Social innovation practices in the regional tourism industry: case study of a cooperative in Brazil

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to analyze the main elements of the process of social innovation by using a case of a tourism cooperative created by an underprivileged community in Northeastern Brazil while assessing the applicability of the conceptual framework proposed by Centre de Recherche sur les Innovations Sociales (CRISES) in that context. Design/methodology/approach The case study was based mainly on content analysis of semi-structured interviews with cooperative managers and members, complemented by direct observation, analysis of documents and data from secondary sources. Findings The process of social innovation in the tourism cooperative presents distinctive characteristics that are not adequately captured by the dimensions that are proposed in the CRISES framework. Alternative frameworks may contribute additional perspectives to complement and expand the current approach to the analysis of social innovation in diverse contexts. Practical implications The study indicates the need for more appropriate territorially based metrics and assessment models for particular configurations and settings of social innovation, such as in this case. Originality/value The paper contributes to a better understanding of the diversity of social innovation possibilities and how extant analytical frameworks may be adapted and expanded to capture such diversity.

How social innovation projects are managed? Answers from a literature review

“…Information related on what techniques and tools are used to maintain actors involved and how they relate and communicate along the project was also missing. Lack of incentives and support in municipal, state and local policies (DUFOUR et al, 2014), (TELLO-ROZAS, 2016), (QUANDT et al, 2017), (ROCLE & SALLES, 2017), 2 Processual Involvement of users in the design process (FERRARIO et al, 2014), (MARTI et al, 2016) Lack of engagement/commitment/involvement of actors (locals, sponsors, social entrepreneurs and other) (DUFOUR et al, 2014), (FERRARIO et al, 2014), (JUDIT et al, 2016), (FUGER et al, 2017), (NEMES, 2017), (STOKES et al, 2017) Lack of understanding and measurement of social innovation impact (STOKES et al, 2017) Lack of common vocabulary and understanding between all the actors involved (ALTUNA et al, 2015) Lack of clarity about the return on investment.…”

“…(GASCÓ, 2016) Closed systems favouring single-issue solutions developed within clusters of organisations lacking mutual awareness, communication, networking and trust (NEUMEIER, 2017) Participation of non-profit organizations (ALTUNA et al, 2015) 5 Human Resistance to proposed changes (DUFOUR et al, 2014) Dependence on the individual, the agentic engine, who initiates and carries out the innovation. (JUDIT et al, 2016) Reluctance of some members to establish trust and dialog with outside institutions (QUANDT et al, 2017) Lack of human resources (GASCÓ, 2016), (HOWALDT et al, 2016) Lack of competencies, capabilities and skills to successfully develop social innovation projects (DUFOUR et al, 2014), (WESTLEY et al, 2014), ), (ALTUNA et al, 2015), (HOWALDT et al, 2016a), (NEUMEIER, 2016), (RENSBURG et al, 2016), (NEMES, 2017), (STOKES et al, 2017) 6 Financial Availability and accessibility of funding (HOWALDT et al, 2016), (STOKES et al, 2017) 7 Infrastructure…”

“…( QUANDT et al, 2017) Inhabitants have found many business opportunities connected to the folktale route (JUDIT et al, 2016) Initiative obtained high consideration by different stakeholders thereby attracting more economical resources (SCHAFFERS et al, 2009) 4 Improvement of social and individual wellbeing Seniors involved are not afraid of technology anymore Increasing of number of citizens with innovation competencies and skills. (GASCÓ, 2017) Launching of new initiatives to improve other aspects of living conditions in Cerro el Pino.…”

Community asset transfer and strategies of local accumulation

“…Just as neoliberalism is rolled out in path-dependent ways so too is the social economy as it is inflected by different national economic conditions, cultures and institutional histories (Kerlin, 2012). Quandt et al (2017) point out that in Latin America, cooperative solidarity models have their roots in liberation theology whilst in eastern Europe a legacy of centralised state control has pushed social enterprises toward hybrid, semi-commercial forms. Defourny and Nyssens (2010) also describe the important differences between corporatist northern European models of the social economy; a stronger independent charitable character to Mediterranean countries; and an emphasis on entrepreneurship and enterprise in the US and UK.…”

A market approach to social value co-creation: Findings and implications from “Mageires” the social restaurant

“…Tourism social entrepreneurship is also booming (Alegre and Berbegal-Mirabent, 2016;Altinay et al, 2016;Kline et al, 2014;Quandt et al, 2017;Sigala, 2016;Sloan et al, 2014;Yeh et al, 2016), but tourism research simply replicates generic research (e.g. Mottiar, 2016;Tetzschner and Herlau, 2003;von der Weppen and Cochrane, 2012) by showing how the former supports sustainable tourism and alleviates social problems (Kravva, 2014;Wang et al, 2016).…”