterprise set up by G Adventures travel company,
to deliver five community benefit tourism projects between 2012 and 2015
(Planeterra, 2014). G Adventures’ interest was to extend the range of authentic
experiences in its itineraries. Planeterra’s role was to help develop market-based
tourism solutions that would deliver sustainable livelihoods for local communities.
In this case, both the IDB and the four governments involved recognized the
potential of tourism to address a range of social issues, but they did not have the
expertise in the day-to-day operations of community-based tourism projects. Nei-
ther was it feasible for the IDB or governments to be involved in all aspects of each
project. Planeterra was able to help in the design and delivery of the projects and in
the detailed reporting of the project’s impacts, G Adventures incorporated these
experiences in their itineraries thereby helping to develop a sustainable market for
local products (Haakenson, 2014). According to Planeterra (2014) the strategic
partnership has been successful:
Two years later we have five new fully operating community-based tourism enterprises—
home stays on Nicaragua’s Ometepe Island and Guatemala’s Lake Atitlan, a coffee tour in
Costa Rica’s Caribbean region, a community restaurant in Peru’s Sacred Valley, and an
ecological campsite in Peru’s Lares trekking region. All are community-owned and oper-
ated and are receiving a constant flow of visitors—a total of 27,000 travellers visiting as
part of 36 different itineraries in 2014 with a 5–10 % increase expected for 2015. A total of
50 micro-enterprises have been created as part of the initiative, many supplying the main
tourism businesses, impacting over 2500 people.
Unseen Tours (UK) is another such case. Unseen Tours is a not-for-profit social
enterprise that provides paid tour guide work to London’s “vulnerably housed
individuals”. They deliver guided tours of “London’s historical and cultural quirks
in an unusual and entertaining way. . . issues of homelessness are covered, to make
a point about the state of the world we live in and highlight issues of social
injustice” (Unseen Tours, 2015). Visitors to London see a part of the city that
they are unlikely to discover by themselves; visitors’ awareness of homelessness as
an important social issue is raised; and the vulnerably-housed and economically-
marginalized tour guides are able to participate in the economy with flow on social
benefits.
Third, supporting social entrepreneurship and creating the enabling conditions
for it to flourish is a way that governments can indirectly address social issues using
market-based solutions. To date, governments have so far failed to entice the
tourism industry (or for that matter other economic interests) to address market
failures such as social isolation, marginalization and environmental degradation
(e.g. Burns & Bibbings, 2009). However, social entrepreneurship is better placed
than governments to directly address social problems because it can more effec-
tively tap into the global shift from emancipatory politics towards “life politics”
(Giddens, 2005). The life politics project denotes the rise of reflexivity, individu-
alization and self actualization, and where notions of individual agency, identity
and power have become inextricably linked to moral and ethical questions about
what sort of world we want to live in, and how it should be in the future (Giddens,
1991). This shift is well illustrated by the growth of volunteer tourism, where both
the private and non-government sectors have tapped into the needs of individuals
and collectives to give back, to make a difference, and to change the world (Butcher
& Smith, 2015). As a result, there are opportunities for governments to work
strategically with social enterprise, leveraging the capacity of social entrepreneur-
ship to tap into these cultural-political trends.
2.3 Social Entrepreneurship Policy Complementarities
Having established above that there are good reasons for government to support
social entrepreneurship, it is important to acknowledge that any policy initiatives sit
within the broader policy context. In particular, industry policy approaches and
tourism-oriented social entrepreneurship policies should not be positioned in oppo-
sition to each other. The position argued in this chapter, and which will be returned
to in the conclusions, is that governments need to embrace broader and more
42 D. Dredge
holistic set of policy narratives beyond an industry policy approach to tourism, and
to pursue a system wherein inclusive growth, sustainability and responsibility are
championed. Social entrepreneurship is, therefore, an important plank in a more
integrative and holistic approach to social, economic, political and environmental
sustainability (McMullen, 2011). Moreover, it is also important to acknowledge
that social entrepreneurship has a long history, and has been a well-established and
successful way of addressing social problems in many countries. Most notably, in
countries where there is low government capacity to deal with social problems,
collectives of social and business interests have emerged to address pressing social
issues. In Nepal for example, the disempowerment of local government following
the Civil War left the population with limited health, education and social services
(Jones, 2013). However, private sector tourism entrepreneurs have combined forces
with social entrepreneurs (often these individuals are one in the same) to create
hybrid organizational structures wherein globally connected trekking, adventure
and travel companies establish or work with social enterprises to deliver highly-
targeted medical, education and training and environmental services.
But the development of these hybrid tourism social entrepreneurship models
requires ‘enabling’ conditions. These conditions are necessary for tourism busi-
nesses to operate efficiently and to generate sufficient profit so that, in turn, these
profits can be invested in creating social value. For example, the country must be
seen as ‘safe’; domestic conditions must enable the operation of tourism businesses
(e.g. bureaucratic red tape and corruption are common frustrations for business);
there needs to be sufficient investment in infrastructure to meet the basic needs of
tourists in terms of transport infrastructure and accommodation; and immigration
and visa services need to be relatively streamlined and free of corruption. In other
words, if the tourism business can operate successfully in a climate of relative
certainty and generate a profit, then the social entrepreneur can focus on creating
social value. If however, the ‘enabling conditions’ are not present, an entrepreneur
will spend most effort on simply making the business work, and any potential social
value will be diminished. In such situations, “mission drift” may be the outcome,
where social entrepreneurs eventually charge higher prices or expand their cus-
tomer pool and in the process shift their focus away their social mission (Quak,
2013). Governments have a role to play in creating these enabling conditions so that
the social entrepreneurs’ creative and innovative potential can be released. For
developing countries, these enabling conditions often involve supporting NGOs and
existing entrepreneurial activities while in developing countries governments must
place attention on how existing regulations might stymie creative social enterprise.
3 Institutional Context and Policy Directions
Having discussed the reasons for policymakers to pursue a supportive environment

for tourism-oriented social entrepreneurship, we turn to the question of what this
support might entail. Based on the above discussion, the challenge for governments
is to create appropriate conditions whereby social enterprises can establish and

flourish as part of, and integrated into, the existing economic system, and not as a
separate circuit of activities. There are two sets of interrelated dimensions that are
relevant in creating this supportive environment: First, the creation of a supportive
institutional environment is necessary. The institutional environment comprises the
rules, procedures, practices and behaviors that characterize social organization, and
provide stability over time (Lowndes & Roberts, 2013). This institutional environ-
ment is very significant in shaping the cultural and social regularities through which
the opportunities and constraints for action emerge. A supportive institutional
context for social entrepreneurship to flourish would include both a positive culture
within government and amongst societal actors, and specific support from cultural
groups including professional groups, lawyers, bureaucrats and so on (Scott, 2012).
The presence of this supportive institutional culture would yield a range of intan-
gible but essential ingredients, including the legitimacy of social entrepreneurship
as a credible approach to tackling social problems, and the political and social
legitimacy of social entrepreneurs and associated stakeholders so that they may
engage in political dialogue and policy consultations.
While this supportive institutional context creates the conditions through which
the ecologies of social entrepreneurship can scale-up and extend across communi-
ties, the second set of dimensions–policy directives and initiatives–focuses on
facilitating the business environment within which social enterprises operate.
Robust and resilient social enterprises are the essential building blocks required
before social ecologies can be harnessed to address social problems on a broad
scale. As a result, like any for-profit business, social enterprises also need a
supportive regulatory and policy environment to operate in a financially sound
manner. Considerations for the creation of a positive, enabling institutional context
and for concrete policy directions are each considered below. However, before we
outline these considerations, it is first useful to draw from the above discussion, the
particular and distinguishing needs of the tourism social entrepreneurship sector
that governments should be aware of:
• Social enterprise has at its core a triple bottom line objective: to secure financial
viability, to add social value, and to leverage wider social and political ecologies
to create social change. Tourism social entrepreneurship shares these same
objectives, and specifically requires a supportive tourism policy environment.
• Social enterprise should be recognized not only as a means of addressing social
issues, but also as a legitimate economic activity. That is, it cannot sit outside the
existing system, but needs to be integrated into it in order to allow it to tap into
legitimate economic opportunities and build financial sustainability. Similarly,
tourism social entrepreneurship requires that it be recognized as a legitimate part
of the tourism system.
• The opportunities for social entrepreneurship to share experiences and knowl-
edge, to reproduce, and to scale-up are shaped by the social and political
regularities at play. Tourism social entrepreneurship requires similar support
44 D. Dredge
structures and practices that allow individual entrepreneurs to bond and bridge
opportunities within the existing tourism system.
• There needs to be a balance between involvement of government players in
social entrepreneurship and acknowledging that expertise and know-how exists
within social enterprises to tackle social problems. This type of collaborative
requires trust and respect between government and non-government organiza-
tions. Similarly, in tourism social entrepreneurship, effective collaboration must
be based on mutual respect and trust between governments, private sector and
non-government sectors.
3.1 Creating an Enabling Institutional Context
Critical explorations of the state under the influences of globalization and neoliberal
economic management have identified, among other trends, a weakening of state
sovereignty, a decline in state resources, and the increasing uptake of public-private
partnerships and networked governance (Dredge & Jenkins, 2007). These trends not
only contribute to a reduction in state power, but also to the need for governments to
work in collaboration with multiple interests to shape the social, political and
institutional conditions that in turn create the optimism, knowledge and awareness
of actors with regard to social entrepreneurship and its opportunities (Bramwell &
Lane, 2010).
To illustrate, in the UK’s ‘Big Society’ approach (Box 2), the role of government
was an important dimension shaping the extent to which social entrepreneurship
could be empowered. The ‘Big Society’ policy agenda was a significant plank in the
UK Prime Minster David Cameron’s first term in office and thoughts on its success
are mixed (Civil Exchange, 2015; North, 2011). However, there is a strong critique
that ‘Big Society’ failed to gain traction because, firstly, the government failed to
create the conditions necessary for local actors to imagine, create and pursue social
action. Secondly, ‘Big Society’ failed because the policy’s intentions were not
consistent with the government’s deep philosophical commitment to neoliberal
economic management. For example, practices such as competitive tendering of
government contracts undermined support for social entrepreneurship because
decisions prioritized financial cost and the social benefits of choosing a particular
supplier with a social mission were not (or could not be) incorporated into decision-
making (Social Enterprise UK, 2013).
Box 2. The UK’s ‘Big Society’: How Good Ideas Fail

In the neoliberal context where governments across the world were
downsizing, outsourcing and hollowing out, it was becoming increasingly
clear that governments did not have the resources to address the increasing
array and complexity of wicked policy issues. In this context, the work of
sociologist Anthony Giddens (1998, 2000) gained considerable traction in the
lead up to the UK election in 2010. Many of the policy issues surfacing at the
time (and indeed continue to surface) were derived from the market failures
of capitalism. They were giving rise to a range of social, economic and
environmental issues that governments (and particularly central governments
at a distant to citizens) did not have the capacity to address. Giddens (1998)
had previously observed a broad social shift from the ‘emancipatory politics’
associated with equity and freedom towards a more individualized ‘life
politics’ project that prioritized self-actualization. In the process, Britain’s
welfare state was becoming weaker and mini-public spheres were emerging
that circulated around environmental, social, gender or other issues (Tucker,
1998), and that made it increasingly difficult for government to do its job.
Giddens response was to argue for a ‘third way’ political project: govern-
ments needed to acknowledge that they could no longer effectively address
the complex public-private problems using traditional government centered
approaches, and that greater attention needed to be placed on unlocking the
potential of communities, individuals and businesses to address social and
environmental problems using market-based mechanisms such as social
enterprise. The ‘Big Society’ policy platform of David Cameron’s first term
in office bears witness to this commitment to community empowerment and
social action through market-based, non-government led solutions.
The ‘Big Society’ policy agenda finds its antecedents in the political shifts
linked to neoliberal economic management discourses that gained a foothold
in the 1980s, and that produced quite profound social failures including a rise
in unemployment, a rise in precariat workers, and increase in crime rates,
among other social indicators. In essence, the aggressive commitment to
neoliberal free market principles adopted from the 1980s was producing a
range and complexity of market failures and wicked policy problems, partic-
ularly in social and environmental arenas, that a ‘hollowed out’ government
was unable to deal with. There was a perceived political risk that these issues,
left unaddressed, would fester and leave governments to deal with potential
social unrest and even greater uncertainty in the future. The ‘Big Society’
policy agenda was intended to empower local communities, and facilitate
ground up solutions driven by civil society actors (e.g. individuals, for profit
and not-for profit NGOs and businesses). By tapping into self-actualizing life
politics the government sought to embrace a triple helix i.e. government,
business and community-approach, to address societal problems. However,
(continued)
46 D. Dredge
Box 2 (continued)
an audit of the ‘Big Society’ in 2015 revealed widespread disenchantment, a
belief that communities had in fact become weaker, and that government
polices had undermined the key goals of the big society (Civil Exchange,
2015).
Among the key reasons cited for this failure are: that the market-based
model of economic management works against the Big Society; power had
not been transferred at any scale to communities; the government had done
very little to progress the ‘empowered community’ agenda; that the govern-
ment had failed to establish strong partnerships with the voluntary sector; and
there had been a failure to encourage and mobilize the private sector to work
for the common good (Civil Exchange, 2015: 62–64).
This contrasts with the situation in Nepal, a country where civil war
(1996–2006) left the country and its government severely debilitated. Ranking
145 out of 187 countries in the UN’s 2014 Human Development Index, poverty,
unemployment and social marginalization are key issues (UNDP, 2014). Govern-
ment is highly centralized in Kathmandu, local government exists but has not had
elections since 2002, and Local and District Development Committees take respon-
sibility for local needs but are under-resourced and poorly co-ordination (Sapkota,
2013). In this context, tourism social entrepreneurship, which leverages the
bourgeoning international adventure tourism market to deliver social value to the
Nepalese, has grown strongly, and there is increasing evidence that it has moved
from being a plethora of individual social enterprises to become increasingly
“joined up” as a social movement. International institutions, global travel compa-
nies and NGOs inside and outside the country are working with local village
development committees to deliver social outcomes, and there is a growing number
of social enterprises that take a “peak body” function to lobby for social entrepre-
neurship support and to work with individual social enterprises to transfer knowl-
edge, provide business advice and incubate ideas, connect supply chains, mentor
and so on (e.g. Biruwa, 2015; NSEF, 2015). Many of these social enterprises focus
on the delivery of social, economic and environmental support to communities
outside the tourism region focused on Nepal, Mt Everest and Annapurna. Case
studies in the literature suggest that social enterprises are now operating as quasi-
governments, providing a range of services including infrastructure provision,
health, education and social services (Jones, 2013). In this case it is the absence
of government and the presence of a deeply committed section of society (both
Nepalese expats and residents) that have driven a wide range of social enterprises to
deliver social benefits. Moreover, there is also strong support from international
institutions, NGOs, tourism businesses and other external agencies, which not only
gives further credibility and legitimacy to social entrepreneurship, but these links
provide much needed access to expertise, financial support, international markets

and supply chains.
While the context in the UK and Nepal are very different, they highlight the
different roles governments play in different contexts. Shockley and Frank (2011)
observe that, in systems where there is low state capacity such as in developing
countries, social innovation and entrepreneurship tend to happen externally follow-
ing a bottom up path of innovation, and governments, if they do join in, tend to join
the process later. Alternatively, in developed countries the situation appears to be
the reverse, where governments play a supportive role most often indirectly through
grants and business support, awareness raising and so on (Shockley & Frank, 2011).
Dorado and Ventresca (2013) also warn against placing too much attention on the
characteristics and motivations of heroic entrepreneurs and that more important are
the institutional conditions that shape the presence of those motivations in the first
place. They suggest that the presence of soft institutional conditions conducive to
building social enterprise might in fact be more important than the motivations of
individuals and identify two conditions likely to influence an actor’s motivation:
public awareness and dissonant loyalty. Increased public awareness adds incentive
because a favorable public profile contributes to social approval. Dissonant loyalty
suggests that actors are more likely to be motivated to start social enterprise because
they share some kind of collective identity or membership, such as a shared goal or
a “difficult initiation”. So, to Dorado and Ventresca (2013), creating these condi-
tions where collective identity or membership can flourish, is important. Tourism
offers particular advantages in creating these conditions for dissonant loyalty.
Travel, particularly pleasure travel, it is generally a rewarding experience, so that
travelers could be positively disposed to the creation of this collective identity or
membership.
These observations, both from the literature and anecdotally from tourism
practice, suggest we need to think more broadly about the institutional context,
how is it shaped, and by which actors and agencies. The literature suggests that
governments help to create the right conditions to catalyze the visions and passions
of individual social entrepreneurs, and second, governments help to create the
political and social conditions-the societal norms–that help to synergize and scale
the benefits of social entrepreneurship across communities (Séraphin, Butler, &
Vanessa, 2013). The above discussion also suggests that while what governments
do may be important, if indeed public awareness and dissonant loyalty are impor-
tant factors in creating enabling institutional conditions for social enterprise, then
destination management organizations may be able to assist in creating and foster-
ing these conditions. Governments’ role in helping to create enabling institutional
conditions must therefore assist (1) in building supportive institutional structures
and actions, and (2) in managing the soft governance of power, positioning and
influence so that stakeholders (government, non-government, societal, travellers,
etc) are enrolled in the idea and value of social entrepreneurship.
Given that there is a wide variety of tourism-oriented social enterprises with
different objectives, business models and social goals, in various stages of devel-
opment, and operating in different contexts (Von der Weppen & Cochrane, 2012), it
48 D. Dredge
would be inappropriate to provide a universal list of directives for governments

wishing to enable social entrepreneurship. However, drawing upon the broader
literature, as well as the limited case study research in tourism, it is possible to
identify key characteristics of enabling institutional conditions that warrant further
consideration.
First, within tourism policy discourses, social entrepreneurship should be posi-
tioned as a complementary economic activity and not cordoned off as a separate set
of initiatives that compete with the existing businesses. There are a great number of
tourism social enterprises that integrate seamlessly into the tourism system, and
whilst their social mission may not be immediately obvious, they contribute visitor
interest and deepen the products and experiences available for visitors. The boom in
social enterprise cafes and restaurants in many large cities in western developed
economies is evidence of this integration so tourism and social entrepreneurship
(Sadler, 2015). In this way, tourism marketing and management organizations
could recognize that social enterprise adds an attractive dimension to the suite of
tourism products in a destination region, and they could profile them and raise
awareness of the contributions they make to local communities and environments.
Second, careful attention to the balance between bottom-up and top-down
policies is required. For example, in examining UK economic development policy,
Huggins and Williams (2011) note that economic development tends to be deliv-
ered from a top-down central framework, but that social entrepreneurship usually
starts on the ground with individuals who see a social issue and have a creative way
to address it using a business proposition. These authors argue nurturing ground up
social entrepreneurial creativity is not easily achieved by traditional top down
economic development policies that tend to favor tourism industry business logics.
Such industry policies, as previous discussed, tend to focus on increasing tourism
demand, initiatives to improve productivity, initiatives to attract investment, and
policies to address market failures. It is therefore important that any tensions,
conflicts or countervailing influences in the existing policy context are addressed.
Third, and related to the above, the way that policies across different sectors
work together (or not) has an impact on the overall level of institutional support for
tourism social entrepreneurship. Well-meaning policies relating to environmental
protection, tourism, heritage conservation and economic development, for example,
might work to support or hinder the development of social enterprise. A mapping of
policy complementarities and trade-offs across different sectors, and their implica-
tions for tourism social entrepreneurship would be an important step in assessing
institutional support.
Fourth, as previously discussed social entrepreneurship relies heavily upon its
ability to be competitive in the marketplace, and to replicate and scale its model to
grow social benefit. By corollary, an enabling institutional environment will sup-
port the development of formal and informal relationships—i.e., the hard and soft
structures of governance. Formal relationships include facilitating the building of
partnerships between diverse actors and agencies, while informal relationships are
enabled by creating spaces of dialogue, information sharing and co-creation
through which awareness is raised and social enterprise is legitimated. For
governments, facilitating these formal and informal relationships is not only nec-
essary in recognizing social entrepreneurs as legitimate stakeholders in formal
governance arrangements, but could also entail managing power relations by
encouraging participation, allocating particular roles and responsibilities, and
other strategies to empower (see Phi, Whitford, & Dredge, 2016).
Fifth, an important feature of enabling institutional conditions is the need for
cultural change. Various authors argue that there is a need for overt political
commitment to social entrepreneurship and a need for cultural change so that it
be accepted as an important plank in social-economic-environmental activity
(e.g. Quak, 2014). However, casting an eye beyond the Global North context within
which this observation is made, we need a more nuanced understanding of this
claim. In many developed countries, where interest in social entrepreneurship is
undergoing something of a rebirth and its scholars are generating a voluminous
literature on the topic, a call for government commitment to incorporate social
value in economic activity might be reasonable. However, in many developing
countries social entrepreneurship already enjoys recognition, legitimacy and strong
government support. In Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina, for example,
policies supporting the Solidarity Economy (which embodies cooperation,
co-responsibility, communication and community) have been well established
since the mid-1980s (Allard, Davidson, & Matthaei, 2007; Miller, 2010). As a
result, this point that governments should take action to facilitate cultural change,
support social entrepreneurship and other forms of economic activity to assert
social value, must be understood and actioned within context.
3.2 Policy Directions and Initiatives
Having identified above potential ideas for governments to create enabling institu-
tional conditions for tourism social entrepreneurship, our discussion now turns to
consider the suite of policy instruments and approaches that could be employed.
Policy instruments are the tools, approaches and mechanisms through which gov-
ernments try to bring about a set of desired effects (Bramwell, 2005; Dredge &
Jenkins, 2007). They can be broadly divided according to the type of resources that
might be used, and include:
• Financial instruments are those that use money to achieve a desired effect. These
might include positive fiscal incentives such as subsides, tax breaks and invest-
ment incentives to, for example, attract investment to encourage private sector
actors to conserve or protect environmental assets. Negative instruments might
include taxes and surcharges and environmental levies, and might be used in an
effort to reduce demand at environmentally sensitive sites. In tourism social
entrepreneurship, positive financial incentives, tax breaks and subsidies could be
used to create enabling conditions.
50 D. Dredge
• Information instruments include information and education campaigns and

advocacy initiatives targeted at different actors and collectives, and that are
designed to influence behavior. Information instruments can shape the enroll-
ment of different societal groups and actors in social entrepreneurship and can
facilitate cultural change. Voluntary accreditation, award programs and market-
based initiatives wherein operators leverage market advantage aimed at shaping
behavior would also fall under this category.
• Authority instruments are those that rely on government authority and influence
to achieve their desired effect. Laws and other statutory instruments can be used
to support and encourage social entrepreneurship, such as legislation that for-
mally recognizes and clarifies its operational environment, financial and taxation
responsibilities and reporting requirements.
• Organizational instruments include those initiatives wherein governments create
or support the establishment of organizational entities or partnerships to achieve
a desired outcome. Destination management and marketing organizations are
examples or organizational instruments where they are supported by govern-
ment, as is the above- mentioned partnership between G Adventures, Planeterra,
the IDB and relevant governments is another example.
Table 1 explores these categories further, outlining policy measures for each
category of instruments in relation to social entrepreneurship.
While Table 1 presents a variety of ideas for polices to support tourism social
entrepreneurship, no single policy approach or instrument is likely to work in
isolation. The increasing complexity and interdependence of policy issues means
that multiple policy initiatives are usually needed, and social entrepreneurship is no
different.
4 Conclusions
There is no question that poverty, social and economic marginalization are con-
tributing to a growing gap between rich and poor, and that international agencies,
governments and the private sector have failed to substantially address these issues.
Indeed, claims that tourism can be a tool to address social issues proliferate within
the tourism literature, yet it too has not delivered sustainable livelihoods at any
notable scale. Nevertheless, there is evidence that individual social enterprises in a
wide variety locations and contexts (North and South) have met with great success.
Herein lies the challenge before governments: Should governments, in whatever
capacity they have, pursue social enterprise as a way of addressing social problems?
And if so, how can governments create enabling environments for social entrepre-
neurship to flourish? Of course the first question is one that requires ongoing
research and evaluation of practice. However, in the face of the massive social
and environmental challenges the world faces in the not-too-distant future, and the
urgency to find alternative social-economic-political models to replace the current
Table 1 Policy for tourism social entrepreneurship

Instrument Initiatives and actions
Financial • Tax incentives, breaks and rules that acknowledge the particular characteristics
of SE and compensate for the additional costs that may be associated with their
social mission (e.g. employing vulnerable or disadvantaged people)
• Encourage impact investing and other investment incentives that support and
recognise the unique features of SE. Particular opportunities for impact invest-
ment in tourism related infrastructure, products and services could be profiled
and strategically promoted
• Facilitate access to financial support and credit (e.g. co-operatives, local
community banks)
Information • Advocacy measures that promote tourism social entrepreneurship
(e.g. supporting and profiling demonstration projects, tourism social enterprise
awards)
• Support for capacity building initiatives such as strategic networks that
encourage information exchange and collaboration on social enterprise, and can
support the replication and scaling of social enterprise initiatives into widespread
change
• Incorporate SE into economic planning, local land use management and other
planning and development strategies undertaken by local authorities
• Training and support for business development, financial management, human
resource training, and training for public tendering processes
Authority • Legal instruments that acknowledge SE as being a different organizational form
and with different operational characteristics. The application of human
resource, taxation and financial management rules applying to for-profit busi-
nesses may not be appropriate for SE. Many countries already have legislation
that acknowledges social enterprise as distinct organisational character and
alleviates often burdensome requirements that apply to for-profit businesses
• Recognizing social value within government commissioning and procurement
processes
Organisation • Incorporate a clearly articulated social mission into government initiatives
thereby leading by example
• Partnering with SE to deliver tourism services such as visitor information
centres, tour guiding services
• Promote the inclusion of tourism social enterprises within government supply
chains, e.g. catering and event services
• Undertake research and monitoring activities that provide information for better
policy making concerning SE
version of capitalism, it is appropriate, and indeed imperative, that governments

that take action sooner rather than later. This chapter has therefore focused on the
second question in an effort to progress the debate towards action.
The aim of this chapter was to examine the characteristics of supportive insti-
tutional and policy environments for tourism social entrepreneurship. It was based
on the premise that social entrepreneurship does not exist in a vacuum, but is shaped
by institutional rules, routines, structures and cultures over which governments
have some influence. The chapter makes the case that, even though governments do
not possess unilateral power to drive transformational social change, they have
considerable opportunity to create the conditions whereby tourism social
52 D. Dredge
entrepreneurship can flourish. Governments can achieve this by, firstly, developing
policies that support and encourage the development and operation of social
enterprises as part of an inclusive and sustainable tourism system, and secondly,
by creating the institutional conditions that encourage, legitimize and synergize
social entrepreneurship. The chapter offers concrete considerations for policy
makers in terms of making institutional and policy changes, but at the same time
seeks not to take a normative stance with respect to giving particular directives.
Concrete actions need to be derived within context and by recognizing the partic-
ular features and capacities of the local tourism industries, governments, civil
society actors and collectives, and the networks that connect them. Future research
should seek to monitor and evaluate government approaches to tourism social
entrepreneurship with a view to understanding the effects of policy and institutional
conditions on the success of individual social enterprises and on the scaling and
ecologizing of social entrepreneurship into a movement. Such research will be
important in informing future policy and institutional initiatives.
1. Should governments, in whatever capacity they have, pursue social enterprise as
a way of addressing social problems?
2. What factors might limit a government’s capacity to create enabling conditions
for tourism social entrepreneurship? Given examples.
3. Explain the characteristics of an enabling institutional environment for tourism
social entrepreneurship? Given examples.
4. Explain the four categories of policy instruments that might be used to promote
tourism social entrepreneurship. Give examples. What resources might they
require to implement?
References
Allard, J., Davidson, C., & Matthaei, J. (2007). Solidarity economy: Building alternatives for
people and planet. Papers and reports from the 2007 US Social Forum. Social Economy
Network/Changemaker Publications.
Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of
definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, 23(5–6), 373–403.
Biruwa. (2015). About us. Retrieved August 1, 2015, from http://biruwa.net/
Bloom, P. N., & Dees, G. (2008). Cultivate your ecosystem. Stanford Social Innovation Review,
Winter, 47–53.
Bramwell, B. (2005). Interventions and policy instruments for sustainable tourism. In W. F.
Theobald (Ed.), Global tourism (pp. 406–425). Burlington, NC: Elsevier.
Bramwell, B. (2011). Governance, the state and sustainable tourism: a political economy
approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19 vol4/5, 459–477.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2010). Editorial: Sustainable tourism and the evolving roles of
government planning. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 1–5.
Burns, P., & Bibbings, L. (2009). The end of tourism? Climate change and societal challenges.
21st Century Society, 4(1), 31–51.
Butcher, J., & Smith, P. (2015). Volunteer tourism: The lifestyle politics of international devel-
opment. Abingdon: Routledge.
Civil Exchange. (2015). Whose society? The final big society audit. London. Retrieved August
1, 2015, from http://www.civilexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Whose-Society_
The-Final-Big-Society-Audit_final.pdf
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of “social entrepreneurship”. Retrieved August 1, 2015, from http://
csi.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/csi.gsb.stanford.edu/files/TheMeaningofsocialEntrepreneurship.pdf
Dorado, S., & Ventresca, M. (2013). Crescive entrepreneurship in complex social problems:
Institutional conditions for entrepreneurial engagement. Journal of Business Venturing, 28,
69–82.
Dredge, D. (2015). Effective policies for growth—In Progress report annex 1: Short term versus
long term policy approaches. Paris: OECD.
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2007). Tourism planning and policy. Milton, QLD: Wiley.
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. C. (2012). Australian national tourism policy: Influences of reflexive and
political modernization. Tourism Planning and Development, 9(3), 231–251.
Ebrashi, R. (2013). Social entrepreneurship theory and sustainable social impact. Social Respon-
sibility Journal, 9(2), 188–209.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. London: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Oxford: Polity.
Giddens, A. (2000). The third way and its critics. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Giddens, A. (2005). The emergence of life politics. In S. Hier (Ed.), Contemporary sociological
thought: Themes and perspectives (pp. 347–356). Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.
Goodwin, H., & Santilli, R. (2009). Community-based tourism: A success? (International Centre
for Responsible Tourism Occasional Paper 11). Retrieved July 27, 2015, from http://www.
haroldgoodwin.info/uploads/cbtasuccesspubpdf.pdf
Green, B., Johnson, C., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-
reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101–117.
Haakenson, M. (2014). The nature of collaboration between tourism social enterprises and
international funding agencies. Master of Tourism Thesis, Aalborg University, June 2014.
Huggins, R., & Williams, N. (2011). Entrepreneruship and regional competitiveness: The role and
progression of policy. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development: An International Journal,
23(9/10), 907–932.
Jamie Oliver Food Foundation. About fifteen. Retrieved August 1, 2015, from https://www.
jamieoliver.com/the-fifteen-apprentice-programme/about/story
Jones, H. (2013). Entry points for developing tourism in Nepal. What can be done to address
constraints to inclusive growth? London: Overseas Development Institute.
KOTO. (2015). Know One Teach One (KOTO). Retrieved July 30, 2015, from http://www.koto.
com.au/
Lowndes, V., & Roberts, M. (2013). Why institutions matter: The new institutionalism in political
science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
McMullen, J. S. (2011). Delineating the domain of development entrepreneurship: A market-based
approach to facilitating inclusive economic growth. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice,
35(1), 185–193.
Miller, E. (2010). Solidarity economics: Key concepts and issues. In E. Kawano, M. Masterson, &
J. Teller-Ellsberg (Eds.), Solidarity economy: Building alternatives for people and planet.
Amherst, MA: Center for Popular Economics.
Mises, L. (1949). Human action: A treatise on economics. San Francisco, CA: Fox and Wilkes.
Montgomery, W., Dacin, P., & Dacin, M. T. (2012). Collective social entrepreneurship: Collab-
oratively shaping social good. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 375–388.
Morris, M. H. (1998). Entrepreneurial intensity: Sustainable advantages for individuals, organi-
zations and societies. Westport: Quorum Books.
North, P. (2011). Commentary. Geographies and utopias of Cameron’s “big society”. Social and
Cultural Geography, 12(8), 817–827.
54 D. Dredge
NSEF. (2015). Nepal Social Entrepreneurship Foundation. Retrieved July 31, 2015, from http://
nsefoundation.org/
Phi, G. T., Whitford, M., & Dredge, D. (2016). Knowledge dynamics in the tourism-social
entrepreneurship nexus. In P. J. Sheldon & R. Daniele (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship and
tourism. Heidelberg: Springer.
Planeterra. (2014). Two years later: Results from Planeterra & G Adventures’ work with the
Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF). Retrieved August 1, 2015, from http://www.planeterra.
org/blog/years-later-results-planeterra-adventures-work-multilateral-investment-fund-mif
Pollock, A. (2012, September 12). Conscious travel: Signposts towards a new model for tourism.
In 2nd UNWTO Ethics and Tourism Congress. Quito.
Quak, W-J. (2013). Social enterprises: Catalysts of economic transition? The Broker. Retrieved
July 31, 2015, from http://thebrokeronline.eu/Articles/Social-enterprises-catalysts-of-
economic-transition
Quak, E-J. (2014). Building political commitment for the social enterprise: Policy recommenda-
tion. The Broker. Retrieved July 31, 2015, from http://thebrokeronline.eu/Articles/Building-
political-commitment-for-the-social-enterprise
Sadler, D. (2015). Refugees welcome: Inside Melbourne’s social enterprise cafe boom. Retrieved
July 31, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/australia-food-blog/2015/jul/15/
refugees-welcome-inside-melbournes-social-enterprise-cafe-boom
Sapkota, M. (2013). Emerging ethnic movements and contested rural development in Nepal. In
S. R. Sharma, B. R. Upreti, P. Manandhar, & M. Sapkota (Eds.), Contested development in
Nepal: Experiences and reflections (pp. 77–104). Kathmandu: Kathmandu University.
SBS. (2015). How KOTO cooking school is turning Vietnamese street kids into five-star chefs.
Retrieved July 31, 2015, from http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/01/10/how-koto-
cooking-school-turning-vietnam-street-kids-five-star-chefs
Scheyvens, R. (2007). Exploring the tourism-poverty nexus. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(2/3),
231–254.
Scheyvens, R., & Russell, M. (2009). Tourism and poverty reduction in the South Pacific.
Palmerston North, NZ: Massey University.
Scott, R. (2012). Unpacking institutional arguments. In W. Powell & P. Dimaggio (Eds.), The new
institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 164–182). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Séraphin, H., Butler, C., & Vanessa, G. (2013). Entrepreneurship in the tourism sector: A
comparative approach of Haiti, coastal Kenya and Mauritius. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, 11(2), 72–93.
Shockley, G. E., & Frank, P. M. (2011). The functions of government in social entrepreneurship:
Theory and preliminary evidence. Regional Science Policy and Practice, 3(3), 181–198.
Smith, A. (1776). Of restraints upon the importation from foreign countries, Ch. 2. In An inquiry
into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (5th ed.). London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Retrieved July 28, 2015, from http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN13.html#B.IV
Social Enterprise UK. (2013). The people’s business. Social Enterprises UK and Royal Bank of
Scotland.
Stiglitz, J. E. (1991). The invisible hand and modern welfare economics (NBER Working Paper
3641), pp. 1–48.
Tucker, K. (1998). Anthony Giddens and modern social theory. London: SAGE Publications.
UNDP. (2014). Nepal HDI values and rank changes in the 2014 Human Development Report.
Retrieved Accessed August 1, 2015, from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/coun
try-notes/NPL.pdf
Unseen Tours. (2015). About us. Unseen Tours. Retrieved Accessed August 1, 2015, from http://
sockmobevents.org.uk/about-us-2/
Von der Weppen, J., & Cochrane, J. (2012). Social enterprises in tourism: An exploratory study of
operational models and success factors. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(3), 497–511.
Dianne Dredge is Professor in the Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg Univer-
sity, Copenhagen, Denmark. She is Chair of the Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI), a
network of over 500 tourism educators and practitioners. This network believes in the powerful
transformative effects of education and the co-creation of knowledge in building sustainable and
just forms of tourism for the future. Originally trained as an environmental planner, Dianne has
20 years of practical experience working with communities, governments, tourism operators and
NGOs. Her research interests include social entrepreneurship, collaborative governance, tourism
policy, knowledge dynamics and tourism education.
Social Entrepreneurship Typologies
and Tourism: Conceptual Frameworks
Jonathon Day and Makarand Mody
Abstract The chapter examines the ways that social entrepreneurs (SE) and
Socially-Entrepreneurial Organizations (SEO) have been categorized. SEs have
been categorized in terms of their personal traits and character, their organizational
context, their work/leadership style, their motivations and the types of activities
they undertake. SEOs have been categorized by the way they balance their social
mission with revenue generation, the types of social benefits they provide, funding,
and their use of tangible and intangible assets. Each of these typologies can be
effectively applied to tourism. While, the terms SE and SEO are relatively new to
tourism, they are closely linked to established fields of tourism study. Ecotourism,
pro-poor tourism, and community based tourism are all areas of tourism that rely
heavily on the work of SEs and SEOs. The new focus on SEs and SEOs provides
new perspectives for the study of tourism. The chapter concludes by suggesting a
number of typologies for tourism-related SE and SEO studies.
Keywords Typologies • Social entrepreneurship • Sustainability • Social

enterprises
1 Introduction
Tourism is potentially transformative, not only for travelers, but for the communi-
ties to which tourists travel and the organizations that directly and indirectly serve
those visitors. The spending power of tourists, currently over 1.5 trillion dollars for
international travelers (UNWTO, 2015), provides a variety of opportunities for both
traditional entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs to build businesses that create
economic and social value. While aspects of social entrepreneurship have been
addressed in various contexts, including—sustainable tourism, pro-poor tourism,
J. Day (*)
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
M. Mody
Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

58 J. Day and M. Mody
and community-based tourism to name a few—discussion of social entrepreneur-

ship has been limited. This is not surprising given the study of social entrepreneur-
ship and social entrepreneurs is a “fledgling” field of study, but there is opportunity
to further examine the phenomenon. As a foundational component of the study of
social entrepreneurship and tourism, this chapter will examine a number of typol-
ogies of social entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurship and their relationship to
tourism.
Social entrepreneurship has been embraced by many social sector organizations.
Social enterprises are contributing positively to overcoming entrenched social
issues in a variety of settings, from rural to urban locations and from the developing
countries to the most advanced ones. While evidence exists about the effectiveness
of the approach, general agreement on the theoretical foundations to explain the
phenomenon is lacking. If the examination of social entrepreneurship is “young”,
then the examination of social entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurship in tourism
is still in its infancy. Yet there are many individuals and groups using tourism
related enterprises to achieve important social and environmental objectives and
much to learn about this phenomenon. From a tourism perspective, social enter-
prises range from ecotourism lodges like Guludo Beach Lodge in chapter “Guludo
Beach Lodge and the Nema Foundation, Mozambique” to cooperatives providing
organic farm fresh food to urban hotels.
Given the nascent state of the field, examination of how researchers have framed
and categorized social entrepreneurs and their activities is worthwhile. It provides a
useful starting point for deeper examination of the phenomenon and provides
context to the many innovative ways tourism enterprises are utilized to address
social issues. The current chapter applies a broad definition of typology. It is
described as “the study of how things can be can be divided into types; study of
or analysis or classification based on types or categories (“Merriam-Webster.com,”
n.d., p. 360)”. The chapter will examine research that addresses typologies, cate-
gorizations and models to better understand current thinking about the nature of
social entrepreneurship. Understanding the dimensions into which groups can be
categorized provides insight about important characteristics within a group and
shared characteristics between groups within the phenomenon (Woo, Cooper, &
Dunkelberg, 1991). Woo et al. (1991) also noted that typologies and classifications
are developed through both empirical analysis and conceptual formulation; this is
also true in the study of social entrepreneurs and social enterprises. In some cases,
the development of typologies leads to specific theory development (Doty & Glick,
1994) but, at least, one can reasonably propose that “typologies organize existing
knowledge that help explain relationships and guide theory development” (Kirch-
hoff, 1994, p. 422). Such an approach has been important in the development of
business-related topics like strategy, organization, and entrepreneurship more so
than traditional sciences (Woo et al., 1991). The typologies and categorizations
overlap as they examine social entrepreneurship and socially-entrepreneurial orga-
nizations through different frames, deepening one’s understanding of social entre-
preneurship and revealing emergent themes in the current research. While there are
a variety of perspectives on SE and SEO, the extant research is predominantly
Social Entrepreneurship Typologies and Tourism: Conceptual Frameworks 59
presented from the perspective of the social sector. The current chapter examines
models, categorizations and typologies of entrepreneurship, social sector organiza-
tions and SEO. Informed by these foundational studies, the present researchers seek
to better understand Social Entrepreneurial activity in the tourism system.
2 Social + Entrepreneurs
Several commentators on social entrepreneurship (Dees, 2001; Martin & Osberg,

2007a; Peredo & McLean, 2006) have noted that understanding social entrepre-
neurship requires an understanding of entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship and the
“social sector”. Indeed, research in the field tends to be addressed either through
the framework of the social sector or from the perspective of entrepreneurial
studies. Thus the present researchers will begin by addressing these topics—
entrepreneurship and the social sector—separately before examining social entre-
preneurship as a holistic concept.
2.1 Typologies of Entrepreneurs
In addressing typologies of social entrepreneurs (SE) one must consider the typol-
ogies applied to entrepreneurs. Although a relatively new field, the study of
entrepreneurship has established itself in the extant literature; entrepreneurial
studies have become staples of business schools around the world. Several seminal
concepts lay the foundation for discussion of entrepreneurship. Jean Baptiste
Say proposed that entrepreneurs “create value” (Dees, 2001; Martin & Osberg,
2007a) and Joseph Schumpeter described entrepreneurs as change agents and
innovators engaged in “creative-destruction” that reforms and revolutionizes
production (Martin & Osberg, 2007a). In addition, Zahra, Gedajlovic,
Neubaum, and Shulman (2009) suggested that Hayek’s work highlighting “the
critical role of private, local knowledge” (p. 523) and Kirzner’s concept that entrepre-
neurial opportunity is the result of the entrepreneurs’ “alertness to opportunities”
(p. 525) helped lay the framework for research about entrepreneurship.
While many typologies of entrepreneurs have been developed, Dincer, Yildirim,
and Dil (2011) proposed that most typologies identify two or three primary types of
entrepreneurs. Even though each study applied slightly different criteria to the catego-
ries they describe, a general theme emerges (Woo et al., 1991). Two general types of
entrepreneur, “craftsmen” and “opportunists”, can be identified across a wide range of
sources. Many such typologies have additional categories, beyond craftsmen and
opportunists, and it is clear that few researchers consider that the two common
descriptors capture the full range of entrepreneurs. For instance, Dincer et al. (2011)
recognized the importance of autonomy to many entrepreneurs and applied third
category of “independence-oriented” entrepreneurs. Dincer et al’s descriptions
of “types” of entrepreneurs are indicative of this stream of research and

includes:
• Growth-oriented Entrepreneurs, driven by desire for substantial growth in a
relatively short period.
• Craftsman-oriented, drawn to a particular type of business, and
• Independence-oriented Entrepreneurs, driven by the desire to work for them-
selves—and not for others (Dincer et al., 2011, p. 603)
In tourism, examples of these types of entrepreneurs are readily identified. In
recent years in tourism, as in other industries, growth oriented entrepreneurs are
exemplified by the founders of technology-related start-ups that grow quickly.
Craftsmen-oriented entrepreneurs also are common. An example of this type of
entrepreneur is the seasoned hotelier who establishes a new hotel management
group to take advantage of a specific market opportunity. In addition, tourism has a
tendency to attract many independence-oriented entrepreneurs, the majority of
whom choose businesses that are compatible with lifestyle choices. While devel-
oped to explain entrepreneurship in the “for-profit” realm, these types of entrepre-
neurs can be recognized in the social sector. Classifications such as these provide a
foundation for more specific typologies of social entrepreneurs that will be
discussed later in the chapter.
2.2 Organizations in the Social Sector
While useful to consider social entrepreneurship from the context of entrepreneurial

studies, a review of social entrepreneurship from the perspective of the social sector
is worthwhile. Several authors (Abu-Saifan, 2012; Martin & Osberg, 2007b)
emphasized the importance of identifying boundaries for organizations identified
as “socially entrepreneurial” within the social sector. In the field of social engage-
ment, social entrepreneurship is argued to be only one of a variety of responses
available to motivated citizens. Martin and Osberg (2007a) identified three “pure”
forms of social engagement and placed social entrepreneurs into a framework that
examines a variety of actors seeking to improve the world. Their three forms of
social engagement are Social Entrepreneurship; Social Service Provision (limited
in scope and reliant on external funding) and Social Activism (focused on influenc-
ing systems to achieve social goals). Social Entrepreneurship is perceived as
distinct from both Social Service Provision and Social Activism, characterized by
both direct action and creation of new and sustained ways of addressing social
issues to achieve a new “equilibrium” (Martin & Osberg, 2007a) in the delivery of
these services. See Fig. 1. While useful in conceptualizing different domains of the
social sector, there is considerable overlap of these categories; social service pro-
viders and social activists can act in a socially entrepreneurial manner.
From this foundation based on two concepts, addressing social issues and
undertaking entrepreneurial activity, the present researchers will examine SEOs
Fig. 1 Martin and Osgood’s pure forms of social engagement. Source: Martin & Osberg (2007a,
p. 38)
and identify ways that social entrepreneurship has been categorized into the larger
realm social-mission driven organizations.
3 Social Entrepreneurs
Dees (2001) noted “the idea of ‘social entrepreneurship’ has struck a responsive
chord. . .It combines the passion of a social mission with an image of business-like
discipline, innovation, and determination commonly associated with, for instance,
the high-tech pioneers of Silicon Valley” (p. 1). Social entrepreneurship can be
viewed as an emerging movement; and like many movements, it has proponents
advocating the adoption of the principles of social entrepreneurship. Organizations
like the Skoll Foundation, Ashoka, Kauffman Foundation, and Unlimited promote
social entrepreneurship. Important protagonists, like Nobel Prize winner
Muhammed Yunus and Jeffrey Skoll, extoll the virtues of the approach. These
current proponents of social entrepreneurship tend to focus their attention on high
impact, scalable enterprises, exemplified by the Yunus’ Grameen Bank. Martin and
Osberg (2015) exhorted the importance of SEs developing systems that can be
brought to scale and contribute impact beyond the initial context in which they were
developed. Attention to these types of organizations is analogous to focus on high
growth entrepreneurial companies, often high-technology start-ups common in
traditional entrepreneur studies. Just as the focus on high growth entrepreneurial
companies fails to address the full scope of traditional entrepreneurial activity,
scalable, high impact socially entrepreneurial organizations are not the only type of
enterprises being developed by social entrepreneurs. Also, to date, with a few
exceptions like Paredo and McLean (2006), there has been little critique of social
entrepreneurial activity. It is within this context that the current chapter examines
several approaches to categorizing SEs and SEOs.
3.1 Characteristics of Social Entrepreneurs
SEs are often described in terms of their behaviors and personal characteristics. The
proponents of such an approach tend to frame social entrepreneurs in glowing
terms. For instance, Abu-Saifan stated that “Social entrepreneurs create social
value and initiate social change through commitment, innovation, vision and
change leadership” (Abu-Saifan, 2012). Dees (2001) called them a “rare breed”.
Like entrepreneurship, which is often discussed in terms of “the heroic individual”,
emphasis in social entrepreneurial studies focuses on the individual. Thus, like the
previous studies of leadership and entrepreneurship, researchers have categorized
Social Entrepreneurship by its practitioners’ personal characteristics and behaviors.
For example, Abu-Saifan (2012) compared and contrasted SEs with traditional
profit-oriented entrepreneur, finding shared characteristics as well as unique traits.
Focus on the individual and personal traits is important because, as long as the
process of identification and categorization of SEs remains imprecise and open to
interpretation, individuals will self-identify as SEs based on their perceived match
with these characteristics. See Table 1.
Table 1 Abu-Saifan’s Unique and Common Characteristics of profit-oriented entrepreneurs and

social entrepreneurs
Unique characteristics of profit- Characteristics common Unique characteristics of
oriented entrepreneurs to both types social entrepreneurs
• High achiever • Innovator • Mission leader
• Risk bearer • Dedicated • Emotionally charged
• Organizer • Initiative taker • Change agent
• Strategic thinker • Leader • Opinion leader
• Value creator • Opportunity alert • Social value creator
• Holistic • Persistent • Socially alert
• Arbitrageur • Committed • Manager
• Visionary
• Highly accountable
Source: Abu-Saifan (2012, p. 25)
3.2 Social Entrepreneurs, Social Intrepreneurs, and Socially

Responsible Entrepreneurs
Focus on personal characteristics allows a broader interpretation of “social entre-

preneurs” and where they operate. Just as it is suggested that some managers in
traditional organizations develop “an entrepreneurial mindset”, one can be argue
that there is a “social entrepreneurial mindset”: social entrepreneurs approach
challenges based on a variety of factors and find unique solutions. From such a
perspective, social entrepreneurial behavior and approaches can take place both
within traditional businesses and in organizations that have been established as
social enterprises by the social entrepreneur. As such, people with “socially entre-
preneurial mindsets” are categorized. Social Entrepreneurs establish new organi-
zations, described in this chapter as social enterprises or socially entrepreneurial
enterprises, to achieve social goals. “Social Intrepreneurs” work as change agents
within companies, applying socially entrepreneurial behaviors to achieve solutions
to social and environmental problems (The Social Intrapreneur: A Field Guide for
Corporate Changemakers). While the current chapter focuses on Social Entrepre-
neurs, the role of social intrapreneurs should not be overlooked. Social
Intrepreneurs, applying entrepreneurial innovation to address social challenges
and drive corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs within traditional com-
panies, are significant. A third distinct group of entrepreneurs concerned with social
issues are Socially Responsible Entrepreneurs. Crnogaj, Rebernik, Hojnik, and
Gomezelj (2014) identified socially responsible entrepreneurs as a distinct group
of entrepreneurs, separate from social entrepreneurs per se and posit that destina-
tions seeking to achieve sustainable tourism goals needs entrepreneurs who show
concern for triple bottom line issues.
In tourism, the role of personal traits and behaviors, including passion for
specific social and environmental issues, and the influence of those individuals on
businesses’ adoption of socially responsible action is evident. From corporate
founders who adopt socially responsible positions to hotel general managers finding
entrepreneurial ways to address social issues to entry level managers creating
grassroots social or environmental projects, social intrapreneurs have driven
‘green’ and “social” advances in the industry. One should note that the focus on
personal characteristics can be superficial and reality is frequently far more
nuanced. The insights provided by Tourism SEs, Gopinath Parayil of Blue Yonder,
and Inir Pinheiro of Grassroutes (Chapter “Heroic Messiahs or Everyday Business-
men? The Rhetoric and the Reality of Social Entrepreneurship in India”), shed light
on the rhetoric associated with “heroic” social entrepreneurs.
3.3 Are Social Entrepreneurs Solitary Actors or Team

Players?
While much of the analysis tends to describe social entrepreneurs as individual

leaders, personally driven for change and working alone to create new organiza-
tions and institutions, that only tells part of the story. The focus on sole actors, while
appealing, may be somewhat misleading. Spear (2006) observed that Social Entre-
preneurship often takes place as a team based activity—as opposed to the “heroic
individual”. He identified “distributed entrepreneurship” as a team based approach
to Socially Entrepreneurial work. Social Entrepreneurs can be categorized by an
approach along a continuum from “sole-actor entrepreneur” through “distributed
entrepreneur.” Spear’s (2006) observations were echoed by Peredo and McLean
(2006) who state that to be a “social entrepreneur may therefore mean being an
individual, a member of a group, or an organization who/which carries out the work
of identifying and creatively pursuing a social goal” (p. 64).
That groups and organizations can adopt a “socially entrepreneurial mindset” is
particularly important to tourism. As noted in chapter “Social Enterprise Ecosys-
tems: A Case Study of the Danube Delta region of Romania”, tourism is a system
and socially entrepreneurial tourism experiences are often delivered by multiple
organizations cooperating in networks. Community-based tourism, such as
described in chapter “Walking on Country with Bana Yarralji Bubu: A Model for
Aboriginal Social Enterprise Tourism”, rely on distributed entrepreneurship.
Indeed, given the networked nature of the tourism system, it is common for groups
of social entrepreneurs to join together to address social needs. See Fig. 2.
3.4 Social Bricoleurs, Social Constructionists and Social

Engineers
Building on the pioneering entrepreneurial research of Hayak, Kirzner and

Schumpter discussed earlier, Zahra et al. (2009) proposed a typology of social
entrepreneurs that includes three categories—Social Bricoleurs, Social Construc-
tionists, and Social Engineers. Social Bricoleurs are described as entrepreneurs who
“perceive and act upon opportunities to address local social needs” (Zahra et al.,
2009, p. 523). By definition, bricoleurs use what is “at hand”, in this case, to address
Sole-Actor Entrepreneur Distributed Entrepreneur
Individual Behaviors Team work
Fig. 2 Work styles of social entrepreneurs

social issues. Social Bricoluers tend to work on a small scale with a limited, often
local scope.
Many SEOs in tourism can be categorized as Social Bricoleurs. Tourism orga-
nizations, particularly organizations within the destination system, tend to be
smaller scale and place-based. Their ability to impact socially issues tends to be
local. Mody and Day (2014) noted that two social entrepreneurs, Gopinath Parayil
of Blue Yonder and Inir Pinheiro of Grassroutes, could be categorized as “Social
Bricoluers”. Both Social Entrepreneurs utilize resources at hand to achieve their
social objectives. The SEs behind The Bana Yarralji Babu “Walking on Country”
initiative (Chapter “Walking on Country with Bana Yarralji Bubu: A Model for
Aboriginal Social Enterprise Tourism”), the Galudo Beach Lodge
(Chapter “Guludo Beach Lodge and the Nema Foundation, Mozambique”) and
the Juhu Guest House (Chapter “The Influence of Social Entrepreneurship in
Tourism on an Arab village in Israel”) could each be described as Social Bricoleurs.
The second type of social entrepreneur identified by Zahra et al. are Social
Constructionists, social entrepreneurs who “build and operate alternative structures
to provide goods and services addressing social needs that governments, agencies,
and businesses cannot”(Zahra et al., 2009, p. 523). These social entrepreneurs
“build, launch and operate ventures which tackle social needs that are inadequately
addressed by existing institutions, businesses, NGOs and government agencies”
(Zahra et al., 2009, p. 525). These organizations can range in size from small to
large scale and can be local, regional, or international. Social constructionists use
the entrepreneurs’ ability to identify opportunities to create new ways of addressing
social challenges. While traditional entrepreneurs exploit market opportunity for
profit, Zahra suggested social constructionist entrepreneurs create “social wealth”,
build capacity, and create networks of knowledge to overcome market failures. As
an example, Acumen (Formerly Acumen Fund) has created a business model which
acts as an arbitrageur of knowledge and brings together knowledge, skills and
resources from two different locations to solve widespread but specific problems.
Acumen works within the current system to overcome inefficiencies and market
failures. It addresses social issues, such as poverty, through loans and investments
to local organizations tackling these issues; it does not provide charity or grants to
these organizations. “Social constructionist” entrepreneurs overcome market fail-
ure through new approaches not previously explored.
Perhaps a little more difficult to identify are examples of social constructionists
in tourism. Nevertheless, with his goal of “franchising” the Blue Yonder approach,
it could be argued that Gopi in chapter “Heroic Messiahs or Everyday Business-
men? The Rhetoric and the Reality of Social Entrepreneurship in India” is taking a
social constructionist approach to his enterprise. Similarly, like Acumen, the
Borneo Ecotourism Solutions and Technologies (BEST) Society in chapter “The
BEST Society: From Charity to Social Entrepreneurship” is applying expertise
from a variety of contexts to support tourism businesses and development in areas
that lack expertise in order to improve the lives of the individuals in those
destinations.
The third type of social entrepreneur in this typology is Social Engineers. Social
Engineers, as defined by Zahra, seek to develop newer, more effective social
systems designed to replace existing systems (Zahra et al., 2009). Social engineers
tend to work on large scale projects that are either national or international in scope.
These can be considered “disruptive” enterprises. These social entrepreneurs seek
to change the system itself or, as Yunus, Moingeon, and Lehman-Ortega (2010)
stated, “challenge conventional wisdom” (p. 314) and “reinvent the rules of the
game” (p. 314). While one could argue that some disruption of business models,
such as those associated with the sharing economy (AirBnB) create positive social
outcomes, the original intent of most these organizations was not to address social
issues. Perhaps the dearth of these disruptive social enterprises in tourism has
resulted in the apparent lack of attention to social entrepreneurs in the tourism
sector.
4 Organizations That Social Entrepreneurs Create
Although social entrepreneurship is in its infancy, discussion of the role of business

in addressing social issues has been an important topic in management studies for
over a century. In recent years, discussion has moved from a classical economic
perspective in which companies are responsible for maximizing profit, as advocated
by economists such as Milton Friedman (1970), to a more socio-economic perspec-
tive. Robbins and Coulter (2012) described the socio-economic perspective in terms
of companies that are socially responsive, addressing stakeholder demands or
socially responsive and taking a proactive approach to social issues (see Fig. 3).
To this continuum, the present authors propose that “Socially-Entrepreneurial
Organizations” companies set up specifically to address social issues is an appro-
priate addition. Social entrepreneurs operate within organizations and organizations
have a variety of responses to social issues. Traditionally, as proposed, these
responses range from merely meeting legal obligations to social responsiveness
and social responsibility (Wartick & Cohran, 1985). The introduction of socially-
entrepreneurial organizations (SEO) extends this model to organizations developed
Socially -
Social Obligation Socially Responsive Socially Responsible Entrepreneurial
Organizations
Adapted from Robbins and Coulter (2012)
Fig. 3 Continuum of corporate response to social issues. Adapted from Robbins and Coulter
(2012)
specifically to address social issues. These categorizations are applicable to both

established companies and new ventures.
While there is now greater public expectation that companies will be involved in
social issues, one must note that some of the greatest philanthropic institutions have
been established by capitalists operating under the classical economic notion that
the sole responsibility of the company should be to generate profit which the
enterprise distributes to owners to be distributed as they see fit. The Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, established by Microsoft Founder Bill Gates, is a
contemporary example of such an organization.
4.1 Balancing Social Mission with the Profit Imperative
By definition, social entrepreneurs must balance social goals with the need to
generate revenues. Social Enterprise programs often have the goal to “both solve
big societal problems and demonstrate revenue sustainability” (Thompson & Mac-
Millan, 2010, p. 292). This is not as easy as it sounds as many social issues are
intractable. Indeed, Thompson and MacMillan (2010) argued that “if the problem
were tractable, some profit seeking enterprise would be making profits from
resolving it” (p. 292). Nevertheless, at the heart of the “social entrepreneur” concept
is the notion that social problems can be solved through the adoption of business
principles including productivity and operational effectiveness. As Mair, Battilana,
and Cardenas (2012) noted “SEOs. . .distinguish themselves from the larger popu-
lation of organizations addressing social issues through their declared attachment to
do so effectively and efficiently” (p. 363). The balancing of these dual goals—
social good and generating revenue/profit—is an ongoing theme of research
concerning social entrepreneurship (Certo & Miller, 2008; Puia & Jaber, 2012;
Tan, Williams, & Tan, 2005). The focus on social mission is a predominant theme
in analysis of social entrepreneurial motivation (Austin, Stevenson, &
Wei-Skillern, 2006; Seelos & Mair, 2005). The approaches to categorizing ways
SEOs balance social and economic goals are exemplified by models presented by
Peredo and McLean (2006), Neck, Brush, and Allen (2009) and Tan et al. (2005).
Peredo and McLean (2006) provided a useful analysis of social entrepreneurship
addressing the place of social goals and the role of commercial exchange to the
organization. See Table 2.
Santos (2012) examined the issue of balancing profit and mission in terms of two
strategic approaches: value creation and value appropriation. Santos notes there is
often a trade-off between creating value and creating social value that can be
captured by the social entrepreneur in profit and advocates the importance of
strategic clarity in choosing between these business models. Examining this issue
from the SE’s perspective, Volkmann, Tokarski, and Ernst (2012) note that social
entrepreneurship frequently does not provide much opportunity for value capture
and appropriation. The challenge of managing the trade-off between value creation
and value appropriation is also evident where SE use one SEO to fund another
Table 2 Peredo and Mclean’s range of social entrepreneurship

Place of social goals Role of commercial exchange Example
Enterprise goals are exclusively No commercial exchange Non-government
social organizations
Enterprise goals are exclusively Some commercial exchange, any Grameen Bank,
social profits directly benefit social benefit Newman’s Own
(integrated) or in support of
enterprise (complementary)
Enterprise goals are chiefly social Commercial exchange, profits in Nissouri Home
but not exclusively part to benefit entrepreneur and/or Care, Ciudad
supporters Salad
Social goals are prominent among Commercial exchange: profit making Ben and Jerry’s
other goals in the enterprise to entrepreneur & others is strong
objective
Social goals are among other goals Commercial exchange; profit “Cause-Branding”;
in the enterprise; but subordinate to making to entrepreneur and others CSR
others is prominent or prime objective
Source: Peredo and McLean (2006, p. 63)
organization designed to meet social objectives. Adventure Alternative/Moving

Mountains (Chapter “Adventure Alternative and Moving Mountains Trust: A
Hybrid Business Model for Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism”) and the Guludo
Beach Lodge and the Nema Foundations (Chapter “Guludo Beach Lodge and the
Nema Foundation, Mozambique”) are examples of these paired SEOs.
Neck et al. (2009) addressed the same issue and approached social entrepreneur-
ship from the perspective of entrepreneurial ventures (see Fig. 4). Their typology
uses two dimensions—venture mission and primary market impact—and examines
them on a continuum from economic to social impacts. Venture mission is defined
as the purpose of the organization and explores whether the organization’s mission
is primarily profit-driven or social-benefit driven. Primary Market Impact can be
defined as the outcomes of the organization for society.
The result is four types of entrepreneurial ventures:
• Traditional Ventures: Organizations primarily focused on economic mission
with profits as the primary market outcome;
• Social Purpose: Organizations that recognize that a social problem will be solved
but the primary mission is economic;
• Social Consequence: Organizations similar to traditional businesses but many of
their activities have positive social consequences through practicing CSR; and
• Enterprising Non-Profits: Organizations that have earned income activities
which they apply to their social mission.
Perhaps most useful is Neck et al.’s (2009) recognition that many organizations
adopt hybrids of these general structures. Also Tan et al. (2005) proposed a
continuum of social entrepreneurship that extends from a focus on social concerns
to organizations that mix social and revenue goals. Their categories capture a
Fig. 4 Neck, Brish and Allen’s venture typology. Source: Neck et al. (2009, p. 15)
different set of organization types and include community-based enterprises,

socially responsible enterprises, social service industry professionals, and socio-
economic or dualistic enterprises. In some ways, these models recognize the
distinction between socially responsible entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs concerned
about developing companies that adopt socially responsible positions, and social
entrepreneurs.
Much of the literature on social entrepreneurial activity addresses the issue from
both a social and non-profit perspective. A review of literature on social entrepre-
neurship reveals a substantial focus on social issues. Neck et al. (2009) proposed
that both environmental and social issues provide opportunities for social entrepre-
neurs. As such, SEOs could be seen as addressing issues associated with all aspects
of the triple-bottom line, economic, social and/or environmental issues (Elkington,
1997) as opposed to only social/economic issues. Broadening the frame in this way
reveals that extant literature treats green entrepreneurs quite differently from
entrepreneurs seeking address issues related to social causes. While examination
of the SEO from the perspective of social issues reveals a broad continuum of
organizations,—some of which are concerned only for revenue to reinvest in the
social mission of the enterprise—from the perspective of “green” entrepreneurs the
expectation is that profits will be directed to the entrepreneur.
In their study of green entrepreneurs, Walley and Taylor (2002) focused on
entrepreneurial businesses established with a green or environmental purpose.
While environmental issues fall within the general framework of social good,
Walley and Taylor (2002) assumed that the entrepreneurs in this field are driven
largely by profit. Using two continuums, one of personal factors (social/economic
orientation of the entrepreneur) and the other of structural influences perceived by
the entrepreneur, Walley and Taylor identified the following four types of environ-
mental entrepreneur:
• Ad hoc “Environpreneur”: This type of entrepreneur is driven by financial rather
than ideological factors. He or she sees an opportunity that happens to be
“green” and pursues it;
• Innovative Opportunist: The innovative opportunist identifies specific opportu-
nities in niche markets;
• Ethical Maverick: The entrepreneur is motivated by networks and experiences to
operate “alternative-style businesses on the fringes of society” (Walley &
Taylor, 2002, p. 40); and
• Visionary Champion: He or she is described by Walley and Taylor as a “cham-
pion of sustainability (who) sets out to change the world, operates at the leading
edge and has a vision of a sustainable future that envisages hard structural
change” (Walley & Taylor, 2002, p. 40).
The challenge of balancing social and economic/profit related goals as indicated
in these typologies is evident in several of the SEO’s in this book. Gopi Parayil of
Blue Yonder and Inir Pinheiro of Grassroutes (Chapter “Heroic Messiahs or
Everyday Businessmen? The Rhetoric and the Reality of Social Entrepreneurship
in India”) express the challenge of balancing their desires for social good with their
need to “earn a living”. The Bana Yarralji Bubu people (Chapter “Walking on
Country with Bana Yarralji Bubu: A Model for Aboriginal Social Enterprise
Tourism”) explicitly balance goals associated economic benefit, Society and Cul-
ture, Well-being and Nature, in the operation of their SEO with a culturally
appropriate governance structure. The typologies in this section outline the broad
range of types of organizations that balance social mission with profit-making
goals. One key conclusion derived from this analysis is that there is no single
approach to creating and operating a SEO. Tourism SEOs, like counterparts in other
sectors, adopt or develop a wide variety of structures and approaches to meet their
mission and goals.
4.2 Typologies of Funding for Social Entrepreneurship
Funding is a critical issue for social entrepreneurs as access to funds is different

from sources available to traditional for-profit businesses. Austin et al. (2006) noted
that social entrepreneurs face greater constraints in raising and mobilizing funds.
One approach to categorizing social entrepreneurial activity is through analysis of
their funding approaches. Puia and Jaber (2012) proposed a taxonomy (Table 3)
based on four sources of financial capital. The taxonomy implicitly recognizes that
social entrepreneurs sometimes work within existing companies and that seeking
funding from donors, foundations and venture philanthropists is an inherently
entrepreneurial activity. Several foundations, including the Schwab Foundation
and Ashoka, have committed to the promotion and development of SEO by
Table 3 Puia and Jaber’s taxonomy of sources of capital for social entrepreneurs
Type of social entrepreneur Source of capital Example
NFP seeking avant-garde funding Partnerships with for-profit firms Bono’s Red
Sales of products and services (often Tom’s Shoes
at above market rates)
Socially responsible practices of Angel funds, venture capital, capital Amex
commercial business markets
Social activist movement Foundations, donors, venture International
philanthropists fellowship
Source: Puia and Jaber (2012, p. 18)
providing seed funding and extended networks of supporters (Seelos & Mair,
2005).
While there is little research on funding of tourism related SEOs, it seems likely
that many receive seed funding from their founders or individual angel investors
and fund their operations through sales of tourism products and services. Blue
Yonder and Grassroutes (Chapter “Heroic Messiahs or Everyday Businessmen?
The Rhetoric and the Reality of Social Entrepreneurship in India”), Romania
(Chapter “Social Enterprise Ecosystems: A Case Study of the Danube Delta region
of Romania”), and Guludo Beach Lodge (Chapter “Guludo Beach Lodge and the
Nema Foundation, Mozambique”) are examples of this approach. Additionally
there is evidence that donations from socially concerned individuals provide sup-
plemental funding for some tourism SEOs. An important development is the growth
of incubators and other support organizations for tourism-related organizations. An
example of such an organization is BEST (Chapter “The BEST Society: From
Charity to Social Entrepreneurship”), which provides seed funding and other
training for tourism organizations in their region. Crowd-funding is becoming an
important source of funding for SEs to start or grow their SEOs. In chapter
“Adventure Alternative and Moving Mountains Trust: A Hybrid Business Model
for Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism” funds for Juha’s Guesthouse initial reno-
vation were raised through an Israeli crowd-funding website.
4.3 Social Entrepreneurs’ Use of Capitals- Political, Human,

Economic and Social
While traditional financial capital is critical to the success of SEOs, it is not their
only assets. Social entrepreneurs can be categorized by how they use different
forms of capital to achieve their social goals. Mair et al. (2012) found that social
entrepreneurs could be categorized by their use of capital, in this case—“a gener-
alized resource”—to achieve social change. In this typology Mair et al. (2012)
found four ways by which SEOs use their capital:
• Political Capital: Refers to “citizen’s endowment, empowerment and political

identity” (Mair et al., 2012, p. 360). These enterprises mobilize groups to
leverage political and legal opportunities.
• Human Capital: Refers to “individual knowledge, skills and acquired expertise”
(Mair et al., 2012, p. 361);
• Economic Capital: Refers to “money and other material resources” (Mair et al.,
2012, p. 361) This activity includes micro-financing and support of business
development; and
• Social Capital: Refers to the ability of SE to stimulate civic engagement by bring
together different groups to stimulate social change. It refers to “networks of
relationships through which individuals can mobilize power and resources”
(Mair et al., 2012, p. 361).
As expected, Social entrepreneur’s effective use of a variety of assets is evident
in many tourism SEOs. Adventure Alternative/Moving Mountains
(Chapter “Adventure Alternative and Moving Mountains Trust: A Hybrid Business
Model for Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism”) leverages the social capital created
during transformative experiences in Nepal or Kenya to seek support for specific
issues long after the traveler has completed their trip. The social benefits realized in
the Mexican town of Alamos, described in chapter “The BEST Society: From
Charity to Social Entrepreneurship”, rely heavily on the social capital. BEST
leverages its human capital to support ecotourism development in Borneo.
4.4 Degrees of Social Entrepreneurship
While social enterprises are often considered holistically, it is possible to look

within the operations of the organization to understand the levels of entrepreneurial
activity in the delivery of the social mission. Parente, Lopes, and Marcos (2014)
developed a series of profiles based on measures of social entrepreneurial activity in
a series of business functions including funding, HR management, volunteer man-
agement, work organization, and planning. Using these dimensions, Parente
et al. (2014) categorized NFPs into three categories of orientation to social entre-
preneurship: high, medium and low. The approach recognizes that even organiza-
tions established for SE purposes may apply the principles of SE at different levels
across functions within the organization.
5 Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism
Entrepreneurship is considered by some academics as an overlooked area of study

in tourism (Koh & Hatten, 2002). The role of social entrepreneurship in the tourism
system is a relatively new field of study. To date, the few articles that specifically
address social entrepreneurism have focused on case studies of specific social

enterprises or social entrepreneurs (Bellows, 2012; Sloan, Legrand, & Simons-
Kaufmann, 2014). While little research has addressed social entrepreneurs in the
realm of tourism, many studies address the topic implicitly. For example, Su,
Wang, and Wen (2013) examined the importance of socially-concerned entrepre-
neurial behavior in destination development. Tourism entrepreneurship has been
identified as a means of eliminating or ameliorating some social issues such as
poverty (Truong, 2013), in some locations. Community-based tourism and rural
tourism studies frequently also include issues of new business development with
concern for community, social, and environmental issues.
5.1 New Ways of Categorizing Social Entrepreneurship

in Tourism
The current chapter identifies a number of ways in which social entrepreneurship

has been categorized in recent years. One must note that, to date, there is little
extant research specifically examining the role of social entrepreneurship in tourism
and hospitality. However, although not specifically addressing social entrepreneur-
ship, there are a number of established fields of tourism research that address SEs
and SEOs. For example, ecotourism, community-based tourism, and pro-poor
tourism are often undertaken by SEOs. While reviewing the approaches of catego-
rizations and typologies presented by social sector and entrepreneurial studies is
useful, approaching SE and SEO from the perspective of tourism studies is appro-
priate and the current researchers propose several possible categorizations.
5.2 Tourism Value Chain and Tourism Supply Chain

Typologies
Tourism is conceptualized as a complex system (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005;

Mill & Morrison, 2002) with many organizations within the system working in
concert to provide tourists with products and services. SEO and for-profit organi-
zations are some of the many components of the system providing a variety of
products and services that generate value for the consumer. Value is measured “by
the amount buyers are willing to pay for a product or service” (Porter & Millar,
1985, p. 150) and each organization undertakes a series of activities, described as a
“value chain”, that create that value. Value chains are embedded in a larger
“stream” of activities that Porter and Millar describe as a “value system”. For
instance, the value system for tourism includes the value chain of travel providers,
destination system members and the consumers themselves. Tourism value chain/
stem analysis has been used effectively in the past (Mojic, 2012; Song, Liu, &
Suppliers to Tourism
Experiences Providers of Tourism Experience Intermediaries of the Tourism
Examples: Examples: Experience
•Organic Farming Collectives supplying •Tourism Experience provided by SEO Examples:
food to "farm to Table" dining •Some community based tourism •Tour Wholesalers/Specialty Travel
•Authentic Souvenirs from local Agents selling SE product for Social
artisans Benefit
Fig. 5 Categorizing SEOs by contribution to the tourism value chain/system
Chen, 2013) and, to take the firsts steps toward understanding the role of SEO in the
tourism system, the present researchers propose a useful typology based on the
SEO’s role in the tourism value chain/system (Fig. 5).We anticipate that social
entrepreneurs, recognizing the market potential of tourists, have developed social
enterprises at each stage of the value chain, creating businesses that supply tourism
and hospitality organizations with food, souvenirs, and other products, social
enterprises that host and create valuable experiences for guests, and social enter-
prises that create value by bundling unique products, services and experiences. A
typology of the SEO within the tourism value chain would provide a new perspec-
tive on the ability of the tourism system to deliver positive contributions to society.
Supply-chain analysis provides a similar opportunity for categorizing SEOs.
Supply chain analysis has been successfully applied to tourism in a variety of
contexts (Zhang, Song, & Huang, 2009), including examination of sustainability
issues (Font, Tapper, Schwartz, & Kornilaki, 2008; Sigala, 2008). A supply-chain
typology may include SEOs providing products and services to tourism organiza-
tions and organizations receiving supplies from tourism organizations.
5.3 Source of Social Benefit
As noted earlier, the challenge of balancing mission with the needs for profit is an
ongoing theme in research on the SEO. However, at least in tourism-related SEOs,
this issue has additional dimensions. Social value can be created in both the
production of the tourism experience and the use of earnings created by the sale
of the tourism experience. In some cases, the tourism organizations achieve their
mission through the direct activities of providing the tourism experience. Through
Fig. 6 Sources of social

benefit
Social Benefit Social Benefit

generated by from tourism
tourism operations
operation revenues
careful use of a variety of techniques, including supply chain management (sourc-

ing local and authentic products), human resource management (hiring and training
local people), and environmental performance management, they create sustainable
tourism businesses that generate social benefits. Other social organizations focus
less on the benefit generated as a result of operation and more on the financial
benefits that are used for other social benefits. The proposed typology applies the
value creation/value capture (Santos, 2012) model to the tourism and allows
researchers to examine tourism SEOs in terms of the social benefits generated by
the operation itself and those that are generated by outputs of the operation. See
Fig. 6.
Examination of social entrepreneurial activity in tourism reveals that categoriz-
ing social entrepreneurial activity based on network size may be useful. Current
typologies identified so far in this chapter tend to focus on individual organizations;
however, social entrepreneurship also can be considered in terms of tourism
systems and networks. Community based tourism, such as the Bana Yarralji
Bubu in chapter “Walking on Country with Bana Yarralji Bubu: A Model for
Aboriginal Social Enterprise Tourism”, clearly apply “socially-entrepreneurial
mindsets” beyond a single organization.
5.4 Socio-Economic Context
Finally, one suggested way of categorizing social enterprises in tourism is through

the social/economic context in which the organization operates. Dimensions of
such a categorization may include urban or rural context, as well as developed or
developing economies. See Fig. 7. While all SEOs share common attributes,
exploring differences created by social context would provide useful insight.
Using this typology, organic cooperative farms supplying London hotels (devel-
oped/urban) and handicraft souvenir suppliers to remote eco-lodges of Indonesia
could be directly compared.
Urban Rural
Developed Economies
Developing Economies
Fig. 7 Socio/economic context of SEO
6 Conclusion
Social Entrepreneurship is emerging as an effective means to address social and

environmental challenges in a financially sustainable manner. Social entrepreneurs,
recognizing the market opportunities provided by tourism, use tourism-related
activities to fulfill their social and financial goals. As a new field, research themes
and approaches are emerging, and examination of the categorizations and typolo-
gies of social entrepreneurs and SEOs provide useful insights. The current review
found that existing conceptual models are based on social entrepreneurs themselves
and the organizations they create.
Social entrepreneurs are categorized along a variety of dimensions in the extant
literature. Those dimensions include:
• Personal characteristics/traits;
• Organizational context: Social entrepreneurs, social intrepreneurs and socially
responsible entrepreneurs;
• Work/Leadership style: solitary actors or team players (distributed entrepreneur-
ship); and
• Motivations, ventures and types of activity: social bricoleurs, social construc-
tionists and social engineers.
Social-Entrepreneurial Organizations (SEO) have been examined in various

ways. Organizations can be categorized in a range of ways from organizational
context to the degree in which they embrace SE principles and practices. Typolo-
gies examined in this chapter include:
• Organizational context for SE;
• Mission balance models;
– Range of social entrepreneurship
– Venture typology
• Benefit focus: social, environmental, or both;
• Typology of funding approaches;
• Uses of capital: human, political, economic and social;
• Degrees of social entrepreneurship.
One of the most important emerging themes is modeling the SE’s response to the
challenge of balancing social mission and financial mission. Several authors have
attempted to categorize responses to the challenge.
The current review is useful in providing new perspectives for examining this
area of tourism. Each of these typologies can be applied to tourism-related SEOs
and provide new perspectives for examining the role of tourism in addressing social
issues. This book provides a variety of cases that can easily be categorized in the
typologies reviewed. As we move forward it is clear that several established fields
of tourism research incorporate issues associated with social entrepreneurship and
socially-entrepreneurial organizations. As Pollock (2015) notes “the need and
opportunity for Social Entrepreneurship within the global tourism and hospitality
sectors is systematic, strategic, and tactical” (p. 8). As attention to social entrepre-
neurship grows it is incumbent on tourism researchers to engage with the topic.
1. Compare and contrast the typologies associated with Tourism Entrepreneurs
with those of Tourism Social Entrepreneurs. What similarities do you see? What
are the differences?
2. What are the critical characteristics of a Tourism Related Social Enterprise
Organization (SEO)?
3. The authors state that some people self-identify as “social entrepreneurs.” Is this
“right”? Should social intrepreneurs, working in large companies consider
themselves “social entrepreneurs”? What about socially responsible entrepre-
neurs whose primary goal is profit but are contributing solutions to social
problems?
4. How does understanding typologies, categorizations and models of social entre-
preneurship contribute to understanding of tourism social entrepreneurship?
5. Do your own ‘gap’ analysis of the typologies presented. What do you think is
missing? How would you categorize tourism related SEOs?
References
Abu-Saifan, S. (2012, February). Social entrepreneurship: Definitions and boundaries. Technology

Innovation Management Review, 22–27.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship:
Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22. doi:10.1111/j.
1540-6520.2006.00107.x.
Bellows, K. (2012, March–April). For the love of cod: A social entrepreneur reinvents an island off
Newfoundland through tourism and the arts. National Geographic Traveler, 29, 16+.
Certo, S. T., & Miller, T. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: Key issues and concepts. Business
Horizons, 51(4), 267–271. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2008.02.009.
Crnogaj, K., Rebernik, M., Hojnik, B., & Gomezelj, D. (2014). Building a model of researching
the sustainable entrepreneurship in the tourism sector. Kybernetes, 43(3/4), 377–393.
Dees, J. G. (2001). The meaning of “Social entrepreneurship”. Retrieved from
https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/03/Article_Dees_
MeaningofSocialEntrepreneurship_2001.pdf
Dincer, M. A. M., Yildirim, M., & Dil, E. (2011). Is there any linkage between entrepreneur
typologies and strategy typologies? Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 601–610.
7th International Strategic Management Conference.
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward
improved understanding and modeling. The Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 230–251.
doi:10.2307/258704.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford:
Capstone Publishing Ltd.
Farrell, B., & Twining-Ward, L. (2005). Seven steps towards sustainability: Tourism in the context
of new knowledge. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(2), 109–122.
Font, X., Tapper, R., Schwartz, K., & Kornilaki, M. (2008). Sustainable supply chain management
in tourism. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(4), 260–271. doi:10.1002/bse.527.
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). A Friedman Doctrine—The social responsibility of business
is to increase its profits. New York Times.
Kirchhoff, B. (1994). Entrepreneurship economics. In W. Bygrave (Ed.), Portable MBA in
entrepreneurship. New York: Wiley.
Koh, K. Y., & Hatten, T. S. (2002). The tourism entrepreneur: The overlooked player
in tourism development studies. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Admin-
istration, 3(1), 21. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct¼true&
db¼hjh&AN¼27647869&site¼ehost-live
Mair, J., Battilana, J., & Cardenas, J. (2012). Organizing for society: A typology of social
entrepreneuring model. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 353–373. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-
1414-3.
Martin, R., & Osberg, S. (2007a). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, Spring, 28–39.
Martin, R., & Osberg, S. (2007b). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, Spring, 29–39.
Martin, R., & Osberg, S. (2015). Getting beyond better: How social entrepreneurship works.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Merriam-Webster.com. (n.d.). Web. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
typology
Mill, R., & Morrison, A. (2002). The tourism system. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing
Company.
Mody, M., & Day, J. (2014). Rationality of social entrepreneurs in tourism: Max Weber and the
sociology of tourism development. International Journal of Tourism Anthropology, 3(3),
227–244. doi:10.1504/ijta.2014.0598939.
Mojic, J. (2012). Creating value chain model and shaping authentic tourism product: The case of
South Serbia. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 18(2), 195–211.
Neck, H., Brush, C., & Allen, E. (2009). The landscape of social entrepreneurship. Business
Horizons, 52, 13–19.
Parente, C., Lopes, A., & Marcos, V. (2014). Social entrepreneurship profiles: Lessons from
organizational and management dynamics. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 22–41.
doi:10.1080/19420676.2013.820782.
Peredo, A., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept.
Journal of World Business, 41, 56–65.
Pollock, A. (2015). Social entrepreneurship in tourism: The conscious travel approach. TIPSE—
Tourism Innovation Partnership for Social Entrepreneurship.
Porter, M. E., & Millar, V. E. (1985). How information gives you competitive advantage. Harvard
Business Review, 63(4), 149–160.
Puia, G. M., & Jaber, M. (2012). Financing social entrepreneurship: A research agenda. American
Journal of Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 15–25.
Robbins, S., & Coulter, M. (2012). Management (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: New Jersey
Prentice Hall—Pearson.
Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111
(3), 335–351. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1413-4.
Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the
poor. Business Horizons, 48(3), 241–246. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2004.11.006.
Sigala, M. (2008). A supply chain management approach for investigating the role of tour
operators on sustainable tourism: The case of TUI. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15),
1589–1599. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.021.
Sloan, P., Legrand, W., & Simons-Kaufmann, C. (2014). A survey of social entrepreneurial
community-based hospitality and tourism initiatives in developing economies. Worldwide
Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 6(1), 51–61.
The Social Intrapreneur: A Field Guide for Corporate Changemakers. (2008). London: Sustain-
Ability Ltd. Retrieved http://sustainability.com/our-work/reports/the-social-intrapreneur/?
path-library/the.
Song, H., Liu, J., & Chen, G. (2013). Tourism value chain governance: Review and prospects.
Journal of Travel Research, 52(1), 15–28. doi:10.1177/0047287512457264.
Spear, R. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A different model? International Journal of Social
Economics, 33(5/6), 399–410. doi:10.1108/03068290610660670.
Su, X., Wang, H., & Wen, T. (2013). Profit, responsibility, and the moral economy of tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 231–250. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2013.07.008.
Tan, W. L., Williams, J., & Tan, M. T. (2005). Defining the “social” in “social entrepreneurship”:
Altruism and entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1
(3), 353. Retrieved from http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/1380
Thompson, J., & MacMillan, I. (2010). Business models: Creating new markets and societal
wealth. Long Range Planning, 43, 291–307.
Truong, V. D. (2013). Tourism policy development in Vietnam: A pro-poor perspective. Journal
of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events, 5(1), 28–45. doi:10.1080/19407963.2012.
760224.
UNWTO. (2015). UNWTO tourism highlights. Retrieved from www.unwto.org
Volkmann, C., Tokarski, K., & Ernst, K. (2012). Background, characteristics and context of social
entrepreneurship. In C. Volkmann, K. Tokarski, & K. Ernst (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship
and social business: An introduction and discussion with case studies (pp. 3–24). Wiesbaden:
Springer Gabler.
Walley, L., & Taylor, D. (2002). Opportunists, champions, mavericks. . .? A typology of green
entrepreneurs. Greener Management International: The Journal of Corporate Environmental
Strategy and Practice, (38), 31–43.
Wartick, S., & Cohran, P. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model.
Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758–769.
Woo, C., Cooper, A., & Dunkelberg, W. (1991). The development and interpretation of entrepre-
neurial typologies. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 93–114.
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehman-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons
from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43, 308–325.
Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social
entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Ventur-
ing, 24, 519–532.
Zhang, X., Song, H., & Huang, G. Q. (2009). Tourism supply chain management: A new research
agenda. Tourism Management, 30(3), 345–358. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.12.010.
Jonathon Day is an Associate Professor in Purdue’s School of Hospitality and Tourism Man-
agement, has over 20 years’ experience in destination management. An award winning marketer,
Dr Day has worked with destinations marketing organizations in Australia, New Zealand and the
United States. Dr Day is committed to ensuring tourism is a force for good in the world. Dr Day’s
research interests focus on sustainable tourism, responsible travel, and strategic destination
governance within the tourism system. He is interested in the role of business in solving grand
challenges through corporate social responsibility programs and social entrepreneurship.
Makarand Mody is Assistant Professor of Hospitality Marketing in Boston University’s School

of Hospitality Administration. He graduated with his Ph.D. from Purdue University. He received
his M.Sc in Human Resource Management for Tourism and Hospitality from the University of
Strathclyde, and a Higher Diploma in Hospitality Management from IMI University Centre,
Switzerland. Dr. Mody has worked in the hotel and airlines industries in the areas of learning
and development and quality control. Most recently, he worked as Senior Research Manager for
one India’s largest market research firms. Makarand’s research focuses on issues pertaining to the
supply and demand of responsible tourism, tourism entrepreneurship and consumer behavior.
Business Models for Social Entrepreneurship
in Tourism
Roberto Daniele and Isabel Quezada
Abstract This chapter examines the business model construct as a possible tool to
analyze how social enterprises create value for their stakeholders. In particular it
identifies different operational models and examines how they are particularly
relevant to tourism and hospitality. The chapter first reviews the extant literature
on business models before moving on to examine their applicability to social
enterprises. Key components of the business models are then analyzed in the
context of tourism social enterprises. These include the identification of a value
proposition, key resources, key networks, and an analysis of economic capital,
revenue streams, cost structures, legal structures and marketing and distribution
channels. The paper’s conclusion argues for more extensive use of the business
model construct by tourism social entrepreneurs to help them become more suc-
cessful and sustainable. This will provide a more consistent approach to analyzing
in-depth case studies of tourism social enterprises in the future.
Keywords Business models • Tourism social enterprise • Value proposition •

Value networks • Cost structure • Distribution channels • Customer relationships
1 Introduction
The growth of social entrepreneurship in the last three decades has seen the
spawning of new and creative ways of doing business. These approaches use
dramatically different models for value creation when compared to traditional
business models. Much work has captured the essence of such innovation and a
key tool to accomplish this consistently and reliably is the application of the
business model (BM). As social entrepreneurship emerges more in tourism and
hospitality, the BM tool can identify and analyse how social entrepreneurship is
delivering innovation into this sector. It helps users to visualise the key component
blocks and stakeholder groups within the business and their relationships.
R. Daniele (*) • I. Quezada

Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

82 R. Daniele and I. Quezada
The BM concept dates back to the 1970’s when it was used to capture and
display information flows to model operational processes and information
systems in an organization (Stahler, 2001; Zollenkop, 2006). In the mid 1990’s
the concept became particularly significant due to the boom of internet businesses
(Amit, Massa, & Zott, 2010) and gradually began to expand to other industries
(Zu Knyphausen-Aufsess & Meinhardt, 2002). By the year 2000 the term had lost
its exclusive association with information systems and became increasingly related
to strategy (Stahler, 2001) as its holistic approach explained the firm’s activities and
processes (Rentmeister & Klein, 2003).
In the last decade, BMs have become widely accepted across a variety of
disciplines (Sommerrock, 2010) and they are commonly used by practitioners and
academia (Zollenkop, 2006) although there is no evidence of their widespread use
within the tourism industry. Nowadays, BMs are considered fundamental con-
structs to understand the formation, growth potential and success of new organiza-
tions (Franke, Gruber, Harhoff, & Henkel, 2008) and serve as a ‘unifying unit of
analysis’ with the ability to capture ‘value creation arising from multiple sources’
(Amit & Zott, 2001, p. 494). As social enterprises deal with social value creation the
BM approach is an important lens to analyse different typologies of social
enterprises.
2 Business Models Definitions and Dimensions
The literature on BMs highlights numerous definitions that partially overlap,

allowing for multiple interpretations (Amit et al., 2010). In addition, researchers
argue that the term is frequently used superficially without a real understanding of
its roots, role and potential (Osterwalder, Pigneur, & Tucci, 2005). Amit
et al. (2010) argue that despite the various definitions, common links are emerging
amongst BM studies that could serve to unify the concept. First, BMs are emerging
as new entities of analysis. Second, BMs are serving as systems or holistic
approaches to explain how companies do business. Third, organizational activities
play an important role in the proposed conceptualization of business models.
Lastly, BMs search to explain how value is created and captured.
The plethora of definitions has encouraged researchers to move away from
definitions and instead concentrate on BM’s dimensions, which have been exten-
sively explored (Afuah & Tucci, 2003; Amit & Zott, 2001; Chesborough &
Rosenbloom, 2002; Hamel, 2000; Linder & Cantrell, 2000; Magretta, 2002;
Mahadevan, 2000; Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2004; Stahler, 2001; Weill & Vitale,
2001). For the purpose of this chapter the following definition of BM is adopted:
A business model describes the rationale of how an organization delivers and captures
value (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010 p. 14)
One of the most used BM approaches is that developed by Osterwalder &

Pigneur, 2004 who proposed a BM ontology based on an extensive and rigorous
Business Models for Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism 83
PRODUCT INNOVATION CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP
Feedback for
Target Customer Segment Information Strategy
has needs value for refines feeds

Marketed through
Value proposition Distribution Channels
enables based on contributes to improves
Capabilities Based on Trust and Loyalty
Based on Resource for income for funded through

Resource for
INFRASTUCTURE FINANCIALS
Resources Revenue Model
Resources for
fulfill based on increases
Activity Configuration Cost Model
fulfil based on decreases
Partner Network Cost for Profit / Loss
Fig. 1 Business model elements and relations. Source: Osterwalder and Pigneur (2002, p. 3)
literature review, conceptualizing and formalizing of BM’s dimensions, elements,

relationships, semantics and vocabulary. Four basic dimensions have been
presented: product innovation, customer relationship, infrastructure management
and financial statements (see Fig. 1).
A few years later, Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) simplified the previously
described ontology from twelve to nine building blocks, including information
strategy, trust and loyalty into customer relationship and removing the profit and
loss dimension as they are the result of the revenue and costs model. These nine
building blocks are now: key partners, key activities, a value proposition, customer
relationship, customer segments, key resources, distribution channels, cost struc-
ture, and revenue streams, and are displayed in Fig. 2. They enable the study of the
value creation capabilities of each element and in relation to each other. A discus-
sion of these blocks in the context of tourism social entrepreneurship follows in
Sect. 3.
Fig. 2 Business model canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010)
3 Business Models and Tourism Social Entrepreneurship
Osterwalder and Pigneur (2002) suggest that in dynamic and uncertain environ-
ments BMs permit the identification and understanding of relevant elements in a
specific field and how these relate to each other. In addition, they help to commu-
nicate and share the understanding of BMs among company stakeholders. These
characteristics make BMs particularly suitable to evaluate social enterprises which
are context specific, operate in uncertain environments, and rely heavily on stake-
holders’ relationships for value creation (Fayolle & Matlay, 2010).
The literature on social entrepreneurship BMs is limited, with a handful of
contributions conceptualizing BM in social entrepreneurship (SE). The BM pro-
posed by Guclu, Dees, and Anderson (2002) comprises the operating model,
resource strategy and social impact. The operating model is composed of activities,
systems, structures, internal and external value partners that interrelate to create the
proposed social value. The interaction amongst elements acts similar to a value
chain. The resource strategy sustains the operating model through the provision of
tangible and intangible resources. The operating model and the resource strategy
are designed based on social value architecture and influenced by characteristics of
the operating environment such as culture, markets, political environment, charac-
teristics of the entrepreneur amongst others.
In contrast, Perrini and Vurro’s (2006) conceptual framework defines SE as the

implementation process of social innovation; highlighting market, stakeholder,
network orientation, organizational structures, and flexibility amongst the most
important characteristics, highlighting the importance of value proposition.
Alter (2006) outlines a series of seven operational models to explain “how social
value and economic value are created within the different social enterprise models”.
These have been subsequently used by von der Weppen and Cochrane (2012) to
identify various typologies of tourism related social enterprises. Mair and Schoen
(2007) use the BM by Hamel (2000) to identify features and common patterns
amongst three successful and well established SEs: Grameen Bank, Sekem and
Mondragon Co-operative Corporation (MCC). The study reveals commonalities in
their approaches in three areas: the creation of value networks, the procurement of
strategic resources and the management of the customer interface. Similarly, Seelos
and Mair (2007) use BM as a general concept to analyse three SE operations and
their support structures.
Differences between social entrepreneurial BMs and traditional BMs are
highlighted by Lehman-Ortega, Moingeon, and Yunus (2010) who extrapolate
three main areas that set them apart: (1) value proposition, encompassing all
stakeholders (not only customers); (2) value constellation, highlighting the impor-
tance of value creation networks and social value chain; and (3) the profit equation,
focusing on recovering costs and capital to reinvest in the company and achieve
self-sustainability.
Lastly, Sommerrock (2010) arguably, the most recent study on SE business
models, provides a BM framework which incorporates elements of traditional and
SE BM, specifically: value proposition, product design and market definition,
internal architecture and external architecture as discussed in detail below and
shown in Fig. 3:
• The value proposition is the BM core strategy, defining benefits for stakeholders,
satisfying needs and encouraging cooperation. It is the justification for the
organizations’ existence and influences all other dimensions.
• Product design and market definition satisfies a need of customers or create a
benefit for other stakeholders. Product design fulfils the value proposition for
customers or differentiates business from competitors, while market definition
segments the market both commercially and socially.
• The internal value creation architecture is directly controlled by the organiza-
tion. This includes organizational structure (legal and ownership), resources
(human, economic—financial and physical, social capital), value chain steps
and growth The external value creation architecture describes the area of value
creation beyond the direct control and influence of the organization, including
value creation partners and customers.
A more detailed analysis of the building blocks for BMs for social enterprises
follows with specific emphasis on their applicability and relevance to tourism
enterprises and combining key components of both the Sommerrock and
Osterwalder and Pigneur’s approaches.
Fig. 3 Business models dimensions. Source: Sommerrock (2010, p. 142)
3.1 Value Proposition
A value proposition is the justification for the organization’s existence and influ-
ences all other dimensions of the BM (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010; Sommerrock,
2010). A value proposition comprises the stakeholder benefits which motivate them
to participate in the business model, and the encouragement of cooperation
(Sommerrock, 2010). From a customer perspective a value proposition is defined
as the satisfaction of the customer’s needs, which in SE are the needs of the direct
beneficiaries of the social benefit (Mair & Schoen, 2007).
In SE, the value proposition usually takes a multi-stakeholder approach. The
multi-stakeholder approach in organizational management and business ethics,
attempts to identify the groups of interests or stakeholders under the ‘principle of
who or what really counts’. The business unit is used as a vehicle to achieve the
interests of stakeholders over profit maximization for shareholders (Freeman,
1984).
In tourism and hospitality SEs there is a need to create value propositions for two
key groups of stakeholders: the first and most important group are the beneficiaries
of the social enterprise typically representatives from the host population in the
destination country. The other key stakeholders are the tourists who travel from the
generating counties and whose expenditure and activities will contribute to the
positive impacts on beneficiaries.
The heterogeneity of value proposition in SE presents difficulties in the identi-

fication of patterns. Nevertheless, similarities have been found regarding how they
serve their target market or beneficiary group. SE can create social value either with
their target group, for their target group or a hybrid model combining these two
(Sommerrock, 2010). Creating social value with their target group means that the
beneficiaries of the social value are integrated into the value chain. This generally
involves employment of the beneficiary, which is the social value itself. Integrating
the target group into the social value chain creates employment, empowerment,
enhanced market knowledge and customer interactions (Mair & Schoen, 2007). It is
argued that these types of organizations are not able to sustain themselves fully
from their operations and require additional sources of funding (Sommerrock,
2010). In contrast, social value creation for the target group means that the target
group consumes the product created by the SE, which is either paid by the target
group or other stakeholders. A typical example of this would be beneficiaries taking
part in social tourism organized and delivered by a social enterprise.
Hybrid forms of social value creation combine the two previous strategies. The
target group is integrated to the value chain and benefits from its product solving the
social problem (Sommerrock, 2010). This is the most common scenario in hospi-
tality and tourism SEs as well exemplified in both the Adventure Alternative/
Moving Mountains Trust (Chapter “Adventure Alternative and Moving Mountains
Trust: A Hybrid Business Model for Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism”) and
Guludo Lodge/Neam Foundation (Chapter “Guludo Beach Lodge and the Nema
Foundation, Mozambique”) case studies in the third section of this book.
3.2 Key Activities
Key activities are the enabling repeatable action patterns a company must perform
to deliver its value proposition (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). In commercial
organizations the most important function is to create value for which customers
are willing to pay, achieved through the configuration of internal and external
activities (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2002). This set of internal and external activities
is called the value chain (Porter, 1985). In recent years value chains have become
important, as more companies look to add value. Value chain analysis has been
used to evaluate a firm’s strategic activities and its impact on costs and value
(Golicic & Smith, 2013). The value chain is composed by a number of
interdependent activities which are connected by linkages (Porter, 1985). Some
examples in a social entrepreneurship context include:
Procurement of Supplies
The procurement of supplies from disadvantaged suppliers, environmentally sus-
tainable sources and or other social enterprises creates new sources of income for
these suppliers integrating them to the economic cycle. This contributes to poverty
reduction and multiplies the benefits of economic growth such as better access to
education and health care (Sommerrock, 2010). In the case of tourism and hospi-
tality industries, if the economic multiplier is strong for the destination, the SE will
rely as much as possible on local supplies and provide substantial positive eco-
nomic and social impacts.
Employment of Disadvantaged Groups
A second activity is the employment of disadvantaged groups (e.g. the poor,
homeless, drug addicted or disabled groups). This can create a variety of benefits
to the individual (e.g. housing, salary and psychological benefits) by providing
meaningful work and personal development. These benefits allow the individual to
reintegrate into society by providing them with development perspectives that
restore their self-sufficiency and economic independence (Sommerrock, 2010).
The hospitality and tourism industry is both a labour intensive industry and one
that can be entered with a relatively low set of skills, while still providing strong
opportunities for professional growth. This makes it an ideal sector to provide
employment and a career path with low barriers to entry to disadvantaged groups
or individuals in the host communities.
Designing the Product Service
Moreover, SE often creates social value by solving specific problems through
product and service design inspired by local circumstances, cultures and traditions
which existing products have not considered. On the other hand, the production of
the service or product can also create social value by making it more efficient, thus
reducing costs and making it more affordable to disadvantaged people
(Sommerrock, 2010). The design of the tourism product or service can maximise
local economic and social impacts. Travel itineraries can include visits to areas in
need of assistance and tourists can be involved in the co-production of social value
(e.g. voluntourism).
Marketing and Distribution
Lastly, another way along the value chain SE can create social value is through
marketing and distribution. For example, a UK-based carbon neutral company
allows consumers to check their carbon footprint on the internet and offset their
consumptions through the same channel (Sommerrock, 2010). The last two decades
have seen the embryonic emergence of tourism distribution networks that are
sensitive to both the requirements of the conscious traveller (who wants to travel
with organizations and to destinations that are sustainably managed), and the needs
of tourism social enterprises who require cost effective distribution and marketing
partners.
3.3 Key Partners (Value Networks)
Key partners or value networks delineate which aspects of the value proposition are
performed amongst the firm’s partners (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2002). SEs are
characterized by a large network of partners and supporters to create their desired

change (Watson, 2004). This network is crucial for the success and achievement of
social value creation as it allows for a broader awareness of the social benefit at
different societal levels. This includes partners such as: local and national author-
ities, private and non-profit sectors (Evers & Schulze-Boing, 2001) enabling com-
mitment, political support and wider availability of resources (Guclu et al., 2002) in
particular, social capital (Spear, 2006). These value networks can create competi-
tive advantage to achieve collective objectives (Knoke & Todeva, 2002), add value
and distribute power (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1996) and value creation in
general (Amit & Zott, 2001). Consequently, they have been defined as an essential
element of SE (Chesborough & Rosenbloom, 2002; Hamel, 2000).
Value networks can span from sourcing, production and distribution, providing
solutions and products that complement the offerings of the firm, providing finan-
cial support in times of need and can even serve to create new business models
(Mair & Schoen, 2007). Consequently, allowing a combination of economic via-
bility and social value creation results in long term sustainability (Mair & Schoen,
2007). It is argued that successful SEs design creative strategies to attract partners
(Sommerrock, 2010) from a very early stage (Mair & Schoen, 2007). In the case of
hospitality and tourism enterprises, partnerships with key stakeholders in the
hosting destination are vital to providing the economic, social and human capital
needed to create innovative and sustainable developments. This is evident in
several of the case studies in Sect. 3 this book.
3.4 Key Resources (Resource Strategy)
Firms require resources in order to create value (Wernerfelt, 1984). A key to the
success and sustainability of SEs is the use of innovative strategies to secure critical
and scarce resources into their business models. Projecting resource needs is an
opportunity to expand the social value network creation. For example, the devel-
opment of agricultural products or those using local crafts and skills are particularly
relevant to tourism and hospitality businesses (Mair & Schoen, 2007).
In SE, the value chain transforms strategic resources into products or services for
the target group. At an operational level, success lies in finding ways to produce
products and services to achieve desired social results at the lowest possible cost. At
a strategic level, success depends on the ability to identify the products the
company can produce or has the ability to produce (Sommerrock, 2010). Specific
to SE, Sommerrock (2010) categorized resources into economic, human, and social
capital.
Economic Capital
The economic capital employed by social entrepreneurs consists of two types:
financial and physical. Financial capital is required to set up, grow and run the
organization’s operation. This capital is in a variety of forms specific to the legal
structure of the company and its current demands (Elkington & Hartigan, 2008). It
includes internal and external sources; internal generated through the organization’s
operations (self-sustainability and/or multi-layered pricing) and external capital
through external financing whether through venture capital, debt capital or
fundraising activities (Achleitner, Heister, & Stahl, 2007). Financing and its avail-
ability can often determine the legal structure of the organization. For example
market-priced financial capital (including debt financing) is mainly made available
only to for-profit organizations (Dees & Anderson, 2002).
External sources comprise equity financing either through market-priced venture
capital or philanthropic capital. They both are similar to venture capital in achiev-
ing social returns. With few exceptions, however, tourism and hospitality SEs have
rarely taken advantage of the growth of social impact investment funds and social
venture philanthropy. This could be mainly due to their low profile in the SE world.
Other sources of funding such as grants or donations from private and government
foundations may be required for the functioning of the company (Barendsen &
Gardner, 2004). Some of the most common forms of grants include donations and
government subsidies which do not require repayments (Barendsen & Gardner,
2004). Furthermore, a wide variety of grants and loans exist requiring low interest
repayments or those that may be converted into grants once specific goals are
reached.
On the other hand, physical capital is required for the effective use of intangible
resources (Guclu et al., 2002) and this is particularly true in tourism organizations.
These resources can be purchased or leased at market prices however SE organi-
zations can attract below-market prices and in-kind donations due to their stated
social mission. These represent a significant advantage (Sommerrock, 2010) but
also a trade-off since the features or quality of the products may be inferior (Guclu
et al., 2002).
Furthermore, tourism social entrepreneurs may face challenges in acquiring
funds due to the current structures of philanthropic institutions, governments and
foundations. These institutions generally cater to the financial needs of projects for
a limited duration rather than providing long term funding required by a tourism SE
to set up and grow their operations (Drayton, 2002). Consequently, social entre-
preneurs often spend a lot of time in fundraising activities which diminish the time
spent improving the efficiency and effectiveness of their organizations (Drayton,
2002).
Human Capital
For SE organizations, human capital represents the most important resource since it
is the people who devote their time, energy and spirit to run the organization. In
addition to their labor, they bring a range of intangible resources such as ‘skills,
knowledge, contacts, credentials, passions and reputations’ and networks enabling
the access and acquisition of economic and social capital (Grenier, 2002).
The social entrepreneurs themselves are the primary human resource and the key
drivers of the implementation of social value creation and for its initial success.
They also bring the vision, energy and motivation to turn the mission into a reality.
In addition, they have generally created an extensive network for external resource
acquisition fundamental for the start-up and growth stages (Sommerrock, 2010),
and are in charge of the management of human resources. This includes the
recruitment of volunteers, paid employees or former beneficiaries, and expert
training for specific scientific research opportunities (Sommerrock, 2010). Further
social value is created by the empowerment, training and social integration of
marginalized people (Sommerrock, 2010).
The advantage of recruiting volunteers is that no salary needs to be paid, and
they are highly motivated to contribute to a cause they believe in. Nevertheless, this
can present difficulties attracting staff with the right level of education and skills.
Also volunteers may need to be managed differently from the permanent, paid labor
force (Sommerrock, 2010). A for-profit structure may attract appropriately skilled
personnel (Dees & Anderson, 2002), but it could be difficult to attract candidates
who expect remuneration and are also passionate about the firm’s social mission.
On the other hand, below-market compensation can screen out applicants who are
not fully devoted to the social mission (Guclu et al., 2002). This high reliance on
human capital brings significant challenges for SE’s. There is a dependency on the
entrepreneur’s vision, drive and ability to build networks for resource acquisition,
and also for the work force to share the social mission and successfully implement
the entrepreneur’s vision (Sommerrock, 2010).
Social Capital
Lastly, social capital encompasses all ‘non-market and non-state’ intangible
resources (Evers & Schulze-Boing, 2001 p. 296) outside economic and human
capital (Laville & Nyssens, 2001). Social capital is defined as the collection of
resources that permit access to a network or affiliation with a group instrumental to
goal realization (Flap, 1995). It differs from human and economic capital in that it is
owned by the two parties simultaneously and cannot be used only by one of the
parties. Thus it diminishes for both parties should one of the parties withdraw from
the relationship (Burt, 1995). SE social capital derives from the organization’s
connections to their local environment (Adler & Kwon, 2002). Granovetter
(1985) refers to this as ‘local embeddedness’ as the interconnectivity to local public
authorities, community, private entities, direct, indirect customers and stakeholders
are a prerequisite and important source for SE to create social value.
Social capital permits SE organizations to reduce transaction costs from stake-
holders and gain access to human and financial capital and partnerships (Laville &
Nyssens, 2001). Furthermore, like any other asset, social capital needs investment
which can be achieved through building networks with external players,
augmenting social capital, and thereby gaining benefits. These benefits include
power, access to information and cohesion; and the internal actors can strengthen
their identity by increasing capacity for collective action (Adler & Kwon, 2002).
Consequently, this can create a dependency for the SE organization, if the relation-
ship becomes more important to the SE (Sommerrock, 2010).
3.5 Customer Segments (Market Definition)
Value is created for a specific customer segment or target customer when the firm is
able to clearly identify which customers, geographical areas and product segments
will be the focus (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2002). In TSE, customer segments
(typically the hosts in the destination country) are direct beneficiaries of the social
impact, either by consuming the product or by their integration to the value chain as
the workforce, thereby capturing the value themselves (Mair & Schoen, 2007). This
approach differentiates SE from conventional development organizations that
locate their target group at the end of the value chain by giving donations or
subsidized prices (Mair & Schoen, 2007). Integrating the target group into the
social value chain creates employment, empowerment, enhanced market knowl-
edge and customer interaction (Mair & Schoen, 2007). On the other hand this
integration implies a second customer who buys the product or service produced
by the beneficiaries (Sommerrock, 2010). In tourism SE, tourists are the second
very important customer segment as they ultimately provide the financial resources
(through the purchase and consumption of tourism services) that allow the company
to achieve its social mission.
3.6 Customer Relationships
In commercial businesses, customer relationships involve strategies to collect and

use customer information to maintain and improve relationships, discover new
profitable business opportunities, provide excellent customer service and modify
the offer based on customers’ feedback (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2002). Its infor-
mation strategy must maximize the use of information gathering to discover new
profitable business opportunities and provide excellent customer relationships
through personalization and profiling (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2002). In SE, cus-
tomer relationships must be viewed from a primary and secondary customer
perspective. Customer relationship management of the secondary guest is of para-
mount importance to ensure guest satisfaction and income (Sommerrock, 2010). In
SE, when the target group is integrated into the value chain these relationships
resemble one of employer–employee. In contrast, when the beneficiary group is not
part of the value chain, the relationship resembles a typical customer (Sommerrock,
2010).
3.7 Distribution Channels
Distribution channels connect the firm and its customers (Osterwalder & Pigneur,
2002). From this perspective, SE organizations have two types of customers:
primary customers to whom the social value is created and delivered, and secondary
customers, those that through their purchases create an income stream to support
the SE (Sommerrock, 2010).
Commercially, the secondary customers can be reached through direct and
indirect channels. Direct channels are the firms’ own channels to reach the guests,
such as a direct sales force or website-driven sales. In contrast, indirect or partner
channels include a range of distribution methods such as partner websites or
wholesale distribution. Direct channels allow for higher margins as no commissions
apply, but they could be more costly. On the other hand, partner channels offer
lower margins due to commission fees for the distribution, but are generally able to
reach a wider audience. The most important element in selecting distribution
channels is to find the right balance between costs and distribution effectiveness
(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010).
In traditional businesses, the distribution process is generally composed of five
phases: awareness, evaluation, purchase, delivery and after sales. The awareness,
determines how the customer first comes to know about the product, the evaluation
phase determines how the customer accepts the value proposition, the purchase
phase determines how the product is made available to the guest for the purchase,
the delivery defines how the value proposition reaches the customer and lastly the
after sale provides the post purchase support (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010).
From a SE perspective, if the primary customer is part of the value chain, the
distribution channel will be part of the internal process. In contrast, if the target
group benefits from the organization by consuming the product, the distribution will
resemble that of regular customer. An innovative approach to distribution can be
seen in joint liability or community trusts created in micro finance, which distribute
the product, in this case credit, to a group of people using joint liability to ensure
repayment (Sommerrock, 2010).
Marketing and distribution are key activities for tourism and hospitality SEs and
the problems faced by SMEs in trying to access global markets have been well
documented over the years (Benckendorff, Sheldon, & Fesenmaier, 2015; Buhalis
& Licata, 2002; Daniele & Frew, 2006). The costs of distribution via traditional
online travel agents (OTAs) have become prohibitive for small companies partic-
ularly for social enterprises who are trying to maintain good profit margins to
reinvest in their social mission. A new breed of small specialist intermediaries
focusing on the promotion of sustainable and responsible tourism businesses
(including many SEs) is emerging. Some examples include www.
responsibletravel.com, www.muchbetteradventures.com and Sumak Travel. Word
of mouth and eWord of mouth in particular seem to work well for travel and tourism
social enterprises as customers are keen to tell the story of deeper travel experiences
and the connections made during their travels.
3.8 Cost Structure
This element accounts for all the costs incurred under a particular business model,
involving all the activities to operate the organization (Osterwalder & Pigneur,
2002). Cost structures are composed of fixed costs and variable costs. Fixed costs
are business expenses that do not vary with the volume of the business, some
examples include: rent, salaries, and utility bills. Variable costs instead change
accordingly to the volume of business (Harris, 2004). The hospitality industry,
specifically the hotel industry is characterized by high fixed costs such as building
rent and salaries, which is further aggravated in destinations characterised by
fluctuating seasonality (Harris, 2004).
If SE’s wish to avoid their dependency on donations and grants, they can focus
on increasing their operational efficiency through value chains to reduce costs and
then extend these reductions to the target market (Borzaga & Solari, 2001). Some of
the strategies used are using cheaper and/or local materials, achieving economies of
scale, scope or use of volunteer labour (Heertje & Wenzel, 1997). Bulk purchases
reduce costs since the cost per unit drops achieving an overall reduction in costs
(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). Similarly, economies of scope enjoy cost advan-
tages due to the larger scope of the operations. This reduces costs in marketing
activities and distribution channels (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). Value networks
are also a source of cost reduction. The mutual relationships that stakeholders
benefit from in the SE operation allow for price negotiation with suppliers. The
SE then benefits from lower prices (Lehman-Ortega et al., 2010).
3.9 Revenue Streams, Revenue Model
The revenue stream is the ability of a company to translate the value it offers to its
clients into income. Revenue models consist of various revenue streams with
different pricing models (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2002). Although, the primary
focus of SE is on social value creation over economic value, many social entrepre-
neurs facilitate social value creation through economic value creation (Barr, Smith,
& Stevens, 2007) previously discussed as earned income.
For tourism and hospitality SEs, most revenue streams come from the sale of
travel and hospitality products (e.g. tours or accommodation services). However
additional streams of revenue are possible from fundraising, grants and donations
made from the organization’s social mission. Often clients who tour with a social
enterprise become long term active fundraisers for the organization after they return
home, and after having experienced the economic, social and environmental
impacts generated in the host country.
3.10 Legal Structure
SE organizations combine different legal structures to maximize social impact,

generally combining for-profit and not-for-profit entities (hybrid structures). The
for-profit entity permits income generation while the latter provides the valuable
infrastructure in the form of training, research or further funding through grants and
donations (Sommerrock, 2010). These hybrid structures are highly sustainable as
they have dual financial objectives and funding structures linking business strate-
gies and philanthropy to achieve social objectives (Davis, 2011). In addition, this
type of structure exponentially increases stakeholders’ networks contributing more
to sustainability. If these relationships are facilitated effectively, and values of
sustainability are integrated into the corporate culture it can have positive long
term effects on the reputation and financial rewards of the firm (Davis, 2011).
This hybrid structure is well exemplified in the Adventure Alternative
(Chapter “Adventure Alternative and Moving Mountains Trust: A Hybrid Business
Model for Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism”) and Guludo Lodge
(Chapter “Guludo Beach Lodge and the Nema Foundation, Mozambique”) case
studies. Both these organisations are the business and revenue generating “engines”
of the social enterprise model. Alongside they have set up sister charities (Moving
Mountains Trust and Nema Foundation respectively) to achieve their social impact
outcomes.
3.11 Growth
Growth and replication are key concepts in SE, often called ‘scaling up’, since they
imply the achievement of systemic change (Fulton & Dees, 2006). Nevertheless, it
is argued that scaling up initiatives should aim to expand SE itself rather than
individual organizations (Watson, 2004). Growth strategies in SE emerge from the
business management literature but must be adapted to meet SE strategies and
implementation. Two of the most frequent strategies found in the literature include,
franchising and organic growth (Dees, Anderson, & Wei-Skillern, 2004).
In the franchise model an organization franchises ‘a proven social enterprise
model’, helping the organization achieve mass replication, increasing its geograph-
ical coverage, size of customers, depth and breadth of scale and economies of scale
(Nicholls, 2006). Thus it allows an organization to achieve scalability of social and
economic value creation through replication (Nicholls, 2006, p. 227). In this model
the purchaser of the franchise pays a fee for the methodology and ongoing technical
support. This permits the franchiser to concentrate efforts on operations, rather than
expending effort and energy in the start-up process of product and market selection.
In addition, it leverages industry and business expertise creating new social value
and possibly a new source of earned income (Nicholls, 2006).
A good example of social franchising in the tourism and hospitality industry is

LE MAT—“a consortium of social co-operatives working on the development of
LE MAT brand and managing the branding and franchising process of the members
and clients. The LE MAT social brand stands for inclusive and sustainable tourism
and works for inclusion and empowerment of people with different disabilities and
social problems. The LE MAT social entrepreneurs manage hotels, hostels, B&B’s
and other structures in the tourism branch and work also through small local
tourism systems” (European Social Franchising Coop n.d.).
Organic growth can also be achieved by increasing output and enhancing sales.
Another scaling up strategy is to support not-for-profit organizations sharing the
same target markets, thus increasing support towards a cause and scaling up the
movement rather than the operations (Sommerrock, 2010).
4 Conclusion
Social entrepreneurship is an innovative approach to social value creation;

addressing the world’s most pressing concerns such as poverty, unemployment,
social integration, education, health and environment. The tourism industry has
effectively contributed to the economic growth of destinations for the last few
decades in spite of multiple global challenges. As such, it remains one of the largest
employers and drivers of economic growth across the developed and developing
world. The tourism industry however has an unimpressive track record of positive
environmental and social impacts. This is despite the research that has recognized
how this sector can address social and environmental concerns such as poverty
eradication, gender equality, environmental sustainability and global partnership
for development.
This chapter examines social value creation from an entrepreneurial perspective
and proposes the use of the business model construct as a lens to analyze how
tourism social enterprises can become catalysts of social change. Such models can
help SE’s effectively address societal issues such as poverty reduction, unemploy-
ment, social integration, skills development, gender inequality, environmental
sustainability and indirect benefits in health and education in their chosen
destination.
The field of tourism SE is still in its embryonic development and, as a result,
there is a paucity of research and case studies to build the body of knowledge in this
field. It is hoped that researchers and practitioners will adopt the business model
framework as discussed in this chapter to prototype and develop new forms of
social value creation in tourism. This approach will also facilitate the documenta-
tion of existing activities of tourism social enterprises with a replicable and widely
used theoretical framework. The case study on Adventure Alternative and Moving
Mountains Trust has been developed following this approach. We hope that this
chapter will provide the knowledge needed for other TSE’s to improve their
effectiveness using the BM framework.
Questions
1. After reading this chapter and looking at a practical application of the Business
Models Canvas in chapter “Adventure Alternative and Moving Mountains Trust:
A Hybrid Business Model for Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism” can you
develop a Business Models Canvas for the following tourism social enterprises:
http://www.fifteen.net/; http://www.lemat.it/en; http://www.tribewanted.com/
http://realitytoursandtravel.com/? You can find further resources to help you
at: https://strategyzer.com/
2. How does the Value Proposition in a tourism social enterprise differ from that of
a more traditional tourism company?
3. Can you identify ways in which using a social entrepreneurship model can make
a tourism company/organisation more resilient in the long term?
4. Why is staff turnover likely to be lower and customer loyalty likely to be higher
in tourism social enterprises as opposed to traditional tourism enterprises?
References
Achleitner, A., Heister, P., & Stahl, E. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: An overview. In
A. Achleitner, R. Pollath, & E. Stahl (Eds.), Financing of social entrepreneurship—Concepts
for financial support of social entrepreneurs (pp. 3–25). Stuttgart: Verlag.
Adler, P., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 27(1), 17–40.
Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. (2003). Internet business models and strategies. Boston, MA: McGraw
Hill.
Alter, S. K. (2006). Social enterprise models and their missions and money relationships. In
A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable change
Amit, R., Massa, L., & Zott, C. (2010). The business model: Theoretical roots, recent develop-
ments and future research (Working Paper 862).
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation E-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(1),
493–520.
Barendsen, L., & Gardner, H. (2004). Is the social entrepreneur a new type of leader? Leader to
Leader, 43(Fall), 43–50.
Barr, T., Smith, B., & Stevens, C. (2007). Reducing poverty through social entrepreneurship: The
case of Edun. In J. Stoner & C. Wankel (Eds.), Innovative approaches to reducing global
poverty (pp. 27–42). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Benckendorff, P., Sheldon, P., & Fesenmaier, D. (2015). Tourism information technology.
Wallingford: CABI Publishers.
Borzaga, C., & Solari, L. (2001). Management challenges for social enterprises. In C. Borzaga &
J. Defourny (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise (pp. 350–370). London: Routledge.
Brandenburger, A., & Nalebuff, B. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.
Buhalis, D., & Licata, M. C. (2002). The future eTourism intermediaries. Tourism Management,
23(3), 207–220.
Burt, R. (1995). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Boston, MA: Palgrave.
Chesborough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value
from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies’. Indus-
trial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555.
Daniele, R., & Frew, A. J. (2006). Business models for travel eMediaries: Examining and applying
theoretical frameworks. Information Technology in Hospitality, 4(2/3), 71–82.
Davis, T. (2011). Hybrid start up organizations: The combination of a for profit business unit and a
non for profit affiliate. International Leadership Journal, 3(2), 50–70.
Dees, J., & Anderson, B. (2002). Blurring sector boundaries: Serving social purposes through
for-profit structures (CASE Working Paper Series 2). Durham, NC: Centre for the advance-
ment of social entrepreneurship, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University.
Dees, G., Anderson, B., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2004). Scaling social impact: Strategies for spreading
social innovations. Social Innovation Review, 2(1), 24–32.
Drayton, B. (2002). Social entrepreneurs: Creating an entrepreneurial citizen sector [Online].
Retrieved July 18, 2011, from http://www.changemakers.com/library/readings/drayton.cfm
Elkington, J., & Hartigan, P. (2008). The power of unreasonable people: How social entrepreneurs
create markets that change the world. Boston, MA: Palgrave.
European Social Franchising Network. (n.d.). Le Mat. Retrieved March 22, 2016, from http://
www.socialfranchising.coop/members-directory/view/le-mat
Evers, A., & Schulze-Boing, M. (2001). Germany—Social enterprises and transitional employ-
ment. In C. Borzaga & J. Defourny (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise. London:
Palgrave.
Fayolle, H., & Matlay, H. (2010). Handbook of research on social entrepreneurship. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Flap, H. (1995). No man is an island. The research program of social capital theory. Paper
presented at the ‘Workshop on rational choice and social networks’ Nia, Wassenaa, The
Netherlands.
Franke, N., Gruber, M., Harhoff, D., & Henkel, J. (2008). Venture capitalists evaluations of start-
up teams: Trade-offs, Knock out criteria and impact of VC experience. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 32(3), 459–483.
Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Fulton, K., & Dees, G. (2006). The past, present and future of social entrepreneurship—A
conversation with Greg Dees. Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, The
Fuqua School of Business, Duke University.
Golicic, S., & Smith, C. (2013). A meta-analysis of environmentally sustainable supply chain
management practices and firm performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(2),
78–95.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.
American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
Grenier, P. (2002, July). The function of social entrepreneurship in the UK. Paper presented at the
ISTR Conference, Cape Town, South Africa.
Guclu, A., Dees, J., & Anderson, B. (2002). The process of social entrepreneurship: Creating
opportunities worth of serious pursuit. The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University.
Retrieved February 20, 2016, from https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/knowledge_items/the-
process-of-social-entrepreneurship-creating-opportunities-worthy-of-serious-pursuit/pdf
Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the revolution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Harris, P. (2004). Profit planning (3rd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Heertje, A., & Wenzel, H. (1997). Basics of economics. Berlin: Springer Leurbuch.
Knoke, D., & Todeva, E. (2002). Strategic alliances and corporate social capital. In J. Almendiger
& H. Thomas (Eds.), Quarterly journal of sociology and social psychology, organizational
sociology (pp. 345–380). West German Publishing house.
Laville, J., & Nyssens, M. (2001). The social entrerprise: Towards a theoretical socio-economic
approach. In C. Borzaga & J. Defourny (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise
(pp. 312–332). London: Routledge.
Lehman-Ortega, L., Moingeon, B., & Yunus, M. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons
from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 308–325.
Linder, J., & Cantrell, S. (2000). Changing business models: Surveying the landscape (Working
Paper). Institute for Strategic Change, Accenture.
Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86–92.
Mahadevan, B. (2000). Business models for internet based e commerce: An anatomy. California
Management Review, 42(4), 55–69.
Mair, J., & Schoen, O. (2007). Successful social entrepreneurial business models in the context of
developing economies. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 2(1), 54–68.
Nicholls, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2002, June). An ebusiness model ontology for modeling e
business. Paper presented at the 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference, Solvenia.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2004). An ontology for e-business models in value creation from
e-business models. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. (2005). Clarifying business models: Origins, present and
future of the concept. Communications of AIS, 15(1), 1–43.
Perrini, F., & Vurro, C. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: Innovation and social change across
theory and practice. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship
(pp. 26–50). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Porter, M. (1985). The competitive advantage—Creating and sustaining superior performance.
New York: The Free Press.
Rentmeister, J., & Klein, S. (2003). Business models, a fashionable term in the balance. Journal of
Business Management, 73(1), 17–30.
Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2007). Profitable business models and market creation in the context of deep
poverty: A strategic view. Academy of Management, 21(4), 49–63.
Sommerrock, K. (2010). Social entrepreneurship business models. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Spear, R. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A different model? International Journal of Economics,
33(5), 399–410.
Stahler, P. (2001). Business models in the digital economy, features strategies and impact.
Lohmar: Verlag.
operation models and success factors. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(3), 497–511.
Watson, J. (2004). Social entrepreneur: Definition and discussion. Boulder, CO: Palgrave.
Weill, P., & Vitale, M. (2001). Place to space: Migrating to ebusiness models. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2),
171–180.
Zollenkop, M. (2006). Business model innovation. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Zu Knyphausen-Aufsess, D., & Meinhardt, Y. (2002). Future business models and concept
application in the network economy (pp. 63–89). Berlin: Springer.
work on TIPSE.
Isabel Quezada was born and raised in Quito, Ecuador, and soon discovered her passion for the
hospitality industry guided by her service orientation, passion for people, travel and cultural
diversity. Fifteen years in the industry have taken her to Switzerland, Mexico and the United
Kingdom; where she witnessed the personal and professional growth of people in hospitality from
a variety of socio-economic background, nationalities and educational levels. This ignited her
desire to engage in research to further the hospitality and tourism industry’s contribution to
poverty alleviation. She lives in Ecuador where she leads social corporate responsibility initiatives
in tourism.
Social Innovations in Tourism: Social
Practices Contributing to Social Development
Jan Mosedale and Frieder Voll
Abstract The concept of social innovation has, in recent years, received increased
attention yet has received limited attention in the academic tourism literature. This
chapter on social innovations in tourism has three aims: first, to provide a concep-
tual overview of social innovation, particularly in context of social entrepreneur-
ship; second, to link the theoretical concept to existing literature and themes in
tourism research; and third, to provide an impetus for not only thinking about, but
also enacting and performing social innovation in a tourism context. At a general
level, social innovation can be viewed as a process of collaborative innovation,
where the innovation process benefits from networks, co-operation and
co-production or as a social outcome, which changes social interactions and
practices. With reference to examples from tourism, the chapter discusses new
technologies and their effect on transforming social practices, on social innovations
as a new form of governance, social entrepreneurship as one aspect of social
innovation and the largely bottom-up and collaborative characteristics of social
innovation.
Keywords Social innovation • Collaborative tourism innovation • Societal

challenges • Empowering tourism communities
1 Introduction
The topic of social innovation has, in recent years, received increased attention
from academia, public institutions and private foundations. Social innovation is
important for this edited collection as it encapsulates various approaches, including
social entrepreneurship, within one larger concept that focuses on addressing
current challenges faced by societies. Recognizing the importance of social inno-
vation, the European Union has incorporated the concept of social innovation into
its drive towards an Innovative Union, one of its seven flagship initiatives to reach
J. Mosedale (*) • F. Voll

Institute for Tourism and Leisure, University of Applied Sciences HTW Chur, Chur,
Switzerland

102 J. Mosedale and F. Voll
the Europe 2020 target to achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The EU
has further supported a number of research projects under its Seventh Framework
Programme that focus on different aspects of social innovation: TEPSIE (The
theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in
Europe), CRESSI (Creating Economic Space for Social Innovation), SIMPACT
(Boosting the Impact of Social Innovation in Europe through Economic Under-
pinnings), ITSSOIN (Impact of the Third Sector as Social Innovation), SI-DRIVE
(Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change), just to name a few. In the US,
social innovation is also receiving considerable attention and the Social Innovation
Fund, a key White House initiative and program of the Corporation for National and
Community Service, has been set up to support innovative projects that transform
society. Prominent private institutions include The Young Foundation, which
drives the social innovation agenda in terms of research and implementation of
innovative ideas. The policy focus on social innovation and increased funding for
research (in particular in the European Union) has resulted in an increase in
academic research centers and institutes.
The different points of view from which social innovation is analyzed have
resulted in different understandings of social innovation (See Sheldon, Pollock and
Daniele, chapter “Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism: Setting the Stage” of this
volume for some definitions of the wider social entrepreneurship concept). The
concepts of social innovation and social entrepreneurship are closely related, as
innovation is an important aspect of social entrepreneurship. Yet the focus of social
innovation lies on the product and the process of collaborative innovation in order
to develop creative and imaginative communities: “Social innovation does not
always come from lone, heroic innovators” (Leadbeater, 2006: 244). Although,
the creation of social value is of significant importance to both social entrepreneur-
ship and social innovation, the latter concept recognizes that in addition to indi-
vidual entrepreneurs groups of people (such as communities or organizations) can
also be drivers of innovation. Social innovation thus draws on social capital of
networks in order to encourage the imagination of new opportunities and alter-
natives. By focusing on networks, it may break down barriers between the public
(organizations), private (individuals and firms), and non-profit (social entre-
preneurs, organizations and communities) sectors. To allow for extensive commu-
nity input, social innovation often follows an open innovation process, a
collaborative style of innovation which requires a shared vision as well as values
and norms. Within open innovation processes, knowledge, ideas, thoughts, designs,
future scenarios, etc. can be gathered from a wide variety of participants (the
internet has significantly increased the opportunities for engaging distant partici-
pants via crowdsourcing).
In their analysis of the meanings attached to social innovation, R€uede and Lurtz
(2012) have identified seven (sometimes overlapping) categories incorporating
different points of view and definitions: (1) To do something good in/for society,
(2) To change social practices and/or structure, (3) To contribute to urban and
community development, (4) To reorganize work processes, (5) To imbue
Social Innovations in Tourism: Social Practices Contributing to Social. . . 103
technological innovations with cultural meaning and relevance, (6) To make

changes in the area of social work, (7) To innovate by means of digital connectivity.
Yet, at a more general level, social innovation can be viewed as a process of
collaborative innovation, where the innovation process benefits from networks,
co-operation and co-production (Sørensen, 2007) facilitated by new developments
in IT or as a social outcome, which changes social interactions and practices, such
as via new hospitality/economic practices such as couch-surfing and the use of
Airbnb (Molz & Gibson, 2012).
The outcomes of social innovations are first, changing social interactions and
practices, and second, contributing to the social development of communities. To
date, social innovation has received limited attention in the academic tourism
literature. This chapter therefore has three aims: first, to provide a conceptual over-
view of social innovation, particularly in context of social entrepreneurship; sec-
ond, to link the theoretical concept to existing literature and themes in tourism
research; and third, to provide an impetus for not only thinking about, but also
enacting and performing social innovation in a tourism context.
2 Technology and Changing Social Practices
In the past, the focus on innovations was rather restrictive and mainly fixated on
new technological developments. It is now becoming increasingly recognized that
technological innovations also affect social life and thus result in social inno-
vations. Novel technologies often in combination with new business models may
offer new ways of doing things or of interacting with each other. This is either on
purpose or incidental. In some cases, technological developments offer oppor-
tunities for new business models which rely on different kinds of relationships between
producers and consumers. New technologies developed for a particular purpose
but applied in a slightly different context become social innovations. The changing
social interactions and practices may then affect a wider section of society com-
pared to the initial technical development.
The innovations themselves are often based on new communication channels
and web-based social network platforms and apps. In this context, social inno-
vations are understood as particular technological innovations that lead to changing
social practices with the ultimate aim of positively influencing (if not changing)
current social organizations and communications in order to edge towards a more
just society.
But who is pushing these social innovations in tourism? A focus on innovations
rather than on the innovative entrepreneurs allows for an analysis of the cultural
relationships involved in the adoption of innovation (Pace, 2013). Such a cultural
view of the consumption of innovation highlights the adoption of innovation as a
process as well as its contextual framing as consumers may use the new products in
novel ways and thus transform the social practices associated with the product.
Rather than a restrictive view of consumers as either early or late adopters,
consumers should be seen as cultural agents who re-enact culture in the consump-
tion process and may thus transform practices associated with new products:
“tourists are dynamic social actors, interpreting and embodying experience, whilst
also creating meaning and new realities through their actions” (Selby, 2004: 127).
Tourists are not passive consumers but as cultural agents (by re-enacting culture)
may engage in novel ways of using products thus leading to the adaptation of
products or to further product development (Hall & Williams, 2008). Consumers as
cultural agents may therefore contribute to the transformation of new technologies
and their consequences for social innovations as an advantage which may help to
greatly improve social interactions.
In tourism, the possibility of new (social) practices of interaction via techno-
logical innovations has fundamentally changed the relationship between supply and
demand and offers tourists varied opportunities to enact their agency and become
cultural agents. The sharing economy, especially, can be understood as one driver
for new social innovations in tourism which changes the conventional structures of
social organization and creates (virtual) space for new interpersonal transactions.
While hospitality has often been understood as a commercial phenomenon, alter-
native practices in tourism and hospitality highlight the importance of the wider
social implications within the hospitality context (Lynch, Molz, Mcintosh, Lugosi,
& Lashley, 2011). An example of this change is the re-worked hospitality relation-
ships facilitated by online platforms such as Airbnb (commercial) and Couchsurfing
(non-commercial). Especially the original couch-surfing project is a good example
of consumers as cultural agents, as crowd-based support (creating a vibrant com-
munity of users and programmers) was instrumental during the initial development
of the social network and the brand (couch-surfing later became for-profit which
created certain tension within the original couch-surfing community). These inno-
vative practices in hospitality have resulted in increased academic attention on the
wider social implications of different understandings of hospitality (Molz, 2012)
and on the importance of trust in social exchanges (Rosen, Lafontaine, &
Hendrickson, 2011; Tan, 2010).
Many of the current social innovations in tourism are combined with web-based
technologies such as social platforms, which offer opportunities for individual
exchanges as in the sharing economy. These technical developments have resulted
in new social practice as online social networks are transformed into corporeal
social networks as the hospitality/tourism exchange takes place: “. . . tourism is . . .
a significant set of relations connecting and reconnecting ‘disconnected’ people in
face-to-face proximities where obligations and pleasures can go hand in hand”
(Larsen, Urry, & Axhausen, 2007, p. 244). Mosedale (2012: 204), for instance,
highlights that alternative economic practices in tourism like wwoofing (willingly
working on organic farms) and couch-surfing can contribute to an alternative eco-
nomic discourse embracing “open, plural [economies] and consisting of a variety of
economic practices set in particular social, cultural and political contexts”.
Innovative use of technology may also lead to new concepts of travel collabo-
ration. One example is the possibility of using mobile apps to create temporary,
place-based social networks of previously unconnected people. As part of a wider

project on the digital economy, such a web-based mobile application was developed
to facilitate the collaboration between tourists at a campsite (Dickinson et al.,
2015). Collaboration included the sharing of information (which generated an
initial sense of community amongst the network users) but also offers for help
such as lifts or going shopping. Such collaborative initiatives facilitated by techno-
logy incorporate not only the consumption of tourism but also the exchange of
people and cultures with an aim to strengthen communities as well as social/
regional development.
These new practices coming to life via new social networks must at the same
time be critically analyzed, although social networks may offer alternative oppor-
tunities for creating more positive social relations, the wide-spread adoption of
these online networks may lead to a reflection of wider society including its
negative aspects. The sharing of personal information is important to generate
trust between the two parties prior to the exchange (Rosen et al., 2011). This can
lead to increased discrimination which does not exist in commercial hospitality as
personal information (which can be gleaned from pictures on profiles) are not
gathered prior to the financial transaction (Edelman & Luca, 2014). As hospitality
consumers and providers need to provide personal information and pictures on
online social network platforms in order to build up a rapport and ultimately trust
with each other, either party can discriminate against certain characteristics such as
race or gender (Edelman & Luca, 2014). This case demonstrates that technology-
mediated experiences in tourism are neutral and the mix of social outcomes
(positive or negative) depend on the use by individuals (tourists and producers) as
well as values and norms within societies (see for example Ihde, 1990 for a
discussion of the relationship between technology and society).
It is therefore important to understand that social innovations in tourism even if
they can bring a great opportunity in democratization via crowd-sourced informa-
tion (Zook et al., 2015), social development and sustainable community develop-
ment, should not inherently be regarded as positive developments. In the example
of Airbnb it is questionable if this social network can turn around the definition of
hospitality from a currently more professional and capitalist understanding back to
a traditional understanding of sharing. Ikkala and Lampinen (2015) found that
participants were motivated to monetize hospitality for financial and social reasons.
Money helped to control the volume and type of demand in a desired sociability
context. Yet, these social innovations have also been identified by entrepreneurs as
potential for capital accumulation. New business models have allowed the com-
mercialization and further regulation of relationships between consumers and
producers.
The field of social innovation and sharing economy will be a rich field of
research to analyze the social relations of new types of transactions. As many offers
and initiatives developed under the broad umbrella of the sharing economy have
developed with a focus on human mobility (including tourism and hospitality), the
tourism and hospitality academy should be able to contribute to current debates on
changing social interactions based on technological developments.
The use of augmented reality in tourism is likely to be another strong driver for
social innovations linked to technological developments. Augmented reality will
result in the increasing presence of live online content in more and more life
situations. Tussyadiah (2014) sees a shift in tourist behavior based on wearable
devices in the transformation of ‘tourists into explorers’, in rapidly increasing ‘first-
person visual travel narratives and more social travel supported by real time
connectivity’. Information on tourism content could therefore be spread more
democratically (Zook, Graham, & Boulton, 2015) which means that more and
more tourism practices will be realized not exclusively based on or influenced by
the tourism industry but by crowd-sourced information. This could become also
more ‘subjective’ as a consequence. For instance, Graham, Zook, and Boulton
(2013) highlight the power attributed to software code and algorithms which are
responsible for the type of information we receive via augmented reality as an
important factor in producing places and everyday life. This code can be influenced
amongst other factors via social (social actors) and technical (software) dimensions.
It is therefore also a question of power (exerted by civil society, businesses,
governments, special interest groups etc.) which content we will receive and with
whom we will interact in our tourism experiences in tourist places (Zook et al.,
2015). In the future, augmented reality could thus possibly even advise us what we
do not want to do, who we may not want to speak to and could help to avoid
spontaneous meetings and awkward situations. This will minimize the possibility of
chance encounters in tourism experiences. The implementation of wearable devices
like smartphones (Dickinson et al., 2014; Garau, 2014) and Google Glass (Leue,
Jung, & Dieck, 2015) in our tourism experiences shows that augmented reality will
again largely change our practices and habits in tourism by enriching and reducing
our experiences at the same time. How we view these changes in tourism practices
is a question of interpretation. Pace (2013) describes two different ideas concerning
the ‘customers’ and their social practices: the possibility of empowerment through-
out this new technology but at the same time the danger that people become
detached from reality.
3 Social Innovations for Community Development
Social innovations are novel approaches (both thematic and process-oriented) to

address social issues, which should also result in the development of new or
improved skills and more efficient social processes (The Young Foundation,
2012). As contemporary challenges (e.g. social, demographic, economic and envi-
ronmental) are complex in nature, they can rarely be solved by one actor in
isolation. This approach, then, requires a different understanding of social inno-
vation that focuses on new economic (Jessop, 2012) and social imaginaries [with a
view to re-frame the current capital-centric production, consumption and redistri-
bution processes as well as the current governance structures (Mosedale, 2011)].
Social innovations in this context are framed around changing social relations to
elicit a structural change towards a more just society. For instance, social inno-
vations are deemed to be important for achieving more sustainable communities
(Ashford, 2001), as they increase both a society’s capacity to act and their resilience
to change (The Young Foundation, 2012).
In a post-structural discourse analysis of documents discussing social inno-
vation, Ilie and During (2012) have identified three differing discourses: social
innovation as (a) changing governance processes to improve participation;
(b) social entrepreneurship by individuals and (c) social community innovation
with a focus on collaborative innovation within a community setting.
3.1 Social Innovation as Governance
This type of discourse on social innovation originates mainly from governments

and focuses on inclusive public policy processes in order to increase the efficiency
of policies. The concept of community participation is nothing new for tourism as
tourism has been identified as a “community industry” (Murphy, 1988, 2013). Since
the 1980s there have been numerous publications dealing with various aspects of
community planning (Grybovych & Hafermann, 2010; Inskeep, 1991; Lew, 2014;
Loukissas, 1983; Reid, Mair, & George, 2004), community participation (Bahaire
& Elliott-White, 1999; Hasse & Milne, 2005; Stone & Stone, 2011; Tosun &
Timothy, 2003), and community development (Beeton, 2006; Richards & Hall,
2003) in a tourism context. As community-based tourism as a research field is an
integral part of the tourism academy, it is not surprising that the relatively new term
‘social innovation’ to denote improved public policy processes has not found any
traction to date (See Malek & Costa, 2015 for an exception).
Although increasing public participation is a main motivation for this social
innovation discourse, the focus lies on the provision of opportunities for partici-
pation rather than on the inclusion of citizens as active agents throughout the entire
process of social innovation (from the identification of challenges, generation and
selection of ideas, implementation and final evaluation). In a rare case study,
Jordan, Vogt, Kruger, and Grewe (2013) compared two different tourism-planning
approaches within a 2 year period in one case study. The collaborative planning
model which was developed first was replaced by a council-led process facilitated
by an external consultant. This example demonstrates different levels of citizen
participation (one process enabling active participation, whereas the council-led
process provided opportunities for more passive participation).
The innovation in this governance focused social innovation discourse lies in the
adoption of new methods of engaging with the public, resulting in “. . . innovations
in form and not necessarily in content” (Ilie & During, 2012: 19). Civil society,
then, is given a passive role in the policy process, which largely remains controlled
by public institutions (Ilie & During, 2012). The following excerpt from a summary
of a workshop on social innovation organized by the Bureau of European Policy
Advisers in 2009 is a good example of the governance discourse on social

innovation:
To better develop the social innovation dimension in EU policies and programs imple-
mented at national, regional and local level. It also makes suggestions about new insti-
tutional provisions to act as a driver for social change. The objective is to improve the
quality of life of all citizens and the competitiveness of the European economy for a smart,
sustainable and inclusive Europe (Hubert, 2010: p. 13).
The agency of individuals and groups to generate out-of-the-box ideas for

solving challenges and for establishing an innovation process suitable to local
contexts is ignored. For instance, a case-study of tourism development in Svaneti,
Georgia demonstrates the complex shift from providing hospitality for free
(a cultural tradition) towards different ways of regulating the commercial provision
of hospitality (Voll & Mosedale, 2015). At the beginning of the increase in western
tourists to the region, many village communities would collaboratively determine
the allocation of tourists to individual households. The rules and regulations
regarding the distribution of tourists to homesteads are defined by the community
itself, yet not necessarily following a democratic process as decisions may be taken
by important personalities as informal representatives of the community (Voll &
Mosedale, 2015).
3.2 Social Entrepreneurship
In contrast, the discourse on social entrepreneurs relies on individuals or social

businesses to identify and address social challenges that are not being addressed by
public institutions. Communities may take on a more active role in the innovation
process than within a governance discourse, but the drive and initial initiative
emanates from the individual entrepreneur who manages to inspire others for the
cause. As stated by Ilie and During (2012: 26): “social businesses are regarded by
political power structures as economic boosters for society” and thus are often able
to draw on their economic and political networks in order to mobilize the necessary
resources (monetary or in kind) to achieve the goals of the project and fill the gap
left by state and market solutions. As social entrepreneurship is the central theme of
this edited collection, we aim to provide insights into the relationship between
social entrepreneurship and social innovation by way of discussing the different
interpretations with a focus on bottom-up and collaborative innovation.
3.3 Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship

as Bottom-Up and Collaborative
Communities not only engage in public consultation processes, but create and shape
new processes as well as creating local solutions. Hochgerner (2009) emphasizes
that all innovations are embedded in culture (often organizational cultures) leading
to the term ‘cultures of innovation’. This is particularly the case for social inno-
vations as these innovation processes “. . . are highly dependent on social structures
and their understanding of societal challenges and change” (Ilie & During, 2012:
p. 8). Due to the shifting and dynamic social structures in tourism destinations,
incorporating different types of tourists, tourist workers and locals, the culture of
innovation (particularly in relation to social innovation) is of particular importance.
Community-based decision-making, planning and collaboration (Dredge, 2006;
Jamal & Getz, 1995; Murphy, 1988; Okazaki, 2008; Scheyvens, 1999; Vernon,
Essex, Pinder, & Curry, 2005) are popular areas of research in tourism. In contrast,
communities have largely been ignored in innovation research with a larger empha-
sis being placed on individual innovation as performed in social entrepreneurship or
collective innovation in organizations. Tourism research could thus offer a clear
contribution to social innovation research, in particular as research on collaborative
(Baglieri & Consoli, 2009) and user-driven innovation (Hjalager & Nordin, 2011;
Sørensen, 2011) is gaining momentum. Communities are “a neglected site of
innovation” and an “innovative niche” (Seyfang & Smith, 2007: 585). Commu-
nities need to continuously evolve and adjust in order to be able to meet societal
challenges that result from socio-economic changes. In particular, municipalities
that are largely dependent on one type of economic activity (e.g. tourism) must
respond to social change and develop local solutions. Yet public funds are increas-
ingly limited and are often not sufficient for long-term planning. Bottom-up,
participative approaches provide local authorities with an opportunity to engage
with their communities in social innovation projects that have clear social conse-
quences. Social innovation projects developed and implemented by communities
can deliver social change and benefits where more top-down measures may be less
successful. Communities have local knowledge, are able to contextualize this
knowledge and provide solutions that are more appropriate to the local context
(Burgess, Bedford, Hobson, Davies, & Harrison, 2003). Community-led social
innovation projects can benefit from local experience, knowledge and, most impor-
tantly, local values, but—depending on the existing social context—may also result
in particularly complicated situations.
4 Conclusion: The Paradox of Social Innovation
Despite the commendable aim of social innovation and associated concepts such as
social economies (Amin, Cameron, & Hudson, 2003) and communal alternative
economic practices (Mosedale, 2012) to benefit from local knowledge, initiative
and engagement, there is a paradox. Neoliberal governments have adopted terms
such as ‘social innovation’, ‘social entrepreneurship’ and ‘social enterprise’ in their
discourse of individual and communal self-sufficiency (Graefe, 2006). In a first step
of neoliberalization, government institutions have generally been rolled back,
before new institutions with reduced roles in providing social services have been
rolled out (Peck & Tickell, 2002). Governments then rely on societies to assume
social responsibility outside of the traditional, formal government institutions
representing societies’ interests. In the UK, the concept of the ‘big society’, has
been actively promoted by government (Smith, 2010) and much of the responsibil-
ity for social services has thus been transferred from government institutions to the
consortium of the big society (an eclectic group of non-state actors such as NGOs,
social entrepreneurs, local support systems such as family, friends, neighbors etc.):
“[The big society] is a guiding philosophy—a society where the leading force for
progress is social responsibility, not state control. It includes a whole set of unifying
approaches—breaking state monopolies, allowing charities, social enterprises and
companies to provide public services, devolving power down to neighborhoods,
making government more accountable” (Rt Hon Cameron, 2010).
The discourse and aims of social tourism in Europe analyzed by Minnaert (2016)
is an example of the results of a social innovation that has been adopted by
neoliberal governments. Initially devised as projects to redistribute wealth across
society in the form of access to holidays for disadvantaged groups, social tourism is
being promoted by the UK. Not only has there been a general shift in Europe from
state provision of social tourism project to non-profit and charitable organizations,
but the UK government is strategically promoting social tourism to support declin-
ing holiday resorts in the UK by providing tourists in the low season and by creating
demand in new target markets (people with jobs but on low income) for cheap,
domestic holidays.
Neoliberal governments are thus “. . .integrating the free market with a theory of
social solidarity based on the conservative communitarian principles of order,
hierarchy and voluntarism” (Corbett & Walker, 2013: 455). In this context, Hulgård
(2010) speaks of a paradoxical relationship between the ideas of social innovation
and its neoliberal exploitation as a fill-gap for less government provision of social
services. This privatization of responsibility and the resulting gaps filled by wider
society represents a changing relationship between states and societies and a
“fundamental alteration of the existing framework for social policies” (Hulgård,
2010: 7). The state has mutated from being a provider of social services to being an
enabler, to create favorable conditions for the market-oriented provision of social
services by private enterprise. In cases where private enterprise has not yet entered
the market or where it is unable to offer appropriate services at the right price
(i.e. the endeavor is not profitable enough), big society is expected to fill the gap.
Social innovations are then flanking mechanisms to counter the negative results of
de- and reregulation and help to stabilize and re-produce the neoliberal project
(Mosedale, 2016). Hence, social innovation is embedded within a wider neoliberal
strategy of government withdrawal, privatization and a shift of responsibility
towards the individual and the ‘big’ society, while at the same time allowing greater
local involvement, decision-making powers and thus local solutions. As Cole
(2006) has highlighted in a longitudinal case study of community participation in
tourism development in Eastern Indonesia, information is key for sustainable
development of communities. It is therefore important that social innovation pro-
jects in tourism retain control of the discourse both within and outside their
collaborative innovation network in order to retain the momentum of community
collaboration to address current and future challenges.
In this contribution, we have attempted to provide a conceptual and critical ana-
lysis of social innovation. Both social entrepreneurship and social innovation aim to
address social challenges and needs and to contribute to sustainable development,
yet are two sides of the same coin. When discussing social entrepreneurship in
tourism, it is valuable to also consider the process of innovation and the positive
effects of collaborative innovation when it comes to sustainable societies.
Technological innovations have implications for social relations and may lead to
new social practices, while the reverse is also important: innovative technologies
may be dependent on new social approaches for their success (Hochgerner, 2009).
At the same time, there is a need for an increased focus on community governance
and collaborative innovation at community level. Many avenues for research in
social community innovation remain in the context of tourism and hospitality: How
can the lessons learnt from studying innovation in enterprises be applied to com-
munities? What are the differences between innovative actions, behaviors and
projects in individuals, enterprises, local authorities and communities? How can
communities or local authorities become involved in social innovation in order to
adapt to current yet long-term challenges? It is time that tourism scholars with their
experience in community-based tourism planning engage in the academic and
public policy debate on social innovation, while bearing in mind the exploitation
of the term by neoliberal thought.
1. How may social structures within a tourism community or hospitality business
foster or hinder social innovation?
2. How can social innovation be successfully implemented within a diverse
(migrant labour, tourists, locals, etc.) tourism destination?
3. Does the use of technology in social innovation contribute to more just and
sustainable tourism communities or does it impede social exchange?
References
Amin, A., Cameron, A., & Hudson, R. (2003). Placing the social economy. London: Routledge.
Ashford, N. A. (2001). Innovation: The pathway to threefold sustainability. In F. Lehner,
A. Charles, S. Bieri, & Y. Paleocrassas (Eds.), The steilmann report: The wealth of people:
An intelligent economy for the 21st Century (pp. 233–274). Brainduct ®—digital edition.
Baglieri, D., & Consoli, R. (2009). Collaborative innovation in tourism: Managing virtual com-
munities. The TQM Journal, 21(4), 353–364.
Bahaire, T., & Elliott-White, M. (1999). Community participation in tourism planning and
development in the historic city of York, England. Current Issues in Tourism, 2(2–3), 243–276.
Beeton, S. (2006). Community development through tourism. Collingwood: Landlinks Press.
Burgess, J., Bedford, T., Hobson, K., Davies, G., & Harrison, C. (2003). (Un)sustainable con-
sumption. In F. Berkhout, M. Leach, & I. Scoones (Eds.), Negotiating environmental change
(pp. 261–291). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Cole, S. (2006). Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 629–644.
Corbett, S., & Walker, A. (2013). The big society: Rediscovery of ‘the social’ or rhetorical fig-leaf for
neo-liberalism? Critical Social Policy, 33(3), 451–472.
Dickinson, J. E., Cherrett, T., Hibbert, J. F., Winstanley, C., Shingleton, D., Davies, N.,
et al. (2015). Fundamental challenges in designing a collaborative travel app. Transport Policy,
44, 28–36.
Dickinson, J. E., Ghali, K., Cherrett, T., Speed, C., Davies, N., & Norgate, S. (2014). Tourism and the
smartphone app: Capabilities, emerging practice and scope in the travel domain. Current Issues
in Tourism, 17(1), 84–101.
Dredge, D. (2006). Networks, conflict and collaborative communities. Journal of Sustainable Tour-
ism, 14(6), 562–581.
Edelman, B. G., & Luca, M. (2014). Digital discrimination: The case of airbnb.com (Harvard Busi-
ness School NOM Unit Working Paper 14-054).
Garau, C. (2014). From territory to smartphone: Smart fruition of cultural heritage for dynamic tour-
ism development. Planning Practice and Research, 29(3), 238–255.
Graefe, P. (2006). Social economy policies as flanking for Neoliberalism: Transnational policy solu-
tions, emergent contradictions, local alternatives. Policy and Society, 25(3), 69–86.
Graham, M., Zook, M., & Boulton, A. (2013). Augmented reality in urban places: Contested content
and the duplicity of code. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 464–479.
Grybovych, O., & Hafermann, D. (2010). Sustainable practices of community tourism planning:
Lessons from a remote community. Community Development, 41(3), 354–369.
Hall, C. M., & Williams, A. M. (2008). Tourism and innovation. Abingdon: Routledge.
Hasse, J. C., & Milne, S. (2005). Participatory approaches and geographical information systems
(PAGIS) in tourism planning. Tourism Geographies, 7(3), 272–289.
Hjalager, A. M., & Nordin, S. (2011). User-driven innovation in tourism: A review of methodologies.
Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 12(4), 289–315.
Hochgerner, J. (2009). Innovation processes in the dynamics of social change. In J. Loudin &
K. Schuch (Eds.), Innovation cultures. Challenge and learning strategy (pp. 17–45). Prague:
Filosofia.
Hubert, A. (2010). Empowering people, driving change: Social innovation in the European Union.
Luxembourg: Bureau of European Policy Advisors, Publications Office of the European Union.
Hulgård, L. (2010). Discourses of social entrepreneurship: Variations of the same theme (EMES
Working Papers 10/01).
Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.
Ikkala, T., & Lampinen, A. (2015). Monetizing network hospitality: Hospitality and sociability in
the context of Airbnb. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1033–1044). New York: ACM
Ilie, E. G., & During, R. (2012). An analysis of social innovation discourses in Europe: concepts and
strategies of social innovation. Retrieved July 26, 2015, from https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/
socialinnovationeurope/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/An%20analysis%20of%20SI%20dis
courses%20in%20Europe.pdf
Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: An integrated and sustainable development approach.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of
Tourism Research, 22(1), 186–204.
Jessop, B. (2012). Economic and ecological crises: Green new deals and no-growth economies.
Development, 55(1), 17–24.
Jordan, E. J., Vogt, C. A., Kruger, L. E., & Grewe, N. (2013). The interplay of governance, power and
citizen participation in community tourism planning. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism,
Leisure and Events, 5(3), 270–288.
Larsen, J., Urry, J., & Axhausen, K. W. (2007). Networks and tourism: Mobile social life. Annals of
Leadbeater, C. (2006). The socially entrepreneurial city. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social entre-
preneurship: New models of sustainable social change (pp. 233–246). Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Leue, M. C., Jung, T., & Dieck, D. (2015, February 3–6). Google glass augmented reality:
Generic learning outcomes for art galleries. In I. Tussyadiah & A. Inversini (Eds.), Infor-
mation and communication technologies in tourism 2015 (pp. 463–476). Proceedings of the
International Conference in Lugano. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Lew, A. A. (2014). Scale, change and resilience in community tourism planning. Tourism Geo-
graphies, 16(1), 14–22.
Loukissas, P. J. (1983). Public participation in community tourism planning: A gaming simulation
approach. Journal of Travel Research, 22(1), 18–23.
Lynch, P., Molz, J. G., Mcintosh, A., Lugosi, P., & Lashley, C. (2011). Theorizing hospitality.
Hospitality and Society, 1(1), 3–24.
Malek, A., & Costa, C. (2015). Integrating communities into tourism planning through social inno-
vation. Tourism Planning and Development, 12(3), 281–299.
Minnaert, L. (2016). Social tourism: From redistribution to neoliberal aspiration development. In
J. Mosedale (Ed.), Neoliberalism and the political economy of tourism (pp. 117–128).
New York: Routledge.
Molz, J. G. (2012). CouchSurfing and network hospitality: ‘It’s not just about the furniture’.
Hospitality and Society, 1(3), 215–225.
Molz, J. G., & Gibson, S. (2012). Mobilizing hospitality: The ethics of social relations in a
mobile world. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Mosedale, J. T. (2011). Thinking outside the box: Alternative political economies in tourism.
In J. T. Mosedale (Ed.), Political economy of tourism: A critical perspective (pp. 93–108).
London: Routledge.
Mosedale, J. (2012). Diverse economies and alternative economic practices in tourism. In
N. Morgan, I. Ateljevic, & A. Pritchard (Eds.), The critical turn in tourism studies: Creating an
academy of hope (pp. 194–207). London: Routledge.
Mosedale, J. T. (2016). Neoliberalism and the political economy of tourism: projects, discourses and
practices. In J. T. Mosedale (Ed.), Neoliberalism and the political economy of tourism (pp. 1–20).
London: Routledge.
Murphy, P. E. (1988). Community driven tourism planning. Tourism Management, 9(2), 96–104.
Murphy, P. E. (2013). Tourism: A community approach. London: Routledge.
Okazaki, E. (2008). A community-based tourism model: Its conception and use. Journal of Sustain-
able Tourism, 16(5), 511–529.
Pace, S. (2013). Looking at innovation through CCT glasses: Consumer culture theory and
Google glass innovation. Journal of Innovation Management, 1(1), 38–54.
Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, 34(3), 380–404.
Reid, D. G., Mair, H., & George, W. (2004). Community tourism planning: A self-assessment instru-
ment. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 623–639.
Richards, G., & Hall, D. (2003). Tourism and sustainable community development. London:
Routledge.
Rosen, D., Lafontaine, P. R., & Hendrickson, B. (2011). CouchSurfing: Belonging and trust in a
globally cooperative online social network. New Media and Society, 13(6), 981–998.
Rt Hon Cameron, D. (2010, March 31). Our ‘big society’ plan. Speech given on Wednesday.
uede, D., & Lurtz, K. (2012). Mapping the various meanings of social innovation: Towards a
R€
differentiated understanding of an emerging concept (EBS Business School Research Paper
12-03).
Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Manage-
ment, 20(2), 245–249.
Selby, M. (2004). Understanding urban tourism: Image, culture and experience. London:
I.B. Tauris.
Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a
new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 16(4), 584–603.
Smith, M. J. (2010). From big government to big society: Changing the state–society balance.
Parliamentary Affairs, 63(4), 818–833.
Sørensen, F. (2007). The geographies of social networks and innovation in tourism. Tourism Geo-
graphies, 9(1), 22–48.
Sørensen, F. (2011). Inducing user-driven innovation in tourism: An experimental approach. In
J. Sundbo & M. Toivonen (Eds.), User-based innovation in services (pp. 323–346). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Stone, L. S., & Stone, T. M. (2011). Community-based tourism enterprises: Challenges and
prospects for community participation; Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Botswana. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 19(1), 97–114.
Tan, J. E. (2010, June 2010). The leap of faith from online to offline: An exploratory study of
Couchsurfing.org. In A. Acquisti, S. W. Smith, & A.-R. Sadeghi (Eds.), Trust and trustworthy
computing (pp. 367–380). Proceedings of the Third International Conference, TRUST 2010,
Berlin. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6101. Heidelberg: Springer.
The Young Foundation. (2012). Social innovation overview: A deliverable of the project: “The
theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe”
(TEPSIE). European Commission—7th Framework Programme. Brussels: European Commis-
sion, DG Research.
Tosun, C., & Timothy, D. J. (2003). Arguments for community participation in the tourism devel-
opment process. Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(2), 2–15.
Tussyadiah, I. (2014, January 21–24). Expectation of travel experiences with wearable computing
devices. In Z. Xiang & I. Tussyadiah (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in
tourism 2014 (pp. 539–552). Proceedings of the International Conference in Dublin, Ireland.
Heidelberg: Springer.
Vernon, J., Essex, S., Pinder, D., & Curry, K. (2005). Collaborative policymaking: Local sustain-
able projects. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 325–345.
Voll, F., & Mosedale, J. (2015). Political-economic transition in Georgia and its implications for
tourism in Svaneti. TIMS Acta, 9(2), 91–103.
Zook, M., Graham, M., & Boulton, A. (2015). Crowd-sourced augmented realities: Social media
and the power of digital representation. In S. P. Mains, J. Cupples, & C. Lukinbeal (Eds.),
Mediated geographies and geographies of media (pp. 223–240). Netherlands: Springer.
Jan Mosedale is Senior Lecturer and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Tourism and
Leisure, University of Applied Sciences HTW Chur, Switzerland. He is editor of Neoliberalism
and the Political Economy of Tourism (Routledge, 2016), Political Economy of Tourism:
A Critical Perspective (Routledge, 2011) and series co-editor of Current Developments in the
Geographies of Leisure and Tourism (Routledge). Jan is currently Chair of the Geographies of
Leisure and Tourism Research Group with the Royal Geographical Society, UK.
Frieder Voll is research fellow and lecturer at the Institute of Tourism and Leisure, University of
Applied Sciences HTW Chur, Switzerland. His main research interest is sustainable development
in high-mountain regions. From 2008 until 2012, Frieder Voll worked as research assistant at the
Institute of Geography, University of Erlangen, Germany. For his Ph.D., he analyzed the signifi-
cance of accessibility for the European Alpine Regions and highlighted that tourism can be an
important factor for development in peripheral mountain regions. Although the main geographic
foci are the European Alps, he transfers his research to other high-altitude mountain regions.
Understanding How Social Entrepreneurs Fit
into the Tourism Discourse
Ziene Mottiar and Karla Boluk
Abstract This chapter discusses how social entrepreneurs fit into the existing
tourism discourse taking place in the academic literature. There are many areas
of discourse that intersect with social entrepreneurship however this chapter iden-
tifies those that are closest to the topic of tourism social entrepreneurship. It
examines four areas of literature in particular; tourism entrepreneurs, sustainability,
destination development and intrapreneurship. It then analyzes how introducing the
concept of social entrepreneurs into these discussions can contribute to our under-
standing of the phenomenon and its development. The key argument is that research
on social entrepreneurs is not just relevant for those interested in entrepreneurs it
also effects our thinking on issues such as destination development, relationships
between stakeholders, tourism policy and sustainability. The outcome of the chap-
ter is to point the way for tourism researchers to extend the scope of research on this
topic.
Keywords Tourism social entrepreneurs • Tourism social intrapreneurship •

Tourism entrepreneurs • Sustainability • Destination development
1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to examine how social entrepreneurs fit into the current
tourism discourse. While the term social entrepreneur has been used to explain social
change as far back as the 1970s, as Doherty (editor of Social Enterprise Journal)
observes “academia is beginning to catch up and there are an increasing number of
academics researching social enterprise” (Adolphus, 2005, p. 1).
Z. Mottiar (*)
School of Hospitality Management and Tourism, Cathal Brugha street, Dublin 1, Republic of
Ireland
K. Boluk
Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue
West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada

118 Z. Mottiar and K. Boluk
There is much debate about how to define social entrepreneurs and as Peredo and
McLean (2006, p. 56) state “commentators, both scholarly and popular, and advo-
cates of every kind, understand it in a variety of ways”. Thompson (2000) notes the
breadth of inclusivity of this concept which usually incorporates profit seeking
businesses wishing to help society, social enterprises with a social purpose but are
established as a business, and the volunteer sector. However efforts have been made
to distinguish between these types of social entrepreneurs [for example Zahra,
Gedajilovioc, Neubaum, and Shulman (2009), Neck, Brush, and Allen (2009) and
Fowler (2000)] and their relationship between commercial and social objectives.
Thompson (2002, p. 414) divides social entrepreneurs into two groups, those who:
. . .are clearly seasoned and successful business entrepreneurs and executives who wish to
“put something back” into society [. . .] [while] many others [. . .] are either much less
experienced in business or less aware of what they are taking on at the outset or both. They
are people on a voyage of self discovery and often start with limited self-confidence [. . .]
they are driven by a cause.
Peattie and Morley (2008) conclude that some commercially-driven enterprises

who cross-subsidize from one part of their activities to another, or who have a mix
of business and social objectives are “hybrid social enterprises”.
Just as there are different types of social entrepreneurs there are different
motivations. Traditionally entrepreneurs have been motivated by profits while
social entrepreneurs are motivated by making a difference to society, or by what
Dees (1998, p. 3) refers to as “mission-related impact”. Miller, Grimes, McMullen,
and Vogus (2012) identify compassion as a key motivator for social entrepreneurs
while Germak & Robinson (2014, p. 18) conclude “social entrepreneurial motiva-
tion emerges from personal fulfillment, helping society, nonmonetary focus,
achievement orientation and closeness to a social problem”. This distinction is
not clear cut, as motivations can change over time and personal motivations can
also play a part (Boluk & Mottiar, 2014). A key issue for entrepreneurs is their
problem domain, despite there being little research on how this is identified;
notwithstanding Zahra et al. (2009) and Levie and Hart (2011) who note that
many entrepreneurs identify the problem from their own local area or situation.
Mottiar (2016) also shows that sometimes the problem identification occurs at the
government level, and individual social entrepreneurs then develop their response
to address the issue at a local level.
Demarco (2005, p. 48) makes the point that “social entrepreneur” is ‘just a new
term for those generous individuals who have always existed and who are moti-
vated to make the world better’. This is an important consideration because from a
tourism perspective there are many destination stakeholders demonstrating socially
entrepreneurial characteristics. Such stakeholders may not have not been classified
as social entrepreneurs, and in fact, may not wish to classify themselves in this way.
They may identify themselves as being primarily socially motivated and may not
like the term entrepreneur which implies a more business focused approach.
In reviewing the literature on social entrepreneurs to date, Short, Moss, &
Lumpkin (2009, p. 161) argue that “social entrepreneurship research remains in
Understanding How Social Entrepreneurs Fit into the Tourism Discourse 119
an embryonic state”, calling for a broader range of researchers to contribute to

discussions to deepen our understanding. Tourism scholars are beginning to do just
that; but it is vital that our contribution is not only through case studies exempli-
fying social entrepreneurs in tourism destinations or hospitality businesses, but also
conceptual. A good starting point to move into more conceptual discussions is to
think about how social entrepreneurs fit into the tourism discourse, the goal of this
chapter. The chapter addresses questions such as: Is this a new vein of research
where a small group of academics will focus their research? How relevant is an
understanding of social entrepreneurs for the tourism industry, tourism stakeholders
and destinations? How does an identification and understanding of social entrepre-
neurs affect our thinking on other research issues in tourism? Such questions are
important as we develop a more coherent and structured literature on social
entrepreneurs in tourism.
2 The Tourism Discourse
Research in tourism has developed significantly over the years, as Swain, Brent, and
Long (1998, p. 1012) states “tourism knowledge has gone through an evolution of
formulations, beginning in a somewhat inarticulate form struggling with definitions
and the establishment of basic tenets”. In their examination of Annals of Tourism
Research specifically, Xiao and Smith (2006) identified that while sociology,
geography, and anthropology were the first themes explored in the late 1970s, the
focus shifted to management, economics and socio-economic perspectives; and
more recently socio-cultural and environmental areas have been a focus. Also
interesting is the geographical spread of authors and areas of study which has
broadened in the last two decades, with increasing numbers of articles written by
scholars from Asia dealing with a wider variety of topics (Li & Xu, 2014; Xiao &
Smith, 2006). Ateljevic, Pritchard, and Morgan (2007) argue the need for a critical
turn in tourism studies emphasizing the need to be more critical. They suggest we
ask ourselves as scholars whether “our knowledge has served to enhance social
justice or whether it has simply served to reify historical power and social relations”
(p. 5).
This book marks the emergence of increasing interest in social entrepreneurship
among tourism researchers in the context described above. There is more awareness
of the importance of identifying new issues and including minorities in our analysis,
creating a broader space within which issues such as social entrepreneurship can be
explored. There are issues of specific concern to tourism academics, policy makers
and the sector more broadly; such as: How do tourism social entrepreneurs (TSE)
impact tourist destinations? How do they relate to other stakeholders in a destina-
tion? What types of policies influence these entrepreneurs? Are they able to balance
social and other motives, and if so how does this occur? How can social and tourism
objectives be aligned? It is opportune for research and writing in this area to emerge
now, not only descriptive of TSE as a phenomenon but with conceptual
frameworks. This paper examines why social entrepreneurs matter in the field of
tourism and establishes how they fit into the discourse, currently and into the future.
The authors have been studying social entrepreneurs in tourism destinations in
three countries, Ireland, South Africa and Sweden, over the last 7 years and have
identified their importance in destination development and social innovation. In this
chapter we are interested in how an understanding of social entrepreneurs affects
thinking in other areas of tourism. The particular focus of this chapter is on four
areas: tourism entrepreneurs, sustainability, social intrapreneurs, and destination
development. These areas were chosen as they are topical subjects and will be
affected by social entrepreneurs. The objective is to see how introducing the
concept of social entrepreneurship to these areas affects thinking on each issue.
Ultimately this should facilitate the identification of potential future research areas
and broaden interest in social entrepreneurship in the wider tourism research
community.
3 Understanding Tourism Entrepreneurs
Perhaps the most obvious interest in social entrepreneurs is from those researching
tourism entrepreneurs mirroring the general social entrepreneurship literature
which is rooted in the management discipline (Short et al., 2009). Thomas, Shaw,
and Page (2011, p. 963) note “academic research on small firms in tourism has
developed much more slowly than many had anticipated 15 or 20 years ago”. A key
interest among researchers of tourism entrepreneurs and small businesses is in
different types of entrepreneurs. Morrison, Rimmington, and Williams (1999)
outline a list of types of entrepreneurs in the tourism and hospitality sectors.
However, much research has been on lifestyle entrepreneurs (those whose primary
motivation in setting up a business is to sustain a particular lifestyle for the
entrepreneur). They have been observed in many destinations (e.g. Ateljevic &
Doorne, 2000; Boluk & Mottiar, 2014; Getz & Petersen, 2005; Marchant & Mottiar,
2011; Mottiar, 2007; Shaw & Williams, 2004; Thomas, 1998). The identification of
such entrepreneurs challenges our common understanding that entrepreneurial
motivations are profit driven, and also impacts the way destinations operate and
develop. In spite of this interest, and a relatively large number of publications in the
area, Thomas et al. (2011, p. 966) note that “a more sophisticated theorizing of
lifestyle business ownership is required”.
There is a reliance on both female and ethnic minorities across the service sector
and they have received extensive attention in the broader business and entrepre-
neurship literature, but not in the tourism literature. The importance of ethnic
entrepreneurs has been prominent in the work of Ram (e.g. Ram, Sanghera,
Abbas, Barlow, & Jones, 2000; Ram, Jones, Abbas, & Sanghera, 2002) in partic-
ular, but other authors in tourism have not focused on this topic. Similarly, the
contribution of female entrepreneurs is limited in the tourism literature.
The categorization of tourist entrepreneurs depends on the approach used (Koh

and Hatten, 2008). Using a product differentiation approach they dis-aggregate
them into inventive, innovative and imitative tourism entrepreneurs. Using the
behavioral approach they identify: lifestyle, social, marginal, closet, serial and
nascent tourism entrepreneurs. Within the tourism literature the focus has been
more on the behavioral approach, with particular attention paid to lifestyle entre-
preneurs. These efforts to develop typologies are important from a policy and
destination management organization perspective, as the policies and plans
implemented may differ depending on the dominant type of entrepreneur. Thus it
is important that researchers of tourism entrepreneurs better understand who these
entrepreneurs are. Why is there more focus on lifestyle entrepreneurs and less
interest in ethnic and female entrepreneurs? Is this the case with social entrepre-
neurs also?
Tourism social entrepreneurs fit neatly into this subset of work on tourism
entrepreneurs as a new addition to the typology, and are included in the newer
lists of entrepreneurial types (Koh and Hatten, 2008). Consequently such entrepre-
neurs exist in tourism and there is a place for newly emerging interest and research
on social entrepreneurs.
The categorization of entrepreneurs has meant that individual silos of literature
have developed around each category, and it is easy for social entrepreneurs just to
become another grouping. But keeping in mind Thomas et al.’s (2011) criticism of
the development of this field, investigation of the crossover between types of
entrepreneurs may be beneficial. For example, recent work by Boluk and Mottiar
(2014) demonstrates that some entrepreneurs show both lifestyle and social moti-
vations, and can move between categories. For example they can begin by being
innovative but over time become imitators, or as Marchant and Mottiar (2011) and
Boluk and Mottiar (2014) show, the primary focus on profits or lifestyle can change
over time. From a destination perspective it is vital to understand how all types of
entrepreneurs engage, interact and cooperate with each other. It will be vital that as
we research this area we contribute not just case studies describing the existence of
such entrepreneurs, but rather integrate our research and thinking across the broad
existing literature. Integration of the research on social entrepreneurship in tourism
will not only further understanding, but will contribute to policy debates and deeper
theoretical development.
4 Sustainability
Sustainability discussions within the realm of tourism emerged from the World
Commission on Environment and Development’s (WCED) publication of Our
Common Future. Commonly referred to as the Brundtland Report, it examined
key issues relating to population pressure, human rights, poverty, environment,
development and international economic relations (WCED, 1987). It appealed to a
variety of stakeholders including citizens, NGOs, educational institutions and the
broader scientific community. The WCED (1987, p. 43) defined sustainable devel-
opment as “development which meets the needs of the present without compromis-
ing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. The Report has had a
noteworthy influence on industries striving to reconcile their impacts, including
tourism.
The tourism industry has created many unsustainable impacts which are widely
criticized, making the application of sustainable tourism principles and practices
challenging. The environmental aspect of sustainability has received the most
attention (Lu & Nepal, 2009). Businesses concerned with supporting sustainability
now modify their business practices as a way to reduce and report their cumulative
impacts (Buckley, 2012). However tourism businesses have been criticized for
adopting only those sustainability practices which will boost their profits, create
public relations opportunities (Sheldon & Park, 2011) or comply with legal require-
ments (Buckley, 2012). Some critical tourism scholars encourage moving beyond
sustainability discussions (Sharpley, 2009) due to the lack of progress (Bramwell &
Lane, 2005; Sharpley, 2009) and evidence demonstrating the successful implemen-
tation of sustainable tourism principles in practice (e.g., Ruhanen, 2013).
Based on the pervasive environmental challenges facing society, environmental
entrepreneurship has surfaced as a response, in line with individual entrepreneurial
values and goals. Environmental entrepreneurship establishes an intersection
between social and environmental interests (Mirvis, 1994), and such entrepreneurs
by living alternative lifestyles may prevent harm on the environment through their
operations (Murphy, Poist, & Braunschweig, 1995). Also referred to as
ecopreneurs, these individuals operate an economically viable business while
maintaining core values that inspired them to create their business (Dixon &
Clifford, 2007). Limited research has explored environmental entrepreneurship in
praxis; however Boluk and Mottiar (2014) drew a parallel between the pro-social
and pro-environmental agendas of many of their informants in South Africa and
Ireland. The authors highlighted an environmental imperative that drove the entre-
preneurs’ social focus and ultimately impacted their chosen lifestyle. Seeking
quality of life, enjoyment of the outdoors and related activities led to an interest
in living in rural contexts which made it easier for them to contribute to their
community. This was a significant interest to the informants.
Some researchers such as Young and Tilley (2006) argue that those entrepre-
neurs who mutually focus on the social and environmental factors of their business
are indeed sustainable entrepreneurs, providing an alternative lens to the sole social
(Boluk, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c) or socio-environmental lens (e.g., Boluk & Mottiar,
2014) presented in their research. Sustainable entrepreneurship sets as its goal
achieving “underlying ecological or social objectives” (Hockerts, 2003, p. 50).
Such entrepreneurs are considered a new breed, not only tackling the ubiquitous
environmental concerns but also the concerns in society (Cohen & Winn, 2007) and
ultimately the way profit is earned. Accordingly, sustainable entrepreneurship is
“the examination of how opportunities to bring into existence future foods and
services are discovered, created, and exploited, by whom, and with what economic,
psychological, social, and environmental consequences (Cohen and Winn, 2007,
p. 35)”. Young and Tilley (2006) created a sustainable entrepreneurship model

illustrating how such entrepreneurs start their business with a sustainability lens
from the outset. Furthermore, they argue that social and environmental entrepre-
neurs are sustainable entrepreneurs incorporating all of the elements of sustainable
development.
From the hospitality industry perspective a number of international hotel chains
have gained recognition for their sustainability activities and programs
(e.g. Scandic Hotels (Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008), Fairmont Hotels & Resorts
(Sloan, Legrand & Chen, 2012) and the Fair Hotels Scheme (Boluk, 2013)). Such
priorities could be viewed through a social entrepreneurial lens given the entrench-
ment and pervasiveness of sustainability and community oriented goals. In a similar
study Ergul and Johnson (2011) found that half of their hotel manager respondents’
applied principles of sustainability to confront negative attention received by the
industry. This leads to a discussion of the role of social intrapreneurs who are
concerned with creating social and sustainable value within already existing
organizations.
Sustainability has become increasingly important to tourism, and while debates
about how the sector engages with the concept are unclear, there is a shift in focus
from pure, short-term profits to other factors demonstrating a longer, more broad-
ranging, vision. Such strategies may be spurred by consumer demand or legal
requirements. Does this differentiate these enterprises from social enterprises
with a leading priority to achieve a social objective? Research on sustainability is
by its nature concerned with fulfilling social objectives, therefore the study of social
entrepreneurs is an extension of this work. While the focus in the literature is on
sustainable practices, introducing social entrepreneurs into the debate provides
another avenue of discussion; that of individuals who are specifically motivated
by sustainability.
5 Social INTRApreneurship
Employees who create or motivate existing firms to generate social value via
innovation are referred to as social intrapreneurs. Intrapreneurs develop new
ventures within existing organizations, exploiting new opportunities to create
economic value (Pinchot, 1985). Individuals are motivated to create change within
the corporate setting regardless of size, leading innovations by way of new products
or services (Miller, 1983). Teltumbde (2006) acknowledges the characteristics of
intrapreneurs specifically in small and medium-sized organizations that contribute
to organizational innovation. Orchard (2015) suggests the intrapreneurial contribu-
tion of employees alongside the entrepreneurial drive of top management may be
distinctive ingredients for company growth. Intrapreneurship climates are largely
dependent on leadership characteristics, as well as an understanding of the conse-
quences of intrapreneurial behaviors.
Intrapreneurs confront some of the world’s most pressing issues demonstrating

initiative for “innovations which address social or environmental challenges prof-
itably” (Grayson, McLaren, & Spitzeck, 2011, p. 3). They act in response to the
interconnectivity of human beings with their environment. The work of Grayson
et al. (2011) found that social intrapreneurs innovate in their firms by engaging in
“creating sustainable livelihoods and providing goods and services for low-income
communities, reducing resource consumption and mitigating the impacts of climate
change” (Grayson et al., 2011, p. 3). As such, intrapreneurs can alter a corporate
culture to one that is more responsible and sustainable. Doing well for their
companies by contributing to their bottom line, and benefiting the communities in
which they operate by improving staff morale (Ashoka, 2015).
Limited research has been carried out on intrapreneurship in the context of
service industries and specifically tourism. Albeit, Sundbo (1997) queried innova-
tion in service firms and explored how organizations may manage and organize the
innovation process. Sundbo (1997, p. 444) proposed the need for internal organi-
zation of innovation in four phases:
• Idea generation, by individuals within an organization;
• Transformation into an innovation project, the intrapreneur must convince top
management of the value of the idea developed and top management will decide
if it is in the best interest of the organization to proceed;
• Development, if the idea is chosen a project group is established to further build
on the idea, developing a prototype and investigations into market possibilities;
and
• Implementation, top management will decide whether to implement the innova-
tion as a commercial product.
Importantly, Sundbo’s research draws attention to the fact that innovative ideas
developed by intrapreneurs are a consequence of top management support. Koh and
Hatten (2002) argued that intrapreneurs are not tourism entrepreneurs because they
do not create touristic organizations in the community, instead they have the power
to transform existing firms. This argument is challenged by Samarasinghe and
Ahsan (2013) who argue that intrapreneurship is indeed recognized in hotels
specifically in Sri Lanka. Green intrapreneurs can contribute to the competitive
advantage of hotels especially in emerging economies, and by focusing on green-
based operational initiatives hotel managers can cut operating costs and minimize
resource consumption (Samarasinghe & Ahsan, 2013). The authors did not allude to
the implications for such top down support in an industry notorious for imbalanced
power relations between employees and management and employees and customers
(Bergene, Boluk, & Buckley, 2015). Accordingly, if tourism firms created a culture
conducive to intrapreneurship perhaps the industry could improve its reputation by
attracting an empowered workforce interested in socially transformational
interventions.
There are a number of opportunities and challenges for supporting
intrapreneurship within the tourism industry. Firstly, it is imperative that tourism
employees feel valued in the workplace. Positive staff morale encourages
employees to consider their own intrapreneurial skills and innovations. Secondly,

proper support mechanisms are required to facilitate ideation within tourism busi-
nesses. Specifically, an open and effective communication system that allows front-
line employees to feel comfortable sharing their ideas is important. Management
would need to be open to hearing some tenuous ideas. Thirdly, due to the existing
power imbalance in the tourism industry employees must be acknowledged for their
creative ideas. Incentivizing ideation in the workplace would encourage employees
to be socially intrapreneurial. Fourthly, due to seasonality in tourism, both man-
agement and staff are more focused on day to day tasks during peak seasons, which
may inhibit intrapreneurial initiatives. However, there is time for creative reflection
during the shoulder and low seasons giving space for innovative thinking. During
both seasons, keeping the lines of communication open between management and
staff will allow ideas to flow through the firm more easily. Lastly, intrapreneurship
in tourism firms can be fostered by attracting young personnel who are uninhibited,
have energy, vision and are keen to challenge the status quo. Accordingly, nurturing
an ecosystem within tourism workplaces that supports a spirit for innovation could
build the intrapreneurial activities in tourism.
6 Destination Development
Destinations have a wide variety of stakeholders due to their complexity. The

addition of social entrepreneurs adds another layer to the already complex policy
discussions. A number of authors have identified factors which improve the com-
petitiveness of a destination (e.g. Crouch, 2007; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003) and while
the importance of entrepreneurs in this process is currently understated (Koh &
Hatten, 2002; Komppula, 2014; Ryan, Mottiar, & Quinn, 2012), social entrepre-
neurs must now be added to destination development policies.
Whether lifestyle entrepreneurs contribute to the growth or decline of a desti-
nation is debated by Andrew, Baum, and Morrisson (2001) and Dewhurst and
Horobin (1998). They suggest that the focus on their lifestyle means they may
not favor growth strategies for the destination. In contrast Ateljevic and Doorne
(2000) suggest that lifestyle entrepreneurs can identify gaps in the market, and grow
that demand. This can attract other types of entrepreneurs, stimulating growth in the
destination as a result of the process started by lifestyle entrepreneurs. This can be
true for social entrepreneurs also. An example in Norway shows how an installation
of art on the beach became a tourist attraction (Johns & Mattson, 2005). While this
was not the objective, this social entrepreneur inadvertently acted as a ‘trigger’ to
destination development. Thus social entrepreneurs may not have destination
development or growth as their objective but it may be a consequence of their
actions.
In other cases the social objective can be used to improve growth and attrac-
tiveness of an area. For example the development of the Greenbox (an area with a
concentration of eco-tourism providers) in Ireland was a consequence of policy
makers’ desires to make rural areas more sustainable. Many who had lobbied for
this strategy were driven by improving the sustainability of the area, and by the
desire to encourage people to be more environmentally conscious (Mottiar, 2009).
Similarly, a number of social entrepreneurs in South Africa certified by Fair Trade
Tourism (Boluk, 2011b) were motivated to give back to African society as a
consequence of the advantages received during apartheid. Accordingly, emergent
businesses uniting African rural lifestyles with sustainable development practices
created opportunities for geographically isolated communities, not previously rec-
ognized as viable tourism destinations due to their lack of infrastructure and
resources. The development of eco-lodges and organized responsible township
tours created poverty alleviation opportunities and further stimulated social entre-
preneurial capability for the poorest African communities (Boluk, 2011a, 2011c). In
such cases the balancing of these two objectives is necessary at both an individual
and institutional level and at every decision making point.
It is possible that the objectives of a social entrepreneur has negative conse-
quences for a destination. For example a decision to open a drug rehabilitation
clinic, or a homeless shelter, or a refuge, could result in local opposition. In such
cases the social entrepreneurs’ plans can cause division in the local area as residents
voice their different perspectives. In such cases the social entrepreneurs’ objectives
may conflict with the destination management organization’s plans causing tension
and necessitating careful negotiation and cooperation to come to an agreed solution.
The social entrepreneur has some kind of impact on a tourism destination or local
area. The nature and extent of this impact can be quite different, but all stakeholders
in the destination need to be aware of their emergence. Destinations have organi-
zations, formal or informal, which help plan, guide and organize their development.
Local entrepreneurs form a part of such organizations but it is also important to
include social entrepreneurs. As Mottiar (2007) showed, often lifestyle businesses
do not become part of such organizations because they are too small or not well-
established, and yet they play an integral part in the development of destinations.
Similarly they may not be part of local business associations or chambers of
commerce, and the way they operate may alienate them from other profit-driven
entrepreneurs. Yet there are many similarities, and including those with different
perspectives in decision-making processes can result in more interesting and
innovative discussions.
Social entrepreneurs will have an impact on tourism destinations, whether as
part of their mission or as a side effect and these impacts may be negative and/or
positive. As discussed above in the general social entrepreneurship literature,
sometimes these individuals are already active in a destination, but they have not
been classified as a social entrepreneur but instead perhaps a community leader,
ambassador or a volunteer. Thus, social entrepreneurs are not always new to
destinations, they have just not been identified before as social entrepreneurs.
Social entrepreneurs create opportunities and challenges for existing destination
management organizations and as such they need to be included in their institu-
tional and policy frameworks.
7 Concluding Remarks
This chapter has identified ways in which research on social entrepreneurs fits into
the tourism discourse and how further contributions can be made to the tourism
field and the broader knowledge of social entrepreneurship in general. The authors
explained the relevance of social entrepreneurship in the context of tourism dealing
with entrepreneurship, sustainability, social intrapreneurship and destination devel-
opment. Moving forward there is plenty of scope for tourism researchers to expand
the current knowledge base and in particular to investigate issues that are of
importance from a tourism perspective.
The chapter examined the relevance of an understanding of social entrepreneurs
for the industry, stakeholders and destination. Based on the aforementioned discus-
sion, they are relevant from different perspectives. The four parts stemming from
the circles in Fig. 1 demonstrate the relevance of social entrepreneurs in terms of
destination development, sustainability and our understanding of entrepreneurs and
intrapreneurship. These are not the only ways in which understanding social
entrepreneurs is relevant to the field of tourism. There are likely others such as
relations with communities, inter firm relations and policy implications. Figure 1
shows how social entrepreneurs are relevant to a broad range of issues in the
literature. Considering this framework will discourage the development of research
silos where social entrepreneurship scholars seek out their own vein of research.
The nexus of common ground and interests as displayed in Fig. 1 should enhance
the development of research, thought and understanding of social entrepreneurs
within the field as a whole.
•Relevance of TSE •Relevance of TSE

•Pro-social objectives •Examining entrepreneurial
•Pro- environmental motivations
objectives •Balancing of social and profit
•Sustainability concerns motivations
•Policy implications of
Tourism identifying TSE
Sustainability
Entrepreneurs
Destination
Intrapreneurship •Relevance of TSE
•Relevance of TSE Development
•Evidence of social •Another Stakeholder
intrapreneurship in tourism •Role in destination
•How does social enterprise and development
social intrapreneurship differ? •Relationship building by
•How can tourism businesses TSE with others in
support social destination
intrapreneurship?
Fig. 1 How Tourism Social Entrepreneurs (TSE) fit in tourism

A number of research questions may guide future studies in TSEs. The explo-
ration of the relevance of tourism entrepreneurs in relation to TSEs identified the
balancing of motivations and policy. Further, researchers must engage with the
concept of social entrepreneurs so that research is not limited as in the case of ethnic
and female entrepreneurs. A number of potential research questions emerge from
the discussion that include: How do TSEs balance their motivations? Do their
motivations change over time? What policies can be used to influence such entre-
preneurs? How do they interact with other entrepreneurs?
The authors found that pro-social and pro-environmental sustainability objec-
tives were key drivers for TSEs. As such, potential research questions include: How
do eco-preneurs combine social and business objectives? How do social entrepre-
neurs deal with the issue of their own sustainability? Are TSEs any more conscious
of sustainability than other types of tourism entrepreneurs?
The chapter discussed social intrapreneurship and examined if/how the imple-
mentation of social intrapreneurship practices might be an example of social
entrepreneurial capability. Potential research questions stemming from this discus-
sion include: Is there a relationship between social intrapreneurial innovations and
social entrepreneurial innovations? Are innovations that occur outside and inside
organizations compatible? How can social intrapreneurship support an industry as
complex as tourism? Could social intrapreneurship enhance the reputation of the
hospitality and tourism industry and empower, attract and retain motivated staff?
The relevance of TSEs in relation to various stakeholders was discussed in all
sections. Specifically, their role in destination development and relationships with
other stakeholders in the destination was examined. The potential research ques-
tions discussed include: Are TSEs identified as a stakeholder in destinations? What
role do they play in destinations? Do they have a positive or negative impact on the
success of a destination?
Developing responses to these questions will require researchers from a variety
of interest areas. Understanding of social entrepreneurs will affect the thinking on
fundamental tourism issues such as sustainability, destination development and
intra and entrepreneurship. Continued exploration, and the identification of further
questions for investigation, will begin to create a space, or spaces within the tourism
discourse where social entrepreneurship will not only neatly fit, but will flourish
and grow.
1. Which do you think can be most effective in bringing about social change in a
destination—tourism social entrepreneurs or tourism social intrapreneurs?
Explain.
2. If you were the head of a destination management organization, how would you
engage TSE’s in the process of planning for the destination’s success. What
challenges would you expect to encounter?
3. What aspects of the tourism discourse did this chapter not address? Why are they
important in the study of tourism social entrepreneurship?
References
Adolphus, M. (2005). Meet the editor of the social enterprise journal. An interview with: Bob
Doherty. Retrieved April 6, 2009, from http://0-info.emeraldinight.com.ditlib.dit.ie/authors/
interview/sej.htm?PHPESSID
Andrew, R., Baum, T., & Morrisson, A. (2001). The lifestyle economics of small tourism
businesses. Journal of Travel and Tourism Research, 11, 16–21.
Ashoka. (2015). 2015’s most valuable organization: A changemaker company. Retrieved April 10,
2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2015/09/17/2015s-most-valuable-organiza
tion-the-changemaker-company/"\l"68397189554a, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/
2015/09/17/2015s-most-valuable-organization-the-changemaker-company/#68397189554a
Ateljevic, I., & Doorne, S. (2000). ‘Staying within the fence’: Lifestyle entrepreneurship in
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(5), 378–392.
Ateljevic, I., Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (2007). The critical turn in tourism studies: Innovative
research methodologies. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bergene, A. C., Boluk, K., & Buckley, E. (2015). Examining the opportunities and challenges of union
organization within the hospitality industry: The fair hotels Ireland strategy. In D. Jordhus-Lier &
A. Chistoffer Underthun (Eds.), A hospitable world? Organizing work and workers in hotels and
tourist resorts (pp. 195–212). London: Routledge.
Bohdanowicz, P., & Zientara, P. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in hospitality: Issues and
implications. A case study of scandic. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(4),
271–293.
Boluk, K. (2011a). Fair trade tourism South Africa: A pragmatic poverty reduction mechanism?
Boluk, K. (2011b). In consideration of a new approach to tourism: A critical review of Fair Trade
Tourism. The Journal of Tourism and Peace Research, 2(1), 27–37.
Boluk, K. (2011c). Revealing the discourses: White entrepreneurial motivation in black
South Africa. Tourism Planning and Development, 8(2), 199–213.
Boluk, K. (2013). Using CSR as a tool for development: An investigation of the fair hotels scheme
in Ireland. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 14(1), 49–65.
Boluk, K., & Mottiar, Z. (2014). Motivations of social entrepreneurs: Blurring the social contri-
bution and profits dichotomy. Journal of Social Enterprise, 10(1), 53–68.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2005). From niche to general relevance? Sustainable tourism, research
and the role of tourism journals. Journal of Tourism Studies, 16(2), 52–62.
Buckley, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2),
528–546.
Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepre-
neurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 29–49.
Crouch, G. (2007). Modelling destination competitiveness: A survey and Analysis of the impact of
competitiveness attributes. Retrieved May 2010, from http://www.sustainabletourismonline.
com/awms/Upload/Resource/bookshop/Crouch_modelDestnComp-web.pdf
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Stanford: Stanford University
Graduate School of Business.
Demarco, L. (2005, November 25). Altering the terms of enterprise. Regeneration and Renewal,
p. 48.
Dewhurst, P., & Horobin, H. (1998). Small business owners. In R. Thomas (Ed.), The management
of small tourism and hospitality firms (pp. 19–38). London: Cassells.
Dixon, S. E. A., & Clifford, A. (2007). Ecopreneurship-a new approach to managing the triple
bottom line. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(3), 326–345.
Ergul, M., & Johnson, C. (2011). Social entrepreneurship in the hospitality and tourism industry:
An exploratory approach. The Consortium Journal, 16(2), 40–46.
Fowler, A. (2000). NGDOs as a moment in history: Beyond aid to social entrepreneurship or civic
innovation? Third World Quarterly, 21(4), 637–654.
Germak, Z., & Robinson, J. (2014). Exploring the motivation of nascent social entrepreneurs.
Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 5–21.
Getz, D., & Petersen, T. (2005). Growth and profit-oriented entrepreneurship among family
business owners in the tourism and hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 24(2), 219–242.
Grayson, D., McLaren, M., & Spitzeck, H. (2011) Social intrapreneurs—An extra force for
sustainability. A Doughty Centre for Corporate Responsibility Occasional Paper, pp. 1–48.
Hockerts, K. (2003). Sustainability innovations, ecological and social entrepreneurship and the
management of antagonistic assets. Bamberg: Difo-Druck. Retrieved April 8, 2015, from
http://www.insead.edu/CMER/publications/wp/Hockerts_2003_Sustainability_Innovation.pdf
Johns, N., & Mattson, J. (2005). Destination development through entrepreneurship: A comparison
of two cases. Tourism Management, 26, 605–616.
Koh, K., & Hatten, T. (2002). The tourism entrepreneur: The overlooked player in tourism
development studies. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 3,
21–48.
Koh, K., & Hatten, T. (2008). The tourism entrepreneur: The overlooked player in tourism
development studies. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 3(1),
21–48. http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/wjht20/3/1
Komppula, R. (2014). Role of individual entrepreneurs in the development of competitiveness for
a rural tourism destination—A case study. Tourism Management, 40, 361–371.
Levie, J., & Hart, M. (2011). Business and social entrepreneurs in the UK: Gender, context and
commitment. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 3(3), 200–217.
Li, J., & Xu, Y. (2014). Author analysis of tourism research in the past thirty years—Based on
ATR, JTR and TM. Tourism Management Perspectives, 13, 1–6.
Lu, J., & Nepal, S. K. (2009). Sustainable tourism research: An analysis of papers published in the
Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), 5–16.
Marchant, B., & Mottiar, Z. (2011). Understanding lifestyle tourism entrepreneurs and digging
beneath the issue of profits: Profiling surf tourism lifestyle entrepreneurs in Ireland. Tourism
Planning and Development, 8(2), 171–183.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science,
29, 770–791.
Miller, T., Grimes, J., McMullen, J., & Vogus, T. (2012). Venturing for other with heart and head:
How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 37(4),
616–640.
Mirvis, P. H. (1994). Environmentalism in progressive businesses. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 7(4), 82–100.
Morrison, A., Rimmington, M., & Williams, C. (1999). Entrepreneurship in the hospitality,
tourism and leisure industries. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Mottiar, Z. (2007). Lifestyle entrepreneurs and spheres of inter-firm relations. Entrepreneurship
and Innovation, 8(1), 67–74.
Mottiar, Z. (2009). An alternative vista: Social entrepreneurs in tourism. Paper presented at
Critical Tourism Studies Conference, Croatia, June 2009.
Mottiar, Z. (2016). Exploring the motivations of tourism social entrepreneurs: The role of a
national tourism policy as a motivator for social entrepreneurial activity in Ireland. Interna-
tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(6), 1137–1154.
Murphy, P. R., Poist, R. F., & Braunschweig, C. D. (1995). Role and relevance of logistics to
corporate environmentalism: An empirical assessment. International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, 25(2), 5–19.
Neck, H., Brush, C., & Allen, E. (2009). The landscape of social entrepreneurship. Business
Horizons, 52, 13–19.
Orchard, S. (2015). Entrepreneurship and the human capital of organizational innovation: The
intrapreneur. In S. Sindakis & C. Walter (Eds.), The entrepreneurial rise in Southeast Asia the
quadruple helix influence on technological innovation (pp. 111–138). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Peattie, K., & Morley, A. (2008). Eight paradoxes of the social enterprise research agenda. Social
Enterprise Journal, 4(2), 91–107.
Peredo, A., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept.
Journal of World Business, 41, 56–65.
Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why you don’t have to leave the corporation to become an
entrepreneur. New York: Harper & Row.
Ram, M., Sanghera, B., Abbas, T., Barlow, G., & Jones, T. (2000). Ethnic minority businesses om
comparative perspectives: the case of the independent restaurant sector. Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies, 26(3), 495–510.
Ram, M., Jones, T., Abbas, T., & Sanghera, B. (2002). Ethnic minority entrepreneurship in its
urban context: South Asian restaurants in Bermingham. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 26(1), 24–49.
Ritchie, B., & Crouch, G. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism perspective.
Oxon: CABI Publishing.
Ruhanen, L. K. (2013). Local government: Facilitator or inhibitor of sustainable tourism devel-
opment? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(1), 80–98.
Ryan, T., Mottiar, Z., & Quinn, B. (2012). The dynamic role of entrepreneurs in destination
development. Tourism Planning and Development, 9, 119–131.
Samarasinghe, G. D., & Ahsan, F. J. (2013). Does green intrapreneurial flexibility matter in
sustaining green based competitive advantage? Empirical evidence from the hotel industry in
Sri Lanka. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Hospitality and Tourism
Management, The Way Forward to Tourism. Colombo: Leap Business Management,
pp. 188–204.
Sharpley, R. (2009). Tourism development and the environment: Beyond sustainability? London:
Earthscan.
Shaw, G., & Williams, A. M. (2004). From lifestyle consumption to lifestyle production: Changing
patterns of tourism entrepreneurship. In R. Thomas (Ed.), Small firms in tourism: International
perspectives (pp. 99–114). Oxford: Elsevier.
Sheldon, P. J., & Park, S. Y. (2011). An exploratory study of corporate social responsibility in the
US travel industry. Journal of Travel Research, 50(4), 392–407.
Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship: Past
contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3, 161–194.
Sloan, P., Legrand, W., & Chen, J. C. (2012). Sustainability in the hospitality industry: Principles
of sustainable operations. London: Routledge.
Sundbo, J. (1997). Management of innovation in services. The Service Industries Journal, 17(3),
432–455.
Swain, M., Brent, M., & Long, V. (1998). Annals and tourism evolving: Indexing 25 years of
publication. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(Suppl), 991–1014.
Teltumbde, A. (2006). Entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs in corporations. Vikalpa, 31(1), 129–132.
Thomas, R. (1998). The management of small tourism and hospitality firms. London: Cassells.
Thomas, R., Shaw, G., & Page, S. (2011). Understanding small firms in tourism: A perspective on
research rends and challenges. Tourism Management, 32(5), 963–976.
Thompson, J. (2000). Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship: Where have we reached?
Social Enterprise Journal, 4(2), 149–161.
Thompson, J. (2002). The world of the social entrepreneur. The International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 15(5), 412–431.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Report of the world
commission on environment and development: Our common future. Retrieved May 7, 2015,
from http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf
Xiao, H., & Smith, S. (2006). The making of tourism research insights from a social sciences
journal. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 490–507.
Young, W., & Tilley, F. (2006). Can businesses move beyond efficiency? The shift toward
effectiveness and equity in the corporate sustainability debate. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 15, 402–415.
Zahra, S., Gedajilovioc, E., Neubaum, D., & Shulman, J. (2009). A typology of social entrepre-
neurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24,
519–532.
Ziene Mottiar is a lecturer in the School of Hospitality Management and Tourism, Dublin
Institute of Technology, Ireland. Her research interests focus on entrepreneurship, regional
development and social entrepreneurship. She has published in books and journals such as Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, Current Issues and The International Journal of Contemporary Hospi-
tality Management. She focuses on motivations of social entrepreneurs, comparing them to other
types of entrepreneurs and the impact that they have on tourism destinations. Ziene also encour-
ages students to engage in social entrepreneurship and to be aware of the positive influence and
role they can play as a ‘changemaker’.
Karla Boluk is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies at the
University of Waterloo. Her research interests centres on the concept of sustainability including
responsible production, volunteer tourism, and social entrepreneurship. Ultimately her research
explores ways to sustainably engage and empower communities’ positioning tourism as a mech-
anism for the creation of positive change. In praxis, Karla has created a number of student
platforms such as the Big Ideas Challenge and Hack4Health which encourage students to consider
their entrepreneurial capability, reflect on community needs and develop critical interventions in
response.
Part II
Communities of Practice
Exploring Social Entrepreneurship in Food
Tourism
Carol Kline, Karla Boluk, and Neha M. Shah
Abstract A variety of food movements have social entrepreneurs at their forefront

supporting more sustainable practices: Slow Food, eating local, minimizing food
waste, expanding food access, and showing concern for animal welfare. The aim of
this chapter is to contribute to the limited research on social entrepreneurs in food-
related tourism ventures. Four semi-structured interviews were carried out with
food entrepreneurs in North Carolina. Each of the entrepreneurs represents different
stages of the food supply chain. Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship and
Ecological Systems Theory were used as the theoretical frameworks underpinning
the research. The research found that food entrepreneurs are consciously focused on
value creation beyond the revenue generated by their business. Value was created
by giving farmers a voice, providing healthy alternatives, providing education,
minimizing environmental impacts, and striving to foster community. Finally,
leveraging networks was identified as a key strategy by the social entrepreneurs.
Keywords Tourism social entrepreneur • Sustainable food system • Positive

Theory of Social Entrepreneurship • Tourism entrepreneurial ecosystem •
Positive externalities • Value creation
1 Introduction
Food is political, imperative for subsistence (creating concerns in regard to both the
abundance and its security), an important element representing culture, and a
contributor to unique experiences. The sustainable practices of food supply have
C. Kline (*)
Appalachian State University, Boone, NC 28608, USA
K. Boluk
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
N.M. Shah
Pittsboro-Siler City Convention & Visitors Bureau, Pittsboro, NC 27312, USA

136 C. Kline et al.
caused some concern in consideration of food safety and carbon emissions pro-
duced from food transportation (Dodds et al., 2014). Diets are shifting to include
more vegetarian, vegan, gluten-free, and paleo-focused options, while even meat
eaters are choosing more plant-based meals (Sabaté, 2003; The Neilsen Company,
2015). Several movements taking place in rural contexts such as farmers’ markets,
organic food, and fair trade support the slow food movement and are gaining
momentum in response to the various issues presented. Animal welfare in regard
to the humane treatment, handling, housing, transport and slaughter of animals,
overfishing and use of antibiotics have resulted in a number of campaigns demon-
strating food consumer preferences (Food Tank, 2014; Maloni & Brown, 2006).
Such preferences have significantly altered the industry, creating a niche for pro-
ducers interested in sustainability and providing enriching culinary experiences to
tourists. Specifically, social entrepreneurs (SE) are tackling some of the aforemen-
tioned issues ensuring that food systems become more sustainable, ecologically
resilient, and socially just. In so doing, they not only lead by example but tourism
SE provides an educational platform for all who visit destinations.
This chapter is divided into two parts. First, the authors will outline how broad
elements of food tourism are engaging with the social entrepreneurship sector by
exploring the local food movement in the examples offered above. Next, the paper
will reveal the findings of four semi-structured interviews and a discussion will
follow regarding their motivations, focus, and challenges faced. Urie
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (1979) and Filipe Santos’ Positive
Theory of Social Entrepreneurship (2012) will be applied to understand food
entrepreneurs and their operations, building off previous research that applies
these theories to a tourism entrepreneurship context (Kline, McGehee, Paterson,
& Tsao, 2012; Kline, Shah, & Rubright, 2014). The next two sections will discuss
the junctures between the local food movement, social entrepreneurship and rural
environments with the tourism industry. The importance of sustainable food sys-
tems within the tourism industry is an important issue of concern addressed by
many tourism social entrepreneurs.
2 Social Entrepreneurship, Food Systems and Tourism
The term social entrepreneur calls attention to the blurring of boundaries between
the sectors of public, non-profit, and private institutions (Dees, 1998). Peredo and
McLean (2006) offer five principles that define social entrepreneurship: “the aim
[is] either exclusively or in some prominent way to create social value of some kind,
and pursue that goal through some combination of (2) recognizing and exploiting
opportunities to create this value, (3) employing innovation, (4) tolerating risk and
(5) declining to accept limitations in available resources” (p. 56). While early
thinkers on entrepreneurship include economists Jean Baptiste Say and Joseph
Schumpeter, modern day thinkers include Peter Drucker and Howard Stevenson,
both grounded in business. Such oft-quoted thinkers categorize entrepreneurs as
Exploring Social Entrepreneurship in Food Tourism 137
catalysts and innovators behind progress, possessing a mindset that sees the possi-
bilities rather than the problems created by change, exploiting the opportunities that
change creates, mobilizing the resources of others to achieve their objectives,
shifting resources to areas of higher yield, and adding value (Dees, 1998). Within
the realm of social entrepreneurship the focus is one of a social mission (Thompson,
2002). Given the reputation of the current food system socially entrepreneurial
thinking is required; and this has direct implications for the tourism industry.
The quantity of food provided through the hospitality and tourism industry
makes the dearth of research on the industry’s contribution to sustainable food
systems surprising (Hall & Gossling, 2013). Food service is among the top five
most common types of social enterprise in North America (Hoang, Rahman,
Kamizaki, & Thomson, 2014). However, there are few studies that focus on food-
based social enterprises in tourism. Hoang et al. (2014) found food-based enter-
prises serve youth, people with developmental disabilities, and low income indi-
viduals and ethnic minorities. Nevertheless, such enterprises often struggle due to
the lack of resources, including staff to oversee marketing, education and staff
development, and the right partnerships (Hoang et al., 2014). The full capability of
food systems is not always realized within the realm of tourism but has potential
and will be discussed below.
Food and beverages of a host community can be among its most important
cultural expressions (Sims, 2009). Food can bridge the space between everyday life
and one’s leisure, satisfying physical needs, as well as enhancing social interactions
(Hjalager & Johansen, 2013). A local food system, according to Hall and G€ossling
(2013, p. 27), refers to deliberately formed systems that are characterized by a close
producer-consumer relationship within a designated place or local area. The local
food movement demonstrates a “heightened interest in cooking, wellness, dining
locally, and traveling for and socializing through food experiences” (Kline,
Knollenburg, & Deale, 2014, p. 330). Such foodies and the food entrepreneurs
serving them may also be referred to as food citizens and/or ecological citizens who
are involved in the improvement of practices and informed decision making,
encouraging more sustainable lifestyles (Seyfang, 2011). Furthermore, the hospi-
tality and tourism industry’s focus on serving authentic and locally produced foods
assists in the positive representation of place (Sims, 2009). A nation’s identity can
be reflected and strengthened by the food experiences it offers (du Rand, Heath, &
Alberts, 2003).
Ergul and Johnson (2011) suggest that the social responsibility and innovations
demonstrated by the tourism industry can resemble that of SE; thus, the culinary
innovations of Fairmont Hotels could be perceived as socially entrepreneurial in
nature. For example, Fairmont Royal York’s EPIC restaurant in Toronto introduced
‘Thisfish’ lobster tagging program allowing fish to be traced from ocean to plate
(at www.thisfish.ca), diners can access details about how their lobster was
processed through the supply chain (Fairmont Royal York, 2015). The Fairmont
Battery Wharf in Boston offers private, authentic lobster boat excursions accom-
panied by a chef to teach those staying at their hotel how to “bait, drop, and haul in
lobster traps.” Guests return to the hotel with their catch and have it prepared in the
138 C. Kline et al.
restaurant (Fairmont Hotels & Resorts, 2011); such food experiences in natural
environments add value to the visitor experience. The social and community focus
of such innovations could be considered socially entrepreneurial.
The intersection between food and tourism social entrepreneurship has been
recognized in the cross-pollination between Fairtrade products and Fair Trade
Tourism (FTT) has begun to take place (Boluk, 2011a, 2011b) typically within
the context of gastronomy tourism (Boluk, 2013) giving way to socially entre-
preneurial opportunities. In South Africa, the application of Fairtrade certification
to agricultural products in the mid-1990s brought Fair Trade Tourism in South
Africa (FTTSA) to fruition (Boluk, 2011a) (now referred to as Fair Trade Tourism
(FTT)). Boluk (2011a) established that FTTSA was a pragmatic poverty alleviation
tool for rural communities. Specifically, the three SE interviewed in her study were
involved in developing vegetable gardens, seedling gardens for their communities
and eco-lodges, and operating nutritional programs for school children. The gar-
dens were attractions in their own right to tourists visiting the three businesses, to
learn about rural self-sufficiency and community development (Boluk, 2011a).
Another example is Makaibari Tea Estates described by Boluk (2011b) as the
only locally-owned and operated Tea Company in India, producing Fairtrade
Darjeeling tea. The community formed a group called Hum Tera, which provided
comfortable stays and locally-sourced meals to visitors. Hum Tera regenerated
profits back into the community, providing a computer center, a scholarship fund
assisting individuals in studying horticulture and the creation of a community loan
fund (Boluk, 2011b). Many of the FTT opportunities discussed above take place in
a rural context. Rural contexts are an important space for SE offering opportunities
in line with farm tourism and farmers’ markets.
2.1 Rural Tourism, Farm Tourism and Farmers’ Markets
Tourism has been traditionally centered in coastal zones, mountainous areas, and
cosmopolitan cities. However, the decline in family-owned agriculture and outward
migration of population has encouraged local authorities to consider rural tourism
as an option for local development (Ollenburg & Buckley, 2007). Rural areas are
perceived to be rich with entrepreneurial capability with small family businesses
who often have deep connections to culture and heritage (Lordkipanidze, Brezet, &
Backman, 2005).
In line with social entrepreneurship is the notion of ‘entrepreneuring’, a process
whereby entrepreneurs and groups confront social and economic constraints and
exploit opportunities (Tobias, Mair, & Barbosa-Leiker, 2013). Entrepreneuring was
discussed in the context of rural Rwanda and the specialty coffee industry by Tobias
et al. (2013). Specifically, the researchers explored the transformative role that
entrepreneurship can play in resolving social problems in relation to persistent
poverty and areas of conflict. Similarly, social entrepreneurship indicates a need
for social change, and “it is that potential payoff, with its lasting, transformational
benefit to society that sets the field and its practitioners apart” (Martin & Osberg,
2007, p. 28). The change agents in such rural contexts were actively triggering
transformational processes which have potential to lead to external interest and
invariably tourism. This example demonstrates the interesting and appealing nature
of entrepreneurs and their stories of why and how they do what they do (Martin &
Osberg, 2007). People are attracted to “extraordinary people who come up with
brilliant ideas and against all the odds succeed at creating new products and services
that dramatically improve people’s lives” (Martin & Osberg, 2007, p. 28). Accord-
ingly, one specific motive for tourism in such contexts may be to observe and/or
potentially receive guidance in carrying out similar projects in different settings.
While the foci of many social entrepreneurs is for the benefit of people, preventing
or mitigating damage to the natural environment also encompasses the social
entrepreneurship agenda, as environmentally relevant market failures represent
opportunities for innovators (Dean & Mcmullen, 2007). Ecological/environmental
entrepreneurs have been described as those who prioritize a pro- environmental
agenda whereas sustainable entrepreneurs have been described as those who have a
balanced focus in their pursuits regarding the environment, society and economy
(Dixon & Clifford, 2007).
Some of the research on eco or sustainable entrepreneurs in tourism may provide
an alternative lens to explore the work of SE in rural contexts. Such entrepreneurs
may carry out an alternative lifestyle (Linnanen, 2002), which may be the impetus
for them to move to rural contexts (Boluk & Mottiar, 2014). An environmental
entrepreneur can also relate to sustainable development in rural communities
through quality food production (Marsden & Smith, 2005). Lordkipanidze
et al. (2005) present a case study of a successful family-based enterprise in farm
tourism, Ängavallen Gård (Healthy Pig Farm) in S€oderslätt, Sweden. The paper
describes the importance of entrepreneurs in the development of local economies.
Specifically, the authors followed the food supply chain of the pig meat, the special
criteria developed by the owners on animal welfare and long distance transportation
in consideration of environmental impacts and water saving measures. As the farm
gained consumer interest there was a natural opportunity for the family to engage in
tourism. Kline et al. (2014) asserted that tourism experiences can occur at each
stage of the food supply chain, as such the farm provides tourism-related opportu-
nities. Specifically, the Healthy Pig Farm has been used for “weddings, café and
restaurant, Picnic Park, hotel, [and a] conference hall for business” (Lordkipanidze
et al., 2005). Some other opportunities for co-creation in farm-based tourism may
include factory tours, tours of wineries, breweries, culinary classes, and pick your
own (see Kline et al., 2014). Part of the allure for travelers may be experiencing
actions that improve lives, communities, and imagines high dividends in quality of
life and the world (Martin & Osberg, 2007).
A popular trend as suggested by Hjalager and Johansen (2013) is the interest in
purchasing food at or near the location of production such as farmers’ markets.
Farmers’ markets have provided outlets for producers to fill an important niche for
those consumers interested in quality, variety, an interest in supporting local
140 C. Kline et al.
agriculture (Dodds et al., 2014), seeking authentic experiences and opportunities to

experience regional specialties (Sims, 2009), and freshness, social opportunities
and value (Hjalager & Johansen, 2013). Specifically, farmers’ markets are
portrayed as affordable. As such, farmers’ markets can align with social interests
prioritizing inclusion. Farmers’ markets are also important because consumers often
perceive the food to be more holistic, healthy, and an authentic representative of
sustainability due to fewer food miles (Dodds et al., 2014). Dodds et al. (2014)
recommends that the socially conscious vendors of farmers’ markets can do more by
endorsing the economic benefits derived from shopping locally, maximize the experi-
ence by emphasizing the local economic benefits, catering to their predominant female
market, and foster a sense of community by facilitating social opportunities. While not
necessarily related to tourism, there is growing consensus that the existence of farmers’
markets can contribute to food security in rural or urban areas Ahn et al., 2014. Some
programs, such as Farmer Foodshare in North Carolina USA, use ‘donation stations’
set up at markets to collect donated and unwanted food from patrons and farmers,
as well as cash donations, all to be funneled through the local food access channels;
their mission is to “connect people who grow food with people who need food” and the
bulk of their activity occurs at markets (Farmer Foodshare, n.d).
Local foods are associated with local values, and this can be of interest to
consumers (Sims, 2009). Ultimately, the notion of caring for and supplying fresh
local food supports the slow food concept supporting slow tourism, which opposes
hyper consumption and awakens one’s senses and seeking enriching experiences
(Clancy, 2014). Local meats and niche meats are gaining popularity because con-
sumers are considering the impacts of industrial meat production on their own health,
the welfare of the animal, and the workers and surrounding communities (Food Tank,
2014). Yudina and Fennell (2013) apply the tenants of ecofeminist theory to how
tourists can interact with animals, particularly through eating them. While they do not
address SE per se, implications of their discussion opens the door to entrepreneurs
who wish to respond to the current lack of animals humanely raised as meat sources.
And for consumers traveling or at home who want to be assured of ethically-raised
meat sources, Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) is a food label for meat and dairy
products originating from farm animals raised to the highest standards of animal
welfare and environmental care (AWA, 2015). It started as a response to market
demand for healthy protein sources—healthy for the consumer, the farm worker, the
environment, and the animals—as well as the growing concern for humane treatment
of farm animals. AWA provides technical assistance and certification for farms,
stipulates guidelines for slaughter facilities, provides marketing assistance for
AWA certified products, and offers educational materials for consumers.
Hence, local food can represent being better for the environment, the conserva-
tion of rural landscapes, and supporting local economies, therefore having a central
role in the sustainable tourism agenda and as such providing a feel-good factor for
both consumers and producers alike (Sims, 2009). Dodds et al. (2014) recommends
that the socially conscious vendors of famers’ markets can do more by endorsing
the economic benefits derived from shopping locally, maximize the experience by
emphasizing the local economic benefits, catering to their predominant female
market, and foster a sense of community by facilitating social opportunities. The

four SE discussed in this chapter provide examples of socially conscious operators
who also strive to add value to their communities and the natural environment. The
study digs deeper, however, into the motivations and intentions of the SE, and how
their environment has helped and hindered their operations. Positive Theory of
Social Entrepreneurship and Ecological Systems Theory are the theoretical frame-
works underpinning this research.
3 Theoretical Frameworks
3.1 Ecological Systems Theory
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (EST) posits that individuals are

embedded within sets of environments with which they interact (Bronfenbrenner,
1979). These interactions influence their individual development, in turn affecting
how they interact with the environments. He introduces five structures that affect
human development: microsystems, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and
chronosystem. The systems overlap in a set of ‘rings’ with the individual at the
core and microsystems closest to the individual (Fig. 1). EST can be applied to an
entrepreneur to understand the parts of the environment supportive to the entre-
preneur’s venture, as well as those elements lacking (Kline et al., 2012).
EST has been employed in tourism research to study tourists’ thoughts and
behaviors (Woodside & Martin, 2008), tourism development (Fennell & Butler,
2003), the management of a natural protected area (Lacitignola, Petrosillo, Cataldi,
& Zurlini, 2007), HIV/AIDS and tourism in the Dominican Republic (Padilla,
Guilamo-Ramos, Bouris, & Reyes, 2010), resiliency on Thailand’s tourism-reliant
coast (Larsen, Calgaro, & Thomalla, 2011), community perception of its
Fig. 1 Ecological systems

theory
142 C. Kline et al.
entrepreneurial ecosystem (Kline et al., 2012), and as a framework for the compre-
hensive tourism system that includes economic, social, and environmental spheres
(Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005). Below, each of the environments is outlined
within a context of food entrepreneurship; see Kline, Shah, Tsao (2014) for a full
outline of environmental elements needed by entrepreneurs.
• Microsystems are the contexts that influence an individual most directly (e.g.,
family, neighborhood, faith institutions, interest clubs) and could shape an
entrepreneur’s vision and direction. Examples of supporting elements include
a family’s food heritage, the economic status of an entrepreneur’s neighborhood,
or informal opportunities for networking with other entrepreneurs.
• The Mesosystem refers to the connections between the different microsystems. A
food entrepreneur may be a member of a Chamber of Commerce or restaurant
association; however the political bent, savvy, and capacity of the organization’s
leadership would influence the level of support it could provide an entrepreneur.
The same could be said for other organizational systems in the entrepreneur’s
environment, such as the local educational infrastructure or a destination mar-
keting association. Assistance in start-ups, management training, and availabil-
ity of business support services affect an entrepreneur’s ability to leverage
his/her ideas. Physical infrastructure such as road systems, Internet capacity,
and available real estate are also part of the mesosystem.
• The Exosystem is part of a larger social system that indirectly influences the
individual but is beyond one’s control, such as laws passed at a state level.
• Macrosystem describe the culture and value systems in which individuals live.
Supportive elements in the macrosystem are quality of life, community culture,
and values. Quality-of-life characteristics range from affordable housing and
accessible health care to recreational and cultural opportunities in an attractive
natural setting, and lively downtown areas. An ethic of natural resource steward-
ship pervades many entrepreneurial communities committed to sustainability,
offering partners that share principles and support the entrepreneur’s business
goals.
• Chronosystems refer to the patterning of environmental events and transitions
over the life of an individual, as well as general historical context.
The food entrepreneur’s environment not only impacts the success of the
venture, but his/her ability to create value in the community beyond offering a
quality product.
3.2 Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship
The Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship (PTSE) acknowledges that value

creation and value capture are both important to business endeavors, however value
creation, or “when the aggregate utility of society’s members increases after
accounting for the opportunity cost of all the resources used in that activity”
(Santos, 2012, p. 337), is essential to SE. Value capture is the ability to assume a
portion of the value created after accounting for the cost of resources needed. SE
partake in both value capture and creation, but Santos (2012) elaborates “activities
that allow value capture without value creation will be considered illegitimate [. . .]
It is also clear that some level of value capture is important to ensure the growth and
sustainability of the organizations whose activities create value” (p. 337). Value
creation is measured at the societal or system level; value capture is measured at the
organization level.
SE fulfills a role in the economy where market and government fail. They make
a deliberate decision regarding value creation as a foundation of their business
model and “target problems that have a local expression but global relevance”
(Santos, 2012, p. 335); pursue economic, social, and environmental goals at the
same time; and above all act as change agents and innovators. Santos (2012) argues
four SE propositions:
• The distinctive domain of action of SE is addressing neglected problems in
society involving positive externalities (Santos, 2012, p. 342). Santos (2012,
p. 341) explains “externalities exist when economic activity creates an impact
(or value spillover) that lies beyond the objective function of the agents devel-
oping the activity.” Examples of positive outcomes potentially generated by
food entrepreneurs include healthy eating, environmental enhancement, edu-
cation, and community cohesion.
• SE are more likely to benefit a powerless segment of the population (Santos,
2012, p. 343).
• SE are more likely to seek sustainable, community-based solutions than to seek
sustainable advantages (Santos, 2012, p. 346) and even welcome like-minded
competition as they contribute to address larger concerns.
• SE are likely to develop a solution built on the logic of empowerment than the
logic of control (Santos, 2012, p. 347), sometimes celebrating the unique
qualities of a marginalized segment of the population.
In combination, EST and PTSE represent much of the entrepreneurial process:
motivations, mission, organizational approach, intended impacts, and the elements
within the environment that contributes to successes or hinders them. This study
employs both frameworks to offer insight into the phenomenon of social entrepre-
neurship in food tourism. Three research questions are addressed:
1. Are food entrepreneurs consciously focusing on value creation?
2. Do the propositions outlined in the PTSE apply to the sample of food entre-
preneurs? Do patterns of similarity exist across the supply chain stages?
3. How do food entrepreneurs leverage their ecosystem to achieve their goals? Do
patterns of similarity exist across the supply chain stages?
144 C. Kline et al.
4 Methods
Semi-structured interviews with four food entrepreneurs in North Carolina,

U.S.A. (NC) were conducted in 2012. The entrepreneurs represent different stages
of the food supply chain: production, harvest, processing, distribution, and retail,
offering varied experiences and a deeper understanding of the food system to
tourists, and contribution to the host community’s economic vibrancy and
population’s health. (Table 1).
Entrepreneurs were selected as part of a reference-based sampling method
(McKenzie, 2007). The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed; data
were coded using content analysis, followed by a spiral approach to data integration
(Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). A spiral approach to data assimilation and coding is
a non-linear, dynamic, iterative approach to data management. It begins with data
collection, and cycles through various activities such as organizing the data, memo-
ing (reflecting on the text and one’s own thoughts and questions about the text),
classifying and interpreting themes through coding, and visualization and repre-
sentation of the data (Kodish & Gittelsohn, 2011). Credibility and sincerity of the
study was addressed through a paper trail of the research and transcribing process
(Tracy, 2010), and discussion of the project over time between three researchers.
Rigor was shown through the use of appropriate and complex theoretical constructs,
time in the field, interview protocol constructed, and resulted in rich narratives from
the informants (Tracy, 2010). The outcomes are offered below in a summarized
narrative as well as tables that highlight key findings (Kodish & Gittelsohn, 2011).
Table 1 Food and tourism intersection along the food supply chain
Value chain
stage Overlap with tourism Entrepreneur informant
Production Tourists visit farms to learn about food Farmer teaches visitors about food
and harvest production and origin, pick their own production and farm life; offers har-
berries, produce, and enjoy tastings vest experience
Processing Visitors learn process and story of the Craft brewery operation offering
food entrepreneur and business tours
Distribution Distribution channels providing food to Regional distributor specializing in
the destination community organic produce
Retail Food trucks operate where large volumes Food truck vendor
outlet of customers gather (attractions, public
squares, special events), serving visitors
and community residents
5 Findings
5.1 Production and Harvest Stage: Plum Granny Farm
Cheryl and Ray from Plum Granny Farm (PGF) have a large network that supports
their business operation and provides numerous resources; this type of network
system is the backbone of Ecological Systems Theory (EST). Cheryl and Ray
partner with the land grant universities, subscribers of beneficial listservs, partici-
pate in the Business of Farming conference, and are members of national agri-
cultural associations. Their extensive distribution network and superior location
allows them to sell at four different markets, restaurants, farm-to-table cooperative,
and other resources. Some of their challenges in terms of their EST involve
negotiating varying market regulations in different counties and finding efficient,
quality workers.
Cheryl and Ray demonstrate several characteristics of SE. They are interested in
value creation—they want to produce good food in a sustainable and environ-
mentally supportive manner. They believe people are drawn to their value creation;
customers travel simply to purchase from them. They address neglected positive
externalities by producing organic food and are actively involved in engaging
at-risk youth, educating kids about farming and encouraging them to become
interested in agriculture, possibly addressing an invisible public good. They believe
connecting with community and ensuring that their farm is a part of the community
are invaluable to their mission. They participate actively in speaking engagements
and community outreach.
5.2 Processing Stage: Fullsteam Brewery
Sean Lilly Wilson is an entrepreneur whose focus is craft beer and introducing
unique versions of his product; one of his goals is to create a culture, a sense of
place and tradition. He interacts actively with his mesosytem, exosystem, and
microsystems. Prior to opening Fullsteam, he led an innovative venture that
engaged organizations to change legislation to positively impact the industry to
the benefit of his business and competitors’ businesses. His collaborative business
practices with competitors, government agency officials, trade organizations, and
food truck vendors reflect his business sense and a desire to work for the benefit of
the industry. He counsels others but also asks for guidance from industry partners;
he is welcoming to new members of the industry and customers. He was interacting
with customers early, primarily through social media, before opening the business,
to build the networks and client base; therefore, he established a new mesosystem
among the customers, his interns, and business school contacts. Sean looks out for
complementary businesses in the community, through a series of actions, from
146 C. Kline et al.
utilizing bank loans to looking at protecting the neighborhood in which the ware-
house exists.
Sean’s traits include an unassuming openness to competitors and clients and a
desire to opt for a different direction (marketing or merchandising) from the
industry, to name a few. The demand for craft beer is a trend that has assisted
him in innovating a local beer culture. He anticipates customers’ preferences,
staying ahead of the trends forging new products and concepts while sourcing
local whenever possible. His work in making a difference in legislation for the
benefit of the industry is both a reflection of social entrepreneurship while
interacting with various networks in line with EST.
5.3 Distribution Stage: Eastern Carolina Organics
Eastern Carolina Organics (ECO) is an aggregation and distribution company that

provides a convenient outlet for customers who strive to buy local organic products
but may not have the time to seek out individual farmers and producers. Questions
of volume and product variability were some of the main issues that ECO initially
faced, but over time, quality and quantity issues have stabilized as farmers continue
to learn through participation with the group. One difficulty facing ECO and its
stakeholders is the slow and sometimes ineffective development of policy. Another
challenge is the administrative and bureaucratic aspects of food safety issues.
ECO moved to Durham, NC, recently; Sandi Kronick, the Executive Director,
cites the move as a financial and social gain. She believes Durham provides an
advantageous setting because of the city’s policies and programs that support small
businesses. Many of ECO’s customers, independent and chain food retailers, larger
wholesale distributors, and restaurants plus small home-based distributors, are
located in Durham, convenient proximity to the customer base.
Unique to ECO is the collaborative principle at the organization’s core, firmly
espousing that customers are partners. Partnerships are forged with individual
chefs, independent natural food stores, chain retailers, and farmers. ECO works
successfully with NC State University and the Center for Environmental Farming
Systems, also relying on a base network of friends in organic produce distribution
companies around the country, with fellow members of the National Organic
Wholesalers Produce Coalition, for advice and inspiration.
ECO educates customers about the importance of buying local, organic produce,
offering assistance in the transition to organic farming, and have been recognized in
NC as business of the year due to their “commitment to helping sustainable family
farms thrive in the Carolinas.” ECO is dedicated to advocating for their members.
Sandi believes that a key of sustainability is figuring out how to help the farmer
work less so that he can work longer. Striving to guarantee steady markets and fair
prices, “we really want farmers to be able to plant something and not feel insecure
about what they’re going to get from that.”
5.4 Retail: Triangle Raw Foods
Jane and Matthew started Triangle Raw Foods (TRF) (2011), based on the Raw
Food Diet (most raw foodists argue that eating food prepared at a temperature less
than 105 Fahrenheit offers more nutrients and enzymes). The couple started TRF
as a small delivery service, with Matthew preparing the food at a commissary
kitchen. Matthew retrofitted an old van as TRF grew; eventually, they invested in a
custom food trailer. Jane says, “It wasn’t about what kind of business can we make;
it was more [about] how can we make this available to people. And that created the
business.” Jane’s front-of-the-house experience and Matthew’s back-of-the-house
work result in the perfect collaboration for an entrepreneurial venture. Challenges
starting TRF included burgeoning food truck laws, limited overhead funds, and
health department certification; Jane notes, “When we first started, the health
department was confused about raw food, ‘I don’t understand. What do you mean
you’re not cooking it? There’s no dairy?’ In order for them to let us proceed, I had to
say it’s just fancy salads.”
Jane is inspired by interactions with farmers, other entrepreneurs, and customers.
“It’s more about how can we make raw food available to people, that created the
business.” TRF depends on collaborations. Making connections between organic
farmers and community is a major goal for TRF. No other raw food businesses exist
in the region so Jane and Matthew turn to their customers to answer questions that
arise, “because they are the ones that it’s impacting.”
The progressive climate in their region, blossoming food truck scene, and other
entrepreneurs who believe in a social and environmental message assisted in
fostering the creation of TRF. Jane believes the unique nature of the business and
word-of-mouth both contribute to their success.
Jane and Matthew place value on community and environment, explaining
“frozen vegetables were grown in soil depleted of nutrients. You get more out of
raw food.” All of the food is packaged in compostable containers and delivery bags
and the low heating conserves energy. Jane and Matthew hope to expand the
business and continue to connect their customers through tasting parties, selling
wholesale to other retailers, and eventually, a restaurant.
6 Research Questions
Examining profiles of the entrepreneurs, it is evident that each deliberately strives

to create value beyond the value they wish to capture. However, the solution to the
first research question, Are food entrepreneurs consciously focusing on value
creation? can be considered via a continuum. For PGF, ECO, TRF, the business
idea was born from the drive to create value beyond the organization. For
Fullsteam, the founder wished to create a quality product that would also produce
a byproduct of value for customers and community. Figure 2 portrays an estimate of
this continuum.
148 C. Kline et al.
Fig. 2 Value creation orientation for sample organizations
Below in Table 2, data addressing research question two Do the propositions

outlined in the PTSE apply to the sample of food entrepreneurs? is summarized.
Similarities across the supply chain encompassed five commonalities within
value creation: assisting farmers and giving them increased voice, providing
healthy alternatives to processed food, providing education, minimizing environ-
mental impacts, and striving to foster community within their operating sphere.
They want to achieve a sustainable solution rather than sustainable advantage and
most welcome competition to achieve a greater good.
Research question three addressed the entrepreneur’s ecosystems. Table 3
addresses the question, How do food entrepreneurs leverage their ecosystem to
achieve their goals?
Each entrepreneur has similarly been inspired and supported by the recent local
food movement, a part of their chronosystem they share by operating in the same
cultural and temporal context. Additional commonalities among the entrepreneurs
include the following features: they nurture and leverage their networks (customers,
business-to-business, and peers up and down the supply chain), they are affected by
local business regulations, they take advantage of assistance offered by statewide
organizations, and they are located centrally within the market.
7 Discussion
Limited research to date has explored SE in the context of food tourism; however,
as noted at the beginning of this chapter, there are a variety of potential entry points
including rural contexts, farm tourism, famers’ markets, Fair Trade Tourism and
slow food and slow tourism. The four case studies demonstrate a limited scope of
phenomena within a region of NC; however, they provide some insight into the
important work of food social entrepreneurs and the potential for idea stimulation
and export, which was proposed at the beginning of the paper in the context of
entrepreneuring. The export of ideas is important given contemporary concerns
regarding food security, animal welfare concerns, and unsustainable agricultural
practices.
Table 2 Social entrepreneur propositions applied to food entrepreneurs

Proposition PGF Fullsteam ECO TRF
Addressing Transitioned Raises awareness Improves food Creates value
neglected posi- farm to certified of regional system by creat- for customers
tive organic fruit and flavors and culi- ing an alternative by offering
externalities vegetable nary heritage to source local healthy alterna-
operation organic farm tives; supports
products; edu- local organic
cates customers farmers
about the impor-
tance of buying
local, organic
produce
Generate bene- Educates at-risk Not applicable Offers assistance Increases busi-
fits a powerless youth about to farmers ness for local
segment of the farming transitioning to farmers
population organic
Seek sustain- Goals target Proactively con- Partners with Created busi-
able solutions holistic farming siders business many stake- ness to promote
vs. sustainable systems, increas- climate and eco- holders: chefs, a healthier diet
advantages ing diversity of nomic factors for independent nat-
local crop avail- complementary ural food stores,
ability, & sharing businesses in the chain retailers.
food preservation community
traditions
Develop solu- Helps rural Supports the local Serves as advo- Teaches cus-
tions build on neighbors to economy and tar- cate for farmer tomers to pre-
the logic of diversify foods gets clients who members: pare their own
empowerment and eat cleaner share this “. . .figuring out raw food
than on the foods philosophy how to really help
logic of control the farmer work
less, because we
need them to be
able to work lon-
ger. We need
them to want to
get their kids
back on the
farm.”
By holding each of the four SE cases up to the PSTE framework, we begin to

appreciate the complex motives behind and outcomes of their actions. By using
EST as a lens to understand their environment, we better appreciate the challenges
faced and elements that have supported their operations. When examining an
entrepreneur’s operations, neither PTSE nor EST can singularly explain the
whole picture; however, some implications become clear and provide a foundation
for future research.
A food entrepreneur leverages contacts within microsystems to heighten aware-
ness to neglected positive externalities within the macrosystem. Also, although the
150 C. Kline et al.
Table 3 Critical elements of ecosystem described by food entrepreneurs

System PGF Fullsteam ECO TRF
Microsystems Involved with Desire to create Strong customer Partnered with a
universities and more than his base consists of non-profit
other farmers; — business but a independent and kitchen to pre-
an extensive dis- neighborhood chain food pare foods; had
tribution network with complemen- retailers, larger financial support
tary businesses as wholesale distrib- from family;
partners in a utors, and involves cus-
community. restaurants tomers through
Works jointly to advice on prod-
advocate with uct ideas; part-
industry partners ners with famers
on legal
initiatives
Mesosystem Market regula- Has actively built Relationship with Connects with
tions have been a networks and cli- many sustainable other food entre-
challenge; ent base, agriculture preneurs in the
Location is supe- establishing a organizations area; participates
rior providing new mesosystem in food truck
access to major among customers rodeos
markets; ensuring and interns, busi-
that their farm is ness school con-
a part of the tacts, and
community are complementary
invaluable ele- businesses in the
ments of their community
mission
Exosystem Labor is a con- Plugged into The slow and Involvement
cern as it is hard statewide brewers sometimes inef- with the health
to find people guild; under- fective develop- department; pro-
willing to pick stands legislative ment of policy gressive political
bramble berries processes and hinders climate supports
how to influence operations. their mission
regulations
Macrosystem NC Agritourism Booming NC Strong national Blossoming food
association, craft beer movement truck scene
favorable laws industry supporting sus- locally and
for agritourists, tainable nationally
strong NC sus- agriculture
tainable agricul-
ture scene
four SE in this study wished to empower farmers, consumers, and peers, SE might
also serve advantaged populations while simultaneously addressing social justice.
All of the SE sell to middle-class customers; however, they assist small farms, and
organic suppliers and address neglected positive externalities in their community.
Finally, many within the SE’s customer base are attracted to these food businesses
because of the positive externalities created and value creation demonstrated.
These cases may afford service providers and planners who work with entre-
preneurs or who work to improve entrepreneurial ecosystems. Additionally,
social entrepreneurs might reflect on the tenets of PTSE as they consider their
intent, approach, and impacts. Entrepreneurs may also utilize EST to perform an
informal assessment of ecosystem elements in their domain.
Further investigation must explore the utility of EST and PTSE to SE research in
food and tourism. It is clear that additional investigation to discern patterns along a
value chain is warranted. It is an exciting time; this textbook acknowledges that
indeed SE is present in tourism. Moving forward further studies of a qualitative
nature is critical to explore the work of tourism social entrepreneurs in the food
industry to identify both challenges and opportunities to support increasingly
socially-focused enterprises.
1. The chapter begins with the statement that “food is political”. Explain why this
may be the case in the tourism and hospitality context, and what this means for
food social entrepreneurs.
2. Identify two or three food social entrepreneurs in the area where you live.
Discuss them in some detail using the concepts in this chapter.
3. What would be required in your area to encourage the development of more food
social entrepreneurs? What policies and initiatives do you think would help?
References
Ahn, S., Johnson, K., Lutton, M., Otudor, I., Pino, J., & Yu, C., (2014). Examining disparities in
food access and enhancing food security of underserved populations in Michigan. Accessed
December 13, 2015, from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/106558/
Examining%20Food%20Disparities_2014.pdf?sequence¼1&sa¼U&ei¼XLllU9DSNYO_
O7GdgJgE&ved¼0CCUQFjAC&usg¼AFQjCNHTodo_qTNT1Ia5yLW5zhMTn7XLPw
Animal Welfare Approved. (2015). Accessed December 13, 2015, from http://animalwelfare
approved.org/about/
Boluk, K. (2011a). Fair trade tourism South Africa: A pragmatic poverty reduction mechanism?
Boluk, K. (2011b). In consideration of a new approach to tourism: A critical review of fair trade
tourism. The Journal of Tourism and Peace Research, 2(1), 27–37.
Boluk, K. (2013). Using CSR as a tool for development: An investigation of the Fair Hotels
Scheme in Ireland. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 14(1), 49–65.
Boluk, K., & Mottiar, Z. (2014). Motivations of social entrepreneurs: Blurring the social contri-
bution and profits dichotomy. Journal of Social Enterprise, 10(1), 53–68.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.
Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Clancy, M. (2014). Ethics, aesthetics and consumptive values. In C. Weeden & K. Boluk (Eds.),
Managing ethical consumption in tourism. London: Routledge.
Dean, T. J., & Mcmullen, J. S. (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing
environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing,
22(1), 50–76.
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Accessed August 30, 2015, from https://
csistg.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/csi.gsb.stanford.edu/files/TheMeaningofsocialEntrepreneurship.pdf
152 C. Kline et al.
Dixon, S., & Clifford, A. (2007). Ecopreneurship—A new approach to managing the triple bottom
line. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(3), 326–345.
Dodds, R., Holmes, M., Arunsopha, V., et al. (2014). Consumer choice and farmers’ markets.
Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 27, 397–416.
du Rand, G. E., Heath, E., & Alberts, N. (2003). The role of local and regional food in destination
marketing: A South African situational analysis. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
14(3–4), 97–112.
Ergul, M., & Johnson, C. (2011). Social entrepreneurship in the hospitality and tourism industry:
An exploratory approach. Consortium Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 16(2), 40–46.
Fairmont Hotels & Resorts. (2011). Fairmont zooms past mere “local” cuisine with new
“hyperlocal” menu items. Accessed May 3, 2015, from http://www.restaurantcentral.ca/
Fairmonthyperlocalmenu.aspx
Fairmont Royal York. (2015). Greenroofs. Accessed May 3, 2015, from http://www.greenroofs.
com/projects/pview.php?id¼557
Farmer Foodshare. (n.d.). Donation Stations. Accessed December 13, 2015, from http://www.
farmerfoodshare.org/programs/donation-stations/
Farrell, B. H., & Twining-Ward, L. (2005). Seven steps towards sustainability: Tourism in the
context of new knowledge. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(2), 109–122.
Fennell, D. A., & Butler, R. W. (2003). A human ecological approach to tourism interactions.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 5(3), 197–210.
Food Tank. (2014). Rethinking industrial animal production. Accessed August 29, 2015, from
http://foodtank.com/news/2014/11/new-research-rethinking-industrial-animal-production
Hall, C. M., & Gossling, S. (Eds.). (2013). Sustainable culinary systems: Local foods, innovation,
tourism and hospitality. London: Routledge.
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2011). The practice of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
Hjalager, A.-M., & Johansen, P. H. (2013). Food tourism in protected areas-sustainability for
producers, the environment and tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(3), 417–433.
Hoang. H., Rahman, M., Kamizaki, K., Thomson, E. (2014). Food-based enterprises. Accessed
June 4, 2015, from http://socialenterprisetoronto.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/SET-
Research-Report-2014_Food-based-Enterprises.pdf
Kline, C., Knollenburg, W., & Deale, C. (2014). Food and tourism: A research approach to
value chain management. In C. Weeden & K. Boluk (Eds.), Managing ethical consumption
in tourism (pp. 104–121). London: Taylor & Francis.
Kline, C., McGehee, N., Paterson, S., & Tsao, J. (2012). Using ecological systems theory and
density of acquaintance to explore resident perception of entrepreneurial climate. Journal of
Travel Research, 52(3), 294–309.
Kline, C., Shah, N., & Rubright, H. (2014). Applying the positive theory of social entrepreneurship
to understand food entrepreneurs and their operations. Tourism Planning & Development,
11(3), 330–342.
Kline, C., Shah, N. M., Tsao, J., & Cook, A. (2014). Support and challenge factors for tourism
entrepreneurs: Two cases from North Carolina, USA. Anatolia, 25(3), 479–482.
Kodish, S., & Gittelsohn, J. (2011). Systematic data analysis in qualitative health research:
Building credible and clear findings. Sight and Life, 25(2), 52–56.
Lacitignola, D., Petrosillo, I., Cataldi, M., & Zurlini, G. (2007). Modelling socio-ecological
tourism-based systems for sustainability. Ecological Modelling, 206(1–2), 191–204.
Larsen, R., Calgaro, E., & Thomalla, F. (2011). Governing resilience building in Thailand’s
tourism-dependent coastal communities: Conceptualising stakeholder agency in social–eco-
logical systems. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 481–491.
Linnanen, L. (2002). An insider’s experiences with environmental entrepreneurship. Greener Man-
agement International: The Journal of Corporate Environmental Strategy and Practice, 38,
71–80.
Lordkipanidze, M., Brezet, H., & Backman, M. (2005). The entrepreneurship factor in sustainable
tourism development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(8), 787–798.
Maloni, M. J., & Brown, M. E. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain:
An application in the food industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(1), 35–52.
Marsden, T., & Smith, E. (2005). Ecological entrepreneurship: Sustainable development in local
communities through quality food production and local branding. Geoforum, 36(4), 440–451.
Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stan-
ford Social and Innovation Review, 5(2), 28–39.
McKenzie, B. (2007). Techniques for collecting verbal histories. In H. Neergaard & J. P. Ulhoi
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
The Neilsen Company. (2015). Global Health and Wellness Report. Accessed August 30, 2015,
from http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/eu/nielseninsights/pdfs/Nielsen%
20Global%20Health%20and%20Wellness%20Report%20-%20January%202015.pdf
Ollenburg, C., & Buckley, R. (2007). Stated economic and social motivations of farm tourism oper-
ators. Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), 444–452.
Padilla, M. B., Guilamo-Ramos, V., Bouris, A., & Reyes, A. M. (2010). HIV/AIDS and tourism in
the Caribbean: An ecological systems perspective. American Journal of Public Health, 100(1),
70–77.
Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept.
Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56–65.
Sabaté, J. (2003). The contribution of vegetarian diets to health and disease: A paradigm shift?
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78(3), 502S–507S.
Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics,
111(3), 335–351.
Seyfang, G. (2011). The new economics of sustainable consumption: Seeds of change. Basing-
stoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sims, S. (2009). Food, place and authenticity: Local food and the sustainable tourism experience.
Thompson, J. L. (2002). The world of the social entrepreneur. International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 15(5), 412–431.
Tobias, J. M., Mair, J., & Barbosa-Leiker, C. (2013). Toward a theory of transformative entre-
preneuring: Poverty reduction and conflict resolution in Rwanda’s entrepreneurial coffee sector.
Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 728–742.
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research.
Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.
Woodside, A. G., & Martin, D. (2008). Applying ecological systems and micro-tipping point theory
for understanding tourists’ leisure destination behavior. Journal of Travel Research, 47(1),
14–24.
Yudina, O., & Fennell, D. (2013). Ecofeminism in the tourism context: A discussion of the use of
other-than-human animals as food in tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 38(1), 55–69.
Carol Kline is an Associate Professor of Hospitality and Tourism Management at Appalachian

State University in the Department of Management. Her research interests focus broadly on
tourism planning and development and tourism sustainability, but cover a range of topics such
as foodie segmentation, craft beverages, agritourism, wildlife-based tourism, animal ethics in
tourism, tourism entrepreneurship, niche tourism markets, and tourism impacts to communities.
Karla Boluk is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies at the
University of Waterloo. Her research interests centres on the concept of sustainability including
responsible production, volunteer tourism, and social entrepreneurship. Ultimately her research
explores ways to sustainably engage and empower communities’ positioning tourism as a
154 C. Kline et al.
mechanism for the creation of positive change. In praxis, Karla has created a number of student
platforms such as the Big Ideas Challenge and Hack4Health which encourage students to consider
their entrepreneurial capability, reflect on community needs and develop critical interventions in
response.
Neha M. Shah is the Director of the Pittsboro-Siler City Convention & Visitors Bureau in
Pittsboro, North Carolina. She has worked in destination marketing for nearly 20 years. Her varied
work experience includes marketing and destination branding in a rural counties and urban
counties. She has worked on a multitude of development projects in the areas of agritourism,
nature-based activities, small meeting sites, and festivals. Her expertise is freelance writing and
teaching and using social media marketing tools.
Knowledge Dynamics in the Tourism-Social
Entrepreneurship Nexus
Giang Thi Phi, Michelle Whitford, and Dianne Dredge
Abstract Tourism is often employed as a vehicle for facilitating social-economic

development, however its usefulness has been somewhat limited in relation to
addressing social issues, and in particular, those issues relating to poverty. This is
partly due to the lack of cross-sectoral interactions and knowledge exchange
between private, public and third sectors that are needed to create effective and
appropriate initiatives to leverage tourism for social benefits. Such traditional
sectoral boundaries can be broken down through social entrepreneurship
approaches which concomitantly, facilitate the creation and synergizing of social
innovation that addresses persistent social issues. Yet to date, the utility of cross-
sectoral knowledge dynamics still remains largely under-researched in both the
social entrepreneurship and tourism literature. This chapter introduces readers to
the concept of knowledge dynamics and discusses knowledge dynamics in the
tourism and social entrepreneurship nexus via a case study of community-based
tourism in Mai Hich, Vietnam. We argue that by gaining an enhanced understand-
ing of cross-sectoral knowledge dynamics, we can strengthen the overall praxis of
tourism and social entrepreneurship, and in particular, assist policymakers in
fostering conditions that generate increased innovation.
Keywords Knowledge • Innovation • Tourism • Networks • Gatekeeper •

Boundary spanner • Interventions
G.T. Phi (*) • M. Whitford

Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD,
Australia
D. Dredge
Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

156 G.T. Phi et al.
1 Introduction
Talented and passionate social entrepreneurs are often perceived as the key inno-
vators behind the rapid rise of initiatives that help to tackle complex social issues.
Not surprisingly then, early studies focusing on social entrepreneurship in tourism
have explored the various attributes of individual social entrepreneurs and their
respective, innovative social enterprises (e.g., Dzisi & Otsyina, 2014; Heyniger &
Lamoureaux, 2007). Social innovation however, rarely occurs in isolation or within
individual organizations but is empowered by collaborative ecologies that tran-
scend organizations and sectors to become social movements. For instance, a social
entrepreneur would need access to local knowledge and market knowledge pos-
sessed by diverse actors, located in diverse information networks ranging from
local/international business associations, local/international NGOs to local com-
munity groups and government departments at different levels. Therefore, the role
that collaborative and inter-sectoral knowledge dynamics plays is important to
understand social entrepreneurship, yet this concept still remains largely
overlooked in the academic literature (Tanimoto, 2012). This chapter aims to
address this gap by critically exploring the knowledge dynamics within the tourism
and social entrepreneurship nexus. By gaining an enhanced understanding of cross-
sectoral knowledge dynamics, we can strengthen the overall praxis of tourism and
social entrepreneurship, and in particular, assist policymakers in fostering the
enabling conditions that give rise to innovations where tourism can be used as a
means to help to deal with persistent and complex social issues. A case study of
community-based tourism (CBT) in Mai Hich, Vietnam is used to illustrate the
knowledge dynamics that emerged in this socially innovative tourism venture.
2 Knowledge Dynamics and Innovation
Traditional research on business innovation and entrepreneurship tends to focus on

an individual-centered perspective of knowledge creation (e.g., Olson, 1985;
Wood, 2002). In recent years, a more social and process-oriented perspective on
innovation is gradually gaining attention, which better takes into account the
knowledge dynamics that unfold during the generation and dissemination processes
of new knowledge creation (Steinberg, 2005).
There exists a plethora of innovation models such as the model of knowledge
creation by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995); the model of expansive learning by
Engestr€ om (1999); the model of knowledge building by Bereiter (2002); the
model of knowledge management within organizations by Easterby-Smith and
Lyles (2003); and the model of knowledge management between external organi-
zations by Carlson (2003). While each model possesses certain unique character-
istics, most emphasize that innovation entails much more than the simplistic view
of individuals’ spontaneous moments of discovery based on their existing
Knowledge Dynamics in the Tourism-Social Entrepreneurship Nexus 157
knowledge bases (Paavola, Lipponen, & Hakkarainen, 2004). On the contrary,

innovation often involves ambiguity and ‘creative chaos’ where uncertainty,
non-linearity and actor heterogeneity become central factors (Gilbert, Ahrweiler,
& Pyka, 2014).
It is argued that institutional and geographical settings, along with actors’
ontological and epistemological perspectives, have created knowledge and cogni-
tive boundaries which frame the way actors think and learn (see e.g., Dredge, 2014).
During the shared or collaborative innovation process, social interactions provide
essential tools and resources to transcend ‘cognitive boundaries’ or ‘conceptual
thresholds’ and in turn, allow participating actors to transform their thinking and
improve their current understanding of the problem (Dredge, 2014; Paavola et al.,
2004). Unsurprisingly, in a review of various innovation models, Paavola
et al. (2004, p. 564) noted that innovation is fundamentally a social process that
evolves over sustained periods of time, to which knowledge dynamics play a
significant role:
New ideas and innovations emerge between rather than within people. . . Knowledge
creation is not primarily a matter of creative individuals, but instead requires fundamental
reorganization of the practices of the whole community.
3 Knowledge Dynamics in Tourism and Social

Entrepreneurship
Arguably, an enhanced understanding of knowledge dynamics has more signifi-

cance in a social entrepreneurship context than in an economic focused business
context, as social entrepreneurship essentially thrives on its ability to transcend
traditional sectoral and geographical boundaries to effectively create and dissem-
inate new knowledge (Zebrowski, 2009). There are several reasons for this.
First, the rise of social entrepreneurship has drawn attention to the traditional
division of the economy into public, private and non-profit sectors, which for a long
time has limited the cross-sectoral interactions and knowledge/value exchange
needed for a full understanding of complex social issues and the development of
innovative solutions (Yunus, 2005). Traditional sectoral boundaries are clear in
tourism, creating a dichotomy between (1) the ‘development first’ approach which
focuses on social developmental goals and is led by the non-profit sector, and
(2) the ‘tourism first’ approach which focuses on private sector, market-led, indus-
try expansion and economic growth (Burns, 2004). This leads to the situation
where, on the one hand, NGOs and often, local government, may be equipped
with local knowledge but lack practical business expertise to develop commercially
viable tourism products. On the other hand, tourism experts from the private sector
are too often, not interested in participating in tourism projects that are underpinned
and/or driven by a social mission. Arguably, without the integration of business
acumen, social projects that utilize tourism cannot be competitive or financially
sustainable in the long run and fall under the ‘charity replace market’ category,
158 G.T. Phi et al.
where local communities may enjoy the benefits for a short while but revert back to
their previous conditions when the projects end (Polak, 2009). According to Phills,
Deiglmeier, and Miller (2008, p. 1): ‘Most difficult and important social problems
can’t be understood, let alone solved, without involving the nonprofit, public, and
private sectors’. It is within this context, that the social entrepreneurship-tourism
nexus is creating and presenting new pathways and solutions through the cross-
sectoral exchange of ideas and values to create sustainable solutions that work in
the long-term.
Second, while business firms often seek to hold new knowledge internally to
maximize competitive advantage and financial gain, the end purpose of knowledge
creation in social entrepreneurship is to harness this knowledge in a way that can
create wider social change (Shockley & Frank, 2011). Knowledge flows in social
entrepreneurship must therefore also emphasize the externalization of knowledge to
build collaboration and social synergies so that the value of the whole becomes
much greater than the sum of efforts of the individual social entrepreneurs. In recent
years, the advancement of technology (e.g., in communication and transport) has
enabled knowledge to move rapidly beyond geographical boundaries, fueling social
entrepreneurship with dynamic knowledge flows that transcend sectors and
territories.
Clearly knowledge dynamics occupies a central role in social entrepreneurship,
yet research on this topic is still in its infancy. Apart from a small collection of work
that touches on the dynamic interactions between the social entrepreneurs and their
embedded structures (i.e., social system/context) (e.g., Garud, Hardy, & Maguire,
2007; Shaw & de Bruin, 2013; Westley, Zimmerman, & Patton, 2009), only a
handful of authors (e.g., Montgomery, Dacin, & Dacin, 2012; Tanimoto, 2008,
2012) have explored the social entrepreneurship process from a ‘multi-stakeholder’
or ‘collective social entrepreneurship’ perspective, where various actors (including
the social entrepreneur) co-create ideas and co-contribute resources to bring a social
innovation to success. More specific to the concept of knowledge dynamics is the
notion of ‘community of practice’ in social entrepreneurship by Popoviciu and
Popoviciu (2011), which explores the communication and interaction dynamics of
individuals or groups of people who share certain interests or objectives, and who
are engaged in a shared problem-solving process to generate new perspectives/
knowledge.
The scarcity of research on knowledge dynamics is partly explained in a meta-
review of social entrepreneurship literature by Mair and Martı́ (2006). These
authors observed that social entrepreneurship studies are under the strong influence
from, and hence closely resemble, the empirical and theoretical evolution of
research on business entrepreneurship. Consequently, there has been an abundance
of studies identifying the social entrepreneurs’ personalities and leadership quali-
ties, compared to studies of social entrepreneurship processes (including knowl-
edge dynamics). In the field of tourism, while knowledge dynamics has been
increasingly explored within the context of networks and innovation (e.g., Hjalager,
2002; McLeod & Vaughan, 2014; Svensson, Nordin, & Flagestad, 2005;
Weidenfeld, Williams, & Butler, 2010), a thorough search of the literature revealed
that the study of knowledge dynamics in tourism social entrepreneurship is almost

non-existent.
Beyond addressing the gap in academic literature, studies of knowledge dynam-
ics in tourism and social entrepreneurship also have important implications in
practice. First, by understanding knowledge dynamics in social entrepreneurship,
actors can take active steps to increase the frequency and channels of knowledge
flows as well as the quality of knowledge interactions within and between commu-
nities of practices to create even greater synergies. Second, in a newly emerging
knowledge-based economy, where the production, distribution and use of knowl-
edge are replacing physical assets as key drivers for economic and social develop-
ment, policymakers are facing the challenge of having to develop relevant policies
and strategies that promote knowledge generation and encourage the ‘optimal
utilization’ of new knowledge (Cooper, 2014). In developing countries, where
social issues are well-entrenched and governments often have limited capacity to
assist, there is a heightened need for policymakers to understand the nature of
knowledge dynamics in various contexts (e.g., the social entrepreneurship-tourism
nexus) to foster conditions (or at the very least, not contribute to conditions that
impede) the generation and sharing of knowledge that contributes to social inno-
vations aimed at addressing persistent and complex social issues.
4 Research Approach
To critically explore knowledge dynamics within the tourism and social entrepre-
neurship nexus, this study undertook an exploratory case study of CBT develop-
ment in Mai Hich, Vietnam. In line with Yin (2003), an exploratory case study, as
opposed to an explanatory or descriptive case study, is used to explore these
knowledge dynamics because there has been little to no research previously
conducted. An exploratory study allows us to map out the dynamics and to identify
aspects, relationships and dimensions for further research.
The collection, analysis and interpretation of data were guided by an innovative
methodological tool known as ‘innovation biography’ and/or ‘knowledge biogra-
phy’. Knowledge biography was first developed as part of EURODITE, which was
a 5-year research project investigating knowledge dynamics in innovation pro-
cesses within and between organizations, regions and in wider contexts (i.e.,
national and global scales) (Halkier, Dahlstr€om, James, Manniche, & Olsen,
2010). Utilizing a qualitative approach with specific guidelines for data collection
and analysis of semi-structured interviews, the knowledge biography approach
enables the reconstruction of an innovation process and its related knowledge
flows and evolution over time and space, and it is also not limited to geographical
or sectoral boundaries (Butzin & Widmaier, 2010). Butzin and Widmaier (2010)
suggest a number of elements that can form parts of the knowledge biography. For
the purpose of the research on which this chapter is based, the following three key
elements have been included:
160 G.T. Phi et al.
4.1 Knowledge Phases
Knowledge phases allow the researchers to follow the entire life-span of an

innovation, from its first conception to its dissemination. Mulgan, Ali, Halkett,
and Sanders (2007, cited in Tanimoto, 2012, p. 269) define social innovation as a
problem-solving process ‘which tackle(s) social problems with a view to their
resolution’. This view is closely related to Engestr€om’s (1999) model that argues
innovation takes place in a seven-phase process of problem-solving, through which
the participants collaboratively transform existing knowledge into new knowledge
to deal with an identified problem more effectively. These seven-phases were
adapted for the social entrepreneurship context to include five main knowledge
phases:
1. Questioning and criticizing current intervention(s) to a social issue
2. Developing new intervention(s)
3. Implementing intervention(s)
4. Evaluating intervention(s)
5. Consolidating intervention(s) (e.g., sharing knowledge and/or scaling up).
It is important to note that knowledge phases rarely progress in a linear manner,
nor does the process of innovation necessarily end once a new intervention is
consolidated (Paavola et al., 2004). Rather, various phases might occur concur-
rently (e.g., phase 2 and phase 3—when the intervention is continued to be
developed during initial implementation) or there may be loops between these
phases (e.g., between phase 4 and 1, before proceeding to phase 5), until a desirable
intervention is achieved. This is particularly true when dealing with social issues, as
uncertainties and unexpected outcomes often emerge when the intervention inter-
acts within the complex social context. Moreover, Engestr€om (1999) emphasized
that the knowledge phases are an heuristic tool for expansive learning only, and that
innovation should be viewed as an iterative, flexible, dynamic process constituting
various attempts to understand the problem and refine possible solutions.
4.2 Actors and Their Contexts
Actors and their contexts are major factors in the shaping of knowledge dynamics.
As discussed above, innovation in social entrepreneurship is largely dependent
upon the contribution of diverse types of knowledge from an array of actors across
various sectors. In tourism for instance, along with the knowledge contributed by
tourism experts and tourism social entrepreneurs, various levels of government,
donors, NGOs and local communities are also considered important knowledge
sources. In addition to the identification of actors and their contextual settings in
five different knowledge phases, this case study also identifies cross-sectoral
engagement along with the geographical spread of the actors’ social interactions.
4.3 Knowledge Interactions
Knowledge interaction refers to the movement, coalescence and structuring of

different knowledge types into transformative understandings. While we acknowl-
edge the existence of a wide variety of knowledge (e.g. explicit, tacit, embrained,
embodied), for the purpose of this chapter, two main knowledge types are explored:
explicit (i.e., knowledge that is highly structured and can be expressed in clear
forms of language such as words and numbers) and tacit (i.e., knowledge that is
hard to articulate in formal terms and embedded in individuals’ personal intangible
qualities such as their beliefs, experience and values) (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Tacit and explicit knowledge are not static; they are dynamic and can be repeatedly
transformed through diverse interactions between actors and/or groups of actors
(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Key events in knowledge interactions can be captured
by putting together diverse actors’ ‘story-telling’ of the innovation process (Jokela,
Niinikoski, & Muhos, 2015).
The knowledge biography approach enables the dynamism of knowledge flows in
the innovation process to be grasped and communicated without being restricted to
geographical territories or sectoral boundaries. More importantly, by combining the
key elements of knowledge dynamics, the knowledge biography approach allows
actors in tourism social entrepreneurship to better appreciate the diversity of partic-
ipants and contextual settings, the complexity of the relationships that take place
between actors and the dynamics of knowledge interactions. This in turn, allows
actors to take active steps to explicitly include knowledge dynamics into their
thinking. This has practical significance given that social entrepreneurship commu-
nities of practices often work at the coalface, having little time to reflect on the use, or
movement, or interpretative acts that occur within their environment. Nevertheless,
these dynamics can have profound effects both on individual social enterprises and,
by way of transfer, on the ecology of social change within broader communities.
4.4 Data Collection
Both secondary and primary data have been utilized in this case study. The
knowledge biography approach uses a data collection process which starts with a
narrative interview with ‘the major responsible person of the innovation process’
(Butzin & Widmaier, 2010, p. 11). In this case, two semi-structured interviews were
conducted with the social entrepreneur developing CBT in Mai Hich. The first
interview generated background information for the case and the second interview
was designed to obtain specific information regarding (1) the timeline of each
knowledge phase, (2) the actors involved and (3) the key knowledge interaction
events that occurred during the emergence and implementation of this social
innovation. Interviews were conducted in Vietnamese and translated into English
as Vietnamese is the lead author’s first language. Using participant observation
162 G.T. Phi et al.
techniques, the lead author also observed and noted the characteristics of knowl-
edge exchange at two informal meetings between the social entrepreneur, local
tourism businesses, and government officials.
Following these two interviews, secondary data (the business plan, project
concept notes, press releases, news articles, etc.) were collected to identify the actors
involved in CBT in Mai Hich. This data was readily available as the Mai Hich CBT
is a pioneer of tourism social entrepreneurship, consequently its development was
not only covered extensively by the media but was also very accessible via Internet
searches. Finally, three television documentaries on Mai Hich (in Vietnamese with
English subtitles) were analyzed as they contained semi-structured interviews of
diverse actors talking about the development of CBT in Mai Hich.
The aforementioned data was triangulated and analyzed. Analysis involved
identifying the major actors, their location and their contribution to the develop-
ment process, in order to develop a comprehensive, multi-faceted case study that
revealed a real and detailed story of CBT in Mai Hich (i.e., an innovation process).
5 Mai Hich Community-Based Tourism Knowledge

Biography
5.1 Contextual Setting
Mai Hich is a small village located in the Northwest mountainous area of Mai Chau
district, Hoa Binh province, Vietnam. Mai Chau is classified as a remote rural
district where the vast majority of people rely solely on low and irregular income
from agriculture activities. In 2012, the Mai Chau People’s Committee claimed that
32.6 % of households still lived in poverty and 24.1 % of these households suffered
undernourishment between crop harvests (Nguyen, Luu, & Mac, 2014). Mai Hich is
home to the White Thai minority ethnic group and, like many other villages in the
region, its scenic landscapes and unique indigenous cultures provide opportunities
where tourism can be developed as a means for poverty reduction. Over the past
decade however, tourism activities have mainly been occurring in Lac village near
the central area of Mai Chau, leaving other villages largely untouched (Nguyen,
2013). Thus until 2011, tourism was still a foreign concept to many locals in Mai
Hich, despite the village’s close proximity (14 km distance) to the district center.
5.2 The Innovation Process
Phase 1: Questioning and Criticizing Current Intervention

In 2011, CBT was developed in Mai Hich as part of an integrated community
development program focusing on poverty reduction, social equity and sustainable
livelihoods. Funded from 2011 to 2013 by MISEREOR and Brot f€ur die Welt
(Bread for the World) INGOs, the project was implemented by the Centre for
Community Health and Development (COHED) which is a Vietnamese NGO
specializing in working with vulnerable communities and individuals (COHED,
2013). Influenced by the recent international and national Green Growth strategy,
the project’s main aim was to help local people improve their standard of living by
utilizing available resources in the area for income generation, while preventing
negative impacts to the local environment. To achieve this, COHED sought to build
eco-homestays, which are compatible with the village’s traditional housing struc-
ture and provide training to increase local citizens’ capacity to operate the home-
stays in a sustainable manner. During the implementation of these ideas however,
the project got caught up in traditional pattern of NGO-led CBT development. For
instance, locals went to traditional sit-down workshops in which theoretical infor-
mation was provided (e.g., definitions of tourism, tourists and ‘green’ develop-
ment). However, this information was not deemed very relevant to the daily
operations of tourism businesses (i.e., from the information it was not clear how
homestays should be designed and operated). Consequently, the local people were
skeptical, and it was very hard to convince anyone in the village to invest in the first
homestay, even with technical and partial financial support from the NGO (VTV2,
2013).
In 2012, a breakthrough occurred when COHED called for volunteer support
from tourism experts. Responding to this call, Mr. Binh Minh Duong, a recently
retired director of a tour company, became involved and quickly took the lead in the
Mai Hich CBT project. Mr. Duong’s extensive experience in tourism and hospital-
ity helped him to recognize a general supply-demand gap where tour companies
have relentlessly searched for quality, responsible CBT opportunities, yet most
CBT projects could not provide products and services that satisfied tourists’ needs
(Nguyen, 2013). Moreover Mr. Duong identified the following issues with the
current CBT development in Mai Chau:
• CBT in Lac village was mostly self-organized by local people trying to capital-
ize on opportunities to improve their income. Without guidance from experts or
proper management from local authorities, the services on offer were of low
quality, over-commercialized and unsustainable.
• In Mai Hich, CBT was developed by an NGO lacking in tourism expertise and
with no understanding of market needs. Thus, the development of an attractive,
well-targeted tourism product was poorly executed. Additionally, the NGO’s
minimal promotion and advertising campaigns were sporadic and there was little
to no effort made to continuously and consistently maintain high quality services
to ensure customer satisfaction.
• There was an inflated focus on providing homestay in CBT. This led to a lack of
other value-added services and activities that have the capacity to improve
tourists’ experiences and distribute tourism benefits more widely to the whole
community. (Duong Minh Binh, 2015)
164 G.T. Phi et al.
Phase 2: Developing New Interventions

As a result of Mr. Duong’s understanding of tourism and his appreciation for the
needs of various actors, he was able to develop an optimum solution that had the
potential to create a win-win situation for all involved. He proposed an ‘alternative’
CBT model with the following key criteria: (1) Ensure hygiene and sanitation,
especially in bathroom and toilet areas; (2) Sleeping and dining areas should be
separated and tourists should have privacy space at the homestay; (3) Overall
designs of CBT (e.g., homestay structure, souvenirs, value-added activities) should
reflect local cultures and utilize local materials; (4) CBT activities should be well-
integrated into local people’s lives (e.g., weaving, vegetable planting, traditional
dance performing) (Duong Minh Binh, 2015).
Phase 3: Implementing Interventions
During the implementation phase of this CBT model, practical training using a
hands-on coaching-style was applied to develop tourism expertise within the local
community. Moreover, Mr. Duong’s connection with the industry led to the volun-
tary engagement of many other tourism and hospitality experts. For instance, a chef
from a 5-star hotel was introduced to the community to provide training in the
professional preparation and presentation of food and beverage. Local hosts learned
how to create and present visually attractive meals with a mix of local specialties
and popular dishes that could cater to diverse visitor tastes (Nguyen, 2013).
Importantly, to facilitate a sense of autonomy and engagement throughout the
community, local people were encouraged to become major investors in the CBT
project. To assist resource poor local entrepreneurs, COHED provided minor
in-kind support (i.e., mattresses, bedding and curtains) and encouraged the use of
free, local environmentally-friendly materials such as bamboo to upgrade existing
stilt houses. Commenting on her family’s involvement with CBT, Minh Tho who is
a local farmer turned tourism entrepreneur stated: ‘VND80 million (nearly US
$4000) was a fortune for us, but I finally decided to invest knowing that poverty
cannot be eliminated without taking some chances’ (Nguyen, 2013, p. 1). In
December 2012, Minh Tho homestay was opened, followed by two other home-
stays in 2013.
At the onset, Mai Hich CBT adopted a strategy of continuously taking into
consideration tour companies’ and tourists’ ideas on the products and services they
would like to experience. Consequently, the provision of value-added activities
such as trekking and stream crafting (amongst others) have since been included to
meet market needs, resulting in a steady increase in tourists into the area, and
continued positive promotion from both domestic and international tour operators.
Phase 4: Evaluating Intervention
In 2013, an initial evaluation revealed that Mai Hich CBT created 79 new jobs for
the community, with 23 positions in the three homestays (i.e., front desk, house-
keeping, F&B, laundry) and 56 positions in other tourism services (i.e., traditional
dance and music performance, trekking guides, rafting and bicycle rental services)
(Duong, 2015). At this point, local government became involved and a tourism
management board was established to ensure that existing and further CBT
development in the village are in compliance with the goals of preserving local
cultures and protecting the environment (VTV2, 2013).
Phase 5: Consolidating Intervention
By 2014, the COHED CBT project ended with the opening of the fourth homestay.
However, the CBT model has continued to expand beyond the local context.
Although the initial project was developed for Mai Hich community, under direc-
tion of the Centre for Social Initiative Promotion (CSIP), Mr. Duong understood the
CBT model from a social entrepreneurship perspective and its potential to be scaled
up to deliver much greater socio-economic impacts. With advice regarding legal
frameworks and scaling up approaches from CSIP, the social enterprise known as
CBT Travel and Consulting was established and has continued to work closely with
other local governments, local entrepreneurs, international NGOs, social entrepre-
neurs and tourism experts all over Vietnam to adapt and refine the initial model to
suit other areas (Duong Minh Binh, 2015). By 2015, CBT Travel and Consulting
established another 12 CBTs in 7 provinces, using tourism to continue creating
positive changes to impoverished and vulnerable communities across Vietnam.
CBT Travel and Consulting’s long-term commitment to and within the community
is clearly stated in the organization’s business plan: ‘Not only do we design and
implement these projects, but we also provide long-term support to warrant their
viability and profitability’ (Duong, 2015).
6 Discussion
6.1 Multi-sectoral Actors and Multi-scalar Reach

of Innovation Process
This case study has shown that there was involvement and knowledge contribution
from a diverse range of actors across private, public and third sectors at the micro-
(local), meso- (national) and macro- (international) levels throughout the CBT
innovation process (Table 1).
This case study has shown that knowledge dynamics are strongly connected to
individuals and to the specific organizations that commit to learning, developing
knowledge and stimulating knowledge exchange. Furthermore, how these individ-
uals and organizations transfer knowledge and create synergies beyond individual
social enterprises is a crucial factor in moving single initiatives towards a social
movement. By tracing the various sources of ideas and influences during the
innovation process, the knowledge biography approach reveals a multi-sectoral,
multi-scalar reach for the CBT social innovation. For instance, COHED’s goals and
practices in developing Mai Hich CBT are influenced by (1) the donors’ agendas
and values, and (2) the government’s green-growth strategy. Arguably, the project
donors, through the provision of funding, have significant influence on the innova-
tion’s goals, which in turn need to be aligned with their own agendas and values. In
166 G.T. Phi et al.
Table 1 Mai Hich CBT actors

Sector Actor
Third sector COHED (local)
Other local NGOs (local)
Donors (MISEREOR and Bread for the World) (international)
Other INGOs/Donors (international)
Public sector Mai Hich local government (local)
Other local governments (national)
Vietnamese government (national)
National leaders (international)
Private sector Tourism experts (national)
Tour companies/operators (national/international)
Domestic/International tourists (national/international)
this case, CBT was used as part of a larger, MISEREOR and Bread for the World
funded project for poverty alleviation in an ethnic minority community whose focus
was on supporting ‘the weakest members of society’ (MISEREOR, 2015, p. 1). This
influence is reflected in the case study, which showed the continuous involvement
of MISEREOR and Bread for the World in the first four phases of the CBT social
innovation, before their role was replaced by other donors/INGOs in the consoli-
dation/scaling up phase (phase 5).
Additionally, the CBT social innovation process is also influenced by meta-
strategy and developmental frameworks from the public sector, which were first
developed at the international level before assuming down-ward influences at
national, regional and local levels. The Green Growth strategy in the case study
is a typical example. Green Growth strategy has its origin from the Fifth Ministerial
Conference on Environment and Development where, in 2005, 52 national leaders
from Asia and the Pacific region reached an agreement to pursue a path of ‘green
growth’ (United Nations, 2015). Recently, the multi-level reach of the Green
Growth strategy has extended to the Vietnamese government and in turn shaped
the agendas and practices of Mai Hich government and local NGOs, including
COHED. Consequently, the Vietnamese government and national leaders contrib-
uted throughout all phases of innovation process in the knowledge biography.
Multi-scalar reach of the CBT social innovation is also found in the private
sector. The demands and expectations of consumers occupy a central role in service
industries such as hospitality and tourism. Indeed, market adaptability via the
continuous identification and integration of (at the very least), tourists’ wants,
needs and expectations into products and services has enormous bearing on the
competitiveness of the CBT. In the case of the Mai Hich CBT project, not only
domestic and international tourists, but also tour operators and tourism experts were
encouraged to (and did) directly contribute to the ‘open innovation’ or ‘co-creation’
of the CBT social innovation development.
6.2 The Targeted Population for Social Change
The population targeted for social change in the Mai Hich CBT project comprised
the local tourism entrepreneurs and the local community. This population contrib-
uted valuable local situated knowledge (which eventually shapes the goals and
designs of tourism interventions) and included information relating to: (1) the
diverse causes of local issues (e.g., local poverty), (2) the local resources available,
and (3) current livelihoods and needs. Moreover, one of the key criteria when
developing CBT is to ensure its activities are well-integrated into, and complement
the targeted population’s current livelihoods. Yet despite being the key actors
around which the whole innovation initiative is built, the role of the targeted
population is often overlooked during phase 2—the development of interventions.
In the case of Mai Hich CBT, instead of viewing the community simply as
‘beneficiaries’ or a ‘social problem’ that needs to be resolved, the tourism social
entrepreneur (i.e., Mr. Duong) understood their strengths and needs: “All the people
I have worked with helped me to realize one thing; they have more than enough
enthusiasm and plenty of diligence, but they only fail due to a lack of expertise. And
this expertise can be trained” (personal communication, 2015). This knowledge led
to the design of vocational hands-on training with tourism experts that replaced
ineffective formal tourism workshops during the implementation phase.
6.3 Local NGO as the ‘Gatekeeper’
Studies of social entrepreneurship have found that there can be ‘gatekeepers’ or key
knowledge brokers who make key decisions in determining how new knowledge is
introduced, explored and utilized (Bloom & Dees, 2008; Lee, 2014). In the case of
Mai Hich CBT, the ‘gatekeeper’ was the local NGO, COHED, who initiated and
was responsible for CBT development in the area. Yet the competence of COHED
in developing a viable CBT quickly reached its limit and without COHED’s
recognition of its limited knowledge of the sector, the innovation could not have
taken place. COHED’s decision to call for assistance from tourism experts, and its
allocation of Mr. Duong to take over the innovation process opened up a new flow
of knowledge transfer that led to successful social innovation. Arguably however,
‘gatekeepers’ do not always hold entire control over in the innovation process, as
other actors can still influence them. For instance, COHED’s decision to change the
status-quo is likely to be due partly to (1) the downward pressure created by donors’
evaluation of COHED’s projects, and (2) the upward pressure created by the
targeted population’s negative feedback towards their traditional top-down
NGO-led CBT (workshop) approach.
168 G.T. Phi et al.
6.4 Tourism Social Entrepreneur as a ‘Boundary Spanner’
Social entrepreneurship involves the use of market-based strategies (e.g., improv-

ing targeted population’s market efficiency) to deal with social issues in specific
contexts, making local knowledge and market knowledge the key source for social
innovation. Local knowledge in the case of the Mai Hich CBT is held by four key
actors; local NGO(s), local government(s), local tourism entrepreneur(s), and the
wider local community. However, this knowledge is often tacit and hard to com-
municate or transfer between actors (e.g., due to a local community’s way of life).
Similarly, while the tourism social entrepreneur (i.e., Mr. Duong), other tourism
experts, tour operators and tourists can contribute market knowledge, a substantial
part of this knowledge is also not easily articulated as it either ‘resides in the heads
of managers and entrepreneurs’ (embodied knowledge) or is embedded in individ-
uals’ experience with the industry (e.g. encultured knowledge). More importantly,
beyond the propositional (know-what) and procedural (know-how) knowledge, a
successful innovation process also involves a deep understanding of the needs and
values of diverse actors and which influence their practices and expected results of
the intervention (know-who knowledge) (Wang & Chugh, 2014). In the case of Mai
Hich CBT, Mr. Duong was able to continuously identify and integrate the diverse
knowledge of other actors with his own, leading to the creation of a new CBT
approach that takes into consideration both local and market insights. Within the
knowledge dynamics literature, Mr. Duong is classified as a ‘boundary spanning
knowledge expert’, who is equipped with ‘the cognitive and reflexive capacities to
appreciate different truths and harness different types of knowledge’ and thereby
able to act as a conduit for knowledge transfer between diverse actors across
organization/sector (Dredge, 2014, p. 24).
6.5 The Emerging of a Social Entrepreneurship Network
Among the five knowledge phases, the consolidation phase attracts the highest
diversity of actors and knowledge interactions. This is understandable as the CBT
scale and boundaries of social innovation have evolved from the local to the
national setting, and thus its community of practices has significantly expanded.
While the focus of the first four knowledge phases in tourism and social entrepre-
neurship is on integrating explicit and tacit knowledge of diverse actors to design
tourism social innovation, the consolidation phase focuses on externalizing the
‘tacit’ knowledge of the social innovation (e.g., via the communication of key
CBT criteria or the development of the CBT Travel and Consulting business
plan) to attract external synergies and increase positive social impacts. In this
context, the emergence of social entrepreneurship networks plays an important
role in the sharing and dissemination of new knowledge to external actors. Central
to this network is the intermediary organizations (e.g., CSIP) that work to raise
awareness of social entrepreneurship and provide social entrepreneurship expertise

(e.g., legal advice, network opportunities) to social entrepreneurs in scaling up
social innovations (Nguyen, Luu, Pham, & Tran, 2012). The network also includes
the increasing number of social entrepreneurs who work as ‘boundary spanners’ to
distribute the generated knowledge to various actors across sectors and provide
their own expertise in refining and/or adapting the initial social innovation to a new
context. In the case of Mai Hich CBT, the concept of social entrepreneurship is still
not well-recognized in Vietnam (Nguyen et al., 2012) and without the intervention
of CSIP, this tourism social innovation would have stayed within Mai Hich village
and its impacts would have remained limited. Instead, knowledge propagated
rapidly in the consolidation phase, which led to the spread of a CBT model to
seven provinces within 2 years. In this phase, by committing to provide the
communities with long-term support, CBT Travel and Consulting also ensured all
involved communities were given sufficient time and support to internalize the
explicit knowledge of CBT model into community tacit knowledge through learn-
ing-by-doing.
7 Conclusion
This chapter aimed to explore the knowledge dynamics in the tourism and social
entrepreneurship nexus via a case study of Mai Hich CBT, Vietnam. By applying
the knowledge biography approach to the case, the research has revealed a complex
picture of the knowledge dynamics across sectoral and geographical boundaries
during a tourism social innovation process. Beyond the specific discussion
pertaining to the case, three broader observations are highlighted that may be useful
in assisting practitioners and policymakers in facilitating the knowledge dynamics
in social entrepreneurship and tourism nexus:
1. Knowledge dynamics in the tourism social innovation process is highly com-
plex, with the involvement of multi-sectoral actors at multi-levels (from local to
international). Knowledge exchange during the process is fluid and flexible,
including both upward (e.g., local knowledge) and downward (e.g., government
meta-strategy and donors’ values) movement. In addition, tacit and explicit
types of knowledge possessed by diverse actors are frequently interacted and
transformed through different phases of social innovation. It is important for
actors involved to consciously reflect on the various influences, assumptions and
propositions being used by themselves and others in the process of developing
and implementing tourism social innovation.
2. Beyond ‘know-what’ and ‘know-how’ knowledge, it is also important for actors
to acquire ‘know-who’ knowledge (e.g., diverse actors’ values, needs and
agendas). Policies should facilitate meaningful participation of diverse actors
in the social innovation process to allow for further exchange of specialized
170 G.T. Phi et al.
knowledge, especially local knowledge that resides within the targeted popula-
tion for change.
3. Even though individuals are carriers of knowledge, the case of Mai Hich CBT
has demonstrated that knowledge dynamics that lead to successful tourism social
innovation is not always attributed to communication between actors. Rather,
new flow of knowledge transfer can be triggered by a shift in power relations
(e.g., from the ‘gatekeeper’ local NGO to the external tourism social entrepre-
neur) or by procuring active support of social entrepreneurship intermediary
organizations. Policymakers hence should support the establishment of interme-
diaries specializing in fostering social entrepreneurship in tourism, as well as
promoting the frequent exchange of knowledge across public, private and third
sectors in the process of developing social innovation.
1. Why is an understanding of knowledge dynamic important for social entrepre-
neurs to be successful?
2. Think of some social entrepreneurs that you know in the tourism or hospitality
industry. Give examples of ‘boundary spanners’ and ‘gate keepers’.
3. What are some examples of ‘tacit’ and ‘explicit’ knowledge in the tourism
context that social entrepreneurs might use?
Acknowledgement Our sincere thanks to Dr. Rob Hales from Griffith University, Australia for
valuable comments on the initial development of this chapter.
References
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bloom, P. N., & Dees, G. (2008). Cultivate your ecosystem. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6
(1), 47–53.
Burns, P. (2004). Tourism planning: A third way? Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 24–43.
Butzin, A., & Widmaier, B. (2010). Knowledge biographies: A new approach to study time-space
dynamics of knowledge. EURODITE research.
Carlson, S. A. (2003). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems in inter-
organizational networks. Knowledge and Process Management, 10(3), 194–206.
COHED. (2013). Community-based tourism development. Retrieved July 15, 2015, from http://
www.cohed.org.vn/DetailArticle.aspx?s¼60
Cooper, C. (2014). Managing tourism knowledge: Concept and approaches. In M. McLeod &
R. Vaughan (Eds.), Knowledge networks and tourism (pp. 62–79). Abingdon: Routledge.
Dredge, D. (2014). Tourism-planning network knowledge dynamics. In M. McLeod &
R. Vaughan (Eds.), Knowledge networks and tourism (pp. 9–27). Abingdon: Routledge.
Duong, B. (2015). Internal document: CBT travel and consulting profile. Vietnam: CBT Travel
and Consulting.
Duong Minh Binh. (2015). Community-based tourism ‘CBT Travel’ (English subtitle) [Video].
Retrieved July 10, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼wxxTA0XXJAE
Dzisi, S., & Otsyina, F. A. (2014). Exploring social entrepreneurship in the hospitality industry.
International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 3(6), 233–241.
Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles, M. (2003). Re-reading “organizational learning”: Selective memory,
forgetting, and adaptation. The Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 51–55.
Engestr€om, Y. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. In Y. Engestr€ om, R. Miettinen, & R.-L.
Punamäki (Eds.), Activity theory and individual and social transformation (pp. 19–38). Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency:
An introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies-Berlin-European Group for Orga-
nizational Studies, 28(7), 957.
Gilbert, N., Ahrweiler, P., & Pyka, A. (Eds.). (2014). Simulating knowledge dynamics in innova-
tion networks. Heidelberg: Springer.
Halkier, H., Dahlstr€om, M., James, L., Manniche, J., & Olsen, L. S. (2010). Knowledge dynamics,
regional development and public policy. Aalborg: Institute for History, Aalborg University.
Heyniger, C., & Lamoureaux, K. (2007, June 21–24). Rural adventure tourism and social
entrepreneurship: Practices and trends. Paper presented at the BEST Educational Network
Think Tank VII: Innovations for Sustainable Tourism, The Northern Arizona University.
Hjalager, A.-M. (2002). Repairing innovation defectiveness in tourism. Tourism Management, 23
(5), 465–474.
Jokela, H., Niinikoski, E. R., & Muhos, M. (2015). Knowledge dynamics and innovation: Case
studies in a sparsely populated area. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 17(2),
234–253.
Lee, S.-H. (2014). A social exchange theory of non-governmental organizations as social entre-
preneurs in rural entrepreneurship. In P. Phan, J. Kickul, S. Bacq, & M. Nordqvist (Eds.),
Theory and empirical research in social entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Mair, J., & Martı́, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction,
McLeod, M., & Vaughan, R. (2014). Knowledge networks and tourism. Abingdon: Routledge.
MISEREOR. (2015). MISEREOR—About us. http://www.misereor.org/about-us.html
Montgomery, A. W., Dacin, P. A., & Dacin, M. T. (2012). Collective social entrepreneurship:
Collaboratively shaping social good. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 375–388.
Mulgan, G., Ali, R., Halkett, R., & Sanders, B. (2007). In and out of sync: The challenge of
growing social innovations. London: NESTA.
Nguyen, N. (2013). Mai Chau home-stay proves a hit. VietnamNews. Retrieved July 15, 2015,
from http://vietnamnews.vn/life-style/238709/mai-chau-home-stay-proves-a-hit.html
Nguyen, C., Luu, D., Pham, O., & Tran, G. (2012). Social enterprise in Vietnam: Concept, context
and policies. Hanoi: Central Institute of Economic Management.
Nguyen, D., Luu, D., & Mac, V. (2014). Food security of poor households in Mai Chau District,
Hoa Binh Province: Situations and solutions. Journal of Science and Development, 12(6),
821–828.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Olson, P. (1985). Entrepreneurship: Process and abilities. American Journal of Small Business, 10
(1), 25–31.
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge commu-
nities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576.
Phills, J., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Univer-
sity. Retrieved July 5, 2015, from http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/rediscovering_
social_innovation/
Polak, P. (2009). Out of poverty: What works when traditional approaches fail. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Popoviciu, I., & Popoviciu, S. (2011). Social entrepreneurship, social enterprise and the principles
of a community of practice. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala, 33, 44–55.
Shaw, E., & de Bruin, A. (2013). Reconsidering capitalism: The promise of social innovation and
social entrepreneurship? International Small Business Journal, 31(7), 737–746. doi:10.1177/
0266242613497494.
172 G.T. Phi et al.
Steinberg, A. (2005). Emergent knowledge dynamics in innovation: Exploring e-business entre-

preneurship after the dotcom crash. PhD Thesis. University of London, Institute of Social
Psychology.
Svensson, B., Nordin, S., & Flagestad, A. (2005). A governance perspective on destination
development-exploring partnerships, clusters and innovation systems. Tourism Review, 60
(2), 32–37.
Tanimoto, K. (2008). Conceptual framework of social entrepreneurship and social innovation
cluster: A preliminary study. Hitotsubashi Journal of Commerce and Management, 42, 1–16.
Tanimoto, K. (2012). The emergent process of social innovation: Multi-stakeholders perspective.
International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 4(3–4), 267–280.
United Nations. (2015). Green growth. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu¼1447
VTV2 (Creator). (2013). Community-based tourism in Mai Hich Viet Nam (English subtitle)
[Video]. Retrieved July, 10, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼5EMmhBHxq2U
Wang, C. L., & Chugh, H. (2014). Entrepreneurial learning: Past research and future challenges.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(1), 24–61.
Weidenfeld, A., Williams, A. M., & Butler, R. W. (2010). Knowledge transfer and innovation
among attractions. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 604–626.
Westley, F., Zimmerman, B., & Patton, M. (2009). Getting to maybe: How the world is changed.
Toronto: Vintage Canada.
Wood, M. (2002). Mind the gap? A Processual reconsideration of organizational knowledge.
Organization, 9(1), 151–171.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Yunus, M. (2005). Eliminating poverty through market-based social entrepreneurship. Global
Urban Development Magazine. http://www.globalurban.org/Issue1PIMag05/Yunus%20arti
cle.htm
Zebrowski, R. L. (2009). Social entrepreneurship as a new paradigm: Rethinking development
intervention ideologies. University of Oregon.
Giang Thi Phi is a third-year Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel
Management, Griffith University. Her Ph.D. research critically examines the links between
microfinance tourism and poverty alleviation. Giang’s broader research interests include the
planning, management and evaluation of complex event and tourism projects, social entrepreneur-
ship and the development of tourism approaches for positive social change.
Michelle Whitford is a Senior Lecturer and Program Director of the Bachelor of International
Tourism and Hotel Management in the Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management,
Griffith University. Her research expertise is in the field of event policy and planning and
Indigenous tourism and events. Dr. Whitford’s research work includes co-coordinating projects
in the area of Indigenous tourism and events with a focus on supply and demand, capacity
development, entrepreneurship, authenticity and commodification and management.
Social Enterprise Evaluation: Implications
for Tourism Development
Marcella Daye and Kawal Gill
Abstract The evaluation of social enterprise projects has focused mainly on

devising effective performance measurement methods and processes to justify the
investment of resources and time committed to such activities. With increasing
demands for accountability, effectiveness, evidence of return on investment and
value-added results, evaluation activities have been driven by imperatives of
objectivity in assessments and the development of tools that monetize the social
outcomes and impacts of social enterprise projects. These traditional approaches to
evaluation have also been widely adapted in tourism based social enterprises that
seek to attain goals of poverty alleviation, empowerment of local communities, and
improved livelihoods for those marginalized from mainstream tourism economic
activities. This chapter argues that traditional approaches to evaluation may be
limited in supporting social entrepreneurship projects with development objectives
of empowerment and societal change. It is proposed that social enterprise projects
involving community participation may be better positioned to achieve their devel-
opmental objectives by incorporating more of the principles of Participatory Eval-
uation (PE) and Empowerment Evaluation (EE) in the quest to harness the
economic prowess of tourism for human development.
Keywords Social enterprise • Performance management • Financial reporting •

Social impact accounting • Tourism • Participatory evaluation • Empowerment
evaluation
M. Daye (*)
Northampton Business School, University of Northampton, Northampton, UK
K. Gill
Sri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

174 M. Daye and K. Gill
1 Introduction
The conventional mission of social enterprise or entrepreneurship projects to

provide solutions to social problems and unmet needs that are unlikely to be
addressed by market forces, inherently invokes the expectation of effective results
and ameliorative outcomes for the wider society. This solution and innovation
orientation predisposes social enterprise activities as offering some remedy to
challenging societal difficulties. Ideally, successful social enterprise projects are
able to clearly demonstrate that their activities and interventions relate directly to
some beneficial change and desirable social impacts. The bottom line is therefore
for the social enterprise to show that no other organization is also responsible for the
outcomes; and that they are counterfactual, that is, would not have occurred anyway
without the intervention (Hall & Arvidson, 2014).
Nevertheless, the evaluation of social enterprise impacts and effectiveness is by
no means standardized and the landscape is cluttered with myriad methods and
approaches. Normative approaches to the evaluation of social enterprises stress the
importance of performance measurements and accountability to justify the time and
resources engaged in undertaking the project. It is notable that the principles of
objectivity with the role of the evaluator standing outside the activity or interven-
tion are highly regarded among donor agencies and governments as a neutral and
logical basis to measure the outcomes of social entrepreneurship (Chouinard,
2013). A premier example of objective evaluation is the application of Randomized
Controlled Trials (RCTs) that has been advocated as a gold standard of evaluating
impacts by comparing a beneficiary group with a controlled group, where there is
no intervention. While RCTs offer a clinical approach to evaluation, it has been
charged for reducing performance measurement to ‘some unitary stable and objec-
tively real’ state when such issues are usually ‘multi-faceted, problematic, ambig-
uous and contested’ (Paton, 2003).
In adopting a more constructivist approach to performance measurement, holis-
tic methods of social enterprise evaluation have gained currency epitomized in the
Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach of Profit, People and Planet, also known as a
blended value method that incorporates financial, social and environmental
accountability in assessments. However, such methods tend to focus on the mon-
etization of social impacts as exemplified in the Social Return on Investment
(SROI) tool. As a method, SROI measures the inputs relating to the resources
invested in activities, the outputs in terms of goods and services achieved based on
the activities; the outcomes that assess the benefits gained for beneficiaries; as well
as the impacts with regard to the consequences for the society at large (Bagnoli &
Megali, 2011). While the main charge against SROI is a failure to valorize benefits
delivered to clients such as confidence, independence and dignity, it also may create
a context of mission drift or ‘mission measurement paradox’ where growth in
numbers of beneficiaries or profits is equated with successful impacts rather than
the overarching mission of social change and empowerment (Hadad & Gauca,
2014).
Social Enterprise Evaluation: Implications for Tourism Development 175
As argued by (Nichols, 2002), if ultimately the perspectives of those affected by

social enterprise activities determine success, then the case may be made for the
role of participatory methods which engage beneficiaries in the evaluation process.
As a bottom-up approach, participatory evaluation (PE) seeks to transfer power to
beneficiaries that equip them to make meaningful decisions to improve their lives.
This method advocates the involvement of key stakeholders from the incipient
stage through to completion of the project in order to ensure that the evaluation
results are utilized and applied to individual and organizational learning. At its
highest level of expression, this process is termed Empowerment Evaluation
(EE) where there is evidence of actual power shifts that enable marginalized groups
to carry out evaluation work and to ‘mainstream such activities into programming’
(Miller & Campbell, 2006). However, participatory methods seem to have more
credence as an engagement and mobilization tool, rather than an evaluation method.
The main reasons are that the implementation of participatory evaluation tends to
be stymied by high training costs, extensive time and also limited utilization of
results. Furthermore, participatory and empowerment models of evaluation have
yet to be universally recognized as rigorous and providing value for money (Miller
& Campbell, 2006; Smits & Champagne, 2008).
In this chapter the theoretical underpinnings of a range of evaluation approaches
and methods are appraised in order to clarify their applicability and suitability in the
social enterprise context. All evaluation tools are informed by some epistemolog-
ical and theoretical principle that guides the data collection and the assessment of
the causal links between the program design and the eventual outcomes. Often
times in practice, there may be differences of philosophical persuasions among
stakeholders involved in the social enterprise projects as to which evaluation
methods are most suitable to assess the results. In this regard, stakeholder collab-
oration in the design and implementation of evaluation have been advocated in
order to ensure the utilization of evaluations that ultimately contribute to organi-
zational and general learning of the critical success factors of social enterprise
projects (Liket, Rey-Garcia, & Maas, 2014); White, 2009). This chapter then
concludes with an overview of social enterprise evaluation in the tourism sector.
The discussion focuses primarily on development projects, namely, community
based tourism enterprises (CBTEs) that are predominantly modelled on the social
enterprise ideal to achieve societal change and people empowerment. The role of
empowerment evaluation in specifically targeting the needs of women through
social enterprise projects is also discussed (Fotheringham & Saunders, 2014).
2 Performance Management for Social Enterprise
The growth in popularity, prominence and acceptance of social entrepreneurship as

a business innovation model on a global level has resulted in increasing scrutiny
and interrogation of its claims as an approach to redress social problems (Hadad &
Gauca, 2014). With the landscape increasingly populated by social enterprise
initiatives, the rationale for performance management is therefore an imperative in

the allocation of resources and the quest to determine whether social enterprise
projects effectively provide a competitive advantage over traditional producers and
service providers in the public and private sectors. Performance evaluation there-
fore seeks to provide the mechanism to winnow the chaff of marketing and public
relations claims of the success of social enterprise interventions from the realities of
the specific changes that have been accrued to the society in their aftermath. The
basic premise of social enterprise performance management in the evaluation
process is to provide incontrovertible proof that the outcomes are directly attribut-
able to the intervention thereby establishing what is called ‘pragmatic legitimacy’
(Parenson, 2011).
In practice however, while stakeholders may all agree on the need to demon-
strate the pragmatic legitimacy and the efficacy of the project, it is unlikely that
there will be unanimity on how this evaluation process should be designed and
implemented. According to Behn (2003), there are mainly eight purposes for the
employment of the evaluation process by managers. These purposes have been
identified as to control, budget, celebrate, motivate, promote, evaluate, learn and
improve. While these are by no means mutually exclusive, they also reflect the
varying motivations with which stakeholders are likely to approach the evaluation
process that may also set the stage for the seeds of discord and conflict among
stakeholders on the priorities for measurement, what type of data should be
collected and how the design process should be implemented. Liket et al. (2014:
183) report on a case study where a funder and a non-profit enterprise were not able
to agree on an evaluation process for a project as the funder preferred an outcomes
mapping method, while the non-profit agency managers advocated a SROI
approach. The impasse was eventually resolved when the two parties were enabled
in a facilitation process to see the interrelationships between the various approaches
to their preferred evaluation methods, and were able to establish a ‘neutral ground’
beyond a specific methodological conviction. According to Liket et al. (2014: 184),
there may be the need for ‘inherent trade-offs’ in the selection of the evaluation
methods so that the process is appropriate for the project context and also satisfies
the requirements of all the stakeholders.
The emphasis on the adoption of a ‘best fit’ approach in selection of evaluation
tools promotes a more plural orientation towards performance measurement in
social enterprise. This has also fostered the proliferation of methods that are daily
emerging in the field. But there are distinctive epistemological fields within which
the diverse range of evaluation methods and tools may be categorized. Furthermore,
various methods have been designed to address a specific context issue or have
evolved and adapted over time as learning and new knowledge have been utilized.
Nevertheless, the fundamental basis for the selection of the evaluation method for a
social enterprise project is the recognition of its philosophical claims as well as the
mode of implementation. As such, a review of a selection of various methods is
undertaken in this chapter to highlight the distinctions between the various types
and models that now clutter the evaluation field. Firstly, the case for positivist
approaches is discussed with a review of selected methods and practices that define
the field. This is followed by an overview of constructivist methodologies with a

discussion of the main advantages and limitations of the implementation of these
theoretical models in practice.
Within evaluation research, some differentiation is made between methods that
make claims of rigor on the basis of being impartial and objective. White
(2009:282) argues that quantitative methods are paramount and should be more
widely applied in evaluation of developmental work as they provide the solid
empirical basis to explain social impacts. Rooted in the positivist epistemological
tradition, these methods aim to pursue the gathering of facts that are deemed to be
measurable and seemingly uncontested. Such methods are mostly employed when
the main purpose of the evaluation is to control and monitor. Consequently methods
that enable the demonstration of institutional coherence and also financial profit-
ability fall within this tradition. When the objective is to demarcate the efficacy of
social enterprise activities, the focus is likely to be on addressing the counterfactual,
and in such cases, methods that employ experimental and quasi-experimental
design featuring control groups are usually preferred. The measurement of out-
comes according to eternal benchmarks, the utilization of panel data to test and
verify results, and survey questionnaires are usually chosen as tools that attest to the
rigor of the evaluation process. Generally positivist evaluation methods tend to be
widely advocated by national governments and funding bodies as the preferred tool
for accountability and stewardship of funding to SEs. Philosophically they sub-
scribe to a managerial orientation of evaluation that is top-down and technocratic,
where the evaluator is positioned as external to the project, and is therefore able to
conduct an impartial, unbiased assessment of the intervention, thereby providing
what is accepted by donor agencies as legitimate knowledge (Chouinard, 2013).
2.1 The Gold Standard of Evaluation: Random Controlled

Trials
Adapted from its primary usage in clinical trials, RCTs have been deemed as the
gold standard of evaluation tools for its rigor, objectivity and the elimination of
self-selection bias in the assessment process (Hall & Arvidson, 2014; White, 2013).
As a positivist, experimental method, RCT sets out to prove causality by comparing
a control group that has not been subjected to the intervention, with one that was
involved in the project. The operationalization of RCTs requires strict adherence to
randomized selection of participants and also to ensure that there are no other
factors outside the intervention that may have influenced the evaluation. This
primary focus in attributing the main cause of change to the external intervention
without factoring in possible contamination of the results by individual motives and
actions has been pinpointed as a limitation of RCTs. In that regard, it is argued that
while RCTs may demonstrate causality, it does not really provide deeper under-
standings on why the changes may have occurred. Furthermore, the stringent
requirements for randomized selections and high level of skills required to under-
take this kind of evaluation have also been cited as some of the main hindrances in
applying RCT as a practical and appropriate method for SE evaluation. But for Hall
and Arvidson (2014: 152), even more troubling, is the notion of withholding a
possible beneficial treatment or intervention to the members of the control group
particularly in the context where there could be positive individual and societal
change for the participants. White (2013) counters however, that in practice, it is
not the case that control groups are offered no treatment in RCTs, instead they are
often provided with alternative support and treatments that are distinct from the
external intervention under examination. In defense of RCT, White (2013) contends
further, that RCTs are worth the investment of time and money as they provide the
proof of results and in so doing are much more ethical and prudent than scaling up
interventions that are costly without the clear evidence that they do in fact work.
2.2 The Role of Financial and Accounting Reporting
In spite of their general altruistic motivations, social enterprises have been predom-
inantly governed by the prevailing managerial ethos that requires monitoring of
activities with a careful eye on controlling costs to ensure that expenditure is kept
within the budget (Bagnoli & Megali, 2011). By demonstrating a financial profit,
there is the obvious indicator of successful engagement with the market resulting in
the attendant rewards of income generation and profits (Parenson, 2011). But the
important distinction between social enterprises and traditional businesses, is the
ability of social enterprises to demonstrate that their operations are not only
financially sound, but also achieves the social aims set out in mission statements.
Accordingly, social entrepreneurs prioritize the notion of social value and welfare
creation which is the goal for the business beyond the economic value that is
achieved. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that the pretext for achieving social
value is on the basis that the enterprise is income earning, self-sufficient and self-
sustaining (Hadad & Gauca, 2014). This duality of income generation and social
welfare outcomes represents a hybrid value chain business model that is similar to a
public sector commitment to the common good, and private sector principles of
efficiency and financial stewardship. Therefore for most social enterprises, ques-
tions of efficiency and profitability are usually answered by instituting a financial
accounting system to ensure internal control of costs, and also to provide account-
ability to funders and to meet standards of national and international legal funding
compliance (Bagnoli & Megali, 2011). But performance management is generally
not reducible to the establishment of a financial accounting reporting system. The
measurement of the performance of social enterprises also usually includes some
notion of social accounting that provides a quantitative and qualitative summary of
the beneficial social outcomes and impacts on the wider community (Hadad &
Gauca, 2014).
Essentially, the rationale for performance management is to clearly demonstrate

that the proposed interventions and actions of the social enterprise have some
alignment with associated outcomes, and furthermore have been effective in the
amelioration of the problem that was initially targeted. So the evaluation process is
rooted in the fundamental principle of the logic model or logical framework that
demonstrates how the resources that provide the Inputs relate to the Activities
undertaken, that leads to direct Outputs, resulting in the Outcomes that have an
extended Impact on the community (Hadad & Gauca, 2014; Liket et al., 2014). But
performance management may become hazardous in accurately measuring the
results at the level of outcomes and impacts. Hall and Arvidson (2014:143) point
out that it is relatively straightforward to identify and monitor the inputs and outputs
defined as hard indicators which are tangible. But the outcomes and impacts or soft
indicators of a project are intangible and therefore more difficult to capture and
measure. Soft indicators such as skills and competencies; dignity and self-worth;
community pride and cohesion may emerge as unintended results from a project,
that are oftentimes not measured and hence not valued. In such cases, positivist
methods such as RCTs may not be effective in identifying the unintended impacts.
Another major challenge for the implementation of performance measurement is
to demonstrate the validity of the process in ensuring that the data collected do in
fact relate to and measure the indicators or constructs relating to outcomes and
impacts. This involves some consideration of data selection and design so that they
are clearly aligned with the outcomes and impacts of the project. White (2009: 274)
advocates a theory based impact evaluation (TBIE) approach that maps out the
casual link between inputs and outputs within an overarching program theory that
indicates how the proposed change may be only attributable to the intervention.
White (2009:276) also contends however, that TBIE in evaluation is dynamic,
involving an iterative process of continuous testing of the assumptions of the causal
links between inputs and outputs of the programme represented in the logical
framework (log frame) plan.
2.3 Social Impact Accounting: SORI
Following on the principles of financial reporting, SEs have been at risk in assum-
ing that financial profits or economic growth may also be used to demonstrate social
value. The application of social impact accounting methods therefore seek to
redress this jeopardy by taking into account the triple bottom line also known as
the blended value approach that combine social, financial and environmental
indicators (Hadad & Gauca, 2014). The intent of social accounting methods is to
monetize outcomes based on the application of financial proxies that account for the
value of the social impacts (Hall & Arvidson, 2014). As an exemplar of social
impact accounting methods, the Social Return on Investment (SROI) model pop-
ularized by the New Economic Foundation (NEF) and widely used across third
sector organizations, has been extensively employed to evaluate the social
outcomes of an organization’s activities. According to Pathak & Dattani (2014),

SROI is comprised of ‘six stages involving the identification of key stakeholders,
mapping outcomes, evidencing outcomes and establishing impact, calculating the
SROI and reporting, then using and embedding the report’. As a variant of Cost
Benefit Analysis, SROI is considered as the foremost framework to measure value
beyond financial returns to include the social, environmental and economic costs
and benefits of SE activities. Hall and Arvidson (2014:144) maintain that the
advantage of SROI is that while it produces ‘a quantitative monetary ratio of
value’ it also garners qualitative data from various stakeholders in order to identify
the benefits and limitations of the intervention which is also included in the
evaluation. In this regard, SROI is able to extend the evaluation beyond the out-
comes that have been earmarked as the goal of the intervention, to also include
unintended benefits or outcomes for measurement, so that the ‘story of how change
is being created is told’ through the evaluation exercise (Hall & Arvidson, 2014).
By incorporating the views of multiple stakeholders in the evaluation process,
SORI assists in the identification of the range of benefits of a project as well as the
‘wider economic value and social returns’ (Hadad & Gauca, 2014). One of the main
criticisms however of SROI, is the extent to which suitable financial proxies to
measure social value may be identified. Other critiques include the limitation of the
method in seeking to accomplish too many strategic objectives concurrently, as
well as ethical issues on the equity of the process of stakeholder consultation (Hall
& Arvidson, 2014; Pathak & Dattani, 2014). But the main contention against SORI
is the charge of the prohibitive costs of operationalization, and that is often seen as a
burden to managers and participants as well as a discrete activity outside of the
main project work. These problems associated with SROI in many instances
undermine and hinder the important daily schedules that must be undertaken for
the success of the project.
2.4 The Role of Programmatic Evaluation
With the popularization of social accounting methods, performance management

models are increasingly characterized by a quest for more holistic evaluation
methods. These models usually include financial and accounting reporting as well
as social effectiveness measurement while providing institutional control and
coherency between activities and outcomes. This is in recognition of the need to
embed and integrate the evaluation process in the design and operations of the
social enterprise. In this context, evaluation is not a stand-alone procedure or phase,
but is implicated in the day to day management and execution of the project. Such
approaches therefore prioritize the practical steps and actions related to impact
assessment. According to McLoughlin et al., (2009), the Practical Quality Assur-
ance System method developed primarily for the third sector, is relevant for SEs as
it provides a quality assurance mechanism of control for the organization. Simi-
larly, the ‘prove and improve’ model developed by the NEF provides a practical
‘DIY online impact measurement tool’ that gives guidance for stakeholder analysis,
impact mapping and indicator development.
While these methods provide the basis for integrating evaluation in the overall
program theory, yet the main limitation of these approaches are that they are still
quite technical and require some level of expertise to implement that may be a
challenge for inexperienced social enterprise managers (McLoughlin et al., 2009:
158). In order to address this skills deficit and to equip SE managers to integrate
social impact evaluations within projects, McLoughlin et al. (2009: 157 ) have
proposed the five step SIMPLE approach to impact measurement in SEs which they
call SCOPE IT; MAP IT; TRACK IT; TELL IT; EMBED IT. According to the
authors, this five step approach is aimed to support SE manage to design evalua-
tions, engage internal and external stakeholders, monitor and control activities,
evaluate the results and then incorporate the results to inform future ‘improved
operation performance, planning and strategic decision making’. As a holistic
evaluation method, the SIMPLE model is designed as a comprehensive evaluation
tool that simultaneously functions as a diagnostic, programmatic, planning and
training mechanism. The authors therefore claim that the SIMPLE method of
evaluation is both a social impact consultancy tool as well as an impact training
program (McLoughlin et al., 2009: 174). Consequently they contend that by going
through the SIMPLE five stage process, users will develop the skills set for impact
evaluation that is required to sustain continuous improvement and informed man-
agerial decisions for SEs.
An overview of the five stages of the SIMPLE method provides a useful guide to
the main principles of performance measurement for the holistic evaluation process
to be conducted. In Stage 1—SCOPE IT—the task for the SE is to clearly set out the
mission statement and the social issues that will be the focus of the intervention. It
is at this stage that the proposed impact should be defined and the indicators to
measure these impacts should be identified. It is also at this phase that a clear
differentiation between outcomes and impacts must be demarcated so as to avoid
confusion in assessing the results. According to Liket et al. (2014), evaluation
failures tend to reflect the problem of clearly separating indicators that should be
measured at the outcome level as discrete from those at the impact level. For
example, a CBTE of a rural women cooperative of agri-processors with a mission
statement to reduce poverty and increase income generation among members, may
propose that the outcome indicator should be the involvement of members in the
project for at least twenty hours of paid employment per week. In this regard, the
causal link between the activities, input and outcome could be directly mapped
from the inception to the completion of the project. The paid employment hours that
were generated would be attributed only the project and show that this income
generation would also not have been available to the women apart from the
intervention. At the impact level, the effectiveness of the program would be
evaluated based on of the mission statement’s goal of improved livelihoods
which would be measured of terms of public good indicators such as increased
multiplier spend in the local community due to the extra income earned from the
cooperative, improved nutrition and health among the children of the beneficiaries
and also enhanced well-being and confidence among the women.
At Stages 2 and 3, the MAP IT and TRACK IT steps focus on the measurement
of the evaluation process. Here performance management involves the triple bot-
tom line (3BL) that includes the assessment of conventional financial accounting as
well as the social and environmental impacts to extend to the quadruple bottom line
(4BL); that further takes into account GDP growth, financial sustainability and
benefits saved by the community (McLoughlin et al., 2009: 166). It is at this stage
that the logic model discussed earlier in this chapter of Activities, Outputs, Out-
comes and Impacts are operationalized with the aim to demonstrate the causal chain
linking the work undertaken and the proposed results. For Stage 4—the TELL IT
step focuses on reporting the data in order to make the case of the effectiveness of
the SE utilizing comparative data, benchmarking and base line data that demon-
strates the improvements that have occurred and the benefits achieved. In this
regard, the SIMPLE model assumes a training dimension in equipping managers
to apply the method to manage the data. This skills training component extends to
Stage 5—EMBED IT where the learning produced from the evaluation process is
integrated into operational change management program for the SE to adopt. The
SIMPLE model is similar to SROI as they both represent hybrid evaluation
approaches to account for social outcomes and they are situated mainly within
the positivist tradition of evaluation that aim to produce objective and measurable
knowledge of the performance and costs of projects and organizations.
Yet even among the proponents of positivist evaluation methods, there is some
recognition of the limitations of these methods by themselves in capturing all the
intangible social impacts of interventions. While maintaining that positivist meth-
odologies to be scaled up in the evaluation of development projects, White (2009)
acknowledges that it is also important to incorporate qualitative methods such as
focus groups, semi-structured interviews and ethnography and anthropology in
evaluation exercises. He argues that by employing a mixed methods approach,
the overall evaluation is improved as this will enable quantitative work to be guided
by ‘qualitative insight’. The importance of fieldwork in such instances is considered
helpful to contextualize the findings, so that answers are not only provided as to
whether the intervention worked, but also explains why it may have done so. But for
White (2009), stakeholder views and appropriation of local knowledge are still
secondary and mainly serves to supplement and provide an explanatory framework
for the patterns that emerge from the data.
2.5 Fourth Generation Evaluation Methods
Some evaluation researchers advocate that collaboration among stakeholders are

pre-requisite for the evaluation process to be utilized in such a way as to contribute
to organizational learning and improved decision-making by SE managers. This is
referred to as utilization-focused evaluation which asserts that the end use of
evaluation determines the overall value of the exercise and as such has some
pedagogical purpose (Liket et al., 2014). According to Liket et al. (2014: 173),
the focus on collaboration represents a ‘constructivist view of evaluation knowl-
edge’ that proposes a participatory approach which is termed fourth generation
evaluation methods (FGE). They maintain that through participatory engagement,
the quality of the evaluation is improved as stakeholders are afforded greater
control and involvement in the process and so are better positioned to engage in
continuous improvement. In the constructivist viewpoint the notion of rigor is
replaced by the pursuit of engaging the stakeholders in the facilitation process as
enablers and agents of change by harnessing their ‘critical and elusive’ knowledge
on the operations and the outcomes of the project (Hall & Arvidson, 2014). The
operationalization of the participatory evaluation process is therefore deemed to be
more democratic and open, that allows for the inclusion of an eclectic range of
methods to be selected in accordance to the contextual needs of the project, rather
than on ‘predetermined metrics and measures of success’ (Chouinard, 2013).
2.6 Participatory Evaluation and Empowerment Evaluation
Participatory approaches to evaluation attempt to privilege the voices of partici-

pants and beneficiaries in the assessment of the outcomes of the intervention. Based
on the philosophical principles of constructivism, participatory and empowerment
evaluation models view outcomes as flexible, critical and situated since they are
mainly identified and defined by the users and beneficiaries themselves rather than
the evaluator. Accordingly, the focus is on the participants who are best able to
identify their needs and whose insights are invaluable in defining the problem, in
designing the intervention and also ascertaining whether the outcomes are success-
ful (Chambers, 2009; Hall & Arvidson, 2014; Nichols, 2002). In the case of
marginalized groups and the disempowered, participatory action research activities
offer them the opportunity to gain more control of their lives and to empower them to
be actively involved in enacting and sustaining the change that is required to
improve their standard of living. Both participatory evaluation (PE) and empower-
ment evaluation (EE) share the same commitment to societal change and capacity
building. For EE however, the emphasis is on achieving goals of social justice for
‘disenfranchised minority groups’ , while practical PE is defined by the involvement
of stakeholders in a partnership with facilitators in the design of the evaluation and
who then ultimately share the responsibility for the development of the evaluation
report (Smits & Champagne, 2008). Rather than project managers having to be only
accountable to the funders and those who hold the purse strings, with participatory
evaluation, the beneficiaries are afforded the ownership as the persons to whom the
SE managers are really accountable to in the overall evaluation process.
At the theoretical level, EE and PE propose that in the collaboration of partic-
ipants and evaluators, there is the co-creation of new knowledge that encourages the
instrumental use of the findings and results which in turn becomes ‘actionable
knowledge’ that addresses the problem that was the focus of the intervention (Smits
& Champagne, 2008). Within the developmental context, PP and EE have been
preferred as they seem to shift the preoccupation with measuring impacts to the
notion of managing for sustained impacts that lead to real societal change (Ofir,
2013). As alternatives to the positivist evaluation methodologies, participatory
evaluation claims to engage in evaluation for development rather than merely
only assessing the characteristics of the developmental process. With the emphasis
of participatory methods on capacity building, co-creation of knowledge and
organizational learning, there is the opportunity to relate these outcomes to specific
change programmes and activities on the ground that provide some evidence of the
pragmatic legitimacy of the intervention. By applying the evaluation process as a
mechanism for development, participatory methods appear to be much more
equipped to tackle poverty reduction, income generation and unemployment
which are indicators of social impacts. The evidence of success of participatory
models are therefore demonstrated in change of behavior and attitudes where
individuals or small community groups are empowered to act to compete for
resources, influence policy making and are networked to others outside their groups
to access resources and engage in productive exercises where previously this was
not the case (Miller & Campbell, 2006).
Among social services and rehabilitative health programs, participatory evalu-
ation methods have been widely advocated as they provide the means for partici-
pants to be involved in the design of the change program and to monitor and self-
assess the recovery journey in the overall strategy for personal change. An example
of this PE method is the Outcomes Star (OS) model that has been developed as a
tool to assess the effectiveness of reform and rehabilitation programs targeting a
range of social issues such as homelessness, mental health and drug recovery.
According to Hall and Arvidson (2014) as it has been developed as a holistic
model to be integrated into the working activities of the organization, the OS
model is operationalized as a service rather than a separate evaluation exercise.
The aim of the OS model is to not only to measure the outcomes of the interven-
tions, but to also provide guidance in achieving the desired outcomes. In its
application, the OS model is based on a scale of expected behavior represented as
a star that maps out a model of change indicating the steps that are to be undertaken
to gain the desired outcomes are that the users are hoping to achieve. In an overall
interactive process, the user is encouraged to reflect on past actions and in the
process make determinations on the relationship between behavior and outcomes.
In this way, the user owns the evaluation process and is enabled to assess and then to
make decisions on future pathways for change. But the activity of self-assessment
that involves subjective judgments and feelings of the users poses problems of the
accuracy or reliability of these accounts. Self-reporting methods have shown that
participants may not be totally truthful in these exercises and tend to present
positive reports and give information that they think the evaluator will like to
hear (Hall & Arvidson, 2014:149). In such instances, it is difficult to control for
bias and the trust between users and the facilitator may be broken down if there is
requirement to provide verification such as mandatory blood tests as for example in
the case of a drug reform program (White, 2013). An important caveat here is that
even though the underlying tenets of participatory evaluation do not focus on being
objective and value free, they still adhere to the fundamental principles of being
evidence based. This means that constructivist knowledge production are also
expected to be verifiable and based on empirical data gathering and analysis that
clarify the outcomes and impacts of interventions.
The extent to which participatory evaluation methods have been able to provide
the empirical evidence to support the claims of empowerment and social impacts
have been a major contention. The lack of case study evidence, unanimity in
practice as well as the fact that both PE and EE bear similar attributes to general
change and social justice theories; all contribute to the blurring of the distinctive
contribution of participatory evaluation in theory and practice. The theoretical gaps
emerge at moments of operationalization of the participatory methods in terms of
clearly defining the context where such methods are suitable and the exact role of
the evaluator in facilitating the transfer of power to participants in the evaluation
process (Miller & Campbell, 2006). The major risk to participatory evaluation
methods is that they may become so normalized that they function more as a
rhetorical set piece for development interventions that function essentially as an
ideal type rather than a practical program of change.
The key, defining purpose of participatory development is the engagement of a
bottom-up process that enables participants to build skills and competencies that
allow for recognition and access to productive resources as well as to influence
policymaking and governance. Consequently there is a need for participatory
methods to interrogate the context of the parameters of social change in terms of
the realities of the external environment where these interventions are situated.
While PE and EE activities may educate, equip and train individuals and small
community groups; the possibilities to enact change will still depend on the external
regulatory and political framework. Societal change involves the negotiation of
power between those who are in control and those who wish to gain control.
Development is not solely a function of the enhancement of the skills sets and
market potential of marginalized groups, but also requires external validation and
support. As Scarlato (2013) contends, the participatory activities of social projects
in many developing nations have yet to address ‘the mechanism through which
poverty persists and is embedded in and reproduced by social relations inside
specific groups and territories’. Undoubtedly, participatory evaluation methods
provide some space for marginalized groups to tackle the problem of social
exclusion and to be more proactive agents of change, but it should be also acknowl-
edged that the predominant determinants of change are still measured by principles
of new performance management characterized by principles of accountability
based on economic efficiency and effectiveness (Chouinard, 2013; White, 2009).
As such, the next generation of participatory evaluation methods must move
towards an engagement in an agenda of social mobilization in order to attain the
credence and persuasive power to actualize claims of ‘societal change’.
3 Social Enterprise Evaluation in the Tourism Sector
Within the tourism sector, the principles of social entrepreneurship and enterprise
have been mainly applied in initiatives harnessing the considerable economic
prowess of tourism for poverty alleviation. The Pro Poor Tourism (PPT) agenda
makes the case for involving profitable companies in the industry in engaging in
projects that reduce the marginalization of the poor and investing in local commu-
nity based tourism initiatives (Scheyvens & Russell, 2012). However, there are
some risks of such PPT activities in becoming mainly Corporate Social Responsi-
bility (CSR) programs to enhance the image and goodwill of large corporations,
which while providing some improvement in social welfare and local livelihoods,
may not really shift the power balance towards greater economic independence for
beneficiaries (Ashley & Haysom, 2006). Alternative models of tourism develop-
ment have also viewed social enterprise models as a means of facilitating indige-
nous ownership and economic empowerment of locals.
In a critique of modernization imperatives of large-scale, transnational,
top-down tourism planning and development policies, community based tourism
enterprises (CBTEs) have been widely advocated as a means of ensuring and
enhancing economic, social and environmental sustainability (Panagiotopoulou &
Stratigea, 2014; Zapata, Hall, Lindo, & Vanderschaeghe, 2011). In this regard,
participatory approaches characterised by principles of bottom-up planning, net-
working and multi-stakeholder engagement, and capacity building to facilitate
decision making and grassroots mobilisation have been featured in policy planning
and activities aimed at stimulating positive social, economic and environmental
wellbeing in marginalised communities. Given the claims of the efficacy of social
enterprise tourism projects as a path toward empowerment for local communities,
there is an even greater mandate for more focus on the benefits of the integration of
evaluation processes in their design and operations in order to achieve overall
developmental goals (Ofir, 2013). However with the critical turn in tourism studies
leading to the currency and prominence of tourism as a developmental tool and
agent for social change, there is a concomitant imperative to interrogate the key
arguments and implications of PE and EE methods in CBTEs and PPT projects
(McGehee, Kline, & Knollenberg, 2014; Panagiotopoulou & Stratigea, 2014;
Papineau & Kiely, 1996).
As an area of research, there is considerable empirical void in the extant
literature on evaluation processes and implementation within social enterprises in
the tourism sector. There are some indications however that traditional evaluation
methods based on objective measurements of outcomes may be more the norm than
participatory approaches. In a study on the success factors of social enterprises in
tourism, von der Weppen & Cochrane (2012) observed that the performance
management practices of tourism enterprises tended to pursue normative
approaches of evaluation ‘involving a mix of indicators and methods designed to
chart progress against mission aims and outcomes’. They also found that the
measurement of impacts by tourism enterprises was for the most part conducted
informally and irregularly. It was also noted that the evaluation procedures were
usually sidelined in routine work practices.
According to Scheyvens and Russell (2012), it is difficult to measure and
quantify the net benefits of tourism to a community due to the considerable
resources required to conduct the systematic and comparative assessments required
for such evaluations. Traditional econometric models such as the tourism multi-
plier, input output models, cost benefit analysis and other variants that attempt to
measure economic impacts when applied in the context of marginalized or remote
community groups are often hindered by limited availability and inconsistent and
poor financial data that undermine their application (Zapata et al., 2011: 736).
Furthermore, these socio-economic models are similarly deficient as other main-
stream evaluation models in producing the knowledge that values the perspectives
of stakeholders. But while there are theoretical models that may explain the social
impacts of tourism such as Doxey’s Irridix for example, they are not applicable as
evaluative tools that may be used to assess the social impacts of CBTEs. According
to Panagiotopoulou & Stratigea ( 2014), most of the research of the social impacts
of CBTE are mainly based on case study analysis and traditional qualitative
methods of interviews and focus groups which are the more popular methods
used to assess the social impacts of development projects (Scheyvens & Russell,
2012). Generally, there is a lack of a focal theory or framework that has been
developed that attests to specific variables that should be incorporated in the
evaluation of the social impacts of CBTEs.
In a study on CBTEs in Nicaragua conducted by Zapata et al. (2011), focus
groups were undertaken across 34 CBTEs to garner participants’ views on the
impacts of the tourism projects to the community. The main indicators that were
identified to measure the impacts of the CBTEs were employment and income,
skills and self-esteem, women, family the community and the environment. The
findings of the study indicated that participants held the view that CBTEs provided
marginal financial benefits to the local economy and that their profitability were
low. According to Zapata et al. (2011) this perception of the economic performance
by CBTEs members under-estimated the contribution of the organizations as they
were based on accounting protocols that did not capture the value-added benefits
that the operations of the CBTEs made to the agricultural and other productive
sectors of the community (Zapata et al., 2011: 736). So evidence of economic
benefits of the CBTEs in reducing financial risks by the reduction of dependency on
agriculture and the economic diversification of the local economy through CBTE
activities were not fully accounted for in their assessments. This suggests that there
is need for participatory evaluation methods to cover training in the appraisal of the
economic contribution of CBTEs activities to local livelihoods in order to encour-
age and sustain these projects over the long term. By contrast however, in their
evaluation of the benefits gained from the projects in terms of skills and self-esteem,
there was considerable affirmation of positive outcomes. CBTE members reported
the acquisition of education and training that included tourism related management
as well as business and social skills. It is therefore apparent that participatory,
bottom-up activities are more likely to be effective in transferring the skills and
competencies to empower users to acquire social capital to gain access to produc-

tive market and value chain networks.
In terms of the evaluation of the impacts of CBTEs at the community level, the
study by Zapata et al. (2011) showed that some proportion of profits were
re-invested in the local community. Indirectly, these benefits were demonstrated
in the improvement in local infrastructure of public areas such as ‘water supply, the
cleaning of public areas, paths and gardens (739). This in turn raised the profile of
these communities that positioned them to attract external investment that
expanded opportunities to link to local markets and other tourism entrepreneurs
in the accommodation and attraction sectors. According to McGehee et al., (2014),
this type of community participation reflects a high level of self-efficacy which is
associated with awareness, participation and support for social issues embodied in
social movement theory. This provides the opportunity for the marginalized and
excluded to ‘implement social change in ways that maximize their limited power
and resources’. In relation to PE and EE, it is therefore important to recognize
McGhee’s claim of the pivotal role of social movement theory to inform practice
and to provide the framework to assess and support ‘grassroots-level sustainable
tourism development’ (143). In order to move forward from the traditional remit of
the amelioration of social exclusion, participatory evaluation may also need to
focus on activities involving conscious-raising, network development, self-
determination, confidence and collaboration that are key features and outcomes of
social movement theory. In so doing CBTEs will be more likely to create oppor-
tunities to contribute to social outcomes of poverty alleviation and longer term
impacts of positive societal change.
4 Exploring the Gender Dimension
The specific needs of women have been focal to development projects in recogni-
tion that they are usually disproportionately hindered by poverty. Moreover, studies
have also shown that with the increase of the income of women there are substantial
improvements in the standard of living, livelihoods and wellbeing of children and
communities on a whole (Fotheringham & Saunders, 2014); (Nielsen & Samia,
2008; Zapata et al., 2011). Women have been a popular target group for social
enterprise projects and intervention and in spite of an overall paucity of research
that specifically clarifies the role of social enterprise in poverty reduction, there are
some findings that indicate that SE have been beneficial in providing for women
‘increased income, development of skills, improved social and business networks,
increased confidence and greater respect and acceptance from families’
(Fotheringham & Saunders, 2014). Participatory methodologies also provide the
framework to craft interventions that are relevant and distinctly address the unique
needs of women particularly in situations where they are marginalized and
disempowered. In this regard, PE and EE are critical tools in creating an enabling
environment to that will support them in their traditional roles of caring for the
children and family but at the same do not limit them only to these activities.
Critically, participatory evaluation methods should also provide the context for
women to have a voice in identifying their needs and to develop the skills to reflect
on, to analyze and make decisions regarding their livelihoods. McGehee
et al. (2014: 144) report on a study among Afghani women that found that those
who were aware of their potential and abilities tended to actively engage in
community actions and get involved in productive enterprise. Within the tourism
sector there has been a longstanding recognition that tourism offers women an
‘avenue for activism and leadership in community and political life and provides
vital employment and entrepreneurial opportunities’ (Figueroa-Domecq, Pritchard,
Segovia-Pérez, Morgan, & Villacé-Molinero, 2015). Female entrepreneurs have
also been recognized for their leadership and success in social enterprise businesses
in tourism. In a study of female entrepreneurs in tourism in Uganda it was found
that 80 % of those sampled were running their businesses for over 10 years thereby
indicating their ability to successfully operate and sustain their business over the
long term (Katongole, Ahebwa, & Kawere, 2013). This suggests that there have
been significant beneficial outcomes that have been gained in specifically targeting
women in the developmental agenda of participatory evaluation praxis in social
enterprise agencies and interventions.
5 Conclusion
Much of the literature and work on participatory research have tended to focus on
participatory practice in terms of implementation rather than on the evaluation of
the participatory process. However, an inherent feature of participatory methods is
that they should bring all participants ‘together to problem solve and produce new
knowledge in an ongoing learning and reflective process’ (Blackstock, Kelly, &
Horsey, 2006; Miyoshi, 2013). This suggests that participatory research should
have some space for assessment in order to clearly identify areas that could have
been improved, what could have been done differently or even more critically
interrogating the assumptions and claims of the methodology (Miller & Campbell,
2006). In other words the question should not only be ‘why does this not work’, but
also ‘why we are doing what we are doing’? Some have argued that evaluation of
participatory research should also examine issues of power in critiquing ‘what
works for whom and whose interests are being served’ in the ex post or final
evaluations (Kindon, Pain, & Kesby, 2007).
The discussion in this chapter has shown that conventional approaches to
evaluation have tended to centre on measuring the extent to which the intended
results have been achieved in line with the project’s overall objective. Generally
development interventions usually include activities such as reviews, supervision
missions, and assessments. This is seen as part of the monitoring and evaluation
process in order to manage the likely ‘drift’ between project objectives and the
actual implementation of the project. For the most part, performance management
has been defined by financial reporting and the quest for objective assessments.
However, it has been argued that it is important to include the experiences and
perceptions of participants in the evaluation process so that that ‘the voices of those
most affected by the project may be counted’ (Chambers, 2009). As a leading
advocate of participatory development, Chambers contends that those who live in
poverty, who are vulnerable and marginalized are the best judges and prime
authorities on their lives and livelihoods and how they are affected’. In this regard
participatory research and evaluation engages the viewpoints and responses of the
community in order to determine the consensus of opinion on the impacts of the
project. However, there are some limitations to the implementation of participatory
evaluation methods particularly in terms of operationalization and addressing
issues of redistributive justice and power on behalf of beneficiaries. Social enter-
prises in tourism that embrace the values of empowerment and development in their
mission statements and activities, may therefore have to pay more earnest attention
in interrogating the extent to which integrating participatory evaluation principles
and praxis in their operations support of the quest to achieve sustainable, beneficial
societal change.
While the discussion of participatory evaluation methods in this chapter have
mostly highlighted case study examples from the developing world, social prob-
lems of disempowerment and inequalities of wealth distribution, uneven develop-
ment in lagging rural regions are also features of wealthier, developed economies.
These methods therefore have global application in addressing problems of social
exclusion and poverty by providing the framework for capacity building and human
development. As key change agents that seek to redress and provide solutions to
social problems, SEs in both the developed and the developing world have been the
loci of extensive participatory evaluation methodologies, and have produced much
of the knowledge that informs current praxis. As such their operations are pivotal in
contributing to understandings of how and why they work. The growth of social
enterprise activity in tourism particularly in the field of development and pro poor
tourism initiatives have put the spotlight on their effectiveness and as this chapter
has shown, greater scrutiny of the tools and methods that purport to measure and
evaluate social impacts. But there is yet much more research to be conducted
among CBTEs as well as at the macro, large scale level of tourism operations to
refine the tools and modalities that are employed in the evaluation of social impacts.
Evaluation methodologies and research are still considered to be an emergent yet
promising field. Accordingly, as a research domain, it must be dynamic and
innovative to respond to, and remain relevant to the complex, ever rapidly changing
social interactions and evolutionary currents in today’s world.
1. To what extent is Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) an effective method for
the evaluation of social enterprise projects in tourism?
2. Assess the advantages and disadvantages of the SROI and SIMPLE methods as
tools for tourism development.
3. What are the main challenges of implementing Participatory Evaluation and
Empowerment Evaluation in Community Based Tourism Enterprises?
References
Ashley, C., & Haysom, G. (2006). From philanthropy to a different way of doing business:
Strategies and challenges in integrating pro-poor approaches into tourism business. Develop-
ment Southern Africa, 23(2), 265–280. doi:10.1080/03768350600707553.
Bagnoli, L., & Megali, C. (2011). Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 149–165. doi:10.1177/0899764009351111.
Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures.
Public Administration Review, 63, 586–5860606.
Blackstock, K. L., Kelly, G. J., & Horsey, B. L. (2006). Developing and applying a framework to
evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 60, 726–742. doi:10.
1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014.
Chambers, R. (2009). So that the poor counts more: Using participatory methods for impact
evaluation. Institute of Development Effectiveness, 1(3), 243–246.
Chouinard, J. A. (2013). The case for participatory evaluation in an era of accountability.
American Journal of Evaluation, 34(2), 237–253. doi:10.1177/1098214013478142.
Figueroa-Domecq, C., Pritchard, A., Segovia-Pérez, M., Morgan, N., & Villacé-Molinero,
T. (2015). Tourism gender research: A critical accounting. Annals of Tourism Research, 52,
87–103. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2015.02.001.
Fotheringham, S., & Saunders, C. (2014). Social enterprise as poverty reducing strategy for
women. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(3), 176–199. doi:10.1108/SEJ-06-2013-0028.
Hadad, S., & Gauca, O. (2014). Social impact measurement in social entrepreneurial organiza-
tions. Management and Marketing, 9(2), 119–136.
Hall, K., & Arvidson, M. (2014). How do we know if social enterprise works? Tools for assessing
social enterprise performance. In S. Denny & F. Seddon (Eds.), Social enterprise: Account-
ability and evaluation around the world (pp. 141–157). London: Routledge Taylor & Francis.
Katongole, C., Ahebwa, W. M., & Kawere, R. (2013). Enterprise success and entrepreneur’s
personality traits: An analysis of micro- and small-scale women-owned enterprises in uganda’s
tourism industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 13(3), 166–177. doi:10.1177/
1467358414524979.
Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (Eds.). (2007). Participatory action research approaches and
methods connecting people, participation and place. London: Routledge.
Liket, K. C., Rey-Garcia, M., & Maas, K. E. H. (2014). Why aren’t evaluations working and what
to do about it: A framework for negotiating meaningful evaluation in nonprofits. American
Journal of Evaluation, 35(2), 171–188. doi:10.1177/1098214013517736.
McGehee, N. G., Kline, C., & Knollenberg, W. (2014). Social movements and tourism-related
local action. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 140–155. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2014.06.004.
McLoughlin, J., Kaminski, J., Sodagar, B., Khan, S., Harris, R., Arnaudo, G., & Mc Brearty, S. (2009).
A strategic approach to social impact measurement of social enterprises. Social Enterprise
Journal, 5(2), 154–178. doi:10.1108/17508610910981734.
Miller, R. L., & Campbell, R. (2006). Taking stock of empowerment evaluation: An empirical
review. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3), 296–319. doi:10.1177/109821400602700303.
Miyoshi, K. (2013). Toward a more holistic evaluation approach for rural development. American
Journal of Evaluation, 34(4), 587–589. doi:10.1177/1098214013493494.
Nichols, L. (2002). Participatory program planning: Including program participants and evalua-
tors. Evaluation and Program Planning, 25(1), 1–14. doi:10.1016/S0149-7189(01)00044-1.
Nielsen, C., & Samia, P. (2008). Understanding key factors in social enterprise development of the
BOP: A systems approach applied to case studies in the Philippines. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 25(7), 446–454.
Ofir, Z. (2013). Strengthening evaluation for development. American Journal of Evaluation, 34(4),
582–586. doi:10.1177/1098214013497531.
Panagiotopoulou, M., & Stratigea, A. (2014). A participatory methodological framework for
paving alternative local tourist development paths—The case of Sterea Ellada region.
European Journal of Futures Research, 2(1), 1–15. doi:10.1007/s40309-014-0044-7.
Papineau, D., & Kiely, M. C. (1996). Participatory evaluation in a community organization:
Fostering stakeholder empowerment and utilization. Evaluation and Program Planning, 19
(1), 79–93. doi:10.1016/0149-7189(95)00041-0.
Parenson, T. (2011). The criteria for a solid impact evaluation in social entreprenuership. Society
and Business Review, 6(1), 39–48.
Pathak, P., & Dattani, P. (2014). Social return on investment: Three technical challenges. Social
Enterprise Journal, 10(2), 91–104. doi:10.1108/SEJ-06-2012-0019.
Paton, R. (2003). Managing and measuring social enterprises. London: Sage.
Scarlato, M. (2013). Social enterprise, capabilities and development paradigms: Lessons from
Ecuador. The Journal of Development Studies, 49(9), 1270–1283. doi:10.1080/00220388.
2013.790962.
Scheyvens, R., & Russell, M. (2012). Tourism and poverty alleviation in Fiji: Comparing the
impacts of small- and large-scale tourism enterprises. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(3),
417–436. doi:10.1080/09669582.2011.629049.
Smits, P. A., & Champagne, F. (2008). An assessment of the theoretical underpinnings of practical
participatory evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(4), 427–442. doi:10.1177/
1098214008325023.
doi:10.1080/09669582.2012.663377.
White, H. (2009). Theory-based impact evaluation: Principles and practice. Journal of Develop-
ment Effectiveness, 1(3), 271–284. doi:10.1080/19439340903114628.
White, H. (2013). An introduction to the use of randomised control trials to evaluate development
interventions. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 5(1), 30–49. doi:10.1080/19439342.
2013.764652.
Zapata, M. J., Hall, C. M., Lindo, P., & Vanderschaeghe, M. (2011). Can community-based
tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Lessons from Nicaragua. Current
Issues in Tourism, 14(8), 725–749. doi:10.1080/13683500.2011.559200.
Marcella Daye is Senior Lecturer in Tourism Management at the University of Northampton in

the UK. She worked as a tourism marketing practitioner at a national tourism organisation prior to
her academic career. She was a researcher for an EU funded project on agri-tourism and rural
women in Jamaica. She has also published and presented conference papers in her main research
interests of destination branding and tourism in developing nations.
Kawal Gill is Associate Professor of International Trade and Development at the Sri Guru
Gobind Singh College of Commerce, University of Delhi. She has published in international
journals on international business and tourism. She was the Principal Investigator for grant funding
from the University Grants Commission in India to examine the socio cultural impacts of tourism
in Jaipur and is currently pursuing research interests in agritourism.
Part III
Cases
Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism
Development in Mexico: A Case Study
of North American Social Entrepreneurs
in a Mexican Town
Helene Balslev Clausen
Abstract Enacting social entrepreneurship is about individual engagement, inno-

vative ideas and creating social change. This article challenges this proposition of
the individual social entrepreneur, rather social entrepreneurship is to be under-
stood within the facilitating roles of networks through the process of mobilising
collective interaction, trust and collaborate activities within networks. This case
study considers the increasing flow of North Americans settling in Mexico to be
social entrepreneurs. Their tourism-related business often has a social aim, not only
generating economic growth but also addressing emerging socio-cultural needs in
the Mexican communities. Through their non-profit organizations these transna-
tional social entrepreneurs gain acknowledgment to the extent that they challenge
the authorities’ power and even shape the meaning and nature of development. Here
network ties and trust are essential factors for the sustainability of the ideas of the
social entrepreneurs. We argue that these ties are based on symbolic and concrete
practices such as national identity, global imaginaries and transnational practices,
which makes it necessary to position transnational social entrepreneurs in tourism
within a broader economic, sociocultural and political context and not understand
entrepreneurship only as individual engagement.
Keywords Social entrepreneurship • Tourism • Transnationalism • Network ties •

Authentic Mexico • Social capital • North Americans • Mexico
1 Introduction
Tourism is one manifestation of mobility, and we need critically to address the

scope and scale of tourism in the Global South to understand the meanings and
implications of transnational tourism mobilities. An increasing part of North Amer-
icans settling in Mexico (Croucher, 2010) set up tourism-related business and fund
H.B. Clausen
Tourism Research Unit, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

196 H.B. Clausen
non-profit organizations to alleviate existing social problems in the communities.

They are social entrepreneurs and so far few studies deal with the relationship
between the community residents and foreign, non-tourism mediators and the
impact of this relationship on tourism development. A notable exception is
Zorn’s (2004) longitudinal, ethnographic study of Taquile Island in Peru that
demonstrates the role of international non-tourism mediators (volunteers, scholars,
philanthropists) in shaping Taquile’s particular model of communitarian tourism. In
this chapter we explore in depth how social entrepreneurs from United States1
through non-profit social organizations seek to meet the needs of marginalized
people in the municipality whereby they change considerably the livelihood con-
ditions for the majority of the poor Mexicans in town, yet these social enterprises
also have repercussions for the sociocultural and political development in the
region. Even though this case study explores social practices on a micro-
sociological level it has repercussions beyond this locality. Similar practices can
be found in the majority of the Mexican communities where this type of transna-
tional social entrepreneurship triggers rural tourism development.2
2 Transnational Social Entrepreneurship
Social entrepreneurs navigate between the public and private sector and are
increasingly being considered innovative drivers for bringing about social trans-
formations in countries in the Global South (Ebrashi, 2013; Engberg-Pedersen,
Larsen, & Rasmussen, 2014) such as in Mexico. Often research on social entrepre-
neurship is heavily focused on the individual entrepreneur. However, this view fails
to appreciate the type of social entrepreneurs in this case study. We argue that their
engagement and innovative ideas are facilitated and positioned within networks.
Johannisson (2005, 2011) analyzes entrepreneurs from a network perspective
inspired by Granovetter’s (1973) seminal research on the importance of strong
and weak ties. Having a lot of weak ties demonstrates a good connection to the
world and is more likely to provide and exchange important information about
ideas, threats and opportunities. The modern approach to business networking is
based on the principle of weak ties: having a wide range of acquaintances can be far
more helpful than having strong ties which are defined as good friends or family.
Johannisson (2011) suggests that social entrepreneurs rely on personalized ties,
which encompasses both social and business relationships that may change over
time and space. The ties are symbolic and concrete forms of exchange as well as
1
By North Americans I only refer to people coming from the United States.
2
Groups of North Americans have established communities in various cities in states like Yucatán,
Guanajuato, Jalisco, Veracruz, Baja California, Sonora, and Sinaloa. An indirect indicator of this
growing interest on the part of the North Americans for selecting Mexico as their residence is the
sustained expansion of the North American real estate companies that operate in the United States
but that specializes in or has a portfolio of properties located in Mexico.
Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism Development in Mexico: A Case Study of. . . 197
loosely and tightly coupled and often asymmetrical. Repeated transactions often
turn into trust relations (Glick Schiller, 2005; Lin, 1999) and bring a lot of other
benefits, including learning opportunities, pleasure in socializing and the power to
realize potentials (Lin, 1999). Trust is essential and intimately linked to social
capital as Bourdieu (1986: 249) defines as:
the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable
network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual . . . or less institutionalized
relations of mutual acquaintance and recognition.
Emphasizing the transnational element in an analysis of social entrepreneurship

might bring about new understandings of the dynamics of change and unequal
power terrains in these tourism locations. The transnational lens enables us to trace
what Levitt and Glick Schiller (2004: 1009) define as:
the set of multiple interlocking networks of social relationships through which ideas,
practices and resources are unequally exchanged, organized and transformed
These constitute different forms of social fields, which sustain a collective.

Moreover, the transnational approach highlights cultural and power relationships
produced within the transnational social fields as well as between the different
nation-states (Glick Schiller, 2005, 2009). In this case study the home country is the
United States and the receiving country is Mexico. Then transnational social
entrepreneurs influence the local context as well as the local governmental and
institutional structures, rules and cultures significantly impact the social entrepre-
neurs’ actions, ideas and life worlds.
3 Methodological Steps
This chapter is based on anthropological sensitivity to studying the entrepreneurial

processes. It provides insights into the bridging function provided by social entre-
preneurs between economic growth and social change and local and global dynam-
ics. A long-term multi-sited ethnographic fieldwork (2004–2014) provides a thick
description (Geertz, 1973) to analyse social entrepreneurship and tourism develop-
ment in the town. It consisted of repeated return visits spanning from months to
weeks during this time frame. These fieldwork stays involved participant observa-
tions at several meetings between the transnational social entrepreneurs and the
government at local, regional and national level. There was also active participation
in the community’s daily life and events, so as to reveal formal and informal
structures, social distinctions and relationships between members of the commu-
nity. A range of data sources included in-depth interviews with key stakeholders in
Alamos, and at local, regional and national level of government and institutions.
During these stays a range of secondary sources consisting of historical documen-
tation, official statistics, and cultural programs at the municipal, regional and
national level were collected. Furthermore 54 households (both Mexicans and
198 H.B. Clausen
North Americans) were interviewed to gain insights into the residents’ perceptions
and rationales of the transnational community, their activities and the tourism
development activities. These interviews were conducted in 2013–2014.
4 Tourism Development in Alamos
Álamos has experienced several migration flows from the United States and Europe
during its glorious history due to its flourishing mining and business industry in the
sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries. However during the Mexican revolution
(1910–1920) one of the first groups to move away was the mansion owners in the
city center. The houses were shuttered, and with that, the locality lost its early
splendor, and became nothing more than a footnote in Mexican history (Clausen,
2008; Love, 2012). In the last 30 years Alamos has developed into an international
tourist destination mainly due to a group of North Americans seeking to reconstruct
a town corresponding to their dreams about living in an ‘authentic’ Mexican town.
This corresponds to the global tourist imaginary about colonial Mexico (Clausen &
Velázquez, 2011). In the late 1950s Alamos was an emerging destination due to the
visionary North American entrepreneur William Alcorn. He invested a consider-
able amount into reconstructing the city centre and its colonial style houses, and
invited North Americans to spend their vacations in these peaceful surroundings
(Love, 2012). The visitors perceived the lack of nearness to, or even the isolation
from, the town’s residents as a positive thing. Whereas the North Americans who
settled in town in the 1980s engaged in the Mexican community and showed a keen
interest in supporting sustainable tourism development in the town (Clausen, 2008).
North American migrants living in Alamos today are represented in different
areas of the tourism sector as owners or managers of local hotels, retailers, café
owners, restaurant owners, guides, handicraft sellers, real estate agencies, and travel
agencies (Clausen & Velázquez, 2011). Álamos has a mature and highly committed
local community due to the large number of cultural events and activities for
tourists. However, when taking a closer look at the actors developing these activ-
ities, they are only members of the transnational North American community
(Clausen & Gyimóthy, 2015). They have strengthened the image of Mexico as
traditional, authentic and pre-modern, by reinventing traditions such as the Danza
del Venado (Dance of the Reindeer) performed for tourists on Sundays, and Las
Estudiantinas, and Dia de Muertos (Day of the Dead). Except for the Dance of the
Reindeer these traditions stem from the southern part of Mexico but appeal to the
global tourist imaginary of ‘authentic’ Mexico.
4.1 The Ethnographic Setting: Social Non-profit

Organizations in Alamos
Three social non-profit organizations: Las Comadres, Amigos de Educaci on and

Indigenous Cooperative all founded by North Americans living in town focus
principally on sociocultural development projects. These projects create sustainable
livelihood opportunities for single mothers and educational opportunities for kids in
poor families in the town.3 The objective of Amigos de Educaci on (AE) is to grant
school scholarships to the poorest children in town. Driven by the increasing
demand for scholarships during the last decade, a new initiative holds an annual
auction during which they sell clothing, furniture, and kitchen utensils, and also a
dinner-dance and stage performances. It is a closed auction requiring and entrance
ticket (USD 350). AE has several ways of raising funds. Some donations come from
house tours to specific colonial houses owned by North Americans in town, and also
through membership dues, and donations (mainly from tourists and business asso-
ciations in the US). Initially this social enterprise was financed solely by donations
from its members and their friends and relatives in the US. Currently, two-thirds of
its budget comes from the revenue from house tours and US foundations for social
investments. During 2012, AE received 436 applications for scholarships from
needy families, and in 2013, that number rose to 501. The Mayor of Álamos
estimates that 579 households are impoverished (personal interview,
October 2013).
The nonprofit organization, Las Comadres provides assistance to families in
need by distributing food hampers to over 400 families at Christmas and Easter.
Moreover the organization also provides financial help for medicines and medical
treatment. The organization holds two auctions each year, during which they sell
clothing, furniture, and kitchen utensils. The auction’s objects are donated by
members of the North Americans either from the town or from other North
American communities in the region. Every Saturday, the organization also holds
a garage sale at a place near the central plaza, where they sell secondhand goods
donated by North Americans. Most of the clothing is bought by tourists or North
American residents in Álamos and has become another efficient fund-raising
activity. Las Comadres collects most of its operating funds from their networks
of families, tourists, and business associates in the United States.
The Indigenous Cooperative was set up by a North American social entrepreneur
who organized 13 indigenous women from the region to sell indigenous handicrafts
outside four different hotels (owned by North Americans) each Wednesday and
Sunday. Apart from sustaining the marginalized indigenous families, the coopera-
tive has been able to expand its business to two other villages in the municipality.
3
My empirical material shows that there are several places in Mexico characterized by having
North American immigrants with this type of social enterprises (for instance San Miguel Allende,
Cuernavaca, Taxco and Todos Santos).
200 H.B. Clausen
5 Analysis: Transnational Social Entrepreneurs and Their

Personalized Ties
The social enterprises are sustained by transnational personalized networks. These

networks consist of weak ties within the North American group of migrants (living
for a longer or shorter period of time in Mexico), tourists and also transnational ties
to family, friends and business associates in the United States. The North Ameri-
cans in the Mexican town trust each other due to what one North American
(personal interview, January 2015) explained:
. . .we have the same stock. . ..
Rather than considering the North Americans as a homogenous group it is

important to contextualize the transnational social field to unfold the tensions and
unequal power relations (Glick Schiller, 2005; Goldring, 1997) as stated in one
(North American, October 2014) of the interviews:
. . . a lot of the other Americans living here I would never spend time with or even talk with
if I still lived in the States (. . .) I join in for different events [in the American group] but a lot
of them [North Americans] are too conservative in their way of living.
Living in a transnational space also implies that the North Americans navigate in
relation to the Other (the Mexicans, the Mexican government, the tourists). The
North American group represents cohesiveness and homogeneity despite the inter-
nal tensions and conflicts. Towards the Other the group is significantly different due
to shared norms, values and national identity and the interest is in generating
sustainable development in Álamos through creating an ‘authentic’ Mexico
(Clausen, 2008; Clausen & Velázquez, 2011). The power relations implicit between
the two nation-states (Mexico and the US) as suggested by Glick Schiller (2005)
also play into the perception of the Other. These social enterprises in town represent
the North American group’s social and cultural capital which the Mexicans do not
form part of even though they live in the same town.
As described by Johannisson (2011) the collaborative events (for instance house
tours and auctions) and continuous everyday transactions (for instance in relation to
tourism activities organized by the North American group), trust and cohesiveness
occur. Everyday practices and continuous transactions create and maintain trust and
social capital e.g. the North American group celebrates each Friday, Thank God its
Friday (TGF) where all North Americans meet in the bar in the historical centre
(owned by a North American) to socialize. When North American newcomers
decide to settle for a period in town they are invited to participate in these events.
The newcomer is provided with practical information such as an address-list,
telephone list and information about the (tourism) business. These Friday gather-
ings also serve to exchange information such as who needs a gardener or maid, or
who is going to the US that can bring items back. These continuous transactions
create trust despite not agreeing on everything as shown in the quotation above.
When one of the North Americans set up a new social enterprise she relied on the
support from the North American group. The personalized and weak ties become
engaged and supportive by participating in the auctions, providing clothes or even

providing donations from their connections in the US. The majority of the North
Americans (interview January 2013) perceive these social entrepreneurial initia-
tives as:
. . .it’s as paying back [to the community] (. . .) they [the Mexicans] let me live here and take
part in this marvellous place. . ..
The social entrepreneurial initiatives become a way to redistribute the resources

from the North Americans’ tourism business and at the same time engage and
include the Mexicans in sustainable livelihood opportunities. Launching the social
enterprises the North Americans rely on the support from their personalized net-
works both within the North American group and the ties spanning borders. They
are able to mobilize the social and cultural resources to secure fundraising and
volunteers such as working as house tour guides in the social enterprise, Amigos de
Educaci on, or as volunteer on Saturdays in the garage sale held by the social
enterprise Las Comadres. The social entrepreneurs navigate in a transnational
space and use their tacit understanding and knowledge about how to solve critical
social issues by setting up social nonprofit organizations. The personalized weak
ties also span borders as the social enterprises are sustained not only by the weak
ties in the locality in Mexico but also the relations with the North American tourists
and business relations in the US play a significant economic role in sustaining the
social enterprises.
Elaborating on Johannison’s personalized networks as essential to launch and
sustain social entrepreneurial initiatives this part of the analysis demonstrates that
transnational networks cannot be seen solely in terms of networks of solidarity,
transactions and generalized reciprocity (Goldring, 1998; Levitt, 2011). To achieve
trust and a high degree of social cohesion also requires the existence of an imagined
collective to which the social entrepreneurs belong. This collective is based on a
range of symbolic and collective representations, which in this case study is a
shared national identity, the transnational experience and the imagination of an
authentic Mexico (Clausen & Velázquez, 2011) which play a significant role when
understanding why Mexican residents do not join with the social enterprises as
members or donors.
The Mexican state’s shortcomings such as lack of resources (Goldring, 1997)
and lack of market-oriented expertise in tourism, provide gaps which North Amer-
icans quickly responded to by creating social enterprises relying on and sustained
by transnational weak ties to solve the social issues in town.
5.1
Social Transformation in Alamos
Despite being perceived as “alien”, the transnational social entrepreneurs also

demonstrate vicarious leadership to create sustainable development (Moscardo,
2014) in the region, owing to the social enterprises represented in Amigos de
202 H.B. Clausen
Educaci on and Las Comadres. During the past decade these social initiatives,
which entail helping low-income families (with financial support and scholarships)
and single mothers with daily commodities related to childcare (second hand
clothes, confectionary) have accumulated significant legitimacy for these transna-
tional social entrepreneurs as empathic community members and efficient orga-
nizers. The increase in poor families that prefer to ask these enterprises for social
help rather than the city administration demonstrate that the Mexicans see these
social entrepreneurs as serious and respectable people who seek, through profes-
sional means, to help the local population with concrete actions. The trust towards
these social initiatives is further emphasized by the Mexicans’ lack of confidence in
the local government due to corrupt practices as expressed by a Mexican woman
(January 2015):
The government is inefficient [. . .] and it doesn’t even make a difference if a new
administration takes office because there are always relatives or friends of the mayor
who will occupy the public posts [. . .] this never changes.
The social enterprises rise to address the social needs in the municipality. They
create mechanisms which move resources toward a more just allocation. In line
with Goldring’s (1997, 1998) research about home town associations in Mexico
financed by Mexicans living in the US, these social enterprises in Álamos have
become efficient mechanisms to attain political influence. They aim to empower
marginalized segments in society, who lack the financial means or political voice to
achieve this social change on their own, and become important players in regional
development (Ebrashi, 2013). On the one hand, these social entrepreneurs respond
to specific problems of poverty representing shortcomings of the Mexican govern-
ment. On the other hand, these initiatives give the transnational social entrepreneurs
significant legitimacy and power. Although it is not the purpose of these social
initiatives to intervene in defining the regional policy agenda or to win political
positions—and the social entrepreneurs do not wish to do so—the initiative’s
impact has had repercussions of that type. Because of the social entrepreneurs
social and cultural resources, they oblige the Mexican government to take their
initiatives into account.
The social entrepreneurs then alter and reconfigure the informal power struc-
tures, enabling them to negotiate their position in Álamos as a group vis-a-vis the
Other (the local government and the Mexican community). However, this is not yet
another example of ‘elite capture’ which describes exploitative foreign invest-
ments. The civic engagement of the transnational social entrepreneurs resonates
with Zorn and Farthing’s (2007) claim, that transnational entrepreneurs may also be
important accelerators of local development, owing to their valuable knowledge
and network resources residing both in North American and Mexican communities.
The power of the social entrepreneurs is nested in what Johannisson (2011)
defines as personalized networks in the local community, and the transnational
practices (Levitt, 2001) sustained by the North Americans weak ties. These social
enterprises provide them with legitimacy, trust and symbolic power in the Mexican
communities as well as within the local and regional governments. They also permit
the group to reposition itself in negotiations on sustainable development plans for

the region. These social entrepreneurs also have a keen interest in a certain type of
development where the idea of the authentic Mexico still decides the development
strategy.
6 Final Reflections
Unfolding the facilitating roles of the transnational social entrepreneurs’ ties—

which enable them to launch their social initiatives—clarifies how they mobilize
resources. The ties are constructed through both exchange and reciprocity but also
on collectivity, which is based on a shared identity and migration experience where
trust is an embedded element. These are constantly confirmed through collective
activities and transactions. This kind of social entrepreneur seeks to pave an
alternative way to generate social and human wellbeing. Their way of navigating
needs to be taken into consideration by governments and the private sector as one of
the new key actors with the capacity to act upon global discourses, local as well as
global knowledge and attract resources from transnational actors and networks.
Social entrepreneurs have largely been considered as a homogenous group with
a focus on the individual engagement. This case study emphasizes the importance
of elaborating a more nuanced understanding on how different types of social
entrepreneurs experience and navigate in the space between the public and private
sector, and where the focus is on facilitating roles of networks for implementing
new ways to alleviate poverty and solve social issues. Governments are often
encouraged to collaborate with social entrepreneurs and the private sector as
collaborative actions between social entrepreneurs, the public and private sector
provide transformative power (Dees, 1998; Shockley & Frank, 2011). Yet in this
case study it becomes obvious that the government’s shortcomings (lack of
resources and expertise in market-oriented business) enables the North American
social entrepreneurs to intervene in sphere of social politics as they define who
belongs to poor populations in town.
The analysis demonstrates that the social entrepreneurial initiatives (Amigos de
Educaci on, Las Comadres and Indigenous Cooperative) cause essential social
transformations by redistributing resources to the marginalized population in the
region. This puts pressure on the government to take not only the social initiatives
into consideration but certainly and more importantly to act upon the social and
educational needs in the town and region. The North Americans in town do not only
craft the tourism development by creating new tourism products and defining the
commodification processes towards pleasant cityscapes and market-viable cultural
experiences, but they also have a voice in social politics. This alters the existing
power structures and enables sustainable development processes such that the
government’s legitimacy is challenged by lack of trust from the Mexicans.
Complementing Johannisson’s idea of social entrepreneurship (2011) the transna-
tional approach provides new understandings of the dynamics of social change and
204 H.B. Clausen
how these transnational social entrepreneurs mobilize and exchange resources and
(re)produce unequal power relations in the localities they navigate.
Questions
1. What is the central theoretical argument about social entrepreneurship in this

chapter?
2. In tourism as well as in other sectors social entrepreneurs are considered the new
agents of social change. Consider how the North American social entrepreneurs
contribute to development and the kind of development they promote.
3. Discuss the potentials and limitations of the new alliances between social
entrepreneurs and the state.
References
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.
Clausen, H. B. (2008). Juntos pero no revueltos. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Clausen, H. B., & Gyimóthy, S. (2015). Seizing community participation in sustainable develop-
ment: Pueblos Mágicos of Mexico. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, 318–326. doi:10.1016/
j.jclepro.2015.01.084.
Clausen, H. B., & Velázquez, M. (2011). En búsqueda del México auténtico. Las comunidades
norteamericanas en ciudades turı́sticas de México. In T. Mazón, R. Huete, & A. Mantecón
(Eds.), Construir una nueva vida. Los espacios del turismo y la migraci on residencial
(pp. 61–80). Madrid: Editorial Milrazones.
Croucher, S. (2010). Waving the red, white and azul; The political transnationalism of Americans
in Mexico (CEPI Working Paper). Miami University, p. 16.
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of “social entrepreneurship”. Retrieved December 19, 2015, from
http://csi.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/csi.gsb.stanford.edu/files/TheMeaningofsocialEntrepreneurship.
pdf
Ebrashi, R. (2013). Social entrepreneurship theory and sustainable social impact. Social Respon-
sibility Journal, 9(2), 188–209.
Engberg-Pedersen, L., Larsen, S., & Rasmussen, C. (2014). New partnerships and new actors in
development cooperation. DIIS REPORT, p. 23.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Glick Schiller, N. (2005). Transnational social fields and imperialism: Bringing a theory of power
to transnational studies. Anthropological Theory, 5(4), 439–461.
Glick Schiller, N. (2009). A global perspective on transnational migration: Theorizing migration
without methodological nationalism (Working Paper No 67). Centre on Migration, Policy and
Society. Oxford: University of Oxford.
Goldring, L. (1997). The Mexican state and transmigrant organizations: Reconfiguring the nation,
citizenship, and state-society relations? Paper presented in Latin American Studies Associa-
tion, Guadalajara.
Goldring, L. (1998). The power of status in transnational social fields. In L. Guarnizo & M. P.
Smith (Eds.), Transnationalism from below (pp. 167–172). New York: Transaction Publishers.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
Johannisson, B. (2005). Entrepren€ orskapets v€asen. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Johannisson, B. (2011). Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring. Small Business Economist,
36(2), 135–150.
Levitt, P. (2001). The transnational villagers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Levitt, P. (2011). A transnational gaze. Migraciones Internacionales, 6(1), 9–44.
Levitt, P., & Glick Schiller, N. (2004). Conceptualizing simultaneity: A transnational social field
perspective on society. International Migration Review, 38(3), 1002–1039.
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51.
Love, D. (2012). Our stories of Alamos. A Pueblo M agico. Pacific Grove, CA: Park Place
Publications.
Moscardo, G. (2014). Tourism and community leadership in rural regions: Linking mobility,
entrepreneurship, tourism development and community well-being. Planning and Develop-
ment, 11(3), 354–370.
Zorn, E. (2004). Weaving a future. Tourism, cloth and culture on an Andean Island. Iowa City, IA:
University of Iowa Press.
Zorn, E., & Farthing, L. C. (2007). Communitarian tourism hosts and mediators in Peru. Annals of
Helene Balslev Clausen holds a Ph.D. from Copenhagen Business School, Denmark and is
currently a researcher and associate professor at the Department of Culture and Global Studies,
Aalborg University, Denmark. She coordinates the specialization: Global Tourism Development
at Aalborg University. Her research interests include: tourism development in the Global South,
development, trans-nationalism, mobilities and place/space. She has published extensively on
tourism and development, also in acknowledged journals, and edited various books. She has
participated in several Latin American research projects and is currently coordinating a major
research project in Mexico about social entrepreneurs and tourism development in rural regions.
Heroic Messiahs or Everyday Businessmen?
The Rhetoric and the Reality of Social
Entrepreneurship in India
Makarand Mody and Jonathon Day
Abstract While the phenomenon of social entrepreneurship is not new, there

remain several ambiguities associated with its definition and theoretical formula-
tion. To understand how social entrepreneurs create value in their quest to resolve
social issues, it is important to appreciate the motivations that underlie their
behavior. This chapter uses the cases of two social entrepreneurs in responsible
tourism in India to identify a range of value-oriented and traditional entrepreneurial
motivations. It further identifies how these motivations are intricately woven into a
process of identify creation that illuminates the performative aspects of social
entrepreneurship. Through their association and dissociation with a host of entities
in the ecosystem, the social entrepreneurs tend to maintain their organizations’
legitimacy as heroes, thus adhering to the popular social discourse surrounding
social entrepreneurship. While such conformity, validated by the entrepreneurs’ life
stories, is beneficial in shaping the social entrepreneurial narrative, we argue that
the need to further the social entrepreneurship agenda must incorporate alternative
forms of thinking and talking about the phenomenon. These alternative discourses
illuminate the duality of social entrepreneurship—its rhetoric as a grand,
Schumpeterian style innovation and its reality as bricolage.
Keywords Motivation • Values • Identity • Narratives • Bricolage • India
1 Introduction
Social entrepreneurs are described as “a rare breed” (Dees, 2001) who create
“social value and initiate social change through commitment, innovation, vision
and change leadership” (Abu-Saifan, 2012). Clearly, social entrepreneurs are cre-
ating value in new ways and changing the status quo to solve social issues. To
M. Mody (*)
School of Hospitality Administration, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
J. Day
School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN, USA

208 M. Mody and J. Day
understand how they create value, one must identify the key motivations underlying
their behavior i.e. the why of social entrepreneurship. Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum,
and Shulman (2009) suggested that clarifying the ambiguities associated with the
definitions and theoretical formulations of social entrepreneurship requires “appre-
ciating the motivations of individuals who take the risks associated with conceiv-
ing, building, launching and sustaining new organizations and business models”
(p. 529).
Interestingly, the motivations of these change agents cannot be viewed in
isolation from the contextual rhetoric surrounding social entrepreneurship. This
rhetoric manifests itself in two key ways: the microstructures of identity creation
that reside in the social entrepreneurial narrative and the alignment (or lack thereof)
of these microstructures to the wider social discourse surrounding the phenomenon.
Both these issues allow further leverage of the potency of understanding motiva-
tions to explain the true nature of social entrepreneurial behavior. The chapter
examines two social entrepreneurs in India and explores why and how they are
using social entrepreneurship to meet significant social needs.
2 Motivations of Social Entrepreneurs
Study of social entrepreneurship from the psychological perspective views the

creation of ventures as stemming from individual characteristics, motivations,
and enterprise (i.e. Baum & Locke, 2004; Beugre, 2011; Brandstatter, 2011;
Shane, Locke, & Collins, 2003; Tan, Williams, & Tan, 2005). Consistent with
this perspective, the fundamental difference between conventional and social
entrepreneurship is that while exploiting opportunities for profit maximization is
the main objective of conventional entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs attempt to
maximize the social wealth created by their ventures. However, such a perspective
is simplified and fails to capture the continuum of entrepreneurial motives that
comprise social entrepreneurial activity. Nonetheless, the psychological perspec-
tive indicates the importance of the role of entrepreneurs themselves in effecting the
phenomenon.
Muhammad Yunus, who is the founder of Grameen Bank and perhaps the most
famous protagonist in the realm of social enterprise, provides support for such an
argument. A field trip to a poor village in 1974 led this Bangladeshi economist from
Chittagong University to question the economics he was teaching when he realized
how existing institutional frameworks consistently marginalized those at the bot-
tom of the social pyramid. From his own resources, he lent the equivalent of $27 to
a group of women who made bamboo furniture, a step that would eventually
culminate in the creation of The Grameen Bank in 1983 (Concordia College, n.
d.). According to Yunus and Weber (2011), “the main difference between starting a
social business and starting a regular business is the core motivation of the
entrepreneur” (p. 57). “It begins with the idealism and hope that are deeply
ingrained in all human beings” (p. 27). Dann and Cohen’s (1991) seminal work
Heroic Messiahs or Everyday Businessmen? The Rhetoric and the Reality of. . . 209
on the sociology of tourism also articulates that meaning, hence motivations, lies at
the core of all sociological understanding. In that sense, the roots of exploring social
entrepreneurial motivation to better comprehend the phenomenon had been laid
long ago even in the field of tourism. The present chapter builds on these sugges-
tions by exploring the case of two tourism social entrepreneurs in India—Gopinath
Parayil of The Blue Yonder and Inir Pinheiro of Grassroutes. Given that the
continuum of entrepreneurial motivations ranges from wealth creation to the
altruistic objectives of socially-oriented entrepreneurship, the authors discuss
Gopi and Inir’s motivations under two categories: traditional entrepreneurial moti-
vations and value-oriented motivations.
3 Case Description and Methods of Study
Gopinath Parayil (Gopi) is the founder of The Blue Yonder (hereafter referred to as
TBY), a social enterprise which operates primarily in India, but which recently
expanded its operations to include tours in South Africa, Nepal, Bangladesh,
Bhutan, and Sri Lanka. Consistent with the 2002 Cape Town Declaration on
Responsible Tourism, the company aims to “create better places for people to live
in and for people to visit” (The Blue Yonder Associates, n.d.). The second social
enterprise, Grassroutes, was founded by Inir Pinheiro. Grassroutes is an organiza-
tion “committed to helping the urban world meet and discover rural India”
(Grassroutes, n.d.). It is much narrower in its geographical scope than TBY, with
operations currently spanning primarily weekend trips to three villages in the
Ahmednagar district of the state of Maharashtra in India: Purushwadi, Valvanda
and Dehna.
Both Gopi and Inir identify themselves as social entrepreneurs in responsible
tourism, which in the context of this research, is identified as the practice of tourism
based on the underlying principles of the 2002 Cape Town Declaration on Respon-
sible Tourism. While they work in the same domain, the business models
established by these entrepreneurs are different. TBY functions as a more conven-
tional tour operator, whereby it does not get actively involved in the operation of the
services it provides. Its mandate is to provide a platform for the various services to
be combined into package tour products. It does so by working with existing
suppliers of accommodation, transportation, activity partners, distributors, etc. in
its various locations. For example, in the state of Kerala, TBY’s homeland, one of
the tours is called Malabar Holidays: a 14 day trip through the region of Malabar,
which includes spice tours, tea and coffee plantation visits, rainforest trek, camping,
country boat cruise, and folk art forms, among other activities. Relatedly, its trips
are typically much longer in duration than those offered by Grassroutes. TBY also
functions as a ground handling agent for various outbound operators in its source
markets: The Netherlands, Germany, France, Austria, and Norway, among others.
In such a partnership, tourists perceive that they are traveling with the source
outbound operator, but TBY actually handles the on-ground arrangements for the
operator and charges it a commission.
An example of a Grassroutes tour is The Story of Rice, which allows adventure-
oriented tourists to partake in the ancient art of growing rice at Dehna and
Purushwadi villages. The trip is offered over 2 days, and includes accommodation,
authentic village cooked meals, rural activities and a Grassroutes tour guide. The
localized nature of the Grassroutes experience has resulted from the company
getting involved in much of the hands-on development and operation of its prod-
ucts. The villagers at the three locations were provided extensive training by
Grassroutes prior to their inclusion into tourism. Also, much of the initial financial
investment in developing the required infrastructure at the villages (accommoda-
tion, restrooms, activities, etc.) was provided by Grassroutes. The two companies
also differ in the profiles of the incoming travelers; between 90 and 95% of TBY’s
tourists to India are international, while the same percentage of Grassroutes trav-
elers is domestic. One would expect, as a corollary, and given the number of
products it offers and its geographical scope, that TBY’s annual revenues are higher
than those of Grassroutes.
To understand Gopi and Inir’s personal motivations for establishing their busi-
nesses, a narrative inquiry approach was adopted. As Mckenzie (2007) notes,
narrative enquiry is an appropriate method of collecting data as “entrepreneurs
are generally keen to share their experiences and love to tell stories about them-
selves” (p. 310) The narratives were collected using a modified three interview
process (Seidman, 2006) and analyzed using a hybrid thematic coding process
(Boyatzis, 1998; Muir-Cochrane & Fereday, 2006). Such an approach combines
both theory-driven a priori coding with data-driven inductive coding. Thus, while
the literature on social entrepreneurial motivations, identity creation, and the
narratives of social entrepreneurship provided the theoretical coding framework,
the various sub-themes within these areas were induced directly from the data.
Given the constructionist approach of narrative inquiry whereby meaning is
co-created by the participant and the researcher (Guba & Lincoln, 1994), the
authors utilized member checking to ensure interpretation validity. The result is a
deep insight into the social entrepreneur’s mindset.
4 Two Types of Motivations: Value-Oriented

and Traditional Entrepreneurial
4.1 Value-Oriented Motivations
For both Gopi and Inir, the desire to “make a difference” was strongly present
throughout their narratives. The themes were heavily steeped in their early life
experiences. For Gopi, it was his early participation in and commitment to the
ideals of the socially-oriented Communist movement in his home state of Kerala.
For Inir, his participation in several youth-driven programs offered by his Church
inculcated in him the “passion to promote social change” and an early impulse
towards social entrepreneurial activism. For both entrepreneurs, such motivations
manifested in their respective ventures that aim towards local ownership, a sense of
pride and the need to make people work with dignity.
Other value-oriented motivations that emerged from the narratives included
integrity, humility, benevolence, responsibility, spirituality, humanism, and the
Gandhian virtue of Swavalamban (self-reliance), and relatedly, self-determination
(Bonney, 2004). As testimony to the values of benevolence and humility, Gopi
stated:
We all come from a culture of giving. I grew up seeing my grandmother giving, even
though she was poor. She would collect fresh clothes, keep it so that she could hand it over
to the government coming over, hand it over to the saints who come over, and help a poor
person. Even though she is poor she will always keep things aside, so maybe it was kind of
[her] influence. But for me, the biggest influence is the palliative care, where I saw that just
by listening, we can make a difference.
In the case of TBY, these value-oriented motivations of benevolence and

humility translate into opportunities for voluntourism. As part of their itineraries,
tourists can spend time working with palliative care patients, an enriching experi-
ence for both parties that is consistent with the tenets of responsible tourism
development. As another example, Inir discussed his efforts to encourage self-
determination through his work at Grassroutes:
So we’ve got to see that culture is preserved with a softer approach.... So in Valvada, we’ve
got the youth asking the Warli artisans to teach them to paint. It is not [only] the fact that
they want to learn about how to talk English [by participating in tourism], they also want to
learn their Warli art. Why? Because they see money in actually selling the art. So it’s a
win-win.
4.2 Traditional Entrepreneurial Motivations
Social entrepreneurs often experience several tensions as they balance their social,
value-oriented goals with the need to operate profitable businesses. For example,
when talking about the work of the Pulluvar community to revive a dying folk
culture, which now serves as a tourism attraction for his company, Gopi said:
I went back thinking that this [conservation] is great, all this talking and all this singing
about the river, but what the heck are you really doing? Are you really making a difference?
This poetry and these songs can be told to let people know about the situation, but that’s not
gonna bring you a solution.
In addition to this need to “use business as a solution to social problems”, both

Gopi and Inir highlighted other practical, business-oriented motivations behind
their social entrepreneurial ventures: access to cheaper capital owing to the finan-
cial incentives associated with being identified and officially registered as a social
enterprise, publicity—to generate market demand for their products by promoting
the notions of responsibility and social entrepreneurship, establish a successful

business model for future expansion (franchising in the case of TBY), financial
independence and independence from authority. In general, the implicit desire to
appease their need for achievement (n-Ach), a traditional entrepreneurial motive,
strongly peppered their narratives.
5 Motivations for Social Entrepreneurship and Identity

Creation
While understanding motivations for social entrepreneurship is a worthwhile

endeavor in itself, the contextual rhetoric surrounding these motivations cannot
be ignored. Issues of identity creation are intricately woven into the representation
of any phenomenon; the highly altruistic value-laden connotation of social entre-
preneurship is no exception. The manner in which social entrepreneurs use their
stated motivations to generate their identities helps one understand the performative
aspects of their discourses.
Individuals create their identities by classifying their actions and cognitions as
similar to or different from some reference entity (Jones, Latham, & Betta, 2008).
This process results in the generation of a divisive identity anchored by “What I
am” and “What I am not”. While their motivations allude to their associations with
traditional business entrepreneurship, Gopi and Inir chose to express their work as
that of storytellers, trendsetters, resource-garnerers, inspirational leaders,
fieldworkers, and social problem-solvers (“What I am”):
So that’s one joy of being a social entrepreneur is being able to have a social impact. So my
friend Ryan [pseudonym] used to be this project manager looking after search engine
optimization. He said, “for 5 years all I did was tweaking a system here and there to
generate a 30 % increase on hit on a website”. He’s left it all right now, and he’s setup an
organic T-shirt company.
Actually both Gopi and Inir distinguished themselves quite sharply from tradi-
tional entrepreneurs and social workers (“What I am not”):
It was not a tourism initiative where you keep a part of a certain amount of money for
charity, and all that nonsense. It was never like that.... The whole idea of The Blue Yonder
Associates is mainstreaming responsibility, to say that responsibility is not CSR, it’s not a
charity, and it’s not philanthropy (Gopi).
Social workers tell people: stop doing this, stop doing that. The people say why should
I? My stomach is getting affected.... So in the end, I started realizing that you can’t stop
people from doing something, you gotta work towards solutions (Inir).
Moreover, the extent of this oppositional identity creation (“What I am not”) was
much greater than the authors originally anticipated, even more so for Gopi than for
Inir. They dissociated themselves from social entrepreneurship researchers and
academics, religious workers/social entrepreneurs, non-responsible tourism opera-
tors and social development policy consultants. Much of this dissociation was
created through reference to the moral and ethical superiority of their value-
oriented motivations. They tended to craft a distinct social entrepreneurial identity,
building their own and their organizations’ legitimacy as heroes, challenging the
position of the others as villains or antagonists (Ruebottom, 2013). In so doing, they
maintained their adherence to the popular social discourse of social
entrepreneurship.
6 Social Discourse of Social Entrepreneurship
The popular social discourse surrounding social entrepreneurship confirms to what

has been identified as the grand narrative of social entrepreneurship: “an individ-
ualized, messianistic script that incorporates a model of harmonious social change”
(Dey & Steyaert, 2010, p. 87). It stresses how the social entrepreneur, relying on his
value-oriented motivations, takes calculated business decisions to single-handedly
provide hundreds of people with opportunities that they would otherwise not have.
However, such portrayal “poses a limit to alternative forms of thinking and talking”
about social entrepreneurship (Dey & Steyaert, 2010, p. 85). Froggett and
Chamberlayne (2004) found that the “unspectacular” of the changemaker’s biog-
raphy often gets excluded or merely serves as a prelude to heroic self-actualization.
Similarly, when addressing issues of identity creation, Jones et al. (2008) identified
what they called the Suppressed Me—the elements of his identity that the social
entrepreneur appeared to downplay in his narrative or discussed outside the purview
of the grand narrative.
Alternative discourses are important in that they extend a coherent and closed
narration of social entrepreneurship. Two alternative genres are pertinent for the
present context. The first genre includes the little narratives—forms of narration
that support re-imagining of “the social in social entrepreneurship” (Steyaert &
Hjorth, 2006) and that recognize issues pertaining to the entrepreneurial struggle.
The second genre comprises the counter narratives—forms of critical narration
skeptical about the over-optimistic utopia of social entrepreneurship and which
destabilize the specific set of repertoires it draws upon to establish the effect (Dey &
Steyaert, 2010).
6.1 Little Narratives of Social Entrepreneurship
In their narrative, Gopi and Inir recalled several personal adversities which
highlighted their entrepreneurial struggles—tenuous relationships with family,
lack of stable intimate relationships, social condemnation, loneliness associated
with “being different”, and many financial hardships associated with the subjuga-
tion of the formal rationalities of the entrepreneur to the substantive rationalities of
the social entrepreneur. The following quotes demonstrate these tensions:
You think can you survive? You talk about sustainability? You talk about responsibility?
But if your own organization is not sustainable financially, then what’s the point in talking
about it? So there were moments 3 years ago, 4 years ago for me when I did seriously think
about shutting this down and figuring out how to pay off all those loans.
Moreover, Gopi and Inir’s emphasis on “the social in social entrepreneurship” is

evident from the sheer number of characters in their stories and the parts they
assigned to these characters in their construction of social entrepreneurship
(Downing, 2005). It is further highlighted by their reference to responsible tourism
as a movement. For example, Inir identified the catalytic potential of his efforts as a
social entrepreneur in responsible tourism: “So we may not reach, in terms of
Grassroutes [by itself] may not reach 200 villages. . . We may influence other
people to go about the entire thing or figure out someway else to go”.
6.2 Counter Narratives of Social Entrepreneurship
Interestingly, there was a sharp contrast between Gopi and Inir in their expression
of the counter narratives of social entrepreneurship. While Inir was more explicit in
addressing situations representative of the paradoxes and negatives of tourism
development, Gopi tended to suppress the counter narratives with the value-based
orientation of his discourse. However, this does not mean that the counter narratives
did not exist—they exist in the context of any social phenomenon. They had to be
extracted by the authors. For example, during the interviews, Gopi repeatedly
referenced TBY’s consumers as “our kind of travelers”, to point to sensitive
individuals from around the world who travel to have meaningful connections
with their hosts. There was no mention of any of the negative impacts commonly
associated with host-guest interactions in tourism. However, in previous informal
conversations with the authors, he had discussed several stories that highlighted
some of the problems TBY had faced with some of its not-so-sensitive travelers.
Inir was more open in his discussion of the counter narratives. He freely spoke
about instances of disputes with/within the communities pertaining to their partic-
ipation in tourism. For example, when referring to the empowerment of communi-
ties through tourism, including their improved financial situation, he also indicated
a potential increase in “unnecessary aspirations” and “consumerism” among the
communities. In addition, he highlighted a fundamental paradox in using tourism as
a tool for development; a theme that was persistent in many of the host-guest
interactions that he described:
Tourism is about getting away, so tourism at the end of a getaway in a very crude form is
about drugs, sex and booze. Now how do you use tourism as an instrument, which is
predominantly drugs, sex, and booze, to create responsibility? That’s been a challenge. I
mean, if you look at say 100 clients, people basically come and say hey, I’m beginning
responsible tourism, but I like my drink at the end of the day. So a challenge is an
instrument like tourism being about development.
Regardless how they are induced, both the little and counter narratives highlight
the vulnerabilities of the social entrepreneur and those pertaining to the develop-
ment of their social enterprises. They reveal the non-heroic aspects of the practice
of social entrepreneurship through Derrida’s (1997, as cited in Dey & Steyaert,
2010) notion of “messianism without a messiah”. In fact, these alternative narra-
tives serve to show the key myths about the fundamental nature of social entrepre-
neurship. While social entrepreneurs may use their value-oriented motivations to
determine distinct entrepreneurial identities and socially accepted grand narratives
that legitimize their organizations and their ability to create sustainable institutional
change (Ruebottom, 2013), the reality of the practice of social entrepreneurship
remains deeply entrenched in its kaleidic, idiosyncratic, embedded, episodic and
fragmented character. Social entrepreneurship is neither the culmination of a grand
Schumpeterian-style innovation, nor the outcome of the entrepreneurs’ alertness to
opportunities to address unmet customer needs, nor the consequence of the entre-
preneurs’ uncertainty reducing capacities (Brouwer, 2002; Zahra et al., 2009).
Instead, the foundations of social entrepreneurial action lie in the concept of
bricolage, defined “as the use of whatever resources and repertoires one has to
perform whatever tasks one faces” (Weick 1993, as cited in Zahra et al., 2009,
p. 353).
7 Social Entrepreneurship Bricolage
Di Domenico, Haugh, and Tracey (2010) have identified the key constructs of
social entrepreneurship bricolage as making do, a refusal to be constrained by
limitations, improvisation, social value creation, stakeholder participation, and
persuasion. These constructs were interspersed through Gopi and Inir’s narratives,
especially in their identification of their value-oriented and traditional entrepre-
neurial motivations. As an example of a refusal to be constrained by limitations and
of improvisation, Gopi stated:
That gave me a business model [franchising in responsible tourism] to think about where
we are very clear: we are very small, we don’t have much of capital, and at the same time,
we don’t want to go on this borrowing spree. And I was already like up to my neck on loan.
Those loans of those years are still there, because it was unaccounted, it was taken on
personal stuff, I could never show it in accounting. Financial management was such a mess,
my god. I struggle out of that, what I did in the first 2 years. But that’s all helping me setup
new companies, and in a structured way whose foundation was solid.
As an example of making do, Inir identified the happenstance nature of his social
entrepreneurial endeavors:
Today on hindsight I can justify exactly why tourism? It’s a great economic multiplier. It’s
easier to setup as compared to any other industry. Agriculture requires expertise, requires
time and resources. Industry requires a lot of infrastructure. A service sector industry
doesn’t require that much amount of infrastructure to setup. So in hindsight I can tell you
what were the justifications. But we selected tourism [pauses] because it just happened.
Gopi addressed the notion of stakeholder participation through storytelling:

This is madness. I haven’t heard any such stories anywhere else in my country. And I was
like, wow, this is it. So identify that storytelling is gonna drive the company. But then the
other one was how do I engage the people, the public, was always the question. There what
I did was started looking at what is it that is driving you in the sense of what does this river
mean to you.
As an example of persuasion, Inir identified travelers’ desire to create meaning-

ful stories in their lives, and his ability to deliver these stories, as the fundamental
premise of all Grassroutes travel. An examination of the company’s promotions on
its website corroborates this claim. Additionally, Gopi cited several examples of
persuasion through storytelling; most notably, how he convinced a leading French
boutique travel company to send its travelers to TBY through the story of the river
Nila, a key tourism attraction in his home state of Kerala.
In this context, both Gopi and Inir explicitly highlighted a need to adhere to the
grand narrative as part of their social entrepreneurial identities. Both accepted the
heroic portrayal of social entrepreneurship as “good for business” (a traditional
entrepreneurial inclination), in terms of the access it allows to cheaper capital,
publicity and social entrepreneurial ecosystems/incubators that would otherwise be
inaccessible. Inir even mentioned that “the hype” is beneficial in encouraging other
individuals to engage in social entrepreneurial causes. Such observations further
emphasize the relevance of the notion of bricolage to social entrepreneurship—the
assemblage of actions that constitute this mosaic (Hockerts, 2006) derives from the
value-oriented and traditional entrepreneurial motivations of social entrepreneurs.
Building entrepreneurial network portfolios through narrative identity work, a
process called strategic homophily, is critical to venture creation and early growth
(Phillips, Tracey, & Karra, 2013).
The idea of social entrepreneurship as bricolage remains within the psycholog-
ical perspective of the field of study. While bricolage is closely associated with the
notion of innovation ecology—the set of institutional and structural supports that
can facilitate or impede innovation for social impact (Gundry, Kickul, & Griffiths,
2011), it is important to note that the focus remains on the entrepreneur himself.
The institutional restraints and conditions of the innovation ecology provide the
framework within which the volitional nature of the entrepreneur’s actions is
evaluated. Zahra et al. (2009) adopted a similar perspective in their offering of a
typology of entrepreneurs’ search processes that leads to the discovery of opportu-
nities for creating social ventures. Thus, the concept of bricolage enhances one’s
understanding of the entrepreneur’s motivations and identity construction to
explain the process elements of social entrepreneurship. It provides a relevant
conceptual framework to deconstruct the mythic social entrepreneurial figure.
8 Conclusion
The chapter discusses four key themes associated with social entrepreneurship. The
first theme deals with the motivations for social entrepreneurial behavior. Rather
than focusing on the differences between conventional and social entrepreneurs, the
chapter suggests the need to consider the multitude of motivations underlying social
entrepreneurial behavior. These encompass the continuum of value-oriented and
traditional entrepreneurial motives, highlighting that the difference between con-
ventional enterprises, social enterprises and purely social organizations is a matter
of degree rather than rigid definitional criteria (Beckmann, Zeyen, & Krzeminska,
2014). Moreover, these motivations are contextual (even country-specific) and are
likely to evolve over the life cycle of the enterprise, indicating the need for
longitudinal monitoring to develop a process-oriented understanding of the
phenomenon.
The second and third themes of the chapter discuss issues of identity creation and
highlight that social entrepreneurs often reference their value-oriented motivations
to craft distinct identities. These identities are somewhat consistent with the grand
narrative of social entrepreneurship, suggesting the heroic, messianic nature of
social entrepreneurial activity. One can argue that there is indeed some validity to
such identity creation, supported by Gopi and Inir’s narratives. Two characteristics
of social enterprise test the perseverance of the entrepreneur’s value-oriented
motivations. First, both Gopi and Inir pointed to the gradual nature of tourism
intervention, according to which the targeted beneficiaries must take the initiative
and ownership of the intervention, after an initial period of experimentation. This
process can be long and frustrating, whereby “building trust and demonstrating the
value proposition to skeptical consumers [i.e. the community]” can be a significant
challenge (Allen, Bhatt, Ganesh, & Kulkarni, 2012, p. 52). Second, and in contrast
to the more traditional conceptualization of social enterprise that targets its bene-
ficiaries as consumers, the beneficiaries in tourism social enterprises are actively
involved in producing and delivering products and services to visiting tourists.
Most often, their culture is on display; they are the products themselves. Such
involvement indicates the need for a more delicate balance of the value-oriented
and traditional entrepreneurial motivations of the social entrepreneur. Both of those
characteristics of social enterprise necessitate a long-term, value-driven engage-
ment that may not support the economics underlying purely profit-driven motives.
Adherence to the rhetoric legitimacy of the grand narrative of social entrepre-
neurship is also a calculative endeavor that “bodes well for business”, as accepted
by both Gopi and Inir. To identity and eventually look beyond some of the myths
associated with social enterprise, one must examine the little narratives as well as
the counter narratives that constitute the reality of social enterprise (Palmas, 2012),
the fourth theme of the chapter. These alternative genres of discourse indicate the
nature of social entrepreneurship as bricolage; successful social entrepreneurship is
contingent on the capabilities of entrepreneurs to garner and share resources,
including knowledge. The concept of bricolage moves one’s understanding of
social entrepreneurship beyond that of Schumpeterian innovation to the mosaic of

actions that derive from the value-oriented and traditional entrepreneurial motiva-
tions of social entrepreneurs, within the context of institutional and structural
supports and constraints. Yet innovation is important to social entrepreneurial
organizations. However, the tendency to simply frame social enterprise as a grand
innovation, as opposed to recognizing its emergent nature, is limiting.
Useful Websites
The Blue Yonder: http://theblueyonder.com/
Grassroutes: http://www.grassroutes.co.in/
1. The chapter discusses two types of motivations—value-oriented and traditional

entrepreneurial. Do these motivations evolve over the lifecycle of the social
enterprise? How would a potential evolution in these motivations impact their
narration as well as the practice of social entrepreneurship at different stages of
the enterprise?
2. Value-oriented motivations and traditional entrepreneurial motivations are often
seen in conflict with each other. In what other ways can the two types of
motivations interact to impact the practice of social entrepreneurship?
3. How does the expression of their motivations impact the identities that social
entrepreneurs create for themselves? Is there a correlation between the types of
identities entrepreneurs create and their reference to specific types of
motivations?
4. How does the wider social entrepreneurial discourse impact the narration and the
practice of social entrepreneurship? Discuss these impacts in the context of both
the social entrepreneurs and the organizations that form part of the social
entrepreneurial ecosystem, for example incubator organizations.
5. What types of problems can you foresee as a result of a potential dissonance
between the narration of social entrepreneurship, its practice, and its popular
social discourse?
6. How does the idea of social entrepreneurship as bricolage impact the manner in
which social entrepreneurs express their motivations and create their identities?
How does bricolage differ from the popular social discourse of the phenomenon?
References
Abu-Saifan, S. (2012). Social entrepreneurship: Definition and boundaries. Technology Innovation

Management Review, 2(2), 22–27.
Allen, S., Bhatt, A., Ganesh, U., & Kulkarni, N. (2012). On the path to sustainability and scale: A
study of India’s social enterprise landscape. Retrieved June 10, 2015, from, http://intellecap.
com/publications/path-sustainability-and-scale-study-indias-social-enterprise-landscape
Baum, J., & Locke, E. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to
subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 587–598.
Beckmann, M., Zeyen, A., & Krzeminska, A. (2014). Mission, finance, and innovation: The
similarities and differences between social entrepreneurship and social business. In A. Grove
& G. Berg (Eds.), Social business (pp. 23–41). Berlin: Springer.
Beugre, C. (2011). Motivation to create social ventures: A theory of moral engagement. In
Entrepreneurship: Changing the present, creating the future. Hilton Head Island: United States
Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Bonney, R. (2004). Three giants of South Asia: Gandhi, Ambedkar and Jinnah on self-determi-
nation. Leicester: University of Leicester.
Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code develop-
ment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brandstatter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses.
Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 222–230.
Brouwer, M. T. (2002). Weber, Schumpeter and Knight on entrepreneurship and economic
development. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1-2), 83–105.
Concordia College. (n.d.). Muhammad Yunus. Retrieved September 23, 2014, from http://www.
cord.edu
Dann, G., & Cohen, E. (1991). Sociology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(1),
155–169.
Dees, J. (2001). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Retrieved August 19, 2015, from https://
entrepreneurship.duke.edu/news-item/the-meaning-of-social-entrepreneurship/
Dey, P., & Steyaert, C. (2010). The politics of narrating social entrepreneurship. Journal of
Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 4(1), 85–108.
Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing social value
creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 681–703.
Downing, S. (2005). The social construction of entrepreneurship: Narrative and dramatic pro-
cesses in the coproduction of organizations and identities. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 29(2), 185–204.
Froggett, L., & Chamberlayne, P. (2004). Narratives of social enterprise: From biography to
practice and policy critique. Qualitative Social Work, 3(1), 61–77.
Grassroutes. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved September 26, 2015, from http://grassroutes.co.in
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin &
Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Gundry, L., Kickul, J., & Griffiths, M. (2011). Creating social change out of nothing: The role of
entrepreneurial bricolage in social entrepreneurs’ catalytic innovations. Advances in Entrepre-
neurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 13(7), 1–24.
Hockerts, K. (2006). Entrepreneurial opportunity in social purpose business ventures. In J. Mair,
J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp. 142–154). London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Jones, R., Latham, J., & Betta, M. (2008). Narrative construction of the social entrepreneurial
identity. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 14(5), 330–345.
Mckenzie, B. (2007). Techniques for collecting verbal histories. In H. Neergaard & J. Ulhøi (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship (pp. 308–330). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Muir-Cochrane, E. C., & Fereday, J. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A
hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 1–11.
Palmas, K. (2012). Re-assessing Schumpeterian assumptions regarding entrepreneurship and the

social. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(2), 141–155.
Phillips, N., Tracey, P., & Karra, N. (2013). Building entrepreneurial tie portfolios through
strategic homophily: The role of narrative identity work in venture creation and early growth.
Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1), 134–150.
Ruebottom, T. (2013). The microstructures of rhetorical strategy in social entrepreneurship:
Building legitimacy through heroes and villains. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1), 98–116.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in the education
and social sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Shane, S., Locke, E., & Collins, C. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Man-
agement Review, 13(2), 257–279.
Steyaert, C., & Hjorth, D. (2006). Introduction: What is social in social entrepreneurship. In
C. Steyaert & D. Hjorth (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as social change: A third movements of
entrepreneurship book (pp. 1–18). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Tan, W.-L., Williams, J., & Tan, T.-M. (2005). Defining the “social” in “social entrepreneurship”:
Altruism and entrepreneurship. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
1(3), 353–365.
The Blue Yonder Associates. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved September 26, 2015, from http://
theblueyonder.com/
Yunus, M., & Weber, K. (2011). Building social business: The new kind of capitalism that serves
humanity’s most pressing needs. New York: Public Affairs.
Zahra, S., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D., & Shulman, J. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs:
Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5),
519–532.
Makarand Mody is Assistant Professor of Hospitality Marketing in Boston University’s School

of Hospitality Administration. He graduated with his Ph.D. from Purdue University. He received
his M.Sc. in Human Resource Management for Tourism and Hospitality from the University of
Strathclyde, and a Higher Diploma in Hospitality Management from IMI University Centre,
Switzerland. Dr. Mody has worked in the hotel and airlines industries in the areas of learning
and development and quality control. Most recently, he worked as Senior Research Manager for
one India’s largest market research firms. Makarand’s research focuses on issues pertaining to the
supply and demand of responsible tourism, tourism entrepreneurship and consumer behavior.
Jonathon Day is an Associate Professor in Purdue’s School of Hospitality and Tourism Man-
agement, has over 20 years’ experience in destination management. An award winning marketer,
Dr. Day has worked with destinations marketing organizations in Australia, New Zealand and the
United States. Dr. Day is committed to ensuring tourism is a force for good in the world. Dr. Day’s
research interests focus on sustainable tourism, responsible travel, and strategic destination
governance within the tourism system. He is interested in the role of business in solving grand
challenges through corporate social responsibility programs and social entrepreneurship.
Guludo Beach Lodge and the Nema
Foundation, Mozambique
Amy Carter-James and Ross Dowling
Abstract Mozambique in south east Africa is one of the poorest and most under-
developed countries in the world. It ranks amongst the lowest in GDP per capita,
human development, measures of inequality, and average life expectancy. The
country has a host of social, cultural and/or environmental problems. However,
one venture has been established which is making a huge contribution to the welfare
of many people in the north eastern part of the country. Guludo Beach Lodge was
founded in 2002 and is located in Quirimbas National Park in the Cabo Delgado
Province of Mozambique. The lodge is a community based eco-resort which is used
as the basis for funding the Nema Foundation which in turn supports a raft of social
projects in surrounding local communities. Nema is a UK registered charity work-
ing in the district of Macomia, Mozambique, with 16 communities to improve
access to education, safe drinking water, healthcare, food security and SMEs. It has
a diverse range of grass-root projects tailored to each community with donations
going directly to these projects bringing opportunities and hope to a new
generation.
Keywords Mozambique • Guludo Beach Lodge • Nema Foundation
1 Introduction
Mozambique remains one of the poorest and least developed countries in the world,
ranking 185 out of 187 countries on the 2013 Human Development Index (UNCDF,
2014), and the district of Macomia, where Guludo is located (Fig. 1), remains one of
the poorest in the country. In 2002, when the location was chosen life expectancy
was estimated at 38 years, infant mortality at one in three, and there was little access
to clean water. The local community were largely illiterate and unsustainable
A. Carter-James (*)
Guludo Beach Lodge, Mucojo, Mozambique
R. Dowling
School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia

222 A. Carter-James and R. Dowling
Fig. 1 Guludo, Mozambique
farming and fishing practices were the norm. School enrollment and attendance was
extremely low mainly due to the severe food shortages in the area. Their cultural
identity was slowly diminishing.
Guludo Beach Lodge (www.guludo.com) is an inspiring ecotourism venture that
has enabled 24,000 individuals to drink clean water, earn an income, appreciate
health, and live a longer life. Its conception was firmly based on the idea of social
entrepreneurship. This chapter considers ways this venture has impacted the lives of
people living in and nearby environments in areas surrounding the lodge. Ecotour-
ism ventures must encourage local communities to take on a level of control in the
projects, equally distributing the benefits derived from ecotourism activities in
order to be considered ‘successful’ (Fennell, 2015). An empowerment framework
has been established as a mechanism to analyze the economic, psychological, social
and political impacts that ecotourism can have on local communities (Singh,
Timothy, & Dowling, 2003). This case study focuses on the benefits that Guludo
Beach Lodge has had on its surrounding communities.
Guludo Beach Lodge and the Nema Foundation, Mozambique 223
2 Community-Based Tourism
Tourism is an important activity which offers communities many economic benefits

(Egmond, 2007; Mowforth & Munt, 2015; Murphy, 2013). As well as these
economic benefits, the other favourable aspects of local tourism development
include supporting cultural conservation (Picard, 2008) and attaining a better living
standard for the communities involved, with tourism being a medium and catalyst
for achieving this goal (Singh, 2012). Community Based Tourism uses the local
environment and culture as attractions (Ernawati, Dowling, & Sanders, 2015;
Fagence, 2003). It also differs from natural area tourism and ecotourism, both of
which focus on experiencing and learning about the undisturbed natural environ-
ment as a main attraction (Fluker & Richardson, 2008). Whilst often occurring in
natural rural settings, community based tourism is distinguished by the inclusion of
experiencing the environment and culture of the host communities as well as their
daily lives.
Ecotourism can involve both cultural and environmental tourism, integrating
activities to benefit to the local population (Holden, 2016). International tourists are
creating an upsurge of demand for ecotourism ventures in ‘natural’, ‘remote’ and
‘exotic’ locations, particularly in developing countries (Ballantyne & Packer,
2013). A useful way to discern responsible community-based ecotourism is to
approach it from a development perspective. This is reflected in the social, envi-
ronmental and economic goals, and considers how ecotourism can meet the needs
of the host population in terms of improved living standards both in the short and
long term. Ecotourism ventures should only be considered successful if host
communities have some measure of control over the projects and if they share
equitably in the benefits emerging from ecotourism activities (Scheyvens, 1999).
Community-based approaches to ecotourism need to acknowledge the importance
of social dimensions of the tourism experience, rather than primarily focusing on
the environmental or economic impacts (Newsome, Moore, & Dowling, 2013).
3 Guludo Beach Lodge
The Guludo Beach Lodge is an eco-resort founded by Amy Carter-James and her
husband Neal in 2002 (Figs. 2 and 3). The Lodge is located on a 12 km palm-fringed
beach in one of the poorest areas of Mozambique (Nema Foundation, 2016).
Guludo is fairly remote, situated 3½ h away from the nearest town. The pair
chose this site as it held excellent tourism potential being located within the
boundary of Quirimbas National Park, which was declared World Natural Heritage
in October 2003 (Giraldo, 2009). Their goal was to demonstrate how successfully
implementing philanthropy into a tourism business could benefit the local poverty
stricken communities.
Fig. 2 An adobe Banda (Source: Amy Carter-James)
Fig. 3 Inside an adobe Banda (Source: Francisco Rivotti)
The owners of the Lodge used the business initiative as the basis for their charity,
the Nema Foundation, by means of creating the driving force, income and logistical
support. Together, these two organizations form the holistic entrepreneurial con-
cept of a business model operating on fair trade principles and supporting social
projects in local communities in Northern Mozambique (Giraldo, 2009). The Nema
Foundation (www.nemafoundation.org) was established to ‘tackle all roots of
poverty working in; health, water, education, enterprise and environment’. Nema
is funded by a percentage of the income of Guludo Beach Lodge and is run by
members of the community creating community ownership. The charity is

partnered with 16 local communities to implement projects that will essentially
enhance the lives of 24,000 people.
4 Empowerment Framework
Friedmann (1992) developed an empowerment framework for determining the

impacts of ecotourism enterprises on local communities. There are four levels of
empowerment: economic, psychological, social and political (Friedmann, 1992;
Scheyvens, 1999; Singh et al., 2003). This next section analyses the Lodge in terms
of its contributions based on the empowerment framework.
4.1 Economic Empowerment
Ecotourism and community based tourism ventures must consider opportunities for
economic gain in terms of both formal and informal sector employment and
business prospects. Economic gains derived from ecotourism activities are usually
experienced by a community; however, issues may arise if the income is inconsis-
tent and unreliable. Concerns may also develop over inequity in the distribution of
economic benefits, which is equally important as the actual amount of benefits a
community may receive. This is critical in determining the success and sustainabil-
ity of an ecotourism venture.
The owners sought expert architects to consult the design of the eco-lodge
during the planning and developing stages. All materials used in the construction
of the Lodge were produced locally. For example, the floor tiles in the Lodge are
made from pottery that the local women at the village hand-made. The building
process served to develop local capabilities and empower local people with new
skills, knowledge and techniques. The lodge works closely with over 150 local
suppliers and employs more than 50 staff members from the local village and
surrounding communities. There are also six local craft enterprises that allow locals
to sell their products directly to guests, instantly creating an income to support
themselves and their families. This has enabled many families and individuals to
earn income and learn the value of employment and responsibility.
Concerns over inequity in the spread of economic benefits were void as Nema
Foundation is run by members of the community and works to alleviate poverty
throughout the entire 16 communities. For example, there are presently 47 water
points in the area, providing clean and safe water to 24,000 people (Fig. 4).
Mozambique is an area rife with malaria and HIV, therefore, more than 9000
mosquito nets and malaria workshops have been provided to families and individ-
uals, helping to protect children and educate parents on the facts of malaria and
HIV. Nutrition, hygiene and sanitation is another major issue for the poor and rural
Fig. 4 A new water point in Guludo Village (Source: Francisco Rivotti)
communities, therefore 3000 nutritional workshops were established and presented

to families; predominately focusing on women as the primary caretakers of chil-
dren. Nema has helped to establish the one health clinic and alongside the govern-
ment run an ambulance service for the local population.
Five primary schools have been developed as part of the education initiative and
over 260 students have received full secondary school scholarships since 2007. Due
to the severe food shortage in the Guludo area, Nema has established a school
feeding program, providing 1000 school children with one highly nutritious meal a
day (Fig. 5), dramatically boosting school attendance. Moreover, a school farms
initiative has been developed with hopes of 1 day replacing the food bought from
central Mozambique. With Nema having been set up as an independent charity, this
has enabled the foundation to fundraise independently for its community projects.
By far the majority of our funding has come from past guests (and their companies).
An example is Laura Tennison, from JoJo Maman Bebe, who was a guest in
Guludo. Laura is now a Nema trustee and her company have been Nema’s major
funders for the last couple of years.
Economic empowerment or disempowerment can also refer to the local
community’s access to productive resources used to produce goods and services
in an area now targeted by ecotourism. For example, the establishment of protected
areas, such as Quirimbas National Park, limits access to hunting and agricultural
lands. In terms of the equitable distribution of benefits, this is of concern, parti-
cularly to conservationists as local people will usually only continue to support
conservation efforts if this provides aid to their own development (Scheyvens,
1999). The Guludo community has learned the value of sustainable farming and
fishing practices as small number of people in the community have assisted expats
involved in researching and developing conservation projects for Nema, such as in
Fig. 5 The school meals project at Ningaia Primary School (Source: Amy Carter-James)
humpback whale research, preparing a seafood buyer’s guide, and undertaking reef
surveys.
More people in the community now understand the value in forestry and
agriculture, as they now support the development of farms such as chicken and
goat farms within the two primary schools. Another initiative implemented is
assisting families to develop kitchen gardens, where they learn to grow their own
vegetables and herbs. Nema has developed and supported several agricultural
associations to improve agricultural techniques and protect the coastal forest
(Fig. 6). For example, this project ran for 3 years but the community was not able
to achieve sustainability. When the funding secured through Helvetas, a local Swiss
NGO, finished, the associations were overly reliant on Nema’s technician for
material support and motivation. In future Nema is going to re-design the project
focussing more on local, highly motivated entrepreneurs and it will provide them
with technical support and access to micro-loans.
4.2 Psychological Empowerment
To maintain a community’s sense of self-esteem and well-being, it is vital to

preserve the tradition and cultural identity of many small-scale, undeveloped
societies. A local community that is hopeful about the future, is self-reliant, and
demonstrates pride in traditions and culture, is more psychologically empowered.
Community based tourism that is considerate of cultural norms and builds respect
for local traditions can be empowering for the local people.
Fig. 6 The Nagalue farmer’s association (Source: Francisco Rivotti)
At Guludo guests have the opportunity to visit the villages surrounding the
Lodge to see what every-day life is to the local people. A typical village tour
commences with a visit to the ‘barracas’ or small shops, where guests are able to
purchase material which is then taken to the tailor to skillfully craft into a garment
of choice. Guests also have the opportunity to see the primary school, the chief’s
house, the mosque and discover a typical village home. The self-esteem of many
community members are enhanced because of outside recognition of the unique-
ness and value of their culture, their natural resources and their traditional
knowledge.
A collaboration of small women’s cooperative was selected to make and produce
soap with medicinal properties. Ten ladies were chosen who presented an interest in
the micro-enterprise based on who had the most suffering or the largest families to
support alone. This project provided the women with confidence, identity and
income that will ultimately improve their quality of life, but not disproportionately
greater than anyone else, averting social disempowerment. Several other groups,
consisting mainly of women, have been established within the local area to sell
goods directly within their communities, to the resort guests, and finally to the
owners. These goods are made from traditional materials produced locally and
includes palm and bamboo weaved items, ceramics, and bracelets and trinkets
(Fig. 7). Guests are strongly encouraged to purchase merchandise from these groups
to help boost the community’s and the women’s cultural identity and importance.
The additional support and encouragement of enterprise development within the
Fig. 7 Housekeeping ladies modeling Nema bags, Guludo Beach (Source: Guludo Beach Lodge)
local community has helped to establish cultural identity and boost self-esteem,
particularly in traditionally low-status sectors of society such as women and youth.
Community members have been inspired and eager to seek out further education
and training opportunities as a result of learning how to speak, read, and write in
English. Guludo Beach Lodge works with 150 local suppliers and employs more
than 50 local people from the village and other surrounding villages. In Guludo,
there are two ethnic groups, the Macau and the Mwani who speak Portuguese and
Ki-Mwana respectively (Giraldo, 2009). The co-founders encountered difficulties
employing members of the host community as a result of the language barrier,
therefore English language classes for all employees were established free of
charge (Giraldo, 2009). The management regards their staff speaking English as
an important quality as majority of guests are from English speaking countries.
4.3 Social Empowerment
Social empowerment is reflected by a community’s sense of cohesion and integrity

that has been strengthened by an activity such as ecotourism. Signs of an
empowered community may include strong community groups such as youth
groups, church groups and women’s groups. Social empowerment through com-
munity based tourism occurs when revenue earned through tourism activity is used
to fund social development projects, such as water supply systems or health clinics
etc., in the local area.
The Guludo community displays many attributes of a strong community with the
development of several different women’s and youth groups. A local drama group
training youths has been established. The drama group performs theatre-like plays
about the dangers of HIV, particularly targeting teenagers between the ages of
15–19 years. The response of this initiative has been tremendous with whole
villages watching the performances. Another project implemented has been village
football that has enhanced social empowerment for the locals. Neal, co-founder and
ex-football player regularly trains the Guludo Football Team which ultimately
connects the entire community. It presents an opportunity for the craft groups to
display their products and a great opportunity for guests to interact with staff and
other local villages who spectate. The local primary school also gets involves with
organising children’s games (both girls and boys) that are enthusiastic about
learning and playing the sport.
Community cohesion has been improved as many individuals and families work
together to build successful ecotourism ventures. Support for orphaned and vulner-
able children and specialized outreach programs have been established within the
communities providing crucial support for over 200 children and their extended
families. The orphaned and vulnerable children of Naunde have created many
products that are available for purchase through the Nema shop located within
the village. The children have made numerous items such as cars and trucks that are
made from local materials. For example, the body of the vehicle is made from
bamboo found in the bush and the wheels made from fizzy drink cans and flip-flops
that have been cut into pieces. This project demonstrates how different social
groups are developing new and innovative initiatives to help provide them, their
extended families, and community with invaluable income, while using recyclable
products. Nema’s primary objective is to ‘help people help themselves’, reflecting
the phase in which they often use ‘working not begging’ as a principle to adopt
within the community.
4.4 Political Empowerment
Community based tourism ventures can politically empower the host communities
by encouraging and insisting their concerns and opinions of any ecotourism project
are voiced from the feasibility stage through to its implementation. Communities
with diverse interest groups should include representation of women and youths in
community organisations and comprehensive decision-making forums. Local com-
munities can exert control over the tourism activities by placing representations
from grassroots organisations and indigenous institutions on broader bodies such as
national parks boards or regional tourism associations.
The Guludo villages have developed their own committee through the Nema
Foundation to promote tourism in the area and protect their local environment while
addressing any concerns of the local community. All proposed projects must be
approved by majority of the villagers, thus contributing to their creation of their
own development (Giraldo, 2009). Forming these organisations help communities

gain political strength to deal with outsiders such as government officials and
private sectors (Singh et al., 2003). Nema does not operate on the basis of benefi-
ciaries, but of partners, where communities requiring support are invited by Nema
to become associates (Giraldo, 2009). The process involves a written agreement
and the village council establishes a partnership committee to manage the projects.
The committee includes a president, a secretary (recognised by the community as a
good and diplomatic leader), a treasurer (trusted by both the community and Nema),
and one representative for each the different areas of work—education, health,
water, fisheries, and agriculture (Giraldo, 2009). If the community decides they
would like to cooperate with Nema the decision is expressed in a document carrying
100 signatures with the number of either male or female signatories not exceeding
60 %, thus, taking into account the criterion of gender equality (Giraldo, 2009).
However, it should be noted that lately the official ‘partnership’ with communi-
ties has become more theoretical than practical. In practice Nema works more with
project committees and the existing village ‘structure’ than the specific committees.
Working with the village structures (which have a president, secretary, treasurer
etc), strengthens the community’s leadership, makes them more organised and
allows them to access government funds and opportunities. However, although
the theory of getting signatures is a good one, the projects that are implemented
always have overwhelming support, enthusiasm and absolutely no resistance at all.
The decision to implement proposed projects within a village commences with
an inquiry addressed to the committee to assess the needs and agree upon the scope
of the project and the contributions proposed by Nema and the village community
(Giraldo, 2009). The agreement is then stated as a written contract, signed by the
president, secretary, treasurer and representatives of the respective areas of work.
The agreement must be approved and signed by another 50 villages, with the
number of male or female co-signers not exceeding 60 %. Nema evaluates the
project proposal leading to the approval or rejection. The partnership committee is
responsible for the routine maintenance of technical projects, such as implementing
water pumps. The community’s political structure is reflective of the political
empowerment throughout the village, ensuring that all decisions and projects are
thoroughly discussed and approved by the relevant communities.
5 The Role of the Social Entrepreneur
The good relationship established between the entrepreneur and the team and local
community has been an essential element in achieving all that has been done to
date. The lodge is now in a position where only a small number of expatriate
workers are required in the management of both Guludo and Nema. However, these
people generally stay on average only between 1 and 2½ years. This change of
management is unsettling and the only way they are accepted relatively quickly is
due to the trust that has developed over the years between the founder and local
stakeholders.
When the founders first arrived at Guludo Beach, they made a number of
mistakes. One of the most significant was to enthusiastically tell our stakeholders
of all our hopes, dreams and plans for the project. This unfairly built expectations
and within weeks of arriving people were asking where their school was and new
water point etc. It was very difficult to explain that the first steps were to get
licenses, then build, open and start getting some revenue to be able to embark on
any specific community projects. However, when the lodge began to be built the
creation of jobs and skill development slowly started to build trust within the
community.
There have been plenty of ups, downs and misunderstandings but as communi-
cation has improved, these problems have been resolved more easily and occur less
frequently.
6 Challenges
When establishing a business in a country like Mozambique, there are certain to be

a number of challenges. Setting up both the Guludo Beach Lodge and the Nema
Foundation, were not exceptions. The largest challenge faced by the founders was
the overarching extent of the country’s bureaucracy, something that still challenges
them today. Simply understanding the process needed to gain licenses, approvals
and work permits was extremely difficult and costly. Another issue was handling
the expectation of ‘having to pay’ if processes were to be ‘expedited’. One example
was the impossible follow through on promised tax exemptions, insisting that much
of the lodge’s investment was ‘income’ and therefore attracting additional taxes.
More recently the Health Department would not support the lodge in the import of
two ambulances so additional funds were then taken out of operational costs to
cover the cost of the import tax.
Another significant problem was that just about all of the local staff had never
worked before. Therefore, they had little understanding of their rights and respon-
sibilities as employees. In the early days this was a major challenge. Because the
founders were foreigners, most local people expected us to exploit them so on
several occasions we had full staff walkouts for incredibly trivial reasons, such as if
someone was not paid for a day they chose to take off without reason. It took a lot of
time and patience for staff to begin to understand their rights as well as trust the
owners. The only long term solution found was in the promotion of local, a highly
respected members of the team to senior management levels, who made fair
workplace decisions which were then clearly explained to the team.
Another challenge that the lodge leaders are still working on is in relation to the
division between Guludo Lodge (the business) and Nema Foundation (the charity).
Through setting Nema up as an independent UK-registered charity the owners have
been able to gain support and fundraise independently of Guludo. However, this
means that the Foundation’s assets and resources must be kept completely separate
which can be challenging, especially as Nema has full access to all Guludo’s
resources, facilities and team. Clear boundaries have to be made and tensions
have sometimes arisen and divisions between the two teams made, despite them
both working towards the same goal.
Guludo has always been under-resourced. This meant that experts could not be
brought in to assist in the lodge’s development. As a result the lodge owners have
always had to work hard to achieve their goals. One outcome of this situation is that
the founders have been forced to be creative and explore local solutions to over-
come problems. As a consequence this has left the lodge vulnerable to market
fluctuations and events outside the lodge’s control. For example, an accidental fire
in August 2012 meant that, 3 years later, the lodge is still recovering from loses
incurred.
7 Conclusion
The empowerment framework analyses the impacts that ecotourism ventures have
on local communities and emphasises the importance of equally distributing the
benefits gained from ecotourism activities. The framework addresses the impor-
tance of communities exerting control over ecotourism initiatives in their area and
stresses the value of involving the host community in all stages of planning and
development. The Guludo Beach Lodge demonstrates a positive empowerment
framework, working alongside the host community to achieve their needs and
interests of both conserving the local environment and promoting development at
the local level.
Questions
1. Before the Nema Foundation was established, less than 1 % of children in the
area went to secondary school and less than 20 % completed all 7 years at
primary school. However, since 2006 Nema has built two primary schools,
feeds 820 primary school children a daily meal and has helped to support over
250 children with secondary school scholarships. What other tasks could the
Foundation undertake to complement the education it provides for children of
the local communities?
2. Life expectancy in the region is just 40 years old and 21 % of children do not
survive their 5th birthday. Malaria, malnutrition, HIV/AIDS and diarrhea are
still a problem and Nema is combatting these diseases by raising awareness in
the communities and improving access to essential health services. There are no
ambulances in the region at present so research some alternative forms of
transport which could enable people to be transferred to hospital quickly in
case of emergencies?
3. When Nema first started less than 50 % of the population had access to safe
drinking water and the majority of pumps were in disrepair. However, the
Foundation has built or rehabilitated 48 water points which now provide access
to safe drinking water for over 20,000 people. What else is required now to
ensure that the pumps keep working and that local people know how to work
them?
4. The vast majority of people living in the Guludo area rely on subsistence farming
and fishing, leaving them extremely vulnerable to crop-raiding elephants,
droughts, floods and diminishing fish stocks. With tremendous pressure on
parents to find food for the family, many children must help in the farms instead
of going to school. What are some enterprises which could be established to help
the local people achieve a sustainable level of existence?
Acknowledgement The authors wish to thank Taylor Rawlings, Industry Advisor, Tourism
Council Western Australia for her contribution to this chapter for which she undertook research
whilst an undergraduate student at Edith Cowan University.
References
Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (Eds.). (2013). International handbook on ecotourism. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Egmond, T. V. (2007). Understanding western tourists in developing countries. Norfolk: Biddles
Ltd.
Ernawati, N., Dowling, R. K., & Sanders, D. (2015). Tourists’ perceptions of community based
tourist products for sustainable tourism in Bali, Indonesia. In M. Hughes, D. Weaver, &
C. Pforr (Eds.), The practice of sustainable tourism: Resolving the paradox (pp. 95–112).
London: Routledge.
Fagence, M. (2003). Tourism and local society and culture. In S. Singh, D. J. Timothy, & R. K.
Dowling (Eds.), Tourism in destination communities (pp. 55–78). Oxford: CABI.
Fennell, D. A. (2015). Ecotourism (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
Fluker, M., & Richardson, J. I. (2008). Understanding and managing tourism. Frenchs Forest,
NSW: Pearson.
Friedmann, J. (1992). Empowerment: The politics of alternative development. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Giraldo, A. (2009). Guludo Beach Lodge: Guludo blueprint. Retrieved October 20, 2015, from
http://www.todo-contest.org/preistraeger-en/pdf/guludo-preis-e.pdf
Holden, A. (2016). Environment and tourism (3rd ed.). Oxford: Routledge.
Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2015). Tourism and sustainability: Development, globalisation and
new tourism in the Third World (4th ed.). Oxford: Routledge.
Murphy, P. E. (2013). Tourism: A community approach. Oxford: Routledge.
Nema Foundation. (2016). Nema Foundation. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from http://www.guludo.
com/content/nema-foundation
Newsome, D., Moore, S. A., & Dowling, R. K. (2013). Natural area tourism: Ecology, impacts &
management (2nd ed.). Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Picard, M. (2008). Balinese identity as tourist attraction from ‘cultural tourism’ (pariwisata
budaya) to ‘Bali erect’ (ajeg Bali). Tourist Studies, 8(2), 155–173.
Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Man-
agement, 20(1), 245–249.
Singh, T. V. (2012). Introduction. In T. V. Singh (Ed.), Critical debates in tourism (pp. 1–26).
Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Singh, S., Timothy, D., & Dowling, R. K. (Eds.). (2003). Tourism in destination communities.
Wallingford, CT: CABI.
UNCDF. (2014). The United Nations Capital Development Fund in Mozambique. Retrieved
October 20, 2015, from http://www.uncdf.org.en/Mozambique
Amy Carter-James combined her passion for relieving poverty and conservation in the creation
of Guludo, an innovative social enterprise, in 2002. Through the development of a boutique
eco-resort and charitable foundation, Guludo continues to relieve poverty for over 24,000 people
living in rural Mozambique. Guludo has become a leader in responsible tourism and has received a
plethora of international awards. Amy also founded Thin Cats Thinking, assisting hotels and
resorts to work more efficiently with local communities to maximise their positive impact. Amy is a
partner in TribeWanted and Origin Paddleboards and sits on the advisory board for Global Angels.
Amy has received many personal honours and awards including Young Social Entrepreneur of the
Year in 2006 and the IHIF’s Young Leader in 2011.
Ross Dowling OAM is Foundation Professor of Tourism, School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan
University, Western Australia. He is Co-founder and a Life Member of Ecotourism Australia and is a
Member of the World Commission on Protected Areas. Professor Dowling conducts international
research in the fields of ecotourism, geotourism and cruise ship tourism and has published 12 books
on these subjects. He is a Director of Ideology (www.ideology.net.au) which provides global advice
for the tourism industry. In 2011 he was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for his contri-
butions to hospitality and tourism, education and the development of ecotourism.
The BEST Society: From Charity to Social
Entrepreneurship
Jamie Murphy, Albert Teo, Casey Murphy, and Eunice Liu
Abstract This chapter is a case study of a multi-award winning Malaysian

non-governmental organization (NGO), the Borneo Ecotourism Solutions and
Technologies (BEST) Society, and its sustainable community development
model. The case study draws upon social entrepreneurship literature, Diffusion of
Innovations theory and the concept of toxic charity to propose a four-step sustain-
able community development model, which nurtures social entrepreneurship in the
final step. As financial difficulties increasingly trim direct and indirect govern-
mental support for those in need, NGOs such as BEST seek to address this shortfall
with long-term and sustainable solutions for the underprivileged and underserved.
Based on almost two decades of experience, BEST has learned that simply giving
charity creates dependency, a non-sustainable and temporary patch that tends to
make the recipients worse off than receiving no charity. BEST has shifted from
giving charity to developing social entrepreneurs, who create and sustain both social
and private value. The first step in BEST’s community development model, commu-
nity consensus, drives the next three steps: interrupting dependency, building capa-
city and developing social entrepreneurs. The final step gives the recipients self-
belief, self-reliance, self-determination and self-esteem. The chapter and accom-
panying model provide recommendations for application and future scholarly research
of social entrepreneurship and sustainable community development.
Keywords Borneo Ecotourism Solutions and Technologies (BEST) • Diffusion of

innovation • Social enterprise • Toxic charity • Community development model
J. Murphy (*) • E. Liu

Australian School of Management, Perth, WA, Australia
A. Teo
Borneo Eco Tours, Sabah, Malaysia
C. Murphy
Australian School of Management, Perth, WA, Australia
Notre Dame University Australia, Perth, WA, Australia

238 J. Murphy et al.
1 Introduction
Three inter-related concepts—corporate social responsibility, social innovation and

social entrepreneurship—continue to develop momentum with governments, indus-
try and academia (Dees & Anderson, 2006; Phillips, Lee, & Ghobadian, 2015). Yet
despite heightened industry and governmental awareness of the need for these inter-
related concepts, financial constraints are decreasing support for social programs
and non-profit organizations (Bielefeld, 2009; Borzaga & Galera, 2014). This
growing contradiction between awareness of societal obligations and budget real-
ities has led to questioning existing solutions such as charity, exemplified by
voluntourism in hospitality and tourism, while researching and implementing
models to improve social capital and sustain communities (Lupton, 2011; Proehl,
2015; Richter & Norman, 2010; Simpson, 2014).
Such sustainable community development continues to grow in importance with
industry, academics, governments and non-governmental organizations (Jensen,
2010; Kiss, 2004; Salazar, 2012). Controversial at times for both practitioners
and scholars, the area merits additional research and theoretical development
(Frances & Cuskelly, 2008; Hall, Matos, & Lorn, 2012; Lupton, 2011; Schellhorn,
2010). Scholars and industry often suggest social entrepreneurship (SE), a process
that integrates economic and social value creation, as a key tool for sustainable
community development (Dees, 1998; Mair & Marti, 2006). Correspondingly,
scholars call for the use of theory, such as Rogers (2003) Diffusion of Innovations
(DOI), to advance SE research (Bielefeld, 2009; Choi & Majumdar, 2015; Dees &
Anderson, 2006; Hoogendoorn, Pennings, & Thurik, 2010; Short, Moss, &
Lumpkin, 2009).
This chapter draws on SE and DOI, a popular theory of new ideas and techno-
logies, to support a proposed model and share a case study of sustainable commu-
nity development. Focusing on implementing an innovation rather than adopting an
innovation, as this case study illustrates, helps critique community development
(Hall et al., 2012). Rather than giving charity, which often leads to a dependency
culture (Frances & Cuskelly, 2008; Lupton, 2011; Proehl, 2015; Richter & Norman,
2010; Simpson, 2014), this case study proposes a sustainable development model
that culminates with SE.
1.1 The Borneo Ecotourism Solutions and Technologies

Society
The case study begins in 1995, when Borneo Eco Tours (BET) and the Sukau
Rainforest Lodge (SRL) undertook removing Salvinia Molesta—an invasive Bra-
zilian fern—from the Kelenanap Oxbow Lake that flows into Sabah’s Kinabatangan
River. BET and SRL, respectively sit in western and eastern Sabah, a Malaysian
The BEST Society: From Charity to Social Entrepreneurship 239
state on the Island of Borneo. From this initial project, the two companies launched
the non-profit Borneo Ecotourism Solutions and Technologies (BEST) Society.
Over the years BEST has garnered corporate support for additional community
projects—water tanks, tree plantings and medical camps—and won numerous
global ecotourism awards. BEST received the 2014 United Nations World Tourism
Organization’s (UNWTO) Ulysses Award for innovation in the NGO Category for
its ‘From Charity to Social Entrepreneurship’ submission. The UNWTO Awards
seek to recognize and stimulate knowledge creation, dissemination and innovative
applications in tourism. And in 2015, National Geographic selected the Sukau
Rainforest Lodge as one of its 24 charter ‘Unique Lodges of the World’, for its
commitment to authenticity, excellence and sustainability.
Today, BET and SRL contribute about half of BEST’s annual budget. From
2010 onward, BEST has received grants from corporate sponsors for social entre-
preneurship initiatives that include capacity-building projects in Kimihang, Kudat
(USD 50,000), organic farming in Sikuati, Kudat (USD 21,500), living water
projects in five villages in Pitas (USD 22,500) and Camp Lemaing (USD 36,000).
BEST Society’s latest project, Camp Lemaing, is an eco-lodge that provides
employment and raises community development funds for the local Dusun people
in Kiau Nuluh, near Mt. Kinabalu. BET and BEST market and operate the eco
camp, with plans to transition Camp Lemaing operations to the Dusun community
in 2020. BEST’s Community Fund provided an interest-free loan for half the USD
81,000 Camp Lemaing project. Unfortunately, mudslides and floods subsequent to
a 5.9 Richter scale Mt Kinabalu earthquake on 5 June, 2015 destroyed Camp
Lemaing camp.
1.2 BEST’s Sustainable Development Model
From occasional projects such as providing water tanks and medical clinics, the
BEST Society has shifted from its original philosophy of giving welfare to the local
community to sustainable capacity building such as community development
seminars and aiding locals to market virgin coconut oil. Past BEST projects include
technical support for the Bavanggazo Longhouse in 1996, water tanks and tree
planting in Kinabatangan and medical clinics in Kinabatangan and Mantanani
Island that benefitted approximately 2342 people. Based in part on prior project
implementations, BEST continues to grow and apply its four-step model to develop
social entrepreneurs—those who create and sustain both social and private value
(Hall et al., 2012).
BEST’s model (see Fig. 1 below) begins with community consensus, which
leads to priorities within the next three steps: interrupting dependency (Frances &
Cuskelly, 2008; Lupton, 2011; Teo & Patterson, 2005), building capacity such as
local guides (Jensen, 2010; Salazar, 2012) and developing social entrepreneurship
(Hall et al., 2012; Schellhorn, 2010). Rather than providing charity, this model is
Community
Consensus
Developing Social Interrupting

4 Entrepreneurship Dependency 2
Buildong Capacity
3
Fig. 1 Sustainable community development model
sustainable and helps give the locals self-belief, self-reliance, self-determination

and self-esteem. The model then begins again, with community consensus.
The next section, a brief review of the literature, opens with an overview of the
Diffusion of Innovations, the theoretical foundation for examining Social Entre-
preneurship and the related dangers of Toxic Charity. An explanation of the
Methodology, a case study, follows prior to introducing the findings and proposed
four-step model of Sustainable Community Development. The chapter closes with
limitations, implications and proposed future research avenues.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Diffusion of Innovations
The Diffusion of Innovations is one of the most popular and cited theories for
investigating and understanding the adoption and implementation of innovations by
individuals, communities, organizations and countries (Jeyaraj, Rottman, & Lacity,
2006). Diffusion research began at the turn of the twentieth century and coalesced
in the early 1960s with the publication of Everett M. Rogers’ Diffusion of
Innovations. Now in its fifth edition, the book integrates diffusion research across
diverse fields such as agriculture, anthropology, communication, education, health
care, marketing, management and sociology (Rogers, 2003).
Three diffusion findings relevant to SE are the concept of change agents, the
unexpected and undesirable consequences of an innovation, and the distinction
between the adoption and implementation of an innovation (Rogers, 2003). For
example, an individual’s adoption of a smartphone may not result in efficient or
effective use of the phone’s many features. Regarding undesirable consequences,
the change agents promoting the adoption an innovation may not foresee the
medium- to long-term consequences of using/implementing that innovation.
Rogers (2003) illustrates such negative outcomes with two community exam-
ples, Finnish Laplanders adopting snowmobiles and Australian Aboriginals
adopting steel axes. Although promoted to facilitate reindeer herding, the outcome
was just the opposite. “The snowmobile revolution pushed the Skolt Lapps into a
tailspin of cash dependency, debt and unemployment (Rogers, 2003, p. 439).” In
Australia, missionaries gave steel axes to the Yir Yoront tribe as an alternative to
their stone implements. Rather than ameliorating living conditions, the steel axes
led to a breakdown of community structure, trading patterns and religious festivals,
and increased dependency and prostitution. This Australian example highlights the
toxic outcome of giving charity.
2.2 Toxic Charity
Based on four decades of missionary experience with churches, government agen-

cies, entrepreneurs and volunteers, Lupton (2011) concludes that good intentions
can translate into wasted efforts and resources, ineffective care and even harm the
recipients. Furthermore, charities often do for those in need what they could do for
themselves. Similar to the unexpected diffusion outcomes of snowmobiles in
Lapland and steel axes in Australia, charity has a negative outcome—developing
dependency. Giving charity is often a paternalistic and disempowering outcome
that destroys personal initiative, erodes the work ethic and cannot elevate people
out of poverty.
As Lupton (2011, p. 30) explains,
Give once and you elicit appreciation.
Give twice and your create anticipation.
Give three times and you create expectation.
Give four times and it becomes entitlement.
Give five times and you establish dependency.
In hospitality and tourism, scholars point to voluntourism—volunteers from first
world countries give their time in developing countries—as a type of toxic charity
(Proehl, 2015; Richter & Norman, 2010; Simpson, 2014). These volunteers pro-
vided needed skills and help, but at the same time develop a sense of dependency
and attachment with the recipients. When the volunteers leave, the recipients
may have a sense of abandonment and be worse off than with no volunteer help.
The solution, Lupton (2011) argues, is to evaluate charity by the benefits
received by the served. Rather than needs-based development, charities, govern-
ments and non-governmental organizations should focus on assets-based commu-
nity development, such as social entrepreneurship. Rather than disempowering
those in need, social entrepreneurship empowers the community to draw on and
develop its strengths.
2.3 Summary
The Diffusion of Innovations theory, particularly change agents’ role in the adop-
tion and implementation of an innovation, helps to explain developing sustainable
community projects that yield social entrepreneurs. However, community devel-
opment, particularly via charity, can have unintended negative consequences.
Rather than a top-down approach by well-meaning organizations, sustainable com-
munity projects involve key stakeholders in both the project adoption and imple-
mentation. This empowerment gives the community ownership and helps break the
toxic charity cycle. The proposed four-step community development model can
yield social entrepreneurs that create new employment opportunities, address
social concerns and lift communities out of poverty.
3 Methodology
According to Stake (2000), the case study method has a place in both qualitative
and quantitative research. Rather than a research methodological choice, the case
study method enables researchers to carry out their research efforts holistically,
hermeneutically and analytically. The case study method is ubiquitous in numerous
research disciplines ranging from education to social science (Yin, 2014). Research
questions such as “who” and “what” require a change in actions and situations
underpin the case study conceptual structure. The case study method seems relevant
and appropriate to investigate how indigenous natives in primitive and eco-
nomically deprived conditions transition to independent sustainable communities
through social entrepreneurship (Jensen, 2010; Salazar, 2012). Information and
examples for this case study stemmed from the BEST website (bestsociety.org),
the book Saving Paradise (Teo & Patterson, 2005) and Albert Teo, the founder
of BEST.
4 Proposed Model
4.1 Community Consensus
The model’s first step, community consensus, is ongoing and mandatory for sustain-
able community development (Rogers, 2003). Without consensus, “weak insti-
tutions coupled with alert entrepreneurs encourage destructive outcomes,” such as
crime and social exclusion (Hall et al., 2012, p. 785). For example, economic bene-
fits from tourism development often flow on to outsiders rather than locals, parti-
cularly local women (Schellhorn, 2010). As with the diffusion of any innovation,
community consensus goes beyond the adoption of an idea to include the subse-
quent outcomes of implementing that idea (Rogers, 2003).
BEST continually engages the community, building trust and developing rela-
tionships. Dinners with local leaders help elicit mutual interests and identify com-
munity strengths, weaknesses, priorities, project champions and potential stumbling
blocks. For example the endangered Borneo Pygmy Elephant, an ecotourism draw,
destroys the locals’ village cemeteries and palm oil gardens.
An ongoing process, consensus building delves into implementation issues such
as religious or cultural taboos (Jensen, 2010; Salazar, 2012) and social and eco-
nomic inclusion (Hall et al., 2012; Schellhorn, 2010). Family conflict, cash mis-
management and a lack of business understanding often surface with BEST
projects. Listening and responding to their concerns underscores BEST’s interest
in empowering the community and shifting the community away from accepting
charity hand-outs.
4.2 Interrupting Dependency
Despite governmental and NGO best intentions, charity often nurtures a depen-
dency culture that erodes self-belief, self-reliance, self-determination and self-
esteem (Frances & Cuskelly, 2008; Lupton, 2011). Rather than provide welfare,
build infrastructure and then exit once the project finishes, BEST helps make com-
munities self-reliant, responsible and accountable. Interrupting dependency, the
model’s second step, is integral to sustainable development. BEST advocates
getting locals above the poverty line, and subsequently having time for developing
themselves and their community.
Two of several BEST initiatives to interrupt dependency, water tanks and
medical camps, improve health and hygiene. Discussions during community din-
ners highlighted that many locals were often sick or spent much of the day
collecting water. BEST has since teamed with NGOs to provide medical, dental
and optical care for over 2000 villagers. And in conjunction with the Rotary Club,
BEST gave a 400-gal water tank to 16 local Sukau families in its first project. But
some families took poor care of the tanks, treating them as charity.
Similar to Habitat for Humanity, a US-based initiative that requires recipients to

pay within their means (Dees & Anderson, 2006), BEST now charges about USD
16 for the ConocoPhillips sponsored water tanks. This payment is integral to
BEST’s principle of avoiding the dependency of toxic charity while creating self-
pride. In the process of shifting to payments, BEST identified natural leaders
(change agents) and discussed other possible projects and issues.
4.3 Building Capacity
The discussions with the change agents highlighted the importance of education,
which is fundamental to the third step, building capacity. For example, BEST sent
farmers interested in its project to 3 days of organic gardening training. The liter-
ature also notes that villagers lack ecotourism business skills (Hall et al., 2012;
Schellhorn, 2010) and emphasizes the important role, and training, of guides
(Jensen, 2010; Salazar, 2012).
As a first step towards building consensus and capacity, BEST ran a pilot semi-
nar in 2008 for 97 leaders, entrepreneurs and youth from 13 villages. This seminar
and subsequent focus groups led to an ongoing series of learning seminars and
targeted educational programs for school children, business leaders and guides. The
Sukau Rainforest Lodge, for example, identifies and mentors part-time staff for
educational scholarships and full-time employment.
BEST also builds capacity through technical and business advice, without giving
charity. For example, the Kimihang Virgin Coconut Oil project manager lacked
branding, labeling and bottling skills. BEST helped him source glass bottles and
improved labels. He was able to double the selling price, increase his profit and
subsequently buy more machinery and increase his product range. Though he
repeatedly sought additional financial aid, in line with avoiding toxic charity,
BEST refused his requests and suggested he stand on his own feet. Although
offered, BEST declined investing in the Bavanggazo Longhouse. BEST did help
with Bavanggazo’s marketing and provided a template for checking facilities and
package/activities quality standards. Finally, BEST required that organic farming
project recipients attend trainings for entitlement to cash subsidies, seeds and weed-
ing machinery. BEST also released funds in installments based on their perfor-
mance through regular field visits and progress reports.
4.4 Developing Social Entrepreneurship
Developing social entrepreneurship is the model’s final step. Rather than charity,
developing entrepreneurs with social values helps the community build capacity
and gives villagers self-esteem (Frances & Cuskelly, 2008; Lupton, 2011). BEST
tackles these goals with myriad initiatives, as always, based on community con-
sensus towards successful execution.
BEST works with the community to develop social entrepreneurship ideas, and
identify funding sources for implementing these ideas such as organic farming,
virgin coconut oil and the Bavanggazo Longhouse. The prior three steps, commu-
nity consensus, interrupting dependency, and capacity building are fundamental for
success, such as BEST offering seminars on processing virgin coconut oil and
financial management. To develop social entrepreneurship further, BEST recently
set up the BEST Community Fund with USD 66,000 to provide interest free loans
for the Kiau community to co-finance USD 45,000 to complete the Camp Lemaing
project.
The BEST principals, Borneo Eco Tours (BET) and Sukau Rainforest Lodge
(SRL), also support local entrepreneurs. BET and SRL usually purchase from
local boat builders and prawn fishermen, and educate them on sustainable practices.
Homestays in Papar, Bavanggazo Longhouse and recently Mantob, are three
products that BET markets. In line with education and capacity building, BEST
works with these hospitality enterprises to upgrade their facilities and services
towards higher standards.
5 Conclusion
In conclusion, BEST has worked successfully with rural Sabah communities to

develop social entrepreneurship projects. These projects have created entre-
preneurs, addressed social issues and reduced the locals relying and depending on
charity. BEST’s four-step model, an ongoing process, could be replicated in third
world communities around the world.
5.1 Limitations and Future Research
This study has several limitations, such as little generalizability beyond ecotourism
in remote Sabah. As well, the BEST website and Saving Paradise (Teo & Patterson,
2005) information, and that two authors of this study work with BEST, introduces
an obvious bias.
Three key contributions of this chapter are the critique of providing charity,
suggesting Diffusion of Innovations as an applicable Social Entrepreneurship
theory and examples of the proposed sustainable community development model
that provides charity solely to arrest dependency. In addition, this charity comes
with attached strings that give villagers self-belief, self-reliance, self-determination
and self-esteem.
Future research avenues are topical and methodological. Related to successful
project implementation is return on investment (Kiss, 2004). How much and how
should governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and social

entrepreneurs invest in tourism development? Another topic could draw on the
diffusion literature to investigate social entrepreneurs as change agents.
Methodologically, the qualitative research could replicate the case study in other
indigenous communities and expand to include focus groups, in-depth interviews
and structured interviews. Quantitative research could include attitudinal surveys of
relevant parties including entrepreneurs, stakeholders, employees and guests. An
emerging quantitative data source is behavioral, such as activity on websites and
social media such as Facebook and Twitter.
5.2 Application of Results
As the global economic landscape evolves, the proposed Sustainable Community

Development model in Fig. 1 provides an ongoing strategy for governments, NGOs
and other organizations. The model challenges the long-term distribution of charity
and welfare to communities, and promotes social entrepreneurship. The strategy is
a pragmatic approach to empower impoverished communities in Sabah and beyond
with the skills and means to sustain themselves independently through social
entrepreneurship. Implementing the model requires working with community
leaders to develop consensus, arrest dependency, build capacity and implement a
sustainable community development policy of self-sustenance through social
entrepreneurship.
Governments and NGOs can use this proposed model for revisiting their invest-
ment philosophy towards engaging communities in sustainable tourism develop-
ment (Kiss, 2004). Providing charity may prove toxic rather than helpful to third
world communities (Frances & Cuskelly, 2008; Lupton, 2011). Importantly, work-
ing consensus between the community and outside agencies is critical for sustain-
able development. This consensus must be ongoing and evolve based on gaps in
project implementation (Hall et al., 2012; Jensen, 2010; Salazar, 2012). Education
is a key to building capacity and developing social entrepreneurs, the model’s last
two steps. Finally, this case study can improve and buttress ecotourism funding
applications to governmental and non-governmental organizations.
Academically, this may be the first study to apply the Diffusion of Innovations to
sustainable community tourism development. Often used for investigating new
technologies, this theory also applies to new ideas. These implementation lessons
learned, and the literature, support the proposed sustainable model of ongoing com-
munity consensus to shift away from charity and towards social entrepreneurship
(Frances & Cuskelly, 2008; Hall et al., 2012; Jensen, 2010; Lupton, 2011; Salazar,
2012; Schellhorn, 2010; Teo & Patterson, 2005).
Questions
1. Using examples, discuss the key difference between the Best Sustainable Devel-
opment Model and other NGOs such as the Rotary Club and the Lion’s Club to
help the poor.
2. Identify and discuss factors that can either improve or impede sustainable
development initiatives.
3. Why, or why not, is social entrepreneurship the only answer to solve poverty?
4. Using examples, discuss the challenges faced by social entrepreneurs such as
Best to get Government’s support.
5. What do you think will happen to communities in poor developing countries
who traditionally depend on politicians and NGOs for handouts once they
become self-reliant through social entrepreneurship programs? Why or why
not will such communities make the incumbent politicians insecure and will
such communities vote for the opposition party?
References
Bielefeld, W. (2009). Issues in social enterprise and social entrepreneurship. Journal of

Public Affairs Education, 15(1), 69–86.
Borzaga, C., & Galera, G. (2014). New trends in the nonprofit sector in Europe: The emergence of
social enterprises. Accountability and social accounting for social and non-profit organizations.
Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 17, 89–110.
Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2015). Social innovation: Towards a conceptualisation, Ch 2. In
S. Majumdar, S. Guha, & N. Marakkath (Eds.), Technology and innovation for social change
(pp. 7–34). New Delhi: Springer.
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Center for
Entrepreneurial Leadership.
Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B. (2006). Framing a theory of social entrepreneurship: Building on
two schools of practice and thought. In R. Mosher-Williams (Ed.), Research on social entre-
preneurship: Understanding and contributing to an emerging field (Vol. 1, pp. 39–66).
Indianapolis, IN: Association for Nonprofit and Voluntary Associations.
Frances, N., & Cuskelly, M. (2008). The end of charity: Time for social enterprise. Sydney, NSW:
Allen & Unwin.
Hall, J., Matos, S., & Lorn, S. (2012). Entrepreneurship and innovation at the base of the pyramid:
A recipe for inclusive growth or social exclusion? Journal of Management Studies, 49(4),
785–812.
Hoogendoorn, B., Pennings, E., & Thurik, A. R. (2010). What do we know about social entre-
preneurship: An analysis of empirical research. ERIM Report Series: Research in Manage-
ment. Rotterdam, NL: RSM Erasmus University.
Jensen, Ø. (2010). Social mediation in remote developing world tourism locations—The signifi-
cance of social ties between local guides and host communities in sustainable tourism devel-
opment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(5), 615–633.
Jeyaraj, A., Rottman, J. W., & Lacity, M. C. (2006). A review of the predictors, linkages, and
biases in IT innovation adoption research. Journal of Information Technology, 21(1), 1–23.
Kiss, A. (2004). Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds?
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19(5), 232–237.
Lupton, R. D. (2011). Toxic charity: How the church hurts those they help and how to reverse it.
New York: HarperOne.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction,
Phillips, W., Lee, H., & Ghobadian, A. (2015). Social innovation and social entrepreneurship:
A systematic review. Group and Organization Management, 40, 271–294.
Proehl, J. (2015). Risks of voluntourism. Emergency Nurse, 22(9), 15.
Richter, L. M., & Norman, A. (2010). AIDS orphan tourism: A threat to young children in residential
care. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies: An International Interdisciplinary Journal for
Research, Policy and Care, 5(3), 217–229.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster.
Salazar, N. B. (2012). Community-based cultural tourism: Issues, threats and opportunities.
Schellhorn, M. (2010). Development for whom? Social justice and the business of ecotourism.
Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship:
Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(2), 161–194.
Simpson, A. V. (2014). Augmenting the limitations of organizational compassion with wisdom and
power: Insights from Bhutan. ANZAM Conference, Sydney, NSW.
Stake, R. (2000). Cases studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(pp. 435–454). London: Sage Publications.
Teo, A., & Patterson, C. (2005). Saving paradise: The story of Sukau Rainforest Lodge.
Kota Kinabalu: Sabah Handicraft Centre.
Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Jamie Murphy is Professor and Research Director at the Australian School of Management. His
background includes; European marketing manager for PowerBar and Greg Lemond Bicycles, and
lead academic for the Google Online Marketing Challenge. His Ph.D. is from Florida State
University, and his industry and academic experience spans continents and includes hundreds of
academic publications and presentations, as well as many New York Times and Wall Street
Journal stories. His research focus is on the effective use of the Internet for citizens, businesses
and governments, particularly Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), and sustainability (parti-
cularly energy, transportation and recycling).
Albert Teo graduated in Economics (Honors) from the University of London in 1977. He
operates multi-award winning Borneo Eco Tours and the Sukau Rainforest Lodge, which became
a charter member of National Geographic Unique Lodges of the World in 2015 (www.sukau.com).
In 2013 his foundation Borneo Ecotourism Solutions and Technologies, or BEST Society (www.
bestsociety.org) received the UNWTO Ulysses Award for excellence and innovation in tourism. In
October 2006, Albert was appointed Adjunct Lecturer by Edith Cowan University, Australia. In
2012, he was conferred a Fellow of Edith Cowan University. He is now an Adjunct Professor of
University Malaysia Sabah.
Casey Murphy is completing her Master of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame
Australia, and is an Adjunct Research Associate with the Australian School of Management.
She graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Science and Geography from the Uni-
versity of Notre Dame Australia in 2009. She has a passion for teaching and educating guests about
the history and the environment. She has taught children in an outdoor learning environment in the
USA and volunteered for six months at Borneo Eco tours. Currently she works as a tour guide in
Perth and Rottnest Island. Her research focus includes outdoor/environmental education for
children, ecotourism and sustainability.
Eunice Liu is the Dean and Director of Business and Leadership Faculty with responsibility for
establishing the Australian School of Management as a leading private higher education provider.
As an accomplished industry practitioner, Eunice has a wealth of international industry experience
in management, knowledge management, leadership, change management, new business devel-
opment, sales, marketing, strategic management and project management ranging from hospital-
ity, government to commerce industries. Her passion is learning and teaching and scholarly
activity through research and journal papers. Eunice’s research interests include: leadership,
knowledge management, strategic management, innovation, entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship,
sustainability, cross-cultural management and change management.
Social Enterprise Ecosystems: A Case Study
of the Danube Delta Region of Romania
Georgiana Els and Kevin Kane
Abstract This chapter seeks to critically explain the optimal conditions that enable
social enterprise activities to materialize, grow and blossom into sustainable orga-
nisations. The core notion and key to understanding the necessary framework for
these developments is the concept of a social enterprise ‘ecosystem’. The case
explores the knowledge and understandings of the actors who constitute the social
enterprises and ecosystem elements in order to uncover how the integrated support
network of nodes and connections that constitute the ecosystem is formed. The
practical issues, influences and sources of innovation involved in creating social
enterprise ecosystems are explored by examination of the individuals, organisations
and processes which constitute the hub or tree trunk sap for a place-based commu-
nity network located the Danube Delta region of Romania (i.e. the local ecosystem
developed by a local social enterprise). The research methodology involves
in-depth interviews with key decision makers and the mapping of the nodes and
links that make up the social enterprise ecosystem and the practical issues and
influences this has on tourism businesses in the Danube basin-area.
Keywords Social enterprise • Ecosystem • Entrepreneurship • Tourism • Slow

tourism • Community • Place based • Innovation • Risks • Romania • Danube Delta
1 Social Entrepreneurship in an Eastern European

Landscape
Social entrepreneurship initiatives are defined by Megre, Martins, and Salvado

(2012, p. 99) as ‘having an innovative approach to solve societal problems, a
clear social mission, sustainable, potential for replication and capacity to produce
impact at large scale.’ Social enterprises are economic activities that employ
G. Els (*)
University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK
K. Kane
University of Salford, Salford, UK

252 G. Els and K. Kane
sustainable, efficient methods to encapsulate the local knowledge and traditions and
yield net benefits to the communities where they operate (Marsden, 2012). A social
enterprise represents a hybrid organisation as its bottom line is both non-profit
(charity) and for profit (business) activities. The idea is also emphasised and
strengthened by Holt and Littlewood (2015) who recognise the two main particu-
larities of a social enterprise—firstly, incorporating both non-profit and for-profit
business models and secondly, maintaining and prioritising the core values of the
social/ environmental ambition over the economic benefits.
There are obvious tensions between the drives of ‘achieving profitability’ and
giving priority to social aims or benefits. Ebrahim, Battilana, and Mair (2014)
discuss the risk of mission drift by asking the question of whether a social enterprise
which combines social and commercial core activities could drift away from the
social mission by prioritising the financial one. Here, undoubtedly the founder has a
crucial determining role as the ‘unreasonable’ person who envisioned a way of
changing the world and who keeps the enterprise true to its original mission or
purpose. But laudable and praiseworthy as social aims may be, the enterprise
remains a business which will only survive if it has a logic and rationale in financial
and monetary terms. Just as a social enterprise may ‘drift’ into becoming driven by
profit, it can just as easily become overly focused on its social mission and lose sight
of the economic imperatives of covering costs and accumulating capital.
One way of helping maintain this balance of the economic and social impera-
tives is through a means of support for the social entrepreneur and their social
business which helps maintain focus on social goals whilst facilitating the devel-
opment of the businesses economic base. Social businesses which are part of an
‘ecosystem’ of other businesses and support structures may find it easier to survive
and prosper whilst maintaining their social values. A social enterprise ecosystem
may be conceptualised as a system of nodes and connections with set poles of
business components and shared social values (Ebrahim et al., 2014; Grassl, 2012;
Kenter et al., 2015).
The nodes of an ‘eco-system’ are typically the various organisations involved in
the creation, survival, growth and regulation of a social enterprise and thus include
state, social and business actors. The nodes have various degrees of importance to
the enterprise that lies at the heart of the ecosystem and the characterisation of this
ecosystem is usually taken from the perspective of the enterprise under discussion.
The connections between nodes may represent all of the forces and influences that
act, both positively and negatively, on the social enterprise and derive from the
actions of the other nodes. For example, the local government may act on the social
enterprise both in a regulatory role, for example in the provision of permits and
legal requirements, and in a sustaining role by providing grants or income and this
typically would be shown in an ecosystem map as a large node with a significant
connecting line. The key nodes in this case of ‘Rowmania’ are the local community,
the owners and partners, the local authority and business partners such as the
providers of accommodation, food services and guides.
Under the European umbrella, social enterprises are grounded in the social
economy (third sector) and combine aspects of both NGOs and traditional
Social Enterprise Ecosystems: A Case Study of the Danube Delta Region of Romania 253
cooperatives by generating income through innovation and enterprise involvement

of program beneficiaries (Defourny, 2009; Hoogendoorn, Pennings, & Thurik,
2010). Defourny (2009) placed social enterprises as the heart of the third sector
as they activate, network and transfer by linking the three pillars: formal entities
(institutions and authorities), more informal institutions (family or personal) and
the market.
In Romania, social enterprises are still in the development stage not only
because of legal restrictions during the communist regime (Orhei, Vinke, &
Nandram, 2014), but also because of an era of absolute restriction during which
people’s ideas were constrained and the emergence of entrepreneurial activity was
treated negatively. The State was the only source of legitimate social and economic
activity so entrepreneurs found no fertile ground for their actions. Now mentalities
are changing, but there is still the perception that NGOs and similar ‘non-business’
organisations may have started commercial companies to obtain tax advantages and
that the social purpose is convenient cover for financial advantage (Orhei et al.,
2014).
Thus in Romania, the ground may not appear to be very fertile in terms of culture
or understanding for the creation of a social enterprise, yet such organisations have
been formed and have proved successful. Examination of an organisation which has
shown that it can meld social and business objectives together effectively in
Romania allows investigators to determine what were the success factors that
facilitated this achievement and the prime factor appears to be the existence of a
supporting social enterprise ‘eco-system’. The case study explores and aims to
demonstrate how a single social enterprise activity can identify and feed an
ecosystem of social ventures operating jointly in the relatively remote region of
Danube Delta, Romania.
2 The Tourism Context in the Danube Delta Region

of Romania
The Danube Delta is situated where the river Danube flows into the Black Sea. It is
the second largest river delta on the European continent and is still one of its best
preserved wetland habitats. The area consists of a large number of freshwater lakes
connected by narrow streams and rivers covering an area of nearly half a million
hectares and is one of Europe’s richest locations for wetland wildlife and biodiver-
sity. The Danube Delta is a UNESCO World Heritage site and is one of Romania’s
leading tourist attractions. It is also home to an extensive rural community which is
rich in history, culture and heritage but economically underdeveloped with high
levels of unemployment, poor road communications, limited water and sewage
infrastructure and little access to capital or banking services.
Tourism has been a priority for the Romanian Government in the two decades, as
it generates employment and fosters development; however the Danube Delta’s
region is still loosely protected by legislation and at risk as it is dominated by

poaching and unplanned rural development. Social entrepreneurs emerged in the
area out of sense of rage with a system that does not protect its valuable environ-
ment and the local community. Orhei, Nandram, and Vinke (2015) portrays entre-
preneurial Romania as a country with great opportunities due to challenges of
legislation, policies, unemployment and influence of power. After the 1989 revo-
lution (when the old regime was abolished), social enterprises emerged to address
stringent social issues such as poverty, discrimination and illiteracy (Alvord,
Brown, & Letts, 2004; Orhei et al., 2015).
Tourism is an industry which differs from all others in that it succeeds not by
offering solely material products i.e. rooms, meals, transport, souvenirs etc., but
rather it succeeds by providing positive experiences that are valued by the consumer
of tourism. One of the prime experiences desired by tourists being the chance to
exist in a new place, to see new things, to feel, smell and taste something different
from the norm of the tourist’s home country and home-life. And in the Danube
Delta the setting is paramount and is key to the experiential nature of this type of
tourism. However, in addition to experiencing place, many modern tourism wish to
know that they are not damaging what they are visiting, and that, ideally, they are
protecting and enhancing the environment they are visiting. Traditional tourism
businesses may think of the consumers as customers who consume a provided
product but with experiential goods like ‘eco-tourism’ part of the value of seeing
and experiencing the new is in the tourist’s knowledge that they are not damaging
what they are experiencing; they are not consuming but rather they are protecting.
NGOs see consumers as beneficiaries, and social enterprises generate products
and services that generate social value when consumed (Battilana, Lee, Walker, &
Dorsey, 2012). Urban modern consumers are demanding a new era of ‘eco’
industries in which tourism can be at the forefront of the ‘real green revolution’
(Marsden, 2012, p. 265), and what could be more suited to such an aim than a social
rather than a ‘for-profit’ business? ‘Rowmania’ is a tourism social enterprise that
seeks to enjoy, protect and develop the environment in which it exists. It seeks also
to provide a way for tourists to share in both the enjoyment but also the protection of
the precious countryside they are visiting. At the same time, it sees giving economic
and employment benefits to the local community a way of sustaining the commu-
nity who then see benefit in protecting rather than exploiting the natural beauty
around them.
3 ‘Rowmania’ Case Study: Starting a Social Enterprise

in the Danube Delta Region
The current case study considers a single social enterprise which generated an
ecosystem of businesses in an underdeveloped rural area situated in the Romanian
Danube Delta region. The authors started their journey of exploring social
entrepreneurship in tourism in South-East Romania by discovering the venturesome

organisation ‘Rowmania’ and its founders: Ivan Patzaichin and Doru Frolu. Data
collection took place in June 2015 in the regions of Danube Delta and Bucharest
(Romania) and consisted of six in-depths interviews and discussions with stake-
holders involved in the ‘Rowmania’ association. There were three groups: the
founders (three interviews: one with Ivan Patzaichin, one with Doru Frolu, and a
joint interview with the both of them), enterprise owners (three interviews with a
boat constructor and social entrepreneur, a local eco tour-operator and an accom-
modation provider), employees (discussions with ‘Rowmania’ representatives in
Tulcea, the administrative centre of the region and the main starting point for the
Danube Delta) and business partners (discussions with an accommodation owner).
These six participants represent the key nodes in the social enterprise ecosystem
under discussion.
The centre of the social enterprise eco-system is the social business itself:
‘Rowmania’. Like most small businesses this began with an entrepreneur with a
vision. ‘Rowmania’ grew out of a single person’s desire to rebuild his native region
by reviving local pride and trust between members of the community. Its founder,
Ivan Patzaichin is a former international canoeing champion and audacious social
entrepreneur. After winning seven Olympic medals at five Olympic Games and
coaching the Romanian canoeing team, Ivan saw the fast decline and degradation of
Danube Delta and decided to act. This constitutes the starting point of ‘Rowmania’.
Ivan’s vision grew and developed alongside his development as a sportsman and
entrepreneur. He envisioned the design and development of Danube Delta region by
recreating and resurrecting memories from the past when the Delta was ‘the real
amazing Delta’, the one where I used to wake up in the dawn surrounded by water’.
This early childhood memory from fishing with his grandfather at daybreak
(a common practice in the region) is still vivid and there is a deep sadness when
talking about the realities the region is facing nowadays such as the physical
shrinking of the area, rapid degradation of the environment and architectural
landscape, illegal poaching or even, fishing with electricity.
Strong communities are built around the idea of cooperating ecosystems that
work towards a common goal. ‘Rowmania’s’ main purpose was to revive local
people’s pride and dignity and gradually developing the region. See Fig. 1. This is a
process that happened organically according to the president of the organisation,
Teodor Frolu, who said that the foundation was laid on some basic principles:
The basic principles were that everything we build must be constructed around the idea of
common sense and mutual respect. The relations should be developed together with the
people who want to be helped and those who want to do something local, this local pride is
very important, and it is important to channel it on something valuable.
For us, the human resource is of outmost importance. Design or landscape can be
readjusted, but hard-working passionate people who are willing to collaborate on a new
emerging idea. . ., we try to generate a new type of community that appears out of a need
and will generate profit, but what is most important—it will generate satisfaction. Satis-
faction is the most important ingredient, the satisfaction of doing something good, some-
thing to be proud of.
Fig. 1 Fishermen depicting a glimpse of the difference between the boats. 2015 Danube Delta
Romania @Georgiana Els
‘Rowmania’ is established as a social business venture focused on social and

environmental issues of the Danube Delta region. See Fig. 2. By looking at the local
landscape and needs, it was decided what is desired and what are the community
resources, financial means and assess that should be incorporated in the starting
phase in order to effectively develop the region. ‘Rowmania’ has two main aims:
(1) promoting and preserving the Danube Delta region by undergoing several social
projects and (2) acting as a facilitator for other social enterprises to start, develop
and flourish. In the planning process, ‘Rowmania’ established the geographical area
of focus (the triangle area with points in three of the Danube Delta villages: Crisan,
Caraorman and Mila 23) as the entire Danube Delta region has a wide perimeter
(approx. 4000 m2).
The pilot started with the village Mila 23 (less than 1000 inhabitants) which is
Ivan’s native village and then continuing with the mapping and developing of social
entrepreneurship initiatives from a small region to the larger triangle area. The
working perimeter of Crisan—Caraorman—Mila 23 was established after several
failures of trying to restore a wider area, but soon realising that changing mind-sets
and building local trust is a far more complicated task than initially thought and
planned. Horlings and Marsden (2011) suggest that the ‘place-based eco-economy’
is an economy that should be established on initiatives embedded locally and
ventured by social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs who develop sustainable ecosys-
tems of support, based on innovative local practices that would attract worldwide
attention (Roy, McHugh, Huckfield, Kay, & Donaldson, 2014). A good example of
Fig. 2 The triangle area defined by ‘Rowmania’ in the Danube Delta Region. Source: Developed
by the authors
local innovation is the re-adapting and re-inventing of a traditional regional type of

boat made out of wood called a ‘lotca’. ‘Rowmania’ identified a challenge in the
fast disappearing type of dinghy boat called ‘canotca’ due to the new ‘modern
plastic boats’. ‘Canotca’ is a small boat that replicates the allure of the new
developed ‘lotca’ boat, but is made on a canoe system and permits slow tourism
on the narrow channels of the Danube Delta. The ‘lotca’ boat was innovated and
readapted to the modern needs by a local engineer, inventor and entrepreneur
nurtured by the association—‘We came with a local option/ solution that will
enable us to re-launch the wood boat construction, but to suit a need and ‘canotca’
is the best example (. . .) we take something traditional and relevant in the land-
scape and we reinvent to be both actual and traditional in the offer that goes on the
market.’ According to Marsden (2012), a growing number of economic activities
use resources in a more durable sustainable way by employing the local knowledge
and skills.
‘Rowmania’ project implementation will be described by examining and clus-
tering its on-going projects, projects that are continuously and cautiously readjusted
by the association according to the changing needs of the local environment. The
authors decided to present project implementation by creating a visual graphic
based on the concept of triple bottom line. See Fig. 3.
Fig. 3 ‘Rowmania’ on-going projects based on the principles of the triple bottom line. Source:
Developed by the authors
Following the concept of the triple bottom line presented above, ‘Rowmania’s’
purpose is to empower and transform the local community by using basic principles
to design sustainable human environments. By placing local community at the core
and searching for sustainable opportunities based on the three pillars: economic,
social and environmental, ‘Rowmania’ seized the opportunity and ability of both
tourism and education to contribute to important social aims and changes. The
educational programmes developed are fostered mainly around the social and
economic pillars by looking at training opportunities for the locals:
• training provided for the local accommodation providers;
• by following the concept of ‘human ecology’, prisoners are taught the local arts
and crafts and traditional eco building;
• training fishermen for tourism and wooden boat construction as an alternative to
industrial fishing;
Tourism is regarded as a global force that needs to be applied by following the
local principles in order to foster development, but at the same time to protect the
natural environment. Tourism is the main driving force of the association as, through
its on-going projects, it encompasses the principles of the triple bottom line:
• Bird watching: the first dedicated area for bird-watching in Romania;
• ‘Pescatourism’: spending and observing a day in the life of a fisherman;
• Slow tourism: 1–4 days tours with the traditional ‘canotca’ boats.
• Slow food: Gastronomic itineraries to foster the development of local accom-
modation providers;
• ‘Rowmania’ Fest: an event (rowing competition, outdoor concerts, movies,
shows involving the local community members, gastronomic events and public
debates) aimed at raising awareness on sustainable tourism and supporting the
local communities in the Danube Delta for a long sustainable development.
By scrutinising the local problems and developing local solutions, the frame-
work provided through the case fosters an environment under which local entre-
preneurs can start and flourish. The association’s role is to develop successful
business models adapted for the local community and thus developing the node
of entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs. By learning from the natural systems,
organisations should optimise rather than maximise and a good comparison to
exemplify this idea was offered by a social entrepreneur (nurtured by the associa-
tion) who compared the environment of the Danube Delta with the environment of a
city: ‘the Delta system needs to be regarded as a urban system where you have
areas like highways for high speed like the channel, but you needs areas where you
reduce the speed, you drive slowly, or use the bike without aggressing the environ-
ment’. Similar to a biological ecosystem, within a business ecosystem ‘the health
and vitality of each firm is dependent on the health and vitality of all firms in the
ecosystem’ and the progression of the system relies on one or two leader companies
who can administer the platform around which other social entrepreneurs can align
and tailor their social ventures (Teece, 2012, p. 106). In this way, business ecosys-
tems with well-timed innovative strategies are the ones who flourish and create
social change.
The study of social enterprise eco-systems allows us to understand and
explain the creation, growth and adaption of social businesses. Creating a map
of the nodes or organisations which influence the social enterprise and the links
between them has both explanatory and predictive value. Those businesses
which are surrounded by supportive structures are much more likely to survive
and prosper than those organisations which exist within a sparse or non-existent
web of positive relationships. If government wishes to create conditions for the
success of a social enterprise it is not enough to provide solely legal and
regulatory support from a distance, which may be a necessary but is not a
sufficient condition for success. What is needed is the facilitation of the whole
system of support, from local governments with understanding and supportive
attitudes; to local communities with a wish for their social organisations to
survive and prosper; to entrepreneurs who are willing to provide a helping hand
to those who wish to develop their own social businesses. The totality of this
represents the eco-system necessary for success.
4 Transferability of Best Practice: What Does the ‘Big

Tree’ Look Like?
The data collected indicates that at the national and regional level there are no
social enterprise support systems or ‘eco-systems’ and thus, the necessity of local
social entrepreneurial individuals to emerge and act. In the Danube Delta region,
Ivan Patzaichin and ‘Rowmania’ are advocates of social entrepreneurship, being
among the few people actively involved in saving and restoring the region. It takes
strongly motivated and resourced entrepreneurial individuals to start creating and
developing ‘the road maps’ that would be later followed, cultivated and refined by
other social ventures in order to provide answers to social or environmental
problems and needs. In their endeavour to respond and solve community’s most
pressing needs, social entrepreneurs ‘are driven by a combinations of motives’ and
nourish more than a single program or service by strengthening the cooperation and
collaboration of many different entities (Sharir & Lerner, 2006, p. 16).
Ivan’s professional sporting career resources of leadership/managerial capital
(from his playing days) and social/technical capital (from his experiences outside of
the region and his contacts with outsiders) placed the ‘Rowmania’ venture and its
social mission favourably. This advantageous position comes not only from his
accumulated financial and social knowledge, but also because he is from the
community as is a role model (‘we see Ivan as a sort of “icon”,1 somebody
among us whom we deeply respect’). Nevertheless, one of the major challenges
mentioned by ‘Rowmania’ founders and members is the mind-set and principles of
the locals (‘design or landscape can be readjusted, but hard-working passionate
people who are willing to collaborate on a new emerging idea. . .’). This inevitably
raises the question whether ‘Rowmania’ is a ‘one-off’, dependent on a particular
entrepreneur acting in a unique set of circumstances and therefore not easily
reproducible or whether lessons from this case may be generalizable and may
provide a road map for the facilitation of other social enterprises. If so, what
would be the support mechanisms for social entrepreneurs without social, technical,
financial, managerial or economic resources?
The key lesson from ‘Rowmania’ is that businesses which are surrounded by
supportive structures are much more likely to survive and prosper than those
organisations which exist within a sparse or non-existent web of positive relation-
ships. If government wishes to create conditions for the success of a social enter-
prise it is not enough to provide solely legal and regulatory support from a distance,
which may be a necessary but is not a sufficient condition for success. What is
needed is the facilitation of the whole system of support, from local governments
with understanding and supportive attitudes; to local communities with a wish for
their social organisations to survive and prosper; to entrepreneurs who are willing to
1
Term used with a different meaning in this context—In the Christian Orthodox religion, an icon
depicts the image of Jesus Christ, Saint Mary or the Orthodox Saints.
provide a helping hand to those who wish to develop their own social businesses.
The totality of this represents the eco-system necessary for success.
Ideally, a social enterprise ecosystem would have the support of the legal and
contractual foundations provided by the state authorities. Examples of these are
community interest companies and cooperatives—discuss in more detail. Also
financial institutions that can provide small or micro loans are needed. European
and government financial support (e.g. to purchase of large boats or to develop
accommodation units) has been available in Romania in the last decade. However,
the local entrepreneurs (e.g. accommodation owners) even if well-resourced and
with an entrepreneurial spirit, individually do not have the legal and financial
resources and power to apply for major funding. Therefore, being part of a tightly
managed ecosystem with entrepreneurial capacity and skills can lead to successful
joint community based projects (Turner & Martin, 2005).
Business support might be needed so that budding entrepreneurs could be guided
over the initial problems of setting up and managing business entities. However, the
most important element in the ecosystem is the example of successful social
businesses, since without such exemplars it is unlikely that a risk adverse popula-
tion would take the chances necessary to succeed in social business start-up.
5 Conclusions
There is a dynamic tension in the economic development of an unspoiled area of

natural beauty and preserving its authentic community. The arrival of tourists and
visitors can help to preserve an area from uncontrolled exploitation, but this risk
damaging the essence of what attracts the visitor. Similarly, changing a fisherman to
a tourist guide or a local farmer to a provider of bed and breakfast alters what we
seek to preserve yet is necessary to give poor rural communities a chance for a
better life. However, in tackling the conundrum of changing habitats and commu-
nities yet seeking to preserve their essence, the structure of the social enterprise
offers promise. It is a much better compromise than the profit-seeking business
entity in that it can legitimately balance making a profit, preserving the environ-
ment and promoting local communities.
In the Danube Delta economically underdeveloped communities that are rich in
cultural and environmental capital need organisational structures which offer a
chance of employment and economic security but which also help preserve the
best of local cultural values and preserve an environment of global ecological
importance. The problem is in essence that tourism development in this vulnerable
and delicate location is maybe left to the ‘goodwill of the market’ without central
control or strategic guidance (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006, p. 1205). A better strategy
may be to place the economic and social development of the area in the hands of
social business organisations that recognise the need both to develop the Delta
economically yet protect the environment and the communities from inappropriate
and damaging profit-driven tourism and entertainment businesses.
‘Rowmania’ shows what can be done by an entrepreneur willing to take risks yet
unwilling to damage their environment or people. And the social enterprise offers a
way forward to ‘square the circle’ of economic development which does not destroy
what it exploits but rather develops and sustains the natural world and its local
communities. But an entrepreneur, no matter how skilled, financed or motivated,
cannot act solely to change a community and create sustainable value. Entrepre-
neurs, especially in the social space, must act to bring together the elements of
support which already exist, the political and financial capital which can be
accessed, the skills, capabilities and knowledge of the local community stake-
holders, and the inherent worth of the natural world in order to create something
new and sustainable. These ‘elements’ of people, land, community and capital,
represent the ‘social eco-system’ to be accessed for successful social enterprises.
Those individuals and organisations which seek to facilitate social enterprises
need perhaps to move their focus from the micro-scale to the macro-scale in the
sense that helping individuals to set up social businesses, providing them with
premises and seed funding is not sufficient. What is needed in addition to traditional
‘start-up’ type funding and support is a concern for the eco-system that needs to
exist to help, guide and give confidence to the entrepreneur. It may be asked: Why
should this be necessary with social enterprises and not ‘for-profit’ businesses? The
answer is: the eco-system for commercial business has developed over many years
and is easily understood and provided—this is not the case for social enterprise.
Questions
1. To what extent can a social enterprise play a role in regional development? What
are the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach? Use evidence to
support your answer.
2. ‘Rowmania’ plays a significant part in the sustainable development of the
Danube Delta region. Do you have examples of other social enterprises playing
similar roles in different regions across the world?
3. Leadership is a key part of a successful social enterprise, but how is the leader’s
vision to be maintained once they leave?
4. Can local communities be empowered to deliver sustainable tourism products?
What support is needed for communities to be able to create and support
successful social enterprises?
5. How would you picture a social enterprise ecosystem model? Please sketch your
own visual interpretation of one (the above case study can be used as a
framework).
References
Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal
transformation: An exploratory study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40,
260–282.
Battilana, J., Lee, M., Walker, J., & Dorsey, C. (2012). In search of the hybrid ideal. Stanford
Social Innovation Review, 10, 51–55.
Defourny, J. (2009). Concepts and realities of social enterprise: A European perspective. Colle-
gium, 38, 73–98. Retrieved June 29, 2015, from http://hdl.handle.net/2268/7096
Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift
and accountability challenges in hybrid organisations. Research in Organisational Behavior,
34, 81–100.
Grassl, W. (2012). Business models of social enterprise: A design approach to Hybridity. Journal
of Entrepreneurship Perspectives, 1(1), 37–60.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2006). More than an “industry”: The forgotten power of tourism as a social
force. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1192–1208.
Holt, D., & Littlewood, D. (2015). Identifying, mapping, and monitoring the impact of hybrid
firms. California Management Review, 57(3), 107–125.
Hoogendoorn, B., Pennings, E., & Thurik, R. (2010). What do we know about social entrepre-
neurship: An analysis of empirical research. Erasmus Research Institute of Management
(ERIM). ERS-2009-044-ORG, pp. 1–39. Accessed May 20, 2016, from http://papers.ssrn.
com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id¼1462018
Horlings, L., & Marsden, T. (2011). Towards a real green revolution: Exploring the conceptual
dimensions of a new ecological modernization of agriculture that could feed the world. Global
Environmental Change, 21(2), 441–452.
Kenter, J. O., O’Brien, L., Hockley, N., Ravenscroft, N., Fazey, I., Irvine, K. N., et al. (2015).
What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecological Economics, 111, 86–99.
Marsden, T. (2012). Third natures? Reconstituting space through place-making strategies for
sustainability. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 19(2), 257–274.
Megre, R., Martins, M. A., & Salvado, J. C. (2012). ES+ methodology: Mapping social entrepre-
neurship. ACRN Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspectives, 1(1), 97–110.
Orhei, L., Nandram, S. S., & Vinke, J. (2015). Social entrepreneurship competence: Evidence from
founders of social enterprises in Romania. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Small Business, 25(1), 80–105.
Orhei, L., Vinke, J., & Nandram, S. S. (2014). Are social enterprises in Romania EMES social
enterprises? The Review of International Comparative Management, 15(2), 154–173.
Roy, M. J., McHugh, N., Huckfield, L., Kay, A., & Donaldson, C. (2014). The most supportive
environment in the world? Tracing the development of an institutional ‘ecosystem’ for social
enterprise. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organisations, 26(3),
777–800.
Sharir, M., & Lerner, M. (2006). Gauging the success of social ventures initiated by individual
social entrepreneurs. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 6–20.
Teece, D. J. (2012). Next-generation competition: New concepts for understanding how innova-
tion shapes competition and policy in the digital economy. Journal of Law, Economics and
Policy, 9(1), 97–118.
Turner, D., & Martin, S. (2005). Social entrepreneurship and social inclusion: Building local
capacity or delivering national priorities. International Journal of Public Administration, 28
(9–10), 797–806.
Georgiana Els is Lecturer in Tourism and Events Management at Lincoln International Business
School, University of Lincoln. She joined the University in 2013 after accumulating work
experience within international tourism and events companies. Georgiana’s latest research inter-
ests focus on linking the field of social entrepreneurship with previous research interests in tourism
business management, social media and risk management. She is involved in on-going research
projects and activities in the areas of digital technology, destination management and social
entrepreneurship in tourism.
Kevin Kane is Co-Director of Salford University’s Centre for Social Business. The Centre is the
focus for activities in the University concerned with bringing business skills to third sector
organizations and facilitating the growth of social businesses. He has research interests which
focus on improving the management of social enterprises in order to enable them to cope with the
difficult challenges they face in a funding constrained environment. He has organized University-
led leadership and change management courses for the North West based Social Enterprises. In
2011, he was awarded a HEFCE Social Entrepreneur award.
Adventure Alternative and Moving
Mountains Trust: A Hybrid Business Model
for Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism
Roberto Daniele, Gavin Bate, and Isabel Quezada
Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to describe a hybrid business model for
social entrepreneurship in tourism through a case study of the tour operator
Adventure Alternative (AA) and its sister charity Moving Mountains Trust (MM).
Using the business model construct outlined in chapter “Business Models for Social
Entrepreneurship in Tourism” of this book in combination with data collected by
the authors over a 5 year collaboration period between Oxford Brookes University
and AA and MM, the business model components for this innovative and award
winning social enterprise are examined in detail. Key findings highlight the benefits
of adopting a social entrepreneurship business model for tourism development
particularly in the business model areas of “value networks”, “key resources” and
“customer relationships”. The increased resilience of tourism companies operating
within in a social entrepreneurship framework is also a key finding of this case
study.
Keywords Social enterprise • Business model • Adventure alternative • Moving

mountains trust
1 Introduction
Social entrepreneurship (SE) has become a global phenomenon (Crucke, Moray, &
Stevens, 2008) known for its innovative, sustainable and cost-effective approaches
to address unsatisfied social needs (Mair & Seelos, 2005), achieving scalability and
systemic change (Nicholls, 2006). SE is considered to be an alternative to tradi-
tional solutions that have been largely unproductive and ineffective in social value
creation (Dees, 2001).
R. Daniele (*) • I. Quezada

Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
G. Bate
Adventure Alternative, London, UK

266 R. Daniele et al.
Social entrepreneurship examples are now global success stories such as The
Institute of OneWorld Health (USA) which is a non-profit organization [now part of
Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH)] that has made medicines
affordable to the needy in developing countries. This was achieved by redesigning
the drug delivery value chain, challenging conventional profitability thinking and
establishing value creation partnerships benefiting all involved (Mair & Seelos,
2005). A second example is Sekem in Egypt, a multi-business firm which incorpo-
rates economic, social and cultural value creation through its various businesses.
This venture pioneered biodynamic agriculture in Egypt by reducing the use of
pesticides by 90 % in the country overall. The profits generated are used to build
schools, medical centres amongst other projects (Mair & Seelos, 2005). A third, and
probably one of the most well-known examples, is the Grameen Bank in
Bangladesh which provides credit to disadvantaged people unable to obtain credit
from established banks due to their circumstances. This initiative is assisting them
to set up profitable businesses thereby helping to fight poverty. It has also inspired
the global micro-credit movement that has reached 17 million borrowers in 64 coun-
tries (Mair & Seelos, 2005).
These three examples of SE show that it is successful in different sectors
(e.g. healthcare, finance and biotechnology) and in different locations across the
world. Such examples have transformed the field into a global phenomenon with
the proven ability to achieve sustainable social value creation (Nicholls, 2006). The
tourism and hospitality industries are excellent grounds for the development of SE
activities, but the successful activities to date have, regrettably, seldom been
reported in the travel and tourism literature. Often they are reported as examples
of sustainable tourism development, pro-poor tourism etc. instead.
This chapter focuses on one of the leading examples of social entrepreneurship
development in the tourism sector: a UK-based adventure tour operator Adventure
Alternative (AA) and its sister charity Moving Mountains Trust (MM). After giving
an introductory overview of the two organizations and of the social entrepreneur
that founded them, the chapter examines the business model that led this social
enterprise to success. In particular the chapter will report on the set up and synergies
between the enterprise (AA) and its social organization (MM). The lens for the
business analysis has been previously outlined in chapter “Business Models for
Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism” in this book.
2 Company Overview
AA is an independent adventure tour operator started in 1991 by adventurer,

mountain climber and entrepreneur Gavin Bate. From its inception the company
has been characterised by a strong ethos of “doing good” and “giving back” to the
communities where AA clients visit. This strong ethos is also firmly rooted in the
principles of sustainable development and responsible travel.
Adventure Alternative and Moving Mountains Trust: A Hybrid Business Model. . . 267
AA was originally created to provide protection to vulnerable children in the

slums of Nairobi, Kenya. Capitalizing on the skills of the entrepreneur, a tour and
expeditions company was created to provide income streams to support projects
dedicated to the protection of these children and their families. Projects included:
schools, orphanages, clinics, rescue centres, family support centres and community
centres amongst others. Twenty-five years later, the initial beneficiaries of the
projects have received the necessary education and stability to allow them to
actively participate and contribute to society. Many beneficiaries are currently
working for both AA and MM, in the tour and expeditions company. As part of
their contract they volunteer time to MM on various development projects.
AA runs a range of adventure packages which include trekking, wildlife safaris,
family adventure, volunteering, medical electives and high end specialist climbing
expeditions. Key destinations include Africa (mainly Kenya, Tanzania and
Morocco), Nepal, Russia (Altai mountains and Kamchacta peninsula) and South
America (Andes, Argentina, Bolivia and Chile).
AA’s business model operates alongside its sister company, the charity MM,
another organisation set up by Gavin in 1991. MM’s primary aim is to provide
poverty relief and community development through activities such as education and
vocational training, medical treatment, sport and employment.
AA and MM function on a relatively unique and highly synergic operational
structure highlighted in Fig. 1. This figure only shows the relationship between AA
and MM UK and AA and MM Kenya but similar structures apply to the organiza-
tions in the other destinations covered by AA.
AA UK is an outbound tour operator generating clients (mainly from the
UK/Ireland but increasingly from USA, Canada and other parts of the world) for
the independently owned inbound AA travel companies in the destinations. This
ensures local ownership, commitment and responsibility for the host destination. In
several cases (e.g. AA Kenya) the local company is mainly run and staffed by
previous MM beneficiaries who have received the education and training to operate
a travel company. The young managing director of AA for example used to be a
street kid in the markets of Nairobi and was “picked up” by Gavin Bate following
an attempt to pick pocket him. MM Kenya has funded his studies and subsequently
AA Kenya employed him as a staff member in the tour operating company where he
worked his way up to the Director’s position.
The operational and funding model for MM is also decentralized: MM UK
receives the fundraising revenues from activities organised by volunteers and
groups/individuals traveling with AA and local MM operations. These activities
are run by trusts formed at the local community level. They can apply each year for
funding from MM UK based on their forthcoming yearly development plans. The
links and synergies between AA and MM lie at the heart of this SE model and have
been key to the success so far. MM has worked alongside AA as a charitable
organization that collects donations for capital costs and education, health and
social welfare projects. Its status means tax relief can be claimed on those dona-
tions. Another success has been its provision of seed funding for organizations and
enterprises that have gained independence through the revenue from tourism.
Fig. 1 Operational structure and synergies between AA & MM
As the years have passed, the company and the charity have become inextricably
linked, and the collaboration has development at its heart.
AA aims to incorporate social and economic responsibility into its destination
management at all times and believes that this provides a competitive advantage in
the long term. This is done through long term organic investment in local opera-
tions, and a long process of training and development in business skills. The aim is
to incrementally reduce the investment to a point where the local inbound operator
becomes financially independent and sustainable with a loyal client base. Funda-
mentally the competitive advantage for these local suppliers is based on quality
through equality and social responsibility. The company policies have been altered
and developed in each country to accommodate and reflect each cultural back-
ground. But the essential policies of equitable partnerships, fair working conditions,
joint decision-making, consideration for the environment and shared profits are the
same for all.
The aim of the synergy between AA and MM combines good business practice
with effective development. The charity provides capital investment while the
company develops revenue streams. Crucially local needs translate into a viable
SE through tourism, thus rendering the need for ‘aid’ obsolete. By harnessing an
entrepreneurial spirit and building an equitable relationship that empowers people,
communities can become architects of their own success. It also teaches and
encourages tourism stakeholders to embrace stewardship and careful environmental
management because developments are planned sustainably. Conservation is more
local in its nature because local people are involved.
Both AA and MM have grown slowly and organically, taking into account the
cultural characteristics of each country where a local company has been set up and
an investment has been made. The issue of trust is important because the financial
investment time spent training and building took many years to implement. Local
suppliers were not tied to a contractual obligation to pay back the money; instead
they were trusted and grew together in friendship with the organization.
The company ensures that all staff can multi-task and are flexible and knowl-
edgeable in all aspects of the tourism journey, from product development to
accounting, leading trips, organizing budgets and even cooking. Importantly, if
they wish, clients have access to all staff in the supply chain involved with their
holiday from the start. Staff members travel to other countries to learn about
tourism in different contexts, and are encouraged to take responsibility for all
aspects of the holiday including the impacts on the destination. They are also
encouraged and expected to learn and develop their career with the help of the
company.
Both AA and MM measure success in terms of social capital spread over
decades, continually deliberating with the stakeholders about the effects of tourism
and how it can be improved. Financial indicators are important but not to the extent
that a destination is ‘dropped’ if the indicators do not meet certain targets. In fact,
the opposite is true. If a destination suffers a setback, for example political strife or
terrorism (e.g. Kenya), earthquakes (e.g. Nepal) then the company will maintain the
investment to keep people in their jobs and work hard to inform the public about the
destination as a safe place to travel.
The company requires all staff to provide a flow of information and feedback on
all the areas and locations that clients visit. As a result, a vast and detailed picture
that has built up over the last two decades. It includes details of communities such
as changing demographics, or changes in crops and style of living. These details
create a story that the company shares with its stakeholders as the story of their
lives. AA staff regularly attend weddings and watch families grow; they become
friends and share their lives.
In 2014 AA received the award for “Best for Poverty Alleviation” category at the
World Travel Market’s World Responsible Tourism Awards. In 2009 Gavin Bate
won the “Personal Contribution” category at the same event.
3 The Business Model
Having provided an overview of both AA and MM, what follows is a closer

examination of their business model following the framework highlighted in
chapter “Business Models for Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism” of this book.
3.1 Value Proposition
The value proposition in this model is twofold: for AA customers it is adventure

travel with a positive environmental and social impact. Increasingly conscious
consumers are attracted and motivated by operators able to demonstrate how they
are benefitting local communities. For MM beneficiaries the value proposition lies
in their ability to receive the necessary education, medical treatment, infrastructure
development and stability, being in control of their lives, helping their families, and
actively contributing to society. In return, beneficiaries also develop a strong ethos
of giving back to their community and actively engage in supporting MM and AA
whenever possible.
3.2 Customers
AA and MM serve two customer segments. The primary customers or social

customers are MM’s beneficiaries. These are identified by the local trustees of
each country where MM operates thus ensuring that local communities decide who
should benefit from AA’s touring activities and MM’s development work. The
secondary customer segment is the clients of the for-profit organization (the
tourists) who use the company’s tours and expeditions benefiting from the services
offered by the company. AA customers are sourced mainly from UK and Canada
although increasingly customers are coming from other western tourism generating
countries (e.g. Australia and New Zealand) mainly thanks to positive word of
mouth built over the years.
3.3 Customer Relationships
Both AA and MM recognize the need to maintain good information strategies and
customer loyalty with their primary and secondary customers. Therefore they
obtain as much information as possible from both their commercial and social
customer guest needs. In addition their niche market focus allows for a more
personalized service based on the collection of information before, during and
after the trip. In the case of AA, this information is collected and used to maintain
guest relations, send promotional material where applicable and improve customer
service practices. For example, AA uses their customer base for feedback about the
new tour and expeditions offers in Nepal, Tanzania and Russia, benefiting both
social and commercial customers.
From a beneficiary customer perspective, feedback is provided and sought from
MM trustees, community leaders and all stakeholders involved. In addition AA has
created strong links throughout the years directly with the target group of benefi-
ciaries thus building trust and loyalty based on open lines of communication. Where
possible the primary customer is integrated into the value chain by contributing to
the organization information strategies and operations. Loyalty is increased when
the social value is effectively delivered.
The equitable partnership approach is at the heart of the AA model and is how it
markets itself; the emphasis is on why it sells holidays. Fundamentally selling
holidays in an ethical way makes the world a better place. People are more inspired
by the why than the what when deciding on a once-in-a-lifetime holiday, and like to
know that their money is being used for good. As a result of these approaches AA
can boast a high loyalty/return rate among its customers.
3.4 Distribution Channels
AA uses indirect and direct channels product distribution. The direct channels
consist of the company website, sales force and increasing use of social media.
The indirect channels are specialist adventure and/or sustainable travel websites
such as Responsible Tourism, Ethical Tourism, Much Better Adventures. Main-
stream OTAs are avoided as their distribution costs are prohibitive. The most
effective promotion/distribution channel to date has been customers’ word of
mouth. When customers experience the benefits that MM’s target group is receiving
(e.g. client speaks to a tour guide who used to live in the slums and now has a job
and can provide a future to his/her family) a strong emotional message is sent to the
client, translating into repeat business, referrals and donations.
3.5 Key Activities
As discussed in the value proposition, AA and MM carry out economic and social
value creation in a synergistic fashion. All participants agreed that tourism was
chosen as the key activity based on some industry characteristics such as: its low
barriers to entry, revenue generating potential, labor intensity with the ability to
create employment. It could attract income streams to these beautiful yet remote
places. In particular the tourism product allows customers to see the realities of
these places, how people live and perhaps envision how they can help. The
entrepreneur emphasizes the strong emotional message created in customers’
minds when they meet the beneficiaries of the project and how lives have changed
as a result. In addition, he stresses that this is the best way to convey what the
company is doing. In the past it has translated into more business and donations to
the charity.
3.6 Resources
In SE, three different types of resources are identified by Sommerrock (2010):

economic, human and social capital. Each will now be discussed with its respective
ramifications.
Economic Capital
AA and MM’s economic resources include physical and financial capital. As a tour
and expeditions company, it has very limited needs for physical capital. Just a small
base office to coordinate operations based in Northern Ireland and even smaller
offices in the key destination markets. Other physical resources include vehicles
(e.g. large Safari trucks in Kenya) or part ownership of accommodation establish-
ments where the tourist accommodation is non-existent or not up to standards (as in
Borneo).
Financial capital (internal and external) is used to grow and run its operations.
Internal capital or earned income is discussed in the revenue streams or earned
income section. In its start-up phase, the venture used external financial capital as
debt capital or a small bank loan for the acquisition of the physical resources in
Kenya. In this way, the company could start generating income to begin the not-for-
profit projects in Kenya. Nowadays through AA’s operations, customers and other
philanthropic groups know about the not-for-profit works, resulting in increased
donations or external capital, giving a wider scope of action to achieve social goals.
According to the entrepreneur, the capital needs of the company influenced the
decisions behind its legal structure. To access debt financing, it was necessary to
define the company as a for-profit organization allowing the company to repay its
debt. On the other hand setting up a not-for-profit organization would maximize
donations capital due to the tax relief laws in the UK.
Human Resources
Both AA and MM employ local people and provide them with training, developing
career opportunities and personal growth. This diminishes the colonialist percep-
tion that development is led by white people perpetuating the unequal balance in
their society. In addition, the company empowers employees to make decisions
giving them a sense of accomplishment. It also increases the credibility and trust of
the firm within the community. This enhanced credibility increases social capital.
Whilst local ownership and local decision making are distinguishing features of AA
and MM, the social entrepreneur (Gavin Bate) has played a crucial role in the
delivery of social value bringing his skills, knowledge, contacts and credentials to
set and deliver the vision, create networks and design the business model. Key
characteristics of social entrepreneurs such as commitment, motivation, a sense of
justice and drive are clear values and resources brought to the table.
Social Capital
Social capital comprises those resources that allow access to networks for the
realization of a goal (Flap, 1995); permitting the reduction of transaction costs
from stakeholders and gaining access to human and financial capital and
partnerships (Laville & Nyssens, 2001). The importance of social capital is rooted
in its benefits such as access and influence within power circles to maximize the
achievement of the social goals, and cohesion among networks to build influence
(Adler & Kwon, 2002). For AA and MM the ability to identify important networks
and create strong relationships with them is seen as the most important source of
social capital. The close relations created with the community have increased its
credibility amongst donors, and the trust and commitment from its employees.
AA and MM go out of their way to proactively establish partnerships with local
community, local and national authorities in the countries in which they operate.
This means they gain support to start their community development projects such as
schools, reconstructions of monasteries, orphanages, sports centres and others. It
has also developed partnerships with local accommodation suppliers who benefit
from tourism attracted by the tours. In exchange they provide competitive rates and
attentive service to the clients of the organization. Other partnerships have been
created with ethically oriented distribution channels such as responsible tourism
websites to distribute the product. Lastly both AA and MM are linking with
universities through internships to provide first-hand experience in the organization
and creating awareness and possible volunteer employment beneficial to both
parties. MM emphasizes the creation of value networks, in particular at early stages
of the venture to access resources, reduce costs, gain support and acceptance in the
community. This mirrors findings in the literature on value networks in SE.
3.7 Partnerships with Communities
Successful partnerships in tourism require humility, equality and honesty about

expectations. Feedback from stakeholders must be encouraged without giving an
impression of superiority or self-importance. Listening rather than talking is
advised, and egos should be left at the door. Joint ventures take time to create in
developing countries where priority is placed on the human aspects of a partnership,
not just a contractual engagement. This takes time and it takes an interest in other
people. The product has to contribute to community development and benefit local
people, offering employment and growth and local capacity building. Quite often
these new concepts must be discussed in the cultural context of a destination. The
infrastructure may need improving, local products sourced, prices and
stakeholdership agreed, and local laws and conventions must be understood and
followed. This local knowledge can provide a holistic view of the product and how
it will work.
Openness and honesty are vital; local people may not understand the costs of
running a business in Western Europe and are interested to learn. Mostly they only
see the visitors on arrival in their country; the process of how they got there is a
mystery. Sharing information and knowledge contributes to local people feeling
free, equal and happy to collaborate. History has bred some cynicism, and com-
munities may suspect self-interest is at the heart of foreign tourist organizations. It
takes time to break that stereotype and AA prides itself on giving that time. Taking
the partnership beyond business creates trust and openness. In Nepal the relations
with the village people in the Solu Khumbu have developed to an extent that AA
staff are regarded as honorary villagers. Friendships have grown to become almost
like family.
AA covers all administration costs of MM. This is achieved as AA employees
are required to volunteer 5 hrs a week for MM. This covers 100 % of MM’s
administrative costs, allowing all donations to go directly to the social projects.
An important cost is distribution necessary to reach more potential customers. For
this, instead of using expensive channels with high commissions, the entrepreneur
has maximized the use of social media and partner channels demonstrating similar
ethical concerns to reach their niche target audience.
3.8 Revenue Streams
Revenue streams or earned income has been considered one of the key features of
SE. It is considered to be the most efficient way to achieve self-sustainability in
light of decreasing donations and grants (Boschee & McClurg, 2003; Yunus, 2007).
It also shapes the company’s organizational and institutional structures (Barr,
Smith, & Stevens, 2007). Earned income is an internal source of funding achieved
through profitable core activities, secondary to their not-for-profit ventures, or by
establishing partnerships with commercial corporations (Alter, 2003). Some reve-
nue streams include: sale of goods and services, membership or subscriber fees,
advertising revenue, lending, renting, and leasing amongst others (Alter, 2003).
AA finds tourism to be the most suitable business to create revenue streams with
the available resources. Tourism activities have allowed AA to take advantage of
their context and local resources (exotic nature, products and abundant labour
force) to create their offer and recycle profits back to the community. AA’s revenue
streams come first from the operation of tours and expeditions. A second important
revenue stream is from donors who began as AA clients and subsequently donate to
MM. A donation to MM is either an optional or compulsory aspect of an AA trip,
and often past AA clients become long term donors to MM after they have
experience first-hand the positive impacts delivered by MM.
4 Conclusion
This case study has revealed dimensions of key business models in successful TSE:
value networks, key resources and customer relationships. The importance for these
organizations to proactively establish value networks as a first step in the SE
venture and throughout the existence of the company was highlighted. This is due
to their influence in the acquisition and maximization of resources, cost structures,
distribution channels and customer reach for the delivery of the firm’s key activi-
ties. Furthermore, the company’s key resources create attractive commercial
offers to attract income streams and develop valuable customer relationships.
These customer relationships in turn provide revenue streams to achieve self
sustainability and thus the delivery of the social value proposition. The BM
dimensions in this case reveal new insights into industry’s characteristics to create
social value such as:
Labour intensity: this characteristic provides numerous employment opportunities,
reducing unemployment and poverty due to the activation of the local economy
(explored through the resource dimension of the BM).
High rotation of labor: due to the low skills levels required for the delivery of
certain aspects of tourism and hospitality. High rotation provides low skilled
labour the opportunity to access the labour market and enjoy the countless socio-
economic benefits of job security (explored through the resource dimension).
High levels of interdependency and the influence of stakeholders: As emphasized in
this case, stakeholders participating directly and indirectly in the social value
chain benefit from the SE stakeholder approach to value creation. This aims to
meet the interests of stakeholders over profit maximization (explored through
the value networks and key resources).
High fixed costs: value networks which achieve a common social benefit have
created new resource acquisition strategies, reducing limitations due to difficul-
ties in obtaining buildings and land to run tourism and hospitality operations.
Additionally promoting innovative forms of employment such as volunteering
reduces high costs of skilled employment (value networks).
Challenges to create and maintain loyalty due to the commoditisation of the
hospitality and tourism product: the SE product often appeals to new customer
segments. Loyalty is created due to an inexorable commitment to their social
mission, which in turn creates a unique selling point distinguishing them from
other hospitality and tourism products (explored through the customer
relationship).
Questions
1. After reading chapter “Business Models for Social Entrepreneurship in Tour-

ism” in this book and this case study can you reflect on the advantages and
disadvantages of using the Business Model Canvas as a lens for the analysis of
social enterprises?
2. Download the Business Model Canvas from the following website http://www.
businessmodelgeneration.com/canvas/bmc and then apply it to analyse the core
business models of any one of the following tourism social enterprises:
http://realitytoursandtravel.com/
http://sockmobevents.org.uk/
http://www.tribewanted.com/
http://www.fifteen.net/
3. Reflecting on the case study can you outline areas of the social enterprise
business model that help increase the resilience of the business?
References
Adler, P., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 27(1), 17–40.
Alter, K. (2003). Social enterprise: A typology of the field contextualised in Latin America.
Washington, DC: IDB Publications.
Barr, T., Smith, B., & Stevens, C. (2007). Reducing poverty through social entrepreneurship: The
case of Edun. In J. Stoner & C. Wankel (Eds.), Innovative approaches to reducing global
poverty (pp. 27–42). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Boschee, J., & McClurg, J. (2003). Toward a better understanding of social entrepreneurship:
Some important distinctions. Retrieved June 11, 2015, from http://se-alliance.org/better_under
standing.pdf
Crucke, S., Moray, N., & Stevens, R. (2008). The process of value creation in social entrepre-
neurial firms. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 28(21), 9.
Dees, J. (2001). The meaning of social entrepreneurship [online]. Retrieved May 17, 2011, from
http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/documents/dees_sedef.pdf
Flap, H. (1995). No man is an island. The research program of social capital theory. Paper
presented at the ‘Workshop on rational choice and social networks’. The Netherlands: Nia,
Wassenaa, p. 92.
Laville, J., & Nyssens, M. (2001). The social enterprise: Towards a theoretical socio-economic
approach. In C. Borzaga & J. Defourny (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise
(pp. 312–332). London: Routledge.
Mair, J., & Seelos, C. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the
poor. Business Horizons, 48(3), 241–246.
Nicholls, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sommerrock, K. (2010). Social entrepreneurship business models. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Yunus, M. (2007). Creating a world without poverty: Social business and the future of capitalism.
New York: Public Affairs.
work on TIPSE.
Gavin Bate started the tour operator Adventure Alternative in 1991 during a long period of travel
in the Himalayas, East Africa and Alaska. As a result of a solo trip across the Sahara Desert, Gavin
set up a charity called Moving Mountains using funds raised from his mountain climbs to put
children through school. In 2000 Gavin celebrated the Millennium by attempting to climb the
Seven Summits in 1 year, in the process raising money for Comic Relief by wearing a red nose on
each summit. He has climbed Mount Everest five times, three times without supplemental oxygen
and once alone. Through these high profile mountaineering ventures he has raised over half a
million pounds for Moving Mountains.
Isabel Quezada was born and raised in Quito, Ecuador, and soon discovered her passion for the
hospitality industry guided by her service orientation, passion for people, travel and cultural
diversity. Fifteen years in the industry have taken her to Switzerland, Mexico and the United
Kingdom; where she witnessed the personal and professional growth of people in hospitality from
a variety of socio-economic background, nationalities and educational levels. This ignited her
desire to engage in research to further the hospitality and tourism industry’s contribution to
poverty alleviation. She lives in Ecuador where she leads social corporate responsibility initiatives
in tourism.
The Influence of Social Entrepreneurship
in Tourism on an Arab Village in Israel
Alexandra Stenvall, Daniel Laven, and Alon Gelbman
Abstract This chapter explores how social entrepreneurship in tourism can convey
societal benefits in an underserved Arab community in Israel. This analysis draws
from three theoretical perspectives (i) social sustainability, (ii) theories associated
with tourism, development, and economic empowerment, and (iii) the growing
body of scholarship on tourism and peace-building efforts, and also includes an
empirical case study situated in the Israeli village of Jisr-az Zarqa. The study
focuses on the development of the village’s first commercial guest house, which
is operated through a special Arab-Jewish partnership. This study employed quali-
tative research methods such as participant observation and in-depth, open-ended
interviews. Findings revealed three categories associated with the influence of
social entrepreneurship in tourism in Jisr az-Zarqa. The first category is largely
descriptive and identifies the barriers to tourism development in the village. The
second category analyzes the role of social entrepreneurship in tourism through the
special Arab-Jewish business partnership that operates the guesthouse. The third
category offers insights into the impacts associated with Jisr az-Zarq’s first com-
mercial guesthouse.
Keywords Social entrepreneurship in tourism • Community-based tourism • Arab-

Jewish tourism partnership in Israel • Jisr az-Zarqa
1 Introduction
The chapter draws from three theoretical perspectives—and an empirical case

study—to explore how social entrepreneurship in tourism can convey societal
benefits in an underserved Arab community in Israel. Our first theoretical lens is
A. Stenvall • D. Laven (*)

Department of Tourism Studies and Geography, European Tourism Research Institute
(ETOUR), Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden
A. Gelbman
Kinneret College on the Sea of Galilee, Sea of Galilee, Israel

280 A. Stenvall et al.
rooted in concepts of social sustainability (Ateljevic, 2009; Mak, 2004; Mowforth

& Munt, 2009; Tribe, 2007). Much of this literature emphasizes justice tourism and
its social contribution, which are critical issues for Arab communities in Israel and
the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Our next theoretical lens draws from theo-
ries associated with tourism, development, and economic empowerment. Various
scholars have advanced theories about how community-based initiatives in tourism
can address poverty reduction (Alter, 2006; Hall & Brown, 2006; Spenceley &
Meyer, 2012), and this perspective is important because Arab communities in Israel
experience significant economic disadvantage compared to their Jewish counter-
parts (Chernichovsky & Anson, 2005). Our third perspective comes from the
growing body of scholarship on tourism and peace-building efforts (Haberstroh,
2011; Haessly, 2010; Jafari, 1989; Kelly, 2012). While scholarship on the effects of
tourism and peace tends to be mixed (some studies suggest that tourism can
promote peace, while other studies conclude the opposite), the agenda of tourism
and peace lies at the heart of the Israeli-Arab community included in our study.
This chapter aims to provide a critical analysis of tourism development as social
entrepreneurship in an underserved Arab community in Israel. It will outline how
social tourism can be used as a development strategy in a systemically underserved
community characterized by deep cross-cultural conflict. From this point of depar-
ture, the chapter will present new data and offer insights into the potential for
social entrepreneurship in tourism to provide community benefits within the chal-
lenging Israeli-Palestinian context and conflict. We conclude by discussing the
implications of this approach more broadly.
This study utilizes qualitative research methods and an exploratory case study
design. The study site is the recently opened guesthouse—“Juha’s Guesthouse”—in
one of Israel’s poorest villages, the Arab community of Jisr az-Zarqa. The guest-
house is operated through an Arab-Jewish business partnership that seeks to use
tourism as a primary development strategy. Data were collected during field visits
between July 2013 and January 2016, which included semi-structured interviews,
participant observation, and extensive document review. Data were then coded and
analyzed for explanatory themes.
2 Tourism as a Resource for Peace-Building
The first time peace and tourism were the joint topics of an international conference
was in 1988 at “The First Global Conference on Tourism—a Vital Force for Peace”
(the conference was held in Vancouver Canada). The report from the conference
described tourism as a uniting force for cross-cultural cooperation and tolerance
worldwide (Jafari, 1989). Today a growing body of scientific literature and policy
discourse advocates tourism as an effective global tool for promoting peace.
Because peace is a complex issue, Haessly (2010) argues that it is important to
conceptualize peace beyond the definition of the absence of conflict, violence and
war. This view of peace depends upon what peace constitutes as well as what is
needed for the creation of “sustainable peace”, not only in the present but also into
The Influence of Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism on an Arab Village in Israel 281
the future. In this sense, peace stretches beyond the absence of structural violence
into a more holistic construct. Thus, peace is a liberation on personal as well as
societal levels, where the potential of every human being to care for themselves,
others, and all of creation can be reached. Haessly (2010) states that in such a world
basic human needs are considered as basic human rights in which each person has
the right to live in freedom and with dignity.
It is obvious that non-peaceful actions affect the tourism industry and negatively
impact the economic livelihoods of those dependent on the tourism sector. At the
same time, it is important to note that the tourism sector is often recognized for its
ability to foster cross-cultural understanding and support peaceful relationships
amongst people. For example, Haberstroh (2011) highlights this potential by
referring to the tourism industry as “The Peace Industry”, because of the sector’s
potential for serving as an effective cross-communication tool among cultures.
A growing body of research suggests that tourism should focus on the grassroots
level—especially the host-tourist encounter—in order to be an effective peace-
fostering tool. For example, Kelly (2012) stresses that such personal encounters
may have positive impacts on reducing anxiety towards dealing with unfamiliar
issues (for instance awareness of conditions in less developed countries). Other
positive impacts include the pursuit of status equality between hosts and visitors by
enhancing the similarities between them (i.e., by connecting people from the same
religion, age-group or profession). Haessly (2010) and Kelly (2012) also stress that
focusing on the role tourism can play in promoting reconciliation between hostile
groups (within or across national borders) may in fact encourage initial policies for
cooperation and/or connections between former or present enemies.
Another perspective is offered by Kassis’s (2006) treatment of justice tourism.
According to this view, justice tourism as highly place-specific and aims to address
specific problems at specific destinations. The idea is that tourism can be used to
raise awareness around specific issues, and tourism-related activities can then be
designed to directly meet the needs and interests of local people. In this way,
specific issues (e.g., poverty, environmental pollution) do not necessarily have to
be linked to tourism. Rather, tourists become linked to the issue at the destination
and the associated injustices. Four attributes of justice tourism have been identified
by Scheyvens (2002) that stress how travelers can be a part of the process towards
building empowered and just communities. These four attributes of justice tourism
are: (i) building solidarity between visitors and those visited; (ii) promoting
mutual understanding and relationships based on equity, sharing and respect; (iii)
supporting self-sufficiency and self-determination of local communities; and
(iv) maximizing local economic, cultural and social benefits.
3 Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism
Entrepreneurship is closely linked to innovation and creativity and is defined as “the

capacity and willingness to develop, organize and manage a business venture along
with any of its risks in order to make a profit” (Business Dictionary, 2014).
Similarly, the ‘entrepreneur’ is commonly seen as a business leader and innovator
of new ideas and business processes (Investopedia, 2014). For example,
Veeraraghvan (2009) states that the main characteristics of entrepreneurs include
the “ability to take risks and indulge in creative destruction (when new inventions
destroy old structures) and innovation” (p. 14). Success depends highly upon an
entrepreneur’s ability to spot opportunities, create a team of talented co-workers
who compensate one other’s skills, access to various types of capital (technical and
human), and the ability able to operate in an environment that supports innovative
activities. In this sense, innovation refers to a new way of doing something in which
the innovator is providing the idea while the entrepreneur develops that idea into a
commercial activity.
Social entrepreneurship is generally described from a private sector perspective
or a third sector [or non-governmental organization (NGO)] perspective. From the
profit sector perspective, social entrepreneurship refers to activities that emphasize
the importance of being socially-engaged and the benefits that accrue to entre-
preneurs that “do well by doing good”. From the third sector perspective, the
concept refers to activities that encourage more entrepreneurial approaches in the
nonprofit sector in order to increase organizational effectiveness and foster long-
term sustainability (Hibbert, Hogg, & Quinn, 2002). Despite its growing popularity,
social entrepreneurship has received little scholarly attention within the field of
tourism. However, several studies have been published in recent years. For exam-
ple, van der Weppen and Cochrane (2012) have noted that social enterprises have a
considerable impact on local economic development as those businesses tend to act
in a socially responsible manner (e.g., local employment, support for external
projects that benefit society more broadly, etc.). In addition, these authors suggest
that while social entrepreneurs have the typical entrepreneurial mind-set, they also
tend to have additional characteristics such as passion and confidence in people’s
capacity to contribute to individual and societal development. Thus, social entre-
preneurs have the potential to use tourism ventures as a way to address a wide range
of social challenges.
Another example is the work of Spenceley and Meyer (2012), in which these
authors argue that social businesses seek to meet the needs of local people while
also remaining commercially profitable. In this way, social businesses are becom-
ing increasingly involved in reducing poverty within the communities in which they
operate. These authors further suggest that work on tourism and poverty reduction
in less developed countries, as well as in the tourist-generating countries, should
focus on integrating the private sector into these efforts. Spenceley and Meyer
(2012) conclude, however, that there needs to be a mentality shift towards poverty
reduction within the private sector so that “it becomes the norm rather than the
exception within the tourism industry” (p. 311).
In summary, the role of social entrepreneurship in the tourism sector has only
recently received scholarly attention. These early studies have largely focused on
how social entrepreneurship in tourism can serve as a catalyst for creating societal
empowerment and enable marginalized people to build their capacity to turn ideas
into business. This chapter extends earlier studies by examining how the tourism
activities of social business actors are blending entrepreneurship, empowerment
and poverty alleviation in an underserved Arab community in Israel.
4 Arab Communities in Israel
The geographical area that today constitutes the State of Israel is, unarguably,
contested and under constant international scrutiny. The dispute, which is often
referred to as the Arab-Israeli conflict, has its roots in a long history of conflict over
territorial control, which continues to be fueled by colonial, ideological, religious,
and political motives.
For example, one result of what is now considered the first Arab-Israeli war (the
war that occurred in 1948, which is associated with the establishment of the State of
Israel and the Palestinian Nakba) was the displacement of over 700,000
Palestinians. The vast majority of these refugees ended up in Egypt, Lebanon,
Syria, Jordan, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Only refugees in Jordan were
granted Jordanian citizenship, whereas those in other areas are still today living in
refugee camps. During this time, about 150,000 Palestinians stayed in Israel and
became Israeli citizens. Today, these people are commonly referred to as Israeli
Arabs or Palestinian citizens of Israel (Margalith, 1953; Waxman, 2012). Despite
numerous efforts to bring peace between the State of Israel and the Palestinians
(e.g., the Oslo Peace Accords), the issue of Palestinian refugees is still not resolved
and remains a key subject at every peace negotiation regarding the broader Arab-
Israeli conflict. Today, the Arab minority in Israel’s constitutes about 20 % of
country’s population.1 Despite holding Israeli citizenship, Israel’s Arab population
has been chronically and systematically underserved compared to Israel’s Jewish
citizens.
In terms of tourism, Israel attracts travelers from all over the world, in large part,
because of the country’s linkage to the three major Abrahamic religions; Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam (Israel Ministry of Tourism, 2014). With the establishment
of the State of Israel in 1948, tourism broadened from purely spiritual travelling to
also include leisure and recreational tourism (Israel Ministry of Tourism, 2014).
Along with its religious, cultural and historical attractions, the country today offers
1
The authors refer here to the internationally recognized boundaries of the State of Israel, which
excludes the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
a diverse tourism product that highlights the pleasant climate, diverse landscape,
modern leisure offers, and international events; all within the small geographical
area of the country (Gelbman, 2008; Israel Ministry of Tourism, 2014). Despite the
wealth of tourisms sites and opportunities in Israel, many of Israel’s Arab commu-
nities lack the capacity and ability to fully participate in the tourism sector, which
has resulted in a substantial gap compared to other communities in the country.
5 Methods
Study data were collected using qualitative research methods over the course of
three separate study visits: July 2013, March 2014, and January 2016. In each of
these visits, researchers used participant observation techniques and conducted
in-depth, open-ended interviews. Participant observation included observations of
staff meetings, interaction with the guesthouse’s staff and volunteers, as well as
interactions with guests. These participant observations focused on observing how
the guesthouse’s senior management team framed and delivered their interpretive
message, with a particular emphasis on how they handled their cross-cultural
dynamics.
Researchers also conducted several in-depth interviews with the hostel’s
senior management staff, which represents a form of purposeful and key informant
sampling strategies. These interviews focused on understanding the guesthouse’s
special Arab-Jewish ownership and management partnership and how the
guesthouse’s owners/operators view their work in the context of tourism develop-
ment and the cross-cultural dynamics in the Israeli-Palestinian context.
6 Juha’s Guesthouse in the Village of Jisr az-Zarqa
The former fishing village of Jisr az-Zarqa (Arabic for ‘Bridge over the Blue’) is
located on the coastline between Tel Aviv and Haifa, just north of the historic site of
Caesarea. The village lies in close proximity to archeological remains, a nature reserve,
and is crossed by the ‘Israel National Hiking Trail’, which stretches 1000 km from
Eilat in the south to Dan in the north. Jisr az-Zarqa dates back 500 years and was
first settled by people who lived in the swamps of the nearby communities of
Hadera and Binyamina, and as a result, the residents were known as ‘the swamp-
people’ (Picow, 2011). The village remained intact during the violent periods
leading up to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. The residents of Jisr
az-Zarqa have largely peaceful relationships with the neighboring Jewish commu-
nities although these relationships mirror the tensions and conflicts associated with
the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Jisr az-Zarqa consists of a Muslim-Arab population of 14,000 inhabitants, and
the community is geographically isolated from the other Arab communities on the
coastline of Israel. The village’s infrastructure is poor and is serviced by only two
bus lines (as of March 2014). In addition, there are only two entrances to the com-
munity, which are accessed from the nearby highway. As a result, the area has been
referred to as “a poverty-stricken paradise” (Arad, 2014) and, according to the
Israeli newspaper Haaretz (Haaretz 2008, 2010), Jisr az-Zarqa had some of the
lowest monthly incomes and highest school dropout rates of any Arab village in
Israel, and was later placed at the bottom of the national list of average grades on
matriculation exams (Arad, 2014). In Jisr az-Zarqa, 80 % of the population lives
below the Israeli poverty line of $7.30 per person per day, unemployment hovers
around 30 %, and crime rates are high (Miller, 2013).
Jisr az-Zarqa is an example of how poverty manifests itself not only through a
lack of financial means, but also in apathy towards one’s own existence. Such
apathy results in low self-esteem about one’s ability to fully live in accordance with
one’s capacity (Hanien & Juha, personal communication, March 20, 2014). In terms
of Jisr az-Zarqa, El-Ali (2013, as cited in Miller, 2013, p. 1) noted that the village
“exists under impossible conditions. The people know what cards they are holding,
but they don’t have the education or the initial capital to start a business, nor the
ability to raise the capital needed, or the knowledge of how they skip over the
bureaucratic hurdles”. The village’s situation is exemplified by, and made worse
from, the nearly five meter-high earthen embankment between Jisr az-Zarqa and the
neighboring town of Caesarea. Erected in 2002, the stated purpose of this partition
is to create a barrier that prevents noise and theft from Jisr az-Zarqa from
reaching the residents of Caesarea. From a critical standpoint, the embankment
was regarded as another racial separation wall, marking the border between one of
Israel’s wealthiest Jewish settlements and the country’s poorest Arab community
(Herzliya Museum, 2009; Miller, 2013).
In 2011, the village sought to promote tourism development through an initiative
by the local municipality and the NGO, Sikkuy2 (Picow, 2011). Yet because Jisr
az-Zarqa has the reputation of being one of the poorest communities in Israel,
tourism development has proved difficult due to perceptions of isolation, neglect,
and poverty (Picow, 2011). Despite these challenges, two entrepreneurs from
different cultural backgrounds (Neta Hanien, a non-local Jew and Ahmad Juha, a
local Muslim) formed a business partnership and opened Juha’s Guesthouse in the
center of the village in January 2014. Along with operating a successful business,
these two entrepreneurs sought to erase old stereotypes about Jisr az-Zarqa and help
the village and its residents through engagement in the tourism industry (Miller,
2013).
Juha’s Guesthouse is situated in the heart of the village and is the first tourist
accommodation venture in Jisr az-Zarqa. The guesthouse opened in January 2014.
The idea to establish a guesthouse in the village originated from Neta Hanien, who
in 2008 had visited the village for the first time and felt that the village had
2
Sikkuy, which means “opportunity” in Hebrew is a “shared organization of Jewish and Arab
citizens, working to implement full equality on all levels between Arab Palestinian and Jewish
citizens of Israel” (http://www.sikkuy.org.il/about/?lang¼en).
Fig. 1 Juha’s Guesthouse in Jisr az-Zarqa, March 2014 (photo by Alexandra Stenvall)
significant potential as a tourist attraction. She looked for a business partner for half
a year until she was introduced to Ahmad Juha, a local entrepreneur with previous
experience in the tourism sector. Together they chose a locale owned by Mr. Juha
for the prospective guesthouse (see Fig. 1).
The entrepreneurs launched a crowd-funding campaign in late summer of 2013
through an Israeli website. This campaign aimed to raise NIS 60,000 for initial
renovations but instead generated over NIS 90,000 (N. Hanien & A. Juha, personal
communication, March 20, 2014) The business idea for the guesthouse was largely
inspired by the Fauzi Azar Inn, which is another guesthouse located in the Old City
of Nazareth (Gelbman & Laven, 2015). Ahmad Juha and Neta Hanien attended
several mentoring workshops at the Fauzi Azar Inn where they received guidance
from one of the owners, Maoz Inon (N. Hanien, personal communication, July
10, 2013). In the spirit of (Muhammad Yunus, 2007; Yunus Social Business, 2013)
concept of social business, the owners of Juha’s guesthouse sought to reinvest their
profits into other social entrepreneurship and development initiatives in Jisr
az-Zarqa. The mission of the guesthouse is “to welcome all travelers and hikers
and create a social business that enriches society” (Juha’s Guesthouse, 2014) by
working with local residents to stimulate that local economy as well as to initiate
volunteer projects that benefit the village.
At the time of this writing, Juha’s Guesthouse offers 12 beds, a shared common
room and kitchen, and two bathrooms (including showers). A simple breakfast is
served every morning, and guests are offered a rich itinerary of suggested activities
that are available in the area. In addition, a map and website has been created that
promotes the village’s fishing heritage, pristine beach, and other attractions in an
effort to connect visitors with local residents.
7 Findings: Observations About Social Entrepreneurship

in Tourism as a Development Strategy for Israel’s
Underserved Arab Communities
Our data set can be organized into three exploratory categories: (i) barriers to
tourism development in Jisr az-Zarqa, (ii) social entrepreneurship in tourism and
an Arab-Jewish business partnership, and (iii) impacts associated with Jisr
az-Zarq’s first commercial guesthouse. The remainder of this section discusses
these themes.
7.1 Barriers to Tourism Development in Jisr az-Zarqa
The most dominant category from our data set consisted of issues of sustainability,
development, and empowerment for Israel’s Arab minority. Respondents empha-
sized these concerns at the individual as well as community level. The interviews
also revealed interesting dynamics between development and the geopolitical
context, shedding light on historical as well as present tensions associated with
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For example, the interviews revealed that sustain-
ability is viewed primarily from a social and economic aspect, rather than the
traditionally environmental point of view. Development is mainly perceived as
community-focused and highlights the potential for tourism and related entre-
preneurial activities. Importantly, nearly every study participant referenced the
importance or desire for greater empowerment in order to address the needs of
oppressed and chronically underserved segments of Israeli society.
Another key theme that emerged from the data was the negative perception of
“self” among residents, which has resulted in low self-esteem. An important
element of this theme is the fear that many Israeli Jews have about visiting Jisr
az-Zarqa because of its status as a poor and unsafe Arab community. The ongoing
waves of cross-cultural violence have exacerbated this fear, and it is obvious that
the geopolitical conflict serves as underlying emotional baggage that hinders the
ability for each side to engage each other in healthy terms. Furthermore, the inter-
views confirm the general perception that Arab communities in Israel experience
significant institutional and social oppression and repression.
The notion that residents of Jisr az-Zarqa suffer from a negative self-image is
supported by observations from one of the founders of Juha’s Guesthouse, who
describes the situation as “they don’t believe in themselves” (N. Hanien, personal
communication, July 2013). In addition, data gathered from several other
interviewees suggest that due to Jisr az-Zarqa’s geographical location, the village
has become isolated from other Arab communities in the region and therefore has
not had the opportunity to expand or develop in the same way as neighboring
Jewish communities. Local resident and co-founder of the guesthouse, Ahmad
Juha, notes that living in Jisr az-Zarqa is comparable to living on an isolated island;
underprivileged in comparison to its neighboring communities (personal communi-
cation, March 21, 2014). This observation is further supported by the NGO Sikkuy,
which claims that Jisr az-Zarqa has been neglected by both the Israeli government
as well as the other Arab communities in Israel (personal communication, March
19, 2014).
Along with issues of low self-image, study participants also described the failure
of several efforts from external NGOs that were designed to empower local
residents through the development and acquisition of tourism related skills. Several
respondents noted that these efforts were unsuccessful due to their top-down
approach, which failed to address the needs of the village and its residents. Neta
Hanien was very clear about this issue: “[---] an outsider NGO coming and trying to
educate the community to do something or to develop something, it wouldn’t work”
(personal communication, March 21, 2014).
Another challenge described by study participants E. Ben-Yeminy, N. Hanien
and A. Juha (personal communication, July 15, 2013) is how Jisr az-Zarqa suffers
from high rates of school drop-out. These respondents wish to address the issue by
introducing tourism education into the curriculum of the local secondary school.
Their argument is that tourism education could have a positive impact on the village
by providing skilled labor to ventures like Juha’s guesthouse.
Another constraint identified by study respondents is the lack of funding from
government development initiatives. Study participants generally perceived that
this lack of funding is a direct result of the guesthouse’s location in an Arab com-
munity. In addition, study participants reflected on how local power relations influ-
ence the process of community development. For example, local political allegiances
may ease or aggravate the establishment of new businesses and initiatives depend-
ing on which municipal political party (or mayor) holds office at a given time.
However, study participants also noted that shared municipal interests can function
as a unifying force and create cross-party political traction: “The bottom-line is that
an economic interest is something that brings people together” (Hanien, personal
communication, March 20 2014).
7.2 Social Tourism Entrepreneurship and an Arab-Jewish

Business Partnership
Arab-Jewish business cooperation is not a unique or new phenomena in Israel.

However, such cooperation largely occurs in heterogeneous settings and is rare in
communities that are solely Arab or solely Jewish. In discussing their business
partnership, N. Horowitz and A. Hamdan explain that it is important that the
guesthouse is in an Arab community because this will help promote economic

growth and attract financial investment. From their perspective, tourism has the
potential to be a powerful tool to bring about change because of the growing interest
among many visitors in efforts that promote Arab-Israeli equality (personal com-
munication, March 19, 2014).
When asked to reflect on their business partnership, and the relationship between
tourism and peace more generally, A. Hamdan and N. Horowitz note that tourism
can promote peaceful coexistence between Israel’s Arab and Jewish citizens by
serving as a “neutral unifier” in which people from “both sides” come together.
Importantly, tourism in Israel’s Arab communities can also help preserve tangible
heritage assets and their associated narratives. Such preservation is critical because
Israel’s Arab (or Palestinian) heritage is largely excluded or ignored from the dis-
course associated with Israel’s national identity as a Jewish state (personal com-
munication, March 19, 2014).
One of the co-founders of the guesthouse does not want to comment about the
venture’s role in promoting peace. She emphasized that the political aspects of the
cooperation is nothing that she thinks about, and that she does not want to view their
“Arab-Jewish cooperation” as the main purpose of the project. She is clear that the
main purpose of the project is to serve human needs. Nevertheless, N. Hanien
speculates that only by being aware of the existing gaps between Arabs and Jews in
order to start a process towards mutual understanding. She states, “Yes, I think that
is the only way we can [---] finally be able to live together. You need to co-operate
and then you will understand each other. [---] Maybe the thing [road to peace]
starts with small co-operations that do not involve a big risk [---].” (N. Hanien,
personal communication, March 25, 2014).
7.3 Impacts Associated with Jisr az-Zarq’s First Commercial

Hostel
During the researchers’ first study visit in July 2013, study participants in Jisr
az-Zarqa noted that while the village’s tourism potential is enormous, it still has
not been recognized by local residents. During the second study field visit in March
2014, the same study participants shared that local residents have started to under-
stand the village’s tourism potential. In addition, governmental institutions
expressed interested in contributing to the process of developing tourism in the
village (Hanien, personal communication, March 20, 2014). Such interest reflects a
growing recognition that tourism development can contribute to socio-economic
growth as well as help communicate the story and culture of Jisr az-Zarqa. Every
study participant stated that Jisr az-Zarqa’s most important resource (or tourism
pull factor) is the village’s rich and authentic Arabic cultural experience.
According to several study participants, the accommodation business is consi-
dered to be the most efficient way of generating tourism flows to the village.
For example, one study participant stated that “[visitors] need to know that there is a
place to stay so they have time to wander around [---]. In this kind of small and poor
village no one will start a big business if it is not an accommodation that will start
[---] to pull [---]” (Hanien, personal communication, March 21, 2014). The two
co-founders of Juha’s Guesthouse agreed that the development process in Jisr
az-Zarqa has started with the introduction of the guesthouse, and that backpackers
and trekkers on the Israel Trail are the most promising customer segment to push
the village’s positive development trend.
Despite the challenges of the current geo-political climate, tourism has made
important contributions to the development of the village. Previously, for example,
visitors usually came with a guided group and headed directly to the beach because
they were afraid of spending time in the center of the village. Since the establish-
ment of the guesthouse, however, tourists are spending more time in the village
center with local people. According to A. Juha, “[the guesthouse] had a great effect
already, because everything that was on the media, and all the people, the guests
coming [---] and going to the local businesses is completely new. It never existed
before” (personal communication, March 20, 2014).
The three study visits to Jisr az-Zarqa conducted by the researchers reinforce
Mr. Juha’s perception. One of these visits occurred before the guesthouse was esta-
blished and two of the visits occurred after the guest house opened. Observations con-
ducted during these visits suggest that some development has taken place as a result of
tourism associated with the guesthouse. For example, researchers observed that a new
restaurant as well as a new coffee shop opened, other buildings located adjacent to the
guesthouse were renovated, cleaning of streets has become more routine, and residents
have begun to describe a shift in the village from “bad” to “good”. At appears that the
new guesthouse helped put Jisr az-Zarqa “on the map” (e.g., more than 200 overnight
tourists in the opening year). Despite this early success, the village still suffers from
isolation and poor infrastructure (personal observations, July 2013; March 2014).
Not surprisingly, community leaders have identified business development as
the pathway for the socio-economic development of Jisr az-Zarqa. Within this
context, Juha’s Guesthouse is seen to be an important catalyst or facilitator of
such change. According to study participants, the guesthouse is one of the most
successful steps towards empowerment of local residents. In fact, several study
participants expressed the opinion that all socio-economic and community devel-
opment is inter-connected (E. Ben-Yeminy, personal communication, July
15, 2013), and that empowerment happens on different levels; self-image, local
relationships, external relationships, and, economic aspects (N. Hanien, March
20, 2014). In order to encourage local residents to start their own businesses, the
co-founders of Juha’s Guesthouse believe that there must be an example or model;
some kind of inspiration that helps to open a path for others to follow. The owners
note that encouragement is a powerful method for helping other local residents to
pursue their own business ideas. Study participants were also careful to note the
importance of respecting the community, especially when balancing development
with the preservation of local traditions (E. Ben-Yeminy, personal communication,
July 15, 2013).
8 Conclusions
This study generally reinforces previous observations about the socio-economic

imbalance between Israel’s Arab and Jewish populations. Representatives from the
organization Sikkuy argue that such “policies of exclusion” are also creating
tensions at the personal level between Israel’s Arab and Jewish citizens. Such
dynamics underscore the importance of creating opportunities for the different
actors involved in the conflict to engage each other, express their own narratives
of the conflict on equal terms, and ultimately create a shared story (N. Horowitz &
A. Hamdan, personal communication, March 19, 2014). Juha’s Guesthouse repre-
sents an interesting and important example of how such cross-cultural engagement
can be possible within a tourism context.
Although previous research on the relationship between tourism and peace is
mixed, this study suggests that social entrepreneurship in tourism can serve as a
business-based bridge between Israel’s different cultural groups. This “bridging”
function appears to be an important element for reframing the relationships between
these different groups into healthier inter-dependencies, which is a dynamic that has
been generally absent in the Israeli-Palestinian context. Interestingly, similar
approaches are underway in other settings characterized by deep cross-cultural
conflict (e.g., the Balkans), and consequently, understanding these approaches,
and how to design policies to support their wide spread implementation represents
an important next step in this line of inquiry.
Questions
1. How can tourism development address some the basic socio-economic devel-
opment needs in places like Jisr az-Zarqa?
2. How can the business survive during times of crisis (e.g., surges in Israeli-
Palestinian violence) when tourism essentially stops?
3. How is this model transferable to other settings?
References
Alter, S. K. (2006). Social enterprise models and their mission and money relationships. In
A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable change (pp. 205–232).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arad, R. (2014, January 6). Israeli-Arab guesthouse opens, now all it needs is guests.
Ateljevic, J. (2009). Tourism entrepreneurship and regional development: Example from
New Zealand. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 15(3),
282–308.
Business Dictionary. (2014). Entrepreneurship. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from http://www.
businessdictionary.com/definition/entrepreneurship.html
Chernichovsky, D., & Anson, J. (2005). The Jewish–Arab divide in life expectancy in Israel.
Economics and Human Biology, 3(1), 123–137.
Gelbman, A. (2008). Border tourism in Israel: Conflict, peace, fear and hope. Tourism Geographies:
An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 10(2), 193–213.
Gelbman, A., & Laven, D. (2015). Re-envisioning community based heritage tourism in the old
city of Nazareth. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 10(4), 1–21. doi:10.1080/1743873X.2015.
1044993.
Haaretz (2008). Retrieved on 18 Oct 2016 from http://www.haaretz.com/highest-school-drop-out-
rate-in-non-jewish-sector-1.250152
Haaretz (2010). Retrieved on 18 Oct 2016 from http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/a-classic-
zionist-story-1.295418
Haberstroh, M. (2011). A convenient truth for tourism. Sustainable/responsible tourism and
renewable energy for peace. The Journal of Tourism and Peace Research, 1(2), 53–55.
Haessly, J. (2010). Tourism and a culture of peace. In O. Moufakkir & I. Kelly (Eds.), Tourism,
progress and peace (pp. 1–16). Wallingford: CABI.
Hall, D., & Brown, F. (2006). Tourism and welfare: Ethics, responsibility and sustained well-being.
Wallingford: CABI.
Herzliya Museum. (2009). Ron Amir. Jisr-Caesarea, photographs, 2002–08. Retrieved May
4, 2014, from http://www.herzliyamuseum.co.il/english/september-2008/sep08/ron-amir
Hibbert, S. A., Hogg, G., & Quinn, T. (2002). Consumer response to social entrepreneurship: The
case of the Big Issue in Scotland. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 7(3), 288–301.
Investopedia. (2014). Entrepreneur. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from http://www.investopedia.com/
terms/e/entrepreneur.asp
Israel Ministry of Tourism. (2014). Go Israel. State of Israel. Retrieved April 26, 2014, from http://
www.goisrael.com/Tourism_Eng/Tourist%20Information/Discover%20Isael/Pages/State%20of
%20Israel.aspx
Jafari, J. (1989). Tourism and peace. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(3), 439–443.
Juha’s Guesthouse. (2014). Retrieved May 4, 2014, from http://www.zarqabay.com
Kassis, R. (2006). Palestinians & justice tourism: Another tourism is possible. Unpublished manu-
script. Masters of Pilgrimage, Tourism and Cultural Heritage. Bethlehem TEMPUS Programme.
Kelly, I. (2012). Peace through tourism: An implementation guide. The Journal of Tourism and
Peace Research, 2(2), 32–49.
Mak, J. (2004). Tourism and the economy: Understanding the economics of tourism. Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawaii Press.
Margalith, H. (1953). Enactment of a nationality law in Israel. The American Journal of Compar-
ative Law, 1, 63–66.
Miller, T. (2013, October 15). Unlikely pair hope to make Israel’s only seaside Arab town a tourist
destination. Tablet Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-
politics/149059/israels-new-beach-town
Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2009). Tourism and sustainability (3rd ed.). Oxon: Routledge.
Picow, M. (2011, January 22). “Forgotten” Arab Israeli town gets chance to change eco-image.
Green Prophet. Retrieved from http://www.greenprophet.com/2011/01/forgotten-israeli-town/
Scheyvens, R. (2002). Tourism for development. Essex: Pearson Education.
Spenceley, A., & Meyer, D. (2012). Tourism and poverty reduction: Theory and practice in
less economically developed countries. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(3), 297–317.
Tribe, J. (2007). Critical tourism: Rules and resistance. In I. Ateljevic, A. Pritchard, & N. Morgan
(Eds.), The critical turn in tourism studies: Innovative research methodologies (pp. 29–39).
Oxford: Elsevier.
van der Weppen, J., & Cochrane, J. (2012). Social enterprises in tourism: An exploratory study of
Veeraraghavan, V. (2009). Entrepreneurship and innovation. Asia Pacific Business Review, 5(1),
14–20.
Waxman, D. (2012). A dangerous divide: The deterioration of Jewish-Palestinian relations in Israel.
The Middle East Journal, 66(1), 11–29.
Yunus, M. (2007). Creating a world without poverty—Social business and the future of capitalism
(p. 39). Philadelphia, PA: Perseus Books Group.
Yunus Social Business. (2013, February 20). Introducing Yunus Social Business [Video file].
Video posted to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9jbXDH81AA
Alexandra Stenvall completed her Master’s thesis (2013) in the Department of Tourism Studies
and Geography and the associated European Tourism Research Institute (ETOUR) at Mid Sweden
University. Her research focused on the application of the social business model to tourism devel-
opment. During her time at Mid Sweden University, Alexandra also completed an internship at the
prestigious Grameen Creative Lab (2013). The research presented in this chapter is derived from
Alexandra’s thesis work conducted at Mid Sweden University.
Daniel Laven is an associate professor and head of department in the Department of Tourism
Studies and Geography at Mid Sweden University. Daniel’s research is conducted under the
auspices of the university’s European Tourism Research Institute (ETOUR), and his scientific
work explores how heritage can be used to create more sustainable environments. Daniel is
currently co-editing a new volume titled Heritage and Peacebuilding with Diana Walters and
Peter Davis, which is scheduled to be released in early 2017 (published by Boydell & Brewer).
Alon Gelbman is a Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department of Tourism and Hotel Manage-
ment at Kinneret College on the Sea of Galilee, Israel. He is a Cultural Geographer and his
research interests include international tourism and geopolitical borders, tourism and peace and
urban/rural tourism. His research papers published in leading scientific journals such as Annals of
Tourism Research, Tourism Geographies and Current Issues in Tourism. More information can be
found at: http://kinneret.academia.edu/AlonGelbman.
Walking on Country with Bana Yarralji
Bubu: A Model for Aboriginal Social
Enterprise Tourism
Helen Murphy and Sharon Harwood
Abstract The purpose of this research is to describe a model for Aboriginal social
enterprise tourism developed by an Aboriginal family. This research examines the
relationship between the operation of the business and the vision guiding the
business owners through a qualitative case study of Bana Yarralji Bubu, a tourism
social enterprise in northern Queensland, Australia. The business owners have used
a holistic sustainability approach to pursue their cultural, environmental, wellbeing
and economic goals. This research finds however that efforts spent on achieving
multi-dimensional benefits have occurred at the expense of business development
and profitability. The research also demonstrates that business development has
been impacted both by negative social capital existing in the local community as
well as external factors such as land use planning and land administration systems,
the political environment and the tourism market. A new model is therefore
proposed that situates the tourism social enterprise relative to influences that clan
relationships have upon the operation of the business and illustrates how these
relationships combined with the external forces create additional inhibiting and
enabling conditions that affect the realization of business goals and overall sustain-
ability. This research uses the term ‘Aboriginal’ social enterprise tourism as it refers
to mainland Australian Aboriginal tourism opportunities, recognising that this term
is most appropriately used to refer to the specific identity of mainland Aboriginal
peoples within Australia on a national level. The term ‘indigenous’ is used in the
international context.
Keywords Aboriginal tourism • Social enterprise • Tourism model • Social

capital • Land tenure • Sustainability compass
H. Murphy (*) • S. Harwood

James Cook University, Cairns, QLD, Australia

296 H. Murphy and S. Harwood
1 Introduction
The Australian government supports Aboriginal entrepreneurship as a way of

tackling broad-based disadvantage faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people (Foley, 2003). In particular, Aboriginal entrepreneurial activity in tourism is
often promoted as a strategy for economic development (Whitford & Ruhanen,
2010). Despite this support, rates of Australian Aboriginal entrepreneurship remain
low (Pearson & Helms, 2013). This lack of success has been variously attributed to
lack of assets, poor education outcomes, lack of business experience and weak land
rights (Buultjens & White, 2008; Winer, Murphy, & Ludwick, 2012). In addition,
“the promotion of Australian Aboriginality business ventures, with paradigms that
lack Aboriginal community and cultural norms” has been identified as a barrier to
entrepreneurial success (Pearson & Helms, 2013: 51). One method that has been
suggested as a means of incorporating Aboriginal cultural values and governance
systems into business ventures is Australian Aboriginal social enterprise. This is
due to the potential of social entrepreneurship to act as a hybrid commercial model
“that does not measure success by profit alone, but operates to resolve pressing
social problems” (Pearson & Helms, 2013: 52). When successful, Aboriginal social
enterprise can provide opportunities for local economic development and social
inclusion, which contribute to “community goals such as greater economic inde-
pendence, sustainability and self-determination” (Loban & Ciccotosto, 2013). This
is particularly important against a background of government policy seen as
“imposing a set of measures on indigenous people, rather than supporting them to
develop their own solutions to community problems” (Maddison, 2009: 487).
A number of authors have presented social enterprise as a culturally acceptable
form of business for Aboriginal people, based on the cultural and anthropological
features of their society. These features include pluralistic views of society and
community sharing of resources (Foley, 2003), aspirations to achieve social change
(Frederick, 2008; Wood & Davidson, 2011), the importance of cultural obligations
and values (Peredo, Anderson, Galbraith, Honig, & Dana, 2004), and the “powerful
drive for collective action” arising from the drive to gain control of indigenous
lands (Giovannini, 2012). In an examination of a Maori social enterprise in
New Zealand, Overall, Tapsell, and Woods (2010) find that when historical and
cultural context are built into business models and governance frameworks, social
entrepreneurial sustainability and innovation can result. Pearson and Helms (2013)
study a remote Aboriginal social enterprise operating a timber operation, cattle
station and tourism facilities in northern Australia. The authors attribute the long-
term sustainability of the business to the incorporation of cultural norms, values and
hybrid business practices. These business practices include Altman’s (2001) hybrid
economies, which combine mainstream and traditional Aboriginal economic prac-
tices, although how hybrid economies operate in a tourism context is not clear.
There has been less attention, however, given to cases to describe how the incor-
poration of cultural norms and values into business models by Aboriginal social
entrepreneurs affects enterprise sustainability. In addition, more understanding is
Walking on Country with Bana Yarralji Bubu: A Model for Aboriginal Social. . . 297
needed of the impact of the external environment in which the Aboriginal social
enterprise operates. This research seeks to undertake an evaluation of an Aboriginal
social enterprise in order to address these research gaps.
Social enterprise involves organizations using innovative market-based
approaches to solve diverse social, economic, educational and environmental
problems (Curtis, 2008; Peredo & McLean, 2006). While the term ‘social enter-
prise’ includes a diversity of organizational types, the defining characteristics are
identified as a high degree of social mission combined with the trading of goods and
services (Peattie & Morley, 2008). At the core of social enterprise is the under-
standing that if the business is not able to generate resources, it will be unable to
fulfill its goals. Given this, the ways in which different business models are being
used by Aboriginal social entrepreneurs and how this affects enterprise sustainabil-
ity is an important topic. This research undertakes a detailed case study of an
Aboriginal social enterprise tourism venture (Bana Yarralji Bubu) in northern
Australia. Following this introduction, this chapter examines existing models for
social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in order to examine their relevance for
Aboriginal social entrepreneurs. The model used by Bana Yarralji Bubu is
presented to describe the holistic approach taken by the Aboriginal social entrepre-
neurs to achieve inter-related broad-based goals. The results from qualitative
interviews are discussed to describe how both the internal social environment and
the external environment affect operation of the social enterprise. The chapter
concludes with a new model for Aboriginal social enterprise that places the
Aboriginal social enterprise within the external environment and emphasizing the
need for social cohesion, and balance between social benefits and profitability.
2 Social Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Models
There are many different types of social enterprise organisations, many using
innovative approaches to create social benefits or social value. This diversity
makes the conceptual framing of these organisations challenging (Dart, Erin
Clow, & Armstrong, 2010). Some authors have proposed models for social enter-
prise based on the level of integration between trading activity and social programs
(Cheng & Ludlow, 2008) or the centrality of either profit or mission (Alter, 2006).
Others have focused on business model frameworks, describing the design of the
essential interdependent systems necessary to create a sustainable enterprise. Vives
and Svejenova (2011) use a lifecycle business model as a framework for social
business. The business model moves through four stages: origination, design,
operation and change, with emphasis placed on the conception or motivation for
establishing the business, and the outcome or change bought about by the business.
This is consistent with Yunus, Moingeon, and Lehman-Ortega’s (2010) finding that
the design of social business models is affected by the motivations of the social
entrepreneur (Yunus et al., 2010). The authors argue that while social entrepreneurs
are motivated primarily by social value and development, “economic gain is
important to the extent that it guarantees the financial viability of the social
venture” (Mair & Marti, 2004 in Vives & Svejenova, 2011). This model however,
does not include the context in which the business operates.
Jiao’s (2011) model for social entrepreneurship examines the different compo-
nents affecting the operation of the enterprise including its context and the impact
on social benefits derived. These components include entrepreneurial intention or
motivation, human capital, social capital and external factors including social,
environment and political environments. However, the role of cultural values as
well as the need for economic sustainability is omitted. Overall et al. (2010) on the
other hand stress the need for the inclusion of cultural values in the governance of
Indigenous social enterprise. They develop a culturally appropriate model for
Maori social enterprise based on Maori genealogical relationships. The double
spiral shape (or Takarangi) is used to demonstrate how interaction between a
Maori leader (rangatira) and younger innovative tribal member (potiki) leads to
innovative activity. The authors use this model to demonstrate the tensions between
Indigenous cultural contexts and traditional Western governance and business
frameworks. They find that innovation and entrepreneurial sustainability are
enhanced when historical and cultural contexts are taken into consideration.
These results are consistent with the literature where the importance of social-
economic, historic and cultural contexts in the study of Indigenous social enterprise
development has been widely acknowledged (Anderson, Dana, & Dana, 2006;
Tapsell & Woods, 2010).
While these international models are very different yet conceptually useful,
developing a framework for Aboriginal social enterprise requires careful consider-
ation of how these components are organized in an Australian context. Pearson and
Helms (2013) develop a transitional framework in their study of Australian Aborig-
inal social enterprise (refer to Fig. 1). The authors view the path to social enterprise
as occurring via a transitional stage, which bridges traditional Aboriginal structures
and contemporary commercial frameworks. The social enterprise, through mixing
traditional cultures and contemporary business practices gradually becomes a
commercial enterprise requiring no government funding. The authors find that
recognizing the need of clan members to maintain traditional hunter- gather life-
styles at the same time as pursuing commercial activities, guides the enterprise
slowly towards a market economy. This model is useful for identifying the need to
combine both traditional and contemporary practices for Aboriginal social entre-
preneurs. However, it cannot be assumed that this is a smooth or linear process. In
addition, the model fails to identify the relationship between the social enterprise
and the external environment in which it operates.
Given that this chapter describes a tourism social enterprise, a framework for
Indigenous tourism highlighting the role of culture as well as the external environ-
ment is not only relevant, but critical to understanding the system that these
enterprise operate within. Butler and Hinch (2007) present a model based on a
geographic tourism system, after Leiper (1990). In this model there is a flow of
tourists from the generating region to the destination where the Indigenous hosts are
found. Other active participants in the system are the travel trade, as well as the
Fig. 1 A transitional model for aboriginal social enterprise. Adapted from Pearson and Helms
(2013)
media and governments. Culture plays a central role in this system, and is evident in
the Indigenous tourism products, and also implicit in the “basic values and princi-
ples that are infused in the way an enterprise is operated” (Butler & Hinch, 2007: 8).
This tourism system is impacted by the broader environment, including trends in
economic, social, political and natural worlds. Economic considerations can
include government support for Indigenous tourism, as well as communal versus
private entrepreneurial approaches to Indigenous tourism development. Political
considerations can include the exercise of Indigenous legal and political rights as
well as the internal politics of Indigenous groups. The natural environment is an
important consideration, given the traditional relationship between Indigenous
people and their land (Notzke, 2006) and the increasing control of these lands by
Indigenous peoples. Finally, the ‘culture of poverty’ that characterizes the social
environment for many Indigenous people, both constrains tourism growth and leads
to tourism development goals related to improving basic living conditions (Butler
& Hinch, 2007).
3 Research Approach: Qualitative Collaborative Inquiry
This research is drawn from data collected from a larger PhD project working with
Bana Yarralji Bubu, a family-run Aboriginal social enterprise tourism venture in
northern Australia. The research, approved by the Human Research Ethics Com-
mittee of James Cook University, was carried out between 2012 and 2014, and
followed the process of Bana Yarralji Bubu business development and operation.
Workshops, interviews, participation and observation were used to explore social

enterprise development as well as host and guest interaction at the tourism site
(Jennings, 2010). As a non-Aboriginal researcher working with Aboriginal people,
it was important to ensure that the research was characterized by collaborative
processes. This is particularly important given the Euro-centric academic
approaches often used to examine the involvement of indigenous peoples in tourism
(Ryan & Aicken, 2005). This research has therefore been carried out in cooperation
and collaboration with the Aboriginal business owners to increase cross-cultural
understanding and ensure culturally appropriate rigorous research (Rigney, 1999).
Semi-structured interviews were also undertaken with a range of owners and
operators of Aboriginal tourism social enterprises within the region to give market
context. Semi-structured interviews allowed flexibility of participant response,
while ensuring basic ground was covered. Secondary sources were also used
including academic literature, reports and government policy documents and the
internet. Data collected has been analysed using both description and classification.
Interview responses were coded into similar categories and analysed using NVivo
qualitative content analysis software. Observations and data arising during work-
shops was written up to allow “a more thorough and comprehensive description of
the subject matter” (Kitchin & Tate, 2000: 233).
4 Case Study Results: Bana Yarralji Bubu Social

Enterprise
4.1 Location and Background of Research
The social enterprise at the heart of the case study in this research is a tourism
venture, Bana Yarralji Bubu. It is owned and operated by an Aboriginal family from
the Kuku Nyungkal clan group. The Kuku Nyungkal people are one of the three
traditional groups of the Eastern Kuku Yalanji people whose traditional lands
stretch between Cairns and Cooktown in northern Queensland, Australia (refer to
Fig. 2). Prior to European settlement, the Kuku Nyungkal people occupied their
traditional lands based on patrilineal clan estates. Seeing the landscape as human-
ized, they cared for the land in order to ensure their own health and well-being
(Anderson, 1983). When Europeans arrived in northern Queensland in the 1880s
Nyungkal people were gradually evicted from their traditional lands. At the same
time, they were also able in part to maintain traditional lifestyles and were “insu-
lated from some of the worst excesses of Queensland colonial history” (Wallace,
White, & Shee, 2011). However, by the 1950s, most Kuku Yalanji people in the
area had been forcibly removed into religious missions and government reserves.
Nyungkal people described the trauma of removal from Country and cultural
dislocation as making them feel “like a crane standing on one leg (no room for
two feet on the ground) on a little island” (Anderson & Coates, 1989).
Fig. 2 Eastern Kuku Yalanji Native title determination area showing location of Bana Yarralji
Bubu. This map is for illustration purposes only and the boundaries are not authoritative. Source:
A. Edwards (2015)
In 2007, after 15 years of negotiation, the native title rights of the Eastern Kuku
Yalanji peoples were formally recognised for the first time (NNTT, 2007). Native
title recognises the rights and interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples over their land and waters according to their traditional laws and customs.
This includes the right to camp on, hunt animals or gather plants in the native title
determination area, however it does not include the right to develop the land for
commercial purposes. Following the native title determination, the Queensland
state government transferred approximately 65,000 ha of land in the determination
area to Aboriginal freehold land. In return for 16,500 ha of this land to be made
available for commercial infrastructure development (called the Pink Zone), East-
ern Yalanji people set aside the remaining 48,000 ha as a nature reserve which they
consequently co-manage with state authorities. Development in the Pink Zone has
been very restricted because not only is the land steep and isolated, but the majority
of the land is located within the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, and covered by
conservation legislation, making development subject to “relatively high levels of
planning regulation” (Wallace et al., 2011: 15) While these agreements have
enabled many Eastern Kuku Yalanji people to fulfil their aspirations to return to
Country, their return has been soured by the realization that the complex land use
and land administration systems governing Aboriginal land effectively prohibit
most economic development (Wallace et al., 2011). This means that job creation
and enterprise development rates on Nyungkal lands remain low, ensuring the
continuation of poor socio-economic outcomes for Nyungkal people. The legacy
of traumatic removal from country, and separation from family and cultural tradi-
tion continues to be seen in communities dealing with ongoing social issues. See
Fig. 2 for a map of the region.
4.2 Bana Yarralji’s Business Model
The business owners have established a tourism social enterprise in order to

develop a better future for their family and community on their traditional lands.
This [is] my ancestral place, my parent’s place. . . . . .so I came back and moved here 8 years
ago, [and today I see] our culture, we neglecting, . . .We want to go back on country, we
want to live our lifestyle. . .teaching language, fishing and hunting. . . . . .and to come back
and share our knowledge. . . .we believe that spirits are still existing, our parents our
grandparents come with us, we can’t see them, they can see us, and that’s why going
back to this, it’s very important (M. Wallace, personal communication, 2013).
The owners and managers of Bana Yarralji Bubu, Marilyn and Peter Wallace,
have adopted a sustainability compass to guide their social enterprise tourism
business (refer to Fig. 3). This compass reflects the equal importance of the four
goals of the enterprise and according to Marilyn, “It’s our vision, what we want to
set our goals on and here’s our compass-style of how we want to integrate
everything around the workforce projects” (Marilyn personal communication,
2013). These goals are to improve the wellbeing of individuals and communities
Fig. 3 The compass of sustainability. Source: Atkisson (2011)
through cultural awareness; to protect and manage their land and sea resources; to
protect and manage cultural identity, lore and customs; and to create job opportu-
nities. The compass illustrates that all four goals must be achieved in balance if the
enterprise is to be sustainable. The business owners describe the vision that drives
them as follows:
To heal ourselves we must go back to our country and focus on positive decisions and
outcomes. We cannot look back, only to look forward as custodians for land and sea. We
must be creative thinkers to develop relevant opportunities for our mob. We must keep our
culture and identity on our bubu (country) as a Nyungkalwarra (Nyungkal person) for
future generations returning to their bubu (Bana Yarralji Bubu, Strategic Plan, unpublished
2009).
5 Bana Yarralji Bubu Tourism Operation
The name Bana Yarralji Bubu means ‘cool, freshwater country’ in Kuku Nyungkal
language illustrating the importance of the waterfalls, rivers and streams flowing
through their lands where the business owners wish to restore lore and culture
(White, 2011). They run a campsite where they live on their traditional land,
inviting tourists to come and “walk on Country” with them.1 The main customers
are educational tourists, such as domestic and international conservation and
scientific groups, and school and university groups who come to learn about
Aboriginal culture and land. Peak tourist season is between May and November
(the dry season), particularly the June/July and September school holidays. The
duration of tourist groups’ visits vary from 1 day to 1 month and tourist groups vary
in size from ten to as many as fifty people. The business owners have not formalized
their product range. Instead, lacking market data, they have tried a variety of
products based on the demands of visiting groups. These products include cultural
activities including painting and dancing workshops, collecting and cooking tradi-
tional bush foods, guided walks along bush tracks and learning about traditional
ecological knowledge.
5.1 Nature Goal: To Protect and Manage Land and Sea

Country
Interview results reveal that the obligation to protect the land is a driving force for
the business owners. They describe the importance of protection and respect for
sacred sites as follows:
. . .the sacred sites, that’s our asset, why is the land is our asset? The white man law system
it treats the body and the soul but not on the spiritual side of things. It comes up in our
sacred sites. . .we say you can’t go in there, you can’t disturb anyone in there. And the
waterfall and things like that, we go there to pray and to be a doctor, like going to a
university. It gives us power to qualify ourselves (P. Wallace, personal
communication, 2014).
The business owners view the tourism enterprise as a way to educate

non-Aboriginal visitors about the importance of caring for Country in traditional
ways. In addition, collaboration with conservation and land management groups
attracts volunteers who participate in environmental protection activities as well as
scientific data collection. This is an important source of labour for environmental
management activities, however it does not currently constitute a significant reve-
nue source for the enterprise.
1
‘Country’ is the term used by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to refer to the land they
belong to and their cultural connection to that land.
5.2 Wellbeing Goal: Healing Through Cultural Awareness
The business owners are strongly motivated by increasing well-being in their

family and community, as well as the wider non-Aboriginal community. A key
strategy for improving wellbeing in the wider community is through increasing
understanding and cultural awareness between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
people. This occurs through interaction between tourists and the business owners,
and takes the form of fire-side stories, informal talks and discussions and partici-
pation in cultural activities. From this interaction, the business owners feel pride in
teaching others about their culture, while tourists gain understanding through
personal connection with the business owners. This personal connection is
enhanced through informal and natural approaches such as story-telling and con-
versation. This strong sense of connection between tourists and Aboriginal people
has been a highly successful outcome for the enterprise.
The goal of increasing wellbeing in the local Aboriginal community has been
more difficult to achieve. The business owners want to provide culturally appro-
priate, community supported programs, such as cultural and language camps for the
local Nyungkal community. Hosting camps at the tourism enterprise is seen as a
way to allow community members to reconnect with Country, and get away from
distractions and tensions in local towns. The camps are also designed to educate the
community about how to solve social issues such as drinking, gambling and poor
health outcomes. However, results from interviews indicate that community jeal-
ousy and inter-family tensions are impacting the ability of the business owners to
fulfil these objectives. For example, community members can be reluctant to be
involved in cultural camps due to these jealousies and tensions. One way the owners
have tried to deal with this issue is through the incorporation of Aboriginal
governance systems in the enterprise. They have developed a traditional Aboriginal
(or bama) governance structure featuring a council of Nyungkal elders to ensure
things are done in accordance with cultural protocols. This governance structure has
helped the enterprise to gain support from the clan, however tensions still exist.
What we want to do is follow our footprint. Follow our kinship. . .we want to come from the
youngest member of the family. . . it’s the structure. . .Like without that structure, you’re on
shaky ground (P. Wallace, personal communication, 2013).
5.3 Society/Cultural Goal: Protecting Cultural Identity,

Rediscovering Lore and Customs
Interview results reveal that the business owners view the protection and manage-
ment of lore and custom to be a major focus of the enterprise.
. . .Our lore and custom is at risk, our language, our community. . . our flora and fauna and
land is at risk. All of those things. . .it goes right back to how people are connected to the
land in a tribal way and it’s something that we want to carry on. We’ve seen an opportunity
when we’ve got land that we can start pulling something together. Start consolidating our
lore and custom . . . and the opportunity is here (P. Wallace, personal communication,
2013).
This consolidation is achieved to a certain extent through the tourism enterprise,

as culture is communicated to tourists. However, the aims of the business owners
are broader than just providing cultural education experiences to tourists. They also
seek to improve knowledge of lore and custom throughout the wider Nyungkal
community, through the camps described above, as well as holding language
classes and creating a database of traditional ecological and cultural knowledge.
These diverse projects have meant that the business owners have frequently lacked
adequate time or resources to see all projects through to completion.
5.4 Economic Goal: Creating Culturally Appropriate Job

Opportunities
The business owners are strongly motivated to create jobs on Country, so that
family and community members do not have to move away to find work. This can
enable Nyungkal people to derive an income on the land as well as fulfil cultural
obligations to that land. The aim is to use the enterprise to create tourism jobs to
ensure future livelihoods for family and the younger generation.
We hope to do something like that- train our young people. Every bit of training helps. And
watering that plant [the young person] to help them get their roots down. And no-one else is
doing it in our community. . .We want to take these guys as far as having their own business
or having a share in the business. And looking at the caravan park and camp ground . . . and
invest in the whole thing, create real jobs for them. We want to take them that far. . .
(P. Wallace, personal communication, 2013).
Despite the goal of job creation, the ability of the enterprise to make a profit and
provide employment is very constrained. One of the reasons for this is that the
business owners lack business experience, particularly in the tourism sector.
Another constraining factor for the enterprise is the small-scale and seasonal nature
of the tourism business. The family usually close their business during the wet
season (which runs from November to April) as tourists numbers drop with the
difficult travel conditions. Even during the tourist season, the tourism enterprise can
only support a limited number of employees and is vulnerable to international
conditions. This is partly due to the small volume of visitors and low profit margins
of the enterprise. In addition, cultural obligations impact the ability of social
enterprise to run effectively. The business owners are often obliged to share profits
and business assets with extended family members, resulting in lack of capital
accumulation and constant replacement of assets.
The development of the business has also been impacted by the current nature of
land administration and land use planning regimes for Aboriginal land. Aboriginal
land is granted as communal title and formally held by land trusts on behalf of the
traditional owners of the land. The land cannot be bought, acquired or forfeited,
which prevents land being used to access capital and therefore prohibits tourism
business growth (Schmiechen & Boyle, 2007). An Aboriginal leader describes how
“the great majority of our assets are tied up in dead capital. We can’t use our
buildings, land, resources and other assets in the same way as other people in the
Australian economy” (Ahmat, 2003). In addition, even if resources can be found to
start a business, individual or family-run Aboriginal tourism operations face
extreme challenges establishing tourism infrastructure on Aboriginal lands. This
is because of the complex regulatory and planning regimes that prohibit much
development on Aboriginal land in northern Queensland (Wallace et al., 2011). In
the case of Bana Yarralji Bubu, this regulatory and planning system has resulted in
a 7 year battle to build even the basic amenities (such as a toilet block) required for
the tourism enterprise. They have succeeded because of their persistence and ability
to use non-Aboriginal social networks to get pro-bono specialist advice and support
for their development applications. They have also used their personal skills to
access resources from the wider community to help them establish their enterprise.
Over the years, this has included everything from getting business expertise and
planning knowledge from corporate mentors, to getting volunteers to help build
tourism facilities at the enterprise site.
6 Discussion
This research finds that Bana Yarralji Bubu have provided a number of benefits
through the social enterprise including environmental protection, cultural education
and cross-cultural understanding. Cross-cultural understanding is enhanced through
the informal interactions between tourists and business owners. The sense of
personal connection felt by tourists with the business owners enhanced their
understanding of some of the issues affecting Aboriginal Australia, making them
question their preconceptions about Aboriginal people. These results are consistent
with findings that tourism can contribute to mutual understanding between people
of different cultures and lifestyles by changing tourists’ attitudes and enhancing
cross-cultural understanding (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006). In addition, when tourists
visit the enterprise, they learn about traditional land management techniques and
the importance of caring for Country. Through participating in land management
activities, they contribute to land management outcomes.
Giovannini (2012: 1) suggests that social enterprise “appear[s] to be able to
support the involvement of Indigenous peoples at the community level and tackle
specific economic and social concerns affecting these communities”. However, this
research finds that these concerns can only be addressed with adequate resources.
For example, jobs created through social enterprise tourism are an important means
of creating employment on Country as well as introducing “new knowledge,
skills. . .and market opportunities to Indigenous communities” (Kerins, 2013: 6).
Employment also gives pride and self-esteem, thereby fostering wellbeing, social
capital and self-reliance through the strengthening of family and community net-
works (Tedmanson & Guerin, 2011: S32). However, this research shows that the
enterprise must be financially sustainable in order to provide employment. This
requires the creation and operation of a profitable social enterprise in the main-
stream market economy. That is not to say that Aboriginal social enterprise should
pursue Western business models at the expense of cultural values, particularly
given the widely noted differences between Australian Aboriginal norms and
mainstream Australian society norms (Altman, 2003; Foley, 2003). However, it
does indicate that the tension between achieving social, economic and cultural
objectives without integration into a market economy is not easily reconciled.
Aboriginal cultural values demonstrate that there are different ways of measuring
what constitutes wealth and success with success “. . .not measured in terms of
tangible assets, but in the pluralism of familial relationships, religion, and spiritual
connections with the landscape” (Pearson & Helms, 2013: 52). However, it is also
important to acknowledge that a profitable enterprise is better able to put in place
community-level programs addressing the local concerns affecting the community.
This research has also shown that the viability of the tourism social enterprise is
threatened without adequate focus on business planning and development. The
business owners’ adoption of the sustainability compass, a tool for sustainable
development planning, reflects their vision of achieving broad-based benefits for
their family and clan group. However, the compass is designed to be used for
“framing, defining, assessing and measuring progress towards sustainability” rather
than as a business model (Atkisson, 2014) It can be a useful tool for revealing the
interrelatedness of the four components of nature, economy, society and wellbeing
in a sustainable system, however it is problematic as a business model because it
does not focus on the practicalities of creating and sustaining a competitive
business. In the case of Bana Yarralji Bubu, their focus on achieving the inter-
related goals of nature, society and wellbeing has diverted attention away from the
need to ensure the economic sustainability of their enterprise. This approach is
consistent with Alter’s (2008) social enterprise model based on the centrality of
mission over profit. However, as Vives and Svejenova (2011) have pointed out
profit and growth are vital to secure the financial sustainability of social business.
Successful Aboriginal social entrepreneurs must be able to integrate economic
participation, social issues, cultural values and indigenous governance systems
(Pearson & Helms, 2013). In the case of Bana Yarralji Bubu, one way that their
economic sustainability could be enhanced is through a deeper understanding of the
tourism market in which they are involved. This would enable them to develop a
tourism product range to target specific segments of the educational tourism market.
More information about the educational tourism market would benefit the business
owners because it would enable better decisions to be made about what tourism
products to provide.
Using a governance structure “characterized by strong cultural and social ties”
rather than a ‘poorly-fitting’ Western model (Banerjee & Tedmanson, 2010) is seen
in the literature as enhancing opportunities for Aboriginal economic success (Alt-
man, 2003; Cornell & Kalt, 1995) particularly in a social enterprise context (Martin,
2006: 9). However, in this research, the results have been more ambiguous. The
development of an Aboriginal governance system for Bana Yarralji Bubu has not
been enough to guarantee financial profitability, yet it has been partially successful
in enhancing social cohesion in the community. This is important because lack of
social cohesion can adversely affected the take-up of social benefits by the social
enterprise. This can come from the lack of bonding and bridging social capital
noted in Aboriginal society, as a result of the removal of Aboriginal people from
traditional lands, cultural dislocation, welfare and substance abuse (Bennett &
Gordon, 2007). Negative forms of social capital such as the downward levelling
of norms are also common in societies suffering from adversity and exclusion
(Portes, 1998). This means that individual success is frowned on because it
threatens the unity of the group. An Aboriginal leader suggests that Aboriginal
social entrepreneurs face opposition when the community fears they will monop-
olize enterprise opportunities as well as resources such as communally-owned land
(Ahmat, 2003). For Aboriginal entrepreneurs, the “cultural and social alienation
[they suffer] as a direct result of their achievements” can be a high price to pay
(Foley, 2003: 139). The social enterprise literature emphasizes that social enterprise
needs to be embedded in local socioeconomic and cultural settings in order to
access resources, legitimacy and support (Granovetter, 2005; Mair & Marti, 2004).
However, the existence of negative social capital in those settings and its effect on
social enterprise operation must also be noted and is an important finding of this
research. This finding suggests that perspectives on Aboriginal social enterprise
must acknowledge social cohesion at both the family and clan level is critical to the
overall success of the venture. Strategies to enhance social cohesion should be put
in place before the commencement of the enterprise.
Finally, the external environment was found to impact the development of
Aboriginal social enterprise tourism ventures. The consequences of past govern-
ment policy are seen in Aboriginal communities still dealing with the on-going and
broad-reaching effects of cultural dislocation and removal from traditional lands
and lifestyles. Efforts by Aboriginal social entrepreneurs to address these effects
through the creation of social enterprise are negatively impacted by their inability to
use their land as capital for business development. In addition, the planning and
regulatory regimes that apply to Aboriginal lands make establishing tourism infra-
structure on Aboriginal lands extremely difficult. Without reform of these regimes,
tourism development, including social enterprise tourism, will be curtailed. For
Aboriginal social entrepreneurs without a high level of skills and networks,
accessing the finances to employ specialists in support of development applications
and dealing with high levels of government regulations is extremely difficult
(Wallace et al., 2011). While in the long-term reform is needed of these regimes,
in the short-term, expertise and funding to assist Aboriginal tourism social entre-
preneurs negotiate complex regulatory environments is essential.
6.1 A New Model of Aboriginal Social Enterprise
A new conceptual model of Aboriginal social enterprise is proposed incorporating

the findings identified through this research (refer to Fig. 4). Social cohesion sits at
the centre of the model, and the social enterprise is located firmly within the social
structure of the community and clan group. These relationships, characterized by
cultural obligations and the need for social cohesion, affect the operation of the
enterprise, in particular the creation of social impact by the enterprise. The way in
which the enterprise operates is also affected by the interconnected goals of the
Aboriginal social entrepreneurs, and the way they make decisions about the enter-
prise. If decisions about the social enterprise favour social mission over profitabil-
ity, then economic sustainability will be threatened. These goals and decision-
making processes are informed by Aboriginal social and economic structures and
cultural belief systems that frequently clash with non-Aboriginal approaches. In
addition, external influences impact the operation of the social enterprise. These
influences include the land administration system, as the granting of native title
rights for Aboriginal people does not include the right to commercially develop
their land. The complex and restrictive land use planning system also acts to restrict
development in favour of environmental protection. In addition the tourism market
impacts the enterprise with specific requirements for Aboriginal tourism products to
Fig. 4 A new model for aboriginal social enterprise (developed for this research)
which the business owners respond. Finally the political environment, in the form
of past and present government policy, impacts both the need for and operation of
Aboriginal social enterprise. The social enterprise is impacted by these legal,
regulatory, political and economic environments, and these impacts directly affect
the operation of the enterprise.
7 Conclusion
The creation of Aboriginal social enterprise tourism ventures is challenging. It

requires the ability to balance economic, social, cultural and environmental goals.
Aboriginal social entrepreneurs must also balance the need to acquire resources and
pursue profitability with the need to ensure social cohesion. They must also have a
high level of skill and resources to deal with the complexity of land administration
and land use regimes over Aboriginal land. However, while the challenges are
many, the potential rewards are also high. The creation of cross-cultural under-
standing between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in a tourism context is a
valuable outcome of Aboriginal tourism social enterprise. In addition, the potential
for tourism social enterprise to address the broad-based goals of Aboriginal social
entrepreneurs can be enhanced with equal consideration of economic goals.
By understanding more about the challenges facing Aboriginal social enterprise
tourism operators, innovative Aboriginal approaches to social problems can be
created. Social benefits and social change can and should be directed and provided
by Aboriginal communities and individuals. Aboriginal social enterprise frame-
works can offer more scope for empowerment due to greater recognition of
Aboriginal governance structures within the social enterprise framework, more
flexible business arrangements that can be employed in social enterprise models,
and the close alignment of social enterprise goals with Aboriginal agendas. Suc-
cessful social enterprises can potentially reduce reliance on government funding,
increase Aboriginal autonomy and provide services to Aboriginal communities.
However, careful consideration of the relationship between social enterprise goals,
social cohesion, economic sustainability and cultural values is needed.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the cooperation and cultural
mentoring provided by Marilyn and Peter Wallace, the owners and managers of Bana Yarralji
Bubu. The authors would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Adella Edwards for providing
the maps of Eastern Yalanji country. The financial support of an Australian Postgraduate Award
from the Australian Government is also gratefully acknowledged.
References
Ahmat, R. (2003). Doing Indigenous social business and enterprise: The view from Cape York.
Canberra: Address to the Indigenous Enterprise Summit.
Alter, K. (2006). Social enterprise models and their mission and money relationships. In
A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change
Alter, S. K. (2008). Social enterprise models and their mission and money relationships. In A.
Nicholls (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship. New models of sustainable social change (pp. 205–
232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Altman, J. (2001). Sustainable development options on Aboriginal land: The hybrid economy in
the twenty-first century (CAEPR Discussion Paper 226). Retrieved June 21, 2015, from http://
www.caepr.anu.edu.au
Altman, J. (2003). Generating finance for Indigenous development: Economic realities and
innovative options (CAEPR Working Paper 15). Retrieved June 21, 2015, from http://www.
caepr.anu.edu.au
Anderson, C. (1983). Aborigines and tin mining in north Queensland: A case study in the
anthropology of contact history. Australian Journal of Anthropology, 13(6), 473–498.
Anderson, C., & Coates, S. (1989). Like a crane standing on one leg on a little island: An
investigation of factors affecting the lifestyle of Wujalwujal community. North Queensland:
National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Services Secretariat.
Anderson, R., Dana, L., & Dana, T. (2006). Indigenous land rights, entrepreneurship, and
economic development in Canada: “Opting-in” to the global economy. Journal of World
Business, 41(1), 45–55.
Atkisson, A. (2011). The sustainability transformation (p. 133). Washington, DC: Earthscan
Publishers.
Atkisson. (2014). The sustainability compass. Retrieved May 2, 2015, from https://compassu.
wordpress.com/introduction
Bana Yarralji Bubu. (2009). Bana Yarralji Strategic Plan. Unpublished report. Collection of Bana
Yarralji, Shipton’s Flat, QLD.
Banerjee, S., & Tedmanson, D. (2010). Grass burning under our feet: Indigenous enterprise
development in a political economy of whiteness. Management Learning, 41(2), 147–165.
Bennett, J., & Gordon, W. (2007). Social capital and the Indigenous tourism entrepreneur. In
J. Buultjens & D. Fuller (Eds.), Striving for sustainability: Case studies in Indigenous tourism
(pp. 333–370). Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross University Press.
Butler, R., & Hinch, T. (Eds.). (2007). Tourism and Indigenous peoples: Issues and implications.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Buultjens, J., & White, N. (2008). Indigenous tourism: The possibilities into the future. In
Proceedings desert knowledge symposium 2008- developing desert directions: rethinking the
future. Alice Springs: Desert Knowledge CRC.
Cheng, P., & Ludlow, J. (2008). The 3 models of social enterprise: Creating social impact through
trading activities. Community-wealth.org. Retrieved May 15, 2015, from http://www.community-
wealth.org/content/3-models-social-enterprise-creating-social-impact-through-trading-activities
Cornell, S., & Kalt, J. (1995). Successful economic development and heterogeneity of government
form on American Indian reservations. In M. S. Grindle (Ed.), Getting good government:
Capacity building in the public sectors of developing countries (pp. 257–296). Cambridge:
Harvard Institute for International Development.
Curtis, T. (2008). Finding that grit makes a pearl: A critical re-reading of research into social
enterprise. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 14(5), 276–290.
Dart, R., Erin Clow, E., & Armstrong, A. (2010). Meaningful difficulties in the mapping of social
enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 6(3), 186–193.
Edwards, A. (2015). Aboriginal waterways assessment program. Australia: Murray-Darling Basin
Authority.
Foley, D. (2003). An examination of Indigenous Australian entrepreneurs. Journal of Developing
Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 133–151.
Frederick, H. (2008). Introduction to special issue on indigenous entrepreneurs. Journal of
Enterprising Communities, 2(3), 185–191.
Giovannini, M. (2012). Social enterprises for development as Buen Vivir. Journal of Enterprising
Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 6(3), 284–299.
Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33–50.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2006). Reconciliation tourism: Healing divided societies. IIPT. Retrieved
March 16, 2015, from http://www.iipt.org/educators/OccPap07.pdf
Jennings, G. (2010). Tourism research. Brisbane, QLD: Wiley.
Jiao, H. (2011). A conceptual model for social entrepreneurship directed toward social impact on
society. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(2), 130–149.
Kerins, S. (2013). Social enterprise as a model for developing Aboriginal lands (CAEPR Topical
Issue 4). Retrieved May 5, 2015, from http://www.caepr.anu.edu.au
Kitchin, R., & Tate, N. (2000). Conducting research in human geography: Theory, methodology
and practice. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Leiper, N. (1990). Tourism systems: An interdisciplinary perspective. Palmerston North: Massey
University Printery.
Loban, H., & Ciccotosto, S. (2013). Indigenous corporate governance and social enterprise.
Indigenous Law Bulletin, 8(8), 22–24.
Maddison, S. (2009). Australia: Indigenous autonomy matters. Development, 52(4), 483–489.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2004). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction
Martin, D. (2006). Why the ‘new direction’ in federal Indigenous affairs policy is as likely to ‘fail’
as the old directions (CAEPR Topical Issue 05). Retrieved June, 21, 2015, from http://www.
caepr.anu.edu.au
National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT). (2007, December). Eastern Kuku Yalanji People’s native
title determination. Commonwealth of Australia.
Notzke, C. (2006). The stranger, the native and the land: Perspectives on Indigenous tourism.
Canada: Captus Press.
Overall, J., Tapsell, P., & Woods, C. (2010). Governance and Indigenous social entrepreneurship:
When context counts. Social Enterprise Journal, 6(2), 146–161.
Pearson, C., & Helms, K. (2013). Indigenous social entrepreneurship: The Gumatj clan enterprise
in east Arnhem land. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 22(1), 43–70.
Peattie, K., & Morley, A. (2008). Eight paradoxes of the social enterprise research agenda. Social
Enterprise Journal, 4(2), 91–107.
Peredo, A. M., Anderson, R., Galbraith, C., Honig, B., & Dana, L. (2004). Towards a theory of
indigenous entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Small Business, 1(1/2),
1–20.
Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept.
Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56–66.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review
of Sociology, 24, 1–24.
Rigney, L. I. (1999). Internationalization of an Indigenous anticolonial cultural critique of research
methodologies: A guide to indigenist research methodology and its principle. Wicazo Sa
Review, 14(2), 109–121.
Ryan, C., & Aicken, M. (2005). Indigenous tourism: The commodification and management of
culture. New York: Elsevier.
Schmiechen, J., & Boyle, A. (2007). Aboriginal tourism research in Australia. In R. Butler &
T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and Indigenous peoples (pp. 58–70). Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Tapsell, P., & Woods, C. (2010). Social entrepreneurship and innovation: Self-organization in an
Indigenous context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(6), 535–556.
Tedmanson, D., & Guerin, P. (2011). Enterprising social wellbeing: Social entrepreneurial and
strengths based approaches to mental health and wellbeing in remote’ Indigenous community
contexts. Australasian Psychology, 19(S1), S30–S33.
Vives, L., & Svejenova, S. (2011). To, from and beyond the margins: Business models: Towards
an integrative framework. Management Research, 9(3), 230–242.
Wallace, M. (2013). Personal interview, 10 June 2013, Shipton’s Flat, QLD.
Wallace, M., White, B., & Shee, R. (2011). On the ground: Planning on Eastern Kuku Yalanji
country. Queensland Planner, 41(4), 14–16.
White, B. (2011). Come find out more about our culture. Retrieved May 25, 2015 from http://
banayarralji.blogspot.com
Whitford, M., & Ruhanen, L. (2010). Australian indigenous tourism policy: Practical and sustain-
able policies? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 475–496.
Winer, M., Murphy, H., & Ludwick, H. (2012). Payment for ecosystem services markets on
Aboriginal land in Cape York Peninsula: Potentials and constraints (Occasional Paper
No. 6). Social Dimensions of the Green Economy and Sustainable Development Series.
Geneva: UNRISD.
Wood, G., & Davidson, M. (2011). A review of male and female Australian Indigenous entrepre-
neurs: Disadvantaged past- promising future? Gender in Management: An International
Journal, 26(4), 311–326.
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehman-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons
from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 308–325.
Helen Murphy is a Ph.D. candidate at James Cook University, Cairns, Australia. Her thesis
investigates the supply and demand nature of Aboriginal educational tourism. Helen has a
background in development studies, and her research interests include Australian Aboriginal
approaches to social, cultural and economic development, including Aboriginal social enterprise
development in remote regions, participation in special interest tourism markets, including
educational tourism and Aboriginal participation in Payment for Ecosystem Services markets.
Sharon Harwood is a Senior Lecturer at James Cook University, Cairns, Australia. Sharon is a
certified and practicing planner with more than 20 years’ experience working with remotely
located communities on natural resource planning, community planning and development pro-
jects. Sharon is the co-ordinator of the Graduate Certificate Planning and Indigenous Communities
and the Masters of Tropical Urban and Regional Planning. Sharon is particularly interested in
understanding how the design and function of land use planning systems meet the aspirations
(or not) of Australian Aboriginal people for social, economic and cultural development of their
lands and waters.
Part IV
Conclusion
Moving Tourism Social Entrepreneurship
Forward: Agendas for Research
and Education
Pauline J. Sheldon, Dianne Dredge, and Roberto Daniele
Abstract This chapter concludes the book by considering the role that research
and education can play to move the TSE agenda forward. In addition to consoli-
dating the chapter authors’ thoughts about the future of SE and tourism, it also lays
out some directions for research tracks in the future. It considers the changes needed
in research approaches, in our universities, our curricula, our learners, and ourselves
as academics. These changes we hope will stimulate the dialog on how TSE can
mobilize the energy, vision and social spirit of those who seek to change the world
for the better through tourism.
Keywords Future • Education • Research • Social entrepreneurship • Tourism
1 Introduction
Reducing poverty and inequality, addressing climate change and progressing real
improvements in sustainable livelihoods at a global level are among the most
pressing challenges we face at a global level (OECD, 2015; World Economic
Forum & Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, 2016). In this context,
over the last three decades tourism scholars have discussed tourism as a tool to
address poverty and promote sustainable livelihoods, as a route to community
empowerment and self-determination, and as a means to protect and sustain local
environments (e.g. Bolwell & Weinz, 2008; EU Commission, 2013; Tao & Wall,
2009). Within these discourses, the claim has regularly been made that tourism is
capable of simultaneously delivering economic, social and environmental value.
P.J. Sheldon (*)

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA
D. Dredge
University of Aalborg, Aalborg, Denmark
R. Daniele
Brookes University, Oxford, UK

Rhetoric has often dominated these discussions and well-meaning proponents who
passionately believe in the promise of tourism have sometimes generalized and
extrapolated the successes of individual projects to make grand claims. The prob-
lem with such claims is that they (usually) assign a positive value to tourism prior to
the research actually taking place. Examples are statements such as ‘tourism results
in social, economic and environmental value’ or ‘tourism is inherently good’. In the
process, any real understandings about the strength and weaknesses of tourism, and
the value it produces in different settings and for various stakeholders are obscured
in the pursuit of making the point about tourism’s importance. Our interest in this
book has been to offer a more variegated and situated appraisal of TSE, and to avoid
polemic claims about its value before we really understand its nature. That said, the
chapters of this book provide a certain optimism in that they represent an interesting
and potentially valuable alternative to traditional tourism practices.
To date, tourism has largely retained its ‘business as usual’ focus on growth, jobs
and economic returns, and in practice, the drive to maximize financial return is
often treated separately to, and prioritized over, the pursuit of social and environ-
mental benefits (Hall, 2007). Tourism social entrepreneurship—an umbrella term to
capture a range of innovative approaches and models for tourism that deliver
blended economic, social and environmental value—is explored in the book’s
chapters as a potential way forward. In particular, several chapters illustrate cases
where TSE, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, can deliver tourism development
that not only challenges ‘business as usual’ approaches, but also treats social and
environmental value on an equal footing to economic value (see chapters “Explor-
ing Social Entrepreneurship in Food Tourism”, “Knowledge Dynamics in the
Tourism-Social Entrepreneurship Nexus”, and “Adventure Alternative and Moving
Mountains Trust: A Hybrid Business Model for Social Entrepreneurship in Tour-
ism”). But it is important to resist falling into rhetoric, and build a knowledge base
to guide forms of tourism that can directly and meaningfully address the above-
mentioned global challenges. A research agenda that builds deeper understandings,
that informs practice and that highlights ways to optimize the blended social,
economic and environmental value of tourism is also needed. Furthermore, a
more sophisticated approach to education is needed to produce a new breed of
tourism managers with the knowledge, skills and competencies to move beyond the
old binary divides and trade-offs between financial versus social interests towards a
new blended-value operating system of the future (Emerson, 2003, 2006).
The aim of this book has been to examine tourism social entrepreneurship
through a mixture of theoretical and conceptual explorations and practical case
studies. Chapter authors have suggested how TSE can become more than just an
alternative model of tourism, how it can take a more central and transformational
role in contributing to a better world, and how research and education can contrib-
ute to its growth. The aim of this final chapter is to draw these thoughts together,
extend them, and suggest ways that TSE can develop in the future. In the spirit of
providing this broader perspective, we present a research agenda for the field of
Tourism Social Entrepreneurship that builds upon and extends the observations of
the authors in this volume. We then go on to suggest ways that the current
Moving Tourism Social Entrepreneurship Forward: Agendas for Research and. . . 319
educational system will need to change to nourish the type of learning required for
students to become TSE change-makers.
2 A Research Agenda for TSE
Research agendas may be articulated for a variety of reasons. For example, research
agendas may aim to build frameworks of scientific knowledge, to build normative
guidance about what should be done, or to fulfill other objectives dictated by our
higher education institutions and the policy contexts in which they operate, such as
publications, citations and the pursuit of metrics. We offer this third motivation
somewhat cynically, but realize that there are some researchers who will see social
entrepreneurship as a new topic and therefore an easy target for quick publication.
Motivated by the need to develop a more sustained and serious research agenda, the
editors and authors of this volume are keen to encourage a broader and more holistic
approach than that motivated by such opportunism. Therefore, as a nascent area of
research, and one that we believe needs to be addressed from a variety of perspec-
tives and methodologies, we see the need for valuable research in a number of
overlapping areas:
• Conceptual and theoretical research on TSE;
• Research that examines operational aspects of TSE;
• Research that examines the relational characteristics between entrepreneurs,
communities, governments and businesses over time and across multiple scales
with a view to understanding, for example, capacity building, scaling and social
innovation systems;
• Research that examines the individual characteristics, qualities, behaviors and
motivations of social entrepreneurs;
• Research that examines the interplay and effects of various contexts and the
effects of these contexts on the successes and failures of TSE; and
• Research that tracks the performance of TSE, that develops new metrics for the
delivery of blended value and that assists in assessing the overall value of TSE as
an alternative approach to mainstream tourism business models.
These areas of potential research are outlined below. But before we detail these
areas, it is also useful to note some considerations that can assist researchers in
positioning their research in order to maximize critical insights for practice. First,
we recommend that researchers adopt a position of critical agnosticism to the
rhetorical claims made about TSE in the literature. That is, researchers need to
start from a position of being open and critical to the strengths and weaknesses of
TSE, and not to start from the value-full position that TSE is inherently good and
the aim of the research is to reinforce this pre-existing view. Only then can we build
understandings of TSE and pay attention to the concrete and situated valuing of
TSE as a set of practices (Ren, Petersen, & Dredge, 2015).
Second, it is important to not only pay attention to TSE, to examine its charac-
teristics and impacts, but also to explore the silenced voices, alternative perspec-
tives and consequences beyond a tourism-centered view of the world. In other
words, tourism is interconnected with other social and economic practices, and
assessing TSE within its wider complex setting is important. Third, and associated
with the above, it is important that TSE research pay attention to alternative
perspectives and the variegated practices of actors, and to reflect on the multiple
ways that valuing the benefits and impacts of TSE takes place. Fourth, our position
is that TSE is a situated and contextual set of practices, and that it is important to
avoid overgeneralizations and grand claims that transcend the particular settings
that give rise to the TSE’s value and its successes and failures. Fifth, and finally,
TSE research should stay focused on impact. Research for the sake of publication
alone is wasteful. Both theoretical and pragmatic research can contribute important
insights and knowledge to assist in creating a better world, and research should keep
in focus what matters and how a better world can be create through knowledge and
understanding.
2.1 Conceptual and Theoretical Research Opportunities
Greater attention to the conceptual and theoretical dimensions of TSE is needed.

The first seven chapters of this book make some headway in exploring the key
characteristics and operational dimensions of TSE and why it differs from tradi-
tional business models of tourism. They explore the societal drivers for TSE, the
emergence of different TSE models, typologies of social entrepreneurs, and the
nature of innovation in TSE. As the field develops it is important to make sure TSE
research does not develop in isolation from the wider body of social entrepreneur-
ship literature, and that knowledge is shared across disciplinary boundaries.
Mottiar and Boluk (chapter “Understanding How Social Entrepreneurs Fit into
the Tourism Discourse”) and Day and Mody (chapter “Social Entrepreneurship
Typologies and Tourism: Conceptual Frameworks”) invite tourism researchers in
other fields to embrace TSE as part of their study framework. First, conceptualizing
and theorizing the field is called for. Of course, the more established literature on
social entrepreneurship provides the basis to commence this work. Buzinde
et al. (chapter “Theorizing Social Entrepreneurship Within Tourism Studies”)
suggest some important research avenues that can contribute to further theoriza-
tions of social entrepreneurship and tourism. These are (1) how social enterprises
can offer sustainable solutions to the world’s social problems within the context of
tourism, (2) an ontological discussion related to social actors influencing social
change as an opportunity to undertake critical institutional analyses (i.e., profit,
non-profit or public sector) of tourism related social enterprises, (3) research related
to the interactions between social entrepreneurs and the place-based or non-place
based communities to understand the collaborative efforts and political climates
conducive to social change, and (4) what lessons can be gleaned from cases in
which social entrepreneurs’ social missions differ from the visions espoused by
communities? They also argue that further research into social enterprises in
various tourism sectors is needed to amass evidence for best practices within the
field. In their view, and mirroring our observations about the tendency for rhetorical
arguments to support TSE, scholastic endeavors must go beyond idealizing exam-
ples of social entrepreneurship in order to critically examine the sustainability
(social, cultural, economic, political, and environmental) of such initiatives. Fur-
thermore, TSE produces different outcomes and impacts that are valued differently
by different stakeholders. Understanding the way that these valuing practices take
place, and how value is produced, yields important insights into how different
outcomes of TSE fall unevenly across different sets of actors.
2.2 Operational Aspects of TSE
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has made its way into the tourism business
agenda, and progress has been made in some cases (Alfonso, 2010; Inoue & Lee,
2011). But despite the claims of achievement associated with CSR, an important
question holds true: is CSR primarily directed towards the financial bottom-line and
its corporate shareholders, with the delivery of social, environmental or other
benefits remaining a secondary concern? In this way, delivering social value
becomes an add-on, and is not strategically embedded in the business model as
many call for (e.g. Chouinard, Ellison, & Ridgeway, 2011; Porter & Kramer, 2011).
Charges of CSR being a form of green or social ‘washing’ to achieve market
advantage can arise (Conrady & Buck, 2010). In contrast, TSE incorporates social
responsibility into the strategic business model itself, and reflects a different type of
ethical responsibility to deliver net positive gains on social issues. In this way, TSE
goes well beyond CSR to deliver benefits beyond its own balance sheet. In order to
further understand TSE and its advantages, comparative assessments with CSR and
other models may provide useful insights.
Many chapters in this book explore the operational characteristics and chal-
lenges of TSE from both conceptual and practical perspectives. There are diverse
TSE models aiming to deliver different types of social, economic and environmen-
tal benefit in different circumstances. Daniele and Quezada (chapter “Business
Models for Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism”) seek to capture this diversity,
but as the field continues to expand and more models come to light, further analysis
will be required. The concept of blended value—its construction within different
business models, its delivery via scaling and ecologizing initiatives, and its mea-
surement—is little understood and in need of greater research attention. Moreover,
TSEs tend to innovate by recasting relationships between producers and consumers
and by creating new blended value propositions as demonstrated in chapter
“Exploring Social Entrepreneurship in Food Tourism” by Kline et al. These oper-
ational dimensions are worthy of greater research to extract understandings and
insights that can apply in other contexts.
At an operational level, knowledge co-creation and information dissemination

are important in expanding and diversifying TSE in the future. In chapter “Knowl-
edge Dynamics in the Tourism-Social Entrepreneurship Nexus”, Phi et al. shine the
spotlight on the need to better understand the cross-sectoral knowledge dynamics at
play in TSE. They observe that knowledge co-creation can be assisted or hindered
by institutional factors, and better understandings of these factors can help to
improve knowledge flows and shared knowledge. Such insights will allow the
praxis to be strengthened and thereby assist policymakers in fostering conditions
that generate innovation.
2.3 Relational Characteristics
In chapter “Social Innovations in Tourism: Social Practices Contributing to Social

Development”, Mosedale and Voll observe that TSE needs to be viewed in the
broader context of social innovation which is being driven by neoliberal ideologies.
This includes support for government withdrawal from addressing social issues,
privatization of social services and a shift of responsibility towards the individual.
We also suggest that TSE is a response to a ‘moral’ or ‘caring turn’ that is taking
place in response to the excesses of late modern capitalism and the impacts of
neoliberal strategies particularly on poor and marginalized communities and indi-
viduals (Noddings, 1999). This represents a refocusing of attention on a relational
approach to ‘caring for’ individuals and communities rather than an externalized
form of ‘caring about’, for example, the production of tourism. While ‘caring for’
highlights a moral commitment to act for the other, ‘caring about’ can deteriorate
into a political and utilitarian concern for an issue (e.g. sustainability, poverty
alleviation) that may not translate into the ‘caring for’ ethic. In this context where
there is a push for social innovation, and the ethics of care, interesting research
questions about the relational characteristics of TSE are triggered. Who are the key
actors in TSE? What are their relational characteristics? How do they construct
their ethical position in relation to the other? And how does this ethical position
differ between TSE and other forms of tourism business?
Both Dredge (chapter “Institutional and Policy Support for Tourism Social
Entrepreneurship in Tourism”) and Daye and Gill (chapter “Social Enterprise
Evaluation: Implications for Tourism Development”) see the need for TSE research
to be dynamic and innovative, to respond to, and remain relevant to the complex,
ever changing social interactions and evolutionary currents in today’s world. In
particular, Dredge highlights the need for researchers to better understand the
effects of policy and institutional conditions on the success of social enterprises,
and on the scaling and ecologizing of social entrepreneurship into a movement.
This requires developing insights into the relational strategies of TSE, the chal-
lenges and opportunities of scaling TSE, and the relations between TSE, govern-
ments and communities. Furthermore, Mosedale and Voll (chapter “Social
Innovations in Tourism: Social Practices Contributing to Social Development”)
flag the importance of building relations between TSE and tourism scholars. They
argue that tourism researchers with experience in community-based tourism plan-
ning must engage in academic and public policy debates on social innovation, and
participate in the co-creation of knowledge for and about TSE.
The need to research value chains in TSE is highlighted in chapter “Exploring
Social Entrepreneurship in Food Tourism” by Kline et al. They point out that TSE
in the food context has many entry points for the social entrepreneur. Food
entrepreneurs can leverage contacts within many different microsystems to
heighten awareness to neglected positive externalities within the macro system.
They suggest that researchers examine all sectors of tourism and hospitality that are
attracting TSE activity and analyze the value chain impacts and the various micro-
systems that each effects. This, they argue, will provide better insight into the
impacts on the whole destination.
At the destination level, research opportunities exist to better understand the
relational characteristics of TSE within the destination, and how their blended value
proposition can add a unique marketing edge. For example, the social and environ-
mental value delivered by TSE will appeal to certain market niches and new
attractions and experiences might be identified that can diversify the destination’s
offer. Accordingly, Mottiar and Boluk (chapter “Understanding How Social Entre-
preneurs Fit into the Tourism Discourse”) see a need for TSEs to be recognized as
stakeholders in destination management activities and suggest more research on
how they contribute to the destination.
2.4 Characteristics of Tourism Social Entrepreneurs
There is a well-developed body of research examining the individual characteris-

tics, behaviors, motivations and values of social entrepreneurs. Drawing upon this
research, opportunities exist to build better understandings of how tourism social
entrepreneurs operate, and how they approach capacity building in and across the
tourism system. Research on individual leadership traits and distributed leadership
attributes and strategies would also provide useful insights to contribute to the
development and refinement of TSE practice.
Additionally, Day and Mody (chapter “Social Entrepreneurship Typologies and
Tourism: Conceptual Frameworks”) suggest that more research is needed in the
practical skills and competencies needed for successful tourism social entrepre-
neurs, who often struggle with balancing their social mission and their financial
mission, as well as the many other strategic and tactical aspects of running a TSE.
Mottiar and Boluk (chapter “Understanding How Social Entrepreneurs Fit into the
Tourism Discourse”) also draw attention to the role of social intrapreneurship, and
how passionate and visionary individuals inside tourism organizations (public and
private) can drive and deliver blended value. More research into the interaction of
social intrapreneurship and CSR could assist in moving CSR to a more authentic
approach to creating social value.
2.5 TSE and Its Context
The above research opportunities provide important conceptual, theoretical and

practical insights into TSE. However, research is also needed that investigates the
interplay between TSE and broader social, economic, environmental, political and
cultural contexts that influence its emergence, development and resilience over
time. Moreover, generalized scientific knowledge and normative guidance makes it
difficult for us to understand why different TSE models emerge and what the
strengths and weaknesses of these various models are in different contexts. The
contexts, frameworks and systems (e.g. business, financial, political, education and
human resources, cultural and control) which affect the adoption of CSR by
corporations, can provide some understanding of the contexts where TSE might
be more successful (Matten & Moon, 2008). Understandings of these contextual
influences can also reveal insights into what good actions might be in particular
circumstances (Flyvbjerg, 2004; Geertz, 1990). We believe much can be learned
from investigating TSE in action, by learning from its variegated operational
characteristics, the interplay between TSE and its organizational and institutional
settings, and by focusing attention on how aspects such as power, value, scalability,
ethics and agency are given meaning in different contexts.
2.6 Tracking the Performance of TSE
Dredge (chapter “Institutional and Policy Support for Tourism Social Entrepre-
neurship in Tourism”) and Daye and Gill (chapter “Social Enterprise Evaluation:
Implications for Tourism Development”) both note that as TSE activity grows,
tools and methods to measure and evaluate its effectiveness in delivering social
value will be needed. In particular, research is needed to better understand the
nature of blended value and to assess claims that TSE delivers benefits beyond
traditional ‘business as usual’ tourism. The blended value delivered by TSE cannot
be conceptualized as a single entity but is rather a composite of intertwining
economic, social and environmental values (Emerson, 2006). Understanding the
nature of this blended value and how it can be leveraged to optimize impact and
maximize returns for the variety of stakeholders involved is a challenge for
researchers. It moves away from the segregated approach of measuring social,
economic, environmental value separately to understanding value as a holistic
composite phenomenon. This new conceptualization will require new ways of
defining value, new approaches to tracking the delivery of this blended value, and
new ways of assessing the performance of TSE over time. It will require both
traditional numeric and econometric approaches, and increasingly, the use of new
qualitative assessments. Monitoring and evaluation processes need to be designed,
new methods and metrics need to be developed, and their value, use and effective-
ness assessed (e.g. see Mair & Marti, 2013; Taplin, Dredge, & Scherrer, 2014).
Tracking the performance of TSE would include monitoring and evaluating the
impacts of government policies and programs. Are their approaches to support TSE
effective? Do they achieve their intended outcomes? What are the unintended
positive and negative consequences of such policies and programs? Governments
and international organizations will require such information to improve and refine
their policy approaches.
Finally, a common opinion among the authors of this volume is that TSE
research must be engaged, relevant and impactful. Under the current neoliberal
public management regimes in higher education, academic research has often been
valued for its ability to progress the career of the researcher or the prestige of the
institution (Hazelkorn, 2009). Instead, we support calls for the creation of a new
approach to research in tourism in general, and TSE in particular, that values its
ability to solve problems using innovative approaches, and to impact society in
positive and progressive ways. This requires the re-conceptualization of what
impact means in tourism research, a move away from citations and publication
metrics, and the redesign research systems that foster that societal impact (Chat-
terton, Hodkinson, & Pickerill, 2010; Radice, 2013). The TSE field is an excellent
one for exploration and pilot projects in research methods and approaches.
3 An Education Agenda for TSE
The research agenda outlined above aligns with the need for an education agenda.
Here, education is much more than a traditional focus on teaching and learning but
encompasses the full range of formal and informal opportunities for knowledge
co-creation, sharing and personal and professional reflexivity. Social entrepreneur-
ship education has been around for some time, and there are innovative approaches
to problem solving and information sharing that dissolve traditional boundaries
between teacher and learner (Heady, Rickey, & Ogain, 2011; Jones, Warner, &
Kiser, 2010). However, tourism higher education programs have not yet embraced
the topic of TSE with any vigor. It is a relatively new phenomenon within tourism
education, but other reasons contribute to its absence in tourism curricula. For
example, tourism is a complex multidisciplinary field and innovation can be
impeded by an already crowded curriculum where subjects and majors are deliv-
ered in silos. There are few academics with expertise and knowledge to be able to
teach tourism social entrepreneurship but many who may be able to teach social
entrepreneurship from a wider lens—and we require their input, expertise and
engagement. TSE also requires alternative pedagogies with a deeper more
grounded and situated style of experiential and values-based learning as well as
design thinking approaches (Beckman & Barry, 2007; Meyers & Nulty, 2009;
Owen, 2006). These are often difficult to deliver in institutions where the economic
bottom-line dictates large class sizes and mass modes of delivery. Moreover,
competition and standardization of curricula have meant that there is little room
to innovate across programs and disciplines (which is an inherent requirement if
TSE is to deliver blended value across economic, social and environmental

domains). As a result, any introduction of TSE education is likely to be driven by
innovative and visionary intrapreneurs within higher education institutions, or
innovative start-up labs and incubators that choose to work outside the boundaries
of formal higher education (e.g. the School for Social Entrepreneurs: www.the-sse.
org; kaospilot: www.kaospilot.dk; Tiimiakatemia: http://www.tiimiakatemia.fi/en/;
THNK: http://www.thnk.org/).
So what would tourism social entrepreneurship education look like? The
research agenda above identifies areas of knowledge that might be included in a
TSE curriculum:
• Conceptual and theoretical aspects of social entrepreneurship and social inno-
vation, and its application in tourism
• Operational aspects of TSE—business models,
• Relational characteristics between entrepreneurs, communities, governments
and business over time and across multiple scales;
• Individual characteristics, qualities, behaviors and motivations of entrepreneurs;
• Contextual factors and influences on TSE
• Tracking performance of TSE, metrics, monitoring and evaluation.
The skills and competencies delivered in a TSE curriculum will vary depending
upon, for example, the skills of staff, the mission of the institution, the resources
available and so on. However, at a minimum, we envisage skills and competencies
would include the ability for learners to work collaboratively in groups, and
intercultural and interdisciplinary communication skills. Learners (we avoid the
term ‘students’ because in knowledge co-creation, boundaries between teachers and
students are dissolved and we all become learners in one way or another) should
develop the skills to appreciate problem complexity, and to recognize and let go of
taken-for-granted assumptions, worldviews and interpretations of cause and con-
sequence. Learners should also be challenged to critically reflect on their own
position, the limits of their own knowledge and the TSE field more generally, to
appreciate what is not known and to find ways to overcome these constraints. This is
not an easy task—identifying what one doesn’t know—but this challenge inevitably
enables learners to unlock their creativity, sharpen their thinking and problem
solving skills and to employ innovative thinking (Meyer & Land, 2003). In the
creative thinking process, and through processes of interaction and shared knowl-
edge building, it is possible to identify the values to be incorporated into solution-
building. In this way, learners can also appreciate notions of global citizenship and
ethical values they wish to incorporate in TSE. Many of these ideas have been
articulated in various TEFI (Tourism Education Futures Initiative) publications
(e.g. Dredge & Schott, 2014; Dredge, Schott, et al., 2015).
Owen (2007: 22) captures many of the skills and competencies in the personal
qualities that learners need to develop:
• Sensitivity to the subtleties of various sensations and impressions;
• A questioning attitude that seeks new and original answers;
• A broad education, where questions not answers are the focus, and curiosity is
more important than rote learning;
• Asymmetrical thinking, or the ability to embrace chaotic, non-systemized learn-
ing as opposed to balanced symmetrical, logical thinking;
• Personal courage to think for oneself, to listen to impulses, emotions and
thoughts;
• Sustained curiosity to seek what is unknown and to disregard the structures
created by current hegemonic thinking;
• Time control, or working in the moment unbound by clocks and deadlines, and
to use time as a resource to think and create;
• Dedication, or the desire to drive change, do something, and overcome obstacles.
Similarly Sherman (2011) suggests the following key competencies for social
entrepreneurs:
• Leadership: the ability to take initiative to act to solve problems (rather than
complaining about what is wrong).
• Optimism: having the confidence to achieve a bold vision even when others
doubt. A belief in having control to change your own circumstances.
• Grit: a combination of perseverance, passion, and hard work—the relentless
drive to achieve goals.
• Resilience in the face of adversities, obstacles, challenges, and failures: the
ability to rise to the occasion when things fall apart;
• Creativity and innovation: seeing new possibilities and thinking in unconven-
tional ways. Seeing connections and patterns.
• Empathy: putting oneself in the shoes of others, and imagining perspectives
other than your own.
• Emotional and social intelligence: excellence in connecting with others and
building strong relationships.
Moreover, TSE education should be designed to serve new audiences, not just
traditional higher education markets. The capacity to get involved in TSE education
should not be dictated by formal educational achievements, diplomas or entry
scores. Ideally, TSE education should have porous boundaries in terms of who
participates; it should recognize that knowledge resides in different actors, in
different contexts. Consequently the best learning community is one that encour-
ages active participation from diverse participants. Community actors, entrepre-
neurs, policy actors, students enrolled in formal higher education programs, and
tourism researchers can all learn from one another. Whether higher education
institutions are the most appropriate places to provide education and training in
TSE is an important question. Universities are currently subject to significant
neoliberal pressures, they answer to higher education policy and not necessarily
to the needs of society (Dredge, Airey, & Gross, 2015). Universities can be resistant
to change, and there is a tendency for academics and administrators to attribute the
actions needed to change society to external parties. We must unlock our own
activism as conscious actors and take responsibility to be the change-makers we

ideally want TSE learners to be. TSE is a unique opportunity and context to
progress in achieving this. Higher education programs might consider adding
TSE to the curriculum—or even modeling the entire curriculum around the con-
cept—but they also need to reach out beyond the boundaries of academia to engage
in other knowledge spaces. Such a TSE education program would attract the
brightest higher education students who are eager to learn how to activate and
influence tourism’s contribution to social change, especially among the millennials
(cf. Donnison, 2007).
The divide between ‘developed’ and ‘developing countries’ poses a particularly
sensitive yet important area in relation to TSE education and research. Typically it
is believed that TSE activities are carried out by developed-world entrepreneurs in
destinations that are less developed and are more in ‘need’ of help. However, such
perspectives are inaccurate if not harmful. Many chapters in this book (chapters
“Knowledge Dynamics in the Tourism-Social Entrepreneurship Nexus”, “Heroic
Messiahs or Everyday Businessmen? The Rhetoric and the Reality of Social
Entrepreneurship in India”, “Guludo Beach Lodge and the Nema Foundation,
Mozambique”, “Adventure Alternative and Moving Mountains Trust: A Hybrid
Business Model for Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism”) show there are many
lessons the Global North can learn from the Global South. Our position is that we
should avoid such distinctions and labels, learning can occur from South to North,
within countries, and across sectors. A focus on what can be learned, what insights
and lessons are available, is essential.
4 Conclusion
So where now for tourism social entrepreneurship? There is a natural tendency for
researchers to call for more focused attention on various research opportunities. In
the case of tourism social entrepreneurship, we acknowledge that it is quite a new
area and that further research would be beneficial. However, there is a need to resist
going for the ‘low hanging fruit’ in terms of easy accessible research opportunities
such as one-off ‘snap shot’ case studies. Of course these serve an important
purpose, but given the deeper cross-sectoral and trans-disciplinary entanglements
and the expected longer-term impact of tourism social entrepreneurship, a more
comprehensive research and education agenda is preferable.
The challenge of developing a type of tourism that unlocks its world-making
capacity is not simply a tourism issue that can be isolated and treated independently
of other development challenges. Using TSE to support and extend the wellbeing
and resilience of communities to live sustainably and within ecological limits
requires addressing a complex interconnected set of issues that transcends artificial
divisions between tourism, other disciplines and sectors. It is a challenge that also
stretches across geographic scales and over generations. How we deal with the
individual and collective complexity of these issues defines not only the future of
tourism, but it can also have a profound effect on the future of the very communities
on which tourism relies.
For these reasons, we see a need to build bridges with practice, to engage in the
field and to unlock the practical wisdom that resides in tourism social entrepre-
neurs themselves. Such engagement inspires students to think creatively, to work
with heads, hearts and hands. To this end, research and education opportunities in
TSE lend themselves to a phronetic approach that dissolves artificial boundaries
between research and education and practice, and between teacher and learner.
Phronesis illuminates the complex and messy social world (Flyvbjerg, 2004; Law,
2004) and offers the possibility of moving beyond the preoccupation of the
critical turn which often leads to a dead end of no-action (Bianchi, 2009) by
undertaking research and education that matters for practice. The opportunities to
undertake research in TSE speak to the ‘impact agenda’ that is seeping into higher
education discourses in a wide range of countries subject to neoliberal public
management. But the real impact agenda, as far as we are concerned, is in
providing a foundation of education and learning through co-created knowledge
building, social innovation and creativity that learners can call on throughout their
professional lives.
This book’s authors believe that the tourism industry must be substantially
re-imagined and re-designed if it is to become a net positive contributor to society
and planetary wellbeing. The social entrepreneurship movement and its ecosystem
of support agents show that an alternative path is not only possible but achievable,
highly desirable and much needed given the many challenges we face. We hope this
book will be a catalyst for more radical social innovation in tourism and a call to
action for future change-makers in this extraordinary field of human endeavor. In
the words of Muhammad Yunus (2013): “To overcome poverty and the flaws of the
economic crisis in our society, we need to envision our social life. We have to free
our mind, imagine what has never happened before and write social fiction. We
need to imagine things to make them happen. If you don’t imagine it will never
happen”.
Questions
1. What disciplines in universities and colleges do you think the study of TSE
should connect with and why?
2. List three of your own research questions that are most important to further our
knowledge about TSE.
3. What are the key barriers to furthering our knowledge about TSE.
4. As you look to the future (next 5–10 years) how will the field of TSE progress,
given the dynamics of the global situation. Explain.
References
Alfonso, V.-S. (2010). Destination unknown: The emergence of corporate social responsibility for
the sustainable development of tourism. Tourism Management, 31(5), 691–692.
Beckman, S. L. S., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design
thinking. California Management Review, 50(1), 25–56.
Bianchi, R. V. (2009). The “critical turn” in tourism studies: A radical critique. Tourism Geogra-
phies, 11(4), 484–504.
Bolwell, D., & Weinz, W. (2008). Reducing poverty through tourism (Vol. Working Paper).
Geneva: International Labour Office.
Chatterton, P., Hodkinson, S., & Pickerill, J. (2010). Beyond scholar activism: Making strategic
interventions inside and outside the neoliberal university. ACME: An International E-Journal
for Critical Geographies, 9(2), 245–275.
Chouinard, Y., Ellison, J., & Ridgeway, R. (2011). The sustainable economy. Harvard Business
Review, 89(10), 52–62.
Conrady, R., & Buck, M. (2010). Trends and issues in global tourism 2010. New York: Springer.
Donnison, S. (2007). Unpacking the millennials: A cautionary tale for teacher education.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 1–13.
Dredge, D., Airey, D., & Gross, M. J. (2015). Creating the future: Tourism, hospitality and events
education in a post-industrial, post-discipniary world. In The routledge handbook of tourism
and hospitality education (pp. 533–550). London: Routledge.
Dredge, D., & Schott, C. (2014). The tourism education futures initiative: The way forward. In The
tourism education futures initiative: Activating change in tourism education (pp. 371–379).
Oxford: Routledge.
Dredge, D., Schott, C., Daniele, R., Caton, K., Edelheim, J., & Munar, A. M. (2015). The tourism
education futures initiative. Anatolia, 26(2), 340–346.
Emerson, J. (2003). The blended value proposition: Integrating social and finacial returns. Cali-
fornia Management Review, 45(4), 35–51.
Emerson, J. (2006). Moving ahead together: Implications of a blended value framework for the
future of social entrepreneurship. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New models of
sustainable social change (pp. 391–406). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
EU Commission. (2013). Sustainable tourism for development guidebook. Madrid: EU
Commission.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Phronetic plannning research: Theoretical and methodological reflections.
Planning Theory and Practice, 5(3), 283–306.
Geertz, C. (1990). History and anthropology. New Literary History, 21(2), 321–335.
Hall, C. M. (2007). Pro-poor tourism: Who benefits?—Perspectives on tourism and poverty
reduction. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Hazelkorn, E. (2009). Impact of global rankings on higher education research and the production
of knowledge. Paris: UNESCO.
Heady, L., Rickey, B., & Ogain, E. (2011). School for social entrepreneurs 1997–2011: Impact
evaluation report. London: School for Social Entrepreneurs.
Inoue, Y., & Lee, S. (2011). Effects of different dimensions of corporate social responsibility on
corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries. Tourism Management, 32(4),
790–804.
Jones, A. L., Warner, B., & Kiser, P. M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship. Planning for Higher
Education, 38(4), 44–51.
Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2013). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction
and delight. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(3), 1–57.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Implicit and explicit CSR: A conceptual framework for a
comparative understanding of CSR. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to
ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. Coventry: University of Edinburgh.
Retrieved May 20, 2016, from http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html#meyerland
Meyers, N. M., & Nulty, D. D. (2009). How to use (five) curriculum design principles to align
authentic learning environments, assessment, students’ approaches to thinking and learning
outcomes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(5), 565–577.
Noddings, N. (1999). Two concepts of caring. Philosophy of Education. Retrieved May 17, 2016,
from http://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
OECD. (2015). The sustainable development goals: an overview of relevant OECD analysis, tools
and approaches. Paris: OECD. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from http://www.oecd.org/dac/post-
2015.htm
Owen, C. (2006). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 1(2),
16–27.
Owen, C. (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature + use. Design Research Quarterly, 2(1), 16–
27.
Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.
Radice, H. (2013). How we got here: UK higher education under neoliberalism. ACME: An
International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 12(3), 407–418.
Ren, C., Petersen, M., & Dredge, D. (2015). Guest editorial: Valuing tourism. Valuation Studies, 3
(2), 85–96.
Sherman, S. (2011). Teaching the key skills of succesful social entrepreneurs. Stanford Social
Innovation Review. Retrieved July 8, 2016 from http://ssir.org/articles/entry/teaching_the_
key_skills_of_successful_social_entrepreneurs
Tao, T. C. H., & Wall, G. (2009). Tourism as a sustainable livelihood strategy. Tourism Manage-
ment, 30(1), 90–98.
Taplin, J., Dredge, D., & Scherrer, P. (2014). Monitoring and evaluating volunteer tourism: A
review and analytical framework. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(6), 874–897.
World Economic Forum & Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship. (2016). Social
innovation: A guide to achieving corporate and societal value. Geneva. Retrieved May
20, 2016, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Social_Innovation_Guide.pdf
Yunus, M. (2013, October 15). Why businesses need to reshape society. Huffington Post.
Retrieved June 17, 2016 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-yunus/why-busi
nesses-need-to-re_b_4100164.html
Pauline J. Sheldon is Professor Emeritus at the School of Travel Industry Management at the
University of Hawaii, Honolulu, USA where she also served as Professor and Dean. She has
published books in the fields of Tourism Information Technology, Wellness Tourism, and Change
in Tourism Education. Her research interests also lie in the areas of corporate social responsibility
and sustainable island tourism. She co-founded Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI),
served as President of the International Academy for the Study of Tourism, and has been awarded
UNWTO Ulysses Award, the TTRA Lifetime Achievement Award.
work on TIPSE.

Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism - Philosophy and Practice (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism - Philosophy and Practice (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tourism on the Verge

ISSN 2366-2611 ISSN 2366-262X (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016960325

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

students and the ongoing development of relationships with social entrepreneurs

Aalborg University Dianne Dredge

Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism: Setting the Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Part I Understanding Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism

Part II Communities of Practice

Social Enterprise Evaluation: Implications for Tourism

Part III Cases

About the Editors

Pauline J. Sheldon is Professor Emeritus at the School of Travel Industry Man-

Roberto Daniele was Senior Lecturer in Entrepreneurship and Marketing at

Kathleen Andereck School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona

Karla Boluk University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

Jamie Murphy Australian School of Management, Perth, WA, Australia

Pauline J. Sheldon, Anna Pollock, and Roberto Daniele

Keywords Social entrepreneurship • Definitions • Terminologies • Tourism

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 1

The world is in turbulence. Shocks to its economic, social and environmental

environmental challenges such as waste, pollution, resource scarcity, and loss of

2 Definitions and Terminologies

Social Enterprise is a relatively youthful phenomenon. The terms social entrepre-

The Skoll Foundation, another well-recognized international organization for

2.1 Definition of Tourism Social Entrepreneurship

or national, or two or more in collaboration) with a primary mission to enhance the

Having defined tourism social entrepreneurship, we need to also define the

3 Tourism Context and Scope

progressive organizations to discuss system-changing strategies. Efforts to cobble

Perhaps as a society we have now reached an “awareness tipping point” where

4 Tourism Social Entrepreneurship: The Need

combined they can accentuate and accelerate the process of commodification

5 The Current State of Tourism Social Entrepreneurship

Innovation” published by Inderscience, and the “Journal of Social Entrepreneur-

stakeholders overcome underlying, negative experiences resulting from the Israeli-

Brookes, A. C. (2009). Social entrepreneurship: A modern approach to social value creation.

Christine Buzinde, Gordon Shockley, Kathleen Andereck, Edward Dee,

Abstract This chapter commences with a discussion of the term entrepreneurship

Keywords Entrepreneurship • Social entrepreneurship • Sustainable tourism •

C. Buzinde (*) • G. Shockley • K. Andereck

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 21

1 The Concept of Social Entrepreneurship

In economics terms, social entrepreneurship indicates an opportunity-driven activ-

establish a theoretical foundation of social entrepreneurship based on the modern

Social For-Proﬁt Entrepreneurship

Public Sector Nonproﬁt

2 Is the Concept of Social Entrepreneurship Applicable

producers with access to markets; the Employment Model, which centers on

2.1 Applying the Concept of Social Entrepreneurship

social entrepreneurship as a possible form of neocolonialism. Such lines of research

2.2 An Example of Social Entrepreneurship in Action:

This section utilizes the case of DinéHozhó to provide an example of a Native

in Hozhó) is a grassroots organization that compromises eight local Navajo com-

14 Resolution that authorizes the creation of low-profit limited liability company

Questions for Discussion

1. What ethical issues should social entrepreneurs consider as they contemplate

Gordon Shockley is an Associate Professor of Social Entrepreneurship in the School of Com-

Abstract There is no question that poverty, social and economic marginalization

Keywords Policy • Social entrepreneurship • Governance • Critical tourism

Social entrepreneurship has emerged as a potentially important approach to allevi-