Keywords

1 Introduction

The world is in turbulence. Shocks to its economic, social and environmental systems are increasingly frequent. As we seek to understand and predict these, we must also strive to create new and different systems that address disturbing problems such as human rights, social justice, economic imbalances and inequalities, environmental degradation and climate change. Governments have not been able to address many of society’s problems due to lack of resources, lack of political will, short election cycles, and warring ideologies as one regime replaces another contributing to a breakdown of civil society (Kickul & Lyons, 2012). Tourism exists within this turbulent world, and the call for more sustainable, resilient and responsible tourism development is getting louder. Tourism researchers are working to address tourism’s impact on destinations, and tourism’s place in the world of the future. If tourism is to thrive in the future, a more agile, responsive and forward-looking industry is necessary to help society move through these profound changes. We must also urgently consider whether tourism can continue as an end unto itself, or whether it can realize its potential as a force for good by contributing to conscious social, economic and environmental development.

Tourism is an economic and social phenomenon that is both a cause and effect of the exploding levels of human connectivity over the past decades. Its diffusion and success (in terms of the number of customers, host businesses and tourist spending) has been largely due to the efficient application of a production-consumption model that has created and serviced an expanding mass market. As demand has grown rapidly for a finite “product” (places on earth to visit), this operating model is now exhibiting signs of stress evidenced by overuse of physical resources (land, landscapes, water, wild lands etc.), congestion, increasing costs for infrastructure and regulatory administration, diminishing returns and reduced yields.

At the same time, market preferences are evolving with more experienced tourists preferring less structured group travel and more intimate experiences of people and places. While profit maximization remains the primary motivation for most enterprises, changing customer values, combined with growing social and environmental concerns, are creating demand for greater corporate commitment to social and environmental responsibility; the generation of greater social and shared value; and for de-coupling growth from resource use (Gossling & Peters, 2015).

The pursuit of growth (in numbers of visitors, guest facilities, visitor spending and investment) as an objective in its own right is being questioned in some quarters, unless that growth increases and/or improves net benefit with positive social, cultural and environmental impact on host communities (Pollock, 2015). Diversifying organizational forms, objectives and ownership structures within a destination and encouraging social entrepreneurship in particular provides one strategy for addressing that need.

Tourism is but a subset of a larger economic system that is similarly showing signs of systemic stress. These symptoms include high levels of wealth disparity, volatility, boom and bust cycles, fluctuations in commodity prices, associated environmental challenges such as waste, pollution, resource scarcity, and loss of biodiversity. Negative socio-cultural impacts such as crime, addiction, mental illness, obesity, and social unrest are also evident.

In both cases, social enterprise is one of society’s attempts to address specific problems while informing and contributing to a deeper set of explorations into systems change. It is one of several organizational forms, including co-operatives, worker-owned companies, community companies and trusts, partnerships and not-for-profits that are emerging or being re-vitalized to deliver greater social impact. In agriculture, health, technology, retail, manufacturing and many other sectors, passionate, risk-taking individuals with innovative and creative ideas are creating and testing new solutions to old problems. Attention is being paid to social enterprise because of its speed of growth, the relatively low barriers to entry and its appeal to a digitally-savvy, entrepreneurial generation—the millennials. Social entrepreneurship is a key aspect of intensifying explorations into a “new economy” and “whole systems change” that include such expressions as Conscious Capitalism, the Next System Project, Regenerative Capitalism, Economics for the Common Good, the movement towards localization (as in Transitions Towns and the Business Alliance for Local Economies); along with the rise of the so called Sharing Economy.

Tourism is already rich with entrepreneurial activity in many sectors: accommodations, food and beverage outlets, tour operations, mobile app developers, local events and attractions all provide opportunities for creative, risk-taking individuals to use their talents for profit. It also is ripe with opportunities for social entrepreneurs to move the industry forward and impact destinations in transformative ways by uniting the profit motive with the mission to change the world for the better. The tourism and hospitality industry provides many opportunities to absorb the creativity and passion that social entrepreneurs bring, but mostly they remain nascent. Few systematic approaches to creating awareness of those opportunities have been undertaken by destinations, governments, NGOs or secondary educational institutions. This book will explore how social entrepreneurs can change the nature of tourism, bring new value-driven creativity into the industry, and help destinations to transform for the better.

This first chapter lays the foundation for the study of social entrepreneurship in a tourism and hospitality context. It examines the core issues and change dynamics underpinning the sector that provide fertile ground for social entrepreneurship. It also scans and integrates the various definitions, concepts and terminologies used in general, and places them in the tourism and hospitality context. The chapter begins by discussing the factors that constitute a definitional understanding of social entrepreneurship, extending them to the unique context of tourism and hospitality. The chapter then goes on to analyze the context and scope of social entrepreneurship in the tourism and hospitality field, and assesses the work done to date. The chapter ends with a preview of the remaining chapters in the book.

2 Definitions and Terminologies

Social Enterprise is a relatively youthful phenomenon. The terms social entrepreneur and social entrepreneurship were first used in the literature on social change in the 1960s and 1970s but came into widespread use in the following two decades partly in response to increasing signs of social inequity. There are many definitions of these terms, and the field is complex and rapidly moving. To study it we need to know what and who we are studying. This knowledge can then be carefully applied to the tourism and hospitality field. It is often stated that there is a lack of definitional clarity for social entrepreneurship (SE) which has become “…so inclusive that it now has an immense tent into which all manner of socially beneficial activities fit.” (Martin & Osberg, 2007, p. 1). It is clear that more definitional clarity is needed in a generic sense that can then be customized to the tourism sector.

A social entrepreneur can be simply defined as one who uses business principles to solve social problems. Other definitions suggest more of a continuum, extending from those with a purely social mission to hybrid models that include the profit motive to different degrees (Lee & Jay, 2015; Volkmann et al., 2012). Bornstein (2007, p. 1) states that social entrepreneurs “combine the savvy, opportunism, optimism and resourcefulness of business entrepreneurs, with the devotion and pursuit of ‘social profit,’ rather than business profit.”

But these definitions barely touch on the more profound social transformation that is the intended outcome of social entrepreneurship. As far back as 1977, Chamberlain used the term to include a broader philosophical approach (Chamberlain, 1977, p. 2).

For me social entrepreneurship was grounded in social rationality—a completely different philosophical perspective that prioritizes human relationships above task-efficiency.

Similarly, Yunus (2010, p. xv) states that “The biggest flaw in our existing theory of capitalism lies in its misrepresentation of human nature” explaining that humans are not ‘money-making robots’ but are multi-dimensional beings often driven by selfless motivations. The growth in social entrepreneurship is proving this to be the case. Dees (1998, p. 2) also questions the free market model:

Any definition of social entrepreneurship should reflect the need for a substitute for the market discipline that works for business entrepreneurs. We cannot assume that market discipline will automatically weed out social ventures that are not effectively and efficiently utilizing resources.

This view is particularly important for the tourism industry which is strongly based on human relationships, human nature, the creation of social capital, and the need to use non-market mechanisms to manage the environmental resources upon which it is based.

A few key global organizations and foundations supporting social entrepreneurship have added their definitions. The Ashoka Foundation, the first organization to support social entrepreneurship at the global level was founded by Bill Drayton in 1980. His definition also focuses on the systemic change that social entrepreneurship can bring to industries and in society:

Social Entrepreneurs are not content just to give a fish, or teach how to fish. They will not rest until they have revolutionized the fishing industry. www.ashoka.org

The Skoll Foundation, another well-recognized international organization for social entrepreneurship founded by Jeff Skoll and others in 1999. It is based in Palo Alto, California with its related Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship located in the SAID Business School, University of Oxford, UK includes the transformative impact in its definition:

Social entrepreneurs are society’s change agents: creators of innovations that disrupt the status quo and transform our world for the better. They see a problem they want to solve and they go after it in a way that is potentially disruptive. It is not just seeing a problem and addressing it intermittently and on a piecemeal basis. It is saying “I’m going to crack open this system and solve it.” https://skollworldforum.org/about/what-is-social-entrepreneurship/

Both of these definitions point to the need to disrupt the status quo; to change current systems. Social entrepreneurs have been categorized as ‘unreasonable people’ because they want to change the system, are insanely ambitious, propelled by emotion, think they know the future, seek profit in unprofitable pursuits and try to measure the immeasurable (Elkington & Hartigan, 2008). All of this, however, gives them power. But some stereotypes of social entrepreneurs need to questioned. Brookes (2009) de-bunks the following myths: they are anti-business, run non-profits, are born not made, are misfits, usually fail, love risk and finally that greed is what differentiates them from commercial entrepreneurs.

The Skoll website (www.skollfoundation.org) also suggests that social entrepreneurs “…pave avenues of opportunity for those who would, otherwise, be locked into lives without hope” again suggesting their significant humanitarian impact. Other researchers have noted that social entrepreneurship projects often contribute to disadvantaged and marginalized groups. Martin and Osberg (2007) identify a three stage process whereby social entrepreneurs can affect social change for such disadvantaged populations. They recommend first identifying a stable but unjust equilibrium creating the exclusion, marginalization, or suffering. Then developing a social value proposition to challenge the stable state’s hegemony, and finally forging a new equilibrium to alleviate the suffering of the targeted group and creates a better future for them. The sustainability of these interventions and initiatives is paramount, and this often demands that the private sector, the public sector and the non-profit sectors all must all contribute to sustainable social entrepreneurship (Keohane, 2013).

A definition that brings together many factors from various disciplinary sources and prominent authors is recommended by Dees (1998). He combines an emphasis on discipline and accountability, value creation (Say, 2001), innovation and change agents (Schumpeter, 1975), pursuit of opportunity from (Drucker, 1995), and resourcefulness (Wei-Skillern, Austin, Leonard, & Stevenson, 2007). Bringing all these together he suggests social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social sector, by:

  • adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value);

  • recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission;

  • engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning;

  • acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand, and

  • exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created (Dees, 1998).

It has been suggested that there are five pivotal dimensions around which social entrepreneurship is structured: social mission, social innovation, social change, entrepreneurial spirit, and personality (Praszkier & Nowak, 2012, p. 15). Similarly, but in a more general sense, Volkmann, Tokarski and Ernst (2012) suggest four factors in defining social entrepreneurs: the scope of their activity, their characteristics, their primary mission and outcome, and the processes and resources used. As we reflect on these factors in the tourism domain, each has something to offer a definition of Tourism Social Entrepreneurship (TSE).

Since the potential for social entrepreneurship to transform society is strong, much literature may have donned rose-tinted glasses. It is important to caution against such non-critical, starry-eyed perspectives of social entrepreneurship as it too has downsides. As Zahrer, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, and Shulman (2009) so poignantly say “While social entrepreneurs are driven by an ethical obligation and desire to improve their communities and societies, egoism can drive them to follow unethical practices” (Zahrer et al., 2009, p. 528). The various potential, ethical pitfalls that they can fall into are laid out by Zahrer et al. (2009). Tourism social entrepreneurs can also fall into these pitfalls and would be advised to be aware of them. The next section will propose a definition for tourism social entrepreneurship.

2.1 Definition of Tourism Social Entrepreneurship

After reviewing a number of definitions, this book will use the generic definition of social entrepreneurship from Alvord, Brown, and Letts (2004) upon which to build a tourism specific definition. Their definition captures most of the factors discussed above and also includes the concept of the longevity or sustainability of the impact, which we feel is particularly important to the tourism and hospitality fields. Their definition is:

a process that creates innovative solutions to immediate social problems and mobilizes the ideas, capacities, resources, and social agreements required for this sustainable social transformation.

We will now consider this definition in the unique tourism context. TSE is uniquely defined in that it is operationalized in a tourism destination (local, regional or national, or two or more in collaboration) with a primary mission to enhance the destination’s environmental, social and economic fabric. The tourism social entrepreneur could be a resident of the destination or related region, or someone from outside the destination who knows it well (e.g. a repeat visitor or previous resident) and sees a solution to one or more of its problems. It is implicit that tourism social enterprises are related to the tourism sector (e.g. tour, transportation, attraction, or event) and or the hospitality sector (e.g. accommodation, food and beverage, hosting) and it is through these activities that the social transformation occurs. As the tourism industry is complex and fragmented it is not easily defined. There are many locations where the tourist interacts with the destination economically, socially or environmentally meaning there are many possible touch points where tourism social entrepreneurs can make an impact. The ideas, processes and resources used to create the tourism social enterprise could be from within or outside the destination. Often much of the work to prepare for the operationalization of a social enterprise in the destination occurs in one or more tourism generating countries. For example, the case of Adventure Alternatives (discussed in chapter “Adventure Alternative and Moving Mountains Trust: A Hybrid Business Model for Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism”) would not be successful in Nepal or Kenya without the work in the UK where it operates and generates participants for their activities.

Therefore we define TSE as:

a process that uses tourism to create innovative solutions to immediate social, environmental and economic problems in destinations by mobilizing the ideas, capacities, resources and social agreements, from within or outside the destination, required for its sustainable social transformation.

Having defined tourism social entrepreneurship, we need to also define the related terms: tourism social entrepreneur and tourism social enterprise. We base these definitions on the generic work of Mair and Martí (2006). Tourism social entrepreneurs are defined as the change agents in a destination’s social entrepreneurship system; the people who bring their vision, characteristics and ideas to solve the social problem and bring about the transformation of the tourist destination. Tourism social enterprises are organizations created by the entrepreneurs as private, semi-private organizations or foundations dedicated to solving the social problems in the destination. Throughout the book we will use the abbreviation TSE for tourism social entrepreneurship and will spell out the two terms above to avoid confusion.

We will now expand on the unique situations in tourism destinations that are ripe for social enterprise networks/ecosystems to be developed.

3 Tourism Context and Scope

The tourism and hospitality industry is experiencing major change and flux. The industrial model of production and consumption, borrowed from manufacturing after the last world war, was fueled by low energy costs, cheap credit, an expanding population and rising disposable incomes. It has grown internationally from a few million to nearly 1.2 billion trips in 2014 (UNWTO, 2015). Over the next 6 years it is forecast to grow by another 50 %. The arrival of low cost airlines, Internet connectivity, comparison search engines and rising competition has worked in the customer’s favor. Long-distance travel now costs significantly less in real terms than 50 years ago. But concurrently with cheap travel being viewed as a right, the invisible externalities associated with congestion, low margins, resource use, seasonality, environmental degradation, low wages and poor working conditions have become harder to ignore.

The positive effects of an economic sector that has grown from the relatively exclusive activity enjoyed by the elite to a mass phenomenon contributing 10 % to GDP and providing employment to 250 million people are indisputable. While the positive benefits of mass tourism have been emphasized by its participants and promoters, less attention has been paid to measuring the full costs of production and distribution and to tracing the distribution of visitor spending. Until recently, most capital invested in tourism supply, and visitor spending has been derived from the same or similar sources of visitors and has been re-cycled back to that source. This is due in part to overseas investment and market expertise combined with a lengthy, complex value chain connecting visitors to hosts. Furthermore while promoted on the basis of its job creation potential, the industry suffers from a poor human resource relations record and, according to the International Labor Organization (ILO, 2014), is partially characterized by low wages, irregular hours, and poor working conditions.

The pressure on tourism and hospitality companies to be more responsible—both environmentally and socially—is growing rapidly. Members of both the boomer and millennial generations—the two primary sources of consumer spending power—are increasingly aware of the impact of their travels on host populations. The number of individual enterprises successfully creating both social and environmental value while profitably attracting and catering to guests is increasing. They operate under a multiplicity of labels—eco, responsible, sustainable, geo, green, good, and fair tourism and comprise an encouraging plethora of grassroots initiatives recognized at annual industry events such as those hosted by United Nations World Tourism Organization’s (UNWTO) ‘Ulysses Awards’ or World Travel and Tourism Council’s (WTTC) ‘Tourism for Tomorrow Awards’. There is, as yet, no unifying conceptual framework and approach that distinguishes them from traditional “industrial” practices. In many cases, sustainable, philanthropic and even social enterprises, aimed at increasing positive social impact, can constitute a modified form of “business as usual”. Few within the tourism sector are yet asserting the need to “put the system question on the map” or actively integrate tourism within the national debates on new forms of economy and wholesale systems change. In this sense, the tourism sector’s resistance to “deep thinking” is in alignment with the broader economy as indicated in this statement from The Next System Project: New Political-Economic Possibilities For the 21st Century:

The need for a major intervention in the national debate is increasingly obvious. Yet even in a time of economic crisis, there has been little willingness among progressive organizations to discuss system-changing strategies. Efforts to cobble together “solutions” to today’s challenges commonly draw upon the very same institutional arrangements and practices that gave rise to the problems in the first place (Alperovitz, Speth, & Guinan, 2015, p. 7).

Pollock (2015) has drawn attention to the need to acknowledge systemic and structural flaws in the current system and for forward-thinking industry participants to conceive and co-create alternative approaches. These approaches must be based on a worldview acknowledging tourism as a human system embedded in a larger socio-economic-biophysical system, and not as a separate “industrial machine” disconnected from a larger whole.

Thus it follows that the tourism social enterprise is embedded in a global set of inter-linked, interdependent societies and economies adapting to major challenges from four quarters: environmental, technological, social and economic. To be effective, therefore, entrepreneurs (social or otherwise) must learn to operate in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world and make sense of the key change forces that will impact their best efforts. The skills and knowledge to cope with the complexities and pace of change are light years apart from those required by an industrial societal machine intent on resource extraction for the purpose of making and selling material goods. This requires a move away from what most university courses and text books teach about tourism. It seems that organizational structures and beliefs underpinning most strategy and policy still draw on principles and assumptions developed in a previous century.

The opening words of the Earth Charter, a document that grew out of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, frame the work at hand:

We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html

Perhaps as a society we have now reached an “awareness tipping point” where an increasing number of people, and many in the tourism industry, are aware that societal change is needed (Drayton in Schwartz, 2012). The chapter authors in this book are exploring the possibility that social entrepreneurship could be a major contributor to that change in tourism and hospitality. The need for this and the opportunities that await the industry are discussed below.

4 Tourism Social Entrepreneurship: The Need and the Opportunity

The need and opportunity for social entrepreneurship within the global tourism and hospitality sectors is systemic, strategic and tactical. A major systemic challenge stems from its universal and virtually exclusive adoption of a profit maximizing industrial model of production and consumption. This model has created an economy based on the transport of over one billion international visitors and six to eight billion domestic tourists using overnight accommodation (UNWTO, 2015). The sector accounts for 10 % of global GDP, one in eleven jobs and 29 % of services exports globally. Tourism has played a major role in globalization, and the creation of employment and opportunities to earn foreign exchange in developing countries. But like the capitalist system on which it is based and that has supported unprecedented levels of growth and global expansion, the sector is now revealing significant flaws and market failures such as:

  1. 1.

    The net impact of tourism spending in host communities is low and insufficient to cover all the costs associated with current levels of visitation. UNEP estimates that in “all inclusive” resorts, only about five cents of every tourist dollar trickle into the local economy (UNEP, 2015). This is because most development and capital investment has come from enterprises located in the source markets. Widespread diffusion of niche tourism products (activities, experiences, locally owned accommodation, restaurants and transport providers) that are structured as either social enterprises or cooperatives could improve and increase the positive net impact of tourism to host communities.

  2. 2.

    The industry is highly labor intensive and supplies accessible jobs to people who might otherwise have difficulty finding employment. But it also suffers from a poor human resource (HR) relations record due to the prevalence of low wages, irregular hours, seasonal operations and poor working conditions. Much of this labor is controlled by profit seeking agencies, operating as intermediaries who have little interest in developing a positive HR image. Instead they benefit from the high rates of turnover, the mobility of the workforce, seasonality of employment and, in many cases, workers desperate to take work under any condition. Working in a social enterprise would change the nature of employment dramatically—albeit for a smaller number of employees.

  3. 3.

    The travel and tourism sector, like many others, has not always been required to pay for the externalities associated with its operations. This has led to significant over use and pollution that can also create opportunities for social enterprises—such as waste food management, recycling operations, water cleaning and renewable energy projects.

  4. 4.

    The non-mass market of travelers wishing to enjoy authentic experiences, interact more closely with locals and make a positive contribution (via philanthropy, voluntourism, micro-credit and crowd funding) is increasing and provides additional opportunities for social enterprise—e.g. tours and souvenirs designed and delivered by local residents using materials and suppliers procured from local sources; creation of niche experiences that engage visitors in local cultural, social, environmental and political issues.

  5. 5.

    In many destinations the resilience and future viability of tourism will depend on social ownership structures that ensure local control and enhanced local benefits from the visitor economy. The sector is characterized by low margins, limited barriers to entry and the perishable nature of the product. When these are combined they can accentuate and accelerate the process of commodification and, furthermore, diminishing returns further reduce any positive “trickle down” effect of visitor spending. As input costs of food, water, and energy climb, social enterprises and cooperatives could provide resilient and viable ways of sustaining local economies.

Despite these trends, few if any destinations have applied a focused systematic approach to the use of social entrepreneurial structures, including both social enterprise and cooperatives and other community owned initiatives (land trusts, micro credit operations) as a means of improving the livelihoods of people in host communities. In chapter “Institutional and Policy Support for Tourism Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism” Dredge addresses the policy options for destinations to develop their tourism social entrepreneurship sector. To realize these opportunities, an ecosystem of support is needed that should be delivered via host communities. A combination of global vision realized through place-based tactical execution is required. This means that a conceptual, systems perspective is needed to identify patterns of opportunity and interest in the opportunity stimulated. By understanding the “big picture”, dynamics and strategic change drivers, existing tourism practitioners and students of hospitality and tourism will be in a stronger position to both identify and evaluate the social enterprise potential.

Climate change, resource and water depletion, wealth disparity, casino financing, weakening democracies, and run-away-technology are not the causes of our present challenges but symptoms of a much deeper malaise—a fundamentally false and obsolete way of seeing the world. Unless humanity, social entrepreneurs, educators and tourism practitioners change the way we see ourselves, each other and our relationship with our planetary home no effort to address “the problem” will succeed.

This challenge has been defined in tighter, more rigorous language as an epistemological error by Boehnert (2010, p. 1) quoting the renowned anthropologist, Gregory Bateson who in ‘Steps to an Ecology of Mind’ (1972) wrote: “we are governed by epistemologies that we know to be wrong” writing at the same time: “the organism that destroys its environment destroys itself.” Most of our major systems and institutions are based on assumptions about how the world works that science has, over the time line of mass tourism, proved to be false.

Social entrepreneurs will find themselves operating in an economy and a culture transitioning between two different paradigms—the currently dominant model based on the importance of economic growth and money as the primary sign of success, and an emerging model that defines success in richer, qualitative terms associated with development and well-being as experienced by individuals, enterprises, communities and the planet as a whole.

Tourism has already played a significant role in diffusing the old model. There is virtually no corner of the planet that does not see tourism offering an economic opportunity for someone. But having been based on a production and consumption model whose use of resources (land, water, wildlife and cultures) and production of waste (landfill, sewage, greenhouse gases) is now outstripping the biosphere’s capacity to process and recycle safely, it is time to re-think how to sustain visitor economies that benefit all stakeholders and cope with huge increases in human demand.

The purpose of this book is to make a small contribution to that global challenge. It will attempt do this by focusing on changing from the corporate model of tourism development to one which thrives on the energy and vision of social entrepreneurs and the organizations and networks that they create. We hope the book will begin to develop a knowledge base for tourism social entrepreneurship into the future, focusing on the unique opportunities and challenges in the world’s destinations.

5 The Current State of Tourism Social Entrepreneurship

This section will examine briefly the current state of tourism social entrepreneurship in industry, in academia and in education.

In Industry

There is to date no empirical study that documents the extent of social entrepreneurship in tourism and hospitality, however anecdotal evidence suggests that while many tourism enterprises are effectively working and delivering change throughout the world (as evidenced by the cases in the third section of this book), entrepreneurs of these companies are often working in isolation and do not recognize themselves as being social entrepreneurs. This means unfortunately that they are not privy to all the support networks, mechanisms, hubs and organisations that exist in the generic social entrepreneurship world. By connecting with this wealth of resources, TSE’s could gain strength, knowledge and synergies to move their enterprise and its social impact forward. Resources such as Stanford Social Innovation Review (2016) provide such resources, and some of the projects and profiles they present are relevant to the tourism sector.

In Academia

A review of the status of social entrepreneurship studies in academia can be found in Volkmann et al. (2012). On university campuses, social entrepreneurship has mostly been studied through the disciplines of business economics, public administration and other social sciences (Rey-Marti, Ribiero-Soriano, & Palacios-Marques, 2016). It is often seen as a sub-set of studies on entrepreneurship as evidenced by the top five journals publishing most of the research on social entrepreneurship at the present time. These journals are Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Ethics and International Small Business Journal. Smith-Hunter (2008) suggests that the study of social entrepreneurship be expanded to include knowledge from different disciplines other than business, in particular that of human capital and network structures. The importance of networks and stable eco-systems for social entrepreneurship is critical for their longevity (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2014). Now a few journals devote themselves specifically to social entrepreneurship: the “Social Enterprise Journal” published by Emerald Publishers; the “International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation” published by Inderscience, and the “Journal of Social Entrepreneurship” published by Routledge.

The tourism academic literature, on the other hand, is full of studies on entrepreneurship but very few of them focus on the social entrepreneur. Many chapters in this book bemoan that fact, and so each chapter author has had to start from scratch in creating concepts and frameworks and has leaned heavily on the generic literature in the area to move the study of tourism social entrepreneurship forward. It is our contention that tourism and hospitality are unique enough, and the field is especially rich in opportunity, that the application of thought from generic social entrepreneurship research will provide a platform for new ideas, concepts and frameworks to the study of tourism social entrepreneurship.

In Education

Our educational systems need to encourage students to practice change-making as preparation to lead change when they graduate (Bornstein & Davis, 2010). One of the first initiatives in tourism education to develop social entrepreneurs was developed by the Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI) in 2014 when it adopted Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism as one of its five work areas (www.tourismeducationfutures.org). In May 2014, TEFI organized the first Walking Workshop on Social Entrepreneurship in Nepal during which participants shared their ideas and papers on the walk up the mountain (three days). Then for a few days, they visited with tourism social enterprises in the villages of Bhupsa and Bumburi created by Moving Mountains Trust, learning how they were structured and operated. On the walk down (three days) the faculty and students discussed how what they had learned from their experiences could be incorporated into university tourism curricula. Following that landmark event, TEFI has continued to bring together scholars who are interested in TSE. Another project which followed the TEFI initiative, called Tourism Industry Partnership for Social Entrepreneurship (TIPSE) was jointly funded by the UK Foundation for Social Entrepreneurs called UnLtd. The project’s university partners were Oxford Brookes University, UK, University of Guelph, Canada, University of Florida, USA. Two other partners were Adventure Alternative and Tourism Changemakers’ Forum (TCF), UK. TIPSE aims to facilitate the adoption of social entrepreneurship as a framework for tourism development within the tourism and hospitality industries as well as in academia.

It is our contention that by creating bridges between industry, academia and education, these new synergies and networks will progress the field forward more rapidly than can be done alone. This book attempts to assist in this endeavor. Its outline is discussed below.

6 Book Contents

The book is organized in three sections. The first section of the book “Understanding Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism” addresses conceptual issues related to understanding the nature of social entrepreneurship in the tourism context. The six chapters in this section connect some of the generic body of knowledge of social entrepreneurship to the tourism sector and suggest new models. Chapter “Theorizing Social Entrepreneurship Within Tourism Studies” by Buzinde et al. builds a theoretical framework using different theories of innovation and entrepreneurship and social value theory, within which social entrepreneurship and tourism can be placed. The chapter ends with many insights into how social entrepreneurship can be conceptualized in tourism and hospitality. In the following chapter, Dredge (Chapter “Institutional and Policy Support for Tourism Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism”) addresses the policy issues that governments, planners and policy makers can consider as their destinations seek to develop and nourish their tourism social entrepreneurship sector for a more resilient destination. In chapter “Social Entrepreneurship Typologies and Tourism: Conceptual Frameworks”, Day and Mody explore how different types of social entrepreneurs suit different types of tourism destinations and hospitality environments. He connects the conceptualization with the various case studies in the second half of the book. Daniele and Quezada (Chapter “Business Models for Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism”) then present and analyze different business models appropriate for social entrepreneurs to use in tourism. Recognizing that social entrepreneurship is part of the broader topic of social innovation, Mosedale and Voll in chapter “Social Innovations in Tourism: Social Practices Contributing to Social Development” examine how social entrepreneurship contributes to social innovation and social development in tourism. Finally Mottiar and Boluk in chapter “Understanding how Social Entrepreneurs Fit into the Tourism Discourse” place the research of social entrepreneurship and tourism in the context of other research threads and themes in tourism. These six chapters provide readers with a beginning framework upon which to build their understanding of social entrepreneurship and tourism.

The second section of the book entitled “Communities of Practice” consists of three chapters. Each focuses on more specialized topics related to the theme of social entrepreneurship in tourism. Chapter “Exploring Social Entrepreneurship in Food Tourism” by Kline et al. explores social entrepreneurship in food tourism—a sector which is critical to a healthy tourism industry and healthy tourists, and one which lends itself well to social enterprise developments and networks. They point to the importance of influencing the supply chains of tourism social entrepreneurs. This is followed by chapter “Knowledge Dynamics in the Tourism-Social Entrepreneurship Nexus” by Phi et al. exploring the important topic of knowledge creation and knowledge dynamics in the context of social entrepreneurship and tourism. The final chapter in this section focuses on the very important topic of measurement and evaluation of social enterprises. Chapter “Social Enterprise Evaluation: Implications for Tourism Development” by Daye and Gill considers how the evaluation of social enterprises contributes to tourism development.

The third section of the book includes eight successful “Case Studies” of TSE in eight countries: Australia, India, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal and Romania. The core of each of these cases is a pioneering social enterprise. Each chapter details the characteristics of their enterprises, the gaps and opportunities they faced, and the lessons they learned. Critical success factors are evaluated by each author and several questions are presented at the end of each case for discussion.

In chapter “Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism Development in Mexico: A case study of North American social entrepreneurs in a Mexican town”, Clausen examines a social enterprise development in Mexico which is driven by USA expatriates. It highlights the dynamics of stakeholders in the region and discovers the important elements of developing trust between them. Another important contribution of this chapter is an understanding of the necessity of seeing social entrepreneurship in the context of wider socio-economic networks. An exploration of the motivations and identity construction of social entrepreneurs in India is the key theme of chapter “Heroic Messiahs or Everyday Businessmen? The Rhetoric and the Reality of Social Entrepreneurship in India” with Day and Mody’s case study set in India. This chapter confirms, and challenges, the continued myth of the social entrepreneur as an isolated “hero” and suggests a relevant conceptual framework to deconstruct such a myth.

Two cases that follow (chapter “Guludo Beach Lodge and the Nema Foundation, Mozambique” and chapter “Adventure Alternative and Moving Mountains Trust: A hybrid business model for social entrepreneurship in tourism”) have a similar theme. Dowling and Carter’s case set in Mozambique and Bate and Daniele’s set in Nepal, both explore a unique social enterprise business model. This model consists of a dual-structured social enterprise in which the tourism or hospitality business drives the business enterprise and an associated sister charity delivers the social impact. The synergies and potential strengths and weaknesses of this model are analyzed in these two chapters. The growing phenomenon of charities shifting away from traditional models to a social entrepreneurship model is the focus of the chapter “The BEST Society: From Charity to Social Entrepreneurship” in a case by Murphy et al. located in Malaysia. The author explains why this phenomenon is expected to grow over time. Through a ‘diffusion of innovation’ lens he suggests that as charities find that they can no longer rely on government funding due to public sector budget cuts, the social enterprise model becomes more effective. They propose a four step community tourism development model leading to full implementation of a social entrepreneurship model.

The important issue of developing ecosystems for social enterprises is addressed in chapter “Social Enterprise Ecosystems: A Case Study of the Danube Delta region of Romania” in Els and Kane’s case study of Romania in the Danube Delta. This social enterprise is working to create an ecosystem of social enterprises whose collective focus is to preserve the Danube Delta ecosystems whilst preserving and, in many cases, re-vitalizing social customs and practices there. The following chapter “The influence of social entrepreneurship in tourism on an Arab village in Israel” is situated in the Arabian village of Jisr az-Zarga in Israel, an under-served Arab community characterized by deep and systemic cross-cultural conflict. It focuses on the development of a social enterprise accommodation unit called Juha’s Guesthouse. In this case, Stenvall et al. aptly demonstrate how a social entrepreneurship approach to tourism development can bring, not only renewed hopes for economic and development and social cohesion, but also help stakeholders overcome underlying, negative experiences resulting from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A family run Aboriginal social enterprise in Australia is the theme of chapter “Walking on Country with Bana Yarralji Bubu: A Model for Aboriginal Social Enterprise Tourism”. Murphy and Harwood examine the challenges of setting up a social enterprise in a context of negative social capital in the local community. They also focus on the impact of external factors such as land use planning, land administration systems, the political environment and the tourism market in Australia. A new model is proposed to help the tourism social enterprise influence the effect that clan relationships have on business operation.

All of these cases shed light on challenges and opportunities of tourism social enterprises that are currently operating in different locations around the world. There is much to be learned from each of them. Each case provides the reader with an opportunity to think through the challenges and opportunities of the situation by offering a selection of discussion questions at the end of the case.

It is our hope that the reader will find the book stimulating and informative, and that it will inspire latent tourism social entrepreneurs to take action, and researchers to continue to search for more knowledge of this most important phenomenon.

Discussion Questions

  1. 1.

    Do you think the tourism and hospitality industries will benefit more than other industries from the increase of social entrepreneurial activity? Explain why or why not.

  2. 2.

    Think of a tourism destination that you know well. What are the key social, environmental or economic issues in that destination? What type of social enterprise do you think would be most needed to help with the problems?

  3. 3.

    As you consider the future of the world in the next 10 years, what changes do you think need to be made to the tourism industry to keep it sustainable? How does social entrepreneurship fit into your proposed solutions?