Social Innovation in Tourism: A Systematic Literature Review and the Proposal of an Analytical Framework

Social innovation in tourism: a systematic literature review and the proposal of an analytical framework Maurizio Busacca Philosophy and Cultural Heritage – Malcanton Marcorà – Dorsoduro 3484/D Calle Contarini 30123, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy, and Olga Tzatzadaki Interconnected Nord-Est Innovation Ecosystem, Department of Philosophy and Cultural Heritage, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to systematically analyse social innovation in tourism (SIT) by reviewing 65 publications. It explores SIT’s thematic, geographical and temporal scope; examines social needs, actor networks and governance; and proposes an analytical framework to guide future research and policymaking in tourism innovation. Design/methodology/approach – This study employs a systematic literature review of 65 articles and conference proceedings from Scopus and Web of Science. A two-level analysis was conducted: examining temporal, geographical and thematic trends, and identifying social needs, actor networks and governance dynamics. Findings inform an analytical framework for future research and policymaking. Findings – The analysis reveals that social innovation (SI) in tourism addresses multiple individual and community needs, fosters experience-based activities linked to local traditions and relies on strong actor networks and governance structures. The study highlights the critical role of network consistency and local governance in the success or failure of SI initiatives. Research limitations/implications – The study offers a structured framework for analysing this topic, guiding future research on actor networks, governance and community impacts. Practical implications – Practically, it supports policymakers and practitioners in addressing the needs and obstacles faced by local hospitality communities regarding social innovation, inclusivity and the promotion of local cultural heritage. Originality/value – By integrating micro-, meso-, and macro-level analyses, this study advances theoretical understanding and provides practical insights for future research and policymaking. Keywords Social innovation in tourism, Analytical framework, Tourism innovation research, Systematic literature review Paper type Literature review © Maurizio Busacca and Olga Tzatzadaki. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and noncommercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence maybe seen at https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/ Funding: This study was carried out within the “Interconnected Nord-Est Innovation Ecosystem (iNEST)” project and received funding from the European Union Next-GenerationEU – National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) – MISSION 4 COMPONENT 2, INVESTIMENT N. ECS00000043 – CUP N. H43C22000540006. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy Received 5 February 2025 Revised 30 April 2025 Accepted 19 June 2025 Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy Emerald Publishing Limited 1750-6204 DOI 10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041 Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 1. Rising interest in social innovation in tourism In recent years social innovation in tourism (SIT) (Sørensen, 2007) has emerged as a key topic in tourism innovation studies (Hjalager, 2010, 2015; Işık et al., 2019), even though its systematization remains pending. This emergence can be connected to two factors: a historical limitation in tourism innovation studies and a transformation in the way innovation is conceived. Scholars have identified gaps in tourism innovation research, particularly its technologyoriented focus, which overlooks the complexity of actors and networks (Wirth et al., 2023; Gomezelj, 2016; Trunfio and Campana, 2019). Furthermore, research on tourism innovation policies is limited (Hall, 2009a; Hall and Williams, 2008; Hjalager, 2010, 2012), and uncertainties persist about the most crucial topics and fields of study (Işık et al., 2019) The increasing interest in social innovation in tourism aligns with the shift of innovation from individual actors to territories and ecosystems (Autio and Thomas, 2014; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000). Historically, innovation was a closed process, but recent trends emphasize open models, where knowledge is shared across organizations and networks (Chesbrough, 2003). This shift highlights the importance of a user-centric, community-oriented approach, focusing on local communities’ needs and expectations (Borghys et al., 2020; Carayannis and Campbell, 2009). Territories play a key role in the innovation process, with their unique knowledge and practices critical to innovation’s success (Sassen, 2000; Ramella, 2015). This evolution in the understanding of innovation underscores the growing importance of social innovation, which offers new solutions to societal problems (Murray et al., 2010). This study seeks to address the “social gap” in tourism innovation by systematically reviewing existing literature on social innovation in tourism. While there is growing attention to the role of SIT within tourism studies, the rationale for conducting a systematic review has so far remained underdeveloped. To date, however, the concept of SIT has become a widely used term to describe various phenomena and has eluded precise definition and theorization. This lack of depth and clarity, we contend, has impeded nuanced and theoretically grounded engagements with the concept. In particular, there is a need to consolidate the fragmented and dispersed body of research, providing a comprehensive and critical framework to guide future studies and practical applications. This review seeks to fill this gap by offering the first systematic literature review specifically dedicated to SIT. By synthesizing existing contributions, it aims to clarify how SIT has been conceptualized and operationalized in tourism research, highlighting common trends, theoretical approaches and empirical findings. At a time when the field is expanding rapidly but lacks unified frameworks, this review intends to strengthen the theoretical foundations of SIT. Utilizing articles and conference proceedings from Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) up to November 2023, the review encompasses a two-level analysis of 65 studies. In the first level, the focus was on temporal, geographical and thematic trends within the documents. The second level examines how the studies present social innovation initiatives, specifically in terms of social needs, target groups, ecosystems, actor networks and local governance. The paper is structured as follows: it begins with an introduction to the analytical framework, followed by an outline of the methodology. Section 4 presents the key findings, organized into two subsections. Section 5 discusses the results, offers concluding remarks and identifies study limitations to guide future research. 2. Connecting Social Innovation and tourism: analytical framework Despite social innovation being a concept with a long history (Borelli and Busacca 2020; Godin 2015), the current debate emerged in the 2010s to propose an activation strategy (Oosterlynck and Novy, 2019) in continuity with that of social investment (Hemerijck, 2017). In social investment initiatives, activation is pursued through labour market participation, JEC Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 whereas in social innovation (SI) initiatives, activation has an entrepreneurial, collective or grassroots nature. Despite their differences, the two strategies share trust in the market as a form of integration between the economy and society (Busacca, 2022). Therefore, SI initiatives do not have a specific field of application (Moulaert, 2013) but are intended to experiment a new way of producing a welfare state based on the logic of gaining more solutions by spending fewer public resources (Busacca, 2019). Social innovation has gained attention in tourism innovation studies over the past decade (Trunfio and Campana, 2019; Wirth et al., 2023), focusing on new forms of cooperation and solutions to existing issues (Moulaert et al., 2017; Neumeier, 2012). This field emerged from local community efforts to create opportunities for a better future and address challenges such as unemployment and abandonment. Scholars suggest that social innovations have the potential to solve region-specific challenges (Wirth et al., 2023; Edwards-Schachter and Wallace, 2017) by incorporating collective actions and engaging society to develop new solutions (Bock, 2016). Following the definitions of SI proposed by Oosterlynck and Novy (2019), Moulaert and MacCallum (2019), and Moulaert (2013), our goal was to investigate how SI initiatives can contribute to redesigning a different relationship between the tourism sector and local communities to combat poverty and other inequalities by offering new possibilities of access to social, cultural, and economic resources for target groups. These potential solutions are investigated at three levels: at “a” level, we attempt to understand what kind of needs are addressed and in whose benefit; at “b” level, we intend to understand who participates in innovation processes; at the “c” level, we investigate the governance processes, that is, the forms of collective social design that create the conditions for SI. Indeed, as Trunfio and Campana (2019) suggest in their review of tourism innovation, SI is a new concept that produces social change (Swedberg, 2009) and introduces new solutions – products, services, models, processes and so on (Caulier-Grice et al., 2012) – that influence social capital (Neumeier, 2012), local development and knowledge capabilities (Choi and Majumdar, 2015; Gallouj et al., 2018; van der Have and Rubalcaba, 2016) (micro-level: individual and target groups’ needs). Furthermore, scholars highlight the multiple levels of interactions between diverse actors in tourism destinations, which could involve unusual key players, such as local communities, and nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) (Trunfio and Campana, 2019) (meso-level: networks of actors). Wirth et al. (2023) in their review argue that social innovations in tourism are understood as new value propositions, new informal rules and cultures, different ways of thinking, and ways to lead to institutional change (Alegre and BerbegalMirabent, 2016; Polese et al., 2018) (macro-level: governance and social design). Nevertheless, studies on how these initiatives emerged and which actors are involved are quite scant (Wirth et al., 2023). Based on this theoretical reconstruction, to better understand this topic, we conducted a systematic literature review of the topic to analyse the initiatives, actors, processes and diverse variables which scholars have until now considered. As we will see, most of the studies that we analysed deal with case studies; they discuss the topic not only at the theoretical level but also by recording the results of the SI applied in each case study. 3. Methodology A systematic literature review is crucial to gain clarity on this new and emerging research field. Many authors, such as Caputo et al. (2016), emphasize that such reviews provide a comprehensive analysis of existing research, help researchers understand the current state of knowledge, identify gaps and establish a solid foundation for future studies. In a new and emerging field, a systematic literature review acts as a roadmap, guiding scholars through the existing body of work, enabling them to build upon existing insights and fostering a more Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 nuanced and informed approach to the subject matter. This methodological examination ensures that researchers do not duplicate their efforts, promotes efficiency and contributes to developing a well-informed and evolving research landscape. This is the main reason we decided to apply the systematic approach in analysing studies published on social innovation in tourism to fill the gap as previous literature reviews tend to focus on specific and sectoral topics (Aquino et al., 2018; Trunfio and Campana, 2019; Moleiro, 2021; Wirth et al., 2023), losing the opportunity to compare and discuss findings even on the basis of differences between themes and topics. Two academic databases, SCOPUS and WoS, were used to reduce bias and improve reliability (see Figure 1). As discussed previously, the goal was to select all papers dealing with the specific field of research – social innovation in tourism. The string used was: “TITLE-ABS-KEY (social-innovation AND in AND tourism)” for both software. Both software identified 117 and 172 papers, respectively. The papers considered were those present in both repositories until the moment of selection, that is, until July 2023. We, then, proceeded with a manual selection of articles which: • strictly dealt with both SI and tourism topics, excluding those that dealt only with tourism or SI by mentioning the other concept in a limited and non-foundational way; and • were articles in journals or conference proceedings, while chapters in books were excluded because of copyright issues, which would have limited the subsequent analysis. The total number of papers and proceedings selected for the review was 65; 43 documents were identified in both repositories: 11 in WoS and 12 in Scopus. The bibliographic information of the eligible papers was tabulated in an Excel spreadsheet. Subsequently, the review was divided into two different levels of analysis: (1) In the “a” level of the analysis, we were interested in the following parameters: • year of publication; • country of affiliation of authors; • subject area of the journal/conference as identified in Scopus and WoS; • type of article (journal/conference proceedings); • number of citations; • keywords; • methodology (quantitative/qualitative/mixed/literature review); and • case study (country). By employing an iterative method described below, at the end of this “a” level of analysis, six macro-thematic areas (clusters) have been identified related to SI in tourism: ICTand technology-oriented innovations, rural tourism and ecotourism, environmentally sustainable development, local participation and community-based tourism (CBT), cultural heritage and creative industries and social entrepreneurship. (2) Subsequently, a “b” level analysis was applied: the “a” level analysis was conducted to select and register basic information about the papers, and the “b” level analysis was conducted to understand the impact of SI initiatives in “micro”, “meso” and “macro” dimensions, chosen by following an analytical framework based on the needs that SI initiatives deal with (micro-level, Maslow, 1943), the networks of actors involved in the initiatives (meso-level, Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1985) and the forms of governance JEC Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 Figure 1. Data structure process (PRISMA) Source: Authors’ own work Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 characterizing the local contexts in which SI initiatives take place (macro-level, cfr. Galego et al., 2022): • At the micro-level, the goal was to individuate the beneficiaries of the SI initiatives and the particular needs that such initiatives respond to at the individual level. • At the meso-level, the goal was to individuate actors and networks, their typology and their organization. • At the macro-level, the goal was to individuate the political orientation and governance profile of the context. • Furthermore, the organizational level was added to understand how decisions are being made by organizations involved in the particular SI initiative under study. To cluster, analyse and interpret the papers, we examined our data, that is, the papers, by employing an iterative method. This involved a continuous process of moving back and forth between the data and theoretical aspects, as outlined by Corbin and Strauss (1990). Each author individually reviewed the gathered data and shared and discussed their interpretations. Through this collaborative effort, we reached consensus on a unified interpretation. Multiple authors played a crucial role in enhancing the reliability of the analytical process. 4. Findings–overview In the following section, we briefly present the findings of the papers analysed and divided into two levels of analysis. The “a” level focused on the collection of the most basic information; the “b” level analysis aimed at an in-depth reading of the papers. The “a” level analysis is discussed in two sections: the first tries to deliver a general overview (results and possible hypothesis) of the basic information extracted from the papers, and the second presents the clusters identified related to the macro-areas of the particular SI initiatives. The “b” level analysis tries to examine the core of the papers and extract all information (on a theoretical and empirical level), which could eventually indicate the major trends and knowledge gaps for future research. 4.1 “a” Level analysis The papers start appearing in 2007 (1 paper), a more noticeable production begins in 2016 (6 papers) and it peaks in the year 2021 (12 papers) (see Figure 2). It is interesting to note that the production of papers began to rise around 2014, when tourist flow began to increase. The first peak was registered in 2018, another moment in which, in tourism studies, a great number of papers discussed the impacts of over-tourism, and as a result, SI initiative documentation also appeared in this research field. Nevertheless, the highest peak in the production of papers was registered at the moment of a shock event for tourism, the COVID-19 pandemic, with the aim of discussing possible solutions to respond to the immense impact of the pandemic (quarantines and multiple travelling restrictions) on tourism at a global level. Interestingly, these studies mostly discuss domestic and proximity tourism and SI initiatives created by and for local communities. Of the authors, 43 were from Europe, 13 from Asia, 10 from Latin America, 2 from North America (USA and Canada), and 1 from South Africa (see Figure 3). This suggests that interest in the topic focuses primarily on countries with significant socioeconomic JEC Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 disparities. The number of authors and papers from Italy was considerably higher than those from other countries. Interestingly Italy is a country that suffered a noticeable tourism income deficit because of COVID-19 and also suffers from both over-tourism and undertourism (Grandi, 2023; Pasquinelli and Trunfio, 2023). Figure 2. Trend of publication on SI in tourism Source: Authors’ own work Figure 3. Trend of the authors’ affiliation per number of publications Source: Authors’ own work Regarding the paper’s subject area, as identified from Scopus and WoS, most papers came from social sciences (42 papers); 6 papers were related to business, management, and accounting; 5 were from economics, econometrics, and finance; 4 were from computer science; and 3 were from environmental sciences (see Figure 4). This result is quite different from other areas of SI studies, where management and territorial sciences – both urban and regional – tend to prevail. Most papers were published in scientific journals (58), whereas papers from conference proceedings were quite limited (7). Regarding the number of citations, most studies dealt with technology-oriented initiatives, environmental concerns and social enterprises. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 In total, 596 keywords were identified. The keywords “tourism” (8.2%) and “social innovation” (7.7%) were the most common. “Development” (2.8%) and “sustainable” (2.5%) were also part of the most frequently used keywords. “Governance”, “community” and “cultural” were also part of the most popular keywords (1.5%). Finally, “destination”, “community-based”, “smart”, “hospitality” and “destination” were among the most used ones. Figure 4. Subject area in Scopus and WoS Source: Authors’ own work Regarding the methodology applied (see Table 1), six papers presented a strictly quantitative approach: structural equation modelling, data evaluation, questionnaire elaboration, agglomeration theory, entropy method, statistics and confirmatory factor analysis. Twenty-nine papers presented qualitative methodologies, such as fieldwork, in-depth or semi-structured interviews, qualitative content analysis, focus groups, direct and participatory observation, ethnography and biography approach. Twenty papers used mixed methods, and 13 papers presented a theoretical analysis (literature review, critical review and systematic literature review). Here, the qualitative analysis methodology, as a winning method, seems to be related to the level of development in this research field, which is still in its early stages and requires exploratory and inductive studies for a better understanding. Regarding the countries of the case studies presented in the papers (see Figure 5), interestingly, 31 cases were from within the European Union (EU) (Italy, Spain, Finland, Portugal, France, Sweden, Croatia, Denmark and Switzerland), 10 were from Asia (Thailand, Indonesia, Japan, China, India and Vietnam), 8 were from Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia) and the rest were from the USA, Canada, Mexico and South Africa. We hypothesise that this result is related to the desire to help local communities (especially in EU and wealthier countries) in dealing with the inequality in opportunities and social conflicts the touristic phenomenon inevitably brings to the table, This result is also related to creating possible solutions for the phenomenon of under-tourism, which numerous countries, mainly those from the global south, are dealing JEC Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 with, and in which tourism is presented as a valuable resource for addressing poverty and unemployment. Table 1. Methodologies applied in the papers Research methodology No. of studies Quantitative - Social network theory 1 Agglomeration theory 1 Web portal interface 1 Confirmatory factor analysis 1 Structural equation modelling evaluation of data 1 Statistical package for the social science (SPSS) 1 Analysis of moment structure (AMOS) software 1 Qualitative - Content analysis (documents, archive research, web, press release) 9 Semi-structured interviews 15 Direct/participatory observation 12 Focus groups 5 In-depth interviews 5 Ethnography 4 Living labs 1 Questionnaire 1 Literature review (systematic, critical) 13 Mixed - Model of the hermeneutic spiral 1 Questionnaires/surveys 7 Expert interviews 11 Participatory observation 5 Design thinking 1 Indirect usability test 1 Grounded theory 1 Longitudinal case study with embedded design 1 Print, digital and social media clippings 1 Content analysis 2 Living labs 2 SWOT 1 Strategic dissemination 1 Workshops/focus groups 2 Statistics 1 Data from standardised interviews processed with SPSS software 1 Cross-tabulation and Pearson’s chi-square test 1 Source(s): Authors’ own work 4.2 Clusters and description As discussed above, six clusters were identified based on the nature of each SI initiative in tourism as described in the papers (see Figure 6): (1) ICT and technology-oriented; (2) rural tourism and ecotourism; (3) environmentally sustainable development; Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 intend to build alternative forms of tourism. Differing from expectations when dealing with culture and creativity, a central role for new technologies does not emerge. The cultural productions they refer to are predominantly traditional and use traditional means. 4.2.6 Social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship in tourism is a pivotal SI aimed at tackling social and environmental challenges while establishing sustainable businesses within the industry. Social entrepreneurs identify pressing issues such as poverty, inequality and environmental degradation within destinations and devise innovative business models to address them while generating revenue. They prioritise inclusive practices, collaborate with marginalized communities and promote fair trade practices. Environmental sustainability is also a key focus, with entrepreneurs aiming to preserve natural resources and minimize the ecological impact of tourism. Table 6. Cultural heritage and creative industries cluster (authors, paper titles and case study) Cultural heritage and creative industries cluster (9) Paper Title Caso-studio Le Bel (2017) Literary heritage and place building for communities: the case of Allier, France Allier-France Morales Yago et al. (2018) The holidays of historical origin as an instrument to promote tourism in a peninsular Southeastern border area Yecla/Villena-Spain Karzen and Demonja (2020) Importance of storytelling: How to create more resilient cultural heritage? Croatia & European cases Moleiro (2021) Territorial cooperation networks, based on social innovation processes as new models of hospitality: the case of the historic houses Italy-Portugal Corbisiero (2021) Urban social innovation practices: the case of Rione Sanità in Naples Naples-Italy Splendiani et al. (2023) Social innovation project and tourism lifestyle entrepreneurship to revitalize the marginal areas. The case of the via Francigena Cultural Route Via Francigena Tresiana and Duadji (2022) Developing Forest coffee cultural tourism and historical heritage megalithic sites in social innovation governance: How does it work in a sustainable way? Indonesia Gustafsson and Amer (2023) Forsvik, Sweden: towards a people–public– private partnership as a circular governance and sustainable culture tourism strategy Forsvik-Sweden Qu and Zollet (2023) Neo-endogenous revitalisation: enhancing community resilience through art tourism and rural entrepreneurship 12 islands-Japan Source(s): Authors’ own work Collaboration is fundamental to social entrepreneurship in tourism, with entrepreneurs partnering with local communities, NGOs and governments to collaboratively develop solutions. By fostering collaboration and shared responsibilities, entrepreneurs enhance the scalability and sustainability of their initiatives and create a network of organizations that work towards common goals (Table 7). In this cluster, the participation of the local community (Cluster 4) emerges as an essential characteristic. This participation includes both disadvantaged individuals – for the purpose of labour inclusion – and nonJEC Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 disadvantaged individuals, in the latter case interested in enhancing cultural heritage (Cluster 5) and natural heritage (Cluster 3). In some cases, these initiatives take the form of rural itineraries (Cluster 2). 4.3 “b” Level analysis–overview The “b” level analysis aimed to study the core of the topic, through in-depth reading and more accurate investigation of the contents of the papers. For this purpose, a three-level analysis was applied to analyse both the theoretical and empirical dimensions of the papers and to deliver the most useful and novel information on the topic and for policy-making. To understand the impact of SI on tourism in the contexts described through the initiatives proposed by the authors, the investigation had to follow a three-level analysis: individual/ beneficiary (micro), network (meso) and governance (macro) dimensions. This threefold analysis aimed to measure and understand the construction, progress, success or failure of initiatives related to social innovation in tourism described and to analyse the general output of these initiatives, how and why they are constructed and by whom and in which conditions. Table 7. Social entrepreneurship cluster (authors, paper titles and case study) Social entrepreneurship cluster (11) Paper Title Caso-studio Alegre and BerbegalMirabent (2016) Social innovation success factors: hospitality and tourism social enterprises Barcelona-Spain Van Der Yeught and Bon (2016) When social innovation generates responsible innovation: a dynamic capabilities-based analysis applied to small tourism organizations Marseille-France Alkier et al. (2017) Challenges of social innovation in tourism no Quandt et al. (2017) Social innovation practices in the regional tourism industry: case study of a cooperative in Brazil Northeastern Brazil Walker and Chen (2019) Social innovation in tourism: unleashing the time-money constraint no Zebryte and Jorquera (2017) Chilean tourism sector “B corporations”: evidence of social entrepreneurship and innovation Chile Aquino et al. (2018) A conceptual framework of tourism social entrepreneurship for sustainable community development no Gómez-Carreto et al. (2018) Social innovation, rural tourism and social enterprises. Evidence from the SouthSoutheast Mexico Chiapas-Mexico Celebi et al. (2020) Bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship in gastronomy tourism no Mahato et al. (2021) Design thinking for social innovation: Secrets to success for tourism social entrepreneurs Vietnam Suriyankietkaew et al. (2022) Sustainable leadership practices and competencies of SMEs for sustainability and resilience: a community-based social enterprise study Tung Yee Peng VillageThailand Source(s): Authors’ own work Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 4.3.1 Micro-level (beneficiaries and needs). Regarding the “b” level analysis, the findings are divided into micro- (individual dimension), meso- (network dimension) and macro- (governance dimension) levels. At the micro-level, we investigate how SI initiatives translate into individual needs using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943). Studies have shown that SI initiatives primarily respond to safety needs, particularly employment and financial security. CBT initiatives address various needs and offer opportunities for codesign and decision-making (Elias and Barbero, 2021; Malek and Costa, 2015; Martini et al., 2017; Nurhasanah and Van den Broeck, 2022) and blend economic and social inclusion through responsible tourism (Aquino et al., 2018; Mahato et al., 2021; Van Der Yeught and Bon, 2016; Zebryte and Jorquera, 2017). These initiatives impact individuals’ needs, including protecting natural resources, generating income, fostering community connections and building self-esteem (Alegre and Berbegal-Mirabent, 2016; Batista et al., 2021; Chiodo et al., 2019b; Corbisiero, 2021; Murcia Garcia et al., 2017; López and Ramos, 2015; Moleiro, 2021; Partanen, 2022; Trombadore, 2020; Wirth et al., 2023). Rural and ecotourism initiatives offer opportunities for a new lifestyle and better quality of life (Arboleda et al., 2020; Belliggiano et al., 2021; Chiodo et al., 2019a). Regarding beneficiaries, most papers identify the “local community” without specifying its composition or diverse social groups (Elias and Barbero, 2021; Martini et al., 2017; Spillare and Moralli, 2019). 4.3.2 Meso-level (networks and organization). The meso-level analysis aimed to investigate the local context in terms of the networks: actors, typology – “industrial district” or “strategic alliance” (Inkpen and Tsang, 2005) and orientation – “bonding” or “bridging” (Putnam, 2001) presented in each paper. All papers emphasize the importance of creating networks at both micro- (local) and macro- (global) levels (Amore and Hall, 2016; Sørensen; 2007). However, except for the ICT cluster, which focuses internationally, the remaining clusters focus on the local level (Batle et al., 2018; López and Ramos, 2015; Mahato et al., 2021; Partanen, 2022). Various actors, both public (administrations, universities and other institutions) (Elias and Barbero, 2021; Trombadore, 2020) and private (entrepreneurs, tourist providers, artists and inhabitants) (Milwood, 2020; Nurhasanah and Van den Broeck, 2022; Partanen et al., 2023), are involved in all clusters, representing the “quintuple helix” model (Iaione, 2017). However, a knowledge gap exists regarding brokerage and network management processes, highlighting the need to understand how actors interact and the dynamics of networks (Aquino et al., 2018; Wirth et al., 2023). 4.3.3 Macro-level (governance and context orientation). The macro-level concerns the governance profile of the context; it aimed to identify the orientation (Della Lucia and Trunfio, 2012), incline toward innovation or conservation; typology of governance (Sabatier, 1986), top-down or bottom-up/collaborative; and who participates in governance procedures. A finding of great interest is that most papers do not provide information on the governance profile of the context, or at least until 2023, when it seemed that governance issues was increasingly being considered in the papers (Gustafsson and Amer, 2023; Horgan and Baum, 2023; Sarkki et al., 2022; Tresiana and Duadji, 2022). This shift highlights the growing understanding that governance structures, decision-making processes and stakeholder engagement are critical factors for the success and scalability of such initiatives. The absence of governance-related discussions in earlier papers may have limited the ability to understand the broader contextual factors that influence the outcomes of social innovation. This recent trend suggests a promising direction for future research, which should explore how different governance models – whether top-down, bottom-up or hybrid – impact the design, implementation and effectiveness of social innovation in tourism. This would offer JEC Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 deeper insights into the dynamics between governance, social innovation and local community development. Furthermore, it is urgent to highlight that the papers deal with the term “community”, when referring to its right to participate in decision-making procedures, in a rather rhetoric level. Nevertheless, at a practical level, “community” is a complicated term and is composed of multiple social groups with different needs (see the special issue dedicated to community hosted in the number 64(4) of the journal The Sociological Review). Even if participation is highlighted, it is necessary to understand that the community is not a one-dimensional actor but consists of diverse layers and figures. Another interesting finding is that little attention has been paid to conflicts between actors and interests (Partanen et al., 2023; Sarkki et al., 2022). There seems to be a knowledge gap regarding conflicts when different interests arise in participative governance when dealing with tourism development and SI (Elias and Barbero, 2021; Wirth et al., 2023). 5. Discussion and conclusions The purpose of a systematic literature review is to create order and systematize scientific production on a specific topic; however, it does not limit the possibility of formulating analytical considerations based on the relationship between the results and the theoretical framework of reference. In this section, we briefly discuss the results of our analysis organized by topics. 5.1 SI in tourism: a research field still in the process of being formed The data presented in the previous section present this field as an emerging research field, recent enough but at the same time not that new, as the first papers date back to the 2010s. We note a broad convergence between the development of the international scientific debate on social innovation and tourism. Both topics were born in the same period and grew in parallel, although in much higher numbers in the social innovation debate. In this topic, the number of papers published annually started to grow noticeably from 2013, reaching the maximum in 2021, perhaps because of the effects of COVID-19 (both because of wider social and tourism factors). In fact, after a phase of rapid growth between 2010 and 2017, the literature on innovation has stabilized as a mature research field and is not very sensitive to external shocks, while that on our topic has accelerated in 2021 and then returned to the trend of previous years (pre-Covid). Tourism as a sector is highly influenced by external factors; thus, it is not surprising that studies investigating touristic phenomena have also been influenced. From the emergence of the first papers in social innovation in tourism approximately 15 years ago, today, the topic’s literature is able to recall a wide repertoire of documents, which signals the achievement of a certain maturity of the research in this field. Furthermore, as highlighted by the numerous cross-references between the authors who deal with it, even when they adhere to different disciplinary and theoretical perspectives, we can define social innovation in tourism as a field of research in progress because around this topic, research from different theoretical, disciplinary and methodological perspectives was born, which aimed to investigate the same phenomenon. However, the degree of maturity of the research field can still be considered low because of the prevalence of qualitative methodologies and exploratory studies. At the methodological level, approximately 90% of papers adopted a qualitative case study approach, mostly multiple cases with a comparative orientation based on direct observations and interviews. Indeed, case studies are used to formulate interpretative hypotheses in relation to still recent and little Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 investigated phenomena, that is, to understand “what” and “how” more often than “why” and the mechanisms shaping innovations. However, this has consequences in terms of knowledge production because exploratory research is not frequently used to build reference models and theories, and the knowledge produced is often considered too contextualized and limited. We do not intend to argue whether this reasoning is correct. Indeed, we believe that the history of scientific production is full of great discoveries and ideas derived from limited case studies, such as the original discoveries of the work process produced by research on pubs in Canada (Sosteric, 1996). However, we must admit that the selection mechanisms of scientific production tend to attribute greater scientific reliability to quantitative studies or studies based on a large number of case studies, which are therefore not exploratory. 5.2 Tourism: an economic sector to be developed, neglecting the risks generated by tourism development Observing the geographical location of the authors of the analysed papers, we note that they operate in contexts with a strong tourist vocation, such as Italy, Spain, France, Croatia Colombia, Switzerland, Vietnam and Argentina. This suggests an influence of the context on the formation of the research agenda. However, when we delve into the aspect of geographical location through the localization of case studies, we obtain a further element of analysis. Research tends to concentrate on areas with a limited presence of tourism, both in tourist countries with fewer tourist areas (Chiodo et al., 2019b); Moleiro, 2021) and countries that have not yet fully entered global tourism circuits (Tai and Yang, 2016; Van et al., 2020). A limited number of studies deal with areas affected by over-tourism (Barcelona-Spain: Alegre and Berbegal-Mirabent, 2016; Caribbean: Milwood, 2020; Mallorca-Spain: Batle et al., 2018; Naples: Corbisiero, 2021), despite the literature having produced numerous studies dedicated to the problems created by excess tourism (Koens et al., 2018; McCool and Lime, 2001; Pizam, 1978; Van der Borg et al., 1996). This aspect can be linked to the manner in which our topic is conceived in the analysed papers. The authors consider social innovation in tourism as a strategy to encourage participation in the labour market of disadvantaged individuals or target groups or to encourage local economic development, and thus, indirectly encourage the distribution of wealth among the local population in contexts where local economic conditions are unfavourable. This represents an element of coherence between this topic and the strategies of social innovations (Oosterlynck and Novy, 2019), social investment (Hemerijck, 2017) and workfare (Brodkin and Larsen, 2013) given that these initiatives present all three characteristic elements of the three strategies: they promote collective and entrepreneurial activation, such as SI and training aimed at participation in the labour market, such as social investment, and job placement, such as workfare. However, this apparent overlap hides the profound differences between cases attributable to the logic of social investment and innovation (Phi and Clausen, 2021) and cases of workfare (Mahato et al., 2021; Morales Yago et al., 2018; Zebryte and Jorquera, 2017). Workfare and social investment/innovation policies represent two distinct philosophies for addressing social and economic challenges, particularly in the context of labour and welfare policies. Workfare focuses on the idea that those receiving benefits should actively participate in some form of work or training as a condition for receiving assistance. The objective is to encourage self-sufficiency and reduce dependence on welfare, with an emphasis on obtaining immediate and short-term results. On the contrary, social investment and innovation policies have adopted a broader and more proactive approach. They focus on investing in human capital through education, training and social services to enhance individuals’ capabilities. They aim to provide people JEC Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 with the resources needed to participate effectively in the labour market and society in the long term. While workfare often focuses on individuals and aims to address their immediate needs, social investment policies recognize the importance of systemic factors and seek to address the root causes of social and economic challenges. The approach is more inclusive and geared towards removing barriers to labour market participation by addressing underlying social issues. On the contrary, a common aspect of most studies is the importance attributed to the tourist experience (Belliggiano et al., 2021; Chiodo et al., 2019a; Chiodo et al., 2019b; Trunfio and Campana, 2019) as a tool for developing a win-win strategy for local inhabitants and tourists. Thus, the tourist experience becomes the tool to develop the chosen strategies, and a good tourist experience is considered capable of guaranteeing authentic experiences for visitors and good local development opportunities (Le Bel, 2017; Milwood, 2020; Presenza et al., 2021). The picture painted thus far is consistent with the near-total absence of conflict, understood as an intense form of social interaction, within the studied papers. Social innovation is rather described in vague and positive terms, obscuring the potential conflicts generated by changes to the status quo. This approach is entirely consistent with studies on social innovation (Borelli and Busacca, 2020), and therefore, the result is not surprising. However, in this context, where tourism innovations modify the relationships among the actors involved, it would be important to recover this dimension to better understand the effects of social innovations on the forms of relationship among local actors. 5.3 Rhetoric of the sustainable local community and its dangers A further aspect that emerges from the research is that five cluster of SIs described in the review are different from each other but converge in considering the local community as the protagonist of SI initiatives, with the exception of only one cluster. The rural tourism and ecotourism cluster challenges traditional tourism models through community-centric approaches by inspiring alternatives that prioritise community involvement. Community involvement and empowerment are at the core of rural tourism and ecotourism as they provide opportunities for rural and indigenous populations to participate in tourism activities, share their traditions and benefit economically. Environmentally sustainable tourism models respect the values, customs and traditions of local communities, ensuring that tourism activities do not lead to the erosion of the local natural environment and its heritage. This model is community-centric; therefore, it encourages developing sustainable tourism products and services that showcase local cultures, biodiversity and natural landscapes (Batle et al., 2018; Murcia Garcia et al., 2017; Partanen, 2022; Trombadore, 2020). CBT provides local communities with an opportunity to showcase their unique traditions, customs and ways of life to visitors. This boosts the community’s sense of cultural pride, encourages the transmission of traditional knowledge to younger generations and helps safeguard cultural identity in the face of globalization (Batista et al., 2021; Malek and Costa, 2015). This model leads to the creation of a skilled local workforce, thus enabling community members to assume various roles within the tourism industry and strengthening their overall resilience and self-reliance (Nurhasanah and Van den Broeck, 2022; Wirth et al., 2023). Clusters of cultural heritage also promote community-centric approaches to tourism. Local residents become ambassadors and stewards of their own culture, providing authentic experiences to and engaging with visitors (Splendiani et al., 2023; Tresiana and Duadji, 2022). This involvement creates a sense of ownership and empowerment and strengthens social bonds within the community (Morales Yago et al., 2018). Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 Social entrepreneurs insure immersive and meaningful interactions with tourists. These experiences often deviate from mass tourism and involve collaborations with local artisans, guides and cultural practitioners, fostering cultural exchanges and supporting local economies (Mahato et al., 2021; Suriyankietkaew et al., 2022; Zebryte and Jorquera, 2017). Moreover, social entrepreneurs in tourism often work directly with marginalized communities, empowering them by providing training, employment and economic opportunities (Alegre and Berbegal-Mirabent, 2016). Community plays a central role in social innovation in tourism for the five clusters described above. The ICTand technology-oriented cluster may be the only cluster in which the community’s role is rather unclear. The SI initiatives of the other five clusters are based on local traditions, history, resources and culture and they promote community-centric tourism models; however, in the ICT cluster, the community as a whole is not directly the protagonist in designing and implementing tourism activities. Both the promoters and beneficiaries of ICT innovations are certain groups and parts of the community and not the community as a whole (Gomez and Frias, 2022; Lim and Park, 2016; Van et al., 2020). In this cluster, the central role of innovation is mainly attributed to businesses. In the other five clusters, the authors’ will to highlight that the community is the main promoter and beneficiary of the initiatives is evident; however, in the ICT-related papers, it is a rather unclear aspect. Furthermore, as most beneficiaries are not vulnerable individuals, these initiatives risk exacerbating social inequalities (see Matthew Effect); however, none of the papers is concerned with this aspect, and they implicitly recognize that the benefits for the local community will also affect disadvantaged people. While specifying the functioning and logic of the activation processes of the local community, as described above, for most clusters, a small sample of papers (Batle et al., 2018; Chiodo et al., 2019a; Nurhasanah and Van den Broeck, 2022; Sarkki et al., 2022; Wirth et al., 2023) delved into the relationships between community actors and governance processes and, more generally, the social production relationships of tourism. Thus, the articles produce a rhetoric of the community, where the latter is frequently mentioned without ever being explored in depth, leading to a weakening of the reflective and critical spaces, which could highlight the different impacts of tourism in relation to the position of the actors and groups targeted with respect to tourism production processes. 5.4 The contribution to the theoretical and analytical debate on innovation, governance, and tourism ecosystems While our proposed three-tiered framework (micro, meso, macro) provides a structure for analysing SIT, its theoretical underpinnings and comparative positioning within the broader tourism literature can be further elaborated. Connecting this to tourism-specific debates, the micro-level, focusing on social needs and beneficiaries, aligns with research emphasizing user-centric and community-oriented approaches in innovation. The meso-level, concerning actor networks and ecosystem dynamics, can be theoretically enriched by drawing on tourism innovation ecosystem literature. This literature often highlights the importance of collaboration, knowledge sharing and network dynamics, moving beyond firm-centric views to understand innovation within territories and stakeholder networks (Beritelli et al., 2007). Our framework complements existing models, such as Hjalager’s widely recognized typology of tourism innovation (product/service, process, organizational, marketing, institutional) (Hjalager, 2010), by focusing specifically on the social dimension of innovation and its multi-level drivers and governance structures, rather than solely categorizing innovation JEC Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 outputs. The emphasis on “institutional innovation” in Hjalager’s model, involving new collaborative structures, particularly resonates with our mesoand macro-level analyses. The macro-level, addressing governance roles, connects directly with extensive research on tourism governance. Scholars have extensively explored different governance models, network approaches and the shift towards more collaborative, participatory and networked forms of governance involving public, private and voluntary sectors (Beaumont and Dredge, 2010). Our framework contributes by specifically examining how these governance structures enable or constrain SIT, moving beyond purely economic or administrative efficiency perspectives often found in traditional governance models (community-based vs corporate-based models described by Beritelli et al., 2007). Comparing our findings with established tourism innovation frameworks, such as those developed by Hall and Williams, which adopt a multi-level approach considering the interplay between firms, networks and institutional contexts (Hall and Williams, 2008), highlights the unique contribution of our SIT-focused lens in foregrounding social needs, stakeholder engagement and community empowerment as central tenets of the innovation process within tourism ecosystems. 5.5 Strengths and study limitations In conclusion, by systematizing scientific production on social innovation in tourism, this study contributes to strengthening this field of study in three ways. Theoretically, this topic integrates perspectives from social innovation, social investment and workfare policies, addressing social and economic inequalities through tourism-driven initiatives. First, we show that it’s about an emerging field of study, characterized by exploratory research, and with limited capacity for modelling and theorizing. This gap favours the circulation of rhetoric, which tends to emphasize positive aspects and solutions, thus reducing the reflective space. While social innovation and investment focus on long-term systemic change, workfare emphasizes short-term labour market activation, shaping different policy outcomes. Second, we affirm that employment and economic potential attributed to tourism tend to obscure the problems caused by tourism, reducing the ability to create conditions to prevent future problems in territories which undertake paths of intensification of tourist flows and social objectives. Finally, we highlight the construction of a rhetoric of the local community, which frames it as a target beneficiary of the initiatives, and simultaneously, as a leading actor, without delving into the concept of community and the relationships between actors, as well as between actors and the local context, reducing the ability to observe the different possibilities of accessing the resources generated by tourism by the different local actors. In short, local communities are often framed as central actors, yet this perspective risks oversimplification, overlooking power imbalances and uneven benefit distribution. Furthermore, by applying our methodology to the existing studies and conducting a systematic literature review, we have developed an analytical framework (see Figure 7) that may be useful for future research on this topic as well as for policymaking relevant to SI. In other words, the “a” and “b” level analyses, proposed as a methodology for conducting the above systematic literature review, could contribute to creating a cognitive tool for new fieldwork and case studies for tracing strengths or gaps in previous or ongoing research and for understanding the limits or strengths of SI initiatives. Indeed, applying level “a” to a research or an initiative can help us understand if it refers to a local context that already holds a touristic value but needs more and diversified touristic flows or a local context with no touristic flows which desires to attract tourist flows, but simultaneously wants to create a sustainable touristic model. Furthermore, it helps us Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 understand the type and sector of SI initiatives by inaugurating new clusters, thus ensuring the necessary flexibility. In other words, applying the “b” level helps trace the following: • the needs that SI initiatives fulfil at an individual level and the main beneficiaries of the analysed local context; • the networks by helping to individuate all possible local actors and the quality of their connections; and • the governance profile by understanding whether local institutions can facilitate or impede the SI process. This “b” level can be applied to real initiatives in the design and implementation phase to ensure that all areas of action are covered. Alternatively, it can be applied to initiatives to be studied and analysed to identify any limitations or strengths or gaps in previous research. Figure 7. Proposal of analytical framework for future studies and policy-making problem-setting (PRISMA) Source: Authors’ own work JEC Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 It is important to highlight that while most innovation frameworks related to tourism are typically concentrated on developing a new product or service aimed at improving the tourist experience, our framework focuses specifically on the host communities and the local contexts in which tourism operates. This shift in focus enables a deeper understanding of how SIT can create value not only for tourists but also for local communities and their sustainable development. By examining how this framework contrasts with and builds upon existing models, we can better understand its contribution to advancing the field of tourism research. Generally, this study provides valuable insights into SIT, but it leaves room for further development. Scholars and practitioners can build upon these insights by conducting empirical validation of the proposed framework in various tourism contexts, testing its applicability and impact. Additionally, exploring new theoretical perspectives, particularly those related to governance structures and the evolving role of local actors, could further enrich the SIT field. By addressing these areas, future research can offer deeper understanding and practical tools for developing more sustainable, inclusive, and locally driven tourism initiatives. The future research agenda for SIT should focus on several key areas within each cluster to further develop the field. In the ICT and technology-oriented cluster, future studies could explore how emerging technologies like AI and big data can enhance social innovation and promote inclusive tourism, especially in underserved areas. Research in rural tourism and ecotourism could investigate the integration of sustainable development goals and the role of community-led initiatives in preserving both natural and cultural heritage. Environmentally sustainable development can be further explored through studies on circular economy models in tourism and strategies for greening urban tourism. In the cluster of local participation and CBT, research could focus on governance models that enable effective community-driven tourism, as well as the social inclusion and equity impacts of such initiatives. Studies on cultural heritage and creative industries can delve into the intersection of tourism and cultural preservation, examining how creative industries can stimulate local economies while maintaining cultural authenticity. Finally, in social entrepreneurship, future research could investigate the role of social enterprises as key actors in sustainable regeneration, focusing on tackling local problems—such as depopulation, unemployment, inequality, and degradation—through the valorisation of local cultural heritage. However, this study has some limitations. For this review, we collected all papers registered in SCOPUS and WoS, in which a researcher may find the most relevant material from every research field. As a result, the analysis did not consider the papers which are not registered in those repositories for some reason. Moreover, the analysis based on these repositories used all papers which directly discuss both topics, “SI” and “tourism”. Nevertheless, it is possible that there might be papers discussing these topics which could include SI initiatives but never mention those innovations as SI. These studies could not be considered. Therefore, the diffusion of the concept of SI in the academic community which is conducting research on this topic is more than urgent. Finally, as the analysed papers focus on the supply side of tourism while neglecting the role of visitors, the analytical framework proposed in the conclusions is also partial and will need to be developed in the future, by taking in consideration both the benefits for the local communities and those offered to the visitors of the context. Secondly, the prevalence of qualitative case studies in the literature, while offering rich, nuanced and in-depth insights into specific social innovation initiatives in tourism, presents significant challenges in terms of generalizability. These studies often focus on particular, context-specific cases, such as a specific community or tourism destination, and examine the Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025 Trunfio, M. and Campana, S. (2019), “Drivers and emerging innovations in knowledge-based destinations: towards a research agenda”, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, Vol. 14, p. 100370. Van der Borg, J., Costa, P. and Gotti, G. (1996), “Tourism in European heritage cities tourism in European heritage cities”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 306-321. Van der Have, R.P. and Rubalcaba, L. (2016), “Social innovation research: an emerging area of innovation studies?”, Research Policy, Vol. 45 No. 9, pp. 1923-1935. Van der Yeught, C. and Bon, V. (2016), “Quand une innovation sociale produit de l’innovation responsible: Une analyse par les capacités dynamiques appliquée aux petites organisations touristiques”, Rev. Fr. Gest, Vol. 42 No. 255, pp. 27-40. Van, N.T.T., Vrana, V., Duy, N.T., Minh, D.X.H., Dzung, P.T., Mondal, S.R. and Das, S. (2020), “The role of human–machine interactive devices for post-COVID-19 innovative sustainable tourism in Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 22, p. 9523. Walker, N.K. and Chen, Y. (2019), “Social innovation in tourism: unleashing the time-money constraint”, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 1700-1719. Wirth, S., Bandi Tanner, M. and Mayer, H. (2023), “Social innovations in tourism: analysing processes, actors, and tipping points”, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 1322-1340. Zebryte, I. and Jorquera, H. (2017), “Chilean tourism sector ‘B corporations’: evidence of social entrepreneurship and innovation”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 866-879. Further reading Go, F.M., Trunfio, M., and Della Lucia, M. (2012), “Confronting multi-level governance challenges: the case of networked rural marginal areas of Trentino”, Networked regions and cities in times of fragmentation: Developing smart, sustainable and inclusive places, The Regional Studies Association, Brighton, GB. Kofler, I., Marcher, A., Volgger, M. and Pechlaner, H. (2018), “The special characteristics of tourism innovation networks: the case of the regional innovation system in South Tyrol”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 37, pp. 68-75. Xu, A., Yin, L., Ye, W., Wu, J. and Sun, L. (2020), “Effects of organizational climate and talent cultivation on knowledge sharing intention in ecotourism industry—based on social cognitive theory”, Rev. Cercet. Interv. Soc, Vol. 70, pp. 66-76. Corresponding author Olga Tzatzadaki can be contacted at: [email protected] For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] JEC Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/jec/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/JEC-02-2025-0041/10076226/jec-02-2025-0041en.pdf by guest on 18 August 2025