Social value creation through tourism enterprise

Tourism Management 54 (2016) 404e417

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Social value creation through tourism enterprise Levent Altinay a, *, Marianna Sigala b, Victoria Waligo c a

Oxford School of Hospitality Management, Faculty of Business, Oxford Brookes University, UK University of South Australia, Business School, Australia c Department of Marketing, Branding and Tourism, Business School of Middlesex University, UK b

h i g h l i g h t s  Social value through tourism enterprise is co-created.  A service-dominant logic explains the co-creation process.  Resource needs and mobilisation strategies are identified.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 4 May 2015 Received in revised form 17 December 2015 Accepted 23 December 2015 Available online xxx

Despite the role of social entrepreneurship to create social value and transformation, little is still known about how social value can be generated. Drawing upon the service dominant logic and entrepreneurship literature, the paper aims to identify the resource needs of a tourism social enterprise and evaluate the means by which these resources are mobilised. Twenty seven face-to-face interviews were conducted with key informants in a developing country case study context. The key resources required for social value creation in tourism are natural; financial; political and institutional and human capital. These resources enable the generation of social value at three levels with interlocking value creation processes: at an individual stakeholder level; at the meso level and at the macro-level. Strategies associated with resource mobilisation are stakeholder involvement and collaboration; and relationship development and local community empowerment. A shared understanding of the role of tourism and cultural values is critical. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Social entrepreneurship Service dominant logic Social value Co-creation

1. Introduction The extant entrepreneurship studies in tourism highlight the significance of creativity (Richards, 2011), innovation (Williams & Shaw, 2011), capital (Hampton & Christensen, 2007) and entrepreneurial orientation (Seilov, 2015; Strobl & Peters, 2013) in the tourism product and destination development. In addition, the importance of entrepreneurial intentions and the traits of the entrepreneurs, for their entrepreneurial activities, are underscored (Gurel, Altinay, & Daniele, 2010). These tourism entrepreneurship studies concentrated on profit-making entrepreneurial activities (Perrini, Vurro, & Costanzo, 2010), neglecting the social dimension of tourism entrepreneurship. This is surprising given that social entrepreneurship (SE) has been identified as an important

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Altinay), Marianna.Sigala@unisa. edu.au (M. Sigala), [email protected] (V. Waligo). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.12.011 0261-5177/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

contributor to the social and environmental development of communities, societies and destinations (Florin & Schmidt, 2011). Recognising this research gap, researchers such as Thomas, Shaw, and Page (2011) called for research into the social dimension of tourism entrepreneurship. In particular, despite an increasing consensus that community engagement plays a key role in shaping the social value creation aspect of entrepreneurship (Bruton, Ketchen, & Ireland, 2013), little is known about how local communities are engaged in resource management and mobilisation processes of social enterprises (McGehee, Kline, & Knollenberg, 2014). An investigation of the local community engagement into tourism social entrepreneurial activities is crucial as effective engagement of local communities is seen as a way to generate social value (Sloan, Legrand, & Simons-Kaufmann, 2014). This paper applies a Service Dominant Logic (SDL) perspective to our understanding of community engagement in tourism social entrepreneurial activities, and aims to identify and evaluate how the resource needs of tourism social enterprises are mobilised

L. Altinay et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 404e417

through the engagement of local communities in the context of a developing country. The paper makes two distinct contributions to the tourism management literature. First we identify the resource needs of social enterprises in tourism; a research area of limited empirical evidence despite the growing contribution of tourism social enterprises to the economic and social development of communities. Second, we investigate social entrepreneurship through the lens of SDL and thus advance both the conceptual and empirical development of social entrepreneurship literature. This is achieved through exploring the means and strategies employed by tourism social enterprises, through which different forms of capital or resources are accessed from the external environment and mobilised for the co-creation of social value. The study adopts a SDL approach whereby the actors interact and exchange resources to co-create value for themselves and others (i.e. the actors aim for mutual betterment and well-being: Vargo & Lusch, 2011); so the SDL implicitly recognises that when actors engage in value creation, they also aim for social and wider benefits of their service ecosystem. The latter is also of critical importance, since it is a necessary requirement of social entrepreneurship (Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009). During the last decade, the SDL has been heavily used in studying service systems, customer engagement and co-creation (see literature review by Ryzhkova, 2015), but the new thinking represented by SDL is increasingly being adopted as a more appropriate theoretical lens through which to study the generation of social value and sustainable service (Enquist, Sebhatu, & Johnson, 2015; Shirahada & Fisk, 2014; Tregua, Ruso-Spena & Casbarra, 2015). The latter studies have shown the compatibility and affordance of the SDL tenets to guide companies in the pursuit of profitability through combining social value creation with social impact and sustainability. The ability of firms and service systems to co-create social value has been associated with various concepts (such as shared value creation, social value, and sustainable value), but all of these concepts reflect the same issue e that is, the strategies and practices that contribute to a more sustainable world and simultaneously drive shareholder value (Phillips, Lee, James, Ghobadian, & O'Regan, 2015). 2. Social entrepreneurship (SE): definition and role in tourism Social entrepreneurship (SE) encompasses ‘the activities and processes undertaken to discover, define, and exploit opportunities in order to enhance social wealth by creating new ventures or managing existing organisations in an innovative manner’ (Zahra et al., 2009: 519). The underlying assumption is that, unlike commercial entrepreneurship, SE is driven by social objectives which lead to social change through innovative ideas (Alvord, Brown, & Letts, 2004; Chell, Nicolopoulou, & Karatas-Ozkan, 2010; Mair & Martí, 2006); such initiatives include the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh which changed millions of lives by providing financial services to the poor, the Aravind Eye Hospital in India which has cured blindness at very low subsidised costs and Sekem in Egypt, a business which was instrumental in reducing pesticide use. Social entrepreneurship is rapidly evolving internationally, but the absence of commonly agreed SE definitions and adequate systems of related statistics is responsible for the limited and fragmented measurement of SE (SEFORIS, 2012). The KPMG (2015) report (2012 Barometer of SE) reveals the growing importance and size of this alternative economy, but it also shows that its purpose and responsibility are intrinsically linked to the economic, political and judicial traditions of each country. For example, 40% of the UK SE has been developed in poor urban areas with the aim to respond to the deficiencies and limitations of the government. Hence, SE in

405

the UK is considered as a real tool to fight against exclusion in urban areas. In Italy, the economic crisis has boosted the development of SE based on a strong cooperative movement; furthermore Italy was the first country to vote for a defined status for SE in 2005. In France, SE represents nearly 10% of all jobs and is rapidly growing (SE jobs increased by 23% between 2000 and 2010, whilst the private sector only grew by 7% during the same period). The Barometer has also identified 63 national or international social entrepreneur networks (i.e. organisations that incorporate SE in order to foster mutual support between peers). On average, each network includes 500e1000 SEs, and they are dispersed globally with dominance in Europe and Asia (25% based in Europe, 4% in North America, 12% in Asia, 4% in Africa, 1% in Middle East, 1% in Latin America and the remaining 16% International). Social entrepreneurship is a process-based phenomenon (Di Domenico, Haugh, & Tracey, 2010) through which financial capital, human capital, social capital and intangible resources are combined in new ways to pursue identified opportunities for value creation (Chell, 2007). On the one hand, financial capital is significantly important as it attracts investors to increase the amount of capital available (Bugg-Levine, Kogut, & Kulatilaka, 2012) thereby enabling the acquisition of other resources and the development of services and products (Dorado, 2006; Meyskens, Robb-Post, Stamp, Carsrud, & Reynolds, 2010). On the other hand, human capital influences the potential to acquire other resources (Haber & Reichel, 2007; Ottosson & Klyver, 2010) particularly in the entry into nascent entrepreneurship (Davidson & Honig, 2003). Another stream of literature recognises social capital (e.g. Park, Lee, Choi, & Yoon, 2012; Zhao, Ritchie, & Echtner, 2011), because the social context or networks influence some of the actions of individuals (Naphiet & Ghoshal, 1998). It is widely recognised that tourism is a major driver of social value creation (Kline, Shah, & Rubright, 2014; Sigala, 2013) and that tourism entrepreneurship can lead to social change (Ateljevic & Doorne, 2003). Indeed, tourism can act as a social force that serves human development through a wider vision of tourism's role in global communities (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006). Moreover, social enterprises in tourism are found to empower local communities, support sustainable regional development (e.g. the social venture ‘Made in USA’, McGehee et al., 2014), and improve the social capital and quality of life of communities by promoting a sustainable lifestyle and food provision even in developed economies (Kline et al., 2014). However, social enterprises are particularly important in the context of developing countries where government institutions do not sufficiently support entrepreneurial activity in the tourism sector (Kwaramba, Lovett, Louw, & Chipumuro, 2012; Roxas & Chadee, 2013; Sloan et al., 2014). In these developing countries with extreme resource constraints, entrepreneurs' aid or substitute supportive institutions which are normally absent or weak, fail to provide the necessary infrastructure and mechanisms for development (Mair & Martí, 2006). In these destinations, entrepreneurship tends to favour a ‘responsible approach’ (Goodwin, 2011) with simultaneous consideration for economic, social and environmental goals. Entrepreneurship is therefore as much a social phenomenon as an economic one and economic growth is not the only relevant outcome of its activities (Korsgaard & Anderson, 2011). Indeed, emerging research reveals the rapid growth of tourism SE and its critical role in supporting sustainable tourism development and social value creation. This includes social festivals aiming to support the development of a responsible social identity construction (Gordin & Dedova, 2015); social restaurants aiming to provide a social way of food production and provision (Kline et al., 2014); accommodation supporting community development and equal entrepreneurial activities (Sigala, 2013); social sports tourism

406

L. Altinay et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 404e417

for fostering healthy lifestyle values and well-being (Ratten, 2014); and souvenirs/community involvement enabling community development (Kline et al., 2014; McGehee et al., 2014). Preliminary findings (Mody & Day, 2014) also disclose that tourism SE faces similar challenges to other forms of SE, such as access to and availability of resources and the challenge to prove to others, and persuade them of, the authentic motivation and aims of their SE. Despite these positive aspects of SE, preliminary findings also reveal the dark side of SE and the challenges that social entrepreneurs are facing. Estrin, Stephan, and Vuijc (2014) gave evidence of the female SE paradox, whereby although SE promotes social justice, it has failed to address issues of gender inequalities in career opportunities and pay (e.g. women as social entrepreneurs earn 29% less than their male colleagues). Phillips et al. (2015) challenged the SE motives and social goals, as they provided several cases of ‘greenwashing’ (i.e. SE utilising its social profile as a marketing ploy for maximising profits, and/or entrepreneurs utilising SE as a profession to further their career). Apart from the challenge to persuade communities of their authentic motives and goals, SE has to address their limited access to and availability of resources. The development of social and business networks is widely argued as a major strategy for safeguarding resources (Phills, Deiglmeier, &

lez, & Rey-García, 2015), Miller, 2008; Sanzo-Perez, Alvarez-Gonz a but SE organisations are struggling to identify the appropriate networks to align with; balance conflicting interests within networks, and create relational trust that is required for exchanging resources and generating social value (Lettice & Parekh, 2010). Hence, research is required to further explore the ways that SE can access and mobilise resources for generating social value. Nevertheless, with the exception of a few studies (e.g. Bennett, Lemelin, Koster, & Budke, 2012; Park et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2011), the social aspects of entrepreneurship in general, but specifically in tourism literature, have been overlooked. In particular, it is not yet known what social entrepreneurs and enterprises do in order to engage local communities in the creation of social value (McGehee et al., 2014; Ormiston & Seymour, 2013). In order to provide an initial step in rectifying this deficiency, the paper now examines the service-dominant-logic literature. While this literature has been successfully applied to explain how hospitality and tourism consumers are engaged in the co-creation of service value (See Chathoth, Altinay, Harrington, Okumus, & Chan, 2013; Chathoth et al., 2014), it has not yet been applied to social entrepreneurship studies. 3. A service-dominant-logic (SDL) perspective to value cocreation in SE According to service-dominant-logic (SDL), value is not embedded in goods (exchange value) but is co-created as the various social and economic actors interact, exchange and integrate €nroos & resources (‘value-in-use’) for mutual betterment (Gro Gummerus, 2014). The resources may be operant (those acting upon other resources, e.g. skills and knowledge) or operand (tangible resources allocated or acted upon, e.g. goods). Resources are also usually divided into physical (e.g. energy, emotion, and strength), social (e.g. family relationships, communities, and commercial relationships), and cultural (i.e. specialised knowledge and skills, history, and imagination) resources (Arnould, Price, & Malshe, 2006). Because no actor can possess or access all the resources it needs, value is co-created within service ecosystems that represent dynamic and inter-connected networks of resource integrating actors connected by shared institutional logics and mutual value creation (Vargo & Lusch, 2011). The context in which value is derived critically influences the value-co-creation processes (‘value-in-context’); according to

Chandler and Vargo (2011a: 38), ‘the context of value creation is as important to the creation of value as the competences of the participating parties’, because value co-creation is influenced not only by the interactions amongst the actors but also by the social context that frames the exchange of resources amongst actors. Moreover, Lusch and Vargo (2006: 14) suggest that what are often thought to be external and uncontrollable factors in markets (e.g. legal, social, technological, and even natural environments) ‘‘have the potential to be resources if certain resistances can be overcome.’’ In other words, when firms consider the applicability of their offerings within a variety of contexts, they can actually draw on environmental factors (e.g. social or political institutions) as resources to increase the potential value of their value propositions. In this way, external factors can enable or constrain value creation. Consequently, resource integration can draw on resources accessed through actors and from the broader social context. Recent research in SDL provides further insight into the nature and composition of the value creation context. Chandler and Vargo (2011b) advocated that the social context is not only composed of the variety of the actors' inter-connections, but also by the social norms or ‘‘institutions’’ that guide and/or motivate the actors' interaction (Edvardsson, Tronvoll and Gruber., 2011; Vargo & Akaka, 2012; Vargo & Lusch, 2011). Edvardsson et al. (2011) proposed the concept of “value in-social-context” as a means for studying how contexts are socially constructed through the enactment of practices and exchange of resources that lead to value creation and the (re)formation of social structures. For example, €isa €nen-Sepp€ Haukkamaa, Ylira anen, and Timonen (2010) found that the abilities of the actors to (co-)create knowledge are affected by several factors: the composition of the actor's learning networks because it influences his access to different resource exchange opportunities; the actor's ties and links with other network actors; the intensity and the depth of the actor's co-operation and communications with other actors; and the social strength of the network (i.e. trust, bonds and transparency amongst actors) which influences the actors' ability and motivation to exchange and create shared knowledge. Actors were also found to form and participate in various networks on an ad-hoc basis, because accessibility to networks with multifaceted expertise allows the actors to cooperate and co-create ‘knowledge-in-context’ according to their situational needs. In accordance with the SDL view of value creation, the SE literature recognises the need to use and access resources through networks. For example, many authors (Mair & Martí, 2006; Ormiston & Seymour, 2013; Zahra et al., 2009) advocate that in order to create value, SE requires access to resources that can be safeguarded and guaranteed through the development of social networks and their ability to unite and mobilise different organisations to share and exchange resources. Research also highlights the role of the social capital (defined as the assets embedded in relationships among individuals, communities, networks and societies: Granovetter, 1992) in enabling SE to access resources. Specifically, all the three social capital building blocks are found to boost the (tourism) entrepreneurial activity of social entrepreneurs: the structural (network centricity, ties and bonds) and relational (quality of relationships) social capital (e.g. Casson & Giusta, 2007; Zhao et al., 2011), and the cognitive social capital (the degree to which an individual shares a common code and systems of meaning within a community) (Sigala, 2013). Indeed, quality of relationships and compatibility of network values are found to critically influence the actors' willingness and motivation to engage in and contribute to a cooperative activity as well as exchange resources (Rodan & Galunic, 2004). Social networks can also help social entrepreneurs to multiply their market effects by elevating them to a public/international sphere (e.g. enhance

L. Altinay et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 404e417

marketability and spill-over effects to other actors: Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). Social network theory has been previously used to explain innovation and the creativity ability of entrepreneurs (Sanzo-Perez et al., 2015); however, the impact of social network theories in SE is still to be investigated. Although such social entrepreneurs, who are embedded within social networks, can ensure access to resources and win legitimacy, they are however less likely to engage in social ventures that challenge rules and norms, because they are ‘‘locked’’ into the existing structure (Holm, 1995). To address this network paradox effect on social value creation and to enable social change, Sigala (2013) advocated that SEs need to build and engage in multiple networks with different mindsets and social contexts, so that they can be less conditioned by the existing institutions and exchange frameworks. Hence, similar to the SDL, in order to develop social value, social entrepreneurs should access, adapt and fit resources within this context so that value creation becomes part of the actor's mental/cultural schema and achieves legitimacy (Akaka, Vargo & Lusch., 2012). In this vein, the actors do not view the creation of social value as an act of sacrifice, but as a key to greater happiness, meaning-in-life and a better socially oriented way of everyday life. This change of mindsets, cognitive schema and idiosyncratic sensemaking processes was referred to as the ability of SE to create market pictures, and it confirms the tenets of SDL and structuration theory which advocate the interlocking effects between actors, practices and context (re)formation through value co-creation processes (e.g. Akaka et al., 2012; Edvardsson et al., 2011; Vargo & Lusch, 2011). To integrate and fit resources together and within contexts for generating social transformations, SEs can use the cognitive dimension of their social capital (i.e. the sense-making processes). For example, education, dialogue, negotiations and debate with other stakeholders can help SE to develop a shared language and understanding on how to define social value, interpret social problems, context and institutions, and adapt and fit resources to local contexts for improving and reforming the faulty social institutions. This is also compatible with social constructivism emphasising the importance of dialogue and linguistics in institution formation (Humphrey, Martin, Dreyfus, & Mahboob, 2010). The review of the extant literature showed that resource mobilisation strategies, networking and the use of personal and human capital are critical to social enterprises (Chell, 2007; Meyskens et al., 2010). In particular, the use of networks and stakeholder partnerships improves efficiency, enables resource acquisition, enhances legitimacy and increases motivation for social entrepreneurs (Meyskens et al., 2010; Nicholls, 2010). Recent findings in social food entrepreneurship also proved that the organisation's stakeholder ecosystems (Kline et al., 2014) can critically support the food entrepreneurs in accessing financial and technical resources for innovating and creating social value in areas such as sourcing, new product development, production processes, markets, and ways of organising business. Overall, research in SE highlights the importance of networks as a vehicle to access resources, which in turn can significantly boost or prevent the ability of social entrepreneurs to identify and exploit social entrepreneurial opportunities (Mair & Martí, 2006; Zahra et al., 2009), mobilise different organisations to share and exchange resources within these networks (Ormiston & Seymour, 2013), and expand/ escalate their social impact in the market by creating spill-over effects to other market actors, so increasing their marketability (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). However, the literature has failed to unravel and explain how entrepreneurs mobilise and exploit resources to identify and implement market opportunities. In addition, there appears to be no research investigating how tourism social enterprises overcome the barriers to securing scarce

407

resources and mobilising their exploitation and adaptation/fit to the context. This paper addresses this research gap in the (tourism) social entrepreneurship literature by exploring the resource needs and the resource mobilisation strategies adopted by tourism social enterprises by responding to the following research questions: 1. What are the resource needs of tourism social enterprises in their social entrepreneurial activities? 2. What are the means and strategies employed by tourism social enterprises through which different forms of capital or resources are accessed from the external environment and mobilised (adapted and fitted within this context) for cocreating social value and transformation?

4. Methodology This study was qualitative and interpretive as it involved studying people and other phenomena in their natural settings (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). We adopted an exploratory case study strategy which was deemed appropriate because case studies are used to develop theories and/or generate new insights and knowledge about contemporary phenomena within real-life contexts (Yin, 2003:13). The case refers to Guludo Beach Lodge (GBL), a tourist/visitor accommodation facility in Mozambique e Southeastern coast of Africa, operating alongside and investing in Nema Foundation, its associated charity (which receives 5% of the lodge's revenues, but also fundraises independently, e.g. donations from guests), which seeks to identify and tackle the root causes of poverty and environmental devastation in specific communities. The aim of both organisations is “ … to bring benefits to the local area at a minimum environmental, developmental and operational cost” (GBL/NEMA founder). The combination of its economic and social goals including a clear commitment to the social purpose renders this organisation a social enterprise. Over the past two decades, economic growth in Mozambique has depended on sound macroeconomic management, large-scale foreign-investment projects, political stability, and significant donor support (World Bank, 2015). The direct contribution of Travel and Tourism to GDP is forecast to rise by 6.1% per annum (pa), from 2014 to 2024 and by 2024 international tourist arrivals are forecast to total 3,206,000, generating expenditure of MZN13.0bn, an increase of 4.2% pa (WTTC, 2014). The Quirimbas National Park, where Guludo is situated, is the first public area established in 2002 by the initiative of a provincial authority under the auspices of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in Maputo (Visitmozambique, 2015). Tourism development policy in the Quirimbas National Park is based on sustainable development. Other tourism enterprises
lea. Like Guludo these within the park include Vamizi and Quila have been leased from the Mozambique government by groups of British and European shareholders and combine tourism with wildlife conservation and community development. However, Guludo Beach Lodge was founded with the explicit mission to relieve poverty and protect the environment (Kowalski & Udelhoven, 2012). Guludo Beach Lodge is promoted as a responsible tourism destination pursuing social, economic and environmental objectives through SE. Responsible tourism is the prominent message and SE is the underpinning business model. There is social pressure on tourists to participate in SE activities following village tours where the social projects initiated by the social enterprise are showcased and the exhibition of locally made products on-site. In addition, the social, environmental and economic impact of the enterprise is promoted online to tourists. Around eighty per cent of tourists choose to participate in SE activities.

408

L. Altinay et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 404e417

Although social value creation was a core mission of the founders of Guludo Beach Lodge from the outset, the process is highly dependent on the cooperation of the local community. It is important to note that establishing this foreign-owned tourism social enterprise necessitated negotiating with resident and government representatives who hold different socio-cultural values. For example, the residents are predominantly Muslim in contrast to the founders and the targeted western tourists who are Christians. Furthermore, before the existence of Guludo, the local people lacked basic human needs such as clean water, education and the ability to thrive in their own environment (Lanier, 2014). These local needs hugely influenced the process of value co-creation including an attractive low-impact tourism facility for visitors alongside jobs, schools, clinics and clean water for the community. In this regard, the social context in which value was derived critically influenced the value co-creation process which the SDL represents. Moreover the tourist experience depends on what locals are willing to offer (e.g. cultural shows and visits to the villages) which likens Guludo to a type of community-led social enterprise (Haugh, 2007). Today, the interaction between the Guludo management and key local stakeholders still shapes social entrepreneurial activities at the destination. The ability to mobilise and exploit resources and the kind of resources secured constitute a competitive advantage for Guludo as an award-winning tourism social enterprise. This advantage formed the basis of this study in order to contribute to the wider debate about the value of tourism to destinations and the equitable distribution of the benefits of tourism. Triangulation was used to ensure the reliability and validity of the research methodology by using various sources (informants) of data collection and various methods of data collection (interviews, field observations, documents) (Altinay & Paraskevas, 2008). 4.1. Data collection Twenty seven interviews were conducted. The research sample included different categories of informant to provide insights into the internal and external operations of the venture and its wider impact. Table 1 provides details of the composition of the

interviewees. Three informants were direct advocates of SE, four foreigners were employed for their expertise, skills or interests, and nine locals were employed for their local knowledge and potential benefit from the social enterprise. Each interview took between 45 min and 1 h. The questions were semi-structured and built around themes and sub-themes gleaned from the literature on SE. In addition, a variety of documents were accessed such as news articles in the Telegraph Travel (2012) and the Guardian (2006); websites such as www. responsibletravel.com; www.barefootbreaks.co, and reports and records from www.guludo.com and the Nature Conservancy (2012). These gave insights into the declared mission of GBL, the nature of activities undertaken to achieve it, and the recognised successes. Furthermore, the researchers were given extensive tours around the study villages and projects including schools, orphanages, water access points and clinics, and interacted with staff members, residents, and guests/volunteers. 4.2. Data analysis Data analysis was underpinned by a general analytical framework based on two key stages using NVivo 10: (1) identification of emerging themes and (2) analysis of shared themes. 4.2.1. Identification of emerging themes First, the data were collected and assembled in the form of cases or units of analysis in an NVivo project for systematic familiarisation. Each interview was imported as a case in order to acknowledge contributions from all informants and account for their responses to different questions. Transcripts were saved with code names that could be recognised and sorted alphabetically in the folder system for easy retrieval. We started with some general categories (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996) using headings that broadly described what was contained in the paragraphs as an initial coding scheme without being content-specific (Miles & Huberman, 1994). These included: ‘different forms of capital’, purpose of enterprise’ ‘social concerns’, ‘resource mobilisation’, ‘partnerships’, ‘opportunity recognition’, ‘activities’ ‘relationships’, ‘funding’, and ‘background’. The headings were consistent to facilitate coding in NVivo

Table 1 Composition of interviewees. Informant category

Title/role

Relationship with SE

Numbers

GBL/NEMA Founder Foreign Employees of GBL/NEMA

Managing Director GBL Manager NEMA Manager GBL Diving Instructor GBL Housekeeping Supervisor Waiter Driver Guard Chef Guest relations coordinator Teacher Shopkeeper Volunteers X2 NEMA Coordinator Village chief Water representative Pregnant mothers x2 Former employees x2 Student Female resident Male resident Diver Business woman Honeymooners x2

GBL owner and SE Advocate Business expert/Lodge manager Social worker/SE Advocate Diving skills/Environmentalist Management skills GBL-trained/NEMA scholar Employment/Local knowledge Employment/Local knowledge GBL-trained/Local knowledge GBL-trained/Local knowledge Employment/Local knowledge Employment/Local knowledge Local knowledge Employment/Local knowledge

1 4

Residents' representative Residents' representative Beneficiaries Initial local employment Beneficiary Beneficiary Beneficiary Diving and community activities Visitor/SE Advocate/Donor Visitors/Donors

9

Local employees of GBL

Local employees of NEMA

Local Residents and direct beneficiaries

Lodge guests

4

5

4

L. Altinay et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 404e417

and to create nodes containing information on particular themes which could be recoded. With a combination of deductive and inductive approaches (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007), data reduction enabled us to focus on the most useful data. For example, selected slices of data at the nodes named ‘natural capital and tourism potential’, ‘political and institutional capital’, ‘human capital’ were linked and labelled ‘different forms of capital’, and others under ‘stakeholder involvement and collaboration’ and ‘relationship development and empowerment’ were labelled ‘resource mobilisation strategies’. Finally, six categories of shared themes denoting shared experiences across informants' accounts were identified as (1) natural capital or the tourism potential of the destinations, (2) financial capital, (3) political and institutional capital, (4) human capital, (5) stakeholder involvement and collaboration, and (6) relationship development and empowerment. 4.2.2. Analysis of shared themes At this stage, the data were revisited to examine the relationships between the shared themes and the different concepts that had been merged. For instance, analysis of the shared themes enabled an understanding as to how ‘stakeholder involvement and collaboration’ and ‘relationship developed and empowerment’ help social tourism enterprises to acquire critical resources needed for their social activities. 5. Findings and discussion 5.1. Resources needed for SE in tourism The findings of the study demonstrated that there are four types of capital needed by the case-study tourism enterprise to fulfil their social mission and contribute to the social and economic development of local communities. These are: (1) natural capital or the tourism potential of the destinations, (2) political and institutional capital or formal legitimacy, (3) financial capital or monetary and physical funding, and (4) human capital. The following section of the findings present these different forms of capital and discusses how they are exploited by SE for integration with other contextual resources for generating social value. 5.1.1. Natural/physical capital or the tourism potential of the destinations It became apparent that the SE needs to be self-sustaining in order to address social problems and contribute to social and economic development. Informants indicated that this would not be possible without exploiting the natural capital and the tourism potential of the destinations. As the founder of the SE indicated, they were looking for “somewhere that had an amazing tourism potential but was next to extreme poverty so we could bring maximum benefits. We just wanted to show the world, look what's possible with tourism”. The importance of natural resources for tourism SE was also confirmed by the guests who were interviewed, as they all claimed that the major factors attracting them to visit the place (even more than their willingness to generate income and help local communities) were the physical environmental resources and the authentic beauty of the place. Thus, there was no evidence to suggest that tourists are prepared to pay premium prices due to the SE connection. However, GBL directly supports SE and when tourists pay for the holiday experience they contribute indirectly to NEMA and then directly if they so wish during and after their visit

409

when they understand the SE connection. As the GBL manager explained: “Guests come here and they visit the villages, they get to know our projects and they get to know the staff and the beneficiaries directly, and they see what we can do. And so a lot of them decide at the end of their stay that they would like to support [us]”. Capitalising on the natural resources and the tourism potential of the destination also involved explaining the value and importance of utilising these resources for economic and social development of the local community. As the founder explained: “I was just standing on the beach and it was just incredible, white sands, just beautiful breath-taking islands, the shore but then it was that moment when we went to talk to the community … it was the location, the beauty of it and the community … they were keen for tourism to happen, they really didn't know what it was”. Reiterating this, one resident stated that when the founders of the SE came, they “found land here on the beach … the land belonged to the Guludo people” so they negotiated; “we need to build on this land … you guys will have a job here and we can improve some things here”. The efforts of the SE to explain to and persuade the local community of the tourism potential of their natural resources is critically affected by the previous activities of other SE in the area, since the latter significantly influences the locals' attitudes and predispositions towards the SE and tourism development. For example, the government's similar interest in developing tourism in the area as well as the work of the WWF on the Quirimbas National Park created a conducive context for the pursuit of SE tourism development plans as implied by the founder: We were looking at the east coast of Africa and up there in the north has some of the poorest areas and some amazing beaches, and also the government's approach to tourism seemed to fit ours. They were keen for the help to develop the National Park. Natural capital also enables social enterprises to generate tourism-related economic activities and sustain their businesses; at the same time it helps them develop social projects and thus create employment opportunities. As a member of staff of the SE claimed, “We use local materials for our structures and infrastructures … such as tiles, ceramics”, while the chef of the SE also claimed “… most of our food supplies are sourced locally, e.g. vegetables, fish and meat, not only to reduce costs and create more authentic dishes, but also to support the income of local community members”. The ability of tourism to drive multiplier effects and economic development in the area is the critical goal of the SE founder who stated the importance of “....using tourism as a vehicle to bring social development, community development” and also recognised and utilised the reciprocal relationship between tourism and economic development by pressing governments to further invest in developmental infrastructure. She explained: “… getting the local supplies on time requires roads and other infrastructure to be in place, otherwise the logistics do not work. Highlighting this to the government is important. The multiplier effects of tourism cannot be generated if basic infrastructures are not properly developed and provided”. In other words, the findings also highlight the ability of natural

410

L. Altinay et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 404e417

resources not only to drive tourism (economic) development, but also to assist other resources to become available (i.e. the reciprocal/spiral effects among resources co-existing within a context). These findings are also compatible with views that the tourism potential of destinations can be used as a source of capital to stimulate entrepreneurship and economic development (Bosworth & Farrell, 2011); to reduce poverty (Bruton et al., 2013) and add value to environments, communities, and tourists alike (Simpson, 2008). The findings also confirm a number of key factors: the importance of natural resources to enable other resources (e.g. tourism competencies) to take their resourcefulness (i.e. to become resources); the importance of other context-based resources (i.e. governmental support, SE efforts of others); and the ability of the SE in adapting and fitting its resources within this wider assortment of resources for generating value for mutual betterment (e.g. Akaka et al., 2012). Although the fit between natural capital and tourism SE is very obvious, SE still has to explain it and help local communities recognise this fit and 'educate' them on how to adapt and integrate these resources within the local context for generating mutual value. Therefore, the findings also confirm the importance of cognitive capital in social value creation, because SE has to engage in and foster dialogue amongst stakeholders with the aim of creating shared meanings of value propositions and to show how exchanges and the integration of resources among actors can lead to mutual betterment and value generation for all the network actors (Akaka & Chandler, 2011). This also clearly shows how SE can generate value at all levels: the idiosyncratic micro level of the mindset of individual stakeholders, the nurturing of resource exchanges and meaning-making processes at the meso level that in turn can lead to the (re)formation of collective meanings and norms at a macro level. 5.1.2. Monetary and non-monetary financial capital The lodge is a major source of capital for its charity, Nema, as 5% of the lodge's revenues finance the Nema's activities. In addition, guests are also informed about many other various donation opportunities. There was unanimous agreement and acceptance among all interviewed stakeholders (i.e. guests, staff and SE founders and managers) about the ethics and rationale of this financial model. The link between the commercial lodge and the charity also enables the organisations to share administration costs and exchange non-monetary resources, as the lodge manager noted: “… Nema shares the lodge's infrastructures like the office, internet, fuel, all this e it's a really important source of funding”. The founder also emphasised the role of the foundation in attracting international donors: “… we needed to set up a foundation to develop more than the structural problems of the community. … we can get support from international donors to develop these infrastructures such as health, and economy like business”. Besides generating funding from tourists, social enterprises rely on alternative sources of funding. Among these, donors and financial capital from the partners appear to be the most prominent. As the general manager observed, “for funding projects we have some international donors … but also private donations from guests are very important”. Furthermore, the manager also highlighted the importance of local support for community projects: “… for every child that goes to the school their family makes X number of blocks [the bricks required to erect physical school buildings] so we provide the cement and they actually make the blocks and that's their contribution so it's not just a Nema school, it's a community school”.

By contributing non-monetary labour resources, the community is able to co-finance social projects and participate in collaborative development and ownership of such initiatives. These findings support the findings of Dees (1998) and Miller and Wesley (2010) which suggest that SE needs financial capital to flourish and sustain its social activities. The GBL manager explained that some donations may be “short-term; others are longterm, for the long-term life of the school children, and scholarships for school children”. However, long-term commitment to the social and economic development of communities requires the support of a stable resource portfolio, particularly financial capital, and this is not always possible. As one of the senior managers explained, “we have done a lot in the areas of education, health and water provision in the 16 communities we work with, but there is a lot more to be done … it is a matter of getting funds”. Another manager also stressed the importance of a stable income source: “… having access to a stable source of income is critical as it provides us with security so that we can at least meet rigid fixed costs that allow us to continue operating”. Despite the financial constraints, GBL and Nema have created jobs, looked after orphans, supported formal education, provided on-job training and improved healthy living. Statistically, Nema currently works with 16 communities around Guludo, (approximately 24,000 people), providing 800 children with school meals every day, clean water from 47 water points, mosquito nets to mothers of young children, and funding for 127 Secondary School Scholars (www.guludo.com). 5.1.3. Political and institutional capital or formal legitimacy The findings showed that tourism social enterprises need to establish themselves in the local community and ensure that they get the support of different stakeholder groups for the development and implementation of their social endeavours. In this regard various informants cited working with “schools”, “clinics and hospitals”, “churches and parishes”, “orphanages and children's homes”. In a similar vein, the founder of GBL cited close liaison “with the government for every project” and “partnering with several organisations, including NGOs”. This is what Bennett et al. (2012) defined as political and institutional capital utilised by tourism organisations for the development of tourism in destinations. One expatriate staff member observed, “… it's important to consult [government officials] … we realised that they were happy that we were keen to develop health facilities in the area but they said, ‘we would like to have those facilities integrated into our health system’.” Having access to and the approval or 'grace' (as referred to by one employee) of political and institutional capital are important resources not only at a strategic level for implementing the vision and goals of the SE, but also at an operational level for ensuring the smooth implementation of its day-to-day operations. For example, as the Nema manager claimed, in order to implement a project for pregnant women in Narundi village, she had to “… go and talk to the local government in Narundi to get their opinion about whether what we want to do makes sense, whether they have some comments, whether we should refine it. And then I will go and talk to some of the actual beneficiaries, so there is a bit of a community consultation. I also went and talked to the nurses and traditional healers, and then some of the pregnant women as well to get their feedback. And, based on all of that, we pulled it together and then we will start to implement it, or start finding the resources for it first, and then once we've got the resources start implementing it”.

L. Altinay et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 404e417

Similarly, the chef of the lodge claimed that because of respect for the religious culture of local staff, “… we even had to call religious leaders to come here and kind of give their permission, and we use locals, with the rights to kill animals by following local rituals, so that we could serve and sell the local meat”. Thus, discussion with local opinion-makers and influencers did not only ensure the ability to utilise local resources, by adapting and fitting them within a new context, but also mobilised a public dialogue and meaning-making processes that challenged and reformed the local status quo and institutions. Political justification and legitimacy were also identified as an antecedent of social entrepreneurship by scholars such as Meyskens et al. (2010) and Nicholls (2010) and they also appear to be particularly important in the tourism SE which were examined. When investigated further, it was found that political and institutional support is necessary because the tourism potential of these destinations cannot be utilised, in order to develop human resources, without the support of different stakeholder groups in the developing country. In this regard, the social entrepreneur attempts to create an awareness of the social need to different networks which are targeted for their potential contribution to the solution. As a result, a diverse range of people or stakeholder groups are engaged in the pursuit of the opportunity to solve the identified problems and contribute to the sustainability of the social enterprise. However, in her analysis, the founder of GBL explained, “… we are here to implement our projects but also to support local communities to identify their social problems and help them in their decision making on how to solve these problems and implement the solutions … you pay respect [to local institutions] and understand the decision-making process and how to empower them with more knowledge so they can make better decisions without being patronising”. The above suggests that SE does not view the political/social capital as a resource to be utilised, but as a resource that needs to be adapted in a new reality, and empowered as a collaborator for defining and solving social problems as well as reforming social institutions. Hence, the development of multiple social networks with various stakeholders at a meso level does not only give access to various resources, but it also enables SE to unite and mobilise other resources towards a common and socially accepted and meaningful vision, as well as avoiding being 'locked' into a specific mindset; thus making it easier to challenge the status quo and initiative disruptive change at a macro level (Mair & Martí, 2006). Through cooperation with these stakeholder groups and getting their support, social enterprises acquire the political and institutional capital that facilitate the transformation of the other capital assets into tourism development (Bennett et al., 2012). Thus, establishing and maintaining quality-based communication and collaboration links with stakeholders groups (at a meso level) does not only confirm the importance of institutions and rules in framing and enabling the fit and integration of resources for value creation (Lusch & Vargo, 2006), but also provides the opportunity for SE to negotiate and develop new shared-meanings and value propositions with others and ultimately, initiate social transformation at a macro level (Akaka, Schau, & Vargo, 2013). This is further discussed under Section 5.2.1.

411

5.1.4. Human capital There was a widespread view among all organisational levels of informants that human capital is crucial for their entrepreneurial activities. The founder of GBL clarified, “My dad is a director [of GBL] and he also helped us, he brought the grey hairs and he also advised us and helped to steer us in the right direction, because we were young and immature when we started'; also they liaise with other SEs in order to “… learn from their experiences”. The general manager of Nema also stated that “we consult with government officials, the head-teachers in the schools, the water project managers for clean water and all sorts of people in the villages … we work together with them”. Operational managers also highlighted the importance of local skills (e.g. gardeners, fishermen, construction workers) to operate their own division. These skills are equally important as denoted by “… my five years' experience in managing restaurants or working as a waiter”. In addition, all informants viewed the use of local skills as part of their mission and a way to implement their social goals. For example, the lodge manager reflected: “It was our vision anyway to use local labour and materials, so we would look at ways in which we could create a beautiful floor using local low cost materials. So, for example, we ended up using ceramic tiles which are made in the traditional way that women make pots”. Confirming this, the founder of GBL explained: “Using local techniques and local artisans and traditional building methods to be able to help and enhance and create value in local heritage is very important. We used mud blocks which is what they traditionally use in the local area. Incubating these local skills, developing these local skills, the way of using those traditional methods and materials I think is really important in developing hotels even though it is very unusual. But there are some sets of skills that are vitally important to us”. Tourists also confirmed that the use, and integration of local human resources, makes the product of the SE a unique experience, as one tourist suggested “I think they could probably sell and promote this kind of social aspect even better”. Moreover, the approach of the SE is not only about utilising and using these human resources, but also helping the locals to further develop their skills, by showing them how and empowering them to utilise their assets for starting up their own entrepreneurial activities and/or improving their daily lives. For example, the Nema manager claimed that: “… the reasons for which we want them are to build traditional latrines, the latrines that are local to the area and that's basically a hole in the ground … .we also show them how to build tip tubs, in order to also wash their hands … it's not too difficult for them to actually implement and introduce them into their daily life”. Similarly, the founder stated, “these are all the people who want to learn … we want them to take over. So that's the benefit, it's skills that they can learn and the opportunities that they get because really when you look at

412

L. Altinay et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 404e417

those surveys, there's no education and there's no opportunity for future employment, that's what they need”. This developmental approach to local human capital is also adopted by other staff members. For example, a Canadian diver marine-life expert working at GBL reported that … I've got a lot of projects I want to do, but I'm also looking to teach the local staff diving and that's going to help me to find employment later”. Overall, these findings confirm that human capital consists of skills, education and knowledge (Bennett et al., 2012) and the equal salience of education and experience. The findings also show that human capital is important for the acquisition of other resources and entry into entrepreneurship (Haber & Reichel; 2007; Ottosson & Klyver, 2010). Furthermore, the findings showed that SE requires human capital with cultural awareness and responsiveness competencies. This clearly illustrates that the sole availability of human resources is not enough for (social) value creation, and that human resources should also have the cognitive capabilities to integrate and fit various other resources within the social context (Akaka et al., 2012; Ryzhkova, 2015). As the founder noted, “… we don't want to change their culture. So we have to integrate into their culture and we don't want to change it and that's a very important commitment, and that was a very important part of the negotiation as well. We totally respect the fact that 100% of the people here are Muslims and most of the managers that work over here, and the guests that we have here, are Catholics or Anglicans”. When elaborated further, it was found that western social enterprises need to develop cultural understanding and to manage cultural differences carefully when working with particular communities. In this regard, an even clearer picture was painted by the lodge manager who explained, “We respect their culture … I mean most of the Mediterranean cuisine, which is what I'm passionate about, uses a lot of wine but here we never cook with wine because for them touching wine is something that they don't like to do, it's something that is not part of their Muslim culture” Cultural awareness was cited as a necessary human resource skill by all levels of staff. At a strategic level, with regard to ensuring the set-up and acceptance of the SE, the founder reported, “… we had no idea how long it would take to get the paperwork done and corruption was a bit of an issue but we managed to do everything without paying any bribes at all which says a lot for Mozambique, although it did slow down things quite a lot. Obviously the language, everything is done in Portuguese so we had to learn Portuguese, and then the minefield of understanding the process to get your licence was just impossible”. At an operational level, the housekeeping supervisor claimed that they also had to explain to their local employees their management style and behaviour. According to one manager, “… if they're not doing jobs properly and you explain it to them one time, two times, three times and they don't get it and you know that they are capable and that they are intelligent, they can learn, they listen, they understand and you speak, you explain one time, two times, three times e you get angry and you kind of tell them off and you show that you're angry … . they

are not used to this and they say, ‘Oh the manager doesn't like me’ or there's something personal and you have to manage this kind of situation … we swear and they say this and that and they say, ‘Oh you're offending me.’ And they think it's an offence to them and we kind of have to explain”. Overall, cultural awareness and the responsiveness of human resources has two meanings; understanding local cultural rituals and adapting management practices to respect the former; and developing acculturation and dialectic processes for indoctrinating locals in the western and 'proper' way of behaviour e i.e. the customers' and managers' expectations. For example, the Chef stated: “Even the way we kill a goat here has a whole meaning and it is always the most ancient person, or the most senior person, that kills the goat and there's a whole ceremony behind it”. There was therefore a strong emphasis on the need to develop two-way cultural awareness and learning processes between the western SE staff and the local human resources as the Nema manager stated, “It's very important to speak, and to get ourselves understood we have to respect each other and to understand the culture and respect that, and kind of work from there. That's why I think it's also one of the key elements for the success of this whole business and social enterprise”. In addition, the cultural awareness which has developed and the local knowledge, acquired from the targeted beneficiaries and the wider community, helps to build trust between the social enterprises, the targeted beneficiaries and the wider community. This in turn facilitates stakeholders' involvement in the social projects initiated by the social enterprises. Hence, in accordance with the SDL, human capital enables SE to create social value through a number of approaches. These include its structural and relational capital for enabling access of resources; its social capital for building good quality relations (e.g. trust) that in turn mobilises stakeholders' willingness and motivation to exchange resources for value creation; its cultural abilities for adapting and fitting resources within the specific context; and its cognitive capital and abilities (e.g. (Humphrey et al., 2010) for initiating public dialogue that questions existing institutions and so assists in the (re)framing of the social rules and norms that determine the combination of resources for value creation. 5.2. Strategies for resource mobilisation for SE in hospitality and tourism SE in tourism is influenced by the social entrepreneur's capacity to draw resources from the social context encompassing a diverse range of people or stakeholder groups and various political, social and cultural norms that frame and can constrain or enable resource exchanges and integration for social value creation. Through specific resource mobilisation strategies, social entrepreneurs attempt to gain access to, and utilise, critical resources needed for their social entrepreneurial activities. The study revealed two interdependent key strategies e (1) stakeholder involvement and collaboration, and (2) relationship development and local community empowerment. 5.2.1. Stakeholder involvement and collaboration The findings demonstrated that SE faces difficulties in accessing resources necessary for social value creation and need to get different stakeholders involved in the process of SE. These stakeholder groups, as identified by the informants are (1) clients, donors and other partners for financial capital, (2) government

L. Altinay et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 404e417

representatives and other local entities for political and institutional capital, natural capital and human capital or local knowledge, (3) beneficiaries and the wider community for institutional legitimacy and human capital or local knowledge, (4) employees for human capital or skills to facilitate SE, and 5) family members and friendship networks at the founders' home country. In explaining these stakeholders' involvement for accessing resources, the SE cofounder stated: “ We always have to liaise very closely with the government for every project we run … the government is involved and we are constantly in contact and with more than the local government but also the provincial and national governments … on the Nema side, the charitable side, we partner with several organisations, other NGOs. We've got some incredible employees, they've been with us from the start, I completely trust them more than anyone else. When we started they had no idea what a restaurant was, let alone what a hotel was”. Networking for stakeholder involvement happens at all levels (institutional and micro-individual level), formally and informally (personal relations and friendships). This was captured well in the following quote: “I have a friend in CEPAM, Centro Enveremntal Pesquisa Ambiente. It's a Mozambique governmental organisation and they're really keen to do a project with us and write a joint proposal, which I think will strengthen our proposal for external international funding” (diver). CEPAM is The Research Centre for the Marine and Costal Environment and its aim is to provide technical assistance on coastal and marine environmental issues through research. Among different stakeholders, the importance of government involvement was particularly highlighted by the Nema manager: “Whenever it's more about infrastructure and about things that we really want to have the government take ownership of afterwards, then we need to go and talk to higher levels of government. So for the health clinic projects I've had many meetings together with the administrator of the district, the district administrator and the district health directors and all the people as part of that, and then, depending on their advice, sometimes we need to go in on a personal level. These are key stakeholders we always want and we need them on board because if not it's really difficult to execute the project …”. Overall, networking and relations development with various stakeholders provide SE with access to political resources (i.e. legitimacy and recognition/status), and human and physical resources, while collaboration can be official (e.g. licencing, registration) or unofficial and at different degrees e i.e. from lobbying, and through liaising with the members of an established organisation. These findings demonstrate the importance of stakeholder collaboration and involvement to the social entrepreneurial activities. In order to secure different stakeholder groups' support and involvement into the projects, though, SE needs to demonstrate long-term commitment to solving the identified social and economic problems. This is exemplified by the SE founder: “The vision is to continue as we are, but also try to develop the area, the lodge etcetera a bit more … We are not just coming in for a two-year, three-year project; we are there for the longterm, which is great”.

413

The Nema manager also highlighted that: “We are not just coming in for a two year, three year, we are there for the long-term …. I want to them to learn, they need to be trained, they need to know they run the country, they are the locals, they know best … it's very important that they realise that they are in control because this commitment by us, to actively involve them, demonstrates to them that we are not here for a while just to make business and go.” Thus, long-term commitment enhances collective responsibility, trust and the quality of the relational social capital among different stakeholder groups, which is critical for fostering co-creation processes. Because this strategy targets a diverse range of people, potential funders are also attracted particularly when the concept of collective responsibility is established and the socioeconomic value of the enterprises is demonstrated. In other words, the qualities of the ecosystem of stakeholders can further assist in attracting more stakeholders and resources. This was well captured by the SE founder: “The reason we did manage to survive and we are still here today is because we managed to find amazing people”. The notion of collective responsibility and its influence on gaining access to financial capital was further illustrated in different working scenarios. For example, the Nema manager suggested: “Our philosophy is we work within the structures of the community … we consult with government officials, the headteachers in the schools, the water project managers for clean water and all sorts of people in the villages … we work together with them”. The long-term orientation and commitment of SE to local community support is also confirmed by one of the beneficiaries: “Almost everyone is saying that, when they are walking around in the village almost every person says Guludo is nice, it's not like the other companies. Because the other companies just come here and they are not going to make anything new for the community, so Guludo is doing all these things”. The tendency towards collective action and the quest for legitimacy reflect the influence of networks on the actions of social entrepreneurs highlighted in emerging tourism studies (e.g. Park et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2011). However, in this study, these networks appear to be a product of the stakeholder involvement and collaboration resource mobilisation strategy, as they encourage stakeholder participation rather than being ends in themselves. Generally, this first strategy enables tourism social entrepreneurs to utilise human and political capital to gain access to the other forms of capital, in particular natural and financial capital. Hence, as SDL advocates, resources do not exist e instead they come into being over time and actors have to find ways to create the utility of these emerging resources (Lusch & Vargo, 2006). The findings also differ from previous SE studies suggesting either human capital (e.g. Haber & Reichel, 2007; Ottosson & Klyver, 2010) or financial capital (Bugg-Levine et al., 2012; Meyskens et al., 2010) as the most influential forms in the acquisition of other types of capital. This study found that human and political/institutional capital is critical for tourism SE to secure other forms of capital. This is not surprising since SE has to first gain acceptance of and subsequent legitimacy regarding the importance of their goals to achieve this, SEs have to network and become

414

L. Altinay et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 404e417

engaged in public dialogues with various stakeholders in order to 'educate' them and reach a shared-understanding of the social problems and the value propositions, so that they can then ensure stakeholders' participation in resource exchanges and integration. In other words, the creation and re-formation of stakeholders' mindsets and the achievement of collective understanding and commitment (i.e. market pictures) are critical strategies enabling SE to get access to e but also mobilise e resource exchanges. For example, as the Nema manager claimed: “We have to explain and show people our commitment that we are their partners in enhancing their quality of life, and once people believe in what and why you are doing it, you can get their support”. The SE founder gave another example of community dialogue and resource mobilisation: “so we met with the community that same night and we explained what our vision was and the partnership with the community and basically they said when do we start?”. A local explained that “… Nema is a local word, it's really peaceful, it means when suffering ends you feel that joy and that happiness and that's called Nema”. This also confirms the importance of semantics and linguistics used by SE for facilitating local dialogue and ensuring stakeholder understanding and involvement in their social endeavours (Humphrey et al., 2010). For this reason, a range of stakeholders endowed with human and political capital are identified and engaged in a social dialogue to facilitate resource acquisition under this strategy. 5.2.2. Relationship development and local community empowerment The findings showed that the first strategy (stakeholder involvement and collaboration) is maintained and facilitated by the second strategy e relationship development and local community empowerment. Thus, strategies for resource access are supported by strategies for maintaining resource acquisition and facilitating local human and political resource utilisation. Similarly, successful stakeholder engagement occurs when a winewin resource exchange relationship is developed between the partners. This was described by the SE founder: “Global Angels help with fundraising. Helebetas just connected on the ground in the area for technical advice and funding and then Jojo Mama Baby, they offer funding and also administrative support here in the UK. Helebatas, the Swiss NGO, they benefit because they get to deliver quality projects through us so instead of them having to do it, our asset to them is that we know and understand the communities really well; so us working in the communities is always very useful because of our approach and the relationship”. Developing relationships with the local communities was important in order to build trust, create a common voice and collective mindset (i.e. market pictures) and so avoid potential conflict with this key stakeholder group, while also motivating stakeholders to engage in resource exchanges. In this regard, the founder of the SE explained: “The community needs a lot of patience, an awful lot of patience and respect, we wanted to build a school in Guludo … we kept on saying you need to make a contribution and they were like no, no, no, you said you were going to build us a school and we

are like no, no, we are building it together … there was no chance anyone would have given us money unless they really believed in us but fortunately we had friends and family who believed in our vision and wanted to help us realise it”. The importance of building trust and quality relations with stakeholders, for fostering resource exchange and collaboration, is highlighted by the following declarations provided by the SE beneficiaries: “People felt it (Nema) was part of that family. We've been there a while now, we are very much part of the family which is nice” (Nema staff). In line with the previous research (Jack & Anderson, 2002; Mair & Martí, 2006), the study findings demonstrated that it is impossible to separate SE from the structure and relational capital of the community during the entrepreneurial process. More importantly, relationship development is integral to sustaining critical resources required for social entrepreneurship to flourish. In particular, relationship development supports the acquisition of natural, human and political forms of capital pursued in the first strategy of stakeholder involvement and collaboration. Since, however, tourism development is very much dependent upon direct community involvement and support, relationship development alone might not be sufficient to acquire these critical resources. The empirical evidence from this research demonstrated that beyond relationship development, empowerment of the local community is an important facilitator of SE. Hence, relationship development should aim at elevating stakeholders from passive followers and supporters of ethical/social goals to strong believers and active players in social value co-creation (Kallio, 2015). This is even more so in developing countries where skills are low and institutional support is lacking. As indicated by the co-founder of GBL, “It's just a case of the communities knowing better, they just don't have the information that we might have and the knowledge and power to make decisions; but we are fortunate enough to have these resources so we can draw on … it's important that you pay respect and understand the decisionmaking process and how to empower them”. Empowerment is required for ensuring project success and stakeholder engagement since, as the SE founder claimed: “So I think if there is a problem and you want to solve it it's important that you feel part of the solution and I think that's why the ownership is so important”. Because of this, empowerment of local communities is part of the SE philosophy and project management: “Our philosophy is that we want the local communities to be the drivers and what we see as our role is to be the enablers, and the way we do that is by having all these community consultations, making sure it is really something they want and it fits and it's what they agree with it. And we want them to be the driver so we want them to contribute and so the community contributes and it's part of the philosophy. And it's very participatory and we tried not to be interventionists but tried to be as enabling as possible” (Nema manager). In particular, community dialogues and meetings are critical for showing to locals how they need to take on responsibility and feel empowered to design and implement local projects. Discussions can take place in formal and informal ways amongst key community stakeholders, and cultural understanding and patience are also key human resource skills required for managing the local community processes. As the Nema manager declared:

L. Altinay et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 404e417

“Patience and respect … . it's a case of going to have a meeting with them and explaining, do you want to participate and if they do need to do X,Y,Z and then they can be invited to a training workshop where we discuss it more and they can learn more about it … all the meetings and casual discussions are key”. For empowerment to work, all SE staff have to be indoctrinated with this management philosophy. For example, a staff member of Nema claimed: “We don't come here to give, we come here to work within a partnership”. The local community also has to feel empowered and under control, as well as realising that they need to commit resources: “In Guludo we didn't start building the school until the community first produced the bricks, the bricks for building it, so that they all feel it's part of what they want, it's not just being knocked up. In terms of the secondary school scholarships, the parents for the children to be educated, or those responsible for that child will have to contribute in some small way with, for example, helping to buy them a calculator or a backpack or some small things that we can't really provide. Also making sure that they control or follow the education of their children basically” (Nema manager). These findings correspond to Davie's (2011) argument that social entrepreneurs need to empower those people that they choose to engage to ensure positive long-term impacts. The findings also support the views of Dees (1998) that social entrepreneurs are accountable to their intended beneficiaries, and the SDL suggests that value creation should lead to mutual betterment of the ecosystem actors. In addition, and more importantly, since tourism is known to be dependent upon local community support, empowerment becomes a critical strategy for facilitating resource mobilisation and the execution of SE in tourism. 6. Conclusion The purpose of this study was to identify the resource needs of tourism social enterprises, and evaluate how these are mobilised through the engagement of local communities in a developing country. The research contributes to the SE literature by adopting a SDL and offering insights into how SE generates social value. In this vein, the study also contributes to new management thinking advocating the role of SDL to explain and guide social value creation in service systems (e.g. Enquist et al., 2015; Tregua et al., 2015). Specifically, primary data have identified the variety of resources and stakeholders that SE should access and engage with for fostering and nurturing resource exchange and the integration processes. The findings also demonstrate that SE should enable the generation of social value at three levels with interlocking value creation processes: at individual stakeholder level by influencing mindsets and meaning-making mechanisms; at meso level by networking and developing relations with various stakeholders for mobilising the accessibility, integration and fitting of resources with the ecosystem context, and supporting meaning-making processes that can lead to collective and shared meaning and commitment (macro-level) that, in turn, can change stakeholders' mindsets and behaviours (micro level) and their willingness and motivation to exchange resources at the meso level. Consequently, the study also confirms the critical role of all three building blocks of the social capital (Zahra et al., 2009; Zhao et al., 2011) in enabling the SE to foster social value co-creation processes within networks. In other words, the study demonstrates that the impetus of social value creation does not lie within the social entrepreneur or social

415

enterprise, but within the social system which they both inhabit and then try to develop. Another distinct contribution of the study is that it identified (1) stakeholder involvement and collaboration, and (2) relationship development and local community empowerment as interdependent resource mobilisation strategies. Hence, the study confirms recent research showing that the SEs need to identify and develop compatible networks as well as find ways to address the difficulties that arise as a result of misaligned missions, goals, cultures, and expectations among community stakeholders (Phillips et al., 2015; Sanzo-Perez et al., 2015). In this case study, relationship development and local community empowerment were found to be appropriate strategies for ensuring the effective network development for social value generation. With regard to stakeholder involvement and collaboration, social entrepreneurs attempt to create an awareness of the social problem to a diverse range of people or stakeholder groups which are targeted for their potential contribution to the solution. The strategy capitalises on human and political capital to encourage resource mobilisation and stakeholder participation in entrepreneurial activities. However, the social enterprises are required to demonstrate long-term commitment to the social mission. Long-term commitment enhances collective responsibility and increases loyalty towards the social and economic goals which, in turn, eases the release of natural and financial capital for the common good. It also became apparent that since tourism development happens within a community context, relationship development and local community empowerment are critical to achieving the social mission. Through this second strategy, access to the four forms of capital is maintained and barriers to stakeholder participation are tackled. On the one hand, relationship development uses social interaction to develop trust between the enterprise and the different stakeholders in order to sustain the resource portfolio. On the other, empowerment facilitates the involvement of and collaboration with the local community as a key stakeholder group and as a beneficiary of the social and economic goals of the tourism social enterprises. Recent findings (McGehee et al., 2014) have also shown that the development of networks that work to mobilise scarce resources, and the improvement of individual self-efficacy through empowerment, can drive economic and social change within tourism social movements. This study also has implications for tourism enterprises and social entrepreneurs and for tourism destination managers. Tourism enterprises and social entrepreneurs can contribute to the socio-economic development of communities particularly in developing economies if they acknowledge and cultivate a shared understanding of and common voice for a wider vision for the role of tourism in the local stakeholders' ecosystem. Accessing critical resources in these countries can be difficult. However, through effective resource mobilisation strategies, these difficulties can be overcome using the social entrepreneurs' skills to secure and sustain the resource portfolio and the cooperation of multiple stakeholders. Based on the findings, it can be concluded that social enterprises should try to develop their networking capabilities for gaining access and mobilising the required resources by 1) identifying and liaising with various stakeholders; 2) understanding the resource integration processes; contexts, constraining and enabling resource exchanges, and desired outcomes of the various stakeholders; iii) enhancing the quality of the relationships amongst the stakeholders, building commitment and adopting long-term orientation-goals; iv) supporting the re-formation of ethical and sustainable collective mindsets and market pictures; v) empowering the interaction capability and enabling the stakeholders to shape the nature and content of resource exchanges and meaningmaking processes; and vi) facilitating the coordinated and mutual

416

L. Altinay et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 404e417

beneficial resource exchange and integration processes amongst the stakeholders. In addition, if the concerned destinations are to benefit from SE, tourism destination managers have the responsibility to harness stakeholder collaboration in order to enhance economic and social development simultaneously. Therefore, destination managers should see themselves as part of the SE ecosystem and actively engage in its dialogues and resource exchanges which aim to create collective meaning and an understanding of social value and its problems. Finally, this study calls for further research into different organisational, sector-specific and country contexts in order to test and refine these findings as well as enable us to derive some more generic conclusions. Moreover, further research should aim to understand how institutions influence the adoption of resources across different contexts, as this could help to advance the understanding of how varying institutions and contexts influence value co-creation. For example, future research can examine the variations and enhance our understanding of how social enterprises generate social value by studying SE from other emerging economies, in other tourism destinations, or other fields of study such as agriculture, health and ecological services. In addition, this study employed single case studies. Further research could employ multiple cases in order to compare social entrepreneurial activities in different situations, different countries and different regions, and thus draw validated conclusions (Harrington, Chathoth, Ottenbacher, & Altinay, 2014). References Akaka, M. A., & Chandler, J. D. (2011). Roles as resources: a social roles perspective of change in value networks. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 243e260. Akaka, M., Schau, H. J., & Vargo, S. L. (2013). The co-creation of value-in-culturalcontext. Research in Consumer Behavior, 15, 265e284. Akaka, M., Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. (2012). An exploration of networks in value cocreation: a service-ecosystems view. Review of Marketing Research, 9, 13e50. Altinay, L., & Paraskevas, A. (2008). Planning research in hospitality and tourism. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and social transformation: an exploratory study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 260e282. Arnould, E. J., Price, L. L., & Malshe, A. (2006). Toward a cultural resource-based theory of the customer. In S. Vargo, & R. Lusch (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate and directions (pp. 320e333). M.E. Sharpe. Ateljevic, I., & Doorne, S. (2003). Unpacking the local: a cultural analysis of tourism entrepreneurship in Murter, Croatia. Tourism Geographies, 5(2), 123e150. Bennett, N., Lemelin, R. H., Koster, R., & Budke, I. (2012). A capital assets framework for appraising and building capacity for tourism development in aboriginal protected area gateway communities. Tourism Management, 33(4), 752e766. Bosworth, G., & Farrell, H. (2011). Tourism entrepreneurs in Northumberland. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1474e1494. Bruton, G. D., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., & Ireland, R. D. (2013). Entrepreneurship as a solution to poverty. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 683e689. Bugg-Levine, A., Kogut, B., & Kulatilaka, N. (2012). A new approach to funding social enterprises. Harvard Business Review, 90(1/2), 118e123. Casson, M., & Giusta, M. D. (2007). Entrepreneurship and social capital. Analysing the impact of social networks on entrepreneurial activity from a rational action perspective. International Small Business Journal, 25(3), 220e244. Chandler, J. D., & Vargo, S. L. (2011a). Contextualisation: network intersections, value-in-context, and the co-creation of markets. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 35e49. Chandler, J. D., & Vargo, S. L. (2011b). Contextualization and value-in-context: how context frames exchange. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 35e49. Chathoth, P., Altinay, L., Harrington, R. J., Okumus, F., & Chan, E. S. (2013). Co-production versus co-creation: a process based continuum in the hotel service context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 11e20. Chathoth, P. K., Ungson, G. R., Altinay, L., Chan, E. S., Harrington, R., & Okumus, F. (2014). Barriers affecting organisational adoption of higher order customer engagement in tourism service interactions. Tourism Management, 42, 181e193. Chell, E. (2007). Social Enterprise and entrepreneurship: towards a convergent theory of the entrepreneurial process. International Small Business Journal, 25, 5e26. Chell, E., Nicolopoulou, K., & Karatas-Ozkan, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship and enterprise; international and innovation perspectives. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(6), 485e493. Coffey, A. A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Sage Publications.

Davidson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301e331. Davie, G. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: a call for collective action. OD Practitioner, 43(1), 17e23. Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship (pp. 6e16). Stanford University. Draft Report for the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2, 1e28. Di Domenico, M. L., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social bricolage: theorising social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 681e703. Dorado, S. (2006). Social entrepreneurial ventures: different values so different process of creation, no? Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11(4), 319e343. Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 327e339. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25e32. Enquist, B., Sebhatu, S. P., & Johnson, M. (2015). Transcendence for business logics in value networks for sustainable service business. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 5(2), 181e197. Estrin, S., Stephan, U., & Vuijc, S. (2014). Do women earn less even as social entrepreneurs? The gender pay gap among UK social enterprise directors. IZA discussion paper, No 8650. Available at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp8650.pdf. Florin, J., & Schmidt, E. (2011). Creating shared value in the hybrid venture arena: a business model innovation perspective. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 165e197. Goodwin, H. (2011). Taking responsibility for tourism. Goodfellow Publishers Limited. Gordin, V., & Dedova, M. (2015). Social entrepreneurship in the informal economy: a case study of re-enactment festivals. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 9(1), 5e16. Granovetter, M. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In N. Nohria, & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations (pp. 25e56). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. € nroos, C., & Gummerus, J. (2014). The service revolution and its marketing Gro implications: service logic vs service-dominant logic. Managing Service Quality, 24(3), 206e229. Guardian. (2006). Green Gurus [online]. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/ travel/2006/may/20/ecotourism.guardiansaturdaytravelsection1 Accessed 10.10.12. Gurel, E., Altinay, L., & Daniele, R. (2010). Tourism students' entrepreneurial intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 646e669. Haber, S., & Reichel, A. (2007). The cumulative nature of the entrepreneurial process: the contribution of human capital, planning and environment resources to small venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 119e145. Hampton, M. P., & Christensen, J. (2007). Competing industries in islands a new tourism approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(4), 998e1020. Harrington, J. R., Chathoth, K. P., Ottanbecher, M., & Altinay, L. (2014). Strategic management research in hospitality and tourism: past, present and future. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(5), 778e808. Haugh, H. (2007). Community-led social venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(2), 161e182. €isa €nen-Seppa €nen, P., & Timonen, E. (2010). Characteristics of Haukkamaa, J., Ylira value co-creation in a learning environment by service design and servicedominant logic frameworks. ServDes. In 2010 Second Nordic Conference on Service Design and Service Innovation. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2006). More than an “industry”: the forgotten power of tourism as a social force. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1192e1208. Holm, P. (1995). The dynamics of institutionalization: transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 398e422. Humphrey, S., Martin, J. R., Dreyfus, S., & Mahboob, A. (2010). The 3>< 3: setting up a linguistic toolkit. Appliable Linguistics, 185e195. Jack, S. L., & Anderson, A. R. (2002). The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5), 467e487. Kallio, K. (2015). Organizational learning in an innovation network e enhancing the agency of public service organizations. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 25(2), 140e161. 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), 330e342. Korsgaard, S., & Anderson, A. R. (2011). Enacting entrepreneurship as social value creation. International Small Business Journal, 29(2), 135e151. Kowalski, A., & Udelhoven, J. (2012). In Assessment of partnership opportunities between ocean and coastal related ecoresorts and non-governmental organizations. The nature conservancy final V1. Seattle, WA. KPMG. (2015). Barometer of SE [online] Available at: http://www. kpmgfamilybusiness.com/surveying-networks-of-social-entrepreneurs/. Kwaramba, H. M., Lovett, J. C., Louw, L., & Chipumuro, J. (2012). Emotional confidence levels and success of tourism development for poverty reduction: the South African Kwam eMakana home-stay project. Tourism management, 33(4), 885e894. Lanier, P. (2014). The positive impacts of ecotourism in protected areas. Sustainable Tourism VI, 187, 199. Lettice, F., & Parekh, M. (2010). The social innovation process: themes, challenges

L. Altinay et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 404e417 and implications for practice. International Journal of Technology Management, 51, 19e158. Lusch, F. R., & Vargo, L. S. (2006). Service dominant logic: reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281e288. Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36e44. McGehee, N. G., Kline, C., & Knollenberg, W. (2014). Social movements and tourismrelated local action. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 140e155. Meyskens, M., Robb-Post, C., Stamp, J. A., Carsrud, A. L., & Reynolds, P. D. (2010). Social ventures from a resource-based perspective: an exploratory study assessing global Ashoka Fellows. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 34(4), 661e680. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Incorporated: Sage Publications. Miller, T. L., & Wesley, C. L. (2010). Assessing Mission and resources for social change: an organizational identity perspective on social venture capitalists' decision criteria. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice: Special Issue: Social Entrepreneurship, 34(4), 705e733. 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), 227e244. Naphiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242e266. Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(4), 611e633. Ormiston, J., & Seymour, R. (2013). Understanding value creation in social entrepreneurship: the importance of aligning mission, strategy and impact measurement. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 125e150. Ottosson, H., & Klyver, K. (2010). The effect of human capital on social capital among entrepreneurs. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 8(4), 399e417. Park, D. B., Lee, K. W., Choi, H. S., & Yoon, Y. (2012). Factors influencing social capital in rural tourism communities in South Korea. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1511e1520. Perrini, F., Vurro, C., & Costanzo, L. A. (2010). A process-based view of social entrepreneurship: from opportunity identification to scaling-up social change in the case of San Patrignamo. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(6), 515e534. Phillips, W., Lee, H., James, P., Ghobadian, A., & O'Regan, N. (2015). Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: a systematic review. Group & Organization Management, 40(3), 428e461. Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6, 34e43. Ratten, V. (2014). Sport innovation: the role of social entrepreneurship and creativity in fostering sport related business activities. In Research Colloquium on Societal Entrepreneurship and Innovation at RMIT, November 2014. Richards, G. (2011). Creativity and tourism: the state of the art. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1225e1253. Rodan, S., & Galunic, C. (2004). More than network structure: how knowledge diversifies influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 25(6), 541e562. Roxas, B., & Chadee, D. (2013). Effects of formal institutions on the performance of the tourism sector in the Philippines: the mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation. Tourism Management, 37, 1e12. Ryzhkova, N. (2015). Does online collaboration with customers drive innovation performance? Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 25(3), 327e347.

lez, L. I., & Rey-García, M. (2015). How to Sanzo-Perez, M. J., Alvarez-Gonz a encourage social innovations: a resource-based approach. The Service Industries Journal, 35(7e8), 430e447. Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20, 222e237. SEFORIS. (2012). The state of social entrepreneurship e key facts and figures. In Report of the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme. http://www. seforis.eu/upload/reports/1._Key_Facts_and_Figures_of_Social_ Entrepreneurship.pdf. Seilov, A. G. (2015). Does the adoption of customer and competitor orientations make small hospitality businesses more entrepreneurial?: Evidence from Kazakhstan. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(1), 71e86. Shirahada, K., & Fisk, R. P. (2014). Service sustainability: a tripartite value cocreation perspective. In M. Kosaka, & K. Shirahada (Eds.), Progressive trends in knowledge and system-based Science for service innovation (pp. 89e99). IGI global, Hershey, PA, USA. Sigala, M. (2013). Ionian Eco Villagers, Nature World Travel and Earth, Sea & Sky: supply chain management and customers' involvement in sustainable tourism. In P. Benckendorff, & D. Lund-Durlacher (Eds.), International cases in sustainable travel & tourism. BEST Education Network and World Travel & tourism Council (WTTC). Goodfellow Publishers. Simpson, M. C. (2008). Community benefit tourism initiatives-A conceptual

417

oxymoron? Tourism Management, 29(1), 1e18. Sloan, P., Legrand, W., & Simons-Kaufmann, C. (2014). A survey of social entrepreneurial community-based hospitality and tourism initiatives in developing economies: a new business approach for industry. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 6(1), 51e61. Strobl, A., & Peters, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial reputation in destination networks. Annals of Tourism Research, 40, 59e82. Telegraph Travel. (2012). Mozambique-a-hide-away-in-the-Quirimbas-Archipelago [online] Available at: Accessed 18.05.12 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/ destinations/africaandindianocean/mozambique. Thomas, R., Shaw, G., & Page, S. J. (2011). Understanding small firms in tourism: a perspective on research trends and challenges. Tourism Management, 32(5), 963e976. Tregua, M., Russo-Spena, T., & Casbarra, C. (2015). Being social for social: a cocreation perspective. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 5(2), 198e219. Vargo, S., & Akaka, M. A. (2012). Value co-creation and service systems (re)formation: a service ecosystems view. Service Science, 4(3), 207e217. Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). It's all B2B … and beyond: toward a systems perspective of the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 181e187. Visitmozambique. (2015). Quirimbas National Park [online] Available at: http:// visitmozambique.net Accessed 30.08.15. Williams, A. M., & Shaw, G. (2011). Internationalization and innovation in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1), 27e51. World Bank. (2015). Mozambique overview [online]. Available at: http://www. worldbank.org/en/country/mozambique/overview Accessed 28.08.15. WTTC. (2014). Travel and tourism economic impact Mozambique. London: World Travel and Tourism Council. Yin, R. K. (Ed.). (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). London: Sage. 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 Venturing, 24(5), 519e532. Zhao, W., Ritchie, J. R., & Echtner, C. M. (2011). Social capital and tourism entrepreneurship. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1570e1593.

Levent Altinay is a Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship, at Oxford Brookes University Business Faculty. His research interests are in the areas of tourism and hospitality entrepreneurship, strategic alliances and international business. Using primarily qualitative methods as well as mixed methods, he is particularly interested in how entrepreneurs start up and develop their businesses and also how firms establish partnerships internationally. E: [email protected].

Marianna Sigala is Professor of Tourism at University of South Australia. Prior to her current position she lectured at the Universities of Agean, Strathclyde and Westminster in the UK. She also has professional hospitality industry experience. Her interests include service management, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in tourism and hospitality, and e-learning. Her work has been published in several academic journals, books and international conferences. She is currently the editor of the Journal of Service Theory & Practice (formely titled Managing Service Quality) and the Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Cases. She is a past President of EuroCHRIE and has served on the Board of Directors of I-CHRIE, IFITT and HeAIS. E: [email protected].

Victoria Waligo is a Lecturer in Tourism in the department of Marketing, Branding and Tourism at the Business school of Middlesex University, UK. She has a wealth of industry and research experience gained from working in a managerial capacity in the aviation sector and through her research roles at the former Centre for Environmental Studies (CESHI) at Oxford Brookes University and at Westminster Abbey in London. Her research interests include sustainable tourism management, stakeholder engagement and social entrepreneurship with a focus on processes and implementation. E: [email protected].